UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01472
`Patent 8,369,278 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: September 25, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, and
`JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01472
`Patent 8,369,278 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: September 25, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, and
`JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01472
`Patent 8,369,278 B2
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`BRIAN MACK, ESQ.
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
`1300 I Street, N.W., Suite 900
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`JEFFREY P. KUSHAN, ESQ.
`DOUGLAS I. LEWIS, ESQ.
`MATT HOPKINS, ESQ.
`Sidley Austin
`One South Dearborn
`Chicago, Illinois 60603
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, September 25,
`2018, commencing at 1:29 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01472
`Patent 8,369,278 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Please be seated. Give us a moment to
`
`
`get set up here.
`
`
`And good afternoon. This is a trial hearing for IPR2017-01472,
`Patent Number 8,369,278, and IPR2017-01483, Patent 8,483,166, both
`patents owned by Patent Owner Huawei Technologies, and the Petitioner in
`this case is Samsung Electronics.
`
`
`We will divide up our transcripts so we have two transcripts
`that will issue from today, so that is noted for the court reporter, but we will
`make appearances at the beginning of each just to make sure we know who’s
`going to be speaking on the record.
`
`
`So let’s get started. I am Judge Jefferson. With me today in the
`room is Judge Wormmeester, and on the remote telescreen is Judge Horvath.
`At this time, Counsel, please introduce yourselves at the lectern so we can
`make sure everyone’s voice is captured, and we’ll start with Petitioner.
`Please make your appearances and tell us who’s with you.
`
`
`MR. MACK: Thank you, Brian Mack of Quinn Emanuel,
`representing the Petitioner, Samsung. With me, Deepa Acharya and
`Christopher Burrell from Samsung.
`
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: And for the Patent Owner, please
`introduce --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01472
`Patent 8,369,278 B2
`
`MR. KUSHAN: Good afternoon. Jeff Kushan from Sidley
`
`
`Austin. With me is Doug Lewis and Matt Hopkins. Mr. Lewis will be
`handling the argument today.
`
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Understood. Thank you, sir.
`
`
`Before we begin, I remind the parties obviously this hearing is
`open to the public. There are no extra seats, but we have -- so we have a full
`room. We thank you for your patience with that. We’ll try to make sure we
`get a larger room if possible for the remaining of our hearings this week.
`
`
`As you know from our trial order, each side will have 45
`minutes to -- in total argument time. Petitioner has the burden, so you’ll go
`first. Patent Owner will follow. You’re allowed to reserve time -- rebuttal
`time for those issues which you are the party that bears the burden. For the
`clarity of the transcript, obviously, if you’re using slides or referring to
`exhibits, it’s always easy to forget, but it helps so much in the back end if
`you refer to exhibit page number or slide number, not just for Judge Horvath
`who’s following along remotely, but also for those of us who read the
`transcript afterwards.
`
`
`It bears repeating, but demonstratives are not evidence, but we
`hope your demonstratives are clear and to the point. We’ll keep the hearing
`focused on the merits. We ask that counsel not interrupt, and if you do
`speak to try to speak from the lectern. And obviously there are some written
`objections and some evidentiary objections. You are free to argue those as
`well but only during your allotted 45 minutes of time.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01472
`Patent 8,369,278 B2
`
`Petitioner will get started with IPR2017-01472 as the first case,
`
`
`and you will -- you can certainly get started, and tell me if you want to
`reserve some time. I’ll do my best to keep track, but the lights may not light
`up. You can ask how much time you have left as you go on.
`
`
`MR. MACK: Yes, I would like to reserve 15 minutes.
`
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Okay.
`
`
`MR. MACK: Thank you.
`
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: You may begin when you’re ready.
`
`
`MR. MACK: So the first patent we’re going to talk about is
`U.S. Patent 8,369,278. I just wanted to give you a brief preview of
`Petitioner’s arguments. It is undisputed that virtually the entirety of the
`challenged claims is disclosed in the prior art references, the three primary
`references in this case, the Kim ‘379, the Kim ‘470, and the 3GPP technical
`contribution R1-02-0051.
`
`
`At best, the Patent Owner hangs its hat on one limitation that it
`alleges arguably is not disclosed by the primary references, and we’ll talk
`about that limitation in more detail in a moment. There’s several problems
`with Patent Owner’s reasoning. First, Patent Owner and his expert take an
`overly narrow view of the challenged claims. And even if you did credit
`Patent Owner’s expert, which you shouldn’t because his interpretation of the
`claims is completely inconsistent with all of the described embodiments in
`the ‘278 patent itself, that particular limitation is clearly described in other
`3GPP publications, including the TS 24.008 reference.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01472
`Patent 8,369,278 B2
`
`So this is a classic case, we feel, of plucking various
`
`
`components from the prior art. In this case, it’s all 3GPP prior art, and it’s
`all even 3GPP prior art related to the same control signaling that’s being sent
`from a base station down to a mobile device like your handset, sometimes
`referred to as a terminal in the patent. So in our view, it’s an extremely
`trivial combination, extremely predictable results, and there is no reason
`why a person of ordinary skill in the art wouldn’t have combined the
`references in the manner proffered by Petitioner.
`
`
`So if we could start with Slide 6, I wanted to give a brief
`overview of the ‘278 patent and the technology and what is claimed. You
`see here in Figure 1, this is labeled prior art. This figure is described in the
`background of the patent. Everything shown here in Figure 1 is indisputably
`in the prior art. It was well known that there would be signaling transmitted
`from a base station, so a cell phone tower, for example, on the right, to a
`mobile device, a terminal, handset, your cellular telephone on the left.
`
`
`It was also very well known that at least three pieces of control
`signaling needed to be delivered from the base station to the terminal. You
`can see here -- it’s a little blurry here, but in line 101, the control signaling
`includes the NDI bit, it’s either 0 or 1, and that stands for the new data
`indicator. The payload size is just the number of bits or bytes that’s being
`transmitted. And something known as the redundancy version or RV. The
`significance of the redundancy version isn’t particularly important. It is one
`of the claimed control signaling fields, but how it’s used in the greater
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01472
`Patent 8,369,278 B2
`
`scheme of the 3GPP networks isn’t particularly important, so I won’t get
`into it unless Your Honors have questions.
`
`
`It was also well known -- you can see control signaling line
`103, that the redundancy version would take a default value upon initial
`transmissions. That’s because the redundancy version only really has
`significance for retransmissions, where you’re actually changing a signal
`that’s being transmitted from the base station to the terminal. It was also
`well known that the payload size didn’t change. Once the payload size is
`fixed at the initial transmission, it is the same payload size for each and
`every retransmission. So that’s all described in the background of the ‘278
`patent at columns -- column 2, lines 13 through 28.
`
`
`So if we go to the next slide, Slide 7, the alleged invention here
`is repurposing one of those two fields. Historically, there was two fields,
`one for payload size and one for redundancy version. Redundancy versions,
`just one or two bits. And payload size could take on a much larger range.
`And the alleged invention here is just repurposing one field in the control
`signaling that can indicate either redundancy version or payload size.
`
`
`So on the initial transmissions, when you need -- you need to
`know the payload size, it would transmit the payload size. On
`retransmissions, when you needed to know the redundancy version, it would
`indicate the redundancy version. And this is an example from the
`specification of the ‘278 patent, Slide 7. This is Exhibit 1001 at column 4,
`lines 49 through 50, and column 5, lines 9 through 14.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01472
`Patent 8,369,278 B2
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: So, Counsel, while we’re here, I know
`
`
`there’s a bit of a dispute, at least from my reading, a bit of a dispute between
`the parties about what this particular passage and the passages around it
`show, which are -- does the patent describe this common field as having
`distinct ranges with no overlap where certain numerical values, let’s say of a
`six-bit -- N-bit in terms of the claim, but six-bit here, range are divided -- are
`given to the RV and only the payload size is indicated by the other numbers
`in the range.
`
`
`MR. MACK: That’s a very good question, and as you can see
`here, this is one of the examples where RV takes the values on the left and
`payload size can take the values on the right. So there are embodiments that
`disclose distinct ranges as you put it. If we go to the claims, the next slide,
`Slide Number 9, you can see here the key limitation that is in dispute is the
`“wherein” clause. And as you just indicated, wherein the payload size is
`indicated through a first state, the RV is indicated through a second state,
`and the two states are distinct.
`
`
`So there’s a dispute -- there’s a dispute between the parties on
`what it means to be distinct. Our interpretation is that “distinct” means not
`identical, so at least one item not in common. I think the Patent Owner has a
`different view of “distinct.” The specification supports both interpretations.
`Even if you do credit the Patent Owner’s interpretation, the reference, the
`secondary references, the TS 24.008 reference, clearly shows distinct ranges
`being used for different parameters. So under either interpretation, these
`claims are invalid.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01472
`Patent 8,369,278 B2
`
`If we look --
`
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: So let me make sure I understand that,
`
`
`and I’m going to restate what I think I understand, which is that Petitioner is
`saying that they can be overlapping but as long as one -- one RV or one
`payload is unique to that set, it is distinct.
`
`
`MR. MACK: Right, distinct --
`
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: As that’s called out in the claim.
`
`
`MR. MACK: Right. Distinct just means different. So if you
`have a set that -- so you have a six-bit field in all the -- in all the described
`embodiments in the patent, six-bit fields, two to the sixth power. It can hold
`64 possible different states, all zeroes, all the way up to all ones. It was well
`known that the RV only was two bits, it can only take four values. And the
`payload size could take a larger range.
`
`
`So if you could fit two of these parameters, if you add up the
`number of possible states for payload size and you add up the number of
`possible states for RV, and if it could fit in a six-bit field, then, sure, that’s
`what our expert says would be obvious to put into the field and use distinct,
`non-overlapping ranges.
`
`
`But we don’t think this claim requires non-overlapping ranges.
`It just says that they’re distinct, they’re different. But even if Your Honors
`would disagree, we have several -- we have the TS 24.008 reference, and we
`have several of the primary references themselves that talk about dummy
`bits and putting in a fixed value, a string of all ones, a known fixed value in
`those remaining bits. So if you’re only using two bits, you would put a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01472
`Patent 8,369,278 B2
`
`known value in the remaining four bits, and that would give distinct, non-
`overlapping ranges, and we can get to that when we go to the prior art
`references.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: While we’re on the claims, aren’t there
`
`
`other claim limitations that impact the distinct -- I mean, one of the
`arguments, and I’m paraphrasing my understanding -- limited understanding,
`which would be that the state of the field itself should be determinable, one
`way to determine when you’re looking only at those six bits. And I know
`that there’s some dispute of whether you should --
`
`
`MR. MACK: Yeah, I think --
`
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: -- itself, but the idea is just from
`looking at the six bits, you should be able to determine whether it’s an RV or
`a payload size.
`
`
`MR. MACK: Yes. If we go to Slide 44, that is actually an
`argument that Patent Owner makes. You see here that they say “the state of
`the field itself.” You won’t find that language in the claim at all. You can
`go into the next slide. Their expert also used this language, “the state of the
`field itself,” and then he also said in a different paragraph -- this is
`Petitioner’s Dr. Fuja’s declaration, Exhibit 2006 at Paragraphs 37 and 58, he
`argued that the -- as a result of the common field using overlapping values, a
`mobile terminal cannot discern in one of the prior art references based solely
`on the state of the field.
`
`
`So he’s -- not only must -- according to Patent Owner, not only
`must the field itself dynamically indicate the payload size or RV, but the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01472
`Patent 8,369,278 B2
`
`receiving terminal has to also be able to interpret that field based solely on
`that one parameter and nothing else. Neither of those are in the claim. If
`you don’t -- you don’t see the word “solely” in the claim; you don’t see the
`word “based exclusively on;” you don’t see the word “field itself” anywhere
`in the claim.
`
`
`And when we asked Dr. Fuja on the next slide at his deposition
`about this, he basically agreed that he added that to avoid the prior art, to
`stave off invalidity. He said because unlike in the prior art, I had seen the
`prior art -- this was indicated by some other field. And he said he added the
`word “itself” because it was pretty close to the claim language. And this is
`the Fuja deposition, Exhibit 1100, at page 55, line 15 through page 56, line
`11, and page 58, lines 6 through 19.
`
`
`So Dr. Fuja and the Patent Owner are doing hand waving.
`They’re incorporating limitations into the claim that aren’t actually there,
`and they’re trying to do something that’s pretty close but not exactly what
`the claim reads. So under the broadest reasonable interpretation, we don’t
`think either of these opinions is valid, and this is one of the reasons why we
`think that Dr. Fuja’s declaration should be given little weight.
`
`
`If we go to the very next slide --
`
`
`JUDGE HORVATH: Could I interrupt for a second?
`
`
`MR. MACK: Sure.
`
`
`JUDGE HORVATH: If I understood your argument earlier, it
`was that there was support in the patent for finding that the two ranges can
`be overlapping. Is that -- or did I misunderstand?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01472
`Patent 8,369,278 B2
`
`MR. MACK: The patent uses the word “distinct,” and our
`
`
`expert has opined that “distinct” just means different. It says a distinct
`range, so if you have -- if you have a two-bit field and it’s only going to
`occupy two bits out of the six bits, that’s necessarily distinct from a value
`that’s going to occupy all six bits because you’re going to have fewer --
`fewer two-bit values and you’re going to have more six-bit values.
`
`
`So the use of the word “distinct” itself is support. The patent
`specification, the only real embodiment that it described in detail is the
`example that we looked at where the redundancy version occupies the lower
`order bits, and then the payload size occupies the higher order bits.
`
`
`JUDGE HORVATH: And would you agree in that -- at least in
`that example that the two are distinct in the sense that they are non-
`overlapping?
`
`
`MR. MACK: In that example -- in that one embodiment, yes,
`they are distinct in the sense that they’re non-overlapping, yes.
`
`
`So if we go to Slide 47, this again of Dr. Fuja at page 86, line 3
`to page 87, line 11, again he agrees that also the claim doesn’t recite the
`word “solely” and he read that in basically to avoid the prior art and that he
`applied -- he applied this interpretation in all of his analysis. So, again,
`another reason why we think Dr. Fuja’s declaration should be given little
`weight.
`The main problem with Dr. Fuja’s opinion, if you go to the next
`
`
`slide, every described embodiment within the ‘278 patent itself uses the NDI
`bit to determine whether payload size or redundancy version is included in
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01472
`Patent 8,369,278 B2
`
`the field. We asked him here at his deposition, Exhibit 1100 at page 50,
`lines 9 through 16 and page 50, line 24 through page 51 at line 13, he -- we
`asked him if he agreed that the NDI field in the patent is used to distinguish
`between these new transmissions and retransmissions, and he said he agreed,
`that, yes, it’s actually distinguished in at least two different ways.
`
`
`One of the ways is toggling of the NDI. So the NDI is a
`separate bit. It’s that separate one single bit. So there’s actually two ways
`that that information is conveyed. And then when he asked if he could
`locate any embodiment in the ‘278 patent where the NDI field is not used, he
`said not that I recall. All of the embodiments illustrated in the figures
`include the NDI values.
`
`
`So Petitioner -- Patent Owner’s expert, his interpretation would
`actually read out every single embodiment, every single figure, because
`every figure in the ‘278 patent uses the NDI field. And that NDI field is
`either one or zero. It’s a new data indicator. It’s a very well known field in
`3GPP technology that indicates whether it’s an initial transmission or a
`retransmission, depending on the state of that new data indicator.
`
`
`So Petitioner’s -- excuse me, Patent Owner’s interpretation that
`the field must solely indicate whether a redundancy version or a payload size
`is being transmitted is completely inconsistent with the specification and it
`actually reads out every described embodiment because the patent uses a
`different field, the NDI field, and that’s what’s shown here on Slide 48.
`
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: On Slide 47, your deposition of Mr.
`Fuja talks about the word “solely.” And let’s say for the moment I agree
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01472
`Patent 8,369,278 B2
`
`with “solely” is not literally in the claim. We can set that aside, but it does
`say it should be dynamically indicative of -- the field should be dynamically
`indicative of something. And none of the -- we’re all saying we’re going
`with the common and plain and ordinary meaning. My question to you is I
`believe Patent Owner’s challenge is that what you’ve described, even if we
`accept it as a modification using the TS reference, is not dynamically
`indicative.
`MR. MACK: Yeah, so, I think the word -- this wasn’t -- I don’t
`
`
`think the word “dynamically” was construed by either party, but
`dynamically just means changing from -- so you have an initial transmission
`and then you have a retransmission, so sometimes it will represent the
`redundancy version, and then other times it will represent the payload size.
`So I think dynamically just has a sense of changing back -- flipping back and
`forth between the two, depending on whether you’re in an initial
`transmission or whether you’re in a retransmission.
`
`
`I don’t think the “dynamically” really advances either party’s
`arguments with respect to this issue. And if we look -- if we look at the
`prior art references, I mentioned the dummy bits and the preset value. If we
`look at Slide 49, there is support in the reference -- the primary references
`themselves that distinct ranges are used. You can see here in the Kim -- in
`the Kim ‘379 [Kim ‘470] reference, Exhibit 1006 at Paragraphs 90 and 93 --
`
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: And we’re looking at Slide 49?
`
`
`MR. MACK: Slide 49. This Kim reference is the one that uses
`just the two bits for redundancy version and then four bits -- the six bits, the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01472
`Patent 8,369,278 B2
`
`total field, for payload size. It says that when you’re transmitting the
`redundancy version with the two bits, you can actually insert into the other
`four bits. You can either insert dummy bits -- that’s underlined in red -- or a
`value preset between the UE, which is the cell phone, and the Node B, which
`is the base station, can be inserted.
`
`
`So you have a prenegotiated value, say, a string of all ones,
`that’s prenegotiated between the UE and the base station, and the UE knows
`that when you have this preset value in those four bits that you are going to
`be having a redundancy version because it specifically says here that the
`value can be preset. The extra bits can be preset, or they can be inserted as
`dummy bits. And Dr. Madisetti opines that by setting them either to dummy
`bits or a preset value that it does actually provide distinct ranges. So you
`don’t even have to go to the secondary references. We feel that the primary
`reference alone discloses distinct ranges, but even if you needed to rely on
`the secondary reference --
`
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Now, before you move on, very
`quickly, Patent Owner pointed out, and it does seem pretty clear, that that’s
`not what the Petition says. The Petition does not describe Kim -- and correct
`me, which Kim am I looking at here on Slide 49?
`
`
`MR. MACK: I believe this is Kim ‘379. Is it ‘470? It’s
`Exhibit 1006.
`
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: ‘470.
`
`
`MR. MACK: ‘470.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01472
`Patent 8,369,278 B2
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: So Kim ‘470 is not described as having
`
`
`distinct ranges. You turn to the TS reference for that. So -- but is it -- is this
`a change position in your reply that you’re saying --
`
`
`MR. MACK: No, Dr. Madisetti cited in his claim charts and in
`his declaration, he specifically referred to these two paragraphs. We
`exchanged slides before, and if this wasn’t -- these -- if these paragraphs
`weren’t cited, they objected to every single sentence, so there are citations
`for all this. And Dr. Madisetti in his claim charts, he gave a backup opinion
`that you could insert dummy bits or you can insert this value preset, and that
`-- we weren’t anticipating this argument about distinct ranges having a
`requirement in the claims, because that’s not the way we read the claims, but
`Dr. Madisetti, in the original petition and his declaration, added in the
`dummy bit disclosure here, these two disclosures, in his claim charts.
`
`
`So even if you were to look at the TS 24.008 reference by itself,
`if we could go to that reference, because that clearly shows distinct ranges.
`If we go to Slide 28 --
`
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Well, before you move on, my
`understanding is that the Patent Owner’s argument is that -- and I’m looking
`at Kim ‘470 here, even when I insert those dummy bits, it doesn’t mean that
`those -- that range, that the number that’s created by that range can’t be used
`as a payload size. It just means that that’s a key to the mobile to indicate
`that I’m now reading a RV, and that’s still not distinct ranges as the example
`that we see in, I believe, column 5 of the --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01472
`Patent 8,369,278 B2
`
`MR. MACK: Yeah, if you’re looking for something that
`
`
`matches the example in column 5 precisely, our expert has opined that if you
`were to insert dummy bits or insert this preset value, that because
`redundancy version can only take a few fields and the payload size occupies
`the remaining fields, that that would be the natural implication of inserting
`this preset value that you wouldn’t overlap the fields because you had
`enough -- if you have enough available states, 64, and you know that you
`only have 60 plus 4 and they would all fit, then he has an obviousness
`opinion regarding that.
`
`
`And that’s -- and in view of the -- and in view of TS 24.008,
`there could be no doubt. I mean, if we look at Slide 28, 28, yes. So this is
`the secondary reference that we combined with each of the primary
`references, just in case Your Honors found that “distinct” has a requirement
`of distinct and non-overlapping, this is a 3GPP reference. I know Patent
`Owner said that this only applies to the core network. You can see right
`here in the title they basically quoted -- they snipped the title and said core
`networks, and they just let off the “and terminals.” You remember the
`terminals, the user equipment? A slight of hand, perhaps, but this clearly
`applies to both core networks and terminals. It’s a 3GPP reference.
`
`
`If you go to the next slide, it’s talking about the same type of
`control information that’s described in the patent. And there’s two distinct,
`independent examples here of different fields that use distinct ranges. You
`have a transaction identifier or a skip-it -- skip indicator in the upper left-
`hand corner here, and this is on our Slide 29, Exhibit 1007, at Sections 10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01472
`Patent 8,369,278 B2
`
`and 10.1, and then you have the message type filed. That’s the eight-bit
`field.
`If we go to the next slide, the transaction identifier or a skip
`
`
`indicator, depending on the protocol, that it can either be coded all zeros to
`indicate skip indicator, and then the transaction identifier could take the
`entire range, so it can go from one all the way up. So this is an example of a
`single field, skip indicator/transaction identifier that is repurposed to hold
`two different parameters, just like the redundancy version and the payload
`size. And one range, 0000 indicates skip indicator; and another range, all
`values except 0000, indicate transaction identifier. This is very clear.
`
`
`They did make an argument in their response that we were
`somehow misreading this, and they actually brought up a new document that
`wasn’t part of the instituted grounds. They brought up TS 24.007, and they
`said that you have to interpret 24.008 in view of 24.007, and they cited to
`some portion of 24.007 that they thought supported their position. But then
`if you look a few paragraphs past what they cited, if we go to the next slide,
`or actually -- that’s actually the message type slide. Let me just go to the
`slide that I wanted to show you.
`
`
`So there is -- one second. Sorry about that.
`
`
`So there’s a subprotocol discriminator that clear -- okay, so it’s
`on Slide 55. My apologies. So this is Exhibit 2008. This is the new
`reference that for some -- this is the new reference that the Patent Owner
`introduced in response to interpret one of the references that we brought up
`in the instituted ground. You can see right here the subprotocol
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01472
`Patent 8,369,278 B2
`
`discriminator, this is clear as day, this is the value 0000, the value used as a
`skip indicator, like we -- like we had always said, and then you have other
`values, 0001, 00010, all the way to 1111 that indicate the actual -- the actual
`subprotocol that’s being used.
`
`
`So, again, very clear example here that one field that’s used to
`indicate either a skip indicator or the subprotocol and you use the distinct
`and non-overlapping range 0000 to indicate the skip indicator and the
`distinct and non-overlapping range of 0001 all the way through 1111 as
`shown here on the bottom of the slide to indicate the subprotocol. So lots of
`examples in the 3GPP literature. We just pulled out two examples.
`
`
`This is not a new idea. This is -- you will see Dr. Madisetti,
`and I won’t belabor this, but if you have two values and you want to transmit
`them in one field and they can both fit in the same field, then common sense
`would just dictate that you would put them both into the same field and use
`non-overlapping ranges. If we look at the prior art, there’s express
`motivation in all of the prior art to reduce the number of information bits
`that you use, so if there’s a way to make your signaling more efficient, if you
`don’t have to transmit that extra bit, you shouldn’t transmit that extra bit.
`That’s disclosed in actually all the prior art references.
`
`
`If we go to Slide 15, the Kim ‘379 reference, the whole
`motivation here is to increase system throughput without adding any
`additional information bits, and it’s almost exactly the same motivation as in
`the ‘278 patents. It’s using a common field to indicate this padding indicator
`without an additional information bit by efficiently utilizing an existing
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01472
`Patent 8,369,278 B2
`
`control information field. So you’re efficiently utilizing one field to take
`two values, how can you possibly -- how can you most efficiently utilize one
`field to take two values? It’s -- the only way is to -- is what’s described, the
`non-overlapping ranges. So this is Exhibit 1004 at Paragraph -- or actually
`1005 at col. 7, lines 14 through 15 and 26 through 30.
`
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: So before -- let me try to guide --
`because we’re down to about 25 minutes left in your presentation. I’m more
`interested in what combinations -- I believe what the TS reference shows
`you, the distinct ranges. Let’s say hypothetically I’m inclined -- as you said,
`if Patent Owner’s argument is correct, what is Petitioner’s best combination
`for each of the grounds that sets forth a distinct range that you say meets the
`limitations of the claim?
`
`
`MR. MACK: So all of the primary references, they’re all
`Samsung references. They all -- it’s actually -- if you go to Slide 25,
`Samsung actually was the first company to think of using the single field to
`represent two values. Samsung was also the first company to think of
`utilizing a single 3GPP field for payload size and redundancy version. You
`can see right here, this is a Samsung contribution from 2002, five years --
`five years before the ‘278 patent. It’s precisely the same -- the same setup, if
`you go to the next slide.
`
`
`Common field, transport, there’s TBS plus the transport
`channel ID. TBS is the transport block size. There is no dispute that that’s
`the payload size. You see the common field in Figure 5 here. This is
`Exhibit 1007 [Ex. 1008] at Figures 4 and 5. The common field has
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`1
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
