Paper No. __
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________________
`
`COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DALI WIRELESS INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________________
`
`Case IPR__________
`U.S. Patent No. 10,080,178
`Issued: September 18, 2018
`Filed: July 29, 2016
`______________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PAT. NO. 10,080,178
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 41.100 ET SEQ.
`
`_______________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`Real Parties-in-Interest ............................................................................. iv
`Related Matters ......................................................................................... iv
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel ...................................................................... iv
`Service Information ................................................................................... iv
`
`Standing ....................................................................................................... 1
`Identification of Challenge .......................................................................... 1
`Supporting Declaration ................................................................................ 1
`Fees .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`
`Mandatory Notices .............................................................................................. iv
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`Preliminary Matters ................................................................................................ 1
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`Introduction ............................................................................................................ 2
`
`Summary of the Challenged Patent........................................................................ 3
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`
`Summary of the Asserted Prior Art ...................................................................... 5
`
`1.
`
`Distributed Antenna Systems ...................................................................... 3
`‘178 Patent .................................................................................................. 3
`Claims .......................................................................................................... 4
`
`Primary References ..................................................................................... 5
`A.
`“Wu”: U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2010/0128676 .................. 5
`B.
`“Oh”: U.S. Patent No. 7,286,507 ...................................................... 9
`
`
`
`2.
`
`
`Secondary References ...............................................................................11
`A.
`“Sabat ‘552”: U.S. Patent No. 6,963,552 ........................................11
`B.
`“OBSAI Standard” ..........................................................................13
`C.
`“CPRI Standard” .............................................................................13
`
`PTAB Found Similar Claims to be Invalid ..........................................................13
`
`Claim Construction ..............................................................................................15
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill ........................................................................................16
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`Argument .............................................................................................................16
`
`Ground 1: Wu anticipates Claims 1-25 ...............................................................16
`A.
`Independent Claim 10 .....................................................................16
`B.
`Independent Claim 1 .......................................................................25
`C.
`Independent Claim 15 .....................................................................26
`D. Dependent Claims 2-6, 16-18..........................................................27
`E.
`Claim 7 ............................................................................................29
`F.
`Claims 8, 11, and 19 .......................................................................29
`G.
`Claims 9, 20 ....................................................................................31
`H.
`Claim 12 ..........................................................................................31
`I.
`Claim 13 ..........................................................................................33
`J.
`Claim 14 .........................................................................................34
`K.
`Independent Claim 21 .....................................................................35
`L.
`Dependent Claim 22 ........................................................................39
`M. Dependent Claim 23 ........................................................................39
`N. Dependent Claim 24 ........................................................................40
`O. Dependent Claim 25 ........................................................................40
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1-25 are obvious based on Wu or Wu in light
`of Sabat ‘426 .......................................................................................................41
`
`Ground 3: Claims 8, 11, 19, 21, 23-25 are obvious based on Wu
`combined with the OBSAI Standard ...................................................................43
`
`Ground 4: Claims 8-9, 11, 19-25 are obvious based on Wu
`combined with the CPRI standard .......................................................................43
`
`Ground 5: Wu plus Sabat ‘552 renders Claims 26-30 obvious ..........................44
`
`A.
`Independent Claim 26 .....................................................................44
`
`B.
`Claim 27 ..........................................................................................47
`
`C.
`Claim 28 ..........................................................................................47
`
`D.
`Claim 29 ..........................................................................................49
`
`E.
`Claim 30 ..........................................................................................49
`
`Ground 6: Oh anticipates Claims 1-8, 10-11, 13, 15-19, 21, 23-24 ...................49
`
`A.
`Independent Claim 10 .....................................................................49
`
`B.
`Independent Claim 1 .......................................................................65
`
`C.
`Independent Claim 15 .....................................................................66
`D.
`Independent Claim 21 .....................................................................67
`ii
`
`
`

`

`Dependent Claims 2-6, 16-18..........................................................78
`E.
`Dependent Claims 7 and 24 ............................................................80
`F.
`G. Dependent Claims 8, 11, 19 ............................................................81
`H. Dependent Claim 13 ........................................................................81
`I.
`Dependent Claim 23 ........................................................................82
`
`
`Ground 7: Oh + Wu renders obvious Claims 1-8, 10-11, 13,
`15-19, 21, 23-24 ..................................................................................................83
`
`A.
`Independent Claims 1, 10, 15, 21 ....................................................83
`B. Dependent Claims 2-6, 16-18..........................................................85
`C. Dependent Claims 7 and 24 ............................................................86
`
`
`Regarding the Board’s Discretion ........................................................................87
`
`Conclusion ...........................................................................................................89
`
`Claims Listing Appendix .................................................................................... A1
`
`Appendix B: Exhibit List ................................................................................... A7
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`

`

`Mandatory Notices
`
`Real Parties-in-Interest
`
`CommScope Technologies LLC, CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina,
`
`1.
`
`
`
`CommScope, Inc, and CommScope Holding Company, Inc. are the real parties-in-
`
`interest.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`Related Matters
`
`The challenged patent was asserted against petitioner in a complaint in Dali
`
`Wireless, Inc. v. CommScope Technologies LLC et al, Case No. 1:19-cv-00952-
`
`MN (D. Del.). The complaint was served on August 16, 2019.
`
`3.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel
`
`Lead Counsel
`Philip P. Caspers, Reg. No. 33,227
`Capella Tower, Suite 4200
`225 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`pcaspers@carlsoncaspers.com
`Phone: 612.436.9617
`Fax: 612.436.9605
`4.
`Service Information
`
`Backup Counsel
`Samuel A. Hamer, Reg. No. 46,754
`Capella Tower, Suite 4200
`225 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`shamer@carlsoncaspers.com
`Phone: 612.436.9615
`Fax: 612.436.9605
`
`
`
`Please address all correspondence and service to both counsel listed above.
`
`Petitioner consents to service by email at the email addresses listed.
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`

`

`Preliminary Matters
`
`Standing
`
`Petitioner certifies that IPR is available for the ‘178 Patent and that
`
`1.
`
`
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`Identification of Challenge
`
`Petitioner requests invalidation of claims 1-30.
`
`
`Ground 1
`Ground 2
`Ground 3
`Ground 4
`Ground 5
`Ground 6
`
`Ground 7
`
`Obvious based on Oh + Wu
`
`Basis for Unpatentability
`Claims
`Anticipated by Wu
`1-25
`Obvious based on Wu alone or + Sabat ‘426
`1-25
`8, 11, 19, 21, 23-25 Obvious based on Wu + OBSAI
`8-9, 11, 19-25
`Obvious based on Wu + CPRI
`26-30
`Obvious based on Wu + Sabat ‘552
`1-8, 10-11, 13, 15-
`Anticipated by Oh
`19, 21, 23-24
`1-8, 10-11, 13, 15-
`19, 21, 23-24
`Supporting Declaration
`
`3.
`
`
`
`Petitioner submits declarations from Dr. Acampora and Dr. Kenington (Exs.
`
`1003, 1009).
`
`4.
`
`
`
`Fees
`
`Petitioner authorizes the Patent Office to charge Deposit Account No.
`
`502880 for the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) and for any other required fees.
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`

`

`Introduction
`
`
`
`The ‘178 patent claims are directed to reconfigurable distributed antenna
`
`system (DAS). Ex. 1001 at Abstract. The Wu and Oh prior art references,
`
`however, already disclose such reconfigurable systems. Ex. 1005 (Wu) at Abstract
`
`(“Carrier channels can be allocated or routed individually or as a group according
`
`to reconfigurable routing policy.”); ¶0046 (“allocate more channels”); Ex. 1023
`
`(Oh) at 7:36-37(“DAS hub 26 will maintain in data storage a set of mapping data
`
`46”); 9:44-10:9 (“…allowing mapping data 46 to be configured and modified…to
`
`add…correlations”). Wu and Oh anticipate nearly all claims and render the rest
`
`obvious.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`Summary of the Challenged Patent
`
`Distributed Antenna Systems
`
`A distributed antenna systems (DAS) extends wireless coverage to devices
`
`1.
`
`
`
`in hard-to-reach areas (e.g., inside a building). Conventional elements of a DAS
`
`are a host unit coupled by cables to remote units. The host unit often is in a
`
`building’s basement and the remote units on different floors. The signals from a
`
`base station are provided to the host unit, which relays them to the remote units to
`
`be re-broadcast closer to the end-user devices (e.g., cell-phones).
`
`2.
`
`‘178 Patent
`
`The ‘178 patent observes that network planners prefer DAS with “dynamic
`
`flexibility” because “network conditions and subscriber needs” are “ever-
`
`changing.” Ex. 1001 at 1:30-52.
`
`
`
`The ‘178 patent discloses a DAS with dynamic flexibility. Figure 1 is
`
`illustrative:
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`
`Id. at Fig. 1; 3:55-58. DAS (100) includes a host unit (DAU, 105) and remote
`
`units (DRUs, 125). The DAU receives signals from base stations (110).
`
`Each remote unit (DRU) is assigned a set of the channels/carriers. Figure 7 shows
`
`that the DAU and DRUs include software modules. Through this software, the
`
`DAU is able to “automatically” re-allocate channels/carriers assigned to the DRUs.
`
`Id. 8:10-21.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`Claims
`
`The ‘178 patent has 5 independent claims (1, 10, 15, 21, 26). The first three
`
`substantially overlap (Claims 1, 10, 15). They each involve sending a “first set” of
`
`downlink channel signals to a remote and sending a different “second set” to the
`
`same remote at a different time, i.e., changing which downlink channel signals are
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`sent to a remote unit. Claims 1, 10, and 15 repeat many of the same elements, but
`
`vary in whether they recite a system, method, or host of the system. Claim 21
`
`involves sending different subsets or portions of the signals to different remotes.
`
`Claim 26 overlaps with Claim 21, but it further adds elements about “additional”
`
`host units. The Claims Appendix lists the full text of each of the claims and labels
`
`each element with a letter (A, B, C, etc). Due to the overlap in the claims, the
`
`petition refers to the claim elements by these letters.
`
`Summary of the Asserted Prior Art
`
`1.
`
`Primary References
`
`A.
`
`“Wu”: U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2010/0128676
`
`Wu (Ex. 1005) was filed Nov. 11, 2009 and published on May 27, 2010. It
`
`is at least 102(e) art. Wu describes carrier transport systems for use by wireless
`
`carriers to transport signals from base stations into wireless coverage areas. Wu
`
`notes that wireless service providers utilize various bands of frequencies. Ex. 1005
`
`¶0003. Each service provider uses one or more carrier channels within their
`
`frequency bands to carry voice or other data. Id.
`
`Wu discloses that known systems utilize a terminal that digitizes entire
`
`frequency bands from base stations and that then transmit the digitized signals over
`
`fiber links to remote transceiver units (RTUs) in a coverage area. Id. ¶¶0004-05.
`
`Wu explains that such systems lack “fine grained control” over carrier channels
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`and lack the ability to allocate carrier channels from one cell region to another in
`
`response to various events or conditions. Id.
`
`Wu, therefore, discloses an improved system that allows fine grained control
`
`over carrier channels from a single band or multiple bands by splitting carrier
`
`channels from their bands and routing channels “individually, collectively as
`
`shown, or in arbitrary groups” to RTUs as desired using a matrix switch according
`
`to a routing policy, where the routing policy can be updated or reconfigured as
`
`desired. Id. ¶0049; see also id. ¶¶0009, 0011; 0038-39, 0047. Wu discloses that
`
`“more channels” can be allocated when needed to increase the bandwidth available
`
`in a particular region. Id. ¶¶0046; ¶¶0039-45.
`
`Figure 1 of Wu shows the basic components of its carrier transport system:
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`Id. at Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`Figure 2 of Wu, shows the matrix switch 250 that, in combination with units
`
`230, can individually route different channels to different remote transceiver units
`
`410. Id. ¶¶0038-40.
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`Analog Channels
`270
`
`
`
`Matrix Switch
`(Band Combiner-Splitter)
`
`a0
`
`;
`Processor
`
`~
`
`Routing Policy
`255
`
`
`
`
`
`Transceiver
`(Multi-Band)
`260
`
`BTS Band 263A
`
`PPP
`
`BTS Band 263B
`—
`
`rele
`
`BTS Band 263N
`
`Analog
`Channels
`270
`
`
`
`
`
`Unit
`230
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2
`
`Link 215
`To RTUs
`
`Id. at Fig. 2.
`
`Link 215
`To RTUs
`
`
`
`Digitized
`Channels
`273
`
`Serialized
`Channels
`275
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Id. at Fig. 4.
`
`
`
`The system utilizes standard protocols for communicating signals over the
`
`links, including OBSAI or CPRI. See id. ¶0031; ¶0049.
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`“Oh”: U.S. Patent No. 7,286,507
`
`Oh (Ex. 1023) issued October 23, 2007. It is 102(b) art. Oh discloses an
`
`improved DAS where the host unit (hub) has “mapping data” (46) that allows it to
`
`dynamically “change distribution of RAN capacity.” Ex. 1023 at 9:53-57.
`
`9
`
`
`

`

`
`Id. at Fig. 1. Hub (26) receives signals from the network (12) called the “RAN,”
`
`which include plural base stations (18). Id. at 4:32-46. These signals correspond
`
`to “RAN coverage segments.” Oh’s system works on a wide variety of types and
`
`granularities of RAN coverage segments, including a “sector,” combination of
`
`sectors, or a “portion” that uses a “particular carrier frequency”. Id. at 2:64-3:5;
`
`4:50-64.
`
`
`
`The hub uses mapping data to determine which set of RAN coverage
`
`segments should be sent to which remote units. Id. at 7:35-42. The mapping data
`
`may be a data table:
`
`10
`
`
`

`

`
`Id. at Fig. 2. Using the addresses of the antenna units, each RAN coverage
`
`segment is correlated to one or more DAS Antenna Units, and each DAS Antenna
`
`Unit can be correlated to one or more RAN coverage segments. Id. at 7:37-43;
`
`9:21-24. Oh teaches the mapping data may be freely edited “to add” or “to
`
`remove” correlations, i.e., change which set of RAN coverage segments should be
`
`sent to which remote units. Id. 3:46-60, 9:44-58. Through the mapping data, the
`
`DAS hub can be configured to route any RAN coverage signal to any DAS antenna
`
`unit.
`
`2.
`
` Secondary References
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`“Sabat ‘552”: U.S. Patent No. 6,963,552
`
`Sabat ‘552 (Ex. 1011) issued November 8, 2005. It is 102(b) art. Sabat ‘552
`
`discloses a system that allows different wireless service providers to share the
`
`network infrastructure. Figure 1 shows, for example, that hubs 35 located at hub
`
`11
`
`
`

`

`sites 30 communicate signals from base stations (BTSs) to distributed remote radio
`
`antenna nodes 50. Figure 1 and 6:22-30 and 6:55-62 disclose that hubs 35 are
`
`connected by digital cross connects (37) so that signals from any service provider’s
`
`BTS can be routed to any of the remote antenna nodes, even those that are not
`
`directly connected to the hub site where the BTS resides.
`
`Ex. 1011, Fig. 1 (annotated).
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`

`

`B.
`
`“OBSAI Standard”
`
`The OBSAI Standard (Exs. 1007, 1008) is a well-known open publication
`
`
`
`
`publicly available more than one year prior to the ‘178 patent and therefore,
`
`constitute 102(b) prior art. Ex. 1009 ¶10.
`
`“CPRI Standard”
`C.
`The CPRI Standard (Ex. 1006) is a printed publication dated June 30, 2008,
`
`
`
`which is 102(b) prior art. Ex. 1003 ¶162-167.
`
`PTAB Already Invalidated Similar Claims
`
`
`
`Patent Owner may argue that Wu and Oh were disclosed during prosecution.
`
`To be clear, there was no substantive discussion of Wu or Oh in the prosecution.
`
`More importantly, Patent Owner did not disclose a critical fact about Wu
`
`and Oh. Patent Owner failed to inform the examiner that the PTAB had found a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Wu and Oh invalidated nearly identical claims in a co-
`
`pending IPR.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner owns an earlier patent (9,531,473), which has an overlapping
`
`specification with the present patent. Ex. 1040. The claims of the ‘473 patent are
`
`strikingly similar to the claims of the ‘178 patent. Compare Ex. 1001 with Ex.
`
`1040. Dr. Acampora provides charts showing this. Ex. 1003 ¶34. During
`
`prosecution of the ‘178 patent, the PTAB instituted IPR of the ‘473 patent. The
`
`institution decision found a reasonable likelihood that both Wu and Oh would
`
`13
`
`
`

`

`anticipate numerous claims of the ‘473 patent. Ex. 1036 at 30, 37-38. Ultimately,
`
`the PTAB invalidated all challenged claims in the ‘473 patent based on Wu (and
`
`therefore did not even reach grounds based on Oh). See Ex. 1037 at 35, 37.1
`
`Patent Owner concealed this highly relevant fact from the examiner. Patent
`
`Owner disclosed only the petition, but did not disclose the PTAB’s actual decision
`
`to institute the IPR.
`
`Thus, the PTAB should reject any argument that IPR is not needed here
`
`because Oh and Wu were disclosed during prosecution. These references were
`
`never discussed and the PTAB has already decided that very similar claims are
`
`invalid in view of Wu and Oh.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 The prior IPR final decision and any appeal thereof is being held in abeyance by
`
`the PTAB pending resolution of the Arthrex issues.
`
`14
`
`
`

`

`Claim Construction
`
`
`
`Petitioner presently believes the plain meaning of the claims is enough to
`
`resolve this petition. The prior art references use the same or very similar phrases
`
`to the claims. The following two constructions may be helpful, but Petitioner does
`
`not believe construction is necessary to resolve Petitioner’s specific grounds:
`
`
`
`“host unit.” This term appears in all the independent claims. A “host unit”
`
`is a unit that transports and controls communications between remote units and the
`
`signal source. Ex. 1003 ¶30.
`
`
`
`“dynamically change”/“dynamically changes.” These terms appear in
`
`dependent claims 2-6, 16-18. These terms mean the host unit is itself able to make
`
`the claimed change instantly in response to conditions as they occur (i.e.,
`
`automatically change).
`
`
`
`The phrase “dynamically change” requires more than just change. To
`
`“dynamically” change refers to the ability of the host unit itself to be able to make
`
`changes in response to changes in conditions as they happen without waiting for
`
`manual intervention—in other words automatically.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s construction is consistent with the definition of dynamic in
`
`technical and non-technical dictionaries.
`
`“[dynamic] tends to mean that our equipment – hardware and/or
`software – can respond instantly to changes as they occur. For
`
`15
`
`
`

`

`example, dynamic routing in the call center world means … a
`machine can switch the incoming calls from moment to moment.”
`Ex. 1039 at 3 (emphasis added); 4 (“dynamic routing” means “routing that adjusts
`
`automatically to changes in network topology or traffic”); 7 (“characterized by
`
`continuous change…”); 10 (“characterized by constant change…”).
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s construction is consistent with the specification. The
`
`specification emphasizes the need for dynamic capabilities to respond to “ever-
`
`changing” conditions. Ex. 1001 1:46-50. The specification also contrasts
`
`“dynamic” from “manual.” Ex. 1001 11:4-5 (“dynamic and/or manual”); 6:19-21,
`
`6:32-34; 6:53-59; 11:25-28. Systems requiring manual intervention to effect
`
`change cannot react to “ever-changing” or “constantly” changing conditions the
`
`way a dynamic, i.e., automatic systems can. Ex. 1003 ¶¶26-29.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill
`
`
`
`A person of ordinary skill (POSA) would have a bachelor’s degree in
`
`electrical engineering (or equivalent field) with 2-3 years of work experience in
`
`wireless communications. Ex. 1003 ¶19-21.
`
`1.
`
`Ground 1: Wu anticipates Claims 1-25
`
`Argument
`
`Independent Claim 10
`
`A.
`
`Wu anticipates claim 10. Figs. 1, 2, and 4 of Wu are reproduced below
`
`(with annotations).
`
`16
`
`
`

`

`Remote Transceiver
`Unit (RTU)
`410
`
`R
`
`te Cellul
`emote Cellular
`Region
`120
`
`Geographic
`Obstacle
`(Mountains)
`130
`
`Base
`Transceiver
`
`Station
`(BTS)
`140
`
`Host Unit
`130
`—
`
`-
`Host Unit
`130
`
`Remote Cellular
`Region
`420
`
`Figure |
`
`
`
`
`
`Links
`(Optic Fiber)
`115
`
`17
`
`
`

`

`Analog Channels
`270
`
`Transceiver
`(Multi-Band)
`
`Processor
`233
`
`Memory
`at
`
`Routing Policy
`255
`
`
`
`BTS Band 2634
`
`BTS Band 263B
`
`Channels
`270
`
`Matrix Switch
`(Band Combiner-Splitter)
`250
`
`To RTUs
`
`
`
`Digitized
`Channels
`273
`
`Serialized
`Channels
`275
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Link 215
`To RTUs
`
`Link 215
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`

`

`
`Element A: “A system for transporting wireless communications…”
`
`Wu discloses “[a] better carrier channel transport system ….” Id. ¶0009; see
`
`
`
`also Ex. 1005 ¶0002 (“[t]he field of the invention is wireless carrier channel
`
`technologies.”); Ex. 1003 ¶38.
`
`Element B: “a host unit…”
`
`The combination of the matrix switch 250 and units 130, 230 in Wu make up
`
`the host unit of Claim 10. What Wu calls the host unit (unit 230) is not the entirety
`
`of the claimed host unit of Claim 10. The combination of the switch 250 and units
`
`230 make up a system that manages communications to and from the plurality of
`
`19
`
`
`

`

`RTUs and on behalf of the RTUs to and from the signal source (transceiver 260 of
`
`the BTS). Units 130 are shown to be co-located at the BTS in FIG. 1 of Wu (and
`
`also in Figure 4). Figure 2 shows a matrix switch is included in the system
`
`between units 230 (which are the same units 130 from Figure 1) and the BTS
`
`transceiver 260. To be clear, units 130 and 230 are described as host units by Wu,
`
`but to avoid confusion, the following analysis will try to refer to unit 230 as “unit
`
`230” instead of using Wu’s phrase “host unit.” Ex. 1003 ¶39.
`
`Likewise, Figure 2, shows multiple components of a BTS. When reading
`
`the ‘178 claims on the Wu system, the matrix switch is included in the claimed
`
`host unit, while the multiband transceiver corresponds to the signal source. Id.
`
`¶40.
`
`The PTAB already found that Wu’s matrix switch and host unit combined
`
`can be considered a “host unit.” Ex. 1037, at 21-22. The same Patent Owner
`
`attempted to claim a “host unit” that selectively routes radio resources. The PTAB
`
`invalidated all the challenged claims, finding, “Wu discloses the claimed host unit
`
`as a combination of the matrix switch and host units.” Ex. 1037, at 21 (“Identity of
`
`terminology is not required) and p. 18 (includes Wu Fig. 2, annotated to illustrate
`
`the issue decided; reproduced below); see also p. 22 (PTAB also agreed “that it
`
`would have been obvious to place the functionality of both Wu's matrix switch and
`
`host units in a single unit.”)
`
`20
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1037 at 18, 20-22. By the same analysis, Wu’s matrix switch 250 and the host
`
`units 250 also correspond to a host unit as claimed by the ‘178 patent.
`
`Element C: “a plurality of remote units, including a first remote unit
`and a second remote unit…”
`The remote transceiver units (RTUs 110, 310, 410) in Wu are a plurality of
`
`remote units. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 at Fig. 1, ¶¶0030, 0033, ¶0011; Ex. 1003 ¶41.
`
`21
`
`
`

`

`Element D1: “wherein the host unit comprises at least one interface to
`communicatively couple the host unit to at least one signal source…”
`Figure 2 of Wu shows that matrix switch 250 communicates with a multi-
`
`band transceiver 260, which is a signal source. The communication links shown,
`
`e.g., in Figure 2, between the matrix switch and the transceiver 260 inherently
`
`include an interface in the matrix switch for communicating over these lines to the
`
`multi-band transceiver. Id. ¶42. Therefore, the host unit, which includes the matrix
`
`switch, includes an interface that communicatively couples the matrix switch to a
`
`signal source.
`
`Element E: “wherein the host unit is configured to receive a plurality of
`downlink channel signals from the at least one signal source”
`
`The matrix switch 250 receives a plurality of downlink channel signals from
`
`the multi-band transceiver 260. Id. ¶43. The downlink channel signals are shown
`
`as channels 1-12 in Figure 2. Ex. 1005 at Fig. 2; ¶0038.
`
`Element F: “wherein the host unit is configured to send digital
`representations of the plurality of downlink channel signals to the
`plurality of remote units…”
`
`Wu discloses that the combination of matrix switch 250 and units 230
`
`provide fine grained control to send digital representations of the downlink channel
`
`signals individually or in arbitrary groups to RTUs.. Ex. 1005 ¶¶0009, 0011, 0038-
`
`39, 0047, 0049; Ex. 1003 ¶¶44-49. Units 230 also include analog-to-digital
`
`converters for relaying digitized representations of the carrier signals between the
`
`22
`
`
`

`

`BTS 140 and the RTUs. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶0030, 0054, Fig. 6-2 (“ADC”); Ex.
`
`1003 ¶¶56.
`
`Element G: “wherein the host unit is configurable to send digital
`representations of a first set of downlink channel signals to the first
`remote unit at a first point in time, the first set of downlink channel
`signals for transmission at an antenna of the first remote unit”
`The matrix switch is configurable so that channel signals are sent
`
`individually, collectively, or “in arbitrary groups” (which are sets) to remotes for
`
`transmission at an antenna. Ex. 1005 ¶0049; Claim 16 (“a set of carriers”); see
`
`also Ex. 1003 ¶50.For the reasons explained above with respect to the previous
`
`limitation, the Wu reference is capable of routing channels.
`
`Wu also describes that from time to time the number of channels routed to
`
`an RTU may change by means of a routing policy that includes rules for reacting to
`
`events and conditions. Ex. 1005 ¶¶0038-47; ¶0039(…to ensure proper coverage
`
`given various conditions…[including] usage, load, weather, events…”);
`
`¶0041(“The rules of policy 255 can include one or more criterion representing a
`
`trigger …When the criteria are met, matrix switch 250 can take appropriate routing
`
`action.”). The triggered routing actions include, e.g., “to allocate more channels”
`
`to a region “to increase the bandwidth available.” ¶0046. The period of time prior
`
`to satisfying the triggering criterion is an example of “at a first point in time” as
`
`claimed. Ex. 1003 ¶51.
`
`23
`
`
`

`

`Wu discloses that the RTUs provide “wireless coverage” to cellular regions
`
`or cell area. Ex. 1005 ¶¶0030, 0004. It is well understood that “wireless”
`
`communications are transmitted using an antenna, and that there are antennas
`
`associated with the RTUs for providing the wireless communications. Ex. 1003
`
`¶52.
`
`Element H: “wherein the host unit is configurable to send digital
`representations of a second set of downlink channel signals to the first
`remote unit at a second point in time…”
`
`As explained above, Wu describes a routing policy that includes rules for
`
`reacting to events and conditions. Ex. 1005 ¶¶0038-47. The triggered routing
`
`actions include, e.g., “to allocate more channels” to a region “to increase the
`
`bandwidth available.” ¶0046. The time after the matrix switch reacts to a
`
`triggering condition to allocate more channels to an RTU to increase the bandwidth
`
`available, is “a second point in time” as recited in this limitation. Ex. 1003 ¶53.
`
`Element I: “wherein a number of downlink channel signals in the first
`set of downlink channel signals is different from a number of downlink
`channel signals in the second set of downlink channel signals”
`
`Wu’s routing policy can trigger the system “to allocate more channels” to a
`
`region “to increase the bandwidth available” (Ex. 1005 ¶0046) in response to
`
`conditions. This means that the number of channel signals in the first set (prior to
`
`triggering event) is different (fewer) than the number of channel signals in the
`
`second set (after triggering event), satisfying this limitation. Ex. 1003 ¶54.
`
`24
`
`
`

`

`Element J: “wherein the host unit is configured to receive digital
`signals from each of the plurality of remote units”
`
`Wu discloses that the system is bi-directional, meaning the RTUs and send
`
`digital representations of uplink signals over the fibers to the units 230. Ex. 1005
`
`¶¶0036, 0049; Ex. 1003 ¶¶55-57.
`
`Wu discloses that the remote units (RTUs) include analog to digital
`
`converters so that the RTUs can digitize signals for digital transport upstream to
`
`the host units 230. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 at Fig. 7-2 (RTU “ADC” elements); ¶0056
`
`(for uplink, the RTU “mirrors” functionality of unit 230 in downlink). The
`
`functionality of the unit 230 in the downlink that is mirrored by the RTU in the
`
`uplink includes creating a digital representation of the signal. See id. ¶0049; see
`
`also Ex. 1003 ¶56. Therefore, in Wu’s system the host unit satisfies this limitation.
`
`B.
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`The language of Claim 1 is nearly the same as Claim 10, except claim 1
`
`claims only the host unit, not the remote units. Therefore, Wu discloses the
`
`limitations corresponding to Elements B, D1, and E through I of Claim 1 for the
`
`same reasons that Wu discloses the corresponding Elements of Claim 10. Ex. 1003
`
`¶¶58-59. The preamble of claim 1 (Element B) is merely a combination of
`
`Elements A and B of claim 10 and is disclosed in Wu for the same reasons as
`
`Elements A and B of claim 10.
`
`25
`
`
`

`

`Claim 1 further recites Element D2 regarding the host having “at least one
`
`interface to communicatively couple the host unit to a plurality of remote units,
`
`including at least a first remote unit.” Units 230 in Wu include an optical interface
`
`to communicate with the RTUs which are remote units. Id. ¶60. As shown, for
`
`example in Figures