UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO. LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`OPTIS WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00653 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`Case IPR2018-00655 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`___________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held June 24, 2019
`_____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, JOHN PINKERTON, KEVIN TURNER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO. LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`OPTIS WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00653 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`Case IPR2018-00655 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`___________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held June 24, 2019
`_____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, JOHN PINKERTON, KEVIN TURNER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00653 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`Case IPR2018-00655 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
` PETER P. CHEN, ESQUIRE
` COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP
` 3000 El Camino Real
` 5 Palo Alt Square
` Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
` 650-632-4720
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
` BARRY J. BUMGARDNER, ESQUIRE
` CHRIS GRANAGHAN, ESQUIRE
` BRENT J. BUMGARDNER, ESQUIRE
` NELSON BUMGARDNER ALBRITTON
` 3131 West 7th Street
` Suite 300
` Fort Worth, TX 76107
` 817-377-3494
`
`
`ALSO PRESENT: PAUL HASHIM, MANDY ZHON, on behalf of Petitioner
` JAMES WARDEN, on behalf of Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on June 24, 2019,
`commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the Dallas Terminal Annex Federal Building of
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office, 207 South Houston Street,
`Suite 159, Dallas, TX 75202.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00653 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`Case IPR2018-00655 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` (Proceedings begin at 1:00 p.m.)
`
` JUDGE PINKERTON: Good afternoon to everyone. This
`
`is going to be a combined oral hearing in two IPRs,
`
`2018-00653 and -00655, between the Petitioner, Huawei, and the
`
`Patent Owner, Optis Wireless. And it concerns U.S. Patent
`
`8,208,569, which we're going to be referring to as the '569
`
`Patent.
`
` My name is John Pinkerton, Judge Pinkerton. With me
`
`10
`
`today here in Dallas is Judge Quinn and via video from San
`
`11
`
`Jose, California is Judge Turner. So let's begin with
`
`12
`
`appearances, beginning with the Petitioner.
`
`13
`
` Petitioner, if you'll step up to the podium,
`
`14
`
`introduce yourself, and let us know who you have with you
`
`15
`
`today.
`
`16
`
` MR. CHEN: Good afternoon and good morning, Your
`
`17
`
`Honors. Thank you very much. I am Peter Chen from Covington
`
`18
`
`and Burling, counsel for the Petitioner, Huawei Device Company
`
`19
`
`Ltd. With me today are two colleagues from Huawei's facility
`
`20
`
`here in Plano, Paul Hashim and Mandy Zhon. Thank you very
`
`21
`
`much.
`
`22
`
` JUDGE PINKERTON: Welcome. Good to have you all.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00653 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`Case IPR2018-00655 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Okay.
`
` Patent Owner, you -- introduce yourself, please?
`
` MR. BUMGARDNER: Certainly, Your Honor. My name is
`
`Barry Bumgardner. I'm here on behalf of the firm Nelson
`
`Bumgardner Albritton. Also with me from my firm today is
`
`Chris Granaghan and Brent Bumgardner, and then from Patent
`
`Owner's representative is Mr. James Warden.
`
` JUDGE PINKERTON: Okay. Thank you very much.
`
`Welcome to the Board all of you, and also welcome to the Texas
`
`10
`
`Regional Office of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
`
`11
`
`We'll hit on a couple of preliminary measures before we get
`
`12
`
`started.
`
`13
`
` First of all, because Judge Turner is with us
`
`14
`
`remotely, there are a couple of things we need to remember.
`
`15
`
`Number one, with respect to the microphone, he will not be
`
`16
`
`able to hear you unless you're talking in the microphone. So
`
`17
`
`if you're going to talk, be sure to come up to the podium
`
`18
`
`before you say anything. Secondly, in regard to the screen,
`
`19
`
`Judge Turner will not be able to see what's projected on the
`
`20
`
`screen -- this screen, so if you refer to demonstrative,
`
`21
`
`exhibits, or any other evidence, be sure to state the
`
`22
`
`particular slide or exhibit by number so that he can track it
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00653 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`Case IPR2018-00655 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`on his computer.
`
` In regard to time and the order today, each side is
`
`going to have 30 minutes. Petitioner, you will have 30
`
`minutes of total time to present arguments. You may, if you
`
`would like, reserve time for rebuttal.
`
` Would you like to reserve some time, and if so, how
`
`much?
`
` JUDGE TURNER: I'm not sure if you can hear me.
`
` JUDGE PINKERTON: We can.
`
`10
`
` JUDGE TURNER: Because I -- we have no audio here in
`
`11
`
`San Jose.
`
`12
`
` JUDGE PINKERTON: That's because I just turned on my
`
`13
`
`mic, Judge Turner, and I'm sorry about that.
`
`14
`
` JUDGE TURNER: I didn't hear the parties either, so
`
`15
`
`– we have radio silence here, so if you can -- and I didn't
`
`16
`
`want to interrupt you, John, but, like -- you know,
`
`17
`
`interrupting your initial spiel because I could see from the
`
`18
`
`glass that you were talking because there's a reflection. But
`
`19
`
`other than that, I have -- I know the hearing order, so I
`
`20
`
`don't think I need to hear that again.
`
`21
`
` JUDGE PINKERTON: Okay. So --
`
`22
`
` JUDGE TURNER: That's fine; we can continue. I'm --
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00653 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`Case IPR2018-00655 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`I can hear you now. Thank you.
`
` JUDGE PINKERTON: For your benefit, we'll ask each
`
`counsel to, once again, introduce themselves.
`
` For the Petitioner?
`
` MR. CHEN: Yes, Your Honor. Peter Chen from
`
`Covington and Burling for Petitioner, Huawei Device Company
`
`Ltd., and hoping that Judge Turner is able to hear that.
`
` JUDGE TURNER: Is your mic on there; may I ask you
`
`Mr. Chen?
`
`10
`
` MR. CHEN: Yes, it appears to be.
`
`11
`
` JUDGE TURNER: That's far better.
`
`12
`
` MR. CHEN: Okay. I saw the green light. I
`
`13
`
`apologize, Your Honor. I saw the green light and now it's
`
`14
`
`very bright green.
`
`15
`
` JUDGE TURNER: I could hear you through Judge
`
`16
`
`Pinkerton's mic, but you were kind of faint, and so when --
`
`17
`
`there's no need to do introductions. I'm happy to let you
`
`18
`
`start, and I think we're fine. And I'll turn it over to Judge
`
`19
`
`Pinkerton.
`
`20
`
` JUDGE PINKERTON: Well, let's get the Patent Owner's
`
`21
`
`introduction for you.
`
`22
`
` If you would, please, once again?
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00653 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`Case IPR2018-00655 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` MR. BUMGARDNER: Certainly, Judge Pinkerton.
`
` Judge Turner, my name is Barry Bumgardner. I'm here
`
`on behalf of Patent Owner, and with me today are two of my
`
`colleagues from law firm, as well as a client representative.
`
` JUDGE PINKERTON: Thank you very much.
`
` MR. BUMGARDNER: And Judge Pinkerton, if -- I have
`
`one preliminary question I would like to ask before we get
`
`started, if that's okay with --
`
` JUDGE PINKERTON: Sure.
`
`10
`
` MR. BUMGARDNER: And that question is, would it be
`
`11
`
`acceptable if Mr. Granaghan had a chair here to flip through
`
`12
`
`the slides? If he just, kind of, pulled a chair in front here
`
`13
`
`or would that cause any problems for this panel?
`
`14
`
` JUDGE PINKERTON: I think that would be fine once
`
`15
`
`you start your presentation.
`
`16
`
` MR. BUMGARDNER: Certainly. Okay. Thank you very
`
`17
`
`much.
`
`18
`
` JUDGE PINKERTON: Yes.
`
`19
`
` JUDGE TURNER: (indiscernible)
`
`20
`
` JUDGE PINKERTON: Mr. Chen, did you want to reserve
`
`21
`
`some time, and if so, how much?
`
`22
`
` MR. CHEN: Yes, thank you, Your Honor. Petitioner
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00653 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`Case IPR2018-00655 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`would like to reserve five minutes for rebuttal. Thank you.
`
` JUDGE PINKERTON: Okay.
`
` Patent Owner, you also have 30 minutes total time.
`
`Would you like to reserve some time for sur-rebuttal?
`
` MR. BUMGARDNER: I would like to reserve seven
`
`minutes please, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE PINKERTON: Okay. Seven minutes it is.
`
` So Patent Owner, let me remind you of one thing,
`
`which is in our order -- setting the oral argument that Patent
`
`10
`
`Owner's sur-rebuttal must be limited in scope to any issues that
`
`11
`
`are raised by the Petitioner during his rebuttal time.
`
`12
`
` MR. BUMGARDNER: With that -- thank you for
`
`13
`
`reminding me of that, Your Honor. If I could do five minutes
`
`14
`
`then instead?
`
`15
`
` JUDGE PINKERTON: Okay.
`
`16
`
` MR. BUMGARDNER: All right. Thank you.
`
`17
`
` JUDGE PINKERTON: Five minutes it is.
`
`18
`
` With respect to objections, we ask that counsel not
`
`19
`
`interrupt the other party to state any objections. If you
`
`20
`
`think that arguments being made, there's a demonstrative that
`
`21
`
`doesn't have evidence that was previously presented, please,
`
`22
`
`if you would, wait until your presentation to make that
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00653 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`Case IPR2018-00655 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`objection.
`
` If -- do either of you have demonstratives that you
`
`would like to present us with today? If you do, please bring
`
`those forward at this time.
`
` MR. BUMGARDNER: And these were what was filed, Your
`
`Honor.
`
` JUDGE PINKERTON: Okay. Thank you very much.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Thank you.
`
` JUDGE PINKERTON: Do you have one for the court
`
`10
`
`reporter by any chance?
`
`11
`
` MR. BUMGARDNER: Court reporter already has mine, so
`
`12
`
`-- we met earlier before this, so --
`
`13
`
` JUDGE PINKERTON: Very efficient, thank you very
`
`14
`
`much. Okay.
`
`15
`
` Mr. Chen, you don't have demonstratives to present?
`
`16
`
` MR. CHEN: Your Honor, nothing over and above what
`
`17
`
`we filed last week, and we have given a hard copy to the court
`
`18
`
`reporter. Thank you.
`
`19
`
` JUDGE PINKERTON: Okay.
`
`20
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Thank you.
`
`21
`
` JUDGE PINKERTON: Thank you very much.
`
`22
`
` Counsel, does anyone have any questions before we
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00653 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`Case IPR2018-00655 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`start? Okay.
`
` Then Mr. Petitioner, why don't you go ahead and
`
`begin?
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Just a reminder that the timer is
`
`here. It will give you a warning when you are going into your
`
`rebuttal time.
`
` MR. CHEN: Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you. And
`
`may I please the Board? I'm Peter Chen, counsel for
`
`Petitioner, Huawei Device Company Ltd. Pursuant to the
`
`10
`
`Board's hearing order, I'll be presenting Petitioner's
`
`11
`
`argument with some remarks on the demonstrative slides and
`
`12
`
`responses to questions from Your Honors.
`
`13
`
` Going to Slide 2, the Board instituted trial on the
`
`14
`
`petition's two-reference ground of Wallace and Ishikawa.
`
`15
`
`Based on this reference, Huawei is challenging all of the
`
`16
`
`claims in the '569 Patent. We filed two petitions; the 653
`
`17
`
`IPR is directed at the apparatus claims, 11 through 20, 31
`
`18
`
`through 40, 43, and 44. The 655 IPR is directed at the method
`
`19
`
`claims of the '569 Patent.
`
`20
`
` At a very high-level, the '569 Patent generally
`
`21
`
`relates to error correction, coding of data in wireless
`
`22
`
`communication system. Error correction performance in
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00653 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`Case IPR2018-00655 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`wireless systems, according to the '569 Patent, can decrease
`
`with variance in signal to noise ratio. We'll look at the
`
`precise language of the claimed invention momentarily and how
`
`the inventors attempted to address the affects of variance of
`
`signal to noise ratio on error correction performance.
`
` Huawei's burden of proof is preponderance of the
`
`evidence. Huawei has met that burden based on the record
`
`developed during trial, including the testimony of the two
`
`expert witnesses; Huawei's expert declarant Dr. Wells and the
`
`10
`
`PanOptis expert, Dr. Womack.
`
`11
`
` Slide 3, a high-level overview of Ground I, the
`
`12
`
`combination of Wallace and Ishikawa; Wallace teaching the
`
`13
`
`mapping of data to symbols and groups of symbols in a time
`
`14
`
`frequency, two-dimensional grid or domain, Ishikawa adding the
`
`15
`
`remaining element of mapping data in an increasing order,
`
`16
`
`according to the frequency index.
`
`17
`
` Now, Slide 4 summarizes the major issues in dispute.
`
`18
`
`The Patent Owner has not disputed the teachings of Ishikawa or
`
`19
`
`the petition showing on motivation to combine Wallace with
`
`20
`
`Ishikawa; which leaves as the primary disputes as follows:
`
`21
`
`First, the broadest reasonable interpretation, this is a BRI
`
`22
`
`case, of the phrases "group of symbols" and "groups of
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00653 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`Case IPR2018-00655 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`symbols" where the Patent Owner has proposed in its Patent
`
`Owner response that these phrases require arrangements of
`
`symbols to exist prior to the mapping of the data.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Is the issue really what are groups of
`
`symbols? Because it seems that both parties agree on the
`
`construction of that term. It seems it's more of the action
`
`of mapping and whether that mapping needs to include some
`
`predetermined arrangement.
`
` MR. CHEN: I think that's right, Your Honor, in that
`
`10
`
`the -- as we read the Patent Owner response, they're focusing
`
`11
`
`on the words in that limitation to which data is mapped. So
`
`12
`
`they are stating that from those words to which data is mapped
`
`13
`
`must be superimposed as part of the broadest reasonable
`
`14
`
`interpretation, the pre-existence of symbols to which that
`
`15
`
`data is mapped.
`
`16
`
` JUDGE QUINN: So have you supplied any construction
`
`17
`
`of mapping that is consistent with how you've applied it to
`
`18
`
`Wallace?
`
`19
`
` MR. CHEN: Yes, Your Honor. We believe that there's
`
`20
`
`no -- there's certainly nothing in the claims, and we don't
`
`21
`
`believe that under Federal Circuit law, there should be any
`
`22
`
`importation into the claims of any aspect of predetermination
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00653 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`Case IPR2018-00655 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`of the symbols or groups of symbols prior to the mapping. So
`
`that's how we've applied it. We've analyzed the claim in
`
`light of Wallace, such that, there is mapping of data to
`
`symbols, and the symbols do not pre-exist or are not
`
`predetermined in advance of the mapping. There's nothing in
`
`the claims that requires that and our analysis has followed
`
`along those lines.
`
` JUDGE QUINN: To play devil's advocate, if I say I'm
`
`mapping an arrangement, then I am acting on something that
`
`10
`
`already exists, an arrangement exists. So if an arrangement
`
`11
`
`exists at the time of mapping, that's what you are executing;
`
`12
`
`the arrangement. So the question is that the mapping does
`
`13
`
`imply that there is some pre-existence of something, it's a
`
`14
`
`question of how far back that arrangement needs to be included
`
`15
`
`with that mapping; don't you agree?
`
`16
`
` MR. CHEN: That is a fair inference, Your Honor. I
`
`17
`
`guess my response would be on multiple basis.
`
`18
`
` First of all, again, there's nothing in the claim
`
`19
`
`that gets to that level of detail. The claim is very broadly
`
`20
`
`drafted. There is also a completely separate and distinct
`
`21
`
`possibility of mapping to symbols that essentially come
`
`22
`
`together at the point of mapping. The Patent Owner
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00653 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`Case IPR2018-00655 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`preliminary response at pages, I think, 16 and 17 or 17 and 18
`
`refer to just that possibility, so that it's not something
`
`that we see in the claim, and it's not something that jumps
`
`out of the specification.
`
` Nowhere in the figures or the Column 7 or 8 of the
`
`'569 Patent is there the phrasing predetermined, pre-existing,
`
`prior. They just talk about arrangements of symbols pursuant
`
`to instructions. In fact, there is a statement in Column 7,
`
`which refers to Figure 7, which the Patent Owner has cited in
`
`10
`
`favor of its -- in support of its proposed construction, where
`
`11
`
`the patent speaks of -- I want to make sure I say this
`
`12
`
`correctly, and this is after the explication of what Your
`
`13
`
`Honor just referred to; arranging code blocks.
`
`14
`
` And at Column 7, Line 56, it states "It is possible
`
`15
`
`to determine such a code block arrangement, for example, by
`
`16
`
`combining modes of one code block described in the format
`
`17
`
`tables A and B described in Figure 7, by trial and error
`
`18
`
`and the total evaluation of one frame every time."
`
`19
`
` So I will admit, that sentence is not a model --
`
`20
`
`that sentence is not necessarily a model of clarity, but the
`
`21
`
`phrase trial and error suggests that the Patentees were
`
`22
`
`cognizant that you could have mapping to symbols or groups of
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00653 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`Case IPR2018-00655 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`symbols that were not necessarily predetermined, pre-existing,
`
`that you have a trial and error on-the-fly type of
`
`functionality.
`
` So that also, we believe, mitigates -- militates
`
`against importing into the claims these limitations that
`
`Patent Owner's arguing should be there when nothing in the
`
`claims speaks to this. And certainly, Your Honor, the
`
`Patentees had every opportunity to insert into these
`
`independent claims this concept of a pre-existing group of
`
`10
`
`symbols, and there are multiple claims where the Patentee did
`
`11
`
`so with respect to other aspects of the functionality.
`
`12
`
` So if I may, I would cite to Claims 4, 14, 24, and
`
`13
`
`34; all of which state generally that a number of symbols for
`
`14
`
`the encoded second data is configured to be changed at a
`
`15
`
`predetermined interval -- so there's that word, predetermined.
`
`16
`
` Then going to the last set of claims, Your Honor,
`
`17
`
`Claims 41 through 44, the word predetermined is present again
`
`18
`
`when they speak -- recite about predetermined number of
`
`19
`
`symbols when the mapping exceeds a predetermined number of
`
`20
`
`symbols.
`
`21
`
` So, clearly, the applicants were fully well-aware of
`
`22
`
`the ability to claim temporal concepts, and they did so as to
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00653 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`Case IPR2018-00655 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`
`
`the number of symbols in 41 through 44, and they did so with
`
`respect to intervals of time, yet that word predetermined does
`
`not appear in any of the independent claims in which they are
`
`asking this Board to inject, from the specification into the
`
`claims, the concept or limitation that the groups of symbols
`
`be predetermined prior to the mapping.
`
` So if I may continue --
`
` JUDGE QUINN: So --
`
` MR. CHEN: Yes?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Just to follow up, your argument then
`
`11
`
`is that dependent claims include the concept of predetermined
`
`12
`
`symbols or arrangements; in the end, it's an arrangement?
`
`13
`
` MR. CHEN: Yes.
`
`14
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Then the independent claim must be
`
`15
`
`broad enough to cover also the non-predetermined arrangements?
`
`16
`
` MR. CHEN: That's part of it, Your Honor. And the
`
`17
`
`other part is, again, these applicants were fully capable of
`
`18
`
`adding and narrowing the independent claims to that effect,
`
`19
`
`just evidenced by the fact that they did so on the dependent
`
`20
`
`claims.
`
`21
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay.
`
`22
`
` MR. CHEN: So the other issues in dispute, in
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00653 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`Case IPR2018-00655 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`addition to the pre-existing -- the allegedly pre-existing
`
`nature of groups of symbols, one of those issues relates to
`
`the domain. This is the time times frequency grid, on which
`
`we find these symbols and whether or not there is a first part
`
`and a second part of the domain, (indiscernible) suggested by
`
`Wallace, and in particular, the construction of what first
`
`part and second part should mean.
`
` Finally, as to -- for the dependent claims, 17 -- 7,
`
`17, 27, and 37, there's a dispute as to the BRI of not
`
`10
`
`continuously mapped. What does that mean?
`
`11
`
` So with that, Claim 11, we've already talked about
`
`12
`
`some of this, and again, nowhere in the 100-plus words in
`
`13
`
`these independent claims appears any description or
`
`14
`
`specification as to sequence, timing of the groups of symbols,
`
`15
`
`and the mapping.
`
`16
`
` This goes to Your Honors point, our proposed
`
`17
`
`construction, which the Board acknowledged in the institution
`
`18
`
`decision, states that these groups of symbols constitute
`
`19
`
`arrangements of symbols to which data is mapped. The Patent
`
`20
`
`Owner's -- Patent Owner response, their proposed construction
`
`21
`
`is that the data has to be deliberately mapped -- again, I
`
`22
`
`mentioned trial and error from Column 7. They're claiming
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00653 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`Case IPR2018-00655 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`that in ought to be deliberately mapped to a particular
`
`arrangement of symbols that exists prior to mapping.
`
` Moving now to Slide 8. This, we believe, is an
`
`attempt by the Patent Owner to rewrite the claims and inject
`
`limitations from the specification that under Federal Circuit
`
`authority, limitations in a specification. Even if you have
`
`one embodiment, even if you have limitations appearing in all
`
`embodiments under Ventana Medical Systems, which we cited, or
`
`under the Thorner case, or under the Hill-Rom case, the
`
`10
`
`Federal Circuit does not count against that, except in two
`
`11
`
`situations, neither of which is present here; one being
`
`12
`
`lexicography and the other being clear disavowal of other
`
`13
`
`functionality.
`
`14
`
` The Patent Owner, going to Slide 9, seeks to limit
`
`15
`
`the claims to Figure 6 and 7 and the accompanying disclosure.
`
`16
`
`Figure 6 is a block diagram, not a flow chart. Figure 7 is a
`
`17
`
`format table. Both of them are directed specifically only at
`
`18
`
`embodiment one. There are multiple embodiments. These two
`
`19
`
`figures are directed only at embodiment one, and, again, any
`
`20
`
`support falls short -- I've mentioned the Federal Circuit
`
`21
`
`authority, I've mentioned how none of these claims recite
`
`22
`
`anything about groups of symbols being pre-existing. I've
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00653 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`Case IPR2018-00655 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`mentioned the usage of the term, predetermined, and then I
`
`mentioned the statement in Column 7 as to trial and error
`
`determination of code blocks.
`
` Moving to Slide 10. We are under BRI, broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification, but
`
`in addition, the Patent Owner's arguments are also refuted by
`
`the file history. We've cited to the file history, Exhibit
`
`1002 at Pages 447 to 49, where in connection with an RCE, the
`
`Patent Owner clearly stated that only Figures 4 and 5
`
`10
`
`illustrate the recited mapping of the data to symbols.
`
`11
`
` JUDGE QUINN: Even if you take instruction from
`
`12
`
`Figures 4 and 5 as to what it means, those figures themselves
`
`13
`
`don't speak to the predetermined nature of the arrangements
`
`14
`
`that Patent Owner's alluding to, right?
`
`15
`
` MR. CHEN: Correct. Yes, Your Honor.
`
`16
`
` JUDGE QUINN: So it just means that you can have
`
`17
`
`many arrangements within the realm of the construction of the
`
`18
`
`time and frequency maps?
`
`19
`
` MR. CHEN: Yes, Your Honor. As we argued in the
`
`20
`
`petition and again in the reply, the breadth of the language
`
`21
`
`of these claims, as illustrated by the examples in Figures 4A
`
`22
`
`through 4F and Figure 5, in turn gives rise to multiple ways
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00653 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`Case IPR2018-00655 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`for prior art references to read on those claims. We think
`
`the Board accurately noted that, you know, contrary to the
`
`Patent Owner's arguments about arbitrary allocations of the
`
`Wallace, Figure 2 is simply a function of the breadth and
`
`variability of the claim language itself.
`
` So again the file history we think is telling, in
`
`that -- in the amendment following the RCE. There was an RCE,
`
`there was a non-final rejection, and in the amendment
`
`following that non-final rejection, the applicant stated, Look
`
`10
`
`to Figures 4 and 5.
`
`11
`
` Now, you'll probably hear Patent Owner's counsel say
`
`12
`
`that they did cite to Figure 6 earlier in the prosecution.
`
`13
`
`That was in response to a final rejection in the year 2011, a
`
`14
`
`year before allowance, and that was not carried through when
`
`15
`
`there was an RCE filed, and the non-final rejection, and then
`
`16
`
`interview. At that point, the applicant stated to the
`
`17
`
`examiner, Look at Figure 4 and 5. No mention at all of Figure
`
`18
`
`6.
`
`19
`
` Moving on to Slide 11. There's also an argument, we
`
`20
`
`think, from Patent Owner that mapped to symbols means it is
`
`21
`
`mapped on a symbol-by-symbol basis. Again, in the institution
`
`22
`
`decision, the Board, we believe, correctly recognized that
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00653 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`Case IPR2018-00655 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`that alleged distinction was not supported. And in fact, Dr.
`
`Womack in his deposition, we cited, that Page 8 of our reply
`
`testified, he could not identify mapping on a symbol-by-symbol
`
`basis when questioned on that.
`
` And to your point, Your Honor, Slide 12, the Board
`
`recognized that mapping does appear to encompass that data can
`
`be mapped to one or more arrangements of symbols.
`
` Slide 15 --
`
` JUDGE QUINN: When they say that --
`
`10
`
` MR. CHEN: Yes, Your Honor?
`
`11
`
` JUDGE QUINN: -- the claims cover some sort of
`
`12
`
`notable manner in which you have to do the mapping, you have
`
`13
`
`to know what you're going to map before you map it? Don't you
`
`14
`
`read Wallace as also having that feature because Wallace
`
`15
`
`schedules the symbols on a specific way?
`
`16
`
` MR. CHEN: We would agree with that, Your Honor. On
`
`17
`
`its face, Wallace described itself as a dynamic scheduler, and
`
`18
`
`certainly, the Patent Owner has pointed that out. So given
`
`19
`
`that language in the claim, that is one of the reasons why we
`
`20
`
`believe Wallace does read on the claim. The claim doesn't
`
`21
`
`require -- it doesn't require specific language of pre-
`
`22
`
`existing or predetermining, but Wallace absolutely has to have
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00653 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`Case IPR2018-00655 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`something to map to. And Figure 2 shows, in that snapshot of
`
`a transmission, how all of the various data, data 1 through 7,
`
`I believe, is mapped to symbols in that time frequency grid.
`
` Going to Slide 15. This is where in our petition
`
`and in the declaration of Dr. Wells, we attempted to show how
`
`the '569 Patent Figure 4 supports groups of symbols in
`
`multiple ways. And, again, the Patent Owner indicated this is
`
`arbitrary. You've got the first group and the second group.
`
`They seem to be mirror images of each other, but, again, the
`
`10
`
`claim language and the disclosure leads to that if you read
`
`11
`
`the discussion as to Figure 4B, 4C, 4D.
`
`12
`
` And going to Slide 16, the recited first and second
`
`13
`
`data can be mapped to multiple different arrangements of
`
`14
`
`symbols. Wallace, Figure 2, teaches the mapping of data under
`
`15
`
`our proposed construction. This is a graphical illustration
`
`16
`
`of a transmission of these symbols, these orthogonal
`
`17
`
`frequency-division multiplexing symbols showing domain with a
`
`18
`
`time index and a frequency index, nine time slots along the
`
`19
`
`horizontal time access, 16 sub-channels along the vertically
`
`20
`
`oriented frequency access.
`
`21
`
` The first annotated figure here in Slide 16 shows an
`
`22
`
`arrangement of symbols in the first part of the domain on the
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00653 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`Case IPR2018-00655 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`right of Figure 2, an arrangement of groups of symbols in the
`
`second part of the domain. This was in our petition and in
`
`Dr. Wells' declaration beginning at Paragraph 177.
`
` Slide 17 shows a second annotated depiction of the
`
`same figure of Wallace; different first part of the domain,
`
`different second part of the domain, groups of symbols in the
`
`second part and mapping to symbols in the first part. Again,
`
`the institution decision correctly noted that Claim 11 can be
`
`read on such alternative characterizations because of the
`
`10
`
`breadth of claim language. Patent Owner has tried to
`
`11
`
`characterize our alternative ways of presenting how Wallace
`
`12
`
`read on this claim language as arbitrary, but any flexibility
`
`13
`
`in (indiscernible) laws, stems directly from, we believe, the
`
`14
`
`BRI of the claims themselves.
`
`15
`
` Okay. Moving a little quickly here, and this is
`
`16
`
`something you touched upon, Your Honor, and that is the
`
`17
`
`dynamic scheduling, the dynamic allocation in Wallace being
`
`18
`
`similar to the '569 Patent. And the '569 Patent is, itself,
`
`19
`
`citing many times to the concept of adaptability.
`
`20
`
` Okay. The next second main area here -- I see I'm
`
`21
`
`doing to about ten minutes. First part of the domain and the
`
`22
`
`second of the domain on Slide 19. Slide 20, we presented how
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00653 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`Case IPR2018-00655 (Patent 8,208,569B2)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Wallace teaches a first part and a second part in multiple
`
`ways. This, again, follows from the examples, Figures 4A
`
`through F in the '569 Patent. That was on Slide 21.
`
` Slide 22, at his deposition, Dr. Womack, the expert
`
`for the Patent Owner, stated that these parts of the domain,
`
`the supposed first part and second part of the domain, which
`
`Patent Owner has argued need to be demarcated, divided,
`
`distinct from each other. Dr. Womack testified that in the
`
`various figures, there's really nothing that is explicitly
`
`10
`
`pointed out as a division, a demarcation, a separation.
`
`11
`
` Slide 23, we submit that the Board's initial
`
`12
`
`determination on this issue is correct. And as we set forth
`
`13
`
`in petition, this disputed claim term should be construed as
`
`14
`
`the Petitioner argues. And Wallace suggests these arguments.
`
`15
`
`
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
