IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`In Re Neo Wireless, LLC
`Patent Litigation
`
`Neo Wireless, LLC v.
`Ford Motor Company
`
`Neo Wireless, LLC v.
`American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al.
`
`Neo Wireless, LLC v.
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
`
`Neo Wireless, LLC v.
`Nissan North America Inc., et al.
`
`Neo Wireless, LLC v.
`Toyota Motor Corporation, et al.
`
`Neo Wireless, LLC v.
`General Motors Company, et al.
`
`Neo Wireless, LLC v.
`Tesla Inc.
`
`Neo Wireless, LLC v.
`Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
`
`Neo Wireless, LLC v.
`FCA US LLC
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`
`2:22-CV-11402-TGB
`
`2:22-CV-11403-TGB
`
`2:22-CV-11404-TGB
`
`2:22-CV-11405-TGB
`
`2:22-CV-11406-TGB
`
`2:22-CV-11407-TGB
`
`2:22-CV-11408-TGB
`
`2:22-CV-11769-TGB
`
`2:22-CV-11770-TGB
`
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS
`
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS
`-1-
`
`VWGoA EX1021
`U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366
`
`

`

`Defendants General Motors Co.; General Motors LLC; Ford Motor Co.; Am. Honda Motor
`
`Co., Inc., Honda Development & Mfg. of Am., LLC; Nissan N. Am. Inc.; Nissan Motor
`
`Acceptance Corp. a/k/a Nissan Motor Acceptance Co. LLC; Tesla Inc.; FCA US LLC; Mercedes-
`
`Benz USA, LLC; Toyota Motor Corp.; Toyota Motor N. Am. Inc.; Toyota Motor Sales, USA Inc.;
`
`Toyota Motor Eng. & Mfg. N. Am. Inc.; Toyota Motor Credit Corp. (together “Defendants”)1
`
`provide the following proposed constructions and supporting evidence to Plaintiff Neo Wireless,
`
`LLC (“Neo Wireless” or “Plaintiff”) for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,467,366 (“the ’366 patent”),
`
`10,833,908 (“the ’908 patent”), 10,075,941 (“the ’941 patent”), 10,447,450 (“the ’450 patent”),
`
`10,965,512 (“the ’512 patent”), and 10,771,302 (“the ’302 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted
`
`Patents”).
`
`Defendants’ constructions of the terms, phrases, and/or clauses, as well as the intrinsic and
`
`extrinsic evidence identified in the charts below, are based on their current knowledge, their current
`
`understanding of the preliminary infringement allegations put forth by Plaintiff, and their
`
`investigations to date. Defendants’ investigation of these terms, clauses, or phrases is preliminary,
`
`and Defendants reserve the right to supplement, revise, modify, or otherwise finalize their
`
`proposed constructions based upon information learned through the course of discovery or
`
`otherwise. Defendants also reserve the right to supplement, revise, modify, or otherwise finalize
`
`these constructions in response to Plaintiff’s proposed constructions, as well as in response to any
`
`meeting or conference regarding claim construction, or any further changes or amendments to the
`
`parties’ infringement or invalidity contentions. Defendants also reserve the right to supplement
`
`their preliminary claim constructions with evidence or expert testimony, including in rebuttal to
`
`
`1 Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc. and Volkswagen Grp. of Am. Chattanooga Operations,
`LLC, do not take a position on the initial identification of disputed terms or the construction of
`any disputed terms.
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS
`-2-
`
`

`

`Plaintiff’s preliminary or subsequent claim constructions. Inclusion of evidence as extrinsic below
`
`does not preclude the same evidence from being considered as intrinsic evidence.
`
`Defendants reserve the right to modify, supplement, or amend their list of claim terms,
`
`phrases, clauses, and/or constructions set forth below. Additionally, Defendants reserve the right
`
`to separately request construction of portions of the identified claim terms, phrases, and/or clauses.
`
`For example, these proposed claim constructions are based on Plaintiff’s current infringement
`
`contentions. Should Plaintiff amend its infringement contentions, or should other claims otherwise
`
`become relevant, Defendants reserve the right to propose new claim constructions as required.
`
`Should Plaintiff seek an improper interpretation of a term, phrase, and/or clause that has not been
`
`identified by the parties, Defendants reserve the right to seek the construction of that term, phrase,
`
`and/or clause. Defendants further reserve the right to identify additional extrinsic evidence to rebut
`
`the proposed constructions of Plaintiff.
`
`The claim terms, phrases, and/or clauses are generally identified at least with respect to the
`
`patent where such terms, phrases, and/or clauses occur. Unless otherwise indicated below, any
`
`additional occurrence, including in related asserted patents, of a listed claim term, phrase, and/or
`
`clause is intended to receive the same construction as the listed term, phrase, and/or clause,
`
`regardless of whether the later occurrence is also listed below. To the extent the claim terms,
`
`phrases, and/or clauses set forth herein include particular terms, phrases, and/or clauses appropriate
`
`to be construed separately, such terms, phrases, and/or clauses are deemed part of this disclosed
`
`list. Similarly, to the extent it is appropriate to construe terms, phrases, and/or clauses listed herein
`
`in the context of additional claim language, such additional language is deemed part of this
`
`disclosure. Further, the inclusion of any claim terms, phrases, and/or clauses on this list is not
`
`intended, and should not be construed to mean, that any such terms, phrases, and/or clauses have
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS
`-3-
`
`

`

`a special or uncommon meaning.
`
`Defendants’ claim constructions shall not act as a waiver of any defense of
`
`noninfringement, invalidity, or unenforceability of any of Plaintiff’s Asserted Patents.
`
`Notwithstanding the claim constructions contained herein of any term, phrase, and/or clause,
`
`Defendants expressly reserve the right to challenge the validity of any or all claims in Plaintiff’s
`
`Asserted Patents on all possible grounds.
`
`Defendants’ identification of a claim term, phrase, or clause should not be interpreted as
`
`an admission that any associated claim satisfies the written description, enablement, or definiteness
`
`requirements pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112. Defendants thus reserve all rights to assert that terms
`
`or phrases in the patents-in-suit are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, including without limitation the
`
`term and phrases listed in this identification disclosure. Defendants reserve the right to contest
`
`any such terms and the validity of any claim of the patents-in-suit.
`
`Any supplement and/or amendment that adds or removes any proposed construction does
`
`not constitute an admission that Defendants believe those claim terms have, or do not have, a
`
`specialized meaning separate from each term’s plain and ordinary meaning to one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art. Defendants reserve the right to contend that one or more discrete terms, phrases, or
`
`clauses within or surrounding any phrase or clause listed below should be construed rather than or
`
`in addition to the entire phrase or clause identified below. Similarly, Defendants reserve the right
`
`to contend that a phrase or clause should be construed rather than discrete term listed below that
`
`appears within or surrounding that phrase or clause.
`
`Subject to the above reservations, Defendants construe the following claim terms,
`
`phrases, and/or clauses, as follows:
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS
`-4-
`
`

`

`I.
`
`APPLICABLE TO MULTIPLE PATENTS
`
`Term
`Entire preamble of
`independent
`claims2
`
`
`Patent(s) & Claim(s)
`’302 pat., cl. 23
`’366 pat., cl. 1 & 17
`’450 pat., cl. 7
`’512 pat., cls. 15 & 23
`’908 pat., cl. 1
`’941 pat., cls. 8 & 13
`
`Construction
`The entire preambles of the
`independent claims are
`limiting
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`’450 Patent
` Neo Wireless LLC v. Dell Techs. Inc., Case
`No. 6:21-cv-0024, Dkt. No. 56, Exhibit A at,
`e.g., p. 2.
`’450 pat. at, e.g., claims 7, 11, FIG. 1, FIG. 3,
`3:35-4:15, 4:16-5:22, 5:24-7:54, 9:51-67
`
`
`
`
`’941 Patent
`
`
`
`
`’941 pat. at, e.g., claims 8, 10, 12-14, FIG. 2,
`FIG. 3, 1:34-43, 1:56-2:3, 2:12-29, 2:50-55,
`3:12-22, 3:27-4:38, 4:39-5:27, 6:50-7:38, 7:59-
`8:3
` Neo Wireless LLC v. Dell Techs. Inc., Case
`No. 6:21-cv-0024, Dkt. No. 56, Exhibit A at,
`e.g., pp. 2-3.
`
`’908 Patent
`
`
`
`
`’908 pat. at, e.g., claims 1-10, 5:36, 5:64, 5:67,
`6:26-31, 6:38, 6:48, 7:8-23, 8:35, 8:39, 841,
`8:43, 8:46, 8:48, 8:49, 8:55, 8:57, 8:65, 9:1,
`9:5, 9:11, 9:25, 9:30, 9:36, 9:38, 10:14, 10:18,
`10:20, 10:59, 10:61-62, 10:63, 10:67, 11:43-44
` Neo Wireless LLC v. Dell Techs. Inc., Case
`No. 6:21-cv-0024, Dkt. No. 45 at, e.g., pp. 27-
`28 (citing ’908 Patent, 5:36, 5:64, 5:67, 6:26-
`
`
`2 This term covers terms nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 12, 16, 17, 19 in Plaintiff’s December 7, 2022 Initial Identification of Claim Terms.
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS
`-5-
`
`

`

`Term
`
`Patent(s) & Claim(s)
`
`Construction
`
`Supporting Evidence
`31, 6:38, 6:48, 7:8-23, 8:35, 8:39, 841, 8:43,
`8:46, 8:48, 8:49, 8:55, 8:57, 8:65, 9:1, 9:5,
`9:11, 9:25, 9:30, 9:36, 9:38, 10:14, 10:18,
`10:20, 10:59, 10:61-62, 10:63, 10:67)
` Neo Wireless LLC v. Dell Techs. Inc., Case
`No. 6:21-cv-0024, Dkt. No. 45, Exhibit at, e.g.,
`¶¶55-57 (Declaration of William Alberth)
` Neo Wireless LLC v. Dell Techs. Inc., Case
`No. 6:21-cv-0024, Dkt. No. 54 at, e.g., pp. 14-
`15
` Neo Wireless LLC v. Dell Techs. Inc., Case
`No. 6:21-cv-0024, Dkt. No. 56, Exhibit B at,
`e.g., p. 4
`
`
`’366 Patent
`’366 pat. at, e.g., claims 1-5, 17, 21, 1:24-32,
`
`1:47-53, 2:40-44, 3:17-26, 4:45-47, 7:6, 7:8-
`12, 7:19-21, 7:52, 8:43-46, 8:51-54, 8:67, FIG.
`3
` Neo Wireless LLC v. Dell Techs. Inc., Case
`No. 6:21-cv-0024, Dkt. No. 56, Exhibit A at,
`e.g., pp. 1-2
`
`
`’302 Patent
`’302 pat. at, e.g., claims 23, 24, 26-29,
`
`abstract, 2:10-15, 2:29-31, 3:6-11, 3:63-65,
`4:6-14, 4:50-5:8, 6:15-20, 8:13-41, 9:5-17,
`9:39-52 12:28-64, FIGs. 8, 10, 11, 17
`
`
`
`’512 Patent
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS
`-6-
`
`

`

`Term
`
`Patent(s) & Claim(s)
`
`Construction
`
`
`
`Supporting Evidence
`’512 pat. at, e.g., claims 15, 20, 21, 23, 28, 29,
`3:55-65, 3:66-4:30, 4:48-63, 8:11-24, 10:64-
`12:45, FIGs. 3, 10
`
`“configured to”
`
`
`’302 pat., cl. 23
`’366 pat., cl. 1 & 5
`’450 pat., cl. 7
`’512 pat., cl. 15
`’908 cls. 1, 2, 3, & 9
`’941 pat., cls. 13 & 14
`
`“designed to”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Applicable to all patents
` Declaration may be submitted by claim
`construction expert
`
`’366 pat. at, e.g., Abstract, 2:40-46, 3:52-56, 4:33-
`48; Figs. 3, 7; cls. 1, 5, 9, 12, 15, 16
`’941 pat. at, e.g., 1:44-2:7, 2:33-49, 3:62-4:4, 6:50-
`53, 7:10-24; Figs. 1, 4, 5, 8; cls. 6, 7, 13, 14
`’450 pat. at, e.g., 5:6-22, 8:20-26, 8:55-9:3; Figs.
`1, 2, 6, 9, 10A-10C; cls. 7, 13
`’302 pat. at, e.g., Abstract, 2:55-3:5, 3:63-4:14,
`5:55-67, 6:21-35, 7:8-8:11, 8:51-64, 9:27-38; Figs.
`2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12-15; cls. 1, 15, 23, 25, 30, 31
`’908 pat. at, e.g., Abstract, 2:57-3:8, 4:6-24, 6:1-
`12, 6:33-48, 7:25-8:29, 9:5-19, 9:50-61; Figs. 2, 4,
`5, 9, 11, 12-15; cls. 1, 2, 3, 9, 21, 22, 23, 29
`’512 pat. at, e.g., Abstract, 3:4-45, 5:33-67, 8:25-
`55, 8:57-64; Figs. 1, 4-5, 6, 8-12; cls. 1, 15, 22
` Provisional application No. 60/544,521, filed on
`Feb. 13, 2004, at, e.g., 1-2
` Provisional application No . 60/721,451 , filed on
`Sep. 28 , 2005, at, e.g., 1-3, 5-7, 10
` Provisional application No. 60/540,586, filed on
`Jan. 30, 2004, at, e.g., 1-2, 6-8
` Provisional application No. 60/540,032, filed on
`Jan. 29, 2004, at, e.g., 1-3, 6, 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS
`-7-
`
`

`

`Term
`
`Patent(s) & Claim(s)
`
`Construction
`
`
`
`Supporting Evidence
`’302 pat. prosecution file history at Nov. 7, 2019
`Response to Office Action, at, e.g., 7-9
` Thomas’ Concise Telecom & Networking
`Dictionary, at 57 (2000)
` Modern Dictionary of Electronics, at, e.g., 146 (7th
`ed. 1999)
` Bloomsbury English Dictionary, at, e.g., 396 (2nd
`ed. 2004)
` Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, at, e.g., 210 (20th
`ed. 2005)
` The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
`Language, at 386 (4th ed. 2000)
` Declaration may be submitted by claim
`construction expert
`
`“uplink control
`signals”
`
`
`’302 pat., cl. 23 and 29
`’908 pat. cl. 7
`
`For ’908 patent: “control
`signals transmitted from
`the mobile station to the
`base station”
`
`For ’302 patent: “control
`signals transmitted from
`the mobile device to the
`base station”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’908 pat. at, e.g., 2:17-18, 6:26-31, 8:15-9:4, FIGS.
`10, 11, 15, 16
`’302 pat. at, e.g., Abstract, 2:25-28, 7:61-8:11,
`8:13-50, 10:50-64, 11:9-33, 11:46-50, 11:56-12:3,
`12:21-42, 12:55-13:11, 14:6-16, FIGs. 10-11, 15-
`16
` NEO-MDL_PA003633-4326 at, e.g., -4048 and -
`4085 (Gibson)
` NEO-AUTO_PA004101-4154 at, e.g., -4106
`(Huang)
` Declaration may be submitted by claim
`construction expert
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS
`-8-
`
`

`

`II.
`
`’908 PATENT
`
`’908 Pat. Term
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Construction
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`“associated with”
`
`Cl. 1, 2, 9
`
`“identifying”
`
`
`
`“random access signal”
`
`Cls. 1, 2, 4, 6-9
`
`
`
`“direct sequence spread
`spectrum signal”
`
`
`
`’908 pat. at, e.g., 8:45-55, claims 1, 2, 9, 11, 12,
`19, 21, 22, 29;
` Dell Inc. v. Neo Wireless LLC, IPR2022-00277,
`Paper No. 10, Dec. Denying Inter Partes
`Review, at, e.g., 29-34 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21,
`2022);
` Pat. Owner’s Prelim. Resp. at, e.g., 31-38, Dell
`Inc. v. Neo Wireless LLC, IPR2022-00277;
` Ex. 2001 to Pat. Owner’s Prelim. Resp. (Decl.
`of William P. Alberth, Jr.) at, e.g., ¶ 33, Dell
`Inc. v. Neo Wireless LLC, IPR2022-00277.
` Declaration may be submitted by claim
`construction expert
`
`
`
`
`’908 pat. at, e.g., 2:5-38, 2:42-57, 2:61-64,
`4:16-24, 4:41-5:1, 6:1-37, 7:1-3, 7:8-10, 7:45-
`53, 7:54-56, 7:66-8:7, 8:15-20, 8:34-35, 8:37-
`44, 9:17-18, 9:23-24, 9:29-32, 9:62-64, 10:4-8;
`10:13-14
` U.S. Pat. 10,826,740 prosecution file history at
`Office Action Response dated Sept. 11, 2020 at,
`e.g., 11-13
` Patil et al, IP in Wireless Networks, at, e.g., 56-
`67 (Pearson ed. 2003)
` Stephens et al., Direct-Sequence Spread
`Spectrum System, IEEE, at, e.g., 462-63 (May
`1991)
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS
`-9-
`
`

`

`’908 Pat. Term
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Construction
`
`Cl. 4
`
`“wherein the portion of
`the frequency band used
`for transmission of the
`random access signal
`does not include control
`channels”
`
`
`
`III.
`
`’302 PATENT
`
`”wherein the portion of the
`frequency band used for
`transmission of the random
`access signal does not include
`channels carrying control
`information”
`
`Supporting Evidence
` Pursley, Direct-Sequence Spread-Spectrum
`Communications for Multipath Channels, 50
`IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory &
`Techniques, at, e.g., 653-55 (Mar. 2002)
` Martin et al., Efficient Modulation Methods
`Study at NASA/JPL, Space Freq. Coordination
`Grp., at, e.g., 30-31 (Sept. 1999)
` Macleod, Coding, in Telecommunications
`Engineer’s Reference Book ch. 14 (1993)
` Declaration may be submitted by claim
`construction expert
`
`
`
`
`’908 pat. at, e.g., 8:12-14, 8:16-29, 8:34-44,
`8:56-58, Figs. 10, 15, claims 4, 7.
` Declaration may be submitted by claim
`construction expert
`
`’302 Pat. Term
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Construction
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`Cl. 23
`
`“a receiver configured to
`receive a request for a
`probing signal from a
`base station in the
`system”
`
`
`
`“a receiver configured to
`receive a request for a probing
`signal from a base station in
`the Orthogonal Frequency
`Division Multiplexing
`(OFDM) communication
`system”
`
`
`
`’302 pat. at, e.g., FIGs. 3-4, 1:39-44, 3:6-8,
`3:63-66, 4:6-13, 10:50-64, 11:19-34, 11:56-
`12:3, 12:28-42. 12:65-13:12.
` Declaration may be submitted by claim
`construction expert
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS
`-10-
`
`

`

`’302 Pat. Term
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Construction
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`Cl. 23
`
`Cl. 23
`
`“the probing signal is
`configured to overlap, in
`the time domain, with
`uplink signals
`transmitted over an
`uplink frequency band by
`other mobile devices in
`the system”
`
`
`
`“the probing signal is
`configured to occupy a
`portion of spectrum in
`the uplink frequency
`band not designated for
`transmission of uplink
`control signals in the
`system”
`
`
`
`Cl. 23
`
`“a transmitter configured
`to form and transmit, in
`response to the received
`request, the probing
`signal with a code
`
`“the probing signal is
`configured to overlap, in the
`time domain, with uplink
`signals transmitted over an
`uplink frequency band by
`other mobile devices in the
`Orthogonal Frequency
`Division Multiplexing
`(OFDM) communication
`system”
`
`“the probing signal is
`configured to occupy a
`portion of spectrum in the
`uplink frequency band not
`overlapping for transmission
`of uplink control signals in
`the Orthogonal Frequency
`Division Multiplexing
`(OFDM) communication
`system”
`
`Subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112,
`¶ 6
`
`Function: “form and transmit,
`in response to the received
`request, the probing signal
`with a code sequence
`modulated in the frequency
`domain”
`
`
`
`’302 pat. at, e.g., FIGs. 3-4, 1:39-44, 3:6-8,
`3:63-66, 4:6-13, 10:50-64, 11:19-34, 11:56-
`12:3, 12:28-42. 12:65-13:12.
` Declaration may be submitted by claim
`construction expert
`
`
`
`
`’302 pat. at, e.g., FIGs. 3-4, 1:39-44, 3:6-8,
`3:63-66, 4:6-13, 10:50-64, 11:19-34, 11:56-
`12:3, 12:28-42. 12:65-13:12.
` Declaration may be submitted by claim
`construction expert
`
`
`
`
`
`’302 pat. at, e.g., Abstract, 1:28-38, 2:6-7, 2:39-
`67, 3:1-5, 4:9-7:60, 8:12-23, 8:65-9:52, Figures
`5-14, 17-18, claim 23
`’302 pat. prosecution file history at, e.g., Office
`Action dated Nov. 20, 2019 at 2-3; Office
`Action Response dated Nov. 7, 2019 at 7-9;
`Office Action dated May 7, 2019 at, e.g., 2
` Newnes Dictionary of Electronics, at, e.g., 329
`(4th ed. 2002)
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS
`-11-
`
`

`

`
`
`Supporting Evidence
`IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and
`Electronics Terms, at, e.g., 1140 (6th ed. 1996)
` Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, at,
`e.g., 1251 (10th ed. 2001)
` Declaration may be submitted by claim
`construction expert
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Construction
`
`
`Structure:
`
` A
`
` special-purpose computer
`configured to perform at least
`the following algorithm:
`
`1. apply a spreading function
`to a code sequence to generate
`a direct sequence spread
`spectrum (DSSS) signal,
`wherein the DSSS signal is
`the probing signal
`
`2. apply pulse-shape filtering
`to the DSSS signal so that the
`DSSS signal meets
`predetermined criteria
`
`3. adjust the transmitted
`signal level of the DSSS
`signal
`
`4. modulate a characteristic
`of the DSSS signal in the
`frequency domain
`
`’302 Pat. Term
`sequence modulated in
`the frequency domain”3
`
`
`
`
`3 Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, General Motors Co., General Motors LLC, Tesla Inc., FCA US LLC, Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
`Honda Development & Mfg. of Am., LLC, Nissan N. Am. Inc., and Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp. a/k/a Nissan Motor Acceptance
`Co. LLC, do not take a position on the proposed construction of this term.
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS
`-12-
`
`

`

`’302 Pat. Term
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Construction
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`
`5. transmit the modulated
`DSSS signal in response to
`the received request
`
`
`“probing signal”
`
`
`
`Cls. 23, 24, 26,
`and 28
`
`“direct sequence spread
`spectrum signal”
`
`
`
`
`
`’302 pat. at, e.g., 1:28-33, 2:1:35, 2:39-67, 4:9-
`14, 4:28-42, 4:45-55, 4:61-5:11, 5:18-43, 5:55-
`67, 6:1-24, 6:41-57, 6:59-7:17, 7:26-60, 7:64-
`8:46, 8:51-64, 8:66-9:17, 9:22-26, 9:35-67
`’302 pat. prosecution file history at Office
`Action Response dated Nov. 7, 2019 at, e.g., 7-
`10
` U.S. Pat. 9,948,488 prosecution file history at
`Office Action Response dated Aug. 4, 2015 at,
`e.g., 8-15
`’488 pat. prosecution file history at Final Office
`Action Response dated Mar. 18, 2016 at, e.g.,
`7-9
` Patil et al, IP in Wireless Networks, at, e.g., 56-
`67 (Pearson ed. 2003)
` Stephens et al., Direct-Sequence Spread
`Spectrum System, IEEE, at, e.g., 462-63 (May
`1991)
` Pursley, Direct-Sequence Spread-Spectrum
`Communications for Multipath Channels, 50
`IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory &
`Techniques, at, e.g., 653-55 (Mar. 2002)
` Martin et al., Efficient Modulation Methods
`Study at NASA/JPL, Space Freq. Coordination
`Grp., at, e.g., 30-31 (Sept. 1999)
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS
`-13-
`
`

`

`’302 Pat. Term
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Construction
`
`Supporting Evidence
` Macleod, Coding, in Telecommunications
`Engineer’s Reference Book ch. 14 (1993)
` Declaration may be submitted by claim
`construction expert
`
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`’941 PATENT
`
`’941 Pat. Term
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Construction
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`Cls. 8 and 13
`
`“the antenna
`transmission scheme
`comprising a
`transmission diversity
`scheme or a multiple-
`input multiple-output
`(MIMO) scheme”
`
`
`
`“the mobile-station specific
`transmission parameters
`alternatively indicate an
`antenna transmission scheme
`that comprises a MIMO
`scheme or an antenna
`transmission scheme
`comprising a transmission
`diversity scheme other than
`MIMO, wherein the antenna
`transmission scheme is
`capable of comprising either a
`MIMO scheme or a
`transmission diversity scheme
`other than MIMO. To avoid
`any doubt, this requires
`supporting both MIMO and
`non-MIMO transmission
`diversity systems.”
`
`
`
`
`
`’941 pat. at, e.g., 6:60-67, 7:33-38
` U.S. Patent Application No. 15/082,878,
`Response to Non-Final Office Action dated
`October 12, 2017 at, e.g., 2-6, 8-9
` U.S. Patent No. 7,436,757 (Wilson) at, e.g.,
`1:13-16, 3:41-54, 6:4-15, Fig. 2
`IPR2021-01468 Paper 9 at 1-2, Ex. 2015
` Case No. 6:21-cv-00024-ADA, Dkt. 54 at 11
` U.S. Patent No. 6,802,035 (Catreux) at, e.g.,
`1:47-51, 4:28-38; 4:65-5:4, 5:66-6:31, Figs. 1-3
` U.S. Patent No. 6,952,454 (Jalali) at, e.g., 5:20-
`26, 7:47-8:7, 9:39-10:45, Fig. 1
` Declaration may be submitted by claim
`construction expert
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS
`-14-
`
`

`

`’941 Pat. Term
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Construction
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’941 pat. at, e.g., 3:51-53, 3:66-4:4, 6:50-53,
`7:1-24
` U.S. Patent Application No. 15/082,878,
`Response to Non-Final Office Action dated
`October 12, 2017 at, e.g., 2-6, 8-9
`IPR2021-01468 Paper 12 at, e.g., 10-19; Ex.
`2011 at, e.g., 16-17; Ex. 2014 at, e.g., 23-25;
`Ex. 2016 at, e.g., 13-14
`IPR2021-01468 at Paper 9
` Case No. 6:21-cv-00024-ADA, Dkt. 44 at, e.g.,
`16-17; Dkt. 45 at, e.g., 23-25; Dkt. 48 at, e.g.,
`13-14; Dkt. 54 at, e.g., 11-13; Dkt. 83 at, e.g.,
`3-7; Dkt. 92 at, e.g., 3-8
` Declaration may be submitted by claim
`construction expert
`
`Cls. 8 and 13
`
`“the mobile station-specific
`transmission parameter
`alternatively indicates either
`distributed subcarriers or
`localized subcarriers in the
`frequency domain as
`subchannel configurations”
`
`“the mobile station-
`specific transmission
`parameters indicate … a
`corresponding
`subchannel configuration
`… the corresponding
`subchannel configuration
`characterized by
`distributed subcarriers or
`localized subcarriers in
`the frequency domain”4
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`’366 PATENT
`
`
`
`’366 Pat. Term
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Construction
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`Cls. 1 and 17
`
`indefinite
`
`“the ranging signal
`exhibits a low peak-to-
`average power ratio in
`the time domain”
`
`
`
`
`
`’366 pat. at, e.g., 4:24-38
` Prosecution History of U.S. Patent Application
`No. 16/544,201, at December 21, 2020 Office
`Action at, e.g., p. 2; March 22, 2021 Response
`at, e.g., pp. 2-11, 14-15
`
`
`4 This term corresponds to terms nos. 11 and 14 in Plaintiff’s December 7, 2022 Initial Identification of Claim Terms.
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS
`-15-
`
`

`

`’366 Pat. Term
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Construction
`
`
`
`“a ranging sequence
`selected from a set of
`ranging sequences”
`
`
`
`Cls. 1 and 17
`
`“a ranging sequence selected
`by the mobile station from a
`set of ranging sequences”
`
`Supporting Evidence
` Prosecution History of U.S. Patent Application
`No. 13/246,677: April 19, 2013 Office Action
`at, e.g., pp. 4-5; October 21, 2013 Response at,
`e.g., p. 16; October 31, 2013 Office Action at,
`e.g., pp. 4-7; April 30, 2014 Response at, e.g.,
`pp. 13-16; May 12, 2014 Office Action at, e.g.,
`pp. 4-9; December 15, 2014 Notice of
`Abandonment
` Richard van Nee & Ramjee Prasad, OFDM for
`Wireless Multimedia Communciations (2000)
` Ye Li & Gordon Stüber, Ortogonal Frequency
`Division Multiplexing for Wireless
`Communications (2006)
` Neo Wireless LLC v. Dell Techs. Inc., Case No.
`6:21-cv-0024, Dkt. No. 44, Exhibit D at, e.g.,
`¶¶23-29 (Declaration of James Proctor)
` Neo Wireless LLC v. Dell Techs. Inc., Case No.
`6:21-cv-0024, Dkt. No. 48, Exhibit A at, e.g.,
`¶¶8-12 (Declaration of James Proctor)
` Declaration may be submitted by claim
`construction expert
`
`
`
`
`’366 pat. at, e.g., 1:24-35, 1:40-42, 1:52-56,
`2:33-38, 2:42-44, 3:43-47, 3:57-4:5, 5:10-18,
`5:19-26, 7:6-7, 7:16-17, 8:40-41, 8:49-50, Figs.
`3, 5, 6, claims 1, 3, 17
` Declaration may be submitted by claim
`construction expert
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS
`-16-
`
`

`

`’366 Pat. Term
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Construction
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`“the communication
`channel”
`
`Cls. 1 and 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“the communication channel
`in the OFDMA wireless
`communication system used
`by a mobile station to
`communicate with the serving
`base station”
`
`
`
`’366 pat. at, e.g., Abstract, 1:24–47, 1:59–2:4,
`2:11–13, 2:47–3:26, 3:39–4:5, 4:60–6:20, Figs.
`1–4, 5, 8, claims 1–3, 9–11, 17, 22;
` Prosecution History of US Pat. App. No.
`13/205,579: March 6, 2013 Notice of
`Allowance at, e.g., 2;
` Prosecution History of US Pat. App. No.
`17/678,562: May 13, 2022 Office Action
`Summary at, e.g., 1–10;
` Prosecution History of US Pat. App. No.
`15/425,735: Jan. 8, 2018 Preliminary
`Amendment at, e.g., 1–10; Dec. 28, 2018
`Amendment and Response to Non-Final Office
`Action at, e.g., 1–10;
` Dell Inc. v. Neo Wireless LLC, IPR2021-01480,
`Paper No. 11, Dec. Denying Inter Partes
`Review, at, e.g., 3–6 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2022);
` Pat. Owner’s Prelim. Resp. at, e.g., 3, 5–6, 13–
`17, Dell Inc. v. Neo Wireless LLC, IPR2021-
`01480.
` Neo Wireless LLC v. Dell Techs. Inc., Case No.
`6:21-cv-0024, Dkt. No. 45 at 9–14.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS
`-17-
`
`

`

`VI.
`
`’450 PATENT
`
`’450 Pat. Term
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Construction
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`“time-frequency
`coordinate”
`
`
`
`Cl. 7
`
`“one-dimensional time-
`frequency coordinate”
`
`“the segment having a
`starting time-frequency
`coordinate”
`
`Cl. 7
`
`“the segment having a starting
`one-dimensional time-
`frequency coordinate”
`
`
`
`
`
`’450 pat. at, e.g., 1:59-2:10, 5:34-41, 5:54-6:29,
`6:56-58, 7:7-39, 8:15-19, 10:8-26, Fig. 6, Fig.
`9, Figs. 10A-10C, claims 7, 11;
` Dell Inc. v. Neo Wireless LLC, IPR2021-01486,
`Paper No. 10, Dec. Denying Inter Partes
`Review, at, e.g., 26-29 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16,
`2022);
` Pat. Owner’s Prelim. Resp. at, e.g., 3-29, Dell
`Inc. v. Neo Wireless LLC, IPR2021-01486;
` Ex. 2001 to Pat. Owner’s Prelim. Resp. (Decl.
`of William P. Alberth, Jr.) at, e.g., ¶¶ 33-55,
`Dell Inc. v. Neo Wireless LLC, IPR2021-01486;
` Ex. 2014 to Pat. Owner’s Prelim. Resp.
`(Plaintiff Neo Wireless LLC’s Responsive
`Claim Construction Brief, Case No. 6:21-cv-
`00024 (W.D. Tex. Filed Nov. 18, 2021) at, e.g.,
`25-26.
` Declaration may be submitted by claim
`construction expert
`
`
`
`
`’450 pat. at, e.g., 1:59-2:10, 5:34-41, 5:54-6:29,
`6:56-58, 7:7-39, 8:15-19, 10:8-26, Fig. 6, Fig.
`9, Figs. 10A-10C, claims 7, 11;
` Dell Inc. v. Neo Wireless LLC, IPR2021-01486,
`Paper No. 10, Dec. Denying Inter Partes
`Review, at, e.g., 26-29 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16,
`2022);
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS
`-18-
`
`

`

`’450 Pat. Term
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Construction
`
`“time-frequency resource
`unit”
`
`Cls. 7 and 11
`
`
`
`“a combination of time and
`frequency units designed
`according to the application
`requirements of the
`application that is being
`grouped”
`
`Supporting Evidence
` Pat. Owner’s Prelim. Resp. at, e.g., 3-29, Dell
`Inc. v. Neo Wireless LLC, IPR2021-01486;
` Ex. 2001 to Pat. Owner’s Prelim. Resp. (Decl.
`of William P. Alberth, Jr.) at, e.g., ¶¶ 33-55,
`Dell Inc. v. Neo Wireless LLC, IPR2021-01486;
` Ex. 2014 to Pat. Owner’s Prelim. Resp.
`(Plaintiff Neo Wireless LLC’s Responsive
`Claim Construction Brief, Case No. 6:21-cv-
`00024 (W.D. Tex. Filed Nov. 18, 2021) at, e.g.,
`25-26.
` Declaration may be submitted by claim
`construction expert
`
`
`
`
`’450 pat. at, e.g., Abstract, 1:34-42, 1:42-45,
`1:66-2:2, 2:47-54, 3:14-18, 4:23-26, 5:32-6:30,
`6:63-67, 7:7-39, 8:52-60, 8:67-9:22, 10:35-58,
`Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Fig. 8A-8B, Fig. 9, Figs. 10A-
`10C, claims 7, 11;
` Dell Inc. v. Neo Wireless LLC, IPR2021-01486,
`Paper No. 10, Dec. Denying Inter Partes
`Review, at, e.g., 24-26 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16,
`2022);
` Pat. Owner’s Prelim. Resp. at, e.g., 4-10, 21-25,
`Dell Inc. v. Neo Wireless LLC, IPR2021-01486;
` Ex. 2001 to Pat. Owner’s Prelim. Resp. (Decl.
`of William P. Alberth, Jr.) at, e.g., ¶¶ 27-38,
`Dell Inc. v. Neo Wireless LLC, IPR2021-01486;
` Declaration may be submitted by claim
`construction expert
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS
`-19-
`
`

`

`’450 Pat. Term
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Construction
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`“wherein modular coding
`is applied to the time-
`frequency resource units
`in the segment of time-
`frequency resource”
`
`
`
`
`
`VII.
`
`’512 PATENT
`
`Cl. 11
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`
`
`’450 pat. at, e.g., Abstract, 2:54-57, Fig. 2,
`3:59-66, 6:31-7:54, 10:8-20, 10:56-11:7, 11:61-
`12:3, claim 11;
` Pat. Owner’s Prelim. Resp. at, e.g., 7, Dell Inc.
`v. Neo Wireless LLC, IPR2021-01486;
` Dell Inc. v. Neo Wireless LLC, IPR2021-01486,
`at Ex. 2001 to Pat. Owner’s Prelim. Resp.
`(Decl. of William P. Alberth, Jr.) at, e.g., ¶¶ 32,
` Declaration may be submitted by claim
`construction expert
`
`
`
`’512 Pat. Term
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Construction
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`“second pilots of a
`second type”
`
`
`
`Cls. 15 and 23
`
`Pilots possessing a set of
`characteristics common to all
`base stations of the system
`
`
`
`Cls. 15 and 23
`
`plain and ordinary meaning
`
`“wherein the first
`plurality of subcarriers
`and the second plurality
`of subcarriers are
`received in at least one of
`the time slots”
`
`
`
`’512 pat. at, e.g., title, abstract, 1:49-53, 2:16-
`17, 2:22-23, 2:37-44, 3:17-36, 3:37-40, 5:33-
`7:23, 7:31, 7:58-8:55, 8:39-9:5, Figs. 5, 7, 12,
`13.
` Declaration may be submitted by claim
`construction expert
`
`
`
`
`’512 pat. at, e.g., 4:23-30, 5:33-47, Fig. 5, 3
` Declaration may be submitted by claim
`construction expert
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS
`-20-
`
`

`

`Construction
`Subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶
`6, indefinite
`
`
`
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`
`
`’512 pat. at, e.g., Abstract, 2:6-7, 3:4-6, 3:17-
`40, 4:8-11, 4:31-46, 5:33-48; 9:1-4, Fig. 1.
`
` Declaration may be submitted by claim
`construction expert
`
`
`
`’512 Pat. Term
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Cl. 15
`
`“receiver is further
`configured to [] recover
`the data using channel
`estimates from at least
`the second pilots”;
`
`“further configured to …
`recover cell-specific
`information using the
`cell-specific pilots”5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5 Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, General Motors Co., General Motors LLC, Tesla Inc., FCA US LLC, Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
`Honda Development & Mfg. of Am., LLC, Nissan N. Am. Inc., and Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp. a/k/a Nissan Motor Acceptance
`Co. LLC, do not take a position on this proposed construction.
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS
`-21-
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 30, 2022
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Conrad A Gosen _
`Joseph A. Herriges, MN Bar No. 390350
`Conrad A. Gosen, MN Bar No. 0395381
`James Huguenin-Love, MN Bar No. 0398706
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, 3200 RBC Plaza
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: (612) 335-5070
`Facsimile: (612) 288-9696
`herriges@fr.com, gosen@fr.com, huguein-
`love@fr.com
`
`Michael J. McKeon, DC Bar No. 459780
`Christian Chu, DC Bar No. 483948
`Jared Hartzman, DC Bar No. 1034255
`Joshua Carrigan, VA Bar No. 96911
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1000 Maine Avenue SW, Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20024
`Telephone: (202) 783-5070
`Facsimile: (202) 783-2331
`mckeon@fr.com, chu@fr.com,
`hartzman@fr.com, carrigan@fr.com
`
`J. Michael Huget (P39150)
`Sarah E. Waidelich (P80225)
`HONIGMAN LLP
`315 East Eisenhower Parkway
`Suite 100
`Ann Arbor, MI 48108
`Tel: (734) 418-4254
`Fax: (734) 418-4255
`mhuget@honigman.com,
`swaidelich@honigman.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants General Motors
`Company and General Motors LLC
`
`
`
` /s/ Thomas H. Reger II
`Thomas H. Reger II
`Texas Bar No. 24032992
`reger@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1717 Main Street, Suite 5000
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: (214) 747-5070
`
`Lawrence Jarvis
`Georgia Bar No. 102116
`jarvis@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1180 Peachtree Street NE, 21st Floor
`Atla