`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`and APPLE INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`INVT SPE LLC,
`Patent Owner
`_____________________
`
`Case IPR2018-015551 and Case IPR2018-01581
`
`United States Patent No. 7,848,439 B2
`_____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER INVT SPE LLC’S
`CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Apple Inc., who filed a petition in IPR2018-01477, has been joined as a
`petitioner in this proceeding.
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................... ii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................ iv
`LIST OF PATENT OWNER’S PREVIOUSLY FILED EXHIBITS .................... vii
`EXHIBITS FILED WITH PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE ............................ viii
`I.
`Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
`II.
`The Challenged Patent ................................................................................. 3
`A.
`State of the Art at the Time of the Patented Invention ........................ 3
`B. Overview of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439 ............................................. 6
`C.
`Challenged Claims ............................................................................12
`D.
`Relevant Prosecution History ............................................................14
`III. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art..............................................................15
`IV. Claim Construction .....................................................................................15
`A.
`“subband” (Claims 1-6 and 8), “pattern storage section” (Claim 1),
`and “modulation parameters with a highest classification” (Claim 5)16
`“patterns for selecting subbands” (Claim 1) ......................................17
`B.
`V. Overview of the Alleged Prior Art References ............................................20
`A. U.S. Patent No. 6,904,283 to Li et al. (“Li”) .....................................20
`B. U.S. Patent No. 7,221,680 to Vijayan et al. (“Vijayan”) ....................25
`C. U.S. Patent No. 6,721,569 to Hashem et al. (“Hashem”)...................27
`D. U.S. Patent No. 5,596,604 to Cioffi et al. (“Cioffi”) ..........................30
`VI. Legal Standards ..........................................................................................31
`VII. The Petitions Fail to Demonstrate that the Challenged Claims Are Obvious.
`....................................................................................................................32
`A.
`The Proposed Combinations Fail to Teach a “Parameter Deciding
`Section that Decides Modulation Parameters and Coding Parameters
`Per Subband Group . . . Based on a Result of the Channel Estimation
`Per Subband” (Claims 1 and 8) .........................................................32
`The IPR2018-01555 Petition Fails to Disclose a Mobile Device with
`“a Pattern Storage Section that Stores in Advance Patterns for
`Selecting Subbands Constituting the Subband Groups.” (Claim 1) ...40
`
`B.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`E.
`
`C. A POSITA Would Not Combine Li with Vijayan and Neither
`Reference Teaches a POSITA to Make the Proposed Combinations.
`(Claims 1-8) ......................................................................................55
`D. A POSITA Would Not Combine Li and Vijayan with Hashem.
`(Claims 1-8) ......................................................................................65
`The Alleged Motivation to Combine Relies on Improper Hindsight
`Bias. (Claims 1-8) .............................................................................67
`The Cioffi Combination Does Not Disclose “Assigning a Weight Per
`Subband Group to a Sum of Information Bits that Are Able to Be
`Assigned to All of the Subbands Within the Subband Group.” (Claim
`8) ......................................................................................................69
`G. A POSITA Would Not Combine Cioffi with Li, Vijayan, or Hashem.
`(Claim 8)...........................................................................................72
`VIII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................79
`Word Count Certification ......................................................................................81
`Certificate of Service ............................................................................................82
`
`
`
`F.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Abiomed, Inc. et al. v. Maquet Cardiovascular, LLC,
`IPR2017-01205, Paper No. 8 (PTAB Oct. 23, 2017) ........................................ 52
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................ 69
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.,
`IPR2017-02041, Paper 10 (PTAB Mar. 8, 2018) ............................................. 78
`Apple Inc. v. Valencell, Inc.,
`IPR2017-00316, Paper 9 (PTAB Jul. 20, 2017) ............................................... 78
`Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................ 32, 56, 57
`Gen. Elec. Co. v. TAS Energy Inc.,
`IPR2014-00163, Paper 11 (PTAB May 13, 2014) ............................................ 69
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................ 31
`Heart Failure Technologies, LLC v. CardioKinetix, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00183, Paper 12 (PTAB Jul. 31, 2013) ....................................... 45, 75
`In re Dow Chem. Co.,
`837 F.2d 469 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .......................................................................... 31
`In re Fulton,
`391 F. 3d (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................................ 56
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................. 31, 68
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F. 3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ....................................................................... 32
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................ 76
`
`iv
`
`

`

`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. (2017) ............................................................................. 55, 67, 68, 75
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................................ 15
`Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG,
`812 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................ 31
`Nikon Corp. v. ASML Netherlands B.V.,
`Case No. IPR2018-00227, Paper 11 (PTAB Sep. 10, 2018) ....................... 68, 79
`Nokia of Am. Corp. v. Blackberry Ltd.,
`IPR2018-00652, Paper 10 (PTAB Oct. 1, 2018) ........................................ 52, 63
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .................................................. 15, 16
`Plas-Pak Indus. Inc. v. Sulzer Mixpac AG,
`600 F. App’x 755 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................... 32
`Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Depomed, Inc.,
`643 F. App’x 960 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................... 67
`Schott Gemtron Corp. v. SSW Holding Co., Inc.,
`IPR2014-00367, Paper 62 (PTAB May 26, 2015) ............................................ 73
`Sony v. Patent of Network – 1 Security Solutions,
`IPR2013-00092, Paper 21 (PTAB May 24, 2013) ............................................ 45
`
`Star Sci., Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
`655 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................................ 32
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................ 77
`W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc.,
`721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) .................. 31
`Yamaha Golf Car Co. v, Club Car, LLC,
`IPR2017-02141, Paper 17 (PTAB Apr. 3, 2018) .............................................. 69
`
`v
`
`

`

`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................ 1, 31
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ............................................................................................ 31
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ................................................................................. 63, 64, 78
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ........................................................................................... 15
`
`vi
`
`

`

`LIST OF PATENT OWNER’S PREVIOUSLY FILED EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit No.
`2001
`2002
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005-2100
`
`Description
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Branimir Vojcic
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Branimir Vojcic
`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
`Numbers intentionally not used.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`EXHIBITS FILED WITH PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Exhibit No.
`2101
`
`2102
`
`Description
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Branimir Vojcic in Support of Patent
`Owner’s Response
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Branimir Vojcic
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`I.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. (“HTC”) and Apple
`
`Inc. (“Apple”) (collectively, “Petitioners”) challenge Claims 1 through 8 (the
`
`“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439 (“the ’439 Patent”) as
`
`allegedly obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. On March 7, 2019, Inter Partes Review
`
`on Claims 1 through 7 was instituted (“Institution Decision”) based on a
`
`combination of three separate 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 “Li Combination”). IPR2018-
`
`01555, Paper 8. On April 1, 2019, Inter Partes Review on Claim 8 was instituted
`
`(“1581 Institution Decision”) based on the same references with the addition of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,596,604 to Cioffi et al. (“Cioffi”) (the “Cioffi Combination”).
`
`IPR2018-01581, Paper 7. The Board consolidated briefing for both proceedings on
`
`April 22, 2019. Paper No. 13.2
`
`
`2 Petitioner Apple, together with ZTE (USA) Inc., initially filed a separate
`IPR petition challenging Claims 1-11 based on many of the same references,
`including Li and Vijayan . IPR2018-01477, Paper 1. The Board denied Apple’s
`petition on March 7, 2019. IPR2018-01477, Paper 11 at 2 (“[W]e conclude the
`information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`prevail in establishing unpatentability of any of the challenged claims.”). Apple
`joined these collectively proceedings on May 30, 2019. See IPR2019-00958, Paper
`9; IPR2019-00959, Paper 8.
`
`1
`
`

`

`The Petitions fail to present a prima facie case of obviousness, and fail to
`
`demonstrate that the Proposed Combinations teach multiple, key limitations
`
`required by the Challenged Claims—including “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” and a “pattern storage section that stores in advance
`
`patterns for selecting subbands constituting the subband groups” where the
`
`subbands are “selected based on the patterns stored in the pattern storage section.”
`
`As presented in the Petitions, the Proposed Combinations fail to teach joint
`
`“modulation and coding parameters per subband group” that are based on the result
`
`of “channel estimation per subband.” The Proposed Combinations also fail to
`
`specifically disclose a “pattern storage section that stores in advance patterns for
`
`selecting subbands constituting the subband groups.”
`
`Moreover, the Petitions fail to establish that a POSITA would combine Li,
`
`Vijayan, and/or Hashem for the disputed limitations. A POSITA would not
`
`combine Li and Vijayan for multiple reasons. Li teaches away from using Vijayan’s
`
`purported joint modulation and coding parameters, and Li and Vijayan teach
`
`conflicting ways to avoid interference, such that the Proposed Combinations would
`
`experience serious compatibility issues. Li separates subcarrier clusters by
`
`frequency to achieve frequency diversity with respect to the desired signal and
`
`2
`
`

`

`interference. On the other hand, Vijayan uses adjoining frequencies that would lead
`
`to the same or similar interference levels across all subbands—a problem that Li
`
`seeks to avoid. A POSITA also would not combine Li and Vijayan with Hashem,
`
`because such a combination would significantly increase overhead—a key problem
`
`that Li seeks to address and minimize.
`
`With respect to Challenged Claim 8, Cioffi fails to disclose “subband
`
`groups” at all, much less “assigning a weight per subband group to a sum of
`
`information bits that are able to be assigned to all of the subbands within the
`
`subband group.” Further, a POSITA would not make the Cioffi Combination; nor
`
`would such a combination have a reasonable expectation of success. The Cioffi
`
`reference is not even from the same field of endeavor as the other references in the
`
`Cioffi Combination, and the Petition fails to demonstrate how or why it would be
`
`properly combined with the other references in the Cioffi Combination.
`
`Accordingly, for the legal and factual reasons set forth herein, the Board
`
`should find in favor of the Patent Owner.
`
`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. Base stations
`
`3
`
`

`

`must be capable of simultaneously communicating with numerous cellular
`
`phones—otherwise, users within the cell will experience significant interference
`
`from other callers. Ex. 21013 ¶ 18. One way to enable communications with
`
`numerous cellular phones is by using Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing
`
`(“OFDM”). OFDM 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.
`
`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.
`
`Id. at 1:43-52; Ex. 2101 ¶ 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
`
`
`3 Exhibit 2101 refers to the supporting Expert Declaration of Dr. Branimir
`Vojcic.
`
`4
`
`

`

`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
`
`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. 2101 ¶ 19; 55Pet. at
`
`16; 81Pet. at 20 (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 subcarriers refers to
`
`“carrying out transmission using a modulation method and coding method that are
`
`5
`
`

`

`different per OFDM subcarrier taking each subcarrier as a minimum unit of
`
`adaptivity.” Ex. 1001 at 2:4-8 (emphasis added). 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. Id. at 2:2-15. See also Institution Decision at 3
`
`(“AMC . . . based on individual OFDM subcarriers . . . is difficult to implement
`
`due to the number of subcarriers.”). As a result, AMC based on subbands—i.e.,
`
`adjusting adaptive modulation and coding 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. In the prior art systems identified in the ’439 Patent
`
`specification, channel estimation occurs first for every subcarrier.
`
`
`
`B. 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 employ AMC using joint “modulation parameters and coding
`
`parameters” for each subband group. Id. at 5:9-14 (“carrying out joint coding for
`
`subband groups”). Put another way, the ’439 Patent conceived of conducting AMC
`
`on a “per subband group” basis using joint “modulation parameters and coding
`
`parameters” applicable to a subband group. Id. at 12:17-24, 13:2.
`
`6
`
`

`

`These subband groups are comprised of subbands selected “based on a
`
`predefined rule,” i.e. patterns stored in advance of channel estimation in each
`
`mobile device. Id. at 13:21-27. See also id. at 5:32-45, 9:50-61 (“selecting a
`
`plurality of subbands at predetermined intervals”), Fig. 9; Paper 8 at 4. 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’s invention resulted in an order of magnitude of
`
`improvement over AMC using modulation and coding parameters based on
`
`subbands or, even worse, individual subcarriers. See Ex. 1001 at 5:9-27. AMC
`
`based on subband groups allowed for “selecting a modulation and coding scheme
`
`for the entire subband group, instead of doing so for a subband” or subcarrier. See
`
`Paper 8 at 4 (citing Ex. 1001 at 5:39-45, 8:57-60). By contrast, a device that
`
`feedbacks the information—such as separate sets of modulation and coding
`
`parameters—for each individual subband or subcarrier (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.
`
`Moreover, selecting subband groups based on patterns stored in advance of
`
`channel selection within the mobile device meant that both the mobile device and
`
`7
`
`

`

`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. 2101 ¶ 21. This pre-agreement on subband grouping patterns
`
`(and, by extension, subbands for transmitting data) between the mobile device and
`
`the base station reduces the information transmitted before a link can be
`
`established between the two devices. Id.
`
`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.”).
`
`Figures 6A and 6B of the ’439 Patent present one exemplary embodiment
`
`for the process disclosed in the Challenged Claims:
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 at Fig. 6B. In Figure 6B, subband grouping patterns are sent to “Adaptive
`
`Demodulation/Decoding Control” element 409, the parallel/serial converter (P/S)
`
`9
`
`

`

`element 312, and “Subband Parameter Selection” element 606. “Subband
`
`Group[s]” 1, 2, through K (element 604) are stored before “Channel Estimation”
`
`(element 319) occurs. Ex. 1001 at Fig. 6B.
`
`Once the subbands for each subband group are selected based on the stored
`
`subband grouping patterns, joint modulation and coding parameters are then
`
`chosen on a “per subband group” basis. Ex. 1001 at 13:1-3. In one embodiment,
`
`along with selection of modulation and coding parameters for each subband group,
`
`“the number of corresponding transmission information bits is decided.” Id. at
`
`9:33-37. Additionally, “weighting calculations” can be applied to the sum of the
`
`information bits assigned to each subband group. Id. at 11:35-47. For example, a
`
`weighting factor—such as “0.9” which presents a total reduction of 10%—can be
`
`applied to “the sum of the number of transmission information bits” for an entire
`
`subband group, thereby reducing the total number of transmission information bits
`
`assigned to the subband group. Id. at 11:19-47.
`
`
`
`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. Id. at 5:32-44. This can reduce power consumption and increase battery
`
`10
`
`

`

`life for mobile devices, while simultaneously improving the network capacity for
`
`the base station. See Ex. 2101 ¶ 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. In particular, Figure 11 compares performance results between
`
`the invention disclosed in the ’439 Patent and a prior art communication system
`
`under different feedback delay times, Ex. 1001 at 12:25-30, while Figure 12 shows
`
`the same comparison under channel estimation errors. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`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. As shown by the figures, the patented invention effectively
`
`11
`
`

`

`improves the spectrum utilization efficiency (bits/s/Hz) under both high-speed
`
`fading and channel estimation error. Id. at 12:17-24.
`
`C. Challenged Claims
`
`The Petitions challenge the validity of Claims 1 through 8. Independent
`
`
`
`
`Claims 1 and 8 are 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;
`
` 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
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`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.
`
`8. 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;
`
` a
`
` receiving section that receives a signal containing data
`modulated and encoded per subband group at the
`communicating party, using the modulation parameters
`and coding parameters of the parameter information
`transmitted at the parameter information transmission
`section; and
`
` 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;
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`wherein the parameter deciding section decides the
`coding parameters in such a manner that a number of
`information bits obtained by assigning a weight per
`subband group to a sum of information bits that are able
`to be assigned to all of the subbands within the subband
`group, is assigned to the subband group.
`
`
`Ex. 1001 at 13:65-14:26.
`
`
`
`D. Relevant Prosecution History
`
`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 (emphases
`
`added). See IPR2018-01477, Paper 11 at 30 (emphasizing the “criticality of this
`
`recitation should have been understood by anyone seeking to ascertain the scope of
`
`claim 1 or the other independent claims” and denying institution accordingly).
`
`The Examiner also found that the prior art failed to disclose the limitation:
`
`“wherein the parameter deciding section decides the coding parameters in such a
`
`manner that a number of information bits obtained by assigning a weight per
`
`subband group to a sum of the information bits that are able to be assigned to all of
`
`the subbands within the subband group, is assigned to the subband group.” Id.
`
`14
`
`

`

`III. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`
`
`Patent Owner disputes, for purposes of these 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. In particular, a POSITA would have
`
`either “both a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering (or an equivalent field)
`
`and three (3) years’ experience in wireless communications” or “an MSc degree in
`
`Electrical Engineering (or an equivalent field) and one (1) year of experience in
`
`wireless communications.” Ex. 2101 ¶ 23 (emphases added).
`
`The Petition asserts that a POSITA would have “had a bachelor degree in
`
`electrical engineering, computer science, or an equivalent filed[sic], plus at least
`
`three years of experience working in the fields of wireless communication systems,
`
`communication networks, and signal processing.” 55Pet. at 8-9 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶
`
`61) (emphasis added); 81Pet. at 13 (same). This is incorrect, as it would not be
`
`necessary for a POSITA to have experience with general “communication
`
`networks” or “signal processing” outside of wireless communication systems (such
`
`as with wired communication systems). See Ex. 2101 ¶ 23. Indeed, the ’439 Patent
`
`expressly states that its “Technical Field” pertains to “wireless communication
`
`orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) system.” Ex. 1001 at 1:13-14
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`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).
`
`A.
`
`“subband” (Claims 1-6 and 8), “pattern storage section” (Claim
`1), and “modulation parameters with a highest classification”
`(Claim 5)
`
`For the purposes of this 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 for Patent Owner to prevail. 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.
`
`16
`
`

`

`For purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner proposes the following claim
`
`constructions:
`
`
`
`B.
`
`“patterns for selecting subbands” (Claim 1)
`
`The phrase “patterns for selecting subbands” should be construed as “fixed
`
`rules for choosing subbands based on frequency.” The ’439 Patent specificati