UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Evolved Wireless LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,218,481
`
`Case No. IPR2017-00106
`
`
`
`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
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1)...........................1
`
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ..............................1
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ..........................................1
`C. Lead And Back-Up Counsel And Service Information............................2
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103...................................................3
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104............................3
`
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a).................................3
`B. Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested ...............4
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’481 PATENT .............................................................4
`
`A. Brief Description.......................................................................................4
`B. Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’481 Patent ...........................5
`C. Claimed Priority Date ...............................................................................6
`D. Background of Technology ......................................................................6
`1.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................6
`2.
`Technical Background.....................................................................7
`3.
`State of the Art ................................................................................9
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3) ................11
`
`VI. PRIOR ART REFERENCES ........................................................................13
`
`A. Panasonic 792 (Ex. 1002) .......................................................................13
`B. Panasonic 114 (Ex. 1003) .......................................................................15
`C. Chu (Ex. 1004)........................................................................................16
`D. “Printed Publication” Status ...................................................................17
`1.
`Panasonic References ....................................................................18
`2. Chu ................................................................................................23
`
`VII. MANNER OF APPLYING CITED PRIOR ART TO EVERY CLAIM FOR
`
`WHICH AN IPR IS REQUESTED, THUS ESTABLISHING A
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE
`REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE
`
`‘481 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ..........................................................24
`‘481 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ........................................................ ..24
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-2 and 8-9 are invalid based on Panasonic 792.......24
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-2 and 8-9 are invalid based on Panasonic 792 ..... ..24
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 .....................................................................24
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................... ..24
`2. Dependent Claim 2 ........................................................................28
`2.
`Dependent Claim 2 ...................................................................... ..28
`3.
`Independent Claim 8 .....................................................................29
`3.
`Independent Claim 8 ................................................................... ..29
`4. Dependent Claim 9 ........................................................................31
`4.
`Dependent Claim 9 ...................................................................... ..31
`B. Ground 2: Claims 3, 4, 10, and 11 are invalid based on Panasonic 792 and
`B. Ground 2: Claims 3, 4, 10, and 11 are invalid based on Panasonic 792 and
`Panasonic 114 ........................................................................................32
`Panasonic 114 ...................................................................................... ..32
`1. Dependent Claim 3 ........................................................................32
`1.
`Dependent Claim 3 ...................................................................... ..32
`2. Dependent Claim 4 ........................................................................33
`2.
`Dependent Claim 4 ...................................................................... . .33
`3. Dependent Claim 10 ......................................................................34
`3.
`Dependent Claim 10 .................................................................... ..34
`4. Dependent Claim 11 ......................................................................35
`4.
`Dependent Claim 11 .................................................................... ..35
`5. Reasons to Combine the Panasonic References............................35
`5.
`Reasons to Combine the Panasonic References .......................... ..35
`C. Ground 3: Claims 6 and 13 are invalid based on Panasonic 792,
`C. Ground 3: Claims 6 and 13 are invalid based on Panasonic 792,
`Panasonic 114, and Chu. .........................................................................38
`Panasonic 114, and Chu. ....................................................................... ..38
`1. Dependent Claim 6 ........................................................................38
`1.
`Dependent Claim 6 ...................................................................... ..38
`2. Dependent Claim 13 ......................................................................39
`2.
`Dependent Claim 13 .................................................................... ..39
`3. Reasons to Combine the Panasonic References and Chu .............40
`3.
`Reasons to Combine the Panasonic References and Chu ........... ..4O
`
`VIII. REDUNDANCY ...........................................................................................41
`VIII. REDUNDANCY ......................................................................................... ..41
`
`IX. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................42
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ ..42
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`EXHIBITS
`
`1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,218,481 to Kwon, et al. (“the ‘481 patent”)
`
`1002
`
`“Random access burst evaluation in E-UTRA uplink,” 3GPP
`
`Tdoc R1-060792, Panasonic, TSG-RAN WG1 Meeting #44bis,
`
`Athens, Greece, March 27-31, 2006 (“Panasonic 792”)
`
`“Random access design for E-UTRA uplink,” 3GPP Tdoc R1-
`
`061114, Panasonic, TSG-RAN WG1 Meeting #45, Shanghai,
`
`China, May 8-12, 2006 (“Panasonic 114”)
`
`“Polyphase Codes With Good Periodic Correlation Properties,”
`
`D.C. Chu, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, pp. 531-32,
`
`July 1972 (“Chu”)
`
`File History of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/303,947, which is-
`
`sued as the 481 Patent (“481 File History”)
`
`“RACH design for E-UTRA,” 3GPP Tdoc R1-060797, Huawei,
`
`TSG-RAN WG1 Meeting #44bis, Athens, Greece, March 27-31,
`
`2006 (“Huawei 797”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. US 7,702,028 B2, originally assigned to Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung 028”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`1008
`
`“Proposal for RACH Preambles,” 3GPP Tdoc TSGR1#6(99)893,
`
`Motorola and Texas Instruments, TSG-RAN WG1 Meeting #6,
`
`Espoo, Finland, July 13-16, 1999 (“Motorola/TI 893”)
`
`“RACH Preamble Design,” 3GPP Tdoc R1-051058, Texas Instru-
`
`ments, TSG-RAN WG1 Meeting #42bis, San Diego, USA, Octo-
`
`ber 10-14, 2005 (“TI 058”)
`
`“Random Access Sequence Design,” 3GPP Tdoc R1-060884,
`
`Motorola, TSG-RAN WG1 Meeting #44-bis, Athens, Greece,
`
`March 24-26, 2006 (“Motorola 884”)
`
`“On the performances of LTE RACH,” 3GPP Tdoc R1-060908,
`
`Nortel Networks, TSG-RAN WG1 Meeting #44-bis, Athens,
`
`Greece, March 27-31, 2006 (“Nortel 908”)
`
`“A new preamble shape for the Random Access preamble in E-
`
`UTRA,” 3GPP Tdoc R1-060867, Texas Instruments, TSG-RAN
`
`WG1 Meeting #44-bis, Athens, Greece, March 27-31, 2006 (“TI
`
`867”)
`
`“Investigations on Random Access Channel Structure for E-
`
`UTRA Uplink,” 3GPP Tdoc R1-060992, NTT DoCoMo and
`
`NEC, TSG-RAN WG1 Meeting #44bis, Athens, Greece, March
`
`27-31, 2006 (“NTT/NEC 992”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`1014
`
`Declaration of Paul S. Min, Ph.D (“Min Decl.”)
`
`1015
`
`Declaration of Zuo Zhisong (“Zhisong Decl.”)
`
`Affidavit of Christopher Butler (“Butler Aff.”)
`
`Printout of 3GPP FAQs, available at http://www.3gpp.org/about-
`
`3gpp/3gpp-faqs (“3GPP FAQs”)
`
`Printout of Delegates Corner, available at
`
`http://www.3gpp.org/specifications-groups/delegates-corner
`
`(“Delegats Corner”)
`
`Printout of
`
`http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG1_RL1/TSGR1_44bis/Docs/
`
`(“44bis Docs”)
`
`Printout of archived version of e-mail from Katsuhiko Hiramatsu
`
`to RAN1’s e-mail exploder list on March 21, 2006 (“3/21/06
`
`Hiramatsu E-Mail”)
`
`Printout of list of Tdocs submitted at RAN1 Meeting 44bis
`
`(“Tdoclist 44bis”)
`
`Printout of
`
`http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG1_RL1/TSGR1_45/Docs/
`
`(“45 Docs”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`1023
`
`Printout of archived version of e-mail from Katsuhiko Hiramatsu
`
`to RAN1’s e-mail exploder list on May 2, 2006 (“5/2/06
`
`Hiramatsu E-mail”)
`
`Printout of list of Tdocs submitted at RAN1 Meeting 45 (“Tdo-
`
`clist 45”)
`
`Printout of IEEE Xplore Abstract (Citations) - Polyphase codes
`
`with good periodic correlation properties (Corresp.), available at
`
`http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/abstractCitations.jsp?tp=&ar-
`
`number=1054840&filter%3DAND%28p_IS_Num-
`
`ber%3A22664%29 (“Chu Citations”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,746,916 (“LG916”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,553,153 (“153 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. 2004/0047284 (“284 Publication”)
`
`Printout of archived version of 3GPP Frequency Asked Ques-
`
`tions, available at http://web.ar-
`
`chive.org/web/20060225053110/http://www.3gpp.org/faq/faq_20
`
`05_2.htm (“3GPP FAQs Archive”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`Printout of archived version of LISTSERV Archives at
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`LIST.ETSI.ORG, available at https://web.ar-
`
`chive.org/web/20060430104216/http://list.3gpp.org/ (“4/30/06
`
`List Archives”)
`
`Printout of 3GPP Meeting Registration, available at
`
`http://webapp.etsi.org/3GPPRegistration/fView-
`
`Part.asp?mid=25517 (“44bis Participant List”)
`
`Printout of 3GPP Meeting Registration, available at
`
`http://webapp.etsi.org/3GPPRegistration/fView-
`
`Part.asp?mid=25407 (“45 Participant List”)
`
`Excerpts from Dahlman, Erik. 3G Evolution: HSPA and LTE for
`
`Mobile Broadband. Amsterdam: Academic, 2008 (“Dahlman”)
`
`“On Uplink Pilot in EUTRA SC-FDMA,” 3GPP Tdoc R1-
`
`051062, Texas Instruments, TSG-RAN WG1 Ad Hoc on LTE,
`
`San Diego, USA, October 10-14, 2005 (“TI 062”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`(collectively “Petitioner”) petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 311–319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42 of claims 1-4, 6, 8-11 and 13 (“the
`
`Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,218,481 (“the ‘481 patent”). This
`
`Petition substantively copies the petition filed in co-pending IPR2016-00758,
`
`which was instituted on September 16, 2016. Accompanying this Petition is a
`
`motion to join IPR2016-00758. Because this Petition substantively copies the
`
`petition filed in co-pending IPR2016-00758 and that IPR has been instituted, evi-
`
`dence presented in this Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood Petitioner will
`
`prevail with regard to at least claims 1-4, 6, 8-11 and 13 of the ‘481 patent.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1)
`
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. are
`
`the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`The ‘481 patent is the subject of the following pending petitions for inter
`
`partes review:
`
`• Case No. IPR2016-00758 filed by ZTE (USA) Inc., HTC
`
`Corporation, and HTC America, Inc. on March 23, 2016;
`
`• Case No. IPR2016-01342 filed by ZTE (USA) Inc., Samsung
`
`1
`
`

`
`Electronics
`
`Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. on July 5, 2016;
`
`• Case No. IPR2016-01349 filed by ZTE (USA) Inc. on July 5, 2016.
`
` Case No. IPR2017-00068 filed by Apple, Inc., Microsoft Corporation,
`
` •
`
`
`
` Microsoft Mobile Oy, and Mi- crosoft Mobile Inc. (f/k/a Nokia Inc.) on
`
`
`
` October 14, 2016.
`
` Case No. IPR2016-00981 filed by Apple, Inc., Microsoft Corporation,
`
` •
`
`
`
` Microsoft Mobile Oy, and Mi- crosoft Mobile Inc. (f/k/a Nokia Inc.) on
`
`
`
` May 2, 2016.
`
`
`The ‘481 patent is the subject of Civil Action Numbers 1:15-cv-00542
`
`(Del.), 1:15-cv-00543 (Del.), 1:15-cv-00544 (Del.), 1:15-cv-00545-SLR
`
`(Del.), 1:15-cv-00546 (Del.), and 1:15-cv-00547- (Del.).
`
`C.
`
`Lead And Back-Up Counsel And Service Information
`
`Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel.
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Backup counsel
`
`James M. Glass, Reg. No. 46,729
`jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`T: 212-849-7000
`F: 212-849-7100
`
`Todd M. Briggs, Reg. No. 44,040
`toddbriggs@quinnemanuel.com
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`555 Twin Dolphin Dr, 5th Floor
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`T: 650-801-5000
`F: 650-801-5100
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`John T. McKee, Reg. 65,926
`johnmckee@quinnemanuel.com
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`T: 212-849-7000
`F: 212-849-7100
`
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`Petitioner is submitting herewith the fee set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this
`
`Petition.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’481 patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and that it is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review chal-
`
`lenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in the petition.
`
`Neither Petitioner, nor any party in privity with Petitioner, has filed a civil
`
`action challenging the validity of any claim of the ’481 patent. See 35 U.S.C. §
`
`315(a)(1). While Petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of
`
`the ’481 patent more than one year before the date this petition is filed, the time
`
`limitation of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) “shall not apply to a request for joinder under” 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(c). Because this petition is accompanied by a Motion for Joinder, it
`
`3
`
`

`
`complies with 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). See, e.g., Dell Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solu-
`
`tions, Inc., IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 at 4-5 (granting joinder beyond the one-year
`
`window).
`
`B. Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested
`
`Petitioner requests review and cancellation of claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, and 13 of
`
`the 481 patent on the following grounds:
`
`Ground
`
`‘481 Patent Claims
`
`Basis for Rejection
`
`Ground 1
`
`1, 2, 8, and 9
`
`Ground 2
`
`3, 4, 10, and 11
`
`Ground 3
`
`6 and 13
`
`§ 102(a), § 102(b), or § 103(a): Invalid
`based on Panasonic 792 (Ex. 1002)
`
`§ 103(a): Invalid based on Panasonic
`792 (Ex. 1002) and Panasonic 114 (Ex.
`1003).
`
`§ 103(a): Invalid based on Panasonic
`792 (Ex. 1002), Panasonic 114 (Ex.
`1003), and Chu (Ex. 1004).
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’481 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Brief Description
`
`The ’481 patent relates to “a method of expanding a code sequence, a struc-
`
`ture of a random access channel and a method of transmitting data in a mobile
`
`communication system.” (Ex. 1001, 481 Patent, at 1:16-20.) The ’481 patent has
`
`16 claims. Independent claims 1 and 8 are provided below:
`
`1. A method of transmitting a preamble sequence in a mobile
`
`communication system, the method comprising:
`
`1. repeating a specific sequence, having a length (L), N
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`times to generate a consecutive sequence having a length
`
`(N*L);
`
`generating said preamble sequence by concatenating a single
`
`cyclic prefix (CP) to a front end of said consecutive sequence; and
`
`transmitting, on a random access channel, said preamble se-
`
`quence to a receiving side.
`
`8. A transmitter for transmitting a preamble sequence in a mo-
`
`bile communication system, the transmitter comprising:
`
`a preamble generation unit configured to generate said pream-
`
`ble 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 consec-
`
`utive sequence;
`
`a transmission unit configured to transmit, on a random access
`
`channel, said preamble sequence to a receiving side.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’481 Patent
`
`On December 8, 2008, U.S. Patent Application No. 12/303,947 was filed as
`
`a national stage filing of International Application No. PCT/KR07/02784, filed on
`
`June 8, 2007 (“PCT 784”), which claims priority to Korean Application Nos. 10-
`
`2006-0052167, filed on June 9, 2006 (“KR 167”), and 10-2006-0057488, filed on
`
`June 26, 2006 (“KR 488”).
`
`On September 16, 2011, the examiner issued a non-final office action reject-
`
`ing every pending claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on U.S. Patent Applica-
`
`tion No. 2006/0153282 (“Jung”). (Ex. 1005, 481 File History, at 1005-0374 – 380.)
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`On December 16, 2011, in response to the office action, the applicant
`
`amended prosecution claim 31 (which corresponds to issued claim 1) as follows,
`
`amended prosecution claim 38 (which corresponds to issued claim 8) in a similar
`
`manner, and argued that the as-amended claims are patentable over Jung.
`
`(Id. at 1005-0541 – 548.)
`
`On March 6, 2012, the examiner issued a notice of allowance, leading to the
`
`
`
`issuance of the 481 patent. (Id. at 1005-0692 – 696.)
`
`C. Claimed Priority Date
`
`On its face, the 481 patent claims priority to KR 167, filed on June 9, 2006.
`
`D.
`
`Background of Technology
`
`1.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`The person of ordinary skill in the art of the subject matter of the ’481 patent
`
`would have had a master’s degree in electrical engineering with 2-3 years of expe-
`
`rience in cellular communication systems, and would have been aware of the ef-
`
`forts of the Third Generation Partnership Project (“3GPP”) and its various groups.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1014, Min Decl., at ¶ 34.) Alternatively, that person would have had a Ph.D.
`
`in electrical engineering with the same familiarity with the work of the 3GPP and
`
`its various groups. (Id.)
`
`2.
`
`Technical Background
`
`In 2006, before the ’481 patent’s claimed priority date, the telecommunica-
`
`tions industry was developing the cellular standard now known as Long Term Evo-
`
`lution (“LTE”). (Ex. 1014, Min Decl., at ¶ 35.) Development of LTE took place in
`
`a standard-setting organization called the Third Generation Partnership Project
`
`(“3GPP”). (Id.) 3GPP had members from virtually every telecommunications com-
`
`pany or organization in the world. (Id.)
`
`3GPP had several groups. (Id. at ¶ 36.) Relevant here is Technical Specifica-
`
`tion Group Radio Access Network (“TSG RAN”). (Id.) TSG RAN developed LTE’s
`
`radio access network, which allows user equipment (“UE”), such as a
`
`phone, to communicate with the cellular network. (Id.) TSG RAN itself had several
`
`working groups, of which Working Group 1 (“WG1”) is relevant here. (Id.)
`
`WG1 was developing the Random Access Channel (“RACH”) of LTE. (Id. at
`
`¶ 37.) The RACH had a few purposes. (Id.) It would allow a UE to access a cel-
`
`lular network for the first time, for example, when the UE powers up. (Id.) The
`
`RACH would also allow the cellular network to perform a handover, a process by
`
`which the network transfers a UE from one cell of the network to another cell. (Id.)
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Finally, the RACH would allow the UE to become time-synchronized with the net-
`
`work. (Id.) This was all well-known in WG1 before the 481 patent’s claimed prior-
`
`ity date. (Id.)
`
`Also well-known was the risk of interference if multiple UEs used the same
`
`RACH sequence, called a preamble sequence. (Id. at ¶ 38.) At a given time, several
`
`UEs can perform respective random access procedures, each ideally using a differ-
`
`ent RACH preamble sequence to identify itself to a base station, or an eNodeB in
`
`the context of LTE. (Id.) There are a number of RACH preambles available for a
`
`given eNodeB, and when a UE performs a random access procedure, the UE se-
`
`lects, often randomly, a RACH preamble among the multitude of RACH preambles
`
`available for the eNodeB. (Id.) Because the UEs do not communicate among them-
`
`selves, when two or more UEs happen to use the same RACH preamble sequence
`
`at the same time, the eNodeB cannot differentiate these UEs, and for that matter, the
`
`eNodeB may not even know there are multiple UEs performing the random ac- cess
`
`procedure at the same time. (Id.) To correctly perform the random access pro-
`
`cedure, different UEs should use different RACH preamble sequences. (Id.) Well
`
`aware of this problem, WG1 was working on designing a sufficiently large number
`
`of preamble sequences that would be available to the UEs to reduce the probability
`
`that multiple UEs choose the same RACH preamble. (Id.)
`
`Two mathematical functions guided WG1’s design: (1) auto-correlation, and
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(2) cross-correlation. (Id. at ¶ 39.) The auto-correlation function compares a signal
`
`to a time-shifted version of itself. (Id.) The cross-correlation function compares a
`
`signal to a time-shifted version of a different signal. (Id.) For both functions, a re-
`
`sult of zero is ideal, while a higher value typically indicates a higher probability of
`
`interference. (Id.) When a signal is periodic, slightly different terminology applies.
`
`(Id.) An auto-correlation of a periodic signal is called a circular auto-correlation; a
`
`cross-correlation of that signal is called a circular cross-correlation; and the time
`
`shift of that signal is called a cyclic shift. (Id.)
`
`WG1 members knew these properties well. (Id. at ¶ 40.) WG1 members also
`
`knew that the RACH preamble sequence they were designing should have excel-
`
`lent auto-correlation and cross-correlation properties so that the eNodeB can per-
`
`form time estimation accurately without RACH preamble sequences interfering
`
`with one another. (Id.) Finally, WG1 members knew that sequences called Con-
`
`stant Amplitude Zero Auto Correlation (“CAZAC”) sequences were well-suited to
`
`be used as RACH preamble sequences. (Id.)
`
`3.
`
`State of the Art
`
`The challenged claims are directed to a RACH preamble that includes a sin-
`
`gle cyclic prefix followed by repetitions of a cyclic-shifted CAZAC sequence. (Ex.
`
`1014, Min Decl., at ¶ 41 (citing Ex. 1001, 481 Patent, at claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13).)
`
`9
`
`

`
`Before the 481 patent’s claimed priority date, this concept was well-known to per-
`
`sons of ordinary skill in the art. (Id.)
`
`First, it was well-known that the RACH preamble could include a CAZAC
`
`sequence. (Id. at ¶ 42.) In July 1972, David C. Chu authored an IEEE article that
`
`introduced a type of CAZAC sequence now known as the Zadoff-Chu sequence.
`
`(Id. (citing Ex. 1004, Chu).) Citing to the Chu article more than 30 years later, sev-
`
`eral companies proposed to WG1 that the RACH preamble include a Zadoff-Chu
`
`sequence or other CAZAC sequence. (Id. (citing Ex. 1002, Panasonic 792, at 2, 7;
`
`Ex. 1003, Panasonic 114, at 1, 4-5; Ex. 1006, Huawei 797, at 2; Ex. 1007, Sam-
`
`sung 028, at 8:8-11; Ex. 1010, Motorola 884, at 1; Ex. 1011, Nortel 908, at 1; Ex.
`
`1012, TI 867, at 5).)
`
`It was also well-known that the RACH preamble could use cyclic shifts of a
`
`CAZAC sequence. (Id. at ¶ 43.) For example, in May 2006, Panasonic employees
`
`studied cyclic-shifted Zadoff-Chu sequences (which are CAZAC sequences) and
`
`concluded that the RACH preamble should use those cyclic-shifted sequences. (Id.
`
`(citing Ex. 1003, Panasonic 114, at 1).)
`
`Those skilled in the art also knew that the RACH preamble could be con-
`
`structed using a repeating code, including a repeating CAZAC sequence. (Id. at ¶
`
`44.) In 1999, Motorola and Texas Instruments proposed a RACH preamble struc-
`
`ture formed of 256 repeated codes. (Id. (citing Ex. 1008, Motorola/TI 893, at 3).)
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In August 2005, citing to the 1999 paper, Texas Instruments proposed that same
`
`preamble structure for the RACH in LTE. (Id. (citing Ex. 1009, TI 058, at 1).)
`
`Motorola and Texas Instruments’ papers also disclosed multiplying the repetitions
`
`of the code with another code. (Id. (citing Ex. 1008, Motorola/TI 893, at 3; Ex.
`
`1009, TI 058, at 1).) In March 2006, NTT DoCoMo and NEC specifically pro-
`
`posed a RACH preamble with a repeating CAZAC sequence. (Id. (citing Ex. 1013,
`
`NTT/NEC 992, at 1).) Similarly, Panasonic proposed that the RACH preamble
`
`contain repetitions of a Zadoff-Chu CAZAC sequence. (Id. (citing Ex. 1002, Pana-
`
`sonic 792, at 2).) Panasonic also proposed that the RACH preamble contain repeti-
`
`tions of a cyclic-shifted Zadoff-Chu CAZAC sequence. (Id. (citing Ex. 1003, Pana-
`
`sonic 114, at 3).) Finally, skilled artisans knew that a RACH preamble could have
`
`a cyclic prefix followed by repetitions of a CAZAC sequence. (Id.) For example,
`
`Panasonic’s March 2006 submission to 3GPP WG1 proposed that the RACH pre-
`
`amble contain a cyclic prefix followed by repetitions of a Zadoff-Chu CAZAC se-
`
`quence. (Id. (citing Ex. 1002, Panasonic 792, at 2).)
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3)
`
`The claims of an unexpired patent subject to inter partes review receive the
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in
`
`which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, the Board should
`
`read the claims in light of the specification and consult the patent’s prosecution
`
`11
`
`

`
`history. Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`Claims 1 and 8 recite “repeating a specific sequence, having a length (L), N
`
`times to generate a consecutive sequence having a length (N*L).” (Ex. 1001, 481
`
`patent, at 18:35-37, 18:63-65.) Under the broadest reasonable interpretation stand-
`
`ard, the Board should interpret “a consecutive sequence having a length (N*L)” as
`
`a consecutive sequence, having a length (N*L), that is entirely within one frame.
`
`As discussed in Section IV.B, supra, the applicant made claim amendments
`
`and arguments during prosecution to overcome the applied Jung reference and se-
`
`cure allowance. The applicant’s arguments make it clear that “a consecutive se-
`
`quence” is limited to a consecutive sequence within one frame.
`
`In particular, the applicant argued that Jung’s preamble sequence #2 is not a
`
`“consecutive sequence” because Jung’s preamble sequence #2 is split between
`
`multiple frames:
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`As illustrated in annotated FIG. 2 of Jung, the preamble sequences do
`
`not form a consecutive sequence, rather, the preamble sequences are
`
`repeated in different frames. For example, the preamble sequence #2
`
`is split between two frames, and therefore, since the preamble se-
`
`quence #2 is split between two frames, the preamble sequence #2 is
`
`not a consecutive sequence.
`
`(Ex. 1005, 481 File History, at 1005-0546.) Through this argument, the applicant
`
`made it clear that the claimed “consecutive sequence” does not span multiple
`
`frames. Therefore, even under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the
`
`Board should interpret “a consecutive sequence having a length (N*L)” as a con-
`
`secutive sequence, having a length (N*L), that is entirely within one frame.
`
`VI. PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`
`A.
`
`Panasonic 792 (Ex. 1002)
`
`“Panasonic 792” refers to a meeting contribution document titled “Random
`
`access burst evaluation in E-UTRA uplink” and numbered R1-060792. (Ex. 1014,
`
`Min Decl., at ¶ 46 (citing Ex. 1002, Panasonic 792, at 1).) Panasonic 792 is pro-
`
`vided as Exhibit 1002. Panasonic submitted Panasonic 792 to WG1 for Meeting
`
`44bis, held on March 27-31, 2006, in Athens, Greece. (Id. (citing Ex. 1002, Pana-
`
`sonic 792, at 1.) Panasonic 792 was not cited to the Patent Office or considered by
`
`the examiner during the prosecution of the application that issued as the 481 pa-
`
`tent.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Panasonic 792 is prior art to every claim of the 481 patent under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(a) and (b). Panasonic 792 is § 102(b) prior art because its publication
`
`date (on or before March 21, 2006) predates the 481 patent’s claimed U.S. filing
`
`date (June 8, 2007) by more than one year. Panasonic 792 is § 102(a) prior art be-
`
`cause its publication date (on or before March 21, 2006) predates the 481 patent’s
`
`claimed priority date (June 9, 2006). Panasonic 792 is a “printed publication” un-
`
`der § 102 for the reasons in Section VI.D, infra.
`
`Panasonic 792 discloses a RACH preamble structure. (Ex. 1014, Min Decl., at
`
`¶ 47 (citing Ex. 1002, Panasonic 792, at 2).) The preamble structure is shown be-
`
`low.
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1002, Panasonic 792, at 2.) The preamble structure consists of M repeti-
`
`tions of a Zadoff-Chu CAZAC sequence. (Ex. 1014, Min Decl., at ¶ 47 (citing Ex.
`
`1002, Panasonic 792, at 2).) A cyclic prefix (labeled “CP” in Figure 1) is added to
`
`the preamble by concatenating at the front of the repeated CAZAC sequence. (Id.)
`
`A UE transmits the RACH preamble to a Node B, for example, in the first step of
`
`the following diagram. (Id.).
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`(Ex. 1002, Panasonic 792, at 5.)
`
`B.
`
`Panasonic 114 (Ex. 1003)
`
`
`
`“Panasonic 114” refers to a meeting contribution document titled “Random
`
`access design for E-UTRA uplink” and numbered R1-061114. (Ex. 1014, Min
`
`Decl., at ¶ 49 (citing Ex. 1003, Panasonic 114, at 1).) Panasonic 114 is provided as
`
`Exhibit 1003. Panasonic submitted Panasonic 114 to 3GPP WG1 for Meeting 45,
`
`held on May 8 to 12, 2006, in Shanghai, China. (Id. (citing Ex. 1003, Panasonic
`
`114, at 1).)
`
`Panasonic 114 was not cited to the Patent Office or considered by the exam-
`
`iner during the prosecution of the application that issued as the 481 patent.
`
`Panasonic 114 is prior art to every claim of the 481 patent under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(a) and (b). Panasonic 114 is § 102(b) prior art because its publication
`
`date (on or before May 2, 2006) predates the 481 patent’s claimed U.S. filing date
`
`(June 8, 2007) by more than one year. Panasonic 114 is § 102(a) prior art because
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`its publication date (on or before May 2, 2006) predates the 481 patent’s claimed
`
`priority date (June 9, 2006). Panasonic 114 is a “printed publication” under § 102
`
`for the reasons in Section VI.D, infra.
`
`Panasonic 114 discloses a RACH preamble design. (Ex. 1014, Min Decl., at
`
`¶ 50 (Ex. 1003, Panasonic 114, at 1-2).) Panasonic 114 provides test results of the
`
`performance of WCDMA sequences, CAZAC sequences, and cyclic-shifted CA-
`
`ZAC sequences, concluding that the “cyclic-shifted CAZAC sequence has superior
`
`performance among compared sequences.” (Id. (quoting Ex. 1003, Panasonic 114,
`
`at 2).) Panasonic 114 therefore “propose[s] to choose cyclic-shifted Zadoff-Chu
`
`CAZAC as preamble sequence mainly.” (Id. (quoting Ex. 1003, Panasonic 114, at
`
`2).) Panasonic 114 provides “two preamble lengths, around 400 usec and around
`
`800 usec” and discloses that “[f]or supporting larger cell size, repeating this [cy-
`
`clic-shifted CAZAC sequence] twice (i.e. 800 usec) can be used.” (Id. (quoting Ex.
`
`1003, Panasonic 114, at 2-3).)
`
`C. Chu (Ex. 1004)
`
`“Chu” refers to a publication titled “Polyphase Codes with Good Periodic
`
`Correlation Pr