Petitioners’(cid:3)Presentation(cid:3)on(cid:3)Grounds(cid:3)1(cid:882)9
`October(cid:3)17,(cid:3)2017
`
`ZTE(cid:3)(USA)(cid:3)Inc.(cid:3)et(cid:3)al.(cid:3)v.(cid:3)Evolved(cid:3)Wireless(cid:3)LLC
`IPR2016(cid:882)00758,(cid:3)IPR2016(cid:882)01342,
`IPR2017(cid:882)00068,(cid:3)IPR2017(cid:882)00106
`
`1
`PETITIONERS 1079-0001
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`October(cid:3)17,(cid:3)2017
`
`ZTE(cid:3)(USA)(cid:3)Inc.(cid:3)et(cid:3)al.(cid:3)v.(cid:3)Evolved(cid:3)Wireless(cid:3)LLC
`IPR2016(cid:882)00758,(cid:3)IPR2016(cid:882)01342,
`IPR2017(cid:882)00068,(cid:3)IPR2017(cid:882)00106
`
`1
`PETITIONERS 1079-0001
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Grounds(cid:3)1(cid:882)9
`
`Ground Statute Claim(s) Reference(s)
`1
`§ 102
`1, 2, 8, 9 Panasonic 792
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`3, 10
`
`6, 13
`
`1, 2
`
`3
`
`4, 6
`
`8, 9
`
`10
`
`Panasonic 792 + Panasonic 114
`
`Panasonic 792 + Panasonic 114 + Chu
`
`Panasonic 700
`
`Panasonic 700 + Panasonic 114
`
`Panasonic 700 + Panasonic 114 + Chu
`
`Panasonic 700 + Motorola 595
`
`Panasonic 700 + Panasonic 114 + Motorola 595
`
`11, 13
`
`Panasonic 700 + Panasonic 114 + Chu + Motorola 595
`
`IPR2016-00758, Paper 24, Consolidation Order, at 4.
`
`2
`PETITIONERS 1079-0002
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Claims(cid:3)1(cid:882)2,(cid:3)8(cid:882)9,(cid:3)and(cid:3)15(cid:882)16
`
`Patent
`Owner
`
`Patent Owner is no longer contesting the validity of claims 1-2, 8-9,
`and 15-16 and therefore addresses only grounds 2-3, 5-6, 8-9, 12-13,
`and 16-17 and only with respect to claims 3-4, 6, 10-11, and 13 in
`this Patent Owner Response.
`
`IPR2016-00758, Paper 34, Patent Owner’s Response, at 4
`(referenced at IPR2016-00758, Paper 38, Petitioner’s Reply, at 1) (emphasis added).
`
`3
`PETITIONERS 1079-0003
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Institution(cid:3)Decision
`
`Evolved Wireless argues “as to motivation to combine, the Petition’s
`allegations are conclusory and unsupported by evidence.” This
`argument is not persuasive. As shown above, the Petition includes a
`detailed and supported showing of reasons to combine the cited
`Panasonic references.
`
`IPR2016-00758, Paper 12, Institution Decision, at 18
`(referenced at IPR2016-00758, Paper 38, Reply, at 1) (citations omitted, emphasis added).
`
`4
`PETITIONERS 1079-0004
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Reasons(cid:3)to(cid:3)Combine(cid:3)Panasonic(cid:3)References
`
`Petitioner
`
`EW does not dispute most of Petitioner’s “detailed and supported showing
`of reasons to combine the cited Panasonic references,” including the following
`reasons:
`(i) All three Panasonic references are in the same narrow field of endeavor: RACH
`preamble sequence design in 3GPP TSG RAN WG1.
`(ii) The same company, Panasonic, submitted all three Panasonic references to the
`same 3GPP working group.
`(iii) All three Panasonic references are directed to the same problem of optimizing the
`RACH preamble correlation properties.
`(iv) All three Panasonic references propose using repeated preamble sequences.
`(v) Panasonic 114 compared certain sequences with cyclic-shifted sequences and
`concluded that the cyclic-shifted sequences perform even better.
`
`IPR2016-00758, Paper 38, Reply, at 14.
`
`5
`PETITIONERS 1079-0005
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Patent(cid:3)Owner’s(cid:3)Arguments
`
`Petitioner
`
`Rather than dispute these points, EW argues that: (i) Panasonic 114
`teaches away from the other Panasonic references, and (ii) Petitioner
`did not explain how skilled artisans would have combined the
`Panasonic references.
`
`IPR2016-00758, Paper 38, Reply, at 15.
`
`6
`PETITIONERS 1079-0006
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Patent(cid:3)Owner’s(cid:3)“Teaching(cid:3)Away”(cid:3)Argument
`
`From above discussion, long CAZAC sequence is preferred option.
`
`IPR2016-00758, Exhibit 1003, Panasonic 114, at 3
`(referenced at IPR2016-00758, Paper 38, Reply, at 15) (emphasis added).
`
`A reference that “merely expresses a general preference for an
`alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise
`discourage investigation into” the claimed invention does not teach
`away.
`
`Meiresonne v. Google, Inc., 849 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`(referenced at IPR2016-00758, Paper 38, Reply, at 15) (emphasis added).
`
`7
`PETITIONERS 1079-0007
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Patent(cid:3)Owner’s(cid:3)“Teaching(cid:3)Away”(cid:3)Argument
`
`Therefore, cyclic-shifted CAZAC sequence has superior performance
`among compared sequences.
`
`IPR2016-00758, Exhibit 1003, Panasonic 114, at 2
`(referenced at IPR2016-00758, Paper 38, Reply, at 15-16) (emphasis added).
`
`We propose the N=449 (prime number) cyclic-shifted CAZAC
`sequences with [sic, which] also use different CAZAC sequences for
`the preambles. For supporting larger cell size, repeating this
`sequence twice (i.e. 800 usec) can be used.
`
`IPR2016-00758, Exhibit 1003, Panasonic 114, at 3
`(referenced at IPR2016-00758, Paper 38, Reply, at 16).
`
`8
`PETITIONERS 1079-0008
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Patent(cid:3)Owner’s(cid:3)“Combinability”(cid:3)Argument
`
`Petitioner
`
`As a matter of common sense, the skilled artisan viewing Panasonic
`792 and Panasonic 114 together would have used the better-
`performing cyclic-shifted Zadoff-Chu sequences in place of the
`Zadoff-Chu sequences. ([Ex. 1014, Min Decl.] at ¶ 101.) This
`would have been a routine design choice well within the skilled
`artisan’s knowledge and capabilities. (Id.) At a minimum, the skilled
`artisan would have found it obvious to try Panasonic 114’s approach
`of using cyclic-shifted Zadoff-Chu sequences within the preamble
`structure of Panasonic 792, particularly because Panasonic 114 touts
`the benefits of those sequences and cites to Panasonic 792. (Id.)
`
`IPR2016-00758, Paper 2, Petition, at 36
`(referenced at IPR2016-00758, Paper 38, Reply, at 16-17) (emphasis added).
`
`9
`PETITIONERS 1079-0009
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Patent(cid:3)Owner’s(cid:3)“Combinability”(cid:3)Argument
`
`(cid:2009)(cid:3038)(cid:18440) or conjugating the entire code obviously wi1l not affect the
`
`Trivial variations such as cyclic shifts, addition of a constant to
`
`autocorrelation function analogously to the aperiodic case [4].
`
`IPR2016-00758, Exhibit 1004, Chu, at 3
`(referenced at IPR2016-00758, Paper 2, Petition, at 38; Paper 38, Reply, at 16) (emphasis added).
`
`10
`PETITIONERS 1079-0010
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Patent(cid:3)Owner’s(cid:3)“Combinability”(cid:3)Argument
`
`A.
`
`Q. How, if at all, do the lengths of the sequences in the Panasonic
`references affect your opinion on whether the teachings of the
`Panasonic references are combinable?
`It does not really affect at all. Clearly both documents were trying
`different sequence length. And the fact that Panasonic 114 found one
`that seems to work better than others and as a result, be proposed as a –
`the particular sequence to use does not affect the fact that the
`Panasonic 792 was doing all this simulation of repeating the sequence
`of different lengths. It doesn’t really affect at all. They are very much
`like supporting each other as a – you know, during the process of
`evaluating different scenarios.
`
`IPR2016-00758, Exhibit 1078, Deposition of Paul S. Min, Ph.D., at 112:11-113:1
`(referenced at IPR2016-00758, Paper 38, Reply, at 18) (emphasis added).
`
`11
`PETITIONERS 1079-0011
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Patent(cid:3)Owner’s(cid:3)“Combinability”(cid:3)Argument
`
`Q. So it’s your assumption that there’s a cyclic prefix as shown in Figure
`2?
`It has to, otherwise you lose the orthogonality between the different
`symbols or, in this case, different TTI, and then you don’t have OFDM.
`
`A.
`
`IPR2016-00758, Exhibit 1078, Deposition of Paul S. Min, Ph.D., at 84:15-20
`(referenced at IPR2016-00758, Paper 38, Reply, at 18) (emphasis added).
`
`12
`PETITIONERS 1079-0012
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Petitioners’(cid:3)Presentation(cid:3)on(cid:3)Grounds(cid:3)10(cid:882)17
`October(cid:3)17,(cid:3)2017
`
`Apple(cid:3)Inc.,(cid:3)Microsoft(cid:3)Corp.(cid:3)(Petitioner)(cid:3)v.(cid:3)Evolved(cid:3)Wireless,(cid:3)LLC(cid:3)(Patent(cid:3)Owner)
`IPR2016(cid:882)01349
`
`1
`
`PETITIONERS 1079-0013
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Overview
`
`
`Patent OwnerPatent Owner
`
`Patent Owner is no longer contesting the validity of claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16 Patent Owner is no longer contesting the validity of claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16
`
`and therefore addresses only grounds 2-3, 5-6, 8-9, 12-13, and 16-17 andand therefore addresses only grounds 2-3, 5-6, 8-9, 12-13, and 16-17 and
`
`only with respect to claims 3-4, 6, 10-11, and 13 in this Patent Owner only with respect to claims 3-4, 6, 10-11, and 13 in this Patent Owner
`
`Response.Response.
`
`IPR2016-00758, Paper 34, Patent Owner’s Response, at 4
`(referenced at IPR2016-00758, Paper 38, Petitioner’s Reply, at 1) (emphasis added).
`
`2
`
`PETITIONERS 1079-0014
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Grounds at issue
`
`IEEE802.16-2004 + Tan
`
`Ground
`Ground 12
`Ground 13
`
`Claims
`Claims 2-4 & 6
`Claims 2-4 & 6
`
`Ground 16
`Ground 17
`
`Claims 9-11 & 13
`Claims 9-11 & 13
`
`References
`IEEE802.16-2004 and Tan
`IEEE802.16-2004, IEEE802.16-
`2005, and Tan
`IEEE802.16-2004, Chou and Tan
`IEEE802.16-2004, IEEE802.16-
`2005, Chou and Tan
`
`3
`
`PETITIONERS 1079-0015
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Claim construction at issue
`
`
`Claim Phrase At Issue:Claim Phrase At Issue:
`
`“repeating a specific sequence, having a length (L), N times to generate a“repeating a specific sequence, having a length (L), N times to generate a
`
`consecutive sequence having a length (N*L);consecutive sequence having a length (N*L);
`
`generating said preamble sequence by concatenating a single cyclic prefix generating said preamble sequence by concatenating a single cyclic prefix
`
`(CP) to a front end of said consecutive sequence”(CP) to a front end of said consecutive sequence”
`
`IPR2016-00758, Ex. 1, ‘481 Patrent, Claim 1
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply at 2Petitioner’s Reply at 2
`
`EW attempts to rewrite the “generating” feature to be: “generating said EW attempts to rewrite the “generating” feature to be: “generating said
`
`preamble sequence by concatenating a single cyclic prefix to a front end of preamble sequence by concatenating a single cyclic prefix to a front end of
`
`said consecutive preamble sequence.”said consecutive preamble sequence.”
`
`IPR2016-00758, Paper 38, Petitioner’s Reply, at 2, 4
`Paper 34, Patent Owner’s Response, at 24-31
`
`4
`
`PETITIONERS 1079-0016
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`IEEE802.16-2004’s satisfaction of contested feature
`
`IPR2016-00758, Paper 38, Petitioner’s Reply, at 20.
`
`5
`
`PETITIONERS 1079-0017
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Sufficient reasons to combine IEEE802.16-2004 & Tan
`
`
`
`Petitioner Reply, p.25 Petitioner Reply, p.25
`
`IPR2016-00758, Paper 38, Petitioner’s Reply, at 25 (highlighted).
`
`6
`
`PETITIONERS 1079-0018
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
`
`Sufficient reasons to combine IEEE802.16-2004 & Tan
`
`
`Petitioner Reply, p. 26Petitioner Reply, p. 26
`
`“Notably, the broader combination of generating the specific sequence of “Notably, the broader combination of generating the specific sequence of
`
`IEEE802.16-2004 from a CAZAC sequence of the type described by Tan can be IEEE802.16-2004 from a CAZAC sequence of the type described by Tan can be
`
`implemented in various ways.”implemented in various ways.”
`
`••
`
`“One way is to replace the PALL sequence of IEEE802.16-2004 with a CAZAC sequence.”“One way is to replace the PALL sequence of IEEE802.16-2004 with a CAZAC sequence.”
`
`••
`
`“another, more straightforward example implementation of generating the specific “another, more straightforward example implementation of generating the specific
`
`sequence from a CAZAC sequence by simply replacing the specific sequence of sequence from a CAZAC sequence by simply replacing the specific sequence of
`
`IEEE802.16-2004 with a CAZAC sequence.” IEEE802.16-2004 with a CAZAC sequence.”
`
`See e.g., IPR2016-01349, Paper 2, 1349-Petition at 45, 51, 53
`
`
`Petitioner Reply, pp. 25-26Petitioner Reply, pp. 25-26
`
`“a PHOSITA would have been led to the broader combination, that is, ‘to“a PHOSITA would have been led to the broader combination, that is, ‘to
`
`generate the specific sequence (i.e., the 64-sample sequence 110 or the 128-generate the specific sequence (i.e., the 64-sample sequence 110 or the 128-
`
`sample sequence 210… of the IEEE 802.16 …) from a [CAZAC] sequence of sample sequence 210… of the IEEE 802.16 …) from a [CAZAC] sequence of
`
`the type described by Tan, because, as Tan notes, the CAZAC sequence hasthe type described by Tan, because, as Tan notes, the CAZAC sequence has
`
`“low cross correlation at all time lags which improves the detection “low cross correlation at all time lags which improves the detection
`
`performance”.’ 1349-Petition, 45 (emphasis added).” performance”.’ 1349-Petition, 45 (emphasis added).”
`
`7
`
`PETITIONERS 1079-0019
`IPR2016-00758
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
