throbber
Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket