throbber
Paper No. _
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd.
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 5,659,891
`Issued: August 19, 1997
`Filed: June 7, 1995
`Inventors: William D. Hays, Dennis Cameron, Walter Roehr
`Title: MULTICARRIER TECHNIQUES IN BANDLIMITED CHANNELS
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2015-01727
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`NY245347835v4
`
`

`
`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.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Single mask-defined, bandlimited channel (Claims 1, 3, and
`5) ....................................................................................... .. 5
`
`Plurality of transmitters (Claim 5) ...................................... ..5
`
`Transmitter(s) (Claim 5) .................................................... .. 6
`
`Band edge (Claims 1, 3, and 5) .......................................... ..7
`
`Each adjacent carrier (Claims 1, 3, and 5) .......................... .. 8
`
`Operating a plurality of paging carriers / operating at least
`two paging carriers (Claims 1 and 3) ................................. .. 8
`
`IV.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’891 PATENT .................................................... ..9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Brief Description .......................................................................... ..9
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’891 Patent ............. .. 10
`
`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 ’891 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ......................................... ..10
`
`A.
`
`[GROUND 1] — Cimini in View of the Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Renders Claims 1-4 Obvious ..................................................... .. 11
`
`NY245347835v4
`
`ii
`
`

`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 1 ............................................................................ .. 14
`
`Claim 2 ............................................................................ .. 17
`
`Claim 3 ............................................................................ .. 18
`
`Claim 4 ............................................................................ .. 21
`
`B.
`
`[GROUND 2] — Cimini in View of Raith and Alakija Renders
`Claim 5 Obvious ........................................................................ ..22
`
`VI. REDUNDANCY ................................................................................. .. 32
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................... .. 32
`
`NY 245347835v4
`
`iii
`
`

`
`EXHIBITS
`
`SAM1001 — U.S. Patent 5,659,891 to Hays et al., filed June 7, 1995
`
`SAM1002 — 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 — Apple Inc. v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC,
`Case IPR20l4-01035, Decision on Institution of Inter Partes Review (Jan. 22,
`
`2015)
`
`SAM1005 — Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC V. T-Mobile USA,
`Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-00886—JRG-RSP, Claim Construction
`Memorandum and Order (Jan. 23, 2015)
`
`SAMl006 — 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)
`
`SAMl007 — 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“‘ed.1992)
`
`SAMIOO9 — 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)
`
`SAM101l — 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)
`
`SAM1012 — Prosecution History of U.S. Patent 5,659,891 to Hays et al., filed
`June 7, 1995
`
`NY 245347835v4
`
`iv
`
`

`
`SAM1013 — Leonard J. Cimini, Analysis and Simulation of a Digital Mobile
`Channel Using Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing, 33 IEEE
`Transactions on Communications 665 (Jul. 1985)
`
`SAM1014 ~ International Patent WO 89/08355 to Raith et al., filed Feb. 8, 1989
`
`SAM101 5 — C. Alakija and S. P. Stapleton, A Mobile Base Station Phased
`Array Antenna, 1992 IEEE International Conference on Selected Topics in
`Wireless Communications 118 (Jun. 1992)
`
`NY245347835v4
`
`

`
`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 1-5 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 5,659,891 (the “’89l
`
`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 ’891 Patent.
`
`The ’891 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 (ED. 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 Technologies, 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 245347835v4
`
`

`
`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 ’891 patent: Apple Inc. v.
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (IPR2014-01035) (filed June
`
`27, 2014) (hereinafter, the “Apple IPR”); and T-Mobile USA Inc. V. Mobile
`
`Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (IPR2015-00018) (filed October 3,
`
`2014) (hereinafter, the “T-Mobile IPR”). Petitioner has reviewed the IPR
`
`Petitions of Apple and T-Mobile and, in the instant Petition, challenges the ’891
`
`Patent on the same grounds.
`
`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. 1\/Ir. 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 “Off1ce”) to
`
`charge Deposit Account No. 50-2775 for the fee set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for
`
`NY 245347835v4
`
`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 ’891 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 of when 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. SAM1002.
`
`B.
`
`Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) and Relief
`Requested
`
`Samsung requests IPR of the Challenged Claims of the ’891 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 detailed description that
`
`follows. Citations in support of each ground are to the declaration of Dr.
`
`Apostolos (Paul) Kakaes, EX. SAM1003 (“Kakaes Decl.”).
`
`NY 245347835v4
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Ground
`’891 Patent Claims Basis for Rejection
`
`§ 103 based on Cimini in view ofthe
` § 103 based on Cimini in View ofRaith and
`
`
`
`Alakija
`
`ordina
`
`skill in the art
`
`The ’891 patent issued from Application No. 08/480,718 filed on June 7,
`
`1995. The ’891 patent does not claim priority to any previous applications.
`
`Cimini, Raith, and Alakija each qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b). They were each published more than one year prior to the ’891 patent’s
`
`June 7, 1995 priority date. They were all considered in instituting the Apple and
`
`T—Mobile IPRS.
`
`C.
`
`Claim Construction under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(B)(3)
`
`The ’891 Patent expired on June 7, 2015. 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
`
`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 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 now the Phillips
`
`framework because the ’891 patent has now expired. Nevertheless, applying the
`
`NY245347835v4
`
`

`
`Phillips standard should have no impact in considering and instituting
`
`Samsung’s Petition because the relevant claims deserve the same scope under
`
`Phillips as they did under BRI.
`
`The following claim terms should be construed as set forth below.
`
`1.
`
`Single mask-defined, bandlimited channel (Claims 1, 3,
`and 5)
`
`Independent claims 1, 3, and 5 recite a “single mask-defined, bandlimited
`
`channel.” Petitioner agrees with the construction that the Board adopted under
`
`the BRI standard in instituting the Apple and T—Mobile IPRs: “single mask-
`
`defined, bandlimited channel” to mean “a channel confined to a frequency
`
`range.” See Ex. SAMIOO4 at 8.
`
`The district court applying the Phillips standard has already construed
`
`this term identically to how the Board construed it in the Apple and T—Mobile
`
`IPRs. See Ex. SAMl005 at 30. Indeed, the Patent Owner has also agreed to this
`
`construction in district court proceedings. See Ex. SAMIOO6 at 76. For purposes
`
`of this PTO proceeding, Petitioner proposes that a ‘‘single mask-defined,
`
`bandlimited channel” be construed to mean “a channel confined to a frequency
`
`range.”
`
`2.
`
`Plurality of transmitters (Claim 5)
`
`Independent claim 5 recites a “plurality of transmitters.” Petitioner
`
`agrees with the construction that the Board adopted under the BRI standard in
`
`instituting the Apple and T—Mobile IPRs: a “plurality of transmitters” to mean
`
`NY245347835v4
`
`5
`
`

`
`“at least two transmitters.” See Ex. SAM1004 at 8. Moreover, Patent Owner has
`
`agreed to this construction in its district court proceedings. See Ex. SAM1007 at
`
`39; Ex. SAM1006 at 76.
`
`Thus, for purposes of this PTO proceeding, Petitioner proposes that a
`
`“plurality of transmitters” means “at least two transmitters.”
`
`3.
`
`Transmitter(s) (Claim 5)
`
`Independent claim 5 recites “transmitters.” In the Samsung Litigation,
`
`Samsung has requested the court to construe a transmitter separately as “a
`
`structural unit for generating and modulating a signal to be transmitted?” This
`
`construction is consistent with the understanding of person of skill in the art and
`
`is supported by both the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence. See Ex. SAM1001 at
`
`2:50-53; see also e. g., Ex. SAMl008, p. 1902 (“Transmitter”); Ex. SAMIOO9, p.
`
`1140 (“Transmitter (2) (radio)”); Ex. SAMl010, p. 1644 (“radio transmitter”). It
`
`is also consistent with the Court’s ruling in Clearwire where the Court found
`
`that transmitting multiple signals or outputs from a single structural unit is @
`
`itself sufficient to constitute a plurality of transmitters. See Ex. SAMl0l1 at 5;
`
`see also, Ex. SAMl0O6 at 10 (adopting Clearwire constructions); Ex.
`
`SAM1005 at 11 (same); Ex. SAM1007 at 10 (same). Petitioner thus proposes
`
`1 Patent Owner has claimed that the term “transmitter” be given its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning. See Ex. SAM1007 at 8.
`
`NY 245347835v4
`
`

`
`that transmitter(s) be construed as “structural unit(s) for generating and
`
`modulating a signal to be transmitted.”
`
`4.
`
`Band edge (Claims 1, 3, and 5)
`
`Independent claims 1, 3, and 5 recite the limitation, “band edge.” In the
`
`Samsung Litigation, Petitioner has asserted that this term is indefinite because
`
`the patent does not disclose which point or points along the emission mask is
`
`the claimed band edge. In prior IPR proceedings, however, the Board found that
`
`this term can be construed for the purposes of IPR proceedings as: “a band edge
`
`of the single mask-defined, bandlimited channel.” See Ex. SAM1004 at 9.
`
`Petitioner has applied the Board’s prior construction in its analyses here.
`
`Petitioner notes that in the Samsung Litigation, Patent Owner newly
`
`alleges that “band edge” be construed as “innermost frequencies at which the
`
`mask requires attenuation of the signal.” Patent Owner has not identified any
`
`intrinsic evidence supporting such a construction.
`
`Moreover, to the extent that the Patent Owner means that the “band edge”
`
`is the innermost frequency at which there must be attenuation, this construction
`
`is wrong because it excludes preferred embodiments. For example, in Figure
`
`5A of the patent, the innermost frequency at which there must be attenuation is,
`
`at best, 6990 MHz (which corresponds to the end of the flat part at 0 dB). The
`
`center frequencies of this two carrier system are at +/- 4590 Hz. Ex. SAM100l
`
`at 4:56-64. Because the two carriers are spaced 4590 from 0 Hz in both
`
`NY 245347835v4
`
`

`
`directions, half the distance between them is 4590 Hz ((4590 - (-4590))/2).
`
`According to the claims, this number (4590 Hz) must be smaller than the
`
`distance between the outermost carrier and the band edge which, in this case is,
`
`at best, 2400 Hz. 4590 Hz is n_0t smaller than 2400 Hz. The embodiments
`
`disclosed by Figures 6A and 7A suffer from the same shortcoming. It is clear
`
`that the Patent Owner’s proposed construction excludes multiple preferred
`
`embodiments and, therefore, cannot be correct.
`
`5.
`
`Each adjacent carrier (Claims 1, 3, and 5)
`
`Independent claims 1, 3, and 5 recite the limitation, “each adjacent
`
`carrier.” In the Apple IPR, Patent Owner asserted that the term “each adjacent
`
`carrier” be construed as “every single carrier, two of which having a common
`
`endpoint or border.” See Ex. SAM1004 at 9. That proposed construction was
`
`rejected and the Board construed this term to have its plain and ordinary
`
`meaning in the context of the Specification, to mean — “next to.” Ex. SAM1004
`
`at 11. Moreover, in the Samsung Litigation, Petitioner and Patent Owner agree
`
`that this term be given its plain and ordinary meaning. Thus, for purposes of this
`
`PTO proceeding, Petitioner proposes that “each adjacent carrier” to have its
`
`plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`6.
`
`Operating a plurality of paging carriers / operating at
`least two paging carriers (Claims 1 and 3)
`
`Independent claims 1 and 3 require “operating a plurality of paging
`
`carriers” and “operating at least two paging carriers” respectively. Petitioner
`
`NY245347835v4
`
`8
`
`

`
`advances that these phrases be construed to mean that the claims require signals
`
`carrying “paging information.” Petitioner’s proposed construction is “operating
`
`two or more transmission signals that are modulated to carry paging
`
`information.”
`
`On the other hand, Patent Owner has proposed a broader construction in
`
`the pending litigation, arguing that the signal merely needs to be capable of
`
`carrying paging carriers. This is inconsistent with the plain language of the
`
`claim which explicitly requires operating “paging carriers” and excludes
`
`operating other types of carriers. See Ex. SAM1001 at 624-24, Claims 1 and 3.
`
`Petitioner has applied the more narrow and appropriate construction it
`
`proposes in the analysis below, but understands that even if Patent Owner’s
`
`construction were adopted the analysis would still apply because Patent
`
`Owner’s proposed construction is broader.
`
`IV.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’891 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Brief Description
`
`In general, the ’89l patent relates to operating more than one carrier
`
`within a single channel. The Abstract of the ’891 patent states:
`
`A method of multicarrier modulation using co-located transmitters
`
`to achieve higher transmission capacity for mobile paging and two-
`
`way digital communication in a manner consistent with FCC
`
`emission mask limits. Co-location of the transmitters obviates the
`
`need for stringent, symmetrical subchannel interference protection
`
`and provides for a wider range of operating parameters, including
`
`NY 245347835v4
`
`9
`
`

`
`peak frequency deviation, bit rate, and carrier frequencies,
`
`to
`
`obtain optimal transmission performance.
`
`The ’891 patent includes 5 claims, three of which are independent claims:
`
`claims 1, 3, and 5.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’891 Patent
`
`The ’891 patent issued on August 19, 1997 from U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 08/480,718, which was filed on June 7, 1995 with original claims 1-8, of
`
`which claims 1, 3, and 5 were independent. See Ex. SAM1012, pp. 47-48.
`
`In the first Office Action, the Examiner immediately allowed claims 1
`
`and 2, rejected claims 3 and 4 solely under 35 U.S.C. 112, rejected claims 5-7
`
`based on U.S. Patent No. 3,488,445, and objected to claim 8 as being allowable
`
`if rewritten in independent format. In particular, the Office Action noted:
`
`As to claims 1, 3 and 8, the frequency difference between the
`
`center frequency of the outer most carriers and the band edge of the
`
`mask is greater than half the frequency difference between the
`
`center
`
`frequencies of each adjacent carrier,
`
`is not
`
`taught or
`
`suggested in the prior art of record.
`
`Ex. SAM1012, p. 96.
`
`The Applicant amended claim 3 to overcome the section 112 rejection,
`
`rewrote claim 8 in independent form to include the features of independent
`
`claim 5, and eventually cancelled rejected claims 5-7.
`
`V. MANNER OF APPLYING CITED PRIOR ART TO EACH
`
`CLAIM FOR WHICH AN IPR IS REQUESTED, THUS
`ESTABLISHING A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT
`
`NY 245347835v4
`
`10
`
`

`
`LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE ’891 PATENT IS
`
`UNPATENTABLE.
`
`The references presented in this Section demonstrate that the limitations
`
`of claims 1-5 were known in the art and therefore establish a reasonable
`
`likelihood that at least independent claims 1, 3, and 5 are unpatentable.
`
`As more fully described below, Cimini discloses that the frequency
`
`difference between the center frequency of the outer most carriers and the band
`
`edge of the mask is greater than half the frequency difference between the
`
`center frequencies of each adjacent carrier, together with the other features of
`
`the claims for which an IPR is being sought.
`
`A.
`
`[GROUND 1] — Cimini in view of the Ordinary Skill in the
`Art Renders Claims 1-4 Obvious
`
`Cimini describes “a digital mobile channel using orthogonal frequency
`
`division multiplexing.” Ex. SAM1013, p. 1, Title. In particular, Cimini
`
`describes that, “[i]n a conventional serial data system, the symbols are
`
`transmitted sequentially, with the frequency spectrum of each data symbol
`
`allowed to occupy the entire available bandwidth.” Ex. SAM1013, p. 1, § 1.
`
`Cimini then describes the limitations of these serial systems: e. g. , “[d]ue to the
`
`bursty nature of the Rayleigh channel, several adjacent symbols may be
`
`completely destroyed during a fade.” See Ex. SAM1013, p. 1, § 1.
`
`Cimini further teaches that “[a] parallel or multiplexed data system offers
`
`possibilities for alleviating many of the problems encountered with serial
`
`NY 245347835v4
`
`11
`
`

`
`systems.” Ex. SAMl013, p. 1, § 1. In a parallel data system, the total signal
`
`frequency band is divided into N fiequency subchannels. See Ex. SAM1013, p.
`
`1, § 1. “Each subchannel is modulated with a separate symbol and, then, the N
`
`subchannels are frequency multiplexed.” Ex. SAM1013, p. 1, § 1. To efficiently
`
`use the bandwidth in a parallel system, Cimini teaches that “the spectra of the
`
`individual subchannels are permitted to overlap, with specific orthogonality
`
`constraints imposed to facilitate separation of the subchannels at the receiver.”
`
`Ex. SAMl013, p. 1, § 1. Cimini further specifies that the spectra in which the
`
`parallel systems operate are “strictly band-limited.” See Ex. SAMl013, p. 3, §
`
`2(A). Such multiplexed signals may be transmitted from a transmitter system,
`
`such as the one shown in Fig. 1(a). See Ex. SAM1013, p. 2, § II(A).
`
`Recognizing that the transmission channel can distort the signal, Cimini
`
`proposes adding pilot signals to the transmitted signal to correct fading. See Ex.
`
`SAMl013, pp. 3-4, § II(C). “Pilot-based correction provides an amplitude and
`
`phase reference which can be used to counteract the unwanted effects of
`
`multipath propagation.” Ex. SAM1013, p. 4, § II(C). To reduce distortion of
`
`these pilots due to co-channel interference, Cimini describes implementing “a
`
`separation between the pilot tone and its neighboring information components.”
`
`Ex. SAMl013, p. 8, § III(B). Cimini describes inserting the pilot signals into
`
`specific positions within the output multiplexed signal, in between sets of data
`
`subcarriers. See Ex. SAMl013, p. 8, § III(B). Specifically, Cimini discloses “a
`
`NY 245347835v4
`
`12
`
`

`
`200Hz spacing between the pilot frequency and the nearest data subcarrier.” See
`
`Ex. SAM1013, p. 8, § III(B).
`
`To transmit the resulting orthogonal frequency division multiplexed
`
`(“OFDM”) data signal, Cimini proposes using a 7.5 kHz channel. See Ex.
`
`SAM1013, p. 8, § III(B). Because Cimini describes this channel as a 7.5 kHz
`
`“data window” (Ex. SAM1013, p. 8, § III(B)) and specifies that the spectra is
`
`“strictly band-limited” (Ex. SAM1013, p. 3, § II(A)), one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would understand the channel described by Cimini to be mask-defined and
`
`bandlimited. See Kakaes Decl., ‘ll 21. The OFDM signal that is transmitted
`
`within this 7.5 kHz mask-defined, bandlimited channel is illustrated in the
`
`following annotated version of Fig. 10 (Figure 13 below).
`
`:7
`
`E
`
`COCHANNEL mLoTs
`
`Figure 13: Annotation of Fig. 10 from Cimini.
`
`See Kakaes Decl., 1] 21.
`
`Within this OFDM signal, Cimini describes “[s]acrificing two bands of
`
`1000 Hz each for pilot protection and 250 Hz at either end for adjacent channel
`
`interference protection” (i. e., two 250 Hz guard bands). Cimini also describes
`
`pilot and data carriers spaced 58.59 Hz apart. See Ex. SAMl0l3, p. 9, § III(C).
`
`NY245347835v4
`
`13
`
`.(‘L1-T-7.5kHz(250R1-_&21km4-1ki~iu-3kHz«&1kHz&1kHz4~250Haj
`250/41: mm: 1/ma
`!y'kHz
`/-13H: yum: ‘250 Hz
`'
`Qata
`Dam
`Piiot
`gm‘,
`\
`subcarrigrs
`subcarriers
`S¥gnals
`sugca rriem _.
`‘-._
`utiarulisand
`PILOTS FOR ossmso SIGNAL
`‘tau.-arcieané
`
`‘in:
`
`1
`
`Fig. 10- Data setup used in simulations.
`
`

`
`In other words, Cimini describes a transmitted OFDM signal in which the
`
`frequency difference between the center frequency of the outer most of the
`
`carriers and the band edge of the mask defining the channel (i. e., at least 250 Hz)
`
`is more than half the frequency difference between the center frequencies of
`
`each adjacent carrier (i. e., 0.5 * 58.59 Hz = 29.30 Hz).
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1
`
`(A.) A method ofoperating a plurality ofpaging carriers in a single
`
`maskdefined, bandlimited channel comprising the step of
`
`Cimini describes a plurality of carriers: “A parallel system is one in
`
`which several sequential streams of data are transmitted simultaneously, so that
`
`at any instant many data elements are being transmitted. In such a system, the
`
`spectrum of an individual data element normally occupies only a small part of
`
`the available bandwidth. In a classical parallel data system, the total signal
`
`frequency band is divided into N .
`
`.
`
`. frequency subchannels. Each subchannel
`
`is modulated with a separate svmbol and. then. the N subchannels are
`
`freguency multiplexed.” Ex. SAM1013, p. 1, § I (emphasis added). “The N
`
`serial data elements (spaced by At = 1/fs, wheref, is the symbol rate) modulate
`
`N subcarrier freguencies, which are then frequency division multiplexed.” See
`
`Ex. SAM10l3, p. 2, § II(A) (emphasis added).
`
`Cimini describes that the channel in which the plurality of data carriers
`
`are transmitted is a 7.5 kHz “data window” (Ex. SAM10l3, p. 8, § III(B)) and
`
`NY 245347835v4
`
`14
`
`

`
`specifies that the spectra is “strictly band-limited” (Ex. SAM1013, p. 8, § II(A)),
`
`which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand as being mask-defined
`
`and bandlimited. See Kakaes Decl., 1[ 21.
`
`To the extent Cimini, which is directed to signal transmissions in mobile
`
`networks generally, does not disclose “paging carriers,” it would have been
`
`obvious to operate “paging carriers” in the Cimini network in view of the
`
`ordinary skill and knowledge in the art. Id. Cimini teaches a transmission
`
`network for a “narrow-band digital mobile channel.” Ex. SAMl013, p. 1,
`
`Abstract. At the time of Cimini (1985) and at the time of the ’891 priority date,
`
`one of the most well-known devices for operation in a “narrow-band digital
`
`mobile channel” was a pager which necessarily receives “paging carriers.” Id.
`
`A person of skill in the art would have known how to implement “paging
`
`carriers” in the Cimini network. Id.
`
`Indeed, the ’89l patent itself admits that paging networks were
`
`experiencing “rising popularity” at the time the patent was filed. Ex. SAM1001
`
`at 1:10-14. The ’89l patent also explains that paging carriers are transmitted
`
`over “narrow bandwidths,” just like the generic carriers in Cimini. Ex.
`
`SAM1001 at 1:23-25.
`
`(B.) transmitting said carriers from the same location with said carriers
`
`having centerfrequencies within said channel
`
`NY245347835v4
`
`15
`
`

`
`Cimini describes carriers having center frequencies within the channel:
`
`“A parallel system is one in which several sequential streams of data are
`
`transmitted simultaneously, so that at any instant many data elements are being
`
`transmitted. In such a system, the spectrum of an individual data element
`
`normally occupies only a small part of the available bandwidth. In a classical
`
`parallel data system, the total signal frequency band is divided into N .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`frequency subchannels. Each subchannel is modulated with a separate
`
`svmbol and. then. the N subchannels are freguencv multiplexed.” Ex.
`
`SAM1013, p. 1, § 1 (emphasis added). “[T]he subcarrier frequencies are
`
`separated by multiples of 1/T so that, with no signal distortion in transmission,
`
`the coherent detection of a signal element in any one subchannel of the parallel
`
`system gives no output for a received element in any other subchannel.” Ex.
`
`SAM1013, p. 2, § II(A). Moreover, “[t]he subcarriers are uniformly spaced .
`
`.
`
`. .”
`
`Ex. SAM1013, p. 3, § II(A). Accordingly, the center frequencies of the carriers
`
`are within the channel. See Kakaes Decl., 111] 20-22.
`
`Cimini describes a transmitter structure in Fig. 1(a) capable of
`
`transmitting the multiplexed signal. See Ex. SAM1013, p. 2, § II(A); see also
`
`Kakaes Decl., 111] 19, 23. A plurality of carriers transmitted from a single
`
`transmitter system are transmitted from the same location. See Kakaes Decl., 11
`
`22.
`
`NY 245347835v4
`
`16
`
`

`
`(C.) such that the frequency dijference between the centerfrequency of
`
`the outer most ofsaid carriers and the band edge ofthe mask defining said
`
`channel is more than half the frequency difference between the center
`
`frequencies of each adjacent carrier.
`
`Cimini describes carriers spaced with “Af= 58.59 Hz.” Sacrificing two
`
`bands of 1000 Hz each for pilot protection and 250 Hz at either end for adjacent
`
`channel interference protection leaves space for 86 data channels and a
`
`bandwidth efficiency of B = 0.57 log M bits/s/Hz. For QPSK, this corresponds
`
`to a maximum data rate of 8.6 kbits/s.” Ex. SAMl013, p. 9, § III(C).
`
`As shown in the above annotated version of Fig. 10 (Figure 13 above),
`
`this results in the frequency difference between the center frequency of the outer
`
`most of the carriers and the band edge of the mask defining the channel (i. e., at
`
`least 250 Hz) being more than half the frequency difference between the center
`
`frequencies of each adjacent carrier (i. e., 0.5 * 58.59 Hz = 29.30 Hz). See
`
`Kakaes Decl., 111] 21-22.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 2
`
`The method ofclaim 1 wherein adjacent carriers overlap with each other.
`
`Cimini describes: “A more efficient use of bandwidth can be obtained
`
`with a parallel system if the spectra of the individual subchannels are
`
`permitted to overlap, with specific orthogonality constraints imposed to
`
`NY 245347835v4
`
`17
`
`

`
`facilitate separation of the subchannels at the receiver.” Ex. SAM1013, p. 1, § I
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`3.
`
`Claim 3
`
`(A.) A method ofoperating at least two paging carriers each in a
`
`corresponding subchannel ofa single mask-defined, bandlimited channel
`
`comprising the step of
`
`Cimini describes a plurality of carriers: “A parallel system is one in
`
`which several sequential streams of data are transmitted simultaneously, so that
`
`at any instant many data elements are being transmitted. In such a system, the
`
`spectrum of an individual data element normally occupies only a small part of
`
`the available bandwidth. In a classical parallel data system, the total signal
`
`frequency band is divided into N .
`
`.
`
`. frequency subchannels. Each subchannel
`
`is modulated with a separate svmbol and, then, the N subchannels are
`
`freguencv multiplexed.” Ex. SAM1013, p. 1, § I (emphasis added). “The N
`
`serial data elements (spaced by At = 1/fs, wheref, is the symbol rate) modulate
`
`N subcarrier freguencies, which are then frequency division multiplexed.” See
`
`EX. SAM1013, p. 2, § II(A) (emphasis added).
`
`Cimini describes that the channel in which the plurality of data carriers
`
`are transmitted is a 7.5 kHz “data window” (Ex. SAM1013, p. 8, § III(B)) and
`
`specifies that the spectra is “strictly band-limited” (Ex. SAM1013, p. 8, § II(A)),
`
`NY245347835v4
`
`18
`
`

`
`which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand as being mask-defined
`
`and bandlimited. See Kakaes Decl., 1] 21.
`
`To the extent Cimini, which is directed to signal transmissions in mobile
`
`networks generally, does not inherently disclose “paging carriers,” it would
`
`have been obvious to operate “paging carriers” in the Cimini network in View of
`
`the ordinary skill and knowledge in the art. See Kakaes Decl., 1] 24. Cimini
`
`teaches a transmission network for a “narrow-band digital mobile channel.” Ex.
`
`SAM1013, p. 1, Abstract. At the time of Cimini (1985) and at the time of
`
`the ’891 priority date, one of the most well-known devices for operation in a
`
`“narrow-band digital mobile channel” was a pager which necessarily receives
`
`“paging carriers.” Id. A person of skill in the art would have known how to
`
`implement “pagin

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket