Trials@uspto. gov
`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)
`
`
`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
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
