`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY, GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
`NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., TESLA, INC., and
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.,1
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2022-01539
`U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512
`____________________
`
`PETITIONER VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`1 Ford Motor Company filed a motion for joinder and a petition in IPR2023-00764,
`and General Motors LLC, Nissan North America, Inc., Tesla, Inc., and American
`Honda Motor Co., Inc., filed their own motion for joinder and petition in IPR2023-
`00961. Both motions were granted, and, therefore, Ford Motor Company, General
`Motors LLC, Nissan North America, Inc., Tesla, Inc., and American Honda Motor
`Co., Inc., have been joined as petitioners in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01539
`U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
`
`Claim Construction ...................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of cell-specific pilots is pilots that are
`specific to a cell ................................................................................. 1
`
`B.
`
`Neo’s construction is improper .......................................................... 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Neo’s construction departs from the plain and ordinary meaning
`................................................................................................. 4
`
`Claim differentiation shows that Neo’s construction is too
`narrow...................................................................................... 5
`
`3.
`
`Neo’s reliance on the ’512 patent’s Background is misplaced .. 6
`
`III. Ground 1: Kim-Tong ................................................................................... 8
`
`A. Kim discloses cell-specific pilots under the plain and ordinary
`meaning. ............................................................................................ 8
`
`B.
`
`Kim discloses cell-specific pilots even under Neo’s improperly
`narrow construction ........................................................................... 9
`
`1.
`
`Kim’s cell-specific pilots have different values for different
`cells ........................................................................................10
`
`2.
`
`Neo’s reliance on Kim’s Figure 14 is misplaced .....................13
`
`C.
`
`Kim-Tong teaches beamforming .......................................................14
`
`IV. Ground 2: Ketchum-Li ................................................................................18
`
`A. Ketchum’s beacon pilots are cell-specific pilots ................................18
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`A POSA would have found it obvious to implement Li’s cell-specific
`pilots in Ketchum ..............................................................................22
`
`Ketchum transmits the first and second pluralities of subcarriers in at
`least one of the time slots ..................................................................23
`
`V. Dependent Claims .......................................................................................27
`
`VI. Neo’s Attempts to Discredit Dr. Min Are Meritless ....................................28
`
`VII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-01539
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,965,512
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`PETITIONER’S UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512 to Li et al. (“’512 patent”)
`
`’512 Patent Prosecution History
`
`Declaration of Dr. Paul Min
`
`International Patent Publication No. WO2004/049618 to Kim et al.
`(“Kim”)
`
`1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,120,395 to Tong et al. (“Tong”)
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2004/0179627 to Ketchum et al.
`(“Ketchum”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2002/0163879 to Li et al. (“Li”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,248,559 to Ma et al. (“Ma ’559”)
`
`Tufvesson, et al., Pilot Assisted Channel Estimation For OFDM in
`Mobile Cellular Systems, IEEE 47th Vehicular Technology
`Conference (1997)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,826,471 to Wilson et al. (“Wilson”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,664,533 to Logothetis et al. (“Logothetis”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,054,664 to Nagaraj (“Nagaraj”)
`
`International Patent Application No. WO 2004/056022 to Lee et al.
`(“Lee”)
`
`1014
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,551,546 to Ma (“Ma ’546”)
`
`1015
`
`Anderson, Fixed Broadband Wireless System Design, Wiley (2003)
`(excerpts)
`
`1016
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,852,746 to Jalali (“Jalali”).
`
`1017
`
`U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2004/0131007 to Smee et al.
`(“Smee”)
`
`1018
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,152 to Li et al. (“Li ’152”).
`
`1019
`
`U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2004/0190598 to Seki et al.
`(“Seki”).
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-01539
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,965,512
`
`Description
`
`Li, “A Novel Broadband Wireless OFDMA Scheme for Downlink in
`Cellular Communications,” Samsung Advanced Institute of
`Technology (IEEE) (2003) (“Li-Samsung”)
`Hara et al., “Multicarrier Techniques for 4G Mobile
`Communications,” Artech House (2003) (excerpts) (“Hara”)
`U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2004/0228270 to Chen et al.
`(“Chen”)
`
`Van Nee et al., “OFDM for Wireless Multimedia Communications,”
`Artech House (2000) (“Van Nee”) (excerpts)
`Bahai et al., “Multi-Carrier Communications Theory and
`Applications of OFDM,” Springer Science (2004) (excerpts)
`(“Bahai”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,001 to Krishnan et al. (Krishnan”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,992,621 to Casas et al. (“Casas”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,596,329 to Searle et al. (“Searle”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2005/0075125 to Bada et al.
`(“Bada”).
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Paul Min
`
`1030
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/421,309 to Walton et al.
`(“’309 Provisional”)
`
`1031
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,012,882 to Wang et al. (“Wang”)
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`Transfer Order, In re: Neo Wireless, LLC, Patent Litigation, Case
`MDL No. 3034, issued June 14, 2022 (ECF No. 50)
`Docket Sheet, Neo Wireless, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America,
`Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-11404 (E.D. Mich.)
`United States District Courts – National Judicial Caseload Profile,
`June 2022
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,934,473 to Li et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,432,891 to Li et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,388,034 to Li et al.
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-01539
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,965,512
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`Description
`
`Kim et al., “Synchronization and Cell-Search Technique Using
`Preamble for OFDM Cellular Systems,” IEEE Transactions on
`Vehicular Technology, Vo. 56, No. 6, November 2007
`Kim et al., “A Preamble-Based Cell Searching Technique
`for OFDM Cellular Systems,” IEEE, 2003
`
`1040
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,749,168 to Li et al.
`
`1041
`
`Declaration of William Alberth in Support of Neo Wireless’s
`Opening Claim Construction Brief, In re Neo Wireless, LLC Patent
`Litigation, Case No. 2:22-md-03034-TGB (E.D. Mich.), filed
`February 16, 2023
`
`1042
`
`Transcript of October 30, 2023 Deposition of William P. Alberth, Jr.
`
`1043
`
`Ifeachor et al., Digital Signal Processing: A Practical Approach,
`Second Edition, Prentice Hall, 2002 (excerpts)
`
`1044
`
`Declaration of Dr. Paul Min in Support of Petitioner’s Reply
`
`1045
`
`Transcript of October 19, 2023 Deposition of William P. Alberth, Jr.
`in IPR2022-01537
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01539
`U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512
`
`Neo’s POR merely rehashes arguments the Board already discredited in its
`
`Institution Decision. Neo does not provide reason for the Board to change its mind.
`
`Thus, consistent with the Institution Decision, the Board should cancel all claims
`
`of the ’512 patent.
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A. The plain and ordinary meaning of cell-specific pilots is pilots that
`are specific to a cell
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of the term “cell-specific pilot” is
`
`straightforward—“a pilot that is specific to a cell.” EX1044, ¶¶13-18. The ’512
`
`patent specification does not explicitly define the term, nor has there been any
`
`disavowal. Thus, the plain and ordinary meaning should govern. Pet., 12.
`
`This plain meaning is consistent with the claim language. See Phillips v.
`
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“the claims themselves provide
`
`substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms”). The
`
`independent claims broadly recite “cell-specific pilots,” without requiring
`
`particular structural features of the cell-specific pilots. Malvern Panalytical Inc. v.
`
`TA Instruments-Waters LLC, No. 2022-1439, 2023 WL 7171484, at *4 (Fed. Cir.
`
`Nov. 1, 2023) (“It is appropriate to construe [claim terms] by looking to the words
`
`[of the claim] individually.”). Further, independent claim 15 describes cell-specific
`
`pilots by their functionality, reciting that they are used by the receiver to “recover
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-01539
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,965,512
`
`cell-specific information.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (“usage of a term in one
`
`claim can often illuminate the meaning of the same term in other claims”). Thus,
`
`the Board should construe cell-specific pilots in accordance with its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning—“pilots that are specific to a cell.” EX1044, ¶18.
`
`This is consistent with the specification, which provides guidance as to what
`
`makes a pilot cell-specific. For instance, the specification describes these pilots by
`
`their functionality (independent of any structure), stating that its “pilot subcarriers
`
`are divided into two different groups according to their functionalities.” EX1001,
`
`3:10-12. The first group—cell-specific pilots—are “used by the receiver [] to
`
`extract information unique to each individual cell.” Id., 3:17-19, see also Abstract
`
`(“design criteria and transmission formats of the cell-specific… pilot subcarriers
`
`are specified to enable a receiver to perform different system functions”). For
`
`instance, “cell-specific pilot subcarriers can be used in channel estimation where it
`
`is necessary for a particular receiver to be able to differentiate the pilot subcarriers
`
`that are intended for its use from those of other cells.” Id., 3:19-23. Thus, the
`
`specification explains that pilots are cell-specific, for instance, when used to
`
`perform cell-specific functions. EX1044, ¶¶13-14.
`
`The specification also provides an example embodiment where a cell-
`
`specific pilot is generated using cell-specific attributes. EX1044, ¶¶15-16. In one
`
`example, the specification states that cell-specific information can be “carried by
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-01539
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,965,512
`
`[the amplitude and phase]” of a pilot used for cell-specific purposes. EX1001,
`
`5:16-22. The specification also explains that cell-specific pilots can have certain
`
`“attributes… such as their frequency indices and complex values specified by their
`
`requirements.” Id., 6:52-59, see also FIG. 6, 5:38-40, 5:26-32. Thus, the
`
`specification teaches that pilots can be cell-specific based on cell-specific
`
`attributes, including subcarrier position or complex values (amplitude, phase).
`
`Additionally, claim 1 of a parent of the ’512 patent recites that cell-specific pilots
`
`can “possess amplitudes, phases, and frequency subcarrier indices specific to the
`
`cell.” EX1035, claim 1; see SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307,
`
`1316 (Fed. Cir. 2015). These attributes enable a “receiver to… differentiate the
`
`pilot subcarriers that are intended for its use from those of other cells.” EX1001,
`
`3:19-24; EX1035, claim 5.
`
`These examples provide guidance as to what makes a pilot specific to a cell,
`
`in accordance with the term’s plain meaning. From this guidance, a POSA would
`
`have understood a pilot to be cell-specific, for instance, when it is used for cell-
`
`specific functionality and/or when it is generated using cell-specific attributes, such
`
`as its frequency indices or its complex values. EX1044, ¶17.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-01539
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,965,512
`
`B. Neo’s construction is improper
`
`1.
`
`Neo’s construction departs from the plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`Although Neo doesn’t explicitly propose a construction, it appears to assert
`
`that cell-specific pilots must “have cell-specific amplitude and/or phases carrying
`
`cell-specific information.” POR, 9-10 (citing EX2010, ¶¶43-45). Neo’s expert, Mr.
`
`Alberth, testified that the term’s plain and ordinary meaning is a “cell-specific pilot
`
`symbol that’s carrying cell-specific information encoded in the amplitude and/or
`
`the phase.” EX1042, 82:9-14. But as explained, the plain and ordinary meaning is
`
`not so limiting. The claims do not characterize cell-specific pilots by their
`
`amplitudes or phases, and the specification does not support Neo’s narrow
`
`construction.
`
`The specification discusses the amplitudes and phases of cell-specific pilots
`
`in a single sentence, referring to “cell-specific information carried by [the
`
`amplitude and phase]” of an example cell-specific pilot. EX1001, 5:16-22. And
`
`Neo’s construction is inconsistent with even this disclosure because its
`
`construction only requires “cell-specific amplitude and/or phases.” POR, 9. This
`
`departs from the specification by encompassing pilots with cell-specific
`
`amplitudes, but not cell-specific phases. EX1044, ¶¶20, 28-30.
`
`Further, the specification explicitly states that the “claims should not be
`
`construed to limit the invention to the specific embodiments disclosed in the
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-01539
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,965,512
`
`specification.” EX1001, 9:6-44. Neo further admits that the specification discloses
`
`the cell-specific amplitude and phases in “exemplary embodiments.” POR, 19.
`
`Neo’s construction thus departs from the plain meaning by importing limitations
`
`from the specification and excluding embodiments in the specification. Hill-Rom
`
`Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`Neo’s reliance on In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. is misplaced. 696 F.3d
`
`1142 (Fed. Cir. 2012)2. There, the court found that the patentee had “define[d] the
`
`[claim term] by implication” in the specification by “repeatedly, consistently, and
`
`exclusively” describing the term in a certain way. That is not the case here where
`
`the specification mentions cell-specific amplitudes and phases only once. See
`
`EX1001, 5:16-22. The specification does not provide any examples of cell-specific
`
`information carried by the amplitude and phase, or any concrete examples of how
`
`such information would be used. The specification also describes cell-specific
`
`pilots in terms of their subcarrier positions, and their functionalities independent of
`
`amplitude or phase. EX1044, ¶¶20-23.
`
`2.
`
`Claim differentiation shows that Neo’s construction is too
`narrow
`
`The Institution Decision correctly observed that claim 4 of the ’512 patent
`
`indicates that the cell-specific pilot “as recited by claim 1, encompasses more than
`
`
`2 Neo’s other cited cases are similar to Abbott, and are thus similarly inapposite.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-01539
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,965,512
`
`a ‘cell-specific pilot . . . [that] is unique to a respective cell.’” ID, 24-25; Phillips,
`
`415 F.3d at 1315 (“the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular
`
`limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present
`
`in the independent claim”). EX1044, ¶24. That is, by requiring cell-specific pilots
`
`to have amplitudes and/or phases unique to a cell, Neo’s construction is even
`
`narrower than claim 4. The POR does not address this.
`
`Other claims in the ’512 patent’s family make this even more clear. See
`
`SightSound Techs., 809 F.3d at 1316. Claims 1-2 of a parent patent recite that
`
`“cell-specific pilot subcarriers possess characteristics specific to the cell,” and that
`
`these “characteristics specific to the cell” include “phases and amplitudes of the
`
`cell-specific pilot subcarriers.” EX1036, claims 1-2. Thus, when the patentee
`
`desired to require cell-specific pilots to have cell-specific amplitudes and phases, it
`
`did so explicitly. See also EX1035, claim 1 (“cell-specific pilot subcarriers possess
`
`amplitudes, phases, and frequency subcarrier indices specific to the cell”), claim 5.
`
`The ’512 patent’s claims include no such structural limitations, and accordingly, do
`
`not require such limitations. EX1044, ¶¶25-27.
`
`3.
`
`Neo’s reliance on the ’512 patent’s Background is misplaced
`
`Neo appears to argue that the ’512 patent’s Background supports its
`
`construction by disavowing cell-specific pilot patterns. POR, 5-8. But this
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-01539
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,965,512
`
`argument mischaracterizes the Background, and also rests on an incorrect
`
`interpretation of case law.
`
`First, Neo mischaracterizes the Background. EX1044, ¶¶31-34. Neo appears
`
`to argue that the claims should exclude cell-specific pilot patterns because the
`
`Background allegedly teaches that such patterns “are precisely the prior art the
`
`Patent improved upon.” POR, 5. Neo is wrong because cell-specific pilots were
`
`known prior to the ’512 patent. EX1044, ¶34. Mr. Alberth admitted that the very
`
`pilots described in the Background could have been cell-specific pilots. EX1042,
`
`53:6-55:7; 66:16-67:11. Further, the specification’s embodiments teach the very
`
`pilot patterns described in the Background. EX1001, 5:38-40, 5:26-30, FIG. 5,
`
`claim 5; EX1044, ¶34.
`
`Thus, to the extent the ’512 patent provides an improvement over the art, it
`
`was not to replace cell-specific pilot patterns with cell-specific pilots. Rather, as
`
`Dr. Min explains, the alleged improvement stems from dividing the pilot
`
`subcarriers “into two different groups according to their functionalities” to
`
`“provide[] for a careful and systematic consideration of the unique requirements of
`
`the pilot subcarriers.” EX1001, 1:65-2:2, 3:10-12; EX1044, ¶35.
`
`Second, even if the Background criticizes pilot patterns, “[m]ere criticism of
`
`a particular embodiment encompassed in the plain meaning of a claim term is not
`
`sufficient to rise to the level of clear disavowal.” Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-01539
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,965,512
`
`Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also Cont'l Cirs. LLC v. Intel
`
`Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 798 (Fed. Cir. 2019). For instance, any criticism was aimed at
`
`the use of systems that do not divide their pilots into two groups according to their
`
`functionalities. EX1044, ¶36. The Background acknowledges that the pilot pattern
`
`implementation “mitigated the impact of the mutual interference between the pilot
`
`subcarriers from adjacent cells,” but merely states that it did not “provide[] for a
`
`careful and systematic consideration of the unique requirements of the pilot
`
`subcarriers.” EX1001, 1:65-2:2.
`
` This vague criticism is not an “expression[] of manifest exclusion or
`
`restriction, representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at
`
`1366. Thus, even if Neo had characterized the Background correctly, this would
`
`not necessitate construing cell-specific pilots to require cell-specific amplitudes
`
`and/or phases because, as explained above, the ’512 patent also describes these
`
`pilots in terms of their cell-specific functions and frequency indices. EX1044, ¶33.
`
`III. GROUND 1: KIM-TONG
`
`A. Kim discloses cell-specific pilots under the plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`There is no dispute that the pilot symbols within Kim’s cell-specific pilot
`
`patterns are cell-specific pilots under the (correct) plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`the term—“pilots that are specific to a cell.” These pilots are indisputably specific
`
`to respective cells, and are indisputably used for cell-specific purposes. Pet., 26-28,
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-01539
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,965,512
`
`44-45; EX1042, 99:10-15, 103:1-17, 107:9-19, 109:17-20, 144:4-7; EX1044, ¶37.
`
`Indeed, Kim discloses that its Q2 pilot patterns are “a specific pilot pattern for each
`
`cell.” EX1004, 24:8-11, see also 24:23-25:2 (“Q2[] patterns are defined to be
`
`different for the respective cells”). Thus, the pilots in these pilot patterns are
`
`specific to a cell.
`
`The pilots in Kim’s cell-specific pilot patterns are used for cell search, which
`
`is a cell-specific purpose. Pet., 44-45; EX1044, ¶¶38, 69, 73-74. Neo does not
`
`dispute that Kim uses these cell-specific pilots to “recover cell-specific
`
`information,” as required by element [15.6], or that these pilots “are used to
`
`convey cell-specific information,” as required by claim 7. See Pet., 44-45, 51-52.
`
`Thus, consistent with the plain meaning of the term, the pilot symbols in
`
`Kim’s Q2 (cell-specific) pilot patterns are cell-specific pilots because they are
`
`specific to a cell.
`
`B. Kim discloses cell-specific pilots even under Neo’s improperly
`narrow construction
`
`Neo argues that Kim does not disclose cell-specific pilots under its incorrect
`
`construction. See §II.B, supra; POR, 16-22. Specifically, Neo alleges that Kim’s
`
`cell-specific (Q2) pilot patterns use pilot symbols having the same amplitude and
`
`phase values, regardless of the cell, and are thus not cell-specific under its
`
`construction. This is demonstrably false. EX1044, ¶40.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-01539
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,965,512
`
`1. Kim’s cell-specific pilots have different values for different
`cells
`
`The pilot symbols in Kim’s cell-specific pilot patterns are the claimed cell-
`
`specific pilots. See Pet., 12-15, 26-28. The pilot symbols in each cell-specific pilot
`
`pattern have different “signal patterns” that enable the pilot symbols within the
`
`different patterns to be distinguished. EX1004, 24:12-19, see also 22:22-23:8,
`
`50:9-16, 63:21-64:1. Mr. Alberth testified that he hadn’t analyzed Kim’s “signal
`
`patterns” and “[didn’t] know [what] they mean by signal pattern.” EX1042, 137:4-
`
`138:22, 143:17-144:5. But as Dr. Min explains, these signal patterns refer to the
`
`pilot symbol values, and are different from a placement pattern, which signifies the
`
`arrangement of pilots on different subcarriers. EX1044, ¶¶41-44; see also EX2011,
`
`34:21-35:4 (a “[s]ymbol is a signal that carries information corresponding to one or
`
`more bits… [a] symbol can carry a signal pattern. The symbol can carry… one or
`
`more bits, up to… 8 bits of information.”), 56:1-58:4, 144:10-147:2.3
`
`Specifically, Kim discloses “a set of pilot patterns which can be
`
`distinguished according to signal patterns transmitted to the subcarriers of the
`
`transmit symbols for transmitting the pilot symbols.” EX1004, 24:12-19, see also
`
`22:22-23:8. That is, each of Kim’s pilot patterns have a different “signal pattern,”
`
`
`3 Although Dr. Min thoroughly explained Kim’s signal patterns in deposition, Neo
`
`did not address this testimony in its POR.
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-01539
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,965,512
`
`or value (sequence), that enables the pilot patterns to be distinguished. EX1044,
`
`¶45. Thus, the pilots within a cell-specific (Q2) pilot pattern of a first cell have a
`
`different signal pattern than the pilots within a cell-specific pilot pattern of a
`
`second cell.
`
` Figure 10 below shows example pilot patterns. EX1003, ¶¶107-108; Pet.,
`
`27, 47. The purple symbols represent pilot pattern 0, the blue symbol represents
`
`pilot pattern 1, and the green symbols represent pilot pattern Q-1. Id.; EX1004,
`
`24:20-25:5, 26:3-7. The pilot symbols in each pattern have different signal
`
`patterns. EX1044, ¶46. For instance, the blue symbols of pilot pattern 1 have a first
`
`signal pattern and the green symbols of pilot pattern Q-1 have a second signal
`
`pattern. Id.
`
`EX1004, FIG. 10 (excerpt, annotated).
`
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-01539
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,965,512
`
`Each signal pattern is “transmitted to the subcarrier of the transmit symbol
`
`for transmitting the pilot symbol.” EX1004, 63:21-64:1, see also 24:12-19. As Dr.
`
`Min explains, this means that the signal pattern value is modulated onto a
`
`subcarrier that will carry the pilot symbol via its amplitude and phase. EX2011,
`
`56:1-58:4; EX1044, ¶¶44-45. Thus, the pilots within Kim’s cell-specific pilot
`
`patterns have cell-specific amplitudes and phases. EX1044, ¶¶44-45.
`
`This is confirmed by other portions of Kim. EX1044, ¶¶47-50. For instance,
`
`Kim states that different common pilot (signal) patterns (Z2m and Z2m+1) “are
`
`formed with different sequences.” EX1004, 28:14-29:7. Kim explains that the pilot
`
`symbols shown in FIG. 9 “respectively have a pattern Ps1,c (i)”—i.e., each pilot
`
`symbol has a (signal) pattern.4 EX1004, 24:2-8. Further, Kim uses the terms
`
`“common pilot pattern” and “common pilot” interchangeably. EX1004, 27:23-
`
`28:13 (using Z(km) to describe both a “common pilot pattern” and “common
`
`pilot”).
`
`The manner in which Kim processes the signal patterns shows that these
`
`patterns represent particular signals. EX1044, ¶¶51-55. For instance, Kim’s
`
`“patterns” are cross-correlated with OFDM receive signals for various purposes.
`
`
`4 Mr. Alberth testified that “I don’t know I can specifically say what respectively
`
`means” in this passage. EX1042, 139:22-141:4.
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-01539
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,965,512
`
`E.g., EX1004, 20:18-21:5, 22:8-10, 24:8-11, 27:19:28. As Dr. Min explains, cross-
`
`correlation is a technique performed on two different signals to compare the
`
`similarities of the two signals. EX1044, ¶51. Thus, when Kim teaches that “the
`
`cells are searched by using a specific pilot pattern for each cell and finding a cross
`
`correlation on the available pattern,” it means performing a cross-correlation on
`
`the signal pattern stored at the receiver and the signal received from the base
`
`station to compare the similarities of the signals. EX1044, ¶¶52-55.
`
`For these reasons, the pilots within Kim’s cell-specific pilot patterns have
`
`different signal pattern values, which are encoded by the amplitude and phase of
`
`the transmitted pilot symbols. Thus, Kim teaches cell-specific pilots even under
`
`Neo’s improperly narrow construction.
`
`2.
`
`Neo’s reliance on Kim’s Figure 14 is misplaced
`
`Neo argues that Kim’s Figure 14 shows that Kim’s cell-specific pilot
`
`patterns use the same pilot symbols, even among different cells. See POR, 14-16.
`
`Neo is wrong. EX1044, ¶¶57-60.
`
`Although Figure 14 appears to show the same pilot symbols used by cells C1
`
`and C2, Kim does not state that these pilot symbols are part of cell-specific pilot
`
`patterns. As explained above, Kim is clear that the pilot symbols making up its
`
`cell-specific pilot patterns have different signal patterns. That Figure 14 does not
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-01539
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,965,512
`
`explicitly show these different cell-specific signal patterns does not negate Kim’s
`
`other teachings. EX1044, ¶¶58-60.
`
`Despite Neo’s allegations, Figure 14 is perfectly consistent with Kim’s
`
`disclosure of cell-specific pilot signal patterns. As Dr. Min explains, Kim discloses
`
`multiple types of pilots, such as common and group-specific pilots, that do not
`
`necessarily vary among different cells. EX1044, ¶¶59-60. Accordingly, Figure 14’s
`
`depiction of the same pilot symbols used for two different cells does not disprove
`
`the existence of Kim’s cell-specific pilots with different signal patterns.
`
`C. Kim-Tong teaches beamforming
`
`The Petition explained that a POSA would have found it obvious to
`
`implement beamforming, as taught by Tong, into Kim’s system to transmit Kim’s
`
`data and pilot signals (i.e., the claimed first and second subcarriers). See Pet., 18-
`
`22, 33-34. Neo argues that a POSA wouldn’t use Tong’s adaptive beamforming to
`
`beamform Kim’s pilots because Kim’s pilots are only used for initial
`
`synchronization. See POR, 22-32. Neo asserts that adaptive beamforming requires
`
`a channel, and initial synchronization occurs prior to the establishment of a
`
`channel. Id. Neo is wrong for at least three reasons. EX1044, ¶¶61-74.
`
`First, Neo analyzes Kim in isolation, and ignores that Petitioner relies on
`
`modifying Kim’s common pilots to incorporate Tong’s channel estimation
`
`techniques. Second, Neo mischaracterizes Kim—Kim’s pilots are sent after a
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-01539
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,965,512
`
`channel has been established, and are thus compatible with adaptive beamforming.
`
`Third, the claims do not require adaptive beamforming, and Neo does not dispute
`
`that it would have been obvious to implement (non-adaptive) beamforming in Kim.
`
`First, Neo ignores that Petitioner modifies Kim so that its common pilots
`
`(claimed second pilots) are used for channel estimation and data recovery, as
`
`taught by Tong. See Pet., 20-22. As Dr. Min explains, in such modified system,
`
`Kim’s cell-specific and common pilots would be transmitted concurrently with
`
`user data after a channel had been established between the base station and user
`
`terminal. EX1044, ¶¶63-67. The common pilots would be used for estimation of
`
`the established channel so that the user data could be recovered. Pet., 20-22. These
`
`channel estimates could be used to implement adaptive beamforming, as taught by
`
`Tong. Id., 18-20; Ex. 1005, 4:49–55, 5:64–8:7, 8:50–9:4; EX1044, ¶¶65-66. And
`
`because Kim’s pilots are sent periodically in multiple traffic slots along with user
`
`data, the determined channel conditions could be used to beamform Kim’s pilots
`
`and data once the channel had been established. EX1044, ¶¶65-67.
`
`Second, Kim alone teaches that its pilots are transmitted in traffic slots along
`
`with user data, after a channel has been established. EX1004, 7:6-10, 12:6-10,
`
`24:2-25:5; EX1044, ¶¶68-74. Mr. Alberth admitted as much. EX1042, 128:17-
`
`129:10, 130:1-6, 131:1-20; EX1044, ¶68. Dr. Min also explains this with respect to
`
`Figure 1, reproduced below. See Pet., 34-36; EX1003, ¶¶122-126; EX1044, ¶69.
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-01539
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,965,512
`
`EX1004, FIG. 1 (annotated).
`
`
`
`As shown, Kim’s cell-specific and common pilots are transmitted concurrently
`
`with the traffic (user) data in Kim’s traffic slots 20, and are transmitted after a
`
`channel has been established. See also EX1004, 7:6-8:7.
`
`Further, Kim’s system processes common pilots differently “[w]hen the
`
`channel is changed because of frequency selective attenuation in the band where
`
`the cell common pilot is provided.” EX1004, 28:14-29:7. Dr. Min explains that
`
`Kim’s system thus determines channel conditions (“when the channel is changed”),
`
`and accordingly adapts its processing of common pilots. EX1044, ¶¶70-72. Further
`
`still, Kim’s pilots are used for adjacent cell search, which occurs after a channel
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2022-01539
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,965,512
`
`has been established with a first cell, and the terminal searches adjacent cells for
`
`handover. EX1004, 1:23-2:3, 36:22-38:14, FIG. 17; EX2011, 148:5-22; EX1044,
`
`¶¶73-74. Thus, Kim teaches that a channel has already been established when its
`
`pilots are transmitted.
`
`Third, although Neo argues that it would not have been obvious to
`
`implement adaptive beamforming for Kim’s pilots and data (POR, 23), the claims
`
`do not require adaptive beamforming. See Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 73
`
`F.4th 950, 957 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“The inquiry is not whether a relevant artisan
`
`would combine a first reference’s feature with a second reference’s feature to meet
`
`requirements of the first reference that are not requirements of the claims at
`
`issue.”). The Petition explains that a POSA would have found it obvious to
`
`implement beamforming in Kim. Pet., 18-20; EX1044, ¶¶75-81. And as the
`
`Institution Decision noted, “Tong indicates beam-forming provides benefits
`
`without having to receive feedback on channel conditions.” ID, 26-27; EX1005,
`
`8:50-66; EX1044, ¶¶75-76; In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3