Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,764,711
`Oral Argument, January 14, 2020
`
`Apple Inc., HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., ZTE (USA) Inc. v. INVT SPE LLC
`Case No. IPR2018-01476
`
`Petitioners’ Demonstrative Exhibits – Not Evidence
`
`Petitioners’ DX-1
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,764,711
`Oral Argument, January 14, 2020
`
`Apple Inc., HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., ZTE (USA) Inc. v. INVT SPE LLC
`Case No. IPR2018-01476
`
`Petitioners’ Demonstrative Exhibits – Not Evidence
`
`Petitioners’ DX-1
`
`
`
`Grounds
`
`1. Ground 1: Claims 1-6
`} Paulraj (Ex. 1005) in view of Haung (Ex. 1006) in further view of
`Walton (Ex. 1008)
`
`2. Ground 2: Claims 1-6
`} Wallace (Ex. 1009) in view of Walton (Ex. 1008)
`
`Petition at 7-8 (identifying challenged claims)
`
`Petitioners’ DX-2
`
`
`
`Primary Claim Construction Dispute:
`Simultaneous Transmit Modes
`} PO contends claims “require that spatial
`multiplexing [SM] and transmit diversity [TD] be
`implemented at the same time, or
`simultaneously” (POR, 7)
`} TD = transmitting item and its replica at same time (Id. at 3)
`} SM = transmitting different items in parallel (Id.)
`} 1) Claims require TD and SM, but not at the
`same time
`} 2) Even if simultaneous TD and SM were
`required, Ground 1 teaches it
`
`Petitioners’ DX-3
`
`
`
`Claims Do Not Require Simultaneous SM & TD
`
`Spatial
`Multiplexing
`
`Transmit
`Diversity
`
`} Claims do not require simultaneous transmission of:
`} (1) a specific data item, (2) its replica – for TD
`} and (3) at least one additional data item – for SM
`Ex. 1001 at Claim 1 (emphasis added); Reply, 2-5
`
`Petitioners’ DX-4
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Position Has Not Changed
`} PO argued, “Petitioners expressly represented that the inventions
`claimed in the ’711 Patent require ‘simultaneous’ [TD] and [SM].”
`(Sur-Reply, 2-3)
`} Petitioners never advocated a simultaneity interpretation—both
`excerpts PO identified characterizes the specification, not claims:
`
`Petition at 4 (summary of ‘711 Patent specification)
`
`} Ground 2 presented specifically to capture an interpretation that
`does not require simultaneous TD and SM. (Pet., 44-45)
`
`Petitioners’ DX-5
`
`Petition at 44
`
`
`
`Ground 1: Paulraj Teaches Simultaneous
`Transmit Diversity and Spatial Multiplexing
`
`1st substream
`
`2nd substream
`
`Petition at 28-35; Ex. 1005 at Fig. 9A, 19:41-48 (emphasis added), 26:44-49 (emphasis added)
`
`Petitioners’ DX-6
`
`
`
`Ground 1: Paulraj Teaches Simultaneous
`Transmit Diversity and Spatial Multiplexing
`
`} PO’s expert agrees Paulraj teaches transmitting a
`substream and its replica from different antennas at the
`same time:
`
`Ex. 1020 at 26:4-11, 33:25-34:3; Reply at 12.
`
`Petitioners’ DX-7
`
`
`
`Ground 1: PO’s Data Stream Argument
`
`} PO admits Paulraj teaches SM and TD (Sur-Reply, 9)
`} But PO argues, Paulraj’s “Figure 9A only teaches the use
`of one single data stream at any given time, which
`precludes the use transmit diversity for ‘higher priority’
`data and spatial multiplexing for other data” (Id. at 9-10)
`} That is, if (1) substream DTM, (2) a replica substream DTM,
`and (3) substream AU? are transmitted simultaneously, PO
`contends there is no SM because DTM and AU? are not
`distinct data items
`} Even accepting this argument, the Petition also relies
`on Fig. 11A, which simultaneously transmits two
`distinct data streams
`
`Petition at 31; Reply at 10-11, 16
`
`Petitioners’ DX-8
`
`
`
`Ground 1: PO’s Data Stream Argument
`
`} Fig. 11A shows the voice datastream 182 is transmitted
`simultaneously with substreams 454 and 456:
`
`1st substream
`
`2nd substream
`
`Datastream
`
`Ex. 1005 at Fig. 11A; Reply at 10-11
`
`Petitioners’ DX-9
`
`
`
`Ground 1: PO’s Data Stream Argument
`
`} PO’s expert agrees, Fig. 11A resolves alleged data stream
`issue with Fig. 9A:
`
`Ex 1020 at 35:19-36:6; Reply at 11.
`
`Petitioners’ DX-10
`
`
`
`Ground 1: PO’s Fig. 11A Waiver Argument
`} PO argues, “Petitioners’ new theory based on Paulraj’s Fig. 11A is
`untimely and should not be considered” (Sur-Reply, 11)
`
`} Petitioners’ reliance on Fig. 11A is not new (Petition, 31):
`
`} Fig. 11A is also cited in the Petition on pages 21, 25, 26, 28, 30,
`34, 35, and 40-42
`
`Petition at 31 (emphasis added); Reply at 10
`
`Petitioners’ DX-11
`
`
`
`Ground 1: PO’s Fig. 11A Substantive
`Argument
`} PO Argues, “Figure 11A also only uses two transmit antennas—
`all of the data paths in Figure 11A go to only two antennas” (Sur-
`Reply, 15-16)
`
`} Although lines are not illustrated in Fig. 11A, Paulraj is
`clear that Fig. 11A’s diversity processing, like in the Fig.
`9A embodiment, utilizes more than two antennas:
`
`Ex. 1001 at Claims 1, 6; Ex. 1005 at 29:52-58 (emphasis added)
`
`Petitioners’ DX-12
`
`
`
`Ground 1: Walton Teaches that Important
`Data Should be Replicated for TD
`
`} Paulraj teaches utilizing transmit diversity techniques “for the purpose of
`improving communication quality,” but is silent as to which substream(s)
`require improved communication quality
`
`} Walton teaches using transmit diversity to “achieve higher reliability for
`certain data transmissions” including the same “data given a higher
`priority in transmission” as described in the ’711 Patent.
`} PO does not dispute Walton teaches higher priority “specific data items” per the
`Board’s construction (Sur-Reply, 18)
`
`} Per Dr. Singer:
`} A PHOSITA “would have appreciated that reliable reception of such transmissions
`would have been essential to maintaining the communication link between a
`transmitter and a receiver”
`} A PHOSITA “would have been motivated to ensure the receiver reliable receives
`these transmissions to prevent the communication link from being inadvertently
`dropped”
`} Motivation to combine Walton with Paulraj applies equally to Fig. 9A and Fig. 11A
`
`Petition at 38-40; Ex. 1005 at 12:5-10; Ex. 1008 at 10:4-8, 2:27-31; Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 56-73, fn2;
`Reply at 7-9
`
`Petitioners’ DX-13
`
`
`
`Ground 2: Wallace and Walton
`
`} Dispute turns entirely on simultaneity (Sur-Reply, 24)
`
`} If Challenged Claims do not require simultaneous TD
`and SM, PO advances no substantive arguments
`against Ground 2 rendering claims 1-6 obvious
`
`Petitioners’ DX-14
`
`
`
`PO’s Secondary Considerations
`
`} No evidence claim(s) of ’711 patent incorporated into
`3GPP standard:
`} Only evidence proffered is Dr. Vojcic’s conclusory statement
`“simultaneous PUCCH and PUSCH transmission” is “the invention
`described in the ’711 Patent”
`} No evidence a single portfolio license demonstrates
`the licensee’s respect for the ’711 Patent
`} Bosch Auto. Serv. Sols., LLC v. Matal, 878 F.3d 1027, 1038
`(Fed. Cir. 2017), as amended on reh'g in part (Mar. 15,
`2018)
`
`Ex. 2002 at ¶69; Reply at 19-21
`
`Petitioners’ DX-15
`
`
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
