`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