IPR2018-01474
`U.S. Patent 7,206,587
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`ZTE(USA) INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`INVT SPE LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`
`Case No. 2018-01474
`U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,206,587
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,206,587
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`ZTE(USA) INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`INVT SPE LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`
`Case No. 2018-01474
`U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,206,587
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. SUMMARY OF THE ’587 PATENT ........................................................... 1
`A. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALLEGED INVENTION OF THE ’587 PATENT ..................... 1
`B. SUMMARY OF THE PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE ’587 PATENT ..................... 3
`C. LEVEL OF SKILL OF A PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................ 6
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104 .................................................................................................................... 6
`A. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A) ................................. 6
`B. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) AND RELIEF
`REQUESTED ............................................................................................................ 6
`C. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3) ................................ 8
`IV. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ’587 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE 8
`A. GROUND 1: BENDER IN VIEW OF JARVINEN RENDERS CLAIM 3 OBVIOUS ............ 8
`B. GROUND 2: BENDER IN VIEW OF PIRET RENDERS CLAIM 4 OBVIOUS .............. 23
`V. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 31
`VI. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ..................... 32
`A. REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST ............................................................................ 32
`B. RELATED MATTERS ....................................................................................... 32
`C. LEAD AND BACK-UP COUNSEL ..................................................................... 33
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners Apple Inc. and ZTE (USA) Inc. (collectively “Petitioners”)
`
`request an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims 3 and 4 (collectively, the
`
`“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587 (“the ’587 Patent”). ’587
`
`Patent (Ex. 1001).
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’587 PATENT
`A. Description of the alleged invention of the ’587 Patent
`
`The ’587 Patent generally describes a “cellular communication system” in
`
`which channel/reception quality between a base station and handset is measured by
`
`the handset and reported back to the base station as a means of selecting an
`
`efficient “transmission rate . . . according to the downlink channel quality.” ’587
`
`Patent (Ex. 1001) at 1:9-26. The handset “estimates the downlink channel quality”
`
`as a CIR (desired carrier to interference ratio) value and “transmits the result to the
`
`base station.” Id. at 1:30-41.
`
`The ’587 Patent notes that feedback signals can be “represented by numbers
`
`from 1 to N, with a higher number indicating a proportionally better downlink
`
`channel quality.” Id. at 1:53-56. But there is a risk that communications will slow
`
`or cease if the communication mode selected by the handset is not properly
`
`interpreted by the base station. Id. at 2:14-22 (“[I]f the communication mode
`
`determined by a communication terminal is received erroneously by the base
`
`
`
` 1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`station due to deterioration of the channel conditions . . ., the base station will
`
`transmit data using that erroneous mode” such that “the communication terminal
`
`cannot demodulate or decode the data.”).
`
`To prevent such communication breakdowns, the ’587 Patent discloses
`
`methods for providing channel quality feedback that is less susceptible to errors. In
`
`an embodiment relevant to the Challenged Claims, the ’587 Patent teaches that the
`
`CIR value can be represented by a plurality of digits/bits including an upper digit
`
`and a lower digit, e.g., 8.7 dB—where “8” is the upper digit and “7” is the lower
`
`digit. Id. at 19:34-58. A key premise of the ’587 Patent’s proposed solution is that
`
`it is more important to accurately convey the upper digit than the lower digit. For
`
`example, misinterpreting 8.7 as 8.6 is a much less impactful than misinterpreting
`
`8.7 as 9.7. Singer Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶¶ 56-58.
`
`Accordingly, in one embodiment, the ’587 Patent proposes encoding the
`
`upper digit with more bits than the lower digit to create a longer code length for the
`
`upper digit comparatively to the lower digit. Id. at 20:33-67 (“The 6-bit coding
`
`section 1203 converts the value output from the upper digit information generation
`
`section 1201 (here, ‘8’) to a 6-bit code word” and the “4-bit coding section 1204
`
`converts the value output from the lower digit information generation section 1202
`
`(here, ‘7’) to a 4-bit code word.”). As the ’587 Patent explains, “a code word
`
`represented by 6 bits is less susceptible to being mistaken for another code word
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`than a code word represented by 4 bits. That is to say, in this embodiment, the
`
`value of the upper digit of a CIR value is less susceptible to errors.” Id. at 21:15-
`
`20.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the prosecution history of the ’587 Patent
`
`The application that resulted in the ‘587 Patent was filed on Dec. 18, 2002 as
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 10/321,623 (“the ’623 Application”). ’587 Patent (Ex.
`
`1001). The ‘623 Application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`10/089,605 (“the ’605 Application”), which issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,760,590
`
`(“the ’590 Patent”). Id. The PCT application that resulted in the ’590 Patent was
`
`filed on April 2, 2001 as PCT/JP01/06654. ’590 Patent (Ex. 1001). The ’590
`
`Patent and ’587 Patent claim priority to two separate Japanese priority filings—
`
`JP2000-234420 (“the ’430 Application”), dated Aug. 2, 2000, and JP2000-285405
`
`(“the ’405 Application”), dated Sep. 20, 2000. Id. All prior art references relied
`
`on by Petitioners in this Petition are prior art regardless of which Japanese priority
`
`filing Patent Owner is entitled, if either. To the extent Patent Owner attempts to
`
`swear behind any prior art reference on the basis of one or more priority filings,
`
`Petitioners may demonstrate the priority filings fail to support the Challenged
`
`Claims.
`
`After a number of Office Actions and a Restriction Requirement, only four
`
`claims ultimately issued in the ’587 Patent. The relevant portion of the prosecution
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`history pertinent to these surviving claims is summarized below.
`
`A first Office Action issued on April 22, 2004, which rejected then-pending
`
`Claims 1-3, 8-10, 14, 16 and 18-20 and objected to the remaining claims as being
`
`dependent upon a rejected base claim, but otherwise allowable. ’587 Patent File
`
`History (Ex. 1002) at 244-49. On October 22, 2004, the Applicant cancelled all
`
`original Claims 1-20, proposed new claims 21-29, and alleged that the newly
`
`proposed claims incorporated subject matter the Examiner previously deemed
`
`allowable. Id. at 386-93.
`
`Applicant’s characterization was not accurate—proposed claims 25 and 28,
`
`which ultimately issued as the Challenged Claims, did not recite subject matter
`
`deemed allowable by the Examiner. For example, the Applicant alleged, “Claim 25
`
`recites features of [rejected original] claim 1 and allowable [original] claim 11.” Id.
`
`at 392. But newly proposed claim 25 recites “a code word whose length is
`
`proportional the digit’s degree of significance,” which is different than original
`
`claim 11’s recitation of “a code word whose length is proportional to a value of an
`
`upper digit.” Id. at 221, 389. Similarly, the Applicant alleged, “Claim 28 recites
`
`features of [rejected original] claim 10 and features generic to the allowable
`
`subject matter of [original] claims 11-13.” It is unclear what Applicant might have
`
`meant by this representation, but a review of original claims 11-13 reveals that the
`
`subject matter of newly proposed claim 28 was not previously deemed patentable.
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`
`Id. at 221-22, 390.
`
`On March 16, 2005, the Examiner issued a restriction requirement to which
`
`the Applicant responded on April 29, 2005, selecting to pursue then-pending
`
`claims 23-26 and 28. Id. at 468, 472.
`
`The Examiner issued another Office Action on October 25, 2005, rejecting
`
`proposed claims 25 and 28 as obvious over the Applicant’s own ’590 Patent in
`
`view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2001/0050926 to Kumar. On January 25,
`
`2006, Applicant filed an Office Action Response, which argued that Kumar failed
`
`to teach “code words having variable lengths” or “coding a most significant bit of
`
`information so that it is less susceptible to error,” and concluded that proposed
`
`claims 25 and 28 were thus patentable over Kumar. Id. at 502-04. With the Office
`
`Action Response, Applicant also filed a Terminal Disclaimer, forfeiting any term
`
`beyond that of the ’590 Patent. Id. at 509.
`
`On March 1, 2006, the Examiner issued a new Office Action, rejecting
`
`proposed claims 25 and 28 as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,452,914 to Niemelia
`
`(“Niemelia”) in view of Kumar, which relied on Kumar for the same teachings as
`
`the previous Office Action. Id. at 525. The Applicants responded on April 26,
`
`2006, arguing that Niemelia was not prior art in light of the Japanese patent filings
`
`to which the ‘587 Patent claims priority. Id. at 536-38.
`
`On August 1, 2006, the Examiner issued a new Office Action, rejecting
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`proposed claims 25 and 28 as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,603,980 to Kitagawa
`
`(“Kitagawa”). Id. at 724-26. Applicant responded on November 1, 2006,
`
`distinguishing proposed claims 25 and 28 from Kitagawa’s teaching that a TPC bit
`
`is sent with a variable amplitude based on the measured channel quality. Id. at 739-
`
`42.
`
`A notice of allowance issued on December 24, 2003. ’587 Patent File
`
`History (Ex. 1002) at 751.
`
`C.
`
`Level of skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`A person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the ’587
`
`Patent would have been a person having a Bachelor’s degree in electrical
`
`engineering or the equivalent plus three years of experience working with wireless
`
`communication systems or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering with an
`
`emphasis on communication systems or the equivalent plus one year of experience
`
`working with digital communication systems or in network engineering. Singer
`
`Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 39.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104
`A. Grounds for standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioners certify that the ’587 Patent is available for IPR and that the
`
`Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the claims
`
`of the ’587 Patent. Specifically, Petitioners state: (1) each Petitioner is not the
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`owner of the ’587 Patent, (2) each Petitioner has not filed a civil action challenging
`
`the validity of any claim of the ’587 Patent, and (3) this Petition is filed less than
`
`one year after any of the Petitioners was served with a complaint alleging
`
`infringement of the ’587 Patent.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and relief
`requested
`
`In view of the prior art and evidence presented, claims 3 and 4 of the ’587
`
`Patent are unpatentable and should be cancelled. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1). Further,
`
`based on the prior art references identified below, IPR of the Challenged Claims
`
`should be granted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2).
`
`Proposed Grounds of Unpatentability
`Ground 1: Claim 3 is obvious under § 103(a) over CDMA/HDR: A
`Bandwidth-Efficient High-Speed Wireless Data Service
`for
`Nomadic Users,” Bender, et al. (“Bender”) in view of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,470,470 to Jarvinen et al. (“Jarvinen”)
`Ground 2: Claim 4 is obvious under § 103(a) over Bender in view
`of U.S. Patent No. 4,747,104 to Piret (“Piret”)
`
`Exhibits
`
`1004, 1006
`
`1004, 1005
`
`
`
`Section IV identifies where each element of the Challenged Claims is found
`
`in the prior art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). The exhibit numbers of the supporting
`
`evidence relied upon to support the challenges are provided below and the
`
`relevance of the evidence to the challenges raised are provided in Section IV. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5). Exhibits 1001–1029 are also attached.
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`C. Claim construction under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`
`In this proceeding, claim terms of an unexpired patent should be given their
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144-46 (2016)
`
`(referred to herein as the BRI standard). Petitioners understand that the Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) may soon apply the standard applied by Article III
`
`courts (i.e., the Phillips standard). Petitioners have applied the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of all claim terms below1 and do not believe any claim terms require
`
`express construction to resolve the proposed grounds of rejection presented herein.
`
`Petitioners do not, however, waive any argument in any litigation that claim terms
`
`in the ’587 Patent are indefinite or otherwise invalid nor do Petitioners waive the
`
`right to raise specific issues of claim construction in any litigation.
`
`IV. THERE
`IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE
`’587 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE
`A. Ground 1: Bender in view of Jarvinen renders claim 3 obvious
`Bender was published in the July 2000 edition of IEEE Communications
`
`Magazine. Bender (Ex. 1004) at 1. The determination of whether a given
`
`reference qualifies as a prior art “printed publication” involves a case-by-case
`
`
`1 Petitioners believe the plain and ordinary meanings applied herein are consistent with
`
`both the BRI and Phillips standards.
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to
`
`members of the public, and the key inquiry is whether the reference was made
`
`sufficiently publicly accessible before the priority date.
`
` EMC Corp. v.
`
`PersonalWeb Techs., Inc. et al., IPR2013-00087, 2014 WL 2090666, at *16
`
`(PTAB May 15, 2014) (citing In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004) and In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
`
`Petitioners provide a declaration from James L. Mullins, a librarian with a
`
`Doctor of Philosophy with a concentration in academic library administration and
`
`more than forty years of experience as an academic librarian. Mullins Decl. (Ex.
`
`1007) at ¶5, App. A. Dr. Mullins obtained Bender from the UW-Madison, College
`
`of Engineering. Id. at ¶¶ 24-26. In addition, Dr. Mullins obtained a copy of
`
`Bender from the IEEE Explore database, and concluded that Bender was publicly
`
`available no later than July 19, 2000. Mullins Decl. (Ex. 1007) at ¶¶ 27-37.
`
`For these reasons, Bender qualifies as a printed publication and is prior art
`
`with regard to the ’587 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) (pre-AIA). Bender (Ex.
`
`1004). Bender discloses a CDMA system in which pilot signals are transmitted
`
`from the base station to user handsets, which use the pilot signals to measure
`
`channel quality. Id. at 71. Bender teaches that the measured channel quality is
`
`reported back to the base station on the reverse uplink:
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`[O]n the basis of the received common pilot from each access point
`(or base station), each access terminal (subscriber terminal) can
`measure
`the received signal-to-noise-plus-interference ratio
`(SNR). The data rate which can be supported to each user is
`proportional to its received SNR. This may change continuously,
`especially for mobile users. Thus, over each user’s reverse (uplink)
`channel, the SNR or equivalently the supportable data rate value is
`transmitted to the base station.
`Id. (emphasis added).
`
`As illustrated in the following annotated Table, the SNR2 values in Bender
`
`are composed of an upper digit reflecting the whole number component of the SNR
`
`(highlighted in blue) and a lower digit reflecting the fractional component of the
`
`SNR (highlighted in green):
`
`
`2 Bender explains that the calculated SNR is the ratio of received energy to interference
`
`and noise—EC/Nt. Id. at 73 (“EC represents the received signal energy density and Nt
`
`represents the total nonorthogonal single sided noise density. Nt comprises intercell
`
`interference, thermal noise, and possibly nonorthogonal intracell interference.”).
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Thus, in both Bender and the ’587 Patent, channel quality measurements are
`
`communicated from a cellular handset to a base station.’587 Patent (Ex. 1001) at
`
`1:9-41, 7:31-35. Additionally, in both Bender and the ‘587 Patent, the channel
`
`quality measurement (SNR shown in the right-hand column of the table excerpted
`
`above) is composed of an upper (more significant) digit (highlighted in blue in the
`
`table excerpted above) and a lower (less significant) digit (highlighted in green in
`
`the table excerpted above). Id. at 19:34-58. Because both Bender and the ’587
`
`Patent teach cellular systems with channel quality feedback mechanisms based on
`
`a two-digit quality measurement, Bender is in the same field of endeavor and is
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`reasonably pertinent to the claims in the ’587 Patent. Singer Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶¶
`
`41-42. Therefore, Bender is also analogous to the claimed invention in the ’587
`
`Patent.
`
`Bender was not cited or considering during prosecution of the ’587 Patent
`
`and, as shown in this Petition, raises new invalidity issues relating to the
`
`challenged claims that have not previously been before the Patent Office.
`
`In connection with the teaching in Bender that its SNR values are
`
`transmitted to the base station, it was well known at the time of filing of the ’587
`
`Patent to employ various established methods for coding those SNR values prior to
`
`transmission, including, for example, Unequal Error Protection (“UEP”) when
`
`coding data of varying importance for transmission. One example is Jarvinen,
`
`which was filed February 6, 1998 and therefore qualifies as prior art with regard to
`
`the ’587 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (pre-AIA). Jarvinen (Ex. 1006). Jarvinen
`
`describes a cellular communication system that divides data into two categories
`
`based on its relative importance and performs error correction encoding to the
`
`more important data to increase the important data’s resiliency to communication
`
`errors. Id. at 1:7-40, 2:64-3:60, 7:44-65. Jarvinen further teaches that the system
`
`monitors the quality of the communication channel and adjusts the ratio of
`
`important and less important data accordingly. Id. The ’587 Patent similarly
`
`teaches that changes to communication modes (e.g., data rates) should be made
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`based on the measured channel quality. ’587 Patent (Ex. 1006) at 1:42-56. Because
`
`Jarvinen, like the ’587 Patent, discloses a cellular communication system directed
`
`to monitoring transmission channel quality and adjusting transmission parameters
`
`accordingly, it is in the same field of endeavor and is reasonably pertinent to the
`
`claims of the ’587 Patent. Singer Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶¶ 43-44. Therefore, Jarvinen
`
`is also analogous to the claimed invention in the ’587 Patent.
`
`Jarvinen was not cited or considered during prosecution of the ’587 Patent
`
`and, as shown in this Petition, raises new invalidity issues relating to the
`
`challenged claims that have not previously been before the Patent Office.
`
`i. Claim 3
`
`3. A communication terminal apparatus comprising:
`
`To the extent the preamble is deemed limiting, Bender discloses a
`
`communication terminal apparatus. Namely, Bender describes a cellular handset
`
`(subscriber terminal) that measures and reports downlink channel quality based on
`
`a received pilot signal from a cellular base station:
`
`[O]n the basis of the received common pilot from each access point
`(or base station), each access terminal (subscriber terminal) can
`measure
`the received signal-to-noise-plus-interference ratio
`(SNR). The data rate which can be supported to each user is
`proportional to its received SNR. This may change continuously,
`especially for mobile users. Thus, over each user’s reverse (uplink)
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`channel, the SNR or equivalently the supportable data rate value is
`transmitted to the base station.
`Bender (Ex. 1004) at 71 (emphasis added).
`
`[3(a)] a measuring device that measures downlink channel quality; and
`
`
`As described above, Bender describes a cellular handset (subscriber
`
`terminal) that measures and reports the received signal-to-noise-plus-interference
`
`ratio (“SNR”) based on a received pilot signal from a cellular base station:
`
`[O]n the basis of the received common pilot from each access point
`(or base station), each access terminal (subscriber terminal) can
`measure
`the received signal-to-noise-plus-interference ratio
`(SNR). The data rate which can be supported to each user is
`proportional to its received SNR. This may change continuously,
`especially for mobile users. Thus, over each user’s reverse (uplink)
`channel, the SNR or equivalently the supportable data rate value is
`transmitted to the base station.
`Bender (Ex. 1004) at 71 (emphasis added). Bender explains that the measured SNR
`
`is the ratio of received energy to interference and noise—EC/Nt. Id. at 73 (“EC
`
`represents the received signal energy density and Nt represents the total
`
`nonorthogonal single sided noise density. Nt comprises intercell interference,
`
`thermal noise, and possibly nonorthogonal intracell interference.”). The measured
`
`SNR values are illustrated in the following annotated Table 2:
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Put simply, SNR compares the power of a signal to the power of the
`
`background noise and interference. Singer Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 32. It was well
`
`known in the art that a signal-to-noise-plus-interference ratio is a measurement of
`
`channel quality. Id. at ¶¶ 32, 41. If an SNR value drops below an acceptable
`
`threshold, for example due to atmospheric conditions such as rain or interference
`
`from other transmitters, the bit error rate on the link becomes unacceptable for
`
`reliable communications integrity, resulting in a low downlink channel quality
`
`value. Id. at ¶ 32.
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`[3(b)] a transmitter that transmits a notification signal to notify a base station
`apparatus of information generated based on said measured downlink channel
`quality, wherein:
`
`
`As discussed above regarding limitation [3(a)], Bender teaches that the
`
`cellular handset transmits the SNR value (i.e. a notification signal) to the base
`
`station. For an SNR value to be received at the base station, this value must be
`
`digitized (i.e. converted to a code word) before transmission, as claimed in
`
`limitation [3(b)(i)] below. Singer Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶¶ 46-48. To determine how
`
`the SNR values in Bender should be digitized prior to transmission, a POSITA
`
`would have looked to related disclosures describing data coding systems. Id.
`
`Jarvinen teaches just such a data coding system that is specifically directed to
`
`improving robustness to errors by applying error correction coding to only the
`
`more important information. Jarvinen (Ex. 1006) at Abstract, 5:40-54 (Jarvinen’s
`
`encoding process is described in detail below). Thus, the proposed combination of
`
`Bender and Jarvinen digitizes the SNR values disclosed in Bender.
`
`A POSITA would have recognized that the digitized information of the
`
`proposed combination would necessarily be transmitted to the base station by “a
`
`transmitter.” Singer Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶¶ 28, 30. In support, as illustrated in the
`
`following Jarvinen figures, digitized information in a wireless system is
`
`transmitted by a “TX/RX,” which is a transceiver comprising a transmitter and
`
`receiver:
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`
`
`
`Jarvinen (Ex. 1006) at Fig. 4, 13:51-52 (“The signal is transmitted to the
`
`information transfer connection using transceiver unit 240.”); see also Singer Decl.
`
`(Ex. 1003) at ¶ 30, 45
`
`(confirming
`
`that “TX/RX”
`
`is shorthand
`
`for
`
`transmitter/receiver—the primary components of a transceiver).
`
`[3(b)(i)] each of a plurality of digits representing the information of the
`notification signal is converted, prior to its transmission, to a code word whose
`code length is proportional to the digit's degree of significance.
`
`
`Bender discloses a plurality of digits representing information of the
`
`notification signal, for notifying the base station of the measured SNR value.
`
`Bender (Ex. 1004) at Table 2. These plurality of digits are comprised of an upper
`
`digit (highlighted blue) and a lower digit (highlighted green), as illustrated in the
`
`following annotated Table 2:
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In connection with the teachings in Bender, it was well established at the
`
`time of filing of the ’587 patent that the SNR value would be coded in some
`
`manner prior to transmission. Singer Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶¶ 46-47. CDMA cellular
`
`systems, like all digital wireless systems, communicate information that has been
`
`converted to binary code words, i.e., series of ones and zeroes. The conversion
`
`process is generally utilized by employing an analog to digital converter, where
`
`analog values are afforded specific binary codewords to represent the analog data
`
`in a manner that a computer can recognize. Id. Accordingly, the Bender SNR
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`values must necessarily be converted to binary code words prior to being
`
`transmitted over the wireless infrastructure. Id.
`
`To determine how the SNR values in Bender should be represented as binary
`
`code words prior to transmission, a POSITA would have looked to related
`
`disclosures describing data coding systems, such as Jarvinen as described above in
`
`limitation [3(b)]. Singer Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶¶ 41-49. Jarvinen is directed to
`
`improving robustness to errors by applying error correction coding to only the
`
`more
`
`important
`
`information. Jarvinen (Ex. 1006) at Abstract, 5:40-54.
`
`Specifically, Jarvinen teaches that encoded data should be divided into most
`
`important information and less important information:
`
`The speech parameter bits are in FIG. 1C presented in the speech
`encoding importance order in such a way that the subjectively most
`important bits are presented topmost, and the less important bits
`at the bottom.
`Id. at 8:36-39. Jarvinen explains that “the most significant bits . . . are more
`
`important and they must be protected carefully,” but that “[t]he least significant
`
`bits . . . can be left unprotected” because the impact of their erroneous receipt “is
`
`small.” Id. at 3:55-60.
`
`Jarvinen further teaches that a convolutional error correcting coder should
`
`be used to increase the number of bits (i.e. code length) used to represent the most
`
`significant information. In the following example, the most important 182 bits are
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`represented by 378 coded bits before being combined with the least important 78
`
`bits to create 456 bit frames:
`
`Error detection- and error correction parameters are formed for
`the most important 182 bits (Class I). At first 3-bit CRC-error
`detection parameters are calculated in block 105 for the 50 most
`important bits, after which the generated bit stream (182+3 bits) is
`directed
`to
`convolution
`encoder 106.
`Convolution
`encoder 106 calculates for the bits a ½-rate convolution code with
`four tail bits. The result is 378 bits (2*182+2*4+2*3) of convolution
`coded data 107. Convolution coded data 107 is directed further to
`multiplexer 109, in which it is combined with the least important
`78 bits (Class II, ref. 108). In all channel encoder 104 produces to the
`output (ref. 110) 456 bits for each 20 ms speech frame
`Id. at 7:52-63 (emphasis added); see also id. at 10:4-7 (“a sufficiently effective
`
`error correction is obtained by focusing the error correction code on only the most
`
`important of the 260 speech parameter bits.”). Therefore, Jarvinen teaches that a
`
`code word’s code length is proportional to each digit’s degree of significance,
`
`where more significant information is represented by more bits and therefore a
`
`longer code length comparatively to less significant information. Singer Decl. (Ex.
`
`1003) at ¶¶ 36, 43, 57. For example, utilizing the combination of Bender and
`
`Jarvinen, an SNR reading of “7.2” (see Bender (Ex. 1004) at Table 2) would be
`
`digitized into unequal length code words, where the “7” would receive more bits
`
`and therefore a longer code length when compared to the “2”. Id. The “7” is a more
`
`
`
` 20
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`significant digit than the “2” due to the difference in magnitude between the two
`
`digits and
`
`therefore requires a greater degree of error protection. Id.
`
`Misinterpreting a “7.2” SNR as an “8.2” SNR has a much larger resultant error
`
`than mistaking a “7.2” SNR as a “7.3” SNR. Id. Therefore, the resulting length of
`
`code words representing digitized SNR values would be proportional to the digit’s
`
`degree of significance. Id.
`
`It would have been obvious to encode the SNR values of Bender into code
`
`words whose “code length is proportional to the digit’s degree of significance” in
`
`accordance with the teachings of Jarvinen. The motivations to make such a
`
`modification of the Bender system are many, including express motivations from
`
`the references themselves. First, as discussed above, Bender teaches that its SNR
`
`values are composed of two components—an upper digit reflecting the whole
`
`number component of the SNR and a lower digit reflecting the fractional
`
`component of the SNR where correctly relaying the upper digit is far more
`
`important than correctly relaying the lower digit. Singer Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 57.
`
`A POSITA would have further been well versed in Unequal Error Protection
`
`(“UEP”) techniques, which were prevalent in the prior art and which included
`
`many approaches to data transmissions where more significant data requires more
`
`protection to potential transmission errors. Id. at ¶¶ 48-49. A POSITA with
`
`knowledge of UEP would have understood that the Bender teachings effectively
`
`
`
` 21
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`direct a skilled artisan to employ encoding techniques to ensure that the upper digit
`
`of the SNR value is not misinterpreted by the base station. Id. at ¶¶ 48-49, 57.
`
`Second, as noted above, Jarvinen provides express motivation to increase the bit
`
`count proportionally to the significance of the information such that it is protected
`
`from potential transmission and reception errors. Jarvinen (Ex. 1006) at Abstract,
`
`5:40-54, 7:52-63.
`
`A POSITA would have recognized that utilizing a proportional bit count
`
`according to the significance of each digit of Bender’s SNR value would have
`
`provided numerous improvements, increasing the chances of interpreting the SNR
`
`value either correctly or with only insignificant error. Singer Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶¶
`
`41-49. Further, the modification to Bender would have been straightforward,
`
`would not have required undue experimentation, and would have produced
`
`predictable results. Id. at ¶ 49. Upon reading the disclosure of Bender, a POSITA
`
`would have recognized that representing the SNR upper digit with a longer code
`
`length than the lower digit would create more robustness to communication errors
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
