IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`David Chauncey et al.
`In re Patent of:
`8,345,780 Attorney Docket No.: 50095-0106IP1
`U.S. Patent No.:
`January 1, 2013
`
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 12/132,757
`
`Filing Date:
`June 4, 2008
`
`Title:
`WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM COMPENSATING
`FOR INTERFERENCE AND RELATED METHODS
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR IPR OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,321,780
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0106IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent 8,345,780
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR .......................................................................... 1
`A. Standing .................................................................................................... 1
`B. Challenge and Relief Requested ............................................................... 1
`C. Claim Construction ................................................................................... 2
`1.
`“short term”/“long term” ................................................................. 2
`2.
`“self interference” ............................................................................ 4
`
`III. SUMMARY OF THE ’780 PATENT ............................................................. 4
`A. Background of Related Technology ......................................................... 4
`B. Brief Description ....................................................................................... 5
`C. Prosecution History Summary .................................................................. 8
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ..................................................................10
`
`V.
`
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ..........................10
`A. GROUND_A: Claims 1-4 and 7-14 are Rendered Obvious by Diener
`and Bergstrom .........................................................................................10
`1. Diener Overview ...........................................................................10
`2.
`Bergstrom Overview .....................................................................21
`3. Diener-Bergstrom Combination ....................................................24
`4.
`Claim 1 ..........................................................................................31
`5.
`Claim 2 ..........................................................................................65
`6.
`Claim 3 ..........................................................................................68
`7.
`Claim 4 ..........................................................................................70
`8.
`Claim 7 ..........................................................................................72
`9.
`Claim 8 ..........................................................................................73
`10. Claim 9 ..........................................................................................76
`11. Claim 10 ........................................................................................77
`12. Claim 11 ........................................................................................77
`13. Claim 12 ........................................................................................77
`14. Claim 13 ........................................................................................79
`15. Claim 14 ........................................................................................79
`
`VI. DISCRETION SHOULD NOT PRECLUDE INSTITUTION .....................79
`A. The Fintiv Factors Favor Institution .......................................................79
`B. Discretion Under §325(d) .......................................................................83
`
`VII. FEES ..............................................................................................................84
`
`i
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0106IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent 8,345,780
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................84
`
`IX. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1) .........................84
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)..............................84
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .......................................84
`C. Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ...................85
`D. Service Information ................................................................................85
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0106IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent 8,345,780
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`APPLE-1001
`
`U.S. Patent 8,345,780 to David Chauncey, et al. (“the ’780
`Patent”)
`
`APPLE-1002
`
`Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the ’780 Patent (“the
`Prosecution History”)
`
`APPLE-1003
`
`Declaration of Dr. Zhi Ding
`
`APPLE-1004
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Zhi Ding
`
`APPLE-1005
`
`U.S. Patent 6,131,013 to Bergstrom, et al. (“Bergstrom”)
`
`APPLE-1006
`
`U.S. Patent Publication US2004/0047324 to Diener (“Diener”)
`
`APPLE-1007
`
`U.S. Patent Publication US2005/0266808 to Reunamaki, et al.
`(“Reunamaki”)
`
`APPLE-1008
`
`U.S. Patent Publication US2005/0099973 to Qiu, et al. (“Qiu”)
`
`APPLE-1009
`
`International Patent Publication Application WO2005/062798
`to Scheinert, et al. (“Scheinert”)
`
`APPLE-1010
`
`Defendant’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, Speir
`Technologies Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case 6:22-cv-00077-ADA
`(WDTX)
`
`APPLE-1011
`
`Plaintiff’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief, Speir
`Technologies Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case 6:22-cv-00077-ADA
`(WDTX)
`
`APPLE-1012
`
`U.S. District Courts–Median Time Intervals From Filing to
`Disposition of Civil Cases Terminated, by District and Method
`of Disposition, During the 12-Month Period Ending September
`30, 2022
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0106IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent 8,345,780
`
`
`APPLE-1013
`
`Scheduling Order, Speir Technologies Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case
`6:22-cv-00077-ADA (WDTX)
`
`APPLE-1014
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement Against Apple Inc., Speir
`Technologies Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case 6:22-cv-00077-ADA
`(WDTX)
`
`APPLE-1015
`
`Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement Against Apple
`Inc., Speir Technologies Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case 6:22-cv-
`00077-ADA (WDTX)
`
`
`APPLE-1016
`
`Preliminary Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement
`Contentions to Defendant Apple Inc., Speir Technologies Ltd.
`v. Apple Inc., Case 6:22-cv-00077-ADA (WDTX)
`
`APPLE-1017
`
`Reserved
`
`APPLE-1018
`
`U.S. Patent Publication US 2004/0203826 to Sugar, et al.
`(“Sugar”)
`
`APPLE-1019
`
`U.S. Patent Publication US 2003/0224741 to Sugar, et al.
`(“Sugar_CIP”)
`
`APPLE-1020
`
`Memorandum: Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in
`AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court
`Litigation (June 21, 2022) (“Director’s Memo”)
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0106IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent 8,345,780
`
`
`LIST OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`
`Claim 1
`
`[1.pre] A wireless communication system comprising:
`
`[1.a]
`
`[1.b.i]
`
` first and second wireless communications devices configured to
`communicate with one another via a wireless communications link
`having at least one settable link characteristic;
`
`said first and second wireless communications devices comprising
`respective first and second orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing
`(OFDM) wireless transceivers and
`
`[1.b.ii]
`
`respective first and second controllers coupled thereto and configured
`to store short term and long term historical characteristics of
`interference;
`
`[1.c]
`
`said first controller configured to detect received interference,
`
`[1.d.i]
`
`determine a type of the received interference from among a plurality of
`interference types comprising wideband interference, self interference,
`and narrowband interference
`
`[1.d.ii] based upon comparing at least one characteristic of a current received
`signal with the short term and long term historical characteristics of
`interference, and
`
`[1.e]
`
`set the at least one settable link characteristic to compensate for the
`received interference based upon the interference type.
`
`Claim 2
`
`[2]
`
`Claim 3
`
`The wireless communication system according to claim 1 wherein said
`first controller is configured to repeat the detecting, determining, and
`setting.
`
`v
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0106IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent 8,345,780
`
`
`[3]
`
`The wireless communication system according to claim 1 wherein the
`at least one settable link characteristic comprises at least one receive
`processing characteristic.
`
`Claim 4
`
`[4.a]
`
`The wireless communication system according to claim 1 wherein the
`at least one settable link characteristic comprises at least one transmit
`processing characteristic; and
`
`[4.b]
`
`wherein said first controller is configured to cooperate with said second
`controller to set the at least one transmit processing characteristic.
`
`Claim 7
`
`[7]
`
`Claim 8
`
`[8]
`
`Claim 9
`
`The wireless communication system according to claim 1 wherein said
`first controller is configured to determine the interference type based
`upon at least one of fade characteristics, noise characteristics, and path
`characteristics.
`
`The wireless communication system according to claim 1 wherein the
`at least one settable link characteristic comprises at least one of
`transmission power, frequency diversity, time diversity, modulation,
`forward error correction (FEC), channel bandwidth, and adaptive
`filtering.
`
`[9.pre] A wireless communications device operable to communicate with an
`other wireless communications device via a wireless communications
`link having at least one settable link characteristic, the wireless
`communications device comprising:
`
`[9.a]
`
`[9.b]
`
`an orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) wireless
`transceiver; and
`
`a controller coupled to said wireless transceiver and configured to store
`short term and long term historical characteristics of interference;
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0106IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent 8,345,780
`
`
`[9.c.i]
`
`said controller configured to detect received interference,
`
`[9.c.ii]
`
`determine a type of the received interference from among a plurality of
`interference types comprising wideband interference, self interference,
`and narrowband interference
`
`[9.c.iii] based upon comparing at least one characteristic of a current received
`signal with the short term and long term historical characteristics of
`interference, and
`
`[9.c.iv]
`
`set the at least one settable link characteristic to compensate for the
`received interference based upon the interference type.
`
`Claim 10
`
`[10]
`
`The wireless communications device according to claim 9 wherein the
`at least one settable link characteristic comprises at least one receive
`processing characteristic.
`
`Claim 11
`
`[11]
`
`The wireless communications device according to claim 9 wherein the
`at least one settable link characteristic comprises at least one transmit
`processing characteristic; and wherein said controller is configured to
`cooperate with the other wireless communications device to set the at
`least one transmit processing characteristic.
`
`Claim 12
`
`[12.pre] A method for compensating interference in a wireless communication
`system comprising first and second orthogonal frequency-division
`multiplexing (OFDM) wireless communications devices
`communicating with one another via a wireless communications link
`having at least one settable link characteristic, the method comprising:
`
`[12.a]
`
` detecting received interference;
`
`[12.b]
`
`storing short term and long term historical characteristics of
`interference;
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0106IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent 8,345,780
`
`
`[12.c.i] determining a type of the received interference from among a plurality
`of interference types comprising wideband interference, self
`interference, and narrowband interference
`
`[12.c.ii] based upon comparing at least one characteristic of a current received
`signal with the short term and long term historical characteristics of
`interference; and
`
`[12.d]
`
`setting the at least one settable link characteristic to compensate for the
`received interference based upon the interference type.
`
`Claim 13
`
`[13]
`
`The method according to claim 12 further comprising repeating the
`detecting, determining, and setting.
`
`Claim 14
`
`[14]
`
`The method according to claim 12 wherein the at least one settable link
`characteristic comprises at least one transmit processing characteristic;
`and further comprising cooperating between the first and second
`wireless communications devices to set the at least one transmit
`processing characteristic.
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0106IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent 8,345,780
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Petitioner”) petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”)
`
`of claims 1-4 and 7-14 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,345,780 (“’780
`
`patent”).
`
`II. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR
`
`A.
`
`Standing
`
`Apple certifies that the ’780 patent is available for IPR. This petition is being
`
`filed within one year of January-21-2022 service of a complaint against Apple in
`
`Western District of Texas (“District Court” or “WDTX”), Case 6:22-cv-00077-
`
`ADA. Apple is not barred or estopped from requesting this review.
`
`B. Challenge and Relief Requested
`
`Petitioner requests IPR of the Challenged Claims on the Ground identified
`
`below. Accompanying explanation and support are provided in Dr. Ding’s
`
`Declaration. APPLE-1003, ¶¶1-209.
`
`Ground
`
`’780 Patent Claims
`
`Basis for Rejection
`
`A
`
`
`
`1-4 and 7-14
`
`§103: Diener and Bergstrom
`
`Each reference pre-dates June 4, 2008 (“Critical Date”), which is the earliest
`
`date to which the ’780 patent claims priority.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0106IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent 8,345,780
`
`
`Reference
`
`Publication Date
`
`
`Basis
`(at least under)
`
`Bergstrom (APPLE-1005)
`
`2000-10-10
`
`Diener (APPLE-1006)
`
`2004-03-11
`
`Reunamaki (APPLE-1007) 2005-12-01
`
`Qiu (APPLE-1008)
`
`2005-05-12
`
`Scheinert (APPLE-1009)
`
`2005-07-14
`
`Sugar (APPLE-1018)
`
`2004-10-14
`
`Sugar_CIP (APPLE-1019) 2003-12-04
`
`
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`§102(b)
`
`§102(b)
`
`§102(b)
`
`§102(b)
`
`§102(b)
`
`§102(b)
`
`§102(b)
`
`Because the Challenged Claims are obvious under any reasonable
`
`interpretation, no express constructions are required in this proceeding. To be clear,
`
`Petitioner reserves the right to address any construction proposed by Patent Owner
`
`or the Board. Petitioner also reserves the right to pursue constructions in district
`
`court that are necessary to decide matters of infringement. Indeed, the below two
`
`terms are disputed in district court. APPLE-1010, 24-30; APPLE-1011, 22-30.
`
`While pertinent to infringement, the parties’ dispute has no bearing in this IPR
`
`because the prior art invalidates the Challenged Claims under either party’s
`
`interpretation. APPLE-1003, ¶¶51-57.
`
`1.
`
`“short term”/“long term”
`
`In district court, as an alternative to an indefiniteness assertion, Petitioner
`
`proposed construing “short term” as “on the order of seconds” and “long term” as
`
`2
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0106IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent 8,345,780
`
`“on the order of weeks, or greater,” at least because the ’780 Patent discloses that
`
`“[t]he history is broken into short term (seconds) 53, medium term (hours/days) 54,
`
`and long term (weeks/months) 55 statistics.” 1 APPLE-1010, 25-27; APPLE-1001,
`
`4:34-36. Patent Owner opposed this construction and argued that these two terms
`
`should be given their (presumably broader) plain meaning, or alternatively, as a last
`
`resort to preserve validity of the claims, be construed such that “the ‘short term’ and
`
`‘long term’ historical characteristics allow the wireless system to determine the
`
`cause of the degradation in link performance, i.e., is it a short term fade or truly
`
`interference.” APPLE-1011, 27-32, f.9. Patent Owner’s attempted alternative
`
`construction should be rejected because (1) the above bolded construction is an
`
`intended use/function, which is plainly absent from the claim language; and (2) it
`
`imposes additional limitations performed by the wireless system, which is not even
`
`an actively claimed entity in independent claims 9 and 12. Neenah, Inc. v.
`
`Schwendimann, IPR2021-00016, Paper 26 (PTAB April 12, 2022) (“construing the
`
`claim by function would improperly import limitations into the claims.”)
`
`In this IPR, the prior art invalidates the Challenged Claims under either Patent
`
`Owner’s constructions (plain meaning or alternative construction) or Petitioner’s
`
`
`1 Bold represents emphasis added by Petitioner and italic represents claim terms,
`
`unless otherwise specified.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0106IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent 8,345,780
`
`
`construction. §V.A.[1.b.ii]&[1.d.ii]; APPLE-1003, ¶¶53-55.
`
`2.
`
`“self interference”
`
`In district court, Petitioner and Patent Owner agreed that the term “self-
`
`interference” encompasses at
`
`least “interference caused by
`
`two wireless
`
`communication systems being deployed too closely together or by two wireless
`
`communication systems using the same frequency band/channel.” APPLE-1010, 28;
`
`APPLE-1011, 27. Petitioner and Patent Owner dispute whether “self-interference”
`
`also encompasses “interference caused by the wireless communication device itself”
`
`because Applicant’s argued during prosecution that the “self interference” is “self-
`
`inflicted” to overcome prior art. APPLE-1011, 34.
`
`In this IPR the prior art invalidates the Challenged Claims under either party’s
`
`interpretation. §V.A.[1.d.i]; APPLE-1003, ¶¶56-57.
`
`III. SUMMARY OF THE ’780 PATENT
`
`A. Background of Related Technology
`
`The ’780 patent “relates to the field of communications, and, more
`
`particularly, to interference compensation and related methods.” APPLE-1001, 1:7-
`
`9. The ’780 patent recognizes that “[a]s wireless communications has become
`
`prevalent in society, it is not uncommon for two wireless communications devices
`
`[“WCDs”] to interfere with the operation of each other when operating within
`
`transmission range of each other.” APPLE-1001, 1:13-17.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0106IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent 8,345,780
`
`The ’780 patent admits that “[i]nterference is typically categorized into two
`
`types: narrowband interference and wideband interference,” and “[a]nother common
`
`type of interference is self interference.” APPLE-1001, 1:25-26, 41. There had been
`
`“common approaches to compensating for” each known type of interference.
`
`APPLE-1001, 1:25-53; APPLE-1003, ¶¶39-40.
`
`The ’780 patent also admits that various “interference compensation”
`
`techniques, such as “frequency diversity” and “spatial diversity” had been known
`
`and used in the art to compensate for interference. APPLE-1001, 2:1-28; APPLE-
`
`1003, ¶41.
`
`B.
`
`Brief Description
`
`The ’780 patent describes a “wireless communication system may include
`
`first and second WCDs communicating with one another via a wireless
`
`communications link having a settable link characteristic,” with “an object … to
`
`provide effective interference compensation.” APPLE-1001, Abstract, 2:32-34;
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶¶ 42-45.
`
`The described system in FIG.1, for example, includes “first and second
`
`[WCDs] 21, 25” which include “respective first and second controllers 22, 26” and
`
`“first and second wireless transceivers 23, 27” such as “orthogonal frequency-
`
`division multiplexing (OFDM) transceivers.” APPLE-1001, 3:65-4:5, 4:56-62.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0106IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent 8,345,780
`
`
`
`
`APPLE-1001, FIG.1.
`
`“FIG.2 is a flowchart of a method for compensating interference in the
`
`wireless communication system of FIG.1.” APPLE-1001, 3:26-27. “The method for
`
`compensating interference 28a-28c begins at Block 32, the first [WCD] 21 receives
`
`a transmission from the second [WCD] 25 at Block 34.” APPLE-1001, 4:6-10. “At
`
`decision Block 36, the first controller 22 illustratively detects whether there is any
`
`received interference 28a-28c.” APPLE-1001, 4:15-19.
`
`“[I]f interference 28a-28c is detected, the method moves to Block 40 where
`
`the first controller 22 determines a type of the interference from among a plurality
`
`of interference types comprising narrowband interference 28 a, wideband
`
`6
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0106IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent 8,345,780
`
`interference 28b, and self interference 28c.” APPLE-1001, 4:41-46. “More
`
`specifically, the first controller 22 determines the interference type based upon at
`
`least one of fade characteristics (flat or frequency selective), noise characteristics
`
`(wideband or narrowband), and path characteristics (line-of-sight or multipath).”
`
`APPLE-1001, 4:47-51.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0106IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent 8,345,780
`
`
`
`
`APPLE-1001, FIG.2.
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History Summary
`
`The ’780 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 12/132,757, filed
`
`Jun-04-2008. APPLE-1001, Cover. The original claims were rejected under 35
`
`8
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0106IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent 8,345,780
`
`U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aboba (US 2009/0124205) in view of
`
`Belogolovy (US 2008/0299932). APPLE-1002, 2011-10-17 Non-Final Rejection.
`
`Applicant added “self interference” in the limitation “determining a type of the
`
`received interference from among a plurality of interference types comprising
`
`wideband interference, self interference, and narrowband interference.” Id., 198
`
`(Applicant’s 2012-01-11 Response). Applicant argued Aboba “does not determine
`
`whether such interference is self-inflicted, i.e. self-interference.” Id., 205-206.
`
`The amended claims were rejected again as unpatentable over Aboba in view
`
`of Belogolovy and Scharf (US 2006/0153283). APPLE-1002, 216 (2012-04-25 Non-
`
`Final Rejection). After an Examiner interview, Applicant amended claims to recite
`
`that the type determination is“based upon comparing at least one characteristic of a
`
`current received signal with the short term and long term historical characteristics of
`
`interference” and added “respective first and second controllers coupled thereto and
`
`configured to store short term and long term historical characteristics of
`
`interference.” Id., 227 (Applicant’s 2012-07-25 Response).
`
`A Notice of Allowance issued on August-13-2012, without Examiner’s
`
`statement of Reasons for Allowance. Id., 247. The ’780 Patent issued on Jan-01-
`
`2013 with 14 claims, of which claims 1, 9, and 12 are independent claims.
`
`The features of the Challenged Claims are disclosed in the prior art references
`
`advanced by this Petition; none of which were discussed by the Examiner during
`
`9
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0106IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent 8,345,780
`
`
`prosecution. §V and VI.B; APPLE-1003, ¶¶46-50.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`
`For this IPR, a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the Critical Date
`
`(“POSITA”) would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer
`
`engineering, computer science, or a related field from an accredited program, and 2-
`
`3 years of experience in the design or development of wireless communication
`
`systems/networks including ranging/positioning systems, or the equivalent.
`
`Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or
`
`significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. APPLE-
`
`1003, ¶¶20-22.
`
`V. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`The cited references disclose and thereby invalidate the Challenged Claims as
`
`detailed below. APPLE-1003, ¶¶23-25, 77-209.
`
`A. GROUND_A: Claims 1-4 and 7-14 are Rendered Obvious by
`Diener and Bergstrom
`
`1.
`
`Diener Overview2
`
`Diener is entitled “system and method for management of a shared frequency
`
`
`2 General descriptions provided for this and other references and combinations
`
`thereof are incorporated into each subsection and mapping of the claims that include
`
`citations to these references.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0106IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent 8,345,780
`
`band using client-specific management techniques.” APPLE-1006, cover. Diener
`
`describes techniques and systems to “cooperatively manage use of a shared
`
`frequency band where signals of multiple types occur (often simultaneously), such
`
`as an unlicensed band, and interference among the users of the band may occur.”
`
`APPLE-1006, [0051]. Diener’s spectrum management system compensates for
`
`interference in the same way as the ’780 Patent, by “tak[ing] evasive action to avoid
`
`interference when possible, detect[ing] and report[ing] interference when it
`
`occurs and mak[ing] intelligent decisions to mitigate interference when it cannot
`
`be avoided.” APPLE-1006, [0060]; APPLE-1003, ¶¶58-70.
`
`Diener discloses one or more communication systems/networks “comprising
`
`multiple devices or nodes that operate in the shared frequency band.” APPLE-1006,
`
`[0052]. Diener makes clear that “[t]he spectrum management systems, methods,
`
`software and device features described herein new [sic] are not limited to any
`
`particular wireless network, and are equally applicable to any wireless network
`
`technologies now known or hereinafter developed for use in a shared frequency
`
`band.” APPLE-1006, [0052].
`
`11
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0106IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent 8,345,780
`
`
`APPLE-1006, FIG. 1 (highlighted)
`
`
`
`Diener shows in FIG.1 (reproduced above), “an environment” where there are
`
`multiple WCDs configured to communicate with one another, such as “[m]ultiple
`
`WLAN APs 1050(1) to 1050(N)” and their “one or more associated client
`
`STAs 1030(1) to 1030(N).” APPLE-1006, [0053]. Diener describes that “the
`
`spectrum management methods described herein may be implemented in any device
`
`or network of devices operating in the frequency band (such as those shown in
`
`12
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0106IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent 8,345,780
`
`FIG.1),” such as one or more of “a cognitive radio device” (CRD) “ supporting a
`
`WLAN application” (e.g., “WLAN access point 1050(1) and its associated client
`
`station (STAs)”), “spectrum sensors,” “a network management station 1090 or
`
`server 1055, [or] the host processor of an AP.” APPLE-1006, [0053]-[0056].
`
`“The necessary hardware and/or software functionalities would be
`
`deployed in the hardware/software platform of that device to enable the device to
`
`act as a [CRD] and thereby perform the spectrum management steps of signal
`
`detecting, accumulating/measuring, classifying and controlling/reporting.”
`
`APPLE-1006, [0054].
`
`Diener differentiates CRDs from dumb devices. APPLE-1003, ¶62. Diener
`
`refers to a “device with the ability to gather intelligence and act on it, or act on the
`
`intelligence acquired by other devices” as a CRD, whereas “dumb devices” “are
`
`unable to adapt their behavior.” APPLE-1006, [0013]-[0015]. “Because [CRDs] can
`
`adapt to their environment to, for example, transmit on less crowded frequencies,
`
`they cause less radio interference than dumb devices. This leads to improvements in
`
`the user experience for both cognitive radio and dumb device users.” APPLE-1006,
`
`[0015]. Both WLAN STAs (i.e., wireless station) and APs (i.e., access point) can
`
`be CRDs. APPLE-1006, [0063], [0196].
`
`“A [CRD] … can detect, measure, classify activity occurring in the
`
`frequency band, and … can make intelligent decisions about whether or not to
`
`13
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0106IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent 8,345,780
`
`change any one of its operating parameters, such as frequency of operation,
`
`transmit power, data rate, packet size, timing of transmission (to avoid other signals),
`
`etc.” APPLE-1006, [0197].
`
`FIG.5 of Diener is a general flow chart of an overall spectrum management
`
`process. APPLE-1006, [0026]. As shown, Diener’s CRD can (1) detect signals in a
`
`frequency band and store/accumulate signal data (e.g., “spectrum activity
`
`information”) by “spectrum sampling” (step 2000), (2) perform signal classification
`
`(step 2010), and (3) determine and apply control actions based on the classification
`
`result (steps 2020 and 2030). APPLE-1006, [0061]-[0067], [0069] (“a real-time
`
`spectrum analyzer (SAGE) 20 and a radio receiver or radio transceiver (hereinafter
`
`“radio”) 12 in the device in order to receive and sample radio frequency energy”);
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶64.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0106IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent 8,345,780
`
`
`APPLE-1006, FIG.5.
`
`
`
`For signal classification, Diener refers to and incorporates Sugar by reference.
`
`APPLE-1006, [0102]. As shown in FIG.5 of Sugar, Diener’s CRD, by applying
`
`Sugar’s classification techniques, can (1) detect and process received signals to
`
`generate signal data/ “raw spectrum information” (step 3010), (2) store/accumulate
`
`15
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0106IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent 8,345,780
`
`the signal data (step 3020), (3) perform signal classification by comparing “the
`
`accumulated data” “against fingerprints (profiles or reference data) for known
`
`signals.” (steps 3030-3050). APPLE-1018, [0018], [0040]; APPLE-1003, ¶65.
`
`APPLE-1018, FIG.5.
`
`Both Diener and Sugar disclose that the accumulated data include, e.g.,
`
`“histograms signal pulse data that are useful for signal classification” and
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0106IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent 8,345,780
`
`“accumulate[d] raw received signal data … useful for location measurement.”
`
`APPLE-1006, [0099]; APPLE-1018, [0040]. As detailed in §V.A.4.[1.b.ii], a
`
`POSITA would have understood that Diener’s “accumulated signal pulse data”
`
`include “historical characteristics” due to accumulation of characteristics of
`
`previous signals. APPLE-1003, ¶66.
`
`A POSITA would have understood that Diener’s “accumulated signal pulse
`
`data” also include characteristics of a current received signal because the
`
`“accumulated signal pulse data” include outputs from the [real-time spectrum
`
`analyzer, SAGE] 20 that “obtains real-time information about the activity in a
`
`frequency band,” and outputs “data representing a real-time spectrogram of a
`
`bandwidth of RF spectrum.” APPLE-1006, [0073], [0074]; APPLE-1003, ¶67.
`
`Moreover, Diener emphasizes the system’s capability of “real-time” analyses and
`
`applications. APPLE-1006, [0101], [0073], [0074]; APPLE-1003, ¶67. The
`
`“accumulated signal pulse data” would include characteristics of a current received
`
`signal to provide “real-time” classification of a current received signal and “generate
`
`real-time alerts.” APPLE-1006, [0064]-[0065]; APPLE-1003, ¶67.
`
`For interference classification, Diener discloses comparing the accumulated
`
`statistics of the received signals (that includes characteristics of a current received
`
`signal)
`
`against
`
`historical
`
`statistics
`
`of
`
`known
`
`signals
`
`(e.g.,
`
`“data
`
`templates”/“reference data (also called fingerprints)”) to classify the received
`
`17
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0106IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent 8,345,780
`
`signals. APPLE-1006, [0157] (“The comparison step may involve comparing pulse
`
`timing signatures of known signals against the accumulated signal pulse data … to
`
`determine if there is a match…. They are useful to classify signals”), APPLE-1006,
`
`[0101] (“The classification engine 52 compares outputs of the SAGE 20
`
`(accumulated by the measurement engine 50) against data templates and related
`
`information of known signals in order to classify signals in the frequency based on
`
`energy pulse information detected by the SAGE”), [0564], [0143], FIG.9; APPLE-
`
`1018, [0040]_FIG.5; APPLE-1003, ¶68.
`
`18
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0106IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent 8,345,780
`
`
`
`
`APPLE-1006, FIG.9 (highlighted)
`
`In FIG.10, as an example use case, Diener shows “a coverage map” of “an
`
`enterprise” “generated by the spectrum management system” based on “spectrum
`
`information” and “location measurements made by the location engine 54.” APPLE-
`
`1006, [0030], [0190]; APPLE-1003, ¶69. The coverage map includes locations and
`
`range of interferences (denoted by “XX”) in the enterprise (e.g., a “microwave oven”
`
`in a break room), as well as no-signal-coverage locations (denoted by “X”) that
`
`19
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0106IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent 8,345,780
`
`typically result from severe path/link losses in those locations. APPLE-1006, [0190],
`
`[0058], [0065]; APPLE-1003, ¶69.
`
`
`
`APPLE-1006, FIG.10 (highl