Patent No. 8,131,391
`
` Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`Sony Corporation,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`One-E-Way, Inc.
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00219
`
`Patent No. 8,131,391
`
`Issue Date: March 6, 2012
`
`Title: Wireless Digital Audio Music System
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,131,391 UNDER
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,131,391
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`II.
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................... vi
`APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS ............................................................................................... vii
`I.
`COMPLIANCE WITH PETITION REQUIREMENTS ................................... 1
`A. Notice of Real Parties in Interest ................................................................... 1
`B. Notice of Related Matters................................................................................ 1
`C. Notice of Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information ................. 2
`D. Grounds for Standing ...................................................................................... 2
`E.
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested .......................................................... 2
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................... 3
`A.
`Brief Description of the ’391 Patent .............................................................. 3
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’391 Patent ......................................................... 6
`C.
`State of the Prior Art ........................................................................................ 7
`1.
`Haartsen’s 1998 Paper .......................................................................... 7
`2.
`Patent No. 6,563,892 to Haartsen ...................................................... 8
`3.
`The 2000 Haartsen Paper ..................................................................10
`4.
`The Giannakis Paper ..........................................................................10
`III. THE CHALLENGED ’391 PATENT ..................................................................11
`A.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..............................................................11
`B.
`Claim Constructions .......................................................................................11
`SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ...........................................................13
`A. Ground 1: The ’892 Reference Combined with the Giannakis
`Paper Makes Obvious Claims 1-6, 10 of the ’391 Patent .........................13
`1.
`The ’892 Reference Is Prior Art to the ’391 Patent .......................13
`2.
`The Giannakis Paper Is Prior Art to the ’391 Patent ....................14
`3. Motivation to Combine ......................................................................14
`4.
`Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 10 .....................................................................16
`
`IV.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,131,391
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Claim 1: A wireless digital audio headphone
`comprising: a portable digital audio headphone
`receiver configured to receive a unique user code bit
`sequence and a original audio signal representation
`in the form of packets, said digital audio headphone
`receiver, capable of mobile operation and configured
`for direct digital wireless spread spectrum
`communication with a mobile digital audio
`transmitter; ................................................................................16
`Claim 1: a direct conversion module configured to
`capture packets and the correct bit sequence within
`the packets aided by lowering signal detection error
`through reduced intersymbol interference coding of
`said audio representation signal respective to said
`headphone receiver and said mobile digital audio
`transmitter, said packets embedded in the received
`spread spectrum signal, the captured packets
`corresponding to the unique user code; ...............................17
`Claim 1: a digital demodulator configured for
`independent CDMA communication operation; ...............19
`Claim 1: a decoder operative to decode reduced
`intersymbol interference coding of original audio
`signal representation; ..............................................................21
`Claim 1: a digital-to-analog converter (DAC)
`generating an audio output of said original audio
`signal representation; and .......................................................22
`Claim 1: a module adapted to reproduce said
`generated audio output in response to the unique
`user code bit sequence being recognized, said audio
`having been wirelessly transmitted and reproduced
`virtually free from interference from device
`transmitted signals operating in the wireless
`headphone spectrum. ..............................................................22
`Claims 3 and 4 .....................................................................................23
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`5.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,131,391
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`Claim 3: A portable wireless digital audio system for
`digital transmission of an original audio signal
`representation from a portable audio player to a
`portable digital audio headphone receiver, said
`portable wireless digital audio system comprising: ............24
`Claim 3: a digital audio transmitter operatively
`coupled to said portable audio player and
`transmitting a unique user code bit sequence with
`said original audio signal representation in packet
`format, wherein said digital audio transmitter
`operatively coupled to said audio player is capable of
`mobile operation, said digital audio transmitter
`comprising: ...............................................................................24
`Claim 3: a encoder operative to encode said original
`audio signal representation to reduce intersymbol
`interference; ..............................................................................25
`Claim 3: a digital modulator module configured for
`independent CDMA communication operation; ...............26
`Claim 3: said digital audio transmitter configured for
`direct digital wireless communication with said
`portable digital audio headphone receiver, said
`portable digital audio headphone receiver
`comprising: ...............................................................................27
`Claim 3: a direct conversion module configured to
`capture packets and the correct bit sequence within
`the packets aided by lowering signal detection error
`through reduced intersymbol interference coding of
`said audio representation signal respective to said
`headphone and mobile said digital audio transmitter
`operatively coupled to said audio player, said packets
`embedded in the received spread spectrum signal,
`the captured packets corresponding to the unique
`user code; ..................................................................................27
`Claim 3: a digital demodulator configured for
`independent CDMA communication operation; ...............29
`Claim 3: a decoder operative to decode the applied
`reduced intersymbol interference coding of said
`original audio signal representation; .....................................30
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,131,391
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`Claim 3: a digital-to-analog converter (DAC)
`generating an audio output of said original audio
`signal representation; and .......................................................31
`Claim 3: a module adapted to reproduce said
`generated audio output, said audio having been
`wirelessly transmitted from said portable audio
`player and reproduced virtually free from
`interference from device transmitted signals
`operating in the wireless digital audio system
`spectrum. ..................................................................................32
`CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................33
`V.
`VI. APPENDIX: ABRIDGED CLAIM CHARTS ....................................................34
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ...........................................................................................67
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,131,391
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co.,
`576 F. 3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ........................................................................................... 9
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`579 U.S. __ (2016) ............................................................................................................... 12
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys.,
`357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................................... 18
`
`One-E-Way v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`859 F.3d 1059 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................................... 12
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .................................................................................................................. 13, 14
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................................. 2, 6, 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 318(b).................................................................................................................... 33
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.08 ....................................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a) ................................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................................. 11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................................. 2
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,131,391
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,131,391, Wireless Digital Audio Music System (“the ’391
`patent”)
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`1013
`
`
`
`File history of U.S. Application No. 12/940,747, filed Nov. 5, 2010
`(“the 2010 application”)
`
`Patent Owner claim charts from the ITC Complaint
`
`Order No. 12 from In re Certain Consumer Elecs. and Display Devices with
`Graphics Processing and Graphics Processing Units Therein [sic, proper title of
`the Investigation is In re Certain Wireless Headsets], Inv. No. 337-TA-943
`(July 24, 2015)
`
`One-E-Way v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 859 F.3d 1059 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,563,892 (“the ’892 patent” or “Haartsen”)
`
`J. Haartsen, “Bluetooth—The universal radio interface for ad hoc,
`wireless connectivity,” Ericsson Review, Oct. 1998 (“the 1998 paper”)
`
`J.Haartsen, “The Bluetooth Radio System,” IEEE Personal
`Communications Journal, Feb. 2000
`
`G.B.Giannakis, A.Stamoulis, Z.Wang, and P.A.Anghel, “Load-
`Adaptive MUI/ISI-Resilient Generalized Multi-Carrier CDMA with
`Linear and DF Receivers,” European Transactions on
`Telecommunications J., Vol. 11, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2000 (“Giannakis”)
`
`Excerpts from the file history of U.S. App. No. 13/356,949, filed
`January 24, 2012
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,530,929
`
`Declaration of J. Moring
`S. Zhou, et al., “Frequency-Hopped Generalized Multicarrier CDMA
`for Multipath and Interference Suppression,” MILCOM 2000 Proc.,
`October 2000
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,131,391
`
` Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`Petitioner Sony Corporation hereby seeks inter partes review of claims 1-6 and
`
`10 of U.S. Patent No. 8,131,391 (“the ’391 patent”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`I.
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH PETITION REQUIREMENTS
`A. Notice of Real Parties in Interest
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), notice is hereby given that the above-
`
`identified Petitioner, together with Sony Corporation of America, Sony Electronics
`
`Inc., Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc., Sony Mobile Communications Inc.,
`
`Sony Mobile Communications AB, and Sony Video & Sound Products Inc., are the
`
`real parties-in-interest (“RPI”) in this petition.
`
`B. Notice of Related Matters
`
`In re Certain Wireless Headsets, Inv. No. 337-TA-943 (“the ITC action”), pending
`
`before the U.S. International Trade Commission, may affect or be affected by a
`
`decision in this proceeding. The ’391 patent and U.S. Patent No. 7,865,258 (the “’258
`
`patent”) are asserted by Patent Owner One-E-Way, Inc. against Petitioner’s Bluetooth
`
`headsets in the ITC action. See Ex. 1003 (exemplary claim charts from the ITC
`
`Complaint). Another petition for inter partes review of the ’391 patent on different
`
`grounds has been filed simultaneously herewith as IPR2018-00218. Petitions for inter
`
`partes review of the ’258 patent on similar grounds are being filed simultaneously
`
`herewith as IPR2018-00216 and IPR2018-00217.
`
`Two petitions for review of U.S. Patent No. 9,282,396 (the “’396 patent”),
`
`IPR2016-01638 and IPR2016-01639, filed by Sony, were instituted on February 22,
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,131,391
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`2017, and are currently pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”).
`
`The ’396 patent claims priority to the ’258 and ’391 patents.
`
`C. Notice of Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), (b)(4), and 42.10(a), Petitioner designates
`
`the following lead and backup counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel:
`John Flock (Reg. No. 39,670)
`Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP
`One Broadway,
`New York, NY 10004
`Telephone: (212) 425-7200
`Fax: (212) 425-5288
`Email:
`jflock@andrewskurthkenyon.com
`
`
`D. Grounds for Standing
`
`Backup Counsel:
`Paul T. Qualey (Reg. No. 45,027)
`Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP
`1350 I Street N.W. Ste. 1100
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 662-3057
`Fax: (202) 662-2739
`Email:
`pqualey@andrewskurthkenyon.com
`
`Petitioner certifies under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) that the ’391 patent is available
`
`for inter partes review, and that Petitioner and the RPIs are not barred or estopped
`
`from requesting inter partes review challenging the patent claims on the grounds
`
`identified in this petition.
`
`E.
`
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests that claims 1-6 and 10 of the ’391 patent be
`
`cancelled based on the following grounds of unpatentability, explained in detail below:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-6 and 10 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,563,892 (“the ’892 patent”) (Ex. 1006) either in view of the
`
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art, or in combination with
`
`2
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,131,391
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`G.B.Giannakis, A.Stamoulis, Z.Wang, and P.A.Anghel, “Load-Adaptive
`
`MUI/ISI-Resilient Generalized Multi-Carrier CDMA with Linear and
`
`DF Receivers,” European Transactions on Telecommunications J., Vol. 11, No.
`
`6, Nov.-Dec. 2000 (Ex. 1009).
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`A. Brief Description of the ’391 Patent
`
`The ’391 patent issued on March 6, 2012 from U.S. Patent Application Serial
`
`No. 12/940,747 filed on November 5, 2010, and is assigned to Patent Owner. It
`
`generally relates to a wireless digital audio system having a portable audio source with
`
`a digital audio transmitter and an audio receiver operatively coupled to a headphone
`
`set, which is configured for digital wireless communication with the audio transmitter.
`
`Figure 1, reproduced below, depicts an exemplary embodiment of the
`
`invention. The music audio source 80 is connected to a battery powered wireless
`
`transmitter 20, which transmits audio wirelessly using an antenna 24 to a receiving
`
`antenna 52 of a battery powered headphone receiver 50. The receiver 50 may utilize
`
`fuzzy logic detection to optimize reception of the received user code; the speakers 75
`
`in headphones 55 are used for listening to the spread spectrum-demodulated and
`
`decoded communication signal. Ex. 1001 at 2:30-63.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,131,391
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`Figures 2 and 3, reproduced below, depict block diagrams of an audio
`
`transmitter portion and an audio receiver portion of the wireless digital audio system
`
`of Figure 1. The transmitter portion shown in Figure 2 digitizes the audio signal from
`
`the audio source 80 using an analog to digital converter (ADC) 32. The digitized
`
`signal is further processed downstream by an encoder 36, then by a digital low pass
`
`filter, and a modulator 42 modulates the signal to be transmitted. To reduce the
`
`effects of channel noise, a channel encoder 38 is used. For further noise immunity, a
`
`spread spectrum differential phase shift key (DPSK) module 48 is utilized. The unique
`
`user code generated by the code generator 44 is specifically associated with one
`
`wireless digital audio system user. The spread spectrum modulated signal transmitted
`
`by the antenna 24 is received by the antenna 52 shown in Figure 3, and then
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,131,391
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`processed by spread spectrum direct conversion receiver or module 56 with a receiver
`
`code generator 60 that contains the same transmitted unique code. A block de-
`
`interleaver 64 decodes the bits of the digital signal encoded in the block interleaver 40,
`
`a Viterbi decoder 66 is used to decode the bits encoded by the channel encoder 38,
`
`and a source decoder 68 further decodes the coding applied by the encoder 36.
`
`Finally, a digital-to-analog converter (DAC) 70 is used to transform the digital signal
`
`to an analog audio signal, which is then processed by a power amplifier 74 optimized
`
`for powering the headphone speakers 75. Ex. 1001 at 2:45-3:31, 4:17-28.
`
`The ’391 patent issued from the fifth application in a chain as shown below.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,131,391
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`Original Parent Application—abandoned
`U.S. Patent Application No. 10/027,391
`Filed: Dec. 21, 2001
`Published on June 26, 2003 as Pub. No. 2003/0118196
`
`CIP
`U.S. Patent No. 7,412,294
`Issued from U.S. Application No. 10/648,012,
`Filed on August 26, 2003
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,684,885
`Issued from U.S. Application No. 12/144,729,
`Filed on July 12, 2008
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,865,258
`Issued from U.S. Application No. 12/570,343,
`Filed on September 30, 2009
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,131,391
`Issued from U.S. Application No. 12/940,747,
`Filed on November 5, 2010
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’391 Patent
`
`As filed, the application that issued as the ’391 patent had six claims. Ex. 1002
`
`at 0012-15. On April 12, 2011, the applicant submitted six additional new claims 7-12.
`
`Ex. 1002 at 0044-48. On May 5, 2011, the PTO issued a first and final office action,
`
`rejecting claims 1-12 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and for non-statutory
`
`double patenting. Id. at 0059-74. On June 7, 2011, an interview was held with the
`
`examiner. Id. at 0094-96. On June 21, 2011, in a response to the final office action, the
`
`applicant amended the specification to reflect the proper family history of the
`
`application, amended claims 3-6 and 10-12, and traversed the obviousness rejections
`
`for claims 1-12. Id. at 0104-176. On July 27, 2011, the PTO issued an advisory action,
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,131,391
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`refusing to enter the proposed amendment. Ex. 1002 at 0177-179. On August 2, 2011,
`
`the applicant filed a request for continued examination, included all amendments
`
`from the June 21, 2011 response, and added six new claims 13-18. Id. at 0180-215. On
`
`October 5, 2011, the applicant filed terminal disclaimers with respect to U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 7,865,258; 7,684,885; and 7,412,294. Id. at 0222. On November 14, 2011, the
`
`PTO issued a non-final office action, rejecting claims 1-18 as obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a). Id. at 0227-249. On December 15, 2011, in a response to this office action,
`
`the applicant amended all pending claims 1-18, and traversed their obviousness
`
`rejections. Id. at 0259-300. On January 24, 2012, the PTO issued an Examiner’s
`
`Amendment cancelling claims 3-9 and 14, and a Notice of Allowance for the
`
`remaining claims 1, 2, 10-13, and 15-18. Id. at 0304-310. The ’391 patent issued on
`
`March 6, 2012.
`
`C.
`
`State of the Prior Art
`1. Haartsen’s 1998 Paper
`
`Prior to December 2001, telecommunication companies were developing
`
`digital wireless communication systems. For example, an article written by J.Haartsen
`
`in 1998, “Bluetooth—The universal radio interface for ad hoc, wireless connectivity,”
`
`provides a detailed overview of the recently developed Bluetooth technology. It
`
`describes Bluetooth as “a universal radio interface in the 2.45 GHz frequency band
`
`that enables portable electronic devices to connect and communicate wirelessly via
`
`short-range, ad hoc networks.” Ex. 1007 at 110. Bluetooth “eliminates the need for
`
`7
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,131,391
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`wires, cables and connectors for and between cordless or mobile phones, modems,
`
`headsets, PDAs, computers, printers, projectors, local networks, and so on.” Id. The
`
`article envisions “a cheap, power-efficient radio chip that is small enough to fit inside
`
`any electronic device or machine and that provides local connectivity.” Id. at 109.
`
`Among the examples given by the paper for applications of Bluetooth is “[t]he
`
`ultimate headset—a cordless headset keeps your hands free … Connect a headset to
`
`your mobile PC or to any wired connection and free your hands for more important
`
`tasks at the office or in your car.” Id. at 112.
`
`The 1998 paper also describes technical details of Bluetooth systems. For
`
`example, the paper states (1) that “Bluetooth radios use frequency-hop (FH) spread
`
`spectrum, since this technology better supports low-cost, low-power radio
`
`implementations”; (2) that the frequency hopping sequence “is determined by the
`
`identity of the piconet master”; (3) that “[e]very piconet has a unique set of master
`
`parameters which create a unique channel”; and (4) that “[i]f a hop channel is
`
`temporarily shared by independent piconets, packets can be distinguished by the
`
`access codes that precede them—access codes are unique for each piconet.” Id. at
`
`112, 113, 117. Additionally, it teaches that “[i]nterference can be avoided” by use of
`
`an adaptive frequency hopping technique. Id. at 112.
`
`2.
`
`Patent No. 6,563,892 to Haartsen
`
`About a year after this publication, on June 15, 1999, Mr. Haartsen and P. Dent
`
`filed U.S. Patent Application No. 09/332,955, which issued on May 13, 2003 as the
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,131,391
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`’892 patent entitled “Method and System for Detection of Binary Information in the
`
`Presence of Slowly Varying Disturbances.” Ex. 1006. The ’892 patent incorporates by
`
`reference the 1998 paper for “various details regarding the Bluetooth technology.” Ex.
`
`1006 at 2:23-29; Ex. 1012, ¶6. Thus, the disclosure of the 1998 paper is included in
`
`the ’892 patent (collectively, “’892 reference”); it is considered a single reference for
`
`invalidity determinations. See, e.g., Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co., 576 F. 3d 1331,
`
`1346 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`The ’892 patent discloses ways of improving a receiver in the face of low-
`
`frequency disturbances. “Although channel effects are a dominant disturbance in
`
`conventional cellular systems, in other types of systems the dominant disturbance to
`
`transmitted signals may arise from other sources.” Ex. 1006 at 2:14-17. The sole
`
`example provided of “other types of systems” in which such problems may arise is a
`
`Bluetooth system. Id. at 2:17-20.
`
`The “disturbances” to which the ’892 patent refers include “DC offset in
`
`homodyne receivers,” among others. Id. at 2:36-45. A “homodyne” (direct
`
`conversion) receiver mixes an incoming radio-frequency signal with an oscillator
`
`having the same frequency to produce a baseband signal. Ex. 1012 ¶¶19, 41; see also
`
`Ex. 1011 at 1:30-36. The ’892 patent discloses “several methods for performing DC
`
`offset suppression.” Ex. 1006 at 2:46-47. The invention of the ’892 patent is
`
`“described as useful in systems employing the Bluetooth technology, e.g., having
`
`operating characteristics such as frequency hopped CDMA, low transmit power, etc.”
`
`9
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,131,391
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`Id. at 4:13-16. According to the ’892 patent, a solution to the DC offset problem (and
`
`other slowly varying disturbances) is “to abandon the threshold technique, and instead
`
`use the difference Δ between the two possible symbols.” Id. at 5:12-15. “A known
`
`technique that uses the difference between two adjacent symbols is differential
`
`keying,” which includes “DPSK” and “DFSK.” Id. at 5:25-35.
`
`3.
`
`The 2000 Haartsen Paper
`
`In February 2000, Mr. Haartsen published another article in IEEE Personal
`
`Communications Journal, entitled “The Bluetooth Radio System.” The article
`
`describes the radio system behind the Bluetooth concept, its design challenges, the
`
`critical system characteristics and design choices. See Ex. 1008 at 0004.
`
`4.
`
`The Giannakis Paper
`
`The Giannakis paper was submitted to the Journal of European Transactions
`
`on Telecommunications in May 2000, and published in its November-December issue
`
`(Ex. 1009). It discusses existing and novel ways to “mitigate intersymbol interference
`
`(ISI).” Ex. 1009 at 0004. Specifically, Giannakis proposes to “design block FIR
`
`transmitters and decision feedback (DF) receivers based on an inner-code/outer-code
`
`principle, which guarantees MUI/ISI-elimination regardless of the frequency-selective
`
`physical channel” “[t]o improve the bit error rate (BER) performance of existing
`
`schemes.” Id. The Giannakis-proposed “scheme guarantees symbol recovery
`
`regardless of the possibly unknown FIR channel by achieving deterministic MUI
`
`elimination and ISI suppression.” Id. at 527 (emphasis added). The paper proposes the
`
`10
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,131,391
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`“MUI/ISI-resilient inner-code/outer-code design” and discusses “how the proper
`
`choice of the inner code Θm guarantees the ISI removal and symbol recovery.” Id. at
`
`528-32. Giannakis specifically refers to using this scheme in Bluetooth-like networking
`
`systems. Id. at 531. The Giannakis paper discloses ways to improve performance in
`
`CDMA transmitters and receivers applicable to “Bluetooth-like” networking,
`
`including both reduced intersymbol interference coding and bit error rate (BER)
`
`improvement using interleaving/de-interleaving. Id. at 527, 535; Ex. 1012 ¶¶7, 57, 78-
`
`79.
`
`III. THE CHALLENGED ’391 PATENT
`A.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’391 patent has a Bachelor of Science
`
`degree in electrical engineering or a related field, and approximately two years of
`
`experience in the design or implementation of wireless communications systems, or
`
`the equivalent. Alternatively, a person of ordinary skill in the art has approximately six
`
`years of experience in the design or implementation of wireless communications
`
`systems, or the equivalent.1
`
`B.
`
`Claim Constructions
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), in inter partes review, claims receive the
`
`
`1 This is the level of skill proposed by Petitioner and adopted by the Administrative
`Law Judge (“ALJ”) in the ITC action. Ex. 1004 at 7-9; see also, Ex. 1012 ¶14.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,131,391
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” See Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`
`LLC v. Lee, 579 U.S. __ (2016). Petitioner requests that each claim term here be given
`
`its ordinary meaning, except for several terms construed by the ALJ in the ITC action
`
`and one term construed by the Federal Circuit, largely as advocated by Patent Owner.
`
`Ex. 1004 at 13, 29, 34-35, 39-40; Ex. 1005, One-E-Way v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 859 F.3d
`
`1059, 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also Ex. 1012 ¶¶15-16.
`
`Term
`
`Construction
`
`“coding that reduces intersymbol interference”
`
`“configured for code division multiple access
`(CDMA) communication operation performed
`independent of any central control”
`
`“fixed code (bit sequence) specifically associated
`with one user of a device(s)”
`
`“a module for converting radio frequency to
`baseband or very near baseband in a single
`frequency conversion without an intermediate
`frequency”
`“free from interference such that eavesdropping
`on device transmitted signals operating in the
`[portable wireless digital audio system/ wireless
`headphone/wireless digital audio system/ digital
`wireless audio receiver] spectrum cannot occur.”
`
`“reduced intersymbol interference
`coding”
`(cl. 1-6, 10)
`
`“configured for independent code
`division multiple access (CDMA)
`communication operation”
`(cl. 1-6, 10)
`
`“unique user code” / “unique user
`code bit sequence”
`(cl. 1-6, 10)
`
`“direct conversion module”
`(cl. 1-6, 10)
`
`“virtually free from interference
`from device transmitted signals
`operating in the [portable wireless
`digital audio system/ wireless
`headphone/wireless digital audio
`system/digital wireless audio
`receiver] spectrum.”
`(cl. 1-6 and 10)
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,131,391
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`IV. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`A. Ground 1: The ’892 Reference Combined with the Giannakis Paper
`Makes Obvious Claims 1-6, 10 of the ’391 Patent
`
`Claims 1-6, 10 of the ’391 patent, all independent claims, are rendered obvious
`
`by the ’892 reference either in view of the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art, or in combination with the Giannakis paper. See generally, Ex. 1012, ¶¶36-39
`
`and Attachment 1. An abridged set of claim charts is provided for the Board’s
`
`convenience in Section VI.2
`
`1.
`
`The ’892 Reference Is Prior Art to the ’391 Patent
`
`The ’892 reference, filed on June 15, 1999 and issued on May 13, 2003, and
`
`incorporating by reference the 1998 paper, is prior art to the ’391 claims. First, the
`
`’892 reference constitutes prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because it issued
`
`from an application filed in the United States on June 15, 1999, more than a year
`
`before the ’391 patent’s earliest claimed priority date of December 21, 2001. In
`
`copending IPR2016-01639 (involving the ’396 patent which is a descendant of and
`
`has the same priority chain as the ’391 patent), Patent Owner did not contest that the
`
`‘892 reference is prior art to the December 21, 2001 date.
`
`Furthermore, as explained in co-pending IPR2018-00218, the ’391 patent
`
`
`2 These charts cite exemplary portions of the prior art references. Petitioner expressly
`reserves the right to rely on uncited portions that provide additional support for
`particular claim limitations, provide context, and/or aid in understanding the cited
`portions.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,131,391
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`claims are only entitled to a July 12, 2008 priority date due to a break in the chain of
`
`disclosure in 2003 caused by the filing of a continuation-in-part application that was
`
`directed to a different invention than that of the ’391 claims and did not include or
`
`incorporate by reference the disclosure of the December 21, 2001 application. Thus
`
`the ’892 reference also constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it issued
`
`on May 13, 2003, more than one year before July 12, 2008.
`
`2.
`
`The Giannakis Paper Is Prior Art to the ’391 Patent
`
`The Giannakis paper was published in the November-December 2000 issue of
`
`European Transactions on Telecommunications Journal, and was publi