`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`HTC CORPORATION AND HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`ZTE (USA) INC.,
`Petitioners
`v.
`
`INVT SPE LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01473
`U.S. Patent No. 6,611,676
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. Preliminary Statement .............................................................................. 1
`II. Factual Background of the ’676 Patent ................................................... 3
`A. State of the art at the time of invention .................................................. 3
`B. Overview of the ’676 Patent .................................................................... 8
`III. Claim Construction .................................................................................12
`IV. Only Ground 1, Relating to Remaining Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11, is
`Reviewable in this Proceeding. .....................................................................13
`V. The Petition’s Asserted Ground 1 ..........................................................15
`A. Overview of Keskitalo (Ex. 1004) ..........................................................15
`B. Overview of Lindell (Ex. 1005) .............................................................18
`C. The Petition fails to show obviousness of the Challenged Claims based
`on Ground 1, which relies on Keskitalo and Lindell. .................................19
`1. Keskitalo and Lindell, either alone or in combination, fail to
`disclose all elements of the Challenged Claims. ....................................21
`i. All Challenged Claims requires a “rate changing means for
`changing a transmission rate according to the comparison result.”
`
`22
`ii. Keskitalo does not teach a “rate change circuitry that changes a
`transmission rate.” ...............................................................................23
`iii. Lindell does not remedy Keskitalo’s shortcomings. ...................26
`a. Lindell’s power disabling circuitry is a switch or “fuse,” not a
`“rate change circuitry.” ....................................................................26
`b. Lindell teaches limiting the transmission power, not changing
`the transmission rate. ........................................................................29
`2. The Petition fails to provide an “articulated reasoning with some
`rational underpinning” for why a POSITA would have been
`motivated to combine Keskitalo with Lindell. ......................................30
`i. Keskitalo teaches away from using Lindell for comparing
`average value with the allowable transmission power value. ...........31
`ii. The Petition has not shown that a POSITA would expect success
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676
`
`
`
`in making the combination. .................................................................32
`iii. The Petition has not shown that combining Keskitalo and
`Lindell would further the references’ objectives. ..............................35
`iv. The Petition’s proposed combination does not achieve the
`claimed invention. .................................................................................37
`v. The Petition’s motivation to combine arguments contain
`unsupported and conclusory statements. ...........................................38
`VI. Conclusion .............................................................................................41
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`544 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................. 20
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................. 41
`Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`754 F.3d 952 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 40
`Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc.,
`381 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................ 20, 39
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................................................ 2, 20, 21
`Facebook, Inc. v. SKKY, LLC,
`CBM2016-00091, Paper 12 (PTAB Sept. 28, 2017) .................................. 13
`Gambro Lundia AB v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.,
`110 F.3d 1573, 1578-79 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ................................................... 20
`Gen. Elec. Co. v. TAS Energy Inc.,
`IPR2014-00163, Paper 11 (PTAB May 13, 2014) ..................................... 39
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966) .................................................................................. 20
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................ 37, 39
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F. 3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................. 20
`In re Rambus, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 42 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................ 12, 13
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676
`
`
`In re Royka,
`490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974) ................................................................ 20
`Intuitive Surgical, Inc., v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.,
`IPR2018-00938, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 8, 2018) ......................................... 14
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007) ................................................................................ 20
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .............................................................................. 37, 39
`Microsoft Corp. v. Enfish, LLC,
`662 F. App’x 981 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................. 39
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................. 13
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................ 12, 13
`Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Coulter, Inc.,
`411 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................. 40
`Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co.,
`357 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .............................................................. 3, 40
`SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu.
`138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) ................................................................................ 14
`Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp.,
`81 F.3d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .................................................................... 40
`Star Sci., Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
`655 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................. 20
`Vectra Fitness, Inc. v. TNWK Corp.,
`162 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ........................................................ 13
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.120 ............................................................................................. 1
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676
`Patent 6,611,676
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.207 ..................................................................................... 13, 14
`37 C.F.R. § 42.207 ..................................................................................... 13, 14
`37 C.F.R. § 42.207(e) ......................................................................................... 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.207(e) ......................................................................................... 2
`§ 253(a) ............................................................................................................ 13
`§ 253(a) ............................................................................................................ 13
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`Vi
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit Description
`2006
`Supplemental Declaration of Branimir Vojcic
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676
`
`I. Preliminary Statement
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.120, INVT SPE LLC (“Patent Owner”) submits
`
`the following Response regarding this inter partes review instituted against U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,611,676 (“the ’676 patent”). Because, as set forth below, Petitioners
`
`Apple Inc. (“Apple”), HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. (“HTC”), and
`
`ZTE (USA) Inc. (“ZTE”) (collectively, “Petitioners”) have not met their burden of
`
`proof, and because Patent Owner presents the Board with facts that demonstrate
`
`the patentability of the challenged claims, the claims must be confirmed.
`
`The ’676 patent discloses and claims a novel radio communication apparatus
`
`and transmission rate control method “capable of controlling transmission power
`
`of a base station directed to a mobile station appropriately” without being
`
`negatively impacted by the environment of the mobile station or the transmission
`
`rate. Ex. 1001 at 1:60-64. The technology in the ’676 patent solved a critical
`
`problem in the prior art, which used transmission power control to optimize
`
`transmission signal quality (i.e., increasing transmission power in response to
`
`signal deterioration), but sometime produced undesirable results due to other
`
`variables in the environment of the mobile station. Evidence and argument
`
`presented by Petitioners fall short of showing that any of the challenged claims of
`
`the ’676 patent are invalid over any the asserted grounds.
`
`As a preliminary matter, Petitioners requested review of claims 1-11 of the
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676
`
`’676 patent. Paper 1 (“Pet.”). The Board instituted review as to all claims. INVT
`
`disclaimed claims 4 and 10 of the ’676 patent. 1 These claims are therefore treated
`
`as if they never existed and are not properly part of this proceeding. Accordingly,
`
`Ground 2 of the Petition, exclusively addressing the disclaimed claims, is rendered
`
`moot. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.207(e). This Patent Owner’s Response only substantively
`
`addresses Ground 1 of the Petition, applicable to the remaining claims 1-3, 5-9,
`
`and 11 (the “Challenged Claims”) of the ’676 patent. Pet. at 6.
`
`Ground 1 relies on combining a PCT application by Keskitalo et al.
`
`(“Keskitalo”) with a U.S. Patent to Lindell (“Lindell”). With respect to Ground 1,
`
`however, Petitioners have failed to identify any portions of Keskitalo or Lindell
`
`that disclose a “rate change circuitry that changes a transmission rate according to
`
`the comparison result in said comparison circuity.” Thus, Petitioners have failed to
`
`demonstrate the relevant claims are unpatentable as obvious, where obviousness
`
`“requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim.” CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l
`
`Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`The Petition also fails to provide an adequate motivation to combine where
`
`Keskitalo and Lindell have markedly different purposes and contextual uses.
`
`Specifically, Keskitalo relates to reducing transmission interference and increasing
`
`
`1 See Ex. 2005.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676
`
`communication quality, while Lindell relates to limiting an end user’s exposure to
`
`harmful radiation emitted during data transmission. As explained in detail below, a
`
`POSITA would not look to combine references with such disparate focuses. The
`
`Petition does not explain why a POSITA would look to the radiated power
`
`exposure invention of Lindell to modify and improve the quality of communication
`
`in Keskitalo.
`
`Indeed, Petitioners’ suggested motivation to modify or combine disparate
`
`elements in the prior art lacks any support in the record and is driven by
`
`impermissible hindsight and must be rejected. See Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357
`
`F.3d 1270, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (This form of hindsight reasoning, using the
`
`invention as a roadmap to find its prior art components, would discount the value
`
`of combining various existing features or principles in a new way to achieve a new
`
`result - often the very definition of invention.”)
`
`For each of these reasons, Petitioners fail to meet their burden of showing
`
`unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence. Accordingly, the Board should find the claims of the ’676 patent to be
`
`unobvious and patentable.
`
`II.
`
`Factual Background of the ’676 Patent
`
`A. State of the art at the time of invention
`
`The ’676 patent, which was originally applied for and obtained by Panasonic
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676
`
`Corporation, relates to wireless telecommunications systems. Ex. 1001 at 1:9-11.
`
`At a high level, such systems are comprised of three main components: base
`
`stations, user equipment (“UE”),2 and cells. UE can refer to cellular phones, tablet
`
`computers, smartwatches, or other devices that allow users to communicate across
`
`a network. UEs connect to and communicate through base stations, where the
`
`geographic coverage of a given base station in turn defines a “cell.”
`
`
`
`Exemplary Cellular Communications System
`
`In such systems, communication quality, including the quality of the
`
`transmission “signal,” depends on numerous factors including transmission rate,
`
`transmission power, and transmission interference. “Transmission rate” refers to
`
`the rate at which data is processed by the radio communication system, measured
`
`
`2 The ’676 patent refers to UEs as “mobile stations” or communication terminal
`
`apparatuses.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 1:62; 2:12.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676
`
`by bits per second, or bitrate. “Transmission power” refers to the strength of the
`
`transmission signal, measured by decibels or dB. Generally, transmission rate
`
`changes proportionally with transmission power.
`
`There are two exceptions to this general rule. One exception is that
`
`transmission rate will increase with transmission power until the transmission rate
`
`reaches a maximum limit. The other exception, as explained in further detail
`
`below, occurs when changes in other variables allow a system to change the
`
`transmission power and maintain the same transmission rate.
`
`One such other variable is “transmission interference,” which refers to
`
`undesired signals, separate from the useful signal, which modify or disrupt a useful
`
`signal as it travels along a channel between a UE and a base station. Interference
`
`can also occur where the transmissions to and/or from multiple UEs conflict with
`
`each other. Ex. 1001 at 1:46-56.
`
`As alluded to above, when a transmission rate remains constant, altering
`
`transmission power directly affects both the useful signal strength and interference
`
`levels. When transmission power increases, the signal strength of the entire
`
`transmission signal increases, including both transmission interference and the
`
`useful signal. Similarly, reducing transmission power reduces the entire signal
`
`strength of the transmission signal. Id. When transmission power remains constant,
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676
`
`transmission signal strength is proportional to the transmission rate.3
`
`As explained by the ’676 patent, traditionally, the base station responded to
`
`interference by regulating transmission power, and not the transmission rate.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 1:41-45. The base station regulated transmission power based on two
`
`variables: “reception” signal-to-interference ratio (SIR) and “target” SIR. Id. at
`
`1:41-46. SIR is the quotient between the average received modulated carrier power
`
`and the average received co-channel interference power, i.e. cross-talk, from other
`
`transmitters than the useful signal. Ex. 2002 (Vojcic Decl.) at ¶ 22. When the
`
`reception SIR was less than the target SIR, the UE sent a command to the base
`
`station to increase transmission power. When the reception SIR was greater than
`
`the target SIR, the UE sent a command to the base station to decrease transmission
`
`power. Ex. 1001 at 1:26-32.
`
`This traditional response in the prior art to changes in interference levels,
`
`however, has undesirable effects. Such undesirable effects stem from the fact that
`
`
`3 In information theory, the Shannon–Hartley theorem provides the maximum rate
`
`at which information can be transmitted over a communications channel of a
`
`specified bandwidth in the presence of noise. Thus, for a given bandwidth,
`
`adjusting the transmission rate to the allowed maximum rate can optimize the
`
`useful signal strength and not increase the noise. Ex. 2001 at 10-11.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676
`
`while reception SIR is often a function of reception quality and the change in
`
`transmission power, as measured by the UE, reception SIR sometimes decreases
`
`due to factors other than reception quality and transmission power. Id. at 1:23-26;
`
`1:41-45. One such example is fading, which is the variation of the attenuation of a
`
`signal with various variables. Id. at 1:47-49; Ex. 2002 (Vojcic Decl.) at ¶ 24.
`
`Similarly, while target SIR is generally a function of the mobile station’s
`
`environment, largely based on the Frame Error Rate (FER) measured by the base
`
`station, similar to reception SIR, the target SIR sometimes increases due to factors
`
`other than the FER, such as the transmission rate. Ex. 1001 at 1:46-49.
`
`The diagram below exemplifies the iterative process of the traditional
`
`approach, based on the description of the prior art in the ’676 patent:
`
`Ex. 2002 (Vojcic Decl.) at ¶ 25.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676
`
`
`Using this prior art approach shown in the above diagram could result in the
`
`UE signaling the base station to increase transmission power when it is actually
`
`quite undesirable to do so. For example, when the reception SIR decreases due to
`
`fading, and the target SIR increases due to transmission rate, the mobile station
`
`will instruct the base station to “considerably increase” the transmission power to
`
`bring the two SIR variables closer. Ex 1001 at 1:50-55. This increase in
`
`transmission power is “likely to increase interference with other mobile stations to
`
`an intolerable degree.” Id. As a result, all mobile stations in a similar geographic
`
`area will experience decreased performance. Ex. 2002 (Vojcic Decl.) at ¶ 23.
`
`B. Overview of the ’676 Patent
`
`The ’676 patent teaches a novel solution to these problems wherein the UE’s
`
`“transmission rate” is increased or decreased based on a comparison of an average
`
`“transmission power” measurement to a predetermined power threshold, as
`
`compared to pin-point measurements and adjustments in the prior art, thereby
`
`allowing the apparatus to more effectively and efficiently respond to negative
`
`effects from the surrounding environment (e.g. interference). Ex. 1001 at 1:59-64;
`
`16:21-38.
`
`Of the Challenged Claims, claims 1, 6, 7 are independent, with claims 2-5
`
`dependent from claim 1, and claims 8-11 dependent from claim 7. Claim 7 is
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676
`
`illustrative of claims 1 and 6, with claim 7 reading as follows4:
`
`7. A radio communication apparatus having radio transmission circuitry and
`
`radio reception circuitry, said apparatus comprising:
`
`a transmission power controller that increases or decreases
`
`transmission power of said transmission circuitry according to
`
`transmission power control information received by said reception
`
`circuitry;
`
`average transmission power calculation circuitry that calculates an
`
`average value of the transmission power of said transmission
`
`circuitry;
`
`allowable transmission power holder circuitry that holds a
`
`predetermined allowable transmission power value;
`
`comparison circuitry that compares the average value with the
`
`allowable transmission [p]ower value; and
`
`rate change circuitry that changes a transmission rate according to the
`
`comparison result in said comparison circuitry.
`
`
`4 Claims 1, 6, and 7 have the same substantive claim elements, wherein claim 1 is
`
`written in means plus function terms, claim 6 is a method claim, and claim 7 is a
`
`standard apparatus claim. Ex. 1001 at 15:30-16:61.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676
`
`Ex. 1001 at 16:22-38.
`
`The ’676 patent solves the problems in the prior art by adjusting the
`
`transmission rate (instead of the transmission power) based on a set of instructions
`
`executed by a comparison circuitry. Specifically, the comparison circuitry
`
`compares the average transmission power value to a threshold transmission power
`
`value. Based on this comparison, the transmission rate is adjusted so that the
`
`transmission power value moves to a desired level. Id. at 1:65-2:4; 15:43-44
`
`(Claim 1); 16:20-21 (Claim 6); 16:34-35 (Claim 7).5
`
`All independent claims (and therefore dependent claims) require this feature:
`
`Claim 1
`
`“rate changing means for changing a transmission rate according to
`
`the comparison result in said comparing means” Id. at 15: 45-47.
`
`Claim 6
`
`“changing a transmission rate according to the comparison result”
`
`Id. at 16:20-21.
`
`
`5 The specification also describes several other benchmark signals for comparisons
`
`that trigger the claimed rate change. The use of these benchmarks makes the circuit
`
`configuration simplest and allows the use in an environment free of inference
`
`signals. Ex. 1001 at 4:12-14. For example, transmission power can also be
`
`expressed via an SIR value.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676
`
`
`Claim 7
`
`“rate change circuitry that changes a transmission rate according to
`
`the comparison result in said comparison circuitry” Id. at 36-38.
`
`As noted above, the ’676 patent discloses a method for the base station to
`
`estimate the average transmission power from the TPC signal and use the
`
`estimated transmission power value as the benchmark. Id. at 11:31-36. The ’676
`
`patent summarizes this process in the flow charts below:
`
`
`
`
`
`Operation of the transmission rate
`controller when reception quality is
`poor
`
`Operation of the transmission rate
`controller when reception quality is
`good
`
`Ex. 1001 at Fig. 24, Fig 26.
`
`There are multiple benefits to the approach claimed by the ’676 patent, as
`
`compared to the prior art. First, reducing the transmission rate without changing
`
`the transmission power allows for the optimal or fastest transmission as long as the
`
`inference with others is within the allowable range set by the base station. Id. at
`
`11:53-55. Thus, the invention makes it possible to improve the reception quality of
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676
`
`a UE even if the condition of the communication path deteriorates drastically and
`
`not increase the level of interference with others. Id. at 7:16-25. Second, the use of
`
`the TPC signal—information already reported by the UE—for channel estimation
`
`reduces the need for additional control information. Id. at 10:37-41.
`
` In sum, the ’676 patent provides improved overall system capacity that
`
`enables each UE to transmit successfully at data rates that could not be achieved
`
`without the invention, while still staying below a max transmission rate set by the
`
`base station. Ex. 2002 (Vojcic Decl.) at ¶ 26.
`
`III. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review of an expired patent, “the Board’s review of the
`
`claims . . . is similar to that of a district court’s review.” In re Rambus, Inc., 694
`
`F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Under this standard, claim terms are given their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning, as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, at the time of the invention, taking into consideration the language of the
`
`claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`Because the ’676 patent expired on April 19, 2017, before the filing date of
`
`the Petition, the Board should apply the plain and ordinary meaning of any claim
`
`terms for the ’676 patent under the law. Broadest reasonable interpretation or BRI
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676
`
`is not applicable in this proceeding, to the extent different from the standard set
`
`forth in Phillips. See In re Rambus, Inc., at 46; see also Phillips, at 1312-13.
`
`The Petition advances numerous claim constructions. Pet. at 8-11. However,
`
`it is not necessary for the Board to construe any terms in this proceeding because,
`
`as shown below, construction is not necessary to resolve the controversy. See
`
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 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.”)
`
`IV. Only Ground 1, Relating to Remaining Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11, is
`Reviewable in this Proceeding.
`
`When a patent owner files a statutory disclaimer with its preliminary
`
`response, “no post-grant review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.” 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.207. “The Federal Circuit has held consistently that claims disclaimed
`
`under § 253(a) should be treated as though they never existed.” Facebook, Inc. v.
`
`SKKY, LLC, CBM2016-00091, Paper 12, at 8 (PTAB Sept. 28, 2017) (expanded
`
`panel) (precedential) (concluding disclaimed claims may not be considered in post-
`
`grant proceedings) (citing Vectra Fitness, Inc. v. TNWK Corp., 162 F.3d 1379,
`
`1383 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
`
`On November 16, 2018, Patent Owner disclaimed claims 4 and 10 of the
`
`’676 patent. A copy of the disclaimer filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676
`
`Office can be found at Exhibit 2005. Accordingly, inter partes review cannot be
`
`instituted based on those claims.6
`
`Not only is it true that “no post-grant review [should][] be instituted based
`
`on disclaimed claims,” (37 C.F.R. § 42.207), it is also true that disclaimed claims
`
`can never be part of an inter partes review, even in light of SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu.
`
`138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) See Intuitive Surgical, Inc., v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.,
`
`IPR2018-00938, Paper 8, at 8 (PTAB Dec. 8, 2018) (finding that holding in SAS
`
`that institution may not be granted on less than all claims challenged in a petition
`
`does not mandate institution on disclaimed claims which are treated as if they
`
`never existed.)
`
` In Intuitive Surgical, Inc., the Board expressly excluded disclaimed claims
`
`from IPR proceeding because it found “those claims were never part of the ‘874
`
`patent, [thus] Petitioner cannot seek inter partes review of those claims,” in
`
`accordance with Federal Circuit precedent and PTAB rules. Id. Like in Facebook,
`
`Inc., and Intuitive Surgical, Inc., the claims Patent Owner disclaimed prior to
`
`institution of this IPR may not be considered for review by this Board in the inter
`
`partes review proceeding. See id.
`
`
`6 The Board in its Order instituting this IPR included all of the disclaimed claims in
`
`the scope of this review. See Paper 10 at 35.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676
`
`
`Accordingly, Ground 2, as advanced by Petitioners, addressing the
`
`disclaimed claims of the ’676 patent, is rendered moot. As a result, this Patent
`
`Owner’s Response substantively addresses only Ground 1, relating to the
`
`remaining non-disclaimed claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11.
`
`V. The Petition’s Asserted Ground 1
`
`The Petition fails to demonstrate unpatentability of the Challenged Claims
`
`based on Ground 1, which relies on combining a PCT application by Keskitalo et
`
`al. (“Keskitalo”) with a U.S. Patent to Lindell (“Lindell”). Specifically, the Petition
`
`does not identify any portions in Keskitalo or Lindell that disclose a “rate change
`
`circuitry that changes a transmission rate according to the comparison result in said
`
`comparison circuity.” The Petition also fails to provide a supported motivation to
`
`combine.
`
`A. Overview of Keskitalo (Ex. 1004)
`
`Keskitalo is a patent application titled “method of increasing signal quality
`
`by adjusting the spreading ratio in a CDMA cellular radio system” published under
`
`the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). Ex. 1004 at 1. As discussed below in detail,
`
`in the context of the ’676 patent and Keskitalo, power variations are on the scale of
`
`milliseconds (ms). Ex. 2002 (Vojcic Decl.) at ¶¶ 31-32.
`
`In CDMA, the narrow-band data signal of the user is modulated by a
`
`pseudorandom sequence called the spreading code, having a broader band than the
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676
`
`data signal. Ex. 1004 at 1:29-32. The bit rate of the spreading code is much higher
`
`than that of the data signal. Id. at 2:1-4. The ratio between the bit rate of the
`
`spreading code and the bit rate of the data signal is called the spreading ratio. Id. at
`
`2:7-9. Keskitalo generally relates to changing the transmission rate by adjusting the
`
`spreading ratio “on the basis of signal quality” or “when the quality of the
`
`connection is not adequate.” Id. at 4:18-23; 6:8-12; 7:23-28; 10:13-17.
`
`The PCT application itself, however, only discloses changing the spreading
`
`ratio in response to three factors:
`
`(1) signal-to-noise ratio measured from the signal received at the base
`
`station,
`
`(2) bit error rate calculated from the signal received at the base station, and
`
`(3) signal power measured from the signal received at the base station.
`
`Id. at 11:3-20. Keskitalo, however, does not teach how or when the spreading ratio
`
`is adjusted, as required by the ’676 patent. Indeed, Keskitalo’s specification
`
`discloses two simplified diagrams of the radio transmitter and receiver. Id. at 6:17-
`
`21. The input signal is multiplied and filtered as it moves through the different
`
`circuitries so that the output signal has the desired spreading ratio. Id. at 6:22-7:30.
`
`The spreading code, highlighted in the two diagrams below, serves as the
`
`multiplier that would result in a change in transmission rate. Id. at 6:25-27.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676
`
`
`
`Input and output signals from the simplified transmitter diagram
`
`
`Input and output signals from the simplified recevier diagram
`
`
`Ex. 1004 at Fig. 2, Fig. 3.
`
`Importantly, Keskitalo does not teach what triggers the change in the
`
`spreading code and when that change occurs. Although Keskitalo mentions that
`
`“the base station may use a standard for the quality of the connection,” Keskitalo
`
`does not explain the relationship, if any, between that standard and the spreading
`
`code. Id. at 6:13-16. Keskitalo also suggests that the mobile station can alter the
`
`spreading ratio “if the quality of the connection…is not adequate,” but omits the
`
`steps of how the system determines the adequacy of the quality. Id. at 7:23-28.
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676
`
`B. Overview of Lindell (Ex. 1005)
`
`In light of the deficiencies in Keskitalo, the Petition relies on Lindell in
`
`relation to the elements of the Challenged Claims that relate to adjusting a
`
`transmission rate in response to a comparison between an actual value and an
`
`average value. Pet. at 28-30. Lindell is a U.S. patent titled “Averaged RF Exposure
`
`Control.” Ex. 1005 at 1. Lindell relates to a technology for disabling transmission
`
`to “assur[e] that the average RF-exposure levels from radio transmitters . . . do not
`
`exceed a predetermined level” over extended periods of time, e.g. “6 or 30
`
`minutes.” Ex. 1005 at 1:1-10 and 1:37-38.
`
`As explained in Lindell, in the years before the Lindell patent was applied
`
`for, there had been an “increasing concern over the environmental effects of radio
`
`frequency [RF] radiation.” Id. at 1:11-12. In response, multiple standards setting
`
`bodies such as the IEEE “adopted new standards for RF exposure” for mobile
`
`devices such as UEs. Id. at 12-32. These standards were designed to protect UE
`
`users from exposure to too much RF radiation, and as such set maximum amounts
`
`of radiation users could be exposed to over certain time periods, “e.g. 6 or 30
`
`minutes.” Id.
`
`In response to those then-recently adopted standards, Lindell claimed an
`
`invention that ensures that a transmitter does not exceed the “Maximum
`
`Permissible Exposure” (MPE) over the permitted av