UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`ARUBA NETWORKS, INC., HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE
`COMPANY, AND HP INC., AND ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`
`MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00768
`Patent 5,659,891
`
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S CORRECTED RESPONSE TO DECISION TO
`INITIATE TRIAL FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`Mail Stop "PATENT BOARD"
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2014, Aruba v. MTel., Page 1, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`BACKGROUND ......................................................................................... 11 
`I.
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................. 22 
`II.
`III. PROPER CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................... 66 
`A.
`Rules Governing Claim Construction - Phillips Standard
`Governs ............................................................................................. 66 
`1.
`Look to Claims Themselves and Then Specification .............. 77 
`2.
`Can Read Specification Limitations into Claims ..................... 77 
`3.
`Can Rely on Extrinsic Evidence .............................................. 88 
`Background on the Technology and the ’891 Patent ......................... 88 
`1.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .......................................... 88 
`2.
`Demand for Channels Exceeds Supply ...................................... 8 
`3.
`Increased Channel Capacity with Multiple Carriers .................. 9 
`4.
`Near-Far Interference ................................................................ 9 
`5.
`Symmetric Condition .............................................................. 10 
`6.
`No Near-Far Problem with Co-location................................... 12 
`7.
`Asymmetric Condition ............................................................ 13 
`82. Claim Limitations and Increased Channel Capacity .................. 8 
`Construction of Independent Claim Terms ........................................ 15 
`1.
`“single mask-defined, bandlimited channel” of claims 1,
`3, and 5 .................................................................................... 15 
`“band edge of the mask” of claims 1, 3, and 5 ........................ 16 
`i.
`Board’s Argument Regarding Nearest Band Edge
`in Prior IPRs .................................................................. 17 
`Board’s Argument Regarding Nearest Band Edge
`in this IPR ...................................................................... 19 
`iii. Dr. Kesan’s Band Edge Determination ......................... 28 
`iv. Nearest Band Edge Increases Message Capacity .......... 34 
`
`2.
`
`ii.
`
`
`
`Field Code Changed
`
`Field Code Changed
`
`Field Code Changed
`
`Field Code Changed
`
`Field Code Changed
`
`Field Code Changed
`
`Field Code Changed
`
`Field Code Changed
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2014, Aruba v. MTel., Page 2, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`

`v.
`Intrinsic Masks Confirm Nearest Band Edge ................ 36 
`vi. Dr. Kakaes’ Band Edge Determination ......................... 43 
`vii. Summary ....................................................................... 47 
`“transmitting carriers from the same location” of claims
`1, 3, and 5 ................................................................................ 47 
`IV. REFERENCES RELIED UPON BY PETITIONER ................................... 49 
`A.
`Petrovic ............................................................................................. 49 
`B.
`Raith .................................................................................................. 50 
`C.
`Alakija ............................................................................................... 50 
`VIV. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-5 ARE NOT ANTICIPATED BY
`PETROVIC. ................................................................................................. 49 
`A.
`Burden of Proof ................................................................................. 50 
`B.
`Petrovic does not anticipate claims 1, 3, and 5. ................................. 50 
`1.
`Petitioner’s Argument ............................................................. 52 
`2.
`Patent Owner’s Argument ................................................... 5252 
`i.
`FIG. 1 of Petrovic does not disclose “operating or
`transmitting said carriers… such that the frequency
`difference between the center frequency of the
`outer most of said carriers and the band edge of the
`mask … is more than half the frequency difference
`between the center frequencies of each adjacent
`carrier,” if the “band edge” is interpreted under
`Phillips .......................................................................... 53 
`Petrovic does not disclose “transmitting said
`carriers from the same location” .................................... 62 
`Petrovic does not anticipate dependent claims 2 and 4. ..................... 64 
`1.
`Patent Owner’s Argument ....................................................... 65 
`2.
`Petitioner’s Argument ............................................................. 68 
`3.
`Summary ................................................................................. 71 
`VIV. GROUND 2: CLAIM 5 IS NOT OBVIOUS OVER PETROVIC IN
`VIEW OF RAITH AND ALAKIJA. .............................................................. 71 
`
`ii.
`
`C.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`
`Field Code Changed
`
`Field Code Changed
`
`Field Code Changed
`
`Field Code Changed
`
`Field Code Changed
`
`Field Code Changed
`
`Field Code Changed
`
`Field Code Changed
`
`Field Code Changed
`
`Field Code Changed
`
`Field Code Changed
`
`Field Code Changed
`
`Field Code Changed
`
`Field Code Changed
`
`Field Code Changed
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2014, Aruba v. MTel., Page 3, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`

`
`
`A.
`
`Petrovic in view of Raith and Alakija does not render claim 5
`obvious. ............................................................................................. 71 
`VIIVI. ................................................................................................ CONCLUSION
`
`Field Code Changed
`7676 
`
`
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2014, Aruba v. MTel., Page 4, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`CASES 
`Advanced Display Sys. Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir.
`2000) ................................................................................................................. 47
`Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ 2d 1072 (BPAI 2010) ................................................. 6940
`Ex parte Papst-Motoren, 1 USPQ2d 1655 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986) ............... 7
`In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................. 69
`In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................ 7
`In re Nuvasive, Inc., No. 15-1670 (Fed. Cir. December 7, 2016) ................ 71, 7263
`In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981 (CCPA 1974) ........................................................... 6760
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................... 69
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................ 4740
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................. passim
`Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .......... 8
`Vitrionics Corp. v. Conceptronic, 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................ 7
`Xerox Corp. v. 3Com Corp., 458 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................ 4740
`OTHER AUTHORITIES 
`35 United States Code § 103 .............................................................................. 6760
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ................................................................................................... 1
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2111.01 .................................................. 7
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2558 ....................................................... 6
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Formatted: Justified
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2014, Aruba v. MTel., Page 5, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`

`Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 1"
`
`2003.
`
`2004.
`
`2005.
`
`2006.
`
`2007.
`
`2008.
`
`
`PATENT OWNER UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST
`2001.
`Declaration of Dr. Jay P. Kesan.
`2002.
`Application note from Silicon Labs that demonstrates the compliance
`of Si446x RFICs with the regulatory requirements of FCC Part 90 in
`the 450-470 MHz band.
`Tutorial from Electronic Design magazine on understanding modern
`digital modulation techniques.
`Tutorial from www.complextoreal.com on understanding frequency
`shift keying (FSK) and more.
`Declaration of Hostile Expert Paul S. Min, Ph.D., Regarding the
`Constructions of Certain Claim Limitations of U.S. Patent Nos.
`5,659,891 and 5,809,428.
`Deposition of William Hays in MTel v. Apple Inc. (CASE NO. 2:13-
`cv-258-JRG-RSP) on Apr. 1, 2014.
`Deposition of Dr. Rade Petrovic in MTel v. Apple Inc. (CASE NO.
`2:13-cv-258-JRG-RSP) on May 1, 2014.
`Deposition of Dr. Rade Petrovic in MTel v. Leap (CASE NO. 2:13-cv-
`00885-JRG-RSP) on Apr. 3, 2015.
`Deposition of Dr. Rade Petrovic in MTel v. AT&T (CASE NO. 2:14-
`cv-00897-RSP) on Oct 22, 2015.
`Exhibit 2 of Deposition of Dr. Kesan in MTel v. Samsung (CASE NO.
`2:15-cv-00183-JRG-RSP) Sep. 4, 2015 (annotated Figure 3B from the
`’891 Patent).
`Second Declaration of Dr. Jay P. Kesan.
`Transcript of the deposition of Dr. Apostolos Kakaes on December 15,
`2016.
`Transcript of the deposition of Dr. Apostolos Kakaes on December 16,
`2016.
`
`2009.
`
`2010.
`
`2011.
`2012.
`
`2013.
`
`
`
`v
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2014, Aruba v. MTel., Page 6, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`

`
`2014.
`
`2015.
`
`Redlined version of Patent Owner’s Corrected Response compared to
`Patent Owner’s Response filed January 9, 2017, Paper 28.
`Patent Owner’s Listing of All of Petitioner’s Reply Citations to Patent
`Owner’s Response and the Corresponding Page and Line Numbers in
`Patent Owner’s Corrected Response.
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2014, Aruba v. MTel., Page 7, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`

`
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (“Patent Owner”), hereby
`
`responds to the Decision to Institute Trial for Inter Partes Review of claims 1-5 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,659,891 (“the ’891 patent”)”).
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`On March 16, 2016, Petitioner Aruba Networks, Inc., Hewlett Packard
`
`Enterprise Company, and HP Inc. (“Aruba” or “Petitioner”) filed a Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, IPR2016-00768, requesting inter
`
`partes review of claims 1-5 of the ’891 Patent. On the same day, Petitioner ARRIS
`
`Group, Inc. (“ARRIS” or “Petitioner”) filed an almost identical Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, IPR2016-00766, requesting inter partes
`
`review of claims 1-5 of the ’891 Patent. IPR2016-00766 was later joined with
`
`IPR2016-00768. See IPR2016-00768, Paper 26. Petitioner Aruba Networks, Inc.,
`
`Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, and HP Inc. and ARRIS Group, Inc. will be
`
`collectively referred to as “Petitioner.”
`
`On September 21, 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”)
`
`issued a Decision to Institute Trial for Inter Partes Review (“Institution Decision”)
`
`as to claims 1-5 of the ’891 patent based on the following grounds:
`
`(1) Claims 1-5 as anticipated by Dr. Rade Petrovic et al., Permutation
`
`Modulation for Advanced Radio Paging, IEEE Proceedings of Southeastcon ‘93 (7
`
`April, 1993) (Ex. 1013, “Petrovic”). IPR2016-00768, Paper 13 at pp. 14-22.
`
`1
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2014, Aruba v. MTel., Page 8, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`

`
`
`(2) Claim 5 as obvious over Petrovic in view of Raith, WO8908355 (Ex.
`
`1014, “Raith”) and Alakija et al., A Mobile Base Station Phased Array Antenna
`
`(Ex. 1014, “Raith”). Id.
`
`Patent Owner deposed Petitioner’s expert Dr. Paul Kakaes on December 15-
`
`16, 2016.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
`By this response, Patent Owner respectfully submits the following
`
`arguments and supporting evidence.
`
`The ’891 Patent, entitled “Multicarrier Techniques
`
`in Bandlimited
`
`Channels,” was filed on June 7, 1995 and issued on August 19, 1997. The ’891
`
`Patent expired on June 7, 2015.
`
`The ’891 Patent describes and claims methods and systems for 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. Ex. 1001 at Abstract. In addition to co-location, these
`
`systems and methods describe transmitting the carriers in a way that the frequency
`
`difference between the center frequency of the outer most carrier and the band
`
`edge of the mask defining the channel (hereafter Dm) is more than half the
`
`frequency difference between each adjacent carrier (hereafter Dc). See the ’891
`
`
`
`2
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2014, Aruba v. MTel., Page 9, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`

`
`Patent, Ex. 1001, claims 1, 3, and 5. Using this notation, this claim limitation can
`
`be expressed as Dm > Dc, and is described below as the asymmetric condition.
`
`Each of the claims 1, 3, and 5 of the ’891 Patent recite “the band edge of the
`
`Formatted: Justified
`
`mask” in the asymmetric condition. The construction of this term applied by
`
`Petitioner and adopted by the Board in instituting this IPR is that the band edge is
`
`any band edge of the mask. This is the broadest interpretation possible. The ’891
`
`Patent has expired so this term should be construed under district court rules.
`
`These rules require that the Specification be considered when construing claim
`
`terms.
`
`Patent Owner respectfully submits that neither Petitioner nor the Board in
`
`instituting this IPR provided evidence that the Specification teaches or suggests
`
`that the band edge is any band edge of the mask. In addition, neither Petitioner nor
`
`the Board in instituting this IPR provided evidence that any band edge of the mask
`
`would satisfy the purpose of the claimed invention as described in the
`
`Specification.
`
`In contrast, Patent Owner has provided evidence that the Specification
`
`plainly states that the band edge of the mask is the nearest band edge to the outer
`
`most carriers. Patent Owner has also provided lengthy evidence that its
`
`construction satisfies the purpose of the claimed invention as described in the
`
`Specification.
`
`
`
`3
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2014, Aruba v. MTel., Page 10, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`

`
`
`As a result, the preponderance of evidence shows that the band edge of the
`
`mask should be construed as the nearest band edge to the outer most carriers.
`
`Based upon this construction, Petrovic does not teach or suggest claims 1, 3,
`
`and 5 of the ’891 Patent. As a result, claims 1, 3, and 5 should be confirmed.
`
`Similarly, claim 2 and 4 that depend from claims 1 and 3 should be confirmed at
`
`least for the same reason as claims 1 and 3 and the additional features they recite.
`
`Further, each of the claims 2 and 4 of the ’891 Patent recite overlapping
`
`adjacent carriers. Petitioner has provided evidence in the form of expert witness
`
`testimony that the carriers of Petrovic overlap. The Board in instituting this IPR
`
`has relied on this evidence.
`
`Patent Owner has provided evidence in the form of expert witness testimony
`
`that the carriers of Petrovic do not overlap as required by claims 2 and 4. Patent
`
`Owner has further shown that the Specification of the ’891 Patent explicitly
`
`discloses that carrier overlap is a result of the asymmetric condition, while the
`
`description of Petrovic is completely silent with regard to carrier overlap.
`
`It is Petitioner’s burden to show by the preponderance of the evidence that
`
`Petrovic teaches overlapping carriers. Because the preponderance of the evidence
`
`does not show this, claims 2 and 4 should be confirmed.
`
`More specifically, the arguments with regard to the Petition grounds are as
`
`follows. First, with regard to Ground 1, Petrovic does not teach, at least, (i)
`
`
`
`4
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2014, Aruba v. MTel., Page 11, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`

`
`“operating or transmitting said carriers… such that the frequency difference
`
`between the center frequency of the outer most of said carriers and the band edge
`
`of the mask … is more than half the frequency difference between the center
`
`frequencies of each adjacent carrier;” and (ii) “operating or transmitting said
`
`carriers from the same location.” Dependent claims 2 and 4 are not anticipated by
`
`Petrovic, because Petrovic does not teach or suggest adjacent carriers that overlap
`
`with each other and adjacent subchannels that overlap with each other.
`
`Additionally, dependent claims 2 and 4 are not anticipated by Petrovic, because
`
`independent claims 1 and 3, from which they depend respectively, are not
`
`anticipated by Petrovic and because of the additional features they recite.
`
`In regard to limitations (i) and (ii), the ’891 Patent has expired requiring
`
`claim construction under district court rules. Patent Owner submits that under its
`
`construction of the “band edge of the mask” and “transmitting multiple carriers
`
`from the same location,” Petrovic cannot teach limitations (i) and (ii).
`
`Second, with regard to Ground 2, Petrovic does not teach limitations (i) and
`
`(ii) of claim 5, as described above. Therefore, Petrovic does not teach claim 5.
`
`Raith and Alakija, either alone or in combination, do not cure the defect of
`
`Petrovic with regard to limitation (i). With regard to limitation (ii), Raith and
`
`Alakija do not cure the defect of Petrovic for at least two reasons. First, Petitioner
`
`has provided no articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support
`
`
`
`5
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2014, Aruba v. MTel., Page 12, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`

`
`the legal conclusion of obviousness. Second, the combination would render the
`
`purpose of Petrovic locating two transmitters at different locations inoperable.
`
`Further in regard to Ground 2, there would be no motivation to combine
`
`Petrovic with the teachings of either Raith or Alakija. Ex. 2011 at ¶ 128. Petrovic
`
`specifically states that its teachings cannot be applied in cellular systems as these
`
`systems are inherently different: “the higher efficiency attained in cellular
`
`networks is a result of the inherent differences in the type of services offered.” Ex.
`
`1013 at 4, col. 1, ¶ 1. While the spectral efficiency of Petrovic’s system improved
`
`upon that of paging systems at the time, it could not attain the spectral efficiency of
`
`cellular networks. Since both Raith and Alakija disclose cellular systems, it would
`
`be nonsensical to implement Petrovic’s modulation technique since it would
`
`reduce spectral efficiency of the new system.
`
`Therefore, claims 1-5 of the ’891 Patent should be confirmed.
`
`III. PROPER CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A. Rules Governing Claim Construction - Phillips Standard Governs
`
`The ’891 Patent expired on June 7, 2015, so the proper claim construction is
`
`that used in district court review. The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI)
`
`standard does not apply. In regard to the proper claim construction used in district
`
`court review, MPEP 2258 provides that “[i]n a reexamination proceeding involving
`
`claims of an expired patent, claim construction pursuant to the principle set forth
`
`
`
`6
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2014, Aruba v. MTel., Page 13, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`

`
`by the court in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321,
`
`1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (words of a claim “are generally given their plain and
`
`ordinary meaning” as understood by a PHOSITA at the time of the invention)
`
`should be applied since the expired claims are not subject to amendment. See Ex
`
`parte Papst-Motoren, 1 USPQ2d 1655 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986).”
`
`1.
`Look to Claims Themselves and Then Specification
`The first step in construing claims under Phillips is to “look to the words of
`
`the claims themselves.” Vitrionics Corp. v. Conceptronic, 90 F.3d 1576, 1582
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1996). Second, the specification must be considered when construing
`
`claim terms. Id. “[T]he specification is always highly relevant.” Id.
`
`2.
`Can Read Specification Limitations into Claims
`Claim construction under Phillips varies from the BRI standard in at least
`
`two important ways. Claim construction under Phillips may read limitations in the
`
`specification into the claims. For example, “[t]he presumption that a term is given
`
`its plain and ordinary meaning may be rebutted by the applicant by clearly setting
`
`forth a different definition of the term in the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d
`
`1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the USPTO looks to the
`
`ordinary use of the claim terms taking into account definitions or other
`
`“enlightenment” contained in the written description). MPEP 2111.01.
`
`
`
`7
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2014, Aruba v. MTel., Page 14, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`

`
`
`3.
`Can Rely on Extrinsic Evidence
`Under Phillips, “it is entirely appropriate, perhaps even preferable, for a
`
`court to consult trustworthy extrinsic evidence to ensure that the claim construction
`
`it is tending to from the patent file is not inconsistent with clearly expressed,
`
`plainly apposite, and widely held understandings from the pertinent technical
`
`field.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. HP Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`B.
`
`Background on the Technology and the ’891 Patent
`
`Formatted: Space Before: 18 pt
`
`1.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`As Dr. Kesan has described, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the invention (PHOSITA) of the ’891 Patent would possess a bachelor’s degree
`
`in electrical engineering or its equivalent and about four years working in the field
`
`of wireless telecommunications networks and would possess knowledge regarding
`
`frequency, amplitude, and masks as used in telecommunications, or equivalent
`
`education and work experience. Ex. 2011 at ¶ 9.
`
`2.
`Demand for Channels Exceeds Supply
`Per Dr. Kesan, the FCC regulates the frequency ranges or channels of
`
`carriers and their maximum allowable power levels in each channel. Ex. 2011 at ¶
`
`19. The ’891 Patent describes that, at that time, demand for channels allocated to
`
`mobile paging exceeded supply. Id. at ¶ 20. As a result, Dr. Kesan finds that the
`
`’891 Patent was directed to finding a solution to this problem. Id.
`
`
`
`8
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2014, Aruba v. MTel., Page 15, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`

`
`
`3.
`Increased Channel Capacity with Multiple Carriers
`The ’891 Patent lists two possible known solutions. Dr. Kesan describes
`
`these as (1) increasing the message rate of a channel and (2) increasing the
`
`message capacity of a channel. Id. at ¶ 21. The ’891 Patent further describes that a
`
`known method of (2) increasing the message capacity of a channel is to use more
`
`than one carrier in the channel. Id. at ¶ 22.
`
`4.
`Near-Far Interference
`A problem with this method, however, is that “stringent protection levels”
`
`must be maintained between the multiple carriers. Ex. 2011 at ¶ 23. These
`
`stringent protection levels are additional FCC regulations called emission masks.
`
`Id. at ¶¶ 23-24. The ’891 Patent describes that FCC emission masks are directed to
`
`the near-far interference problem. Id. at ¶ 25. Dr. Kesan explains the near-far
`
`interference problem in regard to the two adjacent carriers shown below in
`
`Drawing 4. Id. at ¶ 26.
`
`Carrier 1
`
`Carrier 2
`
`0
`
`‐50
`
`Power (dB)
`From Max. 
`Attenuation
`
`0
`
`1.4
`1
`Frequency (Hz)
`Drawing 4
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2014, Aruba v. MTel., Page 16, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`

`
`
`Dr. Kesan describes that “[n]ear-far interference occurs when a receiver is
`
`much closer (near) to, for example, Carrier 1 and much farther (far) from Carrier
`
`2,” as shown below in Drawing 5. Id. at ¶ 27.
`
`Carrier 1
`
`Carrier 2
`
`Far
`
`Near
`Receiver
`Transmitter 1
`Drawing 5
`
`Transmitter 2
`
`
`Dr. Kesan explains that, due to the inverse square law, the Receiver in
`
`Drawing 5 receives much more power from Transmitter 1 than from Transmitter 2.
`
`Id. at ¶ 28. “As a result, at the Receiver, Carrier 2 cannot be distinguished from a
`
`portion of Carrier 1.” Id.
`
`5.
`Symmetric Condition
`The ’891 Patent explains that a traditional method of overcoming near-far
`
`interference with multiple carriers in the same channel is to place emission mask
`
`limits on the individual carriers. Ex. 2011 at ¶ 29. Dr. Kesan has shown this
`
`graphically by placing masks on the carriers of Drawing 4 as shown below. Id.
`
`
`
`10
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2014, Aruba v. MTel., Page 17, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`

`Carrier 1
`
`Carrier 2
`
`Mask 1
`
`Mask 2
`
`0
`
`‐50
`
`Power (dB)
`From Max. 
`Attenuation
`
`
`
`0
`
`1.4
`1
`Frequency (Hz)
`Drawing 6
`
`
`The masks of Drawing 6 narrow the adjacent carriers, so the power of
`
`interfering frequencies is reduced. Id. at ¶ 30. See Dr. Kesan’s Drawing 7:
`
`Carrier 1
`
`Carrier 2
`
`Far
`
`Near
`Receiver
`Transmitter 1
`Drawing 7
`
`Transmitter 2
`
`
`Because the masks of Drawing 6 cause Carrier 1 to attenuate its signal at
`
`higher frequencies, those frequencies no longer interfere with Carrier 2 at the
`
`Receiver and the near-far interference is eliminated. Id. at ¶ 31. According to the
`
`’891 Patent, however, this requires that “[t]he carriers are symmetrically located
`
`within the channel such that they are evenly spaced relative to each other and to the
`
`band edges of the primary mask defining the primary channel.” Ex. 1001 at 2:6-9.
`
`Dr. Kesan illustrates this “symmetric condition” in Drawing 8. Ex. 2011 at ¶ 32.
`
`
`
`11
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2014, Aruba v. MTel., Page 18, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`

`Power (dB)
`From Max. 
`Attenuation
`
`
`
`Symmetric Condition Dm = Dc
`Carrier 1
`Carrier 2
`Primary
`Mask
`Dc
`
`0
`
`‐50
`
`Dm
`
`0
`
`1.4
`1
`Frequency (Hz)
`Drawing 8
`
`
`Dr. Kesan describes that “distance Dc defines the center point between
`
`Carrier 1 and Carrier 2, or more precisely, half the distance between the center
`
`frequencies of adjacent carriers. Distance Dm is the spacing between Carrier 1 and
`
`the nearest band edge of the Primary Mask of the channel. The symmetric
`
`condition of the ’891 Patent, therefore, occurs when Dc = Dm.” Id. at ¶ 33. Dr.
`
`Kesan finds that the ’891 Patent teaches that the symmetric condition is no longer
`
`the optimal solution. Id. at ¶ 34.
`
`6.
`No Near-Far Problem with Co-location
`Dr. Kesan explains that instead of mask limited subchannels within the
`
`primary channel that are subject to the symmetric condition, the ’891 Patent’s
`
`inventive solution to the near-far problem is transmitting the multiple carriers from
`
`the same location. Ex. 2011 at ¶ 35. There is no near-far problem, because with
`
`co-location, “there are no longer near and far distances.” Id. at 38. Figure 1 of the
`
`
`
`12
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2014, Aruba v. MTel., Page 19, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`

`
`’891 Patent, which is shown below, “shows that two carriers are transmitted from
`
`the same location by one antenna.” Id. at ¶¶ 36-37.
`
`
`
`Dr. Kesan further describes that Figure 1 also shows that two carriers are
`
`transmitting at the same time. Id. at ¶ 37. This makes sense in order “to increase
`
`the message capacity of the channel.” Id. Otherwise, “there is no improvement in
`
`message capacity of the channel.” Id.
`
`7.
`Asymmetric Condition
`Because the ’891 Patent uses co-location, the symmetric condition is no
`
`longer the optimal solution. Ex. 2011 at ¶ 35. As result, the ’891 Patent provides
`
`that “the frequency spacings between adjacent carriers, while symmetric to each
`
`other, can be smaller than the frequency spacings between the band edges of the
`
`mask and the nearest respective carrier.” Ex. 1001 at 4:17-20. Dr. Kesan explains
`
`that this asymmetry in carrier spacing is a new asymmetric condition. Ex. 2011 at
`
`¶ 40. He describes this condition graphically in Drawing 9 shown below.
`
`
`
`13
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2014, Aruba v. MTel., Page 20, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`

`Power (dB)
`From Max. 
`Attenuation
`
`
`
`Asymmetric Condition Dm > Dc
`Carrier 3
`Carrier 2
`Carrier 1
`0
`Primary
`Mask
`Dc
`
`‐50
`
`Dm
`
`0
`
`1.4
`1
`Frequency (Hz)
`Drawing 9
`
`
`
`Dr. Kesan describes that in Drawing 9 “distance Dc is half of the frequency
`
`spacing between Carrier 1 and the next adjacent carrier, which is now Carrier 3.
`
`Distance Dm is the spacing between Carrier 1 and the nearest band edge of the
`
`Primary Mask of the channel. The asymmetric condition of the ’891 Patent,
`
`requires that Dm > Dc.” Id. at ¶ 41.
`
`By comparing Drawing 8 and Drawing 9, Dr. Kesan shows that the
`
`asymmetric condition allows closer spacing of adjacent carriers that the symmetric
`
`condition. Id. at ¶ 42. This, in turn, allows an additional carrier to be added to the
`
`channel. Id. An additional carrier “increases the message capacity of the channel,
`
`which is the purpose of the ’891 Patent.” Id. In summary, transmitter colocation
`
`allows carrier spacing far closer than before, as long as the asymmetric condition
`
`of the claims is met. Closer carrier spacing results in higher spectral efficiency, i.e.
`
`more data can be transmitted per unit of spectrum.
`
`
`
`14
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2014, Aruba v. MTel., Page 21, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`

`
`
`8.2. Claim Limitations and Increased Channel Capacity
`Dr. Kesan analyzed independent claims 1, 3, and 5 and found they all are (1)
`
`Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt
`
`transmitting multiple carriers from the same location, and (2) transmitting the
`
`multiple carriers according to the asymmetric condition. Id. at ¶ 44. As a result,
`
`Dr. Kesan finds that “the language of these claims should be considered in relation
`
`to solving the problem of increasing the message capacity of the channel.” Id.
`
`C. Construction of Independent Claim Terms
`
`1.
`
`“single mask-defined, bandlimited channel” of claims
`1, 3, and 5
`
`Challenged claims 1, 3, and 5 recite a “single mask-defined, bandlimited
`
`channel.” Patent Owner agrees with the Board that this term should be given plain
`
`and ordinary meaning, and that:
`
`[t]he ’891 patent indicates that a mask-defined bandlimited channel is
`applied where “[t]he FCC requires signals to be confined within
`emission limit masks in order to prevent interference caused by
`signals straying or spilling into adjacent channels.” Ex. 1001, 1:57–
`59. In the context of the ’891 patent, a “bandlimited channel” is also
`where “carriers operating at different frequencies are fit within a
`single bandwidth allocation in a manner consistent with FCC mask
`requirements.” Id. at 5:15–19. The Specification thus describes this
`term essentially as a single range of frequencies in the frequency band
`where a spectral power mask limits the frequency range. Paper 13 at
`7.
`
`Patent Owner therefore submits that this term should be given plain and
`
`ordinary meaning with the understanding that “a reasonable reading of the claim
`
`
`
`15
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2014, Aruba v. MTel., Page 22, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`

`
`language on its face is that a ‘bandlimited channel’ is a single limited frequency
`
`range, and that a ‘mask’ is the constraint applied to define that limited frequency
`
`range.”
`
`2.
`
`“band edge of the mask” of claims 1, 3, and 5
`
`Challenged claims 1, 3, and 5 recite a “band edge of the mask.” Here, the
`
`Formatted: Justified
`
`term “band edge of the mask” means “nearest band edge of the mask.” Below
`
`Patent Owner provides evidence that the Specification plainly states that the band
`
`edge of the mask is the nearest band edge to the outer most carriers in reference to
`
`the asymmetric condition. Patent Owner also provides extensive testimonial
`
`evidence from Dr. Kesan that its construction satisfies the purpose of the claimed
`
`invention as described in the Specification. For example, Dr. Kesan’s declaration
`
`cites to the Specification no less than 26 times, while the declaration of Petitioner’s
`
`expert makes only 6 references to the Specification.
`
`Patent Owner’s construction of the term “band edge” is based on Dr.
`
`Kesan’s determination regarding the band edge and on the plain language of the
`
`Specification. As described below in detail, Dr. Kesan determined that “the band
`
`edge of the asymmetric condition is the edge of the mask that is nearest in
`
`frequency to the outer most carrier when that carrier is modulated.” Ex. 2011 at ¶
`
`65. In other words, Dr. Kesan’s determination is that the band edge is the nearest
`
`band edge to an outer most carrier.
`
`
`
`16
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2014, Aruba v. MTel., Page 23, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`

`
`
`Dr. Kesan’s determination is confirmed by the Specification of the ’891
`
`Patent. It describes that in accordance with