`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: Feb. 11, 2016
`
`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.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (“Petitioner”)
`filed a Petition requesting an inter partes review (Paper 2, “Pet.”) of claims
`8–12 and 18–22 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,787,431 B2
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’431 patent”). Intellectual Ventures II LLC (“Patent
`Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (“Prelim. Resp.”) on November 18,
`2015. Paper 6.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the
`information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that
`there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect
`to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a);
`see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon consideration of the Petition, we conclude the
`information presented shows there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of the challenged claims.
`
`A. Related Matters
`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
`(the “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.
`
`B. The ’431 Patent
`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 11:54–
`12:27, 13:4–47.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims in the ’431 patent, 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 peak1 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 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
`D. The Asserted Grounds and Evidence Relied Upon By Petitioner
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references as its basis for
`challenging claims 8–12 and 18–22 of the ’431 patent.2
`Reference
`Patents/Printed Publications
`Exhibit
`Dulin
`U.S. Patent Pub. 2002/0055356
`1002
`A1 (May 9, 2002)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,782,750 B2
`(August 24, 2010)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,426,175 B2
`(September 16, 2008)
`I. Hwang et al., A New Frame
`Structure for Scalable OFDMA
`Systems, (March 11, 2004)
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`Yamaura
`
`Zhuang
`
`Hwang
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 8–12 and 18–22 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of the combined teachings of
`Dulin, Yamaura, Hwang, and Zhuang.
`
`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.
`
`2. Yamaura (Ex. 1003)
`Yamaura describes a method, and apparatuses for implementing the
`method, of radio communication “for exchanging information between a
`
`
`2 Petitioner also proffers the Declaration of Zygmunt J. Haas, Ph.D. See Ex.
`1012.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`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
`one or more specific subcarriers in the bandwidth for the multi-carrier
`signals.” Id.
`
`3. Zhuang (Ex. 1004)
`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.
`
`4. Hwang (Ex. 1005)
`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
`A. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
`The Decision to Institute is a discretionary decision. See 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a) (stating when the Director may not institute review, rather than
`when mandating when review must be instituted). Moreover, determinations
`under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), in particular, are discretionary. 35 U.S.C. §
`325(d) (“In determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under this
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`chapter, chapter 30, or chapter 31, the Director may take into account
`whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially
`the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.”)
`(emphasis added).
`Patent Owner urges us to exercise our discretion under § 325(d) to
`deny the Petition, because instituting a review effectively provides Petitioner
`with an improper “second bite at the apple” to attempt to correct the
`deficiencies in the 1195 IPR, but which presents substantially the same prior
`art and arguments rejected in the Institution Decision in the 1195 IPR.
`Prelim. Resp. 6–21. Patent Owner contends Petitioner relies on the new
`references (Dulin and Hwang) for the same reasons Petitioner relied upon
`U.S. 6,904,283 to Xiaodong Li et al. (“Li”) in the 1195 IPR. Id. at 9–10.
`Thus, Patent Owner argues Petitioner’s replacement of Li with Dulin and
`Hwang results in Petitioner offering substantially the same argument as
`raised in the 1195 IPR. Id. at 10. Patent Owner also asserts Petitioner failed
`to establish that Dulin and Hwang were unavailable at the time of filing of
`the 1195 IPR. Id. at 11. Patent Owner contends Petitioner is using these
`inter partes review proceedings “to file resource-draining serial petitions
`against the same patent based on a rolling list of alleged prior art.” Id. at 14.
`Although the arguments in the Petition are similar to those asserted in
`the 1195 IPR (as would be expected when challenging the same claims), the
`present challenges rely upon references not relied upon in the 1195 IPR. We
`are mindful of the significant concerns regarding harassment of patent
`owners. The instant case, however, involves only a single ground, and
`Patent Owner has not demonstrated persuasively that the Petition constitutes
`harassment or is part of a pattern of filing serial petitions against the ’431
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`patent. In sum, considering the totality of the circumstances, we decline to
`exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny the Petition.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`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). For purposes of
`this decision, no explicit construction is necessary.
`
`C. The Asserted Grounds
`1. Petitioner’s Contentions
`Petitioner challenges claims 8–12 and 18–22 as obvious over Dulin,
`Yamaura, Hwang, and Zhuang. Pet. 25–60. Petitioner describes a proposed
`system and method that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`constructed from the teachings of the combined asserted references, and
`points to specific teachings within the references where each aspect of the
`challenged claims is allegedly taught. Id. Petitioner further provides
`reasons an ordinarily-skilled artisan would have combined the various
`teachings from the respective references. Id. at 32–36, 39, 42, 45–47, 52–
`53. Petitioner also presents a figure demonstrating how the various
`teachings from three of the asserted references would have been combined.
`Id. at 31 (depicting features from Figure Fig. 13A of Dulin and Figure 17 of
`Yamaura, and incorporating teachings from Table 1 of Hwang regarding
`scalable bandwidth).
`Petitioner relies on aspects of Dulin, Yamaura, and Hwang for
`teaching all of the limitations of independent claims 8 and 18, except for the
`limitations relating to the properties of the primary preamble, for which
`Petitioner relies on Zhuang’s teachings. Id. at 25–53, 57–59. Petitioner
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`states that Dulin and Yamaura are directed to radio communication based on
`OFDM modulation, and that Hwang provides additional flexibility to such
`systems by providing a scalable operating channel bandwidth. Pet. 27–28.
`With respect to dependent claims 9–11, Petitioner contends Yamaura
`teaches circuitry configured to transmit: radio network information in the
`broadcast channel (pointing to the base station information transmitted in
`Yamaura’s BCH), as recited in claim 9; synchronization information in the
`core-band (pointing to Yamaura’s disclosure of capturing framing timing),
`as recited in claim 10; and in a time slot format (pointing to Yamaura’s
`disclosure of transmitting in MAC frames and transmission of BCH, FCH,
`ACH, etc., in time slots), as recited in claim 11. Pet. 54–56. Petitioner
`argues Dulin explicitly discloses transmitting a frame map consistent with
`either FDD transmission (Fig. 13B) or TDD transmission (Fig. 13C). Pet.
`56 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 130, 131).
`Claims 18–22 recite method steps similar in scope to the functions
`performed by the circuity recited in claims 8–12, respectively. Accordingly,
`Petitioner asserts the same arguments regarding the obviousness of claims
`18–22 as it asserts with respect to the functions performed by the circuitry in
`claims 8–12, respectively. Pet. 57–60.
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and supporting evidence,
`including the testimony of Dr. Haas, and, notwithstanding Patent Owner’s
`arguments to the contrary, we determine Petitioner has shown a reasonable
`likelihood that it would prevail in demonstrating that the challenge claims
`would have been obvious in view of the combined teachings of Dulin,
`Yamaura, Hwang, and Zhuang. We also determine Petitioner demonstrates
`sufficiently that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`combined the teachings of Dulin, Yamaura, Hwang, and Zhuang in the
`manner proposed by Petitioner.
`With respect to limitations of the challenged claims not contested in
`the Patent Owner Preliminary Response, and based on the current record, we
`are persuaded the aspects of the asserted references teach the limitations of
`the challenged claims for which each aspect is respectively relied upon. For
`example, Petitioner points to Dulin and Yamaura for teaching circuitry
`configured to transmit signals using OFDM modulation, and explains that
`Dulin specifically transmits OFDMA signals. Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶
`159; Ex. 1012 ¶ 48), 27–29 (citing Ex. 1003, 21:27–32, Fig. 2; Ex. 1012,
`66–68). Petitioner argues Yamaura teaches transmitting control signals in a
`subset of the carriers that make up the entire bandwidth of the system. Id. at
`27–28 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:64–2:9, Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 65–68). Petitioner points to
`disclosures in both Dulin and Hwang to demonstrate that it was known to
`vary the operating channel bandwidth of a system by varying the number of
`subcarriers used to transmit data to or from terminal stations. Id. at 29–30
`(citing Ex. 1005, Table 1; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 85-86), 32 (citing Ex. 1012, 76).
`Petitioner contends Zhuang teaches preamble sequences with properties
`recited in the challenged claims. Id. at 44–49 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:12–14,
`1:44–45, 1:51–62, 2:7–10, 2:22–29, 3:66–4:8, 5:9–15, 5:57–6:9, 6:11–14,
`9:8–9; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 75, 79–80, pp. 98–99). We have reviewed Petitioner’s
`assertions, and we find them persuasive.
`We discuss the specific limitations of claims 8 and 18 that Patent
`Owner contends are not taught by the asserted references in more detail
`below. We also are persuaded Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning
`with rational underpinnings, supported by Dr. Haas’s testimony, why one of
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have combined Dulin, Yamaura, Hwang, and
`Zhuang, at the time of invention of the ’431 patent, and provide further
`discussion below.
`
`2. “transmitting a broadcast channel in [a] core-band”
`As mentioned above, and discussed in more detail below, we are
`persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently at this stage of the case
`that the asserted prior art combination teaches “transmitting a broadcast
`channel in [a] core-band,” as recited in the challenged claims. In its
`Preliminary Response, Patent Owner argues Petitioner has not established
`that the asserted combination of references teaches “transmit[ting] a
`broadcast channel in [a] core-band” or “a second plurality of subcarrier
`groups,” as recited in claims 8 and 18. Prelim. Resp. 27–37. Patent Owner
`argues that Petitioner’s proposed combination of references teaches, at most,
`transmitting a core-band in a broadcast channel, rather than a broadcast
`channel in a core-band. Id. at 28–30. Specifically, Patent Owner alleges
`that Yamaura’s BCH, which Petitioner maps to the broadcast channel, uses
`more subcarriers than the subcarriers alleged by Petitioner to make up
`Yamaura’s core-band. Id. at 29.
`We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments. First, we disagree with
`Patent Owner’s assertion that “[i]t is incontrovertible from Ericsson’s own
`illustration above that the number of subcarriers used by the BCH, the
`alleged broadcast channel, is greater than the two subcarriers (SC1 and SC2)
`of the alleged core-band.” Prelim. Resp. 29. As Petitioner argues, Yamaura
`transmits control signals, including base station information and traffic
`channel allocation information, in a “broadcast burst” (including Yamaura’s
`BCH and FCH) using only a subset of the subcarriers near the center of the
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`bandwidth that makes up the channel. Pet. 27–29, 36–37; Ex. 1003, 1:65–
`67, 2:5–9, 6:5–8, 20:65–67, 21:30–32, 24:6–14; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 65–68.
`Accordingly, contrary to Patent Owner’s contention, the evidence presented
`indicates that Yamaura’s broadcast burst occupies only a portion of the
`entire bandwidth of the channel—specifically the one or more centered
`subcarriers used to transmit Yamaura’s control signals. See id. Second, on
`this record, we determine 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.
`
`3. “a second plurality of subcarrier groups”
`As mentioned above, and discussed in more detail below, we are
`persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that the asserted prior art
`combination teaches “a second plurality of subcarrier groups,” as recited in
`the challenged claims. Patent Owner argues that Yamaura and Dulin each
`show only a first plurality of subcarrier groups, and that Petitioner does not
`provide an explanation of why an ordinarily-skilled artisan would modify
`the proposed combination to include a second plurality of subcarrier groups.
`Prelim. Resp. 30–37.
`Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s assertions, we find the evidence
`supports Petitioner’s argument that the proposed combination teaches both a
`first and a second plurality of subcarrier groups. Neither party argues
`“subcarrier groups” should be given a special meaning.” Accordingly, for
`the reasons discussed below, we are persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated
`that the combination of Dulin, Yamaura, and Hwang teaches transmitting
`both a first plurality and a second plurality of subcarrier groups.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`With respect to the first plurality, Petitioner argues Yamaura in view
`of Hwang teaches transmitting control signals in two bins of subcarriers,
`where each bin may include two or nine subcarriers. Pet. 38–39. Petitioner
`argues an ordinarily-skilled artisan would have understood that
`incorporating Hwang’s teaching allowing flexibility in scaling the
`bandwidth would have led a skilled artisan to consider using Hwang’s bins
`for allocating Yamaura’s control subcarriers. Id.
`Notably, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s argument that the
`combination of Yamaura and Hwang teaches the first plurality of subcarrier
`groups. In reviewing the evidence currently in the record, we agree for
`purposes of this Decision that Yamaura discloses using “one or more
`specific subcarriers near the central frequency in one transmission band is
`used for transmission of specific control signals,” and, thus, one of ordinary
`skill would have known to use any number of subcarriers fewer than the
`number of subcarriers making up the entire channel bandwidth to transmit
`control signals. Ex. 1003, 24:11–14. On this record, we also find Hwang
`discloses grouping subcarriers into bins and varying the number of bins to
`scale the bandwidth of the system. Ex. 1005, 4, 8. The evidence supports
`Petitioner’s arguments that the combination of Yamaura and Hwang teaches
`using any number of subcarriers fewer than the number making up the
`available bandwidth, including, for example, four or eighteen subcarriers, to
`transmit control signals. Accordingly, Petitioner has demonstrated
`sufficiently that the asserted teachings would have rendered the recited “first
`plurality of subcarrier groups” obvious.
`Moving to the second plurality of subcarrier groups, it is important to
`view Petitioner’s challenges in light of Petitioner’s proposed combination.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`In that combination, Petitioner relies on Yamaura for teaching control
`signals in a narrow band and Dulin for transmitting data in frequency blocks.
`Reproduced below is a figure from the Petition combining teachings from
`Dulin, Yamaura, and Hwang:
`
`
`
`Pet. 31. The figure depicts Petitioner’s proposed combination of the
`teachings of Dulin, Yamaura, and Hwang. Specifically, Petitioner proposes
`a system that transmits control signals, including Dulin’s frame map, using a
`narrow band as taught by Yamaura (and modified by Hwang’s teaching of
`using bins to allocate subcarriers); transmits data in frequency blocks and
`time slots as taught by Dulin; and varies the operating channel bandwidth as
`taught by Hwang. Based on the proposed combination, Petitioner argues the
`two “outside” frequency blocks (e.g., frequency blocks B4 and B6, or B7
`and B9, in Dulin’s Figure 13A) meet the recited second plurality of
`subcarrier groups. Id. at 50–52.
`
`Based on the current record, we agree with Petitioner because Dulin
`describes dividing the operating channel bandwidth into some number of
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`frequency blocks, each of which includes a fraction of the total number of
`useable subcarriers in the operating channel bandwidth. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 125–
`31, 158. Dulin describes the system using three frequency blocks per time
`slot, but explains that the number of frequency blocks per time slot can be
`varied. Id. Importantly, the teachings pointed to by Petitioner demonstrate
`on this record that when using the exemplary three frequency blocks per
`time slot, each of the two “outside” blocks disclosed by Dulin would not
`include the subcarriers near the center of the operating channel bandwidth.
`Those blocks include two or more groups of subcarriers (i.e., the second
`plurality of subcarrier groups) distinct from those subcarriers comprising the
`core-band taught by the Yamaura-Hwang combination (i.e., the first
`plurality of subcarrier groups), which are carrying control signals in the
`proposed system, and, accordingly, we determine they meet the recite
`“second plurality of subcarrier groups” for purposes of this Decision.
`
`4. Combination of Asserted Teachings from Identified References
`As mentioned above, and discussed in more detail below, we are
`persuaded at this stage of the case that Petitioner has articulated sufficient
`reasoning with rational underpinnings, supported by Dr. Haas’s testimony,
`why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Dulin, Yamaura,
`Hwang, and Zhuang, in the manner proposed by Petitioner, at the time of
`invention of the ’431 patent.
`Patent Owner argues that the asserted teachings do not disclose “a
`variable band including a second plurality of subcarrier groups,” as recited
`in the challenged claims, and that Petitioner does not articulate “a reason
`how a person of ordinary skill would combine references that disclose a
`single subcarrier group or why a person of ordinary skill would be motivated
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`to combine references that disclose references that disclose a single
`subcarrier group.” Id. at 38–39.
`We disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner failed to
`articulate how and why one of ordinary skill would have combined the
`teachings of the asserted references in a way that would have rendered
`obvious the recited aspects of the challenged claims relating to the first and
`second plurality of subcarrier groups. As discussed above, Petitioner does
`not argue that a single reference discloses both the first plurality and the
`second plurality of subcarrier groups. Rather, Petitioner asserts that the
`proposed combination resulting from the teachings of the various references
`teaches first and second pluralities of subcarrier groups. Specifically,
`Petitioner points to Yamaura’s core-band for transmitting its control signals
`and Dulin’s two “outside” frequency blocks (each comprised, for example,
`of 408 subcarriers) carrying data as the first and second plurality of
`subcarrier groups, respectively. See Pet. 27–29, 36–38, 49–53. Thus, we are
`persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated on this record that the proposed
`combined system teaches the limitations and, furthermore, how and why the
`specific teachings of the asserted references would be combined. See, e.g.,
`Pet. 31 (Petitioner’s figure depicting the proposed system resulting from the
`various teachings of Dulin, Yamaura, and Hwang); Ex. 1012, 76–80).
`Patent Owner also asserts the Petition merely cobbles together
`teachings from various references and provides no showing of why a person
`of ordinary skill would have combined the identified teachings. Prelim.
`Resp. 37–38. Patent Owner does not explain whether there is a particular
`aspect of Petitioner’s assertions that it finds lacking, or if the assertion
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`applies to every aspect of Petitioner’s reasoning for combining the asserted
`teachings. Id.
`We disagree with Patent Owner. As discussed above, Petitioner
`explains which specific teachings are relied upon from the individual
`references, as well as how and why a person having ordinary skill in the art
`would have combined the identified teachings. Petitioner explains the
`similarities in the OFDM systems taught by Dulin, Yamaura, and Hwang,
`but points out that each of the references focuses on different aspects of
`wireless communications systems. Pet. 32–36, 39, 52–53. Specifically,
`Petitioner states that Dulin focuses on data transmission between a base
`station and terminal station, and describes details regarding the timing of
`such transmissions, but “is not concerned with details of how the map
`schedule is communicated and is therefore silent regarding those aspects,”
`leaving such details to be determined by an ordinarily-skilled artisan
`implementing the system. Id. at 32–33. Petitioner points out that a person
`having ordinary skill would have understood that wireless communications
`systems require transmission of control information in addition to the data
`transmission described by Dulin. Id. at 33–34 (citing Ex. 1012, 77; Ex.
`1014, 5:11–17; Ex. 1015, 340). Petitioner states that Yamaura focuses on
`transmitting control signals in broadcast channels (e.g., “BCH” and “FCH”)
`using a narrow band frequency segment, which allows terminal stations to
`save power and simplify processing. Id. at 34. Finally, Petitioner contends
`Hwang discloses well-known concepts to change an operating channel
`bandwidth by varying the number of available subcarriers. Id. at 35.
`Petitioner contends the control information Yamaura transmits in its
`broadcast channels using a narrow band frequency would be needed by
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`Dulin at least, for example, to transmit Dulin’s frame map. Accordingly,
`Petitioner asserts an ordinarily-skilled artisan would have combined
`Yamaura’s system and method of transmitting control signals with Dulin’s
`method and system of transmitting data blocks to take advantage of the
`simplified processing and power saving disclosed by Yamaura. Id. at 34–35
`(citing Ex. 1012, 79), 42, 52–53. Petitioner contends one having ordinary
`skill merely would have needed to apply Yamaura’s known method of
`transmitting control signals in a narrow band to Dulin’s known system of
`transmitting data according to a schedule conveyed via its frame maps, to
`yield the benefit of power saving to Dulin’s terminal stations. Id. Petitioner
`argues Hwang’s teaching of changing the operating channel bandwidth in an
`OFDM-modulated system would be compatible with, and add predictable
`flexibility to, Yamaura’s single channel operating bandwidth system. Id. at
`35–36. Petitioner also argues arranging Yamaura’s subcarriers in its core-
`band according to Hwang’s known method of binning would have merely
`required combining known prior art elements according to known methods,
`yielding predictable results. Id. at 39.
`Petitioner argues both Zhuang and Yamaura are directed to OFDM
`systems using preambles to communicate control information to receivers.
`Pet. 45. Petitioner further argues Yamaura teaches creating preambles with
`good cross correlation properties in order to detect the narrow band control
`signals. Id. at 45–46. According to Petitioner, Yamaura leaves
`determination of appropriate preamble sequences with good cross
`correlation properties to the ordinarily-skilled artisan to implement,
`motivating that artisan to look to other sources, including Zhuang, for
`implementation details. Id. at 46.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`We have reviewed the parties’ arguments, as well as the testimony of
`Dr. Haas (Ex. 1012 ¶¶). Based on the current record, Petitioner has
`demonstrated sufficiently that a person having ordinary skill in the art would
`have combined the teachings of Dulin, Yamaura, Hwang, and Zhuang in the
`manner proposed by Petitioner. We agree with Petitioner for purposes of
`this Decision that the various references focus on complementary aspects of
`wireless communication systems. Yamaura teaches one way to provide
`control and synchronization signaling using OFDM. Dulin teaches a method
`of coordinating data transmission between a base station and terminal
`stations. Hwang teaches the benefits of having a variable bandwidth system
`and using subcarrier bins, and Zhuang teaches the benefits of using
`generalized chirp-like sequences in preamble sequences.
`Each of the references provides a disclosure about different aspects of
`wireless communication systems that the other references do not focus on.
`We are persuaded on this record that a person of ordinary skill would have
`combined Dulin and Yamaura because Dulin does not disclose how it
`transmits control information, and the submitted evidence and testimony
`support the assertion that an ordinarily-skilled artisan would have looked to
`other systems or references when deciding how to implement transmitting
`control signals, including base station information and the frame map. We
`are persuaded the evidence currently presented shows that one of ordinary
`skill would have known to combine the well-known ability to change the
`operating channel bandwidth of an OFDM system, and that Hwang discloses
`one possible way to do so. Finally, we determine on this record that
`Yamaura teaches that good cross correlation properties are important for
`detection of its control signals, but does not provided details on how to
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`generate appropriate sequences. Zhuang provides that missing information,
`teaching an ordinarily-skilled artisan one way to generate such sequences.
`Each of the relied-upon teachings disclosed in the references are
`complementary aspects of OFDM wireless communication systems.
`Petitioner has argued persuasively, supported by testimony, that
`incorporating the identified teachings would merely require applying known
`techniques to improve known systems and methods in a predictable manner.
`See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007) (“if a technique
`has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way,
`using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that
`person's skill.”).
`In sum, the Petition appropriately provides explanations, supported by
`Dr. Haas’s testimony, why specific teachings of the asserted references
`would be combined as proposed, as opposed to merely stating that the
`references as a whole are generally combinable. Accordingly, because the
`Petition provides sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning as to why
`one of ordinary skill would have combined specific teachings of the
`references, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated on this record
`that an ordinarily-skilled artisan would have combined the identified
`teachings, resulting in the combination proposed in the Petition.
`
`5. Conclusion of Analysis of Petitioner’s Challenges
`Petitioner asserts each limitation is taught by specific portions of the
`asserted references, or combinations thereof, includin