throbber
Paper No. 7
` Entered: December 21, 2016
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE, INC., MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`MICROSOFT MOBILE OY, and MICROSOFT
`MOBILE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`EVOLVED WIRELESS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01208
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, PATRICK M. BOUCHER, and
`TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01208
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Apple, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, Microsoft Mobile OY, and
`Microsoft Mobile Inc. (f/k/a Nokia, Inc.) (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a
`Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–10 of U.S. Patent No.
`7,746,916 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’916 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Evolved
`Wireless, LLC (“Patent Owner”), the assignee of the ’916 patent, filed a
`Preliminary Response to the Petition. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be
`instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and any
`Preliminary Response shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the
`petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in
`the petition.” Taking into account the information presented, we conclude
`the record establishes there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims of the ’916
`patent. Accordingly, we institute trial as set forth below.
`A. Related Matters
`The ’916 patent has been asserted in several actions, captioned
`Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Apple, Inc., C.A. 15-cv-542-SLR (D. Del.);
`Evolved Wireless, LLC v. HTC Corp., C.A. 15-cv-543-SLR (D. Del.);
`Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Lenovo Group Ltd., C.A. 15-cv-544-SLR (D.
`Del.); Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., C.A. 15-cv-
`545-SLR (D. Del.); Evolved Wireless, LLC v. ZTE Corp., C.A. 15-cv-546-
`SLR (D. Del.); and Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., C.A. 15-cv-
`547-SLR (D. Del.). Pet. 1; Paper 5, 2–3.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01208
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`
`The ’916 patent is also the subject of IPR2016-01209, IPR2016-
`01277, and IPR2016-01280, in which decisions instituting trial on claims 1–
`10 are being issued on the same date as this decision.
`B. The ’916 Patent
`The ’916 patent is titled “Method and Apparatus for Generating and
`Transmitting Code Sequence in a Wireless Communication System.” Ex.
`1001, [54]. According to Patent Owner, “the ’916 Patent claims a method of
`generating a code sequence of a desired length L, by cyclically extending
`and then circularly shifting a code sequence of length X, where the length of
`X is the largest prime number smaller than L.” Prelim. Resp. 5 (citations
`omitted). The Specification states, “the code sequence or a code sequence
`set can be applied to 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) system or
`3GPP2 system as well as a Wibro system or a Wimax system.” Ex. 1001,
`17:22–25. Both parties cite Figure 13, which is reproduced below, as
`illustrating the invention. Pet. 13; Prelim. Resp. 5.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01208
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`Figure 13 of the ’916 patent depicts code sequence 1301 with a “[r]equired
`sequence length, L”; “CAZAC sequence [1302] with prime length X ≤ L”;
`“[t]runcated CAZAC sequence [1303] length, L” with a padding portion
`added; and “[d]elayed CAZAC sequence [1304] length, L” in which the end
`portion from code sequence 1303 has been circularly shifted to the start of
`code sequence 1304. Ex. 1001, 12:37–49.
`
`C. The ’916 Patent Claims
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 6 are independent. Claims 1
`and 6 recite:
`1. A method for transmitting a code sequence from a transmitting
`party to a receiving party in a wireless communication system,
`the method comprising:
`acquiring a code sequence having a second length by a cyclic
`extension of a code sequence having a first length;
`performing a circular shift to the code sequence having the
`second length; and
`transmitting the circular shifted code sequence having the
`second length to the receiving party,
`wherein the first length is a largest prime number smaller than
`the second length, and
`wherein the cyclic extension of the code sequence having the
`first length is performed such that a part of the code sequence
`having the first length, having a length corresponding to a
`difference between the first length and the second length, is
`added to either a start or an end of the code sequence having
`the first length, and
`wherein the circular shift is performed to the code sequence
`having the second length such that either a rear portion of the
`code sequence having the second length moves to a start of
`the code sequence having the second length, or a front
`portion of the code sequence having the second length moves
`to an end of the code sequence having the second length.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01208
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`
`6. An apparatus for transmitting a code sequence in a wireless
`communication system, the apparatus comprising:
`a code sequence generator for generating a code sequence
`having a second length by cyclic extension of a code
`sequence having a first length, and performing a circular shift
`to the code sequence having the second length; and
`a transmitting unit for transmitting the circular shifted code
`sequence having the second length,
`wherein the first length is a largest prime number smaller than
`the second length,
`wherein the cyclic extension of the code sequence having the
`first length is performed such that a part of the code sequence
`having the first length, having a length corresponding to a
`difference between the first length and the second length, is
`added to either the start or an end of the code sequence
`having the first length, and
`wherein the circular shift is performed to the code sequence
`having the second length such that either a rear portion of the
`code sequence having the second length moves to a start of
`the code sequence having the second length, or a front
`portion of the code sequence having the second length moves
`to an end of the code sequence having the second length.
`Ex. 1001, 17:35–57, 18:7–28.
`
`Dependent claims 2 and 7 recite, “the part of the code sequence
`having the first length comprises at least a cyclic prefix or a cyclic postfix.”
`Id. at 17:58–60, 18:29–31.
`Dependent claims 3 and 8 recite, “the cyclic extension is performed
`such that a cyclic postfix of the code sequence having the first length, having
`the length corresponding to the difference between the first length and the
`second length, is added to the end of the code sequence having the first
`length.” Id. at 17:61–66, 18:32–37.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01208
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`
`Dependent claims 4 and 9 recite, “the code sequence having the first
`length is a Zadoff-Chu (ZC) sequence.” Id. at 18:1–3, 18:38–40.
`Dependent claims 5 and 10 recite, “the code sequence having the
`second length is transmitted as a reference signal sequence.” Id. at 18:3–6,
`18:41–43.
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges claims of the ’916 patent on the following
`grounds of unpatentability. Pet. 3.
`Ground Reference(s)
`
`Basis1
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`1a
`
`1b
`
`1c
`
`2a
`
`Zhuang3272
`
`Zhuang327
`
`§ 102(e)
`
`1–3, 5–8, and 10
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`6–8 and 103
`
`Zhuang327 and Popović4
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`4 and 9
`
`Zhuang327 and Hou5
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`1–3, 5–8, and 10
`
`
`1 The relevant sections of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”),
`Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (September 16, 2011), took effect on
`March 16, 2013. Because the application from which the ’916 patent issued
`was filed before that date, our citations to Title 35 are to its pre-AIA version.
`2 Zhuang (US 7,599,327 B2, filed Mar. 2, 2005, issued Oct. 6, 2009) (Ex.
`1007).
`3 Petitioner includes claim 5 in this group in the table on page 3 of the
`Petition. However, in its detailed presentation relating to this ground,
`Petitioner makes no reference to claim 5. Pet. 36–42.
`4 Branislav M. Popović, Generalized Chirp-Like Polyphase Sequences with
`Optimum Correlation Properties, 38 IEEE Transactions on Information
`Theory, 1406–1409 (1992) (Ex. 1009).
`5 Hou et al. (US 8,116,195 B2, filed July 27, 2005, issued Feb. 14, 2012)
`(Ex. 1011).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01208
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`Ground Reference(s)
`
`Basis1
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Zhuang327 and Hou and
`Popović
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`4 and 9
`
`2b
`
`
`
`Petitioner asserts that Zhuang327 and Hou are prior art to the ’916
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and Popović is prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(b). Pet. 3–4. Patent Owner does not, at this stage of the proceeding,
`challenge the prior art status of these references. Prelim. Resp. 10–16.
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`A claim of an unexpired patent subject to inter partes review receives
`the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed
`Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). We shall construe
`only terms that are in controversy and then only to the extent necessary to
`resolve the controversy. Vivid Technologies, Inc. v. American Science &
`Engineering, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`In the “Claim Construction” section of the Petition, Petitioner
`discusses: (1) “acquiring/generating a code sequence having a second length
`by a cyclic extension of a code sequence having a first length” (claims 1 and
`6); (2) “cyclic prefix” (claims 2 and 7); (3) “cyclic postfix” (claims 2, 3, and
`7); (4) “reference signal sequence” (claims 5 and 10); (5) “a code sequence
`generator” (claim 6); and (6) “a transmitting unit” (claim 6). Pet. 4–11. We
`analyze Petitioner’s claim construction contentions below.
`Patent Owner argues no claim construction is necessary. The
`Preliminary Response states:
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01208
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`
`The Petition proposes six terms for construction. Pet. at
`
`4-11. Patent Owner does not believe any of these six terms
`need to be construed to resolve the present Petition. Patent
`Owner
`reserves
`the
`right
`to
`further challenge
`these
`constructions in the event of Institution, but for now, Patent
`Owner
`contests
`only
`Petitioners’
`construction
`for
`“acquiring/generating a code sequence having a second length
`by a cyclic extension of a code sequence having a first length.”
`Petitioners propose an interpretation contrary to the plain
`meaning of the claim language for the purposes of broadening
`the claims to cover the prior art.
`Prelim. Resp. 20.
`1. “acquiring/generating a code sequence having a second length by a
`cyclic extension of a code sequence having a first length” (claims 1
`and 6)
`
`Petitioner argues:
`the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the phrase
`“acquiring/generating a code sequence having a second length
`by a cyclic extension of a code sequence having a first length”
`is broad enough to encompass “acquiring/generating a code
`sequence having a second length through execution of one or
`more operations that include performing a cyclic extension of a
`code sequence having a first length.”
`Pet. 5. Thus, Petitioner argues the word “by” in the context of claims 1 and
`6 should be interpreted as expanded to: “through execution of one or more
`operations that include performing.”
`
`In making this argument, Petitioner fails to cite to the claims, the
`specification, or the file history, and does not argue the claims, specification,
`or file history support the proposed interpretation. Pet. 5–6. The only
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01208
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`support cited is the “plain and ordinary meaning” based on a general purpose
`dictionary.6 Id.
`
`Patent Owner argues Petitioner’s proposed construction broadens the
`claim language beyond its reasonable meaning. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 27.
`Patent Owner does not, however, dispute at this stage of these proceedings
`that this limitation is disclosed in the cited art. Id. at 9–10.
`
`Based on this record, we do not adopt the interpretation of this
`limitation argued by Petitioner or otherwise construe this limitation. The
`interpretation argued by Petitioner is not supported by the intrinsic record
`and it is not necessary for us to construe this limitation in order to make this
`decision on institution of trial.
`2. “cyclic prefix” (claims 2 and 7); “cyclic postfix” (claims 2, 3, and
`7); and “reference signal sequence” (claims 5 and 10)
`For the terms “cyclic prefix” (claims 2 and 7), “cyclic postfix” (claims
`2, 3, and 7), and “reference signal sequence” (claims 5 and 10), Petitioner
`contends that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these terms are
`“broad enough to encompass” the interpretations offered and those
`interpretations are “consistent” with the specification. Pet. 6–8. Patent
`Owner argues these terms do not need to be construed for purposes of
`making this institution decision. Prelim. Resp. 20. And Patent Owner, at
`this stage in these proceedings, does not dispute the cited art teaches the
`limitations of the dependent claims in which these terms appear. Prelim.
`Resp. 9–10. We believe the meanings of these terms in the context of the
`claims are sufficiently clear at this stage without further interpretation.
`
`
`6 American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed. 2000) (Ex.
`1005).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01208
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`Based on this record and, for purposes of this decision to institute, we do not
`construe these terms explicitly.
`3. “a code sequence generator” (claim 6) and “a transmitting unit”
`(claim 6)
`Petitioner argues the terms “a code sequence generator” and “a
`transmitting unit” in claim 6 are not means-plus-function limitations under
`35 U.S.C. § 112(6) and “should be given [their] plain meaning as understood
`under the BRI standard.” Id. at 8–11. The word “means” is not used in
`claim 6. As a result, there is a presumption that the limitations at issue are
`not means-plus-function limitations that should be construed in accordance
`with Section 112, paragraph 6. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d
`1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (“When a claim term lacks the word
`‘means,’ the presumption can be overcome and §112, para. 6 will apply if
`the challenger demonstrates that the claim fails to ‘recite[] sufficiently
`definite structure’ or else recites ‘function without reciting sufficient
`structure for performing that function.’” (citation omitted)). On the current
`record, there is insufficient persuasive argument or evidence to overcome the
`presumption. Petitioner is not challenging the presumption (Pet. 9, 11) and
`Patent Owner takes no position on this issue other than to state that these
`terms need not be construed (Prelim. Resp. 20). At this stage in this
`proceeding, we do not construe “a code sequence generator” and “a
`transmitting unit” as means-plus-function limitations.7
`
`
`7 In the related District Court litigations, Petitioner challenged the
`presumption and argued these terms were means-plus-function limitations.
`Pet. 8–9, 11. Patent Owner argued these terms were not means-plus-
`function limitations. Id. The District Court ruled that Petitioner failed to
`overcome the presumption and that Section 112, paragraph 6, did not apply
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01208
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`
`
`
`B. Asserted Anticipation of Claims 1–3, 5–8,
`and 10 by Zhuang327
`
`Petitioner, in its ground styled as “1a,” challenges claims 1–3, 5–8,
`and 10 as anticipated by Zhuang327. Pet. 3, 15–36. Petitioner relies on
`paragraphs 100–165 of the Declaration of Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. (Ex. 1003)
`in support of this challenge. Id. Patent Owner argues Zhuang327 fails to
`disclose “performing a circular shift to the code sequence having the second
`length . . . wherein the circular shift is performed to the code sequence
`having the second length such that either a rear portion of the code sequence
`having the second length moves to a start of the code sequence having the
`second length, or a front portion of the code sequence having the second
`length moves to an end of the code sequence having the second length,” as
`recited in independent claims 1 and 6. Prelim. Resp. 9–10. Patent Owner
`does not argue that the art cited in the Petition fails to disclose any of the
`other limitations of claims 1–3, 5–8, and 10. Id. For the following reasons,
`we are persuaded, based on the information before us, that there is a
`reasonable likelihood Petitioner will prevail in showing anticipation of
`claims 1–3, 5–8, and 10 by Zhuang327.
`1. Zhuang327 (Ex. 1007)
`Zhuang327 is titled, “Method and Apparatus for Accessing a Wireless
`Communication System.” Ex. 1007, [54]. Zhuang327 was not cited during
`prosecution of the ’916 patent. Ex. 1001, [56].
`Zhuang327 relates to “a method and apparatus for randomly accessing
`a wireless communication system by a subscriber station in order to obtain
`
`to these limitations. Evolved Wireless, LLC, v. Apple, Inc., Civ. No. 15-542-
`SLR, slip op. at 3–5 (D. Del. Nov. 14, 2016).
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01208
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`or maintain such parameters as uplink timing, power control, channel
`estimation, and frequency alignment of the subscriber station.” Ex. 1007,
`1:7–11. Zhuang327 states, “it is critical to design a mechanism for allowing
`a remote subscriber station (SS) to access the network by sending an access
`signal to a Base Station (BS).” Id. at 1:15–18.
`Zhuang327 provides that the access signals used by subscriber
`stations to access the network are “generated based on a ranging sequence
`(interchangeable with ‘access sequence’ and ‘ranging code’ and ‘access
`code’).” Id. at 5:14–16. An example of ranging sequences given by
`Zhuang327 are, “Generalized Chirp Like (GCL) sequences.” Id. at 7:57–67.
`Figure 1 of Zhuang327 is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 of Zhuang327 depicts a communication system 100 with base
`stations 104 and 105 and subscriber stations 101–103. Id. at 2:46–67.
`Figure 8 of Zhuang327 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01208
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 8 of Zhuang327 depicts the “steps of methods used in a subscriber
`station such as any of the subscriber stations 101, 102, 103 (FIG. 1).” Id. at
`10:25–27.
`
`In the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner acknowledges Zhuang327
`discloses:
`In one embodiment for acquiring an access or ranging
`
`sequence, “the largest prime number that is smaller than the
`desired length is chosen and the GCL sequence is cyclically
`extended to the desired length,” to arrive at the desired
`sequence. . . . Zhuang327 explains that “[b]efore a CP is
`inserted in front of the access signal to form a complete access
`waveform, the access signal may be cyclically (circularly)
`shifted in time domain.”
`
`* * *
`Finally, “[a]t step 820 the generated access signal is cyclically
`time shifted by a shift value that is one of a defined set of Nsh
`shift values” and an access waveform is subsequently formed.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01208
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`
`Thus Zhuang327 describes a method of generating access
`
`signals whereby a first code sequence is generated by cyclic
`extension of a base sequence . . .
`Prelim. Resp. 11–13 (citing Zhuang327, 5:29–31, 8:65–9:1, 10:35–40).
`2. Claims 1–3, 5–8, and 10
`Petitioner’s argument that Zhuang327 discloses all elements of claims
`1–3, 5–8, and 10 is detailed and supported by citations to the record. Pet.
`15–36. Patent Owner challenges Petitioner’s contention that Zhuang327
`discloses “performing a circular shift to the code sequence having the second
`length,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 6. Prelim. Resp. 9–10, 29–
`31. As noted above, at this stage in these proceedings, Patent Owner does
`not challenge Petitioner’s contention that Zhuang327 discloses the other
`limitations of claims 1–3, 5–8, and 10. Id.
`Patent Owner argues that the method disclosed in Zhuang327 does not
`disclose the disputed limitation because:
`independent claims 1 and 6 require that code sequences are
`generated by cyclically extending a first code sequence and
`then circularly shifting the resulting sequence. The method
`disclosed in Zhuang327, however, generates a code sequence
`by first cyclically extending the code sequence, then performing
`an Inverse Fast Fourier Transform, and then circularly shifting
`the result.
`Prelim. Resp. 30 (emphasis added). Patent Owner points out that
`Zhuang327 discloses “the time-domain access signal can be conveniently
`generated by taking an Inverse Fast Fourier Transformation (IFFT) of the
`frequency-domain sequence.” Prelim. Resp. 31 (quoting Ex. 1007, 10:14–
`16). And Patent Owner concludes that, because “[t]he resulting time-
`domain access signal is not the access sequence generated by way of the
`cyclic extension,” Zhuang327 fails to disclose the disputed limitation. Id.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01208
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`
`For purposes of this Decision, we are not persuaded that Patent Owner
`has distinguished the claimed invention from the disclosure in Zhuang327
`on the basis of this argument. First, the claims are not limited to code
`sequences in either the frequency domain or the time domain and do not
`address whether the code sequences are subject to Fourier transformation
`prior to being transmitted. Second, the apparatus disclosed in the ’916
`patent for transmitting the code sequences (id. at 4:16–24) includes “an
`inverse fast Fourier transform (IFFT) module 15 which transform the data
`symbols into a signal in a time domain” before transmission (id. at 4:47–49).
`See Figure 1. The Specification of the ’916 patent, therefore, includes a
`description of the invention that includes Fourier transformation of the code
`sequences. Third, the preambles of claims 1 and 6 both end with
`“comprising,” which is an inclusive or open-ended transitional term and
`does not exclude additional, unrecited, method steps or apparatus elements.
`Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Manufacturing, L.P., 327 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed.
`Cir. 2003) (“The transition ‘comprising’ in a method claim indicates that the
`claim is open-ended and allows for additional steps.”); Genentech, Inc. v.
`Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘Comprising’ is a term
`of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are
`essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within
`the scope of the claim.”). Accordingly, acquiring/generating a code
`sequence having a second length by cyclic extension of a code sequence
`having a first length is disclosed in Zhuang327 regardless of whether or not
`Zhuang327 further discloses inverse Fourier transformation.
`We have reviewed the cited portions of Zhuang327, and on the record
`before us, find that the information presented shows that there is a
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01208
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in showing that claims 1–3,
`5–8, and 10 are anticipated by Zhuang327.
`C. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 6–8 and 10 Over Zhuang327
`Petitioner asserts, in its ground styled as “1b,” that the subject matter
`
`of claims 6–8 and 10 of the ’916 patent would have been rendered obvious
`by Zhuang327. Pet. 3, 36–42. Petitioner provides a detailed and supported
`argument that all the limitations of claims 6–8 and 10 of the ’916 patent are
`taught in Zhuang327. Id. at 36–42. Petitioner’s reason for presenting this
`alternative ground relating to claims 6–8 and 10 is:
`Patent Owner may argue that the code sequence generator must
`be a unitary device and that Zhuang327 does not explicitly
`teach that the subscriber station performs the function of
`generating a code sequence having a second length by cyclic
`extension of a code sequence having a first length, and
`performing a circular shift to the code sequence having the
`second length. Rather, Patent Owner may assert the code
`sequence of Zhuang327 is generated by another device,
`transferred to the subscriber station, and then the subscriber
`station performs the circular shift. Though this is not how a
`[person of ordinary skill in the art] would interpret Zhuang327
`(for the reasons set forth previously), even if it were, it would
`have been obvious that the subscriber station described by
`Zhuang327 – which would be a “mobile device” (see Ex. 1007,
`7:35) – would be configured to include a processor, a state
`machine, or a combination thereof that acts as the code
`sequence generator recited in claim 6. See Wells Declaration
`(Ex. 1003), ¶¶ 147-148.
`Id. at 36–37.
`
`Patent Owner, however, relies on its arguments related to the alleged
`failure of Zhuang327 to disclose the disputed limitations in claims 1 and 6
`and does not address any of the additional limitations in claims 6–8 and 10.
`Prelim. Resp. 29–31. Patent Owner does not otherwise dispute any part of
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01208
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`Petitioner’s showing relating to the obviousness of claims 6–8 and 10 of the
`’916 patent based on Zhuang327. Id.
`
`For the reasons discussed in the prior ground, on the record before us,
`we determine that the information presented shows that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in showing that the subject matter of
`claims 6–8 and 10 would have been obvious over Zhuang327.
`D. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 4 and 9
`Over Zhuang327 and Popović
`Petitioner asserts, in its ground styled as “1c,” that the subject matter
`of claims 4 and 9 of the ’916 patent would have been rendered obvious by
`the combined disclosures of Zhuang327 and Popović. Pet. 3, 42–45. We
`discussed Zhuang327 above.
`1. Popović (Ex. 1009)
`Popović is titled, “Generalized Chirp-Like [GCL] Polyphase
`Sequences with Optimum Correlation Properties.” Ex. 1009, 1406. Popović
`is an article from IEEE Transactions on Information Theory dated July,
`1992. Id. Popović was not cited during prosecution of the ’916 patent. Ex.
`1001, [56].
`Popović relates to “[a] new general class of polyphase sequences with
`ideal periodic autocorrelation function.” Ex. 1009, 1406 (Abstract).
`Popović states, “[t]he new class of sequences is based on the application of
`Zadoff-Chu polyphase sequences.” Id. Popović also states, “it was shown
`that all the cyclic time shifted versions of the Zadoff-Chu sequences have
`the same absolute value of the aperiodic autocorrelation function.” Id. at
`1409.
`
`Thus, Popović recommends the use of Zadoff-Chu sequences and
`specifically discloses cyclic or circular shifted Zadoff-Chu sequences.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01208
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`
`2. Claims 4 and 9
`Claims 4 and 9 of the ’916 patent recite, “wherein the code sequence
`having the first length is a Zadoff-Chu sequence.” Ex. 1001, 18:1–3, 38–40.
`Petitioner provides a detailed and supported argument that Zhuang327 and
`Popović teach the limitation in claims 4 and 9. Pet. 42–45. Petitioner also
`articulates reasoning with rational underpinning for combining the relevant
`teachings of the references (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
`418 (2007)). Id.
`Patent Owner argues Petitioner has failed to show how combining
`Popović with Zhuang327 renders obvious, “wherein the code sequence
`having the first length is a Zadoff-Chu sequence,” as recited in claims 4 and
`9. Prelim. Resp. 36–39. Specifically, Patent Owner argues, “[t]he Petition,
`however, fails to make a prima facie case of obviousness because the
`Petition does not establish a motivation to combine Popović with the base
`reference [Zhuang327].” Id. at 36. With regard to motivation to combine
`Popović’s teachings related to the use of Zadoff-Chu sequences (Ex. 1009,
`1406) with Zhuang327’s teachings related to the use of GCL sequences (Ex.
`1007, 7:28–29, 7:57–66, 8:1–10, 8:13–41, 8:66–9:1), the Petition states:
`A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been
`motivated to choose the ZC sequences over the GCL sequences
`in practical systems because the ZC sequences provide the same
`optimal auto- and cross-correlation properties (i.e.,
`the
`properties of interest in Zhuang327) as GCL sequences while
`requiring less computations in generation by not performing the
`multiplications with the sequence {bk} of complex numbers
`required to generate the GCL sequences. Such computational
`advantages can, for example, decrease the loads on the
`processing units that generate the sequences, thereby resulting
`in power savings, which are particularly important for mobile
`devices for uplink communications.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01208
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`
`
`Pet. 44–45 (citing Ex. 1003 (Wells Declaration) ¶¶ 172–173). Petitioner has
`shown an adequate reason to combine the teachings of Popović and
`Zhuang327.
`
`On the record before us, Petitioner has established a reasonable
`likelihood that the subject matter of claims 4 and 9 would have been obvious
`over Zhuang327 and Popović.
`E. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1–3, 5–8, and 10
`Over Zhuang327 and Hou
`Petitioner asserts, in its ground styled as “2a,” that the subject matter
`of claims 1–3, 5–8, and 10 of the ’916 patent would have been rendered
`obvious by the combined disclosures of Zhuang327 and Hou. Pet. 3, 45–67.
`Zhuang327 was discussed above.
`1. Hou (Ex. 1011)
`Hou is titled, “Transmission and Reception of Reference Preamble
`Signals in OFDMA or OFDM Communication Systems.” Ex. 1011, [54].
`Hou relates to “[t]echniques for generating preamble sequences for OFDM
`and OFDMA communication systems based on CAZAC sequences with
`desired properties of constant amplitudes (CA) and zero autocorrelation
`(ZAC).” Id. at [57] (Abstract). Hou states, “[w]ell-known examples of
`CAZAC sequences include Chu and Frank-Zadoff sequences.” Id. at 3:39–
`40. Hou explains that if a particular sequence “is a CAZAC sequence in the
`frequency domain, then its corresponding time-domain sequence is also a
`CAZAC sequence” and “the desired properties of the constant-amplitude
`and zero-auto-correlation of CAZAC sequence are preserved in both time
`and frequency domain.” Id. at 5:12–14, 65–67. Figures 2A and 2B of Hou
`are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01208
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2A (top) of Hou depicts “an example of using the cyclic shift of
`initial CAZAC sequence in the frequency domain to generate two new initial
`CAZAC sequences in the frequency domain,” and Figure 2B of Hou depicts
`“an example of using the cyclic shift of the preamble sequence in the time
`domain to generate two new preamble sequences in the time domain.” Id. at
`3:11–17.
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01208
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`
`2. Claims 1–3, 5–8, and 10
`Petitioner provides a detailed and supported argument that Zhuang327
`and Hou teach all the limitations of claims 1–3, 5–8, and 10 and articulates
`reasoning with rational underpinning for combining the teachings of these
`references. Pet. 45–67. Patent Owner relies on its argument related to the
`alleged failure of Zhuang327 to disclose the disputed limitations in claims 1
`and 6, which we addressed above. Prelim. Resp. 31–36. And, although
`recognizing that Hou contains teachings relating to the use of circular shift
`(Prelim. Resp. 14–15), Patent Owner limits its argument regarding Hou to
`contending Petitioner does not articulate a reason to combine Zhuang327
`and Hou to disclose the claimed circular shift. Prelim. Resp. 15, 31. For the
`reasons stated above with regard to Zhuang327 and for the additional
`reasons provided in the Petition with regard to Hou (Pet. 45–67), Petitioner
`has established a reasonable likelihood of showing all the limitations of
`claims 1–3, 5–8, and 10 are taught or suggested by Zhuang327 and Hou.
`With regard to combining the teachings of Zhuang327 and Hou
`related to circular shift, Petitioner argues that Zhuang327 and Hou (and the
`’916 patent) are in the same field of endeavor as both prior art references
`relate to generation and transmission of CAZAC sequences for use in the
`same types of wireless c

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket