Paper 8
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: July 10, 2019
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-00048
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before DANIEL N. FISHMAN, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER,
`and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Instituting Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: July 10, 2019
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-00048
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before DANIEL N. FISHMAN, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER,
`and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Instituting Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00048
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Intel Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for inter partes review
`
`of claims 1, 9, 10, 17, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 9,154,356 B2 (Ex. 1101,
`
`“’356 patent”).1 Paper 3 (“Pet.”). Qualcomm Incorporated (“Patent
`
`Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the
`
`information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that
`
`there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect
`
`to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a);
`
`see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108.
`
`Having considered the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the
`
`evidence of record, we conclude there is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one
`
`challenged claim of the ’356 patent and, therefore, institute inter partes
`
`review.
`
`A.
`
`Related Matters
`
`Petitioner filed two petitions in IPR2019-00128 (the “’128 petition”)
`
`and IPR2019-00129 (the “’129 petition”), seeking inter partes review of
`
`claims 1–8, 10, 11, 17, and 18 of the ’356 patent based on prior art different
`
`than that presented in this petition. We instituted reviews in those petitions
`
`on May 29, 2019.
`
`Petitioner filed another petition, IPR2019-00047 (the “’047 petition”),
`
`seeking inter partes review of claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, 17, and 18 of the ’356
`
`
`
`1 Petitioner states that the real parties-in-interest are “Intel and Apple Inc.”
`Pet. 1.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00048
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`patent based on prior art different than that presented in this petition and the
`
`’128 and ’129 petitions, and filed another petition, IPR2019-00049 (the
`
`“’049 petition”), seeking inter partes review of claims 2–8 and 11 of the
`
`’356 patent based on the same prior art presented in this petition.
`
`The Petition states that Patent Owner “has asserted the ’356 patent
`
`against Apple in Certain Mobile Electronic Devices and Radio Frequency
`
`and Processing Components Thereof, Investigation No. 337-ITC-1093,
`
`currently pending before the International Trade Commission” and “also has
`
`asserted the ’356 patent against Apple in another currently pending case,
`
`Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 3:17-cv-02398 (S.D. Cal.).” Pet. 1. In
`
`updated mandatory notices filed in IPR2019-00128 on May 24, 2019,
`
`Petitioner advised the Board that the private parties to the 1093 ITC
`
`investigation have moved to terminate, and that the 17-cv-02398 District
`
`Court litigation has been dismissed.
`
`B.
`
`The ’356 Patent
`
`The ’356 Patent is directed to “[l]ow noise amplifiers . . . supporting
`
`carrier aggregation.” ’356 Patent, Abstract. In the embodiment described in
`
`the Abstract, an “input RF signal includes transmissions sent on multiple
`
`carriers at different frequencies,” a “first amplifier stage receives and
`
`amplifies [the input signal] and provides a first output RF signal to a first
`
`load circuit when the first amplifier stage is enabled,” and a “second
`
`amplifier stage receives and amplifies the input RF signal and provides a
`
`second output RF signal to a second load circuit when the second amplifier
`
`stage is enabled.” Id.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00048
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`Figure 6A details an example of a low noise amplifier according to the
`
`’356 patent:
`
`Figure 6A shows “an LNA with inductive degeneration
`and cascode shutoff.” ’356 Patent 1:54–55.
`
`
`
`Amplifier stage 650a includes source degeneration inductor 652a, gain
`
`transistor 654a, cascode transistor 656a, and switch 658a. See ’356 Patent
`
`7:58–8:4. Similarly, amplifier stage 650b includes source degeneration
`
`inductor 652b, gain transistor 654b, cascode transistor 656b, and switch
`
`658b. See id. at 8:4–9. Amplifier stages 650a and 650b are both coupled to
`
`common input matching circuit 632 and to respective load circuits 690a and
`
`690b. See id. at 7:47–49.
`
`In operation, matching circuit 632 receives receiver input signal RXin,
`
`performs input matching for low noise amplifier 640a, and provides input
`
`RF signal RFin to low noise amplifier 640a. See ’356 Patent 7:49–52. Input
`
`RF signal RFin may include transmissions on one set of carriers or
`
`transmissions on two sets of carriers in the same band, with each set
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00048
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`including one or more carriers. See id. at 7:55–57, 8:16–18, 8:30–32. An
`
`RF signal with transmissions on multiple sets of carriers is called a carrier
`
`aggregated RF signal. See id. at 8:16–18.
`
`Low noise amplifier 640a operates in either a non-carrier aggregation
`
`(non-CA) mode or a carrier aggregation (CA) mode, depending on the type
`
`of input RF signal it receives. See ’356 Patent 8:24–32, 8:36–44. In the
`
`non-CA mode, low noise amplifier 640a receives transmissions on one set of
`
`carriers and provides one output RF signal to one load circuit. Id. at 8:30–
`
`32. Only one amplifier stage is enabled, while the other amplifier stage is
`
`disabled. See id. at 8:46–47. This is illustrated in Figure 6C:
`
`Figure 6C shows “an LNA with inductive degeneration
`and cascode shutoff.” ’356 Patent 1:54–55.
`
`
`
`Amplifier stage 650a is enabled by connecting the gate of cascode transistor
`
`656a to the Vcasc voltage via switch 658a, and amplifier stage 650b is
`
`disabled by shorting the gate of cascode transistor 656b to circuit ground via
`
`switch 658b. See ’356 Patent 8:47–52. Amplifier stage 650a amplifies the
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00048
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`input RF signal and provides an output RF signal to load circuit 690a. See
`
`id. at 8:52–54.
`
`In the CA mode, low noise amplifier 640a receives transmissions on
`
`two sets of carriers and provides two output RF signals to two load circuits,
`
`one output RF signal for each set of carriers and both amplifier stages are
`
`enabled. See ’356 Patent 8:32–38. This is shown in Figure 6B:
`
`Figure 6B shows “an LNA with inductive degeneration
`and cascode shutoff.” ’356 Patent 1:54–55.
`
`
`
`Amplifier stages 650a and 650b are enabled by connecting the gate of
`
`cascode transistor 656a to the Vcasc voltage via switch 658a and coupling
`
`the gate of cascode transistor 656b to the Vcasc voltage via switch 658b.
`
`See ’356 Patent 8:37–40. The carrier aggregated RF signal splits at the input
`
`of low noise amplifier 640a, and then amplifier stages 650a and 650b
`
`amplify the carrier aggregated RF signal and provide two output RF signals
`
`to two separate downconverters in load circuits 690a and 690b. See id. at
`
`8:21–28. Specifically, amplifier stage 650a amplifies the input RF signal
`
`and provides the first output RF signal to load circuit 690a. See id. at 8:41–
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00048
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`42. Similarly, amplifier stage 650b amplifies the input RF signal and
`
`provides the second output RF signal to load circuit 690b. See id. at 8:42–
`
`44.
`
`C.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`
`Challenged claims 1 and 17 are independent. Because claim 1 is
`
`directed to an apparatus and claim 17 is directed a corresponding method,
`
`claim 1, which is reproduced below, illustrates the subject matter addressed
`
`in this proceeding:
`
`1. An apparatus comprising:
`
`a first amplifier stage configured to be independently enabled or
`disabled, the first amplifier stage further configured to receive
`and amplify an input radio frequency (RF) signal and provide a
`first output RF signal to a first load circuit when the first
`amplifier stage is enabled, the input RF signal employing
`carrier aggregation comprising transmissions sent on multiple
`carriers at different frequencies to a wireless device, the first
`output RF signal including at least a first carrier of the multiple
`carriers; and
`
`a second amplifier stage configured to be independently
`enabled or disabled, the second amplifier stage further
`configured to receive and amplify the input RF signal and
`provide a second output RF signal to a second load circuit when
`the second amplifier stage is enabled, the second output RF
`signal including at least a second carrier of the multiple carriers
`different than the first carrier.
`
`’356 Patent 20:43–61.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00048
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`D.
`
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 9, 10, 17, and 18 are unpatentable on
`
`the following grounds:
`
`References
`
`Jeon2 and Xiong3
`
`Jeon, Xiong, and Youssef4
`
`Basis Claims
`
`§ 103 1, 17, 18
`
`§ 103 9 and 10
`
`Jeon, Xiong, and the Feasibility Study5
`
`§ 103 1, 17, 18
`
`Jeon, Xiong, Youssef, and the Feasibility Study § 103 9 and 10
`
`Petitioner also relies on a Declaration of Patrick Fay, Ph.D., filed as
`
`Exhibit 1102.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Jeon et al., A Scalable 6-to-18 GHz Concurrent Dual-Band Quad-Beam
`Phased-Array Receiver in CMOS, IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, Vol.
`43, No. 12, 2660–2673 (2008) (Ex. 1105).
`
`3 Xiong et al., US 2010/0237947 A1 (Ex. 1106).
`
`4 Youssef et al., Digitally-Controlled RF Passive Attenuator in 65 nm CMOS
`for Mobile TV Tuner ICs, in Proceedings of 2010 IEEE International
`Symposium on Circuits and Systems, 2000–2002 (2010) (Ex. 1109).
`
`5 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio
`Access Network; Feasibility Study for Further Advancements for E-UTRA
`(LTE-Advanced) (Release 9), 3GPP TR 36.912, v9.1.0 (December 2009)
`(Ex. 1104).
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00048
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`A.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner challenges overlapping claims
`
`with redundant references and arguments across three petitions” and “[t]he
`
`Board should exercise its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny
`
`Petitioner’s serial attacks on the same claims of the ’356 Patent.” Prelim.
`
`Resp. 8. Patent Owner asserts that “Petitioner challenges independent
`
`claims 1 and 17, and dependent claim 18 in three separate petitions, and
`
`challenges dependent claim 10 in two petitions,” but “has provided no
`
`indication that Jeon, the primary reference in the present Petition, is
`
`somehow more relevant or provides different disclosure than the primary
`
`references in the other petitions.” Prelim. Resp. 10. Patent Owner further
`
`argues that the combinations involving the Feasibility Study “are cumulative
`
`to one another” and the “remaining grounds involve insignificant secondary
`
`references that are relied on for the same duplicative arguments already
`
`made.” Id. at 10–11.
`
`We first observe that these petitions were filed within days of each
`
`other and, thus, are not “serial” petitions, as Patent Owner argues. We also
`
`do not agree with Patent Owner that this petition is “redundant,”
`
`“cumulative,” or “duplicative” of the other petitions. The ’047 petition
`
`alleges that the independent claims are unpatentable as anticipated by
`
`Uehara or, if Uehara is found to not disclose “carrier aggregation,” then
`
`unpatentable in view of Uehara and the Feasibility Study. See IPR2019-
`
`00047, Paper 3, 39–75. The ’128 petition alleges that the independent
`
`claims are unpatentable as anticipated by Lee or, if Lee is found to not
`
`disclose “carrier aggregation,” then unpatentable in view of Lee and the
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00048
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`Feasibility Study. See IPR 2019-00128, Paper 3, 38–75. Those two cases
`
`thus present what are primarily anticipation arguments, in which the main
`
`reference is alleged to show two amplifiers that are independently
`
`switchable. This case, on the other hand, alleges that one reference, Jeon,
`
`teaches the use of two amplifiers and that it would have been obvious in
`
`view of the teachings of another reference, Xiong, to make those amplifiers
`
`independently switchable. Because this case presents both different primary
`
`references and a fundamentally different theory of unpatentability––
`
`obviousness instead of anticipation––we decline to exercise our discretion to
`
`deny institution due to the ’047 and ’128 petitions.
`
`B.
`
`Level of Skill in the Art
`
`The level of skill in the art is a factual determination that provides a
`
`primary guarantee of objectivity in an obviousness analysis. See Al-Site
`
`Corp. v. VSI Int’l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966)). The level of skill in
`
`the art also informs the claim construction analysis. See Teva Pharm. USA,
`
`Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015) (explaining that claim
`
`construction seeks the meaning “a skilled artisan would ascribe” to the claim
`
`term “in the context of the specific patent claim”).
`
`Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have
`
`had at least an M.S. degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent
`
`experience) and would have had at least two years of experience with the
`
`structure and operation of RF transceivers and related structures (or the
`
`equivalent).” Pet. 34 (citing Fay Decl. ¶ 58). Patent Owner does not address
`
`this issue in the Preliminary Response.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00048
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`As Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s characterization of the
`
`level of skill in the art, we adopt it for purposes of this analysis.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`In inter partes reviews filed before November 13, 2018, such as this
`
`one, the Board construes claims in an unexpired patent according to their
`
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in
`
`which they appear. See Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131,
`
`2144–46 (2016); 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340. The broadest reasonable construction
`
`is the “ordinary and customary meaning” to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of invention. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
`
`1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`Petitioner asserts that “carrier aggregation” should be construed as
`
`“simultaneous operation on multiple carriers.” Pet. 30. Patent Owner
`
`“submits that no terms must be construed at this stage in the proceeding” but
`
`“reserves the right to put forth constructions of particular claim terms and to
`
`rebut constructions proffered in the petition as relevant to the patentability of
`
`the claims should trial be instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 8.
`
`Given the record before us, we do not find it necessary to engage in
`
`formal claim construction at this stage. See Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in
`
`dispute, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00048
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`D. Ground 1: Jeon and Xiong
`
`Ground 1 alleges that claims 1, 17, and 18 are unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Jeon and Xiong. See Pet. 42–61.
`
`1.
`
`Jeon
`
`Jeon is a paper that describes a tunable concurrent amplifier (“TCA”)
`
`for use in a concurrent dual-band receiver that receives an incoming RF
`
`signal that contains two frequencies, one in a low-band (“LB”) and one in a
`
`high band (“HB”). See Jeon 2663. The TCA “amplifies, filters, and finally
`
`splits the RF signal into two separate outputs; one at LB and the other at
`
`HB.” Id. These two signals go through “separate double down-conversion
`
`by subsequent RF and IF mixers.” Id. Figure 6 of Jeon shows how the TCA
`
`receives an input signal (“RF Input”) that includes the LB and HB
`
`frequencies, where LB and HB are amplified by separate cascode amplifiers
`
`“M1-M2” and “M3-M4”:
`
`Figure 6 of Jeon is a “[s]chematic of [a] TCA with
`a single input and a dual output.” Jeon 2664.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00048
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`2.
`
`Xiong
`
`Xiong is a patent application directed to “[t]echniques for designing a
`
`low-noise amplifier (LNA) for operation over a wide range of input power
`
`levels.” Xiong, Abstract. The reference describes a low-noise (“LN”) mode
`
`in which both gain paths (amplifiers) are enabled, and a high-linearity
`
`(“HL”) mode, in which the only one gain path is enabled. See id. ¶ 29. It
`
`further explains that “the total gain provided to the input signal RF IN may
`
`advantageously be adjusted by selectively enabling or disabling the first
`
`and/or second gain paths.” Id. ¶ 30. Figure 3 of Xiong shows switches SW1
`
`335 and SW2 325 controlling gain paths 301 and 302:
`
`“FIG.3 illustrates an implementation of an LNA
`that adopts a dual architecture.” Xiong 9.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00048
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`3. Mapping Independent Claim 1 to Jeon and Xiong
`
`Petitioner provides the following mapping of the limitations of
`
`claim 1 onto the combination of Jeon and Xiong. See Pet. 42–61.
`
`a.
`
`First Amplifier Stage
`
`Claim 1 recites “a first amplifier stage” that is “configured to be
`
`independently enabled or disabled” and “configured to receive and amplify
`
`an input radio frequency (RF) signal and provide a first output RF signal to a
`
`first load circuit when the first amplifier stage is enabled.”
`
`Petitioner asserts that “Jeon teaches a first amplifier stage,” as it
`
`“states that ‘[t]he [tunable concurrent amplifier] is implemented in a parallel
`
`cascode configuration’” and describes how “[a]n incoming input RF signal
`
`is ‘selectively amplified by two separate cascode amplifiers (M1-M2, M3-
`
`M4) that have tunable LC output loads.’” Pet. 43 (citing Jeon 2665).
`
`Petitioner acknowledges that “Jeon does not teach whether the low-
`
`band amplifier is configured to be independently enabled or disabled,” but
`
`asserts that “Xiong teaches a first amplifier stage that is independently
`
`enabled or disabled with switches.” Pet. 44. Specifically, Petitioner argues
`
`that Figure 3 of Xiong “show[s] a switch being used to selectively enable
`
`and disable [a] first amplifier stage.” Id. at 46.
`
`Petitioner further argues that one would have been motivated to
`
`modify Jeon in view of Xiong so as “to turn off unused circuitry to achieve
`
`lower power consumption during single-band operation.” Pet. 48 (citing
`
`Xiong ¶ 34; Fay Decl. ¶ 85). Petitioner asserts that “[m]odifying Jeon in this
`
`way would have amounted to no more than combining the prior art elements
`
`of the amplifiers of Jeon and switches of Xiong according to known methods
`
`to yield the predictable result of an amplifier that can operate in a concurrent
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00048
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`dual-band mode or a single-band mode without consuming excess power”
`
`and that “[t]here would have been a reasonable expectation of success
`
`because the combinations could have been implemented with well-known
`
`circuit design and manufacturing techniques and would have produced
`
`predictable results.” Id. at 48–49.
`
`Regarding the RF signals, Petitioner asserts that “Figure 6 of Jeon
`
`shows the first amplifier stage (LB amplifier) configured to receive and
`
`amplify an input RF signal (RF input) and provide a first output RF signal
`
`(LB output) to a first load circuit, which Jeon explains goes to a mixer” and
`
`that “[t]he LB output is an output RF signal because it has not undergone
`
`down-conversion until it reaches the RF and IF mixers.” Id. at 49–50 (citing
`
`Jeon, Fig. 6; Fay Decl. ¶ 87). Petitioner argues that “[a] POSITA would
`
`have understood that [Jeon’s] first amplifier stage amplifies the input RF
`
`signal and provides an output RF signal only when the first amplifier stage is
`
`enabled,” and that, in the alternative, “[c]ombining Xiong’s
`
`enabling/disabling capability with Jeon’s amplifier stages results in an
`
`amplifier stage that amplifies and provides output ‘when enabled.’” Id. at
`
`50.
`
`b.
`
`Input RF Signal and First Output RF Signal
`
`Claim 1 next recites that “the input RF signal employ[s] carrier
`
`aggregation comprising transmissions sent on multiple carriers at different
`
`frequencies to a wireless device” and that “the first output RF signal
`
`includ[es] at least a first carrier of the multiple carriers.”
`
`Petitioner asserts that “[t]he input RF signal received by the tunable
`
`concurrent amplifier in Figure 6 of Jeon is ‘a dual-band signal containing
`
`two different frequencies concurrently, one in the low band (LB) from 6 to
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00048
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`10.4 GHz and the other in the high band (HB) from 10.4 to 18 GHz.’”
`
`Pet. 51 (citing Jeon 2662). According to Petitioner, “[a] POSITA would
`
`have understood that ‘low’ and ‘high band’ refer to non-overlapping
`
`frequency ranges that include different carriers” and that “that the (first)
`
`low-band frequency in Jeon was a different carrier at a different frequency
`
`than the (second) high-band frequency.” Id. at 51–52.
`
`Petitioner further argues that “Jeon teaches ‘a dual-band signal
`
`containing two different frequencies concurrently,’ which teaches carrier
`
`aggregation under [Petitioner’s] proposed construction,” and that Jeon also
`
`includes “carrier aggregation” under a construction Patent Owner pursued in
`
`the ITC. See Pet. 52–53.
`
`c.
`
`Second Amplifier Stage
`
`Claim 1 further recites “a second amplifier stage” that is “configured
`
`to be independently enabled or disabled” and “configured to receive and
`
`amplify the input RF signal and provide a second output RF signal to a
`
`second load circuit when the second amplifier stage is enabled.”
`
`Petitioner argues that Figure 6 of Jeon “shows a second amplifier
`
`stage comprising the transistors M4 (gain transistor) coupled to M3 (cascode
`
`transistor),” and relies on Xiong for teaching “that the second amplifier stage
`
`is configured to be independently enabled or disabled,” with analysis similar
`
`to that regarding the first amplifier. See Pet. 55–57.
`
`d.
`
`Second Output RF Signal
`
`Finally, claim 1 recites that the second output RF signal “includ[es] at
`
`least a second carrier of the multiple carriers different than the first carrier.”
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00048
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`For this last limitation, Petitioner argues that “the HB amplifier stage
`
`in Jeon ‘receive[s] a dual-band signal containing two different frequencies
`
`concurrently, one in the low band (LB) from 6 to 10.4 GHz and the other in
`
`the high band (HB) from 10.4 to 18 GHz.’” Pet. 60 (citing Jeon 2662).
`
`4.
`
`Ground 1 Conclusion
`
`Patent Owner does not respond to Petitioner’s analysis of claim 1 and,
`
`on the current record, we find Petitioner has sufficiently shown that the
`
`combination of Jeon and Xiong discloses the features of claim 1. With
`
`respect to a motivation to combine, we observe that Xiong differs from what
`
`is claimed in that it uses switches to apply variable levels of gain to a signal,
`
`not for purposes of selective power saving, and that paragraph 34 describes
`
`the inclusion of otherwise unnecessary switch 335 to turn off “the entire
`
`LNA,” not just a portion of the LNA. Nevertheless, in view of the record as
`
`a whole, as developed to date, we find that Petitioner has sufficiently
`
`articulated a motivation to combine for purposes of institution.
`
`For these reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim 1 would have
`
`been obvious in view of Jeon and Xiong.
`
`Patent Owner does not respond to Petitioner’s analysis of claims 17
`
`and 18 and, for the reasons stated in the Petition (see Pet. 56–68), we
`
`determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as
`
`to claims 17 and 18.
`
`E. Ground 2: Jeon, Xiong, and Youssef
`
`Ground 2 adds Youssef to the combination of Jeon and Xiong for the
`
`purpose of challenging claims 9 and 10. Claim 9 adds to the apparatus of
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00048
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`claim 1 “a first attenuation circuit coupled to the first amplifier stage and
`
`configured to receive the input RF signal” and “a second attenuation circuit
`
`coupled to the second amplifier stage and configured to receive the input RF
`
`signal.” Claim 10 is similar, adding to the claim 1 apparatus “an attenuation
`
`circuit coupled to the first and second amplifier stages and configured to
`
`receive the input RF signal.”
`
`Petitioner argues that “Figure 1(b) of Youssef shows an RF attenuator
`
`that is coupled to an amplifier stage (‘LNA’) and that receives an input RF
`
`signal ‘RFin’” and that “[a] POSITA would have been motivated to couple
`
`the first amplifier stage of Jeon in view of Xiong to the attenuation circuit of
`
`Youssef” because Youssef’s attenuation circuit “prevent[s] a receiver from
`
`clipping at large input RF signals” and “Youssef expressly recognizes that
`
`an attenuation circuit can ‘protect the RF performance . . . in the presence of
`
`interferer blockers.’” Pet. 66–68 (citing Youssef 1999–2000).
`
`Patent Owner does not argue the merits of ground 2 at this stage and,
`
`for the reasons stated above and in the Petition, we conclude Petitioner has
`
`made a showing sufficient for institution that claims 9 and 10 would have
`
`been obvious in view of Jeon, Xiong, and Youssef.
`
`F. Grounds 3 and 4: Adding the Feasibility Study
`
`Grounds 3 and 4 are the same as grounds 1 and 2, except that
`
`Petitioner adds the Feasibility Study. See Pet. 72–76. The Feasibility Study
`
`is a 3GPP (Third Generation Partnership Project) technical report that
`
`considers technology components for the evolution of E-UTRA (Evolved
`
`Universal Mobile Telecommunications System Terrestrial Radio Access).
`
`See Feasibility Study 6–8.
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00048
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`Petitioner contends that “[t]o the extent Patent Owner argues that Jeon
`
`in view of Xiong fails to teach an input RF signal employing carrier
`
`aggregation, . . . the Feasibility Study also discloses this element.” Pet. 72.
`
`Petitioner argues that “[t]he Feasibility Study teaches that ‘LTE-Advanced
`
`extends LTE release 8 with support for Carrier Aggregation, where two or
`
`more component carriers (CC) are aggregated in order to support wider
`
`transmission bandwidths up to 100MHz and for spectrum aggregation’” and
`
`that a “terminal may simultaneously receive one or multiple component
`
`carriers depending on its capabilities.” Id. (citing Ex. 1104, 22; Ex. 1102
`
`¶ 126). Petitioner contends that one “would have been motivated to use the
`
`Feasibility Study’s carrier-aggregated input RF signal with the Jeon/Xiong
`
`front-end architecture because of the benefits of carrier aggregation
`
`identified in the Feasibility Study” and that “[f]or example, the Feasibility
`
`Study teaches that carrier aggregation provides wider transmission
`
`bandwidths and spectrum aggregation and is supported by the LTE-
`
`Advanced standard.” Pet. 74 (citing Feasibility Study 8; Fay Decl. ¶¶ 128,
`
`130).
`
`On the record before us, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
`
`sufficiently shown that the Feasibility Study teaches an “input RF signal
`
`employing carrier aggregation” and that Petitioner’s motivation to combine
`
`is sufficient to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
`
`For the remaining limitations of claim 1, as well as the limitations of
`
`claims 9, 10, 17, and 18, Petitioner relies on its arguments with respect to the
`
`combination of Jeon and Xiong. See Pet. 75. Because, as discussed above,
`
`we are persuaded by those arguments, we determine that Petitioner has
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertions that
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00048
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`claims 1, 17, and 18 would have been obvious over Jeon, Xiong, and the
`
`Feasibility Study, and that claims 9 and 10 would have been obvious in view
`
`of Jeon, Xiong, Youssef, and the Feasibility Study.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in
`
`showing the unpatentability of claims 1, 9, 10, 17, and 18 of the ’356 patent.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`
`review is hereby instituted as to all challenged claims 1, 9, 10, 17, and 18 of
`
`the ’356 patent, on all the grounds of unpatentability presented in the
`
`Petition:
`
`References
`
`Jeon and Xiong
`
`Jeon, Xiong, and Youssef
`
`Basis
`
`Claims
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 17, 18
`
`§ 103
`
`9 and 10
`
`Jeon, Xiong, and the Feasibility Study
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 17, 18
`
`Jeon, Xiong, Youssef, and the Feasibility Study
`
`§ 103
`
`9 and 10
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial, which
`
`commences on the entry date of this Decision.
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00048
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`David Cavanaugh
`John Hobgood
`Benjamin Fernandez
`david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`john.hobgood@wilmerhale.com
`ben.fernandez@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`David B. Cochran
`Matthew W. Johnson
`Joseph M. Sauer
`Joshua R. Nightingale
`David M. Maiorana
`dcochran@jonesday.com
`mwjohnson@jonesday.com
`jmsauer@jonesday.com
`jrnightingale@jonesday.com
`dmaiorana@jonesday.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
