Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 27
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE, INC., HTC CORPORTATION,
`HTC AMERICA, INC. and ZTE (USA), INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`INVT SPE, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: January 14, 2020
`____________
`
`Before THU A. DANG, BARBARA A. BENOIT and
`J. JOHN LEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 27
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE, INC., HTC CORPORTATION,
`HTC AMERICA, INC. and ZTE (USA), INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`INVT SPE, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: January 14, 2020
`____________
`
`Before THU A. DANG, BARBARA A. BENOIT and
`J. JOHN LEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711 B2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`ADAM P. SEITZ, ESQUIRE
`Erise IP
`7015 College Boulevard, Suite 700
`Overland Park, Kansas 66211
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`JOHN K. HARDING, ESQUIRE
`CYRUS A. MORTON, ESQUIRE
`Robins Kaplan, LLP
`800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing Tuesday, January 14,
`2020, at 12:58 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany
`Street, Alexandria,
`Virginia.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711 B2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`THE USHER: All rise.
`JUDGE LEE: Good afternoon. You can be seated.
`All right. Good afternoon. We are here for the oral hearing in
`IPR2018-01476 captioned Apple, Inc, HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc.
`and ZTE (USA) Inc. v. INVT SPE, LLC. Apologies if I mispronounced
`anything. This proceeding concerns U.S. Patent No. 7,764,711.
`Let’s begin with appearances by counsel starting with Petitioner.
`MR. SEITZ: Thank you, Your Honor. Adam Seitz with the law firm
`of Erise here on behalf of the Petitioner, Apple. Also with me today is
`Aaron Huang from Apple.
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you, Mr. Seitz.
`And for Patent Owner?
`MR. HARTING: Good afternoon, Your Honor. John Harting with
`the law firm Robins Kaplan. With me today is INVT’s lead counsel, Cy
`Morton.
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you, Mr. Harting.
`Unless either party wishes to raise any preliminary matters, Petitioner
`you may begin your presentation when you’re ready.
`MR. SEITZ: Your Honor, I’d like to reserve 10 minutes today,
`please. Thank you, Your Honors. Judge Benoit and Judge Dang, good to
`see you again. May it please the Board. We’re going to be discussing the
`‘711 Patent today and specifically referring to the demonstratives I’ll
`announce the slides as I go along. Everybody is here, so that should be
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711 B2
`easier today. But we’re going to be talking about two grounds today, but in
`large part we’re going to focus our time on ground one.
`A major issue kind of overseeing this entire dispute between the
`parties relates to claim construction. Ground two rises and falls with the
`claim construction. If you ultimately agree that the claim construction does
`not require a simultaneity aspect which we’re going to get into briefly, then
`ground two is dispositive. And so, for that reason, I’m going to start with
`claim construction today and then focus on ground one after that to discuss
`some of the more substantive disputes that have been raised between the
`parties with regard to claim -- ground one.
`Before we start, I want to just briefly set an understanding of what the
`technology is that we’re going to be discussing today. The ‘711 Patent deals
`with, fundamentally, ways to handle communication wirelessly in the
`example of a cell phone and there’s two different things that we’re going to
`be focusing on today with regard to that communication.
`The fundamental aspect that we’re going to be talking about today is
`something that relates to the ability to have a diversity of antennas to help
`with communication in two specific ways. And if you think of a cell phone
`and how communication would work, typically when your signal is sent out
`it can run into problems called multipath propagation. Fancy way of saying
`that your signal is going to fade the more things that it runs into.
`So a signal that leaves your phone and goes to a tower may run into
`trees, may run into buildings, may just travel a distance and when all that is
`combined your signal may have faded by the time it reaches the recipient so
`that it’s difficult to discern what the original data was.
`Now, the idea of having antenna diversity dates all the way back to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711 B2
`World War II when the idea of saying, “Okay. We can use more antennas to
`help make our communication and our signal more robust.” One of those
`things was referred to as a transmit diversity and this idea says that we’re
`going to take my data, my signal, and I’m going to duplicate it. So it’s the
`same data that’s duplicated and then that same data or that same
`communication is sent out over multiple antennas.
`In that way, you have multiple antennas going to multiple other
`antennas on the receiving end with the exact same signal. The purpose of
`this, the ultimate goal of this, is that you receive a stronger signal on the
`back end, multiple signals, that allow you to see what the original signal and
`data was. It’s referred to as MIMO; multiple in, multiple out.
`Now, another idea came about after this transmit diversity of using
`multiple antennas in a different way to solve a different problem and that
`was referred as spatial multiplexing. Now, it’s the same idea of using
`multiple antennas, but this time instead of wanting to correct for errors due
`to multipath propagation, the idea was that we could have quicker and better
`communications that sent more data along the path.
`And so here we’re not going to duplicate the signal this time. We’re
`going to take our signal, we’re going to split it up into multiple components
`and then I’m going to transmit those multiple components on a different
`antenna. Those will travel to multiple antennas on the receiving end where
`that signal will be put back together and sent along to the intended recipient.
`The idea here is not so much to fix the fading or worry about the
`propagation that may take place, but to say that we can put more data on
`different antennas so it’s going to be a faster and fuller signal. So we’re
`going to increase bandwidth in that situation.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711 B2
`So those two, transmit diversity and spatial multiplexing are
`fundamentally looking at two different solutions and two different problems.
`One raises the bandwidth issue, the other deals with fading or error
`correction. The alleged invention of the ‘711 Patent was to combine both of
`these into a communication system.
`Now, moving to Slide DX-3. The primary claim construction dispute
`that we have between the parties today relates to the question of spatial
`multiplexing and transmit diversity and, fundamentally, whether the claim
`requires that both of those must occur simultaneously at the same time. The
`Patent Owner contends that the claims require that the spatial multiplexing
`occur at the same time or simultaneously as the transmit diversity in the
`claims of the ‘711.
`Now, we agree that the claims require transmit diversity and signal
`multiplexing, but not at the same time. We certainly would agree that it
`could happen. It’s not foreclosed by the claims to happen simultaneously,
`but we don’t believe such a requirement actually exists in the claims and
`we’re --
`JUDGE LEE: Mr. Seitz?
`MR. SEITZ: -- going to look at that. Yes, sir?
` JUDGE LEE: If you believe that spatial multiplexing is required by
`the challenged claims, which claim language are you tying that to?
`MR. SEITZ: So if we look at Claim 1, moving to slide DX-4 which
`is up on the screen, the spatial multiplexing as we’ve moved to this case
`seems to be centered in the preamble and as we deposed their expert, he
`agreed that the spatial multiplexing aspect of the claim also is described best
`in the preamble as we laid out.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711 B2
`JUDGE LEE: So it’s Apple, and HTC, and ZTE’s position -- it’s
`Petitioner’s position that in Claim 1, for example, the preamble is limiting
`and requires spatial multiplexing?
`MR. SEITZ: No, we don’t believe it’s limiting. We have not
`contended that it’s limited. I do believe it’s described in that aspect there
`though in the preamble that the spatial multiplexing --
`JUDGE LEE: Well, if the preamble is not limiting, but spatial
`multiplexing is nonetheless required, what else in the claim requires it?
`MR. SEITZ: Well, you could have a situation on the mapping
`section and the transmit section, and this is where the claim is written in a
`slightly different manner. So if we look at the mapping section, it requires --
`maps the plurality of data items to at least one of the plurality of antennas
`and then we look at the transmitting section that transmits the plurality of
`data using at least one of the plurality of antennas to the receiving apparatus.
`So the claim, when we get into the limitation itself, talks about using at least
`one antenna and we’re going to have some more requirements on that as we
`get into the “Wherein” clause.
`Now, because of that at least one language, the spatial multiplexing
`aspect can be met by the claim with a mapping section and the transmitting
`section if you map that plurality of data to two antennas.
`JUDGE LEE: You can’t have spatial multiplexing using only one
`antenna; is that right?
`MR. SEITZ: I would agree with that.
`JUDGE LEE: And if the claim limitations are fulfilled by just one of
`the plurality of antennas, how can that require spatial multiplexing?
`MR. SEITZ: It’s an oddly written claim and so in that regard, an
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711 B2
`argument could be made that the preamble has to impart some sort of life to
`the claims there, but it’s not a contention that we have made in that regard in
`this case.
`JUDGE LEE: All right. Thank you.
`JUDGE BENOIT: So let me ask you about the preamble. The
`mapping section refers to the plurality of data items and also the plurality of
`antennas both of which are in the preamble. So why does that not weigh
`toward a finding that the preamble is limiting?
`MR. SEITZ: I don’t believe those aspects of the claim are breathing
`such significant life into the invention that it would cause it to be limiting.
`Those are some basic functionalities or at least basic components of the
`apparatus that’s data and that’s an antenna, but I don’t believe that that
`breves -- breathes, excuse me, life into the claim such that you would say
`that the preamble is limiting. They’re merely just components that are
`described.
`JUDGE BENOIT: And let me just ask another question along those
`same lines. You pointed to the preamble though as the place where SM is
`mostly in the claim. It seems that, just natural inclination, that’s where
`you’re pointing to. Doesn’t that suggest that the preamble is limiting as
`well?
`
`MR. SEITZ: Did you say SM; is that right, for --
`JUDGE BENOIT: Yes.
`MR. SEITZ: -- spatial multiplexing?
`JUDGE BENOIT: Right.
`MR. SEITZ: Okay. I wanted to make sure I understood you.
`JUDGE BENOIT: I should say spatial multiplexing rather than the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711 B2
`initials. Sorry about that.
`MR. SEITZ: Yeah. Thank you. So, Your Honor, I don’t contend
`that it is limiting. I think you could reach a decision that it is limiting that
`would not ultimately impact the decision of whether the claim should be
`cancelled because the fundamental dispute between the parties relates to
`whether there’s a simultaneous aspect.
`So if I were to assume with you and with Judge Lee that the preamble
`is limiting and such describes the spatial multiplexing so that you have to
`send out the plurality of data in a spatial multiplexing manner, our prior art
`that we’re going to get into still meets that. The fundamental dispute
`between the parties though relates to whether that has to happen
`simultaneously with the transmit diversity which is described in the
`“Wherein” clause.
`And so if I assume with you that it is limiting, that’s not going to
`change our analysis here that it ultimately is not required to happen
`simultaneously with or at the same time as the transmit diversity.
`JUDGE BENOIT: Thank you. Couple other questions. There are a
`couple places in the claims that require a plurality of antennas or different
`antennas. What’s the difference in using the language “in parallel” in the
`preamble and “at the same time” in the “Wherein” clause?
`MR. SEITZ: “In parallel”? I’m sorry, Your Honor. Are you -- oh,
`“Antennas in parallel.” “Plurality of antennas in parallel.”
`JUDGE BENOIT: Yeah.
`MR. SEITZ: That would be the manner in which they’re arranged in
`the system as opposed to sequentially which would be a difficult or an odd
`setup for a communication system, but when I had those parallel antennas,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711 B2
`they are capable of sending out that information at the same time. So they
`sit next to each other in that circuit diagram and would be able to transmit, in
`parallel, or at the same time.
`JUDGE BENOIT: And so that’s the basis of, as I understand it, your
`argument that you don’t need to do the transmission simultaneously because
`the “in parallel” refers to the arrangement of the antennas whereas “at the
`same time” has to do with the timing of the transmission; is that correct?
`MR. SEITZ: That’s correct. That’s correct. And we see that “at the
`same time” in only one instance in Claim 1 and Claim 6. We’re referring to
`Claim 1, but it’s representative of the others and that’s in the “Wherein”
`clause. And we see there, as opposed to the arrangement of the antennas, we
`see a very intentional calling out of how the data will be sent. The only
`instance in which we see a calling out of how the data will be sent with
`regards to timing.
`The “Wherein” clause on the transmit diversity side which the parties
`agree this is where the transmit diversity comes in, has two aspects to it.
`The first is a replication of specific data. So this goes back to my
`explanation. We’re going to replicate certain data that we want to and then
`the “Wherein” clause says that we are going to “map the plurality of data
`items to the -- at least one of the plurality of antennas such that the specific
`data and the replica data item are transmitted from different antennas at the
`same time.”
`And so in that instance, Your Honor, because it is calling out the
`specific timing of how the data must be sent, we know that for transmit
`diversity the replica data and the specific data are being sent at the same
`time.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711 B2
`JUDGE DANG: But isn’t the language of the preamble, transmitting
`that in parallel, not the positioning of the -- right, the scheme of transmitting
`data in parallel?
`MR. SEITZ: Yes, and the claim does allow for you to transmit data
`in parallel. Specifically with the “Wherein” clause, we see how that would
`happen in a timing aspect and the claim does not foreclose the idea of
`transmitting in a spatial multiplexing which I talked about with Judge Lee
`where if you use more than the one of the plurality of antennas and so the
`claim does not foreclose that, but I don’t believe that the claim requires that
`timing because there is no similar language on, at the same time, or
`simultaneously when referring to the spatial multiplexing and the transmit
`diversity.
`JUDGE DANG: Thank you.
`JUDGE LEE: Is there any evidence in the record, and moving on to a
`slightly different topic, is there any evidence in the record, particularly the
`intrinsic record for the ‘711 Patent that illuminates what is meant by a,
`quote, unquote “data item”?
`MR. SEITZ: Well, it refers to -- two answers here. One, I’ll have to
`pull up the specific citation of what I’m thinking about when I sit down and I
`can raise that again when I stand back up, but it refers to generally
`communications which I would say is the data item itself, the
`communications that are taking place. But it also refers to, as you see, for
`the type of specific item which the Board has already construed.
`One example of that is going to be control signals that are sent
`between the base station and the mobile device such as when there’s poor
`communication quality. And so I think all of those in the specification of the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711 B2
`‘711, I’ll get the cite, it’s not a big specification, but the voice and the
`control signals and other aspects of communication that are described, I
`believe, all fall within that concept of data items.
`JUDGE LEE: Well, the reason I ask is, as I understand it, the parties
`are in disagreement about whether certain features of the Paulraj prior art
`reference constitute a, quote, unquote, “data item” or not, or a plurality of
`data items or not and so I’m wondering if there is anything in the ‘711 Patent
`itself that would help us decide whether those things are data items or a
`plurality of data items.
`MR. SEITZ: I don’t believe that the ‘711 specifically excludes
`anything as being a data item. Maybe to phrase it or attack this in a different
`way, slightly different direction, it includes the voice communications, it
`includes the control signals, it includes data signals that are being discussed.
`So I don’t believe there’s anything that’s specifically excluded and
`under the BRI, in that situation, I think “data items” needs to be treated as
`broadly as possible. And we can look at some of those examples from the
`711, but in the absence of something saying that it cannot be, which there is
`no example of in the 711, our contention would be that you need to think of
`that as broadly as possible and data items is a fairly straight forward term
`that would encompass an awful lot of different things under our broadest
`reasonable interpretation.
`JUDGE LEE: Did Dr. Singer address what is meant by “data item”
`either in his declaration -- oh, I did see it there -- or in his deposition
`testimony if there was?
`MR. SEITZ: No. He did not specifically apply any construction to
`data items. So briefly looking at Slide DX-5 just to make sure that you
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711 B2
`understand our positions, there was a statement in the institution decision
`and there have been continuous statements by Patent Owner. We are not
`contending that there is a simultaneity requirement and I wanted to clarify
`that for you.
`Specifically, with regard to ground two, the institution decision
`suggests that we have put forward a simultaneity requirement or
`simultaneous aspect for the spatial multiplexing and the transmit diversity.
`What I’ve cited on DX-5 are the two instances in the petition where we’re
`discussing the simultaneous aspect.
`Specifically, if we just refer to the second excerpt which is the
`Petition at 44, the specification of the ‘711 does discuss an embodiment
`where the transmit diversity is done simultaneously with the spatial
`multiplexing but there is nothing in the specification that says that that is the
`only way that it must happen. It’s merely described as a characterization of
`the invention.
`And so as we have discussed this, we’ve cited to that one instance in
`the specification. We specifically included ground two to capture an
`interpretation of the claims that did not require the simultaneous
`transmission of the transmit diversity and the spatial multiplexing. And so
`kind of by virtue of the fact that we have included ground two in and of
`itself, by saying that is a non-simultaneous combination or set of references,
`we believe, shows that we have not been advancing a simultaneous claim
`construction.
`I want to get into some of the specifics with the Paulraj reference and
`how we believe it teaches the transmit diversity and the spatial multiplexing.
`Before I do that, I want to briefly just discuss what our actual combinations
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711 B2
`are. Paulraj is the primary reference for Ground 1 and it describes both a
`spatial multiplexing and a transmit diversity system. Though it suggests it,
`Paulraj does not include any crystal clear disclosure of the replication of the
`data for the transmit diversity side or what data you would chose for the
`transmit diversity, the replication.
`And so in that instance, we’ve relied on two other references; Walton
`specifically for the disclosure of a replicator. The replicator in Walton says
`that in situations where you have poor channel quality and the control
`signals are going to need to be sent, you are going to replicate the data in
`that situation. So it’s not under Walton, a replication of all data, but a
`replication of certain data for certain situations.
`One example, as I’ve already said, is control signals for poor channel
`quality scenarios. Walton duplicates that data and then sends it along. So
`our proposed combination relies on Walton for the replicator of the certain
`data.
`
`And then finally, the Huang reference. And we believe this was clear
`in the Paulraj reference for how the transmit diversity would work, that it
`would send information at the same time, but we also relied on the Huang
`reference to make it clear that that’s how transmit diversity systems were
`operating at the time of those references. And so Huang merely closes the
`loop on saying that in a transmit diversity system the information that
`you’ve replicated is going to be sent at the same time.
`Now, I’m going to focus on Paulraj for the next bit of discussion and
`here on Slide DX-6 and specifically on some of the disclosures about what
`Paulraj is teaching us about its data streams and its transmissions. And I’m
`going to focus on Figure 9A here and we’re going to get into Figure 11A in
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711 B2
`just a little bit. But on Figure 9A on DX-6, I have two colored arrows and
`colored bits of text. There’s a first substream -- what Paulraj calls a first
`substream and a second substream which is the data that’s going into the
`system in Paulraj.
`Paulraj then tells us that you can transmit the single data stream on
`more than one antenna if diversity transmitting is required in addition to the
`spatial multiplexing and I’ve repeated this excerpt from Paulraj on the
`bottom left of the screen at Column 19, 41 to 48. Paulraj tells us that a
`single substream may be transmitted from more than one antenna if diversity
`or beam forming, but if diversity transmit processes are implemented in
`addition to spatial multiplexing.
`So Paulraj tells us that it’s going to have spatial multiplexing. It’s a
`little hard to see on the screen in front of you, but the top left of the screen
`are two antennas, 136 and 134, that Paulraj contemplates for spatial
`multiplexing and Paulraj then, we’re going to discuss this in some more
`detail later, contemplates using a second set of antennas which are next to it
`which are 942 and 940 for the transmit diversity.
`And again, we see -- and Paulraj at Column 26, lines 44 to 49 repeated
`on the right side that the transmit processor 314A which is in the center of
`Figure 9A is instrumental in the diversity processing for the Paulraj system.
`I don’t believe this is in dispute anymore. Patent Owner’s expert
`agreed that Paulraj teaches transmitted a substream and its replica from
`different antennas at the same time. This is from his deposition which is
`Exhibit 1020 at page 26 on the top portion and then page 33 on the bottom
`portion.
`We asked their expert, “When the Paulraj embodiment depicted in
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711 B2
`Figure 9A implements the diversity processing option for block 314A which
`was the block in the center of Figure 9, does that mean that the substreams
`454 and 456,” those were the blue and red items that we identified, “would
`be duplicated and transmitted from antennas 136T, 134T, as well as from
`antennas 942 and 940.” His answer was, “Yeah, I think that’s how a
`POSITA would understand.” So I don’t believe there is a disagreement on
`the aspect of the disclosure for both spatial multiplexing and transmit
`diversity within Paulraj itself.
`So there is an argument here that gets to the data stream and we’ve
`come around to that argument on the data stream where we were discussing
`previously. I think the Patent Owner at this point with the surreply at Page 9
`and with what their expert has said that I’ve read to you would admit that
`Paulraj does teach spatial multiplexing and transmit diversity, but there’s an
`argument that Paulraj’s Figure 9A only teaches the use of a single data
`stream at any given time which they say precludes the use of transmit
`diversity for higher priority data.
`So I disagree. I don’t believe that the data stream is so limiting under
`the BRI. With Judge Lee we had already talked about that because I don’t
`believe that there’s a specific limitation on data stream in the specification
`and because there’s nothing that’s so restrictive in the claims, we believe
`that data stream should be given a broad interpretation which would not
`preclude a single data stream from coming in and meeting at the limitations
`of the claims.
`But ultimately, though Figure 9 does show just one data stream
`coming in and if I go back real quick, Your Honors, to slide DX-6, the first
`substream and second substream identified in red and blue are coming from
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711 B2
`a single data stream. Now, I don’t believe that that’s a problem under the
`claims, but even if you assume for a second that it is, there’s another
`embodiment in Paulraj which we’ve identified that actually covers two
`different and discrete data streams coming into the system and then being
`transmitted, and that specifically is Figure 11A.
`Figure 11A, I’ve repeated the red and blue data streams on the right
`side. Those, again, are coming from a single data stream. The Figure 11A
`this time discusses yet another data stream that’s coming in which is data
`stream 182 which is distinct from the data stream that creates the first and
`second red and blue data streams that we have identified.
`Figure 11A and its description in Paulraj show us that the voice data
`stream which is the data stream at the bottom that we’ve depicted in yellow,
`the voice data stream is separate and distinct and that it will come in and it
`also will be sent out on the antennas in a similar manner to what we’ve
`already discussed with the first and second red and blue data streams.
`And so the other antennas depicted in -- and we’re going to talk about
`this a little more as well, but the other antennas are also depicted in Figure
`11A. So looking again at the left side of the screen at the top of that box
`which is 316C, we see two antennas, 136 and 134, but we also see a set of
`other antennas, 1142 and 1140 which we’re going to discuss in a bit more
`detail here in a second. But these antennas are all used in Figure 11
`similarly to how they’re used in Figure 9.
`Now, if you assume that that data stream, that voice data stream, is
`separate and distinct, and I don’t believe that Patent Owners would contend
`that that argument is still viable. The reason I say this is because we asked
`our expert about this specific question. The testimony is depicted on DX-10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711 B2
`from his deposition at page 35, lines 19 to 36. We asked specifically, “If the
`voice stream 182 in Figure 9A were input into the 314 diversity box and
`parallel with substreams 354 and 456” -- so a lot of numbers there. 354 and
`456 were the red and blue data stream. The voice stream 182, is the yellow
`data stream that we identified, “and all three substreams were transmitted
`simultaneously, would that avoid your first criticism of the Paulraj
`teaching,” and his answer was, “Yes.”
`So let’s look at how Paulraj actually describes that voice data stream
`as being transmitted. Now, first, this isn’t an argument that we’ve waived.
`It’s kind of a -- becoming a repeating theme in some of these hearings that
`we did not raise this argument that it was new in the reply. Here, that’s not
`the case. We actually have identified the Figure 11A embodiment in our
`petition and we relied on that embodiment in our petition. I’ve included that
`specific portion and specific citations here for a comfort level for you.
`Most specifically, the petition at 31 as shown on DX-11, we said,
`“Similarly in the CDMA embodiment depicted in Figure 11A, the transmit
`processor receives,” small word problem there, “the transmit processor
`receives three input streams and provides six outputs.” So we’re specifically
`talking about the situation where the red and blue data streams enter as well
`as the yellow voice data stream and there’s an output as six separate outputs
`there.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Mr. Seitz, in Figure 11A I see the six outputs, 110,
`111, et cetera down to 115 coming out of the module 314C. Those are the
`outputs you’re referring to, right?
`MR. SEITZ: Correct.
`JUDGE LEE: Now, as I see Figure 11A here on your slide, DX-9,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711 B2
`those six outputs, when they reach the antennas, they seem to be tied
`together. So three of the outputs all go to one antenna and three -- the other
`three go to the other antennas.
`MR. SEITZ: Yes.
`JUDGE LEE: How does that affect whether or not this is meeting the
`limitations of Claim 1?
`MR. SEITZ: Good question. And so that Figure does operate in the
`manner that you’ve described, but the specification helps us understand how
`those other antennas are used and I’m referring now to DX-12. Specifically,
`if we look -- and there’s some of this on DX-12, but let me walk you through
`some of the other disclosure of Paulraj as well. We know from Paulraj
`starting at 29:47 and then continuing on, that the processing unit, 314, which
`is where the data is first fed “imposes on the data stream substreams
`additional signal processing such as that described and discussed above in
`connection with Figure 9A,” and I think that’s the key to understanding
`Figure 11A. It starts with box 314 which does the processing and says that
`is going to operate similarly to how we’ve described with Figure 9A.
`And so when we look at Figure 9A, the disclosure of Paulraj mentions
`those other antennas and specifically tells us that those other antennas can be
`used for the diversity processing aspects. And so Figure 9A, just like 11A, it
`tells us if we look at Paulraj at, for example, 26 starting at 45. So Column
`26 starting at 45 describes the transmit processor, that same box, 314, as
`implementing diversity processing and then tells us at 54 to 60 that this can
`be done with the additional antenna arrays, 940 and 942.
`So now when we go back to 11A, we see the same antenna arrays
`renumbered 1140 and 1142 for Figure 11 and they’ve already
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
