Paper No. _
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________________
`
`Aruba Networks, Inc., Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, and HP Inc.,
`Petitioners,
`
`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. IPR Unassigned
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`WEST\268526568.4
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I. 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 ........ 2
`PAYMENT OF FEES — 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................ 3
`II.
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ........................... 3
`A. Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A) ............................ 3
`B.
`Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) and Relief Requested ........... 3
`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) .................................................................................. 7
`In Simulcast (Claims 1, 10, 19) ............................................... 11
`3.
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’210 PATENT .......................................................... 11
`A.
`Brief Description ................................................................................ 11
`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. ................................................ 13
`A.
`[GROUND 1] — Saalfrank Anticipates Claims 1, 7-8, 10, and
`15-17 ................................................................................................... 13
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 17
`2.
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 22
`3.
`Claim 10 ................................................................................... 23
`4.
`Claim 16 ................................................................................... 30
`5.
`Claim 17 ................................................................................... 31
`6.
`Claim 19 ................................................................................... 32
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`B.
`
`[GROUND 2] — Saalfrank in view of Nakamura Renders
`Claims 8, 15, and 19 Obvious ............................................................ 35
`1.
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 38
`2.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 40
`3.
`Claim 19 ................................................................................... 41
`VI. REDUNDANCY .......................................................................................... 45
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 45
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Apple Inc. v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC
`(IPR2014-01036) (filed June 27, 2014) ................................................................ 2
`
`In re Rambus, Inc.
`694 F.3d 42 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..............................................................................................5
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc.
`Case No. 2-13-cv-258 (E.D. Tex.) ....................................................................................1
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Aruba Networks, Inc., et
`al.
`Case No. 2:16-cv-0012 (E.D. Tex.) ..................................................................................1
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, et
`al.
`Case No. 2:14-cv-897 (E.D. Tex.) ....................................................................................2
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Leap Wireless
`International, Inc.
`Case No. 2-13-cv-885 (E.D. Tex.) ....................................................................................2
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co.,
`Ltd., et al.
`Case No. 2:15-cv-183 (E.D. Tex.) ....................................................................................1
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., et al.
`Case No. 2:13-cv-886-JRGRSP (E.D. Tex.) ..................................................................1
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .....................................................................................5, 8
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies,
`LLC
`(IPR2015-01724) (filed August 13, 2015)............................................................ 2
`
`T-Mobile USA Inc. v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC
`(IPR2015-00015) (filed October 3, 2014) ............................................................ 2
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ...........................................................................................................................4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ......................................................................................................................4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ......................................................................................................................4
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 .................................................................................................................1
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42 ..............................................................................................................................1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) ...................................................................................................................45
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ...............................................................................................................1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)(1) ...............................................................................................................1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)(2) ...............................................................................................................1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)(3) .....................................................................................................................2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ...................................................................................................................3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................................5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ......................................................................................................................3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ......................................................................................................................3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A) ...............................................................................................................3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) ......................................................................................................................3
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(B)(3) ........................................................................................................5
`
`
`
`WEST\268526568.4
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`Ex. 1001 — U.S. Patent 5,915,210 to Cameron et al., filed Jul. 24, 1997
`
`Ex. 1002 — 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)
`
`Ex. 1003 — Declaration of Dr. Apostolos (Paul) Kakaes
`
`Ex. 1004 — 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)
`
`Ex. 1005 — 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)
`
`Ex. 1006 — 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)
`
`Ex. 1007 — 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)
`
`Ex. 1008 — The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1902,
`(3rd ed. 1992)
`
`Ex. 1009 — Standards Coordinating Committee 10, Terms and Definitions, The
`IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms, 1140, (6th ed. 1996)
`Ex. 1010 — McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, 1644, (5th
`ed. 1993)
`
`Ex. 1011 — Apple Inc. v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC, Case
`IPR2014-01036, Decision on Institution of Inter Partes Review (Jan. 22, 2015)
`
`Ex. 1012 — U.S. Patent 5,365,569 to Witsaman et al., filed Aug. 17, 1992
`
`Ex. 1013 — U.S. Patent 4,968,966 to Jasinski et al., filed Oct. 23, 1989
`
`WEST\268526568.4
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`Ex. 1014 — Prosecution History of U.S. Patent 5,915,210 to Cameron et al., filed
`Jul. 24, 1997
`
`Ex. 1015 — English Translation of German Patent Publication No. DE4102408 to
`Saalfrank, filed Jan. 28, 1991
`
`Ex. 1016 — German Patent Publication No. DE4102408 to Saalfrank, filed Jan.
`28, 1991
`
`Ex. 1017 — Certificate of Translation of German Patent Publication No.
`DE4102408 to Saalfrank, filed Jan. 28, 1991
`
`Ex. 1018 — Bernard Le Floch et al., Digital Sound Broadcasting to Mobile
`Receivers, 35 IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics 493 (Aug. 1989)
`
`Ex. 1019 — 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)
`
`Ex. 1020 — U.S. Patent No. 5,381,449 to Jasper, et al., filed Nov. 1, 1991
`
`Ex. 1021 — U.S. Patent No. 5,168,509 to Nakamura, et al., filed Apr. 10, 1990
`
`Ex. 1022 — IPR2015-01724, Paper No. 11 (Institution Decision)
`
`
`
`WEST\268526568.4
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`Aruba Networks, Inc., Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, and HP Inc.
`
`(“Petitioners”) petition 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. 1001), of assignee
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (“Patentee” or “MTe1”). As
`
`explained in this Petition, there exists a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners 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)
`The real parties of interest of this petition are: Aruba Networks, Inc.,
`
`Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, and HP Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)(2)
`Petitioners are not aware of any terminal disclaimers for the ’210 patent.
`
`The ’210 Patent has been involved in several litigations, including one naming
`
`Aruba Networks, Inc., Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, and HP Inc. as
`
`defendants: Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Aruba Networks,
`
`Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-0012 (E.D. Tex.) (hereinafter, the “Aruba
`
`Litigation”); Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-183 (E.D. Tex.); Mobile
`
`Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., et al., Case No.
`
`2:13-cv-886-JRGRSP (E.D. Tex.); Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC
`
`WEST\268526568.4
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`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 have been instituted on the ’210 patent: Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (IPR2015-
`
`01724) (filed August 13, 2015) (hereinafter, the “Samsung IPR”); Apple Inc. v.
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (IPR2014-01036) (filed June 27,
`
`2014) (hereinafter, the “Apple IPR”); and T-Mobile USA Inc. v. Mobile
`
`Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (IPR2015-00015) (filed October 3, 2014)
`
`(hereinafter, the “T-Mobile IPR”). Petitioners have reviewed the IPR petitions
`
`filed by Apple, T-Mobile, and Samsung, and, in the instant petition, challenge the
`
`’210 Patent on the identical grounds raised in the petition for the Samsung IPR.
`
`C. Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)(3) and Service Information
`Petitioners designate James M. Heintz (Reg. No. 41,828) as Lead Counsel who can
`
`be reached by email at HP-MTel-210IPR-DLA@dlapiper.com, by phone at 703-
`
`773-4148, by fax at 703-773-5200, and by mail and hand delivery at DLA Piper
`
`LLP (US), 11911 Freedom Dr., Suite 300, Reston, Virginia 20190. Backup
`
`Counsel for Petitioners is Brian K. Erickson (Reg. No. 48,895) who can be reached
`
`by email at HP-MTel-210IPR-DLA@dlapiper.com, by phone at 512-457-7000, by
`
`WEST\268526568.4
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`fax at 512-457-7001, and by mail and hand delivery at DLA Piper LLP (US), 401
`
`Congress, Suite 2500, Austin, Texas 78701. Petitioners hereby consent to electronic
`
`service.
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES — 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`Petitioners authorize the Patent and Trademark Office (the “Office”) to
`
`charge Deposit Account No. 50-3266 for the fee set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for
`
`this Petition and further authorize payment for any additional fees to be charged to
`
`this Deposit Account.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A)
`Petitioners certify that the ’210 Patent is available for IPR. Petitioners also
`
`certify that they are not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR challenging the
`
`patent claims on the grounds identified in this petition. The present petition is
`
`being filed within one year of when Petitioners were served with the Complaint in
`
`the co-pending Aruba Litigation. Service of process of the Complaint for
`
`Petitioners was made on January 14, 2016. See Ex. 1002.
`
`B. Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) and Relief Requested
`Petitioners request IPR of the Challenged Claims of the ’210 Patent on the
`
`grounds set forth in the table below, and request that each of the claims be found
`
`unpatentable. An explanation of how these claims are unpatentable under the
`
`WEST\268526568.4
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`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. 1003 (“Kakaes Decl.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`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. Petitioners understand that these two references
`
`have been considered by the Patent Office with regard to the patentability of the
`
`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.
`
`WEST\268526568.4
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`’210 patent in considering and instituting the Apple IPR, the T-Mobile IPR, and
`
`the Samsung 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) 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.
`
`Petitioners acknowledge that the Board may have applied the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) standard in instituting the Apple IPR and the T-
`
`Mobile IPR, but applied the Phillips construction standard in the Samsung IPR. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The proper construction standard is the Phillips framework
`
`because the ’210 patent has expired. Nevertheless, as the Board found in the
`
`Samsung IPR, this Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners will
`
`prevail on the grounds raised herein under the Phillips standard for the same
`
`reasons articulated by the Board in the Samsung IPR because this Petition raises
`
`challenges substantively identical to those in the Samsung IPR. The following
`
`claim terms should be construed as set forth below.
`
`WEST\268526568.4
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`A ... transmitter (Claims 1 and 10)
`
`1.
`Independent claims 1 and 10 recite “a . . . transmitter.” Petitioners
`
`acknowledge 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. 1004 at 6; see also, Ex. 1005 at 10 (adopting Clearwire constructions); Ex.
`
`1006 at 11 (same); Ex. 1007 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
`
`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. 1001 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
`
`WEST\268526568.4
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`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. 1008, p. 1902 (“Transmitter”); Ex. 1009, p. 1140 (“Transmitter
`
`(2) (radio)”); Ex. 1010, p. 1644 (“radio transmitter”). Accordingly, Petitioners’
`
`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 output.” See Ex.
`
`1011 at 8; Ex. 1022 at 7-8. Petitioners’ construction is similar to what the Board
`
`previously adopted, construing a transmitter as a structural unit with a specific
`
`functionality. Petitioners’ construction, therefore, does not meaningfully alter the
`
`analysis of the prior art references listed herein from the analysis the Board did in
`
`the Apple, T-Mobile, and Samsung IPRs. For the reasons above, Petitioners
`
`propose 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
`
`WEST\268526568.4
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`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 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. 1011 at 9; see
`
`also, Ex. 1001 at 15:47-16:30; Figs. 13-14.
`
`Petitioners note 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. 1005 at 31-32. Indeed, Patent Owner has also agreed to,
`
`or did not dispute, this construction in its district court proceeding. See Ex. 1006 at
`
`56; Ex. 1007 at 26. In the Samsung Litigation, Samsung 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
`
`WEST\268526568.4
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`Court or the Board. 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. 1001, Abstract. These
`
`base transmitters are “spatially 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. 1001 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. 1012 at 1:12-35; Ex. 1013 at 2:1-8; Kakaes Decl. at ¶ 16.
`
`WEST\268526568.4
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`Nevertheless, the “geographically separated” language does not 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, Petitioners propose 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,
`
`Petitioners propose “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 1320, as depicted in Figure 13; and equivalents thereof” or “at least
`
`a second geographically separated base transmitter 1400 including data input
`
`WEST\268526568.4
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`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. This is the same construction adopted by the Board
`
`in the Samsung IPR. Ex. 1022 at 9-10.
`
`In Simulcast (Claims 1, 10, 19)
`
`3.
`Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 recite “in simulcast.” Petitioners agree
`
`with the construction that the Board adopted in instituting the Apple, T-Mobile and
`
`Samsung IPRs: “at the same time.” See Ex. 1011 at 10; Ex. 1022 at 11.
`
`The district court has construed this term the same way. See Ex. 1006 at 23;
`
`Ex. 1004 at 4; Ex. 1005 at 15, 74. Patent Owner has also proposed or agreed to
`
`this construction in its district court proceedings. See 1006 at 17; Ex. 1005 at 15;
`
`see also, Ex. 1007 at 39.
`
`Therefore, for purposes of this PTO proceeding, Petitioners propose the term
`
`“in simulcast” to mean “at the same time.”
`
`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
`
`WEST\268526568.4
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`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. 1001, 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 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.
`
`WEST\268526568.4
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`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. 1014, 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.
`
`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
`
`WEST\268526568.4
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`carrier frequencies.” Ex. 1015, 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 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.
`
`WEST\268526568.4
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`The description of FIG. la 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