throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 30
`Entered: July 19, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CORNING OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`DALI WIRELESS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2021-00408
`Patent 10,506,454 B2
`
`Before MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge,
`and KARL D. EASTHOM and SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent
`Judges.
`Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge FENICK.
`
`Opinion Dissenting filed by Administrative Patent Judge EASTHOM.
`
`FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Final Written Decision
`Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00408
`Patent 10,506,454 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`A. Background and Summary
`Corning Optical Communications LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition
`requesting inter partes review of claims 1–19 (the “challenged claims”) of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,506,454 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’454 patent”). Paper 2
`(“Pet.”), 1. Dali Wireless, Inc. (“Patent Owner”), filed a Preliminary
`Response. Paper 6. We determined that the information presented in the
`Petition established that there was a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims and we
`instituted this proceeding on December 3, 2020, as to all challenged claims
`and all grounds of unpatentability. Paper 7 (“Dec. on Inst.”).
`During the course of trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
`Response (Paper 11 “PO Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent
`Owner Response (Paper 15, “Pet. Reply”), and Patent Owner filed a
`Sur-reply (Paper 16, “PO Sur-reply”). An oral hearing was held on April 21,
`2022, and a transcript was entered (Paper 29, “Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(4). This decision is a
`Final Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of
`claims 1–19 of the ’454 patent. For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner
`has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–19
`of the ’454 patent are unpatentable.
`B. Real Parties in Interest
`Petitioner identifies Corning, Inc. and Corning Research and
`Development Corp. as additional real parties in interest. Pet. 1; Paper 23
`(Petitioner’s Updated Mandatory Notices), 1. Patent Owner identifies no
`additional real parties in interest. Paper 4 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory
`Notices), 1; Paper 13 (Patent Owner’s Updated Mandatory Notices), 1.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00408
`Patent 10,506,454 B2
`
`C. Related Matters
`Petitioner and Patent Owner each identify Dali Wireless Inc. v.
`Corning Optical Communications LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-06469-EMC
`(N.D. Cal.) (“the related district court action”) as a related action involving
`the ’454 patent. Pet. 1; Paper 23, 1; Paper 4, 1; Paper 13, 1.
`As discussed below, a claim construction order relating to terms of the
`’454 patent was issued in the related district court action. Ex. 1017.
`D. The ’454 Patent
`The ’454 patent, titled “Optimization of Traffic Load in a Distributed
`Antenna System,” describes dynamically routing signals in a Distributed
`Antenna System (DAS) as part of a distributed wireless network. Ex. 1001,
`codes (54), (57), 1:15–17. The patent describes traffic monitoring and
`optimization to provide flexibility to manage, control, enhance, and facilitate
`radio resource efficiency and usage, and the overall performance of the
`distributed wireless network. Id. at 1:17–19, 4:13–17. One example of a
`DAS is provided in Figure 1, reproduced below.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00408
`Patent 10,506,454 B2
`
`
`Figure 1 is a block diagram showing a DAS system employing multiple
`Digital Access Units (DAUs) and Digital Remote Units (DRUs).
`In the example according to one embodiment of the invention, as
`shown in Figure 1, a three-sector base station (BTS) includes sectors 101,
`109, and 110, which provide downlink signals to DAU 1 102, DAU 2 108
`and DAU 3, respectively. Id. at 2:20–24, 5:2–4 (“A typical base station
`comprises 3 independent radio resources, commonly known as sectors.”),
`5:60–65, 6:62–63, 7:2–4. The DAUs “function as the interface between the
`base stations and digital remote units (DRUs).” Id. at 4:60–63. DAU 1 102
`is connected to and transports signals to DAU 2 108, and DAU 2 108 is
`connected to DAU 3. Id. at 6:23–24, 7:2–4. The inter-networking of the
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00408
`Patent 10,506,454 B2
`DAUs facilitates the routing of DRU signals among the multiple DAUs and
`supports transport of radio frequency (RF) downlink and uplink signals
`between the base station (BTS) and the DRUs. Id. at 6:23–29, 7:4–7, 17:41.
`Groups of DRUs, such as DRU 1 107, DRU 2 104, DRU 3 106, and
`DRU 4 through DRU 7 in Figure 1 are daisy chained together to achieve
`network coverage for a specific geographical area, which is identified as a
`cell (e.g. Cell 1). Id. at 5:65–6:1, 6:48–60. In this way each individual base
`station sector’s radio resources are transported to a given geographical area
`through the daisy-chained DRUs in that area. Id. at 6:54–60. Thus, for
`example, downlink RF signals from BTS Sector 1 101 are received by
`DAU 1 102. Id. at 6:62–63. DAU 1 102 translates these signals to optical
`signals that are transported via optical cable 103 to DRU 2 104. Id. at 6:63–
`66. Optical cable 105 transports the optical signals to DRU 3 106, from
`where they are passed to each DRU in the daisy chain of Cell 1, ending at
`DRU 1 107. Id. at 6:66–7:4.
`Additionally, traffic monitoring unit 121 tracks and collects traffic
`load at each DAU in the network, and stores this information in the network
`optimization unit 120. Id. at 7:8–12, 10:31–38, Fig. 9 (element 910).
`Network performance may be expressed by key performance indicators
`(KPIs) collected from different parts of the network. Id. at 5:52–54, 10:31–
`38, 11:48–50. Quality of service (QoS) metrics are determined by KPIs. Id.
`at 5:52–59, 11:25–31, 11:48–50, 11:54–55, 14:41–42, 14:50–51, Fig. 10.
`Optimization of the network is performed in one embodiment as per a
`method illustrated in Figure 9, reproduced below.
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00408
`Patent 10,506,454 B2
`
`
`Figure 9 is a flowchart illustrating a method of optimizing the DAS network.
`Id. at 2:63–64.
`As shown in Figure 9, KPIs of the network traffic are collected in the
`DAS network. Id. at 10:30–38. Network optimization unit 120 “calculates
`the overall DAS network performance and determines the optimum
`reconfigured network to improve or maximize performance.” Id. at 7:12–14,
`10:39–47, Fig. 9 (elements 912, 914, 916). Network optimization unit 120
`can “implement[] load rebalancing by communicating with the DAUs and
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00408
`Patent 10,506,454 B2
`shifting traffic between sectors.” Id. at 7:27–32, 10:47–54, Fig. 9 (element
`918).
`In other embodiments, multiple cells share the radio resources of one
`sector of the base station. Id. at 7:55–60, Fig. 2. Still other embodiments
`include a base station hotel with multiple BTSs or a base station hotel
`comprised of multiple Picocells. Id. at 8:23–47, 9:58–60, 10:5–6, 10:27–29,
`Fig. 3, Figs. 6–8.
`
`E. Illustrative Claims
`The Petition challenges independent claims 1 and 10 and dependent
`claims 2–9 and 11–19. Claim 1 illustrates the challenged claims at issue:
`1. A system for dynamically routing signals
`in a
`Distributed Antenna System (DAS) operable to communicate
`with a plurality of signal sources, the system comprising:
`one or more Digital Access Units (DAUs) operable to
`receive at least one signal from at least one of a first
`signal source and a second signal source from the
`plurality of signal sources, each DAU of the one or
`more DAUs including an input port configured as an
`uplink/downlink port and an output port configured as
`an uplink/downlink port;
`a plurality of Digital Remote Units (DRUs) coupled to the
`one or more DAUs and operable to transport signals
`between the plurality of DRUs and the one or more
`DAUs;
`a plurality of sectors formed from the plurality of DRUs
`comprising a first sector and a second sector different
`from the first sector, each sector comprising a subset of
`the plurality of DRUs; and
`a traffic monitoring unit coupled to at least one of the
`DAUs comprising the input port and output port each
`configured as an uplink/downlink port, wherein the
`traffic monitoring unit is configured to:
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00408
`Patent 10,506,454 B2
`determine one or more key performance indicators
`(KPIs) and a quality of service (QoS) of a
`network traffic for the one or more DAUs,
`wherein the QoS is a function of the one or more
`KPIs; and
`reconfigure the plurality of sectors based on the one
`or more KPIs and QoS by allocating at least one
`DRU from the first sector to the second sector.
`Ex. 1001, 17:50–18:11.
`
`F. Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–19 would have been unpatentable on
`the following grounds:
`Reference(s)/Basis
`35 U.S.C. §1
`Claim(s) Challenged
`Kummetz-4642
`102
`1–17, 19
`Kummetz-464
`103
`7, 15–18
`Kummetz-464, Kummetz-5793
`103
`7
`Kummetz-464, Kummetz-9994
`103
`17
`Kummetz-464, Evans5
`103
`15, 16, 18
`Petitioner additionally relies on the declaration of James A. Proctor,
`Jr. (Ex. 1003). Patent Owner filed a declaration of Shawn Stapleton Ph.D.
`(Ex. 2002) and a supplemental declaration from Dr. Stapleton (Ex. 2023).
`
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
`Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103. Because the
`effective filing date for the claims of the ’454 patent appears to be before the
`effective date of the applicable AIA amendment, we refer to the pre-AIA
`version of 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. See Ex. 1001, code (60) (provisional
`application filing date of July 31, 2012).
`2 Kummetz et al., US 9,398,464 B2, iss. July 19, 2016 (Ex. 1005).
`3 Kummetz et al., US 2011/0281579 A1, pub. Nov. 17, 2011 (Ex. 1006).
`4 Kummetz et al., US 9,735,999 B2, iss. Aug. 15, 2017 (Ex. 1007).
`5 Evans et al., US 2012/0057572 A1, pub. Mar. 8, 2012 (Ex. 1008).
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00408
`Patent 10,506,454 B2
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Legal Standards
`“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the
`onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is
`unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring [inter partes] review
`petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the
`grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden never shifts to
`Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800
`F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek,
`Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of
`proof in inter partes review). Furthermore, Petitioner must explain with
`particularity how the prior art would have rendered the challenged claims
`unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (“The petition must
`specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or
`printed publications relied upon.”).
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) “if each and every
`[claim] limitation is found either expressly or inherently in a single prior art
`reference.” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 851
`F.3d 1270, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). “A claim limitation is
`inherent in the prior art if it is necessarily present in the prior art, not merely
`probably or possibly present.” Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Cable & Wireless
`Internet Servs., Inc., 344 F.3d 1186, 1192 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing Rosco,
`Inc. v. Mirror Lite, Co., 304 F.3d 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00408
`Patent 10,506,454 B2
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3)
`the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness,
`i.e., secondary considerations6. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
`17–18 (1966).
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Relying on the testimony of Mr. Proctor, Petitioner contends that one
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had: (1) a
`bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering; and (2) a minimum of 3-4 years
`of industry experience in wireless communications networks and
`engineering” but that “an individual with an advanced degree in electrical
`engineering would require less industry experience (e.g., 1-2 years).” Pet.
`14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 28).
`In the Decision on Institution, we concluded that one of ordinary skill
`would have had (1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering; and (2) a
`minimum of 3-4 years of industry experience in wireless communications
`networks and engineering. Dec. on Inst. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 28). We
`additionally concluded that “an individual with an advanced degree in
`electrical engineering would require less industry experience (e.g., 1-2
`years),” and that “the person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention
`would additionally possess some experience with or knowledge of DAS.”
`
`
`6 The record does not include any evidence of secondary considerations of
`nonobviousness.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00408
`Patent 10,506,454 B2
`Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 2019 (testimony of Mr. Proctor in the related district
`court action), 100:15–102:8). Patent Owner notes its agreement with this
`conclusion, and its expert adopted it. PO Resp. 22; Ex. 2023 ¶ 5. Petitioner
`provides no further comment in its post-institution briefing.
`After considering the record, we conclude that the same level of skill
`we adopted in the Decision on Institution should apply. This level of skill
`comports with the disclosures of the ’454 patent and the asserted prior art.
`C. Claim Construction
`“sector” terms – claims 1 and 10
`Claim 1 and claim 10 each recite a system comprising, inter alia, “a
`plurality of sectors formed from the plurality of DRUs comprising a first
`sector and a second sector different from the first sector, each sector
`comprising a subset of the plurality of DRUs” and a traffic monitoring unit
`“configured to . . . reconfigure the plurality of sectors based on the one or
`more KPIs and QoS by allocating at least one DRU from the first sector to
`the second sector.” Ex. 1001 17:64–67, 18:9–11, 18:50–53, 18:62–64.
`In the Petition, Petitioner argues that, “unless stated otherwise in the
`discussion of particular limitations [in the Petition],” we should give all
`terms their plain and ordinary meaning under the standard articulated in
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc).
`Pet. 15. In response to certain arguments by Patent Owner, Petitioner,
`consistent with its arguments in the related district court litigation, further
`argues that the plain and ordinary meaning of “sectors” is “independent
`radio resources.” Pet. Reply 3–10; Ex. 2017, 9–10; Ex. 2021, 10–15.
`Petitioner generally presents an argument consistent with its proposed
`construction in the related district court action, noting that Kummetz-464
`describes sectors as “represent[ing] an amount of telecommunication
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00408
`Patent 10,506,454 B2
`capacity that can be allocated to wireless devices in one or more coverage
`zones,” and that “a ‘sector’ refers to independent sets of radio resources.”
`Pet. 26–27 (quoting Ex. 1005, 3:16–24, citing Ex. 1005, 5:19–23, 5:35–39),
`42 n.5; Pet. Reply 3–10.
`Patent Owner argues that we should construe “sector” as used in
`claims 1 and 10 to mean “a grouping of DRUs in a particular area or
`region.” PO Resp. 22–34; PO Sur-reply 3–11. This position is consistent
`with Patent Owner’s position in the related district court litigation.
`Ex. 2017, 9; Ex. 2018, 11–13; Ex. 2022, 4–7. Patent Owner presents an
`argument based on the language of claim 1, other intrinsic evidence from the
`specification and incorporated provisional application, certain prior art
`references cited during prosecution, and the prosecution history. PO Resp.
`25–34 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:45–51, 5:65–6:1, 10:30–65, 11:37–39, 11:47–62,
`12:8–10, 17:64–67, 18:10–12, Figs. 1, 9–11; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 21, 22, Figs. 1–6;
`Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 2, 3; Ex. 2008, 9:36–37, Fig. 4; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 8, 10–15, 28–29,
`32–35; Ex. 2023 ¶¶ 9, 13–19, 41); PO Sur-reply 3–11.
`In the Decision on Institution, we preliminarily adopted Patent
`Owner’s proposed construction (“a grouping of DRUs in a particular area or
`region”) for the term “sector,” finding it to be consistent with the use of the
`term in the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence in the record. Dec. on Inst. 12–
`16. We also noted that the Petition included arguments that were consistent
`with Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Id. at 15–16.
`As noted in the Decision on Institution, a claim construction order
`issued in the related district court action in the final week of the period set
`forth for institution. Id. at 16 n.11. This claim construction order adopts
`Petitioner’s proposed definition. Ex. 1017, 14–21.
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00408
`Patent 10,506,454 B2
`As explained below, after consideration of the entire record, Petitioner
`has not established that Kummetz-464 teaches the determination of a QoS of
`network traffic. Thus, we need not resolve the parties’ claim construction
`dispute. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868
`F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms
`‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200
`F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`D. Anticipation of Claims 1–17 and 19 by Kummetz-464
`Petitioner argues that claims 1–17 and 19 are anticipated by
`Kummetz-464. Pet. 20–60. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner has not
`shown how Kummetz-464 discloses certain features required in independent
`claims 1 and 10. PO Resp. 36–55; PO Sur-reply 11–17.
`1. Kummetz-464
`Kummetz-464 is titled “Base Station Router for Distributed Antenna
`Systems” and describes a DAS, through which cellular communication
`systems provide data services via remote antenna units. Ex. 1005, codes
`(54), (57), 1:14–27, 1:40–56. Figure 1 of Kummetz-464 is reproduced
`below:
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00408
`Patent 10,506,454 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a schematic view of a DAS. Id. at 2:14–15.
`Kummetz-464 describes that, in the downlink direction, base stations
`12a–12n send signals to base station router 14. Id. at 5:14–31. These
`signals are associated with one or more sectors, where each sector includes
`communication channels and represents an amount of telecommunication
`capacity. Id. at 1:43–46, 1:64–67, 3:20–24, 5:19–23, 5:28–31. Different
`sectors may also be associated with different telecommunications system
`operators. Id. at 4:5–7, 5:19–23. Base station router 14 can route signals
`between base stations 12a–12n and coverage zones 16a–16f. Id. at 5:32–33,
`5:50–62.
`Base station router 14 includes circuitry for routing signals from base
`stations 12a–12n to remote antenna units in coverage zones 16a–16f. Id. at
`5:50–52. Each of coverage zones 16a–16f contains one or more remote
`antenna units (e.g. remote antenna units 18a–18c for coverage zone 16a) that
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00408
`Patent 10,506,454 B2
`wirelessly communicate (radiate) the signals received from base station
`router 14 to wireless devices positioned in their physical area. Id. at 3:7–8,
`3:12–14, 3:28–30, 3:51–53, 5:37–39, 7:4–8. All remote units in one
`coverage zone receive the same group of signals from base station router 14.
`Id. at 7:8–10. These coverages zones thus provide extended signal coverage
`for base stations 12a–12n. Id. at 1:21–25, 5:16–19, 6:63–7:3.
`Base station router 14 includes an input interface that receives signals
`from and provides signals to the base stations 12a–12n, allowing uplink and
`downlink functionality. Id. at 7:45–48, 7:50–52, 7:66–8:1, 8:8–10, Fig. 2.
`Base station router 14 also includes an output section that receives signals
`from and provides signals to the remote antenna units, similarly allowing
`uplink and downlink functionality. Id. at 7:45–49, 8:23–24, 8:27–32, 8:41–
`42, Fig. 2.
`Base station router 14 includes a controller that itself includes
`executable instructions for a configuration engine. Id. at 2:19–20, 8:54,
`8:63–67, 9:22, Fig. 2, Fig. 3. Alternatively, the controller could be a
`separate device external to and in communication with base station router
`14. Id. at 8:60–62. The controller 108 can re-configure the configurable
`digital signal processing circuitry of a backplane in the base station router to
`change the routing of signals from the base stations 12a–12n to coverage
`zones 16a–16f. Id. at 8:55–58.
`The controller can receive data describing the routing of signals by the
`base station router 14, including data relating to the determined demand on
`each of coverage zones 16a–16f. Id. at 9:34–39. “The configuration engine
`. . . can include a configuration management function for determining how to
`redistribute signal capacity among coverage zones . . . in response to the
`detection of a traffic indicator.” Id. at 9:40–44. This redistribution changes
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00408
`Patent 10,506,454 B2
`which sectors are provided to which coverage zones. Id. at 3:15–16. For
`example, one sector may be distributed to a decreased number of coverage
`zones, which will increase the capacity density for those zones (how many
`mobile devices can use telecommunications services in the zones). Id. at
`3:43–49, 3:54–68.
`Figures 4 and 5 are reproduced below:
`
`
`Figures 4 and 5 provide an example of an initial configuration and a changed
`configuration of signal routing. Id. at 2:21–26, 10:30–32.
`In these figures, coverage zones 16a–16f include remote antenna
`units, depicted as darkened circles. Id. at 10:35–38. As seen in Figure 4,
`base station router 14 distributes sectors 302a–302c among coverage zones
`16a–16f, communicating the signals of sector 302a to coverage zones 16a–
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00408
`Patent 10,506,454 B2
`16d, the signals of sector 302b to coverage zone 16e, and the signals of 302c
`to coverage zone 16f. Id. at 10:46–49. Thus the capacity of sector 302a is
`divided among coverage zones, while the capacity of sectors 302b and 302c
`are each devoted to one respective coverage zone. Id. at 10:49–53. Figure 5
`depicts a change in this configuration, in which base station 14
`communicates the signals of sector 302a to only one coverage zone
`(coverage zone 16a) and the signals of sectors 302b and 302c each are
`communicated to two coverage zones per sector. Id. at 11:21–25. This
`change in configuration may better serve users of wireless devices if, for
`example, fewer wireless devices are located in the area of coverage zones
`16a–16d at a first time (thus requiring less capacity) and subsequently at a
`second time, more capacity is required in coverage zones 16a–16d because
`more wireless devices are in coverage zones 16a–16d relative to coverage
`zones 16e and 16f. Id. at 3:43–4:19, 10:64–11:28.
`This redistribution may be in response to the detection of a traffic
`indicator. Id. at 1:46–1:48, 1:60–1:63, 9:42–44.
`A traffic indicator can include data describing or otherwise
`corresponding to a number of mobile devices in each coverage
`zone. Examples of a traffic indicator can include a scheduled
`event of a game, concert, or other type of event, a scheduled
`sequence of events with pre-game, game, and post-game
`configurations, traffic measurements passing low or high
`thresholds, base transceiver station failure events, and loss of
`capacity due to high inter-sector interference.
`Id. at 9:44–52.
`
`2. Analysis of Claim 1
`Petitioner argues that claim 1 is anticipated by Kummetz-464. Pet.
`20–40. Patent Owner presents several arguments asserting that Kummetz-
`464 does not anticipate claim 1. PO Resp. 36–55; PO Sur-reply 11–17. Our
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00408
`Patent 10,506,454 B2
`analysis focuses primarily on arguments made with respect to the traffic
`monitoring unit. To place those arguments in the proper context, we review
`the Petitioner’s assertions regarding the entirety of the claim and certain of
`Patent Owner’s arguments.
`
`a) Preamble
`The preamble of claim 1 describes “[a] system for dynamically
`routing signals in a Distributed Antenna System (DAS) operable to
`communicate with a plurality of signal sources.” Ex. 1001, 17:50–52.
`Petitioner argues that even if the preamble is limiting, Kummetz-464
`discloses it. Pet. 20–21.
`Petitioner argues that Kummetz-464 discloses a system for
`dynamically routing signals in a DAS through its disclosure of a DAS “that
`can redistribute capacity among coverage zones services by the DAS” and
`that includes circuitry to route signals between a plurality of base stations
`(which are associated with different sectors of one telecommunications
`system operator or of a number of telecommunications system operators)
`and a plurality of remote antenna units. Id. (quoting Ex. 1005, 2:40–46;
`citing Ex. 1005, 5:19–23, 5:43–45, 8:54–58, 9:40–54, Figs. 1–5).
`b) “one or more Digital Access Units . . .” and “a plurality of Digital
`Remote Units . . .” limitations
`Claim 1 requires that the system comprise “one or more Digital
`Access Units (DAUs) operable to receive at least one signal from at least
`one of a first signal source and a second signal source from the plurality of
`signal sources, each DAU of the one or more DAUs including an input port
`configured as an uplink/downlink port and an output port configured as an
`uplink/downlink port” (“the DAU limitation”) and “a plurality of Digital
`Remote Units (DRUs) coupled to the one or more DAUs and operable to
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00408
`Patent 10,506,454 B2
`transport signals between the plurality of DRUs and the one or more DAUs”
`(“the DRU limitation”). Ex. 1001, 17:53–63.
`Petitioner argues that the DAU limitation of claim 1 is disclosed by
`Kummetz-464’s base station router and that the DRUs of claim 1 are
`disclosed by Kummetz-464’s remote antenna units. Pet. 22–25.
`Petitioner argues that the base station routers of Kummetz-464 are
`operable to receive signals from different sectors of one telecommunications
`system operator or from different sectors of different telecommunications
`system operators. Id. at 22–23 (citing Ex. 1005, 4:20–24, 5:19–23; Ex. 1003
`¶ 81). Petitioner further argues that Kummetz-464’s base station routers
`include bidirectional input and output ports that can carry uplink and
`downlink signals. Id. at 23–24 (citing Ex. 1005, 7:50–8:1, 8:23–54, Fig. 2;
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 82).
`Petitioner argues that Kummetz-464’s remote antenna units disclose
`the DRU limitation. Id. at 24–25. Petitioner asserts that these remote
`antenna units are described as sending and receiving signals to the base
`station router. Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 6:16–43, 8:23–54, 11:39–52, Fig. 1, Fig.
`6; Ex. 1003 ¶ 85).
`c) “a plurality of sectors formed from the plurality of DRUs . . .”
`limitation
`Claim 1 further requires that the system comprises “a plurality of
`sectors formed from the plurality of DRUs comprising a first sector and a
`second sector different from the first sector, each sector comprising a subset
`of the plurality of DRUs” (“plurality of sectors limitation”). Ex. 1001,
`17:64–67.
`Petitioner argues that Kummetz-464 discloses this limitation through
`its disclosure of “a plurality of ‘remote antenna units’ that may be divided
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00408
`Patent 10,506,454 B2
`into a plurality of different sectors” in Kummetz-464’s Figure 4 and Figure 5
`and the associated disclosure. Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:16–24, 10:30–
`38, Figs. 4, 5; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 87–88).
`We note Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner’s anticipation
`arguments with respect to this claim limitation are flawed because groupings
`of remote antenna units in coverage zones (e.g., coverage zones 16a – 16d)
`would not constitute a sector, under the preliminary construction of “sector”
`in our Institution Decision (“a grouping of DRUs in a particular area or
`region.”) PO Resp. 37–41; Dec. on Inst. 30–31. Patent Owner argues that
`“Kummetz[-464]’s coverage zones are entirely static and the remote radios
`assigned to the various coverage zones keep those assignments indefinitely,”
`and that a grouping based only on radio units being switched to certain
`sectors is inconsistent with providing a sector of radio units “in a particular
`area or region.” PO Resp. at 39–41; PO Sur-reply 12–13. However, we do
`not address Patent Owner’s arguments because we determine Kummetz-464
`does not anticipate the claims based on issues with Petitioner’s showing with
`respect to the “traffic monitoring unit” limitation of claim 1, as discussed
`below.
`
`d) “a traffic monitoring unit” limitation
`(1) the traffic monitoring unit
`The system of claim 1 also comprises “a traffic monitoring unit
`coupled to at least one of the DAUs comprising the input port and output
`port each configured as an uplink/downlink port.” Ex. 1001, 18:1–4. With
`respect to the traffic monitoring unit, Petitioner argues that the controller of
`the base station router in Kummetz-464 and its included configuration
`engine disclose a traffic monitoring unit. Pet. 27–29 (citing Ex. 1005, 8:54–
`58, 8:63–9:25, 9:34–565, Figs. 2, 3; Ex. 1003 ¶ 90).
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00408
`Patent 10,506,454 B2
`(2) traffic monitoring unit configured to determine
`one or more KPIs and a QoS “of a network traffic”
`The traffic monitoring unit is configured to “determine one or more
`key performance indicators (KPIs) and a quality of service (QoS) of a
`network traffic for the one or more DAUs, wherein the QoS is a function of
`the one or more KPIs.” Ex. 1001, 18:5–8. Petitioner argues that Kummetz-
`464 discloses KPIs in its traffic indicators, quoting the reference:
`A traffic indicator can include data describing or otherwise
`corresponding to a number of mobile devices in each coverage
`zone. Examples of a traffic indicator can include a scheduled
`event of a game, concert, or other type of event, a scheduled
`sequence of events with pre-game, game, and post-game
`configurations, traffic measurements passing low or high
`thresholds, base transceiver station failure events, and loss of
`capacity due to high inter-sector interference. In some aspects,
`the controller 108 can detect traffic and perform measurements
`independent of a wireless network standard and protocol.
`Ex. 1005, 9:44–54 (quoted at Pet. 30).
`Petitioner asserts that Kummetz-464 discloses that the controller can
`reconfigure signal capacity based on a traffic indicator. Pet. 31 (citing Ex.
`1005, 9:40–47). Petitioner cites the example in Kummetz-464 of the
`configuration management function being executed “in response to the
`detection of a traffic indicator” “which can include data describing or
`otherwise corresponding to a number of devices in each coverage zone.” Id.
`Thus, Petitioner argues that Kummetz-464 discloses an example in which
`reconfiguration occurs based on the number of wireless devices in the
`coverage zones, which Petitioner argues disclose KPIs, and that in this
`example “the relative concentration of those devices between respective
`coverage zones (a function of the KPIs) is the QoS.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005,
`10:30–43, 11:13–15, Figs. 4–5; Ex. 1003 ¶ 95). In its Reply, Petitioner
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00408
`Patent 10,506,454 B2
`presents an additional example, based on the reconfiguration described in
`Kummetz-464, in which the number of user wireless devices in a stadium is
`a first KPI (“KPI 1”) and the number of user wireless devices in a parking
`lot is a second KPI (“KPI 2”). Pet. Reply 20–21. Petitioner asserts that a
`QoS can be computed by determining the relative concentration of devices
`between th

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket