Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00128
`
`
`DOCKET NO.: 0107131-00573US4
`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 IPR2019-00128
`U.S. Patent No. 9,154,356
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00128
`
`
`DOCKET NO.: 0107131-00573US4
`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 IPR2019-00128
`U.S. Patent No. 9,154,356
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00128
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`B.
`
`B.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`PATENT OWNER’S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION IS
`INCORRECT AND OVERLY NARROW ..................................................... 2
`A.
`“Carrier Aggregation” Should be Construed in
`Accordance With its Broadest Reasonable Interpretation .................... 2
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction of “Carrier
`Aggregation” is Far Narrower than the Broadest
`Reasonable Interpretation of that Term in Light of the
`Specification .......................................................................................... 4
`1.
`The Intrinsic Evidence Does Not Support Patent
`Owner’s Construction ................................................................. 5
`Prosecution Disclaimer Does Not Limit the
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Here ................................... 9
`Patent Owner’s Citation to Extrinsic Evidence Is
`Inapposite .................................................................................. 13
`Petitioner’s Proposed BRI Construction Does Not
`Read Out “Aggregation” ........................................................... 14
`III. GROUND I: PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS FAIL TO REFUTE
`THE EVIDENCE SET FORTH IN THE PETITION ................................... 16
`A. Applying the Correct Claim Construction, Lee
`Anticipates Claims 1, 7, 8, 11, 17, and 18 .......................................... 16
`Patent Owner’s Additional Argument with Respect to
`Claim 7 Lacks Merit ............................................................................ 18
`IV. GROUND II: THE PETITION DEMONSTRATES THAT LEE
`RENDERS CLAIMS 7 AND 8 OBVIOUS .................................................. 20
`V. GROUND III: THE PETITION DEMONSTRATES THAT CLAIMS 1,
`7, 8, 11, 17, AND 18 ARE OBVIOUS .......................................................... 21
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00128
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Petition Establishes that the Feasibility Study is
`Analogous Art ..................................................................................... 21
`The Petition Establishes the Reasons to Combine Lee and
`the Feasibility Study ............................................................................ 23
`Patent Owner’s Additional Arguments are Without Merit ................. 26
`C.
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00128
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The primary argument Patent Owner raises is one of claim construction, and
`
`I.
`
`specifically, what the proper construction of the term “carrier aggregation” is. The
`
`text of the ’356 patent provides the answer, stating that carrier aggregation “is
`
`simultaneous operation on multiple carriers.” Ex. 1301, 1:32-33; see id., 2:53-54.
`
`The patent’s written description is expansive in its description of technologies to
`
`which the alleged invention applies, and it describes LTE carriers as just one
`
`example. Id., 2:38-67. Especially under the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`standard that applies to claim construction in this trial, “carrier aggregation” is
`
`properly understood as meaning exactly what the patent says it means:
`
`“simultaneous operation on multiple carriers.” Under that claim construction, Patent
`
`Owner raises no argument against anticipation by the Lee reference for at least some
`
`claims of the ’356 patent. See POR, 32-34.
`
`Seeking to avoid that outcome of unpatentability, Patent Owner proposes an
`
`odd – and narrow – tripartite claim construction of “carrier aggregation.”
`
`Specifically, Patent Owner argues that “carrier aggregation” requires “[1]
`
`simultaneous operation on multiple carriers [2] that are combined as a single virtual
`
`channel [3] to provide higher bandwidth.’” Parts [2] and [3] of that construction
`
`come from outside the ’356 patent, and they are not supported by the intrinsic
`
`evidence at all, let alone the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of that
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00128
`
`evidence. The Board should reject this post-hoc attempt to rewrite the ’356 patent
`
`and its claims.
`
`But even if the Board were to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction,
`
`the challenged claims are still invalid as obvious in view of Lee (Ex. 1335) and the
`
`Feasibility Study (Ex. 1304), which Patent Owner does not dispute discloses “[1]
`
`simultaneous operation on multiple carriers [2] that are combined as a single virtual
`
`channel [3] to provide higher bandwidth.” Patent Owner fails to rebut Petitioner’s
`
`evidence regarding why a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have
`
`been motivated to combine the teachings of Lee with Feasibility Study. Instead of
`
`finding fault with the motivations to combine identified by Petitioner, Patent Owner
`
`criticizes aspects of the prior art references not relied on by Petitioner. Patent
`
`Owner’s attack on positions never advanced by Petitioner fails to rebut Petitioner’s
`
`expressly stated reasons to combine, which largely come from the text of the
`
`references themselves.
`
`II.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION IS
`INCORRECT AND OVERLY NARROW
`A.
`“Carrier Aggregation” Should be Construed in Accordance With
`its Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`As set forth in the Petition, “carrier aggregation” should be construed as
`
`“simultaneous operation on multiple carriers.” This construction comes directly
`
`from the specification, which defines the term. See Ex. 1301, 1:32-33 (“A wireless
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00128
`
`device may support carrier aggregation, which is simultaneous operation on
`
`multiple carriers.”);1 id., 2:53-54; id., 2:54-55 (“Carrier aggregation may also be
`
`referred to as multi-carrier operation.”). See Ex. 1302, ¶59. Given the clear guidance
`
`in the specification, “carrier aggregation” should be construed as “simultaneous
`
`operation on multiple carriers” under the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”)
`
`claim construction standard. See Apple Inc. v. Immersion Corp., IPR2016-01372,
`
`2017 WL 376909, at *3 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2017) (“use of the word ‘is’ in the
`
`specification may ‘signify that a patentee is serving as its own lexicographer’” and
`
`applying express definition under BRI); see also In re Imes, 778 F.3d 1250, 1252-
`
`53 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (where the specification “expressly and unambiguously defines”
`
`a term, construction of the term is “straightforward”). This meaning is consistent
`
`with the understanding of the term by a POSITA. Ex. 1302, ¶60. Paper 3, Petition
`
`(“Pet.”), 28.
`
`Indeed, in the ITC 1093 Investigation, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)
`
`construed “carrier aggregation” as Petitioner proposes here—“simultaneous
`
`operation on multiple carriers”—despite Patent Owner’s similar arguments. Ex.
`
`1336 (Inv. No. 337-ITC-1093, Order No. 38), 17; see also id., App’x A at 30 (“[F]ree
`
`from artificial limitations, the proper construction of ‘carrier aggregation’ comes
`
`
`1 Emphasis in quotations and annotations to figures added unless stated otherwise.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00128
`
`straight from the specification of the ’356 patent.”). The ITC ALJ made this
`
`construction under the Phillips standard. Ex. 1336, 12.
`
`For this IPR proceeding, the BRI claim construction standard applies. Paper
`
`9, Decision on Institution (“DOI”), 12. Petitioner submits that the BRI construction
`
`must be at least as broad as a proper Phillips construction. Rembrandt Wireless
`
`Techs., L.P. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 853 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“the
`
`Board in IPR proceedings operates under a broader claim construction standard than
`
`the federal courts”). See DOI, 12; see also Pet., 28. The BRI construction should
`
`also be at least broad enough to encompass the patentee’s own definition of the term.
`
`See Apple Inc., IPR2016-01372, 2017 WL 376909, at *3.
`
`B.
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction of “Carrier Aggregation”
`is Far Narrower than the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of
`that Term in Light of the Specification
` Though the ’356 patent expressly defines “carrier aggregation” as
`
`“simultaneous operation on multiple carriers” and discusses “Bluetooth,” WiFi (e.g.,
`
`“802.11”), and “LTE” devices (among others) that support carrier aggregation,
`
`Patent Owner selects just one subset of those, LTE, and then proposes a construction
`
`of carrier aggregation that is even narrower than any disclosure in the ’356
`
`specification, stitching its construction together from different pieces of extrinsic
`
`evidence and hidden portions of its voluminous information disclosure statement
`
`(“IDS”) citations. Ex. 1339, ¶16.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00128
`
`
`1.
`
`The Intrinsic Evidence Does Not Support Patent Owner’s
`Construction
`As stated above, that tripartite proposed construction is “[1] simultaneous
`
`operation on multiple carriers [2] that are combined as a single virtual channel [3] to
`
`provide higher bandwidth.” The Board should reject Patent Owner’s proposed
`
`construction. Patent Owner’s citation of the ’356 patent specification fails to support
`
`this proposed construction. Patent Owner includes repeated citations to column 2,
`
`lines 63-67 of the ’356 patent in support of “combined higher bandwidth channel for
`
`communications,” and the addition of LTE-Advanced carrier aggregation “[t]o
`
`relieve this [data] rate-limiting step.” POR, 12-14. However, the ’356 patent
`
`includes no discussion of these concepts. Ex. 1301. Instead, for parts [2] and [3] of
`
`its proposed construction, Patent Owner’s arguments that the specification supports
`
`them are based only on its expert’s unsupported extrapolations and augmentations
`
`of what the specification actually says. See POR, 11-14. In reality, parts [2] and [3]
`
`of Patent Owner’s proposed construction lack any written description support in
`
`the ’356 patent. And, in any case, the LTE carrier aggregation expressly described
`
`at column 2, lines 63-67 is merely one example of carrier aggregation in the patent.
`
`Ex. 1339, ¶¶17-18.
`
`Indeed, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion that the intrinsic evidence
`
`supports its narrowing construction, the applicant chose very broad language to
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00128
`
`describe the types of transmissions and communications equipment encompassed by
`
`the invention. For example, the written description broadly states that a “carrier”
`
`“may also be referred to as a . . . frequency channel, a cell, etc.” Ex. 1301, 1:37-38.
`
`See also Ex. 1340, 50:14-51:9 (Patent Owner’s expert admitting that he did not
`
`consider the meaning of this portion of the ’356 patent’s written description in
`
`formulating his opinions). A “frequency channel” or “cell” are far broader than the
`
`definition of “carrier” that the Patent Owner currently seeks to embed within its
`
`definition of “carrier aggregation,” which is effectively a “component carrier.” Ex.
`
`1301, 1:37-38. Likewise, the ’356 patent states that “[w]ireless device 110 may be
`
`a cellular phone, a smartphone, a tablet, a wireless modem, a personal digital
`
`assistant (PDA), a handheld device, a laptop computer, a smartbook, a netbook, a
`
`cordless phone, a wireless local loop (WLL) station, a Bluetooth device, etc.
`
`Wireless device 110 may be capable of communicating with wireless system 120.
`
`Wireless device 110 may also be capable of receiving signals from broadcast stations
`
`(e.g., a broadcast station 134), signals from satellites (e.g., a satellite 150) in one or
`
`more global navigation satellite systems (GNSS).” Id., 2:40-50. Thus, the applicant
`
`signaled that the invention would cover devices other than those that implement
`
`LTE. The patent further states that “[w]ireless device 110 may support one or more
`
`radio technologies for wireless communication such as LTE, cdma2000, WCDMA,
`
`GSM, 802.11, etc.” Id., 2:50-53. By broadly encompassing all of these devices,
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00128
`
`device types, and wireless technologies, the ’356 patent’s written description
`
`expressly broadens the scope of the alleged invention to encompass virtually any
`
`wireless device or radio technology. Patent Owner’s current attempt to restrict the
`
`claim language cannot be squared with the broadening approach taken by the
`
`applicant in the written description. Ex. 1339, ¶19.
`
`Indeed, during cross examination, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Foty, admitted
`
`that parts two and three of Patent Owner’s proposed tripartite claim construction do
`
`not find support in the ’356 patent’s written description. He explained that, while
`
`“simultaneous operation on multiple carriers” came from the ’356 patent written
`
`description, Ex. 1340, 69:12-19, the [2] “that are combined as a single virtual
`
`channel” and [3] “to provide higher bandwidth” portions of the proposed claim
`
`construction come only from prior art that was cited in the prosecution history. Id.,
`
`70:12-71:18; 72:14-74:7. Ex. 1339, ¶20.
`
`Specifically, Dr. Foty testified that WO 2012/008705 (Ex. 2016), GB2472978
`
`(Ex. 2017), and U.S. Pat. No. 8,442,473 (Ex. 1325) are intrinsic evidence that
`
`support this portion of the construction. Id. However, the phrases “combined as a
`
`single virtual channel” or “provide higher bandwidth” do not appear in any of the
`
`three references relied upon by Dr. Foty. Even if these references qualify as intrinsic
`
`evidence (which is debatable), Patent Owner’s arguments about them do not limit
`
`the BRI of the term “carrier aggregation” given the clear definition of that term in
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00128
`
`the ’356 written description. Indeed, the three references’ various descriptions of
`
`instances of carrier aggregation are all encompassed by the BRI of that term:
`
`simultaneous operation on multiple carriers. Ex. 1339, ¶¶20-21. And, none of the
`
`evidence on which Patent Owner now relies for parts 2 and 3 of its proposed claim
`
`construction was ever discussed during prosecution of the ’356 patent. Kaukovuori
`
`(Ex. 1325) was cited during prosecution on December 26, 2014, but the prosecution
`
`file wrapper does not include the quote reproduced at page 15 of the POR; the
`
`Examiner referenced an entirely different passage in the office action. Ex. 1318, 7.
`
`Furthermore, Patent Owner’s argument that the Examiner found that Kaukovuori
`
`discloses one specific type of carrier aggregation signifies only that the Examiner
`
`thought that Kaukovuori’s disclosure fell within the ’356 patent’s definition of
`
`carrier aggregation, not that the Examiner was limiting the Examiner’s interpretation
`
`of carrier aggregation based on the Kaukovuori reference. The other two pieces of
`
`alleged support for parts [2] and [3] of Patent Owner’s construction are references
`
`selected from among the 350 IDS-cited references and were never discussed during
`
`prosecution. Ex. 1339, ¶¶20-21. These references (which collectively amount to
`
`less than 1% of the prior art references submitted during prosecution of the ’356
`
`patent) cannot properly be used to narrow the express definition of “carrier
`
`aggregation” supplied by the ’356 patent itself.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00128
`
`
`2.
`
`Prosecution Disclaimer Does Not Limit the Broadest
`Reasonable Interpretation Here
`In the POR, Patent Owner also seeks to invoke the doctrine of prosecution
`
`history disclaimer. POR, 24-27. However, Patent Owner’s own expert abandoned
`
`that theory at his deposition, testifying that there was no disclaimer or disavowal of
`
`claim scope with respect to the term “carrier aggregation.” Ex. 1340, 32:2-15.
`
`Petitioner agrees. Petitioner’s expert agrees. Ex. 1339, ¶22.
`
`Moreover, the Patent Owner’s lack of citation of cases which support its
`
`prosecution history disclaimer theory speaks volumes. The Patent Owner is seeking
`
`to create new law regarding BRI claim construction. Specifically, the Patent Owner
`
`is trying to bring a Phillips claim construction principle/canon that was developed
`
`to protect alleged infringers from patent owners seeking to recapture surrendered
`
`subject matter during litigation into the BRI analysis and use it offensively to
`
`artificially limit the scope of claim language the Patent Owner itself drafted. But
`
`despite making such an argument, Patent Owner has not provided any, let alone
`
`adequate, legal foundation for its position. In the most generous interpretation to
`
`the Patent Owner’s position, the law is unsettled as to whether, and what extent,
`
`prosecution history disclaimer applies under the BRI standard. See Tempo Lighting,
`
`Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC, 742 F.3d 973, 978 (Fed. Circ. 2014) (“the PTO is under no
`
`obligation to accept a claim construction proffered as a prosecution history
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00128
`
`disclaimer, which generally only binds the patent owner”). Petitioner submits that
`
`the doctrine does not apply where a patent owner seeks to rely upon it to narrow the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim term.
`
`But even if it could be applied, there was no relevant prosecution history
`
`disclaimer because there is no “clear and unequivocal evidence” of disavowal. See
`
`Poly-America, L.P. v. API Indus., 839 F.3d 1131, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments in distinguishing the Hirose (Ex. 1324) reference during
`
`prosecution do not even meet the Phillips test for a prosecution history disclaimer,
`
`and therefore cannot constitute a prosecution history disclaimer under any standard.
`
`During prosecution, the Examiner rejected the claims based on anticipation
`
`by U.S. Patent No. 7,317,894 (“Hirose”) (Ex. 1324). Ex. 1314, 2-4. In Hirose, three
`
`different carriers (e.g., both “satellite wave” carriers and the “ground wave” carrier
`
`illustrated in Hirose Figure 1, annotated below) containing the same data are
`
`received simultaneously and synthesized to obtain a single stream of data. Id. Ex.
`
`1339, ¶23.
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00128
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner responded to the Examiner’s rejection by amending its claims
`
`to require an input RF signal “employing carrier aggregation.” Ex. 1314, 2-6. Patent
`
`Owner argued that Hirose does not disclose carrier aggregation because it describes
`
`receiving “redundant data” over multiple carriers, which Patent Owner contended
`
`does not result in an “increased aggregated data rate.” Id., 7-8. Ex. 1339, ¶24.
`
`Seeking to advance its disclaimer argument, Patent Owner disputes
`
`Petitioner’s statement that “Patent Owner did not argue during prosecution that
`
`carrier aggregation required anything more than non-redundant transmissions.”
`
`POR, 15 (quoting Pet., 30). As support for its position, Patent Owner points to the
`
`same file history quote provided in the Petition, with an emphasis on Patent Owner’s
`
`argument that “‘carrier aggregation’ requires an ‘increased aggregated data rate.’”
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00128
`
`Id. Those words do not amount to the clear and unmistakable disclaimer that Patent
`
`Owner contends. As Petitioner explained in the Petition, the “increased aggregated”
`
`here refers to “data rate.” Hirose’s transmission of the “same signals over different
`
`paths” does not increase aggregated data rate because it “results in redundant data
`
`at a common data rate.” Ex. 1315, 7 (bold, italics in original). Ex. 1339, ¶25. If
`
`Hirose’s simultaneous signals contained non-redundant (e.g., different) data, Patent
`
`Owner could not have made the argument that it did, and therefore the most natural
`
`reading of the prosecution history is that the applicant was distinguishing Hirose on
`
`the basis of its redundant transmissions. Dr. Fay’s initial declaration explains this.
`
`Ex. 1302, ¶83. At a minimum, the competing interpretations of the prosecution
`
`history set forth in the Petition and in the POR demonstrate that any disclaimer was
`
`not “clear and unmistakable.”2 Ex. 1339, ¶25.
`
`
`2 Because there was no clear and unmistakable disclaimer, Patent Owner’s
`
`argument that Petitioner’s proposed claim construction does not include a carve-
`
`out for the prosecution history’s discussion of Hirose, POR, 24-27, misses the
`
`mark entirely. But if the Board concludes that prosecution history did result in a
`
`disclaimer, then the disclaimer was of systems that receive transmissions of
`
`redundant data over multiple channels. A claim construction that included that
`
`disclaimer would have no impact on the invalidity issues presented in the Petition,
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00128
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Citation to Extrinsic Evidence Is Inapposite
`3.
`Finally, Patent Owner’s citations to extrinsic evidence cannot change the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of carrier aggregation. 3M Innovative Props. Co.
`
`v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Particularly in a case such
`
`as this, where the intrinsic evidence so clearly supports the definition that Patent
`
`Owner included in its specification, a POSITA would assign extrinsic evidence little
`
`or no relevance. See id. Furthermore, many of the extrinsic references included with
`
`Patent Owner’s Response were dated or filed well after the filing date of the ’356
`
`patent, and are not prior art. See Exs. 2018 (earliest filing 2013); 2019 (Sep. 2013);
`
`2022 (2014). Ex. 1339, ¶26. They should be accorded no significant weight and, in
`
`any event, are not inconsistent with Petitioner’s proposed construction of “carrier
`
`aggregation,” which is broad enough to encompass each of the differing examples
`
`of carrier aggregation provided in Patent Owner’s extrinsic evidence sources. Id.,
`
`¶26.
`
`
`because Patent Owner’s own expert admitted that, in Lee, the transmissions over
`
`WiFi and Bluetooth would not ordinarily contain redundant data. Ex. 1337,
`
`2213:22-2214:1; Ex. 1340, 7:17-18:5.
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00128
`
`
`4.
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed BRI Construction Does Not Read Out
`“Aggregation”
`Finally, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s BRI construction reads out the
`
`word “aggregation.” POR, 28-29. That is incorrect.
`
`The ’356 patent claims require that an “input RF signal” employ “carrier
`
`aggregation.” When there is “simultaneous operation on multiple carriers,” those
`
`carriers will be aggregated in the input RF signal. Pet., 46-48 (“receiving and
`
`processing data on multiple carriers at the same time in a single input RF signal”).
`
`Thus, when read in view of the complete claim language, “carrier aggregation” in
`
`the context of the challenged claims accounts for aggregation (i.e., collected
`
`together, assembled, as defined in the POR, at 29), because the multiple carriers
`
`would be present simultaneously in the input RF signal. Ex. 1339, ¶27.
`
`Specifically, because the ’356 patent describes “carrier aggregation” as
`
`encompassing wireless devices that support “one or more radio technologies for
`
`wireless communication such as LTE, cdma2000, WCDMA, GSM, 802.11, etc.,”
`
`when two or more carriers in a carrier aggregated signal are received according to
`
`“one or more” of these technologies, those carriers are all aggregated in the input RF
`
`signal (e.g. “RFin” in FIG. 6A) that enters the amplifier. Ex. 1339, ¶28.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00128
`
`
`
`
`This RFin is one wire with one input, and whether two carriers received are
`
`two LTE carriers, or two WiFi carriers, or one Bluetooth and one WiFi carrier, the
`
`input RF signal RFin will be a signal that includes all of these carriers. The only
`
`difference would be the numerical values of frequencies of these carriers present
`
`simultaneously on the input. Thus, any two or more carriers received simultaneously
`
`are aggregated at RFin, which is the claimed “input RF signal.” Ex. 1339, ¶29.
`
`In short, the ’356 patent challenged claims relate to “receiv[ing] an input radio
`
`frequency (RF) signal” or “amplifying a first input radio frequency (RF) signal.”
`
`Ex. 1301, Claims 1, 17. To the extent Patent Owner’s arguments about
`
`“aggregation” suggest a singular transmission node or a single logical transmission
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00128
`
`channel, these narrow interpretations are inconsistent with the ’356 patent, and find
`
`no support in evidence. Ex. 1339, ¶29.
`
`III. GROUND I: PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS FAIL TO REFUTE
`THE EVIDENCE SET FORTH IN THE PETITION
`A. Applying the Correct Claim Construction, Lee Anticipates Claims
`1, 7, 8, 11, 17, and 18
`With respect to anticipation grounds for the Lee reference (Ex. 1335), Patent
`
`Owner’s only argument in favor of patentability for claims 1, 11, 17, and 18 is that
`
`Lee does not disclose the “input RF signal employing carrier aggregation” under
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction. POR, 32-34. Patent Owner is incorrect for
`
`multiple reasons. Ex. 1339, ¶30.
`
`Lee discloses that its input RF signal (VIN) employs carrier aggregation (i.e.,
`
`simultaneous operation on multiple carriers (e.g., WiFi and Bluetooth)). This is
`
`explained in the Petition. Pet., 46. Patent Owner’s expert agrees that the Bluetooth
`
`and WiFi signals in Lee are separate signals that can be received simultaneously.
`
`Ex. 1337, 2205:12-22; Ex. 1340, 7:17-18:5. Ex. 1339, ¶31.
`
`Lee also teaches that the two carriers, e.g. Bluetooth and WiFi, are aggregated
`
`at VIN just as the carriers in the ’356 patent are aggregated at the radio frequency
`
`(RF) input RFin. Pet., 47-48. As also explained, above, at Section II.B.4, when a
`
`Bluetooth carrier is received simultaneously with a WiFi carrier in Lee, those
`
`carriers are aggregated at VIN – because VIN goes along a single wire, and is a
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00128
`
`single input that is the claimed “input RF signal,” the Bluetooth and WiFi carriers
`
`are aggregated, e.g., collected together, assembled at VIN. See POR, 29 (“Aggregate
`
`means ‘to collect together, assemble.’”). Ex. 1339, ¶32.
`
`
`
`While Patent Owner’s expert refers to them as “separate signals,” Bluetooth
`
`and WiFi carriers would be present simultaneously at VIN in the same manner as
`
`two LTE carriers would be present simultaneously at VIN, the only difference being
`
`the numerical values of their carrier frequencies. This is true regardless of whether
`
`or not the two carriers originate from a common source, or whether or not they are
`
`logically related to one another (e.g., at the baseband level). The two carriers do not
`
`somehow travel down separate sides of the wire or avoid one another along VIN.
`
`Calling the simultaneously-received Bluetooth and WiFi carriers of Lee a single
`
`signal, or labeling them as separate carriers or separate signals does not change the
`
`fact that their physical presence and behavior is the same – they are aggregated along
`
`VIN as they are received by the amplifier stages of Lee. Ex. 1339, ¶33.
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00128
`
`The Patent Owner’s Response does not identify any arguments in favor of
`
`patentability for claims 1, 7, 8, 11, 17, or 18 under Petitioner’s proposed
`
`construction. POR, 32-34. For the reasons identified in the Petition, claims 1, 7, 8,
`
`11, 17, or 18 are thus anticipated by Lee. Ex. 1339, ¶34.
`
`To the extent the Board construes carrier aggregation to require “non-
`
`redundant data” or its logically equivalent synonym “increased aggregated data rate”
`
`(though neither party proposes this construction), Lee also includes these teachings.
`
`Pet., 48-49. Lee uses multiple carriers to send different data, not redundant data.
`
`Id., 49. Patent Owner’s expert admits that typically, the two “radio streams” in Lee
`
`are not redundant. Ex. 1337, 2213:22-2214:1; Ex. 1340, 7:17-18:5. The Patent
`
`Owner’s Response fails to identify any additional arguments for patentability of
`
`claims 11, 17, or 18. For at least these reasons, Patent Owner has failed to rebut
`
`Petitioner’s showing that Lee teaches “input RF signal employing carrier
`
`aggregation.” Ex. 1339, ¶35.
`
`B.
`
`Patent Owner’s Additional Argument with Respect to Claim 7
`Lacks Merit
`Claims 7 and 8 are anticipated by Lee for the reasons identified in the Petition.
`
`Pet., 56-61. In addition to advancing the same argument about the “input RF signal
`
`employing carrier aggregation” made for claims 1, 11, 17, and 18, which is incorrect
`
`for the reasons set forth, above, in Section III.A, Patent Owner’s Response makes
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`additional arguments distinguishing claim 7 on the anticipation grounds. POR, 35-
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00128
`
`
`38. However, these arguments are incorrect, and fail to rebut Petitioner’s showing
`
`of anticipation based on Lee. Ex. 1339, ¶36.
`
`Patent Owner’s additional arguments distinguishing claim 7 from the Lee
`
`anticipation ground argue that Lee “does not disclose circuit 400 operating in both
`
`[‘shared’ and ‘combo’] modes in a single embodiment.” POR, 35. Patent Owner
`
`further relies on language in Lee paragraph [0036] about a capability to enable output
`
`stages 304_1-304_N in a “time-division manner” in shared mode. POR, 35-36.
`
`However, as described in the Petition, Lee does disclose circuit 400 operating in both
`
`a combo mode and a shared mode; hence, the disclosure of Lee with respect to Figure
`
`4 fully supports Petitioner’s grounds for anticipation of claims 7 and 8, and the Patent
`
`Owner’s Response fails to rebut these anticipation grounds for several reasons. Pet.,
`
`56-62. Ex. 1339, ¶37.
`
`As set forth in the Petition, a POSITA would understand that the circuit 400
`
`of Lee operates in combo mode, in addition to shared mode. Ex. 1335, ¶41 (“In an
`
`alternative design, the signal amplification circuit 400 shown in FIG. 4 may operate
`
`under a combo mode”), ¶38 (describing exemplary operation “under the shared
`
`mode”), ¶¶42, 33; Pet., 57; Ex. 1302, ¶92. A POSITA would understand that
`
`operation in the shared mode described in paragraph [0038] and elsewhere in Lee
`
`would apply in “the alternative design” of Lee paragraph [0041], and that the Petition
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00128
`
`does not “mix[] different embodiments” for its anticipation grounds. Ex. 1339, ¶38.
`
`Instead of disputing the anticipatory grounds set forth in the Petition for claims 7
`
`and 8 based on Lee, Patent Owner alleges that some other embodiments fail to
`
`anticipate those claims. POR, 35-37. Nothing in paragraphs [0036] or [0037] of
`
`Lee is inconsistent with Petitioner’s anticipation grounds for claims 7 and 8, and
`
`thus Patent Owner fails to rebut Petitioner’s showing of anticipation. Ex. 1339, ¶38.
`
`IV. GROUND II: THE PETITION DEMONSTRATES THAT LEE
`RENDERS CLAIMS 7 AND 8 OBVIOUS
`Patent Owner first argues against the obviousness of claims 7
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
