IPR2019-00049
`U.S. Patent 9,154,356
`
`
`
`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 IPR2019-00049
`U.S. Patent No. 9,154,356
`____________________________________________________
`PETITIONER’S NOTICE OF APPEAL
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 141-144 and 319, and 37 C.F.R. § 90.2-90.3,
`
`IPR2019-00049
`U.S. Patent 9,154,356
`
`notice is hereby given that Petitioner Intel Corporation appeals to the U.S. Court of
`
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the Final Written Decision entered July 8,
`
`2020 (Paper 34) in IPR2019-00049, attached as Exhibit A, and all prior and
`
`interlocutory rulings related thereto or subsumed therein.
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 90.2(a)(3)(ii), Petitioner indicates that the
`
`issues for appeal include the holding that claims 2-8 and 11 of U.S. Patent
`
`9,154,356 are not unpatentable, as well as any finding or determination supporting
`
`or related to these issues, including the findings as to reasons for combining prior
`
`art references. Additionally, Petitioner identifies claim construction as an issue for
`
`appeal, including the construction of “carrier aggregation.”
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 90.3, this Notice of Appeal is timely, having been
`
`duly filed within 63 days after the date of the Final Written Decision.
`
`A copy of this Notice of Appeal is being filed simultaneously with the Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board, the Clerk’s Office for the United States Court of Appeals
`
`for the Federal Circuit, and the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
`
`
`
`Dated: September 4, 2020
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Benjamin S. Fernandez/
`Benjamin S. Fernandez, Reg. No. 55,172
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`U.S. Patent 9,154,356
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 90.2(a)(1) and 104.2(a), I hereby certify that, in
`
`
`
`
`
`addition to being filed electronically through the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s
`
`End to End (PTAB E2E) system, a true and correct original version of the
`
`foregoing PETITIONER’S NOTICE OF APPEAL is being filed by Priority Mail
`
`Express on this 4th day of September, 2020, with the Director of the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office, at the following address:
`
`Office of the General Counsel
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 90.2(a)(2) and Federal Circuit Rule 15(a)(1), and
`
`
`
`Rule 52(a),(e), I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S NOTICE OF APPEAL is being filed in the United States Court of
`
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit using the Court’s CM/ECF filing system on this 4th
`
`day of September, 2020, and the filing fee is being paid electronically using
`
`pay.gov.
`
`I hereby certify that on September 4, 2020, I caused a true and correct copy
`
`of the PETITIONER’S NOTICE OF APPEAL to be served via electronic mail, as
`
`previously agreed by the parties, on the following counsel for Patent Owner:
`
`David B. Cochran (dcochran@jonesday.com)
`
`Matthew W. Johnson (mwjohnson@jonesday.com)
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00049
`U.S. Patent 9,154,356
`
`Joseph M. Sauer (jmsauer@jonesday.com)
`
`Joshua R. Nightingale (jrnightingale@jonesday.com)
`
`David M. Maiorana (dmaiorana@jonesday.com)
`
`Thomas W. Ritchie (twritchie@jonesday.com)
`
`William E. Devitt (wdevitt@jonesday.com)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Benjamin S. Fernandez/
`Benjamin S. Fernandez
`Registration No. 55,172
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 34
`Date: July 8, 2020
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-00049
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, SCOTT B. HOWARD,
`and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`No Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`

`

`I.
`
`II.
`
`IPR2019-00049
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1
`A.
`Background ................................................................................ 1
`B.
`Related Matters .......................................................................... 1
`C.
`The ’356 Patent .......................................................................... 2
`D.
`The Claimed Subject Matter ...................................................... 6
`E.
`Evidence Relied Upon ................................................................ 7
`1.
`Jeon .................................................................................. 7
`2.
`Xiong ................................................................................ 8
`3.
`The Feasibility Study ....................................................... 9
`Grounds of Unpatentability ...................................................... 10
`F.
`ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 10
`A.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................ 10
`B.
`Construction of “Carrier Aggregation” .................................... 11
`1.
`The Claim Language ...................................................... 12
`2.
`The Written Description ................................................ 13
`3.
`The File History ............................................................. 15
`a. Hirose ................................................................... 16
`b. Kaukovuori .......................................................... 17
`c. Other References of Record ................................ 18
`Extrinsic Evidence ......................................................... 20
`4.
`The ITC Investigation .................................................... 22
`5.
`Conclusion ..................................................................... 23
`6.
`Patentability of Claims 2–8 and 11 .......................................... 23
`1.
`Obviousness in View of Jeon and Xiong (Ground 1) .... 24
`2.
`Obviousness in View of Jeon, Xiong,
`and The Feasibility Study (Ground 2) ........................... 24
`III. CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 27
`IV. ORDER ............................................................................................... 28
`
`C.
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
`Background
`Intel Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for inter partes review
`of claims 2–8 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 9,154,356 B2 (Ex. 1201, “the ’356
`patent”). Paper 3 (“Pet.”). Qualcomm Incorporated (“Patent Owner”) filed
`a Preliminary Response. Paper 7.
`
`On July 10, 2019, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 2–8
`and 11. Paper 8 (“Inst. Dec.”), 19. Patent Owner then filed a Patent Owner
`Response (Paper 12, “PO Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 18, “Pet.
`Reply”), and Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 22, “PO Sur-Reply”).
`An oral hearing was held on April 7, 2019, and a transcript of the hearing is
`included in the record. Paper 29 (“Tr.”).
`
`The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not
`shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2–8 and 11 of the
`’356 patent were unpatentable.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters
`Petitioner filed two petitions, IPR2019-00128 and IPR2019-00129,
`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. On
`May 27, 2020 we issued Final Written Decisions in those cases, determining
`that Petitioner had not shown that any claims were unpatentable.
`Petitioner filed another petition, IPR2019-00047, seeking inter partes
`review of claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, 17, and 18 of the ’356 patent based on prior
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`art different than that presented in this petition and the ’128 and ’129
`petitions, and concurrently filed another petition, IPR2019-00048, seeking
`inter partes review of claims 1, 9, 10, 17, and 18 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 on October 7, 2019, Petitioner advised the
`Board that the District Court litigation has been dismissed and that the ITC
`investigation has been terminated. See Paper 13.
`
`C.
`
`The ’356 Patent
`The ’356 Patent is directed to “[l]ow noise amplifiers . . . supporting
`carrier aggregation.” Ex. 1201, code (57). 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.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`
`Figure 6A, reproduced below, details an example of a low noise
`amplifier according to the ’356 patent. Id. at 1:54–55.
`
`
`
`Figure 6A shows “an LNA with inductive degeneration
`and cascode shutoff.” Ex. 1201, 1:54–55.
`As shown above, amplifier stage 650a includes source degeneration
`inductor 652a, gain transistor 654a, cascode transistor 656a, and switch
`658a. Ex. 1201, 7:58–8:4. Similarly, amplifier stage 650b includes source
`degeneration inductor 652b, gain transistor 654b, cascode transistor 656b,
`and switch 658b. Id. at 8:4–9. Both amplifier stages 650a and 650b are
`coupled to common input matching circuit 632 and to respective load
`circuits 690a and 690b. 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. Ex. 1201, 7:49–52. Input RF
`signal RFin may include transmissions on one set of carriers or
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`transmissions on two sets of carriers in the same band, with each set
`including one or more carriers. 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. 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. Ex. 1201, 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.
`Id. at 8:46–47. To illustrate, Figure 6C is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 6C shows “an LNA with inductive degeneration
`and cascode shutoff.” Ex. 1201, 1:54–55.
`As shown, 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
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`circuit ground via switch 658b. Ex. 1201, 8:47–52. Amplifier stage 650a
`amplifies the input RF signal and provides an output RF signal to load
`circuit 690a. 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. Ex. 1201, 8:32–35. Both
`amplifier stages are enabled. Id. at 8:37–38. To illustrate, Figure 6B is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 6C shows “an LNA with inductive degeneration
`and cascode shutoff.” Ex. 1201, 1:54–55.
`As shown, 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. Ex. 1201, 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
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`signals to two separate downconverters in load circuits 690a and 690b. 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. Id. at 8:41–42.
`Similarly, amplifier stage 650b amplifies the input RF signal and provides
`the second output RF signal to load circuit 690b. Id. at 8:42–44.
`
`D.
`
`The Claimed Subject Matter
`The challenged claims all depend from claim 1, which is reproduced
`below and exemplifies 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.
`Ex. 1201, 20:43–61.
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`E.
`
`Evidence Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies on the following references:
`
`Reference
`Jeon
`
`Xiong
`Feasibility
`Study
`
`Sanggeun 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, at 2660 (December
`2008)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2010/0237947 A1
`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 2010)
`
`Exhibit
`1205
`
`1206
`1204
`
`Petitioner also relies on Declarations of Patrick Fay, filed as Exhibits
`1202 and 1239. Patent Owner relies on a Declaration of Daniel Foty, filed
`as Exhibit 2024.
`
`Jeon
`1.
`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). Ex. 1205, 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”:
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 6 of Jeon is a “[s]chematic of [a] TCA with
`a single input and a dual output.” Ex. 1205, 2664.
`
`Xiong
`2.
`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.” Ex. 1206, code (57). 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. 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:
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`
`
`
`“FIG.3 illustrates an implementation of an LNA that
`adopts a dual architecture.” Ex. 1206 ¶ 9.
`
`The Feasibility Study
`3.
`The Feasibility Study is a 3GPP (Third Generation Partnership
`Project) technical report concerning evolution of E-UTRA (Evolved
`Universal Mobile Telecommunications System Terrestrial Radio Access),
`also known as LTE-Advanced. See Ex. 1204, 6–8. The Feasibility Study
`explains that LTE-Advanced adds “support for Carrier Aggregation, where
`two or more component carriers (CCs) are aggregated in order to support
`wider transmission bandwidths up to 100MHz and for spectrum
`aggregation.” Id.
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`F. Grounds of Unpatentability
`This trial was instituted on the following grounds:
`
`References
`Jeon, Xiong
`Jeon, Xiong, Feasibility Study
`
`Basis Claims
`§ 103
`2–8, 11
`§ 103
`2–8, 11
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`We discuss below the level of skill in the art, claim construction, and
`the patentability of the present claims.
`
`A.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`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 Ex. 1202 ¶ 58).
`Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s contention that a person
`of ordinary skill in the art ‘at the time of the alleged invention 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).’” PO Resp. 11 (quoting Pet. 34).
`We adopt Petitioner’s characterization of the level of ordinary skill in
`the art, which we find to be generally consistent with the disclosure of the
`’356 patent.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`B.
`
`Construction of “Carrier Aggregation”
`In inter partes reviews filed before November 13, 2018, such as this
`one, claims of an unexpired patent are interpreted according to their broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2018); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC
`v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142–46 (2016); 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340. Under that
`standard, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary
`meaning, as would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`The only term that either party has identified for construction, and the
`only term we see a need to construe,1 is “carrier aggregation,” which appears
`in independent claims 1 and 17.
`Petitioner argues that this term “should be construed as ‘simultaneous
`operation on multiple carriers.’” Pet. 30. Patent Owner argues that it should
`be construed to mean “simultaneous operation on multiple carriers that are
`combined as a single virtual channel to provide higher bandwidth.” PO
`Resp. 11. The parties thus both agree that the construction should include
`“simultaneous operation on multiple carriers,” meaning that the dispute boils
`down to whether the construction appropriately also includes “that are
`combined as a single virtual channel to provide higher bandwidth.”
`We consider the other language of the claims themselves, the written
`description, the prosecution history and other intrinsic evidence, extrinsic
`
`
`1 See O2 Micro Intern. Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d
`1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining that “claim construction is a matter
`of resolution of disputed meanings and technical scope”) (emphasis added).
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`evidence the parties have presented, and the ITC proceeding the parties have
`identified, in that order.
`
`The Claim Language
`1.
`Claim 1 recites that the “input RF signal employ[s] carrier aggregation
`comprising transmissions sent on multiple carriers at different frequencies to
`a wireless device.”
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s proposed construction is
`incorrect “because it reads out the word ‘aggregation.’” PO Resp. 30.
`According to Patent Owner, “[a]ggregate means ‘to collect together,
`assemble,’” and “it is the component carriers that are aggregated into a
`single virtual channel to provide higher bandwidth.” Id. Patent Owner adds
`that “[s]ubstituting Petitioner’s proposed construction would result in a
`claim that recited ‘the input RF signal employing simultaneous operation on
`multiple carriers comprising transmissions sent on multiple carriers.” Id.
`Petitioner argues that its proposed construction does not read out
`“aggregation” because “[w]hen there is ‘simultaneous operation on multiple
`carriers,’ those carriers will be aggregated in the input RF signal.” Reply 6;
`see also id. (“‘[C]arrier aggregation’ in the context of the challenged claims
`accounts for aggregation . . . because the multiple carriers would be present
`simultaneously in the input RF signal.”); Tr. 9:19–13:11.
`We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s analysis because the claim
`recites both “aggregation” and “transmissions sent on multiple carriers,”
`indicating that “aggregation” must mean something more than the presence
`of multiple carriers. We thus do not agree that “aggregation” simply means
`that multiple carriers are present in the input RF signal.
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`
`We conclude that the language of the claim itself is more supportive
`of Patent Owner’s proposed construction, which gives meaning to the term
`“aggregation” beyond the concept of multiple carriers, which is already in
`the claim.
`
`The Written Description
`2.
`Finding that the claim language favors Patent Owner’s proposed
`construction, we turn to the written description.
`Petitioner points to passages in the specification stating that “[a]
`wireless device may support carrier aggregation, which is simultaneous
`operation on multiple carriers,” “[w]ireless device 110 may support carrier
`aggregation, which is operation on multiple carriers,” and “[c]arrier
`aggregation may also be referred to as multi-carrier operation.” See Pet. 30
`(citing Ex. 1201, 1:32–35, 2:53–54, 2:54–55). According to Petitioner, these
`passages in the specification define the term. See id.
`Patent Owner counters by pointing to where the ’356 patent
`specification cites a technical report called “3GPP TS 36.101” in discussing
`carrier aggregation. See PO Resp.13 (citing Ex. 1201, 2:63–67). 3GPP TS
`36.101 defines carrier aggregation as “[a]ggregation of two or more
`component carriers in order to support wider transmission bandwidths.” Ex.
`2026, 14.
`According to Patent Owner, “while earlier LTE systems were limited
`to 20 MHz channels, LTE Release 11 . . . could be configured to aggregate
`up to five of these 20 MHz channels as component carriers of a single virtual
`channel having a bandwidth capacity of up to 100 MHz.” PO Resp. 13
`(citing Ex. 1201, 2:63–67). This is described in 3GPP TS 36.101 as follows:
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`
`In earlier LTE systems, a user device connects to the wireless
`network over a single 20 MHz carrier frequency. As the
`maximum-available data rate of the single-carrier wireless
`connection is the rate-limiting step for the end user, requests for
`a large amount of data (e.g., a video) can only be received at the
`data rate of that single carrier. To relieve this rate-limiting step,
`LTE-Advanced added the ability for network equipment to
`practice carrier aggregation. When an end user requests a large
`amount of data, the network will activate carrier aggregation to
`deliver that data more quickly. This is done by multiplexing
`the incoming data stream . . . so that the incoming data stream
`is separated into multiple streams that are transmitted over
`multiple component carriers at the same time. The user device
`receives and de-multiplexes (aggregates) the multiple streams
`to recreate the original incoming data stream. The result is that
`the incoming data stream is received more quickly because it
`was transmitted in a higher bandwidth virtual channel.
`Ex. 2026, 13–14 (internal citations omitted).
`Petitioner responds that “the LTE carrier aggregation expressly
`described at column 2, lines 63–67 is merely one example of carrier
`aggregation in the patent,” and that “the applicant signaled that the invention
`would cover devices other than those that implement LTE.” Reply 3 (citing
`Ex. 1201, 1:37–38, 2:40–53); Ex. 1239 ¶ 19.
`We again agree with Patent Owner. The column 2 description and
`3GPP TS 36.101 give a clear explanation of what carrier aggregation
`provides: separation of a single stream into multiple streams for concurrent
`transmission (a single virtual channel), followed by reassembly into the
`original stream. While it is true that the claims are not limited to LTE, they
`are limited to “carrier aggregation,” and the patent’s citation to 3GPP TS
`36.101 tells us what that means.
`We do not agree with Petitioner that the portions of the description to
`which Petitioner points define carrier aggregation, for several reasons. First,
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`the specification does not use the conventional techniques for indicating a
`definition; for example, it does not use the word “define,” state that the
`meaning applies to the “term” carrier aggregation, or place carrier
`aggregation in quotation marks. We thus conclude that, read in context,
`these passages simply describe some characteristics of carrier aggregation.
`Second, the passages differ, the first describing “simultaneous operation on
`multiple carriers,” the second simply requiring “operation on multiple
`carriers,” and the third not mentioning simultaneous operation or multiple
`carriers. See Ex. 1201, 1:32–35, 2:53–54, 2:54–55. Petitioner does not
`explain how these three different passages provide a single definition of
`carrier aggregation, or provide us with a basis for choosing one over the
`other. Third, given the wealth of evidence discussed below that carrier
`aggregation had a specific meaning in the art, we conclude that an
`application drafter seeking to broaden that known meaning would have
`needed to be quite clear that the usual meaning did not apply in the ’356
`patent. There is no such clarity.
`We conclude that the intrinsic evidence, specifically column 2, lines
`63–67 of the ’356 patent and the citation to 3GPP TS 36.101, favors Patent
`Owner’s construction. In particular, we determine that the specification
`provides strong support for the concept––if not the exact words––that the
`multiple carriers must be “combined as a single virtual channel to provide
`higher bandwidth.” The portions of the description cited by Petitioner
`generally describe, but do not define, carrier aggregation.
`
`The File History
`3.
`The prosecution history may “facilitate[] claim construction by
`revealing the intended meaning and scope of technical terms and may even
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`trump the weight of specification language in some circumstances.” TDM
`Am., LLC v. U.S., 85 Fed. Cl. 774, 788 (2009). For example, “an applicant’s
`amendment accompanied by explanatory remarks can define a claim term by
`demonstrating what the applicant meant by the amendment.” Personalized
`Media, 952 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
`The parties discuss the Examiner’s rejections based on U.S. patents to
`Hirose and Kaukovuori, and the contents of certain other references that
`were cited during prosecution. We address these in that order.
`
`Hirose
`a.
`The original claims of the ’356 patent recited an “input RF signal
`comprising transmissions sent on multiple carriers at different frequencies to
`a wireless device.” Ex. 1211, 30. The Examiner rejected the claims, relying
`for this limitation on Hirose, which discloses a “satellite radio broadcast
`receiver [that] receives three radio waves in total, two satellite waves and
`one ground wave, at the same time at its wide band RF amplifier,” where the
`“three waves contain[] the same contents.” See Ex. 1214, 3; Ex. 1224, 1:31–
`34, 5:1–4. To overcome the rejection, the applicant amended the claims to
`limit the input RF signal to one “employing carrier aggregation,” and argued
`that Hirose’s “receipt of diversity signals does not disclose ‘carrier
`aggregation.’” Ex. 1215, 8 (“Specifically, a disclosure in Hirose of receipt
`of the ‘same data’ over ‘three [different] waves’ does not anticipate
`Applicant’s invention of ‘the [] input RF signal employing carrier
`aggregation’ as claimed.” (emphases omitted)).
`Patent Owner argues that Hirose supports its construction because the
`applicant argued that the “claimed invention recites ‘carrier aggregation’
`which results in an increased aggregated data rate,” but that “Hirose
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00049
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`transmits the same signals over different paths which results in redundant
`data at a common data rate.” PO Resp. 16 (emphases omitted) (quoting Ex.
`1215, 7). According to Patent Owner, “[i]f the term ‘carrier aggregation’
`simply meant ‘simultaneous operation on multiple carriers,’ the amendment
`would have been ineffective in overcoming Hirose.” Id. at 28.
`Petitioner responds that “[i]f Hirose’s simultaneous signals contained
`non-redundant (i.e., different) data, [the applicant] 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.” Pet. Reply at 5. According to
`Petitioner, any “disclaimer was of systems that receive transmissions of
`redundant data over multiple channels.” Id. at 5 n.2.
`We agree with Patent Owner. Though there may not be a “clear and
`unmistakable disclaimer,” we conclude that the treatment of Hirose during
`prosecution supports Patent Owner’s construction because it confirms that
`merely receiving data on multiple channels simultaneously was not, at least
`in the eyes of the Examiner, “carrier aggregation.”
`
`Kaukovuori
`b.
`After the applicant overcame the Hirose rejection by amending the
`claims to recite “carrier aggregation,” the Examiner rejected claims 1 and 17
`as anticipated by Kaukovuori, which the Examiner expressly found to teach
`carrier aggregation. See Ex. 1216, 2–4 (finding that Kaukovuori “teaches a
`method of receiving data transmitted via a combination of at least a plurality
`of radio frequency signals using carrier aggregation”). Kaukovuori
`describes carrier aggr