`
`Tnals@uspte. gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper6
`Date: October 11, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLEINC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`TOGAIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2023-00644
`Patent 11,115,165 B2
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, GREGG I. ANDERSON,and
`SHEILA F. McSHANE,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McSHANE,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution ofInter Partes Review
`35 US.C. $314
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00644
`Patent 11,115,165 B2
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner’’) filed a Petition (Paper2, “Pet.”) requesting
`
`interpartes review of claims 1—12 (the “challenged claims”) ofU.S. Patent
`
`No. 11,115,165 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’165 patent’). Togail Technologies Ltd.
`
`(“Patent Owner’) did notfile a Preliminary Response.
`
`The Board has authority to determine whetherto institute an inter
`
`partes review. See 35 U.S.C. §314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a), we may not authorize an interpartes review unless the information
`
`in the petition and the preliminary response “showsthat there 1s a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 ofthe
`
`claims challengedin the petition.”
`
`Forthe reasons stated below, we determinethat Petitioner has
`
`established a reasonable likelihood that 1t would prevail with respect toat
`
`least one claim. Wethereforeinstitute interpartes review asto all of the
`
`challenged claims ofthe ’165 patent and all ofthe asserted groundsof
`
`unpatentability in the Petition.
`
`A. RelatedMatters
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`The ’165 patent is asubject of several civil actions, including 7ogail
`
`Technologies Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00326 (W.D.Tex.). Pet. 71;
`
`Paper3, 2.
`
`B. The ’165 Patent
`
`The ’165 patent1s titled “Method And Apparatus For Multiple
`
`Transmit/Receive Point (TRP) Operations” andissued on September7, 2021
`
`from an application filed on November 4, 2019. Ex. 1001, codes (22), (45),
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00644
`Patent 11,115,165 B2
`
`(54). Related Provisional Application No. 62/754,706 wasfiled on
`
`November2, 2018. /d., code (60).
`
`The ’165 patentis directed to user equipment (UE) receiving
`
`Transmission Configuration Indicator (TCI) state data in a Physical
`
`Download Control Channel (PDCCH)for determining multiple Physical
`
`Downlink Shared Channels(PDSCHs). Ex. 1001, code(57). The TCIstate
`
`data is associated with multiple Demodulation Reference Signal (DMRS)
`
`port groups. /d. The UE also obtains multiple Quasi Co-Location (QCL)
`
`assumptionsfor receiving the PDSCHsbased on the DMRSport groups
`
`associated with the TCIstate data. /d.
`
`Figure 1, reproduced below,is aschematic diagram illustrating a
`
`multi-TRP system for use in “the next generation (e.g., Fifth Generation
`
`(5G) New Radio (NR)) wireless communication systems.” Ex. 1001, 1:24—
`
`39; 2:12-14).
`
`ico ~
`
`©)
`
`Loo
`
`
`
`©)
`
`4
`
`106
`
`Figure 1, above,illustrates a multi-TRP system, with TRPs 106 and 108, UE
`
`102, and base station (BS) 104. Ex. 1001, 4:65—5:2. UE 102 may connect
`
`to BS 104 through TRPs 106 and 108. /d. at 5:12—13. Each TRP may have
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00644
`Patent 11,115,165 B2
`
`antenna panels to provide directional beams towards the UE, and the antenna
`
`panels on the TRP maybe jointly used in the data transmission to the UE,
`
`forminga multi-input multi-output system. /d. at 5:14—18.
`
`Figure 2, reproduced below,depicts a flowchart for a process of
`
`multi-TRP operation. Ex. 1001, 5:19-21.
`
`202
`
`204
`
`associated with the TCl state data
`
`Receive TCl state data in a PDCCH
`determining multiple PDSCHs, where
`the TCI state data is associated
`with multiple DMRS port groups
`
`Obtain multiple QCL assumptions
`for receiving the PDSCHs based
`on the DMRS port groups
`
`Figure 2, above, depicts a flowchart for the multi-TRP operations. In step
`
`202, the UE receives TCI state datain a PDCCH,whichis associated with
`
`multiple DMRSport groups. Ex. 1001, 5:22—24. Each DMRSport groups
`
`may correspondto one PDSCH./d. at 6:25—26. Ifthe TCIstate data is
`
`associated with certain DRMSport groups, the UE maythen determine the
`
`QCL assumptions for the DRMSport groups, as shownin step 204. /d. at
`
`5:24—27, 6:26-31. Each ofthe PDSCHsderived from the PDCCH may
`
`correspondtoaTRP.
`
`/d. at 6:32—34. QCL assumptions may include
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00644
`Patent 11,115,165 B2
`
`different parameters suchas spatial-domain QCL parameters(e.g., QCL
`
`TypeD parameters), or other QCL parameters such as average delay, delay
`
`spread, Doppler shift, and Doppler spread. /d. at 5:28—32.
`
`C. Ilustrative Claim
`
`The ’165 patent has 12 claims. Claims 1 and 7 are independent
`
`claims. Claim 1 1s illustrative ofthe claimed subject matter and is
`
`reproducedbelow,with bracketed designations addedfor reference
`
`purposes.
`
`1. A user equipment (UE) compnising:
`
`[1.1] one or more non-transitory computer-readable media having
`computer-executable instructions embodied thereon; and
`
`[1.2] at least one processor coupled to the one or more non-transitory
`computer-readable media, and configured to executethe computer-
`executable instructionsto:
`
`[1.3] receive, in a Physical Download Control Channel
`(PDCCH), Transmission Configuration Indicator (TCI) state data for
`determining a plurality ofPhysical Downlink Shared Channels
`(PDSCHs), the TCI state data being associated with a plurality of
`Demodulation Reference Signal (DMRS) port groups; and
`
`[1.4] obtain a plurality of Quasi Co-Location (QCL)
`assumptionsfor receiving the plurality ofPDSCHsbased on the
`plurality ofDMRSport groupsassociated with the TCIstate data,
`wherein:
`
`[1.5] each ofthe plurality of QCL assumptions
`correspondsto one ofthe plurality ofDMRSport groups,
`
`[1.6] the TCI state data corresponds to a TCI state
`configuration that includes a plurality of QCL Reference Signal
`(RS) sets, and
`[1.7] each ofthe plurality of QCL RSsets corresponds to
`one of the plurality ofDMRSport groups.
`
`Ex. 1001, 12:57—13:13.
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00644
`Patent 11,115,165 B2
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1-12 ofthe ’165
`
`patent on the following grounds:
`
`Vilaipornsawai’, Shin’, Grant* Vilaipornsawai, Shin, Grant,
`
`4.10
`
`5Xue
`
`Pet. 14.
`
`A. Level ofOrdinary Skill in the Art
`
`I. ANALYSIS
`
`Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art:
`
`would have had a master’s degree from an accredited program in
`electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science,
`or arelated field, and three years ofrelevant experience in mobile
`communications or wireless networks; or a Ph.D. degree in one
`of the disciplines listed above and one year of relevant
`experience. More technical education, but less experience could
`have also metthis standard.
`
`Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 49 19-21).
`
`' The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
`Stat. 284, 287-88 (2011), amended35 U.S.C. § 103, effective March 16,
`2013. Becausethe application and provisional application for the ’165
`patent werefiled after this date, the post-AIA version of § 103 applies. See
`Ex. 1001, codes (22), (60).
`7 WO 2018/141246 Al, published August 9, 2018 (Ex. 1005).
`3 US 2019/0068308 A1, published February 28, 2019 (Ex. 1006).
`+ US 2020/0280409 Al, published September 3, 2020 (Ex. 1007).
`> US 2020/0260418 Al, published August 13, 2020 (Ex. 1012).
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00644
`Patent 11,115,165 B2
`
`Patent Ownerhas not provided a Preliminary Response, and, thus, has
`
`not provided any proposed qualifications for a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art.
`
`For the purposesofthis Decision, we adopt the assessmentoffered by
`
`Petitionerasit is consistent with the ’165 patent and theprior art before us.
`
`See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`In this interpartes review, claims are construed using the same claim
`
`construction standard that would be used to construe the claimsin a civil
`
`action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2022). Under the
`
`principles set forth by our reviewing court, the “words ofaclaim “are
`
`generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,’” as would be
`
`understood by a person ofordinary skill in the art in question at the time of
`
`the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(en banc) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1996)). “In determining the meaning ofthe disputed claim
`
`limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence ofrecord, examining
`
`the claim languageitself, the written description, and the prosecution
`
`history, ifin evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek,
`
`Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1312-17).
`
`Petitioner asserts that “the terms ofthe challenged claims shouldbe
`
`given their plain and ordinary meaning, and no termsrequire specific
`
`construction.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 4 50).
`
`Wedetermine that we need not expressly construe anyclaim termsat
`
`this juncture. See Realtime Data, LLC v. lancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed.
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00644
`Patent 11,115,165 B2
`
`Cir. 2019) (“The Boardis required to construe ‘only those terms. . . that 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))).
`
`C. Principles ofLaw
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ifthe
`
`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 made to 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 obviousnessis resolved on the basis ofunderlying
`
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content ofthe prior art;
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and thepriorart;
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective
`
`indicia ofnonobviousness. Grahamy. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 17-18
`
`(1966).
`
`D. Obviousness ofClaims 1-3, 5—9, 11, and 12 Over Vilaipornsawai,
`Shin, and Grant
`
`Petitioner contendsthat claims 1—3, 5-9, 11, and 12 would have been
`
`obvious over Vilaipornsawai, Shin, and Grant. Pet. 15—60. To support its
`
`contentions, Petitioner provides explanations as to how the combination of
`
`the prior art teaches each claim limitation and providesrationale to combine
`
`the references. /d. Petitioner also relies upon the Ding Declaration (Ex.
`
`1003) to support its positions.
`
`Webeginourdiscussion with brief summaries ofVilaipornsawai,
`
`Shin, and Grant, and then address the evidence and arguments presented.
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00644
`Patent 11,115,165 B2
`
`1. Vilaipornsawai(Ex. 1005)
`
`Vilaipornsawaiis directed to supporting network communications by
`
`the use ofPDCCHsmessages for PDSCHs. Ex. 1005, code (57). Figure 1,
`
`reproducedbelow,depicts Vilaipornsawai’s communication system. /d.
`
`q 54.
`
`160
`
`a
`
`Access Nebwork
`4
`108
`
`SeerCoreNeNetson
`
`~~
`
`pa
`
`12a
`
` fo
`\
`Centralized Processing System
`ys
`120
`442
`
`| err,
`
`FIG. 1
`
`Figure 1, above, depicts communication system 100, which includes core
`
`network 102 and access network 106. Ex. 1005954. Access network 106
`
`is a wireless communication networkthat is connected or coupled to core
`
`network 102, with network elements or nodes 108a, 108b, 108c providing
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00644
`Patent 11,115,165 B2
`
`wireless communication service within the respective wireless coverage
`
`areas. /d. 956. UE 104 wirelessly accesses communication system 100
`
`using access network 106. /d. 57. UE 104 includesa radio transmitter and
`
`a radio receiver, which maybe integrated into a radio transceiver, one or
`
`more antennas, and associated processing circuitry, such as antennaradio
`
`frequency (RF) circuitry, and network elements 108a-c and UE 104 may
`
`include similartypes of components to support communications with each
`
`other. /d. In Vilaipornsawai, “network elements 108a-c may be configured
`
`to serve UE 104 in accordance with one or more CoMP[Coordinated Multi-
`
`Point] transmission schemes, such as Dynamic Point Selection (DPS) or
`
`Non-Coherent Joint Transmission. In these network coordination schemes,
`
`the same or different downlink PDSCHdata stream(s) can be transmitted to
`
`a UE from multiple TRPs.” /d. 461.
`
`In Vilaipornsawai, a single PDCCH message hasresource assignment
`
`fields for multiple PDSCHs. Ex.1005 9116. Vilaipornsawaidiscloses that
`
`Downlink Control Information [DCT] in PDCCH messages carries DMRS
`
`information for UEsto use to perform channel determinations and receive
`
`multiplePDSCHs. /d. §§ 113-114.
`
`2. Shin (Ex. 1006)
`
`Shin is directed to a communication method for 5G networks, which
`
`includes identifying DMRSinformation, identifying port number
`
`information for receiving DMRS, and receiving the DMRSbased on the
`
`DMRStype information, the DMRS symbollength information, and port
`
`numberinformation. Ex. 1006, code (57). In Shin, the communication
`
`system may supportjoint transmissions from multiple TRPs to a single UE.
`
`Id.§ 200. Additionally, in Shin radio resourcesallocated for transmitting
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00644
`Patent 11,115,165 B2
`
`different signals include DMRS, PDSCHs, and control channels such as
`
`PDCCH. Jd. 9] 50-52, 55. Shin explains that DMRSinformation
`
`communicated to a UE in 5G systems may include DMRSport grouping
`
`information, where the port grouping may be performed for NC-JT [Non-
`
`Coherent Joint Transmission]. /d. 962, 200.
`
`3. Grant (Ex. 1007)
`
`Grantis directed to cellular wireless communication, including 5G
`
`systems. Ex. 1007992. In Grant, the communication system may support
`
`joint transmission from multiple TRPs to a single UE,that includesstates
`
`corresponding “to different TRP pairs, supporting, e. g., non-coherentjoint
`
`transmission (NC-JT) from a pair of TRPs tothe UE.” /d. 46. Grant uses
`
`transmissions of channels, such as PDSCHs and PDCCHs, as well as a
`
`reference signal suchas DMRS. /d. 99/7, 157, 181. Grant uses theterm
`
`“TCI” for an N-bit indicator, that is functionally identical to the QCL
`
`Reference Indicator (QRI), and which includes RSsets and a QCL
`
`indication for the sets. /d. 8.
`
`2. Discussion
`
`a. Claim 1
`
`Petitioner asserts that Vilaipomsawai discloses the use ofuser
`
`equipmentfor the teaching ofthe preamble. Pet. 33-34. For the teaching of
`
`the limitation [1.1], Petitioner contends that Vilaipornsawaidiscloses the
`
`use of a memory storing instructions. /d. at 34-35. For limitation [1.2],
`
`Petitioner argues that Vilaipornsawaidiscloses the use of a processor anda
`
`memory with instructions. /d. at 35-36.
`
`For limitation [1.3], Petitionerargues that Vilaipornsawaidiscloses “a
`
`system in which multiple TRPs transmit different PDSCHsto a UE inajoint
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00644
`Patent 11,115,165 B2
`
`transmission (JT) scenario, anda single TRP transmits downlink control
`
`information (DCI) information in a PDCCHfor scheduling the multiple
`
`PDSCHs, with the DCI including “DMRSin formation.’” Pet. 36 (citing Ex.
`
`1003 § 90). More specifically, Petitioner asserts that Vilaipornsawai
`
`discloses that wireless systems include data channels, like PDSCHs, and
`
`control channels, like PDCCHs. /d. at 36—37 (citing Ex. 1005 4 50).
`
`Petitioner contends that Vilaipornsawaidiscloses ajoint transmission (JT)
`
`where a single PDCCH messageis used to convey the DCI for multiple
`
`PDSCHs.
`
`/d. at 37 (citing Ex. 1005 4] 65-67). Petitioner also asserts that
`
`Vilaipornsawaialso discloses that a PDCCH message has one or more
`
`resource assignmentfields for scheduling multiple PDSCHs,and for a JT
`
`scenario, “either single or multiple PDDCH messagesare required to convey
`
`the DCI for the multiple PDSCHsfrom the multiple TRPs.” /d. at 37—38
`
`(citing 1005 467, 116). Petitioner contends that Vilaipornsawaidiscloses
`
`that the DCI ofa PDCCHcarries DMRSinformation for UEsto use to
`
`perform channel estimation for, and to receive, multiple PDSCHs. /d. at 38
`
`(citing Ex. 1005 4 113-114). Petitioner further contends that
`
`Vilaipornsawaidiscloses transmission of a PDCCH with DCL, including
`
`scheduling information for multiple PDSCHs, and also DMRSinformation,
`
`followed by joint transmission ofPDSCHsfrom different TRPs, as shown in
`
`annotated Figure 1, below.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00644
`Patent 11,115,165 B2
`
`>
`
`AccessNetwork
`
`ETNONett
`& ore Network 2
`‘
`“ide
`_
`
`IOS
`
`
`
`Loot
`. PYCessg
`
`a
`NN
`on
`
`o
`f
`om
`a
`
`ow
`
`é
`
`(—
`
`
`
`3
`Locus
`3 FASE SSING
`3
`Sysiern
`3
`
`
`a
`
`f
`
`i
`
`FIG. 1
`
`Vilaipornsawai’s Figure 1, as annotated by Petitioner, depicts transmission
`
`of a PDCCH with DCI and joint transmission ofPDSCHsfrom different
`
`TRPs. Pet. 39-40. Petitioner also refers to annotated Figure 16 of
`
`Vilaipornsawai, reproduced below.
`
`POD
`Sy
`
`Recah higher-hayer signatieg fenvey4 the wineiogs preter
`incinating @ muniber S of seairoh apace.for the WUE to search,
`whee Se3
`For
`
`t
`
`fBoereweereereee
`
`Receiveal east one PDCCH message that inchides DC in maspect
`of at ast nec PIDSCH message from the onomarming set of THRs
`
`
`
`e
`
`Nessagefrom the Gooparasng set
`PL
`a
`¥ RES ip ancandanne wih the ONCH inoue? ig the at least ane
`PDC message
`
`of
`
`i
`
`Transnnt 2c feat ome PUNCH messed thot iocucdes UN
`Tetated ta al least a subset of the received POCMCH messages
`£O5
`
`
`tt$}ff
`
`Fits. 16
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00644
`Patent 11,115,165 B2
`
`As shownin Figure 16, as annotated by Petitioner, Petitioner asserts that
`
`Vilaipornsawai’s transmission of a PDCCHis followed by the joint
`
`transmission ofPDSCHsfrom different TRPs. Pet. 39-41 (citing Ex. 1003
`
`4 100).
`
`Petitioner asserts that Vilaipomsawai and Shin are analogousart to the
`
`°165 patent and, while Vilaipornsawai doesnot specify the details ofits
`
`DMRSinformation, Shin provides examples ofDMRSinformation in a
`
`Joint Transmission (JT) scenario. Pet. 22—24. Petitioner further contends
`
`that Shin provides examples ofVilaipornsawai’s DMRSinformation, such
`
`as DMRSport groups, that are beneficially included.
`
`/d. at 41. Petitioner
`
`argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art implementing
`
`Vilaipornsawai’s system forjoint transmission from multiple TRPs with
`
`multiple antennas would have specified these details ofDMRSinformation
`
`communicated toa UE. /d. at 41—42 (citing Ex. 1003 466). Petitioner
`
`asserts that, according to Shin,it is “necessary to transmit the DMRSport
`
`grouping information to the VE for NC-JT,” and the QCL assumptions
`
`among different ports ina DMRSport groupassist with VE channel
`
`estimation. /d. at 42-43 (citing Ex. 1006 9 200, 204; Ex. 1003 4 104).
`
`Petitioner additionally asserts that Vilaipornsawai and Shin in
`
`combination with Grant also teaches limitation [1.3]. Pet. 43-47. Petitioner
`
`refers to Grant’s disclosure oftransmission of TCI data, where “[e]ach
`
`[indicator] state refers to one or two RSsets, which indicates a QCL
`
`relationship for one or two DMRSport group(s).” /d. at 43-44(citing Ex.
`
`1007 49 5, 8, 271; Ex. 1003 4 108). Petitioner contendsthat indicating a
`
`QCLrelationship between an RS set anda DMRSport groupsoffers the
`
`benefit of aiding DMRSbased channelestimation and the reception of
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00644
`Patent 11,115,165 B2
`
`DMSRsignals. /d. at 44 (citing Ex. 1003 4 109 (citing Ex. 1010)).
`
`Petitioner also asserts that Grant is analogousart to the ’165 patent and it
`
`would have been obviousto a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine
`
`Grant with Vilaipornsawai and Shin to improve this channelestimation and
`
`DMRSsignal reception. /d. at 28—29 (citing Ex.1003 {| 74-76).
`
`For limitation [1.4], Petitioner asserts that Grant’s TCI state
`
`data refers to “two RS sets,” where “[e]ach RSset refers to one or more
`
`RS(s) which are QCLed with DM-RSports within corresponding DM-RS
`
`group.” Pet. 48 (citing Ex.100795). Petitioner also refers to Shin’s
`
`disclosure where “DMRSports within one DMRSport group are QCL-ed,”
`
`whichindicates that Shin, as well as Grant, disclose the use of Quasi
`
`Co-Location (QCL) assumptions.
`
`/d. at 48 (citing Ex. 1006 99194—195; Ex.
`
`1003 4] 116-118). Petitioner contends that Grant’s TCI data provides QCL
`
`assumptionsfor receiving the different data in different PDSCHsfrom
`
`different TRPs. /d. at 48—49 (citing Ex. 1003 4 118).
`
`For limitation [1.5], Petitioner contends that Grant teachesthat its TCI
`
`state data refers to “two RSsets, which indicates a QCL relationship for. . .
`
`two DMRSport group(s)’ wherein “[e]Jach RSset refers to one or more
`
`RS(s) which are QCLed with DM-RSports within corresponding DM-RS
`
`group,” which shows a one-to-one correspondence. Pet. 49 (citing Ex. 1007
`
`45; Ex. 1003 § 119). Petitioner also relies on Shin’s disclosure of one-to-
`
`one correspondence. /d. at 50 (citing Ex. 1006 47 194-195; Ex. 1003 § 122).
`
`For limitation [1.6], Petitioner relies upon Grant’s disclosure of “two
`
`RSsets, which indicates a QCL relationship for one or two DMRSport
`
`group(s),” whichis part ofthe TCI state data. Pet. 50—51 (citing Ex. 1007
`
`4,5; Ex. 1003 {| 126-127). Petitioneralso refers to Table 3 of Grant, which
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00644
`Patent 11,115,165 B2
`
`shows TCIstates in relation to QCL RSsets. /d. at 51-52 (citing Ex. 1007,
`
`Table 3; Ex. 1003 4 128).
`
`For limitation [1.7], Petitioner asserts that Grant discloses a TCI state
`
`value that refers totwoRSsets. Pet. 52 (citing Ex. 1007, Table 3).
`
`Petitioner argues that “Grant discloses a one-to-one correspondence between
`
`two RS sets and two DMRSport groups,” which teaches the required
`
`correspondence. /d. at 53 (citing Ex. 1003 ¢ 130).
`
`Wehavereviewed Petitioner’s evidence and arguments andfinditis
`
`sufficient at this juncture. Patent Owner has not provideda Preliminary
`
`Response presenting any disputes to Petitioner’s assertions.
`
`Weare persuadedthat Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claim 1 would be obvious
`
`over Vilaipornsawai, Shin, and Grant.
`
`b. Claims 2, 3, 5—9, 11, and 12
`
`Petitioner provides evidence and argumentthat claims 2, 3, 5—9, 11,
`
`and 12 are obvious over Vilaipornsawai, Shin, andGrant. Pet. 53-60. We
`
`have reviewed Petitioner’s evidence and arguments on the obviousnessof
`
`these claims and determineit is sufficient at this juncture.
`
`Accordingly, we are persuadedthat Petitioner has demonstrated a
`
`reasonablelikelihood that it would prevail in showingthat claims2, 3, S—9,
`
`11, and 12 would be obvious over Vilaipornsawai, Shin, and Grant.
`
`FE. Obviousness ofClaims 4 and 10 Over Vilaipornsawai, Shin, Grant,
`and Xue
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 4 and 10 would have been obvious over
`
`Vilaipornsawai, Shin, Grant, and Xue. Pet. 61-66. To support its
`
`contentions, Petitioner provides explanations as to how the combination of
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00644
`Patent 11,115,165 B2
`
`the prior art teaches each claim limitation and providesrationale to combine
`
`the references. /d. Petitioner also relies upon the Ding Declaration (Ex.
`
`1003) to support its positions.
`
`Webegin ourdiscussion with a brief summary ofXue, and then
`
`address the evidence and arguments presented.
`
`1. Xue (Ex. 1012)
`
`Xue is directed to cellular wireless communications systems such as
`
`5G systems. Ex. 1012995. Xue describes amethodin which “[a] terminal
`
`monitors downlink control informationin a first time resource unit range
`
`according toafirst rule,” where “the first time resource unit rangeis
`
`determined by using a first timer.” /d. J] 108, 148. In Xue, “the 1*'time
`
`resource unit range is implemented by atimer1,” “[a] start moment ofthe
`
`timer 1 isthe same as a start momentofthe 1*'time resource unit range, and
`
`an effective period ofthe timer | is the sameasa time length ofthe 1*'time
`
`resource unit range,” and a time resource unit range may“include[] four
`
`consecutiveslots.” /d. 44 159-160; Ex.1003 4 158-159. Xue describes
`
`that the UE uses atimer to keep track oftime periods in whichit “monitors
`
`and receives a PDCCH” and whenthe UE “does not receive the PDCCH.”
`
`Id. 2.
`
`2. Discussion
`
`Claim 4 depends from claim 1, and further recites “wherein theat
`
`least one processor is further configuredto execute the computer-executable
`
`instructionsto: indicate a relationship betweenthe plurality of QCL
`
`assumptions and the plurality ofDMRSport groups when a timer configured
`
`for the UE expires.” Ex. 1001, 13:26—31. Claim 10 depends from claim 7
`
`and contains a similar limitation. /d. at 14:28—31.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00644
`Patent 11,115,165 B2
`
`Asdiscussed for claim 1, Petitioner asserts that Vilaipornsawai’s UE
`
`receives DMRSinformation for performing channel estimation and
`
`receiving/determining different PDSCHsfrom different TRPs, Shin
`
`discloses DMRSinformation for different DMRSport groups for different
`
`TRPs, and Grant’s TCI indicates QCL assumptions connecting DMRSport
`
`groupsandother reference signals (RSs). See Pet. 64. Petitioner further
`
`refers to Grant’s description of “[e]xplicit update[s] ofa TCI state,” in which
`
`“It]he UE receivesa signalling message, ” where “the signalling can
`
`simultaneously update morethan one TCIstate.” /d. (citing Ex. 1007
`
`4289). Further, Grant discloses that “[i]fthe UE receivesthe signalling
`
`message in slot n, the first time that the UE mayapply the updated QCL
`
`assumption for demodulation ofPDSCH.. . is in slot n+di.” /d. (citing Ex.
`
`1007 § 289; Ex.1003 4 165). Petitioner asserts that it would have been
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a timer is one way for a UE to
`
`track timethat has passed is equal to some numberof slots, where a slot was
`
`knownto spana fixed amountoftime. /d. (citing Ex. 1001 4 166 (citing Ex.
`
`1006)). Petitioner argues that Xue confirmsthat it was commonto use a
`
`timer to determine the passage of a fixed numberofslots, especially in light
`
`of its method where “[a] terminal monitors downlink control information in
`
`a first time resource unit range according toafirst rule.” Jd. at 64—65 (citing
`
`Ex.1012 4 108).
`
`Wehavereviewed Petitioner’s evidence and arguments on the
`
`obviousnessof claims 4 and 10 and determineit 1s sufficient at thisjuncture.
`
`Weare persuadedthat Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood
`
`that 1t would prevail in showing that claims 4 and 10 would be obvious over
`
`Vilaipornsawai, Shin, Grant, and Xue.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00644
`Patent 11,115,165 B2
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we have determinedthat there is a
`
`reasonablelikelihood that the Petitioner would prevail with respect to at
`
`least one ofthe claims challenged in the Petition. We therefore institute trial
`
`as to all challenged claimsonall grounds stated in the Petition.
`
`Uponconsideration ofthe record beforeus,it 1s:
`
`V. ORDER
`
`ORDEREDthatinterpartes review of claims 1—12 of the ’165 patent
`
`is instituted on all groundsin the Petition; and
`
`FURTHER ORDEREDthat pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given ofthe institution ofa trial; the trial
`
`will commenceonthe entry date ofthis decision.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00644
`Patent 11,115,165 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Scott Jarratt
`Andrew Ehmke
`Samuel Drezdzon
`Clint Wilkins
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`scott jarratt. jpr@haynesboone.com
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`samuel.drezdzon.ipr@haynesboone.com
`clint.wilkins.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brett Cooper
`BC LAW GROUP,P.C.
`bcooper@bc-lawgroup.com
`
`Robert Auchter
`AUCHTER PLLC
`robert@auchterlaw.com
`
`20
`
`
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
