UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`CRADLEPOINT, INC., HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`SIERRA WIRELESS, INC., TCL COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY
`HOLDINGS LIMITED, TCT MOBILE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, TCT
`MOBILE, INC., TCT MOBILE (US) INC., TCT MOBILE (US) HOLDINGS
`INC., AND THALES DIS AIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`3G LICENSING S.A.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00906
`Patent No. 7,580,388
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`Submitted Electronically via PTAB E2E
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2021-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 7,580,388
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
` INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1
`I.
`II. APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES ............................................................ 3
`A. Legal Standards ................................................................................................ 3
`B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................................. 7
`C. Claim Construction ........................................................................................... 8
`1. Applicable standard ....................................................................................... 8
`2. “Legacy configuration” ................................................................................. 9
`3. “Available configuration” ...........................................................................10
`III. PETITIONER FAILED TO SHOW THAT ANY OF THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ...............................................................12
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 8, 9, 12, 56, and 57 Are Not Anticipated by TS
`25.331 v6.1.0. .................................................................................................12
`1. Petitioner Misunderstands the Novelty and Elegance of the ’388 Patent’s
`Inventions ......................................................................................................12
`2. TS 25.331 v6.1.0 Cannot Anticipate the Inventions of the ’388 Patent
`Because They Were Only Incorporated into the Later TS 25.331 v6.6.0 .....16
`3. TS 25.331 v6.1.0 Does Not Anticipate Claims 1 and 33. ...........................27
`4. TS 25.331 v6.1.0 Does Not Anticipate Claims 2 and 34 ............................35
`5. TS 25.331 v6.1.0 Does Not Anticipate Claims 3 and 35 ............................36
`B. Ground 2: Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 33-36, 38, 40, 41, 44, 56, 57, 62, and 63
`Are Not Obvious Over TS 25.331 v6.1.0 .......................................................36
`1. None of the Challenged Claims Are Rendered Obvious ............................36
`2. Petitioner Ignores Objective Evidence of Non-Obviousness ......................37
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 7,580,388
`
`C. Ground 3: Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 33-36, 38, 40, 41, 44, 56, 57, 62, and 63
`Are Not Obvious Over TS 25.331 v6.1.0 and Bannister................................39
`D. Grounds 4 and 5: Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 33-36, 38, 40, 41, 44, 56, 57, 62, 63
`Are Not Obvious Over Beckmann and TS 25.331 v6.1.0 Alone or in
`Combination with Bannister ...........................................................................40
`1. Petitioner Has Failed to Show Motivation to Combine ..............................41
`2. Beckmann Does Not Render Obvious Claims 1 and 33 and Claims
`Dependent from Them ...................................................................................44
`3. Beckmann Does Not Render Obvious Claims 12 and 44 ...........................46
`IV. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................48
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ......................................................................50
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................51
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2021-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 7,580,388
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. Contentguard Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00442, Paper 9 (PTAB July 13, 2015) ................................................6, 7
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Rec. Prods.,
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................41
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................................. 4
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC,
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (PTAB, Aug. 29, 2014) ............................................... 4
`Edmund Optics, Inc. v. Semrock, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00583, Paper 50 (PTAB, Sep. 9, 2015) .................................................. 4
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................... 5
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 3
`Hill-Rom Servs. v. Stryker Corp.,
`755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................31
`In re Arkley,
`455 F.2d 586 (C.C.P.A. 1972) ................................................................................ 5
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 3, 5, 6
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .............................................................................. 7
`In re Omeprazole Patent Litig. v. Apotex Corp.,
`536 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .............................................................................. 7
`In re Stepan Co.,
`868 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................. 6
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 7,580,388
`
`
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGo Communs., Inc.,
`751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................. 7
`Karlin Tech., Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc.,
`177 F.3d 968 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ..............................................................................31
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................... 7
`Leo Pharm. Prods. v. Rea,
`726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................37
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................. 5, 16, 33
`Ortho-McNeil Pharm. v. Mylan Labs,
`520 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .............................................................................. 7
`P&G v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................ 7
`SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu,
`138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018)............................................................................................ 3
`Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .............................................................................. 6
`Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California,
`814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ................................................................................ 5
`VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys.,
`767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................31
`Wasica Finance GMBH v. Continental Auto. Sys.,
`853 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................. 4
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .......................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. § 312 .......................................................................................................... 3
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00906
`IPR2021-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 7,580,388
`U.S. Patent No. 7,580,388
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 ......................................................................................................... 4
`37 CLP.R. § 42.6 ee eecceseeseeeseeeseecsseceseessessseeesesssessseeessesesssesseesseeesesesesesueceuessseseaeees4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65 ....................................................................................................... 4
`37 CLP.R. § 42.65 oe eecceseesecseeeseecssecsseessessseeesesssesssseessesesesessaesseeesesesasesaecsuessseesaeees4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`ill
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2021-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 7,580,388
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`Exhi
`bit
`2001 Sisvel Mobile Communication License and Settlement Agreement (filed
`under seal)
`2002 3GPP’s Working Group 2, Meeting No. 47, Doc. R2-051706: Change
`Request for TS 25.331 v6.5.0 (May 2005)
`2003 Bannister et al., Convergence Technologies for 3G Networks IP, UMTS,
`EGPRS and ATM (2004)
`2004 Declaration of Michael J. Smith in Support of Patent Owner
`2005 Settlement Agreement dated December 1, 2021 (filed under seal)
`2006 Declaration of Stephanie Berger in Support of Motion for Admission Pro
`Hac Vice
`2007 Second Declaration of Michael J. Smith in Support of Patent Owner
`2008 LG Electronics, Enhanced CCCH Message Sizes, R2-041632, 3GPP TSG-
`RAN WG2#43 (Aug. 16-20, 2004, Prague, Czech Republic)
`2009 Konichi Ito et al., Radio Network Control System, 38 FUJITSU SCI. TECH.
`J.
`174
`(Dec.
`2002),
`available
`at
`https://www.fujitsu.com/downloads/MAG/vol38-2/paper08.pdf.
`2010 LG Electronics, CCCH Message Constraints, R2-042138, 3GPP TSG-
`RAN WG2#44 (Oct. 4-8, 2004, Sophia Antipolis, France)
`2011 3GPP, Approved Minutes of the 47 TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting (Athens
`Greece, 09-13 May 2005), R2-052063, TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #48
`(Aug. 29-Sept. 2, 2005, London)
`2012 E-mail from Eric Halverson to the Board, IPR2021-00580 & 2021-00584
`(Jan. 4, 2022)
`2013 Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission (Paper 36), IPR2021-00580
`2014 Patent Owner’s Response to Petitioners’ Opposition to Patent Owner’s
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission (Paper 39), IPR2021-00580
`2015 E-mail from Robert Hart to Stephanie Berger, IPR2021-01141/906/908
`(Feb. 28, 2022)
`2016 Affidavit of Neil Benchell in Support of Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro
`Hac Vice Admission
`2017 Deposition of Dr. James Olivier, Ph.D.
`2018 Third Declaration of Michael J. Smith in Support of Patent Owner
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2021-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 7,580,388
`
`2019 3GPP, RAN4—Radio Performance and Protocol Aspects, 3GPP.ORG,
`https://www.3gpp.org/specifications-groups/ran-plenary/ran4-radio-
`performance-and-protocol-aspects (last visited March 9, 2022)
`2020 Nortel Networks,
`Introduction of
`Inter-Frequency Measurement
`Reporting in CELL_FACH, R2-040922, 3GPP TSG-RAN2 Meeting #42
`(10-14 May 2004, Montreal, Canada)
`2021 3GPP, Draft 4 Minutes of the 43rd TSG-RAN WG2 meeting (Prague,
`Czech Republic, 16-20 August 2004), TSG-RAN WG2 meeting #44
`Sophia-Antipolis, France, 04-08 October 2004
`2022 LG, Change Request R2-04xxxx_CCCH messages_CR, available at
`https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG2_RL2/TSGR2_44/Docs/R2-
`042138.zip
`2023 3GPP, Draft1 Minutes of the 44th TSG-RAN WG2 meeting (Sophia-
`Antipolis, France, 04-08 Oct. 2004), available at
`https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG2_RL2/TSGR2_44/Report/Draft1_
`Minutes_RAN2%2344.zip.
`2024 LG Electronics, CCCH Message Constraints, R2-050550, 3GPP TSG-
`RAN WG2#46 (Feb. 14-18, 2005, Scottsdale, USA), available at
`https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG2_RL2/TSGR2_46/Documents/R2
`-050550.zip
`2025 3GPP, Draft 0 Report of the 46th TSG-RAN WG2 meeting (Scottsdale,
`USA, 14-18 February 2005), available at
`https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG2_RL2/TSGR2_46/Report/Draft0_
`Minutes_RAN2-46.zip
`2026 LG Electronics, R2-05xxxx, CCCH messages_CR_test_configs.doc ,
`available at
`https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG2_RL2/TSGR2_46/Documents/R2
`-050550.zip
`2027 LG Electronics, R2-05xxxx, CCCH messages_CR_RRC.doc, available at
`https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG2_RL2/TSGR2_46/Documents/R2
`-050550.zip
`2028 LG Electronics, R2-05xxxx, CCCH message constraints_LS_to_T1.doc,
`available at
`https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG2_RL2/TSGR2_46/Documents/R2
`-050550.zip
`2029 LG Electronics, R2-051706, CCCH messages 25_331.doc, available at
`https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG2_RL2/TSGR2_47/Documents/R2
`-051706.zip
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2021-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 7,580,388
`
`2030 LG Electronics, R2-051650, CCCH messages 25_331.doc, available at
`https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG2_RL2/TSGR2_47/Documents/R2
`-051650.zip
`2031 LG Electronics, R2-051651, CCCH messages 25_993.doc, available at
`https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG2_RL2/TSGR2_47/Documents/R2
`-051651.zip
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`IPR2021-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 7,580,388
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner has failed to show that any of the challenged claims of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,589,388 (the “’388 patent”) are unpatentable. Specifically, Petitioner cannot
`
`show that any claims of the ’388 patent are anticipated or obvious in view of TS
`
`25.331 v6.1.0 (Ex. 1003), Bannister (Ex. 1004), Beckmann (Ex. 1005), or any of
`
`the combinations thereof advanced in the Petition.
`
`Ground 1 (anticipation over TS 25.331 v6.1.0) fails because the inventions
`
`of the ’388 patent were only incorporated into a later version of the standard—TS
`
`25.331 v6.6.0—that post-dates the priority date of the ’388 patent. Specifically, in
`
`2005, over a year after version v6.1.0, LG Electronics (the original assignee of the
`
`’388 patent) began submitting change requests and proposals to modify TS 25.331,
`
`including one of the very provisional applications to which the ’388 patent claims
`
`priority. Even then, 3GPP considered counter-proposals from other companies,
`
`discussed LG’s proposals internally and consulted other organizations before
`
`issuing the approved change request to modify TS 25.331 v6.5.0 in line with the
`
`inventions of the ’388 patent.
`
`These facts alone defeat Petitioner’s argument that the challenged claims
`
`were anticipated by version v6.1.0 of the standard, published in March 2004. In
`
`summary, Petitioner cannot show that TS 25.331 v6.1.0 disclosed multiple
`
`limitations in the challenged claims because it was LG—the original assignee
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`here—that suggested new configurations to 3GPP after version v6.1.0 was
`
`IPR2021-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 7,580,388
`
`adopted.
`
`Ground 2 (obviousness over TS 25.331 v6.1.0) fails for the same reasons as
`
`Ground 1 and because of strong objective evidence of non-obviousness, including
`
`the fact that 3GPP did not issue approved change requests modifying TS 25.331
`
`v.6.5.0 until one year after LG’s original proposals.
`
`Ground 3 (obviousness over TS 25.331 v6.1.0 in view of Bannister) fails for
`
`the same reasons as Grounds 1 and 2 and because Bannister is a self-proclaimed
`
`summary of an unspecified version of TS 25.331 that adds nothing to that standard.
`
`The Board has declined to address Grounds 4 and 5 in the Institution
`
`Decision (obviousness over Beckmann in view of TS 25.331 v6.1.0 alone or in
`
`combination with Bannister). To the extent these grounds rely on TS 25.331
`
`v6.1.0 and Bannister, they fail for the same reasons as Grounds 1 through 3.
`
`Petitioner has also failed to show that a POSITA would be motivated to combine
`
`Beckmann with the other two references. Beckmann discourages and guides a
`
`POSITA away from taking a path leading to the ’388 patent’s inventions because
`
`one of its central ideas is “restricting” or “fixing” logical channels and parameters.
`
`Beckmann does not render obvious elements 1[a], [c], [d], or [f] of claim 1,
`
`substantially similar elements of claim 33, or the claims dependent from them. For
`
`example, nothing in Beckmann teaches or suggests receiving a new, predefined
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`configuration as required by claims 1 and 33. Beckmann does not teach or suggest
`
`IPR2021-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 7,580,388
`
`element 1[f] precisely because of its focus on “restricting” or “fixing” logical
`
`channels and parameters.
`
`For these reasons and reasons set forth in the Preliminary Response, all
`
`challenged claims should be upheld as valid.
`
`II. APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`A. Legal Standards
`The petitioner has the burden to clearly set forth the basis for its challenges
`
`in the petition. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) as “requiring IPR petitions to identify ‘with
`
`particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each
`
`claim’”). A petitioner may not rely on the Board to substitute its own reasoning to
`
`remedy the deficiencies in a petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348,
`
`1355 (2018) (“Congress chose to structure a process in which it’s the petitioner,
`
`not the Director, who gets to define the contours of the proceeding.”); In re
`
`Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (rejecting the
`
`Board’s reliance on obviousness arguments that “could have been included” in the
`
`petition but were not, and holding that the Board may not “raise, address, and
`
`decide unpatentability theories never presented by the petitioner and not supported
`
`by the record evidence”); Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[A] challenge can fail even if different evidence and
`
`IPR2021-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 7,580,388
`
`arguments might have led to success.”); Wasica Finance GMBH v. Continental
`
`Auto. Sys., 853 F.3d 1272, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that new arguments in a
`
`reply brief are “foreclosed by statute, our precedent, and Board guidelines”).
`
`To the extent that the petition relies on an expert declaration, it must be more
`
`than conclusory and disclose the facts underlying the opinion. See 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on
`
`which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); Edmund Optics, Inc.
`
`v. Semrock, Inc., IPR2014-00583, Paper 50 at 8 (PTAB, Sep. 9, 2015) (affording
`
`little or no weight to “experts’ testimony [that] does little more than repeat, without
`
`citation to additional evidence, the conclusory arguments of their respective
`
`counsel”). Nor may the petition rely on the expert declaration to remedy any gaps
`
`in the petition itself. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated
`
`by reference from one document into another document.”); see also Cisco Sys.,
`
`Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 at 9 (PTAB, Aug. 29,
`
`2014) (“This practice of citing the Declaration to support conclusory statements
`
`that are not otherwise supported in the Petition also amounts to incorporation by
`
`reference.”).
`
`4
`
`

`

`For rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every claim element must be
`
`IPR2021-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 7,580,388
`
`
`
`found in a single reference. Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814
`
`F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
`
`[U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document
`not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations
`arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot
`be said to prove prior invention . . . and, thus, cannot anticipate under
`35 U.S.C. § 102.
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`Further, the prior art reference “must . . . disclose the claimed [invention] or direct
`
`those skilled in the art to the [invention] without any need for picking, choosing,
`
`and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the
`
`teachings of the cited reference.” Id. at 1372 (quoting In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586,
`
`587 (C.C.P.A. 1972)) (emphasis original).1
`
`To make a prima facie showing of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the
`
`Petition must, among other requirements, fulfill the requirements set forth in
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), including demonstrating that the
`
`cited references, in combination, disclose each element of a challenged claim. In
`
`re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l., 829 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Apple
`
`
`1 Unless specified otherwise, all emphasis is added in this Brief.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`Inc. v. Contentguard Holdings, Inc., IPR2015-00442, Paper 9 at 12-13 (PTAB July
`
`IPR2021-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 7,580,388
`
`13, 2015).
`
`Petitioners also have the burden to show there would have been some
`
`motivation to combine the asserted prior art, and that the proposed combination
`
`would render the patented claims obvious. “Obviousness requires more than a
`
`mere showing that the prior art includes separate references covering each separate
`
`limitation in a claim under examination.” Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655
`
`F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (internal citation omitted); see also In re
`
`Magnum Oil Tools Int’l., 829 F.3d at 1376. Even if individual modifications or
`
`choices were obvious, a petition must explain why making all of the changes at
`
`once would be obvious. Apple Inc. v. Contentguard, Paper 9 at 16-17 (“[T]he
`
`mere fact that individual changes might have been obvious does not make doing all
`
`of the changes at once obvious.”).
`
`The Federal Circuit has found that, even for an obviousness challenge based
`
`on a single reference in view of the knowledge and skill of a POSITA, there must
`
`be a motivation to make the combination and a reasonable expectation that such a
`
`combination would be successful, otherwise a skilled artisan would not arrive at
`
`the claimed combination. In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342, 1345-46 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017). In other words, when a gap in a single prior art reference requires filling
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`with, for example, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill, there must be a further
`
`IPR2021-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 7,580,388
`
`showing that the skilled artisan would have arrived at the claimed invention.
`
`The lack of a technological obstacle to combining references, in and of
`
`itself, does not justify a finding of obviousness. See In re Omeprazole Patent Litig.
`
`v. Apotex Corp., 536 F.3d 1361, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2008). A reason for combining
`
`disparate prior art references is critical and should be made explicit. InTouch
`
`Techs., Inc. v. VGo Communs., Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal
`
`citation omitted).
`
`Hindsight analysis is inappropriate; obviousness must be measured “at the
`
`time the invention was made.” Ortho-McNeil Pharm. v. Mylan Labs, 520 F.3d
`
`1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (emphasis original). A petition must demonstrate a
`
`rationale to combine prior art references without relying on the patent disclosure
`
`itself. Apple Inc. v. Contentguard, Paper 9 at 15, 17; see also P&G v. Teva
`
`Pharms. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989, 995 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Petitioner must not
`
`use the patent as a roadmap. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`
`(internal citation omitted); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
`
`421 (2007).
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`B.
`Patent Owner had asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”) “would be one with a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering,
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`computer sciences, or telecommunications and wireless communications, along
`
`IPR2021-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 7,580,388
`
`with three or more years of practical experience in the field.” (Paper 16 at 16.) “A
`
`combination of more experience in the field and less education or more education
`
`and less experience in the field would also suffice[,]” and “familiarity with the W-
`
`CDMA air interface is not required.” (Id. at 16.)
`
`The Board preliminarily found that
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art . . . as that corresponding to one with
`a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer sciences, or
`telecommunications and wireless communications, along with three or
`more years of practical experience in the field, including some
`familiarity with WCDMA air interface.
`(Paper 18 at 10 (emphasis omitted).) Patent Owner does not dispute the Board’s
`
`preliminary conclusion but notes that the Petition fails under both the Board and
`
`Patent Owner’s definitions of a POSITA. (Ex. 2018, ¶¶ 28-31.)
`
`C. Claim Construction
`Applicable standard
`1.
`In an inter partes review proceeding, a claim of a patent . . . 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),
`including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and
`customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill
`in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2021-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 7,580,388
`
`“Legacy configuration”
`2.
`Petitioner states that “terms should be given their plain and ordinary
`
`meaning to a POSITA.” (Petition at 16.) Patent Owner asserts that the term
`
`“legacy configuration” should be construed to mean “a configuration defined by
`
`the 3GPP specification releases predating adoption of the ’388 patent’s inventions
`
`into the 3GPP specifications.” (Ex. 2018, ¶ 35.)
`
`This construction is supported by the specification of the ’388 patent. “The
`
`legacy configuration mode is a configuration mode for transmitting a message that
`
`may be utilized by mobile terminals that do not support the new configurations
`
`provided by the present invention.” (Ex. 1001 at 9:30-33.) The ’388 patent’s
`
`specification also explains that
`
`the invention is directed to a method and apparatus for providing new
`configurations for transmitting control information between a mobile
`and a network using a common control channel
`logical
`channel/transport channel such that the operation of mobile terminals
`that do not support the new configurations is not impacted.
`(Id. at 8:64-9:2.) “The indicated available PRACH configurations may include a
`
`legacy configuration, for example the existing PRACH configuration, and one or
`
`more predefined new PRACH configurations, for example any the extended PRACH
`
`configurations incorporating the four embodiments previously defined.” (Id. at
`
`15:26-31.)
`
`9
`
`

`

`The operation of mobile terminals that do not support the new configurations
`
`IPR2021-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 7,580,388
`
`
`
`is not impacted. For example:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`A 2G phone still works with the patent invention in a 3G phone system.
`
`A 3G phone with a 3GPP release that includes our invention works with
`
`a 3G system that includes the invention.
`
`•
`
`A 3G phone that does not include our invention also works with a 3G
`
`system that includes the invention. (Ex. 2018, ¶ 37.)
`
`“Available configuration”
`3.
`Patent Owner asserts that the term “available configuration” should be
`
`construed as “a configuration available to be used for transmitting a message.”
`
`(Ex. 2018, ¶ 38.)
`
`This construction is supported by the ’388 patent’s specification. For
`
`example, the specification explains that “[t]he [claimed] method includes
`
`providing new configurations for transmitting a message in one or more mobile
`
`communication devices, the new configurations including . . . an increased
`
`message block size for an existing channel . . . .” (Ex. 1001 at 9:63-67. See also,
`
`e.g., id. at 10:47-51.) “It is contemplated that the available configurations may
`
`include a legacy configuration mode and legacy configuration identity.” (Id. at
`
`10:36-38. See also id. at 10:42-46 (“It is contemplated that the available
`
`configurations may include a predefined configuration mode and predefined
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`configuration identity. The predefined configuration mode is a new configuration
`
`IPR2021-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 7,580,388
`
`for transmitting a message that is provided by the present invention.”).)
`
`The ’388 patent’s specification provides at least four examples of predefined
`
`new PRACH configurations. (Ex. 1001 at 15:28-31(“one or more predefined new
`
`PRACH configurations, for example any the extended PRACH configurations
`
`incorporating the four embodiments previously defined”).) The third and fourth
`
`embodiments are described as follows:
`
`A third embodiment allows the mapping of the CCCH 5 channel on
`other transport block sizes of the existing RACH. There would be no
`need to change the architecture of the UE 2 or core network 4, as only
`the mapping of the PRACH would be changed.
`According to the third embodiment, the RNC 10 may signal
`whether the UE 2 is allowed to map the CCCH on any PRACH and
`whether any PRACH transport block size or only certain PRACH
`transport block sizes are allowed. The RNC 10 may indicate the
`numbers of the entries in the list of PRACH transport block sizes that
`are allowed. Alternately, the mapping of the CCCH channel on any
`PRACH may be allowed without any indication from the RNC 10.
`(Id. at 13:5-17.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 7,580,388
`
`
`III. PETITIONER FAILED TO SHOW THAT ANY OF THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 8, 9, 12, 56, and 57 Are Not Anticipated by
`TS 25.331 v6.1.0.
`Petitioner Misunderstands the Novelty and Elegance of the
`1.
`’388 Patent’s Inventions
`The ’388 patent solves the problem that the maximum message size usable
`
`for CCCH messages was restricted due to the fact that the then-current
`
`specification restricted the user equipment (“UE”) to only use the first transport
`
`block size listed in the PRACH configuration. (Ex. 1001 at 8:40-44 (“Because the
`
`UMTS standard restricts a UE 2 to always use the first transport block size of the
`
`selected PRACH, there is only one transport block size available for SRB0.
`
`Therefore, the size of the messages is limited to the size of the transport block.”).)
`
`The ’388 patent solves this long-standing problem by adding an additional
`
`transport block size as an extension to System Information Blocks (“SIBs”) to
`
`transmit CCCH messages on SRB0. (E.g., Ex. 1001 at 12:44-54; id. at 22:1-22;
`
`Ex. 2018, ¶ 42.)
`
`Importantly, the ’388 patent teaches solving this problem without
`
`“chang[ing] the architecture of the UE 2 or core network 4, as only the mapping of
`
`the PRACH would be changed.” (Ex. 1001 at 13:7-9.) For example, the ’388
`
`patent uses extensions. (Ex. 2018, ¶ 43.) The extension mechanism is a part of the
`
`3GPP specifications and is the 3GPP mechanism and framework for fixing “bugs”
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`(i.e., correcting errors and defects) and adding features. (Id. ¶ 43.) However,
`
`IPR2021-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 7,580,388
`
`Petitioner has missed the point that the ’388 patent uses this framework in a novel
`
`way to solve problems and achieve functions that had not been used in the 3GPP
`
`specifications before. (See, e.g., Paper 16 at 1-2, 21-23, 24-28.)
`
`Petitioner attempts to minimize the inventions of the ’388 patent by pointing
`
`out that the ’388 patent recites some of the same elements as TS 25.331 v6.1.0.
`
`(Ex. 2018, ¶ 44.) TS 25.331 v6.1.0, however, deals with conventional methods of
`
`transmitting wireless messages in a network, not the methods of the ’388 patent
`
`teaching, among other things, unconventional use of extensions to replace legacy
`
`configurations. (Id. ¶ 45.) Petitioner thus misunderstands (or misrepresents) the
`
`novelty and elegance of the ’388 patent inventions.
`
`Petitioner admits that, unlike prior art that teaches transmitting PRACH
`
`configurations, the ’388 patent discloses indicating PRACH configurations and
`
`extended PRACH configurations:
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2021-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 7,580,388
`
`
`
`(Petition at 13 (highlights in both figures added by Petitioner).) Petitioner,
`
`however, is wrong in arguing that the only difference between the ’388 patent and
`
`prior art is encapsulated in the highlights that Petitioner added to Figures 10 and 12
`
`of the ’388 patent reproduced above.
`
`
`
`Indeed, Petitioner’s expert Dr. Olivier also admitted that the differences
`
`between Figures 10 and 12 go beyond highlighted text. (Ex. 2017 at 20:16-22:8.)
`
`He then later admitted that he had “no idea” whether his declaration identified all
`
`the