UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ZTE (USA) Inc.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Evolved Wireless LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,218,481
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01349
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Exhibits .......................................................................................................................................... iv
`
`I.
`
`Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1)) ........................................................................1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) .......................................................1
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)).................................................................1
`
`Lead And Back-Up Counsel And Service Information ...........................................2
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.103).................................................................................2
`
`Requirements For Inter Partes Review (37 C.F.R. § 42.104) .............................................3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ........................................................3
`
`Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested...............................3
`
`Claim Construction under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3) ...........................................11
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Preambles (claims 1 and 8)........................................................................11
`
`“preamble generation unit” and “transmission unit” (claim 8)..................16
`
`“repeating a specific sequence, having a length (L), N times to
`generate a consecutive sequence having a length (N*L)” (claims 1
`and 8) .........................................................................................................17
`
`IV.
`
`Summary of the ‘481 Patent ..............................................................................................18
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Brief Description....................................................................................................18
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ‘481 Patent .......................................20
`
`V.
`
`Manner Of Applying Cited Prior Art To Every Claim For Which An Inter Partes
`Review Is Requested, Thus Establishing A Reasonable Likelihood That At Least
`One Claim Of The ‘481 Patent Is Unpatentable ................................................................20
`
`A.
`
`Ground 1A: IEEE802.16-2004 anticipates claims 1 and 15..................................24
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`IEEE802.16-2004 anticipates claim 1........................................................26
`
`IEEE802.16-2004 anticipates claim 15......................................................31
`
`B.
`
`Ground 1B: IEEE802.16-2004 in view of Chou renders obvious claims 8
`and 16.....................................................................................................................35
`
`i
`
`

`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`IEEE802.16-2004 in view of Chou renders obvious claim 8 ....................35
`
`IEEE802.16-2004 in view of Chou renders obvious claim 16 ..................42
`
`C.
`
`Ground 1C: IEEE802.16-2004 in view of Tan renders obvious claims 2-4
`and 6.......................................................................................................................42
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`IEEE802.16-2004 in view of Tan renders obvious claim 2.......................42
`
`IEEE802.16-2004 in view of Tan renders obvious claim 3.......................46
`
`IEEE802.16-2004 in view of Tan renders obvious claim 4.......................50
`
`IEEE802.16-2004 in view of Tan renders obvious claim 6.......................51
`
`D.
`
`Ground 1D: IEEE802.16-2004 in view of Chou and Tan renders obvious
`claims 9-11 and 13.................................................................................................54
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`IEEE802.16-2004 in view of Chou and Tan renders obvious claim
`9..................................................................................................................55
`
`IEEE802.16-2004 in view of Chou and Tan renders obvious claim
`10................................................................................................................56
`
`IEEE802.16-2004 in view of Chou and Tan renders obvious claim
`11................................................................................................................56
`
`IEEE802.16-2004 in view of Chou and Tan renders obvious claim
`13................................................................................................................57
`
`E.
`
`Ground 2A: IEEE802.16e-2005 in view of IEEE802.16-2004 renders
`obvious claims 1 and 15.........................................................................................57
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`IEEE802.16e-2005 in view of IEEE802.16-2004 renders obvious
`claim 1........................................................................................................58
`
`IEEE802.16e-2005 in view of IEEE802.16-2004 renders obvious
`claim 15......................................................................................................60
`
`F.
`
`Ground 2B: IEEE802.16e-2005 in view of IEEE802.16-2004 and Chou
`renders obvious claims 8 and 16............................................................................61
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`IEEE802.16e-2005 in view of IEEE802.16-2004 and Chou renders
`obvious claim 8..........................................................................................61
`
`IEEE802.16e-2005 in view of IEEE802.16-2004 and Chou renders
`obvious claim 16........................................................................................63
`
`ii
`
`

`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`Ground 2C: IEEE802.16e-2005 in view of IEEE802.16-2004 and Tan
`renders obvious claims 2-4 and 6...........................................................................63
`
`Ground 2D: IEEE802.16e-2005 in view of IEEE802.16-2004, Chou and
`Tan renders obvious claims 9-11 and 13 ...............................................................64
`
`Redundancy........................................................................................................................65
`
`Conclusion .........................................................................................................................67
`
`VI.
`
`VII.
`
`CERTIFICATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d) ..........................................................................1
`
`iii
`
`

`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`Exhibits
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,218,481 to Kwon, et al. (“the ‘481 patent”)
`
`Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the ‘481 Patent (“the
`Prosecution History”)
`
`Declaration of Jonathan Wells
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Jonathan Wells
`
`IEEE 802.16-2004 Standard, entitled “IEEE Standard for Local and
`Metropolitan Area Networks Part 16: Air Interface for Fixed
`Broadband Wireless Access Systems” (“IEEE802.16-2004”)
`
`Declaration of Mr. David Ringle for IEEE802.16-2004
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/759,697 of U.S. Patent No. 8,000,305
`to Tan et al. (“Tan Provisional”)
`
`IEEE 802.16e-2005 Standard, entitled “802.16e-2005 and IEEE Std
`802.16-2004/Cor1-2005 - IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan
`Area Networks Part 16: Air Interface for Fixed and Mobile
`Broadband Wireless Access Systems Amendment 2: Physical and
`Medium Access Control Layers for Combined Fixed and Mobile
`Operation in Licensed Bands and Corrigendum 1” (“IEEE802.16e-
`2005”)
`
`Declaration of Mr. David Ringle for IEEE802.16e-2005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,977,258 to Chou (“Chou”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. US 7,417,970 to Shaheen (“Shaheen”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. US 6,944,453 to Faerber et al. (“Faerber”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. US 7,599,327 to Zhuang et al. (“Zhuang”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2006/0274843 to Koo et
`al. (“Koo”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. US 6,374,080 to Uchida (“Uchida”)
`
`iv
`
`

`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`PCT Application Publication Number WO2001041471 A1 to Bailey
`(“Bailey”)
`
`N. Abramson, "THE ALOHA SYSTEM—Another alternative for
`computer communications," Proceedings of the Fall Joint Computer
`Conference, pp. 281-5, Nov. 1970
`
`3GPP TS 25.213 V6.4.0 (2005-09), “3rd Generation Partnership
`Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network;
`Spreading and modulation (FDD) (Release 6)”
`
`3GPP TS 25.211 V6.6.0 (2005-09), “3rd Generation Partnership
`Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network;
`Physical channels and mapping of transport channels onto physical
`channels (FDD) (Release 6)”
`
`D.C. Chu, “Polyphase codes with good periodic correlation properties,”
`IEEE Trans. Information Theory, vol. 18, pp. 531– 532, July 1972
`
`B.M. Popovic, “Generalized chirp-like polyphase sequences with
`optimum correlation properties,” IEEE Trans. Information Theory, vol.
`38, pp. 1406–1409, Jul. 1992
`
`3GPP TS 25.201 V3.0.0 (1999-10), “3rd Generation Partnership
`Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network;
`Physical layer - General description (3G TS 25.201 version 3.0.0)”
`
`3GPP TS 36.211 V8.0.0 (2007-09), “3rd Generation Partnership
`Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network;
`Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA); Physical
`channels and modulation (Release 8)”
`
`“Defendants’ Preliminary Identification of Terms Needing Con-
`struction and Proposed Constructions,” from Case Nos. 15-542-SLR-
`SRF, 15-543-SLR-SRF, 15-544-SLR-SRF, 15-545-SLR-SRF, 15-546-
`SLR-SRF , 15-547-SLR-SRF filed in N.D. Del.
`
`“Evolved Wireless’s Identification of Claim Terms and Proposed
`Constructions” from Case Nos. 15-542-SLR-SRF, 15-543-SLR-SRF,
`15-544-SLR-SRF, 15-545-SLR-SRF, 15-546-SLR-SRF , 15-547-
`SLR-SRF filed in N.D. Del.
`
`v
`
`

`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,000,305 to Tan et al. (“Tan”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Paul S. Min
`
`Joint Claim Construction Chart, filed as Document 57-1 in Case 1:15-
`cv-00546-SLR-SRF (D. Del.)
`
`vi
`
`

`
`ZTE (USA) Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review of claims 1-4, 6,
`
`8-11, 13, 15, and 16 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,218,481 (“the
`
`‘481 patent”). As explained in this petition, there exists a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the Challenged Claims.
`
`The Challenged Claims are unpatentable based on teachings set forth in at
`
`least the references presented in this petition. Petitioner respectfully submits that
`
`an inter partes review should be instituted, and that the Challenged Claims should
`
`be canceled as unpatentable.
`
`I.
`
`Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R § 42.8(A)(1))
`
`A.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc. are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`The ‘481 patent is the subject of the following pending matters, which may
`
`affect, or be affected by, a decision in this proceeding: Evolved Wireless, LLC v.
`
`Apple, Inc., C.A. 15-cv-542 (D. Del.); Evolved Wireless, LLC v. HTC Corp., C.A.
`
`15-cv-543 (D. Del.); Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Lenovo Group Ltd., C.A. 15-cv-544
`
`(D. Del.); Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., C.A. 15-cv-545
`
`(D. Del.); Evolved Wireless, LLC v. ZTE Corp., C.A. 15-cv-546 (D. Del.); and
`
`Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., C.A. 15-cv-547 (D. Del.).
`
`1
`
`

`
`The ‘481 patent is also the subject of inter partes review proceeding nos.
`
`IPR2016-00758, IPR2016-00981, and IPR2016-01342. As discussed in Section VI,
`
`none of the grounds in the present petition is redundant to any ground presented in
`
`the other proceedings.
`
`Petitioner is unaware of any other pending judicial or administrative matter
`
`that would affect, or by affected by, a decision in this proceeding.
`
`C.
`
`Lead And Back-Up Counsel And Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`Charles M. McMahon (Reg. 44,926)
`cmcmahon@mwe.com
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY
`227 W. Monroe
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: (312) 984-7764
`Fax: (312) 984-7700
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Hersh H. Mehta (Reg. 62,336)
`hmehta@mwe.com
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY
`227 W. Monroe
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: (312) 984-7682
`Fax: (312) 984-7700
`
`A power of attorney accompanies this petition. Petitioner consents to service
`
`by e-mail. Please send all correspondence to lead and back-up counsel.
`
`II.
`
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.103)
`
`Petitioner authorizes the Office to charge the filing fee specified by 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.15(a), and any other necessary fee, to Deposit Account No. 50-0417.
`
`2
`
`

`
`III. Requirements For Inter Partes Review (37 C.F.R. § 42.104)
`A.
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`
`Petitioner certifies that it has standing to request and is not barred from
`
`requesting an inter partes review of the ‘481 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315.
`
`Neither petitioner nor any privy of petitioner has filed any civil action challenging
`
`the validity of any claim of the ‘481 patent. Petitioner files this petition in
`
`accordance with the time restrictions set in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) and 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`1.7(a), 42.1.
`
`Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested
`B.
`Petitioner requests an inter partes review of the Challenged Claims on the
`
`grounds set forth in the table shown below, and requests that each of the
`
`Challenged Claims be found unpatentable. An explanation of how these claims are
`
`unpatentable under the statutory grounds identified below is provided in the form
`
`of detailed description and claim charts that follow, indicating where each element
`
`can be found in the cited prior art, and the relevance of that prior art. Additional
`
`explanation and support for each ground of rejection is set forth in Ex.1003,
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jonathan Wells (“Wells Declaration”).
`
`Ground
`
`‘481 Patent Claims Basis for Rejection
`
`Ground 1A
`
`1 and 15
`
`§102: IEEE802.16-2004
`
`Ground 1B
`
`8 and 16
`
`§103: IEEE802.16-2004 and Chou
`
`3
`
`

`
`Ground 1C
`
`2-4 and 6
`
`§103: IEEE802.16-2004 and Tan
`
`Ground 1D
`
`9-11 and 13
`
`§103: IEEE802.16-2004, Chou and Tan
`
`Ground 2A
`
`1 and 15
`
`Ground 2B
`
`8 and 16
`
`Ground 2C
`
`2-4 and 6
`
`Ground 2D
`
`9-11 and 13
`
`§103: IEEE802.16e-2005 and
`IEEE802.16-2004
`§103: IEEE802.16e-2005, IEEE802.16-
`2004 and Chou
`§103: IEEE802.16e-2005, IEEE802.16-
`2004 and Tan
`§103: IEEE802.16e-2005, IEEE802.16-
`2004, Chou and Tan
`
`IEEE802.16-2004, entitled “IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan
`
`Area Networks Part 16: Air Interface for Fixed Broadband Wireless Access Sys-
`
`tems” qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C §§ 102(a) and (b). Specifically,
`
`IEEE802.16-2004 (Ex. 1005) is an IEEE Standard that was published on October
`
`1st, 2004, more than a year before the PCT filing date of June 8, 2007 and any of
`
`the proclaimed priority dates of June 9, 2006 and June 26, 2006 of the ‘481 Patent.
`
`See Ex. 1005 and Ex. 1006.
`
`Tan qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C § 102(e). Specifically, Tan (Ex.
`
`1026) is a U.S. patent that claims priority to a provisional patent application
`
`(provided as Ex. 1007) that was filed on January 17, 2006, before the PCT filing
`
`date of June 8, 2007 and any of the proclaimed priority dates of June 9, 2006 and
`
`June 26, 2006 of the ‘481 Patent. Tan is entitled to the filing date of its priority
`
`4
`
`

`
`provisional application because the provisional application fully supports Tan’s
`
`claims. See Dynamic Drinkware v. National Graphics, 800 F.3d 1375, 1381-82
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015); Cisco v. Capella, IPR2014-01276, Paper 40 at 22 n.9 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Feb. 17, 2016). The support for Tan’s claim 1 is shown in the following table,
`
`which comes from the accompanying declaration of Dr. Paul S. Min (Ex. 1027).
`
`Claims 2-13 of Tan are supported by, and identical or virtually identical to, claims
`
`2-5, 8-14, and 19, respectively, of Tan’s priority provisional application. See Ex.
`
`1027 at ¶ 16.1
`
`1.a
`
`Claim Feature of the Tan
`Patent
`1. A method for initializing a
`communication in a
`communication system for
`random access channel
`(RACH) access, the method
`comprising the steps of:
`
`Exemplary Support for Claim Feature
`from the Tan Application
`“Referring to FIG. 14, the present
`invention also provides a method for
`random channel access between a user
`equipment (UE) and a Node-B of a
`EUTRA communication system, as shown
`in FIG. 15, wherein the UE 1500 reserves
`and transmits information on the RACH
`channel 1516, and the Node-B1502
`receives the information on the RACH
`channel.”
`¶ [0049].
`
`
`Tan and its priority provisional application share an identical disclosure,
`1
`
`apart from formalities (e.g., the priority claim in column 1, lines 5-7 of Tan) and
`
`slight differences between the provisional’s claims and Tan’s claims.
`
`5
`
`

`
`1.b
`
`Claim Feature of the Tan
`Patent
`defining at least two sequences
`derived from at least one
`constant amplitude zero
`autocorrelation sequence,
`wherein the at least two
`sequences have a same
`sequence length, and wherein
`the sequences are derived with
`different numbers which are
`relatively prime to the sequence
`length;
`
`Exemplary Support for Claim Feature
`from the Tan Application
`“In a first step, the UE 1500 defines 1400
`a plurality of spread sequences derived
`from a plurality of constant amplitude
`zero autocorrelation (CAZAC)
`sequences.”
`¶ [0050].
`
`“As used herein, the CAZAC, Chu and
`GCL sequences can be used
`interchangeably.”
`¶ [0028].
`
`“Specific RACH preamble sequencing
`can be defined. Since the sequence length
`equals to fifteen, a Chu-sequence can be
`selected which is defined as
`
`=0,…,9
`
`=2×+
`=0,1
`
`where M=15, and p is relatively prime to
`M.” ¶ [0030].
`
`“To generate the twenty unique signature
`sequences, a sequence identifier s is first
`computed via
`where
`corresponds to the delay of
`the Chu-sequence and
`is the
`index of the Walsh sequence. The
`resulting s-th RACH preamble sequence
`(with length 2M) is then given by
`
`¶ [0033].
`
`6
`
`

`
`Claim Feature of the Tan
`Patent
`using one of the sequences as a
`preamble for a RACH;
`
`1.c
`
`1.d
`
`transmitting the one preamble
`to a base station for acquisition;
`
`Exemplary Support for Claim Feature
`from the Tan Application
`“In a next step, the UE selects 1404 one
`of the signature sequences, which is used
`1406 in a preamble for a RACH.”
`¶ [0050].
`
`“In a next step, the UE transmits 1410 the
`RACH preamble using the selected slot,
`signature sequence, and power, and then
`monitors 1412 for a positive acquisition
`indicator (ACKnowledgement) from the
`node-B 1502.”
`¶ [0051].
`
`1.e
`
`monitoring a downlink control
`channel from the base station
`for a fixed amount of time for
`scheduling information for a
`RACH message; and
`
`“UE monitors 1430 the downlink control
`channel for a fixed amount of time to
`obtain 1432 scheduling information for
`the RACH message.”
`¶ [0053].
`
`“In a next step, the UE transmits 1410 the
`RACH preamble using the selected slot,
`signature sequence, and power, and the
`monitors 1412 for a positive acquisition
`indicator (ACKnowledgement) from the
`node-B 1502. If no positive acquisition
`indicator is detected, in a next step, the
`UE may wait 1414 for a period of time or
`the UE changes 1416 transmission power
`with a new access slot and a new
`randomly selected signature until the
`maximum number of transmissions or
`maximum power is reached.”
`¶ [0051].
`
`1.f
`
`sending the RACH message on
`a physical uplink shared
`channel at a time and frequency
`
`“There are three approaches for RACH
`message transmission. The details of
`message transmitting 1418 in UE and
`
`7
`
`

`
`Claim Feature of the Tan
`Patent
`scheduled by the base station.
`
`Exemplary Support for Claim Feature
`from the Tan Application
`message receiving 1426 in Node-B will
`be illustrated in FIG. 17, 18, and 19.”
`¶ [0052].
`
`“FIG. 17 is the method of schedule-based
`RACH message transmission. UE
`monitors 1430 the downlink control
`channel for a fixed amount of time to
`obtain 1432 scheduling information for
`the RACH message. The Node-B can be
`signaled for RACH message transmission,
`and the RACH message can then be sent
`1434 as scheduled. Node-B schedules
`1436 RACH message transmission after
`the RACH ACK is sent. Node-B will
`receive 1438 RACH message at its
`schedule time and frequency.”
`¶ [0053].
`
`“FIG. 18 is the method of contention-
`based RACH message transmission. UE
`sends 1440 the RACH message upon
`RACH ACK is received. In the next step,
`UE listens 1442 the downlink control
`channel for RACH message ACK to
`determine 1444 whether the message is
`received by Node-B. Node-B will receive
`1446 RACH message after the RACH
`ACK is sent. When the message is
`received 1448, a RACH message ACK
`should be sent 1450.”
`¶ [0054].
`
`“FIG. 19 is ACK-based RACH message
`transmission approach. A RACH message
`channel is reserved. UE will wait 1452 for
`RACH MSG (message) ACK from Node-
`
`8
`
`

`
`Claim Feature of the Tan
`Patent
`
`Exemplary Support for Claim Feature
`from the Tan Application
`B for clear of RACH message channel.
`Once the channel is available, the RACH
`message is sent 1454. Node-B monitors
`the availability of the RACH message
`channel. It will send 1456 MSG ACK and
`receive 1458 RACH message in the next
`step.”
`¶ [0055].
`
`“Once UE receives ACK from Node-B
`for RACH access, UE sends the RACH
`message in the predefined channel.”
`¶ [0046].
`
`“Advantageously, the present invention
`provides a CDM type of RACH with a
`MC-CDMA approach in the EUTRA
`system. There is no reservation of time
`slots or sub-carriers involved, which
`hresults in zero RACH overhead.”
`¶ [0056].
`
`“The present invention provides the
`advantage of enhancing capacity of the E-
`UTRA system pursuant to the above
`embodiments. In particular, providing the
`RACH preamble sequencing without the
`need for reserved RACH access resources
`enhances the peak rate of data
`transmission and can reduce latency
`issues for data transmissions. One can
`also expect to achieve higher sector and
`user packet call throughput.
`Notwithstanding these benefits, these
`embodiments can be realized with only
`minimal changes to the relevant 3GPP,
`3GPP, and 802.16 standards.”
`
`9
`
`

`
`Claim Feature of the Tan
`Patent
`
`Exemplary Support for Claim Feature
`from the Tan Application
`¶ [0057].
`
`“Dividing the RACH opportunities into
`resource blocks provides the opportunity
`to take advantage of channel frequency
`selective characteristics to further
`improve the performance. The user
`equipment (UE) chooses the best
`available resource blocks or RACH
`preamble transmission based on
`information of the current frequency
`selective nature of the channel.”
`¶ [0027].
`
`IEEE802.16e-2005, entitled “802.16e-2005 and IEEE Std 802.16-
`
`2004/Cor1-2005 - IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks Part
`
`16: Air Interface for Fixed and Mobile Broadband Wireless Access Systems
`
`Amendment 2: Physical and Medium Access Control Layers for Combined Fixed
`
`and Mobile Operation in Licensed Bands and Corrigendum 1” qualifies as prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C §§ 102(a) and (b). Specifically, IEEE802.16e-2005 (Ex. 1008), an
`
`update to IEEE802.16-2004 (see, e.g., References, Ex. 1008 at 5), was published
`
`on February 28th 2006, more than a year before the PCT filing date of June 8, 2007
`
`and before any of the proclaimed priority dates of June 9, 2006 and June 26, 2006
`
`of the ‘481 Patent. See Ex. 1008 and Ex. 1009.
`
`Chou qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C §§ 102(a) and (e). Specifically,
`
`Chou (Ex. 1010) is a U.S. patent that issued on an application that was filed on
`
`10
`
`

`
`September 9, 2005, before the PCT filing date of June 8, 2007 and any of the pro-
`
`claimed priority dates of June 9, 2006 and June 26, 2006 of the ‘481 Patent
`
`Claim Construction under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3)
`C.
`A claim subject to inter partes review is given its “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`1.
`
`Preambles (claims 1 and 8)
`
`For purposes of this proceeding, aspects of the preambles of claims 1 and 8
`
`should not be limiting. The preamble of claim 1 recites: “[a] method of transmit-
`
`ting a preamble sequence in a mobile communication system,” and the preamble
`
`of claim 8 recites “[a] transmitter for transmitting a preamble sequence in a mo-
`
`bile communication system.” Ex. 1001, claims 1 and 8. “In general, a preamble
`
`limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to
`
`give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsav-
`
`ings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). As such, a
`
`preamble is regarded as limiting only if it recites essential structure that is im-
`
`portant to the invention or necessary to give meaning to the claim. NTP, Inc. v. Re-
`
`search In Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1305–06 (Fed Cir. 2005). Moreover, when
`
`the limitations in the body of the claim “rely upon and derive antecedent basis
`
`from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the
`
`11
`
`

`
`claimed invention.” Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`None of these situations are present here. In particular, the term “mobile” is
`
`not recited in the body of claims 1 and 8, nor in the body of any of the dependent
`
`claims 2-7 and 9-16. Simply put, “mobile” fails to provide antecedent basis support
`
`for any elements of the Challenged Claims. See Google, Inc. v. Visual Real Estate,
`
`Inc., Case IPR 2014-01339. Final Decision at 9-10 (PTAB, January 25, 2016)
`
`(Paper 39) (The term “server farm” recited in preamble is not limiting because it is
`
`not recited in the body of the claims and “does not appear to provide any antecedent
`
`basis support for any elements of the claims” and “all the term ‘server farm’
`
`appears to do is to give a descriptive name to the set of limitations that completely
`
`set forth the invention.”). Likewise, while the term “preamble sequence” appears in
`
`the body of “generating” and “transmitting” steps, this term is otherwise not
`
`regarded by the body of the claims nor does this term make the preambles of the
`
`Challenged Claims limiting. Rather, “preamble sequence” merely sets forth a
`
`descriptive name for the set of limitations found in the bodies of the Challenged
`
`Claims, leaving those claim bodies to completely set forth the purported invention.
`
`See IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
`
`(“The phrase ‘control apparatus’ in the preamble merely gives a descriptive name to
`
`the set of limitations in the body of the claim that completely set forth the invention.
`
`12
`
`

`
`Its use does not limit the claims.”). Here, the entire preamble phrase “transmitting a
`
`preamble sequence in a mobile communication system,” fails to even define the
`
`term “preamble sequence.” Rather, the meaning of “preamble sequence” is left to
`
`the claim body, which explains how the sequence is generated - “generating said
`
`preamble sequence by concatenating a single cyclic prefix (CP) to a front end of
`
`said consecutive sequence.” As apparent, in the absence of any limiting preamble
`
`detail, the claim body self-sufficiently and completely sets forth and gives meaning
`
`to the term “preamble sequence.” As such, the preamble terms do not limit the
`
`Challenged Claims. See Wells Declaration at ¶¶ 85-86.
`
`Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the in-
`
`vention (PHOSITA) would have understood that the set of limitations in the body
`
`of the Challenged Claims completely define the purported invention. Indeed, a
`
`PHOSITA would have perfectly understood the purported invention without refer-
`
`ence to the preamble, by reading only the body of the claims; as such, the preamble
`
`does not limit nor is it needed for essential structures or to give meaning to the
`
`claims. See Wells Declaration at ¶¶ 80-90. Additionally, the preamble is not a nec-
`
`essary component of the purported invention because the body of claim 1 already
`
`recites “transmitting, said preamble sequence to a receiving side,” again rendering
`
`the preamble phrase “transmitting a preamble sequence in a mobile communica-
`
`tion system” a redundant, non-essential step. See Dr. Wells Dec. at ¶¶ 81 and 83.
`
`13
`
`

`
`Moreover, the preamble merely relates to a purpose or intended use for the
`
`invention, i.e., for transmitting a preamble sequence “in a mobile communication
`
`system.” None of the limitations in the claim body compels or otherwise necessi-
`
`tates a “mobile” communication system. See Wells Declaration at ¶ 88. To the
`
`contrary, the body of claim 1 only requires “transmitting, said preamble sequence
`
`to a receiving side.” If the Applicant of the ‘481 patent wished the phrase “mobile
`
`communication system” to be limiting, the Applicant could have conveniently in-
`
`cluded, in the last claim element, recitation of “transmitting, on a random access
`
`channel, said preamble sequence to a receiving side in the mobile
`
`communication system.” Instead, the Applicant chose to use broader language,
`
`“a receiving side”, in contradiction to the preamble language that it clearly had
`
`contemplated. Applicant should not now be accorded an amendment by first
`
`undoing its earlier decision to leave the receiving side unqualified by “mobile”
`
`which remains the best evidence of Applicant’s intention to avail itself of a
`
`broader claim scope not limited by the claim preamble. Indeed, the Federal Circuit
`
`addressed precisely this situation and found a preamble non-limiting. See Wells
`
`Declaration at ¶¶ 89-90. See Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. at 808 (“[A] preamble is not
`
`limiting ‘where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim
`
`body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the
`
`14
`
`

`
`invention.”). For at least the above reasons, the preambles of claims 1 and 8
`
`should not be read as limiting the scope of the claims.
`
`Furthermore, even if the Board were to deem the preambles of the Chal-
`
`lenged Claims to be limiting, it is submitted that the broadest reasonable construc-
`
`tion of the phrase “transmitting a preamble sequence in a mobile communication
`
`system” is broad enough to encompass “transmitting a preamble sequence by a
`
`fixed device or a mobile device in a mobile communication system.” See Dr. Wells
`
`Dec. at ¶¶ 91-99. Such a construction is consistent with the ‘481 Patent specifica-
`
`tion because, throughout the ‘481 Patent specification, the term “mobile” is used
`
`consistently and only in the phrase “in a mobile communication system.” The ‘481
`
`Patent specification fails to define “a mobile communication system,” and fails to
`
`recite “mobile device” or “mobile station,” let alone restrict the operations of
`
`“transmitting a preamble sequence” to be performed exclusively by a mobile de-
`
`vice. Similarly, the claim language fails to limit the phrase “transmitting a pream-
`
`ble sequence in a mobile communication system” to “transmitting, by a mobile de-
`
`vice, a preamble sequence in a mobile communication system.” This is consistent
`
`with the understanding of PHOSITAs, since “a mobile communication system”
`
`typically includes fixed devices (e.g., base stations, remote stations, or fixed sub-
`
`scriber stations), and a fixed device in a mobile communication system transmits
`
`preamble sequences as well. See Dr. Wells Dec. at ¶96. Indeed, such preamble se-
`
`15
`
`

`
`quences may be transmitted by the fixed device, for example, to enable communi-
`
`cations between the fixed device and one of the mobile devices. See Dr. Wells Dec.
`
`at ¶¶ 96-99. As such, the broadest reasonable construction of the phrase should
`
`encompass “transmitting a preamble sequence by a fixed device or a mobile device
`
`in a mobile communication system.”
`
`2.
`
`“preamble generation unit” and “transmission unit” (claim
`8)
`
`Claim 8 recites (i) “a preamble generation unit configured to generate said
`
`preamble sequence by repeating a specific sequence, having a length (L), N times
`
`to generate a consecutive sequence having a length (N*L) and concatenating a
`
`single cyclic prefix (CP) to a front end of said consecutive sequence”; and (ii) “a
`
`transmission unit configured to transmit, on a random access channel, said
`
`preamble sequence to a receiving side.” Because neither of these terms includes the
`
`word “means,” each term “presumptively is not a means-plus-function limitation
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6.” See Facebook v. TLI Comm., IPR2015-
`
`00778, Paper 17 at 13-14 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2015). Petitioner is challenging this
`
`presumption in district court. (See Ex. 1028, Joint Claim Constru