throbber
Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00129
`
`
`DOCKET NO.: 0107131-00573US5
`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 IPR2019-00129
`U.S. Patent No. 9,154,356
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

` Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00129
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`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 ................................................................. 4 
`Prosecution Disclaimer Does Not Limit the
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Here ................................... 8 
`Patent Owner’s Citation to Extrinsic Evidence Is
`Inapposite .................................................................................. 11 
`Petitioner’s Proposed BRI Construction Does Not
`Read Out “Aggregation” ........................................................... 12 
`III.  GROUND I: PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS FAIL TO REFUTE
`THE EVIDENCE SET FORTH IN THE PETITION ................................... 13 
`A.  Applying the Correct Claim Construction, Lee
`Anticipates Claim 1 ............................................................................. 13 
`Claims 2-6 are Anticipated by Lee ...................................................... 15 
`B. 
`IV.  GROUND II: THE PETITION DEMONSTRATES THAT LEE AND
`YOUSSEF RENDER CLAIM 10 OBVIOUS ............................................... 18 
`V.  GROUND III: THE PETITION DEMONSTRATES THAT CLAIMS 2-6
`ARE OBVIOUS OVER LEE AND FEASIBILITY STUDY ....................... 20 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

` Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00129
`
`
`
`
`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 ............................................................................ 22 
`Patent Owner’s Additional Arguments are Without Merit ................. 24 
`C. 
`VI.  GROUND IV: THE PETITION DEMONSTRATES THAT CLAIM 10
`IS OBVIOUS OVER LEE, FEASIBILITY STUDY, AND YOUSSEF ...... 25 
`VII.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 26 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00129
`
`
`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. 1401, 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, 34-37.
`
`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
`IPR2019-00129
`
`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. 1435) and the
`
`Feasibility Study (Ex. 1404), 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. 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. 1401, 1:32-33 (“A wireless
`
`device may support carrier aggregation, which is simultaneous operation on
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00129
`
`multiple carriers.”);1 id., 2:53-54; id., 2:54-55 (“Carrier aggregation may also be
`
`referred to as multi-carrier operation.”). See Ex. 1402, ¶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); see also In re Imes, 778 F.3d 1250,
`
`1252-53 (Fed. Cir. 2015). This meaning is consistent with the understanding of the
`
`term by a POSITA. Id., ¶60. Paper 3, Petition (“Pet.”), 29. Ex. 1439, ¶14.
`
`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.
`
`1436 (Inv. No. 337-ITC-1093, Order No. 38), 17; see also id., App’x A at 30. The
`
`ITC ALJ made this construction under the Phillips standard. Ex. 1436, 12.
`
`For this IPR proceeding, the BRI claim construction standard applies. Paper
`
`9, Decision on Institution (“DOI”), 18. 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. See DOI,
`
`18; see also Pet., 29. The BRI construction should also be at least broad enough to
`
`
`1 Emphasis in quotations and annotations to figures added unless stated otherwise.
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`encompass the patentee’s own definition of the term. See Apple Inc., IPR2016-
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00129
`
`
`01372, 2017 WL 376909, at *3. Ex. 1439, ¶15.
`
`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. 1439, ¶16.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00129
`
`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. 1401. 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, 12-14. 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. 1439, ¶¶17-18.
`
`Indeed, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion that the intrinsic evidence
`
`supports its narrowing construction, the applicant chose very broad language to
`
`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,” expressly broadening
`
`the meaning of “carrier” beyond the third example given in the written description,
`
`a “component carrier” – which is now the only example upon which the Patent
`
`Owner would like to rely. Ex. 1401, 1:37-38, Ex. 1439, ¶19. See also Ex. 1440,
`
`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).
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00129
`
`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).” Ex. 1401, 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, 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. 1439, ¶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
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00129
`
`“simultaneous operation on multiple carriers” came from the ’356 patent written
`
`description, Ex. 1440, 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. 1439, ¶20.
`
`Specifically, Dr. Foty testified that WO 2012/008705 (Ex. 2016), GB2472978
`
`(Ex. 2017), and U.S. Pat. No. 8,442,473 (Ex. 1425) 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
`
`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. 1439, ¶¶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. 1425) 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. 1418, 7.
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00129
`
`Furthermore, Patent Owner’s argument that the Examiner found that Kaukovuori
`
`discloses one specific type of carrier aggregation does not signify 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. 1439, ¶¶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.
`
`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 in arguing for its proposed construction. 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. 1440, 32:2-15. Petitioner agrees. Petitioner’s expert agrees. Ex.
`
`1439, ¶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
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00129
`
`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 to do so. 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 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. 1424) 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. See Ex. 1439, ¶¶23-24.
`
`9
`
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00129
`
` 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, 14 (quoting Pet., 31). As 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.’” Id. Those
`
`words do not amount to the clear and unmistakable disclaimer that Patent Owner
`
`contends. 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. 1415, 7
`
`(bold, italics in original). 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. 1402, ¶87. 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. 1439, ¶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-
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00129
`
`
`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 also not prior art to the ’356 patent. See Exs. 2018 (earliest filing
`
`2013); 2019 (Sep. 2013); 2022 (2014). They should be accorded no significant
`
`weight and, in any event, are not inconsistent with Petitioner’s proposed construction
`
`
`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,
`
`because Patent Owner’s own expert admitted that, in Lee, the transmissions over
`
`WiFi and Bluetooth would not ordinarily contain redundant data. Ex. 1437,
`
`2213:22-2214:1; Ex. 1440, 7:17-18:5.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00129
`
`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. Ex. 1439, ¶26.
`
`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., 49-51 (“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. 1439, ¶27.
`
`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. 1401, Claims 1, 17. To the extent Patent Owner’s arguments about
`
`“aggregation” suggest otherwise, these narrow interpretations are inconsistent with
`
`the ’356 patent and unsupported. Ex. 1439, ¶¶28-29.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00129
`
`
`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 Claim
`1
`With respect to anticipation grounds for the Lee reference (Ex. 1435), Patent
`
`Owner’s only argument in favor of patentability for claim 1 is that Lee does not
`
`disclose the “input RF signal employing carrier aggregation” under Patent Owner’s
`
`proposed construction. POR, 34-37. Patent Owner is incorrect for multiple reasons.
`
`Ex. 1439, ¶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., 49. Patent Owner’s expert agrees that the Bluetooth
`
`and WiFi signals in Lee are separate signals that can be received simultaneously.
`
`Ex. 1437, 2205:12-22; Ex. 1440, 7:17-18:5. Ex. 1439, ¶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., 50-51. 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 single input that is the claimed “input RF signal,” the
`
`Bluetooth and WiFi carriers are aggregated, e.g., collected together, assembled at
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00129
`
`VIN. See POR, 29 (“Aggregate means ‘to collect together, assemble.’”). Ex. 1439,
`
`¶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. 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. 1439, ¶33.
`
`The Patent Owner’s Response does not identify any arguments in favor of
`
`patentability for claim 1 under Petitioner’s proposed construction. POR, 34-37.
`
`Claim 1 is thus anticipated by Lee. Ex. 1439, ¶34.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00129
`
`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., 51-52. Lee uses multiple carriers to send different data, not redundant data.
`
`Id., 52. Patent Owner’s expert admits that typically, the two “radio streams” in Lee
`
`are not redundant. Ex. 1437, 2213:22-2214:1; Ex. 1440, 7:17-18:5. The Patent
`
`Owner’s Response fails to identify any additional arguments for patentability of
`
`claim 1. For at least these reasons, Patent Owner has failed to rebut Petitioner’s
`
`showing that Lee teaches “input RF signal employing carrier aggregation.” Ex.
`
`1439, ¶35.
`
`B. Claims 2-6 are Anticipated by Lee
`Claims 2-6 are anticipated by Lee for the reasons set forth in the Petition. Pet.,
`
`42-71. Patent Owner argues for claims 2-6 that Lee fails to teach the “input RF
`
`signal employing carrier aggregation;” however, this is incorrect for the reasons
`
`identified, above, in Section III.A. Patent Owner further argues that the Petition
`
`“fails to show” disclosure in Lee of the claimed first and second cascode transistors.
`
`POR, 37. For the reasons described below, this is incorrect. Ex. 1439, ¶36.
`
`A cascode amplifier stage consists of a cascade of a common-source (i.e.,
`
`gain, transconductance, or input) transistor and a common-gate transistor. Within
`
`this amplifier stage, the “cascode” transistor is the common-gate a transistor that
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`couples the current from the gain transistor (at the cascode transistor’s source
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00129
`
`
`terminal) to the amplifier output (at the cascode transistor’s drain terminal). See
`
`Razavi, DESIGN OF ANALOG CMOS INTEGRATED CIRCUITS, 1st ed., 2001 (Ex.
`
`1441), at 83-92. Ex. 1402, ¶¶36, 96. As set forth in the Petition, at 59-62, Lee
`
`teaches the first cascode transistor (e.g., transistor M1_1 of output stage 208_1).
`
`The transistors M1_1 and M1_K in the output stage 208_1 are cascode transistors
`
`because they couple the output of the input stage gain transistors M1_1 and M1_J
`
`to the amplifier output VOUT_1. Pet., 59-60; Ex. 1402, ¶¶96-97. Ex. 1439, ¶37.
`
`Similarly, Lee teaches the second cascode transistor (e.g., transistor MN_1 of
`
`output stage 208_N). Similarly, the output stage 208_N transistors MN_1 and
`
`MN_L are cascode transistors because they couple the output of the gain transistors
`
`MN_1 and MN_I of the input stage 204_N to the amplifier output signal VOUT_N.
`
`Pet., 60-61. Ex. 1402, ¶99. Ex. 1439, ¶38.
`
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has not shown that the transistors of the
`
`output stages 208_1 and 208_N are cascode transistors. POR, 41. To reach this
`
`incorrect conclusion, Patent Owner argues that a transistor is not cascode unless it
`
`improves amplifier performance by reducing the impact of the “Miller effect” of a
`
`gain transistor. POR, 37-42. Patent Owner argues that the presence of selecting
`
`stages 206_1 and 206_N between the gain transistor stages 204_1 and 204_N on one
`
`hand, and the cascode transistor stages 208_1 and 208_N on the other hand, means
`
`16
`
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00129
`
`that Petitioner has not shown that the transistors M1_1, M1_K, MN_1, and MN_L
`
`are cascode. Id., 39-42. Notably, however, Patent Owner and its expert never state
`
`that these transistors are not cascode transistors. POR, 37-42; Ex. 2024, ¶¶153-161.
`
`Ex. 1439, ¶39.
`
`What Patent Owner’s expert identifies as Miller capacitance is instead what a
`
`POSITA would refer to as Cgd (i.e., gate-to-drain capacitance). For example, in the
`
`context of RF circuitry employing reactive matching networks (e.g., reference 632
`
`in Figure 6 of the ’356 patent), the effect on transistor operating frequency implied
`
`by the Patent Owner’s expert is incorrect. See Ex. 2024, ¶159. Ex. 1439, ¶40. As
`
`explained by Dr. Fay, cascode is a topology, not an effect. Ex. 1439, ¶41. Cascode
`
`transistors have many purposes, but mitigation of the Miller effect is not a defining
`
`feature of them. Nor does the ’356 patent or its file history mention the Miller effect;
`
`in fact, a POSITA would understand based on the ’356 patent’s disclosure that it
`
`does not contemplate limitations to amplifier performance from the Miller effect or
`
`gate-to-drain capacitance, as evidenced by the omission of a Miller capacitance or
`
`Cgd (the gate-to-drain capacitance) in the input capacitance equations at column 9,
`
`lines 43-49. Ex. 1439, ¶¶40-41.
`
`A POSITA would understand that the transistors identified by the Petition as
`
`cascode transistors are cascode transistors, and exhibit the same cascode topology
`
`shown and described in the ’356 patent. For example, the transistors of output stages
`
`17
`
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00129
`
`208_1-208_N each couple the current from their respective gain transistors (at each
`
`of the cascode transistors’ source terminals) to the amplifier output (at each of the
`
`cascode transistors’ drain terminals). Ex. 1435, ¶¶28, 33, Figure 2. They also
`
`function in precisely the same manner as described for the cascode transistors (e.g.
`
`656a, 656b) of the ’356 patent. The presence of selecting stages 206_1 and 206_N
`
`does not change the nature of the operation of the transistors in stages 208_1 and
`
`208_N as cascode transistors—when the selecting stage 206_1, 206_N transistors
`
`are “on,” the selecting stages 206_1, 206_N serve to connect gain stages 204_1,
`
`204_N with cascode stages 208_1, 208_N. See id., ¶33. For at least these reasons,
`
`Patent Owner’s Response fails to rebut Petitioner’s showing of unpatentability for
`
`claims 2-6. Ex. 1439, ¶42.
`
`IV. GROUND II: THE PETITION DEMONSTRATES THAT LEE AND
`YOUSSEF RENDER CLAIM 10 OBVIOUS
`Patent Owner argues for claim 10 that Lee fails to teach the “input RF signal
`
`employing carrier aggregation;” however, this is incorrect for the reasons identified,
`
`above, in Section III.A. Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner fails to show why
`
`a POSITA would have combined the teachings of Youssef with Lee. POR, 42.
`
`Patent Owner states that Youssef describes attenuating UHF and VHF signals, and
`
`that because Petitioner did not specify new values for capacitors C1, C2, and C3 in
`
`Youssef that would attenuate the Bluetooth and WiFi carriers of Lee, Petitioner has
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2019-00129
`
`allegedly failed to show that a POSITA would have been motivated to add Youssef’s
`
`teachings to Lee. POR, 43. This is incorrect for several reasons. Ex. 1439, ¶43.
`
`First, the amplifier circuit of Lee is not limited to Bluetooth and WiFi
`
`operation, wh

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket