UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`Intel Corporation
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Patent Owner
`______________________
`
`Case IPR2019-00128
`Patent 9,154,356
`______________________
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES
`REVIEW PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.220
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ............................ 3
`II.
`III. THE ’356 PATENT AND ITS PROSECUTION HISTORY ........................ 4
`A. Overview of the ’356 Patent ................................................................. 4
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’356 Patent ................................................ 7
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 10
`A.
`“carrier aggregation” .......................................................................... 11
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE CITED REFERENCES ........................................... 30
`A. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2012/0056681 (“Lee”) ..................................... 30
`B.
`3GPP TR 36.912 V9.1.0 (2009-12) (“the Feasibility Study”) ........... 31
`VI. GROUND 1: LEE DOES NOT ANTICIPATE CLAIMS 1, 7, 8, 11,
`17, OR 18 ...................................................................................................... 32
`A.
`Claim 1 ............................................................................................... 32
`B.
`Claim 7 ............................................................................................... 35
`VII. GROUND 2: LEE DOES NOT RENDER OBVIOUS CLAIMS 7 OR
`8 .................................................................................................................... 38
`VIII. GROUND 3: LEE AND THE FEASIBILITY STUDY DO NOT
`RENDER OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1, 7, 8, 11, 17, OR 18 ................................ 40
`A.
`Petitioner Fails To Establish That The Feasibility Study Is
`Analogous Art .................................................................................... 41
`Petitioner Fails To Sufficiently Articulate A Motivation To
`Combine ............................................................................................. 41
`C. A Person Of Ordinary Skill Would Not Have Been Motivated
`To Select And Combine Lee And The Feasibility Study................... 44
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 47
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s Decision to institute an inter partes review, (Paper 9)
`
`(“Institution Decision”), Patent Owner Qualcomm, Inc. (“Qualcomm” or “Patent
`
`Owner”) submits this Response in opposition to the Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,154,356 (“the ’356 Patent”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner’s grounds for unpatentability are based on an unreasonably broad
`
`construction of the term “carrier aggregation.” Under a proper construction of the
`
`term, the patentability of the challenged claims of the ’356 Patent should be
`
`confirmed.
`
`During prosecution, the applicant amended each of the independent claims of
`
`the ’356 patent limiting their scope to an input RF signal “employing carrier
`
`aggregation.” This narrowing amendment and the accompanying remarks
`
`distinguished the claimed invention over U.S. Patent 7,317,894 to Hirose. At the
`
`time, a person of ordinary skill would have understood that the term carrier
`
`aggregation, as recited in that amendment, meant “simultaneous operation on
`
`multiple carriers that are combined as a single virtual channel to provide higher
`
`bandwidth.” This understanding is supported by the specification, the file history,
`
`and extrinsic evidence.
`
`Lee, which is petitioner’s primary reference for each alleged ground of
`
`unpatentability in this proceeding, fails to disclose the “employing carrier
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`aggregation” limitation. Lee discloses an input signal comprised of a WiFi signal
`
`and a Bluetooth signal, two independent un-aggregated signals. Recognizing this
`
`deficiency in Lee’s disclosure, Petitioner proposes an unreasonably broad
`
`construction—“simultaneous operation on multiple carriers”—in order to argue that
`
`the ’356 Patent claims read on Lee’s input signal. Petitioner’s proposed construction
`
`is so broad, however, that it violates the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer by
`
`attempting to recapture the subject matter that was disclaimed in order to overcome
`
`Hirose.
`
`Furthermore, Petitioner’s proposed construction reads out
`
`the
`
`term
`
`“aggregation.” This failure to construe the term to indicate an “aggregation” of
`
`carriers improperly renders the term superfluous in the claims. Petitioner also fails
`
`to adequately explain how a person of ordinary skill understood that carriers are
`
`“aggregated” under its proposed construction. In fact, Petitioner’s own inventors
`
`described carrier aggregation as referring to an “aggregation of multiple smaller
`
`bandwidths to form a virtual wideband channel.” Under a proper construction of the
`
`term, Lee fails to disclose “carrier aggregation.”
`
`Petitioner also seeks to overcome this deficiency in Lee by combining it with
`
`the Feasibility Study. This is not a credible combination. A skilled artisan would
`
`not have been motivated to select and combine these distinctly different references.
`
`For example, Lee is directed to two “different kinds of radio connections” (WiFi and
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Bluetooth); the Feasibility Study is directed to the same type of radio connections
`
`(LTE). As another example, Lee discloses an amplification circuit wherease the
`
`Feasibility Study does not disclose any circuits. Moreover, a skilled artisan would
`
`have had no reason to turn to Lee, a reference which addressed unrelated wireless
`
`communication standards, or the Feasibility Study, a reference that failed to even
`
`disclose an amplifier circuit. Absent a credible showing of a motivation to select
`
`and combine these two references with a reasonable expectation of success,
`
`Petitioner’s ground is only impermissible hindsight reasoning.
`
`As explained in further detail below, the patentability of the challenged claims
`
`of the ’356 Patent should be confirmed.
`
`II. THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
`Pursuant to the Board’s Institution Decision (Paper 9), the alleged grounds of
`
`unpatentability for this trial are:
`
` Ground 1: Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. §102 of claims 1, 7, 8, 11, 17,
`
`and 18 by Lee1;
`
` Ground 2: Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 7 and 8 over Lee;
`
`and
`
`
`1 U.S. Publ’n No. 2012/0056681 A1 (published Mar. 8, 2012) (Ex. 1335).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
` Ground 3: Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 1, 7, 8, 11, 17,
`
`and 18 over Lee and the Feasibility Study2.
`
`III. THE ’356 PATENT AND ITS PROSECUTION HISTORY
`A. Overview of the ’356 Patent
`The ’356 Patent, titled “Low Noise Amplifiers for Carrier Aggregation,”
`
`generally relates to the design and operation of amplifiers in a wireless device
`
`receiving radio frequency (RF) signals employing carrier aggregation. Ex. 1301; Ex.
`
`2024 (Declaration of Dr. Daniel Foty) ¶ 50.
`
`Receiving signals that employ carrier aggregation, which is a communication
`
`technique that Qualcomm pioneered, allows a mobile device to increase the
`
`bandwidth available to a user for receiving the user’s desired content. With carrier
`
`aggregation, data is split up (multiplexed) and transmitted over multiple frequencies
`
`(component carriers) to create a higher bandwidth channel for the device. Ex. 2024
`
`¶ 51. Carrier aggregation therefore allows more data to be transmitted more quickly
`
`than traditional single-frequency methods. Id.
`
`A typical mobile device, however, is not always receiving RF signals
`
`employing carrier aggregation. For example, sometimes a mobile device can receive
`
`RF signals on a single carrier, and at other times it receives no RF signals at all. One
`
`
`2 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) TR 36.912 V9.1.0 (2009-12)
`(Ex. 1304).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`aspect of the invention of the ’356 Patent is a receiver design that offers the
`
`flexibility of activating circuitry to receive a signal employing carrier aggregation
`
`when needed and deactivating that circuitry when it is not needed. Ex. 2024 ¶ 53.
`
`By allowing flexibility of circuit components between carrier aggregation and non-
`
`carrier-aggregation modes, a mobile device can conserve power when less
`
`bandwidth is needed, and provide increased bandwidth to the user when desired. Ex.
`
`2024 ¶ 62.
`
`Aspects of the ’356 Patent may be found in the RF transceiver of a mobile
`
`device. The RF transceiver is a component that receives radio-frequency (RF)
`
`signals transmitted over the air (which can be at frequencies in the MHz to GHz
`
`ranges) and converts the RF signals to baseband signals that can be provided to
`
`digital circuitry for processing, for example, to recover user data. Ex. 2024 ¶ 48 n.7.
`
`The RF transceiver is connected to the antenna that receives the RF signals through
`
`circuitry, which prepares the received signals for conversion to baseband signals,
`
`such as by filtering the signals. Id.
`
`The ’356 Patent’s claims are directed to an RF receiver (for example, within
`
`an RF transceiver) with two amplifiers that separately amplify a common input RF
`
`signal, where each of the two amplifiers can be independently enabled or disabled.
`
`By independently controlling the amplifier stages, the amplifier stages can be
`
`enabled for carrier aggregation operation or disabled for single carrier (non-carrier-
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`aggregation) operation. Ex. 1301 at 20:43-61. For example, the two amplifiers can
`
`be enabled in carrier aggregation mode. Ex. 2024 ¶ 53. Alternatively, one of the
`
`amplifiers can be enabled and the other disabled in non-carrier-aggregation mode.
`
`Id. By allowing the flexibility to disable an amplifier stage when it is not needed for
`
`carrier aggregation, the invention of the ’356 Patent reduces power consumption in
`
`the RF transceiver and extends battery life for the mobile device. Id. ¶ 62.
`
`Claims 1 and 17 illustrate embodiments of the ’356 Patent’s inventions:
`
`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.
`
`17. A method comprising:
`amplifying a first input radio frequency (RF) signal with a
`first amplifier stage to obtain a first output RF signal when
`the first amplifier stage is enabled, the first amplifier stage
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`configured to be independently enabled or disabled, the
`first 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
`amplifying the first input RF signal or a second input RF
`signal with a second amplifier stage to obtain a second
`output RF signal when the second amplifier stage is
`enabled, the second amplifier stage configured to be
`independently enabled or disabled, the second output RF
`signal including at least a second carrier of the multiple
`carriers different than the first carrier.
`
`Ex. 1301 at 20:43-61; 22:11-27.
`
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’356 Patent
`The ’356 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 13/590,423 (the
`
`“’423 Application”), filed August 21, 2012, and claims priority to U.S. Provisional
`
`Application No. 61/652,064, filed May 25, 2012. Ex. 1301. The ’423 Application
`
`underwent a lengthy and comprehensive examination, spanning five rejections and
`
`advisory actions, two requests for continued examination, and hundreds of cited
`
`references, including an International Search Report (“ISR”) and Written Opinion.
`
`The first office action issued November 14, 2013, and rejected independent
`
`claims 1 and 17, among other claims, as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 7,751,513
`
`(“Eisenhut”). Ex. 1312 at 3-5. To overcome the rejection, Applicant amended claim
`
`1 as follows:
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`1. An apparatus comprising:
`a first amplifier stage 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 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 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. 1313 at 2. Applicant made a similar amendment to claim 17. Id. at 5. Applicant
`
`additionally included arguments that Eisenhut does not teach or suggest at least the
`
`elements added by amendment. Id. at 7-9.
`
`The Patent Office then issued a final office action on April 18, 2014, rejecting
`
`claims 1 and 17 (among others) as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 7,317,894
`
`(“Hirose”). Ex. 1314 at 2-4. In response, Applicant amended claims 1 and 17 to
`
`recite “the input RF signal employing carrier aggregation comprising transmissions
`
`sent on multiple carriers at different frequencies to a wireless device,” and “the first
`
`input RF signal employing carrier aggregation comprising transmissions sent on
`
`multiple carriers at different frequencies to a wireless device,” respectively. Ex.
`
`1315 at 2, 5. Applicant further argued that Hirose did not utilize an input RF signal
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`employing carrier aggregation, “which results in an increased aggregated data rate.”
`
`Id. at 7-9 (emphasis in original).
`
`The Patent Office then issued an advisory action indicating that the claim
`
`amendments raised new issues that would require additional searching. Ex. 2001.
`
`Accordingly, on July 17, 2014, Applicant filed a request for continued examination
`
`(“RCE”) that included the aforementioned amendments and arguments. Ex. 2002.
`
`The Patent Office next issued a non-final office action on August 1, 2014,
`
`rejecting claims 1 and 17 as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 8,442,473
`
`(“Kaukovuori”). Ex. 1316 at 3-5 (“Kaukovuori, et al. teaches a method of receiving
`
`data transmitted via a combination of at least a plurality of radio frequency signals
`
`using carrier aggregation” (emphasis in original)). In response, Applicant argued
`
`that Kaukovuori does not teach or suggest “[a first amplifier stage configured to ...
`
`amplify/ amplifying ... with a first amplifier stage] ... when the first amplifier stage
`
`is enabled ... and [a second amplifier stage configured to ... amplify/ amplifying ...
`
`with a second amplifier stage] ... when the second amplifier stage is enabled,” as
`
`recited in claims 1 and 17. Ex. 1317 at 7-9.
`
`On December 26, 2014, the Patent Office issued a second final office action,
`
`again rejecting claims 1 and 17 as anticipated by Kaukovuori. Ex. 1318 at 7-9. After
`
`an Examiner Interview discussing possible claim amendments, Applicant amended
`
`the independent claims, including claims 1 and 17, to recite that the first amplifier
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`stage is configured to “be independently enabled or disabled . . .” and the second
`
`amplifier stage is configured to “be independently enabled or disabled . . . .” Exs.
`
`1319; 1320 at 2, 5. In light of this amendment, the Examiner allowed the pending
`
`claims. Ex. 1321 at 2, 5.
`
`Prior to paying the issue fee, Applicant filed a second request for continued
`
`examination in order to permit the Patent Office to consider additional prior art
`
`disclosed in an Information Disclosure Statement. Ex. 2003. After reviewing the
`
`references, the Examiner again issued a Notice of Allowance, and the ’423
`
`Application issued on October 6, 2015 as the ’356 Patent. Ex. 1322.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`The “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification” is the
`
`governing claim construction standard in this proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`
`(prior to November 13, 2018 amendment). “Under this standard, claim terms are
`
`generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a
`
`skilled artisan in the context of the entire disclosure.” Polygroup Ltd. MCO v. Willis
`
`Elec. Co., Ltd, 759 F. App’x 934, 939 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The parties dispute the
`
`proper construction of the term “carrier aggregation” under this standard.
`
`For the purpose of this proceeding, 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
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`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).”
`
`Petition at 32.
`
`A.
`
`“carrier aggregation”
`Patent Owner’s
`Proposed Construction
`“simultaneous operation on multiple
`carriers that are combined as a single
`virtual channel to provide higher
`bandwidth”
`
`Petitioner’s
`Proposed Construction
`“simultaneous operation on multiple
`carriers”
`
`
`In 2012, at the time of the invention of the ’356 Patent, a person of ordinary
`
`
`
`skill in the art would have understood that “carrier aggregation” was a term of art
`
`that meant “simultaneous operation on multiple carriers that are combined as a
`
`single virtual channel to provide higher bandwidth.” This proposed construction is
`
`supported by both intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, as explained below. On the other
`
`hand, Petitioner’s proposed construction is unreasonably broad and it violates the
`
`doctrine of prosecution disclaimer. Moreover, the term “carrier aggregation” cannot
`
`simply mean “simultaneous operation on multiple carriers,” as Petitioner proposes,
`
`because that reads out the word “aggregation.”
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction Is The Ordinary And
`Customary Meaning, As Would Be Understood By A
`Skilled Artisan In The Context Of The Entire Disclosure.
`While it is true that “simultaneous operation on multiple carriers” is an
`
`attribute of carrier aggregation, Ex. 1301 at 1:32–33, a person of ordinary skill would
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`have further understood the term to mean that the multiple carriers are combined
`
`(aggregated) as a single virtual channel. This understanding is consistent with the
`
`objective of aggregating carriers to provide a combined higher bandwidth channel
`
`for communications. Id. at 2:63–67; Ex. 2024 ¶ 83. This construction is confirmed
`
`by the specification and the file history, and is further supported by extrinsic
`
`evidence.
`
`a.
`
`The Specification Supports Patent Owner’s Proposed
`Construction
`The specification states that the term “carrier may refer to a range of
`
`frequencies used for communication and may be associated with certain
`
`characteristics.” Id. at 1:33–35. Each of the multiple carriers “may also be referred
`
`to as a component carrier.” Id. at 1:37–40.3 The plain meaning of the adjective
`
`“component” indicates that a “component carrier” constitutes a part of something
`
`larger. In particular, the component carriers are components that are combined to
`
`form a single aggregated carrier. Ex. 2024 ¶ 84.
`
`The specification depicts the aggregation of component carriers in Figures 2A
`
`to 2D. Id. at 3:6–38, Figs. 2A–2D. Each figure illustrates that by aggregating four
`
`component carriers, the system is capable of delivering data using a single virtual
`
`
`3 Emphasis and highlighting added throughout this Response unless
`otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`channel that has the equivalent of four times the bandwidth of a single non-
`
`aggregated carrier. Ex. 2024 ¶ 85.
`
`Thus, for example, while earlier LTE systems were limited to 20 MHz
`
`channels, LTE Release 11 (which provided support for LTE-Advanced functionality)
`
`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.
`
`Ex. 1301 at 2:63–67; Ex. 2024 ¶ 86. The specification explains that LTE carriers
`
`may be aggregated from frequency bands listed in 3GPP TS (Technical Specification)
`
`36.101. Ex. 1301 at 2:63–67. In 3GPP TS 36.101, carrier aggregation is described
`
`as an “[a]ggregation of two or more component carriers in order to support wider
`
`transmission bandwidths.” Ex. 2026 at 14; see also Ex. 2015 at 12 (identifying 3GPP
`
`TS 36.101 in an Information Disclosure Statement during prosecution and indicating
`
`that it was considered by the examiner).
`
`The figure below illustrates the LTE-Advanced carrier aggregation. In earlier
`
`LTE systems, a user device connects to the wireless network over a single 20 MHz
`
`carrier frequency. Ex. 1301 at 2:63–67; Ex. 2024 ¶ 87. 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. Ex. 2024 ¶ 87. To relieve this rate-limiting step,
`
`LTE-Advanced added the ability for network equipment to practice carrier
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`aggregation. Ex. 1301 at 2:63–67; Ex. 2024 ¶ 87. When an end user requests a large
`
`amount of data, the network will activate carrier aggregation to deliver that data
`
`more quickly. Ex. 2024 ¶ 87. This is done by multiplexing the incoming data stream,
`
`which is illustrated by the “single (fast) data pipe,” so that the incoming data stream
`
`is separated into multiple streams that are transmitted over multiple component
`
`carriers at the same time. Id. The user device receives and de-multiplexes
`
`(aggregates) the multiple streams to recreate the original incoming data stream. Id.
`
`The result is that the incoming data stream is received more quickly because it was
`
`transmitted in a higher bandwidth virtual channel. Id.
`
`
`Figure 1: Conventional “Single Carrier” Operation and Carrier Aggregation Mode.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`b.
`
`The File History Supports Patent Owner’s
`Construction
`The file history further confirms that a skilled artisan understood that carrier
`
`aggregation resulted in a single virtual channel to provide an increased bandwidth.
`
`Petitioner even points to one example of this confirmation in the file history in
`
`reference to the amendment to overcome the rejection based on Hirose, but contends
`
`that “Patent Owner did not argue during prosecution that carrier aggregation
`
`required anything more than non-redundant transmissions.” Petition at 30. That is
`
`not correct. As evidenced by the very text Petitioner quoted from (reproduced
`
`below), the file history shows that Patent Owner explained that “carrier aggregation”
`
`requires an “increased aggregated data rate”:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1315 at 7 (bold and italics in original, highlighting added).
`
`The file history also shows that the examiner rejected the claims over U.S.
`
`Patent 8,442,473 to Kaukovuori. According to the examiner, Kaukovuori disclosed
`
`“the input RF signal employing carrier aggregation” limitation. Ex. 1318 at 6–78.
`
`Kaukovuori explained that the “technique of Carrier Aggregation (CA) requires each
`
`utilised carrier signal to be demodulated at the receiver, whereafter the message data
`
`from each of the signals can be combined in order to reconstruct the original data”:
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Intel 1325 (“Kaukovuori”) at 1:19–35; Ex. 2024 ¶ 92.
`
`As another example from the file history, the applicant filed foreign reference
`
`WO 2012/008705 with the PTO in connection with an Information Disclosure
`
`Statement (“IDS”). Ex. 2015 at 12 (considered by examiner Nov. 4, 2013); see
`
`Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 663 F.3d 1221, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[P]rior
`
`art cited in a patent or cited in the prosecution history of the patent constitutes
`
`intrinsic evidence.”). WO 2012/008705 described carrier aggregation as “a
`
`technology for aggregating a plurality of unit carriers . . . to be used
`
`simultaneously”:
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Ex. 2016 at [7]–[9]. This reference shows that the multiple component carriers are
`
`used together to create a single virtual channel to provide a higher bandwidth for a
`
`single data stream. Id.; Ex. 2024 ¶ 89.
`
`As yet another example from the file history, the applicant filed foreign
`
`reference GB 2472978 with the PTO in connection with an IDS. Ex. 2015 at 10
`
`(considered by examiner Nov 4, 2013). GB 2472978 states that “[i]n the carrier
`
`aggregation mode data has been multiplexed across multiple carrier frequencies . . . .”
`
`Ex. 2017 at 1. GB 2472978 further describes carrier aggregation as a technique to
`
`“bond together two parallel carriers.” Id. at 5; Ex. 2024 ¶ 90.
`
`c.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence Supports Patent Owner’s
`Construction
`Notably, Petitioner’s own inventors at that time also understood that carrier
`
`aggregation meant that multiple carriers are combined (aggregated) as a single
`
`virtual channel to provide higher bandwidth. Ex. 2024 ¶¶ 98–100. U.S. Patent No.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`9,161,254, assigned to Intel Corporation, was filed May 3, 2013 and claimed priority
`
`to a September 28, 2012 provisional application. Ex. 2013. Petitioner’s ’254 Patent
`
`teaches that carrier aggregation is an “aggregation of multiple smaller bandwidths
`
`to form a virtual wideband channel at a wireless device (e.g., UE)”:
`
`
`Ex. 2013 at 3:19–53 (U.S. Pat. No. 9,161,254); see also, e.g., Ex. 2018 at 3:27–62
`
`(U.S. Pat. No. 10,044,613, filed Dec. 13, 2013; assigned to Intel IP Corp.) (“carrier
`
`aggregation of multiple smaller bandwidths to form a virtual wideband channel at a
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`wireless device”); Ex. 2019 at 6 (Qualcomm Inc., STRATEGIES TO WIN IN LTE AND
`
`EVOLVE TO LTE ADVANCED (2013),
`
`https://www.qualcomm.com/documents/wireless-networks-strategies-win-lte-and-
`
`evolve-lte-advanced (“Carrier aggregation, as the name suggests, combines multiple
`
`carriers (a.k.a. channels) at the device to provide a bigger data pipe to the user.”);
`
`Ex. 2020 ¶ [0003] (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0217398, filed Nov. 28, 2012) (“Carrier
`
`aggregation provides an increase in data throughput capability by allowing different
`
`parts of the frequency spectrum to be combined logically to form a single channel
`
`(e.g. over-the-air interface between a base station and a user equipment). The
`
`technique of carrier aggregation thus allows an expansion of the effective bandwidth
`
`which can be utilized in wireless communication by concurrent utilization of radio
`
`resources across multiple carriers. Multiple component carriers are aggregated to
`
`form a larger overall transmission bandwidth.”).
`
`Furthermore, the Feasibility Study, which Petitioner relies on as prior art in
`
`this proceeding, evidences that skilled artisans understood that carrier aggregation
`
`meant combining carriers for operation as a single virtual channel. Ex. 1304. The
`
`Feasibility Study illustrates that carrier aggregation meant multiplexing user data for
`
`transmission to each user device (i.e., UE1 – UEn) on component carriers (i.e., CC1 –
`
`CCn).
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Ex. 1304 at 10; Ex. 2024 ¶ 95. Thus, carrier aggregation delivered multiplexed data
`
`to the user in an aggregated higher bandwidth channel (a single virtual channel) so
`
`that higher-rate data (such as video) could be delivered at a higher rate than was
`
`possible in a single un-aggregated channel. Id. ¶ 96.
`
`Textbooks and technical publications from the period provide even further
`
`confirmation. For example, one commentator (from Ericsson) explained that “[t]he
`
`basic principle for carrier aggregation is independent processing of the component
`
`carriers in the physical layer . . . while carrier aggregation is invisible” to the higher
`
`layers. ERIK DAHLMAN ET AL., 4G LTE/LTE-ADVANCED FOR MOBILE BROADBAND
`
`(Academic Press 2011) (“Dahlman”) Ex. 2021 at 26. Dahlman illustrated this
`
`principle with a diagram (Figure 8.10 below), which is quite similar to Figure 5.2.1-
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`1 from the Feasibility Study (above), showing that the higher layer logical channels
`
`are “multiplexed” on to the component carriers. Ex. 2024 ¶ 95. As a result, the
`
`higher layers (including the user application, such as video streaming) could be
`
`configured to deliver data over a single higher bandwidth virtual channel.
`
`
`
`Ex. 2021 at 27 (highlighting in original).
`
`The diagram below further illustrates the concept of a single virtual channel
`
`aggregated from component carriers as it was understood in the industry in 2014. In
`
`the illustration, two 20 MHz carrier are aggregated to provide a single data pipe. In
`
`other words, the diagram shows that carrier aggregation is more than just two data
`
`pipes operating separately and independently on two 20 MHz carriers. Ex. 2024
`
`¶ 97.
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Qualcomm Carrier Aggregation Infographic (2014), Ex. 2022, available at
`
`https://www.qualcomm.com/media/documents/files/carrier-aggregation-
`
`infographic.pdf.
`
`Accordingly, in view of the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the term “carrier aggregation” is “simultaneous
`
`operation on multiple carriers that are combined as a single virtual channel to
`
`provide higher bandwidth.”
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed Construction Should Be Rejected
`Petitioner’s proposed construction should be rejected because
`it
`
`is
`
`unreasonably broad and because it violates the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer.
`
`And, it is not how a skilled artisan understood the term.
`
`a.
`The Proposed Construction Is Unreasonably Broad
`Petitioner proposes the same unreasonably broad construction adopted by the
`
`ITC. Petition at 31. In this IPR, the Board, of course, “is not generally bound” by
`
`the ALJ’s interpretation of this disputed term. Power Integrations, Inc. v. Lee, 797
`
`F.3d 1318, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`In the ITC proceeding, Patent Owner proposed that “carrier aggregation”
`
`should mean “simultaneous operation on multiple carriers to increase the bandwidth
`
`for a user.” Ex. 1336, App. A at 20. Patent Owner continues to maintain that is a
`
`correct construction, but seeks to further clarify it here because that construction
`
`merely serves to shift the parties’ dispute to the meaning of the phrase “increase the
`
`bandwidth.”
`
`Specifically, Petitioner argues that “receiving data over two 20 MHz carriers
`
`increases bandwidth to 40 MHz.” Petition at 46. As explained above, two 20 MHz
`
`carriers operating independently do not provide a single virtual channel with an
`
`increased aggregated bandwidth. Ex. 2024 ¶ 111. The maximum capacity of any
`
`one channel remains 20 MHz. Id. But by aggregating two 20 MHz carriers as a
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`

`
`
`single virtual channel, the user device may operate using an aggregated 40 MHz
`
`channel that has a combined bandwidth equal to the sum of the bandwidths of the
`
`component carriers. Id. Petitioner relies solely on unsupported expert testimony for
`
`its argument in favor of such an unreasonably broad construction. Petition at 29
`
`(citing Ex. 1302 ¶ 60). But “conclusory, unsupported assert