UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`PANASONIC AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`UNM RAINFOREST INNOVATIONS,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________________
`
`Case IPR2024-00364
`
`Patent No. 8,265,096 B2
`
`____________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,265,096 B2
`
`Claims 8, 44-47 and 49-50
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................ 2
`A.
`Real Parties in Interest .......................................................................... 2
`B.
`Related Matters ..................................................................................... 2
`C.
`Notice of Counsel and Service Information ......................................... 4
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ..................................... 4
`A.
`Standing ................................................................................................ 4
`B.
`Challenge and Relief Requested .......................................................... 4
`IV. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 6
`A.
`IEEE-SA Overview .............................................................................. 7
`B.
`History of the IEEE 802.11 Standard ................................................... 8
`C.
`TGn and 802.11n .................................................................................. 8
`D.
`802.11ac and 802.11ax ....................................................................... 10
`E.
`802.16m .............................................................................................. 10
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’096 PATENT ......................................................... 11
`A.
`Brief Description ................................................................................ 11
`B.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................ 13
`C.
`Overview of Final Written Decision in Inter Partes Review No.
`2021-00734 ......................................................................................... 15
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................... 16
`D.
`Claim Construction............................................................................. 16
`E.
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART RELIED UPON IN THIS
`PETITION .................................................................................................... 18
`A.
`Joint Proposal ..................................................................................... 18
`B. Mujtaba ............................................................................................... 22
`C.
`Trainin ................................................................................................ 23
`VII. GROUND 1: JOINT PROPOSAL ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 8, 44-47
`AND 50 ......................................................................................................... 24
`
`V.
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Claim 8 ............................................................................................... 24
`A.
`Claim 44 ............................................................................................. 35
`B.
`Claim 45 ............................................................................................. 39
`C.
`Claim 46 ............................................................................................. 41
`D.
`Claim 47 ............................................................................................. 42
`E.
`Claim 50 ............................................................................................. 43
`F.
`VIII. GROUND 2: JOINT PROPOSAL RENDERS CLAIM 49 OBVIOUS
`IN VIEW OF TRAININ ............................................................................... 44
`A.
`Scope and Content of the Prior Art .................................................... 44
`B. Motivation to Combine ...................................................................... 45
`IX. GROUND 3: MUJTABA ANTICIPATES CLAIM 8 ................................ 48
`X.
`GROUND 4: MUJTABA IN VIEW OF TRAININ RENDERS
`CLAIMS 8, 44-47 AND 49-50 OBVIOUS .................................................. 56
`A. Motivation to Combine ...................................................................... 57
`B.
`Claim 8 ............................................................................................... 59
`C.
`Claim 44 ............................................................................................. 61
`D.
`Claim 45 ............................................................................................. 63
`E.
`Claim 46 ............................................................................................. 65
`F.
`Claim 47 ............................................................................................. 66
`G.
`Claim 49 ............................................................................................. 67
`H.
`Claim 50 ............................................................................................. 68
`INSTITUTION SHOULD BE GRANTED.................................................. 68
`A.
`35 U.S.C. § 325 (d)............................................................................. 68
`B.
`35 U.S.C. § 314 (a)—Fintiv ............................................................... 69
`XII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 74
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ................................................................. 75
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................................ 76
`
`XI.
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`Ex. 1001
`Ex. 1002
`Ex. 1003
`Ex. 1004
`Ex. 1005
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ex. 1007
`Ex. 1008
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Ex. 1010
`Ex. 1011
`Ex. 1012
`Ex. 1013
`Ex. 1014
`
`Ex. 1015
`Ex. 1016
`Ex. 1017
`Ex. 1018
`Ex. 1019
`
`Ex. 1020
`Ex. 1021
`Ex. 1022
`
`Ex. 1023
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,265,096 (the “’096 patent”)
`Declaration of Dr. Christopher J. Hansen, Ph.D.
`U.S. Provisional App. No. 60/929
`Excerpt of the ’096 Patent Prosecution History
`Claim Construction Order in STC.UNM v. Apple Inc., No. 1-20-cv-
`00351 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 9, 2020), ECF No. 69
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend in Inter Partes Review No.
`2021-00743
`Final Written Decision in Inter Partes Review No. 2021-00743
`IEEE 802.11-05/1102r4, “Wireless LANs Joint Proposal: High
`throughput extension to the 802.11 Standard: PHY” to Coffey, et
`al, uploaded and publicly available on Jan. 14, 2006 (“Joint
`Proposal”) (Appendix F to Lansford Declaration, Ex. 1015)
`IEEE 802.11-05/0037r0, “Wireless LANs [Minutes of High
`Throughput Task Group .11n Session]” to Hillman, uploaded and
`publicly available on Jan. 16, 2006 (Appendix F to Lansford
`Declaration, Ex. 1015)
`U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0072529 A1 (“Mujtaba”)
`U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0204052 A1 (“Trainin”)
`U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0067415 A1 (“Mujtaba II”)
`U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0146867 A1 (“Lee”)
`IEEE Std 802.11a-1999 Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access
`Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications, ISO/IEC
`8802-11:1999/Amd 1:2000(E)
`Declaration of Dr. James L. Lansford, Ph.D.
`U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0233709A1 (“Gardner”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,274,652 (“Webster”)
`U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0104174 (“Nystrom”)
`IEEE 802.11-05/786r0, “TGn Sync, WWiSE, and Mitmot Closing
`Report” to Mujtaba, et al., publicly available on July 21, 2005.
`U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0095195A1 (“Ahmadi”)
`U.S. Pub. No. 20070155387A1 (“Li”)
`Patent Owner’s Complaint in UNM Rainforest Innovations f/k/a
`STC.UNM v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc. et al, 2-23-cv-
`00424 (E.D. Tex.)
`Draft IEEE 802.16m Requirements
`-iii-
`
`

`

`Ex. 1028
`
`Ex. 1029
`
`Ex. 1025
`Ex. 1026
`Ex. 1027
`
`Ex. 1024 Work Plan for Development of IEEE P802.16m Draft Standard
`& IMT-Advanced Submission
`Extract of ITRI’s Submissions to TGn
`Partial Proposal for 802.11n: ITRI Preamble Specification
`ITRI’s complaint in Industrial Technology Research Institute v. LG
`Electronics, Inc. et al, 2-15-cv-00552 (E.D. Tex.)
`Patent Owner’s Infringement Contentions in UNM Rainforest
`Innovations f/k/a STC.UNM v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc. et
`al, 2-23-cv-00424 (E.D. Tex.)
`Exemplary Exhibit to Patent Owner’s Infringement Contentions in
`UNM Rainforest Innovations f/k/a STC.UNM v. Toyota Motor
`North America, Inc. et al, 2-23-cv-00424 (E.D. Tex.)
`Ex. 1030 Memorandum, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA
`Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation
`(USPTO Jun. 21, 2022) (“Interim Procedure”)
`Docket Control Order in UNM Rainforest Innovations f/k/a
`STC.UNM v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc. et al, 2-23-cv-
`00424 (E.D. Tex.)
`U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0159120 (“Kim”)
`Yang Xiao, IEEE 802.11n: Enhancement for Higher Throughput in
`Wireless LANs publicly available in December 2005 (“Yang”).
`Extract of all documents in the Mentor website for Task Group N
`(TGn) with Document Control Number (DCN) 1102) (Appendix E
`to Ex. 1015)
`IEEE 802.11-04/422r4, “New Participant Orientation”, presentation
`submission (July 2004) (Appendix A to Ex. 1015)
`U.S. Patent 7,415,074 (Appendix C to Ex. 1015)
`Stephens, “802.11 ‘Decrypted’”, ACM SIGCOMM Computer
`Communication Review, Vol. 35, No. 2 (April 2005) (Appendix D
`to Ex. 1015)
`Official IEEE 802.11 Working Group Project Timelines (Appendix
`I to Ex. 1015)
`IEEE 802.11 Future Session Plans (Appendix J to Ex. 1015)
`Summary Report of the January 2006 Meeting of IEEE 802.11
`(Appendix K to Ex. 1015)
`
`Ex. 1031
`
`Ex. 1032
`Ex. 1033
`
`Ex. 1034
`
`Ex. 1035
`
`Ex. 1036
`Ex. 1037
`
`Ex. 1038
`
`Ex. 1039
`Ex. 1040
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`Limitation
`[8pre]
`
`[8a]
`
`8[b]
`
`[8c]
`
`8[d]
`
`8[e]
`
`[8f]
`
`[44pre]
`
`[44a]
`
`[44b]
`
`[44c]
`
`[44d]
`
`[44e]
`
`LIST OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`Claim Language
`A method of constructing a frame structure for data
`transmission, the method comprising:
`generating a first section comprising data configured in a first
`format compatible with a first communication system using
`symbols;
`generating a second section following the first section, the
`second section comprising data configured in a second format
`compatible with a second communication system using
`symbols,
`wherein the first communication system's symbols and the
`second communication system's symbols co-exist in one
`transmission scheme and
`wherein the second communication system has pilot symbols
`that are denser than those in the first communication system;
`generating at least one non-data section containing information
`describing an aspect of data in at least one of the first section
`and the second section; and
`combining the first section, the second section and the at least
`one non-data section to form the frame structure.
`A method of constructing a frame structure for data
`transmission, the method comprising:
`generating a first section comprising data configured in a first
`format compatible with a first communication system using
`symbols;
`generating a second section following the first section, the
`second section comprising data configured in a second format
`compatible with a second communication system using
`symbols,
`wherein the first communication system's symbols and the
`second communication system's symbols co-exist in one
`transmission scheme and
`wherein: the second format is compatible with the second
`communication system configured to support higher mobility
`than the first communication system,
`wherein each symbol in the second communication system has
`a shorter symbol period than that in the first communication
`system; and
`
`-v-
`
`

`

`[44f]
`
`[44g]
`
`[44h]
`
`[45]
`
`[46]
`
`[47]
`
`[49]
`
`[50]
`
`wherein the second communication system has pilot symbols
`that are denser than those in the first communication system;
`generating at least one non-data section containing information
`describing an aspect of data in at least one of the first section
`and the second section; and
`combining the first section, the second section and the at least
`one non-data section to form the frame structure.
`The method of claim 44, wherein the non-data section
`comprises mapping information for at least one of the first
`section and the second section.
`The method of claim 44, wherein the non-data section
`comprises at least one of a preamble, a frame control header 60
`(FCH), a burst, and a map of at least one of the first section and
`the second section.
`The method of claim 46, wherein the second section follows
`the first section in at least one of time sequence and frequency
`spectrum.
`The method of claim 44, wherein each of the first section and
`the second section carries at least one of uplink and downlink
`data.
`The method of claim 44, wherein the second section carries
`mapping information for data in the second section.
`
`-vi-
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner Panasonic Automotive Systems Co., Ltd. (“PAS”) respectfully
`
`requests inter partes review and cancellation of claims 8, 44-47, and 49-50 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,265,096 (the “’096 patent”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`Patent Owner has asserted in a co-pending district court action, UNM
`
`Rainforest Innovations f/k/a STC.UNM v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc. et al,
`
`2-23-cv-00424 (E.D. Tex) (the “District Court Action”), that the ’096 patent is
`
`essential to the IEEE 802.11ac and 802.11ax wireless communications standards.
`
`As demonstrated below, the “frame structure” claimed in the ’096 patent was
`
`publicly discussed and proposed by the IEEE 802.11 Working Group, Task Group
`
`n (“TGn”) for inclusion in the standards well over a year before the ’096 patent’s
`
`earliest claimed priority date. The TGn’s published Joint Proposal, which
`
`discloses the claimed invention, supports Grounds 1 and 2 of this Petition.
`
`Moreover, the authors of the TGn proposal already had included the claimed
`
`“frame structure” in their own patents that were applied for long before the priority
`
`date of the ’096 patent. The TGn proposal authors—not the ’096 patent
`
`patentees—came up with the “frame structure” claimed in the ’096 patent. The
`
`patents obtained by the TGn proposal authors (Mujtaba and Trainin) provide
`
`additional invalidating prior art supporting Grounds 3 and 4 of this Petition.
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A.
`Real Parties in Interest
`PAS has sole control over this Petition and is the real party in interest for
`
`this Petition.
`
`Patent Owner has sued Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Toyota Motor
`
`Sales, U.S.A., Inc., and Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North
`
`America, Inc. (collectively, “Toyota”) in the District Court Action for alleged
`
`infringement of the ’096 patent based on the sale of vehicles with infotainment
`
`units supplied by PAS that support IEEE 802.11ac or 802.11ax. The undersigned
`
`counsel represents Toyota as well as the PAS movant-intervenors in the District
`
`Court Action. Toyota has not funded, directed or controlled this Petition; PAS is
`
`solely responsible for this Petition.
`
`Related Matters
`B.
`Patent Owner has asserted certain claims of the’096 patent in the following
`
`district court actions: the District Court Action; UNM Rainforest Innovations v.
`
`Zyxel Commc’ns Corp., 6:20-cv-00522 (W.D. Tex.); UNM Rainforest Innovations
`
`v. Dell Techs., Inc., 6:20-cv-00468 (W.D. Tex.); UNM Rainforest Innovations v.
`
`ASUSTek Comput., Inc., 6:20-cv-00142 (W.D. Tex.); UNM Rainforest Innovations
`
`v. D-Link Corp., 6:20-cv-00143 (W.D. Tex.); UNM Rainforest Innovations v.
`
`Apple Inc., 1:20-cv-00351 (W.D. Tex.); and UNM Rainforest Innovations v. TP-
`
`Link Techs. Co., Ltd., 6:19-cv-00262 (W.D. Tex.).
`-2-
`
`

`

`Third-party, Qualcomm Incorporated, filed an IPR petition challenging
`
`claims 1-4 and 6-8 of the ’096 patent.1 Qualcomm Incorporated v. UNM
`
`Rainforest Innovations, IPR2021-00375, Paper 1 (Dec. 28, 2020). Zyxel
`
`Communications Corp. filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1-4 and 6-8 of the
`
`’096 patent, Zyxel Communications Corp. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations,
`
`IPR2021-00743, Paper 1 (Mar. 29, 2021), which was joined to IPR No. 2021-
`
`00375. The Board issued its decision on July 22, 2022. IPR2021-00375, Paper 68
`
`(Jul. 22, 2022).
`
`In its Final Written Decision, the Board: 1) found challenged claims 1-4 and
`
`6-7 unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Talukdar and Li; 2) found
`
`challenged claim 8 was not shown to be unpatentable as obvious over the
`
`combination of Talukdar and Nystrom; and 3) granted Patent Owner’s Motion to
`
`Amend, allowing proposed amended claims 44–47 and 49–50, based on a
`
`determination that they were not obvious over the combination of Talukdar and Li.
`
`Id.
`
`1 Third-party Intel Corp. also filed an IPR petition challenging the same claims in
`
`Intel Corp. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations, IPR2020-01576, Paper 2 (Sept. 14,
`
`2020), which was terminated before any institution decision or Patent Owner’s
`
`preliminary response. See id., Paper 8.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Notice of Counsel and Service Information
`C.
`Petitioner designates the following counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Christopher J. Higgins
`Reg. No. 66,422
`0CHPTABDocket@orrick.com
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`T. Vann Pearce, Jr.
`Registration No. 58,945
`TVPPTABDocket@orrick.com
`
`Postal & Hand-Delivery Address:
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`1152 15th Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005-1706
`Telephone: (202) 339-8400
`Facsimile: (202) 339-8500
`
`Postal & Hand-Delivery Address:
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`1152 15th Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005-1706
`Telephone: (202) 339-8400
`Facsimile: (202) 339-8500
`
`Petitioner submits Powers of Attorney with this Petition. Please address all
`
`correspondence to lead and backup counsel. Petitioner consents to service by
`
`email at: 0CHPTABDocket@orrick.com and TVPPTABDocket@orrick.com.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`A.
`Standing
`Petitioner certifies that the ’096 patent is available for IPR. Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting this review. Toyota was served with a
`
`complaint of infringement of the ’096 patent less than one year ago based on its
`
`alleged sale in the United States of vehicles that include infotainment units
`
`manufactured and supplied by Petitioner that support IEEE 802.11ac or 802.11ax.
`
`Challenge and Relief Requested
`B.
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of and challenges claims 8, 44-47,
`
`and 49-50 of the ’096 patent. Each of these claims should be found unpatentable
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`and cancelled because they embrace a hybrid frame structure for transmitting data
`
`with a short guard interval and denser pilot symbols that is indistinguishable from
`
`the prior art. This Petition explains the reasons why the claims are unpatentable,
`
`provides details regarding where the various required claim limitations can be
`
`found in the prior art, and is accompanied by additional explanation and support
`
`set forth in the attached Declaration of Dr. Christopher J. Hansen, Ph.D. (Ex. 1002)
`
`and Declaration of Dr. James L. Lansford (Ex. 1015).
`
`Petitioner relies on the following: (1) Joint Proposal, which was published
`
`on January 14, 2006 (Ex. 1008); (2) Mujtaba, which was filed on September 9,
`
`2005 and published on April 6, 2006 (Ex. 1010); and (3) Trainin, which was filed
`
`on February 24, 2006 and published on August 30, 2007 (Ex. 1011). The Joint
`
`Proposal and Mujtaba are available as prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).
`
`Trainin is available as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §102 (a) and (e).
`
`Petitioner requests that claims 8, 44-47 and 49-50 of the ’096 patent be
`
`determined unpatentable and cancelled on the following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 8, 44-47 and 50 of the ’096 patent are unpatentable as
`
`being anticipated by the Joint Proposal.
`
`Ground 2: Claim 49 is unpatentable as obvious by the Joint Proposal and
`
`Trainin.
`
`Ground 3: Claim 8 is unpatentable as being anticipated by Mujtaba.
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Ground 4: Claims 8, 44-47 and 49-50 are unpatentable as obvious by
`
`Mujtaba and Trainin.
`
`The Joint Proposal, Mujtaba, Trainin and other references illustrate the state
`
`of the art at the time of the alleged invention. See Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata
`
`Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Art can legitimately serve to
`
`document the knowledge that skilled artisans would bring to bear in reading the
`
`prior art identified as producing obviousness.”) (citation omitted).
`
`IV. BACKGROUND
`The ’096 patent was filed on July 7, 2008 and claimed priority to two
`
`provisional applications filed on July 12, 2007 (Ex. 1003) and September 17, 2007.
`
`Ex. 1001.
`
`The ’096 patent specifically identifies IEEE 802.16e and 802.16m standards
`
`as examples of two communication systems and labels them the “legacy” and
`
`“new” systems, respectively. Id. at 1:27-31. One purpose of this combined system
`
`is to support backward compatibility with legacy 802.16m systems and improve
`
`channel estimation. Id. at 1:31-35, 2:11-14.
`
`As discussed below, the packet frame or structure for a new wireless
`
`communication system with backward compatibility with legacy systems was
`
`publicly discussed and proposed to the TGn long before the earliest call for
`
`proposals by the Task Group m of the IEEE 802.16 Working Group (“TGm”). The
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`claimed frame structure was also published in patent publications by the authors of
`
`the TGn proposal prior to the earliest claimed priority date of the ’096 patent.
`
`IEEE-SA Overview
`A.
`The IEEE Standards Association (“IEEE-SA”) is part of the Institute of
`
`Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”) that develops industry standards.
`
`Ex. 1002 ¶59. IEEE-SA has procedures in place to ensure that their standards
`
`development is an open and fair process. Id.
`
`IEEE-SA develops standards, including the family of networking standards
`
`from the IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards committee. Id. ¶64. IEEE 802 includes
`
`multiple working groups, which are responsible for developing and writing
`
`standards. Id. One of the largest of these working groups is IEEE 802.11, which
`
`develops wireless local area networking standards that are commonly called Wi-Fi.
`
`Id. Other groups include IEEE 802.16, which developed standards for
`
`Metropolitan Area Networks that is commonly called WiMax. Id.
`
`The IEEE 802.11 Working Group has been active since 1990 and holds at
`
`least six meetings per year. Id. ¶66. Each meeting has sessions for the entire
`
`Working Group and individual study groups and task groups. Id. Task groups are
`
`typically devoted to developing a new amendment to the 802.11 W-Fi standard.
`
`Id. IEEE 802.16 WiMax standard on other hand became inactive in 2018. Id.
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`In every IEEE 802.11 project, participants in the working group and task
`
`groups share contributions through the IEEE-SA’s file server. Id. ¶72; Ex. 1015
`
`¶20. This file server is open to the public to review and download documents. Id.;
`
`Ex. 1015 ¶22.
`
`History of the IEEE 802.11 Standard
`B.
`The IEEE Standards development process recognizes standards,
`
`amendments, and revisions. A standard, such as IEEE 802.11-2007 is a standalone
`
`document. An amendment, such as IEEE 802.11n-2009, modifies a standard and
`
`can be read only in the context of the standard it modifies, which is called a
`
`baseline. Ex. 1002 ¶76.
`
`The IEEE 802.11 Standard was created to enable computers that had
`
`traditionally used wired networks, such as IEEE 802.3 (Ethernet), to instead
`
`communicate over relatively short ranges using radio communication. Id. ¶77.
`
`The first IEEE 802.11 standard was ratified in 1997. Id. Wireless LANs based on
`
`802.11 became popular in the early 2000s. Id.
`
`TGn and 802.11n
`C.
`IEEE 802.11n was developed in the TGn. Id. ¶78. The TGn began
`
`conducting meetings in September of 2003. Id. Initial proposals made from
`
`several competing industry groups were first reviewed in September 2004. Id. In
`
`July 2005, the TGn held a regular meeting in San Francisco and agreed to merge
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`the competing proposals to create a joint proposal. Id.; Ex 1019 at 14. In the
`
`Hawaii meeting from January 16- 20, 2006, the joint proposal was presented to the
`
`TGn and was ultimately selected as the baseline specification for the physical layer
`
`(PHY) of 802.11n. Id. ¶79; Ex. 1008; Ex. 1009.
`
`As illustrated in the following figure, the Joint Proposal specifies a new
`
`packet format in physical layer (PHY) for data transmission. Ex. 1008 at 11,
`
`Figure 1 (excerpted and annotated); Ex. 1002 ¶80.
`
`This new packet format has an 802.11a (legacy system) preamble (i.e., L-
`
`STF, L-LTF, L-SIG) in the legacy field and a high throughout (“new” or “HT”
`
`system) preamble (i.e., HT-SIG, HT-STF, HT-LTFs) in the HT field following by
`
`a data field. Id. In this new packet format, the legacy preamble is compatible with
`
`legacy 802.11a devices and the HT preamble is compatible with HT devices (i.e.,
`
`802.11n devices). Ex. 1008, 11:18-23; Ex. 1002 ¶81. The joint proposal also
`
`specifies that both the legacy field transmission and the HT field transmission use
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (“OFDM”) symbols. Ex. 1008, 21:7-
`
`19; Ex. 1002 ¶81.
`
`802.11ac and 802.11ax
`D.
`Both 802.11ac and 802.11ax are amendments to the IEEE 802.11 standard
`
`that enable higher-throughput wireless networks by enhancing the multiple-input
`
`multiple-output (MIMO) OFDM PHY protocol that was defined in 802.11n. Ex.
`
`1002 ¶84. Like 802.11n, 802.11ac and 802.11ax incorporated packet (PPDU)
`
`formats that were backward compatible with older Wi-Fi devices. Id. ¶85.
`
`802.11ac and 802.11ax were approved and published as IEEE standards on
`
`December 2013 and February 1, 2021, respectively. Id. ¶86.
`
`802.16m
`E.
`IEEE 802.16 is a series of wireless broadband standards. Id. ¶89. The IEEE
`
`Standards Board established the 802.16 Working Group in 1999— two years later
`
`than the ratification of the first 802.11 standard developed by the 802.11 Working
`
`Group in 1997—to develop standards for the 802.16 WiMax standard. Id. ¶¶77,
`
`89.
`
`In July 2007, the TGm started calling for technical proposals for
`
`development of 802.11m, at which the ’096 patent seemingly is directed. Id. ¶90;
`
`Ex. 1024 at 3. In other words, TGm first started development for 802.16m almost
`
`18 months after the TGn had openly presented and selected the Joint Proposal
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`specifying the new packet format with backward compatibility at its Hawaii
`
`meeting in January 2006.
`
`The original assignee of the ’096 patent, Industrial Technology Research
`
`Institute (“ITRI”), sued LG Electronics in the Eastern District of Texas in April
`
`2015, accusing of infringement LG’s accused products that practiced the 802.11n
`
`and later 802.11 standards. Ex. 1027 at 10.
`
`And in September 2023, Patent Owner initiated the District Court Action,
`
`UNM Rainforest Innovations f/k/a STC.UNM v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
`
`et al, 2-23-cv-00424 (E.D. Tex), accusing certain Toyota vehicles include
`
`components supplied by Petitioner that support 802.11ac or 802.11ax. Ex. 1022;
`
`Ex. 1028; Ex. 1029; see also Ex. 1002, ¶¶124-140.
`
`V.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’096 PATENT
`A.
`Brief Description
`The ’096 patent is titled “Method For Constructing Frame Structures” and
`
`relates to frame structures for transmitting data. Ex. 1001 at Abstract.
`
`According to the patent, the second system “has pilot symbols that are
`
`denser than those in the first communication system” (Claim 8) and is further
`
`“configured to support higher mobility than the first communication system” and
`
`uses “a shorter symbol period than that in the first communication system” (Claim
`
`44). Id.; Ex. 1006 at 15-16.
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`The patent refers to OFDM access (“OFDMA”) systems that allow
`
`“simultaneous transmission of data from different users without interference from
`
`one another.” Ex. 1001, 1:24-27; Ex. 1002 ¶113. The ’096 patent specifically
`
`identifies 802.16e and 802.16m as examples of two communication systems and
`
`labels them the “legacy” and “new” systems, respectively. Ex. 1001, 1:27- 31; Ex.
`
`1002 ¶113. One purpose of this combined system is to support backward
`
`compatibility with legacy 802.16m systems. Ex. 1001 at 1:31-35; Ex. 1002 ¶113.
`
`Specifically, the ’096 patent explains that the legacy system may be susceptible to
`
`a Doppler effect in a high mobility scenario because the placement may be usually
`
`designed with a relatively large symbol period, which in turn may induce relatively
`
`short carrier spacing and less dense pilot symbol placement.” Ex. 1001 at 2:6-11;
`
`Ex. 1002 ¶113.
`
`The ’096 patent explains that “the limitation on pilot symbol placement may
`
`cause channel estimation error at a receiving end because of insufficient
`
`information provided for channel estimation.” Ex. 1001, 2:11-14; Ex. 1002 ¶114.
`
`To improve channel estimation in a high-mobility environment, the ’096 patent
`
`proposes a frame structure for the “new system” under high mobility that has “a
`
`shorter symbol period or more pilot symbols” than the “legacy system.” Ex. 1001,
`
`5:1-16; Ex. 1002 ¶114. The ’096 patent explains that “[g]enerally, a shorter
`
`symbol period may be more robust to inter-symbol interference, while denser pilot
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`symbols may achieve better channel estimation accuracy.” Ex. 1001, 5:16-18; Ex.
`
`1002 ¶114.
`
`Prosecution History
`B.
`During prosecution, the applicants amended claim 1 to recite “the second
`
`communication system configured to support higher mobility than the first
`
`communication system, wherein each symbol in the second communication system
`
`has a shorter symbol period than that in the first communication system.” Excerpt
`
`of the ’096 Patent Prosecution History (Ex. 1004) at 80.
`
`To distinguish prior art from the amended claims, the applicants argued in
`
`response to a Non-Final Rejection that “[h]owever, the pre-designated legacy
`
`system transmission period would be susceptible to a Doppler effect in a high
`
`mobility scenario, because the placement is designed with a relatively large symbol
`
`period, which in turn induces relatively short carrier spacing and less dense pilot
`
`symbol placement.” Id. at 92. To overcome the subsequent Final Rejection, the
`
`applicants underscored the limitation that “symbols in the second communication
`
`system have a shorter symbol period than those in the first communication
`
`system[,]” and further argued that “[n]owhere does Ahmadi appear to disclose that
`
`a shorter frame size necessarily equates to a shorter symbol period.” Id. at 49.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would understand the
`
`arguments by the applicants to indicate that the “first communication system” is
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`susceptible to a problem, referred to as “Doppler effect” attributed to a high
`
`mobility system, because the “first communication system” has a larger symbol
`
`period with less dense pilot symbols, but the “second communication system”
`
`mitigates the “Doppler effect” because it has a shorter symbol period with denser
`
`pilot symbols. Ex. 1002 ¶121.
`
`The applicants further amended independent claims to recite “wherein the
`
`first communication system and the second communication system co-exist in one
`
`transmission scheme.” Ex. 1004 at 2-13. The applicants directed the Examiner to
`
`“paragraph [0025]” of the specification for the filed application (corresponding to
`
`’096 patent at 4:21-41) as the support for this amendment. Id. at 15. The indicated
`
`passage states in relevant part: “Examples of the present invention may allow data
`
`of an old [OFDMA] system … and data of a new OFDMA system to co-exist in an
`
`OFDMA frame by changing a frame structure of the OFDMA frame.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`4:21-41.
`
`A POSA would understand this statement by the applicants to indicate that
`
`one example of communication systems that “co-exist in one transmission scheme”
`
`is when data from two communication systems co-exists in a frame. Ex. 1002
`
`¶122.
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`C.
`
`Overview of Final Written Decision in Inter Partes Review No.
`2021-00734
`In its Final Written Decision in Inter Partes Review No. 2021-00734, the
`
`Board 1) found challenged claims 1-4 and 6-7 unpatentable as obvious over
`
`Talukdar and Li; 2) found challenged claim 8 was not shown to be unpatentable as
`
`obvious over Talukdar and Li; and 3) granted Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend,
`
`allowing proposed amended claims 44-47 and 49-50, based on determination that
`
`they were not obvious over Talukdar