`
`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 .............................................. 9
`A. Ground 1: Claims 9, 11, and 12 are Obvious over Maltsev in view
`of Haykin and Sadrabadi ....................................................................... 9
`1.
`Claim 9 ........................................................................................ 9
`2.
`Claim 11 .................................................................................... 52
`3.
`Claim 12 .................................................................................... 55
`Ground 2: Claim 10 is Obvious over Maltsev in view of Haykin,
`Sadrabadi, and Yang ........................................................................... 56
`1.
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 56
`X. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS NOT APPROPRIATE HERE .................. 60
`A.
`The Board Should Not Exercise Discretion Under § 314(a) To
`Deny the Petition ................................................................................. 61
`The Board Should Not Exercise Discretion Under § 325(d) To
`Deny the Petition ................................................................................. 63
`XI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 63
`
`B.
`
`B.
`
`i
`
`

`

`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”
`
`ii
`
`

`

`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
`
`Ex. 1024
`
`Ex. 1025
`
`Ex. 1026
`
`Ex. 1027
`
`Ex. 1028
`
`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”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0184398 to Walton et
`al. (“Walton”)
`
`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”)
`
`iii
`
`

`

`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).
`
`iv
`
`

`

`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).
`
`v
`
`

`

`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 (“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 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`being obvious over Maltsev (Ex. 1009), Haykin (Ex. 1010), and Sadrabadi (Ex.
`
`1013); and
`
`Ground 2: Claim 10 is unpatentable under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
`
`over Maltsev, Haykin, Sadrabadi, and Yang (Ex. 1011).
`
`The ’862 patent was issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 11/237,341
`
`(“the ’341 application”) (Ex. 1004, 183-222), which is a continuation-in-part of
`
`Application No. 11/168,793 (“the ’793 application”) (Ex. 1005), which claims
`
`priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/673,451 (“the ’451 provisional”)
`
`(Ex. 1006) filed April 21, 2005, and to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/698,686
`
`(“the ’686 provisional”) (Ex. 1007) filed July 13, 2005. (Ex. 1001, Cover, 1:9-15.)
`
`The challenged claims are not entitled to the April 21, 2005 because they require “a
`
`baseband processing module operable to: … decompose the estimated transmitter
`
`beamforming unitary matrix (V)…,” which is not supported in the ’451 provisional
`
`or the ’793 application. (Ex. 1001, 17:20, 17:28-30; Ex. 1002, ¶73-75.) While the
`
`’686 provisional and the ’341 application include disclosures relating to the claimed
`
`“decompose” features, e.g., with respect to Givens rotation matrices, such
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`disclosures are not found in the ’451 provisional or ’793 application. (Ex. 1004, 204
`
`(original specification at page 22:11-21), 205-207 (original specification at pages
`
`23-25); Ex. 1007, 21-23, 27, 30, 32 (pages 20-22, 26, 29, 31 of ’686 provisional);
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶73-75.)
`
`Maltsev issued August 4, 2009 from U.S. Patent Application No. 10/877,943
`
`filed June 25, 2004. (Ex. 1009, Cover.)
`
`Haykin was published by Pearson Prentice Hall and bears a date stamp
`
`“LIBRARY OF CONGRESS APR 05 2004.” (Ex. 1010, 5-6.) 1 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.
`
`Hsieh-Yee’s testimony confirms that Haykin was accessible to the public at least as
`
`early as December 24, 2004. (Ex. 1019, ¶¶36-50.) Given that any interested persons
`
`could have searched for and accessed Haykin by December, 24, 2004, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art could also have searched for and accessed Haykin by that
`
`date. Dr. Cimini’s testimony confirms that Haykin is a well-known textbook that a
`
`
`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. (Ex. 1019, ¶¶9-18; see also id., 68-87 (CV), ¶¶1-8.)
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have had access to and would have found
`
`relevant regarding the subject of wireless communications. (Infra n.2; infra Section
`
`VI; Ex. 1002, ¶88.)
`
`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.)
`
`Sadrabadi was published in volume 1 of GLOBECOM ’04 IEEE Global
`
`Telecommunications Conference, November 29 – December 3, 2004, Dallas, Texas
`
`and bears a date stamp “LIBRARY OF CONGRESS JAN 25 2005.” (Ex. 1019,
`
`167-169; see also id., ¶70.) The material in Sadrabadi (id., 167-169), bibliographic
`
`and MARC records (id., 165, 188-189, 191-192, 194-195, 197), and a citation to
`
`Sadrabadi in a publication prior to April 21, 2005 (Ex. 1019, ¶86) demonstrate that
`
`Sadrabadi was published prior to April 21, 2005. Additionally, Dr. Hsieh-Yee’s
`
`testimony confirms that Sadrabadi was accessible to the public at least as early as
`
`January 17, 2005. (Ex. 1019, ¶¶66-87.)
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`This petition presents evidence sufficient to establish that the above references
`
`were publicly accessible before ’862 patent Hulu, LLC v. Sound View innovation,
`
`LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 12-13, 18 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential).
`
`Thus, Yang qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), or at least under § 102(a),
`
`Haykin and Sadrabadi qualify as prior art under § 102(a), and Maltsev qualifies as
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). None of the references relied upon in any ground
`
`were considered by the Examiner 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
`
`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.)
`
`
`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.)
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`
`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, 2:55-3:4; Ex. 1002, ¶¶65-75.) As the ’862 patent acknowledges,
`
`beamforming was a known “processing
`
`technique
`
`to create a focused
`
`antenna beam by shifting a signal in time or in phase to provide gain of the signal in
`
`a desired direction and to attenuate the signal in other directions.” (Ex. 1001, 2:67-
`
`3:4; Ex. 1002, ¶67.)
`
`In this context, the ’862 patent further acknowledges that “[i]n order for a
`
`transmitter to properly implement beamforming (i.e., determine the beamforming
`
`matrix [V]), it needs to know properties of the channel over which the wireless
`
`communication is conveyed.” (Ex. 1001, 3:14-17.) “Accordingly, the receiver must
`
`provide feedback information for the transmitter to determine the properties of the
`
`channel, and “[o]ne approach for sending feedback from the receiver to the
`
`transmitter is for the receiver to determine the channel response (H) and to provide
`
`it as the feedback information.” (Ex. 1001, 3:17-22.)
`
`The ’862 patent explains that it was known that “[t]o reduce the size of the
`
`feedback, the receiver may decompose the channel using singular value
`
`decomposition (SVD) and send information relating only to a calculated value of the
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`transmitter's beamforming matrix (V) as the feedback information.” (Ex. 1001,
`
`3:26-30; see also id., 13:58-62, 14:4-9, FIGs. 7, 8; Ex. 1002, ¶69-71.)
`
`As explained below, all of the features recited in the challenged claims were
`
`already known in the prior art. (See Ex. 1002, ¶¶70-72; id., ¶¶20-64 (describing the
`
`state of the art and citing Exs. 1008, 1015-1018, 1022-1023, 1025, 1029, 1031,
`
`1036), 172, 175, 204 (citing Exs. 1012, 1024), 128-129, 143-144 (citing Exs. 1021,
`
`1034), 115, 122, 134, 136, 145 (citing Ex. 1032), 141 (citing Ex. 1033), 198 (citing
`
`Ex. 1035)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, ¶76.)
`
`
`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
`
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS
`As discussed below, claims 9-12 are unpatentable in view of the prior art. (Ex.
`
`1002, ¶¶109-215.)
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 9, 11, and 12 are Obvious over Maltsev in view
`of Haykin and Sadrabadi
`Claim 9
`1.
`9[a] A wireless communication device comprising:
`a)
`To the extent the preamble of claim 9 is limiting, Maltsev discloses a “wireless
`
`communication device.” (Ex. 1002, ¶¶110-112.) For example, Maltsev discloses
`
`that “multicarrier transmitter 100 (FIG. 1) and/or multicarrier receiver 200 (FIG. 2)
`
`may be part of a wireless communication device.” (Ex. 1009, 6:32-34; see also id.,
`
`6:34-40 (“The wireless communication device may … be [listing several examples
`
`of wireless devices] … or other device that may receive and/or transmit information
`
`wirelessly.”) (emphasis added); Ex. 1002, ¶110.) Maltsev discloses that receiver
`
`200, which is part of the wireless communication device, is part of a receiving station
`
`(Ex. 1009, 7:25-29) and transmits and receives wireless signals, e.g., radio frequency
`
`(RF) signals. (Ex. 1009, 6:54-7:6, FIG. 2; see also id., 1:8-10, 1:14-16, 2:20-27,
`
`4:58-62, 6:32-7:37; Ex. 1002, ¶¶111-112.)
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1009, FIG. 2 (showing the receiver 200); see also id., 1:40-41; Ex. 1002, ¶¶111-
`
`112; 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
`Maltsev in view of Haykin discloses or suggests this limitation. (Ex. 1002,
`
`¶¶113-129.) Maltsev discloses that its wireless communication device comprises
`
`antennas 202 and ADC and RF processing circuitry 204 (collectively, “a plurality of
`
`Radio Frequency (RF) components”) operable to receive an RF signal and to process
`
`it. (Id., ¶113.) For example, Maltsev discloses that “multicarrier receiver 200 (FIG.
`
`2) may be part of a wireless communication device” and further discloses that
`
`“antennas 202 [of multicarrier receiver 200] (FIG. 2) may comprise … antennas
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`suitable for reception and/or transmission of RF signals.” (Ex. 1009, 6:33-58
`
`(emphasis added), 7:18-29, FIG. 2; Ex. 1002, ¶113.) Antennas 202 are RF
`
`components because they receive RF signals. (Id.) Furthermore, Maltsev discloses
`
`“that multicarrier receiver 200 may also comprise analog to digital conversion
`
`(ADC) and RF processing circuitry 204 to generate time-domain samples 205 from
`
`signals received from each of antennas 202.” (Ex. 1009, 9:25-28.) Thus, Maltsev
`
`discloses that antennas 202 and ADC and RF processing circuitry 204 (collectively,
`
`“a plurality of Radio Frequency (RF) components”) are operable to receive an RF
`
`signal and process it. (Ex. 1002, ¶114.)
`
`(Ex. 1009, FIG. 2 (annotated); Ex. 1002, ¶114.)
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`Further, Maltsev indicates that its device is compatible with the IEEE 802.11
`
`wireless communication standards. (Ex. 1009, 6:41-45, 6:59-62.) A POSITA would
`
`have understood that devices like Maltsev that operate according to this standard
`
`would have involved communications where a preamble sequence is carried by a
`
`baseband signal. (Ex. 1002, ¶115.) Consistently, PO acknowledged in a related
`
`district court proceeding that the IEEE 802.11 standards (with which Maltsev’s
`
`device is compatible) involve “sending (or for the receiving device, receiving) a
`
`preamble sequence, which is carried by the baseband signal.” (Ex. 1026, ¶63
`
`(emphasis added); Ex. 1027, 20.)
`
`While Maltsev does not explicitly describe converting RF signals to baseband
`
`signals, a POSITA would have found it obvious to configure the RF components in
`
`Maltsev’s device to convert the received RF signal to a baseband signal to allow the
`
`signal to be subsequently processed in line with the features and processes disclosed
`
`by Maltsev. (Ex. 1002, ¶116.) A POSITA would have found such a configuration
`
`obvious given it was well known to perform such conversions in wireless
`
`communication environments like Maltsev, which, as explained below (infra
`
`Sections IX.A.1(c)-(h)), included beamforming operations. (Ex. 1002, ¶116.)
`
`For example, Haykin discloses such features in a similar environment as
`
`Maltsev. Namely, similar to Maltsev, Haykin relates to wireless communications
`
`and channel/beamforming feedback for Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO)
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`systems. (Ex. 1009, Title, 1:1-28, 2:46-52, 7:38-42, 12:6-13:3, FIGS. 1-2, 7-8; Ex.
`
`1010, Title, Preface (xiii-xvi), 1-10, 227-231 (discussing channel estimation), 357-
`
`370 (discussing MIMO), 371 (discussing feedback channel, singular value
`
`decomposition (SVD), and MIMO); Ex. 1002, ¶¶117-119.) Thus, a POSITA would
`
`have had reason to consider the teachings of Haykin when implementing Maltsev’s
`
`device. (Id.)
`
`Haykin discloses conversion of a received RF signal to a baseband signal for
`
`subsequent baseband processing. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶120-121.) For example, Haykin
`
`discloses, at a section entitled “Baseband Processing for Channel Estimation and
`
`Equalization,” that “the trend nowadays is to convert [a] received RF signal x(t) into
`
`baseband form.” (Ex. 1010, 227; see also id., 228 (“RF-to-baseband converter”);
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶¶120-121.) Haykin specifically identifies benefits associated with the
`
`conversion. (Ex. 1010, 227 (“Simply put, not only is the use of digital signal
`
`processing cost effective, but it also provides flexibility unmatched by analog
`
`devices.”).) Haykin also explains how to implement the conversion. (See id. (“The
`
`RF-to-baseband conversion is accomplished with the quadrature demodulator,
`
`depicted in Fig. 4.20 … .”), FIG. 4.20 (reproduced below).) Haykin describes
`
`subsequently processing the baseband signal. (See id., 228 (“With the digitized in-
`
`phase and quadrature components of the received signal at hand, the baseband
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`signal processing can begin in the receiver.”) (emphasis added); Ex. 1002, ¶¶120-
`
`121.)
`
`(Ex. 1010, FIG. 4.20.)
`
`
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to configure Maltsev’s device so that
`
`its RF components are operable to convert the RF signal to a baseband signal because
`
`it would have been conducive for supporting compliance with the 802.11 standards
`
`described in Maltsev. (Ex. 1009, 6:33-62, FIG. 2; Ex. 1002, ¶122.) Such a
`
`configuration would have been a straightforward and foreseeable implementation
`
`for a POSITA to implement, given that conversion to baseband was known to be a
`
`fundamental aspect of wireless communications and the 802.11 standards. (Ex.
`
`1002, ¶122.) And in light of the teachings of Haykin, a POSITA would have
`
`recognized that the use of baseband signals in wireless communication devices that
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`perform beamforming (like Maltsev and Haykin) was known. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 51-59,
`
`123.)
`
`A POSITA would have had the reason, capability, and knowledge to
`
`implement the above modification to form a combined Maltsev-Haykin device that
`
`would make use of Maltsev’s components and processing features so that the RF
`
`components receive the RF signal at the device’s antennas and convert the signal to
`
`a baseband signal. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶124-125.) For example, a POSITA would have
`
`considered, as a non-limiting example, implementing such conversion at Maltsev’s
`
`ADC and RF processing circuitry 204 (RF components) given such circuitry
`
`processes the received RF signal (Ex. 1009, 9:25-28). A POSITA would have
`
`recognized that conversion of a signal from RF to baseband is an example of
`
`processing, as suggested by Haykin. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶124-125.)
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`
`(Ex. 1009, FIG. 2 (annotated); Ex. 1002, ¶¶124-125.)
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to implement such a modification
`
`because it would have allowed Maltsev’s device to work with baseband signals,
`
`which were known to be further converted (e.g., from analog to digital, as Haykin
`
`explains) to a data form (e.g., digital data) that can be further processed by a digital
`
`device such as Maltsev’s device. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶126-128; see also Ex. 1009, 6:33-
`
`7:29; Ex. 1010, 228 (“The analog baseband quadrature signals xI(t) and xQ(t) are
`
`converted into digital form, whereafter the baseband signal processing is carried out
`
`in the receiver. … With the digitized in-phase and quadrature components of the
`
`received signal at hand, the baseband signal processing can begin in the receiver.”);
`
`see also id., 227 (“With the ever-increasing availability of digital signal-processing
`
`devices … the trend nowadays is to convert the received RF signal x(t) into baseband
`
`form. Simply put, not only is the use of digital signal processing cost effective, but
`
`it also provides flexibility unmatched by analog devices.”), FIG. 4.20; Ex. 1002,
`
`¶126.) Thus, a POSITA would have recognized the above modification as a cost
`
`effective exemplary configuration that would have provided flexibility to Maltsev’s
`
`receiving device, and would have been in accordance with the trend at the time. (Ex.
`
`1002, ¶127.)
`
`A POSITA would have found the above modification to be straightforward
`
`and would have had a reasonable expectation of success regarding the outcome of
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`the modification to allow the use of baseband signals for processing in accordance
`
`with the processes of Maltsev. (Ex. 1010, 227-228, FIG. 4.20; Ex. 1009, 6:33-7:29,
`
`9:25-28, FIG. 2; Ex. 1002, ¶¶128-129.) Therefore, the above-discussed modification
`
`would have been a predictable application of known techniques to achieve the
`
`foreseeable result of allowing Maltsev’s device to receive an RF signal and convert
`
`it to a baseband signal (e.g., for further conversion and/or processing within the
`
`device). (Id.) See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). The
`
`modified Maltsev-Haykin device would have thus included “a plurality of Radio
`
`Frequency (RF) components operable to receive an RF signal and to convert the RF
`
`signal to a baseband signal,” as claimed. (Ex. 1009, 6:33-7:29, 9:25-28, FIG. 2; Ex.
`
`1010, 227-228, FIG. 4.20; Ex. 1002, ¶¶113-129.)
`
`9[c] a baseband processing module operable to:
`c)
`While as discussed below, Maltsev (alone or in combination with Haykin
`
`and/or Sadrabadi) discloses the features recited in the remaining limitations of claim
`
`9 (see infra Sections IX.A.1(d)-(h)), Maltsev does not explicitly disclose that its
`
`device 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 Maltsev’s device (as discussed above for claim
`
`element 9[b]) to implement this feature. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶130-136.)
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,416,862
`Maltsev discloses implementing its system and process with a processor
`
`executing instructions stored in memory. (Ex. 1009, 15:54-67 (disclosing
`
`“instructions stored on a machine-readable medium, which may be read and
`
`executed by at least one processor to perform the operations described”); see also
`
`id., 7:7-17, 15:41-53, FIG. 2; Ex. 1002, ¶131.) Thus, given Maltsev discloses
`
`implementing its receiving station/device using a processor executing instructions
`
`stored in memory, a POSITA would have understood that Maltsev discloses a device
`
`(receiver) that includes a processing module operable to perform operations
`
`consistent with those disclosed in Maltsev. (Ex. 1002, ¶132.)
`
`While Maltsev does not explicitly use the term “baseband” to describe its
`
`processor, in context of Maltsev’s disclosures, a POSITA would have understood
`
`that the processor is a baseband processing module like that recited in claim 9 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, ¶133.) Moreover,
`
`Maltsev discloses that its processing module complies with IEEE 802.11 standards,
`
`which according to PO, requires a baseband processing module. (See Ex. 1009,
`
`6:41-45 (“[T]he wireless communication device may transmit and/or receive RF
`
`communications in accordance with specific communication standards, such as …
`
`IEEE 802.11(a), 802.11(b), 802.11(g/h) and/or 802.11(n) standards”); see also id.,
`
`6:32-7:6; Ex. 1026, ¶63; Ex. 1027, 18-19 (“[T]he spec