`IPR2019-00047
`
`
`DOCKET NO.: 0107131-00573US1
`Filed on behalf of Intel Corporation
`By: David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`John V. Hobgood, Reg. No. 61,540
`Benjamin S. Fernandez, Reg. No. 55,172
`Gregory H. Lantier, pro hac vice
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 663-6000
`Email:
`David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`John.Hobgood@wilmerhale.com
`
`Ben.Fernandez@wilmerhale.com
`
`Gregory.Lantier@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`INTEL CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2019-00047
`U.S. Patent No. 9,154,356
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00047
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`PATENT OWNER’S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OF
`“CARRIER AGGREGATION” (POR 11-31) IS INCORRECT AND
`OVERLY NARROW ...................................................................................... 1
`A.
`“Carrier Aggregation” Should be Construed in
`Accordance With its Broadest Reasonable Interpretation .................... 1
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction of “Carrier
`Aggregation” is Far Narrower than the Broadest
`Reasonable Interpretation of that Term in Light of the
`Specification .......................................................................................... 3
`Petitioner’s Proposed BRI Construction Does Not Read
`Out “Aggregation” ................................................................................ 7
`III. GROUND I: PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS FAIL TO REFUTE
`THE EVIDENCE SET FORTH IN THE PETITION ..................................... 8
`A.
`Contrary to Patent Owner’s Argument (POR 39-44),
`Uehara Discloses First and Second Amplifier Stages
`Configured to be Independently Enabled or Disabled .......................... 8
`Contrary to Patent Owner’s Arguments (POR 45-46),
`Uehara Discloses the Claimed Providing the First/Second
`Output RF Signals to the First/Second Load Circuits ......................... 15
`Contrary to Patent Owner’s Arguments (POR 46-48),
`Uehara Discloses the Input RF Signal Employing Carrier
`Aggregation ......................................................................................... 17
`IV. GROUND II: THE PETITION DEMONSTRATES THAT UEHARA
`AND PERUMANA RENDER CLAIMS 7 AND 8 OBVIOUS ................... 19
`V. GROUND III: THE PETITION DEMONSTRATES THAT UEHARA
`AND YOUSSEF RENDERS CLAIM 10 OBVIOUS ................................... 20
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00047
`
`
`B.
`
`VI. GROUND IV: THE PETITION DEMONSTRATES THAT CLAIMS 1,
`11, 17 AND 18 ARE OBVIOUS OVER UEHARA AND FEASIBILITY
`STUDY .......................................................................................................... 22
`A.
`The Petition Establishes that the Feasibility Study is
`Analogous Art ..................................................................................... 23
`The Petition Establishes the Reasons to Combine Uehara
`and Feasibility Study ........................................................................... 24
`Patent Owner’s Additional Arguments are Without Merit ................. 26
`C.
`VII. GROUND V: THE PETITION DEMONSTRATES THAT UEHARA,
`FEASIBILITY STUDY, AND PERUMANA RENDER CLAIMS 7 AND
`8 OBVIOUS................................................................................................... 26
`VIII. GROUND VI: THE PETITION DEMONSTRATES THAT CLAIM 10
`IS OBVIOUS OVER UEHARA, FEASIBILITY STUDY, AND
`YOUSSEF...................................................................................................... 26
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00047
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`In response to the clear evidence that the prior art renders each of the
`
`I.
`
`challenged claims obvious, Patent Owner adopts a bird-shot approach in its Patent
`
`Owner Response, variously arguing that the Board should adopt narrowing claim
`
`constructions, selectively read the prior art references, and apply the prior art in
`
`ways that would exclude disclosed embodiments. None of Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments has merit.
`
`II.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OF
`“CARRIER AGGREGATION” (POR 11-31) IS INCORRECT AND
`OVERLY NARROW
`Patent Owner’s first argument is that “carrier aggregation” should be
`
`construed to require “[1] simultaneous operation on multiple carriers [2] that are
`
`combined as a single virtual channel [3] to provide higher bandwidth.” The Board
`
`should reject Patent Owner’s proposed construction.
`
`A.
`
`“Carrier Aggregation” Should be Construed in Accordance With
`its Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`As set forth in the Petition, “carrier aggregation” should be construed as
`
`“simultaneous operation on multiple carriers.” This construction comes directly
`
`from the specification, which defines the term. See Ex. 1001, 1:32-33 (“A wireless
`
`device may support carrier aggregation, which is simultaneous operation on
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`multiple carriers.”),1 2:53-54, 2:54-55 (“Carrier aggregation may also be referred
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00047
`
`
`to as multi-carrier operation.”). See Ex. 1002, ¶61. Given the clear guidance in the
`
`specification, “carrier aggregation” should be construed as “simultaneous operation
`
`on multiple carriers” under the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) claim
`
`construction standard. See Apple Inc. v. Immersion Corp., IPR2016-01372, 2017
`
`WL 376909, at *2-3 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2017); see also In re Imes, 778 F.3d 1250,
`
`1252-53 (Fed. Cir. 2015). This meaning is consistent with the understanding of the
`
`term by a POSITA. Ex. 1002, ¶62. Paper 3, Petition (“Pet.”), 31. Ex. 1039, ¶14.
`
`Indeed, in the ITC 1093 Investigation, the Administrative Law Judge
`
`(“ALJ”) construed “carrier aggregation” as Petitioner proposes here—
`
`“simultaneous operation on multiple carriers”—despite Patent Owner’s similar
`
`arguments. Ex. 1036 (Inv. No. 337-ITA-1093, Order No. 38), 17; see also id.,
`
`App’x A at 30. The ITC ALJ made this construction under the Phillips standard.
`
`Ex. 1036, 12. Petitioner submits that the BRI construction must be at least as
`
`broad as a proper Phillips construction. Rembrandt Wireless Techs., L.P. v.
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., 853 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017). See DOI, 11; see also
`
`Pet., 30.
`
`
`1 Emphasis in quotations and annotations to figures added unless stated otherwise.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00047
`
`
`B.
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction of “Carrier Aggregation”
`is Far Narrower than the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of
`that Term in Light of the Specification
`Though the ’356 patent expressly defines “carrier aggregation” as
`
`“simultaneous operation on multiple carriers” and discusses “Bluetooth,” WiFi
`
`(e.g., “802.11”), and “LTE” devices (among others) that support carrier
`
`aggregation, Patent Owner selects just one subset of those, LTE, and then proposes
`
`a construction of carrier aggregation that is even narrower than any disclosure in
`
`the ’356 specification. Patent Owner’s arguments in support of its narrowing
`
`construction each fail.
`
`First, mistakenly contending that its construction has support in the ’356
`
`written description, Patent Owner exclusively cites to column 2, lines 63-67 in
`
`support of “combined higher bandwidth channel for communications,” and the
`
`addition of LTE-Advanced carrier aggregation “[t]o relieve this [data] rate-limiting
`
`step.” POR, 12-14. But the ’356 patent includes no discussion of these concepts
`
`(in column 2, lines 63-37 or anywhere else). Ex. 1001. Instead, for parts [2] and
`
`[3] of its proposed construction, Patent Owner’s arguments that the specification
`
`supports them are based only on its expert’s unsupported extrapolations and
`
`augmentations of the specification. See POR, 12-14. And, in any case, the LTE
`
`carrier aggregation expressly described at column 2, lines 63-67 is merely one
`
`example of carrier aggregation in the patent. Ex. 1039, ¶¶17-18.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00047
`
`Indeed, during cross examination, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Foty, admitted
`
`that parts [2] and [3] of Patent Owner’s proposed tripartite claim construction do
`
`not find support in the ’356 patent’s written description. Ex. 1040, 69:12-19,
`
`70:12-71:18; 72:14-74:7. Instead, Dr. Foty testified that WO 2012/008705 (Ex.
`
`2016), GB2472978 (Ex. 2017), and U.S. Pat. No. 8,442,473 (Ex. 1025) are
`
`intrinsic evidence that support this portion of the construction. Id. However, the
`
`phrases “combined as a single virtual channel” or “provide higher bandwidth” do
`
`not appear in any of the three references relied upon by Dr. Foty. And even if
`
`these references qualify as intrinsic evidence (which is debatable), Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments about them do not limit the BRI of the term “carrier aggregation” given
`
`the clear definition of that term in the ’356 written description. Indeed, none of the
`
`evidence on which Patent Owner now relies for parts [2] and [3] of its proposed
`
`claim construction was ever discussed during prosecution of the ’356 patent. Ex.
`
`1039, ¶¶20-21.
`
`Second, in the POR, Patent Owner also seeks to invoke the doctrine of
`
`prosecution history disclaimer in arguing for its proposed construction. POR, 25-
`
`28. However, Patent Owner’s own expert abandoned that theory at his deposition,
`
`testifying that there was no disclaimer or disavowal of claim scope with respect to
`
`the term “carrier aggregation.” Ex. 1040, 32:2-15. Petitioner agrees. Petitioner’s
`
`expert agrees. Ex. 1039, ¶22.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00047
`
`
`Moreover, the Patent Owner’s lack of citation of cases which support its
`
`prosecution history disclaimer theory speaks volumes. The Patent Owner is
`
`seeking to create new law regarding BRI claim construction. Specifically, the
`
`Patent Owner is trying to bring a Phillips claim construction principle/canon that
`
`was developed to protect alleged infringers from patent owners seeking to
`
`recapture surrendered subject matter during litigation into the BRI analysis and use
`
`it offensively to artificially limit the scope of claim language the Patent Owner
`
`itself drafted. But despite making such an argument, Patent Owner has not
`
`provided any, let alone adequate, legal foundation for its position to do so.
`
`Petitioner submits that the doctrine does not apply where a patent owner seeks to
`
`rely upon it to narrow the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim term. See
`
`Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC, 742 F.3d 973, 978 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`But even if it could be applied, there was no relevant prosecution history
`
`disclaimer because there is no “clear and unequivocal evidence” of disavowal. See
`
`Poly-America, L.P. v. API Indus., 839 F.3d 1131, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments in distinguishing the Hirose (Ex. 1024) reference during
`
`prosecution do not even meet the Phillips test, and therefore cannot constitute a
`
`prosecution history disclaimer under any standard. See Ex. 1039, ¶¶23-24.
`
`Seeking to advance its disclaimer argument, Patent Owner points to the
`
`same file history quote provided in the Petition, but with special emphasis placed
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00047
`
`on two words: “‘carrier aggregation’ requires an ‘increased aggregated data rate.’”
`
`POR, 16 (emphasis in original). Those words do not amount to a clear and
`
`unmistakable disclaimer. The “increased aggregated” here refers to “data rate.”
`
`Hirose’s transmission of the “same signals over different paths” does not increase
`
`aggregated data rate because it “results in redundant data at a common data rate.”
`
`Ex. 1015, 7 (emphasis in original). If Hirose’s simultaneous signals contained
`
`non-redundant (i.e., different) data, Patent Owner could not have made the
`
`argument that it did, and therefore the most natural reading of the prosecution
`
`history is that the applicant was distinguishing Hirose on the basis of its redundant
`
`transmissions. Dr. Fay’s initial declaration explains this. Ex. 1002, ¶90. At a
`
`minimum, the competing interpretations of the prosecution history set forth in the
`
`Petition and in the POR demonstrate that any disclaimer was not “clear and
`
`unmistakable.”2 Ex. 1039, ¶25.
`
`
`2 Because there was no clear and unmistakable disclaimer, Patent Owner’s
`
`argument that Petitioner’s proposed claim construction does not include a carve-
`
`out for the prosecution history’s discussion of Hirose, POR, 25-28, misses the
`
`mark entirely. But if the Board concludes that prosecution history did result in a
`
`disclaimer, then the disclaimer was of systems that receive transmissions of
`
`redundant data over multiple channels like Hirose. A claim construction that
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00047
`
`
`Third, Patent Owner’s citations to extrinsic evidence cannot change the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of carrier aggregation. 3M Innovative Props.
`
`Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Particularly in a
`
`case such as this, where the intrinsic evidence so clearly supports the definition
`
`that Patent Owner included in its specification, a POSITA would assign extrinsic
`
`evidence little or no relevance. See id. Furthermore, many of the extrinsic
`
`references included with Patent Owner’s Response were dated or filed well after
`
`the filing date of the ’356 patent, and are also not prior art to the ’356 patent. See
`
`Exs. 2018 (earliest filing 2013); 2019 (Sep. 2013); 2022 (2014). They should be
`
`accorded no weight. In any event, Petitioner’s proposed construction of “carrier
`
`aggregation” is broad enough to encompass each of the differing examples of
`
`carrier aggregation provided in Patent Owner’s extrinsic evidence sources. Ex.
`
`1039, ¶26.
`
`C.
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed BRI Construction Does Not Read Out
`“Aggregation”
`Finally, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s construction reads out the
`
`word “aggregation.” POR, 30-31. That is incorrect. The ’356 patent claims
`
`
`included that disclaimer would have no impact on the invalidity issues presented in
`
`the Petition. Ex. 1003, ¶47; Ex. 1039, ¶25.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`require that an “input RF signal” employ “carrier aggregation.” When there is
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00047
`
`
`“simultaneous operation on multiple carriers,” those carriers will be aggregated in
`
`the input RF signal. Pet., 51-53 (“input RF signal includes ‘two channels encoded
`
`around two different carrier frequencies (i.e., dual carriers).’”). Thus, when read
`
`in view of the complete claim language, “carrier aggregation” in the context of the
`
`challenged claims accounts for aggregation (i.e., collected together, assembled, as
`
`defined in the POR, 30), because the multiple carriers would be present
`
`simultaneously in the input RF signal. Ex. 1039, ¶¶27-30.
`
`III. GROUND I: PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS FAIL TO REFUTE
`THE EVIDENCE SET FORTH IN THE PETITION
`A. Contrary to Patent Owner’s Argument (POR 39-44), Uehara
`Discloses First and Second Amplifier Stages Configured to be
`Independently Enabled or Disabled
`As explained in the Petition, at 44-47, 53-55, Uehara teaches first and
`
`second amplifier stages “configured to be independently enabled or disabled.”
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00047
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Each of the amplifier stages identified, above, is configured to be independently
`
`enabled or disabled with distinct voltage signals to enable their respective cascode
`
`transistors. “Cascode transistors 205 and 207 may be selectively turned on or off
`
`by controlling voltage VN1 at the gate of transistor 205 and the gate of transistor
`
`207, thereby coupling or decoupling current from transistors 201 and 202 from
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`output path OUT1.” Ex. 1003, ¶36. “[C]ascode transistors 209-212 may be
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00047
`
`
`selectively turned on or off together by controlling voltage VNAux at the gate of
`
`each transistor 209-212, thereby coupling or decoupling current from transistors
`
`203 and 204 to or from output path OUT1 and output path OUT2.” Ex. 1039, ¶30.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments that the cascode-based enablement or
`
`disablement of the two amplifier stages of Uehara do not teach that those amplifier
`
`stages are “configured to be independently enabled or disabled,” POR, 39-44, fail
`
`for at least three reasons.
`
`
`
` First, Patent Owner’s arguments ignore the word “configured” in the
`
`claimed “configured to be independently enabled or disabled.” Instead, Patent
`
`Owner identifies one out of several operational/use cases taught in Uehara, and
`
`argues that this single operational/use case involves some dependency in the
`
`enablement or disablement of the amplifier stages. POR, 39-44. However, Patent
`
`Owner’s singling out of one use-case of the circuitry of Uehara fails to rebut
`
`Petitioner’s showing that the amplifier stages of Uehara are configured to be
`
`independently enabled or disabled. Each amplifier stage in Uehara, as identified
`
`by Petitioner, has a distinct control voltage (VN1, VNAux), and a cascode
`
`transistor that can be “selectively enabled.” Ex. 1003, ¶36. A POSITA would
`
`understand that, based on the two distinct control voltages (VN1, VNAux) that
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`each can take on two values, Uehara teaches at least the following four
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00047
`
`
`operational/control states:
`
`VNAux
`VN1
`(stage 102)
`(stage 101)
`State
`OFF
`ON
`1
`ON
`OFF
`2
`ON
`ON
`3
`OFF
`OFF
`4
`Table 1: Basic Control Voltage Configuration of Uehara Amplifier Stages
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1039, ¶32. Patent Owner’s Response does not dispute that VN1 and VNAux
`
`are control signals for the cascode transistors. See POR, 39-44. As such, the
`
`presence of these separate control signals VN1 and VNAux, alone, teaches that
`
`each identified amplifier stage in Uehara is “configured to be independently
`
`enabled or disabled.” Nothing in Uehara precludes the circuitry disclosed in
`
`Uehara from taking on any of these control states. The fact that some of the
`
`operating states may be selected in combination for performance purposes in
`
`specific use cases does not make them dependent on one another. Rather, it
`
`explains the reason for Uehara’s inclusion of different control signals to permit
`
`such combinations. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is
`
`well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not
`
`make a claim to that old product patentable”). Ex. 1039, ¶32.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00047
`
`
`Second, Patent Owner’s arguments ignore Uehara’s express teaching in
`
`
`
`paragraph [0032] to control the two amplifier stages in precisely the same manner
`
`identified in the ’356 patent. Ex. 1003, ¶32. Patent Owner’s arguments at pages
`
`40-44 inject VN2 into the analysis (a signal that controls an aspect of the circuitry
`
`of Uehara that allows additional functionality beyond that described in the ‘356
`
`Patent), and amount to an argument that VNAux is somehow dependent on VN1
`
`and VN2 because, in the single passage of Uehara on which Patent Owner
`
`exclusively focuses, when only one of VN1 and VN2 is on, VNAux is off. POR,
`
`42; see also POR, 40-44. Patent Owner’s arguments with respect to this one use-
`
`case of Uehara can be summarized in table format.
`
`VN2
`VNAux
`VN1
`(Stage 101)
`(Stage 102)
`(Stage 101)
`State
`OFF
`OFF
`ON
`1′
`ON
`OFF
`OFF
`2′
`ON
`ON
`ON
`3′
`Table 2: Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding One Specific Use Case of Uehara
`
`
`
`But even as shown in Table 2, the state of VNAux and VN1 are independent of one
`
`another because VNAux can be OFF (1′) or ON (3′) when VN1 is ON, and VN1
`
`can be ON (1′) or OFF (2′) when VNAux is OFF. Furthermore, paragraph [0032]
`
`of Uehara states: “In another embodiment, in dual carrier mode, for example, both
`
`transconductance stages 101 and 102 are on, and transconductance stage 101
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`drives either OUT1 or OUT2 and transconductance stage 102 drives the output
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00047
`
`
`path not driven by transconductance stage 101.” Ex. 1003, ¶32; Pet., 51, FN.19,
`
`64. In other words, Uehara expressly teaches that VNAux can be configured
`
`and/or controlled to be ON when either or both of VN1 and VN2 are ON (e.g., in
`
`States 1-3 and 1′-3′ above), to drive the other output, which is also consistent with
`
`Table 1, above. Id. Table 3 below adds the dual-carrier operational states
`
`expressly described in ¶32. Comparing states 1′ and 3′′, it is clear that VNAux can
`
`be either ON or OFF if VN1 is ON and VN2 is OFF. Likewise, comparing states
`
`2′ and 4′′, VNAux can be either ON or OFF if VN1 is OFF and VN2 is ON. Thus,
`
`VNAux is not dependent on the state of the VN1 and VN2 signals in the operation
`
`described in ¶32. Furthermore, because VN1 controls the first amplifier stage and
`
`VNAux controls the second amplifier stage (as explained in the Petition), the
`
`entries in Table 3 (states 1′, 2′, 3′′, and 4′′) show that all four of the possible
`
`combinations for two controls (VN1 and VNAux) are not only permitted but their
`
`use is described in Uehara. This shows that VN1 and VNAux are independently
`
`controllable. Thus, Patent Owner’s improperly narrow focus on one example
`
`within Uehara does not rebut Petitioner’s showing of anticipation individually by
`
`each of the examples discussed above. Ex. 1039, ¶33.
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00047
`
`
`VN2
`VNAux (Stage
`VN1
`(Stage 101,
`102, OUT1
`(Stage 101,
`OUT2)
`and/or OUT2)
`OUT1)
`State
`OFF
`OFF
`ON
`1′
`ON
`OFF
`OFF
`2′
`OFF
`ON
`ON
`3′′
`ON
`ON
`OFF
`4′′
`Table 3: Operational Use Case Described in Uehara ¶¶31-32.
`
`
`
`
`
`Third, Patent Owner’s arguments ignore that interpreting “configured to be
`
`independently enabled or disabled” as Patent Owner does in the POR would also
`
`exclude the embodiments described in the ’356 patent. Ex. 1039, ¶31. Indeed,
`
`Uehara teaches amplifier stages that are “configured to be independently enabled
`
`or disabled” in the same way as disclosed embodiments of the ’356 patent.
`
`Specifically, Uehara teaches that its amplifier stages (as set forth in the Petition)
`
`are configured and/or controlled to operate in at least the states identified, above, in
`
`Table 3. These modes correspond to “dual carrier” modes (3′′ and 4′′, FIG. 6B of
`
`’356 patent) and “single carrier” modes (1′ and 2′, FIG. 6C of ’356 Patent). None
`
`of these configurations or operational states is in any way dependent on the others.
`
`Ex. 1039, ¶34. To distinguish these modes would read out what is described by the
`
`’356 patent for “configured to be independently enabled or disabled”: “Amplifier
`
`stages 650a and 650b may be independently enabled or disabled via switches 658a
`
`and 658b, respectively.” Ex. 1001, 8:12-13; see also id., 8:29-35 (describing
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00047
`
`similar “CA” and “non-CA” operating states for the amplifier stages to the first and
`
`second/third configurations described in paragraph 32 of Uehara). For at least
`
`these reasons, Uehara teaches these limitations of claims 1, 11, 17, and 18. Ex.
`
`1039, ¶34.
`
`B. Contrary to Patent Owner’s Arguments (POR 45-46), Uehara
`Discloses the Claimed Providing the First/Second Output RF
`Signals to the First/Second Load Circuits
`As explained in the Petition, at 47-50, 55-59, Uehara teaches providing the
`
`first/second output RF signals to the first/second load circuits. Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments in this section of its POR, which are incorrect for at least the reasons
`
`identified, above, in Section III.A are based primarily on a mistaken claim
`
`construction, its narrow reading of Uehara, and its unwillingness to account for
`
`Uehara’s teachings in paragraph [0032], see POR, 45-46. Patent Owner
`
`acknowledges paragraph [0032], but argues that “Petitioner fails to provide any
`
`further analysis or explanation as to how the circuits of Figures 2A or 3 must be
`
`modified to support operation of an embodiment where one drives the output path
`
`not driven by the other.” POR, 46. This is incorrect for at least three reasons. Ex.
`
`1039, ¶35.
`
`First, the Petition does identify how the circuits of Figures 2A or 3 support
`
`this operation without modification, even in the embodiments to which Patent
`
`Owner alludes: when VN1 is ON, the first amplifier stage of Uehara provides its
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`output RF signal to OUT1, and when VNAux is ON, the second amplifier stage of
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00047
`
`
`Uehara provides its output RF signal to OUT2. See Pet., 49, 58-59. The
`
`possibility that the second amplifier stage may also provide its output RF signal to
`
`OUT1 when VNAux is ON is within the scope of the challenged claims (Patent
`
`Owner’s expert agrees, Ex. 1040, 48:1-50:7). Patent Owner is implicitly seeking a
`
`narrowing claim construction that finds no support in the claim language itself.
`
`Second, because Uehara teaches configuration and/or operation in any of States 1,
`
`2, and/or 3 from Table 1 described above, due at least in part to separate control
`
`voltages for the cascode transistors, each of the amplifier stages in Uehara is
`
`already “configured” to provide an output RF signal “when … enabled.” Finally,
`
`even if the challenged claims required that each amplifier stage provide an output
`
`RF signal exclusively to a single output port (and Petitioner maintains that they do
`
`not), a POSITA would understand paragraph [0032] of Uehara to teach, for
`
`example, the use of a first control voltage (e.g., a VNAux1) to control the output of
`
`transconductance stage 102 to OUT1 and a second, different voltage (e.g., a
`
`VNAux2) to control the output of transconductance stage 102 to OUT2, which
`
`would not involve any modification to the circuitry of Figures 2A or 3. A POSITA
`
`would understand such an operational mode given that the circuit of Figure 2A
`
`operates in a similar fashion with respect to separate control voltages VN1 and
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`VN2. For at least these reasons, Uehara teaches these limitations of claims 1, 11,
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00047
`
`
`17, and 18. Ex. 1039, ¶36.
`
`C. Contrary to Patent Owner’s Arguments (POR 46-48), Uehara
`Discloses the Input RF Signal Employing Carrier Aggregation
`As explained in the Petition, at 50-53, Uehara discloses “input RF signal
`
`employing carrier aggregation.” However, Patent Owner argues that Uehara does
`
`not disclose the “input RF signal employing carrier aggregation” under Patent
`
`Owner’s proposed construction. POR, 46-48. Patent Owner is incorrect for
`
`multiple reasons. Ex. 1039, ¶37.
`
`Uehara teaches that, in Figure 3, an input RF signal includes “two channels
`
`encoded around two different carrier frequencies (i.e., dual carriers).” Ex. 1003,
`
`¶47. When the amplifier of Uehara receives the dual-carrier signal, the first and
`
`second amplifier stages are enabled to allow the “driving [of] two output paths
`
`simultaneously.” Id., ¶33; see also id. ¶¶32, 47, 50, Fig. 5. This is also consistent
`
`with Patent Owner’s construction of “carrier aggregation.” Indeed, at least one of
`
`the references upon which Patent Owner and its expert rely for their construction
`
`teaches that “Carrier aggregation mode is also known as spectrum aggregation
`
`mode, dual carrier mode and dual cell mode.” Ex. 2017, Abstract; POR, 17, Ex.
`
`2024, ¶91. Ex. 1039, ¶38.
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00047
`
`
`Patent Owner further argues that the Petition ignores the meaning of
`
`“aggregation.” This is incorrect. See supra at II.C. When dual carriers are
`
`received simultaneously in the amplification circuit of Uehara, they are aggregated
`
`at the input. See POR, 30 (“Aggregate means ‘to collect together, assemble.’”).
`
`This is true regardless of whether or not the two carriers originate from a common
`
`source, or whether or not they are logically related to one another (e.g., at the
`
`baseband level). The two carriers do not somehow travel down separate sides of
`
`the wire or avoid one another along the input. Ex. 1039, ¶39.
`
`The Patent Owner’s Response does not dispute that Uehara teaches this
`
`limitation under Petitioner’s proposed construction, and does not identify any
`
`additional arguments in favor of patentability for claims 11, 17, or 18. POR, 46-
`
`48. Even under its own construction, Patent Owner has failed to explain why the
`
`amplifier stages of Uehara would not be capable of being used to receive “multiple
`
`carriers that are combined as a single virtual channel to provide higher bandwidth.”
`
`In contrast, Dr. Fay provided a clearly reasoned explanation, supported by the ’356
`
`patent, that providing non-redundant data on multiple channels would result in
`
`increased data rate. His statements are therefore not conclusory as Patent Owner
`
`submits. Ex. 1002, ¶¶89-90. For the reasons identified in the Petition, claims 1,
`
`11, 17, and 18 are thus anticipated by Uehara. Ex. 1039, ¶40.
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00047
`
`
`IV. GROUND II: THE PETITION DEMONSTRATES THAT UEHARA
`AND PERUMANA RENDER CLAIMS 7 AND 8 OBVIOUS
`Besides Patent Owner’s arguments raised with respect to claim 1, which are
`
`incorrect for the reasons identified above in Section III, Patent Owner does not
`
`dispute that Uehara in view of Perumana teaches each limitation of claims 7 and 8,
`
`but rather argues that Petitioner “fails to sufficiently articulate” why a POSITA
`
`would have combined Perumana and Uehara. POR, 48-50. As evidenced by the
`
`Petition, this is incorrect. Pet., 68-71. Ex. 1039, ¶41.
`
`Patent Owner argues that Perumana’s statement that “novel circuit
`
`techniques are required to reduce power consumption and improve linearity” is an
`
`“explicit admonition” that points to disadvantages associated with Figure 3(a) of
`
`Perumana. POR, 50. When read in context, however, this statement neither
`
`identifies any disadvantages with Figure 3(a) of Perumana, nor presents any
`
`inconsistency whatsoever with Petitioner’s stated reasons to combine or reasonable
`
`expectations of success. See Ex. 1008, 1219; Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437
`
`F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A] given course of action often has
`
`simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate
`
`motivation to combine.”) (citation omitted). The statement merely introduces the
`
`additional solution presented in the rest of Perumana’s paper. Id. In fact, this
`
`quote reinforces Petitioner’s stated reasons to combine, by demonstrating that a
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`POSITA would have been considering performance (e.g., power consumption,
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00047
`
`
`linearity) and implementation cost in implementing feedback circuits, as expressly
`
`identified in Petitioner’s reasons to combine. Pet., 69-70. For at least these
`
`reasons, the Petition demonstrates that claims 7 and 8 are obvious over Uehara in
`
`view of Perumana. Ex. 1039, ¶42.
`
`V. GROUND III: THE PETITION DEMONSTRATES THAT UEHARA
`AND YOUSSEF RENDERS CLAIM 10 OBVIOUS
`Patent Owner advances the same arguments for claim 10 as advanced for
`
`claim 1; however, these are incorrect for the reasons identified, above, in Section
`
`III. Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner fails to show why a POSITA would
`
`have combined the teachings of Youssef with Uehara. POR, 50-52. Patent Owner
`
`states that Youssef describes attenuating UHF and VHF signals, and that because
`
`Petitioner di