Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,193,600
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 10,193,600
`
`Case IPR2021-TBD
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest ............................................................................ 1
`B.
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 1
`C.
`Counsel and Service Information .......................................................... 2
`D.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4): Service Information ......................................... 3
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ....................................... 3
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................. 3
`V. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................... 4
`A.
`Prior Art ................................................................................................. 4
`B.
`Relief Requested .................................................................................... 5
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY ......................................................... 5
`VII. THE ’600 PATENT .......................................................................................13
`A.
`Claims ..................................................................................................13
`B.
`Summary of the Specification .............................................................13
`C.
`Summary of the Prosecution History ..................................................16
`D.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .....................................................17
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................17
`IX. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART .............................................................17
`A. Novlan .................................................................................................17
`B.
`36.213 ..................................................................................................20
`SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ......................................................22
`
`X.
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`A. Novlan, Or Alternatively Novlan In View Of 36.213, Renders
`Obvious All Challenged Claims ..........................................................22
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................................22
`2.
`Dependent Claim 2....................................................................34
`3.
`Dependent Claim 3....................................................................35
`4.
`Dependent Claim 4....................................................................35
`5.
`Dependent Claim 5....................................................................39
`6.
`Dependent Claim 6....................................................................40
`7.
`Dependent Claim 7....................................................................43
`8.
`Independent Claim 8 .................................................................46
`9.
`Dependent Claim 9....................................................................49
`10. Dependent Claim 10 .................................................................49
`11. Dependent Claim 11 .................................................................49
`12. Dependent Claim 12 .................................................................50
`13. Dependent Claim 13 .................................................................50
`14. Dependent Claim 14 .................................................................51
`15.
`Independent Claim 15 ...............................................................51
`16. Dependent Claim 16 .................................................................53
`17. Dependent Claim 17 .................................................................54
`18. Dependent Claim 18 .................................................................54
`19. Dependent Claim 19 .................................................................54
`20. Dependent Claim 20 .................................................................55
`21. Dependent Claim 21 .................................................................55
`22.
`Independent Claim 22 ...............................................................56
`23. Dependent Claim 23 .................................................................58
`24. Dependent Claim 24 .................................................................58
`25. Dependent Claim 25 .................................................................58
`26. Dependent Claim 26 .................................................................59
`27. Dependent Claim 27 .................................................................59
`28. Dependent Claim 28 .................................................................60
`XI. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ...........................................................60
`XII. PTAB DISCRETION SHOULD NOT PRECLUDE INSTITUTION ..........61
`A.
`The Advanced Bionics Test Favors Institution—§ 325(d) .................61
`B.
`The Fintiv Factors Favor Institution—§ 314(a) ..................................62
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`1.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`2.
`3.
`
`The Petition’s Grounds Are Materially Different From
`Any That Might Possibly Be Raised In District Court .............63
`Institution Will Enable Stay ......................................................63
`The Board’s Final Written Decision May Issue In
`Advance Of Trial ......................................................................64
`Samsung’s Diligence And Investment In IPR Outweighs
`The Parties’ Investment In Litigation To Date .........................65
`The Petition Enables The Board To Resolve Invalidity Of
`Claims That Might Otherwise Be Reasserted ...........................66
`Other Circumstances Support Institution ..................................66
`6.
`XIII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................67
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Gerate
`GMBH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2020) ...................................... 61, 62
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) ....................... 62, 63, 64, 66
`Apple Inc. v. Seven Networks, LLC,
`IPR2020-00156, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. June 15, 2020) ......................................... 65
`Ericsson Inc., et al. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al,
`Case No. 2:20-cv-00380-JRG (E.D. Tex.) ..................................................... 2, 69
`Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v. Ethicon LLC,
`IPR2018-01703, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2019) ............................................ 66
`Juniper Networks, Inc. et al. v. Packet Intelligence LLC,
`IPR2020-00338, Paper 22 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 9, 2020)........................................... 64
`NFC Tech. LLC v. HTC Am., Inc.,
`No. 2:13-CV-1058-WCB, 2015 WL 1069111 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11,
`2015) ................................................................................................................... 64
`Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc.,
`463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 60
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 17
`
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group–Trucking
`LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2020) .................................... 63, 64
`Snap, Inc. v. SRK Tech. LLC,
`IPR2020-00820, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 2020) .............................. 63, 65, 66
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2020....................................... 63, 65
`Tide Int’l (USA), Inc. v. UPL NA Inc.,
`IPR2020-01113, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2021) .......................................... 63
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.,
`No. 2:16-cv-642-JRG, 2017 WL 9885168 (E.D. Tex. June 13,
`2017) ................................................................................................................... 64
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 60
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) ................................................................................................. 4
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(2) ............................................................................................... 4
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. § 282(b) ................................................................................................... 17
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) ................................................................................................. 4
`Rules
`Rule 42.104(a) ............................................................................................................ 3
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)(1) .............................................................................................. 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)(3) .............................................................................................. 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 ..................................................................................................... 68
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 17
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105 ................................................................................................... 69
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105 ................................................................................................... 69
`
`vi
`
`Vi
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,193,600 (the “’600 Patent”)
`
`Certified File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,193,600
`
`Declaration of Dr. Apostolos K. Kakaes for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,193,600
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Apostolos K. Kakaes
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0016549 (“Novlan”)
`
`3GPP TS 36.213, v12.3.0 (“36.213”)
`
`3GPP TS 36.213, v10.1.0
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,891,676
`
`Declaration of Friedhelm Rodermund
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/103,101 (“the ’600
`Patent Provisional”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0163687 (“Jing”)
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/670,936 (the “Novlan
`Provisional”)
`Dahlman et al., 4G – LTE / LTE-Advanced for Mobile Broadband
`(Academic Press 2011)
`
`Stipulation by Petitioner
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 2008/0051091
`
`Sesia, et al., LTE - The UMTS Long Term Evolution From Theory
`to Practice (Wiley 2d. ed. 2011)
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`Petitioner Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung” or “Petitioner”)
`
`requests inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1–28 (the “Challenged Claims”) of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,193,600 (Ex. 1001, “the ’600 Patent”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The ’600 Patent is directed towards methods and apparatuses for “codebook
`
`subset restriction,” a well-known prior art technique used to assist in forming and
`
`directing antenna beams transmitted from a base station to a user device in a wireless
`
`communication network. See Ex. 1001 at 1:13–18. The purported novelty of the
`
`’600 Patent is applying the conventional codebook subset restriction technique in a
`
`manner that is “rank-agnostic” (see Ex. 1002 at 344), meaning that the technique is
`
`applied without regard to the number of beams of information the base station targets
`
`at the user device. This Petition demonstrates, however, that applying the admittedly
`
`conventional technique of codebook subset restriction in a manner that is rank-
`
`agnostic was obvious at the time of the alleged invention. Petitioner therefore
`
`respectfully requests that the Challenged Claims be cancelled as invalid.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and
`
`Samsung Research America are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`The ’600 Patent is the subject of a civil action involving Petitioner in the
`
`Eastern District of Texas, Ericsson Inc., et al. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et
`
`al, Case No. 2:20-cv-00380-JRG (E.D. Tex.), filed December 11, 2020 (“E.D. Tex.
`
`Action”). On January 1, 2021, Ericsson filed an Amended Complaint alleging a
`
`claim for infringement of the ’600 Patent.
`
`This case may affect, or be affected by, decisions in this proceeding.1
`
`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)
`bnguyen@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
`
`
`
`1 Nothing herein should be taken as an endorsement of Ericsson’s positions in the
`co-pending litigation.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Kevin Bendix (No. 67,164)
`kevin.bendix@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 South Flower Street, Suite 3700
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (213) 680-8400
`Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4): Service Information
`D.
`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. Review of twenty-
`
`eight (28) claims is requested, and the undersigned authorizes the Office to charge
`
`the fee for 8 excess claims, as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)(3), to the above-
`
`referenced deposit account. 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
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the ’600 Patent is available
`
`for IPR and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR of the
`
`Challenged Claims on the grounds identified in this Petition. Petitioner certifies: (1)
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Petitioner is not the owner of the ’600 Patent; (2) Petitioner (or any real party-in-
`
`interest) has not filed a civil action challenging the validity of any claim of the ’600
`
`Patent; (3) the present petition is being filed within one year of service of a complaint
`
`against Petitioner asserting the ’600 Patent in the E.D. Texas Action; (4) estoppel
`
`provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) do not prohibit this IPR; and (5) this Petition is
`
`filed after the ’600 Patent was granted.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of the Challenged Claims of the ’600
`
`Patent and requests that they be canceled.
`
`Prior Art
`A.
`Petitioner’s challenge is based on the following prior art references:
`
`•
`
`Novlan (Ex. 1005) - U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0016549
`
`to Novlan et al. filed July 11, 2013. Novlan published on January 16, 2014
`
`and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1)–(2).
`
`•
`
`36.213 (Ex. 1006) - “Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA);
`
`Physical Layer Procedures,” 3GPP TS 36.213, Version 12.3.0 (Release 12).
`
`36.213 was published on September 26, 2014 and is prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(a)(1).
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`B. Relief Requested
`Petitioner requests cancellation of the Challenged Claims as unpatentable
`
`under post-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103. The specific grounds of the challenge are set forth
`
`below, and are supported by the declaration of Dr. Apostolos K. Kakaes (Ex. 1003).
`
`Ground
`I
`
`Basis
`§ 103
`
`Challenged Claims
`1–28
`
`References
`Novlan, or alternatively
`Novlan in view of 36.213
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`The ’600 Patent is directed to methods and apparatuses used in the context of
`
`the 4G LTE wireless standard, which enables devices from different companies to
`
`communicate with each other. See Ex. 1001 at 1:42–44; Ex. 1003 ¶34.
`
`In a 4G LTE wireless communication network, a base station (which may be
`
`referred to as an “eNodeB” or “eNB”) and a mobile user device (e.g., a cell phone,
`
`also called “User Equipment” or “UE”) communicate via signals transmitted
`
`wirelessly over the air. Ex. 1003 ¶34. A base station typically comprises multiple
`
`antennas in order to increase the amount of data that can be transmitted at any given
`
`time. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 1:22–25; Ex. 1003 ¶35. For example, as pictured below,
`
`a typical base station (represented by the tower on the right) has multiple antenna
`
`arrays, where each array has a series of individual antennas (elements 402) arranged
`
`horizontally and vertically, as shown in the magnified view on the left side of the
`
`diagram:
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`See Ex. 1005 at Fig. 4; Ex. 1003 ¶36.
`
`
`
`The 4G LTE standard provides a technique known in the art as “precoding,”
`
`which leverages these multiple antennas to improve the signal strength between the
`
`base station and the UE. Signal strength is affected by angle, distance, scattering
`
`obstacles, and other factors that can reduce the strength of the signal received at the
`
`UE. Precoding can be used, for example, to provide beam “diversity,” which
`
`decreases the likelihood of fading when the signal strength is intermittently weak.
`
`See Ex. 1003 ¶41. Precoding can also be used to steer the antenna beams in a
`
`particular desired direction, as the signal strength between the base station and any
`
`particular UE may be strongest when the base station’s antenna beams are targeted
`
`at the UE in a particular direction. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 1:25–26.
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`For example, as illustrated below, when a UE is at a high elevation on the
`
`third floor of a building, the signal may be strongest when the base station directs its
`
`antenna signals upwards (green arrow); by contrast, when the UE is at a low
`
`elevation on ground level, the signal may be strongest when the base station directs
`
`its antenna signal downwards (blue arrow):
`
`
`
`See Ex. 1005 at Fig. 7; Ex. 1003 ¶38. A base station will generally not direct an
`
`antenna beam higher than the tallest building in a city (for example) since UEs are
`
`not typically found there. Ex. 1003 ¶39. This situation is depicted by the red arrow
`
`in the following diagram:
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`See Ex. 1005 ¶50 (some directions “are infrequently selected or never selected”);
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶39.
`
`In 4G LTE, a base station is not limited to a single antenna beam aimed at a
`
`UE. Rather, to increase the information sent to the UE, the base station can send an
`
`additional beam at a different angle that could, based on topography, reflect off a
`
`surface or diffract, and also reach the same UE, as illustrated below, where a second
`
`beam bounces off the ground and reaches the same UE on the third floor of the
`
`building (dashed green arrow):
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`This ability to adjust the transmission in order to send multiple antenna beams at
`
`different angles to the same UE (when the physical conditions allow) is known in
`
`the prior art as “rank adaptation.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 1:31–35. In the diagram
`
`above, the direct beam (solid green arrow) represents a “rank 1” transmission, and
`
`the indirect beam (dashed green arrow) represents a “rank 2” transmission. See Ex.
`
`1003 ¶40. Of course, even in this situation where the base station beams information
`
`to a UE in multiple different ways at the same time (e.g., via the rank-1 solid green
`
`arrow and the rank-2 dashed green arrow), the common sense notion discussed
`
`above—that the base station would generally not direct any beams higher than the
`
`tallest building in the city—still applies. See id.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`The “precoding” technique referenced above that forms an antenna’s beams
`
`in a particular desired direction (“beamforming”) involves a particular operation.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 1:35–38. Specifically, the signals are multiplied by a “precoder
`
`matrix,” also referred to as a “precoder,” the result of which is that the beam is
`
`formed in the desired manner. See, e.g., id., at 1:38–40. For example, a precoder
`
`(represented by variable W(1)) can be represented by the following matrix:
`
`“beam precoder” or “spatial signature” or “steering vector,” can take the form:
`
`See id. ¶77. In another example, a precoder can be represented by:
`
`𝑊𝑊𝑚𝑚,𝑛𝑛(1)= 1√8� 𝑣𝑣𝑚𝑚𝜑𝜑𝑛𝑛𝑣𝑣𝑚𝑚�
`See Ex. 1005 ¶78 (Table 7.2.4-1). The component 𝑣𝑣𝑚𝑚, referred to in the art as a
`𝑣𝑣𝑚𝑚=[1 𝑒𝑒𝑗𝑗2𝜋𝜋𝑚𝑚/32
`𝑒𝑒𝑗𝑗4𝜋𝜋𝑚𝑚/32 𝑒𝑒𝑗𝑗6𝜋𝜋𝑚𝑚/32 ]𝑇𝑇
`[1 𝑒𝑒𝑗𝑗𝜃𝜃𝐶𝐶
`𝑒𝑒𝑗𝑗5𝜃𝜃𝐶𝐶 𝑒𝑒𝑗𝑗6𝜃𝜃𝐶𝐶
`𝑒𝑒𝑗𝑗7𝜃𝜃𝐶𝐶]𝑇𝑇
`𝑒𝑒𝑗𝑗2𝜃𝜃𝐶𝐶 𝑒𝑒𝑗𝑗3𝜃𝜃𝐶𝐶
`𝑒𝑒𝑗𝑗4𝜃𝜃𝐶𝐶
`See id., ¶84. The precoder and its component 𝑣𝑣𝑚𝑚 (when the precoder is expressed
`using that component) is a function of the angle (associated with 𝜃𝜃𝐶𝐶 in the
`
`formulation immediately above2) at which the antenna beam is directed, by
`
`convention measured relative to the horizontal. See id., ¶84; Ex. 1003 ¶47. By
`
`
`
`2 Note that 𝜃𝜃𝐶𝐶 in the context of the formula for this precoder from Novlan refers
`to a specific angle, while “𝜃𝜃𝐶𝐶” in the context of Novlan’s Figure 7 is used
`
`coincidentally to refer to “the elevation angle range experienced by all the
`UEs.” See Ex. 1005 ¶54; Ex. 1003 ¶47.
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`multiplying the unformed antenna signal by this precoder matrix, the antenna beam
`
`is targeted in the direction associated with 𝑣𝑣𝑚𝑚. The precoders shown above, which
`
`have only one column, are “rank-1” precoders because they are used to aim one
`
`antenna beam. A “rank-2” precoder matrix has two columns and is used to aim two
`
`antenna beams, and so on. See Ex. 1006 at 97; Ex. 1003 ¶48.
`
`In practice, the UE tells the base station which precoder matrix to use to form
`
`the base station’s antenna beams in a way that optimizes the signal strength for
`
`transmission to the UE. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 1:46–48. The UE makes such a
`
`determination by assessing the channel quality associated with different beams
`
`transmitted by the base station in different directions at first, and then notifying the
`
`base station which precoder matrix is associated with the particular beam or beams
`
`received most strongly. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶57; Ex. 1003 ¶41.
`
`
`
`In 4G LTE, the set of possible precoder matrices for the UE to choose from
`
`are collected into a group known as a “codebook” that can be stored on the UE. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1001 at 1:40–42. Precoders of various different ranks can be grouped within
`
`different codebooks or, equivalently, in one larger codebook. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at
`
`10:13–19; Ex. 1003 ¶42. The number of precoder matrices to potentially choose
`
`from can be quite large, however. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 2:47–49. This large number
`
`of choices could make it cumbersome for the UE to figure out which one is best. Ex.
`
`1003 ¶43.
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`To help the UE with this task, 4G LTE provides a technique known as
`
`“codebook subset restriction.” Ex. 1003 ¶44. In codebook subset restriction, the
`
`base station can prohibit certain precoder matrices from being selected by the UE,
`
`such that the UE only needs to find the best precoder matrix from a smaller group.
`
`See, e.g., id. at 2:21–24. The base station conveys this prohibition by way of a signal
`
`message sent to the UE. See id. at 2:29–30. Because the UE only needs to consider
`
`a subset of the codebook as indicated by the base station’s signal, the UE’s task is
`
`much simpler. See, e.g., id. at 2:24–28.
`
`However, indicating on an individualized basis each precoder matrix that is
`
`restricted from being selected can also be cumbersome, because the base station
`
`would need to send an indication of whether a precoder matrix is restricted or
`
`unrestricted for every precoder matrix in the codebook. See id. at 2:49–51
`
`(“Signaling a codebook subset restriction in the conventional way by means of a
`
`bitmap with one bit for every precoder can thus impose a large overhead….”). As
`
`was known in the art, it is better if the base station did not need to individually restrict
`
`precoder matrices, and instead collectively restricts groups of precoder matrices at
`
`once. See Ex. 1003 ¶45; Ex. 1011 at, e.g., Fig. 1.
`
`The prior-art technique of joint codebook subset restriction achieves this
`
`benefit. Ex. 1003 ¶46. Instead of the base station restricting precoder matrices
`
`individually, the base station restricts precoders on a group basis. See, e.g., Ex. 1011
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`at Fig. 1 (prior art teaching joint codebook subset restriction: “Identify the state of
`
`each group as restricted or unrestricted by one bit after grouping”)3. For example,
`
`a group can be comprised of precoders that are all associated with very high
`
`elevation angles where the base station does not expect any UEs to be found, and
`
`instead of restricting each such precoder individually (for example, using a single
`
`bit 0 or 1 for each precoder to indicate whether it is allowed or not), the entire group
`
`could be restricted by reference to their membership in the restricted group. See
`
`infra, Section Error! Reference source not found.; Ex. 1003 ¶46.
`
`VII. THE ’600 PATENT
`The ’600 Patent issued on January 29, 2019, from U.S. Application No.
`
`15/105,648 (Ex. 1010) filed on January 11, 2016. The ’600 Patent claims priority to
`
`a provisional application (No. 62/103,101) filed on January 14, 2015. The ’600
`
`Patent is directed to wireless communication systems and, in particular, methods and
`
`systems for codebook subset restriction. See Ex. 1001 at 1:13–18.
`
`A. Claims
`The ’600 Patent has 28 claims, including four independent claims numbered
`
`1, 8, 15, and 22.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the Specification
`
`
`3 All emphasis is added unless indicated otherwise.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`The ’600 Patent purports to improve upon the LTE standard that establishes
`
`protocols for interoperability for 4G wireless communications. See Ex. 1001 at
`
`2:29–54 (discussing the purported problems associated with LTE Technical
`
`Specification 36.331). The ’600 Patent begins by recognizing that codebook-based
`
`precoding was well-known in the art. See id. at 1:42–44 (“Such codebook-based
`
`precoding is an integral part of the LTE standard, as well as in many other wireless
`
`communications standards.”). The ’600 Patent further recognizes that codebook
`
`subset restriction signaling was well-known in the art. See id. at 2:49–50 (“Signaling
`
`a codebook subset restriction in the conventional way….”). And, as the Examiner
`
`found during prosecution, joint codebook subset restriction was also well-known in
`
`the art. See Ex. 1002 at 312–13 (Examiner finding that that the prior art taught joint
`
`codebook subset restriction signaling).
`
`The ’600 Patent discusses one well-known method of codebook subset
`
`restriction signaling: “[r]estriction of precoders with certain angular pointing
`
`directions.” Ex. 1001 at 18:14–15.; see also Ex. 1003 ¶49. As illustrated in the
`
`figure below, in the ’600 Patent, “codebook subset restriction is applied to restrict
`
`beams with pointing directions in the zenith interval [80º, 100º].” Id. at 18:22–24.
`
`These restricted precoders are found within the band of forbidden zenith elevation
`
`angles (80º, 100º) in, for example, Figure 7:
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 7.
`
`The purported point of novelty of the ’600 Patent is merely that the joint
`
`codebook subset restriction is “rank agnostic,” meaning that the joint restriction
`
`applies to precoder matrices without regard to the precoders’ transmission rank. See
`
`Ex. 1002 at 344, 351; Ex. 1003 ¶50. For example, take the following rank-1 precoder
`
`matrix and rank-L precoder matrix (which has L number of columns), both of which
`
`have the component b0 in the first row and first column:
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`See Ex. 1001 at 14:25–30, 18:3–8. In this example, if element b0 is restricted, such
`
`restriction can apply to both of these precoder matrices because they both have the
`
`component b0, where such restriction is not based on the fact that the precoders are
`
`rank-1 and rank-2. See id. at 17:9–19:
`
`In some embodiments, signaling that jointly restricts a
`group of precoders by restricting a certain component []
`that those precoders have in common is rank-agnostic.
`That is, the signaling jointly restricts the group of
`precoders regardless of the precoders’ transmission rank
`(i.e., regardless of which rank-specific codebook they
`belong to). For example, embodiments that restrict a single
`beam precoder b0 can be extended so that all precoders
`across all ranks that contain the restricted beam precoder
`b0 are restricted.
`see also Ex. 1003 ¶50. As discussed below, rank-agnostic precoder restriction was
`
`already known in the prior art.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`C.
`The application that matured into the ’600 Patent was filed on June 17, 2016,
`
`and claims priority to PCT/SE2016/05009 filed on January 11, 2016 and to U.S.
`
`provisional application no. 62/103,101 filed on January 14, 2015. See Ex. 1001 at
`
`Title Page. In the first Office Action, 20 of the pending claims were rejected as
`
`anticipated or obvious based on the prior art, and the remainder of the claims were
`
`objected to as depending on rejected base claims. See id.; Ex. 1002 at 310–15. In
`
`response, the applicant then amended the independent claims to add the limitation
`
`“wherein the codebook subset restriction signaling is rank-agnostic signaling that
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`jointly restricts the precoders in a group without regard to the precoders’
`
`transmission rank.” See id. at 343–51. Those amended claims were then allowed
`
`without substantive explanation. See id. at 354–59.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`D.
`As explained by Dr. Kakaes, a POSITA at the time of the ’600 Patent would
`
`have had a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Applied Mathematics,
`
`Computer Science, Physics, or equivalent and three to five years of industry
`
`experience in wireless digital communication systems. Additional education might
`
`compensate for less experience, and vice-versa. See Ex. 1003 ¶57.
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Claim terms “shall be construed using the same claim construction standard
`
`that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b).”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
`
`banc). Petitioner submits that the Board does not need to construe any claim term
`
`for purposes of resolving the issues presented by this Petition.
`
`IX. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART
`A. Novlan
`Just like the ’600 Patent, Novlan is directed to methods a