`
`
`Paper 25
`Entered: October 1, 2019
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2018-00689
`Patent 6,993,084 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, STACEY G. WHITE, and
`MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00689
`Patent 6,993,084 B1
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Sirius XM Radio, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
`requesting inter partes review of claims 1–3, 6–12, 14–21, and 23 of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,993,084 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’3084 patent”). Fraunhofer-
`Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V (“Patent
`Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 7, “Prelim. Resp.”). With our
`authorization, Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response (Paper 8), and Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 10). We
`initially denied institution of inter partes review based on our findings as to
`whether Petitioner identified all real parties in interest. Paper 11. Petitioner
`filed a Request for Rehearing (Paper 12), and Patent Owner responded
`(Paper 16). We granted Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing. Paper 24.
`In this Decision, we determine whether to institute inter partes review
`on the merits. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be
`instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
`petition.” For the reasons that follow, we decline to institute an inter partes
`review of the challenged claims.
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. Related Proceedings
`The parties identify a federal district court case in which Patent
`Owner asserted the ’3084 patent against Petitioner. Pet. 4; Paper 4, 1.
`Petitioner additionally notes that it also has filed petitions for inter partes
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00689
`Patent 6,993,084 B1
`
`review of other patents that Patent Owner asserted against Petitioner in the
`district court case. Pet. 4.
`
`
`B. The ’3084 Patent
`The ’3084 patent describes a multicarrier modulation (MCM) system,
`which includes a transmitter that generates signals and a receiver that
`performs frame synchronization of those signals. Ex. 1001, 1:13–16, 2:3–8,
`9:9–34, Fig. 2. Frame synchronization refers to the process of determining
`the start of a frame of a signal. See id. at 1:59–62, 2:6–8, 4:62–5:37, 6:55–
`59; see also Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 66). The transmitter generates signals
`that have a frame structure, where each frame of the frame structure includes
`useful symbols, a guard interval associated with each useful symbol, and one
`reference symbol. Ex. 1001, 1:6–10, 9:18–34, Fig. 2. To illustrate, Figure 1
`of the ’3084 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 shows the frame structure of an MCM signal. Id. at 1:64–65, 8:57–
`58. One frame of the MCM signal includes multiple MCM symbols 10,
`each MCM symbol 10 having a useful symbol 12 and an associated guard
`interval 14. Id. at 1:65–2:1. The frame also includes one reference
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00689
`Patent 6,993,084 B1
`
`symbol 16, which the receiver uses to perform frame synchronization (i.e.,
`determine the start of a frame) of the MCM signal in order to extract the
`guard interval and thus the useful information bits. Id. at 1:37–62, 2:2–8.
`The ’3084 patent states that frame synchronization may “become very
`complex when the signal in the receiver is corrupted by a large frequency
`offset.” Id. at 3:48–51. To address this problem, the ’3084 patent provides
`its reference symbol in the form of an amplitude modulated sequence in the
`complex baseband, where the information contained in the reference symbol
`is information given in the amplitude, not information given in the phase.
`Id. at 7:6–11; see id. at 6:55–59 (“The present invention provides a novel
`structure of the reference symbol.”); id. at 9:10–14 (“At 100 a MCM
`transmitter is shown that substantially corresponds to a prior art MCM
`transmitter except for the kind of the reference symbol being added to each
`frame of a MCM signal.”). The ’3084 patent states that information given in
`the phase will be corrupted by any frequency offset. Id. at 7:11–12.
`Accordingly, to extract the useful information bits, the receiver performs an
`amplitude demodulation of the MCM signal “in order to generate an
`envelope, i.e. in order to determine the amplitude of the signal,” which “is
`correlated with a replica reference pattern in order to detect the signal
`reference pattern of the reference symbol in the signal” and thus the start of
`a frame. Id. at 6:55–59, 8:15–21.
`
`
`C. Challenged Claims
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–3, 6–12, 14–21, and 23 of the
`’3084 patent. Claims 1, 6, 9, and 18 are independent. Claims 1 and 9 are
`illustrative of the claims under challenge:
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00689
`Patent 6,993,084 B1
`
`
`1. A method for generating a signal having a frame structure,
`each frame of said frame structure comprising at least one useful
`symbol, a guard interval associated to said at least one useful
`symbol and a reference symbol, said method comprising the step
`of
`
`performing an amplitude modulation of a bit sequence, an
`envelope of the amplitude modulated bit sequence
`defining a reference pattern of said reference symbol; and
`inserting, in time domain, the reference symbol into said
`signal, wherein said reference symbol comprises a real
`part and an imaginary part, said real part and said
`imaginary part being equal and being formed by said
`amplitude modulated bit sequence.
`9. A method for frame synchronization of a signal having a
`frame structure, each frame of said frame structure comprising at
`least one useful symbol, a guard interval associated with said at
`least one useful symbol and a reference symbol, said reference
`symbol comprising a real part and an imaginary part, said real
`part and said imaginary part being equal and being formed by an
`amplitude modulated bit sequence, said method comprising the
`steps of
`receiving said signal;
`down-converting said received signal;
`in time domain, performing an amplitude-demodulation of
`said down-converted signal in order to generate an
`envelope;
`time domain, correlating said envelope with a
`predetermined reference pattern in order to detect a signal
`reference pattern of said reference symbol in said signal;
`and
`performing said frame synchronization based on the detection
`of said signal reference pattern.
`
`
`in
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00689
`Patent 6,993,084 B1
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–3, 6–12, 14–21, and 23 of the
`’3084 patent on the following grounds. Pet. 20–69.
`Claim(s)
`Statutory
`Reference(s)
`Challenged
`Basis
`1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 18
`§ 102
`1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 18
`§ 103
`
`Cimini1
`Cimini in combination with ADSL,2
`the knowledge of a person of
`ordinary skill in the art, or both
`Cimini and Palacherla3
`§ 103
`11, 20
`Cimini and Schmidl4
`§ 103
`3, 8, 10, 14, 19, 23
`Cimini and Spilker5
`§ 103
`12, 15, 21
`Cimini, Spilker, and Turin6
`§ 103
`16
`Cimini, Spilker, Turin, and Schmidl
`§ 103
`17
`In support of its arguments, Petitioner relies on a Declaration of Dr. David
`Lyon (Ex. 1002). Patent Owner submits with its Preliminary Response a
`Declaration of Dr. Michael Honig (Ex. 2003).
`
`
`
`1 Cimini et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,914,933, issued June 22, 1999 (Ex. 1003).
`2 Am. Nat’l Standards Inst., American National Standard for
`Telecommunications – Network and Customer Installation Interfaces –
`Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) Metallic Interface (ANSI
`T1.413-1995) (1995) (Ex. 1004, “ADSL”).
`3 Amarnath Palacherla, DSP-μP Routine Computes Magnitude, EDN,
`Oct. 26, 1989, at 225–226 (Ex. 1005).
`4 Schmidl et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,732,113, issued Mar. 24, 1998 (Ex. 1006).
`5 J. J. Spilker, Jr., Digital Communications by Satellite 456–471 (1977)
`(Ex. 1007).
`6 George L. Turin, Introduction to Spread-Spectrum Antimultipath
`Techniques and Their Application to Urban Digital Radio, 68 PROC. OF THE
`IEEE 328 (1980) (Ex. 1008).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00689
`Patent 6,993,084 B1
`
`
`E. Claim Construction
`The ’3084 patent expired on April 14, 2018, twenty years from its
`filing date of April 14, 1998. Ex. 1001, at code (22); see also Prelim.
`Resp. 32. For claims of an expired patent, the Board’s claim interpretation
`is similar to that of a district court. See In re Rambus Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46
`(Fed. Cir. 2012). “[T]he words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary
`and customary meaning . . . . that the term would have to a person of
`ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.’” Phillips v.
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “[T]he
`person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only
`in the context of the particular claim in which [it] appears, but in the context
`of the entire patent, including the specification.” Id. at 1313. A “claim
`construction that excludes [a] preferred embodiment [described in the
`specification] is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive
`evidentiary support.” Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co.,
`616 F.3d 1283, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). But “a claim
`construction must not import limitations from the specification into the
`claims.” Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Prods. Co., 717 F.3d 1336,
`1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`Patent Owner argues that the preambles of claims 1, 9, and 18 are
`limiting. Prelim. Resp. 33–34. Petitioner is silent on the issue. See
`generally Pet. 7. Neither party proposes a specific construction for any of
`the claim terms. Pet. 7; Prelim. Resp. 32–34. In light of the parties’
`arguments, we determine that no claim term requires express interpretation
`to resolve any controversy in this proceeding. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am.
`Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00689
`Patent 6,993,084 B1
`
`need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to
`resolve the controversy.”).
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`A. Real Parties in Interest
`Patent Owner contends that the Petition does not disclose all real
`parties in interest. Prelim. Resp. 4–28. This argument is not persuasive for
`the reasons given in our decision granting Petitioner’s rehearing request.
`See Paper 24.
`
`
`B. Anticipation by Cimini
`Petitioner asserts that Cimini anticipates claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, and 18 of
`the ’3084 patent. Pet. 20–45. Patent Owner responds that Cimini does not
`anticipate these claims because Cimini does not disclose the “amplitude
`modulation” limitations or the “amplitude-demodulation” limitations.
`Prelim. Resp. 34–40. For the reasons explained below, we are not persuaded
`that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this
`asserted ground.
`
`
`1. Cimini
`Cimini describes a clustered multicarrier wireless communication
`system, such as an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM)
`communication system, which includes a transmitter and a receiver.
`Ex. 1003, 1:10–12, 2:31–33, 2:63–65. To illustrate, Figures 1A and 1B are
`reproduced below.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00689
`Patent 6,993,084 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`Figures 1A and 1B are general block diagrams of transmitter 13 (Fig. 1A)
`and receiver 16 (Fig. 1B). Id. at 2:31–33. Transmitter 13 includes
`encoder 21, which produces multicarrier (multitone) signal 19 with NM
`symbols that is demultiplexed so that the signal is separated into M blocks
`(clusters), where each cluster is transmitted over a separate sub-channel. Id.
`at 3:2–8. Each sub-channel carries N tones. Id. at 3:8–9. The N tones in
`each of the M clusters are carrier modulated by RF mixer 52 and amplified
`by RF amplifier 57 for transmission over respective separate and
`independent antennas. Id. at 3:14–17, 4:51–56. This is further shown in
`Figure 2, which is reproduced below.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00689
`Patent 6,993,084 B1
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 is a detailed block diagram of transmitter 13. Id. at 2:34–36.
`An OFDM transmit block typically has an original N-point block, a
`cyclic prefix, and a guard interval block. Id. at 5:56–59. Additionally, a
`synchronization word is sent at the beginning of a packet, which has
`multiple OFDM symbols (blocks), so that the receiver can identify the start
`of the incoming packet of OFDM symbols. Id. at 5:66–67, 6:35–40. This is
`shown in Figure 3, which is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 3 is a block diagram of a single cluster of the transmitter. Id. at 2:37–
`38.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00689
`Patent 6,993,084 B1
`
`
`At receiver 16, a single antenna receives the signal transmitted by the
`clusters. Id. at 7:43–41, Figs. 1B, 5. To recover the data, receiver 16 uses a
`ROM table phase look-up table and associated phase detect circuitry so that
`the data is differentially phase detected. Id. at 7:46–56, Fig. 5 (detailed
`block diagram of receiver 16).
`
`
`2. Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7: “amplitude modulation”
`Independent claim 1 recites “performing an amplitude modulation of a
`bit sequence, an envelope of the amplitude modulated bit sequence defining
`a reference pattern of said reference symbol.” Independent claim 6 recites
`the same limitation. For both limitations, Petitioner relies on its discussion
`of claim 1. Pet. 26–27 (discussing claim 1); id. at 37 (referring to discussion
`of claim 1 for claim 6). Accordingly, we address both limitations together.
`Petitioner identifies Cimini’s SYNCH WORD as the recited “bit
`sequence.” Pet. 23. As support, Petitioner directs us to where Cimini
`teaches that a transmit cluster may include a synchronization word (i.e.,
`SYNCH WORD) that is sent at the beginning of a packet of OFDM symbols
`so that the receiver can identify the start of the incoming packet. Id. at 27
`(citing Ex. 1003, 6:35–44). Petitioner also directs us to where Cimini
`teaches that “[t]he OFDM multicarrier signal generated in each of the M
`clusters is . . . carrier modulated by RF mixer 52.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1003,
`4:51–56) (emphasis omitted). Relying on the declaration testimony of
`Dr. Lyon, Petitioner asserts that Cimini’s SYNCH WORD accordingly “is
`amplitude modulated by RF mixer 52.” Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 121).
`Petitioner further points to Figure 2 of Cimini and asserts that the SYNCH
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00689
`Patent 6,993,084 B1
`
`WORD is specifically “amplitude modulated by the complex carrier
`waveform ej2xfet (at element 52).” Id. at 26.
`In response, Patent Owner argues that “Cimini does not state that the
`RF mixer 52 modulates the amplitude of the SYNCH WORD” or that “the
`SYNCH WORD is amplitude modulated” at all. Prelim. Resp. 35–36.
`Patent Owner adds that “there is no disclosure in Cimini that the RF
`mixer 52 modulates any amplitude, let alone any amplitude associated with
`the SYNCH WORD.” Id. at 35.
`We agree with Patent Owner. Our reviewing court has explained that,
`“[t]o anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every limitation
`of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber,
`128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “Inherency, however, may not be
`established by probabilities or possibilities.” Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d
`212, 214 (CCPA 1939). “The mere fact that a certain thing may result from
`a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” Id. In this case, Petitioner
`does not sufficiently show that Cimini discloses, either explicitly or
`inherently, that the amplitude of the SYNCH WORD is modulated.
`As discussed above, Petitioner cites Cimini’s teaching that the
`multicarrier signal in each cluster (which may include a SYNCH WORD) is
`“carrier modulated” by RF mixer 52. Pet. 27; Ex. 1001, 4:51–56, Fig. 3.
`This is not persuasive evidence that Cimini’s SYNCH WORD is amplitude
`modulated. For instance, Dr. Lyon testifies in his declaration that there are
`various forms of modulation, where “[t]wo of the more common forms of
`modulation are amplitude modulation and phase modulation.” Ex. 1002
`¶ 47 (citing Ex. 1022, 12). Another form of modulation is frequency
`modulation. Ex. 1022, 12. Petitioner does not point us to any express
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00689
`Patent 6,993,084 B1
`
`teaching in Cimini that the multicarrier signal in each cluster is amplitude
`modulated. Nor do we discern such express teaching in Cimini. Moreover,
`neither Petitioner nor Dr. Lyon explains persuasively why “carrier
`modulated” in Cimini necessarily means amplitude modulated as opposed to
`phase modulated or frequency modulated.
`We note Petitioner’s assertion that the SYNCH WORD is “amplitude
`modulated by the complex carrier waveform ej2xfet (at element 52)” in
`Figure 2 of Cimini. See Pet. 26. Again, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Lyon
`explains persuasively why “the complex carrier waveform ej2xfet” shows that
`the multicarrier signal in Cimini is necessarily amplitude modulated.
`In view of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not shown
`sufficiently for purposes of institution that Cimini discloses the “amplitude
`modulation” limitations recited in claims 1 and 6. Accordingly, Petitioner
`has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing that Cimini
`anticipates claims 1 and 6. As claims 2 and 7 depend respectively from
`claims 1 and 6, Petitioner also has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood
`of showing that Cimini anticipates these dependent claims.
`
`
`3. Claims 9 and 18: “amplitude-demodulation”
`Independent claim 9 recites “performing an amplitude-demodulation
`of said down-converted signal in order to generate an envelope.”
`Independent claim 18 similarly recites “performing an amplitude-
`demodulation of said down-converted multi-carrier modulated signal in
`order to generate an envelope.” Petitioner relies on its discussion of claim 9
`for both limitations. Pet. 41 (discussion of claim 9); id. at 43 (referring to
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00689
`Patent 6,993,084 B1
`
`discussion of claim 9 for claim 18). Accordingly, we address both
`limitations together.
`Petitioner contends that the recited “amplitude-demodulation” in
`claims 9 and 18 are “essentially the reverse” of the recited “amplitude
`modulation” in claims 1 and 6. Pet. 41. According to Petitioner, “Cimini
`teaches that the receiver produces a local version of the SYNCH WORD
`signal pattern as it was retrieved from the channel as a prerequisite to
`performing a correlation,” and that “[t]his is accomplished by amplitude
`demodulating the signal – effectively reversing the complex modulation step
`performed in Cimini at element 52 in the transmitter.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001,
`Figs. 2–3). Petitioner relies on the declaration testimony of Dr. Lyon. Id.
`(citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 153–154).
`In response, Patent Owner argues that, “[w]hile independent claims 9
`and 18 recite ‘amplitude-demodulation’ – which takes place at a receiver –
`rather than ‘amplitude modulation’ – which takes place at a transmitter – the
`analysis is the same because Cimini fails to disclose or teach amplitude
`modulation or amplitude demodulation.” Prelim. Resp. 37.
`We agree with Patent Owner. As discussed above, we determine that
`Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Cimini discloses the “amplitude
`modulation” limitations recited in claims 1 and 6. For the same reasons, we
`determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Cimini discloses the
`“amplitude-demodulation” limitations recited in claims 9 and 18. In
`particular, Petitioner does not point us to any express teaching in Cimini that
`the multicarrier signal in each cluster is amplitude modulated or amplitude
`demodulated. Nor do we discern such express teachings in Cimini. Further,
`neither Petitioner nor Dr. Lyon explains persuasively why “carrier
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00689
`Patent 6,993,084 B1
`
`modulated” in Cimini necessarily means amplitude modulated (or “the
`reverse” of amplitude demodulated) as opposed to phase modulated or
`frequency modulated. Lastly, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Lyon explains
`persuasively why “the complex carrier waveform ej2xfet” shows that the
`multicarrier signal in Cimini is necessarily amplitude modulated or
`amplitude demodulated.
`In view of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not shown
`sufficiently that Cimini discloses the “amplitude-demodulation” limitations
`recited in claims 9 and 18. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of showing that Cimini anticipates claims 9 and 18.
`
`C. Obviousness over Cimini in Combination with ADSL, the Knowledge of a
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art, or Both
`Petitioner alternatively asserts that claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, and 18 would
`have been obvious over Cimini in combination with ADSL, the knowledge
`of a person of ordinary skill in the art, or both. Pet. 46–50 (heading that
`reads “Cimini in View of ADSL and/or the Knowledge of a [Person of
`Ordinary Skill in the Art] Render Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, and 18 Obvious”)
`(emphasis omitted). Patent Owner traverses this ground, relying on its
`arguments with respect to anticipation by Cimini. Prelim. Resp. 40–41. For
`the reasons explained below, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this asserted
`obviousness ground.
`As discussed above with respect to Petitioner’s asserted anticipation
`ground, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Cimini
`discloses the recited “amplitude modulation” and “amplitude-demodulation”
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00689
`Patent 6,993,084 B1
`
`limitations. Petitioner’s alternative arguments and evidence with respect to
`its asserted obviousness ground based on Cimini, ADSL, and the knowledge
`of a person of ordinary skill in the art do not remedy these deficiencies. For
`instance, Petitioner asserts that ADSL teaches “building a frame
`(superframe) incorporating multiple MCM symbols (DMT frames
`incorporating guard intervals) and also inserting in time a reference symbol
`(‘Synch symbol’),” and contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would
`have been motivated to look to the ADSL specification for a detailed
`technical explanation of how to construct the packet disclosed in Cimini,
`including how to insert a synch symbol into an information signal.” Pet. 48–
`49. Petitioner also asserts that ADSL teaches that “the same synchronization
`symbol allows the OFDM receiver to adjust its automatic gain control
`(AGC) because the reference symbol’s magnitude (mean amplitude) is
`representative of all the O[FD]M symbols, similar to the ’3084 Patent’s
`requirement that ‘a mean amplitude of said reference symbol substantially
`corresponds to a mean amplitude of the remaining signal.’” Id. at 49–50.
`Petitioner does not assert that ADSL teaches amplitude modulation or
`amplitude demodulation at all, let alone amplitude modulation or amplitude
`demodulation of ADSL’s Synch symbol. See id. at 46–50. Nor does
`Petitioner explain why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered
`modifying Cimini’s system to incorporate amplitude modulation or
`amplitude demodulation in view of ADSL’s teachings. See In re Kahn, 441
`F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]here must be some articulated reasoning
`with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
`obviousness.”).
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00689
`Patent 6,993,084 B1
`
`
`Petitioner also does not explain why an ordinarily skilled artisan
`would have considered modifying Cimini’s system to incorporate amplitude
`modulation or amplitude demodulation in view of his or her knowledge.
`Based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has not
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing that claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9,
`and 18 would have been obvious over Cimini in combination with ADSL,
`the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art, or both.
`
`
`D. Obviousness over Cimini and Palacherla
`Petitioner asserts that claims 11 and 20 of the ’3084 patent would
`have been obvious over Cimini and Palacherla. Pet. 50–51. Patent Owner
`traverses this ground, relying on its arguments with respect to anticipation
`by Cimini. Prelim. Resp. 41. For the reasons explained below, we are not
`persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing on this asserted obviousness ground.
`Claim 11 depends from claim 9 and recites that “the step of
`performing said amplitude-demodulation comprises the step of calculating
`an amplitude of said signal using the alphamax+ betamin– method.” Claim 20,
`which depends from claim 18, recites a similar limitation. For both
`limitations, Petitioner relies on the ’3084 patent’s acknowledgment that
`Palacherla teaches this recited method, and contends that combining
`Palacherla with Cimini “would have been a well-understood implementation
`choice to any [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Id. at 50–51.
`As discussed above with respect to Petitioner’s asserted anticipation
`ground, however, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently
`that Cimini discloses the “amplitude-demodulation” limitations recited in
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00689
`Patent 6,993,084 B1
`
`claims 9 and 18. Although Palacherla’s method may provide
`implementation details for carrying out amplitude demodulation, Petitioner
`still has not shown sufficiently that Cimini discloses amplitude
`demodulation. Nor has Petitioner explained sufficiently why an ordinarily
`skilled artisan would have considered modifying Cimini’s system to
`incorporate Palacherla’s method when Cimini has not been shown to
`disclose amplitude demodulation.
`In view of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing that claims 11 and 20
`would have been obvious over Cimini and Palacherla.
`
`
`E. Obviousness over Cimini and Schmidl
`Petitioner asserts that claims 3, 8, 10, 14, 19, and 23 of the
`’3084 patent would have been obvious over Cimini and Schmidl. Pet. 51–
`60. Patent Owner traverses this ground, relying on its arguments with
`respect to anticipation by Cimini. Prelim. Resp. 41. For the reasons
`explained below, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this asserted obviousness ground.
`Claims 3, 8, 10, 14, 19, and 23 depend from claims 1, 6, 9, or 18. As
`discussed above with respect to Petitioner’s asserted anticipation ground, we
`determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Cimini discloses the
`“amplitude modulation” limitations recited in claims 1 and 6 or the
`“amplitude-demodulation” limitations recited in claims 9 and 18.
`Petitioner’s arguments and evidence regarding dependent claims 3, 8, 10, 14,
`19, and 23 do not remedy those deficiencies.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00689
`Patent 6,993,084 B1
`
`
`For instance, claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites that “said
`amplitude modulation is performed such that a mean amplitude of said
`reference symbol substantially corresponds to a mean amplitude of the
`remaining signal.” Claim 8, which depends from claim 6, recites a similar
`limitation. For both limitations, Petitioner asserts that “Schmidl teaches that,
`after amplitude modulation to create the reference symbol, the mean
`amplitude of the reference symbol (which is mathematically proportional to
`the square root of the signal power) must be maintained across the remaining
`signal (held constant for each symbol in the entire data frame).” Pet. 51–52.
`Petitioner further contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have
`looked to Schmidl which provides details about the requirements for
`designing the reference symbol so that its power (related to the square of
`mean amplitude) could be used to set automatic gain control (AGC) in the
`receiver as known in the art.” Id. at 52. Petitioner does not rely on Schmidl
`for teaching amplitude modulation. Nor does Petitioner explain sufficiently
`why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered modifying Cimini’s
`system to incorporate amplitude modulation in view of Schmidl’s teachings.
`Claim 10 depends from claim 9 and recites “performing a fast
`automatic gain control of said received down-converted signal prior to the
`step of performing said amplitude-demodulation.” Claim 19 depends from
`claim 18 and recites a similar limitation. For both limitations, Petitioner
`asserts that “Schmidl teaches that the mean amplitude of the reference
`symbol can be used to drive a fast automatic gain control loop in the
`receiver.” Id. at 55. Petitioner further contends that an ordinarily skilled
`artisan “would have been motivated to combine Schmidl with Cimini
`because Schmidl discloses known techniques for implementing automatic
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00689
`Patent 6,993,084 B1
`
`gain control for OFDM signals that utilize reference signals” and “would
`look to Schmidl for its disclosure of how to perform that automatic gain
`control.” Id. Petitioner does not rely on Schmidl for teaching amplitude
`demodulation. Nor does Petitioner explain why an ordinarily skilled artisan
`would have modified Cimini’s system to incorporate amplitude
`demodulation in view of Schmidl’s teachings.
`Claim 14 depends from claim 9 and recites “applying a result of the
`frame synchronization for a frame in said signal to at least one subsequent
`frame in said signal.” Claim 23 depends from claim 18 and recites a similar
`limitation. For both limitations, Petitioner asserts that “Schmidl makes clear
`that the disclosed synchronization techniques can be applied so that only
`initial acquisition and correction are required to maintain system
`synchronization even though arbitrarily large amounts of data in multiple
`frames can be sent after initial training and acquisition using the first
`reference symbol.” Id. at 58. Petitioner further contends that an ordinarily
`skilled artisan “would have been motivated to apply the techniques of
`Schmidl to reduce signal processing overhead and power consumption,
`which are goals of Schmidl and Cimini.” Id. Petitioner does not rely on
`Schmidl for teaching amplitude demodulation. Nor does Petitioner explain
`why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered modifying Cimini’s
`system to incorporate amplitude demodulation in view of Schmidl’s
`teachings.
`On this record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of showing that claims 3, 8, 10, 14, 19, and 23 would
`have been obvious over Cimini and Schmidl.
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00689
`Patent 6,993,084 B1
`
`
`F. Obviousness over Cimini and Spilker
`Petitioner asserts that claims 12, 15, and 21 of the ’3084 patent would
`have been obvious over Cimini and Spilker. Pet. 60–64. Patent Owner
`traverses this ground, relying on its arguments with respect to anticipation
`by Cimini. Prelim. Resp. 41. For the reasons explained below, we are not
`persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing on this asserted obviousness ground.
`Claims 12, 15, and 21 depend from claims 9 or 18. As discussed
`above with respect to Petitioner’s asserted anticipation ground, we determine
`that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Cimini discloses the
`“amplitude-demodulation” limitations recited in claims 9 and 18.
`Petitioner’s arguments and evidence regarding dependent claims 12, 15, and
`21 do not remedy those deficiencies.
`For instance, claim 12 depends from claim 9 and recites “sampling
`respective amplitudes of said received down-converted signal and
`comparing said sampled amplitudes with a predetermined threshold in order
`to generate a bit sequence in order to perform said amplitude demodulation.”
`Claim 21 depends from claim 18 and recites a similar limitation. For both
`limitations, Petitioner asserts:
`A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would understand that
`Spilker teaches that effecting frame synchronization in a system
`that utilizes a reference symbol (‘L-bit code word . . . used for
`the frame sync word’) involves sampling the down-converted
`signal and comparing to a predetermined threshold to generate a
`bit sequence for the amplitude
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
