Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 40
`Entered: December 4, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
`PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining Some Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 40
`Entered: December 4, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
`PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining Some Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Samsung Electronics Co.,
`Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Apple Inc. (collectively,
`“Petitioner”) have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1,
`5–9, and 12–14, but not claims 2–4 and 15–20, of U.S. Patent No. 9,614,943
`B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’943 patent”) are unpatentable.
`A. Background and Summary
`Petitioner filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) requesting institution of an
`inter partes review of claims 1–9 and 12–20 of the ’943 patent. Smart
`Mobile Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response
`(Paper 6). After receiving authorization, Petitioner filed a Reply to the
`Preliminary Response (Paper 7), and Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply
`(Paper 8). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we instituted an inter partes review
`of claims 1–9 and 12–20 of the ’943 patent on all presented challenges.
`Paper 13 (“Inst. Dec.”), 2, 71.
`After institution, Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 24, “PO
`Resp.”), to which Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 29, “Pet. Reply”), and
`Patent Owner thereafter filed a Sur-reply (Paper 35, “PO Sur-reply”). An
`oral hearing in this proceeding was held on September 15, 2023; a transcript
`of the hearing is included in the record. Paper 39 (“Tr.”).
`B. Real Parties in Interest
`Petitioner identifies Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung
`Electronics America, Inc., and Apple Inc. as real parties in interest. Pet. 88.
`Patent Owner only identifies itself as a real party in interest. Paper 4, 1.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`C. Related Matters
`The parties identify Smart Mobile Techs. LLC v. Apple Inc., 6:21-cv-
`00603 (W.D. Tex.) and Smart Mobile Techs. LLC v. Samsung Elects. Co.,
`Ltd., 6:21-cv-00701 (W.D. Tex.) as related matters. Pet. 89; Paper 4, 1.
`Related patents are challenged in IPR2022-00766, IPR2022-01005,
`IPR2022-01222, IPR2022-01248, and IPR2022-01249.
`D. The ’943 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’943 patent issued on April 4, 2017 from an application filed on
`September 17, 2012, which is a continuation application of several
`previously filed continuation and continuation-in-part applications, the
`earliest of which was filed on December 16, 1996. Ex. 1001, codes (22),
`(45), (63), 1:8–18.
`The ’943 patent states that an unfulfilled need exists for multiple
`transmitters and receivers (“T/R”) in a cellular telephone or mobile wireless
`device (“CT/MD”). Ex. 1001, 1:48–49. Figure 5A of the ’943 patent is
`reproduced below.
`
`Figure 5A shows a “a dual antenna, dual T/R unit in a CT/MD
`interfacing with a dual processor.” Ex. 1001, 2:15–16. Dual antenna 508
`and dual T/R unit 504 interface with dual processor 506 in dual band
`system 500. Ex. 1001, 4:39–41. System 500 can communicate through
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`outputs 510, which can be “fibre optic channel, ethernet, cable, telephone, or
`other.” Id. at 4:44–47.
`“The multiple processors 506 allow for parallel and custom
`processing of each signal or data stream to achieve higher speed and better
`quality of output.” Ex. 1001, 4:54–56. Alternatively, there can be “a single
`processor that has the parallelism and pipeline capability built in for
`handling one or more data streams simultaneously.” Id. at 4:56–59.
`Processors 506 include “DSP, CPU, memory controller, and other elements
`essential to process various types of signals.” Id. at 4:59–61.
`“The processor contained within the CT/MD 502 is further capable of
`delivering the required outputs to a number of different ports such as optical,
`USB, cable and others” and “capable of taking different inputs, as well as
`wireless.” Ex. 1001, 4:63–67. “Thus the CT/MD 502 has universal
`connectivity in addition to having a wide range of functionality made
`possible through the features of multiple antennas, multiple T/R units 504
`and processors 506.” Id. at 5:3–6.
`“[T]he CT/MD may use one or more transmission protocols as
`deemed optimal and appropriate,” and “the CT/MD determines the required
`frequency spectrum, other wireless parameters such as power and signal to
`noise ratio to optimally transmit the data.” Ex. 1001, 11:8–10, 11:12–15.
`The CT/MD has “the ability to multiplex between one or more transmission
`protocols such as CDMA, TDMA to ensure that the fast data rates of the
`optical network or matched closely in a wireless network to minimize the
`potential data transmission speed degradation of a wireless network.” Id. at
`11:15–20.
`Also, the ’943 patent states “by having each of the data streams
`sampled at differing clock frequencies the performance can be better
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`optimized.” Ex. 1001, 4:36–38. “Each channel may be sampled and
`clocked individually as necessary to optimally process each data stream and
`combine the individual data packets.” Id. at 7:50–52.
`E. Illustrative Claim
`The ’943 patent includes 20 claims, of which Petitioner challenges
`claims 1–9 and 12–20. Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 5, 8, and 12 are
`independent, and claim 1 is reproduced below.
`1.
`A wireless communication device comprising:
`a plurality of antennas; and
`a communication component coupled to the plurality of
`antennas, the communication component including a processor,
`a transmitter, and a receiver,
`wherein the communication component is configured to
`communicate via a first frequency band using a wireless
`communication protocol; and
`wherein one or more subtasks are assigned to one or more
`channels, and the one or more channels are sampled and clocked
`individually; and
`
`wherein the processor comprises multiple ones of the one
`or more channels and is further configured to process a first data
`stream and a second data stream in parallel.
`Ex. 1001, 11:63–12:9.
`Independent claims 5, 8, and 12 also recite a “wireless communication
`device” and the limitations “a plurality of antennas,” “a communication
`component coupled to the plurality of antennas, the communication
`component including a processor, a transmitter, and a receiver,” “wherein
`one or more subtasks are assigned to one or more channels, and the one or
`more channels are sampled and clocked individually,” and “wherein the
`processor comprises multiple ones of the one or more channels and is further
`configured to process a first data stream and a second data stream in
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 Bl
`
`parallel.” Ex. 1001, 12:26—30, 12:42-47, 12:55—59, 13:1—6, 13:17-21,
`
`14:1-6.
`
`The remaininglimitations ofindependentclaims5, 8, and 12 differ
`
`from claim | and require, for example,“at least one additional transmitter”
`
`(claim 5), “at least one additional receiver”(claim 8), and “afirst set of
`
`antennas... anda second set ofantennas’(claim 12). Ex. 1001, 12:31—32,
`
`12:60—61, 13:23-28.
`
`F. AssertedPriorArt and Proffered Testimonial Evidence
`
`Petitioner identifies the following referencesas priorart in the
`
`asserted ground ofunpatentability:
`
`
`
`Raleigh
`
`US 6,144,711, filed Aug. 27, 1997, issued Nov.7,
`2000
`
`|Byme|_ 199:
`EP 0 660 626 A2, published June 28, 1995
`WO748
`WO 98/27748, published June 25, 1998
`
`Exhibit
`
`1
`
`Pet. 2. Petitioner states that “[t|he references qualify as prior art to the °943
`
`patent’s earliest claimed priority date (06/04/1999; ‘Critical Date’),” but
`
`“Petitioner does not concedethat the ’943 patentis entitled to priority.” Jd.
`
`According to Petitioner, Byrne, Pillekamp, and Billstr6m are prior art under
`
`§ 102(b); Raleigh and WO748arepriorart under § 102(e); and Johnston is
`
`prior art under §§ 102(a) and (e).' Jd. Petitioner also provides a Declaration
`
`' The relevantsections ofthe Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”),
`Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (Sept. 16, 2011), took effect on March 16,
`2013. Because the ’943 patent claims priorityto an applicationfiled before
`that date, our citations to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103in this Decision are to
`their pre-AIA versions. See also Pet. 2 (stating but not conceding that “the
`°943 patent’s earliest claimed priority date”is “06/04/1999”).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 Bl
`
`of Dr. Michael Allen Jensen (Ex. 1003) anda Second Declaration of
`
`Dr. Michael Allen Jensen (Ex. 1048).
`
`Patent OwnerprovidesaDeclaration ofDr. Todor Cooklev.
`
`Ex. 2004.
`
`Deposition transcripts for Dr. Jensen (Exs. 2006, 2007, 2018) and
`
`Dr. Cooklev (Ex. 1049) werefiled.
`
`G. Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitionerasserts that claims 1—9 and 12—20 are unpatentable on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`Claim(s)Challenged neaa
`fyfone) aime,Sohnson,Piskamp
`Raleigh. Byrne,© WOTHE
`
`
`
`Raleigh, Byrne,Pillekamp, Billstrém
`Raleigh, Byme, Pillekamp, WO748
`
`Pet. 1.
`
`A. Legal Standards
`
`Il. ANALYSIS
`
`In interpartes reviews,the petitionerbears the burden ofproving
`
`unpatentability ofthe challenged claims, and the burden ofpersuasion never
`
`shifts to the patent owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`
`800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail in an interpartes review,
`
`the petitioner must support its challenges by a preponderance ofthe
`
`evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018); 37 C_F_R. § 42.1(d) (2021).
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`Petitioner contends that the challenged claims of the ’943 patent are
`unpatentable under § 103. Pet. 1. A claim is unpatentable under § 103 if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) where in evidence, so-called
`secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18
`(1966). When evaluating a combination of teachings, we must also
`“determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known
`elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at
`418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had
`a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering,
`computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience
`related to the design or development of wireless communication systems, or
`the equivalent.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–28). Petitioner also states that
`“[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional
`experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal
`education.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–28). We preliminarily adopted
`Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 9.
`According to Patent Owner, Petitioner’s declarant testified that one of
`ordinary skill in the art
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`would have “a demonstrated capability in just designing some
`component of the system and working on that’ and ‘starting to
`work at a higher level” where “maybe they’re only designing
`some piece based on the expertise, but they’re understanding the
`architecture into which their piece will fit and how their design
`is going to impact that architecture and the overall functioning of
`the system.”
`PO Resp. 6 (citing Ex. 2006, 29:13–31:5). Patent Owner also argues that
`Petitioner’s declarant confirmed the proposed level of ordinary skill and that
`nothing would change it. Id. (citing Ex. 2006, 13:8–14:15). “For this
`proceeding, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition of a
`[person of ordinary skill in the art]” with the above-described clarifications.
`Id. at 6–7 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 18–22).
`Based on the full record, we maintain and reaffirm that one of
`ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical
`engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and
`at least two years of experience related to the design or development of
`wireless communication systems, or the equivalent” and that “[a]dditional
`graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or
`significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.”
`Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–28).
`C. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, the claims are 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.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`Petitioner states that “no formal claim constructions are necessary in
`this proceeding.” Pet. 2. Patent Owner does not propose an interpretation
`for any claim term. See generally PO Resp.
`Petitioner filed a Claim Construction Order that was issued in Smart
`Mobile Techs. LLC v. Samsung Elects. Co., Ltd., 6:21-cv-00701 (W.D.
`Tex.). Ex. 1099. Both parties do not believe that the Claim Construction
`Order affects their positions in this proceeding. Tr. 23:11–18 (Petitioner’s
`counsel stating that “I did not see any issue that was resolved [in the Claim
`Construction Order] that would have had any impact on today’s
`proceeding”), 47:12–17 (Patent Owner’s counsel stating that “[w]e don’t
`believe that there is anything in the claim construction order that has any
`material bearing on the issues in this proceeding”).
`Based on the full record, we determine that no claim term requires
`express interpretation. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375
`(Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that
`. . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200
`F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`D. Asserted Obviousness Based on Byrne
`1. Byrne (Ex. 1008)
`Byrne particularly relates “to a radio telephone operable for more than
`one system.” Ex. 1008, 1:2–3. Figure 1 of Byrne is reproduced below.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`
`
`Figure 1 is a block diagram of a cellular cordless telephone system.
`Ex. 1008, 6:19–20, 6:36–37. Cellular cordless telephone system 100
`includes cordless base stations 114, 116, 118 that communicate with cellular
`cordless telephone (“CCT”) 200 via antennas 112, 119, 122. Id. at 6:38–47.
`System 100 also includes cellular base station 130 with receive antenna 132
`and transmit antenna 134 for communicating with CCT 200. Id. at 7:4–10.
`Byrne describes that its CCT 200 uses cordless telephone systems “CT-2 or
`DECT2 which are digital systems” and GSM3 or DCS (Digital Cellular
`System) cellular telephone systems. Id. at 1:41–44, 7:19–24, 10:53.
`
`
`2 Pillekamp indicates that DECT stands for “Digital European Cordless
`Telecommunication.” Ex. 1009, 2:59–60.
`3 Billström indicates that GSM stands for “Global System for Mobile
`communication.” Ex. 1010, 1:62.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`CCT 200 includes antenna 228 for cordless communication and
`antenna 238 for cellular communication. Ex. 1008, 7:13–15. Figure 2 of
`Byrne is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 2 is a block diagram of a cellular cordless telephone. Ex. 1008,
`6:22–23, 7:25–26. CCT 200 also includes microprocessor 210, cordless
`telephone transceiver 220, and cellular telephone transceiver 230. Id. at
`7:27–30. Microprocess 210 “is adapted to operate in accordance with the
`flow charts illustrated in Figures 3–4.” Id. at 7:56–58; see also id. at 8:44–
`9:30 (describing steps used by microprocessor 210 for receiving and placing
`cellular or cordless telephone calls), 9:31–10:8 (describing the monitoring of
`availability of cellular and cordless systems).
`When operating as a cordless telephone, “microprocessor 210
`enable[s] cordless receiver 221 and cordless transmitter 222.” Ex. 1008,
`8:16–18. “[M]icroprocessor 210 controls the CCT 200 in a similar way
`when operating as a cellular telephone, but appropriately modified for the
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`signal[]ing protocols and data encryption used in the cellular system.” Id. at
`8:29–33. Byrne states that “signal[]ing protocols, data encryption
`techniques and the like used in respective telephone systems are well known
`in the art.” Id. at 8:33–35.
`“CCT 200 may operate, as far as a user is concerned, simultaneously
`as a cellular telephone and a cordless telephone.” Ex. 1008, 8:3–6. Byrne
`explains that “CCT 200 can be arranged such that both cellular and cordless
`operations are in progress at the same time.” Id. at 8:6–9.
`2. Claim 1
`a) “A wireless communication device comprising:”
`Petitioner argues that Byrne teaches the preamble of claim 1, if it is
`limiting, because Byrne teaches a cellular cordless telephone. Pet. 6 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 69; Ex. 1008, 7:11–13); Ex. 1001, 11:63; see also Pet. vii
`(labeling the preamble “1[pre]”).
`The cited portion of Byrne describes that its “CCT 200 may be a
`mobile unit installed in a vehicle, a so called transportable unit or a hand
`held portable unit.” Ex. 1008, 7:11–13. We also credit Petitioner’s
`testimonial evidence regarding the preamble of claim 1 because Byrne
`supports it. Ex. 1003 ¶ 69. Patent Owner does not provide a responsive
`argument for the preamble of claim 1. See PO Resp. 7–22.
`Therefore, based on the full record before us, because Byrne describes
`its CCT 200 as “a hand held portable unit,” Petitioner persuades us by a
`preponderance of the evidence, and we find, that Byrne teaches or suggests
`the preamble of claim 1, if it is limiting.
`b) “a plurality of antennas”
`Petitioner also argues that, because Byrne teaches antenna 228 for
`cordless communication and antenna 238 for cellular communication, Byrne
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`teaches “a plurality of antennas.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 70; Ex. 1008,
`7:13–15); Ex. 1001, 11:64; see also Pet. vii (labeling the limitation “1[a]”).
`The cited portion of Byrne describes that “CCT 200 comprises an
`antenna 228 for cordless communication and an antenna 238 for cellular
`communication.” Ex. 1008, 7:13–15. We also credit Petitioner’s
`testimonial evidence regarding the plurality of antennas because Byrne
`supports it. Ex. 1003 ¶ 70. Patent Owner does not provide a responsive
`argument for the required antennas of claim 1. See PO Resp. 7–22.
`Therefore, based on the full record before us, because Byrne describes
`antennas for cordless and cellular operations, Petitioner persuades us by a
`preponderance of the evidence, and we find, that Byrne teaches or suggests
`“a plurality of antennas.”
`c) “a communication component coupled to the plurality of
`antennas, the communication component including a
`processor, a transmitter, and a receiver”
`For above-quoted limitation, Petitioner contends that Byrne teaches its
`CCT has (1) cordless transceiver 220 with cordless receiver 221 and cordless
`transmitter 222, (2) cellular transceiver 230 with cellular receiver 231 and
`cellular transmitter 232, and (3) microprocessor 210. Pet. 6–7 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 71; Ex. 1008, 7:26–32, 7:56–8:2, Fig. 2; Ex. 1001, 11:65–67; see
`also Pet. vii (labeling the limitation “1[b]”). Petitioner also contends that
`one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that transceivers 220,
`230 and microprocessor 210 would be a communication component coupled
`to antennas 228, 238. Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 72).
`The cited portions of Byrne describe separate cordless and cellular
`operations using separate components that include cordless receiver 221,
`cordless transmitter 222, cellular receiver 231, cellular transmitter 232, and
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`microprocessor 210. Ex. 1008, 7:26–32, 7:56–8:28, Fig. 2. We credit
`Petitioner’s testimonial evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would
`have understood Byrne’s microprocessor 210 and cordless or cellular
`transceiver 220, 230 to constitute a communication unit coupled to antennas
`228, 238 because Byrne supports it. Ex. 1003 ¶ 71; Ex. 1008, Fig. 2. Patent
`Owner does not provide a responsive argument for the “communication
`component” of claim 1. See PO Resp. 7–22.
`Based on the full record before us, for the reasons above, Petitioner
`persuades us by a preponderance of the evidence, and we find, that Byrne
`teaches or suggests “a communication component coupled to the plurality of
`antennas, the communication component including a processor, a
`transmitter, and a receiver.”
`d) “wherein the communication component is configured to
`communicate via a first frequency band using a wireless
`communication protocol”
`For the wherein clause quoted above, Petitioner argues that Byrne
`teaches its CCT operating on cordless protocols and frequency bands and
`cellular protocols and frequency bands. Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 73;
`Ex. 1008, 7:19–24); Ex. 1001, 12:1–3; see also Pet. vii (labeling the
`limitation “1[c]”).
`The cited portion of Byrne describes that “[t]ypically in the UK
`cordless systems operate in frequency bands at 49 MHz (CTO), 860 MHz
`(CT2) and 1880–1900 MHz (DECT) and cellular telephone systems in
`frequency bands 890–905 MHz and 935–950 MHz (TACS), 905–915 MHz
`and 950–960 MHz (GSM) or 1800 MHz (DCS).” Ex. 1008, 7:19–24. We
`also credit Petitioner’s testimonial evidence that Byrne would have used
`either cordless protocols and frequency bands or cellular protocols and
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`frequency bands because the cited portion of the record supports the
`testimony. Ex. 1003 ¶ 73; Ex. 1008, 7:19–24. Patent Owner does not
`provide a responsive argument for the above-quoted wherein clause. See PO
`Resp. 7–22.
`Based on the full record before us, for the reasons above, Petitioner
`persuades us by a preponderance of the evidence, and we find, that Byrne
`teaches or suggests “wherein the communication component is configured to
`communicate via a first frequency band using a wireless communication
`protocol.”
`e) “wherein one or more subtasks are assigned to one or more
`channels, and the one or more channels are sampled and
`clocked individually”
`For the wherein clause quoted above, Petitioner argues that Byrne
`teaches subtasks and channels in a manner consistent with the ’943 patent’s
`disclosure. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:1–8:41, Figs. 9–12; Ex. 1003 ¶ 77);
`Ex. 1001, 12:4–6; see also Pet. vii (labeling the limitation “1[d]”).
`According to Petitioner, the ’943 patent describes multiple transceivers
`processing multiple data streams, and “[e]ach subtask being processed can
`be assigned to a separate channel.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 7:1–8:16, Figs. 10,
`11).
`
`Petitioner contends that, because Byrne describes cordless and cellular
`channels, Byrne teaches two channels as separate communication pathways
`for two data streams that are processed separately. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003
`¶ 77). Petitioner specifically contends that Byrne teaches cordless audio
`channel 240 and cellular audio channel 250, and that cordless and cellular
`subtask are assigned to cordless and cellular channels, respectively. Id. at 8–
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 74–76; Ex. 1008, 6:36–8:43, Fig. 2; Ex. 1042, 1:55–
`2:8, Ex. 1043, 4:23–5:59; Ex. 1044, 4:23–5:59).
`Petitioner also contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would
`have found it obvious that Byrne’s cordless and cellular radio channels are
`sampled and clocked individually according to different specifications
`required in the respective protocols.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 78).
`Petitioner further contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have
`recognized and/or found obvious that Byrne’s cordless and cellular channels
`require or at least benefit from separate and individual sampling and
`clocking.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 78).
`Petitioner additionally contends that it was well known to sample
`continuous signals and reconstruct signals from a set of samples and that
`many receivers sample a signal at higher than twice the bandwidth of the
`signal, also called the Nyquist rate. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 79; Ex. 1020,
`4–5, 10; Ex. 1024, 10; Ex. 1026, 6; Ex. 1030). Petitioner provides examples
`of such sampling in the DECT and GSM protocols and argues that one of
`ordinary skill in the art “would have recognized and/or found obvious that
`the DECT and GSM systems, which are examples of standards used for
`Byrne’s cordless and cellular channels, are sampled individually at different
`rates that accommodate different bandwidths.” Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 1003
`¶ 80; Ex. 1024; Ex. 1025; Ex. 1026; Ex. 1035, 4:14–18; Ex. 1036, 3:4–7;
`Ex. 1039, 3).
`According to Petitioner, a clock would provide timing to a processor
`and an analog-to-digital converter (“ADC”) that would be used to sample a
`received signal. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 81; Ex. 1038, 1, 3, 4, 6; Ex. 1039,
`4–5, 10, 11–15). Petitioner, thus, argues that one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`would have understood that the clock driving the ADC at a
`receiver is the same as, or at least derived from, a clock driving
`the computational processor, as the samples created by the ADC
`stream into and are processed by the processor, and therefore the
`samples from the ADC should be synchronized with the
`computations at the processor.
`Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 81; Ex. 1039, 4–5, 11–15).
`Petitioner also argues that the clock rate would control processor
`speed and be associated with the data rate. Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 81;
`Ex. 1038, 2–4; Ex. 1039, 1–4). Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill
`in the art “would have recognized and/or found obvious that the dependence
`among various parameters including the sampling rate, the processor clock
`rate, the information data rate, and the computational requirements results in
`a clocking rate that is determined for each communication protocol.” Id. at
`13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 82).
`Petitioner provides examples of the data rate, channels, and other
`parameters for DECT and GSM. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1014, 13; Ex. 1018, 1;
`Ex. 1038, 3; Ex. 1039, 3). Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the
`art would have known “that a processor (such as in, or associated with, a
`transceiver) and its clock rate in each of these systems depends on the
`computational demands determined based on these parameters.” Id. at 13–
`14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 83; Ex. 1020, 10; Ex. 1029, 4–5). Petitioner also
`argues that, because DECT and GSM parameters differ, one of ordinary skill
`in the art “would have found it obvious that Byrne’s cordless (e.g., DECT)
`channel is clocked separately and differently from Byrne’s cellular (e.g.,
`GSM) channel.” Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 83; Ex. 1008, 7:39–49).
`In Petitioner’s view, Byrne’s processors and associated components
`supporting cordless and cellular channels would need to be clocked
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`differently for different data rates and communication parameters, and, thus,
`one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that Byrne’s
`cordless and cellular channels are sampled and clocked individually at their
`separate receivers. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 84). Petitioner also argues that
`“the ’943 patent’s limited disclosure of individual sampling and clocking
`aligns with Byrne’s description” and knowledge in the art. Id. at 14–15
`(citing Ex. 1001, 4:32–38, 7:50–52; Ex. 1003 ¶ 85).
`Petitioner cites portions of Byrne that describe and show “CCT 200
`comprises a cellular telephone transceiver 230, and antenna 238, a cordless
`telephone transceiver 220 and antenna 228” along with other components
`and that CCT 200 communicates with cordless base stations 114, 116, 118
`and cellular base station 130 using different frequency bands, protocols, and
`encryption. Ex. 1008, 6:36–8:43, Fig. 2. We credit Petitioner’s testimonial
`evidence that Byrne teaches cordless audio channel 240 and cellular audio
`channel 250, that cordless and cellular subtask are assigned to their
`respective channels, and that Byrne, thus, teaches two channels as separate
`communication pathways for two data streams that are processed separately.
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 74–76. The cited portions of the record support the testimony.
`Ex. 1008, 6:36–8:43, Fig. 2; Ex. 1042, 1:55–2:8; Ex. 1043, 1:34–2:50;
`Ex. 1044, 4:23–5:59.
`We also credit Petitioner’s testimonial evidence that one of ordinary
`skill in the art “would have found it obvious that the cordless radio channel
`and the cellular radio channel in Byrne were sampled and clocked
`individually according to different specifications required in the respective
`protocols” and would have understood or found obvious “that the cordless
`and cellular channels in Byrne require or at least would benefit from
`separate and individual sampling and clocking.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 78, 84. The
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`testimony is supported by evidence that individual sampling and clocking
`were known in the art and applicable to Byrne’s CCT. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 79–83;
`Ex. 1008, 7:39–49; Ex. 1014, 3; Ex. 1018, Abstr.; Ex. 1020, 4–5, 10;
`Ex. 1024, 10; Ex. 1025; Ex. 1026, 6; Ex. 1029, 4–5; Ex. 1030; Ex. 1035,
`4:14–18; Ex. 1036, 3:4–7; Ex. 1038, 1, 2–4, 6; Ex. 1039, 1–5, 10, 11–15.
`Patent Owner does not provide a responsive argument for “wherein
`one or more subtasks are assigned to one or more channels, and the one or
`more channels are sampled and clocked individually.” See PO Resp. 7–22.
`Based on the full record before us, for the reasons above, Petitioner
`persuades us by a preponderance of the evidence, and we determine, that
`Byrne teaches, suggests, and would have rendered obvious “wherein one or
`more subtasks are assigned to one or more channels, and the one or more
`channels are sampled and clocked individually.”
`f) “wherein the processor comprises multiple ones of the one or
`more channels and is further configured to process a first data
`stream and a second data stream in parallel”
`For the final wherein clause of claim 1, Petitioner argues that the ’943
`patent provides a limited disclosure of channels in processors, and that
`Byrne teaches or would have rendered obvious a processor with parallel
`cordless and cellular channels. Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:24–29;
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 86; Ex. 1008, 7:25–43, Fig. 2); Ex. 1001, 12:7–9; see also
`Pet. vii (labeling the limitation “1[e]”). Petitioner also argues that Byrne can
`operate simultaneously as a cordless and cellular telephone, and thus, one of
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood, or found obvious, cordless
`and cellular data streams are being processed in parallel. Id. at 16–17 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 87; Ex. 1008, 8:2–15).
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`Petitioner further argues that, if the limitation requires a single
`processor, Byrne teaches single microprocessor 210 and that it would have
`been known or obvious to use a single processor with multiple channels for
`processing cordless and cellular communications. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1001,
`4:15–31; Ex. 1003 ¶ 87; Ex. 1008, 7:26–9:30, Figs. 2, 3; Ex. 1045;
`Ex. 1046). Petitioner additionally contends that Byrne teaches processing
`data streams because it uses digital protocols for cordless and cellular
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
