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 IPR2016-01209
`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
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01209
`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
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01209
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`
`The ’916 patent is also the subject of IPR2016–01208, 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
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01209
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`Figure 13 of the ’916 patent depicts a 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
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01209
`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 a 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
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01209
`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
`1–3, 5–8, and 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`Zhuang1752
`
`§ 102(e)
`
`Zhuang175 and Popović3
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`4 and 9
`
`Zhuang175 and Hou4
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`1–3, 5–8, and 10
`
`Zhuang175, Hou, and Popović
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`4 and 9
`
`Zhuang175 and Fukuta5
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`6–8 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 7,426,175 B2, filed Mar. 30, 2004, issued Sep. 16, 2008) (Ex.
`1012).
`3 Branislav M. Popović, Generalized Chirp-Like Polyphase Sequences with
`Optimum Correlation Properties, 38 IEEE Transactions on Information
`Theory 1406–1409 (1992) (Ex. 1009).
`4 Hou et al. (US 8,116,195 B2, filed July 27, 2005, issued Feb. 14, 2012)
`(Ex. 1011).
`5 Fukuta et al. (US 2007/0270273 A1, published Nov. 22, 2007) (Ex. 1013).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01209
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`Ground Reference(s)
`
`Basis1
`
`Zhuang175, Fukuta, and Popović § 103(a)
`
`6
`
`
`
`Challenged
`Claims
`9
`
`Petitioner asserts that Zhuang175, Hou, and Fukuta 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. 3–5. Patent Owner does not, at this stage of the
`proceeding, challenge the prior art status of these references. Prelim. Resp.
`10–19.
`
`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. 5–11. We
`analyze Petitioner’s claim construction contentions below.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01209
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner argues no claim construction is necessary. The
`Preliminary Response states:
`
`The Petition proposes six terms for construction. Pet. at
`5-11. 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. 23–24.
`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
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01209
`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. 30.
`Patent Owner does not dispute, at least at this stage of these proceedings,
`that this limitation is disclosed in the cited art. Id. at 9.
`
`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 this
`institution decision. Prelim. Resp. 23. And Patent Owner, at least at this
`stage in these proceedings, does not dispute the cited art teaches the
`limitations of the dependent claims in which these terms appear. Id. at 10.
`We believe the meanings of these terms in the context of the claims are
`sufficiently clear at this stage without further interpretation. Based on this
`
`
`6 American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed. 2000) (Ex.
`1005).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01209
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`record and, at least for purposes of making 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. 23). At this stage in this
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01209
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`proceeding, we do not construe “a code sequence generator” and “a
`transmitting unit” as means-plus-function limitations.7
`B. Asserted Anticipation of Claims 1–3,
`5–8, and 10 by Zhuang175
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–3, 5–8, and 10 as anticipated by
`Zhuang175. Pet. 3, 15–35. Petitioner relies on paragraphs 222–267 of the
`Declaration of Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. (Ex. 1003) in support of this challenge.
`Id. Patent Owner argues Zhuang175 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. 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 Zhuang175.
`
`
`7 In the related District Court litigations, Petitioner challenged the
`presumption and argued these terms were means-plus-function limitations.
`Pet. 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 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
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01209
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`
`1. Zhuang175 (Ex. 1012)
`Zhuang175 is titled, “Method and Apparatus for Pilot Signal
`Transmission.” Ex. 1012, [54]. Zhuang175 was cited during prosecution of
`the ’916 patent. Ex. 1001, [56].
`Zhuang175 relates to “a method and apparatus for pilot signal
`transmission in a communication system.” Ex. 1012, 1:7–8. Zhaung175
`states, “[a] pilot signal (or preamble) is commonly used for communication
`systems to enable the receiver to perform a number of critical functions,
`including but not limited to, the acquisition and tracking of timing and
`frequency synchronization. . . .” Id. at 1:11–16. Figure 1 of Zhuang175 is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 of Zhuang175 depicts a communication system 100 with base units
`101 and 102 and remote unit 103. Id. at 2:66–67. Figure 2 of Zhuang175 is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01209
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`Figure 2 of Zhuang175 depicts a pilot sequence 201 at the beginning of a
`transmission. Id. at 3:45–46. Figure 3 of Zhaung175 is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 3 of Zhuang175 depicts a method of “pilot sequence assignment for
`the communication system. Id. at 2:17–18.
`
`In the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner acknowledges Zhuang175
`discloses:
`[P]ilot sequences are computed by first determining a desired
`pilot length Np, and then selecting a starting sequence of prime
`number length NG and performing modifications. (Ex. 1012 at
`3:64-4:13.) One of two proposed modifications is to “[c]hoose
`NG to be the largest prime number that is smaller than Np and
`generate the sequence set. Repeat the beginning elements of
`each sequence in the set to append at the end to reach the
`desired length Np.”
` (Ex. 1012 at 4:18-21.)
` “Further
`modifications to the truncated/extended sequences may also be
`applied, such as applying a unitary transform to them.” (Id. at
`1012 at 4:44-46.) Zhuang 175 explains that such unitary
`transformations include “the NG-point DFT/IDFT [Discrete
`Fourier Transform/Inverse Discrete Fourier Transform]
`operation” wherein
`“sequences
`formed
`on
`unitary
`transformations performed on the GCL [Generalized Chirp-
`Like] sequences still fall within the scope of the invention,
`because the final sequences are still constructed from GCL
`sequences. That is, the final sequences are substantially based
`on (but are not necessarily equal to) the GCL sequences.” (Id.
`at 5:35-51.)
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01209
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`
`Zhuang175 also explains that the same pilot sequence
`
`may be assigned to multiple communication units. Once
`assigned, “[h]owever, the actual signals may be the results of
`different functions of the same assigned sequence. Examples of
`the functions applied are circular shifting of the sequence,
`rotating the phase of the sequence elements, etc.” (Ex. 1012 at
`6:25-32).
`Prelim. Resp. 12–13. Patent Owner also acknowledges that the last cited
`passage in Zhuang175 “suggests ‘circular shifting’ of an assigned
`sequence.” Id. at 37.
`2. Claims 1–3, 5–8, and 10
`Petitioner’s argument that Zhuang175 discloses all elements of claims
`1–3, 5–8, and 10 is detailed and supported by citations to the record. Pet.
`15–35. Patent Owner challenges Petitioner’s contention that Zhuang175
`discloses, “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. 10, 34–41.
`As noted above, at this stage in these proceedings, Patent Owner does not
`challenge Petitioner’s contention that Zhuang175 discloses the other
`limitations of claims 1–3, 5–8, and 10. Id.
`Patent Owner argues the Board should exercise its discretion not to
`institute trial on this ground under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because Zhaung175
`was the primary reference before the Examiner during prosecution and the
`claims were allowed over Zhaung175. Prelim. Resp. 32–34. Section 325(d)
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01209
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`provides: “[i]n determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under .
`. . chapter 31 [Inter Partes Review], the Director may take into account
`whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially
`the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.”
`During prosecution, the Examiner cited column 4, lines 18–21, of
`Zhuang175 as disclosing “circular shifting the generated code sequence
`extended to have the second length.” Ex. 1002, 129. See also Pet. 14,
`Prelim. Resp. 20. Zhuang175, column 4, lines 18–21, states, “[c]hoose NG
`to be the largest prime number that is smaller than Np and generate the
`sequence set. Repeat the beginning elements of each sequence in the set to
`append at the end to reach the desired length Np.” The patentee’s argument
`in response to the rejection was narrowly directed to this cited passage in
`Zhuang175. Ex. 1002, 119–120 (“In the above-cited portion (i.e., col. 4,
`lines 18-21), Zhuang[175] discloses . . .”). See also Prelim. Resp. 22 (“The
`inventors further explained that the cited portions of Zhuang175 did not in
`fact disclose circularly shifting the generated code sequence . . .”). There is
`no indication in the file history that either the Examiner or the patentee
`appreciated or considered that other portions of Zhuang175 expressly
`disclose circular shifting. See Pet. 14, Prelim. Resp. 34–35. Zhuang175 at
`column 6, lines 30–31, states, “the actual signals may be the results of
`different functions of the same assigned sequence. Examples of the
`functions applied are circular shifting of the sequence . . .” and, in claim 16,
`column 12, lines 20–24, states, “the second pilot sequence is based on a
`function of the first sequence and wherein the function of the first sequence
`is based on at least one of circular shifting of the first sequence and rotating
`the phase of elements of the first sequence.” Because the disclosure of
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01209
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`circular shifting in Zhuang175 appears not to have been adequately
`appreciated or considered during prosecution of the ’916 patent, we do not
`exercise the discretion granted under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny institution
`of trial.
`Patent Owner also argues that Zhuang175 “does not disclose the
`claimed ‘circular shift.’” Prelim. Resp. 34–41 (emphasis added). In making
`this argument, Patent Owner relies on the limitations in the last “wherein”
`clauses of claims 1 and 6, which recite “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 movers 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.” Id. Petitioner relies on the passages in column 6
`(Ex. 1012, 6:18–32) and in claim 16 (id. at 12:20–24) of Zhuang175 as
`disclosing the circular shift recited in claims 1 and 6 of the ’916 patent. Pet.
`24–25, 34. See, also, Ex. 1003 (Wells Declaration) ¶¶ 246–249. Petitioner
`also cites a technical dictionary definition, which describes a circular shift
`as, “[a] computer shift in which the digits dropped off at one end of a word
`are returned at the other end of the word.” Pet. 25 (citing McGraw-Hill
`Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (6th ed. 2003) (Ex. 1014 at
`396, 534)). We have considered the arguments of Petitioner and Patent
`Owner and, at least at this stage of this proceeding, Petitioner identifies
`sufficient evidence that Zhuang175 discloses the claimed circular shift.
`Therefore, on the record before us, we find that the information presented
`shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in
`showing that claims 1–3, 5–8, and 10 are anticipated by Zhuang175.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01209
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`
`C. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 4 and 9 Over
`Zhuang175 and Popović
`Petitioner asserts that the subject matter of claims 4 and 9 of the ’916
`
`patent would have been rendered obvious by the combined disclosures of
`Zhuang175 and Popović. Pet. 3, 35–39.
`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.
`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 Zhuang175 and
`Popović teach the limitation in claims 4 and 9. Pet. 35–39. Petitioner also
`articulates reasoning with rational underpinnings for combining the relevant
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01209
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`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 Zhuang175 renders obvious, “wherein the code sequence
`having the first length is a Zadoff-Chu sequence,” as recited in claims 4 and
`9. Prelim. Resp. 48–52. 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 Zhuang175
`or its combinations.” Id. at 48. With regard to motivation to combine
`Popović’s teachings related to the use of Zadoff-Chu sequences (Ex. 1009,
`1406) with Zhuang175’s teachings related to the use of GCL sequences (Ex.
`1012, 2:30–53, 5:9–6:14, 6:43–7:8, 8:52–67, 9:33–59 (claim 1), 10:28–
`11:29 (claims 8–10), 11:36–61 (claim 13), 12:4–34 (claim 16), 12:46–51
`(claims 19 and 21), 12:57–67 (claim 23, 13: 16–14:18 (claim 28)), 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 Zhuang175) 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. See Wells Declaration [Ex.
`1003], ¶ 276. Accordingly, the code sequences having the first
`length could have been a ZC sequence in view of the combined
`teachings of Zhuang175 and Popovic. See Wells Declaration
`[Ex. 1003], ¶¶ 268-277.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01209
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`
`
`Pet. 39. Petitioner has shown an adequate reason to combine the teachings
`of Popović and Zhuang175.
`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 Zhuang175 and Popović.
`D. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1–3, 5–8, and 10 Over
`Zhuang175 and Hou
`Petitioner asserts 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 Zhuang175 and Hou. Pet. 3, 39–51.
`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
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01209
`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.
`2. Claims 1–3, 5–8, and 10
`Petitioner provides a detailed and supported argument that Zhuang175
`and Hou teach all the limitations of claims 1–3, 5–8, and 10 and articulates
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01209
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`reasoning with rational underpinnings for combining the teachings of these
`references. Pet. 39–51. Although recognizing that Hou contains teachings
`relating to the use of circular shift (Prelim. Resp. 14–16, 41–42), Patent
`Owner relies on its argument related to the alleged failure of Zhuang175 to
`disclose the circular shift limitations in claims 1 and 6, which we discussed
`above. Id. at 41–42. For the reasons stated above with regard to Zhaung175
`and for the additional reasons provided in the Petition with regard to Hou
`(Pet. 39–51), Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of showing
`all the limitations of claims 1–3, 5–8, and 10 are taught or suggested by
`Zhuang175 and Hou.
`E. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 4 and 9 Over
`Zhuang175, Hou, and Popović
`Petitioner asserts that the subject matter of claims 4 and 9 of the ’916
`patent would have been rendered obvious by the combined disclosures of
`Zhuang175, Hou, and Popović. Pet. 3, 51–52. Patent Owner relies on
`arguments discussed above in opposing this assertion. Prelim. Resp. 41–42,
`48–52. On the record before us and for the reasons given in the Petition and
`explained above in connection with the previously discussed grounds,
`Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that claims 4 and 9 would
`have been obvious over Zhuang175, Hou, and Popović.
`F. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 6–8, and 10 Over
`Zhuang175 and Fukuta
`Petitioner asserts that the subject matter of claims 6–8 and 10 of the
`’916 patent would have been rendered obvious by the combined di

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