IPR2018-01556
`Patent 7,206,587
`
`
`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 No. IPR2018-01556
`U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent 7,206,587
`
`
`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 No. IPR2018-01556
`U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01556
`Patent 7,206,587
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`Preliminary Statement ............................................................................ 1
`Factual Background of the ’587 Patent .................................................. 3
`A. Overview of Cellular Communications Technology ................... 3
`B. Overview Of The ’587 Patent ...................................................... 6
`III. Claim Construction ............................................................................... 13
`IV. Summary Of The Asserted References ................................................ 13
`A.
`Padovani ..................................................................................... 13
`B. Gils ............................................................................................. 15
`Legal Standard ...................................................................................... 17
`V.
`VI. The Petition Fails To Demonstrate A Reasonable Likelihood Of
`Prevailing On Ground 1. ....................................................................... 19
`A.
`The Petition Fails To Demonstrate That The Combination
`Of Padovani And Gils Discloses “The Coding Device
`Encodes The Information Such That The Most Significant
`Bit Of The Plurality Of Bits Is Less Susceptible To Errors
`In The Propagation Path Than Other Bits.” ............................... 19
`1.
`Padovani Does Not Discloses The “Most
`Significant Bit” Of The DRC Message. ........................... 21
`Gils Does Not Disclose The “Most Significant Bit”
`Of The DRC Message. ..................................................... 22
`Unsupported Expert Testimony Is Not Sufficient To
`Demonstrate That The Claimed “Most Significant
`Bit” Was Known. ............................................................. 23
`The Petition Fails To Set Forth An Adequate Motivation
`To Combine The Asserted References. ...................................... 26
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01556
`Patent 7,206,587
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`
`Page
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`ii.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`The Petition Fails To Show That A POSITA Would
`Have Been Motivated To Combine The Asserted
`References Such That “The Most Significant Bit Of
`The Plurality Of Bits Is Less Susceptible To Errors.” ..... 27
`i.
`Padovani Would Not Have Motivated A
`POSITA To Provide Enhanced Protection
`Against Errors For Any Bits Of The DRC
`Message. ................................................................ 27
`Gils Would Not Have Motivated A POSITA
`To Provide Enhanced Protection Against
`Errors For Any Bits Of The DRC Message. ......... 30
`The Petition Relies On Unsupported Expert
`Testimony. ........................................................................ 31
`i.
`Unsupported Expert Testimony Is Entitled To
`Little Or No Weight. .............................................. 31
`Dr. Min Repeats The Conclusory Allegations
`Of The Petition Without Any Factual
`Analysis Or Citation Of Objective Proof. ............. 33
`Petitioners’ Reliance On Unsupported Expert
`Testimony Is Fatal To The Petition. ...................... 38
`iv. Dr. Min’s Citations To The Asserted
`References Do Not Remedy The
`Shortcomings Of His Unsupported
`Testimony. ............................................................. 40
`The Petition’s Alleged Motivation To Combine Is
`Based On Impermissible Hindsight. ................................ 42
`VII. The Parallel ITC Investigation Will Be Resolved Before Any
`Trial Instituted on this Petition. ............................................................ 44
`VIII. Conclusion ............................................................................................ 47
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01556
`Patent 7,206,587
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................. 29
`Apple Inc. v. Contentguard Holdings, LLC,
`Case No. IPR2015-00448, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 10, 2015) ..................... 43
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. et al.,
`IPR2015-00161, Paper 18 (P.T.A.B. May. 8, 2015) .................................. 32
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.,
`IPR2017-02041, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2018) ....................... 24, 32, 42
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.,
`IPR2017-02202, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. May. 1 2018) ..................................... 32
`Apple Inc. v. Valencell, Inc.,
`IPR2017-00316, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2017) ............................... 24, 32
`Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.,
`776 F.2d 281 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .................................................................... 32
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................................................ 2, 17, 23
`General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`Case No. IPR2016-01357 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017) ............................. 45, 47
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ........................................................................................ 17
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................. 45
`In re Fritch,
`972 F.2d 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1992) .................................................................. 44
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01556
`Patent 7,206,587
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................18, 19, 27, 38
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F. 3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................. 18
`In re Nuvasive, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................... 27, 29, 31
`In re Royka,
`490 F.2d 981 (CCPA 1974) ........................................................................ 18
`
`Initiative for Medicines, Access & Knowledge (I-MAK), Inc. v.
`Gilead Pharmasset LLC,
`Case No. IPR2018-00390, Paper No. 7 (Jul. 19, 2018) ............19, 32, 33, 37
`Intelligent BioSys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (2016) .................................................................................. 19
`Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. v. Touch Coffee & Beverages, LLC,
`Case No. IPR2018-01392, Paper 18 (P.T.A.B. Jan 4, 2018) ...................... 39
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .............................................................................. 17, 18
`Microsoft Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V.,
`Case No. IPR2018-00026, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. April 27, 2018) .................. 42
`NHK Spring Co., LTD., v. Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc.,
`Case No. IPR2018-00752 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2018) ..................... 45, 46, 47
`Nikon Corp. v. ASML Netherlands B.V.,
`Case No. IPR2018-00227, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2018) .................. 44
`Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. v. Red Rock Analytics, LLC,
`Case No. IPR2018-00555, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2018) ................. 30
`Star Sci., Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
`655 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................. 18
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01556
`Patent 7,206,587
`Tyco Fire Products LP v. Victualic Co.,
`Case No. IPR2016-00276, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016) .................. 41
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. §103(a) ............................................................................................ 17
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ................................................................................. 19, 20
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ........................................................................................... 45
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65 ............................................................................. 3, 24, 39, 41
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) .......................................................................19, 25, 32, 37
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ........................................................................................... 25
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ............................................................................ 22, 23
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) ......................................................................................... 1
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01556
`Patent 7,206,587
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit Description
`2001 U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587 Disclaimer
`2002
`3GPP Technical Specification 25.212 v. 5.1.0
`2003
`Scheduling Order for 337-TA-1138
`2004 Notice of Prior Art 337-TA-1087
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01556
`Patent 7,206,587
`I.
`Preliminary Statement
`The Petition filed by HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. (collectively,
`
`“Petitioners”) falls significantly short of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of
`
`success on any of the asserted grounds. Specifically, the Petition should be denied
`
`for the following reasons. First, the Petition fails to identify each limitation of the
`
`challenged claims in the prior art. Second, the Petition fails to explain why a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the invention would
`
`have been motivated to combine or modify the asserted references to achieve the
`
`claimed invention.
`
`The Petition asserts only one Ground, arguing that the combination of PCT
`
`App. No. PCT/US98/23428 to Padovani et al. (“Padovani”) in view of 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. (“Gils”) (collectively the
`
`“Asserted References”) renders claims 1-4 obvious. INVT SPE LLC (“Patent
`
`Owner”) disclaimed claims 1-3 of the ’587 patent; a copy of such disclaimer filed
`
`with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is attached as Exhibit 2001.
`
`Accordingly, no inter partes review should be instituted based on claims 1-3. 37
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01556
`Patent 7,206,587
`C.F.R. § 42.107(e). Thus, claim 4 (the “Challenged Claim”) is the only remaining
`
`claim challenged by the Petition.
`
`With respect to claim 4, the Petition fails to demonstrate that the Asserted
`
`References disclose the requisite “coding device [that] encodes the information
`
`such that the most significant bit . . . is less susceptible to errors . . . than other
`
`bits . . . .” Specifically, the Petition does not identify any disclosure in the Asserted
`
`References that corresponds to a “most significant bit” as recited in claim 4.
`
`Instead, the Petition points to unsupported expert testimony to contend that a
`
`certain bit disclosed in Padovani is the most significant bit. However, the Petition
`
`provides no supporting or corroborating evidence for this assertion. Because the
`
`Petition fails to identify this claim element in the Asserted References, the Petition
`
`fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that claim 4 is obvious, which
`
`“requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim.” CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l
`
`Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`The Petition also fails to substantiate the proposed combination with an
`
`adequate motivation to combine the Asserted References to achieve the claimed
`
`invention. The Petition and Petitioners’ expert provide only unsupported,
`
`conclusory allegations of obviousness; no well-reasoned explanation supported by
`
`objective evidence is provided. Specifically, substantial portions of
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01556
`Patent 7,206,587
`paragraphs 129-135 of Petitioners’ Expert’s declaration, which the Petition relies
`
`on extensively to support its proposed motivation to combine, are unsupported and
`
`unexplained. Such unsupported expert testimony is entitled to little or no weight
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).
`
`As detailed below, the Petition fails to meet its burden of showing a
`
`reasonable likelihood that any of the Challenged Claims are unpatentable.
`
`Institution should be denied.
`
`II.
`
`Factual Background of the ’587 Patent
`A. Overview of Cellular Communications Technology
`Modern cellular communications began around 1980, when the first
`
`generation (“1G”) cellular (i.e., wireless) systems and networks were deployed and
`
`1G-compliant mobile phones were introduced to the public. These phones used
`
`frequency division multiplexing (“FDM”) to transmit voice calls using analog
`
`frequency modulation (“FM”).
`
`In the 1990s, second generation (“2G”) systems emerged based on
`
`improvements to 1G systems. Phones that operated in 2G systems used digital
`
`technology, which permitted more efficient use of the radio spectrum than their
`
`analog 1G predecessor did. While 2G systems were originally designed only for
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01556
`Patent 7,206,587
`voice, they were later enhanced to include data transmission but could only achieve
`
`low data rates.
`
`During this growth period for 2G communications systems, overall use of
`
`the Internet also increased. In response to user demand for higher data rates, third
`
`generation (“3G”) phones emerged in the late 1990’s. While voice calls
`
`traditionally dominated the traffic in cellular communications, the increasing
`
`number of mobile devices and the advancement of mobile device technology with
`
`increased features and data-hungry applications drove demand for faster and more
`
`reliable data transmissions. Data traffic over cellular networks has therefore
`
`increased dramatically since the mid to late 2000s.
`
`Given the increased demand for data and the limited available radio
`
`spectrum, cellular communications developers created a standard that, compared
`
`with 3G, offered higher data rates, lower latency and improved overall user
`
`experience. Fourth generation (“4G”) is the result of this development.
`
`The technology disclosed and claimed in the ’587 patent generally relates to
`
`wireless communications technologies used in 3G and 4G cellular communications
`
`systems. At a high level and as illustrated below, cellular (i.e., wireless)
`
`communications systems generally include three components: (1) user equipment
`
`(“UE”), (2) base stations and (3) cells. UE can refer to cellular phones, tablet
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01556
`Patent 7,206,587
`computers and smartwatches, or other devices that allow users to communicate
`
`across a network. UEs connect to and communicate through base stations, where
`
`the geographic coverage of a given base station in turn defines a cell.
`
`
`
`
`
`Exemplary Cellular Communications System
`
`Both 3G and 4G cellular communications systems are capable of
`
`transferring (e.g., uploading and downloading) data. Data is used for applications
`
`such as connecting to the Internet, streaming videos, and email. 3G technologies
`
`for transmitting data include the Universal Mobile Telecommunications System
`
`(“UMTS”) standard. UMTS includes Wideband Code Division Multiple Access
`
`(“WCDMA”), High Speed Packet Access (“HSPA”) and HSPA+ standards.
`
`HSPA+ is an advancement on HSPA and, as such, incorporates and builds upon
`
`the full HSPA standard. 4G technologies for transmitting data include Long Term
`
`Evolution (LTE) and Long Term Evolution-Advanced (“LTE-A,” also referred to
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01556
`Patent 7,206,587
`as “LTE+”) standards. LTE+ is an advancement on LTE and, as such, incorporates
`
`and builds upon the full LTE standard.
`
`Today, mobile communications use 3G and/or 4G communications systems.
`
`Because interoperability is important for communications devices, the majority of
`
`cellular communications devices presently sold in the United States comply with
`
`each of the UMTS, HSPA, HSPA+, LTE, and LTE+ standards.
`
`B. Overview Of The ’587 Patent
`To alleviate system strain due to higher data demands of mobile devices, a
`
`number of strategies developed to improve transmission efficiency (e.g., the
`
`amount of data that can be reliably transmitted over a given period of time in
`
`mobile communications). See Ex. 1001 at 1:15-19. One such strategy is called
`
`High Data Rate (“HDR”) by which a base station performs scheduling to allocate
`
`communication resources to UEs by time division and sets a transmission rate for
`
`each UE according to the downlink channel quality. Id. at 1:20-27.
`
`According to the invention of the ’587 patent, the UE measures the downlink
`
`channel quality based on a pilot signal received from the base station and selects a
`
`transmission rate based on that measurement. Id. at 1:30-34. The base station
`
`transmits the pilot signal at predetermined intervals. Id. at 4:58-60. Within the base
`
`station, the pilot signal is modulated by a modulator and spread by a spreading
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01556
`Patent 7,206,587
`section before being output to a multiplexer. Id. at 6:42-45. The spread pilot signal
`
`is then transmitted to a transmit RF section, which converts the pilot signal into
`
`radio frequency and transmits that resulting radio frequency to the UEs from an
`
`antenna. Id. at 6:46-50.
`
`As an illustrative figure, Figure 14 of the ’587 Patent illustrates one
`
`embodiment of how the UEs receive a radio signal including the converted pilot
`
`signal via an antenna. Id. at 6:51-55. The UE converts the received pilot signal
`
`from radio frequency to baseband frequency, despreads the pilot signal and
`
`transmits it to a CIR measurement section. Id. at 6:54-55. The CIR measurement
`
`section measures the CIR of the pilot signal. Id. at 6:59-60.
`
`A CIR measurement is a measurement of a “carrier-to-interference ratio”
`
`and is one example of a measurement of channel quality information. Id. at 1:31-
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01556
`Patent 7,206,587
`35, 24:34-37. The CIR measurement may be in the form of a two-digit number,
`
`e.g., 8.7 dB where the 8 is an “upper digit” and the 7 is a “lower digit.” Id. at
`
`19:42-45. However, CIR measurements do not need to be in the two digit format
`
`and can be represented by a plurality of digits. Id. at 24:47-52. The modulation
`
`method and coding method that the data channel can support depends on the value
`
`of this CIR measurement. Id. at 5:32-36. As further explained below, the ’587
`
`patent recognized that it is critical that the UE and the base station have consistent
`
`information regarding modulation and encoding methods to ensure that data can be
`
`understood by the receiving device. Id. at 2:14-23.
`
`Once the CIR measurement has been generated, the ’587 patent discloses a
`
`number of possibilities for how the CIR measurement can be processed. According
`
`to some embodiments described in the ’587 patent, the CIR measurement may be
`
`encoded into a “CIR signal” and transmitted back to the base station. Id. at 20:16-
`
`22. For example, a CIR signal creation section of the UE may separately encode
`
`the different digits of the CIR measurement to generate a resulting CIR signal (i.e.,
`
`encode the upper digit using one coding section and encode the lower digit using a
`
`different coding section). Id. at 20:42-50. One example of such encoding is
`
`demonstrated by Figure 15 of the ’587 patent.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01556
`Patent 7,206,587
`
`
`
`In other cases, the upper digit can be encoded to generate a longer code word
`
`than the code word generated for the lower digit. Id. Importantly, the CIR signal
`
`may have a limit on the number of bits that it can include. For example, in the
`
`context of the ’587 patent, the CIR signal may be limited to ten bits. Id. at 20:49-
`
`50. However, the ’587 patent is not limited to the 10-bit example.
`
`The ’587 patent also describes some embodiments in which the CIR
`
`measurement is used to determine a communication mode, which is then encoded
`
`as a data rate control (“DRC”) signal and transmitted back to the base station. Id.
`
`at 1:35-41, 6:59-65. The communication mode (represented by a “DRC number”)
`
`is an index value that indicates a combination of modulation method and coding
`
`method to be used in communications based on the CIR measurement. Id. at 5:32-
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01556
`Patent 7,206,587
`41. In some embodiments of the ’587 patent, higher CIR measurements (better
`
`channel quality) correspond to higher DRC numbers and better modulation and
`
`coding methods. Id. at 1:42-67.
`
`The DRC signal or the CIR signal is the means by which the UE transmits
`
`channel quality information back to the base station. See id. at 1:57-67. The base
`
`station determines various transmission parameters based on the DRC signal, such
`
`as the packet length, modulation method, coding method and transmission rate. Id.
`
`at 1:35-41. Moreover, if the DRC signal is received erroneously by the base
`
`station, the base station may use a different communication mode than the UE is
`
`expecting and, as a result, the UE may not be able to demodulate or decode any
`
`data received from the base station. Id at 2:15-22.
`
`Similar to the CIR signal described above, there may be limited bits
`
`available for transmitting the DRC signal. See id. at Figure 7 (showing a maximum
`
`of nine bits per code word). In turn, the limited number of bits available to encode
`
`the CIR or DRC signal meant there were limited resources for ensuring the
`
`relevant signal was received correctly by the base station. Thus, the relevant
`
`challenge addressed by the ’587 patent is how to ensure accurate reception of the
`
`CIR or DRC signal within the allowed number of bits.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01556
`Patent 7,206,587
`The ’587 patent solves, among other problems, the complicated issues
`
`discussed above with an elegant solution. The ’587 patent recognized that there is
`
`certain information in a CIR or DRC signal “for which the amount of change is
`
`large.” Id. at 19:30-34. Stated another way, the ’587 patent recognizes that certain
`
`information in a CIR or DRC signal indicates a broader value than other
`
`information. Id. at 30-39.
`
`According to the ’587 patent, one example of this type of information that
`
`indicates a broader value is an integer digit, which indicates a broader value than a
`
`decimal digit. Id. at 19:40-54. Specifically, the ’587 patent explains that “if an
`
`integer part is received erroneously by a base station, the degree of error is large
`
`compared with the case where a fractional part is received erroneously, and the
`
`probability of an erroneous communication mode being determined is higher—that
`
`is to say, the probability of downlink throughput falling is higher.” Id. at 19:49-54.
`
`However, the ’587 patent is not limited to this example. Id. at 24:47-52.
`
`Another example of “information for which the amount of change is large”
`
`includes a “most significant bit.” Id. at Cl. 4. To that end, claim 4 of the ’587
`
`patent recites:
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01556
`Patent 7,206,587
`4. A communication terminal apparatus comprising:
`
`a measuring device that measures reception quality of a pilot
`
`signal to output information having a plurality of bits that indicate the
`
`measured reception quality;
`
`a coding device that encodes the information to obtain a code
`
`word; and
`
`a transmitter that transmits the code word, wherein:
`
`the coding device encodes the information such that the most
`
`significant bit of the plurality of bits is less susceptible to errors in a
`
`propagation path than other bits of the plurality of bits.
`
`Id. at Cl. 4 (emphasis added). Specifically, claim 4 recites “a measuring device”
`
`that measures reception quality of a pilot signal (e.g., a CIR measurement) and
`
`outputs information “having a plurality of bits.” Id. Thus, claim 4 of the ’587
`
`patent recites applying a specific type of encoding (“the most significant bit of the
`
`plurality of bits is less susceptible to errors in a propagation path than other bits of
`
`the plurality of bits”) to particular information (“information having a plurality of
`
`bits that indicate the measured reception quality”). Id.
`
`During the prosecution of the ’587 patent, the inventors emphasized the
`
`importance of encoding all of the information according to the particularly claimed
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01556
`Patent 7,206,587
`method of encoding. See Ex. 1002 at 741. Thus, the inventors of the ’587 patent
`
`distinguished the claimed encoding methods over other types of encoding.
`
`As discussed in further detail below, the Asserted References do not render
`
`the claimed invention in the ’587 patent obvious because the Asserted References
`
`fail to disclose the particularly claimed encoding method recited in the Challenged
`
`Claim.
`
`III. Claim Construction
`The Petition does not assert any term in claim 4 requires construction. See
`
`Paper 1 at 15-19. Patent Owner similarly does not believe that any claim terms
`
`require express construction to deny the Petition. Patent Owner does not waive,
`
`however, any argument regarding the proper scope of claim 4.
`
`IV. Summary Of The Asserted References
`A.
`Padovani
`Padovani describes a method of high rate packet data transmission.
`
`Padovani at 1:8-10. According to Padovani, one or more base stations sends a
`
`paging message to a mobile station, indicating that the base stations have data to
`
`transmit to the mobile station. Id. at 9:25-28. Upon receiving the paging messages,
`
`the mobile station measures the carrier to interference ratio (“C/I”) and generates a
`
`data request message (“DRC message”). Id. at 9:34-10:6.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01556
`Patent 7,206,587
`In the exemplary embodiment of Padovani, the mobile station determines a
`
`supported data rate based on the C/I measurement. Id. at 27:30-31. The mobile
`
`station determines a C/I index which represents the supported data rate that can be
`
`represented as a 3-bit number. Id. at 46:15-38; see also id. at 27:35-36 (“the
`
`number of supported data rates is seven and a 3-bit rate index is used to identify
`
`the requested data rate”). The 3-bit DRC message is encoded for transmission back
`
`to the base station by a DRC encoder. Id. at 45:16-17.
`
`According to Padovani, the “DRC encoder 626 is a rate (8,4) CRC block
`
`encoder which encodes the 3-bit DRC message into an 8-bit code word.” Id.
`
`at 45:21-22. An “(8,4)” encoder generally means that the encoder encodes a 4-bit
`
`data word to generate an 8-bit code word, with all bits of the encoded word
`
`receiving the same level of error protection. Id. at 45:20-22. Padovani does not
`
`explain the use of an (8,4) encoder to encode a 3-bit data word, as opposed to the
`
`usual 4-bit data word. Thus, Padovani discloses using a single code to encode the
`
`DRC message; it does not teach using multiple codes to encode different portions
`
`of the DRC message. See id. The base station then decodes the DRC message and
`
`transmits the data at the requested rate. Id. at 48:5-8.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01556
`Patent 7,206,587
`B. Gils
`Gils purports to be a Ph.D. thesis entitled “Design of Error-Control Coding
`
`Schemes for Three Problems of Noisy Information Transmission, Storage and
`
`Processing.” Gils at iii. The thesis appears to have been submitted to the
`
`Eindhoven University of Technology in The Netherlands. Id.
`
`As explained by Gils, generally, when a code word is transmitted, the
`
`receiver can correct a certain number of bits in the code word that are received
`
`erroneously and also detect a certain number of additional errors. Id. at 4. Gils
`
`teaches the use of a particular type of codes called linear unequal protection
`
`(“LUEP”) codes. LUEP codes “provide more protection for select positions in the
`
`input message words than is guaranteed by the minimum distance1 of the code.” Id.
`
`at 13.
`
`Using Gils’s LUEP codes ensures that certain bits can be corrected even if
`
`
`
`1 “Distance” is a term of art in coding theory that Gils defines as the number
`
`of bit positions in which two code words differ. Gils at 2. Gils defines “minimum
`
`distance” as the minimum distance between two different code words within the
`
`set of code words that make up a code, C. Id.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01556
`Patent 7,206,587
`the code word is received with more erroneous bits than the minimum distance
`
`would normally allow to be corrected. Id. at 14. Gils provides this enhanced error
`
`protection through unique generator matrices. See id. at 55-64. Further, Gils
`
`teaches that the use of a single LUEP code presents an improvement over using
`
`multiple types of codes to provide unequal error protection. Id. at v. Table 1 of
`
`Gils provides a number of exemplary LUEP codes. Id. at 25. One exemplary code
`
`provided in Table 1 is provided below:
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at 25. In this example, the length of the code word (“n”) is 6. Id at 24. The
`
`length of the data word to be encoded (“k”) is 4. Id. “d(n,k)” denotes the maximum
`
`minimum distance of the code (e.g., the largest number of bits that can be different
`
`between any two code words). Id. Thus, in the example above, for any two valid
`
`code words, the largest number of bits that can possibly be different between the
`
`two code words is two. Id.
`
`Table 1 also identifies the “separation vector” for each of the codes listed
`
`therein. Id. Each value in the separation vector corresponds to a bit of the data
`
`word and denotes how many errors can occur in the received code word while still
`
`guaranteeing that the bit in the data word is correctly decoded. Id. at 14 (“complete
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01556
`Patent 7,206,587
`nearest neighbour decoding guarantees the correct interpretation of the ith message
`
`digit if no more than (si - 1)/2 errors have occurred in the transmitted codeword,”
`
`where si is the separation vector values). In the above example, the separation
`
`vector is 3222. Id. Thus, the first bit in the data word can be correctly interpreted if
`
`no more than one of the bits in the code word is received erroneously. See id. at 16
`
`((3 – 1)/2 = 1 bit). Errors in the remaining bits can be detected, but not corrected.
`
`Id. ((2 – 1)/2 = ½, where ½ is rounded down to 0 bits).
`
`In sum, Gils discloses using a single LUEP code that provides enhanced
`
`protection for individual bit positions within the data word.
`
`V. Legal Standard
`A claimed invention is obvious only “if the differences between the subject
`
`matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a
`
`whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.” 35 U.S.C. §103(a). As set out by the Supreme Court, the
`
`framework for an obviousness inquiry requires determining “the scope and content
`
`of the prior art,” the “differences between the prior art and the claims at issue,” and
`
`“the level of skill in the pertinent art.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
`
`406 (2007) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18
`
`(1966)). “[O]bviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim.” CFMT,
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01556
`Patent 7,206,587
`Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing In re
`
`Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974)). Further, obviousness determinations
`
`must be made without “any hint of hindsight.” Star Sci., Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds
`
`Tobacco Co., 655 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The patent-in-suit may not be
`
`used “as a guide through the maze of prior art references, combining the right
`
`references in the right way so as to achieve the result of the claims in suit.” In re
`
`NTP, Inc., 654 F. 3d 1279, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`At the petition stage, it is Petitioners’ “burden to demonstrate both that a
`
`skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art
`
`references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have
`
`had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int'l,
`
`Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal citation and quotation
`
`omitted); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
`
`Petitioners cannot satisfy their burden through “mere conclusory statements,” but
`
`“must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record” that
`
`supports an obviousness determination. In re Magnum Oil Tools, 829 F.3d at 1380;
`
`see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with
`
`some rational
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
