`
`
`Filed: February 21, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`
`PETITIONER,
`
`V.
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC,
`
`PATENT OWNER.
`___________________
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00108
`U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862
`___________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 313 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’862 PATENT ........................................................... 3 
`
`II. 
`A.  Development of the Claimed Inventions ........................................................ 3 
`B.  Description of the ’862 Patent’s Inventions ................................................... 4 
`C.  Challenged Claims of the ’862 Patent ............................................................ 7 
`PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE ’862 PATENT .................................. 8 
`
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE PARENT ’583 PATENT ................ 10 
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ................................................................. 12 
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 12 
`
`VI. 
`A.  “Beamforming” ............................................................................................ 12 
`B.  “A baseband processing module operable to . . .” ....................................... 13 
`C.  “Decompose the estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V)
`to produce the transmitter beamforming information” ................................ 13 
`1.  The Provisional Application Supports Patent Owner’s Construction ........ 17 
`2.  Patent Owner’s Construction Conforms with the Understanding of a
`POSITA ....................................................................................................... 20 
`3.  Patent Owner’s Construction Should be Adopted Because Petitioner
`Failed to Proffer a Construction .................................................................. 22 
`STANDARD FOR GRANTING INTER PARTES REVIEW ...................... 23 
`
`VII. 
`
`INSTITUTION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE THE DISTRICT
`VIII. 
`COURT LITIGATION IS IN ADVANCED STAGES ........................................... 24 
`IX.  MAO IS NOT ANALAGOUS ART TO THE ’862 PATENT ..................... 28 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE A MOTIVATION OR
`X. 
`EXPLAIN HOW TO COMBINE THE ASSERTED REFERENCES .................... 31 
`A.  Petitioner’s Motivation to Combine Arguments are Rote and Conclusory . 33 
`B.  Petitioner Does Not Show Why or How A POSITA Would Have Made
`the Combinations Asserted In Grounds 1-2. ................................................ 35 
`1.  Ground 1: Li-748 and Tong and Mao ......................................................... 36 
`2.  Ground 2: Li-748 and Tong and Mao ......................................................... 40 
`PETITIONER FAILS TO SHOW THAT GROUNDS 3-5 MEET THE
`XI. 
`“DECOMPOSE…” LIMITATION ......................................................................... 41 
`XII.  STRONG EVIDENCE OF SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS
`PRECLUDES A FINDING OF OBVIOUSNESS .................................................. 46 
`A.  Widespread Industry Adoption Supports Non-obviousness ........................ 46 
`B.  Multiple Companies Have Recently Licensed the ’862 Patent .................... 65 
`XIII.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 65 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases 
`
`Align Tech., Inc. v. ClearCorrect Operating, LLC,
`745 F. App’x 361 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...................................................................... 32
`AMS AG et al. v. 511 Innovations, Inc.,
`IPR2016-01792, Paper 15 (PTAB March 16, 2017) ........................................... 22
`Apple Inc. v. Luxembourg S.A.,
`IPR2017-02041, Paper 10 (PTAB Mar. 8, 2018) ................................................ 36
`Arkie Lures, Inc. V. Advanced Semiconducter Materials Am., Inc.,
`98 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .............................................................................. 65
`Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.,
`776 F.2d 281 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .............................................................................. 34
`Ebay Inc. v. IDT Corp.,
`No. 08-CV-4015, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75475 (W.D. Ark. Aug. 24,
`2009)..................................................................................................................... 10
`Endo Pharm. Inc. v. Actavis LLC,
`No. 2018-1054, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 13348 (Fed. Cir. May 3,
`2019)..................................................................................................................... 39
`E-One, Inc. v. Oshkosh Corp.,
`IPR2019-00161, Paper 16 (PTAB May 15, 2019) ............................................... 27
`General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd., v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) ......................................... 28
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) ....................................................... 23
`Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC,
`938 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 16
`Huawei Device Co., Ltd. v. Maxell, Ltd.,
`IPR2018-00246, Paper 8 (PTAB June 29, 2019) ................................................. 33
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Hyundai Motor Company v. Blitzsafe Texas, LLC,
`IPR2016-01476, Paper 12 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2017) ................................................ 35
`In Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc.,
`807 F.2d 955 (Fed. Cir. 1986) .............................................................................. 63
`In re Bigio,
`381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 29
`In re Broadcom Ltd. v. Invensas Corp.,
`IPR2017-00424, Paper 7 (PTAB Jul. 3, 2017) .................................................... 35
`In re Clay,
`966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992) .............................................................................. 30
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 31
`In re NuVasive, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 32
`In re Oetiker,
`977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ............................................................................ 30
`In re Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc.,
`832 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 37
`
`Initiative for Medicines, Access & Knowledge,
`IPR2018-00390, Paper 7 (PTAB Jul 29, 2018) ................................................... 34
`Innogenics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs.,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 39
`Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm't, Inc.,
`637 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 30
`ipDataTel, LLC v. ICN Acquisition, LLC,
`IPR2018-01822, Paper 19 (PTAB Apr. 22, 2019) ............................................... 31
`Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc.,
`IPR2018-00827, Paper 9 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2018) ................................................. 29
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 64
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................ 23
`Life Techs., Inc. v. Clontech Lab., Inc.,
`224 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 39
`Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co.,
`848 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 24
`NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Techs. Inc.,
`IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) ......................................... 26, 34
`Otsuka Pharm. Co. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`678 F.3d 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 39
`P & G Co. v. Paragon Trade Brands, Inc.,
`989 F.Supp. 547 (D. Del. 1997) ........................................................................... 64
`Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.,
`810 F.2d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ............................................................................ 37
`Personal Web Techs. v. Apple, Inc.,
`848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................. 32
`Pfizer Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`No. CV 04-754 (JCL), 2006 WL 8457598 (D.N.J. Oct. 27, 2006) ..................... 65
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni,
`158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................ 17
`Roxane Labs., Inc. v. Novartis AG,
`IPR2016-01461, Paper 9 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2017) .......................................... 43, 44
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`IPR2019-01219, Paper 7 (PTAB Jan. 9, 2020) .................................................... 26
`Sprint Communications Co. L.P., v. Nuvox Communications, Inc.,
`2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1898 (D. Kan. Jan. 12, 2009) ......................................... 10
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC,
`IPR2017-02129, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 27, 2018) .............................................. 32
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Ven-Tel, Inc. v. Hayes Microcomputer Prods.,
`982 F.2d 1527 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ............................................................................ 63
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .............................................................................. 16
`Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang,
`202 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 36
`Statutes 
`35 U.S.C. § 282(b) ................................................................................................... 12
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ................................................................................................... 3, 23
`Other Authorities 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 12
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ................................................................................................. 34
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 609.02(A)(2) (8th Ed. Rev. 3) ............... 10
`Regulations 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ..................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 ................................................................................................... 23
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`I.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner submits this Preliminary Response, which is timely filed on
`
`February 21, 2020. The Board should deny institution of the Petition for at least
`
`five reasons.
`
`First, the Board should exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314(a) because it would not be an efficient use of the Board’s resources in
`
`view of the advanced stage of the district court litigation. The district court has set
`
`trial for December 17, 2020. (See Ex. 2006, 8.) By the time the PTAB must issue a
`
`decision on institution (May 21, 2020), the parties in the district court litigation
`
`will have prepared opening expert reports. (See id., 2-3.) If IPR is instituted, the
`
`Board’s statutory deadline for its Final Written Decision would be sometime in
`
`May 2021, five months after the district court trial. Petitioner relies on nearly the
`
`same art in the district court case as in this Petition.1 (See Ex. 2021, 13-18.) The
`
`Board should deny institution to avoid inefficient and duplicative parallel
`
`proceedings.
`
`Second, Petitioner relies on Mao combined with other references in each of
`
`its Grounds. But Mao relates to transmission power (just like the art Applicant
`
`
`1 All prior art in this IPR is relied upon in the related LG litigation except Li-054.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`overcame during the prosecution of the ’862 Patent), and does not bear any
`
`relationship to the field of beamforming as described in the ’862 Patent (relating to
`
`a shift in time or phase). Thus, because Mao must be disregarded, and Petitioner
`
`relies on Mao for a key limitation relating to forming a baseband signal to send
`
`back transmitter beamforming information, Petitioner has failed to show each
`
`limitation is disclosed in its combinations.
`
`Third, Petitioner’s arguments of motivation to combine in each ground are
`
`conclusory and unsupported (except by similarly conclusory expert testimony) and
`
`fail to establish a rational underpinning for the asserted combinations, or explain
`
`how the references should be combined. Petitioner’s hindsight-driven stitching
`
`together of disparate references is insufficient under well-established Federal
`
`Circuit law. Additionally, with respect to Ground 1 and 2, Petitioner’s arguments
`
`are especially tenuous because Petitioner attempts to combine Li with Tong to
`
`address an issue that Li already addresses, or attempts to combine Tong and Mao
`
`without any showing that the two references are even compatible.
`
`Fourth, should the Board consider the substance of Petitioner’s arguments
`
`regarding disclosures in the prior art, Petitioner falls far short of showing a
`
`reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect to Grounds 3-5. Petitioner
`
`admits that the asserted prior art does not disclose decomposition to derive a
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`reduced set of angles or coefficients, which is required by the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of the claim language.
`
`Fifth, the Petition utterly fails to consider secondary considerations of non-
`
`obviousness—required for a proper obviousness inquiry—even though Petitioner
`
`is well aware, through the related district court litigation, of the widespread
`
`adoption of the technology claimed in the ’862 Patent and that the patent has been
`
`licensed by leading technology companies. This adoption, which includes
`
`implementations of the beamforming portions of the 802.11ac standard
`
`promulgated by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”), and
`
`three licenses to the ’862 Patent confirm that the inventions of the ’862 Patent were
`
`not obvious.
`
`These shortcomings are fatal to Petitioner’s institution request. Pursuant to
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board deny
`
`institution of a trial on all challenged claims (i.e., claims 9, 10, 11, and 12) of the
`
`’862 Patent.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’862 PATENT
`A. Development of the Claimed Inventions
`Inventors Carlos Aldana and Joonsuk Kim worked for Broadcom
`
`Corporation at the time they developed the inventions of the ’862 Patent. (Exs.
`
`2007, 2008.) Broadcom Corporation was a leading technology company that
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`marketed products for the wireless and broadband communication industry. (Exs.
`
`2009, 2010.) The company is now a subsidiary of Broadcom Inc., the entity that
`
`emerged after Avago Technologies acquired Broadcom Corporation. (Ex. 2010.) In
`
`the time period leading up to the ’862 Patent and its parent applications, Broadcom
`
`was heavily involved in industry organizations relating to wireless networks,
`
`including the IEEE. (Exs. 2009, 2011.) Inventors Aldana and Kim both
`
`participated in those organizations, and interfaced and collaborated with other
`
`leading technology companies. (Exs. 2007, 2008.) Indeed, Inventor Kim chaired or
`
`vice-chaired various groups developing IEEE 802.11 standards, and Inventor Kim
`
`was a contributing member with respect to the IEEE 802.11n standard, including,
`
`but not limited with respect to certain beamforming compression technologies.
`
`(Exs. 2007, 2008.)
`
`B. Description of the ’862 Patent’s Inventions
`The ’862 Patent is entitled “Efficient Feedback of Channel Information in a
`
`Closed Loop Beamforming Wireless Communication System” and claims priority
`
`to an application filed on April 21, 2005. It is directed to transmitting beamforming
`
`feedback information back to a receiver in efficient way. Beamforming is a way to
`
`improve wireless communications and, in the ’862 Patent, refers to a “technique to
`
`create a focused antenna beam by shifting a signal in time or in phase to provide
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`gain of the signal in the desired direction and attenuate the signal in other
`
`directions.” (Ex. 1001, 2:66–3:4.)
`
`In order for a transmitter to properly implement beamforming, it needs to
`
`know properties of the channel over which the wireless communication is
`
`conveyed. (Id. at 3:14–17.) The transmitter derives that knowledge through
`
`feedback information sent from the receiver. (Id. at 3:17–23.) A straight-forward
`
`approach to sending this feedback information could be to determine the channel
`
`response (H) and feedback the entire response as feedback information to the
`
`transmitter. (Id. at 3:19–25.) But due to the size of that information, by the time the
`
`entire channel response (H) is fed back, the response of the channel has changed.
`
`(Id. at 3:20–25.) Thus, it is important to find ways to reduce the size of the
`
`feedback.
`
`One way to reduce the feedback size is to decompose the channel using
`
`singular value decomposition (SVD) to send back only information related to a
`
`calculated value of the transmitter’s beamforming matrix (V). (Id. at 3:26–30.)
`
`This requires computing (V) based on the matrix equation H=UDV* (where H
`
`represents the channel response, D is a diagonal matrix, and U is a receiver unitary
`
`matrix. (Id. at 3:30–34.) Yet this approach still prevents challenges for feedback in
`
`multiple-input-multiple-output (“MIMO;” where the transmitter and receiver each
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`include multiple paths) wireless communications, requiring 1728 bits per tone (or
`
`subchannel) for a 2x2 MIMO OFDM wireless communication. (Id. at 3:35–49.)
`
`Despite reducing the feedback from sending the entire channel responses H,
`
`this solution still presents a significant amount of feedback data that is not efficient
`
`enough. (See id. at 3:35–49; 12:47–13:24.) This is due to the resulting feedback
`
`requiring four elements, which are all complex Cartesian coordinate values fitting
`
`the equation Vik=aik+j*bik (where aik and bik are values between [-1, 1]). (Id. at
`
`3:35–41.) It is in this context that the ’862 Patent identifies a need for further
`
`reducing beamforming feedback information for wireless communications for
`
`more efficient transmission. (Id. at 49–51.)
`
`To address this need, the ’862 Patent discloses and claims systems and
`
`methods that are directed to improved efficiencies in transmitting feedback of
`
`transmitter beamforming information, including through the use of polar
`
`coordinates. (Id. at 15:34–16:6.) For example, the ’862 Patent discloses cartesian to
`
`polar conversion for singular value decomposition (“SVD”), an even more
`
`significant reduction in feedback than the prior art. (See id. at 12:54–64.) The ’862
`
`Patent also discloses the use of Givens rotations to further reduce (through
`
`decomposition) the numbers of angles that must be fed back to the transmitter. (See
`
`id. at 14:27–15:9.) These angles, which are quantized before being fed back as the
`
`transmitter beamforming information, result in a drastic reduction in the amount of
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`data that must be sent to the transmitter. (Id. at 15:10–67.) By reducing the
`
`elements that must be sent back (through Givens rotation) and quantization of
`
`those angles, the ’862 Patent elegantly solves the problems associated with
`
`inefficient feedback in a MIMO system.
`
`C. Challenged Claims of the ’862 Patent
`Petitioner challenges claims 9–12 of the ’862 Patent. Independent claim 9
`
`states as follows:
`
`A wireless communication device comprising:
`a plurality of Radio Frequency (RF) components operable to receive an RF
`signal and to convert the RF signal to a baseband signal; and
`a baseband processing module operable to:
`receive a preamble sequence carried by the baseband signal;
`estimate a channel response based upon the preamble sequence;
`determine an estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V) based
`upon the channel response and a receiver beamforming unitary matrix
`(U);
`decompose the estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V) to
`produce the transmitter beamforming information; and
`form a baseband signal employed by the plurality of RF components to
`wirelessly send the transmitter beamforming information to the
`transmitting wireless device.
`(Ex. 1001, 17:15–35.)
`
`Dependent claim 10 recites as follows:
`
`The wireless communication device of claim 9, wherein in determining an
`estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V) based upon the channel
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`response and a receiver beamforming unitary matrix (U), the baseband
`processing module is operable to:
`produce the estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V) in
`Cartesian coordinates; and
`convert the estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V) to polar
`coordinates.
`(Ex. 1001, 17:36–44.)
`
`Dependent claim 11 further claims the following:
`
`The wireless communication device of claim 9, wherein the channel response
`(H), estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V), and the receiver
`beamforming unitary matrix (U) are related by the equation:
`H=UDV*
`Where, D is a diagonal matrix.
`(Ex. 1001, 17:45–52.)
`
`Finally, dependent claim 12 recites the following:
`
`The wireless communication device of claim 9, wherein in determining the
`estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V) based upon the channel
`response and the receiver beamforming unitary matrix (U), the baseband
`processing module performs Singular Value Decomposition (SVD)
`operations.
`(Ex. 1001, 17:53–58.)
`
`III. PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE ’862 PATENT
`The ’862 Patent was filed on September 28, 2005 and claims priority as a
`
`continuation-in-part to U.S. patent application No. 11/168,793, which was filed on
`
`June 28, 2005, and to two provisional applications, 60/673,451 and 60/698,686, the
`
`earliest of which is an April 21, 2005 provisional application. (Ex. 1001, Cover.)
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`During prosecution of the ’862 Patent, the Examiner first issued a § 103
`
`rejection over Kim (U.S. Patent Pub. 2002/0187753) in view of Hwang (U.S.
`
`Patent Pub. 2004/0042558) and, for certain claims, in further view of Ma (U.S.
`
`Publication “A unified algebraic transformation approach for parallel recursive and
`
`adaptive filtering and SVD algorithms,” IEEE 2001). (Ex. 1002, 155-163).) In
`
`response, Applicant argued that neither Kim nor Hwang taught nor suggested any
`
`mechanism for decomposing the estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix
`
`(V) and sought reconsideration from the Examiner. (Id., 148-150.) After a Final
`
`Rejection, Applicant further argued that Kim only taught systems and methods for
`
`a receiver to calculate transmit power information (e.g. the transmission power to
`
`be allocated by a transmitter to transmitting antennae) and for feeding back the
`
`calculated transmit power information. (Id. at 126-129.) The difference, according
`
`to Applicant, was that the specification of the ’862 Patent defined beamforming to
`
`refer to shifting a signal in time or phase and had nothing to do with transmission
`
`power. (Id.)
`
`The Examiner maintained his rejection, and Applicant appealed to the
`
`Board. On December 14, 2012, in Appeal 2010-006042, the Board reversed the
`
`Examiner and expressly held that “we conclude that in light of Appellants’
`
`specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the claim term
`
`‘beamforming’ as referring to ‘shifting a signal in time or phase’ rather than
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`allocation the transmitter power as taught by Kim” and when “[a]pplying this
`
`claim construction, we do not find that Kim teaches or suggests a step or
`
`mechanism for determining an estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix
`
`and decomposing the beamforming matrix to produce the transmitter beamforming
`
`information.” (Id. at 38-46.) After that reversal, the Examiner issued a Notice of
`
`Allowance. (Id. at 26-30.)
`
`IV. PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE PARENT ’583 PATENT
`The ’862 Patent is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent No. 7,738,583 (“the
`
`’583 Patent”). (Ex. 1001, Cover; Ex. 2012, Cover) The prosecution history of the
`
`’583 Patent is relevant because:
`
`When examining a continuation application, the patent examiner will
`consider the information that was considered by the PTO in the parent
`application. M.P.E.P. § 609 (Eighth Ed., August 2001). This
`information is not limited to prior art references, but encompasses all
`information before the PTO in the prosecution of the parent
`application.
`Sprint Communications Co. L.P., v. Nuvox Communications, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 1898, 2009 WL 86565, at *3 (D. Kan. Jan. 12, 2009). Thus, any prior art
`
`references and/or rejections that are part of the file history of the parent application
`
`are considered when examining the continuation application. Ebay Inc. v. IDT
`
`Corp., No. 08-CV-4015, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75475, at *7-8 (W.D. Ark. Aug.
`
`24, 2009); see also MPEP § 609.02(A)(2) (8th Ed. Rev. 3) (“The examiner will
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`consider information which has been considered by the Office in a parent
`
`application when examining (A) a continuation application filed under 37 CFR
`
`1.53(b)… or (C) a continuation-in-part application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b).”).
`
`During prosecution of the ’583 Patent, the Examiner2 issued a non-final
`
`office action on April 15, 2009 that included a § 102(e) rejection over Li (U.S.
`
`Patent Pub. 2006/0068738 A1) and a § 103 rejection over Li in view of the
`
`knowledge of a person of skill in the art. (Ex. 2013, 136-137.) The Li reference
`
`cited by the Examiners is a patent application publication that later issued as U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,236,748—the Li–748 reference that Petitioner relies on for Ground 1.
`
`(See Ex. 1004, Cover.) In the last response to the office action on January 27,
`
`2010, Applicant argued that “the Li reference and the Malik reference teach away
`
`from the elements of the claims” and that:
`
`[T]he Li reference fails to describe a feedback signal [that] includes a
`subset of angles ψ1 and Φ1 and that the angles ψ2 and Φ2 can be
`determined based on the subset of angles ψ1 and Φ1, and then
`determining the polar coordinate for the unitary matrix based on the
`set of angles ψ1and Φ1, ψ2, and Φ2.
`
`
`2 The same Examiners, Shuwang Liu and Michael Neff, examined both the ’862
`
`Patent and the ’583 Patent. (See Ex. 1001 at Cover and Ex. 2012 at Cover.)
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`(Ex. 2013, 190.) Following that response, the Examiner issued a Notice of
`
`Allowance, stating that “[t]he prior art of record fails to anticipate or render
`
`obvious the specific limitations of the feedback information and the determination
`
`of the angle sets within the parameters of polar coordinates.” (Ex. 2013, 240.)
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`For purposes of this Preliminary Response only, Patent Owner does not
`
`dispute Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”).
`
`(Pet., 11.)
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`The challenged claims of the ’862 Patent are to be construed “using the same
`
`claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil
`
`action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (Nov. 13, 2018). The
`
`Petition does not seek construction of any terms of the ’862 Patent. Instead, it
`
`purports to summarize holdings from the district court’s claim construction order
`
`in litigation between Patent Owner and three defendants unaffiliated with
`
`Petitioner (“SDCA-1 Litigation”). Each of those holdings, which accepted Patent
`
`Owner’s positions, specified that the terms in question were to be understood in
`
`accordance with their plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITA. (Ex. 2014, 18-20.)
`
`A.
`“Beamforming”
`The term “beamforming,” although not considered by the district court, was
`
`previously construed by the Board during the prosecution of the ’862 Patent. The
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Board found that “one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the claim term
`
`‘beamforming’ as referring to ‘shifting a signal in time or phase’...” and relied on
`
`Applicant’s definition as set forth in the specification. (See Ex. 1002, 38-46; Ex.
`
`1001, 4:20-22.)
`
`B.
`“A baseband processing module operable to . . .”
`The district court in the SDCA-1 Litigation, siding with Patent Owner, held
`
`that this term was not a means-plus-function element because it had a well-
`
`understood meaning to a POSITA and that no construction of the term is
`
`necessary. (Ex. 2014, 20.) Petitioner does not challenge this holding in any
`
`meaningful way.
`
`C.
`
`“Decompose the estimated transmitter beamforming unitary
`matrix (V) to produce the transmitter beamforming information”
`The district court in the SDCA-1 Litigation, siding with Patent Owner, held
`
`that this term does not need construction and should be understood according to its
`
`plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITA. Likely as a result of filing a copy-cat
`
`petition without the benefit of first-hand knowledge of the litigation, however,
`
`Petitioner does not accurately recount the claim construction dispute that occurred
`
`in the district court litigation regarding this term.
`
`First, Petitioner suggests that Patent Owner sought a construction different
`
`than its plain and ordinary meaning. (Pet., 14–15.) That is incorrect. In the prior
`
`litigation, the defendants sought a specific construction; one that deviated from the
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`plain and ordinary meaning. (See Ex. 1018, 32.) In response, Patent Owner argued
`
`that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and provided an
`
`alternate construction if the court needed it. (See id.)
`
`Second, Petitioner suggests that the crux of the dispute was whether the plain
`
`and ordinary meaning of the decompose operation in the claim term referred to a
`
`Givens rotation and further suggesting that the district court rejected an
`
`interpretation that the decompose operation meant a Givens rotation. (See Pet., 14–
`
`15.) Yet, the district court did not “reject” this position because the decompose
`
`operation aspect of the term was not in dispute. For example, the defendants stated
`
`in their opening claim construction brief that “[t]he specification unequivocally
`
`confirms that the Givens Rotation produces the ‘transmitter beamforming
`
`information’ feedback: ‘The products of this Givens Rotation are the transmitter
`
`beamforming information.’” (Ex. 1017, 28 (citing ’862 Patent at 14:36–37)
`
`(emphasis in original).) From there, defendants argued that the transmitter
`
`beamforming information was a reduced set of angles that were not quantized
`
`before being transmitted. (See id.) The actual dispute before the district court was
`
`the format of the actual transmitter beamforming information that resulted from the
`
`decompose operation and transmitted back—whether or not quantization occurred:
`
`Defendants
`
`Plaintiff/Patent Owner
`
`“Plaintiff’s proposed construction
`should be rejected because: (1) it
`
`“The area of dispute with respect to
`this term is the meaning of the noun
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`incorporates a quantization operation
`that is not part of any mathematical
`decomposition operation, and (2) it
`fails to recognize the stated objective
`of the invention to reduce the set of
`angles.” (Ex. 1017, 29).
`
`“Plaintiff’s proposed construction also
`fails to recognize that the Givens
`Rotation operation produces transmitter
`beamforming information in the form
`of angles,” (Ex. 1017, 29.)
`
`‘transmitter beamforming information.’
`BNR, citing to the intrinsic record and
`expert opinion, has established that it is
`‘a reduced number of quantized
`coefficients.’ On the other hand,
`Defendants’ proposal, ‘a reduced set of
`angles,’ is inconsistent with the
`specification and the plain and ordinary
`meaning of the term to a person of
`ordinary skill in the art.”
`
`(Ex. 2015, 12.)
`
`
`
`This is also reflected in Petitioner’s reference to the district court’s statement
`
`during