Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 25
`571-272-7882 Entered: March 11, 2021
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SIRIUS XM RADIO INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FRAUNHOFER-GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FÖRDERUNG DER
`ANGEWANDTEN FORSCHUNG E.V.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00682
`Patent 6,931,084 B1
`____________
`
`Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, STACEY G. WHITE, and GARTH D. BAER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7882 Entered: March 11, 2021
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SIRIUS XM RADIO INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FRAUNHOFER-GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FÖRDERUNG DER
`ANGEWANDTEN FORSCHUNG E.V.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00682
`Patent 6,931,084 B1
`____________
`
`Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, STACEY G. WHITE, and GARTH D. BAER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00682
`Patent 6,931,084 B1
`Sirius XM Radio Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
`requesting inter partes review of claims 1–3 of U.S. Patent No. 6,931,084
`(Ex. 1001, “the ʼ084 patent”). Patent Owner Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur
`Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`Preliminary Response (Paper 8, “Prelim. Resp.”). In our Institution
`Decision, we denied institution based on Petitioner’s failure to identify
`Sirius XM Holdings Inc. (“Holdings”) as an RPI in this proceeding. Paper
`12, 7. We also denied Petitioner authorization to amend its mandatory
`notice to add Holdings without changing the Petition’s filing date. Id.
`Petitioner requested Rehearing (Paper 13), which we granted (Paper 24),
`finding Petitioner could add Holdings as an RPI without changing the
`Petition’s filing date.
`We now turn to the merits of the Petition. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the
`information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the
`claims challenged in the petition.” Having considered the Petition and the
`Preliminary Response, we determine that there is not a reasonable likelihood
`that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that claims 1–3 of the ʼ084
`patent are unpatentable. Therefore, we decline to institute inter partes
`review.
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`II. RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`The parties assert that the ʼ084 patent is involved in Fraunhofer-
`Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v. Sirius XM
`Radio Inc., 1:17-cv-00184 (D. Del. Feb. 22 2017).
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00682
`Patent 6,931,084 B1
`
`III. THE ʼ084 PATENT
`The ʼ084 patent is directed, in general, to “echo phase offset
`correction in a multi-carrier demodulation system.” Ex. 1001, Abstract,
`Claim 1. This technology is useful for a mobile receiver of broadcast digital
`data. Id. at 1:20–23. The broadcast may be performed over a radio
`frequency (RF) signal, modulated on a carrier frequency. Pet. 10–11. Phase
`modulation (PM) in particular is useful for transmitting digital data on a
`modulated carrier wave. One PM example is Quadrature Phase Shift Keying
`(QPSK) that uses four waveforms to represent two-bit symbols. Pet. 13,
`Fig. 2; Prelim. Resp. 22, 24–25. Digital coding using PM can also map a bit
`symbol to a difference between the phases of multiple waveforms in a
`signal. Ex. 1001, 2:57–62; Pet. 20–21; Prelim. Resp. 21–23. In Differential
`Quadrature Phase Shift Keying (DQSPK) mapping, two bits are encoded as
`the difference of 0, 90, 180, or 270 degrees between two symbols. Ex. 1001,
`2:57–62. For example, the bits 01 can be represented as a symbol of 90
`degrees phase followed by a symbol of 180 degrees phase, in which the
`difference in phases between the two symbols is 90 degrees. Prelim.
`Resp. 21–23.
`In a differential phase keying coding system, multiple symbols from a
`variety of sources are compared at a receiver to determine the difference
`between their phases. In a time domain multi-carrier modulation (MCM)
`approach, the symbols may be presented sequentially in time on one
`subcarrier frequency of multiple subcarriers. Prelim. Resp. 21–22. An
`alternative approach to time domain coding is frequency domain coding,
`shown in Figure 1 of the ʼ084 patent. In a frequency domain MCM
`embodiment, different symbols are transmitted simultaneously on different
`subcarriers having different frequencies. Ex. 1001, 1:30–36, 5:10–12, 36–
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00682
`Patent 6,931,084 B1
`40. The difference between two symbols that makes up the coding of two
`bits occurs between symbols on different subcarriers. Pet. 17; Prelim.
`Resp. 22–23.
`The claimed method addresses the problem of erroneous phase offsets
`in the received and decoded signals, as may be caused by echoes in the
`received signal. Pet. 1–2, 18–22. Figure 5 of the ʼ084 patent is reproduced
`below.
`
`
`Figure 5 illustrates a “schematic block diagram of an embodiment of an echo
`phase offset correction device according to the present invention.”
`Ex. 1001, 6:65–67.
`
`ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
`IV.
`Of the challenged claims, only claim 1 (reproduced below) is
`
`independent.
`1. A method of performing an echo phase offset correction in a
`multi-carrier demodulation system, comprising the steps of:
`differential phase decoding phase shifts based on a phase
`difference between simultaneous carriers having different
`frequencies;
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00682
`Patent 6,931,084 B1
`determining an echo phase shift offset for each decoded phase
`shift by eliminating phase shift uncertainties related to the
`transmitted information from said decoded phase shift;
`averaging said echo phase offsets in order to generate an
`averaged offset;
`correcting each decoded phase shift based on said averaged
`offset; and
`further comprising a step of comparing an absolute value of a
`symbol associated with a respective decoded phase shift with a
`threshold, wherein only phase shifts having associated
`therewith symbols having an absolute value exceeding said
`threshold are used in said step of averaging said echo phase
`offsets.
`Ex. 1001, 15:16–35.
`V. ASSERTED GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability. Pet. 6.
`Claims Challenged
`35 U.S.C. §1
`References/Basis
`1–3
`103
`Tsujishita2, Moose 19903
`1–3
`103
`Tsujishita, Moose 1990, Koslov4
`
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) amended 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`See Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 285–88 (2011). As the application
`that issued as the ’299 patent was filed before the effective date of the
`relevant amendments, the pre-AIA version of § 103 applies.
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,341,123 B1 (issued Jan. 22, 2002) (Ex. 1006,
`“Tsujishita”).
`3 P.H. Moose, “Differential Modulation and Demodulation of Multi-
`Frequency Digital Communications Signals” (1990) (Ex. 1007, “Moose
`1990”).
`
`4 U.S. Patent No. 5,940,450 A (issued Aug. 17, 1999) (Ex. 1009, “Koslov”)
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00682
`Patent 6,931,084 B1
`
`VI. ANALYSIS
`A. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`We conclude no express claim construction is necessary for our
`determination of whether to institute inter partes review of the challenged
`claims. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868
`F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are
`in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200
`F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`VII. ASSERTED PRIOR ART
`VIII. Tsujishita (Ex. 1006)
`
`Tsujishita discloses a:
`digital audio broadcasting receiver [that] comprises a phase error
`detector for detecting a phase error from data from a differential
`demodulator, an average value processing unit for determining
`the average value of phase errors, a memory for storing the phase
`errors of the carriers outputted from the phase error detector, and
`a phase error correcting unit which excludes a phase error whose
`sign is opposite to that of the average values among the phase
`errors stored in the memory.
`Ex. 1006, Abstract. Figure 1 of Tsujishita illustrates a block diagram of the
`digital audio broadcasting receiver (id. at 6:26–29), with further figures
`illustrating additional variant embodiments, including a fourth embodiment
`at Figure 8, reproduced below.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00682
`Patent 6,931,084 B1
`
`
`
`Tsujishita particularly describes a system for correcting phase errors
`associated with frequency deviations in “differentially modulated data.”
`Figure 19 illustrates the differentially modulated data as divided into the four
`quadrants of the complex plane, in accordance with DQSPK, with phase
`errors moving data into an adjacent quadrant. Ex. 1006, 2:66–3:25.
`IX. Moose 1990 (Ex. 1007)
`Moose 1990 is a paper that describes “Multi-Frequency Modulation”
`and demodulation of DQSPK signals. Ex. 1007, 273. The differential
`decoding of QSPK symbols in Moose 1990 occurs “in the frequency
`domain” among bits transmitted in different frequency bands. Id. at 275.
`X. Koslov (Ex. 1009)
`Koslov discloses a system for recovering symbols including QPSK-
`modulated symbols in a received carrier signal that contains a phase error or
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00682
`Patent 6,931,084 B1
`frequency error, using a variety of techniques. Ex. 1009, code [57].
`Koslov’s Figure 2 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 2 illustrates a carrier recovery circuit. Id. at 2:4
`XI. ANALYSIS
`1. Obviousness over Tsujishita and Moose 1990
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–3 would have been obvious over
`Tsujishita and Moose 1990. Pet. 31. On the current record, for the reasons
`explained below, we find Petitioner has not made an adequate showing that
`this combination of references discloses or makes obvious the “correcting”
`step recited in claim 1.
`“correcting each decoded phase shift based on said averaged
`XII.
`offset”
`Petitioner asserts that Tsujishita discloses “correcting each decoded
`phase shift based on said averaged offset,” as required in claim 1. Pet. 38–
`39. We disagree. Petitioner cites as support a passage from Tsujishita’s
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00682
`Patent 6,931,084 B1
`column 2, lines 31–37, which states that “frequency tuning control means 13
`operates . . . by controlling the frequency of the local oscillator 4 in a matter
`that this phase error ξ becomes small.” Id. at 39. Figure 8 of Tsujishita is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 8 illustrates a feedback loop such that averaging unit 40 outputs
`directly to Frequency Tuning Control Unit 13, which in turn outputs directly
`to Local Oscillator 4. Ex. 1006, Fig. 8, 7:27, 10:30–33, 10:67–11:5. In
`particular, Tsujishita explains as follows:
`
`In step 214, the averaging unit 40 performs averaging processing
`with respect to the phase error which was not determined to be
`in error and the restored phase error. The result is outputted to
`the frequency tuning control means 13 as the phase error. As a
`result, it is possible to control the local oscillator 4 . . . .
`Id. at 10:67–11:5. Thus, Tsujishita’s discloses correcting a received
`modulated signal using local oscillator 4 and mix 3, which are upstream
`from differential demodulator 11 and Viterbi demodulator 14. See id. at
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00682
`Patent 6,931,084 B1
`Fig. 8. Thus, the phase error correction occurs before “the phase of each
`transmission carrier subjected to quadrature phase shift keying (QPSK) is
`detected” at discrete Fourier transform processing (DFT) means 10. Id. at
`1:41–44. The error correction occurs upstream of differential demodulator
`11 where “modulated phases . . . of two transmitted symbols which are
`timewise adjacent to each other are compared, and processing (differential
`demodulation) for outputting a phase shift in the mean time is effected.” Id.
`at 1:43–48. It occurs before the “data subjected to differential demodulation
`is then outputted to the Viterbi decoder 14 in accordance with a rule on the
`order of carriers used in modulation on the transmitting side.” Id. at 1:48–
`51. As such, Tsujishita does not correct a “decoded” signal as claim 1
`requires. Rather, it corrects a received signal before it is decoded.
`Given this deficiency, on this record and for the purposes of this
`Decision, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would
`prevail in establishing claims 1–3 would have been obvious over Tsujishita
`and Moose 1990.
`XIII. Obviousness over Tsujishita, Moose 1990, and Koslov
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–3 would have been obvious over a
`combination of Tsujishita, Moose 1990, and Koslov. Pet. 45. For this
`ground, Petitioner asserts that Koslov5 discloses claim 1’s correcting step–
`i.e., “correcting each decoded phase shift based on said averaged offset.” Id.
`at 50–51. We disagree.
`
`5 Petitioner also directs us to the same teachings of Tsujishita that are
`discussed above in reference to the previous ground. See Pet. 49–51.
`Petitioner’s arguments in this ground as to the combination of Tsujishita,
`Moose 1990, and Koslov do not address any of the deficiencies of Tsujishita
`that we addressed in reference to the prior ground.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00682
`Patent 6,931,084 B1
`Petitioner cites, without explanation, Koslov at column 2, lines 22–57,
`to support its allegation that “Figures 2–5 (and the associated text) describe
`correcting each decoded phase shift based on said averaged offset.” Id.
`Koslov’s Figures 2, 3, and 56 illustrate a circuit in which the output of phase
`accumulator 112 generates an “integrated phase error” that ROM 114 uses to
`select outputs of a trigonometric table to apply to the input of de-rotator 102.
`Ex. 1009, 2:40–49. We note that Figures 2, 3, and 5 show the output of de-
`rotator 102 as “DE-ROTATED SYMBOLS” output “TO DECODER.” As
`such, Petitioner has not explained adequately how Koslov’s error correction
`at de-rotator 102 is applied to “each decoded phase shift” as required by
`claim 1. Therefore, we agree with Patent Owner that, as to the critical
`correcting step, “Koslov is cumulative of Tsujishita.” Prelim. Resp. 53.
`Thus, on this record, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it
`would prevail in establishing claims 1–3 would have been obvious over
`Tsujishita, Moose 1990, and Koslov.
`
`XIV. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we find, on the current record, that
`Petitioner has not set forth a reasonable likelihood of succeeding on either of
`the two asserted grounds of unpatentability, and we decline to institute an
`inter partes review.
`
`
`6 Koslov’s Figure 4 focuses on the details of frequency error detection
`circuit 302 and does not advance our analysis as to whether the signal being
`corrected has already been decoded. See Ex. 1009, Fig. 4, 5:39–41.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00682
`Patent 6,931,084 B1
`
`I.
`
`ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to the challenged claims of
`the ʼ084 patent; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that no inter partes review is instituted.
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Jonathan S. Caplan
`Jeffrey H. Price
`Shannon H. Hedvat
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`jcaplan@kramerlevin.com
`jprice@kramerlevin.com
`shedvat@kramerlevin.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Ben J. Yorks
`Babak Redjaian
`David McPhie
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`byorks@irell.com
`bredjaian@irell.com
`dmcphie@irell.com
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
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
