Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 36
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC., HTC CORPORATION, AND HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`INVT SPE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-015551 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`Case IPR2018-015812 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: January 8, 2020
`____________
`
`Before THU A. DANG, KEVIN F. TURNER, and BARBARA A. BENOIT,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Apple Inc., who filed a petition in IPR2019-00958, has been joined as a
`petitioner in IPR2018-01555. Paper 15.
`2 Apple Inc., who filed a petition in IPR2019-00959, has been joined as a
`petitioner in IPR2018-01581. Paper 13.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 36
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC., HTC CORPORATION, AND HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`INVT SPE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-015551 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`Case IPR2018-015812 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: January 8, 2020
`____________
`
`Before THU A. DANG, KEVIN F. TURNER, and BARBARA A. BENOIT,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Apple Inc., who filed a petition in IPR2019-00958, has been joined as a
`petitioner in IPR2018-01555. Paper 15.
`2 Apple Inc., who filed a petition in IPR2019-00959, has been joined as a
`petitioner in IPR2018-01581. Paper 13.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01555 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01581 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`DARREN M. FRANKLIN, ESQ.
`ERIC K. GILL, ESQ.
`Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
`333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90071-1422
`(213) 617-5498 (Franklin)
`(858) 720-8935 (Gill)
`dfranklin@sheppardmullin.com
`egill@sheppardmullin.com
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`CYRUS A. MORTON, ESQ.
`Robins Kaplan LLP
`800 Lasalle Avenue, Suite 2800
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`(612) 349-8722 (Morton)
`cmorton@robinskaplan.com
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`
`January 8, 2020, commencing at 10:00 a.m. at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`Case IPR2018-01555 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01581 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`
`
`
`10:06 a.m.
`JUDGE BENOIT: Good morning. We are convened today for oral
`arguments for IPR2018-01555 and IPR2018-01581. Each of which
`challenges US Patent 7,848,439.
`I’m Judge Benoit. This is Judge Dang in Alexandria. And where is
`Judge Turner? He’s here by audio?
`We have Judge Turner now with us visually. And he cannot see the
`demonstratives. So if you could be sure to name the slide numbers or the
`particular exhibit you’re referring to. Let him catch up with you if you’re
`changing exhibits so that he can follow along. He has of course all the
`materials.
`So let’s start with appearances, Petitioner.
`MR. FRANKLIN: Good morning, Your Honor. Darren Franklin of
`Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton for the Petitioner. And with me is my
`colleague, Eric Gill.
`JUDGE BENOIT: Welcome.
`Patent Owner.
`MR. MORTON: Yes, Your Honor. Cyrus Morton at Robins Kaplan.
`And with me for Robins Kaplan is John Harting and Mary Pheng, who will
`be arguing the things later today. And from our client, INVT, Courtney Quish
`sitting in the back.
`JUDGE BENOIT: Welcome.
`Each side will have 60 minutes to argue. Petitioner has the ultimate
`burden of proving unpatentability and will go first. Both parties, Petitioner
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01555 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01581 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`
`and Patent Owner, can use rebuttal time. I’d like to remind the parties
`however, that rebuttal time should be used to rebut or present an argument.
`And not to present new arguments.
`Petitioner, you may begin when ready.
`MR. FRANKLIN: Thank you, Your Honor. I’d like to reserve 20
`minutes of rebuttal time if possible.
`JUDGE BENOIT: All right. Just give me a few minutes to update
`the request. You may begin when ready.
`MR. FRANKLIN: Thank you, Your Honor.
`Presenting is Slide DX-2. This inter partes review involves two
`grounds of challenge. The first is that Claims 1 through 7 of the ’439 patent,
`are valid over the combination of Li, Vijayan, and Hashem.
`The second ground is that Claim 8 is obvious over the combination
`of Li, Vijayan, Hashem, and Cioffi.
`Turning to slide DX-3. The patented technology involves cellular
`communications, handsets talking with a base station. The base station talks
`with handsets. Because multiple handsets may be communicating with a
`single base station, there needs to be a way to divide up the frequency
`spectrum among the different handsets.
`If we turn to DX-4 we’ll see Figure 1. It’s a prior art slide figure
`from the ’439 patent. And it shows how the frequency spectrum and the
`time domain can be broken up into individual OFDM symbols so that
`handsets know how to communicate with the base station.
`As we can see on the slide, the frequency domain is divided up
`amongst hundreds of subcarriers. And the time domain is divided up
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`Case IPR2018-01555 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01581 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`
`amongst a plurality of time domain symbols. And this is OFDM, orthogonal
`frequency division multiplexing.
`Now as you can see on this slide, the channel quality can be different
`depending upon the frequency and the time. And so in the Applicant’s
`admitted prior art, it is acknowledged that one way to account for this is
`adaptive modulation and coding, or AMC.
`So if we turn to slide DX-5 we can see that when channel conditions
`are good you can use a higher level of modulation and coding to send data at
`a faster rate from the base station to the handset. When channel conditions
`are poor, you use lower levels of modulation and coding that send data at a
`slower rate but have, that are more robust because they have greater
`repetition in the data.
`Now if we turn back to slide DX-4 for a moment. You could apply a
`single modulation and coding scheme to all of the different frequency
`domain subcarriers. But in the applicant’s admitted prior art it was
`discovered that instead of applying one modulation and coding over all of
`the different subcarriers, you can instead do it and tailor the modulation
`coding for individual subcarriers.
`And that’s shown on slide DX-6. On the left side of the slide we see
`prior art adaptive modulation coding at the subcarrier level. Each subcarrier
`gets its own modulation and its own coding tailored to the channel
`conditions on that subcarrier.
`But in the prior art, it was also recognized that when you do adaptive
`modulation and coding at the subcarrier level that involves a lot of signaling
`overhead. Because the base station and the handset have to communicate
`with each—between each other—as to the specific modulation and coding
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01555 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01581 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`
`needed for each of the thousands of subcarriers. And so in the prior art it
`was recognized that you could reduce the signaling overhead.
`Instead of doing AMC at the subcarrier level, you could go up and
`do AMC at the subband level. A subband is just a group of subcarriers.
`And if you combine a bunch of subcarriers together into a subband, and
`apply a single modulation and coding scheme over the entire subband, then
`you can reduce signaling overhead. Because you don’t have to
`communicate the modulation and coding parameters for each of the
`individual subcarriers.
`Now there’s a tradeoff if you do this. When you apply a single
`modulation coding scheme over a whole band of subcarriers, you can’t
`optimize the modulation and coding for each individual subcarrier. But
`there’s a benefit. And that’s that you reduce the signaling overhead. And
`the result is you get better data throughput.
`So this is all in the applicant’s admitted prior art of the ’439 patent.
`So what is the purported invention of the ’439 patent? If we turn to slide 7,
`the purported improvement of the ’439 patent is that you take the subbands
`of the prior art, which were already just a collection of subcarriers, and you
`throw them and group them together to create subbanding groups. And then
`you apply adaptive modulation coding at the subband group level, instead of
`at the subband level.
`You’re basically taking bundles of subcarriers and further bundled
`them together to create bigger bundles and applied modulation and coding at
`that level.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01555 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01581 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`
`
`Petitioner submits that that’s not a real invention. It’s obvious to
`take bundles of subcarriers and just make them bigger. And do what you’ve
`already been doing in the prior art.
`JUDGE BENOIT: But counsel, can I stop you here?
`MR. FRANKLIN: Yes.
`JUDGE BENOIT: I wanted to ask you about the dispute regarding
`the level of ordinary skill.
`MR. FRANKLIN: Yes.
`JUDGE BENOIT: Regarding experience. Patent Owner contends
`that’s it’s only wireless communications. Whereas you contend it’s wireless
`communications systems, communication networks and signal processing.
`So a few questions.
`First, if we agree with Patent Owner, what effect would that have on
`these proceedings?
`MR. FRANKLIN: The whole dispute over the person of ordinary
`skill in the art, pertains to whether the Cioffi reference, which is being
`brought in as a reference to invalidate claim 8 is analogous art or is non-
`analogous art? And Patent Owner has defined the person of ordinary skill in
`the art in an attempt to exclude Cioffi as relevant art.
`Petitioner submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`have been familiar with references discussing wired communications, which
`is what Cioffi is. And that Cioffi therefore is pertinent art that can be used in
`this proceeding.
`JUDGE BENOIT: So it would affect 1581 proceeding, and not the
`1555 proceeding?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`Case IPR2018-01555 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01581 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`
`
`MR. FRANKLIN: That’s my understanding, yes. I don’t believe
`that the person of ordinary skill in the art disputes effect of 1555 proceeding.
`JUDGE BENOIT: Are you arguing that communication networks
`and signal processing experience must be in the context of a wired
`communication system? Or could that experience also be in the context of a
`wireless communication system?
`MR. FRANKLIN: The communications, that could be in the context
`of a wireless communication system. Because a person of ordinary skill in
`the art at the time, so we’re talking the early aughts late nineties. You know,
`even if their experience wasn’t wireless, their education background would
`have included wired references. And that’s been explained in our expert
`declaration and just in kind of the common sense that OFDM, which is kind
`of the base technology that all these patents are pertaining to, those
`principles are used both in wired systems and in wireless systems.
`And in fact, in the ’439 patent there is a discussion, a short
`discussion of ADSL which is a wired system and that’s what Cioffi pertains
`to.
`
`JUDGE BENOIT: Thank you.
`MR. FRANKLIN: So going back to Slide DX-7, the purported
`improvement is to further bundle together the bundles of subcarriers. And
`just move up the level at which modulation and coding is applied. And
`that’s obvious in light of the applicant’s admitted prior art.
`But not only was it obvious, but it was actually known that that’s
`what shown in the Vijayan reference which Petitioners have combined with
`the Li reference, as well as the Hashem reference. To show that all elements
`in claim 1 of the ’439 patent are disclosed and obvious.
`
`8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`Case IPR2018-01555 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01581 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`
`
`So if you turn to slide DX-8, here’s claim 1 of the ’439 patent. There
`are only two limitations that the Patent Owner has disputed in terms of the
`combination we made. And the first is the parameter deciding section. And
`the second is the pattern storage section.
`Everything in the pattern storage section is taught in Li, as we’ll
`discuss later. And then everything in the parameter deciding section is also
`taught in Li, except for the notion of a joint modulation coding scheme
`applied at the subband group level, as opposed to at the subband level. And
`we’re using Vijayan for that teaching. So if you move to Slide DX-9, here’s
`a basic overview of the Li patent. It pertains to an OFDM system, a multi
`carrier communication system --
`JUDGE BENOIT: Before you get into Li, can I ask you a couple of
`claim construction questions?
`MR. FRANKLIN: Yes,
`JUDGE BENOIT: In our decision to institute we did not need to
`determine whether subband is one of the two groups of subcarriers in
`neighboring positions on the frequency domain as you proposed in your
`position. Do we need to make that determination to decide the
`unpatentability of the claims here?
`MR. FRANKLIN: No.
`No, and in terms of claim construction, there was only I think, one
`real dispute between the parties. And that pertained to the definition of a
`pattern. As explained in our reply brief it’s not a real dispute. And given
`what we’ve seen in Patent Owner’s sur-reply and its demonstratives. It’s
`Petitioner’s belief that Patent Owner is no longer pressing the notion that the
`pattern limitation is absent somehow from Li. So it’s Petitioner’s belief that
`
`9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2018-01555 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01581 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`
`the claim construction issues that have been raised are no longer relevant to
`the proceeding.
`JUDGE BENOIT: All right, so we don’t have to determine an
`express construction for selecting subbands either?
`MR. FRANKLIN: It’s our belief that that won’t affect these
`proceedings either.
`JUDGE BENOIT: Thank you.
`MR. FRANKLIN: So going back to DX-9, Li teaches the notion of
`clusters, which are the same thing as subbands in the ’439 patent. And then
`grouping them together to form cluster groups, which are the same thing as
`subband groups in the ’439 patent. Then applying a group index to these
`cluster groups so that when a cluster group is selected by the handset, only
`this index needs to be sent to the base station. And both the handset and the
`base station would know what clusters are in that cluster group.
`So if you go to Slide DX-10, Li teaches clusters, which are the same
`thing as ’439 patent subbands. And you can see that on the left side of the
`slide, where multiple subcarriers are put together to form a cluster.
`Then go to slide DX-11, Li’s cluster groups are ’439 patent subband
`groups. Each group includes multiple clusters. So we can see in the
`example of Figure 6. Every fourth cluster on the frequency axis, that’s the
`horizontal axis, is combined together to form a group.
`If you go to slide DX-12, Li teaches the parameter deciding section
`decides the modulation and coding parameters. And that’s either Box 405 in
`Figure 4, which is shown on the screen here, or alternatively it’s Box 303 in
`Figure 3 of Li. It’s a per cluster parameter deciding section. It allows the
`
`10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`Case IPR2018-01555 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01581 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`
`subscriber to request the desired clusters along with the modulation and
`coding rates known to the subscriber to achieve the desired data rates.
`And even Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Vojcic admits, that Li discloses
`that the SINR values that are recorded from the handset to the base station
`could take the form of an index to indicate a particular coding and
`modulation rate that the subscriber desires to use. So Li teaches the
`parameter deciding section, at least with the modulation coding done at the
`cluster, subband level.
`We’ll move to slide DX-13.
`JUDGE BENOIT: Counsel, before you go on.
`MR. FRANKLIN: Yes.
`JUDGE BENOIT: And I think you’ve been very clear here today.
`But I just wanted to verify that in your petition, you did assert that Li also
`teaches assigning the modulation coding parameters to groups. Petition 32
`for example. But I understand in your reply, that you’re disavowing that
`position. And you’re relying now only on, you’re not relying on Li for the
`subgroups.
`MR. FRANKLIN: I believe in our petition we said that. Li decides
`one or more modulation and coding parameters for the clusters in the cluster
`group. And that is true. It’s possible that all the clusters in the cluster group
`could receive the same modulation and coding if they’ve got similar channel
`qualities. In which case, there would be just one modulation coding
`parameter.
`But our main argument is that Vijayan discloses joint modulation
`and coding at the subband group level.
`JUDGE BENOIT: Great so --
`
`11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`Case IPR2018-01555 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01581 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`
`
`MR. FRANKLIN: And that would be obvious to bring it in.
`JUDGE BENOIT: So on Page 32 of your petition in 1555 case -- I’ll
`let you turn there.
`MR. FRANKLIN: Go ahead, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BENOIT: The first full paragraph. POSITA would have
`understood that each coding modulation rates constitute one or more
`modulation parameters, and one or more coding parameters per subband
`group comprised of a plurality of the subbands in selected clusters. At this
`point, my understanding is that you are not asserting that anymore. That it is
`per subband group. Is that correct?
`MR. FRANKLIN: Yes, Li is teaching assigning modulation and
`coding at the subband or cluster level.
`JUDGE BENOIT: Great, thanks.
`MR. FRANKLIN: We’re using Vijayan to go up to the subband
`group level.
`JUDGE BENOIT: Great, thank you.
`MR. FRANKLIN: So if we turn to slide DX-13, Li also teaches the
`pattern storage section that stores in advance. Now as I indicated earlier, it’s
`Petitioner’s belief that Patent Owner is no longer pressing its points
`regarding pattern storage section because this is absent from its sur-reply and
`from its demonstratives. But to the extent that we need to discuss it, Li
`teaches that only the group index needs to be transmitted from the handset to
`the base station. And the channel estimates are sent from the handset to the
`base station.
`And this means that the patterns by which the clusters are formed in
`the groups, therefore must be stored in advance at both the handset and the
`
`12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`Case IPR2018-01555 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01581 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`
`base station. Otherwise the group index wouldn’t make any sense. The base
`station needs a way to figure out when it receives that group index number
`which clusters are in that cluster group.
`And that was effectively conceded by Patent Owner’s expert. We go
`to the next lide DX-14. During his cross examination, Patent Owner’s
`expert, Dr. Vojcic agreed at least in general that the group index in Li would
`have been meaningless unless both the subscriber and the base station have a
`storage section that stores a table of the group indices and the associated
`cluster’s patterns in advance.
`Then if we go to slide DX-15, Li also teaches the patterns for
`selecting subbands. So Li teaches the pattern storage and then the pattern
`itself is shown in the example given in Figure 6. Where every fourth cluster
`along the frequency axis is chosen for a particular cluster group.
`If we move to slide DX-16, take a look at the Vijayan patent. So up
`until now everything in claim 1 has been disclosed in Li except for applying
`modulation and coding at the subband group level. That’s what’s taught in
`Vijayan. It also teaches a multi carrier communication system that uses
`OFDM.
`If we move to Slide DX-17, Li teaches both ’439 patent subbands,
`and ’439 patent subband groups. Now as you probably noticed in our
`briefing, there’s a bit of terminology issue with Vijayan. In Vijayan
`subbands are the same as subcarriers in the ’439 patent. Vijayan’s subband
`groups are the same thing as ’439 patent subbands. And Vijayan’s PLCs or
`physical layer channels are the same thing as ’439 patent subband groups.
`And Vijayan teaches that at the PLC level you can apply a single
`modulation and coding scheme. And that’s shown in the annotated Figure
`
`13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2018-01555 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01581 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`
`9b which is shown on the right side of the slide. Actually if we move to
`slide DX-18 we’ve got that same annotated figure there. Multiple subband
`groups in Vijayan, here 1, 2, 3, and 4 are formed together into a PLC, which
`is shown by the red box, and aside a single Mode 1.
`As we can see in Table 1 that Mode 1 corresponds to a particular
`modulation scheme and a particular code rate. And then at column 4, lines
`43 to 45, Vijayan states that the data stream for each PLC is encoded and
`modulated based on a coding and modulation scheme selected for that PLC.
`So that’s the disclosure of modulation and coding done at the subband group
`level.
`
`And really this isn’t all that different from what’s in the applicant’s
`admitted prior art. Modulation and coding in the applicant’s admitted prior
`art is already known to go up from the subcarrier level to the subband level.
`Vijayan just brings that up one level more, further bundling together the
`bundles of subcarriers.
`So let’s move on to slide DX-19, the Hashem patent. So Li teaches
`that the subscriber, the handset can make a selection of modulation and
`coding parameters at the cluster level, the subband level. Vijayan teaches
`you could do that at the cluster group level or the subband group level, but
`leaves unclear which entity is making the decision.
`Hashem teaches that you can have the handset decide the modulation
`and coding parameters. And gives reasons for doing so. Reasons that are
`the same as the reasons given in both Li and Hashem. And that’s to reduce
`signaling overhead. So in Hashem, Hashem teaches a link mode which
`includes a modulation level and a coding rate.
`
`14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`Case IPR2018-01555 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01581 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`
`
`And then Hashem teaches that overhead on the forward link, from
`the base station to the remote unit, can be reduced if the remote unit, the
`handset, calculates the optimum link mode itself. This is because if the
`handset is calculating the link mode and sending it to the base station, the
`base station then doesn’t need to send it back to the handset.
`Additionally, overhead on the reverse link, from the handset to the
`base station can be reduced, if the remote unit calculates the optimum link
`mode itself. And that’s because when your handset calculates the optimum
`link mode it just needs to send an indication of the modulation and coding
`levels that need to be applied as opposed to the channel estimation
`measurements.
`And so those are the three references. The next slide will put them
`all together. So we’re on slide DX-20. These are figures, annotated figures
`from Li. On the top right we’ve got Figure 7 of Li which shows the group
`ID. That’s the number that tells both the handset and the base station which
`clusters are in the cluster group. Followed by the individual SINR values
`that have been measured by the handset. Those are the channel estimates.
`When you combine that with Vijayan, you take those SINR
`measurements and you replace them with a single modulation and coding
`parameter as shown in the bottom right of the slide. What’s shown on the
`bottom right is how we modified Figure 7 of Li to incorporate the teachings
`of Vijayan. And then Hashem just teaches having the handset do this and
`not the base station. And once you combine this altogether, you get claim 1
`of the ’439 patent. And it’s obvious.
`So let’s move on to Slide DX-21, the com -- and I’m going to go
`through these pretty quickly since we have limited time. The combination
`
`15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`Case IPR2018-01555 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01581 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`
`discloses the claimed parameter deciding section. That’s Box 405 and
`Figure 4 of Li, also Box 303 and Figure 3 of Li. And Vijayan just bumps
`that up to the subband group level.
`If we move to slide DX-22 and maybe go on to slide DX-23. The
`combination also teaches the claimed pattern storage section. Again
`everything in the pattern storage section is already taught in Li. Vijayan just
`adds that the channel estimates that are conveyed are done at the subband
`group level, rather the modulation coding is done at the subband group level.
`So let’s move on to slide DX-24. The motivation in combined Li
`and Vijayan. Both Li and Vijayan seek to reduce signaling overhead on
`multi carrier communications system. And that’s shown on these snippets
`from both Li and Vijayan.
`Now if we turn to slide DX-25 Patent Owner has argued that that’s
`actually not the goal of Li. The goal of Li is to do something called
`frequency diversity. But if you look at the group-based cluster allocation
`embodiment in Li, and that’s generally in columns 11 and 12 of Li, the only
`expressed goals there are to reduce signaling overhead and inter-cell
`interference. And we’ve got the relevant quote from column 11, line 62 to
`66 of LI on slide DX-25.
`Now Li does teach that in one embodiment you can have the
`clusters, in a cluster group being spaced apart, in frequency diverse. But it’s
`stated as being in one embodiment. There’s nothing in the group-based
`cluster allocation embodiment of Li that says that you have to make the
`clusters in cluster groups diverse, or otherwise discredits or criticizes using
`frequency coherent cluster groups, where the clusters in the clusters are
`together.
`
`16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`Case IPR2018-01555 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01581 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`
`
`So let’s move on to slide DX-26. Li does not teach away then from
`the combination with Vijayan. It does not teach away from using the joint
`modulation and coding parameters of Vijayan. Nor does it teach away from
`using contiguous cluster groups as Vijayan teaches.
`Now we don’t have to bodily incorporate the contiguous cluster
`groups of Vijayan into Li. It’s perfectly fine to apply joint modulation and
`coding to a frequency diverse subband group. But even if you were to
`incorporate the contiguous subband groups of Vijayan to Li, the basic
`principle of Li still works. You can still apply a group index to a cluster
`group and use that to reduce overhead signaling. So in Li diverse groups are
`just one embodiment of Li’s group-based cluster allocation. And there’s no
`discrediting or criticizing of contiguous groups.
`If we move on to slide DX-27, Li also does not discourage using
`Vijayan’s joint parameters. Now Patent Owner makes the point that in some
`embodiments of Li, modulation and coding is done at the cluster level. And
`that can also be done with the cluster groups as well. But in the group-based
`cluster allocation of Li there’s no statement that you have to do modulation
`and coding at the cluster level.
`It would be perfectly fine for the handset to send the joint
`modulation coding parameter to the base station. And then have the base
`station apply the same modulation coding to all of the clusters in the cluster
`group. So while different clusters can have different modulation coding
`rates, that’s not required in the group-based cluster allocation embodiment of
`Li.
`
`JUDGE BENOIT: Counsel, can I ask you one question about -MR.
`FRANKLIN: Yes.
`
`17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`Case IPR2018-01555 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01581 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE BENOIT: -- Li, column 7, 10 through 12 where you were
`saying that there’s one embodiment that uses different modulation coding
`rates. The way I understand it that embodiment is not identified as the
`Figure 4 in that embodiment. Is that correct?
`MR. FRANKLIN: It’s not identified as what embodiment?
`JUDGE BENOIT: As the Figure 4 embodiment.
`MR. FRANKLIN: Give me one moment, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BENOIT: Certainly.
`MR. FRANKLIN: From what I can quickly tell that snippet of Li is
`not associated with the Figure 4 embodiment.
`JUDGE BENOIT: Thank you.
`MR. FRANKLIN: So if we move on to slide DX-28, using
`Vijayan’s joint parameters in Li’s system would reduce signaling overhead.
`And that’s because as we saw earlier, you take the various SINR values for
`the individual clusters in the cluster group. Those are the channel estimates.
`And replace all those values with basically a single number which indicates
`the modulation and coding scheme to be applied to the entire cluster group.
`And our expert has testified to that and even Patent Owner’s expert,
`Dr. Vojcic testified that one of the results of using Vijayan’s single
`modulation encoding scheme across all of the subband groups is that it
`reduces the required amount of overhead signaling. And it’s pretty clear that
`it would do that if you take a bunch of numbers and replace them with one
`number. That’s going to reduce the signaling overhead.
`So if we move to slide DX-29. It is true that using joint parameters
`will involve a tradeoff. When you move from the cluster level to the cluster
`group level you may not be applying the ideal modulation coding parameter
`
`18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`Case IPR2018-01555 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01581 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`
`to the individual clusters in that cluster group. Because less information is
`being transmitted from the handset to the base station.
`But the tradeoff of that is that you get reduced signaling overhead,
`which is an important concern of both Li and Vijayan. And this is the
`design tradeoff that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood. And not only do we have our expert Zhi Ding’s say so, but we
`have the evidence from the ’439 patent itself.
`Because as you’ll remember in the applicant’s admitted prior art,
`when people went from adaptive modulation coding at the subcarrier level to
`the subband level, that very tradeoff was made. It was assigned a joint
`modulation coding parameter across all the subcarriers in the subband, and
`as a result got reduced signaling overhead.
`So let’s move on to slide DX-30. Patent Owner’s response to all this
`is that if you applied a joint parameters in the system of Li, it wouldn’t work.
`Because you could do either one of two things. You can find the appropriate
`modulation and coding parameter for the worst performing cluster in the
`cluster group, and set that as the joint modulation coding parameter for the
`entire cluster group. And if you did that most of the clusters in the cluster
`group would be under used. They would be getting parameters that are far
`worse than they otherwise could handle.
`The other option that Patent Owner puts forward is you can go to the
`other extreme. Choose the best performing cluster in the cluster group, and
`set the modulation and coding for that cluster as the modulation and coding
`for the entire cluster group. In which case a lot of the clusters would be
`unreadable because they would be assigned modulation and coding that are
`too high for them to handle given the channel conditions.
`
`19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`Case IPR2018-01555 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01581 (Patent 7,848,439 B2)
`
`
`But what Patent Owner overloo
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
