`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: May 20, 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.
`_____________
`
`IPR2020-00108
`Patent 8,416,862 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and
`STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314, 37 C.F.R. § 42.4
`Denying Motion for Joinder
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c), 37 C.F.R. § 42.122
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00108
`Patent 8,416,862 B2
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`LG Electronics, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for inter partes
`review of claims 9–12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’862
`patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Bell Northern Research, LLC (“Patent Owner”)
`filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 9 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Pursuant to our
`authorization, Petitioner filed a Preliminary Reply (“Prelim. Reply,” Paper
`11) and Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Sur-Reply (“Prelim. Sur-Reply,”
`Paper 12).
`Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the
`information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that
`there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect
`to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a);
`see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary
`Response, the Preliminary Reply, and the Preliminary Sur-Reply, we
`conclude that the information presented shows that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of
`claims 9–12 of the ’862 patent.
`Petitioner also filed a motion for joinder, seeking to join as a party to
`IPR2019-01439. Paper 3 (“Joinder Mot.”). As explained below, IPR2019-
`01439 terminated on December 23, 2019 and is no longer pending. See
`Huawei Techs. Co. v. Bell Northern Research, LLC, IPR2019-01439, Paper
`9 (PTAB Dec. 13, 2019). We therefore deny Petitioner’s motion for joinder.
`
`A. Related Matters
`The parties collectively identify the following judicial proceedings in
`which the ’862 patent is or was asserted and which may affect, or be affected
`by, a decision in this proceeding: Bell Northern Research, LLC v. LG Elecs.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00108
`Patent 8,416,862 B2
`
`Co., Case No. 3:18-cv-02864 (S.D. Cal.) (“the LG district court litigation”);
`Bell Northern Research, LLC v. Coolpad Techs., Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-
`01783 (S.D. Cal.); Bell Northern Research, LLC v. Huawei Device
`(Dongguan) Co., Case No. 3:18-cv-01784 (S.D. Cal.); Bell Northern
`Research, LLC v. Kyocera Corp., Case No. 3:18-cv-01785 (S.D. Cal.); Bell
`Northern Research, LLC v. ZTE Corp., Case No. 3:18-cv-01786 (S.D. Cal.);
`and Bell Northern Research, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Case No. 2:19-cv-
`00286 (E.D. Tex.). Pet. 1–2; Paper 5, 1; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2).
`
`B. The ’862 Patent
`The ’862 patent relates to wireless communications using
`beamforming. Ex. 1001, 1:20–22. The ’862 patent describes that, “[i]n
`general, beamforming is a processing technique to create a focused antenna
`beam by shifting a signal in time or in phase to provide gain of the signal in
`a desired direction and to attenuate the signal in other directions.” Id. at
`2:67–3:4. The ’862 patent explains that, “[i]n order for a transmitter to
`properly implement beamforming,” the transmitter “needs to know
`properties of the channel over which the wireless communication is
`conveyed.” Id. at 3:14–17. For example, the receiver may “determine the
`channel response (H)” and “provide it as the feedback information.” Id. at
`3:19–22. The ’862 patent explains that the size of the feedback packet “may
`be so large that, during the time it takes to send it to the transmitter, the
`response of the channel has changed.” Id. at 3:22–25. To reduce the size of
`the feedback, “the receiver may decompose the channel using singular value
`decomposition (SVD) and send information relating only to a calculated
`value of the transmitter’s beamforming matrix (V) as the feedback
`information.” Id. at 3:26–30. According to the ’862 patent, “[w]hile this
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00108
`Patent 8,416,862 B2
`
`approach reduces the size of the feedback information, its size is still an
`issue for a [multiple-input-multiple-output] wireless communication.” Id. at
`3:33–35. Therefore, according to the ’862 patent, a need exists “for
`reducing beamforming feedback information for wireless communications.”
`Id. at 3:49–51.
`Figure 7 of the ’862 patent, shown below, illustrates an embodiment
`of the invention for providing beamforming feedback information from a
`receiver to a transmitter. Id. at 13:25–27.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00108
`Patent 8,416,862 B2
`
`Figure 7 above illustrates a method of providing beamforming
`feedback information for multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) wireless
`communication systems. Id. at 2:33–35, 13:25–27, 13:31–32. At step 702, a
`wireless communication device receives a preamble sequence from a
`transmitting wireless device. Id. at 13:36–39. Next, at step 704, the
`receiving wireless device determines an estimated transmitter beamforming
`unitary matrix (V) based on the channel response and a known receiver
`beamforming unitary matrix (U). Id. at 13:44–47. In the embodiment
`shown in Figure 7, the receiving wireless device produces V in Cartesian
`coordinates and then converts V to polar coordinates (step 706). Id. at
`13:54–58. The receiving wireless device then decomposes V to produce the
`transmitter beamforming information (step 708) and sends the beamforming
`information to the transmitting wireless device (step 710). Id. at 13:58–62,
`14:4–6. The transmitting wireless device then uses the feedback
`components to generate a new beamforming matrix (V), which the device
`uses for subsequent transmissions (step 712). Id. at 14:9–12.
`The ’862 patent discloses that, according to one embodiment, the
`decomposition operations of step 708 employ a Givens Rotation operation.
`Id. at 13:63–65. The ’862 patent explains that the Givens Rotation relies on
`the observation that, for a particular condition, some of the angles “are
`redundant” and thus, “the set of angles fed back to the transmitting wireless
`device are reduced.” Id. at 13:65–14:3.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Among the challenged claims (claims 9–12), claim 9 is independent.
`Claim 9 is illustrative of the subject matter of the challenged claims and
`reads as follows:
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00108
`Patent 8,416,862 B2
`
`9. 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.
`Id. at 17:15–34.
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner contends that claims 9–12 of the ’862 patent are
`unpatentable based on the following specific grounds (Pet. 3–4, 15–71):
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00108
`Patent 8,416,862 B2
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`9–12
`9–12
`9, 11, 12
`10
`9, 11, 12
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`103
`103
`103
`103
`103
`
`References
`Li-748,1 Tong,2 Mao3
`Tong, Mao
`Li-054,4 Mao
`Li-054, Mao, Yang5
`Poon,6 Mao
`
`In its analysis, Petitioner relies on the declaration testimony of Dr. Jonathan
`Wells (Ex. 1003). Pet. 15–71.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Discretionary Denial
`Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion under
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution because the related district court
`litigation is in advanced stages. Prelim. Resp. 24–28; Prelim. Sur-Reply 1–
`3. Patent Owner asserts that the district court has issued its Claim
`Construction order, fact discovery will be completed before our institution
`deadline, the final pretrial conference is scheduled for November 30, 2020,
`and trial is scheduled to commence December 14, 2020. Prelim. Resp. 25.
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 7,236,748 B2, filed Sept. 30, 2004, issued June 26, 2007
`(Ex. 1004).
`2 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0108310 A1, (PCT) filed
`June 22, 2005, published May 8, 2008 (Ex. 1005).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 7,312,750 B2, issued Dec. 25, 2007 (Ex. 1006).
`4 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0092054 A1, published May
`4, 2006 (Ex. 1007).
`5 Yang et al., Reducing the Computations of the Singular Value
`Decomposition Array Given by Brent and Luk, SIAM J. MATRIX ANAL.
`APPL., Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 713–725 (Oct. 1991) (Ex. 1008).
`6 U.S. Patent No. 7,710,925 B2, filed June 23, 2004, issued May 4, 2010
`(Ex. 1009).
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00108
`Patent 8,416,862 B2
`
`Thus, Patent Owner asserts that the district court trial will have concluded
`roughly five months before we issue our final written decision. Id. at 25.
`Patent Owner also asserts that Petitioner relies on nearly the same prior art
`and arguments in the district court action. Id. at 27–28.
`The Director has discretion to institute an inter partes review under
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Gen. Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at 15 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential) (citing
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)). We consider the advanced state of a district court
`proceeding as a “factor that weighs in favor of denying the Petition under
`§ 314(a).” NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., IPR2018-00752, Paper
`8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential). Specifically, we consider an early
`trial date as part of a “balanced assessment of all relevant circumstances of
`the case, including the merits.” Consolidated Trial Practice Guide
`November 2019, available at https://www.uspto.gov/
`TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. As part of this balanced assessment, we
`consider the following: (1) whether the district court granted a stay or
`evidence exists that one may be granted if this proceeding is instituted; (2)
`proximity of the district court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory
`deadline for a final written decision; (3) investment in the parallel
`proceeding by the court and the parties; (4) overlap between issues raised in
`the petition and in the parallel proceeding; (5) whether the petitioner and the
`defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and (6) other
`circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the
`merits. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11, 5–6 (Mar. 20,
`2020) (precedential).
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00108
`Patent 8,416,862 B2
`
`We agree with Petitioner that our exercise of discretion to deny
`institution under Section 314(a) is not warranted here. Prelim. Reply 1–3.
`Factor (5) weighs in favor of denying the Petition under § 314(a) because the
`parallel proceeding—the LG district court litigation—involves the same
`parties and factor (4) weighs slightly in favor of denying because the parallel
`proceeding involves the same patent and potentially some of the same prior
`art. See Ex. 2021, 13–18 (listing Li-748, Tong, Mao, Yang, and Poon
`among many references). However, we determine the remaining factors
`weigh against exercising our discretion to deny institution.
`We determine that factors (1) and (2) weigh in favor of institution
`because we find it likely that that district court will stay the litigation, which
`will affect the trial date. Although the trial is currently scheduled for
`December 14, 2020, it is not clear that trial will proceed as scheduled. For
`example, other deadlines, including the close of fact and expert discovery,
`were recently continued to later dates. See Order Granting in Part Joint
`Motion to Continue Discovery Dates and Mandatory Settlement Conference,
`Bell Northern Research, LLC v. LG Elecs. Co., Case No. 3:18-cv-02864
`(S.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2020), ECF No. 117. And, significantly, shortly after
`the Board instituted IPRs in other proceedings involving challenged patents
`of Patent Owner (IPR2019-01319, -01320, and -01365), the same district
`court judge presiding over the LG district court litigation related to this case
`stayed the actions involving the patents challenged in those proceedings.
`See Ex. 1030; Ex. 1031. The district court reasoned that “[t]he PTAB’s
`decision to institute on the two remaining patents will substantially impact
`the scope of this case and streamline this litigation” and that “[d]espite the
`advanced nature of this case, this step [to stay] will resolve an important
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00108
`Patent 8,416,862 B2
`
`aspect of the case and narrow the issues for a jury trial, and may avoid
`disparate invalidity findings in the co-pending cases.” Ex. 1030, 3–4. In
`those proceedings, the district court previously requested the parties to keep
`it informed if any IPRs were instituted because it is “rather loathe to go on
`parallel tracks with the Patent Office.” Ex. 1029, 120:20–121:12.
`Therefore, under factor (1), we determine there is strong evidence that
`indicates a stay may be granted if this proceeding is instituted.
`Patent Owner argues that the circumstances are different here because
`the LG district court litigation also involves a patent that is not the subject of
`a pending IPR petition. See Prelim. Sur-Reply, 2–3. However, it is not clear
`that trial will proceed as scheduled on issues relating to patents that are the
`subject of an instituted IPR. See Ex. 1032, 77:6–22 (district court requesting
`to be made “aware of what’s going on in the Patent Office”). Thus, under
`factor (2), it is not clear that the district court litigation will have concluded
`as to the patent challenged here by the time our final decision is due. Rather,
`our decision here has the potential to impact the efficiencies of the district
`court litigation. Because there is a strong likelihood that a stay may be
`granted, we accord less weight to the fact that the current trial date is
`scheduled to occur prior to the deadline for a final decision this proceeding.
`Further, under factor (3), we note that significant investment and
`effort is still required in the district court proceeding because expert
`discovery has not started and Petitioner’s litigation invalidity grounds are
`not finalized. See Prelim. Reply 3; Ex. 2021, 13–18; Order Granting in Part
`Joint Motion to Continue Discovery Dates and Mandatory Settlement
`Conference, Bell Northern Research, LLC v. LG Elecs. Co., Case No. 3:18-
`cv-02864 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2020), ECF No. 117, 2. Finally, under factor
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00108
`Patent 8,416,862 B2
`
`(6), for the reasons discussed below, we determine there are strong merits to
`Petitioner’s challenges, which weighs against exercising discretion to deny
`institution.
`In view of the foregoing, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`B. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review based on a petition filed on or after
`November 13, 2018, we apply the same claim construction standard that
`would be used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), following the
`standard articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.
`2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019); 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340,
`51,340–41, 51,343 (Oct. 11, 2018).
`In applying such standard, claim terms are generally given their
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of
`ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention and in the context of the
`entire patent disclosure. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. “In determining the
`meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic
`evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written
`description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc.
`v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`(citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17).
`Petitioner does not propose a construction for any claim term. Pet.
`11–12. Petitioner notes that in a related proceeding before the Southern
`District of California involving parties other than Petitioner, another party
`proposed constructions for two phrases—“a baseband processing module
`operable to” and “decompose the estimated transmitter beamforming unitary
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00108
`Patent 8,416,862 B2
`
`matrix (V) to produce the transmitter beamforming information”—and the
`District Court indicated in the claim construction hearing that it declined to
`construe either phrase. Id. (citing Ex. 1020, 104:23–107:3–9, 111:4–
`114:22). Patent Owner confirms that the District Court did not expressly
`construe either of the identified phrases. Prelim. Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2014
`(Claim Construction Order)). Patent Owner proposes that the decompose
`phrase should be interpreted “in accordance with its plain and ordinary
`meaning, which requires decomposition that results in a reduction of angles
`or coefficients from the matrix operation.” Id. at 16. Thus, Patent Owner
`asserts the limitation “decompose the estimated transmitter beamforming
`unitary matrix (V) to produce the transmitter beamforming information”
`means “factor the estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V) to
`produce a reduced number of coefficients or angles.” Id. at 20 (citing Ex.
`2004 ¶ 36). Patent Owner relies on its proposed construction of the
`“decompose” limitation to distinguish Li-054 and Poon. Id. at 43–45.
`On the current record, we are not persuaded that the claim phrase
`“decompose the estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V) to
`produce the transmitter beamforming information” requires factoring “to
`produce a reduced number of coefficients or angles.” The ’862 patent
`specification generally describes the decomposing step as involved in
`reducing the size of the feedback. For example, the ’862 patent states: “To
`reduce the size of the feedback, the receiver may decompose the channel
`using singular value decomposition (SVD) and send information relating
`only to a calculated value of the transmitter’s beamforming matrix (V) as the
`feedback information.” Ex. 1001, 3:26–30; see also id. at 12:56–64
`(disclosing same). Figure 7 of the ’862 patent, which illustrates an
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00108
`Patent 8,416,862 B2
`
`“embodiment” for providing beamforming feedback information, shows the
`step of decomposing “the polar coordinate estimate” of V “to reduce a
`number of feedback components.” Id. at Fig. 7, 4:15–17. The ’862 patent
`further states that “[a]ccording to one embodiment of this operation, the
`decomposition operations of step 708 employ a Givens Rotation operation.”
`Id. at 13:63–65. The ’862 patent explains that “[t]he Givens Rotation relies
`upon the observation that, with the condition of V*V=VV*=1, some of [the]
`angles of the Givens Rotation are redundant” and therefore, “[w]ith a
`decomposed matrix . . . the set of angles fed back to the transmitting wireless
`device are reduced.” Id. at 13:65–14:3. The patent therefore discloses an
`embodiment in which the decomposing step produces a reduced number of
`angles. The current evidence of record, however, does not persuasively
`show that reducing angles or coefficients is a requirement of decomposing.
`Patent Owner argues that the specification and the provisional application
`“support[]” Patent Owner’s construction, but does not show that the intrinsic
`evidence requires such a construction. See Prelim. Resp. 17–20. We are not
`persuaded, on the current record, that the claimed decompose must be
`limited to particular example embodiments. Similarly, Patent Owner’s
`reliance on Dr. Hernandez-Mondragon’s testimony is unpersuasive because
`it is based on these same disclosures in the specification related to
`embodiments. See Prelim. Resp. 20–22; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 37–39 (citing Ex.
`1001, 13:25–36, 13:64–14:3, 15:34–39). The current record does not
`persuasively show that, to one of ordinary skill in the art, decomposing
`meant reducing the number of angles or coefficients and did not include, for
`example, reducing the size of the matrix (as Petitioner asserts for its grounds
`based on Li-054 and Poon (see Pet. 56, 68–69)).
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00108
`Patent 8,416,862 B2
`
`Thus, on the current record, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed
`construction of the “decompose” limitation. We encourage the parties to
`further address the scope of the “decompose” limitation in their post-
`institution briefing. We also determine that no other claim terms require
`express construction in order to determine whether or not to institute inter
`partes review.
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill
`Relying on the testimony of its declarant, Dr. Wells, Petitioner asserts
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would
`have had a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer
`Engineering, Computer Science, or a related field, and “at least 2–4 years of
`experience” in the field of wireless communication. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003
`¶ 23). Petitioner adds that an ordinarily skilled person would have had
`“equivalent education, work, or experience in this field.” Id. (citing Ex.
`1003 ¶ 23). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition. Prelim.
`Resp. 12.
`We determine on the current record that the level of ordinary skill
`specifically proposed by Petitioner without the “at least” qualifier for the
`years of experience—i.e., a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering,
`Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or a related field, and 2–4 years
`of experience in the field of wireless communication—is consistent with the
`challenged patent and the asserted prior art and we therefore adopt that level
`for the purposes of this decision.
`
`D. Asserted Obviousness Over Li-748, Tong, and Mao
`Petitioner contends that claims 9–12 of the ’862 patent are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Li-748, Tong, and Mao.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00108
`Patent 8,416,862 B2
`
`Pet. 3, 15–38. Relying in part on the testimony of Dr. Wells, Petitioner
`explains how the references allegedly teach or suggest the claim limitations
`and provides reasoning for combining the teachings of the references. Id. at
`15–38.
`
`1. Summary of Li-748
`Li-748 is a U.S. Patent titled “Closed Loop Feedback in MIMO
`Systems.” Ex. 1004, [54]. Li discloses reducing feedback bandwidth in a
`multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO) system by “representing a
`beamforming matrix using orthogonal generator matrices.” Id. at [57], 1:12–
`14. Li-748 discloses that in MIMO systems, a transmitter uses channel state
`information sent by a receiver to do beam forming, and that “[t]ransmitting
`the channel state information consumes bandwidth that might otherwise be
`available for data traffic.” Id. at 1:12–17.
`Li-748 discloses that “channel state information may be represented
`by an n by n unitary beamforming matrix V determined using a singular
`value decomposition (SVD) algorithm.” Id. at 2:52–57. Li-748 discloses
`that, “[i]n a straightforward implementation, the receiver sends each element
`of the unitary matrix V,” which “involves sending information related to the
`2n2 real numbers for any n by n complex unitary matrix, where n is the
`number of spatial channels in the MIMO system.” Id. at 2:57–62.
`Li-748 discloses representing the beamforming matrix V “by n2–1 real
`numbers instead of 2n2 real numbers.” Id. at 2:63–65. Li-748 explains that
`“[b]y sending n2–1 real numbers instead of 2n2 real numbers to represent the
`beamforming matrix, the feedback bandwidth may be reduced.” Id. at 2:65–
`67.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00108
`Patent 8,416,862 B2
`
`2. Summary of Tong
`Tong is a U.S. Patent Application Publication titled “Closed Loop
`MIMO Systems and Methods.” Ex. 1005, [54]. Figure 1 of Tong, below,
`shows a schematic diagram representation of the communication system.
`
`
`Figure 1 above illustrates base station controller (BSC) 10, which
`controls wireless communications with multiple cells 12 served by
`corresponding base stations (BS) 14. Id. ¶ 73. Tong discloses that each base
`station 14 facilitates communications with mobile terminals 16 within the
`cell associated with the corresponding base station. Id.
`Figure 3 of Tong, below, is a block diagram of the internal circuitry of
`mobile terminal 16. Id. ¶ 77.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00108
`Patent 8,416,862 B2
`
`
`As illustrated above, mobile terminal 16 includes control system 32,
`baseband processor 34, transmit circuitry 36, receive circuitry 38, multiple
`antennas 40, and user interface circuitry 42. Id. Tong discloses that
`“receive circuitry 38 receives radio frequency signals bearing information
`from one or more base stations 14.” Id. Tong discloses that preferably the
`received signal is filtered and the filtered, received signal is downconverted
`to an intermediate or baseband frequency signal, which is then digitized into
`one or more digital streams. Id.
`Tong discloses an embodiment in which the beamforming unitary
`matrix V is determined through singular value decomposition (SVD) and “is
`fed back from the receiver to the transmitter using Givens feedback.” Id.
`¶ 222. Figure 43, below, shows such an embodiment. Id.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00108
`Patent 8,416,862 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 43 above illustrates “[a]n example of a system employing
`Givens feedback.” Id. ¶ 223. In the system illustrated above, receive
`antennas 324 at the receiver receive signals from transmit antennas 322 at
`beam former 320. Id. According to Tong, the channel is measured (326),
`producing a channel matrix that it is SVD decomposed (328). Id. Next, the
`V matrix is decomposed by the Givens transform (330) to produce a series
`of matrices. Id. Tong explains that each Givens matrix “can then be
`uniquely represented by two parameters θ and C,” and these parameters are
`quantized (334) and fed back over the MIMO feedback channel (336). Id.
`¶¶ 223, 224. Tong states that “[b]y decomposing the SVD-based unitary V
`matrix into Givens matrices, the V matrix can be represented by n2–n
`independent complex parameters.” Id. ¶ 227.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00108
`Patent 8,416,862 B2
`
`3. Summary of Mao
`Mao is a U.S. Patent titled “Adaptive Beam-Forming System Using
`Hierarchical Weight Banks for Antenna Array in Wireless Communication
`System.” Ex. 1006, [54]. Figure 1 of Mao, below, schematically depicts a
`receiver beam-forming system. Id. at 7:34–36.
`
`
`As illustrated in Figure 1 above, the receiver beam-forming system
`includes an antenna array with M antenna elements 400, radio frequency
`(RF) units 410, down converters 420, analog-to-digital (A/D) units 430, and
`multipath delay profile estimation unit 460. Id. at 7:36–44; see id. at 3:28–
`40. Mao discloses that “[t]o enhance performance in a multipath
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00108
`Patent 8,416,862 B2
`
`propagation environment, the multipath delay profile estimation unit 460 is
`used to distinguish the multipath signals and distribute the multipath signals
`to the beam-forming units 465.” Id. at 7:45–48.
`
`4. Analysis
`a. Independent claim 9
`Petitioner generally relies on Li-748 for teaching most of the
`limitations of claim 9, on Tong for teaching converting RF signals to
`baseband signals and decomposing a unitary matrix V using a Givens
`rotation, and on Mao for teaching forming a baseband signal. Pet. 23–25.
`Patent Owner asserts that Mao is not analogous art and that Petitioner fails to
`demonstrate a motivation or explain how to combine the references. Prelim.
`Resp. 28–41. Patent Owner also relies on objective indicia of non-
`obviousness. Id. at 46–65.
`Having reviewed the record, we determine that the information
`presented establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`showing that claim 9 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`over Li-748, Tong, and Mao. Petitioner makes a sufficient showing that the
`combination of Li-748, Tong, and Mao teaches the subject matter of claim 9.
`For example, Petitioner sufficiently shows that the combination of Li-748
`and Tong teaches a wireless communication device, which includes
`components that receive an RF signal and convert the RF signal to a
`baseband signal. Id. at 25–26 (citing Ex. 1004, Figs. 1, 2, 4, 8:60–64, 9:32–
`46, 9:66–10:6 (disclosing “an RF receiver to receive signals and perform
`‘front end’ processing”); Ex. 1005 ¶ 77; Ex. 1003 ¶ 76). Petitioner also
`sufficiently shows that Li-748 teaches that the wireless communication
`device includes a baseband processing module that receives a preamble
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00108
`Patent 8,416,862 B2
`
`sequence carried by the baseband signal and estimates a channel response
`based on the preamble sequence. Id. at 27–29 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1004, Fig. 2,
`3:31–34 (disclosing that “the transmitter may send training symbols to the
`receiver,” “the receiver may evaluate H” and “compute the matrix V’,” and
`“the receiver may feedback parameters representing V to the transmitter”),
`8:4–7, 10:16–22; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 83–85). Petitioner also sufficiently shows that
`Li-748 teaches that the baseband processing module determines an estimated
`transmitter beamforming matrix (V) based on the channel response and a
`receiver beamforming unitary matrix (U). Pet. 29–30 (citing Ex. 1004,
`3:19–32; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 86, 87). Petitioner sufficiently shows that the
`combination of Li-748 and Tong teaches that the baseband processing
`module decomposes V to produce the transmitter beamforming information.
`Id. at 30–32 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1004, 2:63–67, 3:35–39; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 223
`(disclosing that “the V matrix is decomposed by the Given transform”), 227,
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 88–91). In addition, Petitioner sufficiently shows that the
`combination of Li-748, Tong, and Mao teaches a baseband processing
`module that forms a baseband signal employed by RF components to
`wirelessly send the transmitter beamforming information to the transmitting
`wireless device. Id. at 33–35 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1004, Fig. 2 (element 240),
`3:31–39; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 79, 87; Ex. 1006, 3:28–36, 6:34–35; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 92–
`96).
`Patent Owner argues that “because Mao relates to allocation of
`transmitter power and not shifting a signal in time or phase, it is not
`analogous art.” Prelim. Resp. 29 (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner also
`argues that Mao “is not pertinent to the problem of reducing beamforming
`feedback information in wireless systems.” Id. at 31.
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00108
`Patent 8,416,862 B2
`
`A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if it “is from the
`same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed,” or, “if the
`reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the
`reference is still reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which
`the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`On the current record, Petitioner sufficiently shows that Mao is analogous
`art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the challenged patent.
`See Pet. 22–23. The ’862 patent describes the field of the claimed invention
`as “wireless communications using beamforming” (Ex. 1001, 1:20–22) and
`Mao similarly describes its field of invention as “wireless communications
`systems,” and more particularly, “beam-forming technologies and associated
`methodologies” (Ex. 1006, 1:17–19).
`Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner fails to show that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the
`references and that Petitioner fails to explain how the references would have
`been combined. Prelim. Resp. 31–40. For example, Patent Owner argues
`that Petitioner’s assertions are conclusory, with no explanation of how
`multiple references “would physically be combined to achieve the claimed
`invention.” Id. at 33–35. Patent Owner also asserts that Petitioner’s
`contention tha