`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`ARUBA NETWORKS, INC.,
`HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY, and HP, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`___________
`
`Case IPR2016‐00766 (Patent 5,659,891)
`Case IPR2016‐00768 (Patent 5,659,891)
`___________
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibits for Oral Hearing
`
`1
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 1, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Arguments
`• Petitioner’s expert admits that Petrovic does not disclose a “band
`edge of the mask” at all: “it is not clear where [in Petrovic] the
`band edge of the mask is”
`• Petrovic’s subcarriers do not meet the asymmetric condition of
`claims 1, 3, and 5.
`• Petrovic’s subcarriers do not overlap as required by claims 2 and
`4. The main difference between Patent Owner’s arguments and
`Petitioner’s arguments is:
`• Patent Owner’s arguments are a consistent explanation, backed by
`evidence, of how and why the invention and claims were made
`• Petitioner’s arguments, on the contrary, impermissibly use hindsight to
`make the parameters of the Petrovic fit the claims of the ’891 Patent
`
`2
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 2, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s argument is a consistent story
`• Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Kesan, shows how the purpose of the
`’891 Patent is to increase the message capacity of a channel. Ex.
`2011 at 21.
`• He then shows in great detail how (1) co‐location of transmitters
`eliminates the near‐far problem and allows transmitters to (2)
`overlap under the asymmetric condition to increase message
`capacity. Id.at 32 and 40.
`
`3
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 3, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Asymmetric condition
`• Claims 1, 3, and 5 include the asymmetric condition 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), or Dm> Dc.
`
`4
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 4, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Message capacity increased
`• Decreasing the distance between the outer most
`carrier and the band edge of the mask necessarily
`decreases adjacent carrier spacing, per the asymmetric
`condition in the claims, and increases message
`capacity. Dr. Kakaes agrees: Ex. 2013 at 187:17‐22.
`
`5
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 5, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Nearest band edge minimizes Dm
`• Since the goal of the ’891 Patent is to minimize subcarrier spacing to
`increase message capacity, it follows that the ’891 Patent would look at
`the nearest band edge to the outer most carrier, as opposed to the outer
`most band edge as defined by Dr. Kakaes. This is supported by the spec.:
`Ex. 1001 at 4:30‐34.
`In accordance with this asymmetry, the frequency difference between
`the center frequency of each carrier and the nearest band edge of the
`mask is greater than half the frequency difference between the center
`frequencies of the two carriers.”
`• Dr. Kakaes testified: “if there was an additional drop, the band edge of
`the mask defining the channel would have to be the farthest –the point
`at which the mask has fully developed its limitations.”
`• Dr. Kakaes chooses the “the farthest point” –i.e. the outermost point on the
`mask
`• Directly contrary to specification which references “the center frequency of
`each carrier and the nearest band edge of the mask”
`
`•
`
`6
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 6, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`But cannot minimize Dmtoo much
`• The ’891 Patent, explicitly describes that the modulated
`carriers (of Figure 5A) are to remain within the FCC mask
`limits. Ex. 1001 at 4:61‐62.
`• But this means the mask of Figure 4 is not being used in
`Figure 5A. Dr Kesan agrees.
`
`7
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 7, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Complete story –Minimize Dm while keeping the
`modulated signal inside the mask
`“[A] PHOSITA would conclude 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.
`• Specifically for FSK modulation the band edge can be viewed as the first
`limit of the mask to be exceeded as the frequency deviation of the
`carrier is increased. Id. at 66.
`• A carrier with a center frequency of 4 is spread out between
`frequencies 2 and 6 using FSK modulation with a frequency deviation,
`Δf, of 2.
`
`•
`
`8
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 8, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Based on the story of the ’891 Patent, Petrovic’s
`subcarriers cannot meet the asymmetric condition
`• Dm(1) < Dc(1) and Dm(2) < Dc(1) in Drawing 12
`(annotated Fig. 1 of Petrovic).
`• Thus, Petrovicdoes not teach or suggest the
`asymmetric condition
`
`9
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 9, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Story of overlap
`In the ’891 Patent, overlap is possible due to co‐location and
`explicitly used in the asymmetric condition to increase message
`capacity.
`In other words, the overlap has an effect (increasing message
`capacity in asymmetric condition).
`• Petrovic has no overlap and no purpose for overlap –just noise.
`
`•
`
`•
`
`10
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 10, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Petitioner has no story with regard to the ’891
`Patent or Petrovic
`
`Petitioner simply tries to make Petrovic fit the claim language using impermissible hindsight.
`This is most apparent in the band edge argument.
`Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Kakaes, has stated repeatedly that he cannot definitively determine where the
`band edge of the mask is in Petrovic. Ex. 2012 at 69:11‐16 and 35:22‐25‐36:1‐2.
`
`•
`•
`•
`
`• Yet he somehow finds one that meets the
`asymmetric condition.
`
`11
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 11, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Petrovic is not trying to increase the message
`capacity of an existing channel
`Just the opposite.
`• Petitioner admits Petrovic is doubling the channel. Paper 36 at 17.
`• So Petrovic has none of the constraints of the’891 Patent.
`• This is why Petrovic can place the outermost subcarriers closer to the
`band edges than to each other in violation of the asymmetric condition.
`
`•
`
`12
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 12, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Petrovic is not trying to overlap its carriers
`• Petitioner’s only evidence for overlap is the noise of Fig. 1 of Petrovic shown
`below.
`• Petrovic is completely silent with regard to the overlap of its subcarriers.
`• Petitioner has no explanation for why Petrovic’s subcarriers would be
`overlapped.
`In contrast, as described above, the ’891 Patent explicitly describes allowing for
`overlap to increase message capacity.
`
`•
`
`13
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 13, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s response to specific Reply
`assertions
`• Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner’s construction of
`the band edge 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.”
`Paper 36 at 4.
`• Patent Owner submits that its construction is simply
`“nearest band edge of the mask.”
`• Power is one factor in determining this.
`• However, other factors, such as the multiple band
`edges of the mask and the modulation method, are also
`described.
`
`15
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 15, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Multiple band edges
`• Petitioner asserts that “multiple band edges” are extrinsic evidence and
`inconsistent with the specification.
`• Patent Owner submits that Figure 4 and the corrected Figure 4 are
`intrinsic evidence and clearly show “multiple band edges.” Ex. 1012 at
`84.
`
`16
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 16, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Nearest band edges to distinguish left and right
`band edge.
`• Petitioner asserts that the term “nearest” is to
`distinguish the left band edge from the right band edge
`relative to a particular outermost carrier.
`• Petitioner’s cites only the Board’s suggestion that this
`may be a possible interpretation, and the second
`Kakaes declaration that simply reiterates the Board
`• Patent Owner submitted 3 arguments with regard to
`the Board’s suggestion.
`• Not rebutted or even addressed by Petitioner
`• Petitioner has not met its burden of proof
`
`17
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 17, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Minimizing Dmminimizes Dc when Dm> Dc
`• Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner’s description that minimizing Dm
`necessarily minimizes Dc is erroneous and not required by the claims.
`• Patent Owner submits that it is mathematical truth that is not
`erroneous.
`• Also, Patent Owner did not submit that it is required by the claims.
`• Patent Owner submitted that minimizing Dmis the rationale for
`choosing the nearest band edge.
`• Dr. Kakaes agreed that minimizing Dmnecessarily minimizes Dc even
`though Petitioner has tried to change his testimony. Ex. 2013 at 187:17‐
`22.
`
`18
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 18, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Figure 4 on Figure 5
`• Petitioner asserts that Dr. Kesan’s testimony regarding the placement of Figure
`4 on Figure 5 is incorrect. Paper 36 at 9.
`• Petitioner seems to be suggesting that Dr. Kesan’s second figure showing how
`the power can be attenuated below the full power is somehow incorrect.
`• Petitioner also refers to the FCC rules about the unmodulated carrier, which
`Figure 5 does not show.
`
`19
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 19, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Figure 4 on Figure 5 cont’d
`• Petitioner then draws Figure 4 on Figure 5 in a fashion that is
`demonstrably incorrect.
`• Note that Petitioner shifted ‐70 dB and ‐25 dB in a clearly
`incorrect fashion to try to make the mask work.
`
`20
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 20, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Determination of band edge
`Finally, Petitioner asserts that Dr. Kakaes does not need to determine definitively the
`outer bounds of “the band edge of the mask,” as Petrovic discloses the limitation
`regardless of the outer bounds.
`• Patent Owner submits that this is a fantastic claim made only to try and change Dr.
`Kakaes’ clear testimony that he could not determine the band edge. Ex. 2012 at 69:11‐16
`and 35:22‐25‐36:1‐2.
`• The location of the band edge is the most important issue in the case and Dr. Kakaes has
`admitted he does not know what it is.
`
`•
`
`21
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 21, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Conclusion
`• Again, the main arguments are well briefed.
`• Patent Owner’s main arguments in the Response are that:
`• Petrovic’s subcarriers do not meet the asymmetric condition of claims 1,
`3, and 5.
`• Petrovic’s subcarriers do not overlap as required by claims 2 and 4.
`• The main difference between Patent Owner’s arguments and
`Petitioner’s arguments is:
`• Patent Owner’s arguments are a consistent story, backed by evidence, of
`how and why the invention and claims were made.
`• Petitioner’s arguments, on the contrary, are simply an attempt to make
`the parameters of the Petrovic fit the claims of the ’891 Patent and to
`try to poke holes in the Patent Owner’s argument.
`Petitioner has not proved its case by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`22
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 22, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Petrovic Fig. 1
`
`26
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 26, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Near‐far problem
`
`27
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 27, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Near‐far problem corrected with symmetric
`condition
`
`28
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 28, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Near‐far problem corrected with symmetric
`condition cont’d
`
`29
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 29, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Also no near‐far problem with co‐location
`
`30
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 30, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Co‐location allows asymmetric condition and
`increased message capacity
`
`31
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 31, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Asymmetric condition cont’d
`
`32
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 32, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Subchannels
`
`33
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 33, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Power levels and subchannels
`
`34
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 34, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Multiple band edges
`
`35
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 35, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Exemplary Mask from ’891 File History
`
`36
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 36, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Modulation techniques
`
`37
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 37, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`2‐FSK
`
`
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`Figure 9 of Appendix E
`June 20, 2017
`
`.III» 1
`
`N A‘IIL.
`
`38
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 38, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Figure 4
`
`M O
`
`on OE
`E
`
`3O
`
`5 anm0O
`
`‘4 0
`
`
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`39
`
`frequency (Irom center Irequency) (kHz)
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`FIGURE 4
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 39, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Drawing 10
`
`FIGURE 5A
`
`2400 max devintion,
`
`61: bps bit rate, 4590 Hz carrier
`
`Drawing 10
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`40
`
`Drawing 10
`
`Freq. = 10004.9
`Db
`n-70.0818
`
`Phalo - 1.96349
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 40, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Drawing 10
`
`Drawing 10
`
`June20,2017
`
`Freq. - 10004.9
`Db
`--70.0018
`June 20, 2017
`ft {WIIFIW Ph‘go - 1.963‘9
`
`e" I
`
`'
`
`2400 max deviation, 6k bps bit rate, 4590 Hz carrier
`
`41
`
`h}
`*
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 41, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`FCC mask
`
`FCC mask
`
`
`
`June 20’ 2017
`
`[In On my mummy remand tram
`Illa mum at [aha mutton-ind mmnm
`by I duping-mm:
`frequbnur ad Ln
`kmlufmmthnn mkfllupmuultn-
`¢Iudlnt 2m pun-n: at :ha luthfil'lflld
`hud'ldth: 1.1. lull: 115 Lam (1:18.11
`decibel: or so pm 111 Lu... [P] or '.'IJ
`dadban. twauur ll
`the leaner u-
`ununian;
`nm (In my mummy "mm-Id from
`June 20, 2017
`H“ cmur nl' tlu mthudud bludildth
`by mu um: :50 percent. of tin untbmr-
`llld hlmhrldth: It [ll-IL Ifl plus II} I.th
`(output your in run) mm» m- In
`Gullah. which“: is than lulu lb-
`
`m For thou muninun um: opu-
`u.- in tho human: huuu 11M no 5110
`MEI. nr fill tn Inn M31.
`(1! On In! mummy "mu-d tram
`m cents: 1:! ch: unharmed bud-Mull
`by I. mum-n: (mum! [I'd Ln
`km}an nmskflsupmmdln-
`alum“ 10 kill: it. Ian: I: ham. UM)
`Mulblfl:
`
`42
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 42, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Drawing 11
`
`Drawing 11
`
`FIGURE 5A
`
`2400 max deviation, 6k bps bit rate, 4590 Hz carrier
`
`June20,2017
`
`=l
`‘
`i
`J
`'- E
`I:
`‘.;
`'
`"3J;Jgj?biilii3Lhfi
`MW 1. mm.
`
`43
`
`4:
`
`‘
`
`h.‘ Freq. - 10004.9
`L
`June 20, 2017
`Db
`=-70.0818
`i;,3L,
`Phase . 1.96349
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 43, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Petrovic annotation
`
`44
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 44, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Drawing 12
`
`Dm(1) Dc(1)
`
`Dc(2)
`
`Dm(2)
`
`p
`
`3:9k
`I
`
`-
`
`u
`
`Drawing 12
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`5r§0d0
`IUdB/
`1
`I
`1
`p------—---— w
`\Mand Edge 2
`
`\
`
`45
`SPL:IUUHH4
`Lnr.930.9mw;
`Hg 1
`spun-1 or a single smol reelletly trans-fitted
`
`BflflUBHa
`
`June 20, 2017
`VBXHH:
`
`Drawing 12
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 45, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Drawing 13
`
`fiTfiUdB
`
`Drawing 13
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`L.
`
`_ .-
`
`46
`LLL;533.9MH;
`Fig.
`I
`Spectrum of a singl- sync! reputedly turn-ind
`
`Drawing 13
`
`-
`
`'
`
`89300“:
`
`I
`June 20, 2017
`L
`VBIRH:
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 46, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s overlap
`
`Petitioner’s overlap
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`-_....---1____..cl
`
`47
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 47, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Petrovic annotation
`
`48
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 48, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Annotated Fig. 1 of Petrovic
`
`49
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 49, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`John Kasha, Kasha Law LLC
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2017, Aruba v. MTel., Page 50, IPR2016-00768
`
`