IPR2018-01474
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01474
`Patent 7,206,587
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Preliminary Statement .................................................................................... 1 
`Factual Background Of The ’587 Patent ........................................................ 4 
`A. Overview of Cellular Communications Technology ........................... 4 
`B. Overview Of The ’587 Patent .............................................................. 7 
`III. Claim Construction ....................................................................................... 14 
`IV. Summary Of The Asserted References ........................................................ 14 
`A.
`Bender................................................................................................. 14 
`B.
`Piret .................................................................................................... 16 
`Legal Standard .............................................................................................. 18 
`V.
`VI. The Petition Fails To Demonstrate A Reasonable Likelihood Of
`Demonstrating that the Challenged Claim is Unpatentable Under
`Ground 2. ...................................................................................................... 20 
`A.
`The Asserted References Fail To Disclose [1] A Coding Device
`That Encodes The Information [2] Such That The Most
`Significant Bit Is Less Susceptible to Errors...................................... 20 
`1.
`The Petition Improperly Equates “Digitize” With
`“Encode.” ................................................................................. 21 
`Neither Bender Nor Piret Disclose “A Coding Device
`That Encodes The Information To Obtain A Code
`Word.” ...................................................................................... 25 
`i.
`Bender Does Not Disclose “A Coding Device That
`Encodes The Information To Obtain A Code
`Word.” ........................................................................... 26 
`Piret Does Not Disclose “A Coding Device That
`Encodes The Information To Obtain A Code
`Word.” ........................................................................... 29 
`The Petition Fails To Demonstrate That “A Coding
`Device That Encodes The Information” Is Inherent
`In The Asserted References. .......................................... 29 
`
`iii.
`
`2.
`
`ii.
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01474
`Patent 7,206,587
`
`3.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`ii.
`
`ii.
`
`B.
`
`Neither Bender nor Piret Discloses “The Coding Device
`Encodes The Information Such That The Most
`Significant Bit Of The Plurality Of Bits Is Less
`Susceptible To Errors In A Propagation Path Than Other
`Bits Of The Plurality Of Bits.” ................................................ 31 
`i.
`Bender Does Not Identify The Most Significant
`Bit Of The SNR Value. .................................................. 31 
`Piret Does Not Identify The Most Significant Bit
`Of The SNR Value. ....................................................... 34 
`The Petition Fails to Demonstrate That A POSITA Would Have
`Been Motivated To Combine Bender And Piret To Achieve
`The Claimed Invention With A Reasonable Expectation Of
`Success. .............................................................................................. 35 
`1.
`The Petition Relies On Unsupported, Conclusory Expert
`Testimony. ................................................................................ 36 
`The Asserted References Contradict The Petition’s And
`Dr. Singer’s Characterization. .................................................. 40 
`The Petition Fails To Identify Any Motivation To
`Modify Bender To Encode The SNR Value According
`To Piret. ................................................................................... 42 
`i.
`Bender And Piret Are Concerned With Different
`Data Types. .................................................................... 43 
`The Petition Fails To Explain Why A POSITA
`Would Have Applied A Speech Encoding Scheme
`To Non-Speech Data. .................................................... 45 
`The Petition Fails To Explain How A POSITA Would
`Have Modified The Asserted References To Achieve The
`Claimed Invention. ................................................................... 46 
`Any Motivation To Combine Is Based On Improper
`Hindsight. ................................................................................. 47 
`VII. The Parallel ITC Investigation Will Be Resolved Before Any Trial
`Instituted on this Petition .............................................................................. 49 
`VIII. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 51 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01474
`Patent 7,206,587
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. Contentguard Holdings, LLC,
`Case No. IPR2015-00448, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 10, 2015) ............................. 47
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. et al.,
`IPR2015-00161, Paper 18 (P.T.A.B. May. 8, 2015) .......................................... 39
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.,
`IPR2017-02041, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2018) ........................................... 39
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.,
`IPR2017-02202, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. May. 1 2018) ............................................. 39
`Apple Inc. v. Valencell, Inc.,
`IPR2017-00316, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2017) ............................................. 39
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 18
`General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`Case No. IPR2016-01357 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017) ..................................... 50, 51
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................ 18
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 49
`In re Fritch,
`972 F.2d 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1992) .......................................................................... 48
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 43
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 19
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01474
`Patent 7,206,587
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F. 3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ......................................................................... 18
`In re Nuvasive, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 42
`In re Nuvasive, Inc.,
`842 F.3d at 1381–82 ........................................................................................... 45
`In re Robertson,
`169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 30
`In re Royka,
`490 F.2d 981 (CCPA 1974) ................................................................................ 18
`
`In the Matter of Certain LTE- AND 3G-Compliant Cellular
`Communications Devices,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1138 ........................................................................................ 49
`
`Initiative for Medicines, Access & Knowledge (I-MAK), Inc. v. Gilead
`Pharmasset LLC,
`Case No. IPR2018-00390, Paper No. 7 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 19, 2018) ...................... 19
`Intel Corp. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1,
`Case No. IPR2018-00662, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2018) ........................... 43
`Inventergy, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`1-17-cv-00196 (D. Del. Feb. 24, 2017) .............................................................. 49
`INVT SPE LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`2-17-cv-03738 (D.N.J. May 25, 2017) ............................................................... 49
`INVT SPE LLC v. ZTE Corporation et al.,
`2-17-cv-06522 (D.N.J. Aug. 29, 2017) ............................................................... 49
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................. 18, 19, 35, 42, 43, 47
`NHK Spring Co., LTD., v. Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc.,
`Case No. IPR2018-00752 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2018) ................................... 50, 51
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01474
`Patent 7,206,587
`
`Nikon Corp. v. ASML Netherlands B.V.,
`Case No. IPR2018-00227, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2018) .......................... 48
`Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Novartis AG,
`Case No. IPR2016-00078, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016) ............................ 23
`Southwire Co. v. Cerro Wire LLC,
`870. F.3d 1306, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................... 30
`Star Sci., Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
`655 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 18
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 46
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. §103(a) .................................................................................................... 18
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ............................................................................................. 49, 50
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. 42.107(e) .................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ............................................................................... 19, 35, 38, 39
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) .................................................................................... 26, 27
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01474
`Patent 7,206,587
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit Description
`2001 U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587 Disclaimer
`Error-Control Techniques for Digital Communication - Arnold M.
`2002
`Michelson
`2003
`Scheduling Order for 337-TA-1138
`2004 Notice of Prior Art 337-TA-1087
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01474
`Patent 7,206,587
`
`I.
`
`Preliminary Statement
`The Petition filed by Apple Inc. (“Apple”) and ZTE (USA) Inc. (“ZTE”)
`
`(collectively, “Petitioners”) falls significantly short of demonstrating a reasonable
`
`likelihood of success on any of the asserted grounds. The Petition fails to locate
`
`each limitation of the challenged claim in the prior art, misconstrues the teachings
`
`of the prior art, and never explains why a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”) at the time of the invention would have been motivated to combine or
`
`modify the asserted references to achieve the claimed invention.
`
`In Ground 1, the Petition argues that the combination of “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”) renders claim 3 of the ’587 patent obvious. INVT SPE LLC (“INVT”
`
`or “Patent Owner”) disclaimed claim 3 of the ’587 patent. A copy of the disclaimer
`
`filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is attached as Exhibit 2001.
`
`Ground 1 is therefore moot, and the Board should not institute inter partes review
`
`on Ground 1. 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e). Accordingly, this Patent Owner Preliminary
`
`Response addresses only Ground 2.
`
`In Ground 2, the Petition argues that the combination of Bender and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 4,747,104 to Piret (“Piret”) (collectively the “Asserted References”)
`
`renders claim 4 of the ’587 patent (the “Challenged Claim”) obvious. The Petition
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01474
`Patent 7,206,587
`
`does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits because the
`
`Petition (1) fails to demonstrate that all of the claim elements were present in the
`
`prior art or known to a POSITA before the priority date of the ’587 patent, and (2)
`
`fails to provide an adequate motivation to combine the Asserted References.
`
`Specifically, the Petition fails to demonstrate that the Asserted References
`
`disclose “a coding device that encodes the information to obtain a code word.”
`
`To that end, the Petition erroneously contends that Bender discloses “a coding
`
`device that encodes” information having a plurality of bits that indicate the
`
`measured reception quality. In fact, Bender expressly contradicts this contention.
`
`The Petition contends that Bender’s signal to noise ratio (“SNR”)
`
`corresponds to the claimed “information” that is encoded according to the
`
`Challenged Claim. Bender’s SNR value, however, is never transmitted, let alone
`
`encoded. Rather, Bender discloses deriving a 4-bit “reverse link data request”
`
`based on the SNR value and transmitting this value back to the base station. Even
`
`assuming that the reverse link data request corresponded to the claimed
`
`“information,” Bender still fails to disclose the claimed feature because Bender is
`
`silent as to whether the reverse link data request is encoded prior to transmission.
`
`The Petition also fails to substantiate its proposed combination of references
`
`with an adequate motivation to combine the references to achieve the claimed
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01474
`Patent 7,206,587
`
`invention. The Asserted References address different subject matter. Bender
`
`addresses standard data transmission, while Piret is specific to speech bits. The
`
`Petition provides no explanation for why a POSITA would be motivated to
`
`incorporate the speech bit encoding mechanism of Piret to encode Bender’s SNR
`
`value, where Bender’s SNR value is not speech data.
`
`The Petition also fails to explain how a POSITA would have modified the
`
`encoding mechanism of Piret, which encodes seven (7) bits, to encode the SNR
`
`value of Bender, which is represented by only four (4) bits as a reverse link data
`
`request. In fact, the Petition does not even state how many bits make up the SNR
`
`value, let alone how explain how that impacts the proposed combination of
`
`references. Instead, the Petition and Petitioners’ expert provide only unsupported,
`
`conclusory allegations of obviousness instead of well-reasoned explanation
`
`supported by objective evidence.
`
`Moreover, the Petition warps the teachings of the Asserted References, in an
`
`attempt to construct a motivation to combine where none exists. For instance, the
`
`Petition asserts that Bender discloses error protection coding, but fails to
`
`acknowledge that the error correction coding in Bender is not applied to the SNR
`
`value as the Petition strongly implies, but rather only to regular channel data to be
`
`transmitted after the channel quality has been determined. These omissions and
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01474
`Patent 7,206,587
`
`misrepresentations undermine integral parts of the Petition’s obviousness case.
`
`Indeed, without the benefit of this conclusory and misleading expert testimony, the
`
`Petition’s argument lacks the “rational underpinning” necessary to demonstrate a
`
`likelihood that the Challenged Claim is obvious.
`
`The Board should deny institution because the Petition has failed to meet its
`
`burden of showing a reasonable likelihood that the Challenged Claim is
`
`unpatentable.
`
`II.
`
`Factual Background Of The ’587 Patent
`A. Overview of Cellular Communications Technology
`Modern cellular communications began around 1980, when the first
`
`generation (“1G”) cellular (i.e., wireless) systems and networks were deployed and
`
`1G-compliant mobile phones were introduced to the public. These phones used
`
`frequency division multiplexing (“FDM”) to transmit voice calls using analog
`
`frequency modulation (“FM”).
`
`In the 1990s, second generation (“2G”) systems emerged based on
`
`improvements to 1G systems. Phones that operated in 2G systems used digital
`
`technology, which permitted more efficient use of the radio spectrum than their
`
`analog 1G predecessor did. While 2G systems were originally designed only for
`
`voice, they were later enhanced to include data transmission but could only achieve
`
`low data rates.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01474
`Patent 7,206,587
`
`During this growth period for 2G communications systems, overall use of
`
`the Internet also increased. In response to user demand for higher data rates, third
`
`generation (“3G”) phones emerged in the late 1990’s. While voice calls
`
`traditionally dominated the traffic in cellular communications, the increasing
`
`number of mobile devices and the advancement of mobile device technology with
`
`increased features and data-hungry applications drove demand for faster and more
`
`reliable data transmissions. Data traffic over cellular networks has therefore
`
`increased dramatically since the mid to late 2000s.
`
`Given the increased demand for data and the limited available radio
`
`spectrum, cellular communications developers created a standard that, compared
`
`with 3G, offered higher data rates, lower latency and improved overall user
`
`experience. Fourth generation (“4G”) is the result of this development.
`
`The technology disclosed and claimed in the ’587 patent generally relates to
`
`wireless communications technologies used in 3G and 4G cellular communications
`
`systems. At a high level and as illustrated below, cellular (i.e., wireless)
`
`communications systems generally include three components: (1) user equipment
`
`(“UE”), (2) base stations and (3) cells. UE can refer to cellular phones, tablet
`
`computers and smartwatches, or other devices that allow users to communicate
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01474
`Patent 7,206,587
`
`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
`
`Both 3G and 4G cellular communications systems are capable of
`
`transferring (e.g., uploading and downloading) data. Data is used for applications
`
`such as connecting to the Internet, streaming videos, and email. 3G technologies
`
`for transmitting data include the Universal Mobile Telecommunications System
`
`(“UMTS”) standard. UMTS includes Wideband Code Division Multiple Access
`
`(“WCDMA”), High Speed Packet Access (“HSPA”) and HSPA+ standards.
`
`HSPA+ is an advancement on HSPA and, as such, incorporates and builds upon
`
`the full HSPA standard. 4G technologies for transmitting data include Long Term
`
`Evolution (LTE) and Long Term Evolution-Advanced (“LTE-A,” also referred to
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01474
`Patent 7,206,587
`
`as “LTE+”) standards. LTE+ is an advancement on LTE and, as such, incorporates
`
`and builds upon the full LTE standard.
`
`Today, mobile communications use 3G and/or 4G communications systems.
`
`Because interoperability is important for communications devices, the majority of
`
`cellular communications devices presently sold in the United States comply with
`
`each of the UMTS, HSPA, HSPA+, LTE, and LTE+ standards.
`
`B. Overview Of The ’587 Patent
`To alleviate system strain due to higher data demands of mobile devices, a
`
`number of strategies developed to improve transmission efficiency (e.g., the
`
`amount of data that can be reliably transmitted over a given period of time in
`
`mobile communications). See Ex. 1001 at 1:15-19. One such strategy is called
`
`High Data Rate (“HDR”) by which a base station performs scheduling to allocate
`
`communication resources to UEs by time division and sets a transmission rate for
`
`each UE according to the downlink channel quality. Id. at 1:20-27.
`
`According to the invention of the ’587 patent, the UE measures the downlink
`
`channel quality based on a pilot signal received from the base station and selects a
`
`transmission rate based on that measurement. Id. at 1:30-34. The base station
`
`transmits the pilot signal at predetermined intervals. Id. at 4:58-60. Within the base
`
`station, the pilot signal is modulated by a modulator and spread by a spreading
`
`section before being output to a multiplexer. Id. at 6:42-45. The spread pilot signal
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01474
`Patent 7,206,587
`
`is then transmitted to a transmit RF section, which converts the pilot signal into
`
`radio frequency and transmits that resulting radio frequency to the UEs from an
`
`antenna. Id. at 6:46-50.
`
`As an illustrative figure, Figure 14 of the ’587 Patent illustrates one
`
`embodiment of how the UEs receive a radio signal including the converted pilot
`
`signal via an antenna. Id. at 6:51-55. The UE converts the received pilot signal
`
`from radio frequency to baseband frequency, despreads the pilot signal and
`
`transmits it to a CIR measurement section. Id. at 6:54-55. The CIR measurement
`
`section measures the CIR of the pilot signal. Id. at 6:59-60.
`
`
`
`A CIR measurement is a measurement of a “carrier-to-interference ratio”
`
`and is one example of a measurement of channel quality information. Id. at 1:31-
`
`35, 24:34-37. The CIR measurement may be in the form of a two-digit number,
`
`e.g., 8.7 dB where the 8 is an “upper digit” and the 7 is a “lower digit.” Id. at
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01474
`Patent 7,206,587
`
`19:42-45. However, CIR measurements do not need to be in the two digit format
`
`and can be represented by a plurality of digits. Id. at 24:47-52. The modulation
`
`method and coding method that the data channel can support depends on the value
`
`of this CIR measurement. Id. at 5:32-36. As further explained below, the ’587
`
`patent recognized that it is critical that the UE and the base station have consistent
`
`information regarding modulation and encoding methods to ensure that data can be
`
`understood by the receiving device. Id. at 2:14-23.
`
`Once the CIR measurement has been generated, the ’587 patent discloses a
`
`number of possibilities for how the CIR measurement can be processed. According
`
`to some embodiments described in the ’587 patent, the CIR measurement may be
`
`encoded into a “CIR signal” and transmitted back to the base station. Id. at 20:16-
`
`22. For example, a CIR signal creation section of the UE may separately encode
`
`the different digits of the CIR measurement to generate a resulting CIR signal (i.e.,
`
`encode the upper digit using one coding section and encode the lower digit using a
`
`different coding section). Id. at 20:42-50. One example of such encoding is
`
`demonstrated by Figure 15 of the ’587 patent.
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01474
`Patent 7,206,587
`
`
`
`In other cases, the upper digit can be encoded to generate a longer code word
`
`than the code word generated for the lower digit. Id. Importantly, the CIR signal
`
`may have a limit on the number of bits that it can include. For example, in the
`
`context of the ’587 patent, the CIR signal may be limited to ten bits. Id. at 20:49-
`
`50. However, the ’587 patent is not limited to the 10-bit example.
`
`The ’587 patent also describes some embodiments in which the CIR
`
`measurement is used to determine a communication mode, which is then encoded
`
`as a data rate control (“DRC”) signal and transmitted back to the base station. Id.
`
`at 1:35-41, 6:59-65. The communication mode (represented by a “DRC number”)
`
`is an index value that indicates a combination of modulation method and coding
`
`method to be used in communications based on the CIR measurement. Id. at 5:32-
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01474
`Patent 7,206,587
`
`41. In some embodiments of the ’587 patent, higher CIR measurements (better
`
`channel quality) correspond to higher DRC numbers and better modulation and
`
`coding methods. Id. at 1:42-67.
`
`The DRC signal or the CIR signal is the means by which the UE transmits
`
`channel quality information back to the base station. See id. at 1:57-67. The base
`
`station determines various transmission parameters based on the DRC signal, such
`
`as the packet length, modulation method, coding method and transmission rate. Id.
`
`at 1:35-41. Moreover, if the DRC signal is received erroneously by the base
`
`station, the base station may use a different communication mode than the UE is
`
`expecting and, as a result, the UE may not be able to demodulate or decode any
`
`data received from the base station. Id at 2:15-22.
`
`Similar to the CIR signal described above, there may be limited bits
`
`available for transmitting the DRC signal. See id. at Figure 7 (showing a maximum
`
`of nine bits per code word). In turn, the limited number of bits available to encode
`
`the CIR or DRC signal meant there were limited resources for ensuring the
`
`relevant signal was received correctly by the base station. Thus, the relevant
`
`challenge addressed by the ’587 patent is how to ensure accurate reception of the
`
`CIR or DRC signal within the allowed number of bits.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01474
`Patent 7,206,587
`
`The ’587 patent solves, among other problems, the complicated issues
`
`discussed above with an elegant solution. The ’587 patent recognized that there is
`
`certain information in a CIR or DRC signal “for which the amount of change is
`
`large.” Id. at 19:30-34. Stated another way, the ’587 patent recognizes that certain
`
`information in a CIR or DRC signal indicates a broader value than other
`
`information. Id. at 30-39.
`
`According to the ’587 patent, one example of this type of information that
`
`indicates a broader value is an integer digit, which indicates a broader value than a
`
`decimal digit. Id. at 19:40-54. Specifically, the ’587 patent explains that “if an
`
`integer part is received erroneously by a base station, the degree of error is large
`
`compared with the case where a fractional part is received erroneously, and the
`
`probability of an erroneous communication mode being determined is higher—that
`
`is to say, the probability of downlink throughput falling is higher.” Id. at 19:49-54.
`
`However, the ’587 patent is not limited to this example. Id. at 24:47-52.
`
`Another example of “information for which the amount of change is large”
`
`includes a “most significant bit.” Id. at Cl. 4. To that end, claim 4 of the ’587
`
`patent recites:
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01474
`Patent 7,206,587
`
`4. A communication terminal apparatus comprising:
`
`a measuring device that measures reception quality of a pilot
`
`signal to output information having a plurality of bits that indicate the
`
`measured reception quality;
`
`a coding device that encodes the information to obtain a code
`
`word; and
`
`a transmitter that transmits the code word, wherein:
`
`the coding device encodes the information such that the most
`
`significant bit of the plurality of bits is less susceptible to errors in a
`
`propagation path than other bits of the plurality of bits.
`
`Id. at Cl. 4 (emphasis added). Specifically, claim 4 recites “a measuring device”
`
`that measures reception quality of a pilot signal (e.g., a CIR measurement) and
`
`outputs information “having a plurality of bits.” Id. Thus, claim 4 of the ’587
`
`patent recites applying a specific type of encoding (“the most significant bit of the
`
`plurality of bits is less susceptible to errors in a propagation path than other bits of
`
`the plurality of bits”) to particular information (“information having a plurality of
`
`bits that indicate the measured reception quality”). Id.
`
`During the prosecution of the ’587 patent, the inventors emphasized the
`
`importance of encoding all of the information according to the particularly claimed
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01474
`Patent 7,206,587
`
`method of encoding. See Ex. 1002 at 741. Thus, the inventors of the ’587 patent
`
`distinguished the claimed encoding methods over other types of encoding.
`
`As discussed in further detail below, the Asserted References do not render
`
`the claimed invention in the ’587 patent obvious because the Asserted References
`
`fail to disclose the particularly claimed encoding method recited in the Challenged
`
`Claim.
`
`III. Claim Construction
`The Petition does not assert that any claim term requires construction. Paper
`
`3 at 8. Patent Owner similarly does not believe that any claim terms require
`
`express construction to deny the Petition. Patent Owner does not waive, however,
`
`any argument regarding the proper scope of the Challenged Claim.
`
`IV. Summary Of The Asserted References
`A. Bender
`Bender, an IEEE article dated July 2000 describes a framework for
`
`providing very high data rate internet access for mobile users. Bender [Ex. 1004]
`
`at 70. Bender’s framework proposes dividing voice service (which has strict
`
`latency requirements, but low data rates) and data services (which have flexible
`
`latency requirements, but high data rates) into two adjacent but non-overlapping
`
`portions of the radio spectrum. Bender at 73. Bender focuses on the data services
`
`portion of this division. Id.
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01474
`Patent 7,206,587
`
`In the framework described in Bender, an access terminal receives a pilot
`
`signal from an access point. Id. The access terminal determines a signal-to-noise
`
`ratio (“SNR”) based on the pilot signal. Id. The access terminal then maps the SNR
`
`to a maximum data rate and determines a 4-bit value indicative of the maximum
`
`data rate. Id. Finally, the access terminal transmits the 4-bit value back to the
`
`access point in the form of a “reverse link data rate request.” Id. The base station
`
`can then determine the appropriate data rate for communication with the access
`
`terminal based on the received reverse link data request. Id.
`
`While Bender generically states that “the SNR…is transmitted to the base
`
`station” (id. at 71), the only means for doing so described by Bender is the 4-bit
`
`reverse link data request. Id. at 73. Bender does not disclose any means for
`
`transmitting the SNR value itself back to the access point. Id. In fact, the only
`
`information transmitted back to the base station is the 4-bit reverse link data
`
`request. Id. Further, Bender is silent as to whether the reverse link data request is
`
`encoded with an error correcting code or any other protection against errors that
`
`may occur during transmission. Id. Bender is also silent as to what bit of the SNR
`
`value or the 4-bit reverse link data request is the most significant bit. See id.
`
`Once the 4-bit reverse link data request is transmitted back to the base
`
`station, the base station can transmit data to the UE using one of the combinations
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01474
`Patent 7,206,587
`
`of data rate, packet length, forward error correcting (“FEC”) code rate, and
`
`modulation type as shown in Table 1 of Bender. Bender at 72. To be clear,
`
`however, the FEC codes referred to in Table 1 of Bender are used to encode data
`
`after the 4-bit reverse link data request has been sent by the UE, and are not used to
`
`encode the reverse link data request itself. See id. at 73 (“The reverse link data
`
`request is a 4-bit value that maps the predicted SNR into one of the data rate modes
`
`of Table 1”).
`
`B.
`Piret
`Piret is primarily concerned with transmission of speech bits. Piret [Ex.
`
`1005] at 1:28-33. Piret explains that errors in the more significant speech bits can
`
`make speech incomprehensible, but errors in less significant bits merely make the
`
`speech more difficult (but not impossible) to understand. Id. These types of errors
`
`are commonly called “burst error phenomena,” which is a series of channel bits
`
`where the error probability is relatively high compared to bits transferred outside
`
`of the burst. Id. at 1:37-50.
`
`In light of the above, Piret discloses a data transmission system for
`
`providing error protection of transmitted data words as related to speech bits in the
`
`presence of burst errors. Piret at Abstract; id. at 1:17-50. According to Piret, a
`
`seven-bit data word is divided into two groups: the two most important bits and the
`
`five least important bits. Id. at 2:67-3:13. The two most important bits are encoded
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01474
`Patent 7,206,587
`
`into three nine-bit proto-code words. Id. at 3:17-20. The five least important bits
`
`are encoded into a single nine-bit proto-code word. Id. at 3:2-5. The four proto-
`
`code words (three for the most significant bits and one from the least significant
`
`bits) are input into an “EXCLUSIVE-OR” element to apply convolution coding
`
`and generate a nine-bit output code word. Id. at 3:31-36. The nine parallel bits are
`
`then converted to serial bits and transmitted. Id. at 3:36-38.
`
`Piret does not discuss measuring channel quality or applying the disclosed
`
`coding scheme to a channel quality measurement. Rather, the system in Piret is
`
`applied regardless of the current channel quality measurement