Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 42
`Entered: March 29, 2022
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED and
`ZYXEL COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION1,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNM RAINFOREST INNOVATIONS,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2021-00375
`Patent 8,265,096 B2
`____________
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY GUIDANCE
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 ZyXEL Communications Corporation was joined as a petitioner in this
`proceeding based on a petition and motion for joinder filed in IPR2021-
`00734, which was granted.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00375
`Patent 8,265,096 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`On July 19, 2021, we instituted trial of claims 1–4 and 6–8 of U.S.
`Patent No. 8,265,096 B2 (the “’096 Patent”). Paper 14 (“Inst. Dec.”). After
`institution, UNM Rainforest Innovations (“Patent Owner”) filed a Motion to
`Amend. Paper 37 (“Motion” or “Mot.”). In its Motion, Patent Owner
`requests amendment of the ’096 Patent to replace challenged claims 1–4, 6,
`and 72 with proposed substitute claims 44–47, 49, and 503. See id. at 1–2,
`13, 15–16 (App. A). Patent Owner submitted a Supplemental Declaration of
`Branimir Vojcic, D.Sc., in support of the Motion. Ex. 2013. Qualcomm
`Incorporated and ZyXEL Communications Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed
`an Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend. Paper 41 (“Opposition”
`or “Opp.”). Petitioner submitted a Supplemental Declaration of Sumit Roy,
`Ph.D., in support of the Opposition. Ex. 1039.
`Patent Owner requests preliminary guidance regarding the Motion in
`accordance with the Board’s pilot program concerning motion to amend
`practice and procedures. Mot. 1; see also Notice Regarding a New Pilot
`Program Concerning Motion to Amend Practice and Procedures in Trial
`Proceedings under the America Invents Act before the Patent Trial and
`Appeal Board, 84 Fed. Reg. 9,497 (Mar. 15, 2019) (providing a patent
`owner with the option to receive preliminary guidance from the Board on its
`motion to amend) (“Notice”). We have considered Patent Owner’s Motion
`and Petitioner’s Opposition.
`
`
`2 With respect to challenged claim 8, Patent Owner indicates that claim 8 is
`“not amended.” See Mot. 15 (App. A).
`3 Patent Owner uses non-consecutive numbering for its proposed substitute
`claims that skips the number 48. See Mot. 13, 15–16 (App. A).
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00375
`Patent 8,265,096 B2
`
`
`In this Preliminary Guidance, we provide information indicating our
`initial, preliminary, and non-binding views on whether Patent Owner shows
`a reasonable likelihood that it has satisfied the statutory and regulatory
`requirements associated with filing a motion to amend in an inter partes
`review and whether Petitioner (or the record) establishes a reasonable
`likelihood that the substitute claims are unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C.
`§ 316(d); 37 C.F.R. § 42.121; Lectrosonics, Inc. v Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-
`01129, Paper 15 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) (precedential); see also Notice, 84
`Fed. Reg. at 9,497 (“The preliminary guidance . . . provides preliminary,
`non-binding guidance from the Board to the parties about the [motion to
`amend].”).
`For the purpose of this Preliminary Guidance, we focus on the
`proposed substitute claims, and specifically on the amendments proposed in
`the Motion. See Notice, 84 Fed. Reg. at 9,497. We do not address the
`parties’ substantive papers and arguments addressing the patentability of the
`original challenged claims. See id. Moreover, in formulating our
`preliminary views on the Motion and Opposition, we have not considered
`the parties’ other substantive papers on the underlying merits of Petitioner’s
`challenges. We emphasize that the views expressed in this Preliminary
`Guidance are subject to change upon consideration of the complete record,
`including any revision to the Motion filed by Patent Owner. Thus, this
`Preliminary Guidance is not binding on the Board when rendering a final
`written decision. See id. at 9,500.
`
`II. PRELIMINARY GUIDANCE
`As a threshold matter, Patent Owner does not clearly articulate
`whether the Motion is 1) contingent upon a finding in a final written
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00375
`Patent 8,265,096 B2
`
`decision that the challenged claims are unpatentable, or 2) non-contingent.
`“A motion to amend claims may cancel claims and/or propose substitute
`claims.” Lectrosonics at 3 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(1); 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.121(a)(3)). A request to substitute claims ordinarily will be treated as
`contingent. Id. “In other words, a proposed substitute claim normally will
`be considered only if a preponderance of the evidence establishes that the
`original patent claim that it replaces is unpatentable.” Id. A patent owner
`should adopt a claim-by-claim approach to specifying the contingency of
`substitution, e.g., which claim is to be substituted for which claim, and under
`what circumstances. Id.
`Here, the Motion refers to “replacing” original claims 1–4, 6, and 7
`with “proposed substitute claims” 44–47, 49, and 50. See Mot. 2, 13, 15
`(App. A). For example, Patent Owner notes that “a motion to amend may
`propose a reasonable number of substitute claims for each challenged
`claim,” and “proposes only one substitute claim [44] for challenged
`independent claim 1,” with “[d]ependent claims 2–4, 6, and 7 [] amended
`only by virtue of depending from proposed amended independent claim 1.”
`Mot. 2; see id. at 13 (referring to “the proposed substitute claims”), 15
`(App. A) (discussing “Proposed Amended Claim 44 (replacing claim 1)”
`(emphasis omitted)). Patent Owner further “requests preliminary guidance
`from the Board on this Motion to Amend and reserves the right to file a
`revised Motion to Amend subject to the Board’s preliminary guidance.”
`Mot. 1.
`Because Patent Owner indicates a desire to “substitute” claims, for
`purposes of this Preliminary Guidance, we treat the Motion as contingent
`upon a finding in a final written decision that the challenged claims are
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00375
`Patent 8,265,096 B2
`
`unpatentable. Lectrosonics at 3 (“[A] request to substitute claims ordinarily
`will be treated as contingent.”). We invite Patent Owner to confirm that the
`Motion is contingent in its reply to Petitioner’s Opposition or in a revised
`motion to amend.
`
`A. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
`For the reasons discussed below, at this stage of the proceeding, and
`based on the current record, it appears that Patent Owner has not shown a
`reasonable likelihood that it has satisfied the statutory and regulatory
`requirements associated with filing a motion to amend.
`1. Reasonable Number of Substitute Claims
`
`Does Patent Owner propose a reasonable number of substitute claims?
`(35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(1)(B))
`Yes. Patent Owner proposes no more than 1 substitute claim for each of
`challenged claims 1–4, 6, and 7. Mot. 2, 15–16. Petitioner does not argue
`otherwise. See generally Opp.
`
`2. Respond to Ground of Unpatentability
`
`Does the Motion respond to a ground of unpatentability involved in the
`trial? (37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(i))
`Yes. Patent Owner responds to a ground of unpatentability on which we
`instituted trial. Mot. 2–13. Upon review of Patent Owner’s arguments, we
`agree that proposed substitute independent claim 44 recites new
`limitations that directly respond to a ground of unpatentability involved in
`the trial. See Mot. App. A. And Patent Owner’s proposed substitute
`claims 45–47, 49, and 50 merely change the dependency of the original
`claims they replace. Petitioner does not argue otherwise. See generally
`Opp.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00375
`Patent 8,265,096 B2
`
`
`3. Scope of Amended Claims
`
`Does the amendment seek to enlarge the scope of the claims? (35 U.S.C.
`§ 316(d)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii))
`No. Proposed substitute independent claim 44 retains all claim limitations
`of its corresponding challenged claim (claim 1), and further includes
`narrowing limitations as compared to its corresponding challenged claim.
`See Mot. 3, 15–16, App. A. Petitioner does not argue otherwise. See
`generally Opp.
`
`4. New Matter
`
`Does the amendment seek to add new subject matter? (35 U.S.C.
`§ 316(d)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii))
`Yes. On the current record, and having considered the parties’
`contentions, we find preliminarily that Patent Owner does not satisfy its
`burden of establishing that the amendment does not introduce new matter
`because Patent Owner does not identify sufficient written description
`support in the originally filed disclosure of the ’096 Patent for all of the
`limitations of the proposed substitute claims.
`As described in Lectrosonics, a motion to amend “must set forth written
`description support for each proposed substitute claim as a whole, and not
`just the features added by the amendment.” Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 8
`(emphasis added). Lectrosonics further states that “[t]his applies equally
`to independent claims and dependent claims, even if the only
`amendment to a dependent claim is in the identification of the claim
`from which it depends.” Id. (emphasis added).
`We agree with Petitioner’s contentions that “Patent Owner only purports
`to show support for the additional features added by the amendments,” and
`that “Patent Owner has not even attempted to show support in the original
`disclosure for any other limitations of the proposed substitute claims.”
`Opp. 2 (citing Mot. 4–6). Thus, Patent Owner does not satisfy its burden
`of establishing that the amendment does not introduce new matter as
`articulated in 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.121(a)(2)(ii) and 42.121(b)(1).
`Nevertheless, in order to give further guidance to the parties, assuming
`arguendo that Patent Owner satisfies its burden, it appears more likely
`than not that there is adequate written description support for proposed
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00375
`Patent 8,265,096 B2
`
`
`substitute claims 44–47, 49, and 50 in the Specification, as filed, of U.S.
`Patent Application 12/168,855 (Ex. 10104, “’855 Application”) (which
`issued as the ’096 Patent). See Mot. 3–4. In particular, Patent Owner
`identifies (i) column 5, lines 17–18 and lines 35–36, column 7,
`lines 23–24, column 7, line 61 to column 8, line 6, and column 9,
`lines 18–20 in the’096 Patent disclosure and (ii) corresponding portions of
`the Specification, as filed, of the ’855 Application as providing written
`description support for “wherein the second communication system has
`pilot symbols that are denser than those in the first communication
`system,” recited in proposed substitute claims. See Mot. 3–4. These same
`paragraphs and figures, along with adjacent disclosures at
`paragraphs 35–37 and Figures 6A, 6B, 7 of the ’855 Application appear to
`provide adequate written description support for proposed substitute
`claims 44–47, 49, and 50 as a whole.
`Discussion regarding Provisional Application No. 60/929,798
`Moreover, we observe that Patent Owner additionally seeks the benefit of
`the filing date of Provisional Application No. 60/929,798 (Ex. 2002, “’798
`Provisional Application”). See Mot. 4–12. In order to provide additional
`guidance to the parties, we note that the record evidence presented thus far
`(including Exs. 2001 and 2013, discussed at Mot. 4–12) appears to be5
`insufficient to demonstrate that the ’798 Provisional Application describes
`the claimed invention (including “each symbol in the second
`communication system ha[ving] a shorter symbol period than that in the
`first communication system” and “the second communication system
`ha[ving] pilot symbols that are denser than those in the first
`communication system,” as recited in proposed substitute claim 44) in
`sufficient detail that one skilled in the art could conclude that the inventor
`
`4 Exhibit 1010 includes excerpts from the File History of the ’096 Patent
`(see Petitioner’s Exhibit List included in the Petition), and Patent Owner
`references “EX1010 at 6–7, ¶ 0028; 9–10, ¶ 0035; 10–11, ¶ 0037” in its
`Motion. See Mot. 3–4. Pages 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11 (as well as pages 1–5, 8,
`and 12–20) of Exhibit 1010 reproduce the Specification, as filed, of U.S
`Patent Application 12/168,855 (which became the ’096 Patent).
`5 Some of the discussion on pages 4 through76 of the Motion to Amend
`reiterates points previously discussed in the Institution Decision. See
`Paper 14 (“Inst. Dec.”), 22–27. We do not further address those points in
`this guidance.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00375
`Patent 8,265,096 B2
`
`
`invented the claimed invention as of the ’798 Provisional Application’s
`July 12, 2007, filing date.
`In particular, it appears that the current record does not provide underlying
`facts to support Patent Owner’s contentions that (i) a person of ordinary
`skill in the art “would have known at the time of the provisional
`application that by use of the following formulas a ‘shorter symbol period’
`can be shown for the second system” and (ii) the ’798 Provisional
`Application also discloses pilot symbols that are denser in a second
`communication system than in a first communication system. See
`Mot. 7–11 (citing Ex. 2001 and 2013). More specifically, this evidence
`does not provide a factual basis that would enable a comparison between
`N+K and NL+KL referenced in the formulas:
`
`and
`
`.
`
`See Mot. 6–7, 11 (relying on the above-referenced formulas, which pertain
`to a second system (e.g., 802.16m) and a legacy system (e.g., 802.16e), to
`show that that the ’798 Provisional Application described the claimed
`invention of proposed substitute claim 44). Patent Owner asserts that the
`discussion on pages 7–11 of the Motion “is directly responsive to the
`Board’s question of ‘whether there is an assumption that N and NL and K
`and KL are the same for the second system and the legacy system,’” and
`the discussion also “directly relates to slide 3/9 of the provisional
`application [] (EX2002 at 3) ‘where it is stated that subcarriers bandwidth
`(i.e., spacing) in a legacy system 16.e is B, while in 16.m system it is B*L,
`i.e., L times larger.’” Mot. 11 (citing Ex. 2013 ¶ 37); see Inst. Dec. 27.
`However, the discussion in the ’798 Provisional Application regarding the
`bandwidth for the 802.16m system being 3*B, i.e., three times larger than
`the bandwidth for the 802.16e system (which is B) (see Ex. 2002, 3)
`merely supports the values of 3B and B for the denominators in the above-
`referenced formulas (see supra). It is not clear how the discussion in
`the ’798 Provisional Application regarding the 3*B bandwidth of
`the 802.16m system and B bandwidth of the 802.16e system would enable
`a comparison between the numerators (N+K and NL+KL) in the above-
`referenced formulas. Rather, the discussion in the ’798 Provisional
`Application appears to be insufficient to permit a comparison between
`N+K and NL+KL. Patent Owner also relies on supporting testimony from
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00375
`Patent 8,265,096 B2
`
`
`Dr. Vojcic to argue that the numerators (N+K and NL+KL) are actually
`equal, allegedly because
`a POSITA would understand that the number of subcarriers N,
`and therefore the number of samples in the cyclic prefix, K, in
`both systems are the same in the provisional disclosure, taking
`into account the arrangement in the example L=3 in the
`provisional application at 3/9. Thus, it also follows that
`Ts = (N+K)/3B is 3 times shorter than TsL = (NL+KL)/B.
`Mot. 11 (citing Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 36–37). Dr. Vojcic’s testimony, does not
`provide an underlying factual basis to support the contention that the ’798
`Provisional Application would indicate that N+K has the same value as
`NL+KL. The disclosure in the ’798 Provisional Application regarding the
`multiplier L pertains to the number of “contiguous 802/16e channels” in
`an 802.16m channel, the number of BS’s (Base Stations) that “share the
`same 802.16m zone with L*B bandwidth (802.16e BW with B),” and the
`cooperation between Base Stations by which “16e BS’s transmit 16e data
`using subcarriers with BW B of their own, while shar[ing] subcarriers with
`BW B*L in 16m zone.” See Ex. 2002, 3. However, the disclosure in
`the ’798 Provisional Application and Patent Owner’s additional evidence
`appear insufficient to demonstrate that N+K (number of subcarriers plus
`number of samples in the cyclic prefix for the second system, e.g.,
`802.16m) has the same value as NL+KL (number of subcarriers plus
`number of samples in the cyclic prefix for the legacy system, e.g.,
`802.16e). We also observe that Dr. Vojcic’s testimony acknowledges that
`“the number of subcarriers is not necessarily the same.” Ex. 2013 ¶ 37.
`Thus, based on the current record, we find Patent Owner does not produce
`sufficient evidence to demonstrate written description support for
`proposed substitute claim 44 in the ’798 Provisional Application.
`
`B. Patentability
`For the reasons discussed below, at this stage of the proceeding and
`based on the current record,6 it appears that Petitioner (or the record) does
`
`
`6 We express no view on the patentability of the original claims in this
`Preliminary Guidance. Instead, we focus on limitations added to those
`claims in Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend.
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00375
`Patent 8,265,096 B2
`
`not show a reasonable likelihood that proposed substitute claims 44–47, 49,
`and 50 are unpatentable.
`
`Does the record establish a reasonable likelihood that the proposed
`substitute claims are unpatentable?
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 – Obviousness
`No. On the current record, it appears that Petitioner (or the record) does
`not show a reasonable likelihood that proposed substitute claims 44–47,
`49, and 50 are unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Talukdar
`(Ex. 1012) and Li (Ex. 1016).
`Proposed substitute claim 44 replaces original claim 1 and adds a new
`limitation reciting that “the second communication system has pilot
`symbols that are denser than those in the first communication system.”
`Mot. 15–16 (App. A).
`Petitioner contends that Talukdar and Li teach all the limitations of
`proposed substitute claim 44 that are identical7 to limitations in challenged
`claim 1 for the reasons set forth in its Petition (Paper 1). See Opp. 9. We
`focus only on the limitation added to challenged claim 1 in proposed
`substitute claim 44 presented in Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend.
`For proposed substitute claim 44, Petitioner does not appear to have
`shown a reasonable likelihood that the teachings of Talukdar and Li,
`alone or in combination, render obvious the limitation reciting that
`“the second communication system has pilot symbols that are denser
`than those in the first communication system” (limitation
`labeled 44[d] by Petitioner).
`Petitioner asserts “the newly added element 44[d], ‘wherein the second
`system has pilot symbols that are denser than those in the first
`communication system,’ is disclosed by any art that would disclose the
`second communication system having shorter symbol period” because
`“pilot symbols that are denser” would allegedly be “‘a natural result’ of
`reduced symbol period.” Opp. 6–7, 9 (emphases added). Petitioner
`explains that would be so “because the unit time is defined as the symbol
`
`7 Petitioner labels the recitations of proposed substitute claim 44 as 44[pre]
`and 44[a]–44[f], with labels 44[pre], 44[a], 44[b], 44[c], 44[e], and 44[f]
`being identical to recitations of challenged claim 1. See Opp. 4–5.
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00375
`Patent 8,265,096 B2
`
`
`period for the first communication system, the unit time will necessarily be
`longer than the symbol period of the second communication system” and
`“[b]ecause pilot symbols are assigned to a specific proportion of the total
`number of symbols in an OFDM frame, the number of pilot symbols per
`unit time in the second communication system will necessarily be higher
`than in the first communication system.” Opp. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1039
`¶¶ 19–24, 60–62). Petitioner does not specifically rely on Talukdar for the
`limitation of the “pilot symbols that are denser” in proposed substitute
`claim 44, but instead relies on the disclosure of Li for this limitation. See
`Opp. 7, 9–15. Petitioner provides detailed cites and discussion of Dr.
`Roy’s supporting testimony—which includes a figure of “a second
`communication system having a symbol period that is one half of the
`original symbol period, as taught by Li” (see Ex. 1039 ¶¶ 61–62, including
`a figure)—and explains that when “the first communication system (left
`half of the figure) has a symbol period of T and has one pilot symbol
`inserted per every three subcarriers in each slot” and “[t]he second
`communication system (right half) has a symbol period of T/2 and the
`same pilot distribution – one per every three subcarriers,” then “the second
`communication system has a higher number of pilot symbols per unit time
`than the first communication system (four vs. two) due to the shorter
`symbol period.” Opp. 7–8. Petitioner then concludes that because the
`combination of Talukdar and Li (by virtue of the disclosure in Li’s
`Figure 5) teaches limitation 44[c] (the “shorter symbol period” limitation
`in proposed substitute claim 44 identical to a limitation in challenged
`claim 1), the combination of Talukdar and Li also teaches limitation 44[d]
`(“the second communication system has pilot symbols that are denser than
`those in the first communication system”). See Opp. 9–12. More
`specifically, Petitioner asserts:
`Figure 5 of Li showed an OFDM signal in which the base
`station transmitted OFDM symbols having a duration of T “to
`[a] slow subscriber,” but “shorten[ed] the symbol duration
`from T to T/2” for “a fast subscriber.” [Li], [0038]; [Ex. 1002]
`¶¶ 131–32. See also Li at Figure 5 (showing OFDM symbols
`with shortened period “T/2” for faster station 310).
`. . .
` Li thus disclosed that “each symbol in the second
`communication system ha[d] a shorter symbol period than that
`in the first communication system.” []
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00375
`Patent 8,265,096 B2
`
`
` As discussed above, because each symbol in the second
`communication system has a shorter symbol period than in the
`first communication system, the second communication
`system would also have more pilot symbols per unit time.
`Opp. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1039 ¶¶ 60–62) (emphases added).
`Petitioner’s reliance on the disclosure of Li (and particularly, on Li’s
`Figure 5 showing symbols with a shorter symbol period for faster
`moving remote units, i.e., a second communication system) and on
`Dr. Roy’s associated testimony does not appear to show a reasonable
`likelihood that the teachings of Li (in combination with Talukdar)
`render obvious limitation 44[d]. Although Li’s Figure 5 (and Li’s
`supporting description) teaches the use of a shorter symbol period for
`a faster moving remote unit (i.e., second communication system), Li
`does not disclose that the shortened period symbols are pilot symbols,
`as required by limitation 44[d]. In fact, Li does not mention pilot
`symbols at all with respect to Figure 5. Thus, Petitioner’s discussion
`of Li’s Figure 5 in connection with an alleged “example disclosed by
`Li where the second communication system has a period that is one
`half that of the first communication system, showing that the second
`communication system would have twice the number of pilot symbols
`per unit time” (Opp. 12 (emphases added)) is unsupported by the
`disclosure of Li. No such “example” is disclosed by Li in Figure 5 or
`elsewhere. Figure 5 of Li does not provide information on an
`arrangement, a period, or a density of pilot symbols. Even if,
`arguendo, Petitioner were correct that Li’s Figure 5 shows denser
`symbols (e.g., for fast subscriber) (see Opp. 6–7, 11), Figure 5 of Li
`does not show denser pilot symbols.
`The other figure relied upon by Petitioner in its Opposition is the figure
`presented in Dr. Roy’s supporting testimony. See Ex. 1039 ¶¶ 61–62
`(presenting a figure with data and pilot symbols in “a second
`communication system having a symbol period that is one half of the
`original symbol period”); Opp. 8, 12 (reproducing Dr. Roy’s figure). The
`figure presented in Dr. Roy’s supporting testimony does not establish the
`obviousness of limitation 44[d] because the figure is merely unsupported
`declaration testimony. Dr. Roy’s testimony identifies Li as an underlying
`factual basis for the figure (see Ex. 1039 ¶ 61, explaining that the “figure
`illustrates this situation for a second communication system having a
`symbol period that is one half of the original symbol period, as taught by
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00375
`Patent 8,265,096 B2
`
`
`Li”), however, as discussed supra, we are not persuaded that Li teaches
`pilot symbols that are denser in the fast system as compared to the slow
`system. The figure presented in Dr. Roy’s testimony is also not supported
`by a figure of Li that actually shows pilot symbols (Li’s Figure 7). See
`Ex. 1016 ¶ 41 (“FIG. 7 illustrates the pilot location of an embodiment for
`frames 700 and 710.”), Fig. 7. Moreover, if pilot density in Li’s Figure 7
`were to be assessed in a manner similar to Petitioner’s assessment
`presented on page 8 of the Opposition, such assessment would show that
`the first communication system (top graph in Li’s Figure 7) has two pilot
`symbols in a period T, and the second communication system (bottom
`graph in Li’s Figure 7) also has two pilot symbols in period T. Li’s
`Figure 7 does not teach that “the second communication system has pilot
`symbols that are denser than those in the first communication system” as
`recited in proposed substitute claim 44.
`In conclusion, based on the current record, Petitioner does not appear to
`show a reasonable likelihood that the combined teachings of Talukdar and
`Li render obvious “wherein the second communication system has pilot
`symbols that are denser than those in the first communication system,” as
`recited in proposed substitute independent claim 44, and proposed
`substitute claims 45–47, 49, and 50, dependent therefrom.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00375
`Patent 8,265,096 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Jonathan Detrixhe
`Peter Chassman
`REED SMITH LLP
`jdetrixhe@reedsmith.com
`pchassman@reedsmith.com
`
`
`For PETITIONER joinder
`
`Martha Hoplins
`Victoria Hao
`LAW OFFICES OF S.J. CHRISTINE YAN
`mhopkins@sjclawpc.com
`vhao@sjclawpc.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jay Kesan
`DIMUROGINSBERG, PC
`jay@jaykesan.com
`
`Alfonso Chan
`SHORE CHAN LLP
`achan@shorechan.com
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`