`
`
`
`
`
`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. IPR2018-01556
`U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`__________
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 311 ET SEQ. AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`(CLAIMS 1 THROUGH 4 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,206,587)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`(IPR2018-01556)
`
`
`
`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) ....................................... 3
`
`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 .................................... 4
`
`VI. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ’587 PATENT .......... 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`State of the Art at the Time the ’587 Patent was Filed ......................... 4
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) .................................. 7
`
`Overview of the ’587 Patent .................................................................. 8
`
`1.
`
`The Purported Improvements of the ’587 Patent ........................ 8
`
`Effective Filing Date and Prosecution History of the ’587
`Patent ................................................................................................... 14
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION—37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(3) ............................. 15
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“code word minimum distance” (Claim 1) ......................................... 16
`
`“is proportional to the degree of measured downlink channel
`quality” (Claim 1) ................................................................................ 17
`
`VIII. PRECISE REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED .................................... 19
`
`A.
`
`Padovani in View of Gils Invalidates Claims 1, 2, 3, and 4. .............. 19
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Padovani ............................................................... 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`(IPR2018-01556)
`
`
`Overview of Gils ....................................................................... 23
`
`2.
`
`3. Motivation to Combine ............................................................. 29
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Padovani in View of Gils Renders Claim 4 Obvious. .............. 36
`
`Padovani in View of Gils Renders Claim 1 Obvious. .............. 44
`
`Padovani in View of Gils Renders Claim 2 Obvious. .............. 58
`
`Padovani in View of Gils Renders Claim 3 Obvious. .............. 66
`
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`(IPR2018-01556)
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`Date
`
`Identifier
`
`United States Patent No. 7,206,587 to
`Miyoshi et al.
`
`1002
`
`File History for the ’587 Patent
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`December
`18, 2002
`(Filing Date)
`n/a
`
`February 27,
`2017
`
`’587 Patent
`
`’587 Patent
`File History
`Inventergy
`Complaint
`
`May 25,
`2017
`
`May 25,
`2017
`
`
`
`INVT SPE
`Complaint
`
`Complaint, Inventergy, Inc. v. HTC
`Corporation, and HTC America, Inc.,
`C.A. No.: 17-cv-200-VAC-CJB (D. Del.
`2017)
`Inventergy’s Voluntary Dismissal
`Without Prejudice
`
`Complaint, INVT SPE LLC v. HTC
`Corporation, and HTC America, Inc.,
`2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC (D.N.J. 2017)
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1009
`
`PCT Application No. PCT/US98/23428
`to Padovani et al.
`
`
`
`1010 W. van Gils, “Design of error-control
`coding schemes for three problems of
`noisy information transmission, storage
`and processing,” Ph.D., dissertation,
`Eindhoven Univ. of Technology,
`Eindhoven, the Netherlands, 1988.
`
`Padovani
`
`Gils
`
`November
`3, 1997
`(Priority
`Date)
`January 1,
`1988
`(Publication
`date)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`(IPR2018-01556)
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Date
`
`Identifier
`
`European Patent No. 0083127 B1 to
`Driessen
`
`B. Masnick and J. Wolf, “On Linear
`Unequal Error Protection Codes,” IEEE
`Transactions on Information Theory,
`vol. IT 13, no. 4, pp. 600-607, July
`1967.
`
`1013
`
`United States Patent No. 7,245,594 to
`Esteves et al.
`
`1014
`
`United States Patent No. 7,079,550 to
`Padovani et al.
`
`December
`14, 1982
`(Filing Date)
`October of
`1967
`(Publication
`Date)
`
`May 12,
`2000 (Filing
`Date)
`Dec. 12,
`2002 (Filing
`Date)
`Mar. 3, 2000
`(Filing Date)
`
`Driessen
`
`Masnick
`
`Esteves
`
`Padovani 550
`
`Balachandran
`
`Balachandran
`136
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`United States Patent No. 6,975,611 to
`Balachandran et al.
`
`
`
`K. Balachandran, R. Ejzak, S. Nanda, S.
`Vitebskiy, S. Seth, “GPRS- 136: High-
`Rate Packet Data Service for North
`American TDMA Digital Cellular
`Systems,” IEEE Personal
`Communications, vol. 6, pp. 34-47, June
`1999.
`
`Declaration of Paul Min, Ph.D. and
`Curriculum Vitae
`
`A.O. Mabogunje, P.G. Farrell,
`“Construction of Unequal Error
`Protection Codes,” Lecture Notes in
`Computer Science, vol. 514, Eurocode
`’90, pp. 87-93, November 1990.
`
`n/a
`
`
`
`Min
`
`Mabogunje
`
`June of 1991
`(Publication
`Date)
`
`1019
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,691,992 to Molnar et
`al
`
`Molnar
`
`October 12,
`1995 (Filing
`Date)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`(IPR2018-01556)
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Date
`
`Identifier
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`United States Patent 6,665,831 to
`Yoshida et al.
`
`United States Patent No. 4,747,104 to
`Piret
`
`United States Patent 6,292,917 to Sinha
`et al.
`
`January 6,
`2000 (Filing
`Date)
`June 5, 1986
`(Filing Date)
`
`September
`30, 1998
`(Filing Date)
`
`
`Yoshida
`
`Piret
`
`Sinha
`
`1984 Philips
`Journal
`
`1023
`
`Philips Journal of Research, Vol. 39,
`no. 6, 1984
`
`1024
`
`Declaration of Ximena Solano
`
`n/a
`
`Solano
`
`1025 Webpages from WorldCat.org database
`re Gils Dissertation
`
`July 27,
`2018
`
`1026
`
`Correspondence with University of
`South Wales re Gils Dissertation
`
`1027 Webpages from the German National
`Library of Science and Technology
`(“TIB - Leibniz Information Centre for
`Science and Technology and University
`Library”)
`
`1028
`
`Correspondence with TIB re Gils
`Dissertation
`
`1029
`
`Correspondence with Karlsruher
`Institute of Technology (KIT)
`
`1030
`
`Correspondence with Hamburg
`University of Technology (TUHH)
`
`July 29,
`2018 –
`August 7,
`2018
`
`
`July 30,
`2018 – July
`31, 2018
`July 28,
`2018 – July
`31, 2018
`July 28,
`2018 – July
`31, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`(IPR2018-01556)
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Date
`
`Identifier
`
`Correspondence with Saxon State and
`University Library Dresden (SLUB)
`
`Correspondence with Eindhoven
`University of Technology (TU/e)
`
`July 28,
`2018 –
`August 13,
`2018
`July 28,
`2018 – July
`29, 2018
`Correspondence with Tilburg University July 28,
`2018 – July
`30, 2018
`August 14,
`2018
`
`Philips Technical Review 1988
`(downloadable today)
`
`Screenshot from Stanford University
`Library website displaying Philips Tech.
`Rev.
`
`August 20,
`2018
`
`Screenshot from Stanford University
`Library website displaying Philips
`Journal
`
`August 21,
`2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`Declaration of Oliver Heinisch
`
`n/a
`
`Heinisch
`
`1038
`
`Certified translated copy of
`Correspondence with Hamburg
`University of Technology (TUHH)
`
`1039
`
`Certified translated copy of
`Correspondence with TIB
`
`1040
`
`Certified translated copy of
`Correspondence with the
`Universitätsbibliothek Stuttgart
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`July 31,
`2018 –
`August 2,
`2018
`August 1,
`2018 –
`August 15,
`2018
`August 1,
`2018 –
`August 14,
`2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`(IPR2018-01556)
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Date
`
`Identifier
`
`August 1,
`2018 –
`August 14,
`2018
`n/a
`
`July 30,
`2018 –
`August 2,
`2018
`July 30,
`2018 –
`August 1,
`2018
`July 30,
`2018 –
`August 1,
`2018
`n/a
`
`August 15,
`2018
`
`August 15,
`2018
`
`
`
`Steinbusch
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Liebman
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Online Catalog Records for the 1984
`Philips Journal
`
`August 16,
`2018
`
`Online Catalog Records for the Philips
`Tech. Rev.
`
`August 16,
`2018
`
`Declaration of Gerard P. Grenier (“IEEE
`Declaration”)
`
`Declaration of Steve Wasserman
`(“Retriev-it Declaration”)
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`Grenier
`
`Wasserman
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1041
`
`Certified translated copy of
`Correspondence with Karlsruher Institut
`für Technologie (KIT)
`
`1042
`
`Declaration of Otto Steinbusch
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`Certified translated copy of
`correspondence with Eindhoven
`University of Technology
`
`Certified translated copy of
`correspondence with Bibliotheek
`UvA/HvA (AMSTERDAM)
`
`Certified translated copy of
`correspondence with the KB National
`Library of The Netherlands
`
`1046
`
`Declaration of Bruce Liebman
`
`Correspondence with University of
`California Riverside (UCR) re the 1984
`Philips Journal
`
`Correspondence with California State
`University, Sacramento (CSU) re he
`1988 Philips Tech. Rev.
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1049
`
`1050
`
`1051
`
`1052
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`No.
`1053
`
`1054
`
`1055
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`(IPR2018-01556)
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Date
`
`Identifier
`
`Larry A. Dunning and W. E. Robbins,
`“Optimal Encoding of Linear Block
`Codes for Unequal Error Protection,”
`Information and Control 37 (1978)
`
`A. Bruce Carlson, “Communication
`Systems” (1968)
`
`Léon M. H. E. Driessen, “On an Infinite
`Series of [4n, 2n] Binary Codes,” IEEE
`Transactions on Information Theory,
`Vol. IT-30, No. 2 (March 1984)
`
`1978
`
`Dunning
`
`1968
`
`Carlson
`
`March 1984 Driessen
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`(IPR2018-01556)
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 15
`
`In re Paulsen
`30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ............................................................................ 15
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 15
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 15
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ................................................................................................... 23
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................... 23
`
`35 U.S.C. section 102(e) .......................................................................................... 19
`
`35 U.S.C. sections 311–319 ....................................................................................... 1
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 Code of Federal Regulations pt. 42 ...................................................................... 1
`
`37 Code of Federal Regulations section 42.8 ............................................................ 1
`
`37 Code of Federal Regulations section 42.8 (b)(1) .................................................. 1
`
`37 Code of Federal Regulations section 42.8 (b)(2) .................................................. 1
`
`37 Code of Federal Regulations section 42.8(b)(3) ................................................... 2
`
`37 Code of Federal Regulations section 42.8(b)(4) ................................................... 3
`
`37 Code of Federal Regulations section 42.15(a) ...................................................... 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`(IPR2018-01556)
`
`
`37 Code of Federal Regulations section 42.100(b) ................................................. 15
`
`37 Code of Federal Regulations section 42.103 ........................................................ 3
`
`37 Code of Federal Regulations section 42.104 ........................................................ 3
`
`37 Code of Federal Regulations section 42.104(a) .................................................... 3
`
`37 Code of Federal Regulations section 42.104(b)(1) ............................................... 3
`
`37 Code of Federal Regulations section 42.104(b)(2) ............................................... 3
`
`37 Code of Federal Regulations section 42.104 (b)(3) ............................................ 15
`
`77 Federal Register 48756, 48764 at col. 2 (August 14, 2012) ............................... 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`(IPR2018-01556)
`
`
`
`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 4 (“the IPR Claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,206,587, 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., C.A. No.: 17-cv-200-VAC-CJB (D. Del. 2017), on February
`
`27, 2017. Ex. 1003. On May 25, 2017, Patent Owner filed a voluntary dismissal
`
`without prejudice of the aforementioned action under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Ex.
`
`1004.
`
`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.,
`
`2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC (D.N.J. 2017) – asserting Claim 4 of the ’587 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`(IPR2018-01556)
`
`
`Ex. 1005. On 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. 1006), and Patent
`
`Owner opposed said motion on March 23, 2018 (Ex. 1007). On April 2, 2018,
`
`Petitioners filed a reply to the opposition. Ex. 1008. 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), and Hector A. Agdeppa (Reg. No. 58,238), 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`(IPR2018-01556)
`
`
`
`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. 50-4561.
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`A. Grounds for Standing (§ 42.104 (a))
`
`Petitioners certify that (1) the ’587 Patent is available for IPR; and (2)
`
`Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting IPR of the claims of the
`
`’587 Patent on the Grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenged Claims (§ 42.104 (b)(1))
`
`Petitioners request IPR of Claims 1 through 4 of the ’587 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 Padovani in view of Gils
`
`1, 2, 3, and 4
`
`
`
`Padovani (Ex. 1009) and Gils (Ex. 1010) were not cited during the
`
`prosecution of the ’587 Patent. The invalidity Grounds set forth in this Petition are
`
`confirmed and supported by the Declaration of Dr. Paul Min (Ex. 1017), which
`
`accompanies this Petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`(IPR2018-01556)
`
`
`
`V.
`
`PROPOSED GROUNDS ARE NOT REDUNDANT
`
`There are no redundant grounds presented.
`
`VI. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ’587 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`State of the Art at the Time the ’587 Patent was Filed
`
`Error-correction coding is a process of adding redundant data to a message,
`
`such that it can be recovered by a receiver even when a number of errors (up to the
`
`capability of the code being used) were introduced. Ex. 1017, ¶84. Initially, most
`
`error-correcting capabilities were described in terms of the correct reception of the
`
`entire message. Ex. 1010, 6; Ex. 1017, ¶84.
`
`However, “many applications exist in which some message positions are
`
`more important than others. For example in transmitting numerical data, errors in
`
`the sign or high-order digits are more serious than are errors in the low-order
`
`digits.” Ex. 1010, 6. To solve this problem, unequal error protection (UEP) codes
`
`were developed that protect some positions in a message word against a larger
`
`number of errors than other ones. Ex. 1017, ¶85.
`
`UEP codes refer to a class of error-correction codes that allow certain digits
`
`of a message to be protected against a greater number of errors than other digits in
`
`the message. Ex. 1012, 600; Ex. 1017, ¶86. UEP codes have been known since at
`
`least 1967. Ex. 1012 (published in 1967); Ex. 1017, ¶86.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`(IPR2018-01556)
`
`
`
`Various UEP coding schemes have been applied to different technology
`
`areas before August 2, 2000, the earliest alleged priority date of the ’587 Patent.
`
`Ex. 1017, ¶87. For example, UEP coding schemes have been used to solve the
`
`problem “concern[ed] with the transmission and storage of messages in which
`
`different parts are of mutually different importance.” Ex. 1010, v. This can be
`
`done by using different coding schemes for the different parts, but more elegantly
`
`by using a single so-called Unequal Error Protection coding scheme. Id. As
`
`another example, a European patent application filed in 1982 discloses applying
`
`UEP codes to “transmitting information of a television picture.” Ex. 1011, 1:3-25.
`
`Most pertinently, UEP coding schemes were applied to digital wireless
`
`communication systems before August 2, 2000. Ex. 1017 ¶88. For example, U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,691,992 entitled “Punctured Coding System For Providing Unequal
`
`Error Protection In a Digital Communication System” describes operation of a
`
`digital communication system and the use of unequal error protection to combat
`
`“[c]orruption of the transmitted symbol stream [of significant and insignificant
`
`symbols]” recognized as being “a particular problem for wireless transmission
`
`channels due to the high level of noise….” Ex. 1019, 1:14-23, 4:40-65. U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,665,831 entitled “Unequal Error Protection In Multi-Carrier
`
`Transmission” (Ex. 1020, Abstract), U.S. Patent No. 4,747,104 entitled “Data
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`(IPR2018-01556)
`
`
`
`Transmission System Employing a Combination of Block Encoding and
`
`Convolution Encoding for Error Protection,” (Ex. 1021, Abstract, 9:27-33), and the
`
`publication entitled “Construction of unequal error protection codes” to Mabogunje
`
`(Ex. 1018, [introduction]) all describe implementing some form of unequal error
`
`protection in a communications system.
`
`Regarding wireless digital communications, channel characteristics, such as
`
`downlink channel/forward link quality were and are still used to determine
`
`information rates or levels of service that can be supported on those downlink
`
`channels/forward links. Ex. 1009, 4:3-13; Ex. 1013, 2:52-64; Ex. 1017 ¶89.
`
`Signal-to-noise-and-interference ratio (SNIR), also referred to as signal-to-
`
`interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) or carrier-to-interference ratio (CIR or C/I) is
`
`an indicator of the downlink channel/forward link quality. Ex. 1009, 4:3-13; Ex.
`
`1013, 2:52-64; Ex. 1017, ¶89. Generally, a mobile station or access terminal
`
`measures the downlink channel/forward link quality based on a signal, such as a
`
`paging or pilot signal received from a network relay point (e.g., base station, access
`
`point, or similar network element). Ex. 1009, 9:34-38; Ex. 1013, 5:51-58; Ex.
`
`1017, ¶89. The mobile station/access terminal then informs the network relay
`
`point of the downlink channel/forward link quality by transmitting a signal
`
`containing or indicative of the downlink channel/forward link quality (e.g., a data
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`(IPR2018-01556)
`
`
`
`rate control (DRC) message) to the network relay point. Ex. 1009, 9:28-10:2; Ex.
`
`1013, 5:64-6:6; Ex. 1017, ¶89. For example, a mobile station/access terminal may
`
`include an SNIR estimation component that outputs an SNIR measurement to a
`
`DRC component for generating a DRC message that ultimately is transmitted to an
`
`access point. Ex.1013, 12:29-50; id., FIG. 6 (reproduced below).
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”)
`
`Based on expert opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art with respect to
`
`the ’587 Patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`(IPR2018-01556)
`
`
`
`computer engineering, mathematics, or a related field, and one to two years of
`
`experience in wireless/mobile communications or equivalent education and
`
`experience. Ex. 1017, ¶55. This represents the level of skill a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have possessed on August 2, 2000, the alleged priority date of
`
`the ’587 Patent. Ex. 1017, ¶55. Such a person would have the capability of
`
`understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent
`
`art. Ex. 1017, ¶55.
`
`C. Overview of the ’587 Patent
`
`1.
`
`The Purported Improvements of the ’587 Patent
`
`The ’587 Patent describes High Data Rate (HDR) communications as a
`
`method utilized in cellular communication systems whereby a base station (BS)
`
`uses time division to schedule the allocation of communication resources to
`
`communication terminals. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:15-27. Additionally, a BS may
`
`set a transmission rate for each communication terminal in accordance with an
`
`estimated downlink channel quality relative to a particular communication
`
`terminal. Id.
`
`In particular, the ’587 Patent describes that a BS may transmit a pilot signal
`
`to each communication terminal with which the BS is communicating. Ex. 1001,
`
`1:30-31. Each communication terminal, in turn, estimates the downlink channel
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`(IPR2018-01556)
`
`
`
`quality between it and the BS “using a CIR (desired carrier to interference ratio)
`
`based on the pilot signal, etc.” and finds a transmission rate at which
`
`communications are possible. Id., 1:31-35. Based on the identified transmission
`
`rate, “each communication terminal selects a communication mode,” described by
`
`the ’587 Patent as “a combination of packet length, coding method, and
`
`modulation method.” Id., 1:35-41. Each communication terminal informs the BS
`
`of its respective, selected communication mode by transmitting a data rate control
`
`(DRC) signal to the BS. Id.
`
`The ’587 Patent indicates that DRC signals are generally “represented by
`
`numbers 1 to N, with a higher number indicating a proportionally better downlink
`
`channel quality.” Ex. 1001, 1:53-56. Based on each communication terminal’s
`
`indicated DRC, the BS sets a transmission rate for each communication terminal,
`
`and transmits a signal to each communication terminal indicating communication
`
`resource allocation to each communication terminal. Id., 1:57-62.
`
`The ’587 Patent identifies problems with HDR communications, and
`
`purports solving those problems by transmitting information, such as a DRC signal
`
`indicative of a communication terminal’s communication mode in a manner that is
`
`less susceptible to transmission error. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:7-52.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`(IPR2018-01556)
`
`
`
`In particular, the ’587 Patent suggests that if the communication mode
`
`(determined by a communication terminal) is erroneously received by the BS due
`
`to, e.g., deterioration of uplink channel conditions, the communication terminal
`
`would be unable to demodulate/decode data transmitted to the communication
`
`terminal. Ex. 1001, 2:14-22. Additionally, the ’587 Patent describes a scenario in
`
`which a BS transmits data to a particular communication terminal over some
`
`allocated time period (recalling that time division is used to schedule
`
`communication resource allocation). Id., 2:23-33. If there is a mismatch in
`
`communication modes, the allocated communication resources go unused,
`
`resulting in reduced downlink throughput. Id.
`
`In accordance with various embodiments (referred to as Embodiments 2 and
`
`5), the ’587 Patent describes converting the DRC signal to a code word whose code
`
`word minimum distance with respect to other DRC signal code words varies in
`
`accordance with downlink channel quality between a communication terminal and
`
`BS (indicated by the DRC signal). Ex. 1001 at 10:20-24, 18:21-26. Claim 1,
`
`which requires that “the notification signal, prior to its transmission, is converted
`
`to a code word whose code word minimum distance is proportional to the degree
`
`of measured downlink channel quality” appears to be directed to these
`
`embodiments. Id., 25:23-26; Ex. 1017, ¶43. That is, as downlink channel quality
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`(IPR2018-01556)
`
`
`
`gets better, the code word minimum distance of a code word into which the DRC
`
`signal is converted correspondingly gets larger. Id. The ’587 Patent defines the
`
`term “code word distance” as “the number of bits that differ between code words,
`
`and the term “code word minimum distance” as “the minimum number of bits by
`
`which a particular code word differs with respect to all other code words.” Ex.
`
`1001, 10:62-65; 10:65-11:6; FIG. 7 (reproduced below).
`
`
`
`The ’587 Patent suggests that the larger the code word minimum distance,
`
`the less likely the code word will be mistaken for another code word. Ex. 1001,
`
`11:7-11. As previously noted, code word minimum distance is a function of the
`
`DRC number, and DRC numbers are indicative of downlink channel quality. Id.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`(IPR2018-01556)
`
`
`
`10:20-25, 10: 62-11:6. Accordingly, a DRC signal corresponding to a
`
`communication mode that can be supported on a good quality downlink channel
`
`can be better protected by being converted to a code word with a greater code word
`
`minimum distance. Id., 11:24-33.
`
`In accordance with another embodiment (referred to as Embodiment 3), the
`
`rate at which DRC signals are excluded when communication resources are
`
`allocated by a BS can be used as a premise for adjusting communication terminal
`
`transmission power and/or code words into which DRC signals are converted. Ex.
`
`1001, 11:54-62, 13:42-46. According to the ’587 Patent, the rate at which DRC
`
`signals are excluded is a function of a deteriorating communication environment.
`
`Id., 13:42-58. That is, if the amount of DRC signals that are excluded when
`
`allocating communication resources meets or exceeds some predetermined
`
`threshold value, then the transmission power of each DRC signal is increased, or
`
`the code word minimum distance (of the code word representing each DRC signal)
`
`is also increased. Id.
`
`The ’587 Patent describes various ways of providing unequal error
`
`protections to DRC signals and concludes with four independent claims directed to
`
`the following UEP coding schemes applied to a message indicative of a result of
`
`channel estimation: (1) converting the message (“the information of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`(IPR2018-01556)
`
`
`
`notification signal”), prior to its transmission, to a code word whose code word
`
`minimum distance is proportional to the degree of measured downlink channel
`
`quality (claim 1); (2) converting the message, prior to its transmission, to a code
`
`word based on rewritten contents of a table that indicates a correspondence
`
`between the message and a code word (claim 2); (3) converting each of multiple
`
`bits representing the message (“the information of the notification signal”), prior to
`
`its transmission, to a code word whose code length is proportional to the digit’s
`
`degree of significance (claim 3); and encoding the message (“the information”)
`
`represented by multiple bits such that the most significant bit of the multiple bits is
`
`less susceptible to errors in a propagation path than other bits of the multiple bits
`
`(claim 4). Ex. 1017, ¶50.
`
`As demonstrated in detail below, and confirmed in the testimony of Dr. Paul
`
`Min (Ex. 1017), these claimed UEP coding schemes were well known in the art,
`
`before the earliest claimed priority date of the ’587 Patent. Ex. 1017, ¶51.
`
`Moreover, a POSITA would have known to apply the well-known UEP coding
`
`schemes to error code a message indicative of a result of channel quality estimation
`
`to achieve the well-known goal of protecting more important messages and/or
`
`more important part(s) of the message than other, less important parts of the
`
`message. Ex. 1017, ¶51.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`(IPR2018-01556)
`
`
`
`D. Effective Filing Date and Prosecution History of the ’587 Patent
`
`The ’587 Patent issued April 17, 2007, from U.S. Application 10/321,623
`
`(the “’623 application”) filed on December 18, 2002. Ex.1002, 1-107. The ’587
`
`Patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/089,605 (the “’605
`
`application”), filed on April 1, 2002, now U.S. Patent No. 6760,590. Ex.1002, 1,
`
`5. The ’587 Patent further claims prior to JP Patent Applications 2000-244220 and
`
`2000-285405, the earliest date being that of Aug. 2, 2000 for JP 2000-244420.
`
`At the time of filing the ’623 application, Patent Owner preliminarily
`
`amended certain