`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`HTC Corporation and
`HTC America, Inc.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`INVT SPE LLC,
`Patent Owner
`__________
`
`IPR Case No. IPR2018-01555
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`__________
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §311 ET SEQ. AND 37 C.F.R. §42.100 ET SEQ.
`(CLAIMS 1 TROUGH 7 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,848,439)
`
`SMRH:487558445.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2018-01555)
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`EXHIBIT
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`DATE
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439 to She et al.
`(“'439 Patent”)
`
`December 7, 2010
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No.
`7,848,439 to She et al.
`
`n/a
`
`1003
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,904,283 to Li et al.
`
`June 7, 2005
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,221,680 to Vijayan
`et al.
`
`May 22, 2007
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,721,569 to Hashem
`et al.
`
`April 13, 2004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,596,604 to Cioffi et
`al.
`
`January 21, 1997
`
`1007
`
`Declaration of Zhi Ding, Ph.D.
`
`n/a
`
`1008
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Zhi Ding, Ph.D.
`
`n/a
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,167,031 to Olofsson
`et al.
`
`December 26, 2000
`
`Complaint, Inventergy, Inc. v. HTC
`Corporation, and HTC America, Inc.,
`17-cv-200-VAC-CJB (D. Del. 2017)
`
`February 27, 2017
`
`Inventergy’s Voluntary Dismissal
`Without Prejudice
`
`May 25, 2017
`
`Complaint, INVT SPE LLC v. HTC
`Corporation, and HTC America, Inc.,
`2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC (D.N.J.
`2017)
`
`May 25, 2017
`
`SMRH:487558445.5
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2018-01555)
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`DATE
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`HTC Corp. and HTC America, Inc.’s
`Motion To Transfer
`
`March 9, 2018
`
`INVT’S Opposition to HTC Corp. and
`HTC America, Inc.’s Motion to
`Transfer
`
`March 23, 2018
`
`HTC Corporation and HTC America,
`Inc.’s Reply Brief In Support Of Their
`Motion To Transfer
`
`April 2, 2018
`
`
`
`SMRH:487558445.5
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2018-01555)
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8 .................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Parties-In-Interest (§42.8 (b)(1)) ................................................... 1
`
`Related Matters (§42.8 (b)(2)) .............................................................. 1
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel (§42.8 (b)(3)) .............................................. 2
`
`Service Information (§42.8 (b)(4)) ........................................................ 2
`
`III.
`
`FEE FOR IPR (37 C.F.R. §42.15(a) and §42.103) ......................................... 2
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104 ............................. 3
`
`A. Grounds for Standing (§42.104(a)) ....................................................... 3
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Identification of Challenged Claims (§42.104(b)(1)) ........................... 3
`
`Grounds of Challenge (§42.104(b)(2)) ................................................. 3
`
`V.
`
`PROPOSED GROUNDS ARE NOT REDUNDANT .................................... 3
`
`VI. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ’439 PATENT .......... 4
`
`A.
`
`State of the Art at the Time the ’439 Patent was Filed ......................... 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Cellular Networks ....................................................................... 4
`
`Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) ............ 4
`
`Adaptive Modulation and Coding ............................................... 5
`
`B.
`
`Overview of the ’439 Patent .................................................................. 6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Prior-Art Systems Alleged in the '439 Patent ............................. 6
`
`The Purported Improvement of the ’439 Patent ......................... 6
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) .................................. 8
`
`Effective Filing Date and Prosecution History of the ’439
`Patent ..................................................................................................... 9
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION—37 C.F.R. §42.104 (b)(3) ..............................10
`
`VIII. PRECISE REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ....................................12
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Prior Art Applied in This Petition ............................ 12
`
`SMRH:487558445.5
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2018-01555)
`
`
`Overview of Li .......................................................................... 12
`
`Overview of Vijayan ................................................................. 16
`
`Overview of Hashem ................................................................ 19
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4. Motivation to Combine Li with Vijayan ................................... 21
`
`5. Motivation to Combine Li and Vijayan with Hashem .............. 23
`
`B.
`
`Li in View of Vijayan and Hashem Renders Claims 1 Through
`7 Obvious ............................................................................................ 24
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................83
`
`
`
`
`
`SMRH:487558445.5
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2018-01555)
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Cases
`
`Inventergy, Inc. v. HTC Corporation, and HTC America, Inc.
`Civil Action No. 17-cv-200-VAC-CJB (D. Del. 2017) ........................................ 1
`
`INVT SPE LLC v. HTC Corporation, and HTC America, Inc.
`No. 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC (D.N.J. 2017) ....................................................... 1
`
`In re Paulsen
`30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ............................................................................ 10
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 10
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 10
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ................................................................................................... 2
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), (e) ........................................................................ 12, 16, 19
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................ 11
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319........................................................................................... 1, 85
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R., pt. 42 ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) ................................................................................................... 85
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 ..................................................................................................... 84
`
`37 C.F.R.§ 42.100 et seq. ......................................................................................... 85
`
`SMRH:487558445.5
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2018-01555)
`
`
`37 C.F.R § 42.100(b) ............................................................................................... 10
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................................................................................... 3, 10
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a) ............................................................................................... 85
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) .............................................. 1
`
`
`
`SMRH:487558445.5
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2018-01555)
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioners” or
`
`“HTC”) petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C. §§311-319 and
`
`37 C.F.R., Part 42, of claims 1 through 7 (“the IPR Claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,848,439 (“the '439 Patent”), and assert there is a reasonable likelihood that they
`
`will prevail with respect to each of the IPR Claims. Therefore, Petitioners
`
`respectfully request cancellation of the IPR Claims.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8
`
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest (§42.8 (b)(1))
`
`The real parties-in-interest are HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters (§42.8 (b)(2))
`
`As part of a licensing dispute, Patent Owner originally sued Petitioners for
`
`patent infringement in an action styled Inventergy, Inc. v. HTC Corporation, and
`
`HTC America, Inc., Civil Action No. 17-cv-200-VAC-CJB (D. Del. 2017), on
`
`February 27, 2017. Ex. 1010. On May 25, 2017, Patent Owner filed a voluntary
`
`dismissal without prejudice of the aforementioned action under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)
`
`of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Ex. 1011.
`
`On the same day, Patent Owner sued Petitioners for patent infringement in
`
`an action styled INVT SPE LLC v. HTC Corporation, and HTC America, Inc., No.
`
`2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC (D.N.J. 2017), asserting the ’439 Patent. Ex. 1012. On
`
`SMRH:487558445.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2018-01555)
`
`
`
`March 9, 2018, Petitioners filed a motion to transfer the action to the Northern
`
`District of California under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) (Ex. 1013). Patent Owner opposed
`
`the motion on March 23, 2018 (Ex. 1014), and Petitioners filed their reply on April
`
`2, 2018. Ex. 1015. Petitioners’ motion to transfer is currently pending.
`
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel (§42.8 (b)(3))
`
`HTC appoints Stephen S. Korniczky (Reg. No. 34,853) of Sheppard Mullin
`
`Richter & Hampton LLP as Lead Counsel, and appoints Martin R. Bader (Reg. No.
`
`54,736), Nam H. Kim (Reg. No. 64,160), Ericka J. Schulz (Reg. No. 60,665), Eric
`
`K. Gill (Reg. No. 71,709), Hector A. Agdeppa (Reg. No. 58,238), and Darren M.
`
`Franklin (Reg. No. 51,701) of the same firm as Back-Up Counsel. An appropriate
`
`Power of Attorney is filed concurrently herewith.
`
`D.
`
`Service Information (§42.8 (b)(4))
`
`Service of any documents to Counsel can be made via hand delivery to
`
`Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, 12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200, San
`
`Diego, California 92130. Petitioners consent to service by e-mail at LegalTm-
`
`HTC-INVT-IPRs@sheppardmullin.com. Tel: 858.720.8900; Fax: 858.509.3691.
`
`III. FEE FOR IPR (37 C.F.R. §42.15(a) and §42.103)
`
`Petitioners have paid the required fees. The Office is authorized to charge
`
`any fee deficiency, or credit any overpayment, to Deposit Account No. 50-4562.
`
`SMRH:487558445.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2018-01555)
`
`
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104
`
`A. Grounds for Standing (§42.104(a))
`
`Petitioners certify that (1) the ’439 Patent is available for IPR; and (2)
`
`Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting IPR of the claims of the
`
`’439 Patent on the Grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenged Claims (§42.104(b)(1))
`
`Petitioners request IPR of Claims 1 through 7 of the ’439 Patent, and
`
`request that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board cancel those claims as unpatentable.
`
`C. Grounds of Challenge (§42.104(b)(2))
`
`The Grounds of unpatentability presented in this Petition are as follows.
`
`Ground Basis
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`1
`
`§103 U.S. Patent No. 6,904,283 to Li et al.
`(“Li”), in view of U.S. Patent No.
`7,221,680 to Vijayan et al. (“Vijayan”),
`and in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,721,569
`to Hashem et al. (“Hashem”)
`
`1 through 7
`
`
`Li (Ex. 1003), Vijayan (Ex. 1004), and Hashem (Ex. 1005) were not cited
`
`during the prosecution of the ’439 Patent. The invalidity Grounds set forth in this
`
`Petition are confirmed and supported by the Declaration of Zhi Ding, Ph.D. (Ex.
`
`1007), which accompanies this Petition.
`
`V. PROPOSED GROUNDS ARE NOT REDUNDANT
`
`The Grounds in this Petition are not redundant.
`
`SMRH:487558445.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2018-01555)
`
`
`
`VI. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ’439 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`State of the Art at the Time the ’439 Patent was Filed
`
`1. Cellular Networks
`
`The ’493 Patent generally concerns technologies related to wireless cellular
`
`telephones and operating such phones within a cellular network. In a cellular
`
`network, the network coverage area is divided into many cells. Each cell is served
`
`by a base station (BS), which directly communicates with the mobile terminals or
`
`user equipment (UE) within the cell. The signal flow from the BS to the UE is
`
`known as the downlink. The signal flow from the UE to the BS is known as the
`
`uplink. Ex. 1007 ¶32-33.
`
`2.
`
`Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM)
`
`There are many ways for a wireless link to use an allocated amount of
`
`bandwidth to transmit and receive data signals. Orthogonal Frequency Division
`
`Multiplexing (OFDM) was one way to transmit data that existed before the priority
`
`date of the '439 Patent. With OFDM, a transmitter (such as a BS or a UE) can
`
`divide its allocated frequency band into a number of orthogonal (non-overlapping)
`
`subcarriers to transmit data-bearing signals in each time slot. Ex. 1001, 1:18-33;
`
`Ex. 1007 ¶36-37.
`
`SMRH:487558445.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2018-01555)
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Adaptive Modulation and Coding
`
`In OFDM systems, the BS can modulate each subcarrier with data using a
`
`specific modulation scheme combined with a specific coding scheme. The
`
`modulation and coding schemes are chosen based on channel conditions. When
`
`the channel quality is high, higher-rate modulation and coding can be applied to
`
`achieve a higher data rate while maintaining a sufficiently low bit error rate. When
`
`the channel quality is poor, lower-rate modulation and coding must be applied to
`
`reduce the data rate and maintain a sufficiently low bit error rate. Ex. 1001, 1:34-
`
`52; Ex. 1007 ¶38.
`
`In cellular systems, the channel conditions vary over time because the UEs
`
`are moving. To compensate for this, the UE periodically estimates the downlink
`
`channel quality of its subcarriers. A modulation and coding combination can then
`
`be chosen for each subcarrier or a group of subcarriers based upon the estimated
`
`channel conditions. Adjusting modulation and coding in response to channel
`
`quality is known as adaptive modulation and coding (AMC). AMC was
`
`mainstream technology before the priority date of the '439 Patent. Ex. 1001, 1:34-
`
`52; Ex. 1007 ¶40.
`
`SMRH:487558445.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2018-01555)
`
`
`
`B. Overview of the ’439 Patent
`
`1.
`
`Prior-Art Systems Alleged in the '439 Patent
`
`To execute AMC on a subcarrier-by-subcarrier basis during downlink
`
`transmissions, channel information for hundreds or thousands of subcarriers needs
`
`to be sent from the UEs to the BS. It was well known, before the priority date of
`
`the '439 Patent, that AMC of subcarrier granularity required too much feedback
`
`signaling overhead. Ex. 1001, 2:4-15; Ex. 1007 ¶41.
`
`In its background, the '439 Patent acknowledges that, to reduce the feedback
`
`overhead, multiple subcarriers can be bundled into subbands—groups of multiple
`
`subcarriers in neighboring positions in the frequency domain—and that this was
`
`done in the prior art. Ex. 1001, 2:12-31, 4:56-60; Ex. 1007 ¶42. With AMC
`
`applied on subband basis, a joint (common) modulation parameter and a joint
`
`(common) coding parameter can be applied to all of the subcarriers in a particular
`
`subband. With less-granular information needing to be sent back from the UE to
`
`the BS, the uplink spectrum efficiency (or spectrum utilization rate) can be
`
`improved. Such AMC based on subbands was typically used before the priority
`
`date of the '439 Patent. Ex. 1001, 2:12-31, 4:56-60; Ex. 1007 ¶42.
`
`2.
`
`The Purported Improvement of the ’439 Patent
`
`The '439 Patent alleges that prior-art systems implementing AMC based on
`
`subbands still required too much feedback overhead and thus did not maximize the
`
`SMRH:487558445.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2018-01555)
`
`
`uplink spectrum utilization rate. Ex. 1001, 5:35-39; Ex. 1007 ¶48. The '439 Patent
`
`purportedly solves this problem by taking the subbands of the prior art, which were
`
`bundles of subcarriers, and further combining these subbands into “subband
`
`groups,” which are groups of subbands. Ex. 1001, 5:40-44, Ex. 1007 ¶49. The
`
`'439 Patent then has a communication apparatus select a joint modulation
`
`parameter and a joint coding parameter for each subband group, instead of
`
`selecting a modulation parameter and a coding parameter for each subband as was
`
`done in the alleged prior art. Ex. 1001, 5:42-44; Ex. 1007 ¶49.
`
`In the '439 Patent, the OFDM subbands are formed into subband groups
`
`based on combination patterns. These combination patterns are stored in pattern
`
`storage sections 601, 605 and 607, shown in FIGS. 6A and 6B. The combination
`
`patterns may involve combining neighboring subbands, combining subbands
`
`spaced at intervals, or combining all of the subbands into a single subband group.
`
`Ex. 1001, 10:21-33; Ex. 1007 ¶53.
`
`Figure 8 of the '439 Patent, reproduced below, shows an example of
`
`combining neighboring subbands on the frequency axis across M time units, each
`
`of which corresponds to an OFDM symbol. This is similar to how neighboring
`
`subcarriers are combined to form subbands. Ex. 1001, 10:33-49; Ex. 1007 ¶54.
`
`SMRH:487558445.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2018-01555)
`
`
`
`Subbands having the same shading in this figure belong to the same subband
`
`group. Ex. 1001, 10:48-49; Ex. 1007 ¶54.
`
`C.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”)
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) of the '439 Patent at the
`
`time of the alleged invention had a bachelor degree in electrical engineering,
`
`computer science, or an equivalent field, plus at least three years of experience
`
`SMRH:487558445.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2018-01555)
`
`
`
`working in the fields of wireless communication systems, communication
`
`networks, and signal processing.1 Ex. 1007 ¶61.
`
`D. Effective Filing Date and Prosecution History of the ’439 Patent
`
`The ’439 Patent issued from Application No. 11/719,611, filed on May 17,
`
`2007. This application was a national stage filing of PCT/JP2005/021246, filed on
`
`November 18, 2005. The PCT application claimed priority to Chinese Application
`
`No. 2004 1 0094967, filed on November 19, 2004. Ex. 1001, face page.
`
`Therefore, the effective filing date of the IPR Claims is no earlier than November
`
`19, 2004.
`
`During the prosecution of the '439 Patent, an Office Action dated February
`
`2, 2010 rejected original claims 1, 6, 7 and 9-11 as anticipated by the Applicant’s
`
`admitted prior art, but indicated that original claims 2-5, 8 and 12 would be
`
`allowable if rewritten in independent form. The limitation of a pattern storage
`
`section was the only limitation found by the Patent Office to distinguish the cited
`
`references. Ex. 1002 at 233-241. In an Amendment dated April 29, 2010, the
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Any reference herein to what a POSITA would have known, understood, or been
`motivated to do, and the like, refers to the alleged time of the purported invention.
`
`SMRH:487558445.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2018-01555)
`
`
`
`allowable claims were rewritten in independent form per the Office Action. Ex.
`
`1002 at 212-223.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION—37 C.F.R. §42.104 (b)(3)
`
`For purposes of this IPR, each challenged claim must be given “its broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification.” 37 CFR §42.100(b). The
`
`broadest reasonable construction or interpretation standard requires that claim
`
`terms be “given their ordinary and customary meaning,” as would be understood
`
`by a POSITA in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`
`504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). A special definition for a claim term must
`
`be set forth in the specification with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`
`precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).2
`
`Because the standard of claim construction used in an IPR differs from that
`
`used in litigation, Petitioners reserve the right to present different constructions of
`
`terms in litigation under claim construction standards appropriate for such cases.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioners propose the claim constructions below for purposes of this
`
`
`
` 2
`
` Petitioner has addressed claim construction under the current standard for IPR of
`the broadest reasonable interpretation. 37 CFR §42.100(b). To the extent the
`Board adopts a different standard, for example by applying the standard under
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005), Petitioner reserves
`the right to supplement briefing on this issue.
`
`SMRH:487558445.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2018-01555)
`
`
`
`Petition only. Any claim terms that are not defined below are presumed to have
`
`their plain and ordinary meaning.3
`
`A.
`
`“subband” (claims 1-6): a group of subcarriers in neighboring
`
`positions on the frequency domain. Ex. 1001, 2:19-21 (“[A] subband
`
`indicates a subcarrier group comprised of subcarriers in neighboring
`
`positions on the frequency domain.”); Ex. 1007 ¶66a.
`
`B.
`
`“pattern storage section” (claim 1): a memory for storing patterns
`
`for selecting subbands. Ex. 1001, FIGS. 6A, 6B (showing
`
`combination pattern storage sections 601, 605 and 607); Ex. 1007
`
`¶66b. The stored patterns are for selecting subbands to combine into
`
`subband groups. Ex. 1001, 10:21-33; Ex. 1007 ¶66b. A POSITA
`
`would have understood that the storage would have been implemented
`
`in a computer memory because that is how UEs, which are essentially
`
`small computers, work. Ex. 1007 ¶66b.
`
`C.
`
`“patterns for selecting subbands” (claim 1): particular
`
`configurations or arrangements of subbands on the frequency and/or
`
`
`
` 3
`
` Petitioners do not concede that any terms meet the statutory requirements of
`35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`SMRH:487558445.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2018-01555)
`
`
`
`time domains. Ex. 1001, 10:21-11:3; Ex. 1007 ¶66c. Figures 8-10 of
`
`the '439 Patent show examples of how the subbands can configured or
`
`arranged on the frequency and/or time domains to form subband
`
`groups. Ex. 1001, FIGS. 8-10; Ex. 1007 ¶66c.
`
`D.
`
`“modulation parameters with a highest classification” (claim 5):
`
`modulation parameters associated with a coding and modulation
`
`scheme that allows achieving a highest throughput compared to other
`
`modulation parameters that are available to the device. Ex. 1001,
`
`10:7-20; Ex. 1007 ¶66d. Table 2 of the '439 Patent shows the highest
`
`classification (6) being associated with a coding parameter (2/3
`
`Turbo) and a modulation parameter (64QAM) having the highest
`
`throughput (4 bps/Hz) of all of the classifications in the table. Ex.
`
`1001, 10:7-20; Ex. 1007 ¶66d.
`
`VIII. PRECISE REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Prior Art Applied in This Petition
`
`1. Overview of Li
`
`Li issued on June 7, 2005, was published on September 11, 2003, and was
`
`filed on April 17, 2001. Li is a continuation-in-part of an application filed on
`
`December 15, 2000. Li therefore qualifies as prior art under at least pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. §§102(a), (b), (e).
`
`SMRH:487558445.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2018-01555)
`
`
`
`At a high level, Li discloses an OFDM system having pre-defined groups of
`
`“clusters.” Ex. 1003, Abstract; Ex. 1007 ¶68. The clusters 102, which are shown
`
`in Figure 1A of Li, are the same as subbands in the ’439 Patent. Ex. 1003, 5:18-
`
`28, FIG. 1A; Ex. 1007 ¶68. In other words, each “cluster” of Li is a bundle of
`
`subcarriers that are in neighboring positions in the frequency domain, as Figure 1A
`
`of Li makes clear. Ex. 1003, 5:18-28, FIG. 1A; Ex. 1007 ¶68. Groups of clusters
`
`in Li thus are the same as subband groups in the '439 Patent. Ex. 1007 ¶68.
`
`Li teaches partitioning the subcarriers in the OFDM system “into groups of
`
`at least one cluster of subcarriers.” Ex. 1003, Abstract; Ex. 1007 ¶69. The UE,
`
`which Li calls a “subscriber,” then “select[s] … one or more groups in the groups,
`
`and allocat[es] at least one cluster in the one or more groups of clusters” for the BS
`
`to use in communicating with the subscriber. Ex. 1003, Abstract; Ex. 1007 ¶69.
`
`Figure 3 of Li (reproduced below) illustrates an embodiment of the
`
`subscriber processing at the UE, which includes carrying out a channel estimation
`
`on the clusters (channel/interference estimation processing block 301). Ex. 1003,
`
`8:54-56, 9:12-15; Ex. 1007 ¶70. Based on the “per cluster” results from block 301
`
`at the UE, the cluster ordering and rate prediction processing block 303 decides
`
`one or more modulation parameters and one or more coding parameters per cluster
`
`group. Ex. 1003, 8:61-65, 9:35-37, 9:43-46; Ex. 1007 ¶70. The cluster request
`
`SMRH:487558445.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2018-01555)
`
`
`
`processing block 304 then transmits the modulation and coding parameters back to
`
`the BS via an established uplink for the BS to use in modulating and encoding data
`
`to be transmitted to the subscriber in the downlink. Ex. 1003, 8:66-9:2, 9:43-46;
`
`Ex. 1007 ¶70.
`
`
`
`Figure 6 of Li (reproduced below) shows the clusters (subbands), which are
`
`represented by boxes along the frequency (horizontal) and time (vertical) axes,
`
`partitioned into four cluster groups. Ex. 1003, 11:49-52; Ex. 1007 ¶71. The
`
`clusters (subbands) constituting the cluster groups shown in Figure 6 are selected
`
`according to a pattern—every fourth cluster going along the frequency axis f is
`
`selected to form a cluster group. Ex. 1007 ¶71.
`
`SMRH:487558445.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2018-01555)
`
`
`
`
`
`In Li, one motivation for combining multiple clusters (subbands) into such
`
`cluster groups is to “improve[] frequency diversity within each group.” Ex. 1003,
`
`11:58-61; Ex. 1007 ¶72. Exploiting diversity between subbands is one of the same
`
`motivations stated in the '439 Patent. Ex. 1001, 5:19-20; Ex. 1007 ¶72. Another
`
`motivation in Li for “group-based cluster allocation” is to improve the uplink
`
`spectrum efficiency and to lower the feedback overhead by “reducing the data bits
`
`for cluster indexing, thereby reducing the bandwidth requirements of the feedback
`
`channel (information) and control channel (information) for cluster allocation.”
`
`Ex. 1003, 11:62-66; Ex. 1007 ¶72. The '439 Patent also states this same
`
`motivation of reducing the feedback overhead. Ex. 1001, 5:32-45, 12:17-24; Ex.
`
`1007 ¶72.
`
`SMRH:487558445.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2018-01555)
`
`
`
`2. Overview of Vijayan
`
`Vijayan issued on May 22, 2007, was published on May 17, 2005, and was
`
`filed on September 1, 2004, making it prior art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§102(e).
`
`At a high level, Vijayan discloses an OFDM system where the BS allocates
`
`a group of subbands for downlink transmission and applies a common
`
`coding/modulation scheme for all subbands in the group. The patent discloses
`
`various patterns of subbands for the subband groups, where each subband group
`
`comprises multiple subbands.
`
`More specifically, Vijayan uses the word “subband,” which is equivalent to
`
`a subcarrier in the ’439 Patent. Ex. 1004, 1:29-32 (“With OFDM, each subband is
`
`associated with a respective subcarrier that may be modulated with data.”).
`
`Vijayan also discloses the concept of a “subband group,” which is equivalent to the
`
`concept of a subband in the '439 Patent: “In one subband grouping scheme, each
`
`group contains Nspg consecutive usable subbands.” Ex. 1004, 8:16-17.
`
`Furthermore, Vijayan discloses the concept of a PLC (physical layer channel),
`
`which is equivalent to the concept of a subband group in the ’439 Patent. A PLC is
`
`comprised of multiple subbands: “[A]n active PLC may be assigned as many
`
`subband groups as possible while conforming to the maximum bit rate.” Ex. 1004,
`
`SMRH:487558445.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2018-01555)
`
`
`
`9:64-66; see also id., Ex. 1004, 10:7-13 (“In an embodiment, the rectangular
`
`pattern for each active PLC includes contiguous subband groups (in indices) and
`
`contiguous symbol periods. This type of assignment reduces the amount of
`
`overhead signaling needed to specify the rectangular pattern ….”). Thus, Vijayan
`
`discloses an OFDM system where the BS allocates a group of subbands for
`
`downlink transmission. Ex. 1007 ¶75.
`
`Vijayan also discloses the BS applying a joint modulation parameter and a
`
`joint coding parameter for each subband group. The joint modulation and coding
`
`parameters are specified by one of eight “modes,” which are shown in Table 1 of
`
`Vijayan, reproduced below. Each mode m “is associated with a specific
`
`modulation scheme (e.g., QPSK or 16-QAM) and a specific inner code rate Rin(m)
`
`(e.g., ⅓, ½, or ⅔).” Ex. 1004, 13:14-16; Ex. 1007 ¶76.
`
`SMRH:487558445.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2018-01555)
`
`
`
`In Vijayan, each PLC (i.e., subband group) is assigned a mode m,
`
`corresponding to a specific modulation scheme and a specific inner code rate from
`
`the second and third columns of Table 1, respectively. “The data stream for each
`
`PLC is encoded and modulated based on a coding and modulation scheme selected
`
`for that PLC.” Ex. 1004, 4:43-45. In Figure 9B of Vijayan, reproduced below, a
`
`specific mode is assigned to each subband group in each symbol period (subband
`
`group 1 in symbol period 1 consisting of three subbands at adjacent frequencies is
`
`assigned mode 1, and thus all subbands in subband group 1 are assigned the QPSK
`
`modulation scheme and a ⅓ inner code rate). Ex. 1004, 13:12-16, 14:40-47; Ex.
`
`1007 ¶77.
`
`
`
`
`
`SMRH:487558445.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2018-01555)
`
`
`
`
`
`3. Overview of Hashem
`
`Hashem issued on April 13, 2004 and was filed on September 29, 2000,
`
`making it prior art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§102(a), (b), (e).
`
`Hashem generally relates to the transmission of data in a radio-frequency
`
`communication system having a BS and a remote unit (i.e., a UE). Ex. 1005,
`
`Abstract. As shown in Figure 1 of Hashem, reproduced below, the remote unit (1)
`
`receives downlink sub-carrier signals; (2) measures the signal-to-interference ratio
`
`(S/I) of each sub-carrier signal; (3) determines acceptable and unacceptable sub-
`
`carriers by comparing each measured sub-carrier S/I to a threshold value; and (4)
`
`sends a return signal to a BS, including the average S/I of the acceptable sub-
`
`carriers and a sequence of index numbers identifying the acceptable sub-carriers.
`
`SMRH:487558445.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.