`571-272-7822
`
`Paper40
`Entered: December4, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS Co., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,INC., and APPLEINC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`Vv.
`
`SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 Bl
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
`PAUL J. KORNICZKY,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining Some Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 Bl
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Wehave jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R.§ 42.73.
`
`For the reasonsthat follow, we determine that Samsung Electronics Co.,
`
`Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Apple Inc. (collectively,
`
`Petitioner”) have shown by a preponderanceofthe evidencethat claims1,
`
`5—9, and 12-14, but not claims 2—4 and 15-20, ofU.S. Patent No. 9,614,943
`
`B1 (Ex. 1001, “the 943 patent’) are unpatentable.
`
`A. Background and Summary
`
`Petitionerfiled a Petition (Paper2, “Pet.”) requesting institution of an
`
`interpartes review of claims 1—9 and 12—20 of the 943 patent. Smart
`
`Mobile Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner’) filed a Preliminary Response
`
`(Paper 6). After receiving authorization, Petitioner filed a Reply to the
`
`Preliminary Response (Paper 7), and Patent Ownerfiled a Sur-reply
`
`(Paper 8). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, weinstituted an interpartes review
`
`of claims 1-9 and 12-20 ofthe ’943 patent on all presented challenges.
`
`Paper 13 (“Inst. Dec.”’), 2, 71.
`
`After institution, Patent Ownerfiled a Response (Paper24, “PO
`
`Resp.”), to which Petitionerfiled a Reply (Paper 29, “Pet. Reply”), and
`
`Patent Ownerthereafter filed a Sur-reply (Paper 35, “PO Sur-reply’). An
`
`oral hearing in this proceeding was held on September 15, 2023; a transcript
`
`of the hearing is included in the record. Paper 39 (“Tr.”).
`
`B. Real Parties in Interest
`
`Petitioner identifies Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc., and Apple Inc. as real parties in interest. Pet. 88.
`
`Patent Owneronly identifies itself as a real party in interest. Paper 4, 1.
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 Bl
`
`C. Related Matters
`
`The parties identify Smart Mobile Techs. LLC v. Apple Inc. , 6:21-cv-
`
`00603 (W.D. Tex.) and Smart Mobile Techs. LLC v. Samsung Elects. Co.,
`
`Ltd., 6:21-cv-00701 (W.D. Tex.) as related matters. Pet. 89; Paper 4,1.
`
`Related patents are challenged in IPR2022-00766, IPR2022-01005,
`
`IPR2022-01222, IPR2022-01248, andIPR2022-01249.,
`
`D. The ’943 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The 943 patent issued on April 4, 2017 from an applicationfiled on
`
`September17, 2012, whichis a continuation application of several
`
`previously filed continuation and continuation-in-part applications, the
`
`earliest ofwhich wasfiled on December 16, 1996. Ex. 1001, codes (22),
`
`(45), (63), 1:8-18.
`
`The 943 patentstates that an unfulfilled need exists for multiple
`
`transmitters andreceivers (“T/R’’) in a cellular telephone or mobile wireless
`
`device (“CT/MD”). Ex. 1001, 1:48-49. Figure 5A ofthe ’943 patent is
`
`reproducedbelow.
`
`$08
`
`
`
`or
`
`Output
`
`VS‘Old
`
`Figure 5A shows a “a dual antenna, dual T/R unit in a CT/MD
`
`interfacing with a dual processor.” Ex. 1001, 2:15-16. Dual antenna508
`
`and dual T/R unit 504 interface with dual processor 506 in dual band
`
`system 500. Ex. 1001, 4:39-41. System 500 can communicate through
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 Bl
`
`outputs 510, which can be “fibre optic channel, ethernet, cable, telephone,or
`
`other.” Jd. at 4:44—47.
`
`“The multiple processors 506 allow for parallel and custom
`
`processing of each signal or data stream to achieve higher speed andbetter
`
`quality of output.” Ex. 1001, 4:54—-56. Alternatively, there can be “a single
`
`processorthat has the parallelism and pipeline capability built in for
`
`handling one or more data streams simultaneously.” Jd. at 4:56—-59.
`
`Processors 506 include“DSP, CPU, memory controller, and other elements
`
`essential to process various typesof signals.” /d. at 4:59-61.
`
`“The processor contained within the CT/MD 502is further capable of
`
`delivering the required outputs to a numberof different ports such as optical,
`
`USB, cable and others” and “capable oftaking different inputs, as well as
`
`wireless.” Ex. 1001, 4:63—67. “Thusthe CT/MD 502 has universal
`
`connectivity in addition to having a wide range of functionality made
`
`possible through the features ofmultiple antennas, multiple T/R units 504
`
`and processors 506.” Jd. at 5:3-6.
`
`“TT]he CT/MD mayuseone or moretransmission protocols as
`
`deemedoptimal and appropriate,” and “the CT/MD determinesthe required
`
`frequency spectrum, other wireless parameters such as powerand signal to
`
`noise ratio to optimally transmit the data.” Ex. 1001, 11:8—10, 11:12—15.
`
`The CT/MDhas“the ability to multiplex between one or more transmission
`
`protocols such as CDMA, TDMAto ensurethat the fast data rates ofthe
`
`optical network or matched closely in a wireless network to minimize the
`
`potential data transmission speed degradation of a wireless network.” Jd. at
`
`11:15—20.
`
`Also, the ’943 patentstates “by having each ofthe datastreams
`
`sampledat differing clock frequencies the performance canbe better
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 Bl
`
`optimized.” Ex. 1001, 4:36~—38. “Each channel may be sampled and
`
`clocked individually as necessary to optimally process each data stream and
`
`combine the individual data packets.” /d. at 7:50—52.
`
`E.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`
`The 943 patent includes 20 claims, ofwhich Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 1-9 and 12-20. Ofthechallenged claims, claims1,5, 8, and 12 are
`
`independent, and claim 1 is reproduced below.
`
`1.
`
`A wireless communication device comprising:
`a plurality of antennas; and
`a communication component coupledto the plurality of
`antennas, the communication component including a processor,
`a transmitter, and a receiver,
`wherein the communication componentis configured to
`communicate via a first frequency band using a wireless
`communication protocol; and
`wherein one or more subtasks are assigned to one or more
`channels, and the one or more channels are sampled and clocked
`individually; and
`wherein the processor comprises multiple ones ofthe one
`or more channels and is further configured to processa first data
`stream anda second data stream in parallel.
`
`Ex. 1001, 11:63—12:9.
`
`Independentclaims 5, 8, and 12 also recite a “wireless communication
`9966
`
`device” and the limitations “a plurality of antennas,”
`
`“a communication
`
`componentcoupled to the plurality of antennas, the communication
`99 66.
`
`componentincluding a processor, a transmitter, and a receiver,”
`
`“wherein
`
`one or more subtasks are assigned to one or more channels, and the one or
`
`more channels are sampled and clocked individually,” and “wherein the
`
`processor comprises multiple ones ofthe one or more channels andis further
`
`configured to process a first data stream and a second data stream in
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 Bl
`
`parallel.” Ex. 1001, 12:26—30, 12:42-47, 12:55—S9, 13:1—6, 13:17-21,
`
`14:1-6.
`
`The remaining limitations ofindependentclaims5, 8, and 12 differ
`
`from claim | and require, for example,“at least one additional transmitter”
`
`(claim 5), “at least one additional receiver”(claim 8), and “afirst set of
`
`antennas... anda second set ofantennas’(claim 12). Ex. 1001, 12:31—32,
`
`12:60-61, 13:23-28.
`
`F. AssertedPriorArt and Proffered Testimonial Evidence
`
`Petitioner identifies the following referencesas priorart in the
`
`asserted ground ofunpatentability:
`
`US 5,590,133, issued Dec. 31, 1996
`
`Exhibit
`1010
`1009
`
`
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`Raleigh US 6,144,711, filed Aug. 27, 1997, issuedNov.7,|1005
`2000
`EP 0 660 626 A2, published June 28, 1995
`WO 98/27748, published June 25, 1998
`
`WO748
`
`1008
`
`Pet. 2. Petitioner states that “[the references qualify aspriorart to the °943
`
`patent’s earliest clarmed priority date (06/04/1999; ‘Critical Date’),” but
`
`“Petitioner does not concedethat the °943 patentis entitled to priority.” Jd.
`
`Accordingto Petitioner, Byrne, Pillekamp, and Billstrém are prior art under
`
`§ 102(b); Raleigh and WO748areprior art under § 102(e); and Johnstonis
`prior art under §§ 102(a) and(e).' Jd. Petitioner also provides a Declaration
`
`' The relevantsections ofthe Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”),
`Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat.284 (Sept. 16, 2011), took effect on March16,
`2013. Because the ’943 patent claimspriority to an application filed before
`that date, our citations to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 in this Decision are to
`their pre-AIA versions. See also Pet. 2 (stating but not conceding that “the
`943 patent’s earliest claimedpriority date” is “06/04/1999”.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 Bl
`
`of Dr. Michael Allen Jensen (Ex. 1003) and a Second Declaration of
`
`Dr. Michael Allen Jensen (Ex. 1048).
`
`Patent Ownerprovides a Declaration of Dr. Todor Cooklev.
`
`Ex. 2004.
`
`Deposition transcripts for Dr. Jensen (Exs. 2006, 2007, 2018) and
`
`Dr. Cooklev (Ex. 1049) werefiled.
`
`G. Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1—9 and 12—20 are unpatentable on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`12, 15, 18-20
`
`Raleigh, Byme
`
`leigh, Byme
`
`
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`Claim(s)cae.oe
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pet. 1.
`
`A, Legal Standards
`
`Il. ANALYSIS
`
`In interpartes reviews, the petitioner bears the burden ofproving
`
`unpatentability ofthe challenged claims, and the burden ofpersuasion never
`
`shifts to the patent owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`
`800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail in an interpartes review,
`
`the petitioner must support its challenges by a preponderance ofthe
`
`evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018); 37 C.F_R. § 42. 1(d) (2021).
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 Bl
`
`Petitioner contendsthat the challenged claims ofthe ’943 patentare
`
`unpatentableunder § 103. Pet.1. A claim is unpatentable under§ 103 if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the priorart are such that
`
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obviousat the time the
`
`invention was madeto a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`(2007). The question of obviousness1s resolved on the basis ofunderlying
`
`factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and contentofthe priorart;
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the priorart;
`
`(3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) where in evidence, so-called
`
`secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18
`
`(1966). Whenevaluating a combination ofteachings, we must also
`
`“determine whetherthere was an apparent reason to combine the known
`
`elements in the fashion claimed bythe patent at issue.” KSR,550 U.S. at
`
`418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
`
`B. Level ofOrdinary Skillin the Art
`
`Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had
`
`a Bachelor’s degreein electrical engineering, computer engineering,
`
`computerscience,or a related field, and at least two years of experience
`
`related to the design or development ofwireless communication systems,or
`
`the equivalent.” Pet.3 (citing Ex. 1003 4] 27-28). Petitioneralso states that
`
`“Ta|dditional graduate education could substitute for professional
`
`experience,or significant experiencein the field could substitute for formal
`
`education.” Jd. (citing Ex. 1003 4] 27—28). We preliminarily adopted
`
`Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in theart. Inst. Dec. 9.
`
`According to Patent Owner,Petitioner’s declaranttestified that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 Bl
`
`would have “a demonstrated capability in just designing some
`componentof the system and workingon that’ and ‘starting to
`work at a higher level” where “maybe they’re only designing
`some piece based on the expertise, but they’re understanding the
`architecture into which their piece will fit and how their design
`is going to impactthat architecture andthe overall functioning of
`the system.”
`
`PO Resp. 6 (citing Ex. 2006, 29:13—31:5). Patent Owneralso arguesthat
`
`Petitioner’s declarant confirmedthe proposed level of ordinary skill and that
`
`nothing would changeit. /d. (citing Ex. 2006, 13:8—14:15). “For this
`
`proceeding, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition ofa
`
`[person of ordinary skill in the art]with the above-described clarifications.
`
`Id. at 6—7 (citing Ex. 2004 ff 18-22).
`
`Basedon thefull record, we maintain andreaffirm that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art “would have hada Bachelor’s degreein electrical
`
`engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and
`
`at least two years of experiencerelated to the design or development of
`
`wireless communication systems, or the equivalent”andthat “[a]dditional
`
`graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or
`
`significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.”
`
`Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 9] 27-28).
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`In an interpartes review, the 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),
`including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary
`and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of
`ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to
`the patent.
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 Bl
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`Petitionerstates that “no formal claim constructions are necessary in
`
`this proceeding.” Pet. 2. Patent Owner does not proposean interpretation
`
`for any claim term. See generally PO Resp.
`
`Petitionerfiled a Claim Construction Orderthat was issued in Smart
`
`Mobile Techs. LLC v. Samsung Elects. Co., Ltd.,6:21-cv-00701 (W.D.
`
`Tex.). Ex. 1099. Both parties do not believe that the Claim Construction
`
`Orderaffects their positions in this proceeding. Tr. 23:11—18 (Petitioner’s
`
`counselstating that “I did not see any issue that was resolved [in the Claim
`
`Construction Order] that would have had any impact on today’s
`
`proceeding”), 47:12—17 (Patent Owner’s counselstating that “[w]e don’t
`
`believe that there is anything in the claim construction order that has any
`
`material bearing on the issuesin this proceeding”).
`
`Based on the full record, we determinethat no claim term requires
`
`expressinterpretation. Realtime Data, LLC v. lancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those termsthat
`
`...are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`
`controversy.’”’) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200
`
`F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`
`D. Asserted Obviousness Based on Byrne
`
`1. Byrne (Ex. 1008)
`
`Byrneparticularly relates “to a radio telephone operable for more than
`
`one system.” Ex. 1008, 1:2—3. Figure 1 ofByrneis reproducedbelow.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`
`\
`
`4
`
`.
`
`Fig.1.
`
`on112
`
`x
`
`CORDLESS
`BASE
`
`STATION
`
`
`
`—~
`
`120
`
`5
`
`132
`
`\y
`
`134
`
`iy)
`
`CELLULAR
`BASE
`STATION
`
`4130
`
`
`CORDLESS
`BASE
`
`Ll
`STATION
`
`=
`
`et Ku
`
`138__J~~MOBILE
`CELLULAR
`|
`SWITCHING
`CORDLESS
`|”
`CENTRE
`TELEPHONE
`
`119
`
`106 i
`
`STATION
`CONTROLLER
`TTY
`
`PSTN
`
`139
`
`W7
`
`COMMUNITY
`CORDLESS
`BASE STATION
`
`}-~''8
`
`200
`
`
`
`Figure | is a block diagram ofa cellular cordless telephone system.
`
`Ex. 1008, 6:19—20, 6:36—37. Cellular cordless telephone system 100
`
`includes cordless base stations 114, 116, 118 that communicate with cellular
`
`cordless telephone (“CCT”’) 200 via antennas 112, 119, 122. Jd. at 6:38-47.
`
`System 100 also includes cellular base station 130 with receive antenna 132
`
`and transmit antenna 134 for communicating with CCT 200. Jd. at 7:4—10.
`
`Byrne describesthat its CCT 200 uses cordless telephone systems “CT-2 or
`
`DECT?whichare digital systems” and GSM?or DCS(Digital Cellular
`
`System) cellular telephone systems. /d. at 1:41—44, 7:19-24, 10:53.
`
`> Pillekamp indicates that DECTstandsfor“Digital European Cordless
`Telecommunication.” Ex. 1009, 2:59-60.
`3 Billstrém indicates that GSM stands for “Global System for Mobile
`communication.” Ex. 1010, 1:62.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 Bl
`
`CCT 200 includes antenna 228 for cordless communication and
`
`antenna 238 for cellular communication. Ex. 1008, 7:13—15. Figure 2 of
`
`Byrneis reproduced below.
`
`Fig.2.
`
`228
`
`a
`
`238—
`
`CORDLESS
`RECEIVER
`
`CELLULAR
`RECEIVER
`
`270~.
`202 -\ O-*
`ye
`i moe tl
`
`
`_
`—| BPF
`nooo
`260 «250,
`271
`B2 SWITCH Bt
`CORDLESS
`CELLULAR
`DIO ie ate AUDIO
`
`
`|OES : <—|TRANSMITTER|OESTTER CELLULAR
`
`
`
`SERVICE
`
`
`
`AVAILABLE
`REGISTER
`205 210 |
`ett
`
`x4 xd
`
`MICRO-
`
`
`~\wets——CLEAR,
`PROCESSOR wegen 200
`
`| pa2-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 is a block diagram ofa cellular cordless telephone. Ex. 1008,
`
`6:22—23, 7:25—26. CCT 200 also includes microprocessor 210, cordless
`
`telephonetransceiver 220, and cellular telephone transceiver 230. Id.at
`
`7:27-30. Microprocess 210 “is adapted to operate in accordance with the
`
`flow charts illustrated in Figures 3—4.” Id. at 7:56—58; see alsoid. at 8:44—
`
`9:30 (describing steps used by microprocessor 210 for receiving andplacing
`
`cellular or cordless telephonecalls), 9:31—10:8 (describing the monitoring of
`
`availability of cellular and cordless systems).
`
`Whenoperating as a cordless telephone, “microprocessor 210
`
`enable[s] cordless receiver 221 and cordless transmitter 222.” Ex. 1008,
`
`8:16—18. “[Ml]icroprocessor 210 controls the CCT 200 in a similar way
`
`whenoperating asa cellular telephone, but appropriately modified for the
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 Bl
`
`signal[]ing protocols and data encryption used in the cellular system.” Id.at
`
`8:29-33. Byrnestatesthat “signal[]ing protocols, dataencryption
`
`techniques andthe like used in respective telephone systemsare well known
`
`in the art.” /d. at 8:33-35.
`
`“CCT 200 mayoperate,as far as a user is concerned, simultaneously
`
`as a cellular telephone and a cordless telephone.” Ex. 1008, 8:3—6. Byrne
`
`explains that “CCT 200 can be arran ged such that both cellular and cordless
`
`operationsare in progress at the sametime.” Jd. at 8:6—9.
`
`2. Claim 1
`
`a)
`
`“A wireless communication device comprising: ”
`
`Petitioner argues that Byrne teaches the preamble of claim 1, if it is
`
`limiting, because Byrne teachesa cellular cordless telephone. Pet. 6 (citing
`
`Ex. 1003 4 69; Ex. 1008, 7:11—13); Ex. 1001, 11:63; see also Pet. vii
`
`(labeling the preamble “1[pre]’’).
`
`The cited portion ofByrne describes that its “CCT 200 may bea
`
`mobile unit installed in a vehicle, a so called transportable unit or a hand
`
`held portable unit.” Ex. 1008, 7:11-13. Wealso credit Petitioner’s
`
`testimonial evidence regarding the preamble of claim 1 because Byrne
`
`supportsit. Ex. 1003 4]69. Patent Owner doesnot provide a responsive
`
`argumentfor the preamble of claim 1. See PO Resp. 7-22.
`
`Therefore, based on the full record before us, because Byrne describes
`
`its CCT 200 as “a hand held portable unit,” Petitioner persuades us by a
`
`preponderance ofthe evidence, and wefind, that Byrne teaches or suggests
`
`the preamble of claim 1, if it is limiting.
`
`b)
`
`“a plurality ofantennas”
`
`Petitioner also argues that, because Byrne teaches antenna 228 for
`
`cordless communication and antenna 238 for cellular communication, Byrne
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 Bl
`
`teaches “a plurality of antennas.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 7 70; Ex. 1008,
`
`7:13—15); Ex. 1001, 11:64; see also Pet. vii (labeling the limitation “1[a]’”’).
`
`The cited portion ofByrne describes that “CCT 200 comprises an
`
`antenna 228 for cordless communication andan antenna 238 for cellular
`
`communication.” Ex. 1008,7:13—15. Wealso credit Petitioner’s
`
`testimonial evidence regardingtheplurality of antennas because Byrne
`
`supportsit. Ex. 1003470. Patent Owner doesnot provide a responsive
`
`argumentfor the required antennas of claim 1. See PO Resp. 7-22.
`
`Therefore, based on the full record before us, because Byrne describes
`
`antennasfor cordless and cellular operations, Petitioner persuades us by a
`
`preponderance ofthe evidence, and wefind, that Byrne teaches or suggests
`
`“a plurality of antennas.”
`
`c)
`
`“a communication component coupledto theplurality of
`antennas, the communication componentincluding a
`processor, a transmitter, and a receiver”
`
`For above-quoted limitation, Petitioner contends that Byrne teachesits
`
`CCThas (1) cordless transceiver 220 with cordless receiver 221 and cordless
`
`transmitter 222, (2) cellular transceiver 230 with cellular receiver 231 and
`
`cellular transmitter 232, and(3) microprocessor 210. Pet. 6—7 (citing
`
`Ex. 1003 4 71; Ex. 1008, 7:26—32, 7:56—8:2, Fig. 2; Ex. 1001, 11:65-67; see
`
`also Pet. vii (labeling the limitation “1[b]”). Petitioner also contends that
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that transceivers 220,
`
`230 and microprocessor 210 would be a communication component coupled
`
`to antennas 228, 238. Jd. at 7 (citing Ex. 1003 4 72).
`
`The cited portions ofByrne describe separate cordless and cellular
`
`operations using separate componentsthat include cordless receiver 221,
`
`cordless transmitter 222, cellularreceiver 231, cellular transmitter 232, and
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 Bl
`
`microprocessor 210. Ex. 1008, 7:26—32, 7:56—8:28, Fig. 2. We credit
`
`Petitioner’s testimonial evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have understood Byrne’s microprocessor 210 and cordless or cellular
`
`transceiver 220, 230 to constitute a communication unit coupled to antennas
`
`228, 238 because Byrne supports it. Ex. 1003 9 71; Ex. 1008, Fig. 2. Patent
`
`Ownerdoesnot provide a responsive argumentfor the “communication
`
`component” of claim 1. See PO Resp. 7-22.
`
`Based on the full record before us, for the reasons above,Petitioner
`
`persuadesus by a preponderance ofthe evidence, and wefind, that Byrne
`
`teachesor suggests “a communication component coupled to the plurality of
`
`antennas, the communication componentincluding a processor, a
`
`transmitter, and a receiver.”
`
`d)
`
`“wherein the communication componentis configuredto
`communicatevia afirstfrequency bandusing a wireless
`communication protocol”
`
`For the wherein clause quoted above, Petitioner argues that Byrne
`
`teaches its CCT operating on cordless protocols and frequency bands and
`
`cellular protocols and frequency bands. Pet. 7—8 (citing Ex. 1003 473;
`
`Ex. 1008, 7:19-—24); Ex. 1001, 12:1—3; see also Pet. vii (labeling the
`
`limitation “1I[c]’”).
`
`The cited portion ofByrne describes that “[t]ypically in the UK
`
`cordless systems operate in frequency bands at 49 MHz (CTO), 860 MHz
`
`(CT2) and 1880-1900 MHz (DECT)andcellular telephone systemsin
`
`frequency bands 890-905 MHz and 935-950 MHz (TACS), 905-915 MHz
`
`and 950-960 MHz (GSM) or 1800 MHz (DCS).” Ex. 1008, 7:19-24. We
`
`also credit Petitioner’s testimonial evidence that Byrne would haveused
`
`either cordless protocols and frequency bands orcellular protocols and
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 Bl
`
`frequency bands becausethe cited portion ofthe record supports the
`
`testimony. Ex. 1003 73; Ex. 1008, 7:19-24. Patent Ownerdoesnot
`
`provide a responsive argumentfor the above-quoted wherein clause. See PO
`
`Resp. 7-22.
`
`Based on the full record before us, for the reasons above,Petitioner
`
`persuadesus by a preponderance ofthe evidence, and wefind, that Byrne
`
`teachesor suggests “wherein the communication componentis configured to
`
`communicate viaafirst frequency band using a wireless communication
`
`protocol.”
`
`e)
`
`“wherein one or more subtasks are assigned to one or more
`channels, and the one or more channels are sampled and
`clocked individually”
`
`For the wherein clause quoted above, Petitioner argues that Byrne
`
`teaches subtasks and channels in a mannerconsistent with the 943 patent’s
`
`disclosure. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:1—8:41, Figs. 9~12; Ex. 1003 477);
`
`Ex. 1001, 12:4—6; see also Pet. vii (labeling the limitation “1[d]’”’).
`
`Accordingto Petitioner, the 943 patent describes multiple transceivers
`
`processing multiple data streams, and “[e]ach subtask being processed can
`
`be assigned to a separate channel.” /d. (citing Ex. 1001, 7:1—8:16, Figs. 10,
`
`11).
`
`Petitioner contends that, because Byrne describes cordless and cellular
`
`channels, Byrne teaches two channels as separate communication pathways
`
`for two data streamsthat are processed separately. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003
`
`4] 77). Petitioner specifically contends that Byrne teaches cordless audio
`
`channel 240 and cellular audio channel 250, and that cordless and cellular
`
`subtask are assigned to cordless and cellular channels, respectively. Jd. at 8—
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 Bl
`
`10 (citing Ex. 1003 J 74-76; Ex. 1008, 6:36-8:43, Fig. 2; Ex. 1042, 1:55—
`
`2:8, Ex. 1043, 4:23-5:59; Ex. 1044, 4:23-5:59).
`
`Petitioner also contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would
`
`have foundit obvious that Byrne’s cordless and cellular radio channels are
`
`sampled and clocked individually accordingto different specifications
`
`required in the respective protocols.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 § 78).
`
`Petitioner further contendsthat one ofordinary skill in the art “would have
`
`recognized and/or found obvious that Byrne’s cordless and cellular channels
`
`require or at least benefit from separate and individual sampling and
`
`clocking.” /d. (citing Ex. 1003 4 78).
`
`Petitioner additionally contendsthat it was well known to sample
`
`continuoussignals and reconstruct signals from a set of samples and that
`
`manyreceivers samplea signal at higher than twice the bandwidth ofthe
`
`signal, also called the Nyquist rate. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 479; Ex. 1020,
`
`4—5, 10; Ex. 1024, 10; Ex. 1026, 6; Ex. 1030). Petitioner provides examples
`
`of such sampling in the DECT and GSMprotocols and arguesthat one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art “would have recognized and/or found obviousthat
`
`the DECT and GSM systems,which are examples of standards used for
`
`Byrne’s cordless and cellular channels, are sampled individually at different
`
`rates that accommodate different bandwidths.” Jd. at 11-12 (citing Ex. 1003
`
`80; Ex. 1024; Ex. 1025; Ex. 1026; Ex. 1035, 4:14—18; Ex. 1036, 3:4—7;
`
`Ex. 1039,3).
`
`According to Petitioner, a clock would provide timing to a processor
`
`and an analog-to-digital converter (“ADC’’) that would be used to sample a
`
`received signal. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 4 81; Ex. 1038, 1, 3, 4, 6; Ex. 1039,
`
`4—5, 10, 11-15). Petitioner, thus, argues that one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 Bl
`
`would have understood that the clock driving the ADC at a
`receiver is the sameas, or at least derived from, a clock driving
`the computational processor, as the samples created by the ADC
`stream into and are processedby the processor, and therefore the
`samples from the ADC should be synchronized with the
`computationsat the processor.
`
`Id. (citing Ex. 1003 4 81; Ex. 1039, 4-5, 11-15).
`
`Petitioner also argues that the clock rate would control processor
`
`speed andbe associated with the datarate. Pet. 12—13 (citing Ex. 1003 7 81;
`
`Ex. 1038, 2—4; Ex. 1039, 1-4). Petitioner contends that one ofordinary skill
`
`in the art “would have recognized and/or found obviousthat the dependence
`
`among various parameters including the samplingrate, the processor clock
`
`rate, the information data rate, andthe computational requirements results in
`
`a clocking rate that is determined for each communication protocol.” Id.at
`
`13 (citing Ex. 1003 482).
`
`Petitioner provides examples ofthe datarate, channels, and other
`
`parameters for DECT and GSM.Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1014, 13; Ex. 1018, 1;
`
`Ex. 1038, 3; Ex. 1039, 3). Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have known “that a processor(suchas in, or associated with, a
`
`transceiver) andits clock rate in each ofthese systems depends on the
`
`computational demands determined based on these parameters.” /d. at 13-
`
`14 (citing Ex. 1003 483; Ex. 1020, 10; Ex. 1029, 4—5). Petitioneralso
`
`argues that, because DECT and GSM parametersdiffer, one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art “would have foundit obvious that Byrne’s cordless (e.g., DECT)
`
`channelis clocked separately and differently from Byrne’s cellular (e.g.,
`
`GSM) channel.” /d. at 14 (citing Ex. 1003 4 83; Ex. 1008, 7:39-49).
`
`In Petitioner’s view, Byrne’s processors and associated components
`
`supporting cordless and cellular channels would need to be clocked
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 Bl
`
`differently for different data rates and communication parameters, and, thus,
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would have foundit obvious that Byrne’s
`
`cordless and cellular channels are sampled and clocked individually at their
`
`separate receivers. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 4 84). Petitioneralso arguesthat
`
`“the ’943 patent’s limited disclosure ofindividual sampling and clocking
`
`aligns with Byrne’s description” and knowledgein the art. /d. at 14-15
`
`(citing Ex. 1001, 4:32—38, 7:50-—52; Ex. 1003 § 85).
`
`Petitioner cites portions ofByrne that describe and show “CCT 200
`
`comprisesa cellular telephone transceiver 230, and antenna 238, a cordless
`
`telephone transceiver 220 and antenna 228”along with other components
`
`and that CCT 200 communicateswith cordless base stations 114, 116, 118
`
`and cellular base station 130 using different frequency bands, protocols, and
`
`encryption. Ex. 1008, 6:36-8:43, Fig. 2. Wecredit Petitioner’s testimonial
`
`evidence that Byrne teaches cordless audio channel 240 and cellular audio
`
`channel250, that cordless and cellular subtask are assigned to their
`
`respective channels, and that Byrne, thus, teaches two channels as separate
`
`communication pathwaysfor two data streamsthat are processed separately.
`
`Ex. 1003 {| 74-76. The cited portions ofthe record support the testimony.
`
`Ex. 1008, 6:36-8:43, Fig. 2; Ex. 1042, 1:55—2:8; Ex. 1043, 1:34-2:50;
`
`Ex. 1044, 4:23-5:59.
`
`Wealso credit Petitioner’s testimonial evidence that one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art “would have found it obvious that the cordless radio channel
`
`and the cellular radio channel in Byrne were sampled and clocked
`
`individually accordingto different specifications required in the respective
`
`protocols” and would have understood or found obvious“that the cordless
`
`and cellular channels in Byrne require or at least would benefit from
`
`separate and individual sampling andclocking.” Ex. 1003 9978, 84. The
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 Bl
`
`testimony is supported by evidencethat individual sampling and clocking
`
`were knownin the art and applicable to Byrne’s CCT. Ex. 1003 4] 79-83;
`
`Ex. 1008, 7:39-49; Ex. 1014, 3; Ex. 1018, Abstr.; Ex. 1020, 4—5, 10;
`
`Ex. 1024, 10; Ex. 1025; Ex. 1026, 6; Ex. 1029, 4—5; Ex. 1030; Ex. 1035,
`
`4:14—18; Ex. 1036, 3:4—7; Ex. 1038, 1, 2—4, 6; Ex. 1039, 1-5, 10, 11-15.
`
`Patent Ownerdoesnot provide a responsive argumentfor “wherein
`
`one or more subtasks are assigned to one or more channels, and the one or
`
`more channels are sampled and clocked individually.” See PO Resp. 7-22.
`
`Based on the full record before us, for the reasons above,Petitioner
`
`persuadesus by a preponderance ofthe evidence, and we determine,that
`
`Byrneteaches, suggests, and would have rendered obvious“wherein one or
`
`more subtasksare assigned to one or more channels, and the one or more
`
`channels are sampled andclocked individually.”
`
`f)
`
`“wherein theprocessor comprises multiple ones ofthe one or
`more channels andisfurther configured toprocess afirst data
`stream anda seconddata stream in parallel”
`
`Forthe final wherein clause of claim 1, Petitionerarguesthat the ’943
`
`patent providesa limited disclosure of channels in processors, and that
`
`Byrne teaches or would have rendered obviousa processor with parallel
`
`cordless and cellular channels. Pet. 15—16 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:24—29;
`
`Ex. 1003 4 86; Ex. 1008, 7:25—43, Fig. 2); Ex. 1001, 12:7—9; see also
`
`Pet. vii (labeling the limitation “1I[e]”). Petitioner also argues that Byrne can
`
`operate simultaneously as a cordless and cellular telephone, and thus, one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood,or found obvious, cordless
`
`and cellular data streamsare being processedin parallel. /d. at 16-17 (citing
`
`Ex. 1003 4 87; Ex. 1008, 8:2—15).
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943 B1
`
`Petitioner further arguesthat, ifthe limitation requires a single
`
`processor, Byrne teaches single microprocessor 210 and that it would have
`
`been knownor obvious to usea single processor with multiple channels for
`
`processing cordless and cellular communications. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1001,
`
`4:15-31; Ex. 1003 § 87; Ex. 1008, 7:26-9:30, Figs. 2, 3; Ex. 1045;
`
`Ex. 1046). Petitioner additionally contends that Byrneteaches processing
`
`data streams becauseit us