Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.1280 Page 1 of 63
`
`
`
`Jason W. Wolff (SBN 215819), wolff@fr.com
`Joanna M. Fuller (SBN 266406), jfuller@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`12390 El Camino Real
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Phone: (858) 678-5070/ Fax: (858) 678-5099
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`HUAWEI DEVICE (DONGGUAN) CO., LTD.,
`HUAWEI DEVICE (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD., and
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.
`
`[Additional Counsel listed on signature page.]
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-01783-CAB-BLM
`[LEAD CASE]
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`Date:
`June 19-20, 2019
`Time:
`9:00 a.m.
`Courtroom: 4C
`Judge:
`Hon. Cathy A. Bencivengo
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`Date:
`June 19-20, 2019
`Time:
`9:00 a.m.
`Courtroom: 4C
`Judge:
`Hon. Cathy A. Bencivengo
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`COOLPAD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`AND YULONG COMPUTER
`COMMUNICATIONS,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`HUAWEI DEVICE (DONGGUAN)
`CO., LTD., HUAWEI DEVICE
`(SHENZHEN) CO., LTD., and
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.,
`Defendants.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`1
`
`LG 1009
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.1281 Page 2 of 63
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`KYOCERA CORPORATION and
`KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA)
`INC., ZTE (TX) INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-01785-CAB-BLM
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`Date:
`June 19-20, 2019
`Time:
`9:00 a.m.
`Courtroom: 4C
`Judge:
`Hon. Cathy A. Bencivengo
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`Date:
`June 19-20, 2019
`Time:
`9:00 a.m.
`Courtroom: 4C
`Judge:
`Hon. Cathy A. Bencivengo
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.1282 Page 3 of 63
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
` 
`
`D. 
`
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1 
`II.  U.S. PATENT NOS. 7,319,889 AND 8,204,554 ................................................ 1 
`A. 
`Technology Background ......................................................................... 1 
`B. 
`“a signal indicative of proximity of an external object” / “a signal
`indicative of the existence of a first condition, the first condition being
`that an external object is proximate” ....................................................... 2 
`III.  U.S. PATENT NO. 7,990,842 ............................................................................ 4 
`A. 
`Technology Background ......................................................................... 4 
`B. 
`“Inverse Fourier Transformer” ................................................................ 5 
`IV.  U.S. PATENT NO. 7,957,450 ............................................................................ 9 
`A. 
`Technology Background ......................................................................... 9 
`B. 
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) .................................. 11 
`C. 
`“channel estimate matrices” / “matrix based on the plurality of channel
`estimates” / “matrix based on said plurality of channel estimates” ...... 12 
`“coefficients derived from performing a singular value matrix
`decomposition (SVD)” .......................................................................... 17 
`V.  U.S. PATENT NO. 8,416,862 ........................................................................... 19 
`A. 
`Technology Background ....................................................................... 19 
`B. 
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) .................................. 20 
`C. 
`“decompose the estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V)
`to produce the transmitter beamforming information” ......................... 20 
`VI.  U.S. PATENT NO. 6,941,156 .......................................................................... 24 
`A. 
`Technology Background ....................................................................... 24 
`B. 
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) .................................. 24 
`C. 
`“simultaneous communication paths from said multimode cell phone”
`(cl. 1) ..................................................................................................... 25 
`“a module to establish simultaneous communication paths from said
`multimode cell phone using both said cell phone functionality and said
`RF communication functionality” (cl. 1) .............................................. 34 
`1. 
`This Term Is Subject to § 112 ¶ 6 (Means-Plus-Function) ........ 34 
`2. 
`Corresponding Function and Structure ....................................... 37 
`i
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`D. 
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.1283 Page 4 of 63
`
`
`
`E. 
`
`“an automatic switch over module, in communication with both said
`cell phone functionality and said RF communication functionality,
`operable to switch a communication path established on one of said cell
`phone functionality and said RF communication functionality, with
`another communication path later established on the other of said cell
`phone functionality and said RF communication functionality” (cl. 1) 41 
`1. 
`This Term Is Subject to § 112 ¶ 6 (Means-Plus-Function) ........ 41 
`2. 
`Corresponding Function and Structure ....................................... 43 
`VII.  U.S. PATENT NO. 7,039,435 ....................................................................... 46 
`A. 
`Technology Background ....................................................................... 46 
`B. 
`“position to a communications tower” .................................................. 47 
`VIII.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 51 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.1284 Page 5 of 63
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`In re Aoyama,
`656 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 38
`August Tech. Corp. v. Camtek, Ltd.,
`655 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 16
`Chef Am., Inc. v. Lamb Weston, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 50
`Embrex, Inc. v. Serv. Eng’g Corp.,
`216 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 47
`Fenner Invs., Ltd. v. Cellco P’ship,
`778 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 31
`GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc.,
`750 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................ 1, 48
`Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc.,
`527 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 15
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) .................................................................. 7
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................ 1, 18, 26, 47
`Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co.,
`774 F.2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .............................................................................. 31
`Tech. Props. Ltd. LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co., Ltd.,
`849 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 31
`Terlep v. Brinkmann Corp.,
`418 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 14
`Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................. 8, 47, 48
`
`iii
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.1285 Page 6 of 63
`
`
`
`Tomita Techs. USA, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`681 F. App’x 967 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................. 41, 46
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................................... passim
`WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.1286 Page 7 of 63
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiff BNR sued the Defendants (Coolpad, Huawei, Kyocera, and ZTE),
`alleging certain cell phones and tablets infringe its patents. The patents purport to
`relate to wireless communications, as well as power management techniques (e.g.,
`the use of proximity sensors). BNR has asserted eight patents against Huawei and
`ZTE, and a subset of these against Kyocera (six patents) and Coolpad (four patents).
`Defendants’ proposed constructions, as reflected below, properly begin with
`the plain meaning of terms informed by the intrinsic evidence. Phillips v. AWH
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Defendants propose a usage
`consistent with and supported by the specifications, id. at 1316, absent a clear
`disclaimer, GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed.
`Cir. 2014). BNR, however, proposes constructions to impermissibly broaden or
`rewrite its claims. For these reasons, Defendants’ proposals should be adopted.
`II. U.S. PATENT NOS. 7,319,889 AND 8,204,554
`A. Technology Background
`The ’889 and ’554 patents (“the Goris patents”) share a common
`specification.1 They pertain to a mobile station (e.g., a cordless or cellular
`telephone) that includes “a proximity sensor . . . adapted to cause [the] power
`consumption of the display to be reduced when the display is within a
`predetermined range of an external object.” ’889 (Doc. No. 1-3)2 at Abstract, 1:21-
`26, 1:42-46; see also id. at 3:13-15, 3:20-32. Their common specification teaches
`that, during a telephone call, the display “is not needed” when “the display [is] near
`to an object, in particular to the ear” of a user. See id. at 1:47-51, 1:55-58, 1:62-2:1,
`2:18-24, 3:12-39, 3:55-58. The patents disclose activating a proximity sensor during
`
`
`1 Because the Goris patent specifications are the same, for simplicity, citations are
`provided only for the earlier-issued ’889 patent.
`2 Doc. Nos. referenced herein refer to BNR v. Huawei, 3:18-cv-1784 unless
`otherwise noted.
`
`
`1
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.1287 Page 8 of 63
`
`
`
`incoming and outgoing calls. Id. at Abstract, 3:7-15, 3:33-35, 3:48-55, Figs. 3, 4.
`The proximity sensor detects whether an external object is “within a predetermined
`range.” See id. at Abstract, 1:43-46, 3:13-15, 3:20-25, 3:33-39, 3:55-58. When the
`proximity sensor detects an external object within the predetermined range, “the
`power consumption of the display 150 is reduced, most preferably by switching the
`display 150 completely off.” See id. at Abstract, 1:43-46, 1:55-58, 1:62-64, 2:18-24,
`3:20-25, 3:35-39, 3:55-58, Fig. 3. When the external object moves out of range
`(e.g., when the user moves the phone away from his or her ear), the proximity
`sensor detects that event as well, and the “the display 150 is switched back on.” Id.
`at 2:6-9, 3:26-32.
`B.
`“a signal indicative of proximity of an external object” / “a signal
`indicative of the existence of a first condition, the first condition being
`that an external object is proximate”3
`Defendants’ Construction
`“a signal that an external object is or is
`not within a predetermined range”
`
`Claim 1 of the ’889 patent recites “a proximity sensor adapted to generate a
`signal indicative of proximity of an external object.” Claims 1 and 14 of the ’554
`patent recite “a proximity sensor adapted to generate a signal indicative of the
`existence of a first condition, the first condition being than an external object is
`proximate.” Through their continuing negotiations, the parties have narrowed this
`dispute to a single issue: must the signal generated by the proximity sensor be
`capable of indicating only that an external object is within a predetermined range (as
`BNR contends) or must that signal also be capable of indicating that an external
`
`BNR’s Construction
`“a signal that an external object is
`within a predetermined range”
`
`
`3 The parties have agreed to a construction of “the signal is that an external object is
`within a predetermined range” for the phrase “the signal indicates the proximity of
`the external object,” and they will file a Supplemental Joint Hearing Statement
`reflecting this agreement.
`
`2
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.1288 Page 9 of 63
`
`
`
`object is no longer (or is not) within the predetermined range as well (as Defendants
`contend).
`The claims of the Goris patents demonstrate that Defendants’ construction is
`correct. For example, claim 1 of the ’889 patent requires the proximity sensor to
`“detect[] whether an external object is proximate” to the display. Id. at 4:21-22.
`The use of “whether” indicates alternatives, i.e., the sensor either determines that an
`external object is proximate or it determines that the external object is not
`proximate. As further recited in claim 1, the proximity sensor is “adapted to
`generate a signal indicative of proximity of an external object” based on its
`determination of “whether an external object is proximate.” See id. at 4:5-6, 4:21-
`22. The proximity sensor’s signal must be capable of indicating the two
`alternatives, thus, the claimed signal is “a signal that an external object is or is not
`within a predetermined range.”
`Sometimes, that signal will state “yes, the external object is proximate.” See
`supra n.3. But other times, the claimed signal must be able to state “no, the external
`object is not proximate.” For example, claims 2 and 9 of the ’554 patent explicitly
`confirm that the claimed signal must have the “is not proximate” state. Claim 2
`recites “increasing power to the display if the signal from the activated proximity
`sensor indicates that the first condition no longer exists.” ’554 (Doc No. 1-4) at
`4:24-26 (emphasis added). The “first condition no longer exists” if an external
`object is not proximate. See id. at 4:4-6. Claim 9 similarly claims “increasing
`power consumption of the display if the signal from the activated proximity sensor
`indicates that the proximity condition no longer exists.” Id. at 4:62-64 (emphasis
`added). In other words, both of these claims expressly require the signal generated
`by the proximity sensor also be capable of indicating that the external object is not
`proximate (and then more power will go to the display of the mobile station). By
`
`3
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.1289 Page 10 of 63
`
`
`
`excluding the “or is not” state of the claimed signal, BNR’s proposed construction
`contradicts this explicit claim language.
`The Goris patents’ common specification further supports Defendants’
`construction. The specification discloses two actions depending on what the
`proximity sensor detects. First, “[i]f the proximity sensor 140 detects an external
`object (such as the user’s ear) within the monitored range, the power consumption of
`the display 150 is reduced.” ’889 at Abstract, 1:41-46, 1:55-58, 1:62-64, 2:18-24,
`3:20-25, 3:35-39, 3:55-58, Fig. 3. Second, in response to the external object
`“mov[ing] out of range” of the proximity sensor, “the display 150 is switched back
`on.” Id. at 3:26-32; see also id. at 2:6-9. Figures 3 and 4 are flow diagrams that
`show (at 304 and 404) the determination made by the proximity sensor. Id. at 2:49-
`52, Figs. 3, 4. The proximity sensor determines whether an external object is
`proximate. The result is either “yes” or “no.” Id. Only Defendants’ proposed
`construction is consistent with the claims and specification.
`III. U.S. PATENT NO. 7,990,842
`A. Technology Background
`The ’842 patent relates to how data is encoded for transmission from a
`wireless device. An encoding technique helps put the data in a format that can be
`transmitted and then, later, decoded by the receiver essentially using an inverse of
`the encoding technique. As background, the ’842 patent states that “both the
`802.11a and 802.11g standards use an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing
`(OFDM) encoding scheme.” ’842 (Doc No. 1-5) at 2:8-10.4 “OFDM works by
`
`
`4 The “802.11” standards are a set of communication protocols promulgated by the
`Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers (“IEEE”). “802” refers to IEEE
`802 local area network (“LAN”) protocol standards, while “802.11” are a subset of
`802 standards that specify two layers of the network protocol “stack”—the media
`access layer (“MAC”) and the physical access layer (“PHY”)—for implementing
`wireless local area networks (“WLAN”) WiFi communications in certain
`
`4
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.1290 Page 11 of 63
`
`
`
`spreading a single data stream over a band of sub-carriers, each of which is
`transmitted in parallel.” Id. at 2:12-14. “In 802.11a/802.11g, each data packet starts
`with a preamble which includes a short training sequence followed by a long
`training sequence. The short and long training sequences are used for
`synchronization between the sender and the receiver.” Id. at 2:30-34. These
`training sequences use a form of modulation known as Binary Phase Shift Keying or
`BPSK, in which a +1 maps to transmitting the sub-carrier with a 0-degree phase
`shift and a -1 maps to transmitting the subcarrier with a 180-degree phase shift. The
`’842 patent purports to address a “need to create a long training sequence of
`minimum peak-to-average ratio [(‘PAPR’)] that uses more sub-carriers without
`interfering with adjacent channels.” Id. at 2:36-38. According to the patent, its
`approach “decreases power back-off” and “should be usable by legacy devices in
`order to estimate channel impulse response and to estimate carrier frequency offset
`between a transmitter and a receiver.” Id. at 2:41-43, 4:4-6.
`B.
`“Inverse Fourier Transformer”
`Defendants’ Construction
`“a circuit and/or software that performs a
`defined mathematical function that
`transforms a series of values from the
`frequency domain into the time domain”
`
`BNR’s Construction
`“Plain and ordinary meaning,
`alternatively to the extent the Court
`determines that a specific
`construction is warranted: circuit
`and/or software that at least performs
`an inverse Fourier transform.”
`
`
`The parties agree that an Inverse Fourier Transformer can be a circuit and/or
`software. Otherwise, Defendants seek to construe the Inverse Fourier Transformer
`
`
`communication frequency bands (e.g., 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 60 GHz). Often,
`products purporting to comply with aspects of the 802.11 standard are branded as
`“Wi-Fi” products. Amendments and improvements to the base standards get
`additional letter designations, such as 802.11a or 802.11b. See, e.g.,
`http://www.ieee802.org/11.
`
`5
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.1291 Page 12 of 63
`
`
`
`consistent with the ’842 patent’s claims and specification, while BNR seeks a non-
`construction.
`Only Defendants’ proposed construction accurately captures what the Inverse
`Fourier Transformer does with the “extended long training sequence,” as recited in
`the claims. Independent claim 1 recites “a signal generator that generates an
`extended long training sequence.” ’842 at cl. 1. “[T]he Inverse Fourier Transformer
`processes the extended long training sequence from the signal generator and
`provides an optimal extended long training sequence.” Id. Thus, the Inverse
`Fourier Transformer converts the BPSK modulated sub-carriers (a sequence defined
`in the frequency domain) into an “optimal extended long training sequence” (a
`sequence defined in the time domain).
`The specification describes the operation of an “Inverse Fourier Transform”
`in accordance with Defendants’ proposal: “[s]ignal generating circuit 205 generates
`the expanded long training sequence and if 56 active sub-carriers are being used,
`signal generating circuit generates . . . and stores the expanded long training
`sequence in sub-carriers -28 to +28. . . . The inventive long training sequence is
`inputted into an Inverse Fourier Transform 206.” Id. at 4:41-52 (emphasis added).
`Figure 2, reproduced below, has the Inverse Fourier Transform 206 outlined in red.
`
`6
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.1292 Page 13 of 63
`
`
`
`The specification further confirms that the output of block 206, “the Inverse
`Fourier Transform,” which is an input to block 208, is a time domain signal:
`“[s]erial to parallel module 208 converts the serial time domain signals into parallel
`time domain signals that are subsequently filtered and converted to analog signals
`via the D/A [(digital-to-analog converter)].” Id. at 4:61-64 (emphasis added). The
`specification teaches that a frequency domain signal is the input to the Inverse
`Fourier Transform, and the resultant output signal is a time domain signal, precisely
`as described in Defendants’ construction. The creation of parallel time domain
`streams is necessary to transmit the signal on multiple antennas via independent
`digital to analog converters, as described above.
`Both of BNR’s proposals are flawed. First, BNR’s proposal that Inverse
`Fourier Transformer be given its plain and ordinary meaning does not help the jury,
`nor the Court, understand what this highly technical term would mean to person of
`ordinary skill in the art. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976
`(Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc). Second, BNR’s alternate proposal is effectively a non-
`construction wherein BNR simply parrots back the language of the claim and does
`not explain the highly technical term “Inverse Fourier Transformer.”
`Defendants do not dispute that a Fourier transform can operate in more than
`one dimension. But BNR’s assertions that “Defendants’ proposed construction
`erroneously restricts the inverse Fourier Transform to time and frequency domains”
`and “there is no specific direction for the transform required by the claims” are
`incorrect and contradict the intrinsic evidence. See, e.g., Ex. A (Madisetti Op.
`Decl.) at ¶ 192.5 First, “[t]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and
`
`5 Pursuant to the Court’s Consolidation Order dated February 2, 2019 and direction
`to the parties during the April 26, 2019 Claim Construction Status Hearing,
`Defendants are filing consolidated Claim Construction and Indefiniteness Briefs.
`Doc. No. 60 at 3; Ex. B (Apr. 26, 2019 Status Hr’g Tr.) at 9:9-10:9. Given BNR’s
`use of Dr. Madisetti’s opinions in a manner directly adverse to ZTE, ZTE must
`
`7
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.1293 Page 14 of 63
`
`
`
`customary meanings as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read
`in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner v. Sony
`Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Nowhere does the
`specification mention an Inverse Fourier Transformer operating on anything other
`than a one-dimensional signal. Nowhere does the specification disclose the Inverse
`Fourier Transformer operating on a space or spatial signal, or any other variable
`other than time or frequency.
`Second, the Inverse Fourier Transformer has a specified direction. The
`specification teaches that the “FFT [(fast Fourier transform)] module 36 converts
`the serial time domain signals into frequency domain signals.” ’842 at 5:8-9
`(emphasis added). The specification also teaches that the “Inverse Fourier
`Transform 206 may be an inverse Fast Fourier Transform (IFFT).” Id. at 4:53-55
`(emphasis added). If there were no specified direction, there would be no need for
`an inverse transform.
`Defendants’ proposal clarifies that in the context of the claims and the
`specification, a wireless communications system using Orthogonal Frequency
`Domain Multiplexing (OFDM), that the Inverse Fourier Transformer maps the
`frequency domain sub-carriers into a time domain representation as defined by the
`mathematical function of an inverse Fourier Transform. “OFDM is a frequency
`division multiplexing modulation technique for transmitting large amounts of digital
`data over a radio wave. OFDM works by spreading a single data stream over a band
`of sub-carriers, each of which is transmitted in parallel.” Id. at 2:10-14. The very
`nature of OFDM, as described by the specification, is to start with a frequency
`domain signal and distribute the data to be transmitted over a band of sub-carriers in
`the frequency domain, each of which is transmitted in parallel via the Inverse
`
`address BNR’s positions in this consolidated brief. However, ZTE maintains and
`does not waive its objections to BNR’s use of Dr. Madisetti for the reasons cited in
`its Motion to Strike dated May 8, 2019. BNR v. ZTE, 3:18-cv-1786, Doc. No. 84.
`8
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.1294 Page 15 of 63
`
`
`
`Fourier Transformer converting the frequency domain signal to its corresponding
`time domain representation.
`For these reasons, Defendants’ construction should be adopted.
`IV. U.S. PATENT NO. 7,957,450
`A. Technology Background
`The ’450 patent relates to antenna “beamforming” in wireless communication
`systems. Beamforming is like shining a beam of light at an intended area. In
`contrast to antennas which transmit a radio frequency (“RF”) signal in all directions,
`beamforming is a technique using multiple antennas to focus an RF signal (a
`“beam”) toward the intended receiver. Ex. C (Min Op. Decl.) at ¶ 41. As a result, a
`stronger signal is available to the intended receiver. ’450 (Doc. No. 33-6) at 1:37-
`41; 3:8-14.
`In general terms, beamforming requires coordinating the arrival of the
`transmitted signals at the receiving device. To implement this technique, the
`transmitting device mathematically modifies the signals to be transmitted by each
`antenna using a beamforming “matrix.”6 Importantly, to construct an appropriate
`beamforming matrix, the transmitting device must obtain information about the
`characteristics of the RF channel to the receiving device. The claims of the ’450
`patent are directed to “feedback information” sent by the receiving device back to
`the transmitting device to help the transmitting device construct an appropriate
`beamforming matrix.
`This concept is illustrated in Figure 2 below, which depicts a “transmitting
`mobile terminal 202,” a “receiving mobile terminal 222,” and “RF channels 242.”
`Id. at 11:32-36. To focus a beam, the transmitting mobile terminal modifies the
`source signals 206, 208, 210 based on beamforming matrix V 204 before they are
`
`
`6 A “matrix” is a two-dimensional array of values. An example of a 2×2 matrix,
`
`which is a matrix that includes two rows and two columns, is: (cid:4674)1 23 4(cid:4675).
`
`9
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.1295 Page 16 of 63
`
`
`
`transmitted from antennas 212, 214, 216. Id. at 11:41-54. The characteristics of RF
`channels 242 through which the signals are transmitted may be represented
`mathematically by a matrix, H, which is another two-dimensional array of values.
`Id. at 11:61-65. The receiving mobile terminal includes antennas 232, 234, and 236
`to receive the signals transmitted through the RF channels 242. Id. at 11:55-59.
`
`
`’450 at Fig. 2.
`To construct an appropriate beamforming matrix V, the transmitting mobile
`terminal must take into account the characteristics of the RF channel, which is
`represented by the matrix H.7 Due to signal fading effects on the RF channel, the
`
`
`
`
`7 The patentee chose the notation “H” to identify a mathematical representation of
`an RF channel. ’450 at 3:53-66. However, the patentee also uses “H” in
`conjunction with various additional notations to provide additional specificity, but
`each refers to an RF channel. “Hest” is used to identify an RF “channel estimate
`matrix which is computed by a receiving mobile terminal.” Id. at 8:52-56. “H(t)” is
`used to identify H “as a function of time,” where “t” refers to the RF channel
`characteristics at a specific instant in time. Id. at 4:5-9. “Hup” is used to identify a
`“reverse channel estimate matrix” that is “computed by a receiving mobile
`terminal,” where the term “reverse” refers to an “uplink” RF channel (i.e., channel
`for signals transmitted from the receiving mobile terminal to the transmitting mobile
`terminal). Id. at 4:66-5:2. “Hdown” is used to identify a “forward channel estimate
`matrix” that is “computed by a transmitting mobile terminal,” where the term
`“forward” refers to a “downlink” RF channel (i.e., channel for signals transmitted
`from the transmitted mobile terminal to the receiving mobile terminal). Id. at 5:2-
`5:7.
`
`10
`Case No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM [LEAD CASE]
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.1296 Page 17 of 63
`
`
`
`values in the matrix H may rapidly change. Id. at 3:49-53; 8:36-39. To assist in the
`beamforming process, the receiving mobile terminal may periodically send feedback
`information to the transmitting mobile terminal. Id. at 1:30-34. To do so, the
`receiving terminal computes a channel estimate matrix Hest based on the signals
`received. Then, the receiving mobile terminal performs a singular value
`decomposition (SVD) on the channel estimate matrix. Id. at 7:67-8:5. SVD is a
`mathematical operation that is used to decompose (e.g., factor) a matrix, such as the
`channel estimate matrix, into the product of three other matrices, namely matrices
`U, S, and VH.8 Ex. D (Min Reb. Decl.) at ¶ 57. The receiving mobile terminal may
`then tran