`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`T-Mobile USA, Inc., AT&T Services Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T
`Corporation, Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Nokia of America
`Corporation, Ericsson Inc.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`Cobblestone Wireless LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-00137
`Patent 9,094,888
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,094,888
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,094,888
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 2
`III.
`STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a) ................................................... 5
`IV. STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED .................................................... 5
`V.
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ....................................... 5
`VI.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE .......................................................... 6
`VII. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 7
`A.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 7
`B.
`Handover ............................................................................................... 7
`C.
`The ’888 Patent ...................................................................................10
`1.
`Description of the ’888 Patent’s Specification ......................... 10
`2.
`Claim Construction ................................................................... 13
`VIII. THE PRIOR ART ..........................................................................................13
`A.
`Chitrapu ...............................................................................................13
`1.
`Chitrapu’s Dynamic Shaping of Cell Coverage ....................... 14
`2.
`Chitrapu’s Smart Handover ...................................................... 18
`TS 36.300 V10.3.0 ..............................................................................21
`B.
`C. Motivation to Combine .......................................................................25
`IX. GROUND OF REJECTION ..........................................................................30
`A. Ground 1: 9, 10, 12, 20, 21 and 23 are obvious in view of
`Chitrapu and in further view of TS 36.300 v10.3.0. ...........................30
`1.
`Independent claim 9 .................................................................. 30
`
`LEGAL02/43247733v8
`
`i
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,094,888
`
`Dependent claim 10 .................................................................. 52
`2.
`Dependent claim 12 .................................................................. 54
`3.
`Independent claim 20 ................................................................ 56
`4.
`Dependent claim 21 .................................................................. 59
`5.
`Dependent claim 23 .................................................................. 60
`6.
`THIS PETITION CONTAINS NEW ARGUMENTS AND PRIOR
`ART NOT PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED TO THE OFFICE ......................60
`XI. FINTIV FACTORS IN FAVOR OF INSTITUTION ....................................61
`XII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................63
`
`
`X.
`
`
`
`
`
`LEGAL02/43247733v8
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,094,888
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) .................................................. 61, 62, 64
`Comcast Cable Commn’s, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc.,
`IPR2019-00231 (PTAB May 20, 2019) ...............................................................64
`Dish Network v. Broadband iTV,
`IPR2020-01280 (PTAB Feb. 4, 2021)..................................................................62
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................13
`Sand Revolution II LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group-Trucking LLC,
`IPR2019-01393 (PTAB June 16, 2020) ...............................................................63
`VMWare, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`IPR2020-00470 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2020) ...........................................................61
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ..................................................................................................... 7
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ..................................................................................................... 6
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................30
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ...................................................................................................60
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e) ..................................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. 282(b) ......................................................................................................13
`Other Authorities
`83 Fed. Reg. 51340 ..................................................................................................13
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(c) ..................................................................................................... 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................ 4
`37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) ...............................................................................................13
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`LEGAL02/43247733v8
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,094,888
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014-1200
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,094,888 (“’888 Patent”)
`
`Prosecution History for 9,094,888
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0111149A1 (“Chitrapu”)
`
`Intentionally Omitted
`
`Expert Declaration of James Proctor
`
`Expert Declaration of Benoist Sébire on the Prior Art Status of
`TS 36.300
`IBM International Technical Support Organization, An
`Introduction to Wireless Communications, 2d ed. (October 1995)
`
`Taylor, M.S. et al., Internet Mobility: The CDPD Approach (June
`11, 1996)
`
`Steele et al., GSM, cdmaOne and 3G Systems (2001)
`
`Sesia, S. et al., LTE – The UMTS Long Term Evolution, 2d ed.
`(2011)
`
`3GPP 23.401 V10.3.0 (March 2011)
`
`Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-
`00477-JRG-RSP (Lead Case), Dkt. 62, Docket Control Order
`
`Katherine K. Vidal, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials
`in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court
`Litigation (June 21, 2022)
`
`Intentionally Omitted
`
`1201
`
`3GPP Partnership Project Description
`
`iv
`
`LEGAL02/43247733v8
`
`

`

`Exhibit No. Description
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,094,888
`
`
`1202
`
`1203
`
`1204
`
`1205
`
`1206
`
`1207
`
`1208
`
`1209
`
`1210
`
`1211
`
`1212
`
`1213
`
`1214
`
`1215
`
`1216
`
`1217
`
`1218
`
`1219
`
`3GPP Working Procedures 2022
`
`Introducing 3GPP Webpage
`
`Recommendation for IPv6 in 3GPP Standards (Archived)
`
`Myung, H. & Goodman, D., Single Carrier FDMA – A New Air
`Interface for Long Term Evolution (2008)
`RAN WG2 Homepage
`
`RAN2 Meeting #73 (Taipei) Participants List
`
`3GPP FAQs (Archived Webpage - 2008)
`
`3GPP Specifications (Archived Webpage - 2008)
`
`3GPP Homepage (Archived Webpage - 2009)
`
`3GPP Index of ftp Specs (Archived Webpage - 2008)
`
`3GPP Specification Numbering (Archived Webpage - 2008)
`
`3GPP Specification Series (Archived Webpage - 2008)
`
`3GPP Version Numbering Scheme (Archived Webpage - 2008)
`
`Hillebrand, F., ed., GSM and UMTS: The Creation of Global
`Mobile Communication (2002)
`3GPP Partners Webpage
`
`3GPP Homepage (Archived Webpage – February 2011)
`
`3GPP Advanced Search (Archived Webpage – March 2011)
`
`3GPP FTP Index (Archived Webpage – 2008)
`
`LEGAL02/43247733v8
`
`v
`
`

`

`Exhibit No. Description
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,094,888
`
`
`1220
`
`1221
`
`1222
`
`1223
`
`1224
`
`1225
`
`1226
`
`1227
`
`1228
`
`3GPP FTP RAN WG (Archived Webpage – 2008)
`
`3GPP FTP TSG_RAN WG2_RL2 (Archived Webpage – 2008)
`
`3GPP FAQs Webpage
`
`3GPP TS 36.300 V10.3.0
`
`3GPP FTP TS 36.300 Directory Listing
`
`3GPP FTP TS 36.300 (Archived Webpage - 2014)
`
`RP-110855, Report of 3GPP TSG RAN meeting #51
`
`3GPP Specification by Series
`
`3GPP Directory Listing of Final Specifications After RAN#51
`
`1229
`
`Curriculum Vita of James Proctor
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LEGAL02/43247733v8
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Cl. No.
`9
`
`Elem.
`[9.pre]
`
`[9.a]
`
`[9.b]
`
`[9.c]
`
`[10]
`
`[12]
`
`[20.pre]
`
`[20.a]
`
`[20.b]
`[20.c]
`
`[20.d]
`
`[20.e]
`
`[21]
`
`[23]
`
`10
`
`12
`
`20
`
`
`
`21
`
`23
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,094,888
`
`
`LISTING OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`
`Claim Language
`A method implemented at a first wireless network for a mobile wireless device
`handoff between a second wireless network and the first wireless network, the
`method comprising
`receiving a handoff request from the second wireless network, the handoff request
`based, at least in part, on a determination by the second wireless network that the
`wireless device is not currently covered by the first wireless network but is
`capable of being covered by the first wireless network;
`based, at least in part, on the handoff request, adapting one or more beams of an
`antenna array to facilitate coverage of the wireless device by the first wireless
`network; and.
`transmitting a confirmation from the first wireless network to the second wireless
`network to indicate acceptance of the handoff request, wherein the wireless device
`is handed off from the second wireless network to the first wireless network.
`A method according to claim 9, wherein the receiving the handoff request comprises
`receiving the handoff request via a wireless or a wired communication link that
`communicatively couples the first wireless network to the second wireless network
`A method according to claim 9, wherein the adapting one or more beams
`comprises adapting one or more beams based, at least in part, on one of a
`predetermined network load placed on the first wireless network due to the
`handoff of the wireless device or an effect of adapting one or more beams on other
`wireless devices currently communicatively coupled to the first wireless network.
`A system for a wireless device handoff between a first wireless network and a
`second wireless network, the system comprising:
`an antenna array configured to generate one or more adaptable beams to modify a
`coverage area for the first wireless network; and
`an adaption manager having logic, the logic configured to:
`receive a handoff request from the second wireless network, the handoff request
`based, at least in part, on a determination by the second wireless network that the
`wireless device is capable of being covered by the first wireless network
`cause a beam from among the one or more adaptable beams to be adapted in order
`to enable the wireless device to be covered by the first wireless network, and
`transmit a confirmation to the second wireless network to indicate acceptance of
`the handoff request, wherein the wireless device is handed off from the second
`wireless network to the first wireless network.
`A system according to claim 20, wherein to receive the handoff request comprises
`to receive the handoff request via a wireless or a wired communication link that
`communicatively couples the first wireless network to the second wireless
`network.
`A system according to claim 20, wherein to cause the beam to be adapted
`comprises to cause a beam to be adapted based, at least in part, on one of a
`network load placed on the first wireless network due to the handoff of the
`wireless device or an impact of adapting one or more beams on other wireless
`devices currently communicatively coupled to the first wireless network
`
`LEGAL02/43247733v8
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`T-Mobile USA, Inc., AT&T Services Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T
`
`Corporation, Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Nokia of America
`
`Corporation, Ericsson Inc., (“Petitioners”) petition for inter partes review of Claims
`
`9, 10, 12, 20, 21 and 23 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,054,888 (“’888
`
`Patent”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Challenged Claims of the ’888 Patent are directed to a handover method
`
`for base stations that have the ability to change their geographic coverage area.
`
`Handover is a process where a wireless device’s connection to a network through a
`
`base station (referred to as a source base station) is transferred to a new base station
`
`(referred to as a target base station). Handover is a fundamental process to wireless
`
`and cellular communications that has been part of every major cellular standard. The
`
`’888 Patent is directed a very specific type of handover, whereby a target network
`
`adapts its coverage area to account for a wireless device (e.g., a cell phone) that is
`
`not currently within the target base station’s coverage area. According to the
`
`Challenged Claims, the determination of whether to adapt the target coverage area
`
`is made by the source base station (i.e., the base station that is currently in
`
`communication with the device).
`
`This adaptive handover, however, was not new. Chitrapu discloses the exact
`
`same problem and the exact same solution as the ’888 Patent. Specifically, Chitrapu
`
`LEGAL02/43247733v8
`
`1
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,094,888
`
`discloses a “smart” handover between base stations capable of dynamically changing
`
`their coverage area. Chitrapu expressly describes that a source base station can
`
`consider load balancing and the location of a UE in determining whether to adapt
`
`the coverage of a target base station during handover. Chitrapu also discloses that
`
`the details of the messaging between a source base station and target base station
`
`could follow the standard handover messaging protocols described in the 3GPP
`
`technical specifications. TS 36.300 is an example of a 3GPP technical specification,
`
`and it discloses the standard messaging protocols for handover in LTE.
`
`Thus, Chitrapu in combination with the TS 36.300 render obvious the
`
`Challenged Claims of the ’888 Patent.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST: The real party in interest is T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`
`AT&T Services Inc., AT&T Corp., AT&T Mobility LLC, Cellco Partnership d/b/a
`
`Verizon Wireless, Nokia of America Corporation, Ericsson Inc. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.8(b)(1).1 To avoid additional issues associated with real parties in interest,
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Out of an abundance of caution, Petitioners identify all current defendants
`
`in the below identified cases as potential real parties in interest only for the purpose
`
`of this proceeding and only to the extent that Patent Owner contends that these
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,094,888
`
`Petitioners likewise identify Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. because its products are
`
`accused of infringement in the AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon actions, and Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd. has been named as a defendant in the litigation listed below.
`
`RELATED MATTERS:
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioners are aware of the following
`
`pending patent infringement lawsuits or related matters involving the ’888 Patent:
`
`• Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, et al., No. 2:22-cv-00477
`
`(E.D. Tex.) filed December 16, 2022;
`
`• Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc., et al., No.
`
`2:22-cv-00478 (E.D. Tex.) filed December 16, 2022;
`
`
`
`
`separate legal entities should be named real parties in interest in this IPR. Petitioners
`
`do so to avoid the potential expenditure of resources to resolve such a challenge.
`
`Petitioners also acknowledge that each petitioner has a number of affiliates. No
`
`unnamed entity is funding, controlling, or otherwise has an opportunity to control or
`
`direct this Petition or Petitioner’s participation in any resulting IPR. Petitioners are
`
`also not aware of any affiliate that would be barred from filing this Petition under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(e).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,094,888
`
`• Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. AT&T Inc. et al., No. 2:22-cv-00474
`
`(E.D. Tex.) filed December 15, 2022; and
`
`• Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No.
`
`2:23-cv-00285 (E.D. Texas) filed June 16, 2023.
`
`LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL: Petitioners provide the following designation and
`
`service information for lead and back-up counsel. 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and (b)(4).
`
`PETITIONERS’ LEAD AND BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`
`
`
`John D. Haynes (Reg. No. 44,754)
`Alston & Bird LLP
`One Atlantic Center
`1201 West Peachtree Street
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`John.Haynes@alston.com
`404-881-7000
`Fax: 404-881-7777
`
`David S. Frist (Reg. No 60,511)
`Alston & Bird LLP
`One Atlantic Center
`1201 West Peachtree Street NW
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`David.Frist@alston.com
`404-881-7000
`Fax: 404-881-7777
`
`Michael C. Deane (Reg. No. 70,389)
`Alston & Bird LLP
`One Atlantic Center
`1201 West Peachtree Street NW
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`Michael.Deane@alston.com
`404-881-4943
`4
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,094,888
`
`
`Fax: 404-881-7777
`
`
`
`SERVICE INFORMATION: Petitioners consent to electronic service by email at the
`
`email addresses: A&BCobblestone@alston.com
`
`III. STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)
`Petitioners certify that the ʼ888 Patent is available for inter partes review.
`
`Petitioners also certify that they are not barred or estopped from requesting this inter
`
`partes review on the grounds identified herein. Neither Petitioners, nor any party in
`
`privity with Petitioners: (i) have filed a civil action challenging the validity of claims
`
`9, 10, 12, 20, 21, 23 of the ’888 Patent; (ii) have been served a complaint alleging
`
`infringement of the ’888 Patent more than one year prior to the present date; or (iii)
`
`are estopped from challenging the claims on the grounds identified in the Petition.
`
`Claims 9, 10, 12, 20, 21, 23 of the ’888 Patent also have not been the subject of a
`
`prior IPR or a finally concluded district court litigation.
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioners request inter partes review and cancellation of challenged claims
`
`9, 10, 12, 20, 21 and 23 based on the detailed statements presented below.
`
`V.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`Petitioners authorize Account No. 16-0605 to be charged for any fee set forth
`
`in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) and for any additional fees.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,094,888
`
`
`VI.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`Petitioners request inter partes review on the below grounds. Per 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.6(c), copies of the references are filed with this petition. In support of these
`
`grounds, this petition is accompanied by a Declaration of Mr. James A. Proctor.
`
`Ground ’888 Patent Claims Basis for Ground
`
`1
`
`9, 10, 12, 20, 21, 23 Obvious over U.S. Patent Publication No.
`
`2006/0111149A1 to Chitrapu et al., (Chitrapu) in
`
`combination with 3GPP Technical Specification
`
`36.300 V10.3.0 (TS 36.300).
`
`As stated on the face of the patent, the earliest priority date of the ‘888 patent
`
`is April 29, 2011. Each of the relied upon references is prior art to this patent for the
`
`reasons stated below.
`
`Chitrapu (Ex. 1003): U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0111149A1 to
`
`Chitrapu et al. (“Chitrapu”), titled “System and Method Utilizing Dynamic Beam
`
`Forming for Wireless Communication Signals,” was filed on December 22, 2005,
`
`and is a continuation of a patent application that was filed on November 27, 2002.
`
`Chitrapu published on May 25, 2006, and thus is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b).
`
`TS 36.300 (Ex. 1223): 3GPP TS 36.300 V10.3.0 is a version of a technical
`
`specification for the Long Term Evolution (“LTE”) standard developed and
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,094,888
`
`maintained by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (“3GPP”). This specification
`
`was developed by the Technical Specification Group (TSG). The TSG deliverables
`
`are published and publicly available on the 3GPP website. Ex. 1006, ¶¶26-27, see
`
`also Ex. 1201-28. Technical Specification (TS) 36.300 was publicly available at
`
`least as early as it was published on April 5, 2011. Ex. 1006, ¶¶49-57; see also Ex.
`
`1201-28. Therefore, TS 36.300 is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`VII. BACKGROUND
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`A.
`A POSITA at the time of the alleged invention of the ’888 Patent would have
`
`had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering,
`
`computer science, physics, or the equivalent, and at least two years of experience
`
`working in the field. Ex. 1005, ¶41. Relevant working experience would include
`
`experience with telecommunications and networking, radio-access network
`
`architectures, protocols and signal propagation, and including handovers in wireless
`
`networks. Ex. 1005, ¶41. More education can supplement practical experience and
`
`vice versa. Ex. 1005, ¶41.
`
`B. Handover
`At the time the ’888 Patent was filed, a POSITA would have known that
`
`cellular network operators had deployed multiple types of networks in the United
`
`States. For example, networks operating according to the Third-Generation (3G)
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,094,888
`
`standards, such as Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) and
`
`CDMA2000, had been deployed in the United States for almost a decade, and US
`
`network operators had also widely deployed networks operating according to
`
`Fourth-Generation (4G) standards, such as Long Term Evolution or LTE. Ex. 1005,
`
`¶60.
`
`For a wireless device (also known as user equipment or UE), handover ensures
`
`that a UE can maintain an ongoing communication session while moving between
`
`different cells or coverage areas. Ex. 1005, ¶61.
`
`Examples of handover procedures are implemented in every major cellular
`
`technology, including GSM, UMTS, and 4G LTE. Ex. 1005, ¶62. These handover
`
`processes were standardized by 3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project2) and
`
`have been widely implemented in 3G and 4G networks. Ex. 1005, ¶62. The reason
`
`that the standards provided for different handover procedures is that slightly
`
`different procedures may be used depending on the destination of the cellular
`
`devices. Ex. 1005, ¶¶63-65 (listing two types of handover). The following provides
`
`
`
`
`
`2 3GPP is a standards setting organization that releases technical specifications
`
`(TS) that cover cellular telecommunications technologies. Ex. 1005, ¶¶56-57.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,094,888
`
`examples of the types of handover procedures available in the prior art LTE standard
`
`and that would have been known to a POSITA.
`
`Intra-RAT Handover. An intra-RAT handover is a type of handover where
`
`a UE is handed off from a base station to another base station that are operating using
`
`the same radio access technology (or RAT). In one example of an intra-RAT
`
`handover, intra-LTE handover, a UE is handed off from one base station (referred
`
`to as an eNodeB) within an LTE network to another base station within the same
`
`LTE network. During this handover, an on-going connection with the LTE network
`
`is maintained. Ex. 1005, ¶64.
`
`Inter-RAT handover. In this type of handover, a UE is handed off from a
`
`base station operating according to one type of RAT (e.g. 4G LTE) to a base station
`
`operating according to a different type of RAT (e.g., 3G UMTS). Ex. 1005, ¶65. The
`
`ability to perform inter-RAT handovers is fundamental to the operation of cellular
`
`devices prior to the ’888 Patent. A POSITA would have known that, prior to the ’888
`
`Patent, network operators in the United States typically operated multiple networks.
`
`For example, in 2011, network operators had a robust 3G networks throughout the
`
`United States and had begun building 4G networks on top of the 3G networks in
`
`major metropolitan cities. As result, a POSITA would have known that UEs in 2011
`
`were often compatible with 3G and 4G networks. This concept is known as
`
`“backward compatibility.” Ex. 1005, ¶65.
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,094,888
`
`A POSITA would have recognized that as a UE moved in and out of certain
`
`coverage areas (e.g., entering or leaving a city with 4G coverage), the UE would
`
`move between 4G and 3G coverage. In order to ensure seamless service, (e.g.,
`
`prevent dropped calls) and in order to ensure UEs were receiving the highest level
`
`of service (e.g., moving the UE to 4G service when it became available), the UE
`
`must have capable of handover between the different 3G and 4G wireless networks
`
`using the standardized inter-RAT handover procedure. Ex. 1005, ¶66.
`
`C. The ’888 Patent
`Description of the ’888 Patent’s Specification
`1.
`The ’888 Patent is titled “Wireless Handoff Between Wireless Networks” and
`
`discloses methods and systems to facilitate handoff between a first and second
`
`wireless network. Ex. 1001, 3:27-30. Annotated Figure 1A below illustrates the
`
`concepts from the ’888 Patent.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Ex. 1001, Fig. 1A (annotated); Ex. 1005, ¶69
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,094,888
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In Figure 1A, there are two wireless networks labeled 110 and 120, shown in
`
`orange and green respectively. The wireless device (e.g., UE) labeled 130A (for
`
`example) is shown in blue. In this figure, the UE is connected to the source network
`
`(called the “second wireless network” in the claims and shown in orange). The ’888
`
`Patent describes handover of a UE between the source network and a target wireless
`
`network 120 (called the “first wireless network” in the claims and shown in green).
`
`As shown below, Figure 1A illustrates that the target wireless network has
`
`two potential “coverage areas”: (i) 125-2 (shown cross-striped in orange) and (ii)
`
`125-1 (shown cross-striped in blue).
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Ex. 1001, Fig. 1A (annotated); Ex. 1005, ¶70
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,094,888
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The ’888 Patent describes how, in Figure 1A, the target wireless network is
`
`operating with coverage area 125-2 (in orange). UE 130A (shown in blue) is not
`
`covered by coverage area 125-2 (in orange). Ex. 1001, 5:35-38. To facilitate the
`
`handover, the ’888 Patent describes that the target network must adapt its coverage
`
`area to 125-1 (in blue) to cover the UE 130A. To do so, the ’888 Patent describes
`
`adapting one or more beams of an antenna array to match coverage area 125-1. Ex.
`
`1005, ¶71. The ’888 Patent discloses a series of “coverage managers” and “adaption
`
`managers” to negotiate and exchange information to accomplish this task. Ex. 1005,
`
`¶72.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,094,888
`
`
`Claim Construction
`2.
`In an inter partes review, claims are “construed using the same claim
`
`construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under
`
`35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b). When a trial is instituted, claim terms must
`
`be given their plain ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a POSITA
`
`during the relevant timeframe in light of the specification and the prosecution
`
`history. Id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en
`
`banc); see 83 Fed. Reg. 51340.
`
`Unless otherwise indicated in the discussion of the limitations below,
`
`Petitioners believe that the terms of the ’888 Patent, for purposes of this proceeding,
`
`should be given their plain and ordinary meaning under the Phillips standard.
`
`VIII. THE PRIOR ART
`A. Chitrapu
`Chitrapu discloses a beaming forming method used to dynamically shape cell
`
`coverage in conjunction with a “smart” handover mechanism. Ex. 1003, ¶¶[0008]-
`
`[0011].
`
`As background, Chitrapu describes how prior art networks without
`
`dynamically changing coverage areas effectuate a handover. Referencing prior art
`
`Figure 1B, Chitrapu explains how, in conventional systems, the base stations have
`
`“strictly defined coverage areas” that typically overlap with adjacent base stations.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,094,888
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶[0071]. These prior art coverage areas of three base stations below are
`
`shown with different colors (blue, green, and orange):
`
`Ex. 1003, Fig. 1B (annotated); Ex. 1005, ¶78
`
`
`
`
`
`Chitrapu describes that, conventionally, “the overlap of beam coverage
`
`enables ‘handover’ of a communication being conducted by a mobile UE from one
`
`base station to another as the mobile UE travels from one cell to another.” Ex. 1003,
`
`¶[0008].
`
`Chitrapu proposes two changes to improve on these conventional systems: (i)
`
`dynamically shaping cell coverage, and (ii) “smart handover.” Ex. 1003, ¶[0011].
`
`Chitrapu’s Dynamic Shaping of Cell Coverage
`1.
`First, Chitrapu discloses “dynamically shaping of cell coverage” instead of
`
`maintaining “strict coverage areas.” Ex. 1003, ¶[0071]; Ex. 1005, ¶81.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,094,888
`
`Dynamically shaping cell coverage is illustrated using Figure 2 and Figure 3
`
`in Chitrapu. For example. Figure 2 is shown below to illustrate the coverage areas
`
`of two base stations (BS1, BS2, and BS3):
`
`Ex. 1003, Fig. 2 (annotated); Ex. 1005, ¶82
`
`
`
`
`
`In Figure 2, Chitrapu discloses a concentration of users around base station 1
`
`(BS1 shown in orange). Ex. 1003, ¶[0075]. Due to this concentration, BS1 and
`
`adjacent BS3 negotiate and dynamically change their coverage areas to
`
`accommodate the concentration of users. Ex. 1003, ¶[0075]. Figure 3 is shown below
`
`illustrates this change:
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Ex. 1003, Fig. 3 (annotated); Ex. 1005, ¶84
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,094,888
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“FIG. 3 shows a situation where base station BS3 has suffered a failure.” Ex.
`
`1003, ¶[0075]. “Base station BS1 and base station BS2 are then used to transmit a
`
`selectively shaped and directed beam to provide the needed radio resources to the
`
`users in the region normally served by base station BS3.” Ex. 1003, ¶[0075].
`
`Comparing Figure 2 and Figure 3 shows how the base stations can dynamically
`
`adjust their coverage area based on network conditions.
`
`The process used to dynamically shape cell coverage is shown in Figure 6.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Ex. 1003, Fig. 6 (annotated); Ex. 1005, ¶86.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,094,888
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In the description of Figure 6, Chitrapu provides that the “first step consists
`
`of determination of location and/or locations of the targeted UE,” which “is
`
`preferably achieved by using well known techniques including . . . such as GPS
`
`based methods.” Ex. 1003, ¶[0082]. In step two, the network is then made aware of
`
`the location data for each UE by “an exchange of appropriately designed messages
`
`between the UE and the network.” Ex. 1003, ¶[0082]. In step three, “the network
`
`determines the characteristics of the beam forming in order to serve the targeted
`
`UE(s) in a manner deemed appropriate and/or optimal by the network.” Ex. 1003,
`
`¶[0083]. As a result, “[o]nce the negotiation process is completed, the base stations
`
`refocus their transmitted RF signals to provide the beams for the UEs which are
`
`determined during the negotiation process.” Ex. 1003, ¶[0083].
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,094,888
`
`
`Chitrapu’s Smart Handover
`2.
`Second, Chitrapu discloses a “smart” handover, which allows handover to be
`
`facilitated using these dynamic coverage areas. Ex. 1003, ¶[0011]. This type of
`
`handover uses (i) UE geographical position, (ii) beam forming capabilities of
`
`neighboring cells, and (iii) a negotiation between base stations to determine the
`
`handover and beam shape of the various base stations. Ex. 1