Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571–272–7822
`
`
`Paper 53
`Entered: August 12, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DALI WIRELESS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2018-00571
`Patent 9,531,473 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and
`SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00571
`Patent 9,531,473 B2
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`In this inter partes review, CommScope Technologies LLC
`(“Petitioner”) challenges the patentability of claims 6–21 of U.S. Patent No.
`9,531,473 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’473 patent”), which was assigned to Dali
`Wireless Inc. (“Patent Owner”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(4). This Final Written
`Decision, issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a), addresses issues and
`arguments raised during this inter partes review. For the reasons discussed
`below, we determine Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the
`evidence that the challenged claims of the ’473 patent are unpatentable. See
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (“In an inter partes review instituted under this chapter,
`the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of
`unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.”).
`A.
`Procedural History
`On February 2, 2018, Petitioner requested inter partes review of
`claims 6–21 of the ’473 patent. Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner filed a
`Preliminary Response. Paper 19 (“Prelim. Resp.”). On August 14, 2018,
`based on the record before us, we instituted an inter partes review. Paper 26
`(“Institution Decision” or “Inst. Dec.”).
`Our review encompasses all grounds asserted in the Petition, viz.:
`Reference(s)
`Basis Claims Challenged
`§ 102(b) 6–14, 16, 18
`
`Sabat1
`
`
`1 Sabat et al., U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2009/0180426 A1, pub. July
`16, 2009 (Ex. 1008).
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00571
`Patent 9,531,473 B2
`
`
`Reference(s)
`Sabat and any of CPRI Spec.2, Wu3,
`Stratford4, Bauman5, Kummetz6, or
`Schwartz27 (“the Daisy-Chain
`References”)
`Sabat and Wu, or Sabat and Wu and any
`of the Daisy-Chain References
`Oh8
`Oh and the “Standard Reference Books”9
`Oh or Oh and Feder10
`Oh and Feder
`Oh and Sabat
`Oh and Bauman and/or Feder
`Oh, Sabat, and Bauman and/or Feder
`
`Basis Claims Challenged
`§ 103
`15, 17, and 19–21
`
`§ 103
`
`6–21
`
`§ 102(b) 6, 7, 11, 12, and 19
`§ 103
`8, 13
`§ 103
`18
`§ 103
`20
`§ 103
`9, 10, 14, 16
`§ 103
`2111
`§ 103
`15, 17
`
`
`2 CPRI Specification V 4.0 (2008-06-30) Interface Specification (Ex. 1010).
`3 Wu et al., U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2010/0128676 A1, pub. May
`27, 2010 (Ex. 1011).
`4 Stratford et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,785,558 B1, iss. Aug. 31, 2004 (Ex.
`1015).
`5 Bauman et al., U.S. Patent No. 8,958,789 B2, iss. Feb. 17, 2015 (Ex. 1009).
`6 Kummetz et al., U.S. Patent No. 8,346,091 B2, iss. Jan. 1, 2013 (Ex. 1013).
`7 Schwartz et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,801,767 B1, iss. Oct. 5, 2004 (Ex. 1018).
`8 Oh et al., U.S. Patent No. 7,286,507 B1, iss. Oct. 23, 2007 (Ex. 1005).
`9 Petitioner defines “Standard Reference Books” to include three books, and
`provides front and back matter and selected pages as Exhibits as follows:
`Charles E. Spurgeon, Ethernet The Definitive Guide 99, 101–201 (O’Reilly
`& Associates, Inc., 2000) (Ex. 1028); Ray Horak, Telecommunications and
`Data Communications Handbook 353–366, 375–385, 394–397 (John Wiley
`& Sons, Inc. 2007) (Ex. 1027); and Network Design Basics for Cabling
`Professionals 41–67, 69–117, 119–134, 315–327 (Ex. 1007).
`10 Feder et al., U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2005/0157675 A1, pub. July
`21, 2005 (Ex. 1006).
`11 The grounds chart in the Petition indicates claim 15 is challenged based on
`a different combination, but the Petition provides arguments relating to the
`combination of Oh, Sabat, and Bauman and/or Feder, as reflected in the next
`line of this chart. See Pet. 9, 73–75; Paper 36 (“Pet. Reply”), 19–20.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00571
`Patent 9,531,473 B2
`
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis Claims Challenged
`§ 102(e) 6–8, 11–13, 18–21
`Wu
`§ 103
`6–21
`Wu
`§ 103
`9, 10, 14–17
`Wu and Sabat
`Petitioner also relies on the declaration of Dr. Anthony Acampora, Ex.
`
`1003.
`
`Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 32, “PO Resp.”)
`and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 36, “Pet. Reply”). Patent Owner also
`filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 40, “PO Sur-Reply”). Patent Owner also relies on
`the declaration of Dr. Bim, Ex. 2007. Oral Argument occurred on April 4,
`2019, and a transcript of that hearing is of record. Paper 52 (“Tr.”).
`Papers filed regarding a Motion to Exclude are addressed infra at
`Section II.G.
`
`Related Matter
`B.
`The parties state that the ’473 patent has been asserted against
`Petitioner in the following district court case: CommScope Technologies
`LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-00477-B (N.D. Tex.). Pet. 1; Paper
`4, 2.
`
`The ’473 Patent
`C.
`The ’473 patent is titled “Remotely Reconfigurable Distributed
`Antenna System and Methods” and relates to a Distributed Antenna System
`(DAS) that “enables a high degree of flexibility to manage, control, enhance,
`[and] facilitate the usage and performance of a distributed wireless
`network.” Ex. 1001, [54], [57]. According to one embodiment of the
`invention, a distributed antenna system includes digital access units (DAUs),
`which each connect to a base station. Id. at 6:1–10. The distributed antenna
`system receives downlink data via radio frequency (RF) signals from the
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00571
`Patent 9,531,473 B2
`
`base station. Id. at 6:25–32. The DAUs provide the received signals to
`multiple remote radio head units (RRUs). Id. at 6:14–17. Figure 1 of the
`’473 patent, reproduced below, is a block diagram showing the basic
`structure and an example of a downlink transport scenario.
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts two DAUs, DAU1 101 and DAU 102, which provide
`signals to RRUs, RRU1 103 through RRU4 106. Id. at 5:36–39, 6:1–7:18.
`Some RRUs, e.g., RRU2 104 shown in Figure 1, connect to a DAU via
`“daisy chaining” through intermediary RRUs, e.g., RRU1 103. Id. at 7:53–
`56.
`
`As shown in Figure 1, DAU1 101 receives composite downlink signal
`107 from a first base station (not shown) comprised of carriers 1 through 4,
`and DAU2 102 receives composite downlink signal 108 from a second base
`station (not shown) comprised of carriers 5 through 8. Id. at 6:25–32.
`Bidirectional optical cable 113 connects DAU1 101 and DAU2 102,
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00571
`Patent 9,531,473 B2
`
`rendering carriers 1–8 available to each DAU. Id. at 6:38–44. Software
`settings within RRU1 103 through RRU4 106 control which carrier signals
`are present in the downlink output signal at the antenna port of the RRUs.
`Id. at 6:44–47, 6:56–59, 6:66–7:2, 7:9–12. Embedded software control
`modules in the DAUs and the RRUs aid in “determining and/or setting the
`appropriate amount of radio resources . . . assigned to a particular RRU or
`group of RRUs to meet desired capacity and throughput objectives.” Id. at
`11:41–63. The antenna ports of the RRUs receive uplink signals and
`transmit them to the base station via the DAUs. Id. at 6:17–22, 8:65–9:5,
`9:47–49.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`D.
`Claims 6 and 11 of the challenged claims of the ’473 patent are
`independent. Claim 11 illustrates the claimed subject matter:
`11. A system for transporting wireless communications,
`comprising:
`a host unit;
`a plurality of remote units, including at least a first remote
`unit and a second remote unit;
`wherein the host unit comprises at least one interface to
`communicatively couple the host unit to at least one signal
`source;
`wherein the host unit is capable of receiving a plurality of
`downlink signals from the at least one signal source;
`wherein the host unit further comprises at least one
`interface to communicatively couple the host unit to the plurality
`of remote units;
`wherein the host unit is capable of sending a digital
`representation of any downlink signal it receives to any of the
`plurality of remote units;
`wherein the host unit is configurable to transmit a digital
`representation of a first subset of the plurality of downlink
`signals to the first remote unit and a digital representation of a
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00571
`Patent 9,531,473 B2
`
`second subset of the plurality of downlink signals to the second
`remote unit, the second subset being different than the first
`subset;
`wherein the host unit is capable of receiving a digital
`representation of at least one uplink signal from the each of the
`plurality of remote units.
`Ex. 1001, 13:53–14:21.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Principles of Law
`It is a petitioner’s burden to demonstrate unpatentability in an inter
`partes review. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800
`F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek,
`Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
`To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every
`limitation of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently. Blue
`Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`However, this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is
`not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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 based on the following
`underlying factual determinations: (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) objective evidence of nonobviousness,
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00571
`Patent 9,531,473 B2
`
`i.e., secondary considerations.12 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–
`18 (1966). “To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner cannot
`employ mere conclusory statements. The petitioner must instead articulate
`specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal
`conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d
`1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We analyze the asserted grounds with the
`principles stated above in mind.
`B.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner asserts that the proper level of ordinary skill in the art is a
`“bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent field) with 2-3
`years of work experience in wireless communications.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex.
`1003 ¶ 20). Patent Owner contends that the proper level of skill is that of a
`person who “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science,
`computer engineering, electrical engineering, or their equivalent, and at least
`three years’ experience working with wireless technology.” PO Resp. 17
`(citing Ex. 2007 ¶ 17). Based on the evidence of record, including the types
`of problems and solutions described in the ’473 patent and the asserted prior
`art, we agree with and adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of
`ordinary skill in the art, although our findings and conclusions would be the
`same if we applied Petitioner’s somewhat narrower proposed definition.
`C.
`Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review filed before November 13, 2018, the Board
`interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest reasonable
`
`
`12 The record contains no allegations or evidence of secondary
`considerations.
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00571
`Patent 9,531,473 B2
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent. See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b) (2017); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131,
`2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation
`standard as the claim interpretation standard to be applied in an inter partes
`review); Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting
`Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83
`Fed. Reg. 51340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (noting that the changes apply to inter
`partes reviews filed on or after November 13, 2018). Under that standard,
`and absent any special definitions, claim terms generally carry their ordinary
`and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
`the art, at the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d
`1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definitions for claim terms must
`be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Regardless of the standard
`employed, nothing in this record indicates that a district court claim
`construction standard would alter the outcome here.
`Petitioner requests that we construe “packetizing.” Pet. 12. Patent
`Owner presents arguments regarding “packetizing,” and additionally argues
`for constructions of the terms “downlink signal,” “wherein the host unit is
`capable of sending a digital representation of any downlink signal it receives
`to any of the plurality of remote units,” and “configurable to.” PO Resp. 6–
`17.
`
`“packetizing”
`1.
`Petitioner argues that the broadest reasonable construction for
`“packetizing,” which appears in claims 9, 10, 14, and 16 is “making units of
`data which are sent over a network.” Pet. 12. In the Institution Decision, we
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00571
`Patent 9,531,473 B2
`
`declined to construe “packetizing” but invited the parties to provide briefing
`on this issue. Inst. Dec. 9–10.
`Patent Owner argues that the Specification of the ’473 patent
`describes data packets as including headers that identify source or
`destination information, and thus argues that any construction should require
`“including source or destination information with the data to be transmitted.”
`PO Resp. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:41–47, 9:10–13); Tr. 26:17–27:4
`(clarifying that Patent Owner’s position is that the construction should
`require, rather than simply “encompass,” the inclusion of source or
`destination information).
`Petitioner presents definitions of packetizing from various technical
`dictionaries to show that a packet is “a unit of data which is sent over a
`network,” and argues that “packetizing” should be construed as creating
`(“making”) such packets. Pet. 12. (quoting Ex. 1022, 4; citing Ex. 1023–
`25). Patent Owner argues Petitioner’s proposed construction is based only
`on extrinsic evidence and ignores the balance of the quoted definition used
`as the basis of Petitioner’s claim construction, which describes a packet as
`“compris[ing] a payload containing some data, and either a header or a
`trailer containing control information.” Ex. 1022, 4 (cited in PO Resp. 16);
`PO Resp. 15–16. Petitioner responds that while the definition used does
`refer to control information, “there is nothing in the definition that refers to
`control information being source or destination information” and other
`control information could be included rather than source or destination
`information. Pet. Reply 6. Petitioner, however, does not describe how any
`form of control information is included in Petitioner’s proposed definition.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00571
`Patent 9,531,473 B2
`
`Turning to intrinsic evidence, Patent Owner argues that the
`Specification describes the transmission of headers with data packets, for
`uplink signals identifying the source of the packet, and for downlink signals
`identifying destination information. PO Resp. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:41–
`47, 9:10–13; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 39, 41–42). Patent Owner cites a localization
`capability described in the Specification, and notes that without the inclusion
`of source information in uplink data, that localization capability would be
`“frustrated.” Id. at 15 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:55–66; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 40–41).
`Petitioner argues in response that this localization capability is not claimed
`or referred to in the challenged claims. Pet. Reply 6.
`Petitioner quotes originally filed claim 3 in the application which
`became the ’473 patent, which describes “I/Q mapping and framing the
`digitized [downlink] signals . . . to provide packetized signals” and a
`dependent claim that further specifies that “the packetized signals each
`include a destination address.” Pet. Reply 4–5 (quoting Ex. 1002, 431–432).
`Thus, Petitioner argues, claim differentiation requires “that the packetizing
`called out in independent application claim 3 did not require a destination
`address.” Id. at 5.
`Patent Owner’s analysis is persuasive and supported by the
`Specification. The Specification states “[h]eader information is transmitted
`along with the data packet which identifies the RRU and DAU that
`corresponds to the individual data packet.” Ex. 1001, 9:10–13. Patent
`Owner explains “[b]y providing the identities of both the DAU and the
`RRU, the header may be used to identify a region in which a particular user
`is located.” PO Resp. 14–15 (citing Ex. 2007 ¶ 41). The Specification
`further describes that the “system of the invention uses this header
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00571
`Patent 9,531,473 B2
`
`information in conjunction with the mobile user’s radio signature to localize
`the user to a particular cell.” Ex. 1001, 4:55–66.
`We agree with Patent Owner that the Specification describes adding
`header information to framed data to identify the source of the packet for an
`uplink signal and aid in localization. PO Resp. at 15 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:55–
`66; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 40–41). The Specification mentions the inclusion of source
`information as a general requirement, describing that if Common Public
`Radio Interface (CPRI) is not used to frame packets, another standard can be
`used provided that standard “uniquely identif[ies] data packets with
`respective RRUs.” Ex. 1001, 9:8–10. Petitioner’s claim differentiation
`argument is not persuasive, as the cancelled dependent claim specifies the
`inclusion of a destination address, which does not preclude a source address
`or destination address being required in the claim from which it depended.
`See PO Sur-Reply 9. We are more persuaded by Patent Owner’s intrinsic
`evidence than by the extrinsic evidence cited by Petitioner.
`After consideration of the entire record, we agree that the broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the Specification of “packetizing” a signal
`requires the inclusion of source or destination information.
`2.
` “wherein the host unit is capable of sending a digital
`representation of any downlink signal it receives
`to any of the plurality of remote units”
`Patent Owner argues that broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`“wherein the host unit is capable of sending a digital representation of any
`downlink signal it receives to any of the plurality of remote units” limitation
`in claims 6 and 11 is “wherein the host unit is capable of sending a digital
`representation of a specific downlink signal it receives to a specific one of
`the plurality of remote units.” PO Resp. 10–11. Patent Owner argues that
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00571
`Patent 9,531,473 B2
`
`this is because “one of skill in the art would understand from the claim
`language and the specification that the host unit must be able to extract
`specific radio resources from composite signals received from a signal
`source and specify precisely where to send each individual radio resource.”
`Id. (citing Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 51–52). Petitioner contends that no portion of the
`Specification requires the extraction of any portion of the plurality of
`downlink signals or individual transmission to remote units, and on the
`contrary, the Specification describes all downlink signals arriving at each
`remote unit, where digital upconverters in the remote units select which
`signals to turn on and off for broadcast. Pet. Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1001,
`6:61–65).
`Patent Owner makes clear in other arguments that it interprets its
`proposed construction as requiring the host unit to be capable of sending a
`digital representation of a specific downlink signal to only one remote unit
`without sending it to any other remote units. See PO Resp. 54–57; PO Sur-
`Reply 22–23; Tr. 53:16–60:25. Patent Owner cites the declaration of its
`expert, Dr. Bim, in which Dr. Bim cites the “fine-grained ability to send
`specific radio resources to specific remote units” of the ’473 patent as
`providing “precise control over which radio resources are allocated where
`and also enables more efficient use of bandwidth between a host unit and its
`remotes.” Ex. 2007 ¶ 51 (cited at PO Resp. 10–11, PO Sur-Reply 3).
`We are not persuaded that the claim language at issue requires the
`host unit to be capable of sending a specific downlink signal to a specific
`(one) resource (i.e., the claim does not require extracting a specific downlink
`signal to send to only a specific resource.) The ’473 patent specifically
`discloses that remote units use upconverters to determine which radio
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00571
`Patent 9,531,473 B2
`
`resources to broadcast from among the resources received––so a host unit
`need not differentiate the carriers it sends to specific remote units because
`the latter can control the uplink resources. Ex. 1001, 6:44–7:12, 11:56–63
`(describing carriers 1, 4, 5, and 8 arriving at RRU4 from RRU3). Therefore,
`we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s claim construction. Other than
`declining to adopt Patent Owner’s construction, we agree with Petitioner that
`we do not need to explicitly construe this claim term.
`3.
`“downlink signal”
`Patent Owner argues that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`term “downlink signal” is “radio resource,” and that “radio resources may
`be, for example, ‘RF carriers, CDMA codes, or TDMA time slots.’” PO
`Resp. 6–7 (quoting Ex. 1001, 4:10–12). Patent Owner notes that the ’473
`patent describes the receipt of groups of radio resources in composite signals
`from base stations, and that each radio resource is treated individually. Id. at
`7–8. Patent Owner does not make clear, other than be providing three
`examples from the ’473 patent, what a radio resource is; instead Patent
`Owner contrasts its construction with a construction that encompasses
`composite signals such as the composite signal sent by the base stations in
`the ’473 patent. Id. at 9; Ex. 1001, 6:25–28 (cited at PO Resp. 7). Patent
`Owner uses its construction to distinguish the host unit teachings of Sabat
`(which it asserts “is not able to extract radio resources from incoming base
`station sector signals”) and of Oh (which it asserts “sends an entire coverage
`area to an antenna unit”) from those in the challenged claims. PO Resp. 30–
`32, 44–45.
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00571
`Patent 9,531,473 B2
`
`For the purposes of this decision, which does not rely on these
`teachings of Sabat and Oh, no construction is deemed necessary. Vivid
`Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.
`4.
`“configurable to transmit a digital representation of a first subset of
`the plurality of downlink signals to the first remote unit and a digital
`representation of a second subset of the plurality of downlink signals to the
`second remote unit, the second subset being different than the first subset”
`Patent Owner argues that the “configurable to . . .” claim limitation
`does not state an intended use, but rather should be interpreted to be a
`limitation of the invention. PO Resp. 11–14. Patent Owner additionally
`notes that the District Court found that the claim term did not state an
`intended use. Id. at 12–13; Ex. 2005, 26–28. Petitioner does not present any
`construction for this term.
`Patent Owner persuasively argues that the configurability
`encompassed in this limitation is a key functionality of the system, and that
`it is not merely context in which the invention may be used. PO Resp. 11–
`14. We do not construe the “configurable to” limitation as a statement of
`intended use.
`
`D.
`
`Asserted Anticipation Based on Wu and
`Asserted Obviousness Based on Wu
`Petitioner asserts claims 6–8, 11–13, and 18–21 are anticipated by
`Wu. Pet. 75–88. Additionally, Petitioner asserts claims 6–21 would have
`been obvious over Wu. Id. at 89–90. Patent Owner addresses these
`assertions in Patent Owner’s Response. PO Resp. 21, 54–59.
`1.
`Overview of Wu
`Wu is titled “Carrier Channel Distribution System” and describes a
`system where signals are communicated between base transceiver stations
`and remote transceiver units (RTUs), providing fine-grained control for this
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00571
`Patent 9,531,473 B2
`
`communication, splitting carrier channels and routing only some channels to
`RTUs according to a routing policy. Ex. 1011, [54], [57], ¶¶ 9, 11, 38–44.
`The base transceiver station may receive signals within a plurality of
`frequency bands, each of which may comprise multiple channels. Id. ¶¶ 11,
`35, 37, 38. Figure 2 of Wu, reproduced below, is a schematic of a base
`transceiver station and associated host units.
`
`
`Figure 2 shows base transceiver station (BTS) 240 including
`transceiver 260, matrix switch 250, and host units 230. Id. ¶¶ 15, 34–36.
`Transceiver 260 receives signals on BTS bands 263A through 264N, and
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00571
`Patent 9,531,473 B2
`
`each may include multiple channels 270, e.g., channels 270 labelled 5
`through 9 in BTS band 263B. Id. ¶¶ 35, 37. Transceiver 260 forwards the
`received channels 270 to matrix switch 250 that routes them according to
`Routing Policy 255 to host unit 230, which further distributes them to RTUs
`over link 215. Id. ¶ 38. The system is bi-directional, and carrier channel
`signals are received by host units 230 from RTUs and forwarded to
`transceiver 260 for transmission within bands 263. Id. ¶¶ 36, 49. Wu also
`discloses that some signals may be received at an RTU with another RTU
`acting as intermediary. Id. at Figs. 1, 4, ¶¶ 33, 51.
`Policy 255 can be reconfigured in order to change the routing of
`channels to the various RTUs. Id. ¶¶ 48, 49. Channels may be routed,
`allocated, or distributed, for example, based on anticipated requirements of
`areas at a certain time of day, or on current traffic load. Id. ¶¶ 43, 44.
`Transmissions between host units and RTUs are disclosed as preferably
`being according to the CPRI Standard. Id. ¶¶ 31, 49.
`2.
`Claims 6 and 11
`a. Petitioner’s Initial Showing – Claim 11
`Petitioner persuasively shows that Wu discloses claim 11’s preamble
`“system for transporting wireless communications.” Pet. 78 (citing Ex. 1011
`¶¶ 2, 4, 5, 9). With respect to the host unit of claim 11, Petitioner argues that
`a combination of Wu’s matrix switch 250 and host units 230 disclose the
`claimed host unit. Id. (citing Ex. 1011, Fig. 2, elements 250, 230). To
`explain the alleged disclosure of the claimed host unit in Wu, Petitioner
`presents an annotated version of Wu’s Figure 2, reproduced below.
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00571
`Patent 9,531,473 B2
`
`
`
`
`Id. at 77. Figure 2, as annotated by Petitioner, shows a dotted red box
`enclosing Wu’s matrix switch 250 and Wu’s host units 230.
`Petitioner persuasively shows that Wu’s description of multiband
`transceiver 260 discloses the signal source of claim 11. Id. at 79. Petitioner
`also persuasively shows that Wu’s description of RTUs discloses the
`claimed plurality of remote units. Id. (citing Ex. 1011, Fig. 1, ¶¶ 11, 30, 33).
`With respect to the claim limitations requiring that “the host unit
`comprises at least one interface to communicatively couple the host unit to”
`the signal source and “the host unit is capable of receiving a plurality of
`downlink signals from” the signal source, Petitioner persuasively relies on
`the matrix switch 250 of Wu, which communicatively couples to the multi-
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00571
`Patent 9,531,473 B2
`
`band transceiver (signal source) and is capable of receiving a plurality of
`downlink signals from that transceiver. Id. at 79–80 (citing Ex. 1011, Fig. 2,
`¶ 38).
`Petitioner persuasively shows that Wu’s description of host unit 230’s
`connections with RTUs discloses the limitation regarding an interface of the
`host unit to communicatively couple to the remote units. Id. at 80 (citing Ex.
`1011 ¶¶ 30, 51).
`With respect to the host unit capability to send a digital representation
`of downlink signals to any of the plurality of remote units, Petitioner
`persuasively relies on Wu’s disclosures of a matrix switch, which provides
`fine-grained control over individual carrier channels by routing them,
`according to a routing policy, including routing each channel individually to
`one or more RTUs. Id. at 80–81 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 9, 11, 30, 38–47, 54).
`Petitioner addresses the host unit’s configurability to transmit a first subset
`of a plurality of downlink signals to a first remote unit and a second subset
`to a second remote unit by referencing back to these citations, and Petitioner
`further notes a specific example provided in Wu in which the system routes
`a first carrier channel to one RTU and a second carrier channel to a second
`RTU. Id. at 82–83 (quoting Ex. 1011 ¶ 47).
`Lastly, with respect to claim 11, Petitioner persuasively argues that
`Wu discloses bi-directional digital communication between the RTUs and
`the host unit and explains how this and related descriptions disclose the
`claimed capability of the host unit to receive at least one uplink signal from
`each RTU. Id. at 83 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 36, 56).
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00571
`Patent 9,531,473 B2
`
`
`b. Analysis of Parties’ Positions – Claim 11
`In response to the Petition and Institution Decision, Patent Owner
`presents two arguments relating to Petitioner’s contentions regarding Wu
`and claim 11. PO Resp. 54–58. First, Patent Owner argues that Wu does
`not disclose a host unit “capable of sending a digital representation of any
`downlink signal it receives to any of the plurality of remote units” (the
`“capable of sending” limitation) as required by claim 11. Id. at 54–57; PO
`Sur-Reply 22. Second, Patent Owner argues that Wu does not disclose a
`host unit “configurable to transmit a digital representation of a first subset of
`the plurality of downlink signals to the first remote unit and a digital
`representation of a second subset of the plurality of downlink signals to the
`second remote unit, the second subset being different from the first subset”
`(the “configurable to transmit” limitation) as further required by claim 11.
`PO Resp. 57–58; PO Sur-Reply 23.
`(1) Wu’s host units 230 and matrix switch 250
`At least in part, each of these arguments relies on Patent Owner’s
`contention that Wu’s host units (e.g. shown as elements 230 in Wu’s Figure
`2) do not have the capability or configurability required by the “capable of
`sending” limitation or the “configurable to transmit” limitation. PO Resp.
`54–58. For example, with respect to the “capable of sending” limitation,
`Patent Owner argues that Wu’s matrix switch receives composite signals and
`distributes them to the Wu host units, but that the Wu “host units themselves
`do not perform any switching or routing of signals.” Id. at 55. As detailed
`above, however, Petitioner relies on the combination of Wu’s matrix switch
`250 and host units 230 as reading on the host unit of claim 11. Pet. 78.
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00571
`Patent 9,531,473 B2
`
`The claim does not require a unitary structure for the host unit, and
`Patent Owner does not advance any specific basis to distinguish the claimed
`host unit from Wu’s matrix switch 250 and host units 230 considered
`together. Patent Owner argues a failure to show obviousness, as follows:
`When showing a high level view of its system, Wu groups its
`multi-band transceiver and matrix switch in BTS 140, while
`leaving its host units 130 as separate entities. Ex. 2007, ¶147;
`[Ex. 1011], Fig. 1. Figure 2 similarly illustrates the multi-band
`transceiver 260 and the matrix switch 250 as the BTS 240,
`while leaving the host units 230 as distinct components.
`Ex. 2007, ¶147; [Ex. 1011], Fig. 2. The correct way to group
`Wu’s components, if grouping were desirable, would be to
`group the hosts with their respective RTUs to form multiple
`DA