`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________
`
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`_________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,416,862
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1
`III.
`PAYMENT OF FEES ..................................................................................... 2
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 2
`V.
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS RAISED ..................... 3
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL .................................................................... 6
`VII. THE ’862 PATENT ......................................................................................... 7
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 8
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS .............................................. 8
`A. Ground 1: Claims 9, 11, and 12 are Obvious over Roh in view of
`Maltsev and Haykin ............................................................................... 8
`1.
`Claim 9 ........................................................................................ 8
`2.
`Claim 11 .................................................................................... 32
`3.
`Claim 12 .................................................................................... 35
`Ground 2: Claim 10 is Obvious over Roh in view of Maltsev,
`Haykin, and Yang ................................................................................ 36
`1.
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 36
`Ground 3: Claims 9, 11, and 12 are Obvious over Lin in view of
`Haykin and Maltsev ............................................................................. 39
`1.
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 39
`2.
`Claim 11 .................................................................................... 62
`3.
`Claim 12 .................................................................................... 63
`D. Ground 4: Claim 10 is Obvious over Lin in view of Haykin,
`Maltsev, and Yang ............................................................................... 63
`1.
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 63
`i
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`X. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS NOT APPROPRIATE HERE .................. 67
`A.
`The Board Should Not Exercise Discretion Under § 314(a) To
`Deny the Petition ................................................................................. 67
`The Board Should Not Exercise Discretion Under § 325(d) To
`Deny the Petition ................................................................................. 69
`XI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 70
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Declaration of Dr. Leonard J. Cimini
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Leonard J. Cimini
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 11/168,793
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/673,451
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/698,686
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`Roh et al., “An Efficient Feedback Method for MIMO Systems with
`Slowly Time-Varying Channels,” volume 2 of Proceedings of 2004
`IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference, March
`21-25, 2004, Atlanta, GA (“Roh”)
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,570,696 to Maltsev et al. (“Maltsev”)
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Haykin et al., Modern Wireless Communications (“Haykin”)
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`Yang et al., “Reducing the Computations of the SVD Array Given by
`Brent and Luk,” Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 1152, Advanced
`Algorithms and Architectures for Signal Processing IV, November 14,
`1989 (“Yang”)
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,492,829 to Lin et al. (“Lin”)
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`Sadrabadi et al., “A New Method of Channel Feedback Quantization
`for High Data Rate MIMO Systems,” volume 1 of GLOBECOM ’04
`IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference, November 29 –
`December 3, 2004, Dallas, Texas (“Sadrabadi”)
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`[RESERVED]
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,258,995 to Su et al. (“Su”)
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`Ansari et al., “Unified MIMO Pre-Coding based on Givens Rotation”
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`U.S. Patent No. 7,742,546 to Ketchum et al. (“Ketchum-546”)
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`Ex. 1018
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,236,748 to Li et al. (“Li”)
`
`Ex. 1019
`
`Declaration of Dr. Ingrid Hsieh-Yee
`
`Ex. 1020
`
`[RESERVED]
`
`Ex. 1021
`
`Ex. 1022
`
`Ex. 1023
`
`Excerpt of The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standard Terms (7th
`ed., IEEE Press 2000)
`
`Stuber et al., “Broadband MIMO-OFDM Wireless Communications,”
`Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 92, No. 2, Feb. 2004 (“Stuber”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0087324 to Ketchum et
`al. (“Ketchum-324”)
`
`Ex. 1024
`
`[RESERVED]
`
`Ex. 1025
`
`Ex. 1026
`
`Ex. 1027
`
`Ex. 1028
`
`Excerpt of Strang, et al., Linear Algebra and Its Applications (2nd ed.,
`Academic Press 1980) (“Strang”)
`
`Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D. in Support of
`Plaintiff’s Claim Constructions, Bell Northern Research, LLC v. ZTE
`Corp., No. 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM (S.D. Cal.), Dkt. 88-14
`
`Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Joint Motion for Summary
`Judgment on Indefiniteness, Bell Northern Research, LLC v. ZTE
`Corp., No. 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM (S.D. Cal.), Dkt. 99
`
`BNR’s Infringement Contentions against Samsung in Bell Northern
`Research, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., No. 2:19-cv-00286-
`JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Ex. 1029
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,986,973 to Jericevic et al. (“Jericevic”)
`
`Ex. 1030
`
`Yang et al., “Reducing the Computations of the Singular Value
`Decomposition Array Given by Brent and Luk,” J. Matrix Anal. Appl.,
`Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 713-725, Oct. 1991 (“Yang II”)
`
`Ex. 1031
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,112,195 to Burges (“Burges”)
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`U.S. Patent No. 7,403,539 to Tang et al. (“Tang”)
`
`Ex. 1032
`
`Ex. 1033
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,570,929 to Trompower (“Trompower”)
`
`Ex. 1034
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,133,697 to Judd et al. (“Judd”)
`
`Ex. 1035
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0081978 (“Hou”)
`
`Ex. 1036
`
`Steyskal, H., “Digital Beamforming Basics,” Journal of Electronic
`Defense (July 1996)
`
`Ex. 1037
`
`[RESERVED]
`
`Ex. 1038
`
`[RESERVED]
`
`Ex. 1039
`
`[RESERVED]
`
`Ex. 1040
`
`Ex. 1041
`
`Ex. 1042
`
`Ex. 1043
`
`Li, Q., & Lin, X. E., “Compact feedback for MIMO-OFDM systems
`over frequency selective channels,” in 2005 IEEE 61st Vehicular
`Technology Conference, Vol. 1, pp. 187-191 (IEEE May 2005).
`
`Delosme, J. M., “Bit-level systolic algorithm for the symmetric
`eigenvalue problem,” in [1990] Proceedings of the International
`Conference on Application Specific Array Processors, pp. 770-781
`(IEEE September 1990).
`
`Kota, K., Architectural, numerical and implementation issues in the
`integrated cordic-svd processor (Doctoral
`vlsi design of an
`dissertation, Rice University, 1991.
`
`Kota, K., & Cavallaro, J. R., “A Normalization Scheme to Reduce
`Numerical Errors in Inverse Tangent comptations on a Fixed-point
`CORDIC Processor,” in IEEE International Symposium on Circuits
`and Systems (ISCAS), pp. 244-247 (May 1992).
`
`Ex. 1044
`
`Lee, J. A., & Lang, T., “Constant-factor redundant CORDIC for angle
`calculation and rotation,” IEEE Transactions on Computers, (8),
`1016-1025 (August 1992).
`
`v
`
`

`

`Ex. 1045
`
`Ex. 1046
`
`Ex. 1047
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`Sun, C., Karmakar, N. C., Lim, K. S., & Feng, A., “Combining
`beamforming with Alamouti
`scheme
`for multiuser MIMO
`communications,” in IEEE 60th Vehicular Technology Conference,
`2004. VTC2004-Fall. 2004, Vol. 2, pp. 1415-1419 (IEEE September
`2004).
`
`Olavarrieta, L. D., & Nava, A. A., “Wireless communications: a bird's
`eye view of an emerging technology,” in IEEE International
`Symposium on Communications and Information Technology, 2004.
`ISCIT 2004, Vol. 1, pp. 541-546 (IEEE October 2004).
`
`Sakhaee, E., & Jamalipour, A., “Aerouter/spl trade/-a graphical
`simulation tool for routing in aeronautical systems,” in IEEE Wireless
`Communications and Networking Conference, 2005, Vol. 4, pp. 2506-
`2511 (IEEE March 2005).
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner” or “Samsung”) requests inter
`
`partes review of claims 9-12 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862
`
`(“the ’862 patent”) (Ex. 1001), which, according to PTO records, is assigned to Bell
`
`Northern Research, LLC (“Patent Owner” or “PO”). For the reasons discussed
`
`below, the challenged claims should be found unpatentable and canceled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`Real Parties-in-Interest: Petitioner identifies the following as the real
`
`parties-in-interest: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc.
`
`Related Matters: The ’862 patent is at issue in Bell Northern Research, LLC
`
`v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:19-cv-00286-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Bell
`
`Northern Research, LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., No. 3:18-cv-02864-CAB-
`
`BLM (S.D. Cal.); and LG Electronics Inc. v. Bell Northern Research, LLC,
`
`IPR2020-00108 (PTAB).
`
`The ’862 patent was previously at issue in:
`
`• Bell Northern Research, LLC v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. et al.,
`
`No. 3:18-cv-01784-CAB-BLM (S.D. Cal.) (terminated);
`
`• Bell Northern Research, LLC v. Kyocera Corporation et al., No. 3:18-
`
`cv-01785-CAB-BLM (S.D. Cal.) (terminated);
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`• Bell Northern Research, LLC v. ZTE Corporation et al., No. 3:18-cv-
`
`01786-CAB-BLM (S.D. Cal.) (terminated as to the ’862 patent);
`
`• Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. v. Bell Northern Research, LLC,
`
`IPR2019-01439 (PTAB) (terminated); and
`
`• ZTE (USA) Inc. v. Bell Northern Research, LLC, IPR2019-01438
`
`(PTAB) (terminated).
`
`Petitioner is concurrently filing another IPR petition challenging claims of the
`
`’862 patent.
`
`Counsel and Service Information: Lead counsel: Naveen Modi (Reg. No.
`
`46,224), and Backup counsel are (1) Joseph E. Palys (Reg. No. 46,508), (2) Arvind
`
`Jairam (Reg. No. 62,759). Service information is Paul Hastings LLP, 875 15th St.
`
`N.W., Washington, D.C., 20005, Tel.: 202.551.1700, Fax: 202.551.1705, email: PH-
`
`Samsung-BNR-IPR@paulhastings.com. Petitioner consents to electronic service.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`The PTO is authorized to charge any fees due during this proceeding to
`
`Deposit Account No. 50-2613.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that the ’862 patent is available for review and Petitioner
`
`is not barred or estopped from requesting review on the grounds identified herein.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS RAISED
`Claims 9-12 should be canceled as unpatentable based on the following
`
`V.
`
`grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 9, 11, and 12 are unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) as being obvious over Roh (Ex. 1008), Maltsev (Ex. 1009), and Haykin (Ex.
`
`1010);
`
`Ground 2: Claim 10 is unpatentable under § 103(a) as being obvious over
`
`Roh, Maltsev, Haykin, and Yang (Ex. 1011);
`
`Ground 3: Claims 9, 11, and 12 are unpatentable under § 103(a) as being
`
`obvious over Lin (Ex. 1012), Haykin, and Maltsev; and
`
`Ground 4: Claim 10 is unpatentable under § 103(a) as being obvious over
`
`Lin, Haykin, Maltsev, and Yang.
`
`The ’862 patent issued from Application No. 11/237,341 (“the ’341
`
`application”) (Ex. 1004, 183-222), which is a CIP of Application No. 11/168,793
`
`(“the ’793 application”) (Ex. 1005), and claims priority to Provisional Application
`
`No. 60/673,451 (“the ’451 provisional”) (Ex. 1006) filed April 21, 2005 and
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/698,686 (“the ’686 provisional”) (Ex. 1007) filed
`
`July 13, 2005. (Ex. 1001, 1:9-15.) Challenged claims 9-12 are not entitled to the
`
`April 21, 2005 priority date because they require “a baseband processing module
`
`operable to: … decompose the estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`(V)…,” which is not supported in the ’451 provisional or the ’793 application. (Ex.
`
`1001, 17:20, 17:28-30; Ex. 1002, ¶¶76-78.) While the ’686 provisional and the ’341
`
`application include disclosures relating to the claimed “decompose” features, such
`
`disclosures are not found in the ’451 provisional or ’793 application. (Ex. 1004, 204
`
`(original specification, page 22:11-21), 205-207 (pages 23-25); Ex. 1007, 21-23, 27,
`
`30, 32 (pages 20-22, 26, 29, 31 of ’686 provisional); Ex. 1002, ¶78.)
`
`Maltsev issued August 4, 2009 from an application filed June 25, 2004. (Ex.
`
`1009, Cover.) Lin issued February 17, 2009 from an application filed September 10,
`
`2004. (Ex. 1012, Cover.)
`
`Roh is an article published as part of volume 2 of the conference proceedings
`
`of the IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference held at the
`
`Georgia World Congress Center in Atlanta, Georgia March 21-25, 2004. (Ex. 1008;
`
`Ex. 1019, ¶30, 131-133 (Appx1008-E).)1 Information in Roh (e.g., cover/copyright
`
`pages (Ex. 1019, 131-133), “2004” date on each page (id., 134-138), and Library of
`
`Congress date stamp (id., 132 (“JUL 12 2004”)), bibliographic and MARC records
`
`(id., 109-111, 126-127, 129, 140-142), and citations to Roh in prior publications (id.,
`
`
`1 Petitioner submits the testimony of Dr. Ingrid Hsieh-Yee, an expert in the field of
`
`library cataloguing and classification, regarding the printed publication status of
`
`various references. (See Ex. 1019, ¶¶9-18; see also id., 68-87 (CV), ¶¶1-8.)
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`91-95 (2004 copyright), 95 (citation [12] to Roh (“March 2004”), 144; Ex. 1040)
`
`demonstrate that Roh was published in 2004. Additionally, Dr. Hsieh-Yee’s
`
`testimony confirms that Roh was accessible to the public prior to April 2005. (Ex.
`
`1019, ¶¶19-35.)
`
`The Board has routinely held that IEEE publications like Roh are printed
`
`publications. Power Integrations, Inc., v. Semiconductor Components Industries,
`
`LLC, IPR2018-00377, Paper No. 10 at 10 (July 17, 2018). Indeed, the Board has
`
`accepted information on a copyright of an IEEE reference as evidence of its date of
`
`publication and public accessibility. Ericsson, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`
`IPR2014-00527, Paper 41 at 10-11 (May 18, 2015); see also Coriant (USA) Inc. v.
`
`Oyster Optics, LLC, IPR2018-00258, Paper 13 at 11 (June 6, 2018); Microsoft Corp.
`
`v. Bradium Techs. LLC, IPR2016-00449, Paper 9 at 13 (PTAB July 27, 2016). With
`
`its copyright markings (Ex. 1008, 3, 760-764), Roh is similar to a reference found to
`
`be a printed publication in Microsoft Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., IPR 2017-
`
`00890, Paper 49 at 19 (Sept. 6, 2018).
`
`Haykin was published by Pearson Prentice Hall and bears a date stamp
`
`“LIBRARY OF CONGRESS APR 05 2004.” (Ex. 1010, 5-6.) The Library of
`
`Congress date stamp, bibliographic and MARC records (Ex. 1019, 146-147, 149),
`
`and citations to Haykin in publications prior to April 21, 2005 (id., 152-153; Exs.
`
`1045-1047) demonstrate that Haykin was published in 2004. Additionally, Dr.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`Hsieh-Yee’s testimony confirms that Haykin was accessible to the public at least as
`
`early as December 24, 2004. (Ex. 1019, ¶¶36-50; see also Ex. 1002, ¶104.)
`
`Yang was published in Proceedings SPIE 1152, Advanced Algorithms and
`
`Architectures for Signal Processing IV (November 14, 1989). (Ex. 1011, 1.) The
`
`material in Yang (e.g., “1989” date on each page (id., 92-102)), bibliographic and
`
`MARC records (Ex. 1019, 155, 157, 159, 161), and citations to Yang in publications
`
`prior to April 21, 2005 (id., 163; Exs. 1041-1044) demonstrate that Yang was
`
`published at least one year before April 21, 2005. Additionally, Dr. Hsieh-Yee’s
`
`testimony confirms that Yang was accessible to the public at least as early as January
`
`10, 1990. (Ex. 1019, ¶¶51-65.)
`
`This petition presents evidence sufficient to establish that the above references
`
`were publicly accessible before the alleged invention of the ’862 patent. Hulu, LLC
`
`v. Sound View innovation, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 12-13, 18 (PTAB Dec.
`
`20, 2019) (precedential). Thus, Roh and Haykin qualify as prior art under § 102(a),
`
`Maltsev and Lin qualify as prior art under § 102(e), and Yang qualifies as prior art
`
`under § 102(b). None of these references were considered during prosecution. (See
`
`generally Ex. 1004.)
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`A person of ordinary skill in the art as of the claimed priority date of the ’862
`
`patent (“POSITA”) would have had at least an undergraduate degree in electrical
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`engineering, physics, or a related discipline (or equivalent education and/or training)
`
`and a master’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, or a related discipline (or
`
`equivalent education and/or training), and at least two years of experience in the field
`
`of wireless communications systems. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶17-19.)2 More education can
`
`supplement practical experience and vice versa. (Id.)
`
`VII. THE ’862 PATENT
`The ’862 patent relates to processes for feeding back beamforming
`
`information from a receiver to a transmitter, for example, in the context of a
`
`multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO) wireless communication system. (Ex.
`
`1001, Abstract). The patent acknowledges prior existing beamforming processes,
`
`which were known to a POSITA. (Id.; 2:55-3:4; Ex. 1002, ¶¶68-75.) As explained
`
`below, all of the features recited in the challenged claims were already known in the
`
`prior art. (See also Ex. 1002, ¶¶73-75; ¶¶20-67 (describing the state of the art and
`
`citing Exs. 1013, 1015-1018, 1022-1023, 1025, 1029, 1031), ¶¶142, 147, 164, 230
`
`
`2 Petitioner submits the declaration of Dr. Leonard J. Cimini (Ex. 1002), an expert
`
`in the field of the ’862 patent. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶1-16; Ex. 1003.)
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`(citing Ex. 1021), 152, 154, 164, 223-224, 226, 245 (citing Ex. 1032), 162, 243
`
`(citing Ex. 1033), 136, 222 (citing Exs. 1034-1035), 229 (citing Ex. 1036).3)
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`The Board only construes the claims when necessary to resolve the underlying
`
`controversy. Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Systems, Inc., IPR2015-00633, Paper
`
`No. 11 at 16 (Aug. 14, 2015) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200
`
`F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). For purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner believes
`
`that no special constructions are necessary to assess whether the challenged claims
`
`are unpatentable over the asserted prior art.4 (Ex. 1002, ¶79.)
`
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS
`A. Ground 1: Claims 9, 11, and 12 are Obvious over Roh in view of
`Maltsev and Haykin
`Claim 9
`1.
`9[a] A wireless communication device comprising:
`a)
`To the extent the preamble of claim 9 is limiting, Roh discloses the limitations
`
`therein. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶131-134.) For example, Roh discloses a wireless
`
`
`3 Petitioner’s references to these exhibits herein are to demonstrate the knowledge
`
`of a POSITA at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`4 Petitioner reserves all rights to raise claim construction and other arguments in this
`
`and other proceedings as relevant and necessary.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`communication system including a wireless transmitter with t antennas and a
`
`wireless receiver with r antennas. (Ex. 1008, 760, 761 (§ II.A (describing feeding
`
`back channel spatial information from the receiver to the transmitter), § II.B, FIG.
`
`1; see also id., 760 (§ I (“wireless systems”); Ex. 1002, ¶¶131-133.) Thus, Roh’s
`
`receiver is a “wireless communication device.” (Ex. 1002, ¶134, ¶¶80-92; infra
`
`Sections IX.A.1(b)-(h).)
`
`b)
`
`9[b] a plurality of Radio Frequency (RF) components
`operable to receive an RF signal and to convert the RF
`signal to a baseband signal; and
`Roh in view of Maltsev and Haykin discloses or suggests this limitation. (Ex.
`
`1002, ¶¶135-147.)
`
` A POSITA would have understood that a wireless
`
`communication system that uses antennas at the transmitter and receiver (as in Roh,
`
`supra Section IX.A.1(a)) would use the antennas at the receiver to receive a radio
`
`frequency (RF) signal. (Ex. 1002, ¶136.) While Roh does not explicitly disclose
`
`that the receiver includes a plurality of RF components operable to receive and
`
`convert an RF signal to a baseband signal, it would have been obvious in view of
`
`Maltsev and Haykin to configure Roh’s receiver to implement such features. (Id.,
`
`¶137.)
`
`To begin, a POSITA would have had reason to consider the disclosures of
`
`Maltsev and Haykin in the context of Roh given they all relate to wireless
`
`communications, e.g., MIMO wireless systems and address similar issues with such
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`systems. (Ex. 1008, 760-761; Ex. 1009, 1:1-28, 2:46-52, 3:24-32, 7:38-42, 12:6-
`
`13:3, FIGS. 2, 7-8; Ex. 1010, Preface, xiii, 227-231, 357-371; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 80-113,
`
`138.)
`
`Maltsev discloses a wireless communication device (e.g., receiving
`
`station/device) comprising a plurality of RF components operable to receive an RF
`
`signal. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶139-140.) Maltsev explains that “multicarrier receiver 200
`
`(FIG. 2) may be part of a wireless communication device” and that its antennas 202
`
`are suitable for reception of RF signals. (Ex. 1009, 6:33-58; 7:18-29, FIG. 2; Ex.
`
`1002, ¶140.)
`
`Furthermore, Maltsev discloses analog-to-digital conversion (ADC) and RF
`
`processing circuitry 204 operable to process received RF signals. (Ex. 1009, 9:25-
`
`28; Ex. 1002, ¶141.)
`
`While not expressly disclosed, a POSITA would have expected RF
`
`components that convert an RF signal to a baseband signal to be present in a receiver
`
`like that in Maltsev. (Ex. 1002, ¶142.) This expectation is consistent with PO’s
`
`previous statements regarding the IEEE 802.11 standard, with which Maltsev’s
`
`device is compatible. (Ex. 1026, ¶63 (“[F]unctioning in accordance with one of the
`
`IEEE 802.11x standards requires sending (or for the receiving device, receiving) a
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`preamble sequence, which is carried by the baseband signal.”); see also Ex. 1027,
`
`20; Ex. 1009, 6:41-45, 6:59-62; Ex. 1002, ¶142.)
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to configure Roh’s receiver (“wireless
`
`communication device”) to include RF components that receive and convert an RF
`
`signal to a baseband signal to ensure the receiver operates as required to facilitate
`
`communications in a MIMO system, and e.g., to support compliance with applicable
`
`standards as suggested by Roh. (Ex. 1002, ¶143.)
`
`In any event, Haykin explicitly discloses converting a received RF signal to a
`
`baseband signal. (Ex. 1010, 227 “[T]he trend nowadays is to convert [a] received
`
`RF signal x(t) into baseband form.”); id., 228 (“RF-to-baseband converter”); Ex.
`
`1002, ¶144.) Haykin identifies benefits associated with, and exemplifies how to
`
`implement, the conversion. (Ex. 1010, 227 (explaining that the use of digital signal
`
`processing is cost effective and provides “flexibility unmatched by analog devices”
`
`and is done with the quadrature demodulator (Figure 4.20).) Haykin describes
`
`subsequently processing the baseband signal. (Id., 228 (“With the digitized in-phase
`
`and quadrature components of the received signal at hand, the baseband signal
`
`processing can begin in the receiver.”), FIG. 4.20; Ex. 1002, ¶144.)
`
`Accordingly, a POSITA would have been motivated in view of Maltsev and
`
`Haykin to configure Roh’s receiver to include RF components that convert the
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`received RF signal to a baseband signal. (Ex. 1009, 6:33-58, 7:18-29, 9:25-28, FIG.
`
`2; Ex. 1010, 227-228, FIG. 4.20; Ex. 1008, 760-764; Ex. 1002, ¶145.) A POSITA
`
`would have appreciated that such a conversion would have beneficially and
`
`predictably allowed Roh’s device to work with baseband signals. (Ex. 1010, 227;
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶145.) Furthermore, a POSITA would have recognized that this
`
`conversion to baseband would have simplified processing, and would have been a
`
`predictable application of known techniques (e.g., modulator (e.g., Haykin’s
`
`quadrature demodulator) to achieve foreseeable results (e.g., translation of the
`
`signal’s frequency to baseband for processing). (Ex. 1002, ¶146.)
`
`A POSITA would have had the capability and knowledge to implement the
`
`above modification given the understanding of wireless communications system in
`
`MIMO environments. (Ex. 1002, ¶147.) Moreover, a POSITA would have found
`
`the above modification to be straightforward and would have reasonably expected
`
`the configured receiver of Roh would operate successfully to enable it to perform
`
`efficient feedback operations consistent with those disclosed by Roh. (Ex. 1009,
`
`6:33-7:29, 9:25-28, FIG. 2; Ex. 1010, 227-228, FIG. 4.20; Ex. 1021, 86; Ex. 1002,
`
`¶147.)
`
`9[c] a baseband processing module operable to:
`c)
`While Roh (alone or in combination with Maltsev and/or Haykin) discloses
`
`the remaining features of claim 9 (infra Sections IX.A.1(d)-(h)), Roh does not
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`explicitly disclose that its receiver includes “a baseband processing module
`
`operable to” perform those features. However, it would have been obvious in view
`
`of the teachings of Maltsev and Haykin to configure the above modified Roh’s
`
`receiver (see limitation 9[b]) to implement this feature. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶148-154.)
`
`Maltsev discloses implementing its receiving station/device using a processor
`
`executing instructions stored in memory. (Ex. 1009, 15:54-67, 7:7-17, 15:41-53,
`
`FIG. 2; Ex. 1002, ¶149.) Thus, a POSITA would have understood that Maltsev
`
`discloses a receiver with a processing module operable to perform operations
`
`consistent with those disclosed in Maltsev. (Ex. 1002, ¶150.)
`
`While Maltsev does not explicitly use the term “baseband” to describe its
`
`processor, in context, a POSITA would have understood that Maltsev’s processor is
`
`a baseband processing module given Maltsev’s disclosures in this regard are
`
`consistent with how the ’862 patent describes a baseband processing module. (Ex.
`
`1001, 7:56-8:20; Ex. 1002, ¶151.) Moreover, Maltsev discloses that its processing
`
`module complies with IEEE 802.11 standards (Ex. 1009, 6:32-7:6), which according
`
`to PO, requires a baseband processing module. (Ex. 1027, 18-19 (“[T]he
`
`specification [of the ’862 patent] shows that the baseband processing module is
`
`described as a well-known piece of hardware and software incorporated into wireless
`
`communication devices and implements protocols and standards required for such
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`communication, such as IEEE 802.11 standards.”); see also Ex. 1026, ¶¶57, 63; Ex.
`
`1002, ¶152.)
`
`As discussed, Roh with Maltsev and Haykin discloses or suggests a receiver
`
`that processes baseband signals. (Supra Section IX.A.1(b); Ex. 1009, 6:33-7:29,
`
`9:25-28, 15:41-67, FIG. 2; Ex. 1010, 227-228, FIG. 4.20.) Accordingly, it would
`
`have been obvious in view of such disclosures to configure the combined Roh-
`
`Maltsev-Haykin receiver to include a baseband processing module for reasons
`
`similar to those discussed above for limitation 9[b]. (Supra Section IX.A.1(b); Ex.
`
`1002, ¶153.) Indeed, in light of Maltsev, a POSITA would have been motivated to
`
`configure the combined Roh-Maltsev-Haykin receiver to be operable to perform the
`
`features like those discussed below for limitations 9[d]-9[h], which relate to
`
`processing a “baseband signal.” (Ex. 1001, 17:19, 17:31; Ex. 1009, 7:7-17, 15:41-
`
`67, FIG. 2; infra Sections IX.A.1(d)-(h); Ex. 1002, ¶153.)
`
`A POSITA would have appreciated that processing baseband signals (like that
`
`discussed below) via a processing module (like that disclosed by Maltsev) would
`
`have beneficially and predictably allowed the combined Roh-Maltsev-Haykin
`
`receiver to use known processing components and technologies to work with
`
`baseband signals known to be implemented in the wireless communication receiver
`
`device disclosed by the collective teachings of Roh-Maltsev-Haykin. (Ex. 1002,
`
`¶154; see also Ex. 1001, 7:56-8:20; Ex. 1027, 18-19.) A POSITA would have had
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`the capability and knowledge to implement the above modification and would have
`
`found the above modification to be straightforward and would have reasonably
`
`expected the configured baseband processing module in the modified Roh-Maltsev-
`
`Haykin receiver to operate successfully so as to enable the receiver to continue to
`
`perform efficient feedback operations consistent with those disclosed by Roh. (Ex.
`
`1002, ¶154.)
`
`d)
`
`9[d] receive a preamble sequence carried by the
`baseband signal;
`Roh in combination with Maltsev-Haykin discloses or suggests this limitation.
`
`(Ex. 1002, ¶¶155-165.) Roh discloses a wireless system including a wireless channel
`
`with a transmitter and receiver, that uses a “channel matrix H.” (Ex. 1008, 760; see
`
`also id., 764 (“MIMO channel information”).) While Roh does not explicitly
`
`describe how the channel matrix H is obtained, a POSITA would have understood
`
`that it was well known in such wireless communication systems that implement
`
`beamforming (like Roh) to send a preamble sequence to a receiver so that it can use
`
`the received information to estimate channel conditions in the form of a channel
`
`matrix H. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶155-156; Ex. 1001, 2:55-3:22.) Thus, while Roh does not
`
`explicitly disclose a baseband processing module operable to receive a preamble
`
`sequence carried by the baseband signal, it would have been obvious in view of the
`
`knowledge of a POSITA and the disclosures of Maltsev to configure the baseband
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`processing module of the above-discussed combined Roh-Maltsev-Haykin receiver
`
`to be operable to perform such functionality. (Ex. 1002, ¶157.)
`
`Maltsev discloses that its “receiving station may measure a preamble of a
`
`packet received from the transmitting station to estimate the channel transfer matrix
`
`(H) for each subcarrier of the multicarrier communication channel.” (Ex. 1009, 5:8-
`
`12; id., 5:12-17, 8:16-20, 12:47-52, FIGS. 2, 8; Ex. 1002, ¶158.) A POSITA would
`
`have understood that Maltsev’s “preamble [of a packet]” discloses a “preamble
`
`sequence.” (Ex. 1002, ¶159.) For example, a POSITA would have understood that
`
`a preamble in the context of a wireless communication packet includes a sequence
`
`of data and thus is a preamble sequence. (Id.; Ex. 1022, 273 (“preamble sequence”),
`
`274 (same); see also Ex. 1001, 13:37-44 (interchangeably using the terms “preamble
`
`sequence” and “preamble”).) Furthermore, Maltsev discloses “estimating a channel
`
`transfer matrix (H) … based on a … packet header received from a transmitting
`
`station.” (Ex. 1009, 12:47-51, FIG. 8.) A POSITA would have understood that
`
`Maltsev associates this “packet header” with a preamble. (Ex. 1009, 8:16-20, 12:47-
`
`51, FIG. 8; Ex. 1002, ¶¶160-161.)
`
`Maltsev’s disclosures are consistent with PO’s representations that the IEEE
`
`802.11 standard (with which Maltsev’s device is compatible) requires receiving a
`
`preamble sequence. (Ex. 1026, ¶63; see also Ex. 1027, 20; Ex. 1009, 6:41-45, 6:59-
`
`6