throbber
Paper No. 12
`Entered: September 16, 2016
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ZTE (USA) INC., HTC CORPORATION, and
`HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`EVOLVED WIRELESS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00758
`Patent 8,218,481 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, PETER P. CHEN, and
`TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00758
`Patent 8,218,481 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`ZTE (USA) Inc., HTC Corporation, and HTC America, Inc.,
`(collectively, “ZTE”) filed a Petition requesting an inter partes review of
`claims 1–4, 6, 8–11, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 8,218,481 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the
`‘481 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Evolved Wireless, LLC, the assignee of the
`‘481 patent, filed a Preliminary Response to the Petition. Paper 9 (“Prelim.
`Resp.”).
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be
`instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and any
`Preliminary Response shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the
`petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in
`the petition.” Taking into account the information presented, we conclude
`the record establishes there is a reasonable likelihood that ZTE will prevail
`with respect to at least one of the challenged claims of the ‘481 patent.
`Accordingly, we institute trial as set forth below.
`A. Related Matters
`We are informed that the ‘481 patent has been asserted in several
`actions, captioned Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Apple, Inc., C.A. 15-cv-542 (D.
`Del.); Evolved Wireless, LLC v. HTC Corp., C.A. 15-cv-543 (D. Del.);
`Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Lenovo Group Ltd., C.A. 15-cv-544 (D. Del.);
`Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., C.A. 15-cv-545 (D.
`Del.); Evolved Wireless, LLC v. ZTE Corp., C.A. 15-cv-546 (D. Del.); and
`Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., C.A. 15-cv-547 (D. Del.). Pet. 1.
`The ‘481 patent is also the subject of IPR2016–00981, filed May 2, 2016, in
`which a decision regarding institution of trial has not yet been rendered.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00758
`Patent 8,218,481 B2
`
`
`B. The ‘481 Patent
`The ‘481 patent is titled, “Method of Transmitting Data in a Mobile
`Communication System.” Ex. 1001 (54). It issued on July 10, 2012, from
`U.S. Patent Application No. 12/303,947, filed on June 8, 2007, which claims
`priority from KR 10-2006-0052167, filed June 9, 2006, and KR 10-2006-
`0057488, filed June 26, 2006. Id. at (21), (22), (30), (45). According to the
`Specification, “[t]he present invention relates to a mobile communication
`system, and more particularly, to a method of expanding a code sequence, a
`structure of a random access channel and method of transmitting data in a
`mobile communication system.” Id. at 1:16–20. The disclosed methods and
`systems are alleged to increase the amount of data which can be transmitted
`to make the data transmission more robust and less susceptible to noise or
`channel change. Id. at 2:45–49. And, the invention is alleged to be
`applicable to wireless Internet systems. Id. at 18:28–30.
`The ‘481 patent contains 16 claims which are directed to the structure
`of a preamble sequence of a data transmission. Id. at 18:33–20:16.
`Independent claim 1 is directed to “[a] method of transmitting a preamble
`sequence” and independent claim 8 is directed to “[a] transmitter for
`transmitting a preamble sequence.” Id. at 18:33–42, 18:60–19:3. The
`independent claims require “repeating a specific sequence, having a length
`(L), N times to generate a consecutive sequence having a length (N*L)” and
`“concatenating a single cyclic prefix (CP) to a front end of said consecutive
`sequence.” Id. Figure 11, which illustrates the claimed preamble structure
`with a single prefix and a repeated sequence, is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00758
`Patent 8,218,481 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 11 depicts a single prefix at the front end of consecutive, repeated
`sequences. Id. at 18:46–60.
`C. The ’481 Patent Claims
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 8 are independent. Claim 1
`recites:
`A method of transmitting a preamble sequence in a
`1.
`mobile communication system, the method comprising:
`
`repeating a specific sequence, having a length (L), N times to
`generate a consecutive sequence having a length (N*L);
`
`generating said preamble sequence by concatenating a single
`cyclic prefix (CP) to a front end of said consecutive sequence;
`and
`
`transmitting, on a random access channel, said preamble
`sequence to a receiving side.
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 18:33–42. Claim 8 recites:
`
`8. A transmitter for transmitting a preamble sequence in a
`mobile communication system, the transmitter comprising:
`
` a
`
` preamble generation unit configured to generate said
`preamble sequence by repeating a specific sequence, having a
`length (L), N times to generate a consecutive sequence having a
`length (N*L) and concatenating a single cyclic prefix (CP) to a
`front end of said consecutive sequence;
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00758
`Patent 8,218,481 B2
`
`
` a
`
` transmission unit configured to transmit, on a random access
`channel, said preamble sequence to a receiving side.
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 18:60–19:3.
`
`
`
`Dependent claims 2 and 9 recite generating “said specific sequence
`from a Constant Amplitude Zero Auto Correlation (CAZAC) sequence.” Id.
`at 18:43–45, 19:4–7. Dependent claims 3 and 10 recite applying “a cyclic
`shift sequence to said specific sequence generated from said CAZAC
`sequence.” Id. at 18:46–48, 19:8–11. Dependent claims 4 and 11 recite “a
`value of said applied cyclic shift is determined as an integer multiple of a
`predetermined circular shift unit.” Id. at 18:49–51, 19:13–15. Dependent
`claims 6 and 13 recite “multiplying said specific sequence by an exponential
`sequence.” Id. at 18:54–56, 20:1–4.
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`ZTE challenges claims of the ‘481 patent on the following grounds of
`unpatentability:
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00758
`Patent 8,218,481 B2
`
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Panasonic 7922
`
`Panasonic 792 and Panasonic 1143
`
`Basis1
`
`§ 102(a), § 102(b),
`or § 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`
`Challenged
`Claims
`1, 2, 8, and 9
`
`3, 4, 10, and
`11
`6 and 13
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Panasonic 792, Panasonic 114, and
`Chu4
`
`ZTE asserts that Panasonic 792, Panasonic 114, and Chu are prior art under
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (a) and (b). Pet. 11, 13, 14. Evolved Wireless does not, at
`this stage of the proceeding, challenge the prior art status of any of the cited
`references.
`
`
`
`1 The relevant sections of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”),
`Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (September 16, 2011), took effect on
`March 16, 2013. Because the application from which the ‘481 patent issued
`was filed before that date, our citations to Title 35 are to its pre-AIA version.
`2 Panasonic, Random Access Burst Evaluation In E-UTRA Uplink, 3 GPP
`Tdoc R1-060792, TSG-RAN WG1 Meeting #44bis, Athens, Greece (March
`27–31, 2006) (Ex. 1002) (“Panasonic 792”).
`
` 3
`
` Panasonic, Random Access Design For E-UTRA Uplink, 3GPP Tdoc R1-
`061114, TSG-RAN WG1 Meeting #45, Shanghai, China (May 8–12, 2006)
`(Ex. 1003) (“Panasonic 114”).
`
` 4
`
` David C. Chu, Polyphase Codes With Good Periodic Correlation
`Properties, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 531–32 (July 1972)
`(Ex. 1004) (“Chu”).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00758
`Patent 8,218,481 B2
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`The claims of an unexpired patent subject to inter partes review
`receive the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of
`the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo
`Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). ZTE argues the
`phrase “a consecutive sequence having a length (N*L)” as recited in
`independent claims 1 and 8 should be construed as “a consecutive sequence
`having a length (N*L), that is entirely within one frame.” Pet. 21–22
`(emphasis added). ZTE’s basis for adding the limitation “that is entirely
`within one frame” is an argument submitted during prosecution of the ‘481
`patent. Pet. 22–23. Evolved Wireless does not dispute this construction.
`Prelim. Resp. 8–9. Neither party supports this construction with any
`language in the claims or the Specification.
`The argument ZTE quotes from the prosecution history to support
`adding the limitation “that is entirely within one frame” to the claims relates
`to a reference known as Jung:
`As illustrated in annotated FIG. 2 of Jung, the preamble
`sequences do not form a consecutive sequence, rather, the
`preamble sequences are repeated in different frames. For
`example, the preamble sequence #2 is split between two frames,
`and therefore, since the preamble sequence #2 is split between
`two frames, the preamble sequence #2 is not a consecutive
`sequence.
`
`
`Pet. 22–23 (quoting ‘481 patent file history at 546 (Ex. 1005)). ZTE also
`refers to Figure 2 of Jung as annotated by applicants, which is reproduced
`below.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00758
`Patent 8,218,481 B2
`
`
`
`
`Pet. 22. Figure 2 of Jung depicts the preamble sequence structure in a
`mobile communication system. ZTE argues, “the applicant made it clear
`that the claimed ‘consecutive sequence’ does not span multiple frames.” Id.
`at 23. We disagree that the applicant’s argument was as clear as ZTE
`suggests, and are not persuaded to import a “does not span multiple frames”
`limitation into the construction. For example, we note that the applicant
`distinguished the prior art because “[t]he preamble sequence is repeated
`between frames and is not consecutive,” implying that a sequence spanning
`a frame is different from whether it is consecutive. See Ex. 1005, 541–547
`(emphasis added). We consider applicant’s argument, based on the term
`“consecutive sequence” which already appears in the claims, as consistent
`with the language of the claims without the proposed added limitation.
`Aside from this prosecution history argument, neither ZTE nor Evolved
`Wireless points to any language in the claims or Specification of the ‘481
`patent that supports construing “a consecutive sequence, having a length
`(N*L)” as “a consecutive sequence, having a length (N*L), that is entirely
`within one frame.”
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00758
`Patent 8,218,481 B2
`
`
`We do not adopt the construction of “a consecutive sequence having a
`length (N*L)” with the added limitation, “that is entirely within one frame.”
`Based on the information in the Petition, ZTE has not persuaded us that the
`broadest reasonable construction includes this added limitation.
`At this stage in these proceedings, therefore, we do not agree the
`phrase “a consecutive sequence having a length (N*L),” or any other term or
`phrase in the challenged claims, requires an express construction.
`B. Asserted Anticipation of Claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 by Panasonic 792
`ZTE challenges independent claims 1 and 8 and dependent claims 2
`and 9 as anticipated by Panasonic 792. Pet. 23–32. ZTE relies on
`paragraphs 55–82 of the Declaration of Paul S. Min, Ph.D. (Ex. 1014) in
`support of this challenge. Id. Evolved Wireless argues the Petition and the
`Min declaration fail to establish Panasonic 792 discloses a consecutive
`sequence within one frame. Prelim. Resp. 12–14. We are persuaded, based
`on the information before us, there is a reasonable likelihood ZTE will
`prevail in showing anticipation of claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 by Panasonic 792.
`1. Panasonic 792 (Ex. 1002)
`Panasonic 792 is a paper titled, “Random Access Burst Evaluation In
`E-UTRA Uplink.” Ex. 1002, 1. ZTE asserts Panasonic 792 is prior art
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (b). Pet. 11. Evolved Wireless
`acknowledges Panasonic 792 is “a submission from Panasonic for a meeting
`occurring on March 27-31, 2006 as part of the process of developing the
`Long Term Evolution (‘LTE’) mobile communications standard.” Prelim.
`Resp. 7–8. Panasonic 792 was not cited during prosecution of the patent
`application from which the ‘481 patent issued. Ex. 1001 (56).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00758
`Patent 8,218,481 B2
`
`
`Panasonic 792 discloses a random access channel (RACH) preamble
`structure. Ex. 1002 at 2. Paragraph 2.2 of Panasonic 792 discloses a
`preamble structure which consists of a cyclic prefix (CP) and a repeated
`CAZAC sequence. Id. Figure 1 of Panasonic 792 is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 of Panasonic 792 depicts a “preamble structure” with a cyclic
`prefix (CP) and “M-times repetition of N=73 (1.25 MHz) or N=293 (5 MHz)
`CAZAC sequence.” Id. Panasonic 792 discloses the preamble as
`constituting, or as part of, a “random access burst,” and further discloses
`transmitting the preamble. Id. at 5. Figure 6 of Panasonic 792 is reproduced
`below.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00758
`Patent 8,218,481 B2
`
`Figure 6 of Panasonic 792 depicts transmission of a “random access burst”
`comprising the preamble from UE (user equipment) to Node B as part of
`five transmission methods. Id. at 5. Each of these five transmission
`methods is described in paragraph 2.3 of Panasonic 792. Id. at 5–6.
`2. Claims 1, 2, 8, and 9
`ZTE’s showing that Panasonic 792 discloses all elements of claims 1,
`2, 8, and 9 is detailed and supported by citations to the record. Id. With
`regard to claim 1, ZTE asserts that paragraph 2.3 of Panasonic 792 discloses,
`“[a] method of transmitting a preamble sequence in a mobile communication
`system,” as recited in the preamble of claim 1. Pet. 24. The cited passage in
`Panasonic 792 describes five methods of transmitting a preamble sequence
`in a mobile communication system, as illustrated in Figure 6. Ex. 1002, 6–7.
`ZTE asserts Figure 1 and paragraph 2.2 of Panasonic 792 disclose,
`“repeating a specific sequence, having a length (L), N times to generate a
`consecutive sequence having a length (N*L),” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 24;
`Ex. 1014 ¶ 60. ZTE asserts Figure 1 of Panasonic 792 also discloses,
`“generating said preamble sequence by concatenating a single cyclic prefix
`(CP) to a front end of said consecutive sequence,” as recited in claim 1. Pet.
`25 (“For example, in Figure 1 of Panasonic 792, a single prefix (labeled
`‘CP’) is concatenated to the front end of the consecutive sequence that
`consists of repeated Zadoff-Chu sequences, each of which is labelled
`‘CAZAC sequence’ in FIG. 1. (Ex. 1014, Min Decl., at ¶ 63.)”). ZTE
`asserts that Figure 6 of Panasonic 792 discloses, “transmitting, on a random
`access channel, said preamble sequence to a receiving side,” as recited in
`claim 1. Pet. 26 (“For example, Figure 6 of Panasonic 792 provides five
`methods by which a preamble is transmitted from a UE to a Node B. (Ex.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00758
`Patent 8,218,481 B2
`
`1014, Min Decl., at ¶ 65.)”). ZTE asserts Figure 1 of Panasonic 792 also
`discloses, “generating said specific sequence from a Constant Amplitude
`Zero Auto Correlation (CAZAC) sequence,” as recited in dependent claim 2.
`Pet. 28.
`Independent claim 8 is an apparatus claim reciting limitations
`analogous to independent method claim 1, and ZTE relies on similar
`arguments and the same passages in Panasonic 792 in support of its
`contention that claim 8 is anticipated. Pet. 28–31. Dependent claim 9
`contains language analogous to that of claim 2 and ZTE relies on the same
`argument and passages in Panasonic 792 provided for claim 2 to show that
`claim 9 is anticipated.
`Evolved Wireless does not, at this time, challenge most of ZTE’s
`contentions regarding the anticipation of claims 1, 2, 8, and 9. Evolved
`Wireless argues Panasonic 792 does not disclose “a consecutive sequence
`entirely within one frame.” Prelim. Resp. 11–14. This argument is based on
`a construction of claims 1 and 8 with the added limitation, “entirely within
`one frame,” which as discussed above, is not presently being adopted. At
`this stage of the proceedings, we find ZTE’s contention that Panasonic 792
`discloses every element of claim 1 is sufficiently supported by the cited
`portions of Panasonic 792. Based on this record, there is a reasonable
`likelihood that ZTE will prevail as to its challenge to claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 as
`anticipated by Panasonic 792.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00758
`Patent 8,218,481 B2
`
`C. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 Over Panasonic 792
`ZTE also challenges claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 as obvious over Panasonic
`792. Pet. 23. An obviousness conclusion is based on factual inquiries
`including the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art.
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). ZTE’s contention
`that claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is conclusory
`and not supported by detailed argument or analysis. Pet. 23. In keeping
`with its contention that Panasonic 792 anticipates claims 1, 2, 8, and 9, ZTE
`has not articulated any difference between the claimed invention and
`Panasonic 792. Pet. 24–31. To the contrary, ZTE asserts that Panasonic 792
`discloses every feature of claims 1, 2, 8, and 9. Pet. 24 (“Panasonic 792
`discloses every feature of claim 1 for the following reasons.”), 28
`(“Panasonic 792 discloses every feature of claim 2 for the following
`reasons.” and “Panasonic 792 discloses every feature of claim 8 for the
`following reasons.”), 31 (“Panasonic 792 discloses every feature of claim 9
`for the following reasons.”). ZTE’s contention with regard to obviousness
`of claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 appears to be limited to the terse phrase, “or § 103
`(a)” on page 23 of its Petition, and is not supported by any additional
`analysis or reasoning. ZTE has failed to show a reasonable likelihood of
`establishing that claims 1, 2, 8, or 9 would have been obvious over
`Panasonic 792.
`D. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 3, 4, 10, and 11 Over Panasonic 792
`and Panasonic 114
`ZTE contends claims 3, 4, 10, and 11 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Panasonic 792 and Panasonic 114. Pet. 32–39.
`Evolved Wireless argues ZTE has failed to show the subject matter of claims
`3, 4, 10, and 11 would have been obvious based on a combination of the
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00758
`Patent 8,218,481 B2
`
`teachings of these references. Prelim. Resp. 14–18. We discussed
`Panasonic 792 above.
`1. Panasonic 114 (Ex. 1003)
`Panasonic 114 is a paper titled, “Random Access Design For E-UTRA
`Uplink.” Ex. 1003, 1. ZTE asserts Panasonic 114 is prior art under 35
`U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (b). Pet. 13. Panasonic 114 is dated May 8–12, 2006.
`Ex. 1003, 1. Evolved Wireless describes Panasonic 114 as “another
`submission from Panasonic for a subsequent meeting.” Prelim. Resp. 8.
`Panasonic 114 was not cited during prosecution of the ’481 patent. Ex. 1001
`(56).
`Panasonic 114 is directed to comparing performance of different types
`
`of preamble sequences including cyclic-shifted CAZAC sequences. Ex.
`1003, 1. Panasonic 114 discloses, “cyclic-shifted CAZAC sequence has
`superior performance” and “[a]s the results [sic], we propose to choose
`cyclic-shifted Zadoff-Chu CAZAC as preamble sequence mainly.” Id. at 2.
`2. Claims 4 and 11
`Dependent claims 4 and 11 recite, “a value of said applied cyclic shift
`is determined as an integer multiple of a predetermined circular shift unit.”
`(emphasis added.) ZTE asserts the disclosure of a range from 1 to 8 in
`Figure 1 of Panasonic 114 teaches this limitation. Pet. 33–34, 36. Figure 1
`of Panasonic 114 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00758
`Patent 8,218,481 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of Panasonic 114 depicts detection performance for ten preamble
`sequences including three cyclic-shifted CAZAC sequences. Ex. 1003, 2.
`Evolved Wireless argues ZTE fails to show “a value of applied cyclic
`shift is determined as an integer multiple of a predetermined circular shift
`unit,” as recited in claims 4 and 11 (emphasis added), is taught or suggested
`by the cited prior art. Prelim. Resp. 15–16. ZTE’s presentation with regard
`to this limitation is conclusory. See Pet. 33–34. Indeed, ZTE’s argument
`with regard to this limitation consists of a single sentence, which states: “For
`example, Panasonic 114 discloses cyclic-shifted CAZAC sequences with
`indices of cyclic shift (m) ranging from 1 to 8, as shown in Panasonic 114’s
`Figure 1.” Id. at 33. The Min declaration includes the same conclusory
`presentation and sentence verbatim. Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 89–90. We give such
`conclusory, unsupported assertions by ZTE’s declarant little weight. See In
`re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he
`Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of
`factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the
`declarations.”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does
`not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00758
`Patent 8,218,481 B2
`
`entitled to little or no weight.”). The entirety of the relevant disclosure in
`Figure 1 of Panasonic 114 is “m=1to8,” “m=1to 4,” and “m is the index of
`cyclic shift.” Ex. 1003, 2.
`ZTE does not refer to any teaching or suggestion of using the integer
`multiples in the disclosed range, or provide any explanation as how or why a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have determined to use the integer
`multiples in this range, as opposed to any non-integer multiple in the range.
`Without any further evidence in this regard, the disclosure of a range from 1
`to 8 does not teach or suggest the use of an integer multiple. ZTE has failed
`to show the cited combination of references teaches or suggests all the
`elements of claims 4 and 11. Based on the information in the Petition, ZTE
`has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of establishing that claims 4
`and 11 would have been obvious over the combination of Panasonic 792 and
`Panasonic 114.
`3. Claims 3 and 10
`Dependent claims 3 and 10 recite applying, “a cyclic shift to said
`specific sequence generated from said CAZAC sequence.” ZTE contends a
`combination of the teachings of Panasonic 792 and Panasonic 114 disclose
`every feature of claims 3 and 10. Pet. 32–35. In particular, ZTE relies on
`the following statement in Panasonic 114: “we propose to choose cyclic-
`shifted Zadoff-Chu CAZAC as preamble sequence mainly.” Pet. 32
`(quoting Ex. 1003, 2). Among the reasons to combine the teachings of the
`Panasonic references provided in the Petition are: (i) “Both references arose
`in the same narrow field of endeavor: RACH preamble sequence design in
`3GPP TSG RAN WG1”; (ii) “Panasonic 114 expressly cited Panasonic
`792”; and (iii) “both references are directed to solving the same problem of
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00758
`Patent 8,218,481 B2
`
`optimizing the RACH preamble sequence’s auto-correlation and cross-
`correlation properties.” Pet. 36 (citations omitted). In addition, the Petition
`states the following with regard to motivation to combine the Panasonic
`references:
`
`With this problem in mind, a skilled artisan reviewing
`Panasonic 114 would have been motivated to combine its
`teachings with the subject matter disclosed in Panasonic 792.
`([Ex. 1014] at ¶ 100.) Panasonic 792 teaches a preamble
`including repeated Zadoff-Chu sequences. (Id. (citing Ex.
`1002, Panasonic 792, at 2).) Panasonic 114 compares the
`performances of Zadoff-Chu sequences and concludes that
`cyclic-shifted Zadoff-Chu sequences perform even better. (Id.
`(citing Ex. 1003, Panasonic 114, at 2 (“Therefore, cyclic-shifted
`CAZAC sequence has superior performance among compared
`sequences.”)).) Panasonic 114 also proposes repeating those
`sequences in the RACH preamble, just as Panasonic 792
`proposes repeating Zadoff-Chu sequences
`in
`the RACH
`preamble. (Id. (citing Ex. 1003, Panasonic 114, at 3 (“For
`supporting larger cell size, repeating this sequence twice (i.e.
`800 usec) can be used.”); Ex. 1002, Panasonic 792, at 2 (“The
`preamble structure consists of M-times repetition of N=73 (1.25
`MHz) or N=293 (5 MHZ) CAZAC sequence.”)).) Therefore,
`the skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate
`Panasonic 114’s cyclic-shifted Zadoff-Chu sequences into
`Panasonic 792’s preamble structure. (Id.)
`
`
`Pet. 37. Further, ZTE argues it would have been “a matter of common
`sense,” “a routine design choice well within the skilled artisan’s knowledge
`and capabilities,” and “[a]t a minimum, the skilled artisan would have found
`it obvious to try Panasonic 114’s approach of using cyclic-shifted Zadoff-
`Chu sequences with the preamble structure of Panasonic 792, particularly
`because Panasonic 114 touts the benefits of those sequences and cites to
`Panasonic 792.” Pet. 38. At this stage of the proceedings, ZTE provides an
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00758
`Patent 8,218,481 B2
`
`articulated basis with rational underpinnings for combining the references.
`See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). ZTE’s
`contentions as to motivation to combine the Panasonic references are
`supported by evidence and are reasonable in view of the teachings and
`suggestions of the cited art.
`With regard to claims 3 and 10, Evolved Wireless argues ZTE fails to
`show a reason to combine Panasonic 792 and Panasonic 114 in the Petition.
`Prelim. Resp. 16–18. Evolved Wireless argues “as to motivation to
`combine, the Petition’s allegations are conclusory and unsupported by
`evidence.” Id. at 17. This argument is not persuasive. As shown above, the
`Petition includes a detailed and supported showing of reasons to combine the
`cited Panasonic references. Pet. 36–39. ZTE provides a sufficient showing
`that each of the elements of claims 3 and 10 is taught or suggested in the
`cited combination of references (id. at 32–34) and an articulated basis with
`rational underpinnings for combining the teachings of the prior art. See
`KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. ZTE has met its burden of showing a reasonable
`likelihood that it will prevail in showing that claims 3 and 10 would have
`been obvious over Panasonic 792 and Panasonic 114.
`E. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 6 and 13 Over Panasonic 792,
`Panasonic 114, and Chu
`ZTE contends claims 6 and 13 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§103(a) over Panasonic 792, Panasonic 114, and Chu. Pet. 39–41. Evolved
`Wireless does separately address the patentability of claims 6 and 13. See
`generally Prelim. Resp. 1–19.
`1. Chu (Ex. 1004)
`Chu is a paper titled, “Polyphase Codes With Good Correlation
`Properties.” Ex. 1004, 1. ZTE asserts Chu is prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00758
`Patent 8,218,481 B2
`
`§§ 102 (a) and (b). Pet. 14. Evolved Wireless acknowledges Chu is “a
`paper published in 1972.” Prelim. Resp. 8. Chu was not cited during
`prosecution of the ‘481 patent. Ex. 1001 (56).
`According to ZTE and its declarant, “Chu discloses and introduces the
`sequence that is now known as the Zadoff-Chu sequence.” Pet. 14; Ex. 1014
`¶ 52. Chu describes the construction of complex codes and discloses a
`number of mathematical equations. Ex. 1004, 1–2. The purpose is to
`construct codes with good autocorrelation properties. Id. at 1. Evolved
`Wireless does not discuss Chu. See generally Prelim. Resp. 1–19.
`2. Claims 6 and 13
`Dependent claims 6 and 13 recite applying, “said cyclic shift
`comprises multiplying said specific sequence by an exponential sequence.”
`Ex. 1001, 18:54–56, 20:1–3. ZTE asserts page 2 of Chu “teaches that a
`cyclic shift of such sequence may be applied by ‘multiplying said specific
`sequence by an exponential sequence.’” Pet. 39. On page 2, Chu states
`“[t]rivial variations such as cyclic shifts . . . will not affect the
`autocorrelation function” and “certain linear phase shifts of the form exp
`i(2πqk/N), where q is any integer, when introduced into the code also will
`not affect the correlation.” Ex. 1004, 2. The cited portion of Chu provides
`support for ZTE’s assertion, and further explanation is provided in the Min
`declaration. Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 2; Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 105–106). In the Petition,
`ZTE provides a sufficient showing that each of the elements of claims 6 and
`13 is taught or suggested in the cited combination of references. Pet. 39–41.
`In response, Evolved Wireless argues that the Petition fails to show a
`reason to combine the cited references. Prelim. Resp. 16–18. ZTE’s
`contentions regarding combining Panasonic 792 and Panasonic 114 were
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00758
`Patent 8,218,481 B2
`
`discussed above. For the combination of the Panasonic references and Chu,
`the Petition states:
`The skilled artisan also would have combined the collective
`Panasonic teachings with Chu’s teachings because both
`Panasonic references expressly cite to the Chu reference. In
`addition, both Panasonic references expressly disclose using the
`Zadoff-Chu sequence, first documented and described in the
`Chu reference more than 30 years earlier. The skilled artisan
`would have logically and predictably consulted the Chu
`reference to better understand the Zadoff-Chu sequence and its
`mathematical properties in order to incorporate that sequence
`into the sequence designs of the Panasonic references.
`
`
`Pet. 41 (citations omitted). Evolved Wireless argues that ZTE’s allegations
`supporting its reason to combine the teachings of the references are
`conclusory and unsupported. Prelim. Resp. 17. At this stage of the
`proceedings, we disagree, as the passage quoted above provides an
`articulated basis with rational underpinnings for combining the references.
`See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. At this point in these proceedings, the reasons to
`combine provided in the Petition are sufficient to establish there is a
`reasonable likelihood that ZTE will prevail in showing claims 6 and 13 are
`unpatentable as obvious over the cited combination of references.
`
`
` CONCLUSION
`III.
`For the foregoing reasons, we conclude the information presented in
`the Petition and Preliminary Response establishes that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that ZTE will prevail in challenging at least one claim of the ‘481
`patent.
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00758
`Patent 8,218,481 B2
`
`
`Our discussion of facts in this Decision is only for the purpose of
`determining whether or not inter partes review should be initiated and is not
`dispositive of any issue. At this preliminary stage, the Board has not made a
`final determination with respect to the patentability of the challenged claims
`or any underlying factual and legal issues. The Board’s final determination
`will be based on the record as developed during the trial.
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`review is instituted as to claims 1–3, 6, 8–10, and 13 of U.S. Patent No.
`8,218,481 B2 on the following grounds of unpatentability:
`1. Whether claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 102(a) or (b) as having been anticipated by Panasonic 792;
`2. Whether claims 3 and 10 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as having been obvious over Panasonic 792 and
`Panasonic 114; and
`3. Whether claims 6 and 13 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as having been obvious over Panasonic 792, Panasonic
`114, and Chu;
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other ground of unpatentability, with
`
`respect to any claim, is instituted for trial; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial, which
`commences on the entry date of this Decision.
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00758
`Patent 8,218,481 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Charles M. McMahon
`Hersh H. Mehta
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY
`cmcmahon@mwe.com
`hmehta@mwe.com
`
`Stephen S. Korniczky
`Martin Bader
`Ericka J. Schulz
`SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP
`skorniczky@sheppardmullin.com
`mbader@sheppardmullin.com
`eschulz@sheppardmullin.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Cyrus A. Morton
`Ryan M. Schultz
`ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
`cmorton@robinskaplan.com
`rschultz@robinskaplan.com
`
`
`
`
`22

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