Petitioner
`Ericsson Inc. and
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,787,431
`IPR2015-01664
`October 6, 2016
`
`Andrew Lowes
`Clint Wilkins
`
`ERIC-1023
`Ericsson v. IV II
`IPR2015-01664
`
`

`

`Overview of ’431 patent – directed to three aspects
`(1) core-band and (2) primary preamble
`(1) Core-band
`
`
`
`
`
`(2) Primary preamble properties
`
`(‘431 patent, 4:67-5:4, cited in Petition, p. 22)
`
`(‘431 patent, 5:28-35 (similar to
`claims 8 and 18))
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`2
`
`

`

`Overview of ’431 patent – directed to three aspects (cont.)
`(3) Variable bandwidth
`
`(3) Variable-bandwidth multi-carrier systems
`
`(‘431 patent, 3:33-37, cited
`in Petition, p. 9 and
`Petitioner Reply, p. 6)
`
`(‘431 patent, 4:25-26, cited in
`Petition, p. 11 and Petitioner
`Reply, p. 6)
`
`(‘431 patent, 4:41-42, cited
`in Petition, p. 11)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`3
`
`

`

`Overview of Challenge
`
`• Claims 8-12 and 18-22 challenged as obvious in view of Dulin,
`Yamaura, Hwang, and Zhuang
`
`• Trial instituted on all challenged claims
`
`
`(Decision on Institution, pp. 4 and 21)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`4
`
`

`

`Summary of claim 8
`
`(1) Core-band
`
`(2) Primary Preamble
`
`(Discussed inter alia Petition, pp.
`9-12)
`
`(3) Variable bandwidth
` multi-subcarrier systems
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`5
`
`

`

`Overview of prior art – Dulin and Hwang
`Dulin
`“Bandwidth dedicated to a user is variable…” (Petition, p. 15)
`
`“It is to be understood that the number of frequency blocks allocated per time
`slot is variable. …The frequency bandwidth allocations can be adjusted by
`varying the number of frequency blocks within a time slot.”
`(Dulin, para. [0158], discussed in, e.g., Petition, p. 15)
`
`Hwang
`“The bandwidth is varied by varying the number of subcarriers as shown in the table.”
`(Petition, p. 29)
`
`(Haas Decl., ERIC-1012, ¶¶ 85-86, cited
`in Petition, p. 29)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`6
`
`

`

`Overview of prior art – Yamaura
`
`“part of control signals addressed to a terminal station from a base
`station is transmitted by means of a carrier whose band is
`narrower than that for said multi-carrier signals …”
`(Yamaura, 6:5-8, discussed in Petition, e.g., p. 17)
`
`(Yamaura, Fig. 17
`(annotated), discussed in
`Petition, p. 18)
`
`“Yamaura’s operating bandwith can be scaled according to Hwang
`by varying the number of subcarriers.”
`(Haas Decl., p. 72 (discussed
`in Petition, p. 30))
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`7
`
`

`

`Overview of prior art – Zhuang
`Disclose properties of primary preamble
`
`[8.5] wherein properties of the primary
`preamble comprise: an autocorrelation
`having a large correlation peak with
`respect to sidelobes;
`
`[8.6] a cross-correlation with other
`primary preambles having a small
`crosscorrelation coefficient with respect
`to power of other primary preambles;
`
`[8.7] a small peak-to-average ratio
`
`[8.8] and wherein a large number of
`primary preamble sequences exhibit the
`properties
`
`“Property 2: The GCL sequences of any length
`have an ‘ideal’ cyclic autocorrelation (i.e., the
`correlation with the circularly shifted version of itself
`is a delta function)” (Zhuang, 6:7-9, cited in Petition,
`p. 45)
`“There exists a number of ‘classes’ of GCL sequences
`and if the classes are chosen carefully (see GCL
`property 3 below), sequences with those chosen
`classes will have optimal cross-correlation and ideal
`autocorrelation.” (Zhuang, 5:11-15, cited in Petition,
`p. 47)
`“The resulting waveform still enjoys low peak-to-
`average ratio (PAPR is typically <3 dB).” (Zhuang,
`6:4-6, cited in Petition, p. 48)
`“the number of pilot sequences available that
`has the ideal cyclic auto-correlation and optimal
`cyclic cross-correlation is P−1 where P is the smallest
`prime factor of Np other than ‘1’ after factoring Np
`into the product of two or more prime numbers
`including ‘1’.” (Zhuang, 4:2-6, cited in Petition, p.
`49)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`8
`
`

`

`Areas of Dispute
`
`[a], [b]
`Areas of Dispute:
`• Claim construction
`[a] “transmit[ting] a broadcast
`
`
`channel in an OFDMA core-band”
`• Claim application
`
`[b] “transmit[ting] a broadcast
`
`channel in an OFDMA core-band”
`• Claim construction
`[c] “variable band”
`
`• Claim application
`[d] “transmit[ting] control and data
`
`
` channels using a variable band,
`
`
`including a second plurality of
`
` subcarrier groups”
`• Other
`[e] Reasons to combine prior art
`
`
`[c], [d]
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`9
`
`

`

`Claim Construction Summary
`No dispute/no material differences for claim terms identified by Petitioner
`
`Claim Term Petitioner’s Construction
`a frequency segment that is not
`greater than the smallest
`operating channel bandwidth
`among all the possible spectral
`bands that a receiver is designed
`to operate with
`
`core-band
`
`primary
`preamble
`
`a signal transmitted near the
`beginning of a frame, and
`occupying only the core band
`
`PO’s Construction
`
`Board’s Preliminary
`Construction
`
`Same
`
`No construction necessary
`
`Same
`
`No construction necessary
`
`peak-to-
`average ratio peak-to-average power ratio
`
`Same
`
`No construction necessary
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 2)
`
`10
`
`

`

`Claim Construction Summary
`No dispute for some claim terms identified by Patent Owner post institution
`
`Claim Term
`
`PO’s Construction
`
`Petitioner’s Construction
`
`first plurality of
`subcarrier groups
`
`second plurality of
`subcarrier groups
`
`a first collection of two or more
`subcarrier groups, each of which
`includes at least two subcarriers
`A second collection of two or more
`subcarrier groups, distinct from the
`first plurality of subcarrier groups,
`each of which includes at least two
`subcarriers
`
`Same
`
`Same
`
`control and data
`channels
`
`control channels and data channels
`
`Same
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 3)
`
`11
`
`

`

`Claim Construction Summary
`Disputed claim terms (Patent Owner newly proposed constructions)
`
`Claim Term
`
`[a]
`
`transmit[ting] a
`broadcast channel
`in an OFDMA
`core-band
`
`PO’s Construction
`transmitting a broadcast channel
`by multiplexing the broadcast
`channel information using OFDM
`on to subcarriers within the limits
`of a a frequency segment that is
`not greater than the smallest
`operating channel bandwidth
`among all the possible spectral
`bands with which the receiver is
`designed to operate
`
`Petitioner’s Construction
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`[b]
`
`variable band
`
`a frequency band having variable
`operating channel bandwidth
`
`No construction necessary.
`Alternatively, “variable
`bandwidth.”
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`(PO Response, pp. 14-16, 21-
`22; Petitioner Reply, pp. 3-8)
`
`12
`
`

`

`Areas of Dispute
`
`[a], [b]
`Areas of Dispute:
`• Claim construction
`[a] “transmit[ting] a broadcast
`
`
`channel in an OFDMA core-band”
`• Claim application
`
`[b] “transmit[ting] a broadcast
`
`channel in an OFDMA core-band”
`• Claim construction
`[c] “variable band”
`
`• Claim application
`[d] “transmit[ting] control and data
`
`
` channels using a variable band,
`
`
`including a second plurality of
`
` subcarrier groups
`• Other
`[e] Reasons to combine prior art
`
`
`[c], [d]
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`13
`
`

`

`[a] “transmit[ting] a broadcast channel in an OFDMA core-band”
`Proposed constructions
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Petitioner – no construction necessary
`“The claim term … has a plain an ordinary meaning that does not require any
`construction.”
`“The claim term simply requires transmitting a broadcast channel in an
`OFDMA core-band.”
`
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 5)
`
`Patent Owner – construction designed to emphasize the term “in”
`• Patent Owner’s proposed construction (substituting agreed def’n of
`“core-band”):
`“transmitting a broadcast channel by multiplexing the broadcast channel
`information using OFDMA on to subcarriers within the limits of a core-
`band”
`• Proposed new limitation of how the broadcast channel is transmitted
`“by multiplexing the broadcast channel using OFDMA on to
`subcarriers” is irrelevant and only adds confusion
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 4)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`14
`
`

`

`[a] “transmit[ting] a broadcast channel in an OFDMA core-band”
`
`“[T]he PO’s attempt to define the term through the proposed construction only adds
`additional confusion. The Board should reject the proposed construction as adding
`undue limitations and generating more confusion than clarity.”
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 5)
`
`“PO does not even suggest that the cited prior art does not satisfy the newly inserted
`claim term ‘by multiplexing the broadcast channel information using OFDMA on to
`subcarriers’ at any point in the Response. Thus, these proposed limitations are
`irrelevant to a determination in these proceedings.”
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 4)
`
`•
`
` •
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`15
`
`

`

`Areas of Dispute
`
`[a], [b]
`Areas of Dispute:
`• Claim construction
`[a] “transmit[ting] a broadcast
`
`
`channel in an OFDMA core-band”
`• Claim application
`
`[b] “transmit[ting] a broadcast
`
`channel in an OFDMA core-band”
`• Claim construction
`[c] “variable band”
`
`• Claim application
`[d] “transmit[ting] control and data
`
`
` channels using a variable band,
`
`
`including a second plurality of
`
` subcarrier groups
`• Other
`[e] Reasons to combine prior art
`
`
`[c], [d]
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`16
`
`

`

`[b] “transmit[ting] a broadcast channel in an OFDMA core-band” –
`applying prior art
`
`• Yamaura + Hwang discloses a “core-band”
`“Yamaura’s narrowband control channel in view of Hwang’s scalable
`bandwidth discloses a core-band, or a frequency segment that is not greater
`than the smallest operating channel bandwidth among all the possible
`spectral bands that a receiver is designed to operate with.”
`(Petition, p. 30)
`
`• Dulin discloses circuitry to transmit an OFDMA signal.
`
`(Petition, p. 27)
`
`• Dispute – does prior art show a “broadcast channel” within a “core-band”
`(per Petitioner) or a “core-band” within a “broadcast channel” (per Patent
`Owner)?
`o According to PO: “Yamaura discloses transmitting a core-band in a
`broadcast channel, i.e., the polar opposite [of claims 8 and 18].”
`
`(PO Response, p. 32)
`o PO expert admitted that Yamaura does not explicitly disclose any
`signals outside the core-band during the broadcast preamble, BCH
`and FCH.
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 11 (citing
`ERIC-1018, 103:23-104:18))
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`17
`
`

`

`[b] “transmit[ting] a broadcast channel in an OFDMA core-band” –
`applying prior art
`Yamaura – discloses control signals in SC1 and SC2
`
`Yamaura (6:5-8)
`“part of control signals addressed to a terminal station from a base
`station is transmitted by means of a carrier whose band is narrower
`than that for said multi-carrier signals …”
`(Petition, p. 29)
`
`Yamaura, Fig. 17 (annotated)
`
`(Yamaura, Fig. 17
`(annotated), discussed in
`Petition, p. 18)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`18
`
`

`

`[b] “transmit[ting] a broadcast channel in an OFDMA core-band” –
`applying prior art
`Yamaura – discloses control signals in SC1 and SC2
`Combined Yamaura Fig. 17, Dulin Fig. 13A, and Hwang Table 1
`
`Dr. Haas:
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`(Petition, p. 31; Haas
`Decl. (ERIC-1012), p. 76)
`
`(Haas Decl., p. 76 (cited
`in Petition, p. 31))
`
`19
`
`

`

`[b] “transmit[ting] a broadcast channel in an OFDMA core-band” –
`applying prior art
`
`Patent Owner
`“As can be seen in FIG. 17, 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. See Exhibit 2003 [Haas testimony] at 65:3-
`4 (‘BCH …is a bandwidth of the channel’).”
`
`Petitioner
`“The complete testimony of Dr. Haas set forth below refers to Fig. 2 of the
`‘431 patent (not Yamaura)”
`(Petitioner Reply, pp. 9-10)
`
`(Ex. 2003, 65:1-4)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`20
`
`

`

`[b] “transmit[ting] a broadcast channel in an OFDMA core-band” –
`applying prior art
`
`“The complete testimony of Dr. Haas … refers to Fig. 2 of the ‘431 patent
`(not Yamaura)”
`(Petitioner Reply, pp. 9-10)
`
`“The PO’s reliance on the Haas testimony concerning the ‘431 patent’s
`description of Bch (bandwidth of a channel) is disingenous and attempts to
`create confusion concerning a different feature in Yamaura labelled BCH
`(Broadcast Channel). Dr. Haas’ testimony does not even refer to the BCH of
`Yamaura, much less support the PO’s mischaracterization of the Yamaura
`reference.”
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 10)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`21
`
`

`

`[b] “transmit[ting] a broadcast channel in an OFDMA core-band” –
`applying prior art
`
`Patent Owner Argument
`• PO expert, Dr. Zeger, illustrates Yamaura’s control signals as follows:
`
`PO Expert
`
`“Does Yamaura explicitly say or teach anywhere that control signals are transmitted
`outside of SC1 and SC2 during the primary -- or, rather, during the broadcast preamble,
`BCH, and FCH time periods?
`…
`THE WITNESS: Yamaura does not explicitly say that, but it implicitly teaches it, as I
`just explained.”
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`(ERIC-1018, 103:23-
`104:6; discussed in
`Petitioner Reply, p. 11)
`
`22
`
`

`

`[b] “transmit[ting] a broadcast channel in an OFDMA core-band” –
`applying prior art
`
`Annotated Yamaura Fig. 17, per Ericsson’s expert:
`“Contrary to Dr. Zeger’s inference, the
`other ‘part’ of control signals not in SC1
`and SC2 refers to control signals not
`transmitted at the same time as the
`broadcast preamble, BCH, and FCH time
`slots. For example, the ACH time slot also
`carries control signals…”
`(Supp. Haas Decl., ¶ 12)
`
`•
`
`Explicit disclosure of Yamaura
`(Supp. Haas Decl., ¶ 12)
`“All that is necessary is to place specific control signals (such as calling signals for the terminal station) in
`•
`the data in the two subcarriers SC1 and SC2.” Yamaura, 21:30-32.
`“This passing band variable filter 236 is so designed as to vary the passing band according to control by the
`control unit 202. … At the time of waiting reception, [variable filter 236] is so set up as to pass the narrow
`band including only the two subcarriers SC1 and SC2 near the center.” Yamaura, 21:60-67
`“The advantage of operating the system constituted as in the second embodiment is that all that is necessary
`is to receive intermittently specific subcarriers [e.g., SC1 and SC2] in the vicinity of the central frequency
`f0 in the carrier frequency band while the terminal station is in the stand-by state.” Yamaura, 23:49-53
`
`•
`
`
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`23
`
`

`

`Areas of Dispute
`
`[a], [b]
`Areas of Dispute:
`• Claim construction
`[a] “transmit[ting] a broadcast
`
`
`channel in an OFDMA core-band”
`• Claim application
`
`[b] “transmit[ting] a broadcast
`
`channel in an OFDMA core-band”
`• Claim construction
`[c] “variable band”
`
`• Claim application
`[d] “transmit[ting] control and data
`
`
` channels using a variable band,
`
`
`including a second plurality of
`
` subcarrier groups
`• Other
`[e] Reasons to combine prior art
`
`
`[c], [d]
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`24
`
`

`

`[c] “variable band” – construction
`Support for Petitioner’s position
`
`(Supp. Haas Decl., ERIC-1020,
`cited in Petitioner Reply, p. 6)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`25
`
`

`

`[c] “variable band” – construction
`Support for Petitioner’s position
`
`’431 Patent (3:34-40)
`“The data subcarriers can be arranged into groups called subchannels
`to support scalability and multiple-access. Each subchannel may be
`set at a different power level. The subcarriers forming one subchannel
`may or may not be adjacent to each other. Each user may use some or
`all of the subchannels.”
`
`(Supp. Haas Decl., ¶ 7, cited in
`Petitioner Reply, p. 6)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`26
`
`

`

`[c] “variable band” – construction
`Support for Petitioner’s position
`“A particular scenario of a user occupying subchannel 2 at time t1, and all
`the subchannels at a later time t2 is illustrated in annotated Fig. 3 of the ’431
`patent below, which illustrates varying the signal bandwidth.”
`
`•
`
`(Supp. Haas Decl., ¶ 8, cited in Petitioner Reply, pp. 7-8)
`“PO adds the terms ‘operating channel’ to ‘variable band,’ thereby
`unduly limiting the term ‘variable band.’”
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 5)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`27
`
`

`

`Areas of Dispute
`
`[a], [b]
`Areas of Dispute:
`• Claim construction
`[a] “transmit[ting] a broadcast
`
`
`channel in an OFDMA core-band”
`• Claim application
`
`[b] “transmit[ting] a broadcast
`
`channel in an OFDMA core-band”
`• Claim construction
`[c] “variable band”
`
`• Claim application
`[d] “transmit[ting] control and data
`
`
` channels using a variable band,
`
`
`including a second plurality of
`
` subcarrier groups
`• Other
`[e] Reasons to combine prior art
`
`
`[c], [d]
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`28
`
`

`

`[d] “transmitting control and data channels using a variable band including a
`second plurality of subcarrier groups” – applying prior art
`“Under the correct claim construction of ‘variable band,’ Dulin discloses a variable band”
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 15)
`Dulin: “It is to be understood that the number of frequency blocks allocated per time
`slot is variable. …The frequency bandwidth allocations can be adjusted by varying the
`number of frequency blocks within a time slot.”
`
`(Dulin, para. [0158], discussed in, e.g., Petition for IPR, p. 15)
`
`Dulin, Fig. 13A,
`annotated by
`Ericsson’s expert:
`
`(Haas Decl., ¶ 52, cited in
`Petition, p. 51)
`
`“Dr. Zeger [PO expert] confirms that Dulin discloses a variable signal bandwidth.”
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 15)
`
`(ERIC-1018, 89:15-19,
`discussed in Petitioner
`Reply, p. 15)
`
`29
`
`

`

`[d] “transmitting control and data channels using a variable band including a
`second plurality of subcarrier groups” – applying prior art
`“Petitioner’s prior art discloses ‘variable band,’ even under Patent Owner’s construction”
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 16
`• PO - “variable band” refers to “a frequency band having variable operating
`channel bandwidth”
`(PO Response, p. 22)
`• PO argument: “While Petitioner relies on Hwang as disclosing a scalable bandwidth
`in connection with its analysis of claim element 8.1, Petitioner’s analysis of claim
`element 8.9 is devoid of any discussion of Hwang.”
`(PO Response, p. 39)
`• Petition – “Hwang discloses providing additional flexibility to an OFDM system by
`providing a scalable operating channel bandwidth”
`
`
`
`
`
`• Petition – “The claim construction of core-band is thus demonstrated as being
`disclosed by the combination of Yamaura and Hwang and applies hereafter for
`the remaining claim elements.”
`(Petition, p. 30)
`ERIC-1023
`
`
`(Petition, p. 30
`(Hwang, Table
`1, annotated))
`
`(Petition, p. 29)
`
`
`
`30
`
`

`

`[d] “transmitting control and data channels using a variable band including a
`second plurality of subcarrier groups” – applying prior art
`
`Prior art discloses “variable band,” even under Patent Owner’s construction “Petitioner’s prior art discloses ‘variable band,’ even under Patent Owner’s construction”
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 16
`• Petitioner Reply: “Thus, the Petition demonstrated the PO’s proposed claim
`construction by reference to the variable operation channel bandwidth of Hwang
`in combination with Yamaura to satisfy the ‘core-band’ element of claim
`elements 8.1 and 8.9, even under the PO’s newly proposed construction.”
`(Petitioner Reply, pp. 17-18)
`
`(Supp. Haas Decl.,
`¶ 15 (adding new
`highlight in purple to
`figure from Petition,
`p. 31/first
`declaration, p. 76)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`31
`
`

`

`[d] “transmitting control and data channels using a variable band including a
`second plurality of subcarrier groups” – applying prior art
`
`“Petitioner disagrees with the PO based on the plain language of claims 8 and 18.
`… This claim element does not specify which of the control channels or data
`channels is in which part of the variable band.”
`
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 19)
`
`“[E]ven assuming the PO’s incorrect interpretation of this claim element, Yamaura
`illustrates a control channel, namely the ACH, using the entire operating channel
`bandwidth, which includes a second plurality of subcarrier groups.”
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 19)
`
`Yamaura, Fig. 17,
`annotated by
`Ericsson’s expert:
`
`(Petitioner Reply, pp. 19-20;
`citing Supp. Haas Decl., ¶ 20)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`32
`
`

`

`Areas of Dispute
`
`[a], [b]
`Areas of Dispute:
`• Claim construction
`[a] “transmit[ting] a broadcast
`
`
`channel in an OFDMA core-band”
`• Claim application
`
`[b] “transmit[ting] a broadcast
`
`channel in an OFDMA core-band”
`• Claim construction
`[c] “variable band”
`
`• Claim application
`[d] “transmit[ting] control and data
`
`
` channels using a variable band,
`
`
`including a second plurality of
`
` subcarrier groups
`• Other
`[e] Reasons to combine prior art
`
`
`[c], [d]
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`33
`
`

`

`[e] Reasons to combine prior art
`Legal Framework
`• PO argument: “Of course, a showing of obviousness requires a teaching,
`suggestion or motivation to combine the elements in the way the claimed
`combination does, a showing that Petitioner utterly failed to make.”
`
`(PO Response, p. 48)
`• Petitioner: “KSR rejected the TSM (teaching, suggestion, motivation) test…
`Further, to protect against hindsight bias, “there must be some articulated
`reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
`obviousness.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
`
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 21)
`• Petitioner: “With this legal background, the Petition provides explicit and
`extensive “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning” for reasons that
`aspects of the various prior art references are combined. See Petition pp. 32-36
`(reasons to combine aspects of Dulin, Yamaura, and Hwang), p. 39 (reasons to
`combine aspects of Yamaura and Hwang), pp. 45-47 (reasons to combine aspects
`of Yamaura and Zhuang), and pp. 52-53 (reasons to combine aspects of Dulin and
`Yamaura).”
`(Petitioner Reply, pp. 21-22)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`34
`
`

`

`[e] Reasons to combine prior art
`“Dulin and Yamaura are Compatible”
`
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 22)
`
`“[T]he PO alleges that Dulin teaches away from Yamaura because Dulin requires frame
`map information ‘at the very beginning of the frame,’ whereas Yamaura conveys frame
`map information in the FCH time slot…which is not ‘at the very beginning of the
`frame.’”
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 22)
`
`• Ericsson’s expert:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Supp. Haas Decl., ¶ 22)
`
`•
`
`
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`35
`
`

`

`[e] Reasons to combine prior art
`“Dulin and Yamaura are Compatible”
`
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 22)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`• Law
`
`
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 24)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 24)
`
`36
`
`

`

`[e] Reasons to combine prior art
`“Dulin teaches the use of one base station”
`
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 24)
`
`“Contrary to PO’s characterization, Dulin teaches a single base transceiver
`station having a single antenna communicating with a single mobile
`station/subscriber a unit.”
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 24)
`
`
`o Dulin
`o “If transmission is between only a single base transceiver station
`and a single subscriber unit, then look ahead scheduling is not
`required.”
`(Dulin, [0072])
`
`o “A first mode includes transmission between a single base
`transceiver station and a single subscriber unit.”
`(Dulin, [0073])
`
`
`
`37
`
`

`

`[e] Reasons to combine prior art
`“PO’s arguments regarding ‘no reasonable expectation of success’ are without merit”
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 25)
`
`1. “First, PO’s argument about expectation of success is based only on what is
`happening at the receiver, whereas the challenged claims are about the transmitter.”
`
`2. “Second, PO’s technical arguments are incorrect. … There is no need to retune a
`local oscillator (or frequency synthesizer) to the center frequency of a frequency
`block. … an FFT could be used to vary the frequency content.”
`
`3. “Third, to the extent there is any non-negligible time required to switch between
`narrow band processing of SC1 and SC2 and reception of data channels, it would not
`require undue experimentation to insert a small transition period in the frame
`between the end of control signals in SC1 and SC2 and the beginning data of
`channels to allow receivers time to adjust.”
`
`(Petitioner Reply, pp. 26-27 (citing Supp.
`Haas Decl. ¶¶ 28-29))
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`38
`
`

`

`[e] Reasons to combine prior art
`
`•
`
`(Petitioner Reply, pp. 27-28)
`
`“PO mischaracterizes Petitioner’s position.”
`o “Petitioner relied upon Dr. Haas’ opinion as well as references he cited to support his
`opinion such as background references ERIC-1014 and ERIC-1015 that describe a
`background understanding of a POSITA.”
`
`o “Dulin focuses on transmission of data information to subscriber units…”
`
`o “A POSA, when faced with implementing a cellular system, would have understood
`that other aspects besides transmission of user data would have needed to be
`addressed, such as implementation of control channels.”
`
`(Petition, p. 33 (citing ERIC-1014 and 1015))
`o “Yamaura discloses that transmitting the control signals via a narrow-band
`frequency segment allows simplified processing and power saving in the terminal
`station.”
`(Petition, p. 34)
`
`(Petition, p. 33)
`
`
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`39
`
`

`

`Conclusions
`
`• The combination of Dulin, Yamaura, Hwang, and Zhuang discloses all the
`elements of claims 8-12 and 18-22.
`
`• Extensive “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning” is
`provided to explain the reasons to combine the prior art.
`
`• Accordingly, Claims 8-12 and 18-22 are unpatentable and should be
`canceled.
`
`
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`40
`
`

`

`BACKUP SLIDES
`
`BACKUP SLIDES
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`ER|C—1023
`
`41
`41
`
`

`

`[e] Reasons to combine prior art
`“Petitioner’s Expert Assumes a Proper Level of Skill of a POSITA”
`“PO criticizes Petitioner’s expert for assuming that a POSITA was familiar with
`•
`various well-known communication technologies, such as OFDM, CDMA, TDMA
`(or related TDD), and FDMA (or related FDD).”
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 28)
`• “Dr. Zeger [PO expert] confirms the understanding of Petitioner’s expert that a
`POSITA would have understood OFDM, OFDMA, CDMA, TDD, and FDD.”
`
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 28)
`
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 28)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`42
`
`(ERIC-1018, 16:13-15 and
`17:12 to 18:22)
`
`

`

`Yamaura
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“Yamaura discloses that its narrowband control channel may include one,
`two, or three subcarriers as exemplary embodiments. However, Yamaura
`also discloses that the core band may include any number of subcarriers
`for transmission of control signals.”
`(Haas Decl., p. 84 (cited in Petition, p. 38))
`“The arrangment of subcarriers, which is shown in Fig. 16… may be
`modified such that one or more specific subcarriers … is used for
`transmission of specific control signals.”
`(Yamaura, 24:6-14 (cited in Petition, p. 37))
`• Fig. 16 illustrates a total of 53 subcarriers: “FIG. 16 shows the arrangement
`of subcarriers for one transmission channel in this embodiment. … For
`example, a group of subcarriers are arranged at intervals of 312.5 kHz, with
`the total number of subcarriers being 53.”
`(Yamaura, 20:54-59 (cited in Petition, p. 37))
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`43
`
`

`

`“Hwang provides flexible operating channel bandwidths … for the
`Yamaura/Dulin system”
`
`(Petition, p. 36)
`
`• Dulin: “However, Dulin is not concerned with details of how the map schedule is
`communicated and is therefore silent regarding those aspects, leaving those details to
`a POSA to determine. Thus, Dulin is ready for improvement and modification to
`achieve the described transmission of at least the map schedule.”
`
`(Petition, p. 32 (citing Haas Decl., p. 77))
`• Yamaura: “To increase flexibility in Yamaura’s single channel operating
`bandwidth system when combined with Dulin’s multiple access scheme, one of
`ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the teachings of Hwang as disclosing
`well known concepts of varying available subcarriers to change operating channel
`bandwidth.”
`
`(Haas Decl., p. 79 (cited in Petition, p. 35);
`see also Haas Decl., p. 78 and Petition p.
`
`34)
`• Hwang: “One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the
`Yamaura/Dulin system and Hwang are compatible in that Hwang provides flexible
`operating channel bandwidths (2.5 MHz, 5 MHz, 10 MHz, 20 MHz) for the
`Yamaura/Dulin system.”
`(Haas Decl., p. 79 (cited in Petition, p. 35))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`44
`
`

`

`Claim 18 substantively the same as claim 8
`Claim 8 is an apparatus and claim 18 is a method
`
`8. A cellular base station comprising:
`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 creak 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.
`
`18. A variable bandwidth communication method comprising:
`transmitting a broadcast channel by a cellular base station 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 peak 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
`transmitting control and data channels by the cellular base
`station using a variable band including a second plurality of subcarrier
`groups, wherein the variable band includes at least the core-band.
`
`
`
`ERIC-1023
`
`45
`
`