`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper # 34
`Entered:
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR 2019-00128
`IPR 2019-00129
`Patent 9, 154, 356 B2
`____________
`
`Record Of Oral Hearing
`Held: February 27, 2020
`____________
`
`Before MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, AMANDA F. WIEKER,
`AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00128 and 00129
`Patents 9,154,356 B2
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`GREGORY H. LANTIER
`Wilmer Cutler Picker Hale and Dorr
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`Gregory.Lantier@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`DAVID B. COCHRAN, ESQUIRE
`Jones Day
`901 Lakeside Avenue
`Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1190
`
`
`
`THOMAS W. RITCHIE, ESQUIRE
`Jones Day
`77 West Wacker
`Chicago, IL 60601-1692
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
` February 27, 2020, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia, before Donna
`Jenkins, Notary Public.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00128 and 00129
`Patents 9,154,356 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`JUDGE WORMMEESTER: Please be seated. Good afternoon,
`everyone. We have our final hearing in Cases IPR 2019-00128 and IPR
`2019-00129, Intel Corporation v. Qualcomm, Incorporated, which concerns
`US Patent No. 9,154,356. I’m Judge Wormmeester. With me is Judge
`Moore, and Judge Wieker is appearing remotely. Let’s get the parties’
`appearances, please. Who do we have for Petitioner?
`MR. LANTIER: Good afternoon, Your Honors. My name is Greg
`Lantier and I represent Intel Corporation along with my partner, Ben
`Fernandez. Participating remotely from the San Jose office is Brad Law,
`associate general counsel at Intel. Not participating, I should say listening,
`not participating.
`JUDGE WORMMEESTER: Okay. Thank you. And who will be
`presenting the argument?
`MR. LANTIER: Your Honor, I would like to present the argument
`today.
`JUDGE WORMMEESTER: Okay. Thank you. And for Patent
`Owner, who do we have?
`MR. COCHRAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Steve Cochran on
`behalf of the Patent Owner, Qualcomm. With me today is my colleague,
`Tom Ritchie, and also with us here in the courtroom is Steve Wurth, who is
`a representative of Qualcomm.
`JUDGE WORMMEESTER: Welcome. And who will be presenting?
`MR. LANTIER: I will, Your Honor.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2019-00128 and 00129
`Patents 9,154,356 B2
`
`
`JUDGE WORMMEESTER: Thank you. We set forth the procedure
`for today’s hearing in our trial order, but just to remind everyone the way
`this will work, each party will have 60 minutes to present arguments.
`Petitioner has the burden and will go first and may reserve time for rebuttal.
`Patent Owner will then have the opportunity to present its response and may
`reserve time for surrebuttal. Please remember that the demonstratives you
`submitted are not part of the record. The record of the hearing will be the
`transcript. Also, when referring to any demonstrative, please state the slide
`number so that Judge Wieker can follow along, and also so that the record is
`clear.
`Are there any questions before we proceed?
`MR. LANTIER: No, Your Honor.
`JUDGE WORMMEESTER: And counsel, will you be reserving time
`today?
`MR. LANTIER: I’d like to reserve 15 minutes for rebuttal.
`JUDGE WORMMEESTER: 15 minutes. Okay. I’ll set the clock.
`And you’ll have a five-minute warning when the light turns yellow. Is that
`okay?
`MR. LANTIER: Yes.
`JUDGE WORMMEESTER: Okay. Great. You may begin when
`you’re ready.
`MR. LANTIER: Thank you, and good afternoon again, Your Honors.
`My name is Greg Lantier and I am here on behalf of Petitioner, Intel
`Corporation. We are here today for the first two of five instituted IPR trials
`concerning the 356 Patent, which is assigned to the Patent Owner,
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2019-00128 and 00129
`Patents 9,154,356 B2
`
`Qualcomm, Incorporated. I’ll be referring to these two proceedings as the
`128 and 129 IPRs as we proceed today.
`On Slide 2 of the demonstratives, I’ve set forth a brief agenda that
`follows the format that most hearings follow. I’ll start with a very brief
`introduction into the technology background of the 356 Patent, some of the
`prior art, and then quickly move into the disputed issues so that we can
`discuss those.
`Moving on to Slide 4, I’ve set forth the grounds that are at issue in the
`trials today. The 128 IPR consists of three grounds. Ground 1 is an
`anticipation ground by Lee -- the Lee reference and that would take care of
`all the challenged claims with respect to that petition, should the Board agree
`with Intel’s positions on that anticipation ground. We have alternative
`grounds of obviousness in Grounds 2 and 3. There is, likewise, an
`anticipation ground for Lee with respect to Claims 2 through 6 in the second
`IPR proceeding, and for Claim 10, we are relying on an obviousness
`combination. I’m going to get -- in Grounds 3 and 4 we have we have these
`alternate grounds.
`Slide 5 summarizes the disputes that are between the parties today,
`and as Your Honors are no doubt aware, the primary dispute is one of claim
`construction. And particularly what is the proper broadest reasonable
`interpretation of the term “carrier aggregation” as that term is used in the
`356 Patent. And while it’s not binding on Your Honors, there has been a
`prior decision on that particular issue, and that was from the United States
`International Trade Commission in the ITC proceeding between Qualcomm,
`the Patent Owner, and Apple, Inc. -- Incorporated. I will not --
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00128 and 00129
`Patents 9,154,356 B2
`
`
`JUDGE MOORE: You’re referring to the claim construction decision
`in that case?
`MR. LANTIER: -- I am, Your Honor, yes. And also the final written
`decision -- I’m sorry, the initial determination of Administrative Law Judge
`McNamara, which found that the independent claims of the 356 Patent,
`Claims 1 and 17 were anticipated by the Lee reference.
`JUDGE MOORE: Was the -- was the ID filed as an exhibit in this
`
`case?
`
`MR. LANTIER: The ID in its entirety was not filed as an an exhibit,
`Your Honor, and that was due to confidentiality restrictions. We did file a
`notice with the Board when the ID issued, which was after when we had
`filed our petition, and I believe -- and I’ll double-check my exhibit list here -
`- that it was attached -- that a portion of the ID was attached as an Exhibit to
`that notice.
`JUDGE MOORE: And there was no final Commission decision?
`MR. LANTIER: That’s correct, Your Honor. And the reason that
`there was no final Commission decision is that a publicly announced
`settlement was reached between Apple and Qualcomm subsequent to the
`initial determination issuing, so Intel was not a party to the ITC proceeding,
`so it terminated at that point in time.
`JUDGE MOORE: Okay. And while you’re checking for the ID, you
`might also check a copy of the Claim Construction Decision that was filed
`because it appears to me, at least the one that’s in our record is missing
`pages from the discussion of carrier aggregation in the Appendix.
`MR. LANTIER: I don’t believe that’s true. I don’t think that’s -- and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2019-00128 and 00129
`Patents 9,154,356 B2
`
`certainly, that wasn’t the intention, Your Honor. I -- the Claim Construction
`Order itself was arranged in such a way that most of the discussion was in a
`-- just in a table form. There was not --
`JUDGE MOORE: I understand. The table appears, at least on the
`copy that I looked at in our records, to jump from page 21 to page 24.
`MR. LANTIER: Okay. I apologize for that, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MOORE: And I think there’s another page or two missing as
`
`well.
`
`MR. LANTIER: With your permission, we would correct that, Your
`Honor, but I understand if there was an error made, I apologize for the error.
`If there was, it was unintentional.
`I'll skip the discussion -- I won’t review with Your Honors in the
`interest of time the specifics of what ALJ McNamara said on the claim
`construction issue, although I’d be happy to discuss it further. Instead, I’ll
`briefly review the technology background here so that we can move along.
`On Slide 9, we've displayed Figure 1 of the 356 Patent, and this is an
`illustration of a wireless network. At the high level, the 356 Patent concerns
`transceivers that operate within a wireless network. And Item 110 is a
`representation of a transceiver. It’s shown as receiving signals from
`multiple different sources, including base stations and from a radio tower as
`well as satellite.
`Now, while this transceiver can, of course, both transmit and receive
`signals over the wireless system, the particular focus of the 356 Patent is on
`receiver hardware. And turning to Slide 10 of the demonstratives, in
`particular, the receiver hardware that is the focus of the 356 Patent has to do
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2019-00128 and 00129
`Patents 9,154,356 B2
`
`with what’s called the radio frequency front end or the RF front end for
`short. In a nutshell, it’s sort of the hardware that begins with -- begins after
`the antenna, which receives signals, and then processes the signal before it’s
`passed along to the base band phase where it will be -- it will then be utilized
`by the device.
`The antenna’s job is to capture whatever signals are coming over the
`airwaves and that are received on that antenna. That will include signals that
`the device wants to receive and signals that the device does not particularly
`care to receive and is not going to use. There is then some form of a coarse
`filter here. We’ve got a band pass filter that will eliminate some of the
`unwanted signals but not all. And after that, there will be an amplification
`of the remaining signals by low-noise amplifier. The low-noise amplifier is
`the focus of the claims in the 356 Patent, but after the low-noise amplifier,
`there is an additional stage that is referred to as the down conversion stage,
`where a mixer or a set of mixers will extract from the remaining signals that
`have been amplified the particular carrier that the device wants to have
`passed along to the base band processor.
`Now on Slide 10, we are showing a basic RF front end, and this RF
`front end will be capable of processing a single carrier. That’s because the
`RF front end has a single mixer that’s using a single local oscillator signal
`and, therefore, it can only extract one frequency range.
`If we turn to Slide 11, we get into the types of RF front ends that are
`able to process carrier-aggregated signals. That is, a received signal where
`there are multiple frequency ranges that we’d like to pass along to the digital
`data path. And Slide 11 is a reflection of Exhibit 1325, Figure 15. This is
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2019-00128 and 00129
`Patents 9,154,356 B2
`
`the Kaukovuori reference that the examiner considered. And as we can see
`in Figure 15, there are essentially two parallel received paths, each a
`separate amplifier stage, that will receive signals from the antenna and after
`the coarse filtering has been applied will amplify them.
`We can see in Slide 11 that there are two different local oscillator
`signals, Local Oscillator Signal 1 and Local Oscillator Signal 2. And
`therefore, this device is able to extract two different carriers or two different
`frequency ranges to be passed along down the line.
`Now, I want to come back to this piece of prior art because it was the
`last piece of prior art that the examiner based their objection on prior to
`allowing the claims. And the one thing I would note about this piece of prior
`art, Kaukovuori, Exhibit 1325 from the 128 proceeding, is that there is no
`mechanism in Kaukovuori for turning on or turning off an individual
`amplifier. Instead in Kaukovuori, either they are both on or they’re both off,
`regardless of whether you’re trying to receive one carrier or you’re trying to
`receive and process multiple carriers.
`JUDGE MOORE: Is that the argument that overcame that reference?
`MR. LANTIER: It is, Your Honor. There was an amendment made
`to the claims that I will get to in just a moment that overcame the reference
`and was the reason that the examiner allowed the claim.
`JUDGE MOORE: Did the claims include the carrier- aggregation
`language at that point?
`MR. LANTIER: They did at this point, and the examiner expressly
`found carrier aggregation was taught by Kaukovuori. That was not
`challenged by the Patent Owner at the time.
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2019-00128 and 00129
`Patents 9,154,356 B2
`
`
`So if we then jump just a few slides ahead in the interest of time, I
`wanted to discuss the 356 Patent very briefly. It’s titled, “Low-Noise
`Amplifiers For Carrier Aggregation,” and we’ve talked a little bit about what
`the low-noise amplifiers look like.
`On Slide 16, I’ve portrayed Column 1, lines 32 to 40 of the 356
`Patent, which I think is a very important passage that I think will be the
`focus of both parties’ discussions today. This is in the background section
`of the patent, and what the Patent Owner wrote was, “A wireless device may
`support carrier aggregation, which is simultaneous operation on multiple
`carriers” and then went on to say, “A carrier may refer to a range of
`frequencies used for communication and may be associated with certain
`characteristics.” So it’s defining a carrier as a range of frequencies and
`saying it can be a range of frequencies as a carrier.
`And then a couple sentences later, it says, “A carrier may also be
`referred to as a component carrier, a ‘frequency channel,’ a cell, et cetera.”
`And so the written description of the patent itself is making it clear we’re not
`limiting our use of “carrier” here to a particular type of carrier such as a
`component carrier. It would also refer to any frequency channel, a cell, et
`cetera. And I think that that is thematic of the 356 Patent overall. At every
`turn in the patent, we see the Patent Owner broadening out and making it
`clear that it’s not a constrictive usage of the term “carrier aggregation” that’s
`being used, and we’re not restricting the application of this invention solely
`to LTE.
`And a good example of that is on Slide 18, which illustrates the
`language set forth in Column 2, lines 40 to 45 of the 356 Patent, where the
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00128 and 00129
`Patents 9,154,356 B2
`
`Patent Owner made clear that it was not limiting wireless devices to cellular
`technologies, but also wanted it to be broad enough to encompass other
`technologies, such as Bluetooth and laptops and other things that are not
`ordinarily connected using cellular communications protocols to the wireless
`network.
`JUDGE WORMMEESTER: What’s the difference between
`component carrier and frequency channel and cell?
`MR. LANTIER: So I think what you will hear, Your Honor is that
`you’ll hear Qualcomm argue that the term “component carrier” refers to the
`situation where you have two carriers that are transmitted from a single
`source, where a single piece of information has been divided and spread
`across the two components. So those two components are both required to
`receive on the other end the transmission, and then those two components
`can be reassembled on the other side.
`A frequency channel just refers to a range of frequencies, a channel
`that is open over a wireless network that has a range of frequencies. And I
`would say a cell, Your Honor, there is -- the testimony in the record is that
`Patent Owner’s expert did not consider this -- this portion of the
`specification when offering his opinions on the meaning of “carrier
`aggregation,” but -- so I don’t have expert testimony from him on what a
`“cell” means, but to me, it means a cell is in the sort of cellular
`communications areas. So you might refer to a frequency -- a carrier as a
`cell and then maybe there would be another communication, for example,
`that’s occurring over a different thing, such as a Bluetooth transmission.
`But it is clear that they’re not limiting the meaning of “carrier” to just
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2019-00128 and 00129
`Patents 9,154,356 B2
`
`a component carrier. And in some of the evidence you’ll see that’s been
`offered by the Patent Owner, you’ll see that when carrier aggregation is
`discussed it is limited in those cases to component carriers. That’s unlike
`what the 356 Patent says in Column 1.
`Another portion -- I don’t have it on the slide, but I think is relevant to
`come back to it is Column 2, lines 46 to 53, and that’s where -- and and we
`cite in our papers, the 356 Patent says we’re not just talking about wireless
`devices that use LTE or receive signals using the LTE communications
`standard. Instead, it makes clear that LTE is just one of numerous examples
`of communications protocols to which the patent applies, and other
`examples that were included are various CDMA protocols, the GSM
`protocols and the Wi-Fi protocol 802.11.
`JUDGE MOORE: Does it say anywhere that you would use two of
`those at the same time?
`MR. LANTIER: It does say in places, Your Honor, that it could be
`one or more of those protocols. So in that sense, it does. It does not say -- I
`don’t want to -- I want to be exact about this. It does not say, for example,
`you, as a preferred embodiment or as an embodiment, here's an example
`where we’re using Bluetooth and Wi-Fi. The patent just doesn’t go to that
`level of detail. It doesn’t say, “Here’s an example specifically in the context
`of a figure where we are using LTE” either. It just doesn’t say.
`So if we skip ahead, I did want to address first, and I’ll jump back to
`the claim, Figure 6A of the 356 Patent. And this is now returning to the
`issue of how did this -- how did these claims come to be allowed by the
`examiner. Figure 6A is displayed on Slide 22, and the important thing about
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00128 and 00129
`Patents 9,154,356 B2
`
`Figure 6A is it’s depicted differently, but in structure, it’s very similar to
`Kaukovuori in the sense that it’s two different amplifier stages, 650A and
`650B, both commonly connected to an antenna processing these signals.
`But the distinction between Figure 6A and Kaukuvuori is what we’ve
`highlighted in the yellow boxes here in Figure 6A on Slide 22, and that --
`those are the portions labeled 658A and 658B. Those are switches that
`allow the individual amplifier stages in Figure 6A to be turned on or turned
`off.
`
`And what happened during prosecution is that the examiner twice
`rejected the claims as they existed over Kaukovuori as anticipated. And it
`was only after amendment to add the language “configured to be enabled or
`disabled” -- sorry, “configured to be independently enabled or disabled”
`with respect to each of the amplifier stages that the examiner allowed the
`claims after an examiner interview.
`JUDGE MOORE: And what is the reason for that feature in the 356
`Patent?
`MR. LANTIER: So there’s not a crisp statement of why that
`particular feature has been official. If we look at the stated solution and
`benefits, it is not clear. It says they may be -- they may have higher
`performance. From expert testimony, it would save power, so that if you’re
`not using -- if you don’t need both because you’re only going to be receiving
`the one carrier that you care about, you could turn the other amplifier off and
`you’re not running power and burning power unnecessarily because you
`don’t need that second amplifier stage at that particular point in time.
`JUDGE MOORE: So you don’t need a stream in two channels. So
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2019-00128 and 00129
`Patents 9,154,356 B2
`
`you don’t need -- you’re not streaming video or something, so you can --
`you can mix it up with lower bandwidth. You would just use the one
`channel?
`MR. LANTIER: Exactly. That’s exactly right, Your Honor. And in
`any communications setting, it’s very common that the majority of the
`communications really don’t require two different channels, but sometimes
`you need it, and therefore you have the ability to do it when -- when you use
`this invention or this alleged invention.
`Jumping back for just a moment to Slide 19 -- I apologize for the jog
`back and forth -- we have Claim 1 set forth on that slide, and we can see that
`the key language that resulted in issuance of the claim says, “A first
`amplifier stage configured to be independently enabled or disabled” -- “the
`first amplifier stage further configured to receive and amplify an RF signal”
`is then described as “employing carrier aggregation.”
`The employing carrier aggregation had been in the patent
`specification -- had been in the claims for multiple iterations with back and
`forth between Patent Examiner and the Applicant. What ultimately led to
`issuance is this switching on and off independently.
`Claim 17, which we now have on Slide 20, is a method claim. For
`purposes of these IPR proceedings, there is no meaningful distinction
`between Claims 1 and Claim 17. Neither party has argued that there is a
`difference in the application or the outcome with respect to those two claims.
`With that, let me provide a very brief overview of the primary piece of
`prior art we’ll be talking about today, which is the Lee reference. I’ll start
`on Slide 22 with Figure 6A of the 356 Patent again, and just a reminder that
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2019-00128 and 00129
`Patents 9,154,356 B2
`
`what’s happening here is we have these two amplifier stages. They can be
`independently turned on and turned off.
`Slide 23 depicts Figure 2 of Lee, which is Exhibit 1335, and it’s
`undisputed that all of the hardware that is described in the claims of the 356
`Patent is contained within Figure 2 of the Lee reference. The only dispute --
`and the language that’s used in Lee, because I’m sure we’ll use it today, is
`“shared mode” when the Lee device is only using one of the amplifiers and
`has turned the other one off, and “combo mode” when it’s using both
`amplifiers at the same time.
`The only dispute between the parties is whether the signal that is
`received by the Lee hardware is a carrier-aggregated signal or is not. And
`the basic dispute is the preferred embodiment in Lee is a Wi-Fi signal and a
`Bluetooth signal at the same time, and Qualcomm -- Patent Owner
`Qualcomm contends that that falls outside of the proper scope of the
`meaning of “carrier aggregation” as it’s used in the 356 Patent.
`JUDGE MOORE: What is the reason for the ability to switch in Lee?
`MR. LANTIER: It’s the same reason, Your Honor. It’s a more
`efficient system. So if you were -- if you need both amplifiers at one time,
`because you’re receiving -- for, as an example, Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, you use
`both. If you’re only receiving a Bluetooth signal, you can turn the other off
`and you would save power, so efficient device.
`JUDGE MOORE: Well, that’s a little different, right? Because in
`Lee, you switch if you don’t need that type of signal, right? So you’ve
`maybe -- I mean, the point of Lee, I think, is that they’re trying to save some
`hardware by sharing the LNA, right? And so they said, well we’re going to
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`IPR 2019-00128 and 00129
`Patents 9,154,356 B2
`
`use the one LNA where you can receive, I guess, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth
`through that LNA, and if we don’t need one or the other, we can turn it off.
`So they’re turning it off, it seems to me, because they don’t need that type of
`signal, not because they don’t need that additional data.
`MR. LANTIER: I would take issue with that, Your Honor, in the
`following sense. It’s true that the equipment sharing is an -- it is a reason for
`what Lee has done, but really what’s shared is the antenna and the coarse
`filter, right. In Lee, you still need two separate amplifier stages, each with
`its own LNA just like in the 356 Patent. And I think based on the record
`before Your Honors, receiving two different carriers that happen to both be
`associated with, let’s say LTE, as opposed to receiving two different carriers
`that happen to be associated with Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, from the receiver
`standpoint, is no different, right. The signal comes in off the airwaves, it’s
`collected by the antenna, whatever signals are there are collected, and they
`are then passed through coarse filtering and some other components before
`they reach these LNA stages. And so just like in the 356 Patent in Lee, the
`idea is let’s not keep them both on if we’re not using both of them, we can
`turn one off.
`So because there is no -- there are no disputes about the particulars of
`what’s disclosed in Lee versus what’s disclosed in the 356 Patent with
`respect to the hardware, I’d be happy to answer any questions on it, but I
`would jump right to the key dispute if that would be amenable to Your
`Honors.
`JUDGE WORMMEESTER: That’s fine.
`MR. LANTIER: So I’ll turn then to Slide 27, and the key dissent in
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2019-00128 and 00129
`Patents 9,154,356 B2
`
`25 -- 29 will make it easier. On Slide 29, we’ve set forth a listing of the
`disputed issues. This carries over onto Slide 30 for the alternative
`arguments. We’ll go through each one at least briefly this afternoon, but the
`primary dispute is this issue of what is the proper, broadest reasonable
`interpretation of carrier aggregation.
`And on that point, turning to Slide 32, the parties have competing
`proposed constructions. Intel --
`JUDGE MOORE: Is that a term of art?
`MR. LANTIER: Carrier aggregation? I think, as used in the 356
`Patent, it’s not being used as a term of art. I think there are contexts in
`which carrier aggregation is used as a term of art, and you’ve seen some of
`those, and when they’re -- when they’re limiting it to, for example, a
`document that’s limited to LTE, at this point in time, you might be able to
`say, well, with respect to LTE, carrier aggregation is a term of art.
`At the time of the application for the 356 Patent, which was early on
`and before LTE was known generally in the art -- well, before it was widely
`adopted, it was when they were still developing some of the releases, there is
`no evidence in the record, I don’t think, that shows that it was a term of art
`with a very specific meaning at that point in time.
`JUDGE MOORE: So it was coined then, in some sense at least, for
`this patent?
`MR. LANTIER: No, that’s not what I meant to say, Your Honor.
`What I was saying is, carrier aggregation was not a term that was invented or
`first used with respect to LTE. Carrier aggregation just meant aggregating
`carriers. I think since that point in time, it has been associated with LTE,
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2019-00128 and 00129
`Patents 9,154,356 B2
`
`and so depending on what Your Honor means by a term of art and what
`point in time you were referring to, it may be different now than it was then.
`But certainly in the context of the 356 Patent and at the time of the 356
`Patent, I would say it was not a term of art in this field.
`JUDGE MOORE: Is there any -- is there any evidence of record, any
`prior art that shows the term “carrier aggregation” used to refer to a
`combination of different types of signals?
`MR. LANTIER: We do not have any example of that in the record of
`the use of that specific term to refer to a combination of signals from
`different -- using different protocols. It was, of course, known you could do
`that because Lee discloses that you could do that, but they did not use the
`term “carrier aggregation” in that context.
`JUDGE MOORE: Is there anything that shows that term being used
`outside of the LTE context?
`MR. LANTIER: There’s nothing in the record using that specific
`phrase outside the LTE context other than the 356 Patent itself, which makes
`very clear that it’s not limiting itself to the LTE context.
`And turning to Slide 35, let me start with Intel’s proposed
`construction of carrier aggregation, which is simultaneous operation on
`multiple carriers. That appears in the 356 Patent at Column 1, lines 32 to 33.
`There are very similar descriptions of what carrier aggregation is at Column
`2, lines 53 to 55, and elsewhere in the 356 Patent as it’s set forth in our
`papers.
`JUDGE WORMMEESTER: In the prosecution history, though, that
`reference, is it Hirose?
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2019-00128 and 00129
`Patents 9,154,356 B2
`
`
`MR. LANTIER: Yes, Your Honor, I call it Hirose, but I’m not sure
`that’s correct.
`JUDGE WORMMEESTER: Okay. Would your proposed
`construction cover what was distinguished there by the Applicant?
`MR. LANTIER: I think that’s -- I think, Your Honor, that that is a
`potentially close call. I will acknowledge that. The answer I would say is
`no, it would not, and the reason I say it would not is what the Patent
`Applicant said about Hirose is Hirose is transmitting redundant signals. It’s
`the same exact information that’s being transmitted across different
`channels. And they said that’s not carrier aggregation because carrier
`aggregation isn’t redundant information.
`I think that in our proposed construction, simultaneous operation on
`multiple carriers means that you are not just really receiving one carrier’s
`worth of information. It’s nonredundant information. But to Your Honor’s
`point, because you’re going to have to make the claim construction decision,
`I think if it were the case that you said, you know, simultaneous operation on
`multiple carriers is a little bit too broad because it doesn’t account for the
`distinguishing over Hirose, then the construction you would reach -- and we
`have this -- this is in our reply brief, would be something that says it’s not to
`be non-redundant data on the carriers because that was the basis on which
`the Patent Owner distinguished Hirose, and if that were the conclusion that
`Your Honors reached, it wouldn’t change the outcome because it’s
`undisputed that the -- sorry, we just lost our slide, let’s go back. It’s
`undisputed that in the Lee reference, the data would not typically be
`redundant, and that’s in Exhibit 1302, paragraph 83 and elsewhere in the
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR 2019-00128 and 00129
`Patents 9,154,356 B2
`
`record.
`JUDGE MOORE: Does the data in the two streams at least have to be
`for the same purpose, for the same use?
`MR. LANTIER: No, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MOORE: Or is it completely -- completely unrelated?
`MR. LANTIER: It can be completely unrelated data, Your Honor.
`That says it’s “simultaneous operation on multiple carriers.” There's nothing
`-- and I can jump to the correct slide to talk about Hirose if that would be
`helpful, but what the Patent Applicant said when it distinguished Hirose
`didn’t say
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
