Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 11
`Date: January 5, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC. and HP INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-01155
`Patent 10,715,235 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
`JAMES J. MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 11
`Date: January 5, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC. and HP INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-01155
`Patent 10,715,235 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
`JAMES J. MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01155
`Patent 10,715,235 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Background and Summary
`A.
`Apple Inc. and HP Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”), filed a Petition
`requesting inter partes review of claims 1–7, 15, and 16 (the “Challenged
`Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,715,235 B2 (Ex. 1001, the “’235 patent”).
`Paper 3 (“Pet.”), 7. XR Communications LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`Preliminary Response to the Petition. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). With our
`authorization, Petitioner filed a Preliminary Reply (“Prelim. Reply,”
`Paper 8) and Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Sur-reply (“Prelim.
`Sur-Reply,” Paper 9), each addressing discretionary denial.
`We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes
`review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022) (permitting the
`Board to institute trial on behalf of the Director). To institute an inter partes
`review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition
`shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect
`to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the record, we deny the
`Petition and do not institute an inter partes review.
`Real Parties-in-Interest
`B.
`Petitioner identifies Apple Inc. and HP Inc. as the real
`parties-in-interest. Pet. 71. Patent Owner identifies itself as the real
`party-in-interest. Paper 5, 2.
`Related Matters
`C.
`The parties each identify the following litigations as matters related to
`the ’235 patent: XR Communications, LLC, dba Vivato Technologies. v.
`Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, and Eero LLC, No.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01155
`Patent 10,715,235 B2
`6:21-cv-0619-ADA (W.D. Tex.); XR Communications, LLC, dba Vivato
`Technologies. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-cv-0620-ADA (W.D. Tex.);
`XR Communications, LLC, dba Vivato Technologies. v. ASUSTek Computer
`Inc., No. 6:21-cv-0622-ADA (W.D. Tex.); XR Communications, LLC, dba
`Vivato Technologies. v. Google LLC, No. 6:21-cv-0625-ADA (W.D. Tex.);
`XR Communications, LLC, dba Vivato Technologies. v. Samsung Electronics
`Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-0626-ADA
`(W.D. Tex.); XR Communications, LLC, dba Vivato Technologies. v. Dell
`Technologies Inc., No. 6:21-cv-0646-ADA (W.D. Tex.);
`XR Communications, LLC, dba Vivato Technologies. v. HP Inc., No.
`6:21-cv-0694-ADA (W.D. Tex.); and XR Communications, LLC, dba Vivato
`Technologies. v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 6:21-cv-0695-ADA (W.D.
`Tex.). Pet. 71; Paper 5, 2–3.
`Petitioner has also challenged claims 8–14 of the ’235 patent in
`IPR2022–00367, which was instituted. Pet. 60, 71; Paper 5, 2.
`The ’235 Patent
`D.
`The ’235 patent, titled “Directed Wireless Communication,” issued
`July 14, 2020, from application US 15/495,539. Ex. 1001, codes (54), (45),
`(21). The ’235 patent ultimately claims priority to a provisional application,
`US 60/423,660, filed on November 4, 2002. Id. at code (60).
`The ’235 patent relates to “a multi-beam directed signal system [that]
`coordinates directed wireless communication with client devices.”
`Ex. 1001, 2:8–10. “In a described implementation, a multi-beam directed
`signal system (e.g., also referred to as an access point or Wi-Fi switch) is a
`long-range packet switch . . . in accordance with an 802.11 standard.”
`Id. at 3:43–47. “[S]imultaneous transmission and reception may occur at a
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01155
`Patent 10,715,235 B2
`wireless routing device by applying multi-channel techniques.”
`Id. at 3:41–43. Further, “[a]n increase in communication range is achieved
`by beamforming directed communication beams which simultaneously
`transmit directed signals and receive communication signals from different
`directions.” Id. at 3:47–51.
`Figure 2, reproduced below, “illustrates an exemplary directed
`wireless communication system 200.” Ex. 1001, 4:44–45.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01155
`Patent 10,715,235 B2
`As shown, “antenna assembly 208 can be implemented as two or more
`antennas . . . to emanate multiple directed communication beams 214(1),
`214(2), . . . , 214(N).” Ex. 1001, 4:54–57. “[C]lient device 202 can
`communicate via directed communication beam 214(1) with a first channel
`of the multi-beam directed signal system 206, and client device 204 can
`communicate via directed communication beam[] 214(N) with a second
`channel of the multi-beam directed signal system 206.” Id. at 5:16–21.
`“Communication and/or data transfer signals . . . are considered
`desired signals [if] they are from nodes within the wireless routing network.”
`Ex. 1001, 24:27–31. “[S]ignals such as noise and WLAN interference
`associated with another external wireless system 1204 are not desired.”
`Id. at 24:31–33. “These signals, both desired and undesired, are received via
`antenna array 302 [of antenna assembly 208] and are provided to the signal
`control and coordination logic 304.” Id. at 24:34–36; see also id. at Fig. 3.
`Using logic 304, “multi-beam directed signal system 206 is configured to
`control the transmission amplitude frequency band and directionality of data
`packets to other nodes[,] and [thereby] assist in reducing the effects
`associated with received noise and interference.” Id. at 25:22–29.
`“[S]canning receiver 822 [of system 206] . . . is configured to update
`routing information 1206 with regard to the received signals[ and, for
`example,] . . . may identify information about different classes of interferers
`. . . within the routing information 1206.” Ex. 1001, 24:41–44;
`see also id. at Fig. 8B. “[R]outing information 1206 includes connection
`indexed routing table(s) based on identification information, such as . . .
`identifiers of the desired sources and other identifiers for the desired sources
`and other identifiers for the interferers.” Id. at 24:44–49. “Further, the
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01155
`Patent 10,715,235 B2
`routing table includes stored weighting values (w) each associated with a
`particular signal source 1202 [of desired signals.]” Id. at 24:49–51. The
`stored weighting values are used in weighting matrix 1210, which applies
`the latest weighting values to received signals and transmitted signals.
`Id. at 25:16–19.
`Challenged Claims
`E.
`The Petition challenges claims 1–7, 15, and 16. Pet. 7. Claims 1, 6,
`and 15 are independent. We reproduce claim 1, which is representative,
`below.
`1. A receiver for use in a wireless communications system,
`the receiver comprising:
`[1a] an antenna, wherein the antenna comprises a first
`antenna element and a second antenna element;
`[1b] a transceiver operatively coupled to the antenna and
`configured to transmit and receive electromagnetic signals using
`the antenna; and
`[1c] a processor operatively coupled to the transceiver, the
`processor configured to:
`[1c-1] receive a first signal transmission from a
`remote station via the first antenna element and a second signal
`transmission from the remote station via the second antenna
`element simultaneously;
`[1c-2] determine first signal information for the first
`signal transmission;
`[1c-3] determine second signal information for the
`second signal
`transmission, wherein
`the second signal
`information is different than the first signal information;
`[1c-4] determine a set of weighting values based on
`the first signal information and the second signal information,
`wherein the set of weighting values is configured to be used by
`the transceiver to construct one or more beam-formed
`transmission signals;
`
`6
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`103
`103
`
`IPR2022-01155
`Patent 10,715,235 B2
`[1c-5] cause the transceiver to transmit a third signal
`to the remote station via the antenna, the third signal comprising
`content based on the set of weighting values.
`Ex. 1001, 32:33–581.
`Prior Art and Asserted Grounds
`F.
`Petitioner asserts that the Challenged Claims are unpatentable based
`on two grounds:
`Claims Challenged
`1–5, 15, 16
`6, 7
`Pet. 8.
`Petitioner relies on the declaration testimony of Dr. Robert Akl
`(Ex. 1026) in support of these grounds.
`The following subsections provide brief descriptions of the asserted
`prior art references.
`Saunders (Ex. 1027)
`1.
`Saunders, titled “Apparatus and Method for Adaptive Beamforming in
`an Antenna Array,” issued February 29, 2000. Ex. 1027, codes (54), (45).
`Saunders “relates . . . to communication systems using an adaptive
`beamforming technique.” Id. at 1:5–7. We reproduce Saunders’s Figure 3,
`with Petitioner’s annotations, below.
`
`References/Basis
`Saunders2, Hottinen3
`Saunders, Hottinen, Shull4
`
`
`1 We include labels for the limitations as used by Petitioner.
`2 US 6,031,877; issued Feb. 29, 2000 (Ex. 1027, “Saunders”).
`3 WO 02/47286 A2; published June 13, 2022 (Ex. 1011, “Hottinen”).
`4 US 6,006,077; issued Dec. 21, 1999 (Ex. 1007, “Shull”).
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01155
`Patent 10,715,235 B2
`
`
`
`Pet. 18. Figure 3 depicts “a functional diagram . . . for adaptive
`beamforming.” Ex. 1027, 5:16–17. Petitioner’s annotations identify a
`transmit path and a receive path. Communication device 40 may be a base
`station or a mobile unit that includes an array of antenna elements 41 for
`receiving and transmitting encoded signals 42. Id. at 5:19–22. In a receive
`path, signals received by antenna elements 41 are stored in buffer 49 and
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01155
`Patent 10,715,235 B2
`then inputted into correlation matrix estimator 52. Id. at 5:26–31.
`Correlation matrix estimator 52 calculates Rxx and rxd. Id. at 5:33–34; see
`also id. at 2:19–36 (providing equation 2 and its parameters, including Rxx
`and rxd). Weight calculator 56 receives Rxx and rxd to calculate wopt, which
`are the beamforming coefficients for the receive path applied by
`beamformer 58. Id. at 5:35–39.
`In a transmit path, the data stored in buffer 49 is input into signal
`predictor 68, which then calculates an estimate of x, according to equation 3.
`Ex. 1027, 5:43–45; see also id. at 4:3–21 (providing equation 3 and its
`parameters). The data in buffer 49 are also input into correlation matrix
`estimator 70, which produces estimates for Rxx and rxd using either
`equation 4 or equation 5. Id. at 5:45–49; see also id. at 4:22–30, 5:1–15
`(providing equations 4 and 5). Weight calculator 72 calculates wopt for the
`transmit path from the calculated Rxx and rxd estimates using equation 1. Id.
`at 5:50–52. Beamformer 74 applies wopt to data 76, which is then encoded
`as output signals 82 transmitted by antenna elements 41. Id. at 5:55–59.
` Hottinen (Ex. 1011)
`2.
`Hottinen is a Patent Cooperation Treaty application titled “Method for
`Controlling the Weighting of a Data Signal in the at least Two Antenna
`Elements of a Radio Connection Unit, Radio Connection Unit, Module and
`Communications System,” which published June 13, 2002. Ex. 1011,
`codes (54), (43). Hottinen is directed “to a method for controlling the
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01155
`Patent 10,715,235 B2
`weighting of a data signal in the at least two antenna elements of a first radio
`connection unit of a radio communications system.” Ex. 1011, 15.
`In one of Hottinen’s disclosed methods, weighting factors are
`determined at a second radio connection unit based on at least two beams of
`a data signal transmitted in parallel from a first radio connection unit to the
`second radio connection unit, where the two beams are at least partly
`different data streams. Ex. 1011, 3–4. Once determined, the weight
`information is transmitted to the first radio connection unit, which uses the
`information to transmit a data signal. Id. at 4. In this way, the second radio
`connection unit provides performance feedback to the first radio connection
`unit. Id.
`Alternatively, the first radio connection unit can calculate the
`weighting factors from other feedback information send from the second
`radio communication unit. Ex. 1011, 5.
`Shull (Ex. 1007)
`3.
`Shull is a U.S. patent titled “Received Signal Strength Determination
`Methods and Systems,” and issued December 21, 1999, from an application,
`US 08/942,645, filed October 2, 1997. Ex. 1007, codes (54), (45), (21),
`(22). Shull relates to determining the signal strength of signals received in a
`communications network. Id. at 1:6–8. We reproduce Shull’s Figure 3,
`below, which is a flowchart illustrating Shull’s signal strength determining
`method. Id. at 4:12–13.
`
`
`5 We use the pagination of the publication, which appears at the top center of
`each page other than the title page. This use is consistent with Petitioner’s
`citations to Hottinen. See, e.g., Pet. 20 (providing quotations from Hottinen,
`where the citations match publication’s pages containing the quoted
`information).
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01155
`Patent 10,715,235 B2
`
`
`At step 100, a receiver is set to a first gain level and a first signal
`strength measurement of a received signal is obtained. Ex. 1007, 7:63–65.
`Then, at step 102, the receiver is set to a second gain level and a second
`signal strength measurement is obtained. Id. at 7:65–8:1. At step 104,
`Shull’s apparatus determines the expected difference between the first signal
`strength measurement and the second signal strength measurement based on
`the two gain levels. Id. at 8:1–4. “For example, if the gain level is dropped
`by 20 dB, the expected difference between the two readings would be
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01155
`Patent 10,715,235 B2
`20 dB.” Id. at 8:4–6. At this step, the apparatus determines the actual
`difference between the two measurements, by subtracting the two values
`from steps 100 and 102. Id. at 8:6–9.
`At step 106, the apparatus retrieves a previously determined
`compensation factor associated with the second signal strength measurement
`from memory of the receiver, and the actual difference (from step 104) is
`compared to the expected difference to provide a signal strength
`compensating factor. Ex. 1007, 8:10–15. At step 108, the apparatus
`generates a compensated signal strength measurement, based on the signal
`strength compensating factor and the previously determined compensation
`factor associated with the second signal strength measurement, such as “by
`summing the signal strength compensating factor, the previously determined
`compensation factor associated with the second signal strength measurement
`and the first signal strength measurement.” Id. at 8:15–25. Finally, at
`step 110, the apparatus transmits the compensated signal strength
`measurement from step 108 to the communication network. Id. at 8:25–27.
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS OF PETITIONER’S CHALLENGES
`Applicable Law
`A.
`Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability are based on
`obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when “the differences
`between the subject matter sought to be patented 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,
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01155
`Patent 10,715,235 B2
`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 ordinary
`skill in the art; and (4) when available, objective evidence, such as
`commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, and failure of others.
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`“[O]bviousness must be determined in light of all the facts, and . . . a
`given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages,
`and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine” teachings from
`multiple references. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165
`(Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis added); see also PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI
`Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The presence or
`absence of a motivation to combine references in an obviousness
`determination is a pure question of fact.”).
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`B.
`The level of skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view
`the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d
`1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Petitioner contends:
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`’235 Patent . . . would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in
`an academic discipline emphasizing electrical engineering or a
`related field, in combination with training or at least two years
`of related work experience in wireless communication systems,
`or the equivalent. Alternatively, the person could have also had
`a Masters or Doctorate degree in electrical engineering with a
`year of related work experience in wireless communication
`systems.
`Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 24–25). Patent Owner does not address the level
`of ordinary skill in the art in the Preliminary Response.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01155
`Patent 10,715,235 B2
`For the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of
`the level of ordinary skill in the art. We determine that this definition is
`consistent with the prior art of record, and the skill reflected in the
`Specification of the ’235 patent, based on our review of the limited record.
`C. Claim Construction
`In inter partes reviews, we interpret a claim “using the same
`claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a
`civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this
`standard, we construe 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.” Id.
`Petitioner states that “[n]o formal claim constructions are necessary
`for this [P]etition.” Pet. 3. Patent Owner states that “[t]he Board need not
`construe any terms for purposes of this institution decision.” Prelim.
`Resp. 7.
`We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to
`resolve the parties’ disputes on the record before us. See 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)). To the extent
`that the scope of any particular claim term requires discussion, however, we
`provide it in our assessment of the challenges, which we turn to next.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01155
`Patent 10,715,235 B2
`D. Ground 1: Claims 1–5, 15, and 16 as unpatentable over
`Saunders and Hottinen
`Petitioner contends that the combination of Saunders and Hottinen
`teaches or suggests each limitation of claims 1–5, 15, and 16. Pet. 8, 17–49.
`Petitioner proposed combination of Saunders and
`1.
`Hottinen
`Petitioner contends that Saunders discloses a communication device
`and method where weights, or beamforming coefficients, are applied to data
`that is transmitted from the communication device to another device.
`Pet. 22–23 (referencing Ex. 1027, Abstract, 5:16–59 (describing Saunders’s
`Figure 3)). Petitioner contends that “Saunders discloses optimizing the
`beamforming of a communication device that receives a signal from another
`device and using the optimization to communicate with the other device.”
`Id. at 23 (referencing Ex. 1026 ¶ 60).
`Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art would
`have wanted to optimize the device transmitting signals to a receiver to
`improve communications between the devices, as optimizing the
`transmission “improv[es] signal directivity, channel path gain, and
`minimize[es] signal loss.” Pet. 23. Petitioner contends that “Hottinen
`teaches that a second radio connection unit can determine feedback
`information including weight information and then transmit that feedback
`information to . . . a first radio connection unit.” Id. (referencing Ex. 1011,
`3–4, 7–8, 21–22). Petitioner adds that “[t]he first radio connection unit
`receives the feedback information including the weight information and
`configures its beams that are to be used for transmission of the data signals
`from the first radio connection unit to the second radio connection unit.” Id.
`at 23–24 (referencing Ex. 1011, 3–8, 13–14, 21–22, 23). Petitioner
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01155
`Patent 10,715,235 B2
`concludes that “[b]y combining the teachings of Saunders and Hottinen,
`weights and beam forming can be utilized at both devices to optimize the
`beams used for data communications between the antenna element arrays of
`both devices.” Id. at 24 (referencing Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 61–62).
`Petitioner clarifies its proposed combination:
`in the combination of Saunders and Hottinen, a “second radio
`communication device” refers to Hottinen’s “second radio
`connection unit” and the communication device in Saunders that
`receives
`a
`signal,
`and
`determines
`and
`applies
`weights/beamforming coefficients to data to be transmitted to
`another device. The “first radio communication device” refers
`to Hottinen’s “first communication unit” and the device in
`Saunders from which the beamformed signals transmitted from
`the second radio communication device are received.[] In the
`combined Saunders-Hottinen
`system,
`the
`first
`radio
`communication device corresponds to the “transmitter,” and the
`second radio communication device corresponds to
`the
`“receiver.”
`
`Id.
`
`We reproduce a figure from Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Akl, below, to
`further illustrate Petitioner’s combination.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01155
`Patent 10,715,235 B2
`Pet. 25 (referencing Ex. 1041, 38; Ex. 1026, 37 (¶ 63)). Petitioner contends
`that this illustration depicts “[w]eighted signal with feedback information
`transmitted from the second device to the first device.” Id.
`The maroon and blue arrows depict communications from an
`antenna element array of the first radio communication device to
`an antenna element array of the second radio communication
`device, and the orange and green arrows depict communications
`from
`the antenna element array of
`the second radio
`communication device to the antenna element array of the first
`radio communication device.
`Id. (referencing Ex. 1026 ¶ 63). Petitioner concludes that a person having
`ordinary skill in the art “would have recognized that combining the
`teachings of Hottinen and Saunders would have optimized the beams formed
`at the first radio communication device based on feedback information
`provided by the second radio communication device resulting in improved
`communications between the two devices.” Id. at 26 (referencing Ex. 1026
`¶ 64).
`Petitioner also contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art
`would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the
`systems of Saunders and Hottinen. Pet. 26; see also id. at 26–27 (supporting
`the contention with respect to reasonable expectation of success).
`Patent Owner does not specifically address Petitioner’s contentions
`with respect to its reasons for combining Saunders and Hottinen, including
`the contentions with respect to reasonable expectation of success. We
`address Petitioner’s reasoning in our analysis of claim 1, below.
`Independent claims 1 and 15
`2.
`We turn our analysis now to the scope and content of the prior art and
`any differences between the prior art and the subject matter of independent
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01155
`Patent 10,715,235 B2
`claim 1, on a limitation-by-limitation basis. For claim 15, Petitioner relies
`on its analysis of claim 1. See Pet. 47–48 (referencing, for each limitation of
`claim 15, the analysis for the corresponding limitation for claim 1).
`Preamble
`a)
`The preamble of claim 1 recites “[a] receiver for use in a wireless
`communications system.” Ex. 1001, 32:33–34. Petitioner contends
`that Saunders discloses a receiver used in a wireless communications
`system, which may be part of a base station. Pet. 27–28 (referencing
`Ex. 1027, Abstract, 1:5–8, 1:10–28, 5:16–30, 6:10–29, Fig. 3; Ex. 1026
`¶ 72); see id. at 28 (reproducing an annotated version of Saunders’s
`Figure 3, labeling encoded signals 42 as “Received signals” and
`apparatus 40 as “Receiver/second radio communication device”).
`Upon review of the information in the Petition and corresponding
`evidence, we determine Petitioner has made a sufficient showing
`that Saunders, as modified by Hottinen, teaches or suggests the subject
`matter of the preamble. In view of this determination, we need not resolve
`whether the preamble is limiting.
`Limitation [1a]
`b)
`Claim 1 recites “an antenna, wherein the antenna comprises a first
`antenna element and a second antenna element.” Ex. 1001, 32:35–36
`(limitation [1a]). Petitioner contends that Saunders’s array of antenna
`elements 41 corresponds to the recited antenna, and includes at least a first
`and a second antenna element. Pet. 28–29 (referencing Ex. 1027, 5:16–30,
`Fig. 3; Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 73–76; Ex. 1041, 38–39, 168); see also id. at 29
`(providing an annotated version of Saunders’s Figure 3, identifying the first
`and second antenna elements).
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01155
`Patent 10,715,235 B2
`Upon review of the information in the Petition and corresponding
`evidence, we determine Petitioner has made a sufficient showing
`that Saunders teaches or suggests the subject matter of limitation [1a] of
`claim 1. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contentions with respect
`to this limitation in the Preliminary Response.
`Limitation [1b]
`c)
`Claim 1 recites “a transceiver operatively coupled to the antenna and
`configured to transmit and receive electromagnetic signals using the
`antenna.” Ex. 1001, 32:37–39 (limitation [1b]). Petitioner contends that
`Saunders’s transmitters 48 and receivers 46 together correspond to the
`recited transceiver and are coupled to antenna elements 41. Pet. 29–30
`(referencing Ex. 1027, 5:16–59, Fig. 3; Ex. 1026 ¶ 77); see also id. at 30
`(providing an annotated version of Saunders’s Figure 3, identifying the
`transmitter, receiver, antenna, and modulator). Petitioner adds that
`Saunders’s communications system transmits and receives electromagnetic
`signals using the antenna. Id. at 30–32 (referencing Ex. 1027, 6:10–18;
`Ex. 1026 ¶ 78; Ex. 1010, 1:20–25; Ex. 1029, 4–6, Figs. 1.3, 1.4).
`Upon review of the information in the Petition and corresponding
`evidence, we determine Petitioner has made a sufficient showing
`that Saunders teaches or suggests the subject matter of limitation [1b] of
`claim 1. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contentions with respect
`to this limitation in the Preliminary Response.
`Limitation [1c]
`d)
`Claim 1 recites “a processor operatively coupled to the transceiver.”
`Ex. 1001, 32:40 (limitation [1c]). Petitioner contends that Saunders’s
`microprocessor 90 corresponds to the recited processor. Pet. 33 (referencing
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01155
`Patent 10,715,235 B2
`Ex. 1027, 5:60–65, Fig. 3; Ex. 1026 ¶ 79); see also id. (providing an
`annotated version of Saunders’s Figure 3, identifying the transmitter,
`receiver, modulator, and processor).
`Upon review of the information in the Petition and corresponding
`evidence, we determine Petitioner has made a sufficient showing
`that Saunders teaches or suggests the subject matter of limitation [1c] of
`claim 1. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contentions with respect
`to this limitation in the Preliminary Response.
`Processor configuration limitations
`e)
`Claim 1 also recites
`the processor configured to:
`[1c-1] receive a first signal transmission from a remote
`station via the first antenna element and a second signal
`transmission from the remote station via the second antenna
`element simultaneously;
`[1c-2] determine first signal information for the first signal
`transmission;
`[1c-3] determine second signal information for the second
`signal transmission, wherein the second signal information is
`different than the first signal information;
`[1c-4] determine a set of weighting values based on the
`first signal information and the second signal information,
`wherein the set of weighting values is configured to be used by
`the transceiver to construct one or more beam-formed
`transmission signals; [and]
`[1c-5] cause the transceiver to transmit a third signal to the
`remote station via the antenna, the third signal comprising
`content based on the set of weighting values.
`Ex. 1001, 32:40–58 (collectively, the “processor configuration” limitations).
`Although we present each individual processor configuration limitation
`separately, because of the interrelationship of the limitations, we reserve our
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01155
`Patent 10,715,235 B2
`analysis and conclusions until we have presented the parties’ contentions
`with respect to each of the processor configuration limitations.
`(1) Limitation 1c-1
`With respect to limitation [1c-1], Petitioner contends that, in the
`combined Saunders-Hottinen wireless communication system, signals are
`transmitted from a first radio communication device to a second radio
`communication device, and that these signals are received by several
`elements of Saunders’s antenna elements 41. Pet. 34 (referencing Ex. 1011,
`7, 24; Ex.1027, 5:16–59, Fig. 3). Petitioner contends that,
`because Hottinen teaches that the first radio communication
`device uses two antenna elements of a transceiver to transmit
`signals to the second radio communication device and that the
`same number of transmit and receive antenna elements can be
`used, it would have been obvious to a [person having ordinary
`skill in the art] that, in the combination of Saunders and Hottinen,
`the second radio communication device includes two antenna
`elements to receive first and second signal transmissions from
`the two antenna elements of the first radio communication
`device.
`Id. (referencing Ex. 1011, 2, 7, 24; Ex. 1026 ¶ 80).
`Petitioner contends that Hottinen teaches that the user station
`communicates with a separate base station. Pet. 35. Petitioner contends
`that, as such, the combined teachings of Saunders and Hottinen renders
`obvious the first radio communication device being a remote station. Id.
`(referencing Ex. 1011, 1, 10, 11, 17; Ex. 1027, 6:10–29, 1:10–28; Ex. 1026
`¶ 81).
` Petitioner also contends that Hottinen teaches that the second radio
`communication device determines weight information and transmits that
`weight information to the first radio communication device. Pet. 35
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01155
`Patent 10,715,235 B2
`(referencing Ex. 1011, 3). Petitioner adds that “[t]he first radio
`communication device uses the received weight information to configure ‘at
`least two suitable beams’ for parallel and simultaneous transmissions to the
`second radio communication device.” Id. at 35–36 (referencing Ex. 1011,
`3–4, 21–22). Petitioner contends that these two beams are at least partially
`different streams. Id. at 36 (quoting Hottinen that “[a]t least partly different
`symbols are therefore transmitted in parallel using the at least two formed
`beams” (Ex. 1011, 6)). Petitioner adds that “[t]he first radio communication
`device can perform channel encoding such that ‘different encoded bits are
`transmitted from different beams with assigned power.’” Id. (quoting
`Ex. 1011, 22; referencing Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 82–85).
`Petitioner contends that Saunders’s beamforming coefficients are
`determined using a signal vector that includes signal values received
`simultaneously, based on Dr. Akl’s testimony. Pet. 36–37 (referencing
`Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 82–87). Dr. Akl testifies that, as illustrated in a 2×2 multiple
`in-multiple out (“MIMO”) system, two transmitted signals with different
`data can be transmitted and received simultaneously.
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
