Paper No. __
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 5,915,210
`Issued: June 22, 1999
`Filed: July 24, 1997
`Inventors: Dennis Wayne Cameron, Walter Charles Roehr, Jr., Jai P. Bhagat,
`Masood Garahi, William D. Hays, David W. Ackerman
`Title: METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING MULTICARRIER
`SIMULCAST TRANSMISSION
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: To Be Assigned
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 5,915,210
`Issued: June 22, 1999
`Filed: July 24, 1997
`Inventors: Dennis Wayne Cameron, Walter Charles Roehr, Jr., Jai P. Bhagat,
`Masood Garahi, William D. Hays, David W. Ackerman
`Title: METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING MULTICARRIER
`SIMULCAST TRANSMISSION
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: To Be Assigned
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)................. 1
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)(1) ..................….. 1
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)(2) ................................. 1
`
`C. Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)(3) and Service Information….. 3
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES— 37 C.F.R. § 42.103.......................................... 3
`
`III.
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ................... 4
`
`A. Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A).......................... 4
`
`B. Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) and Relief Requested.……. 4
`
`C. Claim Construction under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(B)(3) ...................... 5
`
`1. A . . . transmitter (Claims 1 and 10) …………………………….. 6
`
`2. Means for transmitting a [] plurality of carrier signals (Claim
`
`19)……………………………………………………………….. 8
`
`3. In Simulcast (Claims 1, 10, 19)………………………………... 12
`
`IV.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ‘210 PATENT………………………………... 13
`
`A. Brief Description…………………………………………………... 13
`
`V. MANNER OF APPLYING CITED PRIOR ART TO EACH CLAIM
`
`FOR WHICH AN IPR IS REQUESTED, THUS ESTABLISHING A
`REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF
`THE ‘210 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE............................................... 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` A. [GROUND 1] - Saalfrank Anticipates Claims 1, 7-8, 10, and
`
`
`
`
`
`15-17………………………………………………………...…... 15
`
`1. Claim 1 ........................................................................................ 19
`
`2. Claim 7 ....................................................................................... 24
`
`3. Claim 10 ..................................................................................... 25
`
`4. Claim 16 ..................................................................................... 33
`
`5. Claim 17……………………………………………………….. 34
`
`6. Claim 19………………………………………………………... 35
`
`
`
`B. [GROUND 2] - Saalfrank in view of Nakamura Renders Claims 8,
`
`
`
`15, and 19 Obvious ......................................................................... 38
`
`1. Claim 8………………………………………………………... 42
`
`2. Claim 15………………………………………………………. 43
`
`3. Claim 19………………………………………………………. 45
`
`VI. REDUNDANCY…………………………………………………………. 49
`
`VII. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………... 49
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`ARRIS1001 – U.S. Patent 5,915,210 to Cameron et al., filed Jul. 24, 1997
`
`ARRIS1002 – RESERVED
`
`ARRIS1003 – Declaration of Dr. Apostolos (Paul) Kakaes
`
`ARRIS1004 – 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)
`
`ARRIS1005 – 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)
`
`ARRIS1006 – 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)
`
`ARRIS1007 – 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)
`
`ARRIS1008 – The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
`Language, 1902, (3rd ed. 1992)
`
`ARRIS1009 – Standards Coordinating Committee 10, Terms and
`Definitions, The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics
`Terms, 1140, (6th ed. 1996)
`
`ARRIS1010 – McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms,
`1644, (5th ed. 1993)
`
`ARRIS1011 – Apple Inc. v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies,
`LLC, Case IPR2014-01036, Decision on Institution of Inter Partes Review
`(Jan. 22, 2015)
`
`ARRIS1012 – U.S. Patent 5,365,569 to Witsaman et al., filed Aug. 17,
`1992
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ARRIS1013 – U.S. Patent 4,968,966 to Jasinski et al., filed Oct. 23, 1989
`
`ARRIS1014 – Prosecution History of U.S. Patent 5,915,210 to Cameron
`et al., filed Jul. 24, 1997
`
`ARRIS1015 – English Translation of German Patent Publication No.
`DE4102408 to Saalfrank, filed Jan. 28, 1991
`
`ARRIS1016 – German Patent Publication No. DE4102408 to Saalfrank,
`filed Jan. 28, 1991
`
`ARRIS1017 – Certificate of Translation of German Patent Publication No.
`DE4102408 to Saalfrank, filed Jan. 28, 1991
`
`ARRIS1018 – Bernard Le Floch et al., Digital Sound Broadcasting to
`Mobile Receivers, 35 IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics 493
`(Aug. 1989)
`
`ARRIS1019 – Yasuhisa Nakamura et al., 256 QAM Modem for
`Multicarrier 400 Mbit/s Digital Radio, 5 IEEE Journal on Selected Areas
`in Communications 329 (Apr. 1987)
`
`ARRIS1020 – U.S. Patent No. 5,381,449 to Jasper, et al., filed Nov. 1,
`1991
`
`ARRIS1021 – U.S. Patent No. 5,168,509 to Nakamura, et al., filed Apr.
`10, 1990
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. (“Petitioner”) petitions for Inter Partes Review
`
`(“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42 of claims 1, 7-8, 10,
`
`15-17, and 19 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 5,915,210 (the
`
`‘“210 patent”) (Ex. ARRIS1001), of assignee Mobile Telecommunications
`
`Technologies, LLC (“Patentee” or “MTel”). As explained in this Petition,
`
`there exists a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner 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)
`
`ARRIS GROUP, Inc. is the real party-in-interest for the instant petition.
`
`
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)(2)
`
`Petitioner is not aware of any terminal disclaimers for the ‘210 patent.
`
`The ‘210 Patent has been involved in at least six litigations against Multiple
`
`System Operators (MSOs): Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v.
`
`Time Warner Cable
`
`Inc.,
`
`2:16-cv-00007
`
`(E.D. Tex.); Mobile
`
`Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Cox Communications, Inc., 2:16-
`
`cv-00010 (E.D. Tex.); Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v.
`
`Bright House Networks, LLC., 2:16-cv-00008
`
`(E.D. Tex.); Mobile
`
`Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Brocade Communications Systems,
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Inc., 2:16-cv-00013 (E.D. Tex.); Mobile Telecommunications Technologies,
`
`LLC v. Aruba Networks, Inc. et al., 2:16-cv-00012 (E.D. Tex.); Mobile
`
`Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Juniper Networks, Inc., 2:16-cv-
`
`00014 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`The ‘210 Patent has been involved in at least five litigations against
`
`telecommunication
`
`service
`
`and/or
`
`equipment
`
`providers: Mobile
`
`Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et
`
`al., Case No. 2:15-cv-183 (E.D. Tex.) (hereinafter, the “Samsung Litigation”);
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., et al.,
`
`Case No. 2:13-cv-886-JRG- RSP (E.D. Tex.); Mobile Telecommunications
`
`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.); and Mobile Telecommunications
`
`Technologies, LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-897 (E.D.
`
`Tex.).
`
`Three prior IPR actions were instituted on the ‘210 patent: Apple Inc. v.
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (IPR2014-01036) (filed June
`
`27, 2014) (hereinafter, the “Apple IPR”); T-Mobile USA Inc. v. Mobile
`
`Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (IPR2015-00015) (filed October 3,
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`2014) (hereinafter, the “T-Mobile IPR”); and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v.
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (IPR2014-01724) (filed
`
`August 13, 2015) (hereinafter, the “Samsung IPR”). Petitioner has reviewed
`
`the IPR petitions filed by Apple, T-Mobile, and Samsung, and, in the instant
`
`petition, challenges the ‘210 Patent on grounds based on the same prior art
`
`references.
`
`
`
`C. Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)(3) and Service Information
`
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`
`Charles Griggers (Reg. No. 47,283)
`
`Dan Gresham (Reg. No. 41,805)
`
`charles.griggers@thomashorstemeyer.com
`
`dan.gresham@thomashorstemeyer.com
`
`Thomas | Horstemeyer, LLP
`
`Thomas | Horstemeyer, LLP
`
`400 Interstate N. Pkwy SE, Suite 1500
`
`400 Interstate N. Pkwy SE, Suite 1500
`
`Atlanta, GA 30039
`
`T: (770) 933-9500
`
`F: (770) 951-0933
`
`Atlanta, Georgia 30339
`
`Tel: (770) 933-9500
`
`Fax: (770) 951-0933
`
`
`Service may be made at the postal mailing address of either lead or back-up
`
`counsel. Petitioner consents to service by e-mail.
`
`II. PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`
`
`The required fee is being paid using the Patent Review Processing
`
`System.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`A. Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A)
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ‘210 Patent is available for IPR. Petitioner
`
`also certifies that it is not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR
`
`challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in this petition.
`
`B. Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) and Relief Requested
`
`
`
`Petitioner requests IPR of the Challenged Claims of the ‘210 Patent on
`
`the grounds set forth in the table below, and requests that each of the claims be
`
`found unpatentable. An explanation of how these claims are unpatentable
`
`under the statutory grounds identified below, including an identification of
`
`where each element is found in the prior art patents and/or printed publications
`
`and the relevance of each prior art reference, is provided in the form of
`
`detailed description that follows. Additional explanation and support for each
`
`ground is set forth in Dr. Kakaes’ declaration, Ex. ARRIS1003 (“Kakaes
`
`Decl.”).
`
`Ground
`
`‘210 Patent
`
`Basis for
`
`Ground 1
`
`1,7,10,16,17,and 19
`
`§ 102 based on Saalfrank
`
`Ground 2
`
`8, 15, and 19
`
`§ 103 based on Saalfrank in view of
`Nakamura
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Each of the above references qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102. Specifically, Saalfrank qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), as
`
`it was published on August 6, 1992, which is earlier than the earliest possible
`
`priority date to which the ‘210 patent could be entitled: November 12, 1992.1
`
`Nakamura qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), as it was published
`
`in April, 1987, which is more than a year before the earliest possible priority
`
`date to which the ‘210 patent could be entitled. Petitioner understands that
`
`these two references have been considered by the Patent Office with regard to
`
`the patentability of the ‘210 patent in considering and instituting the Samsung
`
`IPR, Apple IPR, and T-Mobile IPR.
`
`C. Claim Construction under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(B)(3)
`
`
`
`The ‘210 patent expired on November 12, 2012. The Board’s review of
`
`the claims of an expired patent is similar to that of a district court’s review. In
`
`re Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The principle set forth by
`
`the court in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`1 The ‘210 patent issued from an application filed on July 24, 1997. The ‘210
`
`patent is a continuation of and claims priority to U.S. Application No.
`
`08/760,457, filed on December 6, 1996, which is a continuation of U.S.
`
`Application No. 07/973,918 (now U.S. Patent No. 5,590,403), filed on
`
`November 12, 1992.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`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 submits that the proper construction standard is the Phillips
`
`framework because the ‘210 patent has expired. Nevertheless, applying the
`
`Phillips standard should have no impact in considering and instituting
`
`Petitioner’s Petition because the relevant claims deserve the same scope under
`
`Phillips. The following claim terms should be construed as set forth below.
`
`1. A . . . transmitter (Claims 1 and 10)
`
`
`
`Independent claims 1 and 10 recite “a . . . transmitter.” Petitioner
`
`acknowledges that a district court has construed this term to have its plain
`
`meaning with the understanding that transmitting multiple signals or outputs
`
`from a single structural unit is not itself sufficient to constitute a plurality of
`
`transmitters. See Ex. ARRIS1004 at 6; see also, Ex. ARRIS1005 at 10
`
`(adopting Clearwire constructions); Ex. ARRIS1006 at 11 (same); Ex.
`
`ARRIS1007 at 10 (same).
`
`In the Samsung Litigation, Samsung requested the court to construe a
`
`transmitter as “a structural unit for generating and modulating a signal to be
`
`transmitted.” This construction is consistent with the court’s rulings where the
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`court has indicated that a transmitter is a structural unit. Id. This construction
`
`is also consistent with the understanding of a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art and is supported by both the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence.
`
`Specifically, compare Fig. 15 of the ‘210 patent, which discloses a Receiver,
`
`Transmitter, and Antenna, with Figs. 17-18, which disclose a Receiver and
`
`Antenna only. The ‘210 specification describes these Figs. 17-18 as “[a]n
`
`embodiment of the mobile unit [that] includes only receive capabilities, but
`
`does not include any transmit capabilities” Ex. ARRIS1001 at 19:21-23
`
`(emphasis added). This indicates that at least in the context of the ‘210 patent,
`
`a transmitter is a structural unit responsible for transmission that is separate
`
`from an antenna or a receiver. Also, in both conventional and technical
`
`dictionaries, a transmitter is defined as a structural unit that generates and
`
`modulates a signal to be transmitted through an antenna unit. See e.g., Ex.
`
`ARRIS1008, p. 1902 (“Transmitter”); Ex. ARRIS1009, p. 1140 (“Transmitter
`
`(2) (radio)”); Ex. ARRIS1010, p. 1644 (“radio transmitter”). Accordingly,
`
`Petitioner agrees with and submits that this construction is proper.
`
`Moreover, despite Apple and T-Mobile’s request to construe the term to
`
`have its plain meaning, the Board construed a “transmitter (singular) as being
`
`capable of transmitting a plurality of carrier signals combined as a single
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`output.” See Ex. ARRIS1011 at 8. Petitioner’s construction is similar to what
`
`the Board previously adopted, construing a transmitter as a structural unit with
`
`a specific functionality. Petitioner’s construction,
`
`therefore, does not
`
`meaningfully alter the analysis of the prior art references listed herein from the
`
`analysis the Board did in the Apple and T-Mobile IPRs. For the reasons above,
`
`Petitioner proposes that “a . . . transmitter” be construed to mean “a structural
`
`unit for generating and modulating a signal to be transmitted.”
`
`2. Means for transmitting a [] plurality of carrier signals
`(Claim 19)
`
`
`
`Independent claim 19 recites a “means for transmitting a first plurality
`
`of carrier signals” and “means for transmitting a second plurality of carrier
`
`signals.” In the Apple and T-Mobile IPRs, the Board construed the terms to
`
`have the functions of “transmitting a first plurality of carrier signals within the
`
`desired frequency band, each of the first plurality of carrier signals
`
`representing a portion of the information signal substantially not represented
`
`by others of the first plurality of carrier signals” and “transmitting a second
`
`plurality of carrier signals in simulcast with the first plurality of carrier signals,
`
`each of the second plurality of carrier signals corresponding to and
`
`representing substantially the same information as a respective carrier signal of
`
`the first plurality of carrier signals” respectively. The Board also construed the
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`corresponding structures to be “a base transmitter corresponding to the
`
`embodiments as shown and described in Figures 13 and 14 of the ‘210 patent
`
`and equivalents.” See Ex. ARRIS1011 at 9; see also, Ex. ARRIS1001 at
`
`15:47-16:30; Figs. 13-14.
`
`Petitioner notes that a district court applying the Phillips standard has
`
`construed the terms identically to how the Board construed them in the Apple
`
`and T-Mobile IPRs. See Ex. ARRIS1005 at 31-32. Indeed, Patent Owner has
`
`also agreed to, or did not dispute, this construction in its district court
`
`proceeding. See Ex. ARRIS1006 at 56; Ex. ARRIS1007 at 26. In the Samsung
`
`Litigation, Samsung has requested the court to construe the term, “transmitting
`
`a second plurality of carrier signals in simulcast with the first plurality of
`
`carrier signals,” identically to how the court and the Board have construed it,
`
`with an exception of adding “geographically separated” language to the
`
`corresponding structure for the term. This construction is fully supported and
`
`required by the intrinsic evidence. Also, it does not contradict the Court or the
`
`Board, and is agreed to by Petitioner. In particular, the ‘210 specification
`
`describes that “base transmitters [see Figs. 13-14] are divided into zonal
`
`assignments and broadcast in simulcast using multi-carrier modulation
`
`techniques.” Ex. ARRIS1001, Abstract. These base transmitters are “spatially
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`separated.” Id. at 8:62-64; Fig. 6.
`
`The ‘210 specification further describes that an object of the invention is
`
`“to provide a zone based simulcast communication system which can
`
`effectively communicate with both mobile transceiver units located near the
`
`center of each zone as well as mobile transceiver units located within the
`
`overlap areas between two or more zones.” Id. at 4:62-67 (Summary of the
`
`Invention) (emphasis added); Fig. 1. Indeed, all embodiments of the ‘210
`
`patent disclose each and every transmitter defining a zone is geographically
`
`separated.
`
`Additionally, the ‘210 patent repeatedly discusses how the purported
`
`invention relates to providing a communication service over a relatively large
`
`area with wide area coverage by employing multiple transmitters in simulcast.
`
`See e.g., Ex. ARRIS1001 at 1:11-14 (Field of Invention); 4:44-48 (Summary
`
`of the Invention). In light of these disclosures, a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have understood that at least a second transmitter must be
`
`geographically separated from a first transmitter, and such an understanding
`
`was indeed common in the field at the time. See e.g., Ex. ARRIS1012 at 1:12-
`
`35; Ex. ARRIS1013 at 2:1-8; Kakaes Decl. at ¶ 16.
`
`Nevertheless,
`
`the “geographically separated”
`
`language does not
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`meaningfully affect the overall analysis, or the Board’s decision to institute in
`
`the Apple and T-Mobile IPRs because, as more fully described below, the
`
`prior art references listed herein clearly disclose geographically separated
`
`transmitters.
`
`For purposes of this PTO proceeding, Petitioner proposes that “means
`
`for transmitting a first plurality of carrier signals” and “means for transmitting
`
`a second plurality of carrier signals” have the functions of “means for
`
`transmitting a first plurality of carrier signals within the desired frequency
`
`band” and “means for transmitting a second plurality of carrier signals in
`
`simulcast with the first plurality of carrier signals,” respectively. With respect
`
`to the corresponding structures, Petitioner proposes “base transmitter 1300
`
`including data input 1302, control logic 1304, modulators 1306-1314,
`
`combiner 1316, power amplifier 1318, and an antenna 1320, as depicted in
`
`Figure 13; and equivalents thereof’ or “base transmitter 1400 including data
`
`input 1402, control logic 1404, modulators 1406-1414, power amplifiers 1416-
`
`1424, combiner 1426, and an antenna 1428, as depicted in Figure 14; and
`
`equivalents thereof’ for the first term; and “at least a second geographically
`
`separated base transmitter 1300 including data input 1302, control logic 1304,
`
`modulators 1306-1314, combiner 1316, power amplifier 1318, and an antenna
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`1320, as depicted in Figure 13; and equivalents thereof’ or “at least a second
`
`geographically separated base transmitter 1400 including data input 1402,
`
`control logic 1404, modulators 1406-1414, power amplifiers 1416-1424,
`
`combiner 1426, and an antenna 1428, as depicted in Figure 14; and equivalents
`
`thereof’ for the second term.
`
`3.
`
`In Simulcast (Claims 1, 10, 19)
`
`
`
`Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 recite “in simulcast.” Petitioner agrees
`
`with the construction that the Board adopted in instituting the Apple and
`
`T-Mobile IPRs: “at the same time.” See Ex. ARRIS1011 at 10.
`
`The district court has construed this term the same way. See Ex.
`
`ARRIS1006 at 23; Ex. ARRIS1004 at 4; Ex. ARRIS1005 at 15, 74. Patent
`
`Owner has also proposed or agreed to this construction in its district court
`
`proceedings. See ARRIS1006 at 17; Ex. ARRIS1005 at 15; see also, Ex.
`
`ARRIS1007 at 39.
`
`Therefore, for purposes of this PTO proceeding, Petitioner proposes the
`
`term “in simulcast” to mean “at the same time.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ‘210 PATENT
`
`A. Brief Description
`
`
`
`
`
`The ‘210 patent contains 3 independent and 16 dependent claims that
`
`each relate to combining multi-carrier modulation and simulcast broadcasting
`
`techniques. The patent’s Abstract describes the invention as follows:
`
`A two-way communication system for communication betw[]een
`
`a system network and a mobile unit. The system network includes
`
`a plurality of base transmitters and base receivers include[d] in
`
`the network. . . The system network controls the base transmitters
`
`to broadcast in s[]imulcast during both systemwide and zone
`
`boundaries to maximize information throughout [sic, throughput].
`
`Ex. ARRIS1001, Abstract.
`
`The specification continues:
`
`
`
`Generally, simulcast technology provides multiple transmitters,
`
`operating on substantially the same frequencies and transmitting
`
`the same information positioned to cover extended areas. . . The
`
`base transmitters of the communication system, such as base
`
`transmitters 612 and 614 shown in FIG. 6, preferably utilize a
`
`multi-carrier modulation format as will now be described. In
`
`general, a multi-carrier modulation
`
`format envisions
`
`the
`
`simultaneous transmission of several closely spaced carrier
`
`frequencies within a desired frequency band, each individually
`
`modulated to convey an information signal. The multi-carrier
`
`modulation format advantageously allows for high data transfer
`
`rates by providing good bit rate transmission rates while keeping
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`below the baud rate limitations of simulcast transmission
`
`techniques.
`
`Id. at 1:52-55; 13:3-14.
`
`
`
`The 3 independent claims (claims 1, 10, and 19) and 5 dependent claims
`
`(claims 7-8, and 15-17) of the ‘210 patent are challenged herein.
`
`V. MANNER OF APPLYING CITED PRIOR ART TO EACH
`CLAIM FOR WHICH AN IPR IS REQUESTED, THUS
`ESTABLISHING A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT
`LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE ‘210 PATENT IS
`UNPATENTABLE.
`
`During prosecution, the Examiner of the ‘210 patent found that:
`
`
`
`
`
`[T]he prior art of record fails to show a multi-carrier simulcast
`
`transmission system comprising the first and second transmitters
`
`for simultaneously transmitting the same information signals. The
`
`system comprises a plurality of carrier signals in each of the
`
`transmitters wherein each of the carrier signals represent a portion
`
`of the information signal not represented by others of the plurality
`
`carrier signals.
`
`Ex. ARRIS1014, p. 261. As presented below, Saalfrank alone, as well as the
`
`combination of Saalfrank and Nakamura discloses this combination of features
`
`and the remaining features of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, because the
`
`Patent Owner’s purported invention was known in the art prior to the earliest
`
`possible priority date of the ‘210 patent, the section below will establish a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the Challenged Claims are unpatentable.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`A.
`
`[GROUND 1] – Saalfrank Anticipates Claims 1, 7-8, 10, and
`15-17
`
`
`
`The Saalfrank reference discloses a network with “common-wave radio
`
`. . . transmitter stations” that support “a nationwide radio program” and
`
`whereby “all transmitter stations simultaneously emit transmission signals
`
`with the same modulation content on the very same transmission frequency
`
`and/or the same carrier frequencies.” Ex. ARRIS1015, col. 1, 4 (emphases
`
`added). Further, and in conjunction with this simulcast technique, Saalfrank
`
`disclosed a “COFDM- method (Coded Orthogonal Frequency Division
`
`Multiplex) . . . as the transmission procedure,” whereby “a plurality of
`
`individual carriers (e.g., 448 carrier frequencies . . . spaced over the
`
`frequency axis) is impinged with a 4-DPSK-modulation (DPSK-Differential
`
`Phase Shift Keying).” Id. (emphasis added).
`
`As described by Dr. Kakaes, Phase Shift Keying-a method well known
`
`in the art prior to the earliest possible priority date of the ‘210 patent-uses a
`
`finite number of phases of a carrier waveform to represent binary digits, also
`
`referred to as bits. Kakaes Decl. at ¶ 22. Each phase of the carrier represents a
`
`unique pattern of bits. Id. Thus, in a 4-PSK implementation of PSK, each of the
`
`four distinct phases can represent two bits such that symbols ‘00’, ‘01’, ‘10’,
`
`and ‘11’ can be transmitted. See id. at 23. Therefore, the “plurality of
`
`individual carriers . . . [being] impinged with a 4-DPSK-modulation” are
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`carrier signals within the channel bandwidth that can be modulated between
`
`four possible phases based on the data for transmission. See id. In other words,
`
`as in the ‘210 patent, the Saalfrank technique utilizes both multicarrier
`
`modulation (i.e., 4- DPSK-modulation) and simulcast in order to generate and
`
`transmit signals in support of a wide-area communication program. See id.
`
`The description of FIG. 1a of Saalfrank is instructive. The reference
`
`discloses that “carrier frequencies are transmitted simultaneously” and that
`
`“[t]he individual carriers are each modulated with one part of the digital data,
`
`with the modulation content of the individual carriers being identical for all
`
`transmitter stations of the transmission region.” Ex. ARRIS1015, col. 2, ¶ 9.
`
`FIG. 1a shows that Saalfrank’s plurality of carrier signals-labeled ‘1,’
`
`‘2,’ ‘3,’ ‘m-2,’ ‘m-1,’ and ‘m’ below-are in a frequency range with bandwidth
`
`‘B’ (i.e., a plurality of carrier signals within the desired frequency) (emphases
`
`added throughout).
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Based upon the figure and its description, as described by Dr. Kakaes,
`
`Saalfrank discloses a plurality of transmitters that each simultaneously transmit
`
`a plurality of carrier signals within the desired frequency band. See Ex.
`
`ARRIS1015, col. 2, ¶ 9; see also Kakaes Decl. at ¶ 25.
`
`Saalfrank also discloses that “individual carriers are each modulated
`
`with one part of the digital data.” In other words, like in the ‘210 patent, each
`
`of the transmitted Saalfrank carrier signals represent a portion of the
`
`information signal substantially not represented by others of the plurality of
`
`carrier signals. See Ex. ARRIS1015, col. 2, ¶ 9; see also Kakaes Decl. at ¶ 25.
`
`As described by Dr. Kakaes, Saalfrank’s information signal (i.e., the digital
`
`data of the stereo radio programs) is split into multiple and distinct “parts.”
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Each different “part” is used to modulate one of the multiple carrier signals. Id.
`
`FIG. la, as annotated by Dr. Kakaes, demonstrates that each of Saalfrank’s
`
`carrier signals are unique. See Kakaes Decl. at ¶ 25.
`
`
`
`
`
`Finally, Saalfrank describes “the modulation content of the individual
`
`carriers” as being “identical for all transmitter stations of the transmission
`
`region.” Ex. ARRIS1015, col. 2, ¶ 9; see also Kakaes Decl. at ¶ 26. In fact,
`
`Saalfrank discloses that, “[i]n order to ensure a flawless common-wave
`
`operation within a transmission region it is mandatory that all carrier
`
`frequencies used for transmitting programs or data are impinged with
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`respectively identical modulation content.” Ex. ARRIS1015, col. 3, ¶ 3; see
`
`also Kakaes Decl. at ¶ 26. As described by Dr. Kakaes, one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have understood this to mean that each of the plurality of
`
`transmitters in a region of Saalfrank’s system transmits the same set of carrier
`
`signals, previously illustrated in the annotation of FIG. 1a above. See Kakaes
`
`Decl. at ¶ 26. In other words, “all transmitters” within a particular region of
`
`Saalfrank’s system-that is, at least a first and a second transmitter-transmit
`
`carrier signals corresponding to and representing substantially the same
`
`information as the carrier signals transmitted by the other transmitters in the
`
`same region, as required by the ‘210 patent. See id. The geographically
`
`separated transmitters transmit the claimed carrier signals in simulcast, just as
`
`in the claims of the ‘210 patent.
`
`As a result, Saalfrank anticipates independent claims 1 and 10 as well as
`
`dependent claims 7-8 and 15-17 of the ‘210 patent.
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1
`
`
`
`(A.) A multi-carrier simulcast transmission system for transmitting in a
`
`desired frequency band at least one message contained in an information
`
`signal, the system comprising:
`
`As generally explained above, Saalfrank discloses a multi-carrier
`
`simulcast system. Specifically, Saalfrank’s system
`
`
`19
`
`includes “transmitter
`
`
`
`stations” that “simultaneously emit transmission signals . . . on the very same
`
`transmission
`
`frequency and/or
`
`the same carrier
`
`frequencies.” Ex.
`
`ARRIS1015, col. 1, ¶ 4 (emphasis added). The multi-carrier transmission
`
`method implemented by the Saalfrank system is COFDM. See Kakaes Decl. at
`
`¶ 20; Ex. ARRIS1015, col. 1, ¶ 4 (“the so called COFDM-method (Coded
`
`Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplex) is provided as the transmission
`
`procedure . . . .”). Saalfrank further discloses “a plurality of individual
`
`carriers” that can be “impinged with a 4DPSK-modulation (DPSK-
`
`Differential Phase Shift Keying).” Ex. ARRIS1015, col. 1, ¶ 4 (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`(B.) a first transmitter configured to transmit a first plurality of carrier
`
`signals within the desired frequency band, each of the first plurality of carrier
`
`signals representing a portion of the information signal substantially not
`
`represented by others of the first plurality of carrier signals; and
`
`Regarding a “first transmitter,” Saalfrank describes a “nationwide”
`
`communication network with multiple, discrete transmission regions, with
`
`multiple transmitters per region. See Ex. ARRIS1015, col. 2, ¶ 1; see also
`
`Kakaes Decl. at 26. Saalfrank discloses that “all transmitter stations
`
`simultaneously emit transmission signals with the same modulation content on
`
`the very same transmission frequency and/or the same carrier frequencies.”
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Ex. ARRIS1015, col. 1, ¶ 4 (emphasis added). Accordingly, Saalfrank
`
`discloses at least a first transmitter configured to transmit carrier signals. See
`
`Kakaes Decl. at ¶ 26.
`
`Next, with regard to multicarrier transmission, Saalfrank describes that
`
`its transmitters, including the “first transmitter,” are configured to transmit a
`
`plurality of carrier signals within the desired frequency band, as claimed. See
`
`Kakaes Decl. at ¶ 21. For example, Saalfrank discloses that “[w]ithin the
`
`channel bandwidth available here a plurality of individual carriers (e.g.,
`
`448 carrier frequencies equidistantly spaced over the frequency axis) is
`
`impinged [i.e., modulated] with a 4-DPSK-modulation.” Ex. ARRIS1015, col.
`
`1, ¶ 4 (emphasis added); see also Kakaes Decl. at ¶ 21.
`
`Finally, with respect to a first plurality of carrier signals representing a
`
`portion of the information signal substantially not represented by others of the
`
`first plurality of carrier signals, Saalfrank describes that “[t]he individual
`
`carriers are each modulated with one part of the digital data, with the
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
