Paper No. _
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 5,915,210
`
`Issued: June 22, 1999
`
`Filed: July 24, 1997
`Inventors: Dennis Wayne Cameron, Walter Charles Roehr, Jr., Jai P. Bhagat,
`Masood Garahi, William D. Hays, David W. Ackerman
`Title: METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING MULTICARRIER
`
`SIMULCAST TRANSMISSION
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2015-01724
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PAR TES REVIEW
`
`NY 245347838v2
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ................. ..1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)(1) .................... ..1
`
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)(2) ............................. ..1
`
`Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)(3) and Service Information ....2
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES — 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 .......................................... ..2
`
`III.
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .................... ..3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A) ..................... ..3
`
`Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) and Relief Requested ..... ..3
`
`Claim Construction under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(B)(3) .................. ..4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`A .
`
`.
`
`. transmitter (Claims 1 and 10) ................................... .. 5
`
`Means for transmitting a [] plurality of carrier signals (Claim
`19) ..................................................................................... .. 7
`
`In Simulcast (Claims 1, 10, 19) ........................................ .. 10
`
`IV.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’210 PATENT .................................................. ..11
`
`A.
`
`Brief Description ........................................................................ .. 11
`
`MANNER OF APPLYING CITED PRIOR ART TO EACH CLAIM
`FOR WHICH AN IPR IS REQUESTED, THUS ESTABLISHING A
`REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF
`THE ’210 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE. ........................................ .. 12
`
`A.
`
`[GROUND 1] — Saalfrank Anticipates Claims 1, 7-8, 10, and 15-17
`................................................................................................... .. 13
`
`1.
`
`2
`
`3.
`
`4
`
`Claim 1 ............................................................................ .. 17
`
`Claim 7 ............................................................................ .. 21
`
`Claim 10 .......................................................................... ..22
`
`Claim 16 .......................................................................... ..29
`
`NY 245347838v2
`
`

`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Claim 17 .......................................................................... ..30
`
`Claim 19 .......................................................................... .. 31
`
`B.
`
`[GROUND 2] — Saalfrank in View of Nakamura Renders Claims 8,
`15, and 19 Obvious .................................................................... ..34
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 8 ............................................................................ ..37
`
`Claim 15 .......................................................................... ..38
`
`Claim 19 .......................................................................... ..40
`
`VI. REDUNDANCY ................................................................................. ..44
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................... ..44
`
`NY 24534 7838v2
`
`iii
`
`

`
`EXHIBITS
`
`SAM1001 — U.S. Patent 5,915,210 to Cameron et al., filed Jul. 24, 1997
`
`SAMl002 — Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC V. Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00183, Plaintiff Mobile
`Telecommunications Technologies, LLC’s Original Complaint (Feb. 9, 2015)
`
`SAM1003 — Declaration of Dr. Apostolos (Paul) Kakaes
`
`SAM1004 — Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC V. Clearwire
`Corp., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00308-JRG-RSP, Claim Construction
`Memorandum and Order (July 1, 2013)
`
`SAM1005 — Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Sprint Nextel
`Corp., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv—00832-JRG-RSP, Claim Construction
`Memorandum and Order (May 2, 2014)
`
`SAM1006 — Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC V. T-Mobile USA,
`lnc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-00886-JRG-RSP, Claim Construction
`Memorandum and Order (Jan. 23, 2015)
`
`SAM1007 — Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC V. Leap Wireless
`International, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cV—00885-JRG-RSP, Claim
`Construction Memorandum and Order (May 12, 2015)
`
`SAM1008 — The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1902,
`(3“1ed.1992)
`
`SAMl009 — Standards Coordinating Committee 10, Terms and Definitions, The
`IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms, 1140, (6th ed.
`1996)
`
`SAM1010 - McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, 1644,
`(5”‘ed.1993)
`
`SAM1011 — Apple Inc. V. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC,
`Case IPR2014-0103 6, Decision on Institution of Inter Partes Review (Jan. 22,
`
`2015)
`
`SAM1012 — U.S. Patent 5,365,569 to Witsaman et al., filed Aug. 17, 1992
`
`NY 245347838v2
`
`iv
`
`

`
`SAM1013 — U.S. Patent 4,968,966 to Jasinski et al., filed Oct. 23, 1989
`
`SAM1014 — Prosecution History of U.S. Patent 5,915,210 to Cameron et al.,
`filed Jul. 24,1997
`
`SAM1015 — English Translation of German Patent Publication No. DE4102408
`to Saalfrank, filed Jan. 28, 1991
`
`SAM1 016 — German Patent Publication No. DE4102408 to Saalfrank, filed Jan.
`
`2 8, 1991
`
`SAM1017 — Certificate of Translation of German Patent Publication No.
`DE4102408 to Saalfrank, filed Jan. 28, 1991
`
`SAM1018 — Bernard Le Floch et al., Digital Sound Broadcasting to Mobile
`Receivers, 35 IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics 493 (Aug. 1989)
`
`SAMl0l9 — Yasuhisa Nakamura et al., 256 QAM Modem for Multicarrier 400
`Mbit/s Digital Radio, 5 IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 329
`(Apr. 1987)
`
`SAM1020 — U.S. Patent No. 5,381,449 to Jasper, et al., filed Nov. 1, 1991
`
`SAM1021 — U.S. Patent No. 5,168,509 to Nakamura, et al., filed Apr. 10, 1990
`
`NY 245347838v2
`
`

`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner” or “Samsung”) petitions for
`
`Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42 of
`
`claims 1, 7-8, 10 ,15-17, and 19 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,915,210 (the “’2l0 patent”) (Ex. SAM1001), of assignee Mobile
`
`Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (“Patentee” or “MTel”). As explained
`
`in this Petition, there exists a reasonable likelihood that Samsung will prevail
`
`with respect to at least one of the Challenged Claims.
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)
`
`A.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)(1)
`
`The real party of interest of this petition is: Samsung Electronics Co.,
`
`Ltd., a Korean corporation that has its principal place of business at 416
`
`Maetan-3dong, Yeongton-gu, Suwon-City, Gyeonggi-do 443-742, South Korea.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)(2)
`
`Samsung is not aware of any terminal disclaimers for the ’210 patent.
`
`The ’210 Patent has been involved in at least five litigations; one naming
`
`Samsung as a defendant: Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v.
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 2:15—cv—183 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`(hereinafter, the “Samsung Litigation”); Mobile Telecommunications
`
`Technologies, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cV-886-JRG-
`
`RSP (E.D. Tex.); Mobile Telecommunications Teclznologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`
`Case No. 2-13-cv-258 (E.D. Tex.); Mobile Telecommunications Technologies,
`
`LLC v. Leap Wireless International, Inc., Case No. 2-13-cv-885 (E.D. Tex.);
`1
`
`NY 245347838v2
`
`

`
`and Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, et
`
`al., Case No. 2:14-cv-897 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`Two prior IPR actions were instituted on the ’210 patent: Apple Inc. v.
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (IPR2014-01036) (filed June
`
`27, 2014) (hereinafter, the “Apple IPR”); and T-Mobile USA Inc. v. Mobile
`
`Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (IPR2015-00015) (filed October 3,
`
`2014) (hereinafter, the “T-Mobile IPR”). Petitioner has reviewed the IPR
`
`petitions filed by Apple and T-Mobile, and, in the instant petition, challenges
`
`the ’210 Patent on grounds based on the same prior art references.
`
`C.
`
`Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)(3) and Service
`Information
`
`Samsung designates Heath J. Briggs (Reg. No. 54,919) as Lead Counsel
`
`and Patrick J. McCarthy (Reg. No. 62,762) as Backup Counsel. Mr. Briggs is
`
`available at Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 1200 17th Street, Suite 2400, Denver,
`
`Colorado 80202 and Mr. McCarthy is available at Greenberg Traurig, LLP,
`
`2101 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20037. Please address all
`
`correspondence and service to counsel at the address provided in this section.
`
`Samsung also consents to electronic service by email at
`
`MtelGTIPR@gtlaw.com.
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES — 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`Samsung authorizes the Patent and Trademark Office (the “Office”) to
`
`charge Deposit Account No. 50-2775 for the fee set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for
`
`NY 245347838v2
`
`2
`
`

`
`this Petition and further authorizes payment for any additional fees to be
`
`charged to this Deposit Account.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`A.
`
`Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A)
`
`Samsung certifies that the ’210 Patent is available for IPR. Samsung also
`
`certifies that it is not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR challenging the
`
`patent claims on the grounds identified in this petition. The present petition is
`
`being filed within one year ofwhen Samsung was served with the Complaint in
`
`the co—pending Samsung Litigation. Service of process of the Complaint for
`
`Samsung was waived on February 27, 2015. See Ex. SAMl0O2.
`
`B.
`
`Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) and Relief Requested
`
`Samsung requests IPR of the Challenged Claims of the ’210 Patent on the
`
`grounds set forth in the table below, and requests that each of the claims be
`
`found unpatentable. An explanation of how these claims are unpatentable under
`
`the statutory grounds identified below, including an identification of where each
`
`element is found in the prior art patents and/or printed publications and the
`
`relevance of each prior art reference, is provided in the form of detailed
`
`description that follows. Additional explanation and support for each ground is
`
`set forth in Dr. Kakaes’ declaration, Ex. SAM1003 (“Kakaes Decl.”).
`
`Ground
`Ground 1
`
`’2l0 Patent Claims
`1, 7, 10, 16, 17, and
`
`Basis for Rejection
`§ 102 based on Saalfrank
`
`3 N
`
`Ground 2
`
`8, 15, and 19
`
`§ 103 based on Saalfrank in View of
`Nakamura
`
`Y 245347838v2
`
`

`
`Each of the above references qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`Specifically, Saalfrank qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § l02(a), as it was
`
`published on August 6, 1992, which is earlier than the earliest possible priority
`
`date to which the ’210 patent could be entitled: November 12, 1992.1 Nakamura
`
`qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), as it was published in April,
`
`1987, which is more than a year before the earliest possible priority date to
`
`which the ’210 patent could be entitled. Samsung understands that these two
`
`references have been considered by the Patent Office with regard to the
`
`patentability of the ’210 patent in considering and instituting the Apple IPR and
`
`T-Mobile IPR.
`
`C.
`
`Claim Construction under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(B)(3)
`
`The ’210 patent expired on November 12, 2012. The Board’s review of
`
`the claims of an expired patent is similar to that of a district court’s review. In
`
`re Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The principle set forth by the
`
`court in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005) is
`
`1 The ’210 patent issued from an application filed on July 24, 1997. The ’210
`
`patent is a continuation of and claims priority to U.S. Application No.
`
`08/760,457, filed on December 6, 1996, which is a continuation of U.S.
`
`Application No. 07/973,918 (now U.S. Patent No. 5,590,403), filed on
`
`November 12, 1992.
`
`NY 245347838v2
`
`

`
`applied. Under Phillips, the words of a claim “are generally given their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`question at the time of the invention. Id.
`
`Petitioner acknowledges that the Board may have applied the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) standard in instituting the Apple IPR and T-
`
`Mobile IPR. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The proper construction standard is the
`
`Phillips framework because the ’210 patent has expired. Nevertheless, applying
`
`the Phillips standard should have no impact in considering and instituting
`
`Samsung’s Petition because the relevant claims deserve the same scope under
`
`Phillips. The following claim terms should be construed as set forth below.
`
`1.
`
`A .
`
`. . transmitter (Claims 1 and 10)
`
`Independent claims 1 and 10 recite “a .
`
`.
`
`. transmitter.” Petitioner
`
`acknowledges that a district court has construed this term to have its plain
`
`meaning with the understanding that transmitting multiple signals or outputs
`
`from a single structural unit is ng itself sufficient to constitute a plurality of
`
`transmitters. See Ex. SAMIOO4 at 6; see also, EX. SAMl0O5 at 10 (adopting
`
`Clearwire constructions); Ex. SAMl006 at 11 (same); Ex. SAMl007 at 10
`
`(same).
`
`In the Samsung Litigation, Petitioner has requested the court to construe a
`
`transmitter as “a structural unit for generating and modulating a signal to be
`
`transmitted.” This construction is consistent with the court’s rulings where the
`
`NY 245347838v2
`
`

`
`court has indicated that a transmitter is a structural unit. Id. This construction is
`
`also consistent with the understanding of a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art and is supported by both the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence. Specifically,
`
`compare Fig. 15 of the ’210 patent, which discloses a Receiver, Transmitter,
`
`and Antenna, with Figs. 17-18, which disclose a Receiver and Antenna only.
`
`The ’210 specification describes these Figs. 17-18 as “[a]n embodiment of the
`
`mobile unit [that] includes only receive capabilities, but does not include any
`
`transmit capabilities” Ex. SAM1001 at 19:21-23 (emphasis added). This
`
`indicates that at least in the context of the ’210 patent, a transmitter is a
`
`structural unit responsible for transmission that is separate from an antenna or a
`
`receiver. Also, in both conventional and technical dictionaries, a transmitter is
`
`defined as a structural unit that generates and modulates a signal to be
`
`transmitted through an antenna unit. See e. g., Ex. SAMIOO8, p. 1902
`
`(“Transmitter”); Ex. SAM1009, p. 1140 (“Transmitter (2) (radio)”); Ex.
`
`SAMl010, p. 1644 (“radio transmitter”). Accordingly, Petitioner’s construction
`
`is proper.
`
`Moreover, despite Apple and T-Mobile’s request to construe the term to
`
`have its plain meaning, the Board construed a “transmitter (singular) as being
`
`capable of transmitting a plurality of carrier signals combined as a single output.”
`
`See Ex. SAMlOl1 at 8. Petitioner’s construction is similar to what the Board
`
`previously adopted, construing a transmitter as a structural unit with a specific
`
`NY 245347838v2
`
`

`
`functionality. Petitioner’s construction, therefore, does not meaningfully alter
`
`the analysis of the prior art references listed herein from the analysis the Board
`
`did in the Apple and T-Mobile IPRs. For the reasons above, Petitioner proposes
`
`that “a .
`
`.
`
`. transmitter” be construed to mean “a structural unit for generating
`
`and modulating a signal to be transmitted.”
`
`2.
`
`Means for transmitting a [] plurality of carrier signals
`(Claim 19)
`
`Independent claim 19 recites a “means for transmitting a first plurality of
`
`carrier signals” and “means for transmitting a second plurality of carrier signals.”
`
`In the Apple and T-Mobile IPRs, the Board construed the terms to have the
`
`functions of “transmitting a first plurality of carrier signals within the desired
`
`frequency band, each of the first plurality of carrier signals representing a
`
`portion of the information signal substantially not represented by others of the
`
`first plurality of carrier signals” and “transmitting a second plurality of carrier
`
`signals in simulcast with the first plurality of carrier signals, each of the second
`
`plurality of carrier signals corresponding to and representing substantially the
`
`same information as a respective carrier signal of the first plurality of carrier
`
`signals” respectively. The Board also construed the corresponding structures to
`
`be “a base transmitter corresponding to the embodiments as shown and
`
`described in Figures 13 and 14 of the ’21O patent and equivalents.” See Ex.
`
`SAM10l1 at 9; see also, Ex. SAMl001 at 15:47—l6:30; Figs. 13-14.
`
`NY245347838v2
`
`

`
`Petitioner notes that a district court applying the Phillips standard has
`
`construed the terms identically to how the Board construed them in the Apple
`
`and T-Mobile IPRs. See Ex. SAM1005 at 31-32. Indeed, Patent Owner has also
`
`agreed to, or did not dispute, this construction in its district court proceeding.
`
`See Ex. SAM1006 at 56; Ex. SAM1007 at 26. In the Samsung Litigation,
`
`Petitioner has requested the court to construe the term, “transmitting a second
`
`plurality of carrier signals in simulcast with the first plurality of carrier signals,”
`
`identically to how the court and the Board have construed it, with an exception
`
`of adding “geographically separated” language to the corresponding structure
`
`for the term. This construction is fully supported and required by the intrinsic
`
`evidence. Also, it does not contradict the Court or the Board. In particular,
`
`the ’210 specification describes that “base transmitters [see Figs. 13-14] are
`
`divided into zonal assignments and broadcast in simulcast using multi-carrier
`
`modulation techniques.” Ex. SAM1001, Abstract. These base transmitters are
`
`“spatially separated.” Id. at 8:62-64; Fig. 6.
`
`The ’210 specification further describes that an object of the invention is
`
`“to provide a zone based simulcast communication system which can
`
`effectively communicate with both mobile transceiver units located near the
`
`center of each zone as well as mobile transceiver units located within the
`
`overlap areas between two or more zones.” Id. at 4:62-67 (Summary of the
`
`Invention) (emphasis added); Fig. 1. Indeed, all embodiments of the ’210
`
`NY 245347838v2
`
`

`
`patent disclose each and every transmitter defining a zone is geographically
`
`separated.
`
`Additionally, the ’2l0 patent repeatedly discusses how the purported
`
`invention relates to providing a communication service over a relatively large
`
`area with wide area coverage by employing multiple transmitters in simulcast.
`
`See e. g., Ex. SAMl00l at 1:11-14 (Field of Invention); 4:44-48 (Summary of
`
`the Invention). In light of these disclosures, a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have understood that at least a second transmitter must be
`
`geographically separated from a first transmitter, and such an understanding was
`
`indeed common in the field at the time. See e. g., Ex. SAMl0l2 at 1:12-35; Ex.
`
`SAMlOl3 at 2:1-8; Kakaes Decl. at 1] 16.
`
`Nevertheless, the “geographically separated” language does not
`
`meaningfillly affect the overall analysis, or the Board’s decision to institute in
`
`the Apple and T-Mobile IPRs because, as more fully described below, the prior
`
`art references listed herein clearly disclose geographically separated transmitters.
`
`For purposes of this PTO proceeding, Petitioner proposes that “means for
`
`transmitting a first plurality of carrier signals” and “means for transmitting a
`
`second plurality of carrier signals” have the functions of “means for
`
`transmitting a first plurality of carrier signals within the desired frequency band”
`
`and “means for transmitting a second plurality of carrier signals in simulcast
`
`with the first plurality of carrier signals,” respectively. With respect to the
`
`NY 245347838v2
`
`

`
`corresponding structures, Petitioner proposes “base transmitter 1300 including
`
`data input 1302, control logic 1304, modulators 1306-1314, combiner 1316,
`
`power amplifier 1318, and an antenna 1320, as depicted in Figure 13; and
`
`equivalents thereof’ or “base transmitter 1400 including data input 1402,
`
`control logic 1404, modulators 1406-1414, power amplifiers 1416-1424,
`
`combiner 1426, and an antenna 1428, as depicted in Figure 14; and equivalents
`
`thereof’ for the first term; and “at least a second geographically separated
`
`base transmitter 1300 including data input 1302, control logic 1304, modulators
`
`1306-1314, combiner 1316, power amplifier 1318, and an antenna 1320, as
`
`depicted in Figure 13; and equivalents thereof’ or “at least a second
`
`geographically separated base transmitter 1400 including data input 1402,
`
`control logic 1404, modulators 1406-1414, power amplifiers 1416-1424,
`
`combiner 1426, and an antenna 1428, as depicted in Figure 14; and equivalents
`
`thereof’ for the second term.
`
`3.
`
`In Simulcast (Claims 1, 10, 19)
`
`Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 recite “in simulcast.” Petitioner agrees
`
`with the construction that the Board adopted in instituting the Apple and T-
`
`Mobile IPRs: “at the same time.” See Ex. SAM1011 at 10.
`
`The district court has construed this term the same way. See Ex.
`
`SAMl006 at 23; Ex. SAM1004 at 4; Ex. SAM1005 at 15, 74. Patent Owner has
`
`NY245347838v2
`
`10
`
`

`
`also proposed or agreed to this construction in its district court proceedings. See.
`
`SAM1006 at17; Ex. SAM1005 at 15; see also, Ex. SAMIOO7 at 39.
`
`Therefore, for purposes of this PTO proceeding, Petitioner proposes the
`
`term “in simulcast” to mean “at the same time.”
`
`IV.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’210 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Brief Description
`
`The ’210 patent contains 3 independent and 16 dependent claims that
`
`each relate to combining multi-carrier modulation and simulcast broadcasting
`
`techniques. The patent’s Abstract describes the invention as follows:
`
`A two-way communication system for communication betw[]een a
`
`system network and a mobile unit. The system network includes a
`
`plurality of base transmitters and base receivers include[d] in the
`
`network.
`
`.
`
`. The system network controls the base transmitters to
`
`broadcast
`
`in s[]imulcast during both systemwide and zone
`
`boundaries to maximize information throughout [sic, throughput].
`
`Ex. SAM1001, Abstract.
`
`The specification continues:
`
`Generally, simulcast
`
`technology provides multiple transmitters,
`
`operating on substantially the same frequencies and transmitting
`
`the same information positioned to cover extended areas.
`
`.
`
`. The
`
`base transmitters of the communication system, such as base
`
`transmitters 612 and 614 shown in FIG. 6, preferably utilize a
`
`multi- carrier modulation format as will now be described. In
`
`general,
`
`a multi-carrier modulation
`
`format
`
`envisions
`
`the
`
`simultaneous
`
`transmission of several
`
`closely spaced carrier
`
`NY 245347838v2
`
`11
`
`

`
`frequencies within a desired fiequency band, each individually
`
`modulated to convey an information signal. The multi-carrier
`
`modulation format advantageously allows for high data transfer
`
`rates by providing good bit rate transmission rates while keeping
`
`below the baud rate
`
`limitations of
`
`simulcast
`
`transmission
`
`techniques.
`
`Id. at 1:52-55; 13:3-14.
`
`The 3 independent claims (claims 1, 10, and 19) and 5 dependent claims
`
`(claims 7-8, and 15-17) of the ’210 patent are challenged herein.
`
`V. MANNER OF APPLYING CITED PRIOR ART TO EACH
`CLAIM FOR WHICH AN IPR IS REQUESTED, THUS
`ESTABLISHING A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT
`LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE ’210 PATENT IS
`
`UNPATENTABLE.
`
`During prosecution, the Examiner of the ’21 0 patent found that:
`
`[T]he prior art of record fails to show a multi-carrier simulcast
`
`transmission system comprising the first and second transmitters
`
`for simultaneously transmitting the same information signals. The
`
`system comprises a plurality of carrier signals in each of the
`
`transmitters wherein each of the carrier signals represent a portion
`
`of the information signal not represented by others of the plurality
`
`carrier signals.
`
`Ex. SAM1014, p. 261. As presented below, Saalfrank alone, as well as the
`
`combination of Saalfiank and Nakamura discloses this combination of features
`
`and the remaining features of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, because the
`
`Patent Owner’s purported invention was known in the art prior to the earliest
`
`NY 245347838v2
`
`12
`
`

`
`possible priority date of the ’2l0 patent, the section below will establish a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the Challenged Claims are unpatentable.
`
`A.
`
`[GROUND 1] — Saalfrank Anticipates Claims 1, 7-8, 10, and
`15-17
`
`The Saalfrank reference discloses a network with “common-wave
`
`radio .
`
`.
`
`. transmitter stations” that support “a nationwide radio program” and
`
`whereby “all transmitter stations simultaneously emit transmission signals with
`
`the same modulation content on the very same transmission frequency and/or
`
`the same carrier frequencies.” Ex. SAM1015, col. 1, 1] 4 (emphases added).
`
`Further, and in conjunction with this simulcast technique, Saalfrank disclosed a
`
`“COFDM- method (Coded Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplex) .
`
`.
`
`. as
`
`the transmission procedure,” whereby “a plurality of individual carriers (e. g.,
`
`448 carrier frequencies .
`
`.
`
`. spaced over the frequency axis) is impinged with a
`
`4—DPSK-modulation (DPSK—Differential Phase Shift Keying)” Id. (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`As described by Dr. Kakaes, Phase Shift Keying—a method well known in
`
`the art prior to the earliest possible priority date of the ’2l0 patent—uses a finite
`
`number ofphases of a carrier waveform to represent binary digits, also referred
`
`to as bits. Kakaes Decl. at 1] 22. Each phase of the carrier represents a unique
`
`pattern of bits. Id. Thus, in a 4-PSK implementation of PSK, each of the four
`
`distinct phases can represent two bits such that symbols ‘O0’, ‘O1’, ‘10’, and ‘ll’
`
`can be transmitted. See id. at 1] 23. Therefore, the “plurality of individual
`
`NY 245347838v2
`
`13
`
`

`
`carriers .
`
`.
`
`. [being] impinged with a 4-DPSK-modulation” are carrier signals
`
`within the channel bandwidth that can be modulated between four possible
`
`phases based on the data for transmission. See id. In other words, as in the ’2l0
`
`patent, the Saalfrank technique utilizes both multicarrier modulation (i. e., 4-
`
`DPSK-modulation) and simulcast in order to generate and transmit signals in
`
`support of a wide-area communication program. See id.
`
`The description of FIG. la of Saalfrank is instructive. The reference
`
`discloses that “carrier freguencies are transmitted simultaneous 1” and that
`
`“[t]he individual carriers are each modulated with one part of the digital data,
`
`with the modulation content of the individual carriers being identical for all
`
`transmitter stations of the transmission region.” Ex. SAM10l5, col. 2, 1] 9.
`
`FIG. 1a shows that Saalfrank’s
`
`lurali
`
`of carrier si nals—labeled ‘l,’ ‘2,’ ‘3,’
`
`‘m-2,’ ‘m-1,’ and ‘m’ below—are in a frequency range with bandwidth ‘B’ (i.e.,
`
`a plurality of carrier signals within the desired freguency) (emphases added
`
`throughout).
`
`
`
`NY 245347838v2
`
`

`
`Based upon the figure and its description, as described by Dr. Kakaes,
`
`Saalfrank discloses a plurality of transmitters that each simultaneously transmit
`
`a plurality of carrier signals within the desired frequency band. See Ex.
`
`SAM1015, col. 2, 1} 9; see also Kakaes Decl. at 1[ 25.
`
`Saalfrank also discloses that “individual carriers are each modulated with
`
`one part of the digital data.” In other words, like in the ’2 10 patent, each of the
`
`transmitted Saalfrank carrier signals represent a portion of the information
`
`signal substantially not represented by others of the plurality of carrier signals.
`
`See Ex. SAMl0l5, col. 2, 1] 9; see also Kakaes Decl. at 1] 25. As described by
`
`Dr. Kakaes, Saalfrank’s information signal (i. e., the digital data of the stereo
`
`radio programs) is split into multiple and distinct “parts.” Each different “part”
`
`is used to modulate one of the multiple carrier signals. Id. FIG. la, as annotated
`
`by Dr. Kakaes, demonstrates that each of Saalfrank’s carrier signals are unique.
`
`See Kakaes Decl. at 1] 25.
`
`1“_l5art of
`Programs
`
`F'F!3E:f I
`_Program$ _
`
`Programs
`
`H‘-1'
`
`' Part 0*}
`
`NY245347838v2
`
`

`
`Finally, Saalfrank describes “the modulation content of the individual
`
`carriers” as being “identical for all transmitter stations of the transmission
`
`region.” Ex. SAMl0l5, col. 2, 1] 9; see also Kakaes Decl. at 11 26. In fact,
`
`Saalfrank discloses that, “[i]n order to ensure a flawless common-wave
`
`operation within a transmission region it is mandatory that all carrier
`
`frequencies used for transmitting programs or data are impinged with
`
`respectively identical modulation content.” Ex. SAM1015, col. 3, 1] 3; see also
`
`Kakaes Decl. at 1] 26. As described by Dr. Kakaes, one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have understood this to mean that each of the plurality of transmitters
`
`in a region of Saalfrank’s system transmits the same set of carrier signals,
`
`previously illustrated in the annotation of FIG. 1a above. See Kakaes Decl. atfil
`
`26. In other words, “all transmitters” Within a particular region of Saalfrank’s
`
`system—that is, at least a first and a second transmitter——transmit carrier
`
`signals corresponding to and representing substantially the same information
`
`as the carrier signals transmitted by the other transmitters in the same region, as
`
`required by the ’210 patent. See id. The geographically separated transmitters
`
`transmit the claimed carrier signals in simulcast, just as in the claims of the ’210
`
`patent.
`
`As a result, Saalfrank anticipates independent claims 1 and 10 as well as
`
`dependent claims 7-8 and 15-17 of the ’2l0 patent.
`
`NY 245347838v2
`
`16
`
`

`
`1.
`
`Claim 1
`
`(A.) A multi—carrier simulcast transmission system for transmitting in a
`
`desiredfrequency band at least one message contained in an information signal,
`
`the system comprising:
`
`As generally explained above, Saalfrank discloses a multi-carrier
`
`simulcast
`
`system. Specifically, Saalfrank’s
`
`system includes “transmitter
`
`stations” that “simultaneously emit transmission signals .
`
`.
`
`. on the very same
`
`transmission frequency and/or the same carrier freguencies.” Ex. SAMl015,
`
`col.
`
`1,
`
`11 4 (emphasis
`
`added). The multi-carrier
`
`transmission method
`
`implemented by the Saalfrank system is COFDM. See Kakaes Decl. at 1] 20; Ex.
`
`SAMl015, col. 1, 1] 4 (“the so called COFDM-method (Coded Orthogonal
`
`Frequency Division Multiplex) is provided as the transmission procedure .
`
`.
`
`. .”).
`
`Saalfrank further discloses “a plurality of individual carriers” that can be
`
`“impinged with a 4DPSK-modulation (DPSK—Differential Phase Shift Keying)”
`
`Ex. SAMl015, col. 1, ‘ll 4 (emphasis added).
`
`(B.) afirst transmitter configured to transmit afirstplurality ofcarrier
`
`signals within the desiredfrequency band, each ofthefirstplurality ofcarrier
`
`signals representing a portion ofthe information signal substantially not
`
`represented by others ofthefirstplurality ofcarrier signals; and
`
`Regarding a “first transmitter,” Saalfrank describes a “nationwide”
`
`communication network with multiple, discrete transmission regions, with
`
`NY 245347838v2
`
`17
`
`

`
`multiple transmitters per region. See Ex. SAM1015, col. 2, 11 1; see also Kakaes
`
`Decl. at 11 26. Saalfrank discloses that “all transmitter stations simultaneously
`
`emit transmission signals with the same modulation content on the very same
`
`transmission frequency and/or the same carrier frequencies.” Ex. SAM1015, col.
`
`1, 1] 4 (emphasis added). Accordingly, Saalfrank discloses at least a first
`
`transmitter configured to transmit carrier signals. See Kakaes Decl. at 1] 26.
`
`Next, with regard to multicarrier transmission, Saalfrank describes that its
`
`transmitters, including the “first transmitter,” are configured to transmit a
`
`plurality of carrier signals within the desired frequency band, as claimed. See
`
`Kakaes Decl. at 11 21. For example, Saalfrank discloses that “|w|ithin the
`
`channel bandwidth available here a pluralifl of individual carriers (e.g.,
`
`448 carrier frequencies equidistantly spaced over the frequency axis) is
`
`impinged [i.e., modulated] with a 4-DPSK-modulation.” Ex. SAM1015, col. 1,
`
`11 4 (emphasis added); see also Kakaes Decl. at fi[ 21.
`
`Finally, with respect to a first plurality of carrier signals representing a
`
`portion of the information signal substantially not represented by others of the
`
`first plurality of carrier signals, Saalfrank describes that “[t]he individual
`
`carriers are each modulated with one part of the digital data, with the
`
`modulation content of the individual carriers being identical for all transmitter
`
`stations of the .
`
`.
`
`. region.” Ex. SAM1015, col. 2, 1] 9 (emphasis added)