IPR2016-00768
`U.S. Patent No. 5,659,891
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`ARRIS GROUP, INC., ARUBA NETWORKS, INC.,
`HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY, and HP, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`Case IPR2016-00768
`Patent 5,659,8911
`______________________
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`CORRECTED PETITIONERS’ CONSOLIDATED REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2016-00766 has been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00768
`Petitioners, Ex. 1021 Page 00001
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00768
`U.S. Patent No. 5,659,891
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................... 2 I.
`A. “the band edge of the mask” (cls. 1, 3, 5) ....................................................... 2
`B. “transmitting carriers from the same location” (cls. 1, 3) ............................ 18
`C. “single mask-defined, bandlimited channel” (cls. 1, 3, 5) ............................ 21
`
` THE PRIOR ART ............................................................................................. 22 II.
`A. Petrovic discloses cls. 1.C, 3.C, 5.D ............................................................. 22
`B. Petrovic discloses cls. 1.B, 3.B ..................................................................... 33
`C. Petrovic discloses cls. 2, 4 ............................................................................ 36
`D. Petrovic in view of Raith and Alakija renders obvious cl. 5.B .................... 45
`
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................... 1 I.
`A. “the band edge of the mask” (cls.1, 3, 5) ........................................................ 1
`B. “transmitting carriers from the same location” (cls.1, 3) ............................. 14
`C. “single mask-defined, bandlimited channel” (cls.1, 3, 5) ............................. 16
`
` THE PRIOR ART ............................................................................................. 16 II.
`A. Petrovic discloses “frequency difference…between…the outer
`most…carriers and the band edge of the mask” (cls.1.C, 3.C, 5.D) .................... 16
`B. Petrovic discloses “transmitting said carriers from the same location”
`(cls.1.B, 3.B) ......................................................................................................... 26
`C. Petrovic discloses “adjacent carriers overlap” (cls.2, 4) .............................. 28
`D. Petrovic in view of Raith and Alakija renders obvious “co-locating…such
`that…carriers can be emanated from the same transmission source” (cl.5.B) .... 36
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00768
`Petitioners, Ex. 1021 Page 00002
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00768
`U.S. Patent No. 5,659,891
`
` LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent 5,659,891 to Hays et al., filed June 7, 1995
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Aruba
`Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00012, Plaintiff
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC’s Original
`Complaint (Jan. 4, 2016)
`Declaration of Apostolos (Paul) Kakaes
`Apple Inc. v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC,
`Case IPR2014-01035, Decision on Institution of Inter Partes
`Review (Jan. 22, 2015)
`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)
`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)
`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)
`The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language,
`1902, (3rd ed. 1992)
`Standards Coordinating Committee 10, Terms and Definitions,
`The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics
`Terms, 1140, (6th ed. 1996)
`McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms,
`1644, (5th ed. 1993)
`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)
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent 5,659,891 to Hays et al.,
`filed June 7, 1995
`Rade Petrovic, et al., Permutation Modulation for Advanced
`Radio Paging, IEEE Proceedings of Southeastcon ‘93 (Apr. 7,
`1993)
`International Patent WO 89/08355 to Raith et al., filed Feb. 8,
`1989
`
`ii
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1001
`Ex. 1002
`
`Ex. 1003
`Ex. 1004
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00768
`Petitioners, Ex. 1021 Page 00003
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00768
`U.S. Patent No. 5,659,891
`
`Description
`C. Alakija and S. P. Stapleton, A Mobile Base Station Phased
`Array Antenna, 1992 IEEE International Conference on
`Selected Topics in Wireless Communications 118 (Jun. 1992)
`IPR2015-01726, Paper No. 9 (Institution Decision)
`IPR2016-00768, Conference Call Hearing on Motions
`(Apr. 20, 2016)
`Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. Apostolos K. Kakaes
`U.S. Patent No. 5,590,403
`Declaration of Marissa B. Golub
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1015
`
`Ex. 1016
`Ex. 1017
`
`Ex. 1018
`Ex. 1019
`Ex. 1020
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`IPR2016-00768
`Petitioners, Ex. 1021 Page 00004
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00768
`U.S. Patent No. 5,659,891
`The Board correctly found at institution that Petitioners established a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing in proving claims 1-5 (“Claims”) unpatentable.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00768, Pap. 13 (“Inst.”), 2.
`
` Because the Petition demonstrates unpatentability, Patent
`
`Owner’s (“PO”) Response (“POR,” Pap. 28)
`
`
`
` improperly injects limitations into the
`
`Claims, and ignores the references’ plain disclosures. PO fails to rebut Petitioners’
`
`evidence.2, 3
`
`
`2 PO fails to cite and waives any arguments in Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 1-8, 10-18, 39, 43, 45,
`
`47, 59-60, 64, 70, 79-80, 86, 88-92, 97-98, 100-104, 107-108, 111, 113, 123-126,
`
`129-134. Pap. 14, 3; 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). Arguments in
`
`PO’s Preliminary Response not made in POR are waived. Id.
`
`3 Emphasis added, internal quotations/citations omitted, unless noted.
`
`
`
`1
`
`IPR2016-00768
`Petitioners, Ex. 1021 Page 00005
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00768
`U.S. Patent No. 5,659,891
`
`I.
`
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION4
` “the band edge of the mask” (cls. 1, 3, 5)
` A.
` For purposes of this proceeding, tThe Board
`
`correctly construed “the band edge of the mask” as “a band edge of the single
`
`mask-defined bandlimited channel.” Inst. 12. The Board’s construction is
`
`consistent with the ‘891’s disclosure and a POSITA’s understanding. Ex. 1001,
`
`cls. 1, 3, 5, 1:57-61, 3:16-18, 4:47-49, Fig. 4; Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 9-10, 1-8. In
`
`contrast, PO’s construction (POR 27) is divorced from the Claims and
`
`specification and should be rejected.
`
` As the Board properly found, tThe Claims
`
`recite “the band edge of the mask defining said channel,” referring back to the
`
`claim language “single mask-defined bandlimited channel.” Id.; Ex. 1001, cls. 1, 3,
`
`5.
`
`TWith respect to “the band edge,” the specification states “FCC masks typically
`
`require the power spectral density of a signal to be attenuated at least 70 dB at the
`
`band edge.” Ex. 1001, 1:57-61; Inst. 9; Ex. 1012, 48. The
`
`specification states Figure 4 is “an exemplary FCC emissions mask,” requiring
`
`4
`
`Because the ‘891 has expired, terms are construed under Phillips (Inst.6). Cf.
`
`POR49.
`
`
`
`2
`
`IPR2016-00768
`Petitioners, Ex. 1021 Page 00006
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00768
`U.S. Patent No. 5,659,891
`“attenuat[ion] at least 70 dB within 10 kHz from center frequency.” Ex. 1001,
`
`3:16-18, 4:47-49.
`
` Thus, as the Board correctly found, the specification
`
`describes “[T]the band edge” of the mask in Figure 4 “includ[es] the vertical lines
`
`at 10 kHz either side of the center frequency.” Inst. 10.5
`
`And cContrary to PO (POR 17-18), Kakaes confirmed a POSITA
`
`would have understood “the band edge” in Figure 4’s mask is at “plus 10
`
`kilohertz” and “minus 10 kilohertz” from the center frequency, “supported by…the
`
`fact that it’s a 70-dB attenuation, consistent with the specification.” Ex. 2012,
`
`68:10-69:3; see also Ex. 1018 ¶ 10; Ex. 2012, 78:1-6.
`
`
`5 “[T]he band edge” refers to a frequency. Ex.
`
`2012, 63:16-64:16.
`
`
`
`3
`
`IPR2016-00768
`Petitioners, Ex. 1021 Page 00007
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00768
`U.S. Patent No. 5,659,891
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 4.
`
`
`
` Moreover, as the Board explained, Tthe
`
`specification describes a “bandlimited channel” as “a single range of frequencies.”
`
`Inst. 7; Ex. 1001, 5:15-19, 1:57-59. As the Claims are expressly
`
`directed to a “single mask-defined bandlimited channel” and a “band edge of the
`
`mask defining said channel,” the Claims themselves require the mask
`
`to define that single range of frequencies. Accordingly, eEach of the
`
`left and right sides of the band edge of the mask must be located at respective
`
`frequencies such that, at minimum, they include the frequency range of the
`
`bandlimited channel—otherwise the mask would no longer be “defining [the]
`
`
`
`4
`
`IPR2016-00768
`Petitioners, Ex. 1021 Page 00008
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00768
`U.S. Patent No. 5,659,891
`channel.” Ex. 1001, cls. 1, 3, 5. This is consistent with a POSITA’s
`
`understanding.6 Ex. 2012, 37:11-25 (Kakaes: “the band edge of the mask defining
`
`the channel must be in a place where the channel has been included, or else it will
`
`not be the band edge defining the channel.”), 38:1-15, 46:24-47:10; Ex. 2013,
`
`180:5-181:4;
`
`Ex. 1018 ¶ 9. This is consistent with the specification, which expressly
`
`describes Figure 4 as “attenuated at least 70 dB at the band edge,” and shows the
`
`band edge of the mask defining the channel (at ±10 kHz), and including the
`
`channel.
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:57-61, 3:16-18, 4:47-49, Fig. 4; Ex. 1018 ¶ 10; Ex. 2012, 68:21-69:3;
`
`§ II.A.
`
`Abandoning its prior construction
`
`
`
`
`6 PO mischaracterizes Kakaes’ testimony regarding Petrovic (POR 17-18)—he did
`
`not need to determine the outer bounds of the term as the limitation is disclosed
`
`regardless of the outer bounds
`
`
`
` . See n. 10.
`
`
`
`5
`
`IPR2016-00768
`Petitioners, Ex. 1021 Page 00009
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00768
`U.S. Patent No. 5,659,891
` of “the band edge of the mask” as “the innermost frequencies at which the mask
`
`requires attenuation of the signal” (POR 22), PO now asserts the proper
`
`construction is “the band edge that is nearest to the center frequency of each outer
`
`most carrier at the highest power level of each outer most carrier.” POR 27; POR
`
`16-27. PO’s proposed construction should be rejected because it
`
`improperly reads in limitations that are contrary to the claim language and
`
`unsupported by the specification.
`
` As the Board correctly found, tThe Claims
`
`merely recite “the band edge of the mask” (Inst. 9), and do not require the
`
`extraneous limitations PO improperly seeks to add.
`
`Moreover, PO’s construction is based on fundamentally incorrect law. PO asserts
`
`“[c]laim construction under Phillips may read limitations in the specification into
`
`the claims” (POR 6-7), but “one of the cardinal sins of patent law—[is] reading a
`
`limitation from the written description into the claims.” Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303, 1319-20 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`
`
` Based on its false legal premise, PO reads in limitations not even
`
`described in the specification—nNowhere does the ‘891 describe, much less
`
`require, calculating the “nearest” band edge “at the highest power level of each
`
`outer most carrier.”
`
`
`
`6
`
`IPR2016-00768
`Petitioners, Ex. 1021 Page 00010
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00768
`U.S. Patent No. 5,659,891
`PO argues the specification describes a “nearest band edge” of “interest” that
`
`must be “identif[ied]” out of multiple band edges on a given side of the mask.
`
`POR 22-23. Contrary to PO, the specification uses the term “nearest” to
`
`distinguish the left band edge from the right band edge relative to a particular
`
`outermost carrier, and does not describe a “nearest band edge” out of multiple band
`
`edges on a given side of the mask. Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 12-13. The passage PO cites in
`
`purported support
`
`(Ex. 1001, 4:30-34) describes “the frequency difference between the center
`
`frequency of each carrier and the nearest band edge….” POR 16-17, 20-28, 43,
`
`49-50. But the Board found, “it is at least as likely from this
`
`description that the ‘nearest band edge’ can refer to…the vertical line depicting
`
`the band edge of the mask on the left side…and its relationship to the center
`
`frequency of the left-most carrier 32a, as compared with the vertical line depicting
`
`the band edge of the mask, farther away, on the right side...” Inst. 11.
`
`Indeed, tThe preceding paragraph of the specification confirms the claimed
`
`“frequency difference” addresses the relationship between “the band edges of the
`
`mask and the nearest respective carrier” (Ex. 1001, 4:17-23), i.e., the band edge
`
`of the mask on the left side and the left-most carrier (as opposed to the right-most
`
`carrier), and vice-versa.
`
`Ex. 1018 ¶ 13.
`
`
`
`7
`
`IPR2016-00768
`Petitioners, Ex. 1021 Page 00011
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00768
`U.S. Patent No. 5,659,891
`Moreover, the Board correctly found the specification does not contain any
`
`description or definition of “band edge” that portrays the mask having
`
`multiple edges (“for instance, innermost and outermost edges”)—rejecting PO’s
`
`argument that the specification describes a “nearest” band edge out of multiple
`
`band edges on a given side from the center frequency. Inst. 9; POR 27-29.
`
`Instead,
`
` as explained, the specification describes the band edge in Figure 4’s
`
`mask is at 10 kHz to the left and 10 kHz to the right of the center frequency
`
` , as would have been understood by a POSITA. Inst. 9-10;
`
`Ex. 1018 ¶ 10; Ex. 2012, 63:9-15; 36:9-16; cf. POR 3, 50 (the band edge is not
`
`“any” band edge as PO asserts).
`
`PO further relies on the unsubstantiated testimony of its expert,
`
`Kesan, to argue other masks allegedly show “multiple band edges,” but
`
`this extrinsic evidence is inconsistent with the specification and should be
`
`disregarded. Phillips, 418 F.3d at 1318. Kesan testifies without support “FCC
`
`emission masks can have multiple band edges,” meaning “all points along the edge
`
`of the mask that limits the frequency band” (Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 51, 48; see also ¶¶ 49-
`
`50)—but the materials cited do not even use the phrase “band edge” much less
`
`describe “multiple band edges.” POR 28; Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 14-15. Kesan’s testimony
`
`about “current” masks
`
`
`
`8
`
`IPR2016-00768
`Petitioners, Ex. 1021 Page 00012
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00768
`U.S. Patent No. 5,659,891
`(Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 49-51) in 2015 is further irrelevant to the understanding of a
`
`POSITA
`
`“at the time of the invention.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313.
`
`PO also erroneously argues “[h]alf the distance between carriers, Dc,
`
`needs to be minimized to increase the message capacity of the channel
`
`” and doing so is only possible by choosing the “nearest,” not “farthest”
`
`band edge, to minimize “Dm.” POR 33-34; POR 29-32, 42-43, 51-53. But the
`
`claims do not require minimizing the frequency difference between carriers, nor
`
`do they require minimizing the frequency difference between the band edge and
`
`the outermost carrier.7 Instead, the claims simply state the frequency
`
`difference between the band edge and outermost carrier is more than half the
`
`frequency difference between carriers. Indeed, Tthe specification
`
`explains that with transmitter co-location, a range of carrier spacings (“e.g., 5
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Nor should “the asymmetric condition” be read into the claims (see POR3, 28); cf.
`
`Ex.1012, 47-48, 107-114 (Examiner rejecting prosecution claims directed to
`
`spacing carriers “asymmetrically” as “well known in the art”).
`
`
`
`9
`
`IPR2016-00768
`Petitioners, Ex. 1021 Page 00013
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00768
`U.S. Patent No. 5,659,891
`to 10 kHz”) is achievable, but does not require minimizing carrier spacing to, e.g.,
`
`5 kHz. Ex. 1001, 4:12-15.
`
` Moreover, t he ‘891 describes that Ccarrier
`
`spacing is just one variable considered among other parameters
`
`
`
` : “[i]n accordance with the present invention,” “operating
`
`parameters…” and “other parameters can be adjusted” to “provid[e] optimal
`
`transmission performance.” Ex. 1001, 4:42-46; see also Ex. 2013, 191:3-192:3,
`
`192:22-194:15, 211:17-212:8. ‘891’s Figure 3B further shows Dm is not
`
`minimized to minimize Dc (confirmed by PO’s annotation of Figure 3B
`
` reproduced below). See POR 21; Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 16-18.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00768
`Petitioners, Ex. 1021 Page 00014
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00768
`U.S. Patent No. 5,659,891
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`POR21 (yellow highlight added).
`
`And Kakaes did not agree “minimizing Dm necessarily minimizes Dc”—he instead
`
` testified that decreasing Dm does not necessarily decrease Dc to satisfy
`
`the Claims (and likewise, increasing Dc does not necessarily mean
`
`increasing Dm). POR 33, 43; Ex. 2013, 185:7-17, 186:12-18; Ex. 1018 ¶ 18. This
`
`is consistent with the ‘891—
`
`
`
`11
`
`IPR2016-00768
`Petitioners, Ex. 1021 Page 00015
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00768
`U.S. Patent No. 5,659,891
` fFor example—if Dm in Figure 3B above is decreased, Dc need
`
`not necessarily be decreased to meet Dm > Dc (and vice-versa
`
` , if Dc is increased, Dm need not necessarily be
`
`increased).
`
`PO further incorrectly argues “the nearest band edge”
`
`means “the band edge that is nearest to the center frequency of each outer most
`
`carrier at the highest power level of each outer most carrier.” POR 27; POR 23-
`
`27. But the specification—including Figures 3A and 3B , on
`
`which PO relies (POR 23-27)—does not describe or disclose that
`
`the band edge is determined according to “the highest power level of each outer
`
`most carrier.” Ex. 1018 ¶ 19. PO describes a hypothetical “scenario”
`
`where “carriers 32c and 32d are not power level limited”
`
`
`
` to allegedly show “the nearest band edges to
`
`the center frequencies of carriers 32c and 32d are now points 31e and 31f,” but
`
`PO’s hypothetical carriers 32c and 32d as well as hypothetical points 31e
`
`and 31f are not described anywhere in the specification. POR 26-27.
`
` Furthermore, PO relies on Kesan’s incorrect testimony
`
`regarding the placement of Figure 4’s mask over Figure 5A’s carriers. POR 34-37,
`
`51.
`
`
`
`12
`
`IPR2016-00768
`Petitioners, Ex. 1021 Page 00016
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00768
`U.S. Patent No. 5,659,891
` As shown in Drawings 10 and 10b, Kesan incorrectly places Figure 4’s
`
`mask in Figure 5A to allegedly show “if the power levels of the carriers are kept
`
`below the diagonal lines of the FCC mask as shown in Fig 3B, the nearest band
`
`edges of the mask are the vertical lines of the mask.” POR36-37.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00768
`Petitioners, Ex. 1021 Page 00017
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00768
`U.S. Patent No. 5,659,891
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`POR36; Ex.2011¶75.
`
`POR37; Ex.2011¶77.
`
`But Kesan’s arbitrary placement of Figure 4’s mask in Figure 5A is
`
`
`
`14
`
`IPR2016-00768
`Petitioners, Ex. 1021 Page 00018
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00768
`U.S. Patent No. 5,659,891
` fundamentally incorrect because it ignores the FCC specifications
`
`stating the mask
`
` itself is defined relative to the total power of the unmodulated carrier. Ex.
`
`1012, 82 (47 C.F.R. § 22.106 (1994) (“the power of any emission shall be
`
`attenuated below the unmodulated carrier power (P)”)); Ex. 1001, 5:10-15.
`
`Thus, Kesan’s testimony that carriers should be transmitted at less than “full
`
`power” to fit within the mask is nonsensical, as the mask itself is defined
`
`relative to the total power of the unmodulated signal. Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 19-25. The
`
`carriers’ power level cannot simply be arbitrarily lowered to fit under a mask, as
`
`Kesan has done.8 Id.
`
`As Petitioners’ expert, Kakaes, explains, based on the FCC requirements,
`
` a POSITA would have understood “0 dB” in
`
`Figure 4 indicates a power level as a frame of reference relative to the total power
`
`of an unmodulated carrier, and “0 dB” in Figure 5A indicates a power level as a
`
`frame of reference relative to the maximum power level of the modulated carrier
`
`at a given frequency.
`
`
`8 Kesan’s analysis with respect to the mask submitted in an IDS during prosecution
`
`is likewise incorrect and should be disregarded . POR 37-
`
`40, 51; Ex. 1018 ¶ 26-28.
`
`
`
`15
`
`IPR2016-00768
`Petitioners, Ex. 1021 Page 00019
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00768
`U.S. Patent No. 5,659,891
`Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 20-21; Ex. 2012, 133:10-135:8. Thus, t To correctly determine
`
`how Figure 4’s mask is placed in Figure 5A, it is necessary to determine the total
`
`power of the unmodulated carrier (P). Ex. 1018 ¶ 23. Based on the total power
`
`of the unmodulated carrier, a POSITA would have understood
`
`the correct placement of Figure 4’s mask over Figure 5A’s carriers is at about 8.9-
`
`10.1 dB above the 0 dB reference point in Figure 5A (shown below in blue). Ex.
`
`1018 ¶ 23-24. This is consistent with the ‘891: “carriers [in Figure 5A] remained
`
`within the FCC mask.” Ex. 1001, 4:56-63; Ex. 1018 ¶ 24.
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, Figure 5A; Ex. 1018 ¶ 24.
`
` As shown below, cCorrectly applying Figure 4’s mask in
`
`Figure 5A further demonstrates PO’s construction is wrong. Using PO’s
`
`
`
`16
`
`IPR2016-00768
`Petitioners, Ex. 1021 Page 00020
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00768
`U.S. Patent No. 5,659,891
`construction, the alleged “nearest band edge” of Figure 4’s mask, looking at “the
`
`highest power level of each outer most carrier”
`
` is at approximately ±7.5 kHz, but the ‘891 specifies “the
`
`band edge” in Figure 4 is ±10 kHz from the center frequency (at 70
`
`dB) .
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:57-61, 3:16-18, 4:47-48; Ex. 1018 ¶ 25; see also Ex. 2011 ¶ 73.
`
`Moreover, under PO’s construction, a band edge of ±7.5 kHz does not
`
`even meet the claim limitations. Ex. 1018 ¶ 25.
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 5A.
`
`
`
`Thus, PO’s reliance on Kesan’s extrinsic hypotheticals should be rejected as
`
`incorrect and inconsistent with the specification and claims. Contrary to Kesan, a
`
`POSITA
`
`
`
`17
`
`IPR2016-00768
`Petitioners, Ex. 1021 Page 00021
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00768
`U.S. Patent No. 5,659,891
` would have understood “the band edge” in
`
`Figure 4’s mask is at 70 dB at ±10kHz from the center frequency and would not
`
`have understood the specification as describing selecting a “nearest band edge”
`
`from, e.g., points along the diagonal lines of Figure 4’s mask based on the highest
`
`power level of the carriers. Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 9-28.
`
`“transmitting carriers from the same location” (cls. 1, 3)9
` B.
`PO’s proposed construction of “transmitting carriers from the same location”
`
`to additionally require transmitting “at the same time” should be
`
`rejected because it improperly reads in an extraneous limitation. POR 44-46;
`
`Hoganas v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 9 F.3d 948, 950 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`As the Board correctly found, tThe Claims “do[] not recite any temporal
`
`requirement, i.e., that all the carriers must be transmitted at the same time, only
`
`that the carriers must be transmitted from the same location.” Inst. 17 (emph.
`
`orig.). Indeed, PO concedes the “claims do not recite a temporal
`
`component with regard to transmitting.” POR 59.
`
`PO’s construction finds no support in the specification, which
`
`
`9 This claim language is not in
`
`Claim 5. POR44. For the same reasons herein, Claim 5 does not require
`
`transmitting “at the same time.”
`
`
`
`18
`
`IPR2016-00768
`Petitioners, Ex. 1021 Page 00022
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00768
`U.S. Patent No. 5,659,891
` describes transmitting carriers
`
`from the same location, but never once mentions or requires
`
`transmission “at the same time.” Ex. 1001, 2:26-36, 2:37-46, 2:47-59, 4:8-11;
`
`Ex. 1018 ¶ 29. PO relies on Figure 1 (POR 59), but there is no disclosure
`
`Figure 1 requires transmission “at the same time”—nor is Figure 1 limited to a
`
`specific modulation method. Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 30-31. Besides, it is well-
`
`settled that limitations from embodiments are not read into claims. Hill-Rom
`
`Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`Kesan’s extrinsic testimony regarding the alleged “reasons” for co-location
`
` of carriers (POR 44-46) also provides no support for PO’s construction.
`
`First, PO asserts transmission “at the same time” is required to achieve the
`
`“purpose” of increasing “message capacity.” POR 45, 59. But this is wrong in
`
`view of the claim language, which recites a “method of
`
`operating…carriers.” Inst. 17; POR 60
`
` (Claims
`
`“require[] actually ‘operating…paging carriers’”) (emph.orig.). Further, PO’s own
`
`patent (U.S. 5,590,403) explains in well-known modulation
`
`schemes, such as modulated on/off keying (“OOK”), the amount of information
`
`
`
`19
`
`IPR2016-00768
`Petitioners, Ex. 1021 Page 00023
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00768
`U.S. Patent No. 5,659,891
` or “messages” transmitted is a function of the number of carriers that are
`
`operational, not of the number transmitting “at the same time.” Ex. 1019, 13:57-
`
`14:15;
`
`Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 36, 32-39
`
` . In OOK, “[e]ach carrier
`
`frequency transmits a binary ‘one’” if keyed “ON” and “a binary ‘zero’” if keyed
`
`“OFF.” Ex. 1019, 14:10-12, Fig. 10; Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 37-39.
`
`
`
` Thus, even when a carrier is “off,” a POSITA would have understood the carrier
`
`is active and conveying information—a binary zero. Ex. 1018 ¶ 39; Ex. 2012,
`
`123:5-124:13; Ex. 1019, 14:13-15, 13:64-67
`
`
`
` (for “n” carrier frequencies, “an n-bit binary word” is conveyed even when
`
`some carriers are “off”).
`
` Second, PO argues transmission “at the same time” is required to
`
`“prevent[] [near-far] interference among co-located carriers
`
`.” POR 45. But the Claims do not require “preventing [near-far] interference.”
`
`Instead , tThe Claims recite “transmitting said carriers,” and, as PO and
`
`Kesan acknowledge, near-far interference occurs at the receivers—not at the
`
`transmitters. Ex. 2011 ¶ 27
`
`
`
`20
`
`IPR2016-00768
`Petitioners, Ex. 1021 Page 00024
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00768
`U.S. Patent No. 5,659,891
` (“near-far interference experienced by a
`
`receiver…”); POR 10-11; Ex. 1018 ¶ 40. Contrary to PO’s assertion that
`
`“interference between carriers can only occur if they are transmitting at the same
`
`time” (POR 45), whether a receiver experiences interference depends on many
`
`factors, including receiver design, power level per carrier, and receiver’s distance
`
`from the transmitter. Ex. 1018 ¶ 41. Thus,
`
` sSimultaneous carrier transmission is not a necessary condition for interference.
`
`Ex. 1018 ¶ 41. Moreover, iIn multicarrier modulation schemes like
`
`OOK, during operation, all adjacent subcarriers overlap (i.e., interfere) even
`
`though all subcarriers may not be keyed “ON” at every time instant. Ex.
`
`1018 ¶ 41.
`
`“single mask-defined, bandlimited channel” (cls. 1, 3, 5)
`
` C.
`Construction of this term is unnecessary as it is undisputed the prior art
`
`discloses a “single mask-defined, bandlimited channel.” Inst. 8; Ex. 1001, 1:57-59,
`
`5:11-19; POR 6-7; Vivid Techs. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1999).
`
`
`
`21
`
`IPR2016-00768
`Petitioners, Ex. 1021 Page 00025
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00768
`U.S. Patent No. 5,659,891
`
` THE PRIOR ART II.
`
`
`Petrovic discloses
` A.
` “frequency
`difference…between…the outer most…carriers and the band
`edge of the mask” (cls. 1.C, 3.C, 5.D)
`
`PO argues Petrovic does not disclose the frequency difference between the
`
`outermost carrier and the band edge of the mask defining said channel is more than
`
`half the frequency difference between adjacent carriers (POR 48-58), but Petrovic
`
`discloses this limitation under the Board’s correct construction, and even under
`
`PO’s incorrect construction.
`
`Under the Board’s construction (§ I.A), Petrovic discloses this limitation.
`
`Pet. 20-21; Inst. 14. Petrovic discloses “doubling the channel bandwidth” of a
`
`known 25 kHz channel to a 50 kHz channel to provide “a 35 kHz pass band in the
`
`middle of the channel and 7.5 kHz guard bands on each side,” with “eight
`
`subcarriers spaced 5kHz apart.” Ex. 1013, 1; Pet. 20-21; Ex. 1003 ¶ 19; Inst. 14,
`
`18-19. Petrovic thus discloses the frequency difference between the outermost
`
`carriers and the band edge of the mask defining the channel (at least 7.5 kHz) is
`
`more than half the frequency difference between adjacent carriers (2.5 kHz, which
`
`is half of 5 kHz). Pet. 21; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 21-22. PO argues “the guard bands” cannot
`
`be “us[ed]…in relation to the mask.” POR 52-53. But Petrovic expressly
`
`discloses an “emission mask” represented by “dashed-lines” (in Figures 1 and 2)
`
`defining a 50 kHz channel that includes “a 35 kHz pass band in the middle of the
`
`
`
`22
`
`IPR2016-00768
`Petitioners, Ex. 1021 Page 00026
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00768
`U.S. Patent No. 5,659,891
`channel and 7.5 kHz guard bands on each side.” Ex. 1013, 1-2; Pet. 20-21; Ex.
`
`1003 ¶ 19; Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 42-43 Ex. 2012, 32:6-33:12; Ex. 2012, 223 (Kakaes 4); Ex.
`
`2013, 148:5-14.
`
`Ex. 1013, Fig. 1; Pet. 18; Ex. 1003 ¶ 19.
`
`
`
`As explained (§ I.A), the ‘Claims recite a “single mask-defined bandlimited
`
`channel” and “[a] band edge of the mask defining said channel”— thus, the band
`
`edge of the mask defines the channel. Id.; Ex. 1001, cls. 1, 3, 5; Phillips, 415 F.3d
`
`at 1314. As Kakaes