IPR2018-01477
`U.S. Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`
`
`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. 2018-01477
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,848,439
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`
`
`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. 2018-01477
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,848,439
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. SUMMARY OF THE ’439 PATENT ........................................................... 1
`A. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALLEGED INVENTION OF THE ’439 PATENT ..................... 1
`B. SUMMARY OF THE PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE ’439 PATENT ..................... 5
`C. LEVEL OF SKILL OF A PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................ 7
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104 .................................................................................................................... 7
`A. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A) ................................. 7
`B. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) AND RELIEF
`REQUESTED ............................................................................................................ 7
`C. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3) ................................ 8
`IV. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ’439 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE 9
`A. GROUND 1: LI IN VIEW OF WALTON RENDERS CLAIMS 1, 3, 5-11 OBVIOUS ........ 9
`B. GROUND 2: LI IN VIEW OF WALTON IN FURTHER VIEW OF VIJAYAN RENDERS
`CLAIMS 2 AND 4 OBVIOUS ..................................................................................... 41
`V. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 46
`VI. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ..................... 47
`A. REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST, 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)(1) ....................................... 47
`B. RELATED MATTERS ....................................................................................... 47
`C. LEAD AND BACK-UP COUNSEL ..................................................................... 48
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners Apple Inc. and ZTE (USA) Inc. (“Petitioners”) request an Inter
`
`Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims 1-11 (collectively, the “Challenged Claims”) of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439 (“the ’439 Patent”). ’439 Patent (Ex. 1001).
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’439 PATENT
`A. Description of the alleged invention of the ’439 Patent
`
`The ’439 Patent generally describes an Orthogonal Frequency Division
`
`Multiplexing (OFDM) communication system in which subcarriers are allocated
`
`and a modulation/coding scheme assigned based on measured channel quality
`
`between a base station and handset. ’439 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 1:9-26. The
`
`following excerpt explains the Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) process for
`
`adaptive modulation and coding (AMC), which forms the foundation of the ’439
`
`Patent disclosure:
`
`[T]he meaning of adaptive modulation and coding is to adaptively
`adjust modulation and coding parameters on the transmission side
`based on channel characteristics at the current time and to carry out
`demodulation and decoding using parameters corresponding to the
`transmission side on the receiving side. In a typical system, adaptive
`parameters
`required
`by
`adaptive
`demodulating/decoding
`section 311 depend on feedback from the receiving side. Before
`transmitting each data block, the receiving side always first
`estimates transmission channel from the transmission side to the
`receiving side at the current time by channel estimating section 319,
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`and obtains channel characteristics of the subcarriers of the
`OFDM. Based on these channel characteristics, the receiving side
`then decides modulation and coding parameters used for the
`OFDM subbands
`in
`the case of
`transmitting data from
`the
`transmission side at the current point by parameter selecting
`section 318.
`. . .
`After selecting modulation and coding parameters of the OFDM
`subbands, subband AMC parameter selecting section 318 on the
`receiving side then transmits these parameters back to the
`transmission side via a feedback path[.]
`Id. at 3:18-43 (emphasis added). The available frequency bandwidth of an OFDM
`
`system “is divided into a plurality of narrow subcarrier frequency bandwidths.”
`
`Id. at 1:25-26 (emphasis added).
`
`To simplify processing, “all of the subcarriers on the OFDM frequency
`
`domain are [further] divided into several subbands.” Id. at 2:18-19 (emphasis
`
`added). The ’439 explains that prior art techniques perform AMC on both
`
`subcarriers and on subbands, but notes that “AMC based on subcarriers is very
`
`difficult to be implemented, and, in addition, has the problem that feedback
`
`overhead is too large.” Id. at 2:2-15.
`
`To further simplify the process and reduce feedback overhead, the ’439
`
`Patent proposes combining subbands into subband groups based on a predefined
`
`rule, whereby a single modulation and coding scheme is selected for the entire
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`
`group:
`
`The object of the present invention is therefore to provide
`communication apparatus, a communication system and a
`communication method capable of increasing spectrum utilization
`rate of a system and particularly increasing spectrum utilization rate
`based on high-speed fading and channel estimation error, reducing
`the degree of difficulty of adaptivity, and reducing the feedback
`overhead compared with subband adaptive methods of the related
`art by combining all of the subbands on a frequency domain of a
`subcarrier communication system based on a fixed rule to as to give
`several subband groups, and then selecting modulation and coding
`parameters for use during joint coding with respect to each subband
`group.
`Id. at 5:32-44 (emphasis added); see also id. at 7:39-46, 8:2-15, 8:57-60
`
`(“differences with subband adaptivity of the related art shown in FIG. 4B is
`
`that the unit of adaptive demodulation and coding is a subband group rather
`
`than a subband.”) (emphasis added).
`
`The ’439 Patent describes three examples of how subbands are to be
`
`grouped, and leaves open the possibility that other rules may be employed to
`
`define these subband groups:
`
`[W]ith the method of the present application, selection of adaptive
`parameters for the OFDM subband groups in step 903 is achieved by
`providing subband groups as the units of adaptive transmission rather
`than subbands. All of the subbands in an OFDM frequency domain
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`are first taken to be several subband groups based on a certain
`combination method (or combination pattern)[.] A method of
`combining neighboring subbands, a method of combining subbands
`spaced at intervals, a method of combining all of the subbands, or a
`method of combining in accordance with another rule may be
`given as methods of combining.
`Id. at 23-33 (emphasis added); see also id. at s 8-10.
`
`
`
`Table 2 below provides an exemplary set of modulation and coding schemes
`
`that may be applied to a subband group in accordance with the ’439 Patent AMC
`
`technique.
`
`
`
`The illustrated classifications are listed, from top to bottom, in order of
`
`lowest channel quality to highest channel quality. For example, classification 0
`
`represents
`
`the worst (inoperable) channel for which no
`
`information
`
`is
`
`transmitted—resulting in a “throughput performance” of zero. On the other end of
`
`the spectrum, classification 6 represents the highest quality channel for which the
`
`selected modulation and coding parameters produce a throughput performance of
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`
`4.
`
`
`
`In addition to the coding parameters illustrated in Table 2 above, the ’439
`
`Patent teaches two methods for determining an appropriate coding parameter. In a
`
`first method, the channel quality for each subband within a subband group is
`
`measured, total possible throughput for the group is calculated based on the
`
`channel qualities, and a coding parameter is selected based on this total throughput.
`
`Id. at 11:19-34. Accordingly, the system calculates a total number of bits that can
`
`be communicated over the subband group and calculates a coding parameter from
`
`that value. In a second method, the system performs the same steps of the first
`
`method, but assigns a discounting weight to the throughput of the subband group.
`
`Id. at 11:35-46. The specific example described in the ’439 Patent calculates a total
`
`bit throughput and discounts it by 10% (i.e., multiplies the throughput by 0.9)
`
`before using the value to calculate a coding parameter. Id. A POSITA in the
`
`technical field of the ’439 Patent would recognize that discounting the throughput
`
`before calculating a common coding parameter for multiple subbands helps
`
`prevent overloading the lower quality subbands in the group. Singer Decl. (Ex.
`
`1003) at ¶ 48.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the prosecution history of the ’439 Patent
`
`The PCT application that resulted in the ’439 Patent was filed on November
`
`18, 2005 as PCT/JP2005/021246, and the ‘439 Patent claims priority to a Chinese
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`patent application, CN 2004-1-0094967, dated November 19, 2004. ’439 Patent
`
`(Ex. 1001). For purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner assumes the priority date
`
`for the Challenged Claims is November 19, 2004.
`
`The Examiner issued a Non-Final Rejection on February 2, 2010, rejecting
`
`proposed claims 1, 6, 7, and 9-11 as anticipated under § 102 by the Applicant
`
`Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) discussed in the ‘439 Application at ¶¶ 0002-0025,
`
`0035-0038, and depicted in Figs. 3A-B. ’439 Patent File History (Ex. 1002), Office
`
`Action at 254-58. Finding claims 2-5, 8, and 12 allowable if written in independent
`
`form, the Examiner noted the following:
`
`The prior art of record, AAPA et al. does not teach or suggest a
`
`pattern storage section that stores patterns for selecting subbands
`
`constituting the subband groups in advance . . .
`
`The prior art of record, AAPA et al. also does not teach or suggest
`
`wherein the parameter deciding section decides the coding parameters
`
`in such a manner that the number of information bits obtained by
`
`assigning a weight to the sum of the number of information bits
`
`that are able to be assigned to all of the subbands within the
`
`subband group, is assigned to the subband group.
`
`Id. at 258 (emphasis added) (describing limitations in claims 2 and 8).
`
`In response, the Applicant amended the claims such that all claims include
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`either (1) the pattern storage limitation of original claim 2 or (2) the weight per
`
`subband group limitation of original claim 8. Id. at 277-85.
`
`The Examiner then allowed the claims and the ’439 Patent issued on May
`
`17, 2011. ’439 patent (Ex. 1001).
`
`C.
`
`Level of skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the filing of the ’439 Patent
`
`would have been a person having a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or
`
`the equivalent plus three years of experience working with digital communication
`
`systems or in network engineering or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering
`
`with an emphasis on communication systems or the equivalent plus one year of
`
`experience working with digital communication systems or
`
`in network
`
`engineering. Singer Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶33.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104
`A. Grounds for standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioners certify that the ’439 Patent is available for IPR and that the
`
`Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the claims
`
`of the ’439 Patent.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and relief
`requested
`
`In view of the prior art and evidence presented, claims 1-8 of the ’439 Patent
`
`are unpatentable and should be cancelled. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1). Further, based
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`on the prior art references identified below, IPR of the Challenged Claims should
`
`be granted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2).
`
`Proposed Grounds of Unpatentability
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 3, 5-11 are obvious under § 103(a) over U.S.
`Patent No. 6,904,283 to Xiaodong Li, et al. (“Li”) in view of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,885,228 to Jay Rod Walton, et al. (“Walton”)
`Ground 2: Claims 2, 4 are obvious under § 103(a) over Li in view
`of Walton and in further view of U.S. Patent No. 7,221,680 to Rajiv
`Vijayan, et al. (“Vijayan”)
`
`Exhibits
`
`1004, 1005
`
`1004, 1005,
`1006
`
`
`
`Section IV identifies where each element of the Challenged Claims is found
`
`in the prior art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). The exhibit numbers of the supporting
`
`evidence relied upon to support the challenges are provided above and the
`
`relevance of the evidence to the challenges raised are provided in Section IV. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5). Exhibits 1001–1013 are also attached.
`
`C. Claim construction under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`
`In this proceeding, claim terms of an unexpired patent should be given their
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144-46 (2016).
`
`Petitioner understands that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) may soon
`
`apply the standard applied by Article III courts (i.e., the Phillips standard).
`
`Petitioner has applied the plain and ordinary meaning of all claim terms below and
`
`does not believe any claim terms require express construction to resolve the
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`proposed grounds of rejection presented herein. Petitioner does not, however,
`
`waive any argument in any litigation that claim terms in the ’439 Patent are
`
`indefinite or otherwise invalid nor does Petitioner waive its right to raise specific
`
`issues of claim construction in any litigation.
`
`IV. THERE
`IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE
`’439 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE
`A. Ground 1: Li in view of Walton renders claims 1, 3, 5-11 obvious
`Li was filed on April 17, 2001 and therefore qualifies as prior art with regard
`
`to the ’439 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (pre-AIA). Li (Ex. 1004). Li discloses
`
`an OFDMA cellular communication system in which subcarriers are partitioned
`
`into groups and one or more groups are allocated to a cellular subscriber. Id. at
`
`Abstract, 11:46-67. Li also describes an adaptive modulation and coding (AMC)
`
`technique for measuring the downlink channel quality and selecting modulation
`
`and coding parameters accordingly. Id. at 3:17-53.
`
`Like the ’439 Patent, Li explains that channel quality in an OFDM system is
`
`measured by a cellular handset, coding and modulation parameters are selected
`
`based on these measurements, and the result is reported back to the base station.
`
`Compare id. at 3:5-23 (“The techniques disclosed herein are described using
`
`OFDMA” wherein “each subscriber
`
`first measures
`
`the channel and
`
`interference information for all the subcarriers and then selects multiple
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`subcarriers with good performance (e.g., a high signal-to-interference plus noise
`
`ratio (SINR)) and feeds back the information on these candidate subcarriers to
`
`the base station.”) and id. at 8:1-3 (“The estimated SINR values are also used to
`
`choose the appropriate coding/modulation rate for each cluster as discussed above.
`
`By using an appropriate SINR indexing scheme, an SINR index may also indicate
`
`a particular coding and modulation rate that a subscriber desires to use.”)
`
`with ’439 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 4:32-46 (“[T]he receiving side first needs to select
`
`AMC parameters for use in the data blocks that the transmission side transmits In
`
`the procedure where the receiving side selects parameters first, channel estimation
`
`is carried out using the received signal. A method based on a pilot or blind
`
`channel estimation etc. may be given as a method of channel estimation. After this,
`
`channel estimation section 319 transmits channel characteristics of the
`
`obtained OFDM subcarriers
`
`to subband AMC parameter selecting
`
`section 318. Subband AMC parameter selecting section 318 first carries out
`
`analysis of the performance of the subbands in OFDM in this way, and selects
`
`AMC parameters appropriate for the respective subbands from the selected set of
`
`AMC parameters. AMC parameters obtained in this way are then transmitted
`
`back to the transmission side via a feedback channel.”) (emphases added).
`
`Additionally, in both Li and the ’439 Patent, OFDM subbands/clusters of
`
`subcarriers are grouped prior to allocation in order to decrease control signaling
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`overhead. Compare Li (Ex. 1004) at 11:61-67 (“The clusters may be allocated in
`
`groups. Goals of group-based cluster allocation include reducing the data bits
`
`for cluster indexing, thereby reducing the bandwidth requirements of the
`
`feedback channel (information) and control channel (information) for cluster
`
`allocation.”) with ’439 Patent (Ex. 1001) at (“The object of the present invention
`
`is . . . reducing the feedback overhead compared with subband adaptive methods
`
`of the related art by combining all of the subbands on a frequency domain of a
`
`subcarrier communication system based on a fixed rule to as to give several
`
`subband groups.”) (emphases added).
`
`Because both Li and the ‘439 Patent teach OFDM communication systems in
`
`which channel quality measurements are used to select modulation and coding
`
`parameters and to allocate subcarriers in groups as a means of reducing feedback
`
`overhead, Li is in the same field of endeavor and is reasonably pertinent to the
`
`claims in the ’439 Patent. Singer Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶¶ 36-37. Therefore, Li is also
`
`analogous to the claimed invention in the ’439 Patent.
`
`Li was not cited or considered during prosecution of the ’439 Patent and, as
`
`shown in this petition, raises new invalidity issues of the challenged claims that
`
`have not been before the Patent Office.
`
`Although Li teaches that subcarrier clusters can be grouped and that the
`
`SINR (which may indicate particular modulation and coding parameters) is
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`reported on the clusters within the group, it does not expressly describe choosing
`
`the same parameters for all clusters within the group as required by the Challenged
`
`Claims. As discussed in detail below, it was well known at the filing of the ’439
`
`Patent invention to perform AMC such that the entire group of subcarriers
`
`allocated to a subscriber use the same modulation and coding parameters.
`
`One example is Walton, which was filed March 20, 2003 and therefore
`
`qualifies as prior art with regard to the ’439 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (pre-
`
`AIA). Walton (Ex. 1005). The subject matter in Walton is in the same technical
`
`field as Li and is analogous to Li with respect to transmission techniques applicable
`
`to an OFDM system. Walton describes “[t]echniques . . . to select the proper
`
`transmission mode for a data transmission in a multi-channel communication
`
`system with multiple transmission channels having varying SNRs. A suitable
`
`transmission mode may be determined for each data stream to be independently
`
`processed (e.g., coded and modulated) and transmitted on a designated group of
`
`transmission channels.” Id. at 2:21-27. Walton notes that its techniques are
`
`applicable in OFDMA systems and notes, like Li and the ‘439 Patent, that
`
`performing AMC on individual subcarriers/channels requires “a high feedback rate
`
`. . . to send back information (e.g., the SNR or transmission mode) for each
`
`transmission channel, which is needed by the transmitter to code and modulate data
`
`on a channel-by-channel basis.” Id. at 1:17-25, 1:50-67. To decrease the required
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`feedback overhead, Walton describes a group-based AMC method in which “an
`
`SNR estimate [] is initially obtained for each of the multiple transmission
`
`channels,” “an average SNR [] is then computer,” and “an operating SNR” is then
`
`calculated, considering both aspects of the system and variance between the
`
`individual channel SNRs. Id. at 2:28-67. From the operating SNR, a transmission
`
`mode is selected and “utilized for all of the multiple transmission channels.” Id.
`
`Because Walton, like Li and the ’439 Patent, discloses an OFDM
`
`communication system directed to minimizing AMC feedback overhead by
`
`selecting modulation and coding parameters for an entire group of subcarriers, it is
`
`in the same field of endeavor and is reasonably pertinent to the claims of the ’439
`
`Patent. Singer Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 38. Therefore, Walton and Li are not only
`
`analogous art with respect to each other and they are also analogous to the claimed
`
`invention in the ’439 Patent.
`
`Walton was not cited or considered during prosecution of the ’439 Patent
`
`and as shown in this petition, raises new invalidity issues of the challenged claims
`
`that have not been before the Patent Office.
`
`i. Claim 1
`
`1. A communication apparatus comprising:
`
`
`
` To the extent the preamble is limiting, Li discloses a communication
`
`apparatus in form of an OFDMA cellular system comprised of multiple subscribers
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`communicating with a base station within a cell. Li (Ex. 1004) at 3:5-17. Although
`
`Li refers to the communication apparatus (i.e., cellular handset) as a “subscriber”
`
`throughout its disclosure, a POSITA would understand that descriptions of
`
`functionality attributed to “subscribers” are in fact functionalities in the
`
`subscriber’s cellular handset, or communication apparatus. Singer Decl. (Ex. 1003)
`
`at ¶ 41 (noting, at 3:12-17, Li expressly equates “subscribers” to “mobiles,” which
`
`a POSITA would understand is a reference to mobile handsets, and which a
`
`POSITA would consider a “communication apparatus” as required by this claim).
`
` [1(a)] a channel estimating section that carries out a channel estimation per
`subband;
`
`Li teaches channel estimation across the full frequency bandwidth:
`
`For downlink channels, each subscriber first measures the channel and
`interference information for all the subcarriers . . . The feedback
`may comprise channel and interference information (e.g., signal-to-
`interference-plus-noise-ratio information) on all subcarriers or just a
`portion of subcarriers.
`Li (Ex. 1004) at 3:18-25 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Li also teaches that AMC can be performed on clusters of subcarriers:
`
`A cluster can contain consecutive or disjoint subcarriers. The
`mapping between a cluster and its subcarriers can be fixed or
`reconfigurable. In the latter case, the base station informs the
`subscribers when the clusters are redefined. In one embodiment, the
`frequency spectrum includes 512 subcarriers and each cluster
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`includes four consecutive subcarriers, thereby resulting in 128
`clusters.
`Id. at 5:18-27 (emphasis added); see also id. at Fig. 1A. This is consistent
`
`with the ’439 Patent’s teaching that “a subband indicates a subcarrier group
`
`comprised of subcarriers in neighboring positions on the frequency domain.”
`
`‘439 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 2:19-21 (emphasis added). Accordingly, Li’s subcarrier
`
`“cluster” is the same as the ’439 Patent’s subcarrier “subband.” Singer Decl. (Ex.
`
`1003) at ¶ 35.
`
`Li describes a process by which pilot symbols are transmitted from the base
`
`station to subscriber device from which the subscriber device can calculate quality
`
`(i.e., signal-to-interference plus noise ration (SINR)) on a subcarrier cluster basis:
`
`[E]ach base station transmits pilot symbols simultaneously, and
`each pilot symbol occupies
`the entire OFDM
`frequency
`bandwidth, as shown in FIGS. 2A-C. Referring to FIGS. 2A-C, pilot
`symbols 201 are shown traversing the entire OFDM frequency
`bandwidth for cells A, B and C, respectively.
`. . .
`A subscriber estimates the SINR for each cluster from the pilot
`symbols. In one embodiment, the subscriber first estimates the
`channel response, including the amplitude and phase, as if there is no
`interference or noise. Once the channel is estimated, the subscriber
`calculates the interference/noise from the received signal.
`Id. at 7:37-55 (emphasis added); see also id. at Figs. 2A-C.
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`[1(b)] a parameter deciding section that decides modulation parameters and
`coding parameters per subband group comprised of a plurality of the subbands,
`based on a result of the channel estimation per subband;
`
`Li
`
`teaches
`
`that subbands/clusters can be allocated
`
`in groups of
`
`subbands/clusters and that a parameter deciding section decides modulation and
`
`coding parameters on a subband/cluster basis, based on the result of the channel
`
`estimation discussed with reference to the preceding limitation. As described in
`
`detail below, it would have been obvious to modify Li to decide a single set of
`
`modulation and coding parameters for the entire subband/cluster group in
`
`accordance with the teachings of Walton.
`
`As discussed with reference to the preceding limitation, Li teaches that a
`
`subscriber’s handset measures channel quality—SINR—and
`
`reports
`
`this
`
`measurement back to the base station. Li also teaches that coding/modulation
`
`parameters are decided based on the channel estimation and that these parameters
`
`are indicated in the feedback to the base station:
`
` [E]ach subscriber selects one or more clusters with good
`performance (e.g., high SINR and low traffic loading) relative to each
`other and feeds back the information on these candidate clusters to
`the base station through predefined uplink access channels . . . the
`feedback of information from each subscriber to the base station
`contains a SINR value for each cluster and also indicates the
`coding/modulation rate that the subscriber desires to use.
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`Id. at 5:50-6:10 (emphasis added). Alternatively, Li teaches that an index
`
`corresponding to the SINR value can be transmitted that indicates the selected
`
`modulation and coding parameters. Id. at 11:5-9 (“Typically, an index to the
`
`SINR level, instead of the SINR itself is sufficient to indicate the appropriate
`
`coding/modulation for the cluster. For example, a 3-bit field can be used for
`
`SINR indexing to indicate 8 different rates of adaptive coding/modulation.”)
`
`(emphasis added); see also id. at 8:1-3 (“By using an appropriate SINR indexing
`
`scheme, an SINR index may also indicate a particular coding and modulation rate
`
`that a subscriber desires to use.”).
`
`Further, Li teaches that the pilot symbols (sent for channel estimation) may
`
`indicate which clusters are available to be allocated:
`
`In another embodiment, the pilot signal sent from the base station to
`the subscriber also indicates the availability of each cluster, e.g., the
`pilot signal shows which clusters have already been allocated for other
`subscribers and which clusters are available for new allocations.
`Id. at 12:44-48 (emphasis added). To the extent this limitation requires the handset,
`
`rather than the base station, make a final decision regarding which group of
`
`subbands to use, one of skill in the art would understand that the base station
`
`indicating available groups of subbands via pilot symbols would result in the
`
`handset selecting and reporting modulation and coding parameters only for
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`available subbands, thereby making the final decision. Singer Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶
`
`42.
`
`As noted above, Li teaches that subbands/clusters can be further joined into
`
`cluster groups:
`
`In another embodiment, for the downlink, the clusters are
`partitioned into groups. Each group can include multiple clusters.
`FIG. 6 illustrates an exemplary partitioning. Refer ring to FIG. 6,
`groups 1-4 are shown with arrows pointing to clusters that are in each
`group as a result of the partitioning.
`Li (Ex. 1004) at 11:47-52. The following annotated FIG. 6 highlights the clusters
`
`of “Group 1” in blue and the clusters of “Group 2” in green to illustrate one
`
`grouping embodiment described by Li:
`
`Li teaches that the handset knows which clusters are included in a group and
`
`that both a group index and SINR values for each cluster within a selected group
`
`
`
`are communicated to the base station:
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`In one embodiment, a subscriber first selects the group with the best
`overall performance and then feedbacks the SINR information for
`the clusters in that group. . . . By transmitting the SINR of all the
`clusters in the group sequentially, only the group index, instead of all
`the cluster indices, needs to be transmitted. Thus, the feedback for
`each group generally contains two types of information: the group
`index and the SINR value of each cluster within the group.
`Id. at 12:9-19 (emphasis added).
`
`Although Li decided modulation and coding parameters on a per-
`
`subband/cluster basis, it would have been obvious, to modify Li such that a single
`
`pair of modulation and coding parameters were decided for the whole group in
`
`accordance with the teachings of Walton. Walton teaches a method for selecting a
`
`single set of modulation and coding parameters (i.e., transmission mode) that is
`
`applied to a group of transmission channels of varying SNRs (signal-to-noise
`
`ratio):
`
`Techniques are provided herein to select the proper transmission
`mode for a data transmission in a multi-channel communication
`system with multiple transmission channels having varying SNRs. A
`suitable transmission mode may be determined for each data stream to
`be
`independently processed (e.g., coded and modulated) and
`transmitted on a designated group of transmission channels.
`Walton (Ex. 1005) at 2:21-27.
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`Specifically, Walton teaches that individual SNRs are calculated for the
`
`channels, an average is then calculated, and certain adjustments are made to arrive
`
`at an “operating SNR” that is used to select a transmission mode (modulation and
`
`coding parameters) for all channels within the group:
`
`In one specific method of determining a suitable transmission mode
`for a data stream sent on multiple transmission channels, an SNR
`estimate (for example, in units of dB) is initially obtained for each
`of the multiple transmission channels used to transmit that data
`stream. An average SNR [] is then computed for the SNR estimates
`for the multiple transmission channels . . . The variance of the SNR
`estimates . . . is also computed . . . A back-off factor, γbo, is then
`determined, for example, based on a function [] of the average SNR
`and the SNR variance. . . . An operating SNR [] for the transmission
`channels is next computed based on the average SNR and the back-
`off factor . . . . The transmission mode for the data stream is then
`selected based on the operating SNR, for example, using a look-up
`table of supported transmission modes and their required SNRs. The
`selected transmission mode is utilized for all of the multiple
`transmission channels used to transmit the data stream.
`Id. at 2:28-67 (emphasis added).
`
`The motivations to modify Li in light of Walton are many, including from
`
`the references themselves. As discussed above, Li teaches that a significant benefit
`
`of grouping subbands/clusters of subcarriers is reducing the required feedback
`
`channel bandwidth between the handset and base station. Li (Ex. 1004) at 11:62-
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`67. But because Li proposes reporting a separate SINR and transmission mode for
`
`each subband/cluster within a chosen group, the required feedback channel
`
`bandwidth must accommodate control data corresponding to each individual
`
`
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
