`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`HTC CORPORATION AND HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`ZTE (USA) INC.,
`Petitioners v.
`
`INVT SPE LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01476
`U.S. Patent No. 7,764,711
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01476 Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,764,711
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF ARGUMENT ............................ 1
`I.
`II. RELATED PROCEEDINGS BEARING ON THIS PROCEEDING ............ 1
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’711 PATENT ........................................................... 2
`A. Challenged Claims ................................................................................. 4
`B. Simultaneous Implementation of Spatial Multiplexing and Transmit
`Diversity ....................................................................................................... 7
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...........................................10
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .........................................................................10
`VI. SUMMARY OF ALLEGED PRIOR ART CITED IN GROUNDS .............11
`A. U.S. Patent No. 6,067,290 to Paulraj et al. (“Paulraj”) (Ex. 1005) ........11
`B. “Achieving High Data Rates in CDMA Systems Using BLAST
`Techniques” by Howard Huang, Harish Viswanathan, and G.J. Foschini
`(“Huang”) (Ex. 1006) ...................................................................................14
`C. U.S. Patent No. 7,095,709 to Walton et al. (“Walton”) (Ex. 1008) .......18
`D. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0193146A1 to Wallace et
`al. (“Wallace”) (Ex. 1009) ............................................................................19
`VII. LEGAL STANDARD FOR OBVIOUSNESS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 .....22
`VIII. GROUND 1: THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE IT FAILS
`TO SHOW BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT ANY OF
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE FOR BEING
`OBVIOUS OVER PAULRAJ IN VIEW OF HUANG AND IN FURTHER VIEW
`OF WALTON .......................................................................................................24
`A. Neither Paulraj, Nor Huang, Nor Walton Disclose or Suggest Every
`Element of the Challenged Claims ...............................................................24
`1.
`Paulraj does not disclose “maps the plurality of data items . . . such
`that the specific data item and the replica data item are transmitted from
`different antennas at a same time” as claimed. ......................................25
`2. Walton does not disclose “maps the plurality of data items . . . such
`that the specific data item and the replica data item are transmitted from
`different antennas at a same time” as claimed. ......................................30
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01476 Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,764,711
`
`
`3. Huang does not disclose “maps the plurality of data items . . . such
`that the specific data item and the replica data item are transmitted from
`different antennas at a same time” as claimed. ......................................33
`B. Petitioners Provide Insufficient Rationale to Modify Paulraj in View of
`Walton and Huang .......................................................................................35
`1. Modifying Paulraj to include the symbol repetition unit of Walton
`would result in a less efficient design counter to Paulraj’s objective of
`improving data transfer speed within the constraints of available
`bandwidth. ............................................................................................36
`2. A PHOSITA would not be motivated by Huang to modify Paulraj
`and Walton to result in the invention of the challenged claims. ............38
`3.
`There is no support to conclude that modifying Paulraj and Walton
`in view of Huang would yield predictable results. ................................42
`IX. GROUND 2: THE PETITION FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS OVER WALLACE
`IN VIEW OF WALTON.......................................................................................43
`A. Combining Wallace With Walton Would Not Result In the Invention of
`the Challenged Claims .................................................................................43
`X. OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NONOBVIOUSNESS SUPPORT A FINDING
`OF PATENTABILITY .........................................................................................46
`A. Nexus – The Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness are Directly
`Attributable to the Inventions of the Challenged Claims ..............................47
`B. Adoption of the Inventions of the ’711 Patent as a Standard .................47
`C. Licensing of the Inventions of the ’711 Patent ......................................50
`XI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01476 Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,764,711
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns. Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................ 23
`Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`687 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................ 42
`Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp.,
`732 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ........................................................................ 23
`Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc.,
`381 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................................................................ 50
`Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`598 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................................ 46
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphic, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 1
`Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. f’real Foods, LLC,
`908 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................................................ 38
`In re Dow Chem. Co.,
`837 F.2d 469 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .......................................................................... 24
`
`In re Hayes Microcomputer Prod., Inc. Patent Lit.,
`982 F.2d 1527 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ........................................................................ 50
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 23
`In re Vaidyanathan,
`381 F. App’x 985 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................... 35
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc.,
`751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................ 40
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01476 Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,764,711
`
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................................................... 22, 23
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................................ 11
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ........................................................ 10
`Polaris Industries, Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................. 40, 41
`SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu,
`138 S.Ct. 1348 (2018) ...................................................................................... 11
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.,
`829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................ 46
`WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ........................................................................ 51
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................... 22
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................ 22
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ........................................................................................... 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)) ............................................................................... 23, 27
`
`Office Practice Guide,
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 at 48,763 (Aug. 14, 2012) .................................................. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01476 Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,764,711
`
`
`EXHIBITS FILED WITH PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Exhibit No.
`2001
`
`2002
`2003
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`Description
`Joint Disputed Proposed Claim Terms for Construction, In the
`Matter of Certain LTE and 3G-Compliant Cellular
`Communications Devices, Investigation No. 337-TA-1138
`(February 1, 2019).
`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic
`Curriculum Vitae of Branimir Vojcic
`Final Report of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #53 v1.0.0 (Kansas City,
`U.S., May 5-9, 2008).
`Final Report of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #54 (53bis v1.0.0)
`(Warsaw, Poland, June 30-July 4, 2008).
`Consideration on Multicarrier Transmission Scheme for LTE-Adv
`Uplink, Agenda Item 12, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 53bis v1.0.0
`(Warsaw, Poland, June 30-July 4, 2008).
`Final Report of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #55 v1.0.0 (Prague, Czech
`Republic, November 10 – 14, 2008).
`Final Report of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #55bis v3.0.0 (Ljubljana,
`Slovenia, January 12 – 16, 2009).
`Draft Report of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #60bis v0.1.0 (Beijing,
`China, April 12 – 16, 2010).
`Final Report of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #54 v1.0.0 (Jeju Island,
`South Korea, August 18 – 22, 2008).
`Complainant INVT SPE LLC’s Statement Regarding the Public
`Interest under 19 C.F.R. § 210.8(b), Certain LTE- and 3G-
`Compliant Cellular Communications Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-
`1138 (September, 13, 2018).
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01476 Patent Owner’s Response
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF ARGUMENT1
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,764,711
`
`Petitioners have not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Claims
`
`1–6 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,764,711 (Ex. 1001, the “’711
`
`Patent”) are unpatentable. Petitioners bear the burden of showing that this statutory
`
`threshold has been met, and Petitioners have failed to do so here. See Office
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 at 48,763 (Aug. 14, 2012); Dynamic
`
`Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphic, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`The Board should confirm the patentability of the challenged claims for two
`
`main reasons. First, Petitioners’ obviousness challenges fail because Petitioners’
`
`alleged prior art references, taken alone or in any combination, do not meet all the
`
`limitations of any challenged claim, which render the obviousness challenges
`
`deficient. Second, Petitioners’ obviousness grounds also fail to establish a proper
`
`motivation to combine or modify references as the Petitioners propose, and fail to
`
`set forth how such combination would be achieved.
`
`II. RELATED PROCEEDINGS BEARING ON THIS PROCEEDING
`
`Patent Owner asserted the ’711 Patent against each of the Petitioners in the
`
`District of New Jersey. See Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notice, Paper 5 (Sept. 11,
`
`2018). Patent Owner also asserted the ’711 Patent against Petitioners in the
`
`
`1 Citations are to internal page numbers of exhibits.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01476 Patent Owner’s Response
`
`International Trade Commission in Certain LTE- and 3G-Compliant Cellular
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,764,711
`
`
`
`Communications Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1138 (the “ITC Investigation”).2 On
`
`February 1, 2019, Patent Owner and Petitioners filed jointly their proposed claims
`
`terms for construction in the ITC Investigation, including proposed constructions
`
`for claim terms of the ’711 Patent. Ex. 2001. On March 11, 2019, the ’711 Patent
`
`was withdrawn from the ITC Investigation without prejudice.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’711 PATENT
`
`The ’711 Patent generally relates to a novel and nonobvious technique for
`
`data transmission and reception between a “transmitting apparatus,” such as a user
`
`equipment (“UE”) device, and a “reception apparatus,” such as a base station. The
`
`transmitting apparatus and the reception apparatus can each contain multiple
`
`antennas that enable a large data signal to be separated into multiple data items and
`
`transmit an amount of data proportional to the number of transmission antennas.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 1:42-47. When the number of antennas in the reception apparatus is
`
`greater than or equal to the number of antennas in the transmitting apparatus,
`
`
`2 Patent Owner filed the ITC Investigation complaint on September 13, 2018, and
`
`the Commission instituted the investigation against Petitioners in this proceeding,
`
`namely, Apple Inc., HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., ZTE Corporation, and
`
`ZTE (USA), Inc. on October 16, 2018.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01476 Patent Owner’s Response
`
`multi-input/multi-output (“MIMO”) transmission enabling high-speed, high-
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,764,711
`
`
`
`volume communication is possible. In other words, utilizing different antennas in
`
`the transmitting apparatus to transmit different data items in parallel can increase
`
`data transfer speeds. Id. This is known as “spatial multiplexing.” As the number of
`
`different data items being transmitted in parallel on different antennas in the
`
`reception apparatus increases, however, so does the error rate of the data signal.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 1:48–53. Transmission errors can be due to interference, influences of
`
`noise, etc.
`
`Replicating the data signal and transmitting copies of the data signal in
`
`parallel on the multiple antennas in the transmitting apparatus can improve error
`
`rate by providing more chances for the data to be received correctly. This is known
`
`as “transmit diversity.” Indiscriminate use of transmit diversity, by transmitting the
`
`same data signals through the multiple antennas at the same time, results in
`
`decreased data transfer speed and decreased efficiency due to unnecessary
`
`consumption of bandwidth and replication (e.g., replication even where there are
`
`no errors to correct). Ex. 1001 at 1:60–67.
`
`The inventions of the ’711 Patent relate to, among other things, a MIMO
`
`transmission apparatus that uses spatial multiplexing of a plurality of different data
`
`items transmitted over different antennas and also transmit diversity of a specific
`
`data item and its replica over a plurality of antennas at the same time. Ex. 1001 at
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01476 Patent Owner’s Response
`
`2:7–12; 5:13–25, 7:29–8:6. The inventors of the ’711 Patent recognized that a
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,764,711
`
`
`
`particular use of transmit diversity employed together with spatial multiplexing can
`
`improve the reception performance on the receiving side for specific data while
`
`maintaining the transmission efficiency of the communication system. Ex. 1001 at
`
`5:25–28. The specific and simultaneous use of the two transmission techniques
`
`(transmit diversity and spatial multiplexing) had never before been recognized. The
`
`inventions disclosed in the ’711 Patent thus provide an improved MIMO
`
`transmission scheme that maximizes transmission efficiency while reducing errors.
`
`Id.
`
`A. Challenged Claims
`
`The challenged claims (claims 1–6) of the ’711 Patent include two
`
`independents claims: claims 1 and 6. As discussed below, both asserted Grounds
`
`fail because the alleged prior art cited does not include every limitation of
`
`independent claims 1 and 6.
`
`In full, challenged claims 1 and 6 of the ’711 Patent recite:
`
`1. A transmitting apparatus employing a MIMO (multi-
`input/multi-output) scheme of transmitting a plurality of
`data items for a same receiving apparatus using a plurality
`of antennas
`in parallel,
`the
`transmitting apparatus
`comprising:
`a mapping section that maps the plurality of data
`items to at least one of the plurality of antennas; and a
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01476 Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,764,711
`
`transmitting section that transmits the plurality of data
`items using the at least one of the plurality of antennas to
`the receiving apparatus,
`wherein the mapping section generates a replica
`data item by replicating a specific data item of the
`plurality of data items, and maps the plurality of data
`items to the at least one of the plurality of antennas such
`that the specific data item and the replica data item are
`transmitted from different antennas at a same time.
`
`Ex. 1001 at Claim 1 (emphasis supplied).
`
`6. A transmitting method employing a MIMO (multi-
`input/multi-output) scheme of transmitting a plurality of
`data items for a same receiving apparatus using a plurality
`of antennas
`in parallel,
`the
`transmitting method
`comprising:
`a mapping step of mapping the plurality of data
`items to at least one of the plurality of antennas; and
`a transmitting step of transmitting the plurality of
`data items using the at least one of the plurality of antennas
`to the receiving apparatus,
`wherein, in the mapping step, a replica data item
`is generated by replicating a specific data item of the
`plurality of data items, and the plurality of data items are
`mapped to the at least one of the plurality of antennas such
`that the specific data item and the replica data item are
`transmitted from different antennas at a same time.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01476 Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Ex. 1001 at Claim 6 (emphasis supplied).
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,764,711
`
`Specifically, claim 1 (and also claim 6) recites an apparatus that transmits a
`
`specific data item, as well as a replica of the specific data item, from different
`
`antennas, at the same time, while employing a spatial multiplexing scheme to
`
`transmit other different data items as well. Such simultaneous use of spatial
`
`multiplexing and transmit diversity is shown by Figure 4 of the ’711 Patent (Ex.
`
`1001 at Figure 4 (highlighting added)), which demonstrates different data
`
`transmitted from antennas 1 and 2 (“Data 1” and “Data 2,” highlighted in yellow)
`
`while the same “Retransmission Data” (highlighted in blue) is also transmitted out
`
`of the same two antennas shown on the y-axis, in the same time slot.
`
`Ex. 1001 at Figure 4 (annotated).
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01476 Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,764,711
`
`B. Simultaneous Implementation of Spatial Multiplexing and
`Transmit Diversity
`As shown above, the challenged claims of the ’711 Patent (both dependent
`
`claims 1 and 6, and thereby the dependent claims), as supported by the
`
`specification, require that spatial multiplexing and transmit diversity be
`
`implemented at the same time, or simultaneously.
`
`The Challenged Claims take advantage of spatial multiplexing by “using a
`
`plurality of antennas in parallel.” Ex. 2002 (Vojcic Dec.) ¶ 33. Yet, notably, the
`
`Challenged Claims also take advantage of transmit diversity by transmitting a
`
`replica data item of a specific data item “such that the specific data item and the
`
`replica data item are transmitted from different antennas at a same time.” Ex. 1001
`
`(’711 Patent) at 11. Therefore, the specific data item described in transmit diversity
`
`(TD) with the replica data item, is also involved in spatial multiplexing (SM) at the
`
`same time (simultaneously or in parallel), with other data items of the plurality
`
`data items— it necessarily follows that the challenged claims (limitation found in
`
`both independent claims 1 and 6) teach simultaneous combination of SM and TD.
`
`Ex. 2002 (Vojcic Dec.) ¶ 33.
`
`Before the invention of the Challenged Claims, prior approaches to MIMO
`
`transmission exploited multiple antenna transmission by either providing for error
`
`correction and resending transmissions redundantly, i.e., same data sent again, in
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01476 Patent Owner’s Response
`
`either time, frequency, or space; or providing for increased data transfer speed by
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,764,711
`
`
`
`sending multiple data items in parallel to a receiver.
`
`Indiscriminate transmit diversity, however, reduces data transfer speed and
`
`transmission efficiency of the system because “the same data” is retransmitted, or
`
`“assigned” to a given number of the available antennas in the MIMO system,
`
`regardless of whether any error actually occurred. Ex. 1001 (’711 Patent) at 7, Fig.
`
`5. When data is retransmitted unnecessarily, the resources used for the
`
`retransmission are wasted. Ex. 1001 (’711 Patent) at 1:60-6 (stating that in such
`
`systems, “the data transmission deteriorates”).
`
`In other words, at the time of the invention of the Challenged Claims, it was
`
`understood that “maximizing one type of gain” through using either spatial
`
`multiplexing or transmit diversity “may not necessarily maximize the other.” Ex.
`
`1013 (Zheng) at 2. Consequently, it was known that higher spatial multiplexing
`
`(i.e., higher transmission capacity) would come at the price of sacrificing transmit
`
`diversity (i.e., risking transmission error). Ex. 1013 (Zheng) at 3. There was a
`
`recognized tradeoff in signal quality and transmission speed, or efficiency.
`
`To solve this “tradeoff” problem, prior approaches implemented “switching”
`
`techniques that would “switch between the two modes, depending on the
`
`instantaneous channel condition.” Ex. 1013 (Zheng) at 2. Studies taken around the
`
`time of the ’711 Patent sought to identify an “optimal tradeoff,” which was
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01476 Patent Owner’s Response
`
`described as “bridg[ing] the gap” between the maximum diversity gain and the
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,764,711
`
`
`
`maximum spatial multiplexing gain. Ex. 1013 at 5. The studies found that “optimal
`
`tradeoffs” can be “useful for evaluating and comparing existing schemes,” but
`
`concluded that gains in error rates of spatially separate transmissions of substreams
`
`could only be achieved by reducing the maximum spatial multiplexing gains of the
`
`system. Ex. 1013 at 24.
`
`The ’711 Patent takes a different approach. The ’711 Patent solves the
`
`“tradeoff” problem by employing diversity transmission to a specific data
`
`substream, which is designated as having a higher priority than other data items.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1001 (’711 Patent) at 9. This specific data item is replicated for
`
`transmission simultaneously on different antennas, while the remaining data
`
`substreams can be transmitted in parallel without replication. See, e.g., id.
`
`Even the Petition recognizes that the ’711 Patent describes the
`
`“simultaneous implementation of spatial multiplexing (transmitting different data
`
`streams from different antennas) and transmit diversity (transmitting the same data
`
`from different antennas).” Paper 1 at 44 (citing Ex. 1001 at 1:60-2:12, 4:36-5:3,
`
`5:13-25, and Figures 3-4). However, the references asserted in the Petition fail to
`
`show such simultaneity.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01476 Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,764,711
`
`Petitioners assert that a person having ordinary skill in the art (a
`
`“PHOSITA”)3 would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or an
`
`equivalent as well as three years of experience working with “multi-antennas
`
`wireless communication systems,” or one year of such experience with a master’s
`
`degree in electrical engineering focusing on communications systems. Pet. at 7–8
`
`(citing Ex. 1003 at ¶41). As explained below, even under Petitioners’ definition of
`
`a PHOSITA, Petitioners have failed to show that the challenged claims are
`
`invalid.4
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The challenged claims should be afforded their “broadest reasonable
`
`construction” in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Claim terms are
`
`“generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a
`
`PHOSITA at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`In the Institution Decision, the Board agreed with Patent Owner that
`
`“specific data” means “data given a higher priority in transmission.”
`
`
`3 Also known as a POSITA.
`
`4 The analysis set forth herein is based on Petitioners’ proposed level of skill.
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01476 Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Institution Decision at 8 (Paper 9). Patent Owner notes that Petitioners agreed to
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,764,711
`
`
`
`this construction in the ITC Investigation. Ex. 2001 (Joint Claim Chart) at Page 2
`
`of 9. No other terms require construction. Prelim. Resp. at 22 (Paper 8). See Nidec
`
`Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms that are in controversy, and only
`
`to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).
`
`
`
`Ex. 2001 at Page 2 of 9.
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF ALLEGED PRIOR ART CITED IN GROUNDS
`
`The Board instituted inter partes review of all asserted Grounds. SAS Inst.,
`
`Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct. 1348, 1360 (2018). Petitioners asserted Ground 1 (based on
`
`Paulraj in view of Huang and Walton) and alternatively Ground 2 (based on
`
`Wallace in view of Walton). Pet. at 8–9.
`
`A. U.S. Patent No. 6,067,290 to Paulraj et al. (“Paulraj”) (Ex. 1005)
`
`Paulraj discloses methods and apparatus for implementing spatial
`
`multiplexing in conjunction with one or more multiple access protocols. Ex. 1005
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01476 Patent Owner’s Response
`
`at 1:53-56. Paulraj focuses on improving data transfer speed. Ex. 1005 at 1:46–49
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,764,711
`
`
`
`(“What is needed is a way to improve data transfer speed in the multiple access
`
`environments currently utilized for wireless communications within the constraints
`
`of available bandwidth.”). To achieve its objective, Paulraj focuses on spatial
`
`multiplexing only to increase data transfer speed. While transmit diversity is also
`
`mentioned, there is not even a suggestion to implement it at the same time using
`
`replicas of one or more transmitted spatial multiplexing streams, let alone an
`
`explanation as to how a PHOSITA would do so. Ex. 1005 at 6:7; 2:62–13:1.
`
`To mitigate against errors, Paulraj discloses “[w]hen a subscriber unit is first
`
`turned on, it performs a series of startup procedures and then samples the received
`
`signal strength on all user channels.” Ex. 1005 at 8:31–33. In this way, the
`
`subscriber unit of Paulraj can tune to the channel with the strongest receive
`
`strength and synchronize with a base station. Ex. 1005 at 8:34–36. Paulraj proposes
`
`continually monitoring channel conditions to tune to the “best” receive frequency
`
`channel. Ex. 1005 at 8:36–39 (“The subscriber unit interprets the data and
`
`continues monitoring the controlled channels. The subscriber unit automatically re-
`
`scans periodically to ensure that it is using the best control channels.”).
`
`One way in which Paulraj expressly addresses maintaining signal quality of
`
`a spatially-multiplexed data stream is by “re-routing . . . the datastream or selected
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01476 Patent Owner’s Response
`
`substreams thereof to different antennas of the same [base station].” Ex. 1005 at
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,764,711
`
`
`
`9:28-33. For example:
`
`The SM_MA processes/logic involve splitting subscriber
`datastream(s) destined for spatial multiplexing
`into
`substreams and intelligently routing and re-routing the
`substreams during a call session so as to maintain
`consistent quality of service (QoS). The substreams are
`communicated on the same channel using the same access
`protocol, thus not requiring additional resources or
`bandwidth to implement.
`
`Ex. 1005 at 7:60–66 (emphasis supplied). Paulraj’s description of re-routing, thus,
`
`supports its express objective to improve data transfer speed within the constraints
`
`of available bandwidth by focusing on saving resources and bandwidth.
`
`Notably, Paulraj does not disclose replicating a specific data item of the
`
`plurality of data items, and mapping the plurality of data items to at least one of a
`
`plurality of antennas such that the specific data item and the replica data item are
`
`transmitted from different antennas at the same time. Instead, the transmission
`
`scheme of Paulraj employs a “detector 400,” which “determines that the
`
`datastream(s) 454-456 require spatial processing.” Ex. 1005 at 20:15–16. In other
`
`words, Paulraj describes a “mode detection” whereby “[d]atastream(s) might, as
`
`discussed, be categorized as traditional vs. spatial, or on the basis of QoS or bit rate
`
`requirement.” Ex. 1005 at 16:66–17:4.
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01476 Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,764,711
`
`Although Paulraj briefly makes reference to “a number of well-known prior
`
`art signal processing techniques [that] may be implemented to improve the quality
`
`of transmission . . . include[ing], but not limited to diversity processing,” Paulraj
`
`contains no disclosure concerning or suggesting simultaneous implementation of
`
`spatial multiplexing and transmit diversity such that diversity is implemented by
`
`transmitting a replica of one or more transmitted spatial streams. Ex. 1005 at
`
`12:62–13:1. And although Paulraj mentions “if diversity processing is
`
`implemented,” Paulraj contains no disclosure of how “diversity processing” is
`
`implemented or how it is implemented simultaneously with spatial multiplexing.
`
`Ex. 1005 at 13:5–9 (emphasis supplied). Indeed, Paulraj notes that its multiple
`
`antennas can be utilized “either for spatial multiplexing or to implement
`
`receive/transmit processing, e.g. diversity techniques . . . .” Ex. 1005 at 12:6–8
`
`(emphasis supplied). Paulraj simply does not disclose use of both spatial
`
`multiplexing and transmit diversity at the same time, nor does it disclose the use of
`
`both in the particular manner taught in the challenged claims.
`
`“Achieving High Data Rates in CDMA Systems Using BLAST
`B.
`Techniques” by Howard Huang, Harish Viswanathan, and G.J.
`Foschini (“Huang”) (Ex. 1006)
`
`Huang is a conference paper that describes allocating resources such as
`
`spreading codes, antennas, and power “efficiently among K high-speed data users”
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01476 Patent Owner’s Response
`
`in a downlink system—i.e., from the base station to a user equipment—in idealized
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,764,711
`
`
`
`conditions, and plots the resulting spectral efficiencies. Ex. 1006 at 2316, Fig. 4.
`
`Huang provides only a narrow discussion focused on a demonstration of
`
`“potential for significant capacity gains from using multiple transmit and receive
`
`antennas in CDMA systems, [where] the results were based on assumptions such
`
`as perfect power control, perfect channel estimation and complex processing at
`
`the receiver.” Ex. 1006 at 2320 (emphasis supplied). Huang admits that “it remains
`
`for future work to study the effect of non-idealities that occur in practical systems
`
`and to consider channel coding to achieve significant fractions of the potential
`
`capacity gains.” Id. (emphasis supplied). Because the Huang paper provides no
`
`specificity regarding how its disclosure could be used in systems contemplating
`
`“non-idealities,” it follows that the Huang paper is intended to be used for
`
`discussion and academic purposes. It specifically acknowledged many
`
`uncertainties in the art as to the likelihood of success or implementation of the
`
`techniques or systems it disclosed. Id. (“It remains for future work to study the
`
`effect of non-idealities that occur in practical systems and to consider channel
`
`coding to achieve significant fractions of the potential capacity gains.”)
`
`Huang does not disclose transmitting spatial multiplexing and transmit
`
`diversity simultaneously in the particular manner taught in the challenged claims.
`
`Huang “studied a high-speed downlink CDMA system which uses multiple
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01476 Patent Owner’s Response
`
`antenna transmit diversity, multicode transmission, and space-time detectors and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,764,711
`
`
`
`developed and used “a novel technique for evaluating the system capacity.” Id.
`
`Huang provides four, idealized transmission configurations via simple
`
`diagrams:
`
`Huang at 2320.
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01476 Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,764,711
`
`None of the four transmission configurations discloses transmitting a
`
`specific data i