`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ERICSSON INC.
`NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
` XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
`Patent Owner
`__________________________
`
`IPR2024-00613
`Patent 10,715,235
`_____________________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00613 (’235 PATENT)
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`THE ’235 PATENT ........................................................................................ 3
`
`A. Overview ............................................................................................... 3
`
`B. Challenged Claims ................................................................................ 6
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History............................................................................... 8
`
`II.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................ 8
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 9
`
`IV. THE PETITION FAILS TO SHOW A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF
`UNPATENTABILITY FOR ANY CHALLENGED CLAIM ...................... 9
`
`A. The Petition’s theory for [1.6] that Agee’s “pilot data signal” or
`“pilot data tones” are the “signal information” used to calculate
`Agee’s “weights” fails because the Petition does not map Agee’s
`“pilot data signal” or “pilot data tones” as “first signal
`information” or “second signal information” in [1.4] or [1.5]............ 11
`
`B. The Petition’s conclusory theory for [1.6] that Agee’s “pilot data
`signal” is “combiner output data” fails to show that the “pilot data
`signal” is “signal information” of [1.4] and [1.5] that is used to
`determine the weighting values in [1.6].............................................. 17
`
`C. The Petition’s theory of “signal strength” as “signal information”
`of [1.4] and [1.5] is irrelevant, because there is no contention that
`Agee determines weighting values in limitation [1.6] based on
`signal strength. .................................................................................... 26
`
`D. The Petition’s remaining “signal information” theories fail and are
`irrelevant as they play no role in the Petition’s theory for [1.6] ......... 29
`
`E. The Petition’s Deficiencies for Claim 1 Apply to All Grounds and
`All Challenged Claims ........................................................................ 33
`
`V.
`
`INSTITUTION SHOULD BE DENIED UNDER THE FINTIV FACTORS
` ..................................................................................................................... 34
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00613 (’235 PATENT)
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`A. EDTex Parallel Proceedings ............................................................... 35
`
`B. The Fintiv Factors weigh strongly against institution. ....................... 37
`
`C.
`
`Factor 1 weighs against institution, as there is no stay in the
`district court now and a stay is unlikely to be granted........................ 38
`
`D. Factor 2 weighs against institution, as trial in the district court is
`scheduled to be completed seven months before the FWD. ............... 40
`
`E.
`
`Factor 3 weighs strongly against institution, as construction and
`fact discovery will be completed, and opening expert reports
`would be served, before the date the institution decision is due......... 41
`
`F.
`
`Petitioners’ Sand Revolution stipulation for Factor 4 is
`insufficient. ......................................................................................... 43
`
`G. Factor 5 weighs against institution, as Petitioners are Defendants
`in the parallel district court cases. ....................................................... 43
`
`H. Factor 6 weighs in against institution. ................................................ 44
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 44
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00613 (’235 PATENT)
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Apple Inc., v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) .......................................passim
`
`Apple Inc., v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 (PTAB May 13, 2020) ........................................passim
`
`Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech. LLC,
`IPR2020-00158, Paper 16 (May 20, 2020) .......................................................... 41
`
`NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) .......................................... 34, 40
`
`Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc.,
`IPR2022-00624, Paper No. 9 (Aug 24, 2022) ..................................................... 22
`
`XR Communications LLC v. AT&T Services Inc.; AT&T Mobility LLC; and
`AT&T Corp.,
`No. 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. May 8, 2023) ...............................passim
`
`XR Communications LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`No. 2:23-cv-00204-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. May 8, 2023) .......................... 35, 37, 44
`
`XR Communications LLC v. Verizon Communications, Inc. et al.,
`No. 2:23-cv-00203-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. May 8, 2023) .......................... 35, 37, 44
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................... 34
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 CFR § 42.65 ....................................................................................................... 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00613 (’235 PATENT)
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Patent Owner’s Exhibit List
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`2001 Docket Control Order, XR Communications LLC d/b/a Vivato Technologies v.
`AT&T Inc. et al, No. 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 40 (E.D. Tex. August 25,
`2023) (“DCO”)
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00613 (’235 PATENT)
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`The Board should deny institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,715,235 (“’235 patent”), for at least two independent reasons.
`
`First, the Petition will not succeed on the merits. The Petition asserts that U.S.
`
`Pat. No. 7,248,841 (“Agee”) alone or combined with U.S. Pat. No. 3,255,450
`
`(“Butler”) renders obvious claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19. But the Petition fails to show
`
`that Agee alone or combined with Butler discloses or renders obvious claim elements
`
`[1.3]-[1.6]. These elements require: [1.3] receiving, from a remote station, a first
`
`signal transmission via the first antenna element and a second signal transmission
`
`via the second antenna element simultaneously; [1.4] determining first signal
`
`information for the first signal transmission; [1.5] determining second signal
`
`information for the second signal transmission that is different than the first signal
`
`information; and [1.6] determining a set of weighting values based on the first signal
`
`information and the second signal information. However, the Petition fails to present
`
`a coherent theory of the “first signal” and “second signal” from [1.3] being used to
`
`determine the “first signal information” and “second signal information” in [1.4] and
`
`[1.5] further being used to “determine a set of weighting values” in [1.6]. To the
`
`extent the Petition even articulates any theory, it does not satisfy these claim
`
`requirements. For example, a critical component of the Petition’s invalidity theory
`
`is Agee’s “pilot data signal” which the Petition’s theory for [1.6] requires to be the
`
`“signal information” used to determine the “weighting values.” This meant that the
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00613 (’235 PATENT)
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Petition was required to map Agee’s “pilot data signal” as “signal information” for
`
`either limitation [1.4] or [1.5]. However, the Petition does not map Agee’s “pilot
`
`data signal” as “signal information” for either [1.4] or [1.5]. This is fatal to the
`
`Petition’s theory. The Petition’s theories for the other challenged claims each do
`
`nothing more than incorporate by reference to the Petition’s theories for claim 1. Pet.
`
`at 76 (claim [8.1]-[8.4] incorporating by reference to claim 1 for these claim
`
`elements), 80 (claim 15 incorporating by reference to claim 1 for these claim
`
`elements). Thus, institution should be denied.
`
`Second, as discussed further below, the Fintiv factors weigh strongly against
`
`institution. The district court trial is set to occur seven months before the FWD
`
`deadline. This is because Petitioners delayed in filing the Petition, waiting until
`
`nearly eight months after the district court case began. Further, substantial work on
`
`the ’235 patent has already been done by the parties and district court, and even more
`
`work will be done by the institution deadline. By then, the parties will have
`
`completed claim construction and fact discovery and opening expert reports would
`
`be served. Further, Petitioners are relying on the same prior art and invalidity
`
`grounds at issue in the district court. To date, they have not provided a Sotera
`
`stipulation that would ameliorate the risk of wasting resources or inconsistent
`
`outcomes under Fintiv factor 4. The Petition is also weak on the merits. Thus,
`
`institution should be denied.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00613 (’235 PATENT)
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`I.
`
`THE ’235 PATENT
`
`A. Overview
`
`The ’235 Patent (Ex. 1001) is entitled “Directed wireless communication.”
`
`The ’235 Patent discloses a wireless communications apparatus that comprises an
`
`“antenna array 302” with a plurality of “antenna elements” to emanate an array of
`
`multiple directed communication beams 214(1), 214(2),…214(N). EX-1001, FIGS.
`
`2, 3. The ’235 Patent teaches that the apparatus receives signal transmissions
`
`simultaneously via directed communication beams. EX-1001, 3:38-52 (“An increase
`
`in communication range is achieved by beamforming directed communication
`
`beams which simultaneously transmit directed signals and receive communication
`
`signals from different directions via receive and transmit beamforming networks.”).
`
`In one embodiment, “antenna array 302 can include sixteen antenna elements…”
`
`from which “sixteen different communication beams 602(0), 602(1),…,602(15) are
`
`formed,” each of which may have beam patterns that “differ in width, shape, number,
`
`angular coverage, azimuth, and so forth.” EX-1001, 9:12-34; see EX-1001, 6:61-7:5
`
`(“directed communication beams 214 of antenna array 302 can be directionally
`
`controllable”). In one embodiment, only thirteen of the beams are used for
`
`transmission and reception. EX-1001, 9:34-60.
`
`The ’235 Patent apparatus receives signal transmissions via the directed
`
`communication beams from other devices or “nodes within the wireless routing
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00613 (’235 PATENT)
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`network.” EX-1001, 24:25-34. Further, the ’235 Patent apparatus determines signal
`
`information regarding each of the simultaneously received signals. EX-1001, 15:44-
`
`16:49, 24:25-25:30. In the Figure 12 embodiment, the “signal control and
`
`coordination logic 304 includes the scanning receiver 822 that is configured to
`
`update routing information 1206 with regard to the received signals.” EX-1001,
`
`24:25-67. The disclosures regarding “scanning receiver 822” at columns 15-16
`
`elaborates that the “scanning receiver 822” determines “routing and signal
`
`information which can include transmit power level information, transmit data rate
`
`information, antenna pointing direction information, weighting information,
`
`constraints
`
`information, null/zero
`
`location
`
`information, peak
`
`location
`
`information…frequency
`
`information,
`
`timing
`
`information, user and node
`
`authentication information, keep out area information, etc.” EX-1001, 15:44-16:49.
`
`Figure 12 describes how a set of weighting values is determined based on differing
`
`signal information for each received signal from each node. For example, as shown
`
`in Figure 12 below, “communication and/or data transfer signals are received from
`
`sources 1202 (e.g., sources A and B).” EX-1001, 24:25-34. These signals are
`
`provided to a “signal control and coordination logic 304” which includes a “scanning
`
`receiver 822 that is configured to update routing information 1206 with regard to the
`
`received signals.” EX-1001, 24:35-25:30. More specifically, the routing information
`
`1206 includes a routing table, and the “routing table includes stored weighting values
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00613 (’235 PATENT)
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`(w) each associated with a particular signal source 1202 (e.g., sources A and B)…[a]
`
`description of the received signal(s) can be stored in the routing table in the form of
`
`the pattern of weighting of the signal(s). In this example, a polynomial expansion in
`
`z, w(z)=w0+w1z+w2z2+w3z3+w4z4+ … +wizi can be utilized to establish the values
`
`of the weights (wi) to be applied to a weight vector.” Id. Figure 12 is depicted below.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00613 (’235 PATENT)
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`B. Challenged Claims
`
`The Petition challenges claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 of the ’235 Patent. Pet. at
`
`
`
`29. Independent claim 1 recites:
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00613 (’235 PATENT)
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Identifier
`
`Claim Language
`
`[1.0]
`
`[1.1]
`
`[1.2]
`
`[1.3]
`
`[1.4]
`
`[1.5]
`
`[1.6]
`
`[1.7]
`
`[1.8]
`
`A receiver for use in a wireless communications system, the
`receiver comprising: an antenna, wherein the antenna
`comprises a first antenna element and a second antenna
`element;
`
`a transceiver operatively coupled to the antenna and
`configured to transmit and receive electromagnetic signals
`using the antenna;;
`
`a processor operatively coupled to the transceiver, the
`processor configured to:
`
`Receive a first signal transmission from a remote station via
`the first antenna element and a second signal transmission
`from the remote station via the second antenna element
`simultaneously;
`
`determine first signal information for the first signal
`transmission;
`
`determine second signal information for the second signal
`transmission, wherein the second signal information is
`different than the first signal information;
`
`determine a set of weighting values based on the first signal
`information and the second signal information;
`
`wherein the set of weighting values is configured to be used
`by the transceiver to construct one or more beam-formed
`transmission signals;
`
`cause the transceiver to transmit a third signal to the remote
`station via the antenna, the third signal comprising content
`based on the set of weighting values.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00613 (’235 PATENT)
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The ‘235 Patent issued from U.S. Pat. App. No. 15/495,539 filed April 24,
`
`2017 claiming priority through continuation applications to U.S. Provisional Pat.
`
`App. No.60/423,660 filed on November 2, 2002. In previous IPRs, Patent Owner
`
`has contended that the ’235 patent is entitled to an earlier priority date, but for
`
`purposes of this patent owner preliminary response only, Patent Owner does not
`
`raise arguments regarding priority date or attempt to pre-date the asserted prior art
`
`as doing so is not necessary to show that institution should be denied. Patent Owner
`
`reserves the right to challenge the priority issue if the Petition is instituted.
`
`II. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`Petitioner proposes that for the ’235 patent, a “POSITA in November 2002
`
`would have been familiar with wireless communications networks, including the
`
`design of beamforming using multiple antennas. A POSITA would have at least a
`
`Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering or equivalent, and at least two years of
`
`work experience. A more advanced degree can substitute for some work
`
`experience.” Pet. 6-7.
`
`For purposes of this preliminary response, Patent Owner
`
`does not challenge Petitioner’s proposed definition. Patent Owner reserves the right
`
`to challenge the definition or propose an alternative definition if the Petition is
`
`instituted.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00613 (’235 PATENT)
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The Petition proposes that each term be given its plain and ordinary meaning
`
`and does not propose any formal claim constructions. Pet. at 6. Patent Owner agrees
`
`that the terms of the challenged claims carry their plain and ordinary meaning. And
`
`although Patent Owner reserves the right to address claim construction issues if
`
`institution is granted, Patent Owner also agrees that formal claim constructions are
`
`unnecessary to decide whether to institute this IPR. Patent Owner disagrees that the
`
`asserted prior art “meets each claim limitation under any reasonable construction”
`
`as the Petition contends Pet. at 6. To the contrary, the asserted prior art fails to meet
`
`the limitations of claims 1, 8 under the plain meaning of the claim.
`
`IV. THE PETITION FAILS TO SHOW A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD
`OF UNPATENTABILITY FOR ANY CHALLENGED CLAIM
`
`The Petition fails to show that Agee alone or combined with Butler discloses
`
`or renders obvious claim elements [1.3]-[1.6] as arranged in the claim.
`
`These elements require, inter alia: [1.3] receiving, from a remote station, a
`
`first signal transmission via the first antenna element and a second signal
`
`transmission via the second antenna element simultaneously; [1.4] determining first
`
`signal information for the first signal transmission; [1.5] determining second signal
`
`information for the second signal transmission that is different than the first signal
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00613 (’235 PATENT)
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`information; and [1.6] determining a set of weighting values based on the first signal
`
`information and the second signal information.
`
`Patent Owner notes that these claim elements from claim 1 are also elements
`
`of the other challenged independent claims from Ground 1 of the Petition. Further,
`
`the Petition’s theories for the other challenged claims do nothing more than
`
`incorporate by reference to the Petition’s theories for claim 1. Pet. at 76 (claim [8.1]-
`
`[8.4] incorporating by reference to claim 1 for these claim elements), 80 (claim 15
`
`incorporating by reference to claim 1 for these claim elements). Thus, the Board
`
`need only evaluate the flaws in the Petition’s arguments for limitations [1.3]-[1.6] in
`
`order to deny institution on all challenged claims.
`
`As shown below, the Petition fails to present a coherent theory of the “first
`
`signal” and “second signal” from [1.3] being used to determine “first signal
`
`information” that is different than “second signal information” in [1.4] and [1.5]
`
`further being used to “determine a set of weighting values” in [1.6]. To the extent
`
`the Petition even articulates any theory, it does not satisfy these claim requirements.
`
`For limitation [1.6], the Petition’s theory requires Agee’s “pilot signal” or “pilot data
`
`tones” to serve as the claimed “signal information” used to calculate Agee’s
`
`“weights.” Pet. at 64-69. But the Petition never alleges that the “pilot signal” or “pilot
`
`data tones” are the claimed “signal information” for purposes of limitations [1.4] or
`
`[1.5]. Pet. 61-64 (no mapping of “signal information” to “pilot signal” or “pilot data
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00613 (’235 PATENT)
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`tones”). Rather, the Petition contends that these elements are the “signal
`
`transmissions” that are “simultaneously received” in the Petition’s theory for
`
`limitation [1.3], where the Petition’s theory relies on Agee’s “‘pilot signals’ [which]
`
`are received on Agee’s Butler matrix antennas (and their radio OFDM transceivers
`
`and the processor) simultaneously” as the simultaneously received “signals” of
`
`limitation [1.3].1 Pet. 51 (discussing receiving the “pilot signal” as a “received
`
`signal” on the antennas and describing receiving the “pilot tones on one or more
`
`antennas”).
`
`And, as shown below, the Petition’s remaining discussion of limitations [1.3]-
`
`[1.5] does not cure these deficiencies, because the Petition never successfully
`
`articulates any consistent theory where “first signal information” and “second signal
`
`information” in [1.4] and [1.5] are used to “determine a set of weighting values” in
`
`[1.6]. For example, despite the Petition’s extensive discussion of the “Little Joe”
`
`system and its use of “signal strengths,” the Petition does not identify any use of
`
`signal strengths to determine a weighting value in Agee.
`
`A. The Petition’s theory for [1.6] that Agee’s “pilot data signal” or
`
`“pilot data tones” are the “signal information” used to calculate
`
`Agee’s “weights” fails because the Petition does not map Agee’s
`
`
`1 All emphasis is added unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00613 (’235 PATENT)
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`“pilot data signal” or “pilot data tones” as “first signal
`
`information” or “second signal information” in [1.4] or [1.5].
`
`The Petition’s theory for [1.6] asserts and requires that “signal information”
`
`in [1.6] corresponds to a “pilot data signal (the ‘combiner output data’) that [Agee]
`
`receives from the Butler matrix.” Pet. 64-69. The Petition identifies a disclosure
`
`in Agee where “combiner weights are formed using an FFT-based least-squares
`
`algorithms [FFT-LS]” based on “combiner output data” and “transmitted pilot
`
`data.” Pet. at 64, citing Ex. 1004, 64:43-50, Figs. 35-37. The Petition argues that
`
`Fig. 37 shows the “‘FFT-LS’ algorithm (using the Butler matrix outputs) processing
`
`the pilot signal which is shown as the x0 term in Fig. 37.” Pet. 66; Pet. 67 (citing
`
`“Fig. 30 (showing ‘x’ data arriving from RF feeds).”). The Petition argues the
`
`“description of Figure 30 teaches (consistent with Figs. 35-37 above) that the
`
`received pilot data tones (‘x’) is received by the FFT-LS algorithm to calculate the
`
`weights.” Pet. 68. Thus, the Petition’s theory for [1.6] requires “pilot data signal”
`
`or “received pilot data tones (‘x’) [that] is received by the FFT-LS algorithm to
`
`calculate the weights” to satisfy “signal information.”
`
`Because the Petition’s theory uses Agee’s “pilot data signal” or “received
`
`pilot data tones (‘x’)” as “signal information” used to calculate the weights of [1.6],
`
`the Petition was required to articulate a theory of invalidity where Agee’s “pilot
`
`data signal” satisfies the “first signal information” or “second signal information”
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00613 (’235 PATENT)
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`elements in [1.4] and [1.5]. However, the Petition failed to do so. This deficiency
`
`applies to all challenged claims and is fatal to the Petition’s theories.
`
`First, the Petition never maps the pilot data signal as determined “signal
`
`information” for purposes of [1.4] or [1.5]. Pet. 61-64. Despite relying on the “pilot
`
`data signal” as “signal information” used to calculate the “weights” in the Petition’s
`
`theory of [1.6], the Petition’s theory for [1.4] and [1.5] (Pet. 61-64) does not address
`
`any “pilot data signal” that Agee “receives from the Butler matrix” (Pet. 64), any
`
`“transmitted pilot data” (Pet. at 64), any “pilot signal which is shown as the x0 term
`
`in Fig. 37” (Pet. 66), nor any “received pilot data tones (‘x’)” which are received by
`
`the “FFT-LS algorithm” (Pet. 68). These things are not described anywhere in the
`
`Petition’s theories for [1.4] and [1.5]. Pet. 61-64.
`
`Instead, the Petition’s theories for [1.4] and [1.5] attempt to map the “first
`
`signal information” and “second signal information” elements to “‘signal strength’
`
`measured on each antenna” and “signal strength information.” Pet. 61. The Petition
`
`does not allege that “signal strength information” is the same thing as “pilot data
`
`signal” or “pilot data tones.” Pet. 61-69. Of course, they are not the same thing, nor
`
`are they even related. Id. A signal’s strength is generally represented in decibels (dB)
`
`or decibel-milliwatts (dBm). “Pilot data signal” is an actual signal, not a signal
`
`strength. And the Petition supports this, because it always characterizes “pilot
`
`signal” as a “signal” including in its discussion of limitations [1.3] and [1.6], and
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00613 (’235 PATENT)
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`never characterizes the pilot signal as a “signal strength,” whether for purposes of
`
`[1.4] or otherwise. See, e.g., Pet. 51 (The “pilot signals” are received on Agee’s
`
`Butler matrix antennas (and their radio OFDM transceivers and the processor)
`
`simultaneously as explained in Section V.E.”); Pet. 61-64, Pet. 66 (“pilot signal
`
`which is shown as the x0 term in Fig. 37”). Likewise, the Petition’s citations to Agee
`
`characterize the “pilot signal” as an “x” term (which is used by persons of ordinary
`
`skill in the art to describe a signal), not as a signal strength in dB or dBm, nor as
`
`anything related to signal strength such as received signal strength indicator (RSSI)
`
`or received signal power. Id.
`
`Accordingly, despite being required to do so, the Petition never maps the
`
`“pilot data signal” or “received pilot data tones” as the “first signal information” or
`
`“second signal information” of limitations [1.4] or [1.5]. The only time the word
`
`“pilot” is used anywhere in the Petition’s mapping of limitations [1.4] and [1.5] is in
`
`a single sentence on page 63 that does not allege that “signal information” maps to
`
`“pilot signal data.” Rather, in this sentence, the Petition argues that Agee discloses
`
`“signal information” in the form of “timing information.” Pet. 63 (“Third, different
`
`signals measured on Agee’s antennas provide… ‘timing information’ – which are
`
`each forms of ‘signal information.’ Ex-1001, 15:44-56…Agee’s measured signals
`
`provide the pilot signal’s ‘observed timing offset’—which is used to provide ‘timing
`
`information’ for Agee’s system to properly detect and use the pilot signal to calculate
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00613 (’235 PATENT)
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`weights to receive (and transmit) data.”). Here, it is clear that the Petition is not
`
`mapping the “pilot data signal” or “received pilot data tones” as the claimed “signal
`
`information” of [1.4] or [1.5]. Pet. 63. The Petition is explicit in this sentence that it
`
`is mapping the “signal information” to “timing information” corresponding to the
`
`pilot signal’s “observed timing offset.” Pet. 63. But the Petition never addresses the
`
`“timing information” again in [1.6]. Pet. 64-69 (no discussion of “timing
`
`information” or “observed timing offset.”). Instead of articulating a “timing
`
`information”-based theory for [1.6], the Petition maps “signal information” in [1.6]
`
`to “pilot data signal” or “received pilot data tones (‘x’)”—despite failing to map or
`
`discuss these elements in [1.4] or [1.5]. Pet. 61-64. This fails.
`
`Second, in any event, the Petition is clear that it is not relying on the “pilot
`
`signal” or the “pilot data tones” as the “signal information” of limitations [1.4] and
`
`[1.5], because the Petition is using these elements as the “simultaneously received”
`
`signals in the Petition’s theory for limitation [1.3], where the Petition’s theory relies
`
`on Agee’s “‘pilot signals’ [which] are received on Agee’s Butler matrix antennas
`
`(and their radio OFDM transceivers and the processor) simultaneously” as
`
`simultaneously received “signals” of limitation [1.3]. Pet. 51 (discussing receiving
`
`the “pilot signal” as a “received signal” on the antennas and describing receiving the
`
`“pilot tones on one or more antennas”). Thus, Agee’s “received pilot signal” or
`
`“received pilot data tones” cannot be the claimed “signal information” in [1.4] and
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00613 (’235 PATENT)
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`[1.5], because the Petition mapped the “received pilot signal” or “received pilot data
`
`tones” as the received “signals” for [1.3], and a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand that the Petition is relying on “received pilot signal” as a received
`
`signal, not as “signal information.” The Petition always characterizes “pilot signal”
`
`as a received “signal” in its mapping of limitation [1.3]. See, e.g., Pet. 51 (The “pilot
`
`signals” are received on Agee’s Butler matrix antennas (and their radio OFDM
`
`transceivers and the processor) simultaneously as explained in Section V.E.”).
`
`See Pet. 51-52 (discussing receiving the “pilot signal” as a “received signal” on the
`
`antennas and describing receiving the “pilot tones on one or more antennas”).
`
`Similarly, in the Petition’s discussion of limitation [1.6], the Petition
`
`consistently characterizes the “pilot signal” as a received “signal,” not signal
`
`“information.” See Pet. 66 (“pilot signal which is shown as the x0 term in Fig. 37”),
`
`Pet. 67 (the “pilot signal” is transmitted on “32 different frequencies (tones) that are
`
`all transmitted / received simultaneously”). The Petition’s citations to Agee also
`
`unequivocally treat the “pilot signal” as “signal.” Pet. 64-69.
`
`Third, the Petition does not explain in the discussion of [1.6] whether the
`
`“pilot data signal” is the claimed “first signal information” or the claimed “second
`
`signal information.” Pet. 64-69. The Petition also does not articulate how “pilot data
`
`signal” is “second signal information” which is “different than” “first signal
`
`information” in the discussion of limitations [1.4], [1.5], or [1.6]. Pet. 61-69. Given
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00613 (’235 PATENT)
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`the centrality of the “pilot data signal” to the Petition’s theory of [1.6], these
`
`deficiencies are fatal to the Petition. The Petition’s only theory for [1.6] requires the
`
`“pilot data signal” / “pilot data tones” as at least one of the “signal information”
`
`elements in [1.6]. Pet. 64-69. The Petition articulated no theory for [1.6] in which
`
`the “pilot data signal” or “pilot data tones” does not need to constitute the “signal
`
`information.” Id.
`
`Thus, as shown above, the Petition’s theory requires Agee’s “pilot data
`
`signal” or “received pilot data tones (‘x’)” to be “signal information” used to
`
`calculate the weights of [1.6]. Pet. 64-69. This means that the Petition was required
`
`to articulate a theory of invalidity where Agee’s “pilot data signal” or “received pilot
`
`data tones” satisfy the “first signal information” or “second signal information”
`
`elements in [1.4] and [1.5]. However, the Petition failed to do so. Pet. 61-64. Thus,
`
`the Petition cannot show that limitations [1.4]-[1.6] are met.
`
`B.
`
`The Petition’s conclusory theory for [1.6] that Agee’s “pilot data
`
`signal” is “combiner output data” fails to show that the “pilot data
`
`signal” is “signal information” of [1.4] and [1.5] that is used to
`
`determine the weighting values in [1.6].
`
`In an effort to draw some throughline between limitations [1.4], [1.5], and
`
`[1.6], Petitioners may point to the conclusory allegation at the beginning of [1.6] that
`
`the “pilot data signal” is a “combiner output data” that Agee “receives from the
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00613 (’235 PATENT)
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Butler matrix.” Pet. 64-65 (“Agee uses a pilot data signal (the ‘combiner output
`
`data’) that it receives from the Butler matrix”). This theory is not developed in the
`
`Petition, and it is not supported by Agee. The Petition’s cited portion of Agee does
`
`not say that the “pilot data signal” is a “combiner output data” that is “received from
`
`the Butler matrix”—rather, it contrasts the “transmitted pilot data” from the
`
`“combiner output data.” Pet. 65, citing Ex. 1004 (Agee) 64:43-50 (“…combiner
`
`weights are formed using an FFT-based least-squares algorithms that adapt [weights]
`
`to values that minimize the mean-square error (MSE) between the combiner output
`
`data and a known segment of transmitted pilot data.”). Further, the Petition does not
`
`show or even argue that “pilot data signal” is “combiner output data” in the context
`
`of the discussion about “combiner output data” in limitations [1.4] and [1.5]. Pet. 64.
`
`Further, in the context of [1.3], the Petition is clear that the “pilot data signal” is
`
`“received simultaneously” from the remote station, not “combiner output data.” Pet.
`
`51.
`
`In any event, any contention that Agee’s “combiner output data” is the
`
`claimed “signal information” used to determine the “weighting values” necessarily
`
`fails. Agee does not say much about “combiner output data,” but what it does say
`
`indicates that the “combiner output” is output using t