`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.; SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC;
`AND SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC;
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`REMBRANDT WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES, LP
`Patent Owner
`___________
`
`Case IPR2015-00118
`Patent 8,023,580
`___________
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,023,580
`
`
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Exhibit 1025
`Page 1 of 107
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`V.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................... 1
`A.
`Real Parties-in-Interest .......................................................................... 1
`B.
`Related Matters and Joinder Motion ..................................................... 1
`C.
`Counsel .................................................................................................. 2
`D.
`Service Information ............................................................................... 2
`E.
`Certification of Grounds for Standing ................................................... 2
`F.
`Fee For Inter Partes Review .................................................................. 2
`G.
`Proof Of Service .................................................................................... 2
`II. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .............. 2
`III. HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE TO BE CONSTRUED ...... 3
`IV. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE `580 PATENT .... 3
`A.
`Subject Matter Of The `580 Patent ....................................................... 3
`1.
`Technology Described In The `580 Patent ................................. 3
`2.
`Admissions Made In `580 Patent Regarding Prior Art ............... 6
`B.
`Effective Filing Date And Prosecution History Of The `580 Patent .... 8
`Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ..................................................... 9
`C.
`PRECISE REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ............................... 10
`A.
`Claims 23, 25, 30 And 41 Are Rendered Obvious By Boer ............... 10
`1.
`Overview Of Boer ..................................................................... 10
`2.
`and 41 ........................................................................................ 11
`3.
`Claims 23, 25, 29 And 30 Are Obvious .................................... 19
`
`The Prior Institution Decisions Regarding Claims 23, 25, 29-30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 107
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`B.
`
`a. Claim 23 .............................................................................. 19
`b. Claims 25 and 30 ................................................................ 20
`4.
`Claim 41 Obvious ..................................................................... 27
`Prior Art (“APA”)In View Of Boer .................................................... 34
`1.
`Systems Were Prior Art ............................................................ 34
`2. Motivation To Combine ............................................................ 35
`3.
`Claim 29 Is Obvious ................................................................. 37
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 38
`
`Claim 29 is Rendered Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 By Admitted
`
`The APA Demonstrates That Multipoint Communication
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 107
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Constant v. Advanced Micro–Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560 (Fed.Cir.1988) ............. 8
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) ....................................................... 18
`
`Pharmastem Therapeutics, Inc. v. Viacell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .... 8,
`34
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ..................................................................................................... 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ............................................................................................ 10, 25
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ....................................................................................... ii, 2, 3, 9, 32
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Page 4 of 107
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`Attachment A: Proof of Service of the Petition
`
`Attachment B: List of Evidence and Exhibits Relied Upon in Petition
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Page 5 of 107
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A.
`Real Parties-in-Interest
`The real parties-in-interest are Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.; Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC; and
`
`Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC. (Collectively, “Petitioner”).
`B.
`Related Matters and Joinder Motion
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580 (“the `580 patent”) (Ex. 1301)1 is owned by
`Rembrandt Wireless Tech, LP (“Patent Owner”), and is currently being asserted by
`
`Patent Owner in Rembrandt Wireless Tech., LP v. Samsung Elect. Co. LTD., No.
`
`2:13-cv-00213 (E.D. Tex. 2013) (“the Litigation”). The original Complaint in the
`
`litigation was served on Petitioner March 20, 2013. Petitioner has also filed
`
`Petitions IPR-2014-00514, 00515 & 00518 for the `580 patent.
`
`On September 23, 2014, a decision instituting inter partes review of claims
`
`32, 34, 38, 40, 43, 44, and 47 of the `580 patent was entered in Case No. IPR2014-
`
`00519 (the “`519 Inst. Dec.”). By separate motion filed herewith, Petitioner
`
`
`1 To simplify management of this proceeding should it be joined with IPR2014-
`
`00519, Petitioner has used the same exhibit numbering as in the prior proceeding.
`
`In addition, Petitioner has only submitted a supplemental declaration from Dr.
`
`Goodman that addresses his opinions that were not presented in his March 19,
`
`2014 declaration (marked as Exhibit 1318 in both the `519 proceeding and the
`
`present proceeding).
`
`
`
`1
`
`Page 6 of 107
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`requests that this proceeding be joined with Case No. IPR2014-00519.
`C.
`Counsel
`Lead Counsel: Jeffrey A. Miller, Reg. No. 35, 287
`
`Backup Counsel: Daniel G. Cardy, Reg. No. 66,537
`D.
`Service Information
`Email: millerj@dicksteinshapiro.com and cardyd@dicksteinshapiro.com
`
`Mail Delivery: Jeffrey Miller, Esq., Dickstein Shapiro LLP, 1841 Page Mill
`
`Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94304
`
`Telephone: 650.690.9500, Fax: 650.690.9501.
`E.
`Certification of Grounds for Standing
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) that the `580 patent is
`
`available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting inter partes review of the claims of the `580 patent on the grounds
`
`identified herein. This petition is accompanied by a motion for joinder with Case
`
`No. IRP2014-00519, and, as such, the time period set forth in 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.101(b) does not apply to this petition.
`F.
`Fee For Inter Partes Review
`Petitioner paid the required fees upon filing. Should any further fees be
`
`required, the PTAB is hereby authorized to charge Deposit Account No. 04-1073.
`G.
`Proof Of Service
`Proof of service of this petition is provided in Attachment A.
`II. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`(1) Claims 23, 25, 30, 41 are rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 7 of 107
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`Boer (Ex. 1304).
`
`(2) Claim 29 is rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by Admitted
`
`Prior Art (“APA”) in view of Boer.
`
`These claims were previously challenged in IPR2014-00519, but the Board
`
`chose not to institute trial on them.
`III. HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE TO BE CONSTRUED
`For purposes of this Inter Partes Review, and without prejudice to any
`
`positions taken by Petitioner in other proceedings, all claim terms should be given
`
`their broadest reasonable interpretation, as understood by one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art and consistent with the disclosure. See, e.g., 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`In Case No. IPR2014-00519, in which the Board instituted inter partes
`
`review of claims 32, 34, 38, 40, 43, 44, and 47, the Board declined to construe any
`
`claim terms proposed by Petitioner, asserting in the`519 Inst. Dec. that “…we do
`
`not construe any term at this time because no term needs to be construed for
`
`purposes of this decision.” (`519 Inst. Dec., p. 4).
`
`Petitioner respectfully submits that the constructions Petitioner proposed in
`
`the `519 petition were correct. However, no further comment is deemed necessary
`
`given the Board’s earlier decisions.
`IV. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE `580 PATENT
`A.
`Subject Matter Of The `580 Patent
`1. Technology Described In The `580 Patent
`The `580 patent is directed to the “fields of data communications and
`
`modulator/demodulators (modems), and, more particularly, to a data
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 8 of 107
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`communications system in which a plurality of modulation methods are used to
`
`facilitate communication among a plurality of modem types.” Ex. 1301, `580
`
`patent, 1:19-23. The `580 patent identifies a problem with communications
`
`systems where “communication between modems is generally unsuccessful unless
`
`a common modulation method is used.” Id. at 1:45-47. The `580 patent describes
`
`a “multipoint network architecture,” which the `580 patent asserts utilizes a
`
`“master” modem and at least two “tributary” (or “trib”) modems. The `580 patent
`
`notes that where “…one or more of the trib modems are not compatible with the
`
`modulation method used by the master, those tribs will be unable to receive
`
`communications from the master.” Id. at 1:54-61. Ex. 1318, ¶50 (Goodman
`
`March 19, 2014 Declaration).
`
`Because of these issues, the `580 patent asserts that “…communication
`
`systems comprised of both high performance and low or moderate performance
`
`applications can be very cost inefficient to construct.” Id. at 1:66-2:1. The `580
`
`patent asserts that the solution used at the time to overcome incompatible
`
`modulation schemes was the use of high performance modems for all users,
`
`regardless of need, which resulted in higher costs. Id. at 2:8-16. Thus, the `580
`
`patent asserts that “…what is sought, and what is not believed to be provided by
`
`the prior art, is a system and method of communication in which multiple
`
`modulation methods are used to facilitate communication among a plurality of
`modems in a network, which have heretofore been incompatible.”2 Id. at 2:17-20.
`
`
`2 Unless indicated, any bolding, underlining, etc. of text is added by Petitioner.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 9 of 107
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`Ex. 1318, ¶51.
`
`The purported invention of the `580 patent is a system like that shown in
`
`Figure 3, in which a master transceiver 64 is capable of transmitting and receiving
`
`data having what the patent identifies as “type A” modulation and “type B”
`
`modulation. Id. at 5:23-33. Master transceiver 64 can communicate with tribs, e.g.,
`
`trib 66, each of which communicates with either type A or type B modulation
`
`(shown as “type X” in Figure 3), but not both. Id. at 5:34-46. Figure 4 shows an
`
`exemplary network in which master transceiver 64 can communicate with either
`
`type A or type B modulation. Trib 66a communicates with type A modulation,
`
`while trib 66b communicates with type B modulation. Ex. 1318, ¶52.
`
`In the example given in the specification, type A modulation is the primary
`
`modulation method, which, as seen in Figure 5, means that the master transceiver
`
`64 initially transmits a sequence 104 using type A modulation. Ex. 1301, 5:57-67.
`
`If master transceiver 64 wishes to communicate with trib 66b, it can only do so
`
`with type B modulation. To switch from type A modulation to type B modulation,
`
`master transceiver 64 transmits a training sequence 106 to type A trib 66a to notify
`
`it of an impending modulation scheme change. Id. at 6:3-6. Then, master
`
`transceiver 64 sends a new transmission in sequence 108, this time using type B
`
`modulation, containing a trib address as well as data intended for that addressed
`
`trib. Id. at 6:8-15. Thereafter, master transceiver 64 transmits a trailing sequence
`
`using type A modulation, which informs the trib 66a that the type B modulation
`
`transmission is complete. The type B trib 66b simply goes back to ignoring type A
`
`transmissions after not receiving a poll request in the particular time interval
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 10 of 107
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`defined for type B transmissions, or after transmission of the particular quantity of
`
`data. Id. at 6:19-25. Ex. 1318, ¶53.
`
`Similar to the above, master transceiver 64 can communicate with a type A
`
`trib, e.g., trib 66a, by transmitting a training sequence with type A modulation that
`
`contains an address for a particular trib. The training sequence is followed by data,
`
`which is then received by the addressed trib. Master transceiver 64 then transmits
`
`a trailing sequence using type A modulation, which indicates the end of a
`
`communication session. Ex. 1301, 6:49-58. Ex. 1318, ¶54.
`
`2. Admissions Made In `580 Patent Regarding Prior Art
`As discussed above, the `580 patent describes a multipoint network
`
`architecture using a master modem and at least two tribs, with the specification
`
`making clear that “tribs” are the same thing as “slaves.” For example, in the
`
`“Description of the Illustrative Embodiments,” the `580 patent discusses an
`
`“exemplary” multipoint communication protocol, asserting that in such a protocol
`
`the “master … permits transmission from a trib only when that trib has been
`
`selected.” Ex. 1301, 4:4:9. In its “Summary,” the `580 patent describes a
`
`“master/slave” relationship as being one where “communication from a slave to a
`
`master occurs in response to a communication from the master to the slave.” Ex.
`
`1301, 2:24-29. Thus, the `580 patent teaches that “tribs” and “slaves” are both
`
`controlled by a master, which demonstrates that in the `580 patent, tribs and slaves
`
`are the same thing, and the terms are used interchangeably. Ex. 1318, ¶55.
`
`Both the figures and the specification of the `580 patent admit that
`
`communications systems using master/slave relationships are prior art. In
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 11 of 107
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`particular, Figure 1, which shows a master transceiver 24 in communication with
`
`three tributary transceivers, i.e., slaves, is labeled as “Prior Art.” In addition, the
`
`specification of `580 patent admits that multipoint communication systems
`
`utilizing a master and multiple slaves is prior art. Ex. 1301, 3:40-44 (“With
`
`reference to FIG. 1, a prior art multipoint communication system 22 is shown to
`
`comprise a master modem or transceiver 24, which communicates with a plurality
`
`of tributary modems (tribs) or transceivers 26-26 over communication medium
`
`28.”). Ex. 1318, ¶56.
`
`Patentee made further admissions during prosecution of one of the parent
`
`applications to the `580 patent. As will be discussed in more detail below, one of
`
`the parent applications to the `580 patent is Serial No. 09/205,205, which issued as
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,614,838 (Ex. 1314). During prosecution of the `838 patent, an
`
`Office Action was mailed on June 28, 2001 where Patentee was required to
`
`designate Figure 2 as prior art. Ex. 1315, p. 2 (6/28/2001 Office Action) (“Figure
`
`2 should be designated by a legend such as - prior art - because only that
`
`which is old is illustrated.”). In a “First Amendment And Response” filed
`
`October 1, 2001, Patentee made the amendment, thus admitting that the subject
`
`matter shown in Figure 2 is prior art. Ex. 1316. The specification of the `580
`
`patent describes the prior art shown in Figure 2 as follows:
`
`Referring now to FIG. 2, an exemplary multipoint communication
`session is illustrated through use of a ladder diagram. This system
`uses polled multipoint communication protocol. That is, a master
`controls the initiation of its own transmission to the tribs and permits
`transmission from a trib only when that trib has been selected.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 12 of 107
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`Ex. 1301, 4:4-9. Lest there be any doubt that the `580 patent and its prosecution
`
`history admit that polled multiport communications using masters and slaves are
`
`prior art, the specification of the `580 patent says that the operation of the prior art
`
`system of Figure 1 is illustrated in Figure 2. Id. At 3:9-10 (“FIG. 2 is a ladder
`
`diagram illustrating the operation of the multipoint communication system of FIG.
`
`1.”). Ex. 1318, ¶57.
`
`Patentee’s admissions in the `580 patent and the prosecution history of the
`
``205 application that master/slave communication systems are prior art are binding,
`
`and can be used when determining whether a claim is obvious. In the `519 Inst.
`
`Dec., the Board correctly agreed with Petitioner that the above constitutes admitted
`
`prior art that can be used to invalidate claims of the `580 patent. `519 Inst. Dec., p.
`
`14-15. See also Pharmastem Therapeutics, Inc. v. Viacell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342,
`
`1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“Admissions in the specification regarding the prior art are
`
`binding on the patentee for purposes of a later inquiry into obviousness.”);
`
`Constant v. Advanced Micro–Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1570 (Fed.Cir.1988)
`
`(‘‘A statement in the patent that something is in the prior art is binding on the
`
`applicant and patentee for determinations of anticipation and obviousness.’’).
`B.
`Effective Filing Date And Prosecution History Of The `580 Patent
`The `580 patent issued from U.S. Application No. 12/543,910. The `910
`
`application claimed priority through a series of continuation/continuation-in-part
`
`applications (Serial Nos. 11/774,803 (Pat No. 7,675,965); 10/412,878 (Pat. No.
`
`7,248,626); 09/205,205 (Pat. No. 6,614,838)). The `228, `580, `965, `626, and
`
``838 patents claim the benefit of the filing date of U.S. Provisional App. No.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 13 of 107
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`60/067,562, filed Dec. 5, 1997. For purposes of this Petition, Petitioners accept
`
`that the effective filing date of the challenged claims is December 5, 1997.
`
`The `580 patent was filed on August 19, 2008 with 100 claims. Ex. 1307.
`
`On September 1, 2010, an Office Action was mailed in which a number of claims
`
`were objected to due to an antecedent basis issue but were otherwise deemed
`
`allowable, while other claims were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) & 103(a).
`
`Ex. 1308. Application claim 1, which would issue as claim 1, was one such claim
`
`that was deemed allowable but for the antecedent basis issue. Id. at p. 2. On
`
`March 1, 2011, Patent Owner filed a response to the Office Action (“3/1/2011
`
`Reply”). Ex. 1309. In that response, Patent Owner amended many pending
`
`claims, including application claim 1 (issued claim 1), cancelled other claims and
`
`added forty-eight claims. Included within the added claims was independent claim
`
`123, which would issue as claim 58. Id. at p. 15. On March 10, 2011, Patent
`
`Owner refiled the claims in response to a Notice Of Non-Compliant Amendment.
`
`Ex. 1310.
`
`On May 11, 2011, Patent Owner filed a paper making further amendments to
`
`pending claims 1 and 95. Ex. 1311. The application was allowed on July 22,
`
`2011, although no Statement of Reasons for Allowance was provided. Ex. 1312.
`
`On July 26, 2011, Patent Owner filed an Amendment After Allowance further
`
`amending claims that, after entry, issued as claims 40, 49, and 54. Ex. 1313.
`C.
`Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`A person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the `580 patent would
`
`have had a Master’s Degree in Electrical Engineering that included coursework in
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 14 of 107
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`communications systems and networking, and at least five years of experience
`
`designing network communication systems. Ex. 1318, ¶62.
`V.
`
`PRECISE REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`A.
`Claims 23, 25, 30 And 41 Are Rendered Obvious By Boer
`1. Overview Of Boer
`Boer was filed on March 14, 1996 and issued on January 6, 1998, making it
`
`prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Boer discloses a communications
`
`system that is very similar to the one described in the `580 patent. Boer discloses
`
`transceivers in stations 12, 18 & 22 that can communicate with each other using
`
`different modulation methods, just as in the `580 patent. Boer teaches that the then
`
`draft IEEE 802.11 wireless LAN standard specified two different data rates. Ex.
`
`1304, Boer, 1:17-22. Boer then states that “[i]t is an object of the present invention
`
`to provide a method of operating a wireless local area network station which
`
`enables communication between stations operating at different data rates.” Id. at
`
`1:27-30. Boer teaches that the manner in which different data rates are achieved is
`
`through use of different modulation methods. Boer discloses the use of differential
`
`binary phase shift keying (“DBPSK”) modulation when operating at one Megabit
`
`per second (“Mbps”), and differential quadrature phase shift keying (“DQPSK”)
`
`modulation for two Mbps data rate transmission. Id. at 2:23-27. Boer also
`
`discloses an additional type of modulation, pulse position modulation-differential
`
`quadrature phase shift keying (“PPM/DQPSK”), which operates at 5 and 8 Mbps.
`
`Id. at 2:41-44. Thus, just as described and claimed in the `580 patent, Boer
`
`discloses a system for sending transmissions using a first modulation method and a
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 15 of 107
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`second modulation. Ex. 1318, ¶71-82.
`
`2. The Prior Institution Decisions Regarding Claims 23, 25, 29-30
`and 41
`In the prior `519 Institution Decision, the Board found that Petitioner had not
`met its burden regarding claims 23 and 413 because Petitioner did not show that
`Boer teaches that the (i) “third data” of claim 23, or (ii) “third sequence” of claim
`
`41 indicates that communication “has reverted to the first modulation method.”
`
`The “third data” and “third sequence” recited in these claims refer to the same
`
`subject matter, and are both met by the SIGNAL field 206 and SERVICE field 208
`
`of Boer.
`
`Regarding claim 23, the Board stated “Boer’s system may be capable of
`
`transmitting a first message’s data field using either DQPSK or PPM/DQPSK
`
`followed, a subsequent message’s header field using DBPSK, where the
`
`subsequent message’s header field indicates that the subsequent message’s data
`
`field will be transmitted using DBPSK. However, the Petition has not established
`
`that the specific series of transmissions as recited in independent claim 23 is
`
`explicitly disclosed by or necessarily present in Boer.” `519 Inst. Dec., p. 8. The
`
`Board asserted that the same was true regarding claim 41. Id., at 12-13.
`
`Based on the claim construction the Board used in the `519 Inst. Dec., this
`
`concept is explicitly taught by Boer. Petitioner respectfully submits that a person
`
`
`3 In the `519 Inst. Dec., trial was not instituted on claims 25, 29 and 30 because
`
`they are dependent on claim 23.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 16 of 107
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Boer teaches that the
`
`SIGNAL 206 and SERVICE 208 fields in Boer can indicate that communication
`
`has reverted to the first modulation method. Ex. 1319, ¶13. First, Boer
`indisputably teaches transmission of multiple messages 200.4 Ex. 1304, 1:33-40
`(“Therefore, according to the present invention, there is provided a method of
`
`operating a wireless local area network station adapted to transmit and receive
`
`messages at a plurality of data rates, wherein said messages include an initial
`
`portion and a data portion, including the steps of: transmitting the initial portion of
`
`a message to be transmitted by a station at a first predetermined one of a first
`
`plurality of data rates…”). Indeed, a person having ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have known that a communication system utilizing data packets such as message
`
`200 transmits multiple sequential packets. Ex. 1319, ¶14-15. Thus, a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the SIGNAL 206 and
`
`SERVICE 208 fields of a second message 200 is the (i) “third data” of claim 23,
`
`
`4 The APA also teaches transmission of multiple sequences. See Ex. 1301 (APA),
`
`Figure 2. See also Ex. 1301 (APA), 4:4-50.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 17 of 107
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`and (ii) “third sequence” of claim 41.5 Ex. 1319, ¶15.
`Boer also teaches each claim’s requirement that the recited “third data” and
`
`“third sequence” indicate that communication “has reverted to the first modulation
`
`method.” First, Petitioner respectfully submits that a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have known that in Boer, a first message 200 where the DATA
`field 2146 is transmitted using PPM/DQPSK (“second modulation method”) could
`be followed by a second message 200. Ex. 1319, ¶17. This second message 200,
`
`by virtue of being transmitted after a first message 200, meets the requirement that
`
`the “third data” and “third sequence” be transmitted “after” the previous sequences
`recited by each claim.7 Ex. 1319, ¶18.
`Second, this ordinarily skilled person would have known that the DATA 214
`
`5 Each of these claims further require that the (i) “third data” of claim 23, and (ii)
`
`“third sequence” of claim 41 be transmitted in the first modulation method.
`
`Header 218, which includes SIGNAL 206 and SERVICE 208 fields, is always
`
`transmitted using DBPSK (the “first modulation method”). Ex. 1304, 3:56-58. Ex.
`
`1319, ¶16. The Board has recognized this. See `519 Inst. Dec., p. 5.
`
`6 In claim 23, DATA field 214 meets the “second data” limitation. In claim 41,
`
`DATA field 214 meets the “second sequence” limitation.
`
`7 Claim 23 recites “transmission of a third data… after the second data.” Claim
`
`41 recites “the transceiver is configured to transmit a third sequence after the
`
`second sequence.”
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 18 of 107
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`field in second message 200 could be transmitted using DBPSK (“first modulation
`
`method”). Ex. 1319, ¶19. Indeed, Boer explicitly teaches that DATA field 214
`
`can be modulated using any of the modulation methods described therein. See e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1304, 3:56-62 (“With regard to the message 200, FIG. 4, it should be
`
`understood that the preamble 216 and header 218 are always transmitted at the 1
`
`Mbps rate using DBPSK modulation. The subsequent DATA field 214, however,
`
`may be transmitted at a selected one of the four possible rates 1, 2, 5 or 8
`
`Mbps, using the modulation and coding discussed hereinabove.”). Ex. 1319,
`
`¶19.
`
`Boer teaches that values contained in the SIGNAL field 206 and SERVICE
`
`field 208 indicate which modulation method will be used to transmit DATA field
`
`214. Ex. 1304, 4:4-11 (“The SIGNAL field 206 has a first predetermined value if
`
`the DATA field 214 is transmitted at the 1 Mbps rate and a second predetermined
`
`value if the DATA field 214 is transmitted at the 2, 5 or 8 Mbps rates. The
`
`SERVICE field 208 has a first predetermined value (typically all zero bits) for the
`
`1 and 2 Mbps rates, a second predetermined value for the 5 Mbps rate and a third
`
`predetermined value for the 8 Mbps rate.”). Ex. 1319, ¶20.
`
`Thus, when transmitting the first message 200 in the sequence, DATA field
`
`214 will be modulated in PPM/DQPSK (“second modulation method”) as
`
`indicated by SIGNAL field 206 containing a second predetermined value while
`
`SERVICE field 208 contains a second (or third) predetermined value. See Ex.
`
`1304, 4:4-11. Ex. 1319, ¶21. When transmitting the second message, the DATA
`
`field 214 reverts to DBPSK (“first modulation method”) as indicated by SIGNAL
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 19 of 107
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`field 206 containing a first predetermined value while the SERVICE field 208
`
`contains a first predetermined value, which Boer states is “typically all zero bits.”
`
`See Ex. 1304, 4:4-11. Ex. 1319, ¶22. By placing the first predetermined value in
`
`SIGNAL field 206 and the first predetermined value in SERVICE field 208, these
`
`two fields indicate that transmission of the DATA field 214 “has reverted to the
`
`first modulation method,” as required by claims 23, 25, 29-30 and 41. See Ex.
`
`1319, ¶23.
`
`The following figure shows the location in two messages 200 in Boer of
`
`terms in claims 23 and 41. It also shows how Boer uses the claimed modulation
`
`methods:
`
`Ex. 1319, ¶24.
`
`Because Boer teaches that DATA field 214 can be transmitted with either
`
`DBPSK, DQPSK, or PPM/DQPSK, a person having ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have known, and found it obvious, that a transmitted message 200 in which DATA
`
`field 214 was transmitted using PPM/DQPSK could be followed by a message 200
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 20 of 107
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`where the DATA field 214 is transmitted using DBPSK. Ex. 1319, ¶25. Indeed,
`
`Boer specifies that such a reversion would occur if ACK messages are not received
`
`correctly. Ex. 1304, Fig 7 (block 522) and 7:41-51 (“Returning to block 508, if an
`
`ACK message is not received correctly and within the predetermined time interval,
`
`then the flowchart proceeds to block 522 where the SC count value is reset to zero
`
`and the data rate is decremented (if the minimum data rate is not already being
`
`used)….”). See the annotated Fig. 7 (Ex. 1304):
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 21 of 107
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`
`
`See also Id. at 8:6-9 and Ex. 1319, ¶25. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have understood that ACK messages may not be received correctly when channel
`
`conditions change for the worse, such as when the transceivers are moved apart
`
`from one another or when interference increases. Ex. 1319, ¶26. Boer discloses
`
`that under such conditions, “the data rate is decremented.” Based on the flow chart
`
`in Fig. 7 of Boer, reprinted above, it is seen that if enough ACK messages are not
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 22 of 107
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`received correctly, the data rate may be decremented until the data rate reaches 1
`
`Mbps, which is transmitted using DBPSK. Ex. 1319, ¶26. Whenever this happens,
`
`the SIGNAL and SERVICE fields indicate that communication “has reverted to the
`
`first modulation method,” thereby meeting the “reverted” limitation required by
`
`claims 23, 25, 29-30 and 41. Ex. 1319, ¶27.
`
`Moreover, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have known, and
`
`found it obvious, that following routine events such as an introduction of noise in
`
`the communications channel, the SIGNAL field 206 and SERVICE field 208
`
`would have contained values indicating that communication “has reverted to the
`
`first modulation method,” as required by claims 23, 25, 29-30 and 41. Ex. 1319,
`
`¶28.
`
`According to Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966), the
`
`scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the claimed invention
`
`and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in the prior art must be evaluated
`
`when det