IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`Aldana et al.
`In re Patent of:
`Attorney Docket No.: 50095-0050IP1
`8,416,862
`U.S. Patent No.:
`
`April 9, 2013
`Issue Date:
`
`Appl. Serial No.: 11/237,341
`
`Filing Date:
`September 28, 2005
`Title:
`EFFICIENT FEEDBACK OF CHANNEL INFORMATION IN A
`CLOSED LOOP BEAMFORMING WIRELESS COMMUNICA-
`TION SYSTEM
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT
`NO. 8,416,862 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0050IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`V. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8 ................................. 1 
`A.  Real Parties-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1) .............................. 1 
`B.  Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2) .......................................... 1 
`C.  Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3) ...................... 2 
`Lead Counsel ................................................................................................... 3 
`Backup counsel ................................................................................................ 3 
`Email: IPR50095-0050IP1@fr.com ................................................................ 3 
`D.  Service Information .................................................................................. 3 
`III.  PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. §42.103 ................................................. 3 
`IV.  REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ....................... 3 
`A.  Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ..................................................... 3 
`B.  Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested ............... 3 
`SUMMARY OF THE ’862 PATENT .......................................................... 4 
`A.  Background ............................................................................................... 4 
`B.  Brief Description ....................................................................................... 6 
`C.  Prosecution History ................................................................................... 9 
`D.  Critical Date ............................................................................................ 10 
`E.  POSITA Definition ................................................................................. 10 
`VI.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3) ............ 11 
`A.  “a baseband processing module operable to…” ..................................... 11 
`B.  “decompose the estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V)
`to produce the transmitter beamforming information” ........................... 13 
`VII.  GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-4, 7-12, 15-18 ARE OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF
`LI-748, TONG, AND MAO ........................................................................ 14 
`A.  Overview of Li-748 ................................................................................ 14 
`B.  Overview of Tong ................................................................................... 16 
`C.  Overview of Mao .................................................................................... 20 
`D.  Obviousness in view of Li-748, Tong, and Mao .................................... 22 
`VIII.  GROUND 2: CLAIMS 1-4, 7-12, 15-18 ARE OBVIOUS OVER TONG
`AND MAO .................................................................................................... 36 
`IX.  GROUND 3: CLAIMS 1, 3-4, 7-9, 11-12, 15-18 ARE OBVIOUS OVER
`LI-054 AND MAO ....................................................................................... 46 
`A.  Overview of Li-054 ................................................................................ 46 
`
`i
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0050IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862
`B.  Obviousness in view of Li-054 and Mao ................................................ 48 
`X.  GROUND 4: CLAIMS 2, 10 ARE OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF LI-054,
`MAO, AND YANG ...................................................................................... 57 
`A.  Overview of Yang ................................................................................... 57 
`B.  Obviousness in view of Li-054, Mao, and Yang .................................... 57 
`XI.  GROUND 5: CLAIMS 1, 3-4, 7-9, 11-12, 15-18 ARE OBVIOUS IN
`VIEW OF POON AND MAO ..................................................................... 59 
`A.  Overview of Poon ................................................................................... 59 
`B.  Obviousness in view of Poon and Mao .................................................. 61 
`XII.  THE BOARD SHOULD CONSIDER THE PETITION ON THE
`MERITS AND NOT EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO DENY
`INSTITUTION ............................................................................................. 69 
`A.  The General Plastic Factors Weigh Against Exercising Discretion To
`Deny Institution ...................................................................................... 69 
`B.  The Fintiv Factors Weigh Against Exercising Discretion To Deny
`Institution ................................................................................................ 72 
`C.  The Becton, Dickinson Factors Weigh Against Exercising Discretion To
`Deny Institution ...................................................................................... 75 
`XIII.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 75 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0050IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862
`
`
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`EX1001
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,416,862 to Aldana et al. (“the ’862 patent”)
`
`EX1002
`
`Prosecution History of the ’862 patent (Serial No. 11/237,341)
`
`EX1003
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jonathan Wells
`
`EX1004
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,236,748 to Li et al. (“Li-748”)
`
`EX1005
`
`U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0108310 to Tong et al. (“Tong”)
`
`EX1006
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,312,750 to Mao et al. (“Mao”)
`
`EX1007
`
`U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0092054 to Li et al. (“Li-054”)
`
`EX1008
`
`Yang et al., Reducing the Computations of the Singular Value De-
`composition Array Given by Brent and Luk, SIAM J. MATRIX ANAL.
`APPL., Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 713-725, Oct. 1991 (“Yang”)
`
`EX1009
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,710,925 to Poon (“Poon”)
`
`EX1010
`
`EX1011
`
`EX1012
`
`U.S. Provisional Application Serial No. 60/673,451 (“’451 provi-
`sional”)
`
`U.S. Provisional Application Serial No. 60/698,686 (“’686 provi-
`sional”)
`
`U.S. Provisional Application Serial No. 60/614,621 (“’621 Provi-
`sional”)
`
`iii
`
`

`

`EX1013
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0050IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862
`U.S. Provisional Application Serial No. 60/619,461 (“’461 Provi-
`sional”)
`
`EX1014
`
`U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 11/168,793 (“’793 application”)
`
`EX1015
`
`EX1016
`
`EX1017
`
`EX1018
`
`Plaintiff Bell Northern Research, LLC’s Patent Rule 3-1 and 3-2 Dis-
`closure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions Against the
`Huawei Defendants in Bell Northern Research, LLC, v. Huawei De-
`vice (Dongguan) Co., Ltd., Huawei Device (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and
`Huawei Device USA, Inc. (Case No. 3:18-cv-1784) (S.D.Cal.)
`
`Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions in Bell Northern Research, LLC,
`v. Huawei Device (Dongguan) Co., Ltd., Huawei Device (Shenzhen)
`Co., Ltd., and Huawei Device USA, Inc. (Case No. 3:18-cv-1784)
`(S.D.Cal.)
`
`Defendants’ Joint Opening Claim Construction Brief in Bell Northern
`Research, LLC, v. Huawei Device (Dongguan) Co., Ltd., Huawei De-
`vice (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and Huawei Device USA, Inc. (Case No.
`3:18-cv-1784) (S.D.Cal.)
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief in Bell Northern Re-
`search, LLC, v. Huawei Device (Dongguan) Co., Ltd., Huawei Device
`(Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and Huawei Device USA, Inc. (Case No. 3:18-
`cv-1784) (S.D.Cal.)
`
`EX1019
`
`Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of
`Their Joint Motion for Summary Judgement on Indefiniteness in Bell
`Northern Research, LLC, v. Huawei Device (Dongguan) Co., Ltd.,
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0050IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862
`Huawei Device (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and Huawei Device USA, Inc.
`(Case No. 3:18-cv-1784) (S.D.Cal.)
`
`EX1020
`
`Transcript of Claim Construction Hearing, Day Two, Volume Two,
`Pages 1-122 in Bell Northern Research, LLC, v. Huawei Technologies
`CO., LTD., Huawei Device (Hong Kong) CO., LTD., and Huawei De-
`vice USA, Inc. (Case No. 3:18-cv-1784) (S.D.Cal.)
`
`EX1021
`
`Declaration of Jacob Munford
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0050IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862
`LISTING OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`
`LIMITATION
`CLAIM
`[1.P] A method for feeding back transmitter beamforming information from
`a receiving wireless communication device to a transmitting wireless
`communication device, the method comprising:
`
`[1.a]
`
`[1.b]
`
`[1.c]
`
`[1.d]
`
`[1.e]
`
`[2]
`
`the receiving wireless communication device receiving a preamble
`sequence from the transmitting wireless device;
`
`the receiving wireless device estimating a channel response based
`upon the preamble sequence;
`
`the receiving wireless device determining an estimated transmitter
`beamforming unitary matrix (V) based upon the channel response and
`a receiver beamforming unitary matrix (U);
`
`the receiving wireless device decomposing the estimated transmitter
`beamforming unitary matrix (V) to produce the transmitter
`beamforming information; and
`
`the receiving wireless device wirelessly sending the transmitter
`beamforming information to the transmitting wireless device.
`
`The method of claim 1 wherein the receiving wireless device
`determining an estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V)
`based upon the channel response and a receiver beamforming unitary
`matrix (U) comprises: the receiving wireless device producing the
`estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V) in Cartesian
`coordinates; and the receiving wireless device converting the
`estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V) to polar
`coordinates.
`
`[3]
`
`The method of claim 1 wherein the channel response (H), estimated
`transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V), and the receiver
`beamforming unitary matrix (U) are related by the equation: H=UDV*
`where, D is a diagonal matrix.
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0050IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862
`
`CLAIM
`[4]
`
`LIMITATION
`The method of claim 3, wherein the receiving wireless device
`determining an estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V)
`based upon the channel response and a receiver beamforming unitary
`matrix (U) comprises performing a Singular Value Decomposition
`(SVD) operation.
`
`[7]
`
`[8]
`
`The method of claim 1, wherein: the transmitting wireless device
`transmits on N antennas; and the receiving wireless device receives on
`M antennas.
`
`The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the transmitting
`wireless device and the receiving wireless device supports Multiple
`Input Multiple Output (MIMO) operations.
`
`
`[9.P] A wireless communication device, comprising:
`
`[9.a]
`
`[9.b]
`
`[9.c]
`
`[9.d]
`
`[9.e]
`
`[9.f]
`
`[9.g]
`
`a plurality of Radio Frequency (RF) components operable to receive
`an RF signal and to convert the RF signal to a baseband signal; and
`
`a baseband processing module operable to:
`
`receive a preamble sequence carried by the baseband signal;
`
`estimate a channel response based upon the preamble sequence;
`
`determine an estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V)
`based upon the channel response and a receiver beamforming unitary
`matrix (U);
`
`decompose the estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V)
`to produce the transmitter beamforming information; and
`
`form a baseband signal employed by the plurality of RF components
`to wirelessly send the transmitter beamforming information to the
`transmitting wireless device.
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0050IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862
`
`CLAIM
`[10]
`
`[11]
`
`[12]
`
`[15]
`
`[16]
`
`LIMITATION
`The wireless communication device of claim 9, wherein in
`determining an estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V)
`based upon the channel response and a receiver beamforming unitary
`matrix (U), the baseband processing module is operable to: produce
`the estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V) in Cartesian
`coordinates; and convert the estimated transmitter beamforming
`unitary matrix (V) to polar coordinates.
`
`The wireless communication device of claim 9, wherein the channel
`response (H), estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V),
`and the receiver beamforming unitary matrix (U) are related by the
`equation: H=UDV* where, D is a diagonal matrix.
`
`The wireless communication device of claim 9, wherein in
`determining the estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V)
`based upon the channel response and the receiver beamforming
`unitary matrix (U), the baseband processing module performs Singular
`Value Decomposition (SVD) operations.
`
`The wireless communication device of claim 10, wherein: the
`transmitting wireless device transmits on N antennas; and the wireless
`communication device includes M antennas.
`
`The wireless communication device of claim 10, wherein the wireless
`communication device supports Multiple Input Multiple Output
`(MIMO) operations.
`
`[17.P] A method for feeding back transmitter beamforming information from
`a receiving wireless communication device to a transmitting wireless
`communication device, the method comprising:
`
`[17.a]
`
`[17.b]
`
`the receiving wireless communication device receiving a preamble
`sequence from the transmitting wireless device;
`
`the receiving wireless device estimating a channel response based
`upon the preamble sequence;
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0050IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862
`
`CLAIM
`[17.c]
`
`LIMITATION
`the receiving wireless device decomposing the channel response based
`upon the channel response and a receiver beamforming unitary matrix
`(U) to produce an estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix
`(V);
`
`[17.d]
`
`the receiving wireless device decomposing the estimated transmitter
`beamforming unitary matrix (V) to produce the transmitter
`beamforming information; and
`
`[17.e]
`
`the receiving wireless device wirelessly sending the transmitter
`beamforming information to the transmitting wireless device.
`
`[18]
`
`The method of claim 17, wherein the receiving wireless device
`decomposing the channel response based upon the channel response
`and a receiver beamforming unitary matrix (U) to produce an
`estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V) includes
`performing a Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) operation.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0050IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Petitioner”) petitions for Inter Partes Review
`
`(“IPR”) of claims 1-4, 7-12, and 15-18 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent
`
`8,416,862 (“the ’862 patent”). The ’862 patent describes wirelessly “feeding back
`
`transmitter beamforming information” from a receiving device to a transmitting
`
`device. EX1001, Abstract. The claims recite conventional devices and methods at
`
`the time of the alleged priority date—certainly not an innovative achievement.
`
`Grounds 1-5 raise prior art combinations presented in IPR2020-00108 (’108 IPR)
`
`filed and instituted with a different Petitioner against only claims 9-12 but settled
`
`before reaching a final written decision. If these prior art combinations had been
`
`before the Office during examination, the ’862 patent never would have issued.
`
`Petitioner requests the Board institute IPR of the Challenged Claims.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1)
`Apple Inc. is the real party-in-interest. No other parties had access to, con-
`
`trol over, or funded the present Petition.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2)
`Bell Northern Research, LLC (“BNR”)—the alleged Patent Owner—filed a
`
`complaint on August 11, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
`
`of Texas (Case 6:21-cv-00833-ADA) against Apple Inc. asserting ten patents, in-
`
`cluding the ’862 patent, and served the complaint on August 13, 2021.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0050IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862
`BNR also filed complaints in the Southern District of California alleging in-
`
`fringement of the ’862 patent by other parties: Coolpad Technologies, Inc. and
`
`Yulong Computer Communications (3:18-cv-1783); Huawei Technologies Co.,
`
`Ltd., Huawei Device (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd., and Huawei Device USA, Inc. (3:18-
`
`cv-01784); Kyocera Corporation and Kyocera International Inc. (3:18-cv-1785);
`
`ZTE Corporation, ZTE (USA) Inc., and ZTE (TX) Inc. (3:18-cv-1786); and LG
`
`Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG Electronics Mobile Re-
`
`search U.S.A., LLC (collectively, “LGE”) (3:18-cv-02864-LAB-LL). BNR also
`
`filed a complaint in the USITC (Inv. No. 337-TA-3568) alleging infringement of
`
`the ’862 patent against a number of other parties. Petitioner is not a real party-in-
`
`interest to any of these above-listed proceedings. None of the parties in these pro-
`
`ceedings is a real party-in-interest in the proceedings involving Petitioner or in
`
`privity with Petitioner.
`
`C. Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3)
`Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Lead Counsel
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: 202-783-5070
`Fax: 877-769-7945
`Email: IPR50095-0050IP1@fr.com
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0050IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862
`Backup counsel
`Timothy W. Riffe, Reg. No. 43,881
`Jeremy J. Monaldo, Reg. No. 58,680
`Jennifer Huang, Reg. No. 64,297
`Daniel D. Smith, Reg. No. 71,278
`Kim Leung, Reg. No. 64,399
`Christopher Hoff, Reg. No. 67,738
`Usman A. Khan, Reg. No. 70,439
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: 202-783-5070
`Fax: 877-769-7945
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`D.
`Service Information
`Please address all correspondence and service to the address listed above.
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service by email at IPR50095-0050IP1@fr.com
`
`(referencing No. 50095-0050IP1) and cc’ing PTABInbound@fr.com, axf-
`
`ptab@fr.com, riffe@fr.com, and hoff@fr.com.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. §42.103
`Petitioner authorizes the Office to charge Deposit Account No. 06-1050 for
`
`the petition fee set in 37 C.F.R. §42.15(a) and for any other required fees.
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`A.
`Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioner certifies that the ’862 patent is available for IPR and that Peti-
`
`tioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR.
`
`B. Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Re-
`quested
`
`3
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0050IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862
`Petitioner requests IPR of the Challenged Claims on the grounds below, and
`
`requests that the Challenged Claims be found unpatentable. In support, this peti-
`
`tion includes a declaration of Dr. Jonathan Wells (EX1003).
`
`Ground
`1
`
`‘862 Patent Claims
`1-4, 7-12, 15-18
`
`Basis for Rejection
`§103 – Li-748 (EX1004) in view of Tong
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`(EX1005) and Mao (EX1006)
`
`1-4, 7-12, 15-18
`
`§103 – Tong in view of Mao
`
`1, 3-4, 7-9, 11-12,
`
`§103 – Li-054 (EX1007) in view of Mao
`
`15-18
`
`2, 10
`
`§103 – Li-054 in view of Mao and Yang
`
`(EX1008)
`
`1, 3-4, 7-9, 11-12,
`
`§103 – Poon (EX1009) in view of Mao
`
`15-18
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’862 PATENT
`A. Background
`The ’862 patent describes typical wireless transceivers were “coupled to the
`
`antenna” and included a low noise amplifier, and intermediate frequency, filtering,
`
`and data recovery stages. EX1001, 1:60-67; 2:1-10 (conventional conversion of
`
`“the amplified RF signal into baseband signals”). The ’862 patent acknowledges
`
`4
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0050IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862
`such transceivers traditionally incorporated beamforming, “a processing technique
`
`to create a focused antenna beam by shifting a signal in time or in phase to provide
`
`gain of the signal in a desired direction to attenuate the signal in other directions.”
`
`Id., 2:66-3:4. The ’862 patent explains that “[i]n order for a transmitter to properly
`
`implement beamforming (i.e., determine the beamforming matrix [V]), it needs to
`
`know properties of the channel over which the wireless communication is con-
`
`veyed,” so the “receiver must provide feedback information for the transmitter to
`
`determine the properties of the channel.” Id., 3:14-19; EX1003, ¶28. The receiver
`
`may send feedback to the transmitter by “determin[ing] a channel response (H)”
`
`and providing it “as the feedback information.” EX1001, 3:19-22; EX1003, ¶28.
`
`This methodology was known to result in feedback data packs that were “so large
`
`that, during the time it takes to send it to the transmitter, the response of the chan-
`
`nel has changed.” EX1001, 3:22-25. To reduce feedback size, conventional re-
`
`ceivers “decompose[d] the channel using singular value decomposition (“SVD”)
`
`and sen[t] information relating only to a calculated value of the transmitter’s beam-
`
`forming matrix (V) as the feedback information.” Id., 3:26-30; EX1003, ¶28. To
`
`reduce feedback size, a conventional practice was for the receiver to calculate the
`
`5
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0050IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862
`matrix V based on H=UDV*,1 where H is the channel response matrix, D is a diag-
`
`onal matrix, and U is a receiver unitary matrix, and only send information about
`
`matrix V. EX1003, 3:30-33; EX1003, ¶28.
`
`According to the ’862 patent, “[w]hile this approach reduces the size of the
`
`feedback information, its size is still an issue for a MIMO wireless communica-
`
`tion.” Id., 3:33-35. The ’862 patent alleged “a need” existed “for reducing beam-
`
`forming feedback information for wireless communications” (col. 3:49-51), but
`
`this allegation ignored the state of the art at that time. EX1003, ¶28.
`
`B.
`Brief Description
`The ’862 patent describes a wireless communication system 10 including a
`
`plurality of base stations 12, 16, wireless communication devices 18-32, and a net-
`
`work hardware component 34. EX1001, FIG. 1, 4:24-27. These base stations are
`
`coupled to the network hardware 34, which “provides the base station … with con-
`
`
`1 Each of the matrices H, U, D (also referred to as Σ), and V were referred to by
`
`various terminology in the art and the ’862 patent. While the colloquial terms for
`
`each of the matrices might have varied, a POSITA would have understood that
`
`they each identified the same respective matrix in this common equation. EX1003,
`
`¶[¶53-56.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0050IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862
`nectivity to other devices within the system.” Id., 4:46-52. Each of the base sta-
`
`tions antenna(s) to “communicate with the wireless communication devices.” Id.,
`
`4:52-55.
`
`
`
`The ’862 patent illustrates a wireless communication device that includes a
`
`host device 18-32 and a radio 60. Id., FIG. 3, 7:21-27. The host device includes “a
`
`processing module 50, memory 52, [and] radio interface 54.” Id., 7:28-30. The ra-
`
`dio interface “allows data to be received from and sent to the radio,” “provides the
`
`data to the processing module 50 for further processing,” and “provides data from
`
`the processing module 50 to the radio 60.” Id., 7:36-40, 7:43-44.
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 3, the radio includes “a baseband processing module
`
`100, memory 65, a plurality of radio frequency (RF) transmitters 106-110, a trans-
`
`mit/receive (T/R) module 114, a plurality of antennas 81-85, [and] a plurality of
`
`RF receivers 118-120.” Id., 7:51-56. The baseband processing module and opera-
`
`tional instructions stored in memory 65 execute digital receiver/transmitter func-
`
`tions, including, for example “digital intermediate frequency to baseband conver-
`
`sion.” Id., 7:56-64.
`
`
`
`The baseband processing module is “implemented using one or more pro-
`
`cessing devices,” which “may be a microprocessor, micro-controller, … digital cir-
`
`cuitry,” and the like. Id., 8:1-9. In operation, in the receive mode, the “baseband
`
`processing module 100, based on the mode selection signal 102 produces one or
`
`7
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0050IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862
`more outbound symbol streams 104 from the outbound data 94.” Id., 8:46-48. It
`
`further “converts the inbound symbol streams 124 into inbound data 92, which is
`
`provided to the host device 18-32.” Id., 9:9-12.
`
`Figure 7 of the ’862 patent discloses providing beamforming feedback infor-
`
`mation from a receiver to a transmitter, which “addresses the feed back of ob-
`
`served transmitter beamforming information from a receiving wireless communi-
`
`cation device to a transmitting wireless communication device.” Id., 13:25-32;
`
`FIG. 7. The ’862 patent specifically admits that the steps of Figure 7 are “typically
`
`performed by a baseband processing module” of a receiving wireless device. Id.,
`
`13:25-35; FIG. 7.
`
`The ’862 patent states that the method includes a number of conventional
`
`steps, including receiving a preamble and estimating a channel response H at the
`
`receiver 702, and estimating the transmitter beamforming matrix V based on the
`
`channel response H and the receiver beamforming unitary matrix U at 704. Id.,
`
`13:36-47. The ’862 patent explains that the “channel response (H), estimated
`
`transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V), and the known receiver beamforming
`
`unitary matrix (U) are related” by a well-known singular value decomposition
`
`(SVD) equation: “H=UDV*, where, D is a diagonal matrix,” to determine the esti-
`
`mated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V). Id., 13:47-53; EX1003, ¶¶28,
`
`39, 53.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0050IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862
`To purportedly address the need to reduce beamforming feedback infor-
`
`mation, the ’862 patent proposed a solution that was already known—decomposing
`
`the estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V) using, for example, a
`
`“Givens Rotation.” Id., 13:58-67; EX1003, ¶39. The ’862 patent explains that if a
`
`Givens Rotation is used, “the coefficients of the Givens Rotation and the phase
`
`matrix coefficients serve as the transmitter beamforming information that is sent
`
`from” the receiver to the transmitter. EX1001, 15:34-38. The transmitter beam-
`
`forming information are the products of the Givens Rotation (“the set of angles …
`
`are reduced”). Id., 13:63-14:3; see also 14:34-36; EX1003, ¶39. Using these tech-
`
`niques, “the feedback of transmitter beamforming information” requires less data.
`
`Id., 15:59-61. However, as explained in Grounds 1-5 of this Petition, such a solu-
`
`tion was plainly suggested in prior art publications, including a disclosure of using
`
`a “Givens Rotation” in the same manner.
`
`C.
`Prosecution History
`The ’862 patent was filed with 20 claims, which were all rejected as obvious
`
`based on at least US 2002/0187753 (Kim) and US 2004/0042558 to (Hwang)
`
`EX1002, 176-219, 153-164. The original 20 were allowed and issued without
`
`amendment after the after the PTAB reversed these rejections on appeal. Id., 22-
`
`46.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0050IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862
`
`D. Critical Date
`The evidence here demonstrates that the Challenged Claims require at least
`
`one feature that was never contemplated in the earlier priority ’451 provisional
`
`(filed April 21, 2005) or the ’793 application (filed June 28, 2005). EX1003, ¶¶48-
`
`50. Specifically, the independent claims require “decompos[ing] the estimated
`
`transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V).” . The ’451 provisional and the ’793
`
`application are both silent with respect to decomposing matrix V. EX1003, ¶49;
`
`see, generally EX1010, EX1014. To the extent any of the earlier applications pro-
`
`vide support for this element, only the later-filed ’686 provisional application on
`
`July 13, 2005 would arguably provide a first disclosure of this claim requirement.
`
`EX1003, ¶50; EX1011, 22:3-5.
`
`Regardless, even if the claims of the ’862 patent were entitled to the ’451
`
`provisional date of April 21, 2005, the prior art publications cited in this Petition
`
`also predate April 21, 2005.
`
`E.
`POSITA Definition
`For purposes of this IPR, Petitioner submits that a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the alleged invention (a “POSITA”) would have had Bache-
`
`lor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science,
`
`10
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0050IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862
`or a related field, and at least 2-4 years of experience in the field of wireless com-
`
`munication, or a person with equivalent education, work, or experience in this
`
`field. EX1003, ¶23.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3)
`All claim terms should be construed according to the Phillips standard.
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100. BNR
`
`and other parties submitted briefing on claim construction issues in another district
`
`court litigation. EX1017, EX1018. A Markman hearing was held in that other liti-
`
`gation on June 19-20, 2019.2 See EX1020. While as summarized below one party
`
`to that litigation argued that two claim terms required construction, the Court ulti-
`
`mately indicated that no such constructions for the ’862 patent claims were re-
`
`quired under the Phillips standard because the plain and ordinary meaning of the
`
`claim language was recognizable without adoption of any formal construction.
`
`EX1020, 104:23-107:3-9 and 111:4-114:22.
`
`Here, the prior art grounds fall within the scope of the claims regardless of
`
`whether a proposed formal construction is adopted.
`
`A.
`
`“a baseband processing module operable to…”
`
`
`2 The Court has issued a claim construction order (EX1022).
`
`11
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0050IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862
`One of the parties to prior litigations argued that this term should be inter-
`
`preted under §112, ¶6, but the Court explained that, according to the Phillips stand-
`
`ard, it was not a means-plus-function element. EX1020, 107:10-109:25, 114:24-
`
`115:15, 116:11-17; EX1019, 17:13-23:15. Specifically, the Court agreed with
`
`BNR that “a baseband processing module” was a known and recognizable struc-
`
`ture, so the term was not subject to §112, ¶6. EX1020, 111:4-114:22; 116:18-
`
`118:5.
`
`If the Board were to decide this claim phrase is a means-plus-function ele-
`
`ment, this Petition satisfies 37 CFR §42.104(b)(3) by identifying columns 7-8 as
`
`the “specific portions of the specification that describe the structure” correspond-
`
`ing to the recited baseband processing. EX1001, 7:56-59 (“baseband processing
`
`module 100, in combination with operational instructions stored in memory 65, ex-
`
`ecutes digital receiver functions and digital transmitter functions”), 8:1-3. The evi-
`
`dence here confirms significant overlap between the preferred embodiment of the
`
`’862 patent and each of the Li-748, Tong, Li-054, and Poon references. Infra, Sec-
`
`tions VII-IX, XI. Regardless of whether this term is subject to §112, ¶6, Grounds
`
`1-5 set forth why this element was provided in the prior art publications. See
`
`EX1020, 111:4-10 (BNR admitting this element “essentially was well known in
`
`the art and its actual operation was well known”).
`
`12
`
`

`

`B.
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0050IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862
`“decompose the estimated transmitter beamforming unitary
`matrix (V) to produce the transmitter beamforming infor-
`mation”
`One of the parties to the previous litigations argued that this term should be
`
`construed as “factor the estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V) to
`
`produce a reduced number of quantized coefficients” (EX1017, 26-30), and that
`
`party cited to cols. 4:15-20, 9:59-62, 10:2-6, 10:38-60, 13:65-14:3, 14:31-37, and
`
`14:63-15:8 and the Abstract of the ’862 patent to show why this construction was
`
`consistent with the specification’s description of using a “Givens rotation” for the
`
`decompose operation. See EX1017, 27:1