`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`___________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`10757807
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
`I.
`THE ’289 PATENT ...................................................................................... 3
`II.
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ................................................................. 7
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 8
`A.
`Preambles are Limiting for Claims 10, 13, 27 and 31 ....................... 8
`B.
`“delay means for delaying the second portion of output bits
`transmitted via the second channel” (Claims 1 and 5) ..................... 10
`“delay means for delaying the portion of bits received via
`one channel to compensate for a delay imposed on the
`portion of bits received via the other channel” (Claim 11) .............. 11
`“means for transmitting the output bits of the first portion via
`a first channel and the output bits of the second portion via a
`second channel” (Claim 2) ............................................................... 11
`“receiving means for receiving the first portion of bits via a
`first channel and the second portion of bits via a second
`channel” (Claims 10 and 13) ............................................................ 12
`“depuncturing means for compensating for a puncturing
`operation in a transmitter” (Claim 13) ............................................. 12
`THE PETITION’S PROPOSED GROUNDS DO NOT RENDER
`OBVIOUS THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS.............................................. 13
`A. Description of the Prior Art .............................................................. 13
`1.
`Chen (Ex. 1004) ..................................................................... 13
`2.
`Campanella (Ex. 1005) .......................................................... 16
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`V.
`
`10757807
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`Page
`
`3.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`GROUND 1: PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO
`DEMONSTRATE OBVIOUSNESS BASED ON CHEN IN
`VIEW OF CAMPANELLA ............................................................. 18
`1.
`Campanella Is Not Prior Art .................................................. 18
`2.
`Neither Chen Nor Campanella Discloses the Claimed
`“Partitioner” ........................................................................... 25
`Combining Chen and Campanella Would Not Yield
`Two Signals Coded In A “Different Way” ............................ 29
`Dependent Claims 7 and 24 ................................................... 44
`4.
`GROUNDS 2 & 3: PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO
`DEMONSTRATE ANTICIPATION OR OBVIOUSNESS
`BASED ON SMALLCOMB ............................................................ 48
`VI. FORMAL DEFICIENCIES OF THE PETITION ...................................... 49
`A.
`SXM Holdings is a Real Party-In-Interest ....................................... 49
`B.
`Failure To Name All Real Parties-In-Interest .................................. 56
`C.
`Failure To File Within The Statutory Bar Period ............................ 63
`VII. CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES ...................................................... 66
`VIII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 69
`
`
`10757807
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Adello Biologics LLC v. Amgen Inc.,
`PGR2019-00001, Paper 11 (Feb. 14, 2019) ........................................... 57, 61, 62
`Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp.,
`897 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 60
`Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`No. 2018-2140, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Oct. 31, 2019) .............................................. 67
`In re Baird,
`16 F.3d 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .............................................................................. 47
`Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp.,
`732 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 42
`Catalina Marketing International, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 10
`Cultec, Inc. v. Stormtech LLC,
`IPR2017-00526, Paper 14 (Jul. 17, 2017) .................................................... 65, 66
`Dynamic Drinkware LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 49
`Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp.,
`323 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 8
`Edmond v. United States,
`520 U.S. 651 (1997) ............................................................................................ 67
`Galderma S.A. v. Allergan Industrie, SAS,
`IPR2014-01422, Paper No. 14 ...................................................................... 53, 54
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 42
`
`10757807
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V. v. Cardiac Operating Co.,
`590 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 61
`In re Kubin,
`561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 46
`Landgraf v. USI Film Prods.,
`511 U.S. 244 (1994) ............................................................................................ 69
`Lucia v. SEC,
`138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018) ........................................................................................ 67
`Marrin v. Griffin,
`599 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 9
`Masterimage 3D, Inc. v. RealD Inc.,
`IPR2015-00035, Paper 79 (Apr. 20, 2016) ......................................................... 48
`McClurg v. Kingsland,
`42 U.S. (1 How.) 202 (1843) .............................................................................. 68
`Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co.,
`848 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 46
`In re Nuvasive, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 43
`Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene’s Energy Grp., LLC,
`138 S. Ct. 1365 (2018) ........................................................................................ 68
`Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`182 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 8
`Plas-Pak Indus., Inc.v. Sulzer Mixpac AG,
`600 Fed.Appx. 755 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................. 41, 47
`Polaris Industries, Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 42
`
`10757807
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Proppant Express Investments, LLC v. Oren Techs., LLC,
`IPR2017-01917, Paper 86 (Feb. 13, 2019) ..................................................passim
`Richmond Screw Anchor Co. v. United States,
`275 U.S. 331 (1928) ............................................................................................ 68
`SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu,
`138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) ........................................................................................ 68
`Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S.,
`393 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 62
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. MonoSol Rx, LLC,
`IPR2016-00281, Paper No. 21 (May 23, 2016) .................................................. 65
`Univ. of Maryland Biotech. Inst. v. Presens Precision Sensing GmbH,
`711 Fed.Appx. 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................... 41, 47
`Welch v. Henry,
`305 U.S. 134 (1938) ............................................................................................ 69
`Zoll Lifecor v. Philips Electronics North America Corp. et al.,
`IPR2013-00606, Paper No. 13 ............................................................................ 50
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 2(b) ....................................................................................................... 61
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ............................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 103(c) ................................................................................................... 49
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a) ................................................................................................... 63
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ....................................................................................... 59, 63, 64
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e) ............................................................................................. 59, 62
`35 U.S.C. § 317(b) ................................................................................................... 58
`
`10757807
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 371 ........................................................................................................ 20
`35 U.S.C. § 371(c) ....................................................................................... 19, 23, 24
`Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) ..................................................... 61, 62, 63
`American Inventor’s Protection Act (“AIPA”) ....................................................... 19
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 ............................................................. 68
`Rules and Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 5 ...................................................................................................... 62, 63
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20 ..................................................................................................... 58
`37 C.F.R. § 42.62 ..................................................................................................... 64
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71 ............................................................................................... 58, 62
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ............................................................................................. 65, 66
`37 C.F.R. § 42.106 ................................................................................................... 63
`F.R.E. 603 ................................................................................................................ 64
`Other Authorities
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) .........................................passim
`U.S. Const. amend. V ......................................................................................... 67, 69
`
`10757807
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit Description
`Executed Summons to Sirius XM Radio Inc., attaching
`Complaint for Patent Infringement, Dated February 22,
`2017
`Fraunhofer Complaint for Patent Infringement against
`Defendant Sirius XM Radio Inc., Filed February 22, 2017
`PTAB E2E Search Result for AIA Review Number:
`IPR2016-00690, https://ptab.uspto.gov/#/login (search
`“AIA Review #” for “IPR2016-00690”) (retrieved June 6,
`2018)
`PTAB E2E Search Result for AIA Review Number:
`IPR2016-00690, https://ptab.uspto.gov/#/login (search
`“AIA Review #” for “IPR2016-00690”) (retrieved April 18,
`2018)
`Sirius XM Holdings Inc., SEC Form 10-K for the year
`ended December 31, 2017, Filed January 31, 2018
`Sirius XM Holdings Inc., SEC Form 8-K, November 14,
`2013
`Pandora Media, Inc., SEC Schedule 13D, September 22,
`2017
`Pandora Media, Inc., SEC Joint Filing Agreement (Exhibit
`A) to Schedule 13D, September 22, 2017
`Sirius XM Holdings Inc., SEC Form 8-K, January 11, 2018
`Sirius XM Holdings Inc., Exhibit 10.1 to SEC Form 8-K,
`January 10, 2018 (Meyer Employment Agreement)
`Sirius XM Holdings Inc., SEC Form 8-K, January 14, 2014
`Sirius XM Holdings Inc., Exhibit 10.1 to SEC Form 8-K,
`January 10, 2014 (Donnelly Employment Agreement)
`Sirius XM Holdings Inc., SEC Form 10-K for the year
`ended December 31, 2016, Filed February 2, 2017
`Defendant Sirius XM Radio Inc.’s Corporate Disclosure
`Statement Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of
`Civil Procedure, April 25, 2017
`
`- vii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fraunhofer
`Ex.
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`2010
`
`2011
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`10757807
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`Exhibit Description
`Erik Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 12-cv-0418-
`AJB (S.D. Cal.), First Amended Class Action Complaint
`for Damages, Filed May 29, 2015
`Francis W. Hooker v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 4:13-cv-3
`(E.D. Va.), Class Complaint, Filed January 4, 2013
`Yefim Elikman v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. and Career
`Horizons, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-02093 (N.D. Ill.), Second
`Amended Class Action Complaint, Filed April 1, 2015
`Anthony Parker v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 8:15-cv-
`01710-JSM-EAJ (M.D. Fla), Class Action Complaint, Filed
`July 22, 2015
`Francis W. Hooker et al. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 4:13-
`cv-3 (E.D. Va.), Final Order Approving Settlement and
`Certifying the Settlement Class, Filed December 22, 2016
`Corporate Overview for Sirius XM Satellite Radio,
`retrieved from https://www.siriusxm.com/corporate?
`intcmp=GN_FOOTER_NEW_AboutSiriusXM_Corp on
`June 29, 2018
`Sirius XM Holdings Inc. Common Stock (SIRI) Real-Time
`Stock Quote, NASDAQ.com, retrieved from
`https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/siri/real-time on June 29,
`2018
`Sirius XM Holdings Wikipedia Page, retrieved from
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius_XM_Holdings
`SIRI – Sirius XM Holdings Inc. Company Profile –
`CNNMoney.com, retrieved from https://money.cnn.com/
`quote/profile/profile.html?symb=SIRI on July 2, 2018
`Sirius XM Holdings Inc. (SIRI) Stock is Still Slipping,
`May 2, 2017, retrieved from https://investorplace.com
`/2017/05/sirius-xm-siri-stock-slipping/ on July 2, 2018
`Verizon to Buy Gogo? ‘Not so Fast,’ Macquarie Says,
`August 27, 2014, retrieved from
`https://finance.yahoo.com/news/verizon-buy-gogo-not-fast-
`151154614.html on July 2, 2018
`Global Interactive Media, Inc. v. Sirius XM Holdings Inc.,
`1:16-cv-06379-JGK (N.D. of Ill.), Complaint Filed June 30,
`2016
`
`- viii -
`
`
`
`
`
`Fraunhofer
`Ex.
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`
`2026
`
`10757807
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Fraunhofer
`Ex.
`2027
`
`2028
`
`2029
`
`2030
`2031
`
`2032
`
`2033
`
`2034
`2035
`
`2036
`
`2037
`
`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`Exhibit Description
`Aug. 31, 2016 Letter from Mark A. Baghdassarian to Court
`in Global Interactive Media, Inc. v. Sirius XM Holdings
`Inc., 1:16-cv-06379-JGK (N.D. of Ill.)
`December 8, 2016 Stipulated Dismissal With Prejudice in
`Global Interactive Media, Inc. v. Sirius XM Holdings Inc.,
`1:16-cv-06379-JGK (N.D. of Ill.)
`Written Statement of David J. Frear, Chief Financial
`Officer, Sirius XM Holdings Inc. Before the U.S. House of
`Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee
`on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, Hearing
`on Music Licensing Under Title 17, June 25, 2014
`Patrick Donnelly Emails
`Sirius XM Holdings Inc. (SIRI) Company Profile, Reuters,
`retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/finance/
`stocks/company-profile/SIRI.OQ on July 5, 2018
`LinkedIn Profile for Sirius XM Holdings Inc., retrieved
`from https://www.linkedin.com/company/sirius-xm-radio-
`inc./ on July 5, 2018
`Revised Joint Claim Construction Chart, Fraunhofer-
`Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Angewandten Forschung
`E.V. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., Case No. 17-cv-184-JFB-
`SRF, Dkt. 112 (D. Del. Feb. 9, 2018).
`Technology License Agreement, July 24, 1998.
`Email from Caplan to Fraunhofer counsel stating Sirius’
`intent to request permission from Board to file Replies to
`Patent Owner Preliminary Responses in IPR Nos. 2018-
`00681 and 2018-00682 (June 14, 2018).
`Email from Hedvat to Fraunhofer counsel stating Sirius’
`intent to request permission from Board to file Reply to
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response in IPR Nos. 2018-
`00689 and 2018-00690 (July 13, 2018)
`Email from Caplan to Board requesting conference call to
`address issues in IPR Nos. 2018-00681 and 2018-00682
`(June 20, 2018)
`
`10757807
`
`
`
`- ix -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`Exhibit Description
`Email from Hedvat to Board requesting permission to file
`Replies to Patent Owner Preliminary Responses in IPR
`Nos. 2018-00689 and 2018-00690 (July 19, 2018)
`Email from Caplan to Board requesting authorization to
`submit a Notice of Supplemental Authority/argument
`regarding Google decision in IPR Nos. 2018-00681, 2018-
`00682, 2018-00689 and 2018-00690 (December 7, 2018)
`Email from Price to Board notifying Panel of Supplemental
`Authority-ZTE decision (February 7, 2019)
`Email from Caplan to Board notifying Panel of Proppant
`and Adello precedential decisions (April 22, 2019)
`Declaration of Wayne E. Stark, Ph.D.
`Pre-APIA Statute 35 U.S.C. § 102
`File History of Application No. 09/647,007
`MPEP – Chapter 2100 (Section 2136 excerpted), Revision
`08.2017, January 2018, available from (PDF version):
`https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-
`2100.pdf
`available from (web version):
`https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2136.html
`MPEP – Chapter 2100 (Section 2136 excerpted), Revision
`1, Feb. 2000, available from (PDF version):
`https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/old/E7R1_21
`00.pdf
`MPEP – Chapter 0700 (Section 706.02(f)(1) excerpted),
`Revision 08.2017, January 2018, available from (PDF
`version):
`https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-
`0700.pdf
`Pre-APIA Statute 35 U.S.C. § 371
`Wireless Multimedia Communications, Ellen Kayata
`Wesel, 1998 (Excerpted)
`
`Fraunhofer
`Ex.
`2038
`
`2039
`
`2040
`
`2041
`
`2042
`2043
`2044
`2045
`
`2046
`
`2047
`
`2048
`2049
`
`10757807
`
`- x -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE
`Petitioner Sirius XM Radio Inc. did not submit a statement of material facts
`
`in this Petition. Accordingly, no response is due pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a),
`
`and no facts are admitted.
`
`
`
`10757807
`
`
`
`- xi -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The proposed grounds of unpatentability presented in the Petition fail for
`
`numerous reasons and should be rejected in their entirety.
`
`As an initial matter, all three of the proposed grounds are defective as they
`
`rely on references that do not qualify as prior art. For example, Petitioner’s first
`
`proposed ground is based on a combination with Campanella (Ex. 1005), which
`
`Petitioner asserts is prior art to the ’289 patent based on pre-AIA § 102(e). Paper 1
`
`[Petition] at 19. However, in making this assertion, Petitioner mistakenly relies on
`
`the international (PCT) filing date of Campanella (July 10, 1998), contrary to well-
`
`established law and practice as outlined in pre-AIPA § 102(e) and the MPEP. See
`
`Ex. 2043 [pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)] at 1; Ex. 2045 [MPEP § 2136.03] at 10
`
`(international filing date applies for prior art purposes if, among other things, the
`
`international application has a filing date “on or after November 29, 2000”). A
`
`proper analysis demonstrates that Campanella is not prior art as its actual § 102(e)
`
`date is after the critical date of the ’289 patent. Similarly, Petitioner’s second and
`
`third grounds rely on Smallcomb (Ex. 1003), which the Board already observed
`
`was not properly shown to qualify as prior art. Paper 29 [ID] at 26 (“the Petition
`
`does not sufficiently show that the Smallcomb patent is prior art to the ’289
`
`patent”). Thus, because all of the proposed grounds rely on references that are not
`
`prior art, Petitioner cannot succeed on any of them.
`
`10757807
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Moreover, Petitioner’s arguments regarding unpatentability over these
`
`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`references are also substantively meritless in a number of respects. The vast
`
`majority of the Petition is focused on an alleged obviousness combination of Chen
`
`(Ex. 1004) and Campanella (Ex. 1005), yet these references fail to disclose—either
`
`alone or in combination—multiple critical features of the ’289 patent claims.
`
`For example, claims of the ’289 patent describe an innovative system
`
`(including a “partitioner”) for separating, encoding, and transmitting data in two
`
`different signals in a satellite radio system. Ex. 1001 [’289 patent] at Figs. 1-4,
`
`7:54-59, 9:31-34; see, e.g., claim 1 (“partitioner for partitioning the second number
`
`of output bits into the two portions of output bits”; “the first portion of output bits
`
`being coded based on the bitstream in a different way with respect to the second
`
`portion”).
`
`However, neither Chen nor Campanella discloses this approach as claimed.
`
`Petitioner points to the upper and lower sidebands of Chen but fails to recognize
`
`that these are merely components of the same host signal and never get partitioned
`
`into different signals for transmission over separate channels. And combining with
`
`Campanella does not cure this deficiency, as Campanella merely teaches sending
`
`the same signal over one or two satellites with a possible time difference. See
`
`Campanella at 6:40-43 (“[T]ime diversity achieved by repeating a satellite signal
`
`from a single satellite 12 or 16, or by transmitting a signal from two satellites 12
`
`10757807
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`and 16 with the properly selected time difference, further enhances the reception
`
`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`availability.”) (emphasis added).
`
`Thus, combining Chen with Campanella would at most result in a system
`
`having identical, unpartitioned output bitstreams that are repeated over multiple
`
`channels. This is precisely the sort of inefficient, power-wasting approach that the
`
`’289 patent distinguished and successfully improved upon. Petitioner’s
`
`obviousness arguments therefore fail for multiple reasons.
`
`Finally, the Petition further suffers from a number of serious procedural
`
`irregularities, including Petitioner’s failure to satisfy the statutory requirements
`
`regarding payment and disclosure of real parties-in-interest, as well as meaningful
`
`constitutional defects.
`
`In summary, Patent Owner submits that Petitioner’s proposed grounds of
`
`unpatentability should be rejected in their entirety.
`
`II. THE ’289 PATENT
`The ’289 patent has a priority date of December 3, 1998 and is entitled,
`
`“Apparatus and Method for Transmitting Information and Apparatus and Method
`
`for Receiving Information.” By way of example, the systems disclosed in the ’289
`
`patent can be a satellite system that provides information to a moving vehicle such
`
`as a car (e.g., satellite radio). As described in the ’289 patent, use of such satellite
`
`systems may present challenges in urban areas that contain buildings such as
`
`10757807
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`skyscrapers that interfere with the transmitted signal. Ex. 1001 [’289 patent] at
`
`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`1:13-26; Ex. 2042 [Stark Decl.] at ¶ 12.
`
`Figure 7 of the ’289 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`The system includes two transmitters, 66a and 66b, that can be two satellites
`
`transmitting information on two different channels. Id. at 2:23-36. The satellites
`
`receive information from the same source 62. Id. at 2:28-39. The satellites are
`
`located at different positions so that, if a car is in an urban area, the possibility of
`
`the vehicle receiving information from at least one satellite is increased. Id. at
`
`2:37-44. The system may also include a delay stage for the second channel that
`
`delays in time the information transmitted over this channel. Id. at 2:31-32; Ex.
`
`2042 [Stark Decl.] at ¶ 13.
`
`In the illustrated configuration, a duplicator 67 is used for duplicating the
`
`output of the source to both transmitters so that the same information is transmitted
`
`10757807
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`over both channels to ensure redundancy. Id. at 2:2:28-30. The receiver includes a
`
`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`decision device 79 that decides which signal to use from channel 1 or channel 2.
`
`The decision is based on the channel with the better signal to noise ratio. Id.at
`
`2:63-7:5. When the decision device switches to one channel, the other channel is
`
`discarded and the power associated with transmitting over that channel is wasted.
`
`Id. at 4:21-33; Ex. 2042 [Stark Decl.] at ¶ 14.
`
`The ’289 patent discloses apparatuses and methods that provide better
`
`receiver signal quality and reduced transmission power. Id. at 4:36-40. Power is
`
`reduced by partitioning the transmission output into subsets and then separately
`
`transmitting each subset over each channel. Id. at 4:41-61. The system includes an
`
`encoding/decoding scheme that allows the original information to be recaptured
`
`even if reception from one of the channels is totally faded. Id. at 7:36-45; Ex. 2042
`
`[Stark Decl.] at ¶ 15.
`
`An exemplary embodiment is shown in Fig. 3 of the ’289 patent, which is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`10757807
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`The system includes a convolutional encoder that encodes at a rate of 1/3.
`
`This means that for every single input bit there are 3 output bits from the encoder.
`
`This is shown in the following portion of Fig. 4, reproduced below, wherein three
`
`input bits 401, 402 and 403 are encoded into 3 sets 411, 412 and 413, respectively,
`
`with each set including three output bits. Id. at 9:5-11; Ex. 2042 [Stark Decl.] at
`
`¶ 17.
`
`10757807
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`

`

`The middle bit X is punctured or removed and the remaining bits are
`
`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`partitioned into two output bit streams, as shown below. Id. at 9:11-26; Ex. 2042
`
`[Stark Decl.] at ¶ 18.
`
`
`
`The bits labeled E (early) are transmitted over the first channel and the bits
`
`labeled L (late) are transmitted over the second channel. The original bits 401,
`
`402, 403 can be recaptured with either the E bits or the L bits. Thus, if one channel
`
`is totally faded the original bits can be recovered from the other channel
`
`individually. The ’289 patent further provides a specific exemplary set of
`
`convulational polynomials that operate effectively with the disclosed puncturing
`
`scheme. Id. at 11:60-12:6. The ’289 patent’s systems and methods thus reduce the
`
`number of bits, and corresponding transmission power, required for each channel
`
`of the transmission system, while allowing for recovery of the original input bits
`
`even if one channel is lost. Ex. 2042 [Stark Decl.] at ¶ 19.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`Patent Owner submits that the person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)
`
`at the time of the invention of the ’289 patent would have a bachelor of science
`
`10757807
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`degree in Electrical Engineering or equivalent and three or more years of industry
`
`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`experience (or equivalent in education and/or research) in wireless
`
`communications systems such as satellite communication systems. Ex. 2042
`
`[Stark Decl.] at ¶ 20-21.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`Preambles are Limiting for Claims 10, 13, 27 and 31
`The preambles of claims 10, 13, 27 and 31 should be considered limiting.
`
`As an initial matter, it should be noted that Petitioner agreed during concurrent
`
`litigation proceedings over the ’289 patent that the preambles of claims 10, 13, 27
`
`and 31 are limiting. Ex. 2033 [Joint CC Chart] at 2.
`
`Furthermore, the preambles provide antecedent basis for at least the
`
`following terms that appear in the claim bodies: “encoded bitstream,”
`
`“redundancy,” “first portion of bits,” and “second portion of bits.” See also Paper
`
`1 [Petition] at 10 (table showing recitation of claim elements in preambles of
`
`claims 10, 13, 27 and 31). Preambles are deemed limiting as a necessary part of
`
`the claim where limitations in the body of the claim “rely upon and derive
`
`antecedent basis from the preamble.” Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323
`
`F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`A preamble will also limit claim scope when it recites essential structure or
`
`is otherwise essential to understand limitations or terms in the claim body. Pitney
`
`10757807
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The
`
`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`preambles of claims 10, 13, 27 and 31 recite elements that appear, for example, in
`
`the abstract and summary of the invention, frequently in conjunction with
`
`characterizations of the “present invention.” Marrin v. Griffin, 599 F.3d 1290,
`
`1299 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[T]he preamble in this case is more than a mere statement
`
`of purpose or use, for the specification’s description of the invention . . . require[s]
`
`the features set forth in the preamble . . . .”). For example, the summary of the
`
`invention recites “a second aspect of the present invention” including,
`
`[I]nformation being represented by an encoded bitstream, the encoded
`bitstream being encoded such that its redundancy is at least doubled
`with respect to a bitstream from which the encoded bitstream is
`derived, and that, for a first number of bits of the bitstream, the
`encoded bitstream comprises a second number of bits, the second
`number of bits having at least twice as many bits as the first number,
`and wherein the second number of bits includes two portions of bits,
`each portion of bits individually allowing the retrieval of information
`represented by the first number of bits, and the first portion of the bits
`being encoded in a different way with respect to the second portion of
`bits.
`Ex. 1001 [’289 patent] at 4:64-5:8. This same language appears, virtually
`
`verbatim, in the claim preambles.
`
`Moreover, Applicant exhibited clear reliance in the prosecution history on
`
`10757807
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`elements recited in these preambles to distinguish prior art. Ex. 1011 [’289 File
`
`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`History Excerpts] at 114-15 (noting “differences” between prior art and claimed
`
`subject matter, including, “a redundancy adding encoder … which has a code rate
`
`equal or less than 0.5” and “partitioning the second number of output bits into two
`
`portions of input bits”); Catalina Marketing International, Inc. v.
`
`Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[C]lear reliance on the
`
`preamble during prosecution to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art
`
`transforms the preamble into a claim limitation because such reliance indicates use
`
`of the preamble to define, in part, the claimed invention.”).
`
`Because the limitations recited by the preambles of claims 10, 13, 27 and 31
`
`provide antecedent basis for elements in the bodies of the claims, are specifically
`
`identified with the invention in the specification, and were relied upon to
`
`distinguish prior art in the prosecution history, they should be deemed limiting in
`
`this proceeding.
`
`B.
`
`“delay means for delaying the second portion of output bits
`transmitted via the second channel” (Claims 1 and 5)
`Function: Delaying the second portion of output bits transmitted via the
`
`second channel.
`
`Structure: A delay stage.
`
`Support: See, e.g., Ex. 1001 [’289 patent] at 2:45-62, 8:1-11, 8:25-45, 8:65-
`
`10757807
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`9:4, 9:13-17, 9:59-61, 12:66-13:4, Figs. 1-3, 5 and 7.
`
`The parties agree on the construction of this term.
`
`IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`C.
`
`“delay means for delaying the portion of bits received via one
`channel to compensate for a delay imposed on the portion of bits
`received via the other channel” (Claim 11)
`Function: Delaying the portion of bits received via one