`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________
`
`Apple Inc., and
`ZTE (USA) Inc.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`INVT SPE, LLC
`Patent Owner
`_____________________
`
`Case: IPR2018-01477
`
`United States Patent No. 7,848,439
`_____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 313 AND 37 C.F.R. §42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Table of Contents ....................................................................................................... i
`List of Patent Owner’s Exhibits ............................................................................... vi
`I.
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`II.
`The Challenged Patent ..................................................................................... 3
`A.
`State of the Art at the Time of the Patented Invention .......................... 3
`B.
`Challenged Claims ................................................................................ 8
`C. Overview of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439 .............................................. 11
`D.
`Relevant Prosecution History .............................................................. 19
`III. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................ 20
`IV. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 20
`A.
`“patterns for selecting subbands” (Claims 1) and “patterns, for
`selecting a plurality of the subbands” (Claims 2 and 4) ..................... 20
`B. Other Claim Terms .............................................................................. 22
`V. Overview of the Alleged Prior Art References ............................................. 23
`A. U.S. Patent No. 6,904,283 to Li et al. (“Li”) ....................................... 23
`B. U.S. Patent No. 7,885,228 to Walton et al. (“Walton”) ...................... 27
`C. U.S. Patent No. 7,221,680 to Vijayan et al. (“Vijayan”) .................... 27
`VI. Legal Standards ............................................................................................. 29
`VII. The Petition Fails to Establish a Reasonable Likelihood that Claims 1, 3, and
`5-11 are Obvious Under Ground 1. ............................................................... 31
`A.
`The Petition Fails to Demonstrate that Li Teaches (1) “a Pattern
`Storage Section that Stores in Advance Patterns for Selecting
`Subbands Constituting the Subband Groups,” (Claims 1-7 and 9) or
`(2) “Subbands Selected Based on the Patterns Stored in the Pattern
`Storage Section.” (Claims 1-7 and 10) ................................................ 31
`1.
`Li does not disclose “patterns for selecting subbands” or
`selecting subbands “based on” “patterns for selecting
`subbands.” ................................................................................. 32
`i 
`
` 
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`2.
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`Li fails to disclose “a pattern storage section that stores in
`advance patterns for selecting subbands constituting the
`subband groups.” ....................................................................... 39
`B. Walton Fails to Disclose “Modulation Parameters” or “Coding
`Parameters” for a “Subband Group” (Claims 1-6 and 9-11) or
`“Assigning a Weight Per Subband Group.” (Claims 8 and 11) .......... 40
`The Petition Fails to Establish that a POSITA Would Combine Li with
`Walton.................................................................................................. 43
`VIII. The Petition Fails to Establish a Reasonable Likelihood that Claims 2 and 4
`are Obvious Under Ground 2. ........................................................................ 45
`A.
`The Petition Fails to Establish that Vijayan Teaches a “Subband
`Group Constituted from a Pattern, Among the Patterns, for Selecting a
`Plurality of the Subbands.” (Claims 2 and 4) ...................................... 46
`The Petition Fails to Establish that a POSITA Would Be Motivated to
`Combine Li and Walton with Vijayan. (Claims 2 and 4) .................... 49
`1.
`The Petition relies on unsupported statements and expert
`testimony for the alleged motivation to combine Li and Walton
`with Vijayan. ............................................................................. 49
`A POSITA would not have been motivated to combine the Li
`and Vijayan references. ............................................................. 53
`The Petition relies on improper hindsight for the alleged
`motivation to combine. ............................................................. 57
`IX. The Petition Also Should Be Denied for Efficiency Reasons, Because The
`Parallel ITC Investigation Will Be Resolved Before Any Trial Instituted on
`this Petition. ................................................................................................... 60
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 62
`X.
`Word Count Certification ........................................................................................ 63
`Certificate of Service ............................................................................................... 64
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
` 
`
`ii 
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Abiomed, Inc. et al. v. Maquet Cardiovascular, LLC,
`IPR2017-01205, Paper No. 8 .............................................................................. 37
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 45
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.,
`IPR2017-02041, Paper 10 (PTAB Mar. 8, 2018) ............................................... 52
`Apple Inc. v. Valencell, Inc.,
`IPR2017-00316, Paper 9 (PTAB Jul. 20, 2017) ................................................. 52
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 30
`Gen. Elec. Co. v. TAS Energy Inc.,
`IPR2014-00163, Paper 11 (PTAB May 13, 2014) ............................................. 59
`General Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`Case IPR2016-01357 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) ...................................................... 60
`General Plastic,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 ................................................................................... 62
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 60
`Heart Failure Techs.,
`IPR2013-00183, Paper 12 ................................................................................... 43
`HTC Corp. et al. v. INVT SPE, LLC,
`IPR2018-01555, Paper 1 ................................................................................. 6, 47
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 ......................................................................................... 30, 31, 58
`
` 
`
`iii 
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .............................................................. 30, 45, 59
`
`In the Matter of Certain LTE- AND 3G-Compliant Cellular
`Communications Devices,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1138 ........................................................................................ 60
`
`Initiative for Medicines, Access & Knowledge (I-MAK), Inc. v. Gilead
`Pharmasset LLC,
`Case No. IPR2018-00390, Paper 7 (Jul. 19, 2018) ............................................. 31
`Inventergy, Inc. v. HTC Corporation et al.,
`1-17-cv-00200 (D. Del. Feb. 27, 2017), Dkt. 1 .................................................. 60
`INVT SPE LLC v. HTC Corporation et al.,
`2-17-cv-03740 (D.N.J. May 25, 2017), Dkt. 1 ................................................... 60
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .......................................................................... 29, 30, 43, 58
`NHK Spring Co., LTD., v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc.,
`Case IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) ................................ 61, 62
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 23
`Nikon Corp. v. ASML Netherlands B.V.,
`Case No. IPR2018-00227, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2018) .......................... 58
`Nokia of Am. Corp. v. Blackberry Ltd.,
`IPR2018-00652, Paper 10 (PTAB Oct. 1, 2018) .................................... 37, 38, 57
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 20
`Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Depomed, Inc.,
`643 F. App’x 960 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 58
`Star Sci., Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
`655 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 30
`
` 
`
`iv 
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`Yamaha Golf Car Co. v, Club Car, LLC,
`IPR2017-02141, Paper 17 (PTAB Apr. 3, 2018) ............................................... 45
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ............................................................................................. 60, 61
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ..................................................................................... 31, 49, 52
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 20
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`v 
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`LIST OF PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`2001
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Branimir Vojcic
`2002
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Branimir Vojcic
`2003
`Procedural Schedule in the International Trade Commission
`proceeding captioned In the Matter of Certain LTE- AND 3G-
`Compliant Cellular Communications Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-
`1138
`Respondents’ Notice of Prior Art in the International Trade
`Commission proceeding captioned In the Matter of Certain LTE-
`AND 3G-Compliant Cellular Communications Devices, Inv. No.
`337-TA-1138
`
`2004
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`vi 
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Petitioners Apple Inc. and ZTE (USA) Inc. (“Petitioners”) challenge Claims
`
`1 through 11 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439 (“the ’439
`
`Patent”) as allegedly obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The ’439 Patent’s invention
`
`generally covers the use of “subband groups” comprised of frequency subbands
`
`selected based on patterns stored by a communication system in advance. Use of
`
`subband groups to transmit information allows certain devices, such as a base
`
`station and a cellular phone, to better communicate. Selecting subband groups
`
`based on specific, pre-stored patterns allows those devices to know beforehand
`
`which subbands contain that information and adjust certain parameters and factors
`
`based on those groups, and decreases the amount of information that needs to be
`
`exchanged over the same period of time at this stage.
`
`Petitioners’ Ground 1 attempts to show that Claims 1, 3, and 5-11 are
`
`obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,904,283 to Li et al. (“Li”) in view of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,885,228 to Walton et al. (“Walton”). Ground 1 relies solely on Li to show
`
`two key claim limitations required by the Challenged Claims: (1) “a pattern storage
`
`section that stores in advance patterns for selecting subbands constituting the
`
`subband groups,” and (2) “subbands selected based on the patterns stored in the
`
`pattern storage section.” However, the Petition fails to demonstrate that Li
`
` 
`
`1 
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`discloses any “patterns for selecting subbands constituting the subband groups”
`
`that are fixed or any “subbands selected based on the patterns.” The Petition
`
`likewise fails to disclose a mobile device that contains the requisite “pattern
`
`storage section that stores in advance patterns for selecting subbands.”
`
`Ground 1 also wrongly relies on Walton to disclose “modulation and coding
`
`parameters” for any “subband groups” or “assigning a weight per subband group to
`
`a sum of information bits that are able to be assigned to all of the subbands within
`
`the subband group . . . .” Walton is directed towards “multiple transmission
`
`channels,” i.e., subcarriers, instead of subband groups. The Petition further fails to
`
`demonstrate how Walton and Li could be combined to render the claimed invention
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Petitioners’ Ground 2 attempts to show that Claims 2 and 4 are obvious over
`
`Li in view of Walton and in further view of U.S. Patent No. 7,221,680 to Vijayan et
`
`al. (“Vijayan”). Ground 2 relies solely on Vijayan to show a “subband group
`
`constituted from a pattern, among the patterns, for selecting a plurality of the
`
`subbands.” However, Vijayan does not disclose this limitation, and the Petition
`
`fails to meet its burden of demonstrating the same. The Petition also fails to
`
`establish why Vijayan should or would have been combined with Li or Walton, or
`
`why such a combination would have a reasonable expectation of success. Indeed,
`
` 
`
`2 
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`the Petition relies on Li and Vijayan for the disputed limitations above, but those
`
`two references are directly at odds with respect to how to avoid conflicts when
`
`transmitting information between devices, calling into question any motivation to
`
`combine. Further, the Petition attempts to fill material gaps in the motivation to
`
`combine through unsupported and conclusory expert opinion. These threadbare
`
`opinions rely on impermissible hindsight and do not compel a different conclusion.
`
`Finally, the Petition should be denied based on efficiency reasons, because
`
`the parallel proceedings in the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) between
`
`Patent Owner and Petitioners—which involve all the prior art references relied
`
`upon by the Petition here—will be resolved before the resolution of this Petition.
`
`Accordingly, for the legal and factual reasons set forth herein, the Petition
`
`should be denied.
`
`II. THE CHALLENGED PATENT
`
`A.
`
`State of the Art at the Time of the Patented Invention
`
`
`
`The ’439 Patent generally relates to improving communication between
`
`wireless devices, such as cellular phones, mobile terminals, and base stations,
`
`within cellular networks. See Ex. 1001 at 1:7-14, 2:54-60, 5:32-45. Cellular
`
` 
`
`3 
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`networks divide their coverage areas into specific regions called “cells.” Ex. 20011
`
`¶ 17. Each cell is serviced by a cellular tower mounted with a base station that
`
`directly communicates with cellular phones within the cell. Id. Each base station is
`
`assigned a frequency band that is unique from neighboring base stations. Id. Calls
`
`occur when a cellular phone transmits radio frequency (“RF”) signals to a base
`
`station that re-transmits those signals to the recipient cellular phone. Id.
`
`Communication between a base station and a cellular phone can only occur when
`
`the base station and cellular phone agree to transmit information using the same
`
`frequency band. Id.
`
`Base stations must be capable of simultaneously communicating with
`
`numerous cellular phones—otherwise, users within the cell will experience
`
`significant interference from other callers. Id. ¶ 18. One way to enable
`
`communications with numerous cellular phones is by using Orthogonal Frequency
`
`Division Multiplexing (“OFDM”). OFDM, which is employed by the Long Term
`
`Evolution (“LTE”) wireless communication standard, divides the base station’s
`
`allocated frequency band into many orthogonal (non-overlapping) subcarriers
`
`(narrower frequency bands), each of which can facilitate communication between
`
`                                                            
`1 Exhibit 2001 refers to the supporting Expert Declaration of Dr. Branimir
`Vojcic.
`
`4 
`
` 
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`the base station and a specific cellular phone. This orthogonality between
`
`subcarriers improves spectral efficiency—i.e., the number of cellular phones that
`
`can be simultaneously supported in the cell. Ex. 1001 at 1:22-24.
`
`Changing conditions caused by the distance between the base station and the
`
`cellular phone, signal interference, weather, and other transient factors, may also
`
`affect the spectral efficiency. Ex. 2001 ¶ 18. Conditions can also change as a result
`
`of cell phone users moving within the network. Id.
`
`One way that OFDM systems try to maintain spectral efficiency is by
`
`employing “adaptive modulation and coding” (“AMC”)—i.e., adjusting parameters
`
`such as the transmission power, symbol transmission rate, coordinate size, coding
`
`rate, and/or coding mechanism, etc., in response to changing channel conditions.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 1:43-52; Ex. 2001 ¶ 18. For example, when channel conditions are
`
`good, the system will typically transmit more information over the same amount of
`
`time. Conversely, when channel quality is poor, the system can readjust and
`
`transmit less information, thereby minimizing errors. Ex. 1001 at 1:43-52. Because
`
`channel conditions can fluctuate, each cellular phone will periodically estimate the
`
`“quality” of the channels between the phone and the base station, and send this
`
`information to the base station as a Channel Quality Indicator (“CQI”). Measuring
`
`and transmitting CQI information allows the base station to utilize AMC
`
` 
`
`5 
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`accordingly, if/when necessary. This channel quality estimation is performed on
`
`each individual subcarrier. See, e.g., id. at 3:26-30 (“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, and obtains channel characteristics of the subcarriers of the OFDM.”).
`
`The ’439 Patent claims priority to a 2004 Chinese patent application. Ex.
`
`1001 at 1. As explained in the ’439 Patent specification, existing OFDM systems at
`
`the time of the invention employed two forms of AMC—(1) AMC based on
`
`individual subcarriers and (2) AMC based on groups of subcarriers (where those
`
`groups are known as subbands). Ex. 1001 at 2:2-15. Despite this clear distinction
`
`between “subcarriers” and “subbands,” references within the field often confuse
`
`the two concepts by using the latter to refer to the former. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 40-41. See
`
`also HTC Corp. et al. v. INVT SPE, LLC, IPR2018-01555, Paper 1 at 16 (stating
`
`that Vijayan’s “subband groups” are actually comprised of groups of subcarriers
`
`instead of groups of subbands).
`
`Within the context of the ’439 Patent, AMC based on individual subcarriers
`
`refers to AMC that differs per subcarrier. Ex. 1001 at 2:4-8. As explained by
`
`the ’439 Patent, this form of AMC was disadvantageous due to the sheer number of
`
`subcarriers and the presence of feedback overhead. Ex. 1001 at 2:2-15. As a result,
`
` 
`
`6 
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`AMC based on subbands—i.e., adjusting adaptive parameters for each subband—
`
`was typically used. Ex. 1001 at 2:12-15. For both AMC methods in the prior art,
`
`“the receiving side always first . . . obtains channel characteristics of the
`
`subcarriers of the OFDM.” Id. at 3:26-30. Therefore, in the prior art systems,
`
`channel estimation must occur first for every subcarrier.
`
`One prior art configuration of AMC based on subbands is shown in ’439
`
`Patent, Figure 2:
`
` 
`
`7 
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`Ex. 1001 at Fig. 2. In the configuration disclosed in Figure 2, subcarriers in
`
`neighboring positions on the frequency domain are grouped into subbands. Id. at
`
`2:16-31. This configuration—while more efficient than AMC based on individual
`
`subcarriers—still had the drawback of being unable to effectively utilize “diversity
`
`performance” between the subbands, in part due to having to still perform
`
`independent coding for individual subbands. Id. at 4:56-63.
`
`
`
` “Diversity performance” refers to increasing the redundancy of information
`
`by simultaneously transmitting the same information using multiple paths, thereby
`
`compensating for any deficiencies in certain paths on the receiving side. Id. at
`
`4:64-5:8. The end result of utilizing diversity performance is larger coding gains—
`
`i.e., reduced error rates. Id. at 5:19-20. The ’439 Patent expressly discloses ways to
`
`“effectively utiliz[e] diversity performance between subbands” by grouping
`
`subbands on the frequency domain based on predetermined patterns. Ex. 1001 at
`
`12:17-24.
`
`B. Challenged Claims
`
`The Petition challenges the validity of Claims 1 through 11.
`
`Claim 1 is presented below:
`
`1. A communication apparatus comprising:
`
` a
`
` channel estimating section that carries out a channel
`estimation per subband;
`
`8 
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
` 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;
`
` a
`
` parameter information transmission section that
`transmits, to a communicating party, parameter
`information indicating the modulation parameters and the
`coding parameters decided at the parameter deciding
`section;
`
` a
`
` receiving section that receives a signal containing data
`modulated and encoded on a per subband group basis at
`the communicating party using the modulation
`parameters and the coding parameters of the parameter
`information transmitted at the parameter information
`transmission section;
`
` a
`
` data obtaining section that demodulates and decodes
`the received signal received at the receiving section on a
`per subband group basis using the modulation parameters
`and the coding parameters decided at the parameter
`deciding section, and obtains the data contained in the
`received signal; and
`
` a
`
` pattern storage section that stores in advance patterns
`for selecting subbands constituting the subband groups
`wherein the parameter deciding section decides the
`modulation parameters and the coding parameters per
`subband group comprised of the subbands selected based
`on the patterns stored in the pattern storage section.
`
`
`Ex. 1001 at 12:64-13:27. Claims 2 through 7 all depend on independent Claim 1.
`
`Id. at 13:28-64.
`
` 
`
`9 
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`Independent Claims 9 and 10 share many similarities with Claim 1. Claim 9
`
`requires that the “communication terminal apparatus” comprise “a pattern storage
`
`section that stores in advance patterns for selecting subbands constituting the
`
`subband groups,” wherein the subband groups are comprised of “subbands selected
`
`based on the patterns stored in the pattern storage section.” Id. at 14:54-56, 14:67-
`
`15:2. Claim 10 requires a “subband group comprised of the subbands selected
`
`based on the patterns stored in a storage section for selecting the subbands
`
`constituting the subband group.” Id. at 15:31-36.
`
`
`
`Claim 8 is reproduced below:
`
`8. A communication apparatus comprising:
`
` a
`
` channel estimating section that carries out a channel
`estimation per subband;
`
` 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;
`
` a
`
` parameter information transmission section that
`transmits to a communicating party, parameter
`information indicating the modulation parameters and the
`coding parameters decided at the parameter deciding
`section;
`
` a
`
` receiving section that receives a signal containing data
`modulated and encoded per subband group at the
`communicating party, using the modulation parameters
`and coding parameters of the parameter information
`10 
`
` 
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`transmitted at the parameter information transmission
`section; and
`
` a
`
` data obtaining section that demodulates and decodes
`the received signal received at the receiving section on a
`per subband group basis, using the modulation
`parameters and the coding parameters decided at the
`parameter deciding section, and obtains the data
`contained in the
`received signal;
`
`wherein the parameter deciding section decides the
`coding parameters in such a manner that a number of
`information bits obtained by assigning a weight per
`subband group to a sum 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 13:65-14:26.
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 11 shares many similarities with Claim 8, including the
`
`claim limitation: “wherein the parameter deciding section decides the coding
`
`parameters in such a manner that a number of information bits obtained by
`
`assigning a weight per subband group to a sum 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 16:33-38.
`
`C. Overview of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`
`
`
`The ’439 Patent presented a significant improvement over existing
`
`communication systems, including those that relied on AMC based on subbands.
`
` 
`
`11 
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`As set forth in the Challenged Claims, the invention unlocked the potential for
`
`mobile devices to use subband groups comprised of subbands selected based on
`
`patterns stored in advance of channel estimation in each mobile device. Ex. 1001
`
`at 13:21-27. As shown below, the ’439 Patent’s use of subband grouping patterns
`
`resulted in an order of magnitude of improvement over the use of subbands
`
`themselves:
`
`
`
`The ’439 Patent discloses, among other things, combining subbands on the
`
`frequency domain “based on a fixed rule,” i.e., predetermined stored patterns, into
`
`“several subband groups.” Ex. 1001 at 5:32-45 (emphasis added). As further
`
`explained below, these fixed subband grouping patterns are predetermined and
`
`“store[d] in advance” of channel estimation within both the mobile device and the
`12 
`
` 
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`base station before a link is established between the two devices. See, e.g., id. at
`
`13:21-27; Fig. 6B.
`
`The ’439 Patent discloses a number of embodiments for these fixed subband
`
`grouping patterns. Figure 9, reproduced below, demonstrates a method of
`
`“combining subbands spaced at intervals,” referring to “the method of selecting a
`
`plurality of subbands at predetermined intervals from subbands arranged on the
`
`frequency axis . . . .” Id. at 9:50-61 (emphasis added), Fig. 9. Specifically, Figure
`
`9’s subband grouping pattern combines subbands spaced at a “predetermined
`
`interval” of every fourth subband:
`
` 
`
`13 
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`Id. at Fig. 9 (highlighting added); 10:57-61. By comparison, Figure 10 discloses an
`
`embodiment where all subbands in the frequency domain are grouped together
`
`across all time units. See id. at Fig. 10, 7:16-17, 10:66-67 (“FIG. 10 is an example
`
`of combining all of the subbands.”).
`
`The creation of “subband groups” from “subbands selected based on the
`
`patterns” allowed communication systems to use AMC based on subband groups—
`
`a significant advantage over the prior art, which relied on AMC based on
`
`individual subbands or, even worse, individual subcarriers. Id. at 5:9-27.
`
`Selecting subband groups based on patterns stored in advance of channel
`
`selection within the mobile device meant that both the mobile device and the base
`
`station would know beforehand which subbands would contain reference signals
`
`with information about the channel quality of each subband within the subband
`
`groups. Ex. 2001 ¶ 21. This pre-agreement on subband grouping patterns (and, by
`
`extension, subbands for transmitting data) between the mobile device and the base
`
`station significantly reduces the information that must be transmitted before a link
`
`can be established between the two devices. Id. By contrast, a device that
`
`feedbacks the information on subbands (or subcarriers) based on predicting the
`
`performance of all subbands (or subcarriers) after channel estimation occurs (as
`
`disclosed in the prior art) must transmit a significant amount of information before
`
` 
`
`14 
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`establishing a link with the base station. Ex. 1004 at 3:18-23. This inefficiency was
`
`precisely what the invention disclosed in the ’439 Patent sought to avoid.
`
`The ’439 Patent discloses that subband grouping patterns within the mobile
`
`device are independent from any channel quality estimation, which typically
`
`required measuring channel quality across each and every subband or subcarrier
`
`and then selecting the optimal subbands for communicating with the base station.
`
`Compare Ex. 1001 at 8:2-22 (“the subband groups are formed by combining the
`
`OFDM subbands based on combination patterns”) with Ex. 1004 at 3:18-23
`
`(“[E]ach subscriber first measures the channel and interference information for all
`
`the subcarriers and then selects multiple subcarriers with good performance . . .
`
`and feeds back the information on these candidate subcarriers to the base station.”).
`
`Figure 6A of the ’439 Patent presents one exemplary embodiment for the
`
`advance storage of patterns:
`
`15 
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`Ex. 1001 at Fig. 6A (highlighting added). Element 601 above governs
`
`“Combination Pattern Storage,” and sends subband grouping patterns to both
`
`“AMC Control” element 602 and the serial/parallel converter element 302. Ex.
`
`1001 at Fig. 6A. “Combination Pattern Storage” elements 605 and 607 in Figure
`
`6B operate in a similar fashion:
`
`Ex. 1001 at Fig. 6B (highlighting added). In Figures 6A and 6B, each
`
`“Combination Pattern Storage” element stores patterns that do not depend on (and
`
`are not affected by) other elements within the chart. Ex. 1001 at Figs. 6A and 6B
`
`
`
` 
`
`16 
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`(showing only outgoing arrows, without arrows pointing into each “Combination
`
`Pattern Storage” element). These patterns are predetermined before any subband
`
`parameter selection occurs. Id.
`
`In Figure 6B, subband grouping patterns are sent to “Adaptive
`
`Demodulation/Decoding Control” element 409, the parallel/serial converter (P/S)
`
`element 312, and “Subband Parameter Selection” element 606. Figure 6B also
`
`shows that “Subband Group[s]” 1, 2, through K (element 604) are always stored
`
`before “Channel Estimation” (element 319) occurs, as shown by the process
`
`diagram in Figure 6B. Ex. 1001 at Fig. 6B. Indeed, “Combination Pattern Storage”
`
`element 605 directs to the parallel/serial converter (P/S) element 312, which in turn
`
`directs to “Channel Estimation” element 319. Id. Once the subbands are selected
`
`based on the stored subband grouping patterns, joint modulation and coding
`
`parameters are then chosen for each subband group. Id. at 13:21-24, Figs. 5A-6B.
`
`In one embodiment, along with this selection of modulation and coding
`
`parameters for each subband group, “the number of corresponding transmission
`
`information bits is decided.” Id. at 9:33-37. Additionally, “weighting calculations”
`
`can be applied to the sum of the information bits assigned to each subband group.
`
`Id. at 11:35-47.
`
` 
`
`17 
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`
`The invention in the ’439 Patent decreased the amount of information that
`
`was to be transmitted between devices over the same period of time, thereby
`
`enabling higher data reception dates due to the improved ability to adapt to
`
`changing radio frequency fast fading conditions and providing greater spectrum
`
`utilization. Id. at 5:32-44. This can reduce power consumption and increase battery
`
`life for mobile devices, while simultaneously improving the network capacity for
`
`the base station. Ex. 2001 ¶ 21.
`
`Figures 11 and 12 in the ’439 Patent, reproduced below, illustrate the
`
`difference in performance between a prior art communication system and a
`
`communication system benefiting from an embodiment of the invention disclosed
`
`in the ’439 Patent: