` Entered: April 2, 2018
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ADELOS, INC., and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`AS REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
`Exclusive Licensee and Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and
`AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for
`inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5–7, 10–16, and 18–22 of U.S. Patent No.
`7,271,884 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’884 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). The United
`States of America, as Represented by the Department of the Navy and
`exclusive licensee Adelos, Inc. (herein collectively “Patent Owner”), filed a
`Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”).1 Institution of an inter
`partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the
`petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108.
`Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we conclude
`the information presented does not show there is a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of claims
`1–3, 5–7, 10–16, and 18–22 of the ’884 patent.
`
`A. Related Matters
`The parties state that the ’884 patent is the subject of a court
`proceeding styled Adelos, Inc. v. Halliburton Company et al., Case No. 9:16-
`cv-119-DLC (D. Mon.). Pet. 1; Paper 3, i.
`
`
`1 Adelos, Inc. is identified as “the exclusive licensee of the Government.”
`Paper 3, i. The United States of America, as Represented by the Department
`of the Navy and exclusive licensee Adelos, Inc., jointly submit the
`Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 1. Accordingly, we herein refer to the
`two collectively as Patent Owner.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`B. The ’884 Patent
`The ʼ884 patent is directed to time-domain reflectometers. Ex. 1001,
`1:38. Specifically, the ’884 patent “relates to such reflectometers which are
`a part of a photonic system application in which the object of the
`reflectometry is a span of fiber which has an interrogation signal launch end
`and a remote end.” Id. at 1:39–43. Figure 3 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 3 of the ’884 patent shows a block
`diagram of a time-domain reflectometer system.
`Figure 3 shows a transmitter laser 3 connected to coupler or
`
`beamsplitter 4, which in turn is connected to optical modulator 5. Id. at
`14:43–49. Optical modulator 5 is connected to optical coupler, beamsplitter
`or circulator 7, which in turn is connected to optical fiber 9. Id. at 14:49–61.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`Master correlation code generator 53 is connected to modulator 5 by
`amplifier 49. Id. at 14:51–52.
`The propagation of the signal in optical fiber 9 “causes a back-
`propagating composite optical signal, which is the linear summation, or
`integration spatially, of all of the individual, continuous, or continuum of
`back-reflections along the span of the optical fiber.” Id. at 15:10–13.
`Optical pathway 11 is connected to optical coupler, beamsplitter, or
`circulator 7 to receive backscattered light from optical fiber 9 and relay it to
`heterodyne optical receiver 15. Id. at 15:66–16:3, 20:16–20. Optical
`receiver 15 receives an input from local oscillator laser 45. Id. at 17:52–63.
`Transmitter laser 3 and local oscillator laser 45 are also connected to
`receiver 35 through optical couplers 4 and 43 and optical pathways 39 and
`41. Id. at 14:42–47, 17:55–59. Optical receiver 35 is connected back to
`local oscillator laser 45 through phase locking circuity 31. Id. at 18:1–15.
`Correlator system 23 receives RF signal 21 and an input from correlation
`code generator 53. Id. at 19:48–50, 20:4–6. Correlator system 23 is
`connected to phase demodulation system 66 which in turn is connected to
`phase differencer 99. Id. at 20:20–27, 22:43–47. Phase demodulation
`system 66 is comprised of a plurality of phase demodulators 81, 83, and 85.
`Id. at 24:61–64, Fig. 7.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–3, 5–7, 10–16, and 18–22 of the ’884
`patent. Claims 1, 21, and 22 are independent claims. Claim 22, reproduced
`below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
`22. Signal sensing apparatus for sensing input signals at
`an array of a plurality of sensing stations along an optical fiber
`span, wherein at respective sensing stations of the array the
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`apparatus senses input signals of a type having the property of
`inducing light path changes within at regions of the span
`influenced by such signals, said apparatus comprising:
`an optical wave network comprising a transmitter laser,
`and a lightwave directional coupler, said network being operative
`to illuminate an optical fiber span with a CW optical signal and
`to retrieve portions of the illumination back-propagating from a
`continuum of locations along the fiber span;
`a modulator operative to modulate the CW optical signal
`in accordance with a reiterative autocorrelable form of
`modulation code;
`a heterodyner which receives said retrieved back-
`propagated portions of illumination and derives therefrom a
`radio frequency (r.f.) counterpart thereof; and
`a subsystem which receives said r.f. counterpart of the
`retrieved back-propagated portions of said illumination and is
`operative to derive signals representation of the phases of input
`signals respectively influencing the sensing stations of said
`plurality of sensing stations, said subsystem including;
`a corresponding plurality of autocorrelation detectors
`which respectively detect components of said r.f. counterpart of
`the retrieved portions of the illumination representative of the
`optical input signals influencing the corresponding sensing
`stations; and
`a corresponding plurality of phase demodulators which
`receive respective corresponding detected components of the
`input signals, said demodulators being operative in phase locked
`synchronism with said CW optical signal.
`
`Id. at 36:32–65.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–3, 5–7, 10–16, and 18–22 are
`unpatentable based on the following grounds (Pet. 3–4):
`Reference(s)
`Basis
`Challenged Claim(s)
`Everard2
`§ 103
`1–3, 5, 6, 12, 14, 15, and 18–22
`Everard and Fredin3
`§ 103
`7
`Everard and Yoshino4
`§ 103
`10
`Everard and Henning5
`§ 103
`11
`Everard and Wright6
`§ 103
`13
`Everard and Payton7
`§ 103
`16
`Kersey8 and Yoshino or
`§ 103
`1–3, 5–7, 10, 12, 14, and 18–22
`Beckmann9
`Kersey, Yoshino or
`Beckmann, and Henning § 103
`Kersey, Yoshino or
`§ 103
`Beckmann, and Wright
`Kersey, Yoshino or
`Beckmann, and Everard
`Kersey, Yoshino or
`Beckmann, and Payton
`
`§ 103
`
`11
`
`13
`
`15
`
`§ 103
`
`16
`
`
`2 UK Patent Application No. GB2190186A, published Nov. 11, 1987 (Ex.
`1004) (“Everard”).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 6,606,148 B2, issued Aug. 12, 2003 (Ex. 1008) (“Fredin”).
`4 Toshihiko Yoshino et al., “Common Path Heterodyne Optical Fiber
`Sensors,” Journal of Lightwave Technology, Vol. 10, No. 4, April 1992 (Ex.
`1007) (“Yoshino”).
`5 UK Patent Application No. GB2197953A, published June 2, 1988 (Ex.
`1009) (“Henning”).
`6 U.S. Patent No. 4,596,052, issued June 17, 1986 (Ex. 1010) (“Wright”).
`7 U.S. Patent No. 6,043,921, issued March 28, 2000 (Ex. 1011) (“Payton”).
`8 U.S. Patent No. 6,285,806 B1, issued Sept. 4, 2001 (Ex. 1005) (“Kersey”).
`9 U.S. Patent No. 4,794,249, issued Dec. 27, 1988 (Ex. 1006) (“Beckmann”).
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired
`patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are
`presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a
`person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007).
`Petitioner proposes constructions for several claim terms. Pet. 13–19.
`Patent Owner provides arguments only regarding Petitioner’s proposed
`construction of “light source.” Prelim. Resp. 6–8. For purposes of this
`decision, we need only construe the term “means for performing a
`corresponding plurality of phase demodulation processes” recited in
`independent claim 21.
`Petitioner argues that the “means for performing a corresponding
`plurality of phase demodulation processes” limitation recited in claim 21 is a
`means-plus-function limitation and should be construed under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112, sixth paragraph. Pet. 18–19. Petitioner argues that the corresponding
`structure for the “means for performing a corresponding plurality of phase
`demodulation processes” includes at least the phase demodulator system 66
`of Figure 3. Id. at 19. Phase demodulator system 66 of Figure 3 shows no
`details, but is further described with respect to all of the detailed structure
`shown in Figures 7–11. Ex. 1001, 24:53–27:59. We determine, therefore,
`for purposes of this decision, that the corresponding structure for the “means
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`for performing a corresponding plurality of phase demodulation processes”
`are the circuits shown in Figures 7–11 and described in the ’884 patent
`related to phase demodulator system 66 of Figure 3 and equivalents thereof.
`For purposes of this decision we need not expressly construe any
`other claim term. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d
`795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed
`that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean
`Motor Co. Ltd., Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid
`Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).
`
`B. Principles of Law
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art;10 and (4) when in evidence, objective
`
`
`10 Relying on the testimony of Dr. Faramarz Farahi, Petitioner offers an
`assessment as to the level of skill in the art as of the filing date of the ’884
`patent. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 12). Patent Owner does not propose an
`alternative assessment. To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this
`Decision, we accept the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent
`with the ’884 patent and the asserted prior art.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18
`(1966).
`
`C. Asserted Obviousness of Claims over Everard
`Petitioner contends claims 1–3, 5, 6, 12, 14, 15, and 18–22 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Everard. Pet. 20–47.
`In support of its showing, Petitioner relies upon the declaration of Dr.
`Faramarz Farahi. Id. (citing Ex. 1003).
`
`1. Everard
`Everard describes a pseudo random bit sequencer (PRBS) that is
`amplitude modulated onto a light source. Ex. 1004, 1:48–49. The
`modulated beam is transmitted down an optical fiber and the detected
`backscattered signal is multiplied with a digitally delayed version of the
`transmitted sequence. Id. at 1:50–52. Figure 8 of Everard is reproduced
`below.
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`
`Figure 8 of Everard shows a system of the described invention.
`
`Digital pseudo random generator 1 is amplitude modulated onto laser
`
`2. Id. at 5:37–38. Light from laser 2 is coupled to optical fiber 3 via beam
`splitters 4 and 5 and lens 6. Id. at 5:39–40. The backscattered signal from
`fiber 3 is deflected by beam splitter 5 via lens 8 onto photodetector 9. Id. at
`5:44–45. The output of photo-detector 9 is amplified by amplifier 11, the
`output of which is input to RF mixer 12. Id. at 5:48–50. RF mixer is
`connected to power detector or demodulator 14. Id. at 5:54–55. The
`demodulated signal from 14 is multiplied by multiplier 15 with a time
`delayed version of the original pseudo random sequence 1 using delay
`circuit 16 and PRBS generator 17. Id. at 5:63–6:1.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`2. Discussion
`Petitioner asserts that Everard renders obvious claims 1–3, 5, 6, 12,
`14, 15, and 18–22. Pet. 20–47. Claim 1 recites “a corresponding set of n
`phase demodulators for transforming each respective r.f. counterpart of said
`second component into a substantially linear signal representative of radian
`phase of the corresponding lightwave subcomponent signal.” Independent
`claim 21 recites “means for performing a corresponding plurality of phase
`demodulation processes upon said r.f. counterpart of the retrieved back-
`propagated modulated CW optical signal, said demodulation processes
`performed in phase locked synchronism with said CW optical signal.”
`Claim 22 recites “a corresponding plurality of phase demodulators which
`receive respective corresponding detected components of the input signals,
`said demodulators being operative in phase locked synchronism with said
`CW optical signal.”
`For each of these similar limitations, Petitioner acknowledges that the
`claimed phase demodulators (claims 1 and 22) and means for performing
`phase demodulation processes (claim 21) are missing in Everard. Pet. 31,
`42–43, 46–47. For the missing element, Petitioner contends that it would
`have been obvious to add phase measurement IC chips to Everard’s system
`to perform phase modulation. Id. For example, Petitioner contends the
`following with respect to claim 1:
`Everard’s Fig. 9 discloses phase demodulation that transforms
`the RF output of the heterodyner to an “output which when
`integrated or averaged would produce spatial information about
`the amplitude, spectrum, phase and polarisation of
`the
`backscatter.” A person of ordinary skill in the art would be
`motivated by Everard’s suggestion to integrate or average the
`output to produce spatial information about phase of the
`backscatter
`to use conventional phase measurement ICs
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`an output
`that provide
`chips)
`electronic
`(integrated
`proportionally linear to the phase shift. A person of ordinary skill
`would have had a reasonable expectation of success in adding
`such ICs to Everard’s system. Ex. 1003, ¶ 64 (1[m]).
`Id. at 31.
`
`Paragraph 64 of Dr. Farahi’s declaration is nearly a duplicate of the
`above, but adds the following.
`
`Based on my experience designing fiber sensing systems in the
`2000-2003 time frame, my opinion is that to those of skill in the
`art the use of conventional phase measurement ICs would have
`provided predictable results to address the design goal identified
`in Everard of producing information about the phase of
`backscatter.
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 64 (1[m]).
`
`Petitioner’s showings are similar with respect to the disputed phrases
`found in claims 21 and 22. Pet. at 42–43 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 75 (21[f])), 46–
`47 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 76 (22[f])).
`Based on the record before us, Petitioner has not accounted
`sufficiently for the phase modulation limitations in claims 1, 21, and 22.
`First and foremost, Petitioner has not accounted for all of the requirements
`of the disputed phrases. Claims 1 and 22 require “phase demodulators.”
`Claim 21 recites “means for performing a corresponding plurality of phase
`demodulation processes.” As explained above, we construe the
`corresponding structure for the “means for performing” to be that which is
`shown in Figures 7–11 that further describes the phase demodulator system
`66 of Figure 3 and equivalents thereof. Petitioner has not shown that “phase
`measurement ICs” are the same as “phase demodulators” claimed in claims
`1 and 22, or are the same, or equivalent to, the structure set forth in Figures
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`7–11 for the claim 21 “means for performing a corresponding plurality of
`phase demodulation processes.” For this reason alone, the Petition is
`insufficient.
` In addition, claim 1 requires that the claimed demodulators transform
`“each respective r.f. counterpart of said second component into a
`substantially linear signal representative of radian phase of the
`corresponding lightwave subcomponent signal.” Petitioner does not address
`or show that “conventional phase measurement ICs” would transform the
`claimed r.f. counterpart “into a substantially linear signal representative of
`radian phase of the corresponding lightwave subcomponent signal.” Claim
`22 requires that the plurality of phase demodulators are “operative in phase
`locked synchronism with said CW optical signal.” Claim 21 recites similar
`language associated with the “means for performing” phrase. Petitioner
`does not address or show that conventional phase measurement ICs would
`be operative in phase locked synchronism with a CW optical signal. For
`these additional reasons, the Petition is insufficient.
`Lastly, and independently, to the extent that “phase measurement ICs”
`are equivalent to “phase demodulators,” which for reasons stated above, we
`find that Petitioner has failed to show that they are, we are not persuaded by
`Petitioner’s assertions that adding phase measurement ICs to Everard would
`have been obvious as asserted. In that regard, Petitioner’s assertions are
`conclusory. For example, Dr. Farahi’s statement, reproduced above, that a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that “the use of
`conventional phase measurement ICs would have provided predictable
`results to address the design goal identified in Everard of producing
`information about the phase of backscatter” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 64 (1[m]), lacks
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`underlying facts to support the conclusions made and is entitled to little
`weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).
`For all of these reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has
`established a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its
`challenge to claims 1–3, 5, 6, 12, 14, 15, and 18–22 as unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Everard.11
`
`D. Obviousness of claims over Everard and Additional References
`Petitioner contends claims 7, 10, 11, 13, and 16 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious based on the following: (1) Everard and
`Fredin (claim 7); (2) Everard and Yoshino (claim 10); (3) Everard and
`Henning (claim 11); (4) Everard and Wright (claim 13); and (5) Everard and
`Payton (claim 16). Pet. 47–51. Petitioner relies on the respective secondary
`references to address elements claimed in claims 7, 10, 11, 13, and 16.
`Claims 7, 10, 11, 13, and 16 depend either directly or indirectly from claim
`1. As explained above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has established
`a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to claim
`1 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Everard.
`Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has established a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its challenges to claims
`7, 10, 11, 13, and 16, which depend from claim 1.
`
`
`
`11 Because we find Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing on this challenge for the reasons discussed above, we do not reach
`Patent Owner’s arguments as to this challenge.
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`E. Asserted Obviousness over Kersey in view of Yoshino or Beckmann
`Petitioner contends claims 1–3, 5–7, 10, 12, 14, and 18–22 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kersey in view of
`Yoshino or Beckmann. Pet. 51–73. In support of its showing, Petitioner
`relies upon the declaration of Dr. Farahi. Id. (citing Ex. 1003).
`
`1. Kersey
`Kersey describes an interferometric sensor array with a large number
`of addressable sensor locations for detecting acoustic or other vibrations.
`Ex. 1005, 1:6–9. Figure 2 of Kersey is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 2 of Kersey shows a
`schematic diagram of a fiber sensor array.
`Fiber sensor array 200 includes laser 202 that emits light that passes
`through coupler 204. Id. at 3:29–32. Coupler 204 splits the flux into a first
`portion directed to modulator 208 and a second portion 219. Id. at 3:32–33.
`Pulse modulator modulates the flux with a PRBS generated by PRBS
`generator 206 to produce PRBS optical signal 210. Id. at 3:35–37. Optical
`signal 210 passes through coupler 212 into fiber 214, which has a series of
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`coils 216-1, 216-2, etc. bounded by Bragg grating reflectors 218-0, 218-1,
`etc. Id. at 3:40–45. Each coil acts as a sensor by undergoing a change in its
`refractive index in accordance with a condition to be sensed. Id. at 3:46–48.
`Each Bragg grating reflector 218-0, 21-1, 218-2, etc., reflects a small portion
`of the light flux incident on it and the sum of the reflected light fluxes is
`received by coupler 212 and directed to coupler 220, which also receives
`second portion 219 of light flux split off by coupler 212. Id. at 3:54–61.
`Transducers 222 and 224 convert output of coupler 220 to electric signals
`and input the signals to difference amplifier. Id. at 4:1–3. Signal 228 is fed
`to correlator 230 via delay circuit 228. Id. at 4:8–10. “Correlator 230
`performs a correlation over the span of the time window, determines in a
`known manner the time shift between signals 227 and 229 which maximizes
`the correlation, thereby determining the phase between the two signals.” Id.
`at 4:28–32.
`
`2. Discussion
`Petitioner asserts that Kersey in view of Yoshino or Beckmann
`renders obvious claims 1–3, 5–7, 10, 12, 14, and 18–22. Pet. 51–73. Claim
`1 recites “a corresponding set of n phase demodulators for transforming each
`respective r.f. counterpart of said second component into a substantially
`linear signal representative of radian phase of the corresponding lightwave
`subcomponent signal.” Independent claim 21 recites “means for performing
`a corresponding plurality of phase demodulation processes upon said r.f.
`counterpart of the retrieved back-propagated modulated CW optical signal,
`said demodulation processes performed in phase locked synchronism with
`said CW optical signal.” Claim 22 recites “a corresponding plurality of
`phase demodulators which receive respective corresponding detected
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`components of the input signals, said demodulators being operative in phase
`locked synchronism with said CW optical signal.”
`For each of these similar limitations, Petitioner relies on Kersey’s
`correlators 230 for meeting the limitations. Pet. 62–63, 69–70, 73. Based
`on the record before us, Petitioner has not accounted sufficiently for the
`phase demodulation limitations in claims 1, 21, and 22. Claims 1 and 22
`require “phase demodulators.” Claim 21 recites “means for performing a
`corresponding plurality of phase demodulation processes.” As explained
`above, we construe the corresponding structure for the “means for
`performing” to be that which is shown in Figures 7–11 that further describes
`the phase demodulator system 66 of Figure 3 and equivalents thereof.
`Petitioner has not shown that Kersey’s “correlators” are the same as “phase
`demodulators” claimed in claims 1 and 22 or are the same, or equivalent to,
`the structure set forth in Figures 7–11 for the claim 21 “means for
`performing a corresponding plurality of phase demodulation processes.” For
`this reason alone, the Petition is insufficient.
`Moreover, Petitioner also relies on Kersey’s correlators 230 for
`meeting the following limitations “a corresponding set of n correlation-type
`binary pseudonoise code sequence demodulators” (claim 1), “means for
`performing a corresponding plurality of auto-correlation detection
`processes” (claim 21), and “a corresponding plurality of autocorrelation
`detectors” (claim 22). Pet. 61–62, 68–69, 73. Petitioner has not explained
`how Kersey’s correlators meets these limitations as well as those discussed
`above. For example, claim 1 recites that “said set of correlation-type binary
`pseudonoise code sequence demodulators . . . provide at their respective
`outputs r.f. counterparts of the subcomponents of said second signal
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`component.” Claim 1 further recites “a corresponding set of n phase
`demodulators for transforming each respective r.f. counterpart of said
`second component [provided at the respective outputs of the set of
`correlation-type binary pseudonoise code sequence demodulators] into a
`substantially linear signal.” Thus, claim 1 requires two different elements
`for performing the claimed functions. Claims 21 and 22 are similar and also
`require two different elements for performing the claimed functions.
`Petitioner, however, does not explain how Kersey’s correlators 230 meet
`both claimed elements in each independent claim.
`For all of these reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has
`established a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its
`challenge to claims 1–3, 5–7, 10, 12, 14, and 18–22 as unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Kersey in view of Yoshino or Beckmann.12
`
`F. Obviousness of claims over Kersey and Additional References
`Petitioner contends claims 11, 13, 15, and 16 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious based on the following: (1) Kersey in view of
`Yoshino or Beckmann and further in view of Henning (claim 11); (2) Kersey
`in view of Yoshino or Beckmann and further in view of Wright (claim 13);
`(3) Kersey in view of Yoshino or Beckmann and further in view of Everard
`(claim 15); and (4) Kersey in view of Yoshino or Beckmann and further in
`view of Payton (claim 16). Pet. 74–76. Petitioner relies on the respective
`tertiary references to address elements claimed in claims 11, 13, 15, and 16.
`
`
`12 Because we find Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing on this challenge for the reasons discussed above, we do not reach
`Patent Owner’s arguments as to this challenge.
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`Claims 11, 13, 15, and 16 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 1.
`As explained above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has established a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to claim 1
`as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kersey in view of
`Yoshino or Beckmann. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner
`has established a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its
`challenges to claims 11, 13, 15, and 16, which depend from claim 1.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not shown
`a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that any of claims
`1–3, 5–7, 10–16, and 18–22 of the ’884 patent are unpatentable.
`
`IV. ORDER
`For the foregoing reasons, it is
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims, and
`no trial is instituted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Michael Hawes
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`michael.hawes@bakerbotts.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Gary Hausken
`Nicholas Kim
`CIVIL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
`gary.hausken@usdoj.gov
`nicholas.j.kim@usdoj.gov
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`