`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Apple Inc.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`INVT SPE LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR Case No. IPR2019-00959
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 311 ET SEQ. AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`(CLAIM 8 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,848,439)
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2019-00959)
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`EXHIBIT
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`DATE
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439 to Sheet al.
`(“the ’439 Patent”)
`
`December 7, 2010
`
`File History of U.S. Patent
`No. 7,848,439 to She et al.
`
`n/a
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,904,283 to Li et
`al. (“Li”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,221,680 to
`Vijayan et al. (“Vijayan”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,721,569 to
`Hashem et al. (“Hashem”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,596,604 to Cioffi
`et al. (“Cioffi”)
`
`Declaration of Zhi Ding, Ph.D.
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Zhi Ding, Ph.D.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,167,031 to
`Olofsson et al.
`
`June 7, 2005
`
`May 22, 2007
`
`April 13, 2004
`
`January 21, 1997
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`December 26, 2000
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2019-00959)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .................................. 1
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest (§ 42.8 (b)(1)) ...................................................... 1
`B. Related Matters (§ 42.8 (b)(2)) ................................................................... 1
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel (§ 42.8 (b)(3)) .................................................. 1
`D. Service Information (§ 42.8 (b)(4)) ............................................................. 2
`III. FEE FOR IPR (37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) and § 42.103) ...................................... 2
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ......................... 2
`A. Grounds for Standing (§ 42.104(a)) ........................................................... 2
`B.
`Identification of Challenged Claims (§ 42.104(b)(1)) ............................... 2
`C. Grounds of Challenge (§ 42.104(b)(2)) ...................................................... 3
`V. PROPOSED GROUNDS ARE NOT REDUNDANT ................................... 3
`VI. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ’439 PATENT ...... 3
`A. State of the Art at the Time the ’439 Patent was Filed ............................ 3
`1. Cellular Networks ...................................................................................... 3
`2. Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) ........................... 4
`3. Adaptive Modulation and Coding ............................................................. 5
`B. Overview of the ’439 Patent ....................................................................... 6
`1. Prior-Art Systems Alleged in the ’439 Patent ........................................... 6
`2. The Purported Improvement of the ’439 Patent ........................................ 7
`C. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) ................................... 12
`D. Effective Filing Date and Prosecution History of the ’439 Patent ........ 12
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION—37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(3) ........................ 13
`VIII. PRECISE REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ............................. 15
`A. Summary of the Prior Art Applied in This Petition ............................... 15
`1. Overview of Li ........................................................................................ 15
`2. Overview of Vijayan ............................................................................... 18
`3. Overview of Hashem ............................................................................... 21
`4. Overview of Cioffi .................................................................................. 22
`5. Motivation to Combine Li with Vijayan ................................................. 23
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2019-00959)
`6. Motivation to Combine Li and Vijayan with Hashem ............................ 25
`7. Motivation to Combine Li and Vijayan with Cioffi ................................ 27
`B. Li in View of Vijayan, Hashem, and Cioffi Renders Claim 8 Obvious 27
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 63
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2019-00959)
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`In re American Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .............. 14
`In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ......................................................... 13
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................. 13
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ......................................... 14
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ................................................................................................................. 14
`35 U.S.C. § 311 et seq. ...................................................................................................... 67
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), (e) ............................................................................ 15, 19, 22, 23
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq. ................................................................................................. 67
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 .............................................................................................................. 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .............................................................................................................. 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ............................................................................................................ 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 .............................................................................................................. 66
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .................................................................................................................. 1
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) .......................................................................................................... 67
`37 C.F.R. 42.105(a) ........................................................................................................... 67
`37 C.F.R., pt. 42 .................................................................................................................. 1
`37 CFR §42.100(b) ............................................................................................................ 14
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756 at col. 2 (August 14, 2012) ................................................................ 13
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2019-00959)
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Apple”) petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”)
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R., Part 42, of claim 8 (“the IPR Claim”) of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439 (“the ’439 Patent”), and asserts there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it will prevail with respect to the IPR Claim. Therefore, Petitioner
`
`respectfully requests cancellation of the IPR Claim.
`
` MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest (§ 42.8 (b)(1))
`The real party-in-interest is Apple Inc.
`B. Related Matters (§ 42.8 (b)(2))
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioner is aware of the following
`
`pending patent infringement lawsuits involving the ’439 Patent:
`
`• INVT SPE LLC v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-03738 (New Jersey);
`
`• INVT SPE LLC v. HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc., Case No. 2:17-
`
`cv-03740 (New Jersey);
`
`• INVT SPE LLC v. ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-
`
`06522 (New Jersey); and
`
`• Certain KTE- and 3G-Compliant Cellular Communications Devices, Inv. No
`
`337-TA-1138 (ITC).
`
`C.
`Lead and Backup Counsel (§ 42.8 (b)(3))
`Apple appoints Adam P. Seitz (Reg. No. 52,206) of Erise IP, P.A., as Lead
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2019-00959)
`Counsel, and appoints Paul R. Hart (Reg. No. 59,646), of the same firm as Back-Up
`
`Counsel. An appropriate Power of Attorney is filed concurrently herewith.
`
`D.
`Service Information (§ 42.8 (b)(4))
`Service of any documents to Counsel can be made via hand delivery to Erise
`
`IP, P.A., 7015 College Blvd., Suite 700, Overland Park, Kansas 66211. Petitioner
`
`consents to service by e-mail at ptab@eriseip.com Tel: 913-777-5600; Fax: 913-
`
`777-5601.
`
` FEE FOR IPR (37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) and § 42.103
`Petitioner has paid the required fees. The Office is authorized to charge any
`
`fee deficiency, or credit any overpayment, to Deposit Account No. 50-6159.
`
` REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing (§ 42.104(a))
`Petitioner certifies that (1) the ’439 Patent is available for IPR (and has been
`
`instituted for IPR); and (2) Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR
`
`of the claims of the ’439 Patent on the Grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`In its Motion for Joinder, Petitioner has additionally addressed the
`
`inapplicability of General Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha. These
`
`Arguments are incorporated by reference herein.
`
`B.
`Identification of Challenged Claims (§ 42.104(b)(1))
`Petitioner requests IPR of Claim 8 of the ’439 Patent, and request that the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board cancel that claim as unpatentable.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2019-00959)
`
`C. Grounds of Challenge (§ 42.104(b)(2))
`The Grounds of unpatentability presented in this Petition are as follows.
`
`Ground Basis
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`1
`
`§ 103 U.S. Patent No. 6,904,283 to Li et al.
`(“Li”), in view of U.S. Patent No.
`7,221,680 to Vijayan et al. (“Vijayan”),
`in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,721,569 to
`Hashem et al. (“Hashem”), and in view
`of U.S. Patent No. 5,596,604 to Cioffi et
`al. (“Cioffi”)
`
`8
`
`Li (Ex. 1003), Vijayan (Ex. 1004), Hashem (Ex. 1005), and Cioffi (Ex. 1006)
`
`were not cited during the prosecution of the ’439 Patent. The invalidity Grounds set
`
`forth in this Petition are confirmed and supported by the Declaration of Zhi Ding,
`
`Ph.D. (Ex. 1007), which accompanies this Petition.
`
`
`
`PROPOSED GROUNDS ARE NOT REDUNDANT
`The Grounds in this Petition are not redundant.
` RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ’439 PATENT
`A.
`State of the Art at the Time the ’439 Patent was Filed
`1. Cellular Networks
`The ’439 Patent generally concerns technologies related to wireless cellular
`
`telephones and operating such phones within a cellular network. In a cellular
`
`network, the network coverage area is divided into many cells. Each cell is served
`
`by a base station (BS), which directly communicates with the mobile terminals or
`
`user equipment (UE) within the cell. The signal flow from the BS to the UE is known
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2019-00959)
`as the downlink. The signal flow from the UE to the BS is known as the uplink. Ex.
`
`1007 ¶ 32-33.
`
`2. Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM)
`There are many ways for a wireless link to use an allocated amount of
`
`bandwidth to transmit and receive data signals. Orthogonal Frequency Division
`
`Multiplexing (OFDM) was one way to transmit data that existed before the priority
`
`date of the ’439 Patent. With OFDM, a transmitter (such as a BS or a UE) can divide
`
`its allocated frequency band into a number of orthogonal (non-overlapping)
`
`subcarriers to transmit data-bearing signals in each time slot. Ex. 1001, 1:18-33; Ex.
`
`1007 ¶ 36-37. As shown in Figure 1 of the ’439 Patent (labeled “prior art”), the signal
`
`bandwidth can be divided into hundreds of orthogonal subcarriers along the
`
`frequency axis and a number of OFDM symbol intervals along the time axis. Ex.
`
`1001, 1:58-64 & FIG. 1; Ex. 1007 ¶ 37.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2019-00959)
`
`
`
`3. Adaptive Modulation and Coding
`In OFDM systems, the BS can modulate each subcarrier with data using a
`
`
`
`specific modulation scheme combined with a specific coding scheme. The
`
`modulation and coding schemes are chosen based on channel conditions. When the
`
`channel quality is high, higher-rate modulation and coding can be applied to achieve
`
`a higher data rate while maintaining a sufficiently low bit error rate. When the
`
`channel quality is poor, lower-rate modulation and coding must be applied to reduce
`
`the data rate and maintain a sufficiently low bit error rate. Ex. 1001, 1:34- 52; Ex.
`
`1007 ¶ 38.
`
`In cellular systems, the channel conditions vary over time because the UEs
`
`are moving. To compensate for this, the UE periodically estimates the downlink
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2019-00959)
`channel quality of its subcarriers. A modulation and coding combination can then be
`
`chosen for each subcarrier or a group of subcarriers based upon the estimated
`
`channel conditions. Adjusting modulation and coding in response to channel quality
`
`is known as adaptive modulation and coding (AMC). AMC was mainstream
`
`technology before the priority date of the ’439 Patent. Ex. 1001, 1:34- 52; Ex. 1007
`
`¶ 40.
`
`B. Overview of the ’439 Patent
`1. Prior-Art Systems Alleged in the ’439 Patent
`To execute AMC on a subcarrier-by-subcarrier basis during downlink
`
`transmissions, channel information for hundreds or thousands of subcarriers needs
`
`to be sent from the UEs to the BS. It was well known, before the priority date of the
`
`’439 Patent, that AMC of subcarrier granularity required too much feedback
`
`signaling overhead. Ex. 1001, 2:4-15; Ex. 1007 ¶ 41.
`
`In its background, the ’439 Patent acknowledges that, to reduce the feedback
`
`overhead, multiple subcarriers can be bundled into subbands—groups of multiple
`
`subcarriers in neighboring positions in the frequency domain—and that this was
`
`done in the prior art. Ex. 1001, 2:12-31, 4:56-60; Ex. 1007 ¶ 42. With AMC applied
`
`on subband basis, a joint (common) modulation parameter and a joint (common)
`
`coding parameter can be applied to all of the subcarriers in a particular subband.
`
`With less-granular information needing to be sent back from the UE to the BS, the
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2019-00959)
`uplink spectrum efficiency (or spectrum utilization rate) can be improved. Such
`
`AMC based on subbands was typically used before the priority date of the ’439
`
`Patent. Ex. 1001, 2:12-31, 4:56-60; Ex. 1007 ¶ 42.
`
`Figure 2 of the ’439 Patent, labeled “prior art,” helps explain AMC based on
`
`subbands. In Figure 2, all of the subcarriers along the frequency (vertical) axis are
`
`bundled into subbands 1 through N. A joint (common) modulation parameter and a
`
`joint (common) coding parameter are then applied to all of the subcarriers in each
`
`subband. Ex. 1001, 2:12-49; Ex. 1007 ¶ 43.
`
`
`
`FIG. 2 of ’439 Patent
`2. The Purported Improvement of the ’439 Patent
`The ’439 Patent alleges that prior-art systems implementing AMC based on
`
`subbands still required too much feedback overhead and thus did not maximize the
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2019-00959)
`uplink spectrum utilization rate. Ex. 1001, 5:35-39; Ex. 1007 ¶ 48. The ’439 Patent
`
`purportedly solves this problem by taking the subbands of the prior art, which were
`
`bundles of subcarriers, and further combining these subbands into “subband groups,”
`
`which are groups of subbands. Ex. 1001, 5:40-44, Ex. 1007 ¶49. The ’439 Patent
`
`then has a communication apparatus select a joint modulation parameter and a joint
`
`coding parameter for each subband group, instead of selecting a modulation
`
`parameter and a coding parameter for each subband as was done in the alleged prior
`
`art. Ex. 1001, 5:42-44; Ex. 1007 ¶ 49.
`
`In the ’439 Patent, the OFDM subbands are formed into subband groups based
`
`on combination patterns. These combination patterns are stored in pattern storage
`
`sections 601, 605 and 607, shown in FIGS. 6A and 6B. The combination patterns
`
`may involve combining neighboring subbands, combining subbands spaced at
`
`intervals, or combining all of the subbands into a single subband group. Ex. 1001,
`
`10:21-33; Ex. 1007 ¶ 53.
`
`Figure 8 of the ’439 Patent, reproduced below, shows an example of
`
`combining neighboring subbands on the frequency axis across M time units, each of
`
`which corresponds to an OFDM symbol. This is similar to how neighboring
`
`subcarriers are combined to form subbands. Ex. 1001, 10:33-49; Ex. 1007 ¶ 54.
`
`Subbands having the same shading in this figure belong to the same subband group.
`
`Ex. 1001, 10:48-49; Ex. 1007 ¶ 54.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2019-00959)
`
`
`Figure 9 of the ’439 Patent, reproduced below, shows an example of
`
`combining subbands spaced at intervals on the frequency axis. Ex. 1001, 10:50- 61;
`
`Ex. 1007 ¶ 55.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2019-00959)
`
`Figure 10 of the ’439 Patent, reproduced below, shows an example of
`
`combining all of the subbands into a single subband group. Ex. 1001, 10:62-11:3;
`
`
`
`Ex. 1007 ¶ 56.
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2019-00959)
`
`
`
`In summary, the ’439 patent alleges the following improvements over prior-
`
`art OFDM systems: (1) combining subbands into subband groups; (2) having the
`
`receiving side (e.g., a UE) decide and send to the transmission side (e.g., a BS) a
`
`joint modulation parameter and a joint coding parameter for each subband group;
`
`and (3) storing in advance patterns for combining subbands into subband groups. As
`
`shown below and as confirmed in the Declaration of Zhi Ding, Ph.D. (Ex. 1007),
`
`these alleged improvements were either known or would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest claimed priority date of the ’439
`
`Patent. Ex. 1007 ¶ 57.
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2019-00959)
`
`C.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”)
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) of the ’439 Patent at the time
`
`of the alleged invention had a bachelor degree in electrical engineering, computer
`
`science, or an equivalent field, plus at least three years of experience working in the
`
`fields of wireless communication systems, communication networks, and signal
`
`processing.1 Ex. 1007 ¶ 61.
`
`D.
`Effective Filing Date and Prosecution History of the ’439 Patent
`The ’439 Patent issued from Application No. 11/719,611, filed on May 17,
`
`2007. This application was a national stage filing of PCT/JP2005/021246, filed on
`
`November 18, 2005. The PCT application claimed priority to Chinese Application
`
`No. 2004 1 0094967, filed on November 19, 2004. Ex. 1001, face page. Therefore,
`
`the effective filing date of the IPR Claim is no earlier than November 19, 2004.
`
`During the prosecution of the ’439 Patent, an Office Action dated February 2,
`
`2010 rejected original claims 1, 6, 7 and 9-11 as anticipated by the Applicant’s
`
`admitted prior art, but indicated that original claims 2-5, 8 and 12 would be allowable
`
`if rewritten in independent form. The limitation of a pattern storage section was the
`
`only limitation found by the Patent Office to distinguish the cited references. Ex.
`
`
`1 Any reference herein to what a POSITA would have known, understood, or been
`motivated to do, and the like, refers to the alleged time of the purported invention.
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2019-00959)
`1002 at 233-241. In an Amendment dated April 29, 2010, the allowable claims were
`
`rewritten in independent form per the Office Action. Ex. 1002 at 212-223.
`
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION—37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(3)
`For purposes of this IPR, each challenged claim must be given “its broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification.” 37 CFR § 42.100(b). The
`
`broadest reasonable construction or interpretation standard requires that claim terms
`
`be “given their ordinary and customary meaning,” as would be understood by a
`
`POSITA in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d
`
`1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)). A special definition for a claim term must be set forth in
`
`the specification with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In re
`
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). To the extent that Patent Owner
`
`contends a term in the challenged claims should be read to have a special meaning,
`
`those contentions should be disregarded unless the claims are amended to expressly
`
`correspond to the contended meaning. Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756,
`
`48764 at col. 2 (August 14, 2012).2
`
`Because the standard of claim construction used in an IPR differs from that
`
`
`2 Petitioner has addressed claim construction under the current standard for IPR of the
`broadest reasonable interpretation. 37 CFR §42.100(b). To the extent the Board adopts a
`different standard, for example by applying the standard under Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
`F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005), Petitioner reserves the right to supplement briefing on
`this issue.
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2019-00959)
`used in litigation, Petitioner reserves the right to present different constructions of
`
`terms in litigation under claim construction standards appropriate for such cases. In
`
`re American Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner proposes the claim constructions below for purposes of this
`
`Petition only. Any claim terms that are not defined below are presumed to have their
`
`plain and ordinary meaning.3
`
`A.
`
`“subband” (claim 8): a group of subcarriers in neighboring positions
`
`on the frequency domain. Ex. 1001, 2:19-21 (“[A] subband indicates a
`
`subcarrier group comprised of subcarriers in neighboring positions on
`
`the frequency domain.”); Ex. 1007 ¶ 66a.
`
`B.
`
`“pattern storage section” (claim 8): a memory for storing patterns for
`
`selecting subbands. Ex. 1001, FIGS. 6A, 6B (showing combination
`
`pattern storage sections 601, 605 and 607); Ex. 1007 ¶ 66b. The stored
`
`patterns are for selecting subbands to combine into subband groups. Ex.
`
`1001, 10:21-33; Ex. 1007 ¶ 66b. A POSITA would have understood
`
`that the storage would have been implemented in a computer memory
`
`because that is how UEs, which are essentially small computers, work.
`
`Ex. 1007 ¶ 66b.
`
`
`3 Petitioner does not concede that any terms meet the statutory requirements of 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112.
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2019-00959)
`“patterns for selecting subbands” (claim 8): particular configurations
`
`C.
`
`or arrangements of subbands on the frequency and/or time domains. Ex.
`
`1001, 10:21-11:3; Ex. 1007 ¶ 66c. Figures 8-10 of the ’439 Patent show
`
`examples of how the subbands can configured or arranged on the
`
`frequency and/or time domains to form subband groups. Ex. 1001,
`
`FIGS. 8-10; Ex. 1007 ¶ 66c.
`
` PRECISE REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`A.
`Summary of the Prior Art Applied in This Petition
`1. Overview of Li
`Li issued on June 7, 2005, was published on September 11, 2003, and was
`
`filed on April 17, 2001. Li is a continuation-in-part of an application filed on
`
`December 15, 2000. Li therefore qualifies as prior art under at least pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), (e).
`
`At a high level, Li discloses an OFDM system having pre-defined groups of
`
`“clusters.” Ex. 1003, Abstract; Ex. 1007 ¶ 68. The clusters 102, which are shown in
`
`Figure 1A of Li, are the same as subbands in the ’439 Patent. Ex. 1003, 5:18- 28,
`
`FIG. 1A; Ex. 1007 ¶ 68. In other words, each “cluster” of Li is a bundle of subcarriers
`
`that are in neighboring positions in the frequency domain, as Figure 1A of Li makes
`
`clear. Ex. 1003, 5:18-28, FIG. 1A; Ex. 1007 ¶ 68. Groups of clusters in Li thus are
`
`the same as subband groups in the ’439 Patent. Ex. 1007 ¶ 68.
`
`Li teaches partitioning the subcarriers in the OFDM system “into groups of at
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2019-00959)
`least one cluster of subcarriers.” Ex. 1003, Abstract; Ex. 1007 ¶ 69. The UE, which
`
`Li calls a “subscriber,” then “select[s] … one or more groups in the groups, and
`
`allocat[es] at least one cluster in the one or more groups of clusters” for the BS to
`
`use in communicating with the subscriber. Ex. 1003, Abstract; Ex. 1007 ¶ 69.
`
`Figure 3 of Li (reproduced below) illustrates an embodiment of the subscriber
`
`processing at the UE, which includes carrying out a channel estimation on the
`
`clusters (channel/interference estimation processing block 301). Ex. 1003, 8:54-56,
`
`9:12-15; Ex. 1007 ¶ 70. Based on the “per cluster” results from block 301 at the UE,
`
`the cluster ordering and rate prediction processing block 303 decides one or more
`
`modulation parameters and one or more coding parameters per cluster group. Ex.
`
`1003, 8:61-65, 9:35-37, 9:43-46; Ex. 1007 ¶ 70. The cluster request processing block
`
`304 then transmits the modulation and coding parameters back to the BS via an
`
`established uplink for the BS to use in modulating and encoding data to be
`
`transmitted to the subscriber in the downlink. Ex. 1003, 8:66-9:2, 9:43-46; Ex. 1007
`
`¶ 70.
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2019-00959)
`Figure 6 of Li (reproduced below) shows the clusters (subbands), which are
`
`represented by boxes along the frequency (horizontal) and time (vertical) axes,
`
`partitioned into four cluster groups. Ex. 1003, 11:49-52; Ex. 1007 ¶ 71. The clusters
`
`(subbands) constituting the cluster groups shown in Figure 6 are selected according
`
`to a pattern—every fourth cluster going along the frequency axis f is selected to form
`
`a cluster group. Ex. 1007 ¶ 71.
`
`
`In Li, one motivation for combining multiple clusters (subbands) into such
`
`cluster groups is to “improve[] frequency diversity within each group and increase[]
`
`the probability that at least some of the clusters within a group can provide high
`
`SINR [signal-to-interference plus noise ratio].” Ex. 1003, 11:58-61; Ex. 1007 ¶ 72.
`
`Exploiting diversity between subbands is one of the same motivations stated in the
`
`’439 Patent. Ex. 1001, 5:19-20; Ex. 1007 ¶ 72. Another motivation in Li for “group-
`
`based cluster allocation” is to improve the uplink spectrum efficiency and to lower
`
`the feedback overhead by “reducing the data bits for cluster indexing, thereby
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2019-00959)
`reducing the bandwidth requirements of the feedback channel (information) and
`
`control channel (information) for cluster allocation.” Ex. 1003, 11:62-66; Ex. 1007
`
`¶ 72. The ’439 Patent also states this same motivation of reducing the feedback
`
`overhead. Ex. 1001, 5:32-45, 12:17-24; Ex. 1007 ¶ 72.
`
`2. Overview of Vijayan
`Vijayan issued on May 22, 2007, was published on May 17, 2005, and was
`
`filed on September 1, 2004, making it prior art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(e).
`
`At a high level, Vijayan discloses an OFDM system where the BS allocates a
`
`group of subbands
`
`for downlink
`
`transmission and applies a common
`
`coding/modulation scheme for all subbands in the group. The patent discloses
`
`various patterns of subbands for the subband groups, where each subband group
`
`comprises multiple subbands.
`
`More specifically, Vijayan uses the word “subband,” which is equivalent to a
`
`subcarrier in the ’439 Patent. Ex. 1004, 1:29-32 (“With OFDM, each subband is
`
`associated with a respective subcarrier that may be modulated with data.”). Vijayan
`
`also discloses the concept of a “subband group,” which is equivalent to the concept
`
`of a subband in the ’439 Patent: “In one subband grouping scheme, each group
`
`contains Nspg consecutive usable subbands.” Ex. 1004, 8:16-17. Furthermore,
`
`Vijayan discloses the concept of a PLC (physical layer channel), which is equivalent
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2019-00959)
`to the concept of a subband group in the ’439 Patent. A PLC is comprised of multiple
`
`subbands: “[A]n active PLC may be assigned as many subband groups as possible
`
`while conforming to the maximum bit rate.” Ex. 1004, 9:64-66; see also id., Ex.
`
`1004, 10:7-13 (“In an embodiment, the rectangular pattern for each active PLC
`
`includes contiguous subband groups (in indices) and contiguous symbol periods.
`
`This type of assignment reduces the amount of overhead signaling needed to specify
`
`the rectangular pattern ….”). Thus, Vijayan discloses an OFDM system where the
`
`BS allocates a group of subbands for downlink transmission. Ex. 1007 ¶75.
`
`Vijayan also discloses the BS applying a joint modulation parameter and a
`
`joint coding parameter for each subband group. The joint modulation and coding
`
`parameters are specified by one of eight “modes,” which are shown in Table 1 of
`
`Vijayan, reproduced below. Each mode m “is associated with a specific modulation
`
`scheme (e.g., QPSK or 16-QAM) and a specific inner code rate Rin(m) (e.g., ⅓, ½,
`
`or ⅔).” Ex. 1004, 13:14-16; Ex. 1007 ¶ 76.
`
`19
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2019-00959)
`In Vijayan, each PLC (i.e., subband group) is assigned a mode m,
`
`corresponding to a specific modulation scheme and a specific inner code rate from
`
`the second and third columns of Table 1, respectively. “The data stream for each
`
`PLC is encoded and modulated based on a coding and modulation scheme selected
`
`for that PLC.” Ex. 1004, 4:43-45. In Figure 9B of Vijayan, reproduced below, a
`
`specific mode is assigned to each subband group in each symbol period (subband
`
`group 1 in symbol period 1 consisting of three subbands at adjacent frequencies is
`
`assigned mode 1, and thus all subbands in subband group 1 are assigned the QPSK
`
`modulation scheme and a ⅓ inner code rate). Ex. 1004, 13:12-16, 14:40-47; Ex. 1007
`
`¶ 76.
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2019-00959)
`
`3. Overview of Hashem
`Hashem issued on April 13, 2004 and was filed on September 29, 2000,
`
`making it prior art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), (e).
`
`Hashem generally relates to the transmission of data in a radio-frequency
`
`communication system having a BS and a remote unit (i.e., a UE). Ex. 1005,
`
`Abstract. As shown in Figure 1 of Hashem, reproduced below, the remote unit (1)
`
`receives downlink sub-carrier signals; (2) measures the signal-to-interference ratio
`
`(S/I) of each sub-carrier signal; (3) determines acceptable and unacceptable sub-
`
`carriers by comparing each measured sub-carrier S/I to a threshold value; and (4)
`
`sends a return signal to a BS, including the average S/I of the acceptable sub- carriers
`
`and a sequence of index numbers identifying the acceptable sub-carriers. Ex. 1005,
`
`4:15-65. The BS, in turn, (5) receives the return signal; (6) extracts the average S/I
`
`of the acceptable sub-carriers; (7) selects an optimum Link Mode for the acceptable
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`(IPR2019-00959)
`sub-carriers; (8) encodes and modulates data using the optimum Link Mode; and (9)
`
`transmits the encoded data in the acceptable sub-carriers to the remote unit. Ex. 1005,
`
`4:66-5:21; Ex. 1007 ¶ 79. The Link Mode “is a set of at least one transmission
`
`parameter, such as a modulation level, a coding rate ….” Ex. 1005, 4:11-15; Ex.
`
`1007 ¶ 79.
`
`
`
`Hashem teaches that signali