`
`
`
`
`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
`_____________________
`
`Case: IPR2018-01555
`Patent No. 7,848,439
`_____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 313 AND 37 C.F.R. §42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01555
`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 ................................................ 9
`D.
`Relevant Prosecution History ..............................................................16
`III. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................17
`IV. Claim Construction ........................................................................................17
`A.
`“subband” (Claims 1-6), “pattern storage section” (Claim 1), and
`“modulation parameters with a highest classification” (Claim 5) ......18
`“patterns for selecting subbands” (Claims 1) ......................................18
`B.
`V. Overview of the Alleged Prior Art References .............................................22
`A. U.S. Patent No. 6,904,283 to Li et al. (“Li”).......................................22
`B. U.S. Patent No. 7,221,680 to Vijayan et al. (“Vijayan”) ....................26
`C. U.S. Patent No. 6,721,569 to Hashem et al. (“Hashem”) ...................29
`VI. Legal Standards .............................................................................................31
`VII. The Petition Fails to Establish a Reasonable Likelihood the Challenged
`Claims are Obvious........................................................................................33
`A.
`The Petition Fails to Demonstrate that the Proposed Combination
`Discloses (1) “Patterns for Selecting Subbands Constituting the
`Subband Groups,” (2) “Subbands Selected Based on the Patterns
`Stored in the Pattern Storage Section,” or Joint “Modulation and
`Coding Parameters” for an Entire “Subband Group” (Claim 1) .........33
`1.
`Li does not disclose “store[d]” “patterns for selecting
`subbands” or selecting subbands “based on” “patterns for
`selecting subbands.” ..................................................................35
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01555
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`
`Vijayan does not disclose “patterns for selecting subbands,”
`selecting subbands “based on” “patterns for selecting
`subbands,” or joint “modulation and coding parameters” for an
`entire subband group. ................................................................44
`The Petition Fails to Demonstrate that Li or Vijayan Discloses a
`Mobile Device with “a Pattern Storage Section that Stores in Advance
`Patterns for Selecting Subbands Constituting the Subband Groups.” 48
`1.
`Li fails to disclose “a pattern storage section that stores in
`advance patterns for selecting subbands constituting the
`subband groups.” .......................................................................48
`Vijayan likewise fails to disclose “a pattern storage section that
`stores in advance patterns for selecting subbands constituting
`the subband groups.” .................................................................52
`The Petition Fails to Establish that a POSITA Would Combine Li with
`Vijayan to Achieve the Claimed Invention with a Reasonable
`Expectation of Success. .......................................................................53
`1.
`The Petition relies on unsupported, conclusory expert testimony
`for the alleged motivation to combine Li and Vijayan. ............54
`A POSITA would not have been motivated to combine the Li
`and Vijayan references. .............................................................57
`The Petition relies on improper hindsight for the alleged
`motivation to combine. .............................................................62
`VIII. The Petition Also Should Be Denied for Efficiency Reasons, Because The
`Parallel ITC Investigation Will Be Resolved Before Any Trial Instituted on
`this Petition. ...................................................................................................64
`IX. Conclusion .....................................................................................................66
`Word Count Certification ........................................................................................68
`Certificate of Service ...............................................................................................69
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01555
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Abiomed, Inc. et al. v. Maquet Cardiovascular, LLC,
`IPR2017-01205, Paper No. 8 .............................................................................. 49
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 72
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.,
`IPR2017-02041, Paper 10 (PTAB Mar. 8, 2018) ............................................... 62
`Apple Inc. v. Valencell, Inc.,
`IPR2017-00316, Paper 9 (PTAB Jul. 20, 2017) ................................................. 62
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 36
`Gen. Elec. Co. v. TAS Energy Inc.,
`IPR2014-00163, Paper 11 (PTAB May 13, 2014) ............................................. 72
`General Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`Case IPR2016-01357 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) ...................................................... 73
`General Plastic,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 ................................................................................... 75
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 73
`Heart Failure,
`IPR2013-00183, Paper 12 ............................................................................. 60, 61
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 ......................................................................................... 37, 38, 71
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F. 3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ......................................................................... 36
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01555
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`
`In the Matter of Certain LTE- AND 3G-Compliant Cellular
`Communications Devices,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1138 ........................................................................................ 73
`Initiative for Medicines, Access & Knowledge (I-MAK), Inc. v. Gilead
`Pharmasset LLC,
`Case No. IPR2018-00390, Paper No. 7 (Jul. 19, 2018) ...................................... 37
`Inventergy, Inc. v. HTC Corporation et al.,
`1-17-cv-00200 (D. Del. Feb. 27, 2017), Dkt. 1 .................................................. 73
`INVT SPE LLC v. HTC Corporation et al.,
`2-17-cv-03740 (D.N.J. May 25, 2017), Dkt. 1 ................................................... 73
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .......................................................................... 36, 37, 60, 71
`NHK Spring Co., LTD., v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc.,
`Case IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) ................................ 74, 75
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 21
`Nikon Corp. v. ASML Netherlands B.V.,
`Case No. IPR2018-00227, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2018) .......................... 71
`Nokia of Am. Corp. v. Blackberry Ltd.,
`IPR2018-00652, Paper 10 (PTAB Oct. 1, 2018) .................................... 48, 49, 70
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .................................................... 20, 22
`Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Depomed, Inc.,
`643 F. App’x 960 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 70
`Sony,
`IPR2013-00092, Paper 21 ................................................................................... 60
`Star Sci., Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
`655 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 36
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01555
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`
`Yamaha Golf Car Co. v, Club Car, LLC,
`IPR2017-02141, Paper 17 (PTAB Apr. 3, 2018) ............................................... 72
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ............................................................................................. 73, 74
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ............................................................................... 37, 61, 62, 64
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 20
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01555
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01555
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`I.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. (“Petitioners”)
`
`challenge Claims 1 through 7 (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 patented invention generally covers the use of “subband groups”
`
`
`
`comprised of frequency subbands selected based on patterns stored by the 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 further decreases the
`
`amount of information that needs to be exchanged over the same period of time at
`
`this stage.
`
`Petitioners’ sole ground seeks to combine three references—U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,904,283 to Li et al. (“Li”) with U.S. Patent No. 7,221,680 to Vijayan et al.
`
`(“Vijayan”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,721,569 to Hashem et al. (“Hashem”) (the
`
`“Proposed Combination”). However, the Proposed Combination fails to disclose
`
`several key limitations required by the Challenged Claims—including “patterns for
`
`selecting subbands,” subbands “selected based on the patterns stored in the pattern
`
`storage section,” “a pattern storage section that stores in advance patterns for
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2018-01555
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`selecting subbands constituting the subband groups,” and limitations relating to
`
`those same “subband groups.” In particular, the Proposed Combination does not
`
`disclose any “patterns for selecting subbands constituting the subband groups” that
`
`are fixed or any “subbands selected based on the patterns.” The Proposed
`
`Combination likewise fails to disclose joint “modulation and coding parameters”
`
`based on those “subband groups.” The Petition also fails to disclose a mobile
`
`device that contains the requisite “pattern storage section that stores in advance
`
`patterns for selecting subbands,” instead relying on generic references about base
`
`station components. The Petition fails to show the presence of these elements in
`
`the Proposed Combination.
`
`The Petition also fails to establish why the references in the Proposed
`
`Combination should or would have been combined or why such a combination
`
`would have a reasonable expectation of success. Indeed, 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. The
`
`unsupported opinions proffered by Petitioners’ expert rely on impermissible
`
`hindsight and do not compel a different conclusion.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2018-01555
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`Additionally, 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
`
`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
`
`
`1 Exhibit 2001 refers to the supporting Expert Declaration of Dr. Branimir
`Vojcic.
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01555
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01555
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01555
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`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 ¶ 19; Paper No.
`
`1 at 16 (stating that Vijayan’s “subband groups” are actually comprised of groups
`
`of subcarriers, not 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,
`
`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:
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01555
`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. Ex.
`
`1001 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. Ex. 1001 at 4:56-63.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2018-01555
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`
` “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. Ex. 1001
`
`at 4:64-5:8. The end result of utilizing diversity performance is larger coding
`
`gains—i.e., reduced error rates. Ex. 1001 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 independent Claim 1 and dependent
`
`Claims 2 through 7. Claim 1 is presented below:
`
`1. 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;
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2018-01555
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01555
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`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
`
`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
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01555
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`“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:
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01555
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`across all time units. See Ex. 1001 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
`
`establishing a link with the base station. Ex. 1003 at 3:18-23. This inefficiency was
`
`precisely what the invention disclosed in the ’439 Patent sought to avoid.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01555
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`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. 1003 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:
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01555
`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
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01555
`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. Ex. 1001 at 13:21-24, Figs.
`
`5A-6B.
`
`
`
`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. Ex. 1001 at 5:32-44. This can reduce power consumption and increase
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01555
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`battery life for mobile devices, while simultaneously improving the network
`
`capacity for the base station. See 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:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at Figs. 11-12, 7:18-25, 12:25-63. These simulations demonstrate that the
`
`patented invention presents a substantial “performance gain when compared to
`
`methods of the related art,” along with significantly reduced feedback overhead.
`
`Id. at 12:47-55.
`
`D. Relevant Prosecution History
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2018-01555
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`During prosecution of the U.S. application resulting in the ’439 Patent, the
`
`Examiner allowed the Challenged Claims expressly because the prior art failed to
`
`disclose, among other things, “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. 1002 at 201-02.
`
`III. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute, for purposes of these preliminary
`
`proceedings, the level of skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)
`
`of the ’439 Patent at the time of the invention, as laid out in the Petition. Paper 1 at
`
`8-9.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`
`The Challenged Claims should be afforded their “broadest reasonable
`
`construction” in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Claim terms are
`
`“generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a
`
`POSITA at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-
`
`13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2018-01555
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`A.
`
`“subband” (Claims 1-6), “pattern storage section” (Claim 1), and
`“modulation parameters with a highest classification” (Claim 5)
`
`For the purposes of this preliminary proceeding only, and without waiving
`
`the right to raise claim constructions in the future, Patent Owner does not believe
`
`that the claim terms, “subband,” “pattern storage section,” “modulation parameters
`
`with a highest classification,” and all other claim terms not specified below,
`
`require express construction to deny the Petition. See Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`(“[W]e need only construe terms that are in controversy, and only to the extent
`
`necessary to resolve the controversy.”). Specifically, the Petition’s proposed
`
`constructions for these terms do not establish any of the missing elements in the
`
`proposed prior art combination. See infra § VII.A-B. Patent Owner does not waive,
`
`however, any argument regarding the proper scope of the Challenged Claims.
`
`Patent Owner reserves the right to advance additional or modified constructions at
`
`a later date.
`
`For purposes of this preliminary proceeding, Patent Owner proposes the
`
`following claim constructions:
`
`B.
`
`“patterns for selecting subbands” (Claims 1)
`
`The phrase “patterns for selecting subbands” should be construed as “fixed
`
`rules for choosing subbands based on frequency.” The ’439 Patent specification is
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01555
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`the “single best guide to the meaning of [this] disputed term.” Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Here, the specification
`
`expressly states that the “object of the present invention” is accomplished by
`
`“combining all of the subbands on a frequency domain of a subcarrier
`
`communication system based on a fixed rule [so] as to give several subband
`
`
`
`groups . . . .” Ex. 1001 at 5:32-44 (discussing how the invention solves “Problems
`
`to be Solved by the Invention”) (emphasis added). In the “present invention, all of
`
`the subbands in the frequency domain in OFDM are made into several subband
`
`groups using combination patterns . . . .” Ex. 1001 at 8:2-6 (emphases added).
`
`Further, as discussed previously, these subband grouping patterns are
`
`predetermined before