`
`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