Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,509,440
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,509,440
`
`Case IPR2021-TBD
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,509,440
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 2
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest ............................................................................ 2
`B.
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 2
`C.
`Counsel and Service Information .......................................................... 2
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ....................................... 3
`III.
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................. 3
`V. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................... 4
`A.
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ............................................ 4
`B.
`Relief Requested .................................................................................... 5
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY ......................................................... 6
`A. Wireless Communications ..................................................................... 6
`B. Modulation ............................................................................................ 7
`C.
`Coding ................................................................................................... 7
`D. Modulation and Coding Schemes ......................................................... 8
`E.
`Channel Quality ..................................................................................... 9
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’440 PATENT .......................................................... 11
`A.
`The Alleged Invention ......................................................................... 11
`B.
`Summary of the Prosecution History .................................................. 12
`C.
`Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art .................................................... 13
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 14
`IX. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................. 14
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,509,440
`
`X.
`
`Lahetkangas (Ex. 1005) ....................................................................... 14
`A.
`B. Wang (Ex. 1006) ................................................................................. 17
`C.
`TS 36.213 (Ex. 1009) .......................................................................... 18
`SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ...................................................... 19
`A. Ground I: Claims 1-7, 9, 11-17, 19, 21, 23, 25, and 27 Are
`Rendered Obvious by Lahetkangas, or in the Alternative
`Lahetkangas in Combination with LTE TS 36.213 ............................ 19
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 19
`2.
`Dependent Claim 2 ................................................................... 33
`3.
`Dependent Claim 3 ................................................................... 35
`4.
`Dependent Claim 4 ................................................................... 35
`5.
`Dependent Claim 5 ................................................................... 37
`6.
`Dependent Claim 6 ................................................................... 38
`7.
`Dependent Claim 7 ................................................................... 40
`8.
`Dependent Claim 9 ................................................................... 40
`9.
`Independent Claim 11 ............................................................... 44
`10. Dependent Claim 12 ................................................................. 48
`11. Dependent Claim 13 ................................................................. 48
`12. Dependent Claim 14 ................................................................. 49
`13. Dependent Claim 15 ................................................................. 49
`14. Dependent Claim 16 ................................................................. 49
`15. Dependent Claim 17 ................................................................. 50
`16. Dependent Claim 19 ................................................................. 50
`17.
`Independent Claim 21 ............................................................... 51
`18.
`Independent Claim 23 ............................................................... 53
`19.
`Independent Claim 25 ............................................................... 56
`1.
`Independent Claim 27 ............................................................... 59
`Ground II: Claims 8 and 18 Are Rendered Obvious by
`Lahetkangas and Wang, or in the Alternative, Lahetkangas in
`view of Wang and LTE TS 36.213 ..................................................... 60
`1.
`Dependent Claim 8 ................................................................... 60
`2.
`Dependent Claim 18 ................................................................. 66
`XI. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................... 66
`
`B.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,509,440
`
`XII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 67
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,509,440
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Boundary Sols., Inc. v. CoreLogic, Inc.,
`711 F. App’x 627 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................................... 58
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 15
`Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu,
`912 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................... 23
`TQ Delta, LLC v. DISH Network LLC,
`929 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................... 24
`WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp.,
`889 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 58
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) ........................................................................................... 5, 13
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................ 6, 7, 58
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) ................................................................................................. 4
`Rules
`Rule 42.104(a) ............................................................................................................ 4
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)(1) .............................................................................................. 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 15
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,509,440
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,509,440
`
`Certified File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,509,440 (“the ’904
`Application”)
`Declaration of Dr. Apostolos Kakaes for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 9,509,440
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Apostolos Kakaes
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,642,118 (“Lahetkangas”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,648,601 (“Wang”)
`
`Arunabha Ghosh, et. al., Fundamentals of LTE (Pub. 2011)
`(“Ghosh”)
`Stefania Sesia, et. al., LTE - The UMTS Long Term Evolution: From
`Theory to Practice (2nd ed., 2011) (“Sesia”)
`3GPP TS 36.213, Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-
`ULTRA), Physical Layer Procedures, Version 10.3 (Release 10)
`Declaration of James Mullins in Support of the Public Availability of
`Fundamentals of LTE, Arunabha Ghosh, et. al., (Pub. 2011); LTE -
`The UMTS Long Term Evolution: From Theory to Practice, Stefania
`Sesia, et. al., (2nd ed., 2011); and LTE for UMTS, Evolution to LTE-
`Advanced, Harri Holma & Antti Toskala (2nd ed., 2011)
`International Publication Number WO 2013/123961 A1
`
`International Publication Number WO 2014/029108 A1
`
`Holma, Harri & Toskala, Antti, LTE for UMTS: Evolution to LTE-
`Advanced, Second Edition, (Pub. 2011) (“Holma”)
`RESERVED
`
`Erik Dahlman et. al., 4G LTE / LTE-Advanced for Mobile Broadband
`(Pub. 2011) (“Dahlman”)
`Declaration of Friedhelm Rodermund in Support of the Public
`Availability of 3GPP TS 36.213 V10.3
`
`v
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`1012
`1013
`
`1014
`1015
`
`1016
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,509,440
`
`
`
`Petitioner Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung” or “Petitioner”)
`
`requests inter partes review of Claims 1-9, 11-19, 21, 23, 25, and 27 (“the
`
`Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,509,440 (“ʼ440 patent”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The ’440 patent is directed towards a method for enabling the use of high
`
`order modulation in radio communication between a radio node (such as a base
`
`station) and a user equipment (such as a cellphone) in a wireless network. High
`
`order modulation is typically an order greater than four, and refers to the well-known
`
`technique whereby features of a carrier wave are changed to carry a message. In the
`
`‘440 patent, the alleged point of novelty is that the radio node instructs the user
`
`equipment to switch from a first configuration of Modulation and Coding Scheme
`
`(MCS) and Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) tables to a second configuration of
`
`MCS and CQI tables that support a higher modulation, while being able to revert
`
`back to the lower modulation as a fallback. This Petition demonstrates, however,
`
`that the claimed method of switching to an MCS/CQI table configuration that
`
`supports higher modulation was well known in the art prior to the time of the alleged
`
`invention. The Challenged Claims should therefore be cancelled as obvious and
`
`unpatentable.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,509,440
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`Samsung identifies the following real parties-in-interest: Samsung Electronics
`
`Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; and Samsung Research America, Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters
`Samsung is not aware of any related matters that may affect, or may be
`
`affected by, decisions in this proceeding.
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`
`Todd M. Friedman, P.C. (No. 42,559)
`todd.friedman@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`Telephone: (212) 446-4800
`Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
`
`James E. Marina, P.C. (No. 41,969)
`james.marina@kirkland.com
`Jon R. Carter (No. 75,145)
`jon.carter@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`Telephone: (212) 446-4800
`Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
`
`Bao Nguyen (No. 46,062)
`bao.nguyen@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street, 27th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: (415) 439-1400
`Facsimile: (415) 439-1500
`
`Kevin Bendix (No. 67,164)
`kevin.bendix@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,509,440
`
`555 South Flower Street, Suite 3700
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (213) 680-8400
`Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
`
`Samsung concurrently submits a Power of Attorney, 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b),
`
`and consents to electronic service directed to the following email address:
`
`Samsung_Ericsson_IPR@kirkland.com.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.15(a)(1) for this Petition to Deposit Account No. 506092. The undersigned
`
`further authorizes payment for any additional fees that may be due in connection
`
`with this Petition to be charged to the above-referenced deposit account.
`
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Samsung certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the ’440 Patent is available
`
`for IPR and that Samsung is not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR of the
`
`Challenged Claims on the grounds identified in this Petition. Samsung certifies: (1)
`
`Samsung is not the owner of the ’440 patent; (2) Samsung (or any real party-in-
`
`interest) has not filed a civil action challenging the validity of any claim of the ’440
`
`patent; (3) Samsung has not been served with a complaint asserting infringement of
`
`the ’440 patent; (4) estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) do not prohibit this
`
`IPR; and (5) this Petition is filed after the ’440 patent was granted.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,509,440
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Samsung challenges the patentability of the Challenged Claims of the ’440
`
`Patent and requests that they be canceled.
`
`A.
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`Samsung’s challenge is based on the following prior art references:
`
`•
`
`Lahetkangas (Ex. 1005) - U.S. Patent No. 9,642,118 to Lahetkangas et al.,
`
`issued on May 2, 2017. Lahetkangas issued from Application No.
`
`14/379,314, which was filed on October 20, 2014, and claims priority to
`
`PCT/EP2012/052828, filed on February 20, 2012. Lahetkangas is prior art
`
`under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) based on the PCT filing date.
`
`• Wang (Ex. 1006) - U.S. Patent No. 9,648,601 to Wang et al., issued on May
`
`9, 2017. Wang issued from Application No. 14/416,174, which was filed on
`
`January 21, 2015, and claims priority to PCT/CN2012/080560, filed August
`
`24, 2012. Wang is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) based on the
`
`PCT filing date.
`
`•
`
`TS 36.213 (Ex. 1009) - LTE; Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-
`
`UTRA); Physical Layer Procedures (3GPP TS 36.213 version 10.3.0 Release
`
`10) published at least by September 25, 2011. Ex. 1016, ¶19. TS 36.213 is
`
`prior art under §102(a)(1).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,509,440
`
`These prior art references predate the ’440 Patent, which claims priority to a
`
`provisional application filed on August 9, 2013.1 Lahetkangas’s PCT application
`
`was cited in an Information Disclosure Statement (“IDS”), but it was not discussed
`
`by the Examiner or the Patent Owner during prosecution. Ex. 1002 (the ’904
`
`Application), 69, 88, and 142-173. But the file history shows no evidence that the
`
`Examiner ever properly considered its substance, and the record shows Lahetkangas
`
`was not the basis for a rejection. See generally, Ex. 1002, 53-58. Wang was not
`
`before the Patent Office during prosecution. 2
`
`B. Relief Requested
`Samsung requests cancellation of the Challenged Claims as unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The specific grounds of the challenge are set forth below,
`
`and are supported by the declaration of Dr. Apostolos (Paul) Kakaes (Ex. 1003). A
`
`list of exhibits is provided at the beginning of this Petition. The relevance of this
`
`evidence and the specific portions supporting the challenge are provided in Section
`
`X.
`
`
`1 Samsung reserves the right to challenge this or any other alleged priority date.
`
`2 In the event that Patent Owner argues that the petition should be denied pursuant
`to the Board’s discretion under § 325(d) notwithstanding that the grounds
`asserted in this Petition were not previously before the Examiner, Petitioner
`respectfully requests the right to respond.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,509,440
`
`Ground
`I
`
`Claims
`1-7, 9, 11-17, 19,
`21, 23, 25, and 27
`
`II
`
`8 and 18
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejection
`Obvious under § 103 by Lahetkangas, or in the
`alternative, Lahetkangas in view of LTE TS
`36.213
`
`Obvious under § 103 by Lahetkangas in view
`of Wang, or in the alternative, Lahetkangas in
`view of Wang and LTE TS 36.213
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`A. Wireless Communications
`Wireless communication networks typically comprise one or more UEs (User
`
`Equipment) and a base station (BS). UEs typically include common devices such as
`
`cell phones. Ex. 1003, ¶33. These components send radio waves that carry the
`
`content of wireless communications. Id., ¶36. The implementation of wireless
`
`communications like those described in this section are governed by technical
`
`standards, including those promulgated by the 3GPP for 4G-LTE and 5G systems.
`
`Id. These technical standards contain detailed descriptions that artisans use in the
`
`design and development of wireless products. Id. Among other functionalities,
`
`these technical standards govern the implementation of techniques relating to
`
`modulation, coding, modulation coding schemes, and channel quality, as described
`
`in the following sections. Id.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,509,440
`
`B. Modulation
`As Dr. Kakaes explains, in order to transmit information on a radio wave, the
`
`bits of information must be converted into a wireless message by a process called
`
`modulation. Ex. 1003, ¶42. With modulation, certain features of a standard radio
`
`wave—referred to as a carrier—are modified, or modulated, using symbols to
`
`indicate the content of the information being transmitted. Id., ¶42. Wireless systems
`
`make use of modulation schemes, also referred to as modulation orders, which allow
`
`for a certain numbers of bits per symbol to be transmitted on a wave. Id., ¶¶42-43.
`
`For example, the modulation order QPSK allows for two bits per symbol (Qm=2);
`
`the modulation order 16QAM allows for 4 bits per symbol (Qm=4); 64QAM and
`
`256QAM allow 6 bits per symbol (Qm=6) and 8 bits per symbol (Qm=8),
`
`respectively. Id. Typically, one of the considerations in determining which
`
`modulation order to use is the channel quality, as a poor channel quality can prevent
`
`effective transmission of a larger number of bits per symbol. Id., ¶43.
`
`C. Coding
`In addition to modulation, a radio wave is also encoded, for example to
`
`preserve the reliability of the message. Id., ¶41. As Dr. Kakaes explains, coding
`
`information typically involves converting the bits of information into a larger
`
`number of code bits. Id., ¶41. Typically, a known coding pattern (i.e., a “coding
`
`rate”) will be applied to the information to perform this conversion. Id., ¶41. Coding
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,509,440
`
`introduces a certain amount of redundancy into the wireless signal so that in the
`
`event portions of
`
`the message are
`
`lost or compromised (e.g., due
`
`to
`
`interference/noise), the content of the message will remain intact. Id., ¶41. As with
`
`modulation order, the determination of coding rate to be used can depend on channel
`
`quality. Id., ¶41. A poor channel quality typically correlates with a lower coding
`
`rate (i.e., more redundancy to preserve the integrity of the message). Id., ¶41.
`
`D. Modulation and Coding Schemes
`As Dr. Kakaes explains, in the LTE standard, it is well-known that a BS may
`
`instruct a UE to use a particular modulation and coding scheme, or MCS, for
`
`messages sent to and from that BS. Id., ¶45. A particular MCS has a Qm and coding
`
`rate associated with it. Id., ¶45. The information to be transmitted is modulated and
`
`encoded accordingly before being sent. Id., ¶45. When received, the message is
`
`demodulated and decoded using that MCS to derive the original message. Id., ¶45.
`
`The MCS chosen by the BS will determine the number of bits that are sent in a given
`
`unit of time, which is a value represented as a “transport block size” or “TBS”. Id.,
`
`¶45. The below table from LTE TS 36.213, v10.3 shows a well-known correlation
`
`of MCS (using an MCS index value, IMCS) with Qm, and the TBS, (using a TBS index
`
`value, ITBS). Id., ¶45.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,509,440
`
`
`
`Ex. 1009, Table 7.1.7.1-1. As Dr. Kakaes explains, ITBS correlates to entries in a
`
`TBS table in the LTE standard (TS 36.213, Table 7.1.7.2.1-1) that, together with a
`
`known number of physical resource blocks, inform the UE of the appropriate
`
`transport block size to use. Ex. 1003, ¶ _45. One of the factors that a BS may
`
`consider in determining the MCS to apply is an indication of channel quality. Ex.
`
`1003, ¶46.
`
`E. Channel Quality
`As Dr. Kakaes explains, channel quality is an important consideration for
`
`wireless communications because better channel quality allows for more data to be
`
`transmitted (and received) per unit of time. Ex. 1003, ¶47. The channel conditions
`
`between a BS and UE are constantly changing. Id., ¶47. It is well-known that a
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,509,440
`
`system may adapt the MCS used for transmission to best suit the channel conditions
`
`at that time. Id., ¶48. One such known technique which is used in LTE TS 36.213
`
`is based on a channel quality indicator (“CQI”) index reported by a UE to a BS. Id.,
`
`¶48. The CQI index value is representative of channel conditions at a given time.
`
`Id., ¶48. Wireless systems, such as those that conform to 4G or 5G, may use a CQI
`
`table (an example of which is below) to indicate a suggested MCS at a given time.
`
`Id., ¶48. The MCS values in the exemplary table below, taken from LTE TS 36.213,
`
`are the maximum modulation and coding rate that the UE can handle for each
`
`reported CQI index.
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶48_; Ex. 1001, Fig. 3 (quoting LTE Technical Specification 36.213,
`
`v.10.3.0, Table 7.2.3-1).
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,509,440
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’440 PATENT
`The ’440 Patent issued on November 29, 2016, from U.S. Application No.
`
`14/390,904 (Ex. 1002, 262-440) filed on October 6, 2014, claiming priority to
`
`PCT/SE2014/050803 filed on June 26, 2014. The ’440 patent lists U.S. provisional
`
`application No. 61/863,935, filed on August 9, 2013, as a related application date,
`
`but does not appear to claim priority to it.
`
`A. The Alleged Invention
`The alleged invention of the ’440 Patent relates to modulation in radio
`
`communications. The ’440 patent purports to solve an alleged problem that “the
`
`control signaling schemes, methods, formats or protocols of today do not support
`
`any modulation with higher order than six bits per symbol, as in 64QAM” and “that
`
`additional control signaling would be required between the UE and the serving radio
`
`node if higher data rate is to be achieved by using higher-order modulation.” Ex.
`
`1001, 2:17-23. The ’440 specification describes that in its alleged solution, “the
`
`MCS and CQI index tables used for such signaling can be modified such that the
`
`current maximum modulation order can be increased without requiring any extra
`
`signaling bits.” Id., 4:42-45. The alleged advantage of this solution is “flexibility
`
`to adopt appropriate MCS/CQI tables based on channel conditions[,]” where one
`
`MCS/CQI table configuration is applied to “allow for higher-order modulation”
`
`when there is “high signal quality” and another MCS/CQI table configuration is
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,509,440
`
`applied “to achieve link robustness” when there is “relatively low” signal quality.
`
`Id., 6:8-25. As discussed below in Section X, however, the ’440 Patent’s solution is
`
`taught by the prior art.
`
`B.
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`The Examiner rejected all originally-filed 26 claims3 under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`
`2015/0358111 A1 (“Marinier”), which is entitled “System and Method for Adaptive
`
`Modulation.” Ex. 1002, 55-66. In response, the Patent Owner admitted that the
`
`prior art “discloses methods for implementing higher order modulation techniques
`
`in wireless communication by providing multiple modulation and coding scheme
`
`(MCS) tables and channel quality index (CQI) tables, each of which may be utilized
`
`under different conditions[.]” Id., 45-46. The Patent Owner further admitted that
`
`the prior art “discloses that a UE or base station determines whether to use a first
`
`table governing lower-order modulation techniques or a second table governing
`
`higher-order modulation techniques[.]” Id. The Patent Owner also admitted that the
`
`prior art “teaches that the second table can contain one or more entries related to the
`
`lower-order modulation techniques in addition to entries related to the higher-order
`
`modulation techniques[.]” Id., 46. The Patent Owner then amended independent
`
`
`3 The rejected 26 claims correspond to issued claims 1-9, 11-19, 21, 23, 25, and
`27, i.e., the Challenged Claims. Id., 31 (Index of Claims).
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,509,440
`
`claims 27, 38, and 49-524 to each include the same additional limitation “that an
`
`entry for the lowest modulation order in the first modulation and coding scheme
`
`(MCS) table is maintained in the second MCS table as the fallback, and an entry for
`
`the lowest coding rate of the lowest modulation order in the first channel quality
`
`index (CQI) table is maintained in the second CQI table as the fallback.” Id., 45.
`
`This additional limitation corresponds with challenged claim elements 1.6-1.7, 11.4-
`
`11.5, 21.5-21.7, 23.4-23.6, 25.4-25.6, and 27.6-27.8, which would have been
`
`obvious to a POSITA at the time of alleged invention as described in Section X
`
`below. Based on these amendments, the Examiner issued the allowance. Id., 19-21,
`
`46.
`
`C.
`Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`As explained by Dr. Kakaes, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)
`
`at the time of the alleged invention would have had a Master’s degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering, Applied Mathematics, Computer Science, Physics, or equivalent and
`
`three to five years of experience working with wireless digital communication
`
`systems. Ex. 1003, ¶70. Additional education might compensate for less
`
`experience, and vice-versa. Ex. 1003, ¶70.
`
`
`4 These six amended claims correspond to issued claims 1, 11, 21, 23, 25, and 27,
`i.e., all of the challenged independent claims. Id., 31 (Index of Claims).
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,509,440
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`“[W]ords of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing
`
`date of the patent application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner submits that the
`
`Board does not need to construe any terms to resolve the arguments presented herein.
`
`IX. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART
`A. Lahetkangas (Ex. 1005)
`Lahetkangas—which is prior art to the ʼ440 patent—teaches to a POSITA the
`
`alleged point of novelty of the ’440 patent, namely the first entry for the lowest-order
`
`modulation and lowest coding rate in a first table is contained in a second table for
`
`fallback purposes.. As Dr. Kakaes explains, Lahetkangas teaches a technique for
`
`controlling a modulation and coding scheme for a transmission between a base
`
`station and user equipment. Ex. 1005, Abstract; Ex. 1003, ¶72. Lahetkangas
`
`explains that the base station can be any kind of network device, including for
`
`example NodeB or eNB. Ex. 1005, 2:55-60. Lahetkangas teaches two modulation
`
`and coding scheme tables, which are shown below (i.e., MCS table or MCS index
`
`table). Ex. 1009 (LTE TS 36.213, v10.3) (cited by Lahetkangas, Ex. 1005, 9:53-59),
`
`Table 7.1.7.1-1; Ex. 1005, Table 1, 1:60-2:3. The first table refers to LTE TS 36.213
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,509,440
`
`table 7.1.7-1 and the second refers to table with 256QAM extension and retention of
`
`lower order legacy entries for fallback in degraded channel conditions.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1009 (LTE TS 36.213, v10.3) (cited by Lahetkangas, Ex. 1005, 9:53-59), Table
`
`7.1.7.1-1; Ex. 1005, Table 1, 1:60-2:3.
`
`As Dr. Kakaes explains, Lahetkangas teaches extending modulation schemes
`
`to include 256QAM (Qm=8) by adding a second MCS table with entries for higher
`
`order modulation (Qm=8) if channel conditions are good and entries for lower order
`
`modulation (Qm of 2, 4, and 6) to support fallback if channel conditions deteriorate.
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶¶72. Lahetkangas also teaches a first and second channel quality
`
`indicator (CQI) table, which may correspond to the first and second MCS table
`
`respectively. Id., 4:66-5:5; Ex. 1003, ¶¶72. Notably, Lahetkangas teaches a second
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,509,440
`
`MCS table that includes the lowest modulation order of the first table (referring to
`
`LTE TS 36.213 table 7.1.7-1), i.e., as a “fallback.” See, e.g., Ex. 1005, Table 1,
`
`9:53-55. An example of the disclosed second MCS table (“MCS Index table”), with
`
`MCS entries 1-4, 6-9 and 11 supporting 256QAM(Qm=8), along with entries
`
`retained from the first MCS table for fallback is shown below in Table 1 (depicted
`
`in yellow and gray, respectively).
`
`Id., Table 1, 10:62-67.
`
`As Dr. Kakaes explains, Lahetkangas teaches the ability to extend MCS to
`
`higher modulation orders such as 256QAM to enable higher data rate capability in
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,509,440
`
`good channel conditions while supporting backward compatibility (i.e., “fallback”)
`
`by retaining use of entries from a first (legacy) MCS table that supports up to
`
`64QAM (Qm=6) and adding a second MCS table that supports up to 256QAM
`
`(Qm=8). Ex. 1003, ¶73; Ex. 1005, 2:11-17 (“[T]he invention is based on the idea to
`
`extend the modulation and coding scheme table to a higher order modulation while
`
`remaining backward compatible.”). Lahetkangas teaches that fallback can be
`
`performed either by using the lower modulation orders maintained in the second
`
`table or reverting back to use of the first table. Ex. 1003, ¶73. See also, e.g., Ex.
`
`1005, 8:16-24, 10:1-27.
`
`B. Wang (Ex. 1006)
`Wang teaches a communication method for a wireless communication system
`
`including a base station and user equipment. Ex. 1006, Abstract; Ex. 1003, ¶74.
`
`Wang teaches configuring a parameter table, such as the CQI table or MCS table.
`
`Ex. 1006, 2:7-9; Ex. 1003, ¶74. In one example, Wang teaches a method of defining
`
`parameter tables that include a legacy table for supporting lower modulation order
`
`communication and an aggressive table for supporting higher modulation order
`
`communication. Ex. 1006, 2:29-34; Ex. 1003, ¶74. These table configurations are
`
`defined at both the BS and the UE. Ex. 1006, 2:29-34; Ex. 1003, ¶74. Wang teaches
`
`an extended CQI table that supports higher order modulation such as 256QAM in
`
`which each entry represents a CQI value that corresponds to a modulation order and
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,509,440
`
`coding rate. Ex. 1006, 6:53-56; Ex. 1003, ¶74. The extended CQI table includes all
`
`of the legacy entries represented by indices 0-15 plus extended entries that support
`
`higher modulation orders such as 256QAM represented by indices 16-26. Thus
`
`these extended CQI tables contain more table entries than the legacy CQI table. Ex.
`
`1006, 6:60-65. Wang also teaches similar extended MCS tables that suppo