`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