Paper 14
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
