`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 24
`Entered: February 8, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ERICSSON INC. AND TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Cases IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, JUSTIN BUSCH, and J. JOHN LEE,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`I.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Background
`A.
`Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (“Petitioner”)
`filed a Petition, Paper 2 (“Petition” or “Pet.”), requesting an inter partes
`review of claims 8–12 and 18–22 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent
`No. 7,787,431 B2, Ex. 1001 (“the ’431 patent”). On February 11, 2016, we
`instituted an inter partes review of the challenged claims. Paper 7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`(“Institution Decision” or “Dec.”). Intellectual Ventures II LLC (“Patent
`Owner”) filed a Patent Owner Response (“PO Resp.”) on May 9, 2016.
`Paper 13. Petitioner filed a Reply. Paper 15 (“Reply”). An oral hearing
`was held on October 6, 2016.1
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6, and this Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`For the reasons that follow, we determine Petitioner has not shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 8–12 and 18–22 are unpatentable.
`
`Related Proceedings
`B.
`The parties indicate the ’431 patent is at issue in ten district court
`proceedings involving numerous parties. Pet. 1; Paper 5, 2–3. The ’431
`patent also was the subject of another inter partes review: IPR2014-01195
`(“1195 IPR”). Pet 1; Paper 5, 3. The petition in the 1195 IPR challenged
`claims 1, 2, 8–12, and 18–22. 1195 IPR, Paper 2, 1. The Board instituted
`review of claims 1 and 2, but did not institute review of claims 8–12 and 18–
`22 in the 1195 IPR. 1195 IPR, Paper 11, 18. The Board held claims 1 and 2
`to be unpatentable. 1195 IPR, Paper 37, 27.
`
`The ’431 Patent
`C.
`The ’431 patent relates to multi-carrier communication systems and
`methods with variable channel bandwidth. Ex. 1001, Abstract.
`The challenged claims recite methods performed by base stations for
`generating information-bearing signals, wherein the information-bearing
`signals include a primary preamble having certain properties. Id. at 9:33–
`10:9, 11:54–12:27, 13:4–47.
`
`
`1 The record includes a transcript of the oral hearing. Paper 23 (“Tr.”).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`Illustrative Claim
`D.
`Of the challenged claims, claims 8 and 18 are independent. Claim 8 is
`illustrative and reproduced below:
`A cellular base station comprising:
`8.
`circuitry configured to transmit a broadcast channel in an
`orthogonal frequency division multiple access (OFDMA) core-
`band, wherein the core-band is substantially centered at an
`operating center frequency and the core-band includes a first
`plurality of subcarrier groups, wherein each subcarrier group
`includes a plurality of subcarriers, wherein the core-band is
`utilized to communicate a primary preamble sufficient to enable
`radio operations, the primary preamble being a direct sequence
`in the time domain with a frequency content confined within
`the core-band or being an OFDM symbol corresponding to a
`particular frequency pattern within the core-band,
`wherein properties of the primary preamble comprise:
`an autocorrelation having a large correlation peak2 with respect
`to sidelobes;
`a cross-correlation with other primary preambles having a small
`cross-correlation coefficient with respect to power of other
`primary preambles; and
`a small peak-to-average ratio; and
`wherein a large number of primary preamble sequences exhibit
`the properties; and
`circuitry configured to transmit control and data channels using a
`variable band including a second plurality of subcarrier groups,
`wherein the variable band includes at least the core-band.
`
`
`
`
`2 A certificate of correction was issued on August 31, 2010, to replace the
`word “creak” with the word “peak.” Ex. 1001, 20.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`The Evidence Relied Upon By Petitioner
`E.
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references as its basis for
`challenging claims 8–12 and 18–22 of the ’431 patent.3
`Exhibit
`Reference Patents/Printed Publications
`1002
`Dulin
`U.S. Patent Pub. 2002/0055356 A1 (May 9, 2002)
`Zhuang
`U.S. Patent No. 7,426,175 B2 (September 16, 2008) 1004
`Yamaura U.S. Patent No. 7,782,750 B2 (August 24, 2010)
`1003
`I. Hwang et al., A New Frame Structure for
`Hwang
`1005
`Scalable OFDMA Systems, (March 11, 2004)
`1.
`Dulin (Ex. 1002)
`Dulin describes systems and methods for scheduling and
`synchronizing data transmission between base stations and subscriber units
`(or terminal stations). Ex. 1002, Abstract. One aspect of Dulin describes
`generating a frame map that is sent to subscriber units to inform the
`subscriber units which subscriber units are authorized to send or receive a
`transmission in each frequency block and time slot. Id. ¶ 65.
`
`Yamaura (Ex. 1003)
`2.
`Yamaura describes a method, and apparatuses for implementing the
`method, of radio communication “for exchanging information between a
`base station and a terminal station.” Ex. 1003, Abstract. The described
`method communicates multi-carrier signals using OFDM modulation,
`“including plural subcarriers within a bandwidth, communicating control
`signals in addition to the information between the base station and the
`terminal station, and wherein part of the control signals . . . is transmitted by
`
`
`3 Petitioner also proffers the Declarations of Zygmunt J. Haas, Ph.D. See
`Exs. 1012, 1020. Other testimony relied on in this proceeding are the
`Declaration of Kenneth Zeger, Ph.D., Ex. 2001; the deposition testimony of
`Dr. Zeger, Ex. 1018; and the deposition testimony of Dr. Haas, Ex. 2003.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`one or more specific subcarriers in the bandwidth for the multi-carrier
`signals.” Id.
`
`Zhuang (Ex. 1004)
`3.
`Zhuang describes optimizing the auto-correlation properties of each
`pilot signal, and the cross-correlation properties between pilot signals,
`through the use of certain chirp sequences. Ex. 1004, 2:7–29.
`
`Hwang (Ex. 1005)
`4.
`Hwang describes a new frame structure and carrier-allocation methods
`that an OFDM-modulated system can implement to improve system
`performance under scalable bandwidth. Ex. 1005, 1. Hwang describes
`system parameters for implementing an OFDMA system that scales its
`operating channel bandwidth from 2.5 MHz to 20 MHz. Id. at 2–3. Hwang
`further describes grouping subcarriers into bins as a basic allocation unit of
`subcarriers to a channel. Id. at 3–4, 8.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`Claim Construction
`A.
`In an inter partes review, claim terms of an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification in which
`they appear and the understanding of others skilled in the relevant art. See
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268,
`1275–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Applying that standard, we interpret the claim
`terms of the ’431 patent according to their ordinary and customary meaning
`in the context of the patent’s written description. See In re Translogic Tech.,
`Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Philllips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)).
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`The parties propose the same or similar constructions for “core-band,”
`“primary preamble,” and “peak-to-average ratio.” See Pet. 22–24; PO Resp.
`10–12; Reply 2. Additionally, Petitioner does not dispute Patent Owner’s
`proposed constructions for “first plurality of subcarrier groups,” “second
`plurality of subcarrier groups,” and “control and data channels.” PO Resp.
`13, 16–21; Reply 3.
`The parties dispute the proper construction of “transmit[ting] a
`broadcast channel in an” OFDMA core-band and “variable band.” We
`construe only those claim terms in controversy, and we do so only to the
`extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am.
`Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, we explicitly
`construe only the phrase “transmit[ting] a broadcast channel in an” OFDMA
`core-band.
`In the Institution Decision, we provided a partial preliminary
`construction of “transmit[ting] a broadcast channel in an orthogonal
`frequency division multiple access (OFDMA) core-band.” Dec. 11. In
`particular, we indicated that “the plain meaning of transmitting a broadcast
`channel in a core-band merely requires transmitting some part of the
`broadcast channel in a core-band and does not exclude transmitting another
`part of the broadcast channel outside the core-band.” Id. Patent Owner
`disagreed with that preliminary determination, arguing that an ordinarily
`skilled artisan would have understood the limitation to exclude transmitting
`any portion of the recited broadcast channel outside of the core-band. PO
`Resp. 35–36 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 57). Patent Owner further argued our
`preliminary construction is inconsistent with the stated purpose of the ’431
`patent. Id.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`We note Petitioner neither agrees with our preliminary statement in
`the Institution Decision nor disputes Patent Owner’s assertion that our
`statement was incorrect. Pet. Reply 3–5. Petitioner’s argument regarding
`the proper construction of the transmitting a broadcast channel limitation
`merely asserts that Patent Owner’s proposed construction adds no clarity and
`that no construction is necessary. Id. Petitioner then notes that Patent
`Owner mischaracterizes the prior art because “the prior art demonstrates a
`broadcast channel contained within the limits of an OFDMA core-band.” Id.
`at 5 (emphasis added). We understand Petitioner’s assertion to be related to
`its position that Yamaura does not transmit signals outside its narrow band
`during the BCH and FCH time slots. See id. at 5, 9–15.
`Patent Owner argues the challenged claims explicitly recite
`transmitting a broadcast channel in a core-band, which is the opposite of
`transmitting the broadcast channel outside the core-band. PO Resp. 35. The
`’431 patent explains that “specific signaling and control methods are
`required” in order to facilitate operation of the user terminals in a variable
`bandwidth system. Ex. 1001, 4:63–6:32. The ’431 patent describes the use
`of its core-band to transmit its radio control and operation signaling. Id. at
`4:66–67, 5:8–18 (explaining that certain control signals are transmitted in
`the core-band to allow the terminals “to maintain basic radio operation”
`prior to switching “to the normal full-bandwidth operation”). Patent Owner
`explains the purpose of transmitting the broadcast channel in the “core-band
`is to provide essential radio control channels and a set of data channels in a
`core-band to maintain basic radio operation.” Id. at 36 (citing Ex. 1001,
`5:8–13). Patent Owner asserts restricting transmission of the broadcast
`channel to the core-band allows mobile stations in a variable operating
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`channel bandwidth system to use only the core-band to initiate
`communications with a base station, obtain essential information, and
`transition to a full bandwidth state to actively communication. Id. (citing
`Ex. 1001, 5:15–18, Abstract).
`Dr. Zeger testifies an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that
`“any part of the broadcast channel not transmitted within the core-band is
`necessarily transmitted within the side-band.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 57; see PO Resp.
`35. Dr. Zeger further states that a construction encompassing transmission
`of part of a broadcast channel in the core-band and part of the broadcast
`channel outside the core-band is inconsistent with the plain language of the
`claims and the purpose of the ’431 patent. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 56, 57; see PO Resp.
`35. Dr. Zeger testifies that the purpose of the ’431 patent would therefore be
`frustrated if part of the broadcast channel is transmitted outside of the core-
`band, because the mobile stations would not receive all of the necessary
`broadcast channel information, preventing those stations from switching to a
`full bandwidth state of operation. Ex. 2001 ¶ 57; PO Resp. 36. Petitioner
`provides no rebuttal in regard to Dr. Zeger’s testimony and Patent Owner’s
`arguments that the recited broadcast channel must be transmitted using only
`the core-band.
`Upon further review of the ’431 patent, particularly in view of Patent
`Owner’s arguments supported by Dr. Zeger’s testimony discussed above, we
`are persuaded that our preliminary partial construction was unreasonably
`broad to the extent that construction indicated the transmitting a broadcast
`channel limitation would be met by the transmission of a broadcast channel
`that is only partially within the core-band. Thus, we agree with Patent
`Owner that to show that the transmitting “a broadcast channel in an”
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`OFDMA core-band limitation is met, Petitioner must demonstrate that the
`prior art teaches or suggests transmitting a broadcast channel, wherein the
`entire channel is contained within the core-band.
`
`B. Obviousness Challenge of Claims 8–12 and 18–22
`Petitioner contends the challenged claims are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Dulin, Yamaura, Zhuang, and
`Hwang. Pet. 25–60; Reply 9–29. Relying on the testimony of Dr. Haas, see
`Ex. 1012, Petitioner explains how the references allegedly teach the claim
`limitations, and argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`combined Dulin, Yamaura, Zhuang, and Hwang. Pet. 25–60 (citing Ex.
`1012); Reply 9–29 (citing Ex. 1012).
`Patent Owner contends the proposed combination fails to teach or
`suggest “transmit[ting] a broadcast channel in an orthogonal frequency
`division multiple access (OFDMA) core-band,” PO Resp. 27–37, and
`“transmitting control and data channels using a variable band including a
`second plurality of subcarrier groups,” id. at 37–46, as recited in
`independent claims 8 and 18. Patent Owner also asserts an ordinarily skilled
`artisan would not have combined Dulin, Yamaura, Zhuang, and Hwang. PO
`Resp. 47–63. Patent Owner provides no separate arguments for the
`patentability of dependent claims 9–12 and 19–22, which depend from
`claims 8 and 18, respectively. See id. at 1–2, 26, 26 n.3.
`We have reviewed the Petition, Patent Owner Response, Petitioner’s
`Reply, and the relevant evidence discussed therein. We determine Petitioner
`has failed to demonstrate that the proposed combination teaches transmitting
`“a broadcast channel in an” OFDMA core-band, as recited in independent
`claims 8 and 18 for the reasons that follow. Accordingly, we determine
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
`challenged claims would have been obvious in view of the asserted
`combined teachings of Dulin, Yamaura, Zhuang, and Hwang.
`Petitioner asserts Dulin, Yamaura, and Hwang teach or suggest
`“transmitting a broadcast channel in an Orthogonal Frequency Division
`Multiple Access (OFDMA) core-band,” as recited in claim 18, and circuitry
`configured to do the same, as recited in claim 8. Pet. 27–36, 57.
`Specifically, Petitioner argues Dulin discloses a base station with a
`transceiver configured to transmit employing frequency division multiple
`access (FDMA) using orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM),
`which “is equivalent to . . . OFDMA.” Id. at 27 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 48).
`Petitioner argues Yamaura, like Dulin, discloses a base station
`transmitting using OFDM, and that Yamaura discloses transmitting “a
`broadcast channel including control signals.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 21:27–32,
`Fig. 2; Ex. 1012, 66–68). Petitioner further explains that Yamaura
`“transmits control signals to the terminal stations via broadcast bursts that
`include broadcast channels (e.g., BCH, FCH, either of which individually
`are ‘broadcast channels’),” and that BCH and FCH are “transmitted in a
`frequency segment that is not greater than . . . the operating bandwidth of
`Yamaura’s system.” Id. at 27–28 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:64–2:9; Ex. 1012
`¶¶ 65–68); see Pet. Reply 9–15. Petitioner asserts that Yamaura discloses
`using only the narrow band during the broadcast preamble, BCH, and FCH
`time slots, and transmits other control signals using the entire operating
`bandwidth during the ACH time slot. Pet. Reply 9 (citing Ex. 1012, 63–80;
`Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 11–13), 11–12. Petitioner concludes that Yamaura’s
`transmission of control signals in BCH and FCH, which are transmitted in a
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`narrow band, discloses base station circuitry configured to transmit a
`broadcast channel in a narrow band. Pet. 28.
`Finally, Petitioner contends Hwang discloses scalable operating
`channel bandwidths in OFDMA systems by varying subcarriers used. Id. at
`29–30 (citing Ex. 1005, Table 1; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 85, 86). Petitioner argues
`Yamaura’s operating bandwidth could, therefore, be scaled based on
`Hwang’s teachings, while still transmitting its control signals in a narrow
`band that is narrower than any of the operating bandwidths disclosed in
`Hwang, which teaches or suggests a core-band, as recited in the challenged
`claims. Id. at 30.
`In sum, Petitioner contends the proposed combination teaches variable
`operating channel bandwidths according to Hwang, wherein the selected
`operating channel bandwidth may be divided into frequency blocks when
`transmitting data according to Dulin, but transmission of certain control
`signals is constrained to a narrow band according to Yamaura, where the
`narrow band is centered at the operating channel frequency and smaller than
`the smallest operating channel bandwidth according to Yamaura and Hwang.
`Pet. 31. Petitioner’s annotated figure from Yamaura, indicating how the
`cited teachings from Dulin, Yamaura, and Hwang would have been
`combined is reproduced below:
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`
`
`Pet. 31 (depicting Petitioner’s proposed combination, including elements
`and information from Yamaura Figure 17, Dulin Figure 13A, and Hwang
`Table 1).
`Patent Owner argues “BCH and FCH span the entire width of
`Yamaura’s 20 MHz transmission channel, as does ACH, which is not even
`shown to include a narrow-band.” PO Resp. 30 (citing Ex. 1003, Fig. 17).
`Patent Owner contends Yamaura’s narrow band within the BCH and FCH
`portions of a frame are transmitting only part of the control signals and “the
`Yamaura base station transmits the remaining control signals in the
`broadcast burst outside of the narrow-band.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 6:21–23,
`6:26–27, 28:54–55, 29:4–8; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 107–116). More specifically,
`Patent Owner argues that Yamaura broadcasts “specific control signals”
`(such as calling signals) in the narrow band within the BCH and FCH
`portions of the broadcast burst, but that Yamaura also broadcasts control
`signals, other than the calling signals, in the BCH and FCH portions of the
`broadcast burst. Id. at 30–34 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:65–2:9, 6:5–8, 6:24–28,
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`6:33–35, 20:57–60, 21:16–20, 28:54–55, 29:4–8, Figs. 16, 17; Ex. 2001
`¶¶ 115–117).
`It is undisputed that Yamaura transmits specific control signals (such
`as calling signals) in a “broadcast burst” (including Yamaura’s BCH and
`FCH) using only a subset of the subcarriers near the center of the bandwidth
`that makes up the channel. Pet. 27–29, 36–37; PO Resp. 30; Ex. 1003,
`1:65–67, 6:5–8, 20:65–67, 21:30–32, 24:6–14; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 65–68. There is
`some ambiguity, however, regarding whether Yamaura transmits signals
`outside of its narrow band during the time slots assigned to the alleged
`broadcast channels BCH and FCH (e.g., SC1 and SC2 as depicted in Figure
`17 of Yamaura). See Ex. 1003, 21:1–43, Fig. 17. After reviewing the
`relevant portions of Yamaura, we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated
`by a preponderance of the evidence that Yamaura transmits signals only in
`its narrow band during the BCH and FCH time slots for the reasons
`discussed below.
`The closest Yamaura comes to addressing whether it transmits signals
`outside of its narrow band within the BCH and FCH time slots is its
`description of the process executed at the base station for generating the
`waveforms it transmits. Ex. 1003, 8:27–9:53; 21:27–32; see also Ex. 2001
`¶¶ 108–114 (Dr. Zeger explaining Yamaura’s disclosure of how its base
`station builds and transmits its signals and disputing Dr. Haas’s contention
`that Yamaura does not transmit signals outside the narrow band during BCH
`and FCH). Yamaura describes its “ordinary transmitting process,” and
`distinguishes that from “the case where it is necessary to transmit specific
`control data from the base station to the terminal station.” Ex. 1003, 8:27–
`9:16.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`Specifically, Yamaura’s method identifies “the presence of specific
`control data,” generates a signal waveform for that control data, and sums
`that waveform with a waveform generated from the “ordinary transmitting
`process.” Id. at 9:18–26. Yamaura further explains that, when the specific
`control data waveform overlaps the OFDM-modulated waveform generated
`by the ordinary process (i.e., in embodiments where the specific signals are
`placed near the center of the operating channel bandwidth), it nulls the
`carriers reserved for the specific control signals, such that the resultant
`summed signal on the reserved carriers is simply the control data waveform.
`Id. at 9:28–44. Yamaura explains that the base station used in the
`embodiment upon which Petitioner relies operates in the same way. Id. at
`21:27–32.
`The need for the base station to null the signals for the carriers on
`which the specific control signals will be transmitted makes sense only if
`Yamaura transmits other signals during the same time slots (i.e., the
`broadcast preamble, BCH, and FCH). See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 109–114; Tr. 55:8–
`56:5. Otherwise, there would be no other waveform to which the specific
`control signal waveform would need to be added during those time slots and,
`consequently, no need to null carriers on the other waveform. See Ex. 2001
`¶¶ 109–114; Tr. 55:8–56:5. Finally, the broadcast preamble, BCH, and FCH
`are part of the “broadcast burst,” which the parties agree transmits control
`signals that are broadcast to all users. Ex. 1003, 21:7–11; See Tr. 53:19–24,
`62:3–7, 72:15–18, 73:7–14, 100:1–5. Because signals are transmitted
`outside of Yamaura’s narrow band during the BCH and FCH time slots, it
`follows that those signals are control signals that are broadcast to all
`subscribers.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`Petitioner argues there are no signals other than calling signals sent
`during BCH and FCH because “the whole broadcast burst is part of the
`calling signal.” Tr. 102:17–103:2. However, upon review of the complete
`record and in the context of Yamaura’s entire disclosure, we credit Dr.
`Haas’s testimony that Yamaura’s repeated references to calling signals being
`specific control signals or part of the control signals indicates that Yamaura
`transmits other control signals during the BCH and FCH time slots. PO
`Resp. 30–31; Ex. 2001 ¶ 107.
`Additionally, Yamaura discloses that the reception of the calling
`signals in the narrow band allows the receiver to determine that it is being
`called, sets its passing band variable filter to “the wide band, sets the AD
`converter 263 to the sampling rate for ordinary reception, and turns on the
`receiving system” elements used for receiving and processing the wide band
`signal. Ex. 1003, 23:10–24; Ex. 2001; PO Resp. 30–31; see also Ex. 1012,
`114–15 (citing Ex. 1003, 23:15–31) (explaining how receivers use calling
`signals to identify whether they are being called). Yamaura then explains
`that this process “makes it possible to receive the control signal containing
`the regular calling signal which is transmitted by the head of the OFDM-
`modulated signal of the next MAC frame.” Id. at 23:24–26. Thus, because
`it was necessary for the receiver to set its filter to the wide band to receive
`the “control signal containing the regular calling signal,” that signal must be
`transmitted outside the narrow band. Id.
`Given Yamaura’s disclosure that calling signals broadcast in its
`narrow band are only part of the control signals, and that certain control
`signals can be received by a subscriber only when that subscriber is
`receiving the wide band, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate by a
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`preponderance of the evidence that Yamaura transmits signals only in its
`narrow band during the BCH and FCH time slots.
`The remaining question with respect to this limitation is whether
`Petitioner’s proposed combination teaches transmitting “a broadcast channel
`in an” OFDMA core-band even though Yamaura discloses transmitting
`control signals outside its narrow band during the BCH and FCH time slots.
`As discussed above, Petitioner argues BCH and FCH each individually
`teaches or suggests the recited broadcast channel, that Yamaura transmits no
`control signals outside of its narrow band during the BCH and FCH time
`slots, and that Yamaura’s narrow band (as modified by Hwang’s teaching of
`variable operating channel bandwidth systems) teaches the core-band. Pet.
`27–32; Pet. Reply 9–15. We determine Petitioner has failed to demonstrate
`that Yamaura transmits no control signals outside of its narrow band during
`the BCH and FCH time slots. Under our construction, explained above, in
`which the entire broadcast channel must be transmitted in the core-band,
`BCH and FCH are not entirely transmitted within Yamaura’s narrow band.
`Petitioner does not assert that any other channel teaches or suggests the
`recited broadcast channel or that anything other than Yamaura’s narrow
`band, as modified by Hwang, teaches the recited core-band. Accordingly,
`Petitioner has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that
`the proposed combination of Dulin, Yamaura, Hwang, and Zhuang teaches
`or suggests transmitting “a broadcast channel in an” OFDMA core-band, as
`recited in the challenged claims.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not shown,
`by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 8–12 and 18–22 of the ’431
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`patent are unpatentable as obvious over Dulin, Yamaura, Zhuang, and
`Hwang.
`
` ORDER
`
`IV.
`For the reasons given, it is:
`ORDERED that claims 8–12 and 18–22 of the ’431 patent have not
`been shown to be unpatentable; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
`parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must
`comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`J. Andrew Lowes
`David M. O’Dell
`John Russell Emerson
`Clint Wilkins
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`Andrew.lowes.ipr@haynesboone.com
`David.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com
`russell.emerson.ipr@haynesboone.com
`clint.wilkins.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Sharon Hwang
`Peter McAndrews
`Hebert Hart III
`MCANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY, LTD.
`shwang@mcandrews-ip.com
`pmcandrews@mcandrews-ip.com
`hhart@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`
`
`
`
`James Hietala
`Tim Seeley
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES MANAGEMENT
`jhietala@intven.com
`tim@intven.com
`
`18
`
`