Tals @usnte gov
`571-oN.732)
`
`Paper 7
`Date: May 2, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA,INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-01539
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU,and
`MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of/nter Partes Review
`35 US.C. $314
`
`
`571-oN.732)
`
`Paper 7
`Date: May 2, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA,INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-01539
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU,and
`MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of/nter Partes Review
`35 US.C. $314
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01539
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background and Summary
`
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“Petitioner’’) filed a Petition
`
`(Paper1, “Pet.”) requesting institution of an interpartes review ofclaims 1—
`
`30 of U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’512 patent”). Neo
`
`Wireless LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6
`
`(“Prelim. Resp.’’).
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an interpartes review may notbe instituted
`
`“unless... there is a reasonablelikelihood that the petitioner would prevail
`
`with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon
`
`consideration of the Petition and for the reasons explained below, we
`
`determine that Petitioner has shownareasonablelikelihood of prevailing
`
`with respectto at least one of the challenged claims.
`
`Thus, weinstitute an inferpartes review of claims 1—30 of the ’512
`
`patent on all presented challenges. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“Wheninstituting
`
`... review, the Board will authorize the review to proceedonall of the
`
`challenged claims and onall grounds of unpatentability asserted for each
`
`claim.”’); see also SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359-60 (2018).
`
`B. Real Parties in Interest
`
`The parties only identify themselvesas real parties in interest. Pet. 2;
`
`Paper 4, 1. Petitioner additionally identifies itself as a subsidiary of
`
`Volkswagen AG. Pet.2.
`
`C. RelatedMatters
`
`Petitionerlists several civil actions in which Neo Wireless, LLC is the
`
`plamtiff and the *512 patent is involved. Pet. 2—3. PatentOwnerlists ten
`
`current proceedings involving the challenged patent and nine proceedings
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01539
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`that, according to Patent Owner, have been terminated. Paper4, 1-3. The
`
`current proceedings include:
`
`In Re: Neo Wireless, LLC Patent Litigation, No. 2:22-md-03034 (E_D.
`
`Mich.);
`
`Neo Wireless LLC v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. 2:22-cv-
`
`11403 (E.D. Mich.);
`
`Neo Wireless, LLC v. FordMotor Co., No. 2:22-cv-11402 (E.D.
`
`Mich.);
`
`Neo Wireless, LLC v. Tesla Inc., No. 2:22-cv-11408 (E.D. Mich.);
`
`Neo Wireless, LLC v. General Motors Co., No. 2:22-cv-11407 (E.D.
`
`Mich.);
`
`Neo Wireless LLC v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc. , No. 2:22-cv-
`
`11406 (E.D. Mich.);
`
`Neo Wireless, LLC v. Volkswagen Group ofAmerica, Inc. , No. 2:22-
`
`cv-11404 (E.D. Mich.);
`
`Neo Wireless, LLC v. Nissan North America Inc., No. 2:22-cv-11405
`
`(E.D. Mich.);
`
`Neo Wireless, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz, No. 2:22-cv-11769(E.D.
`
`Mich.); and
`
`Neo Wireless, LLC v. FCA, No. 2:22-cv-11770 (E.D. Mich.).
`
`/d. at 1—
`
`Petitioner also identifies [PR2022-01537 and IPR2022-01538. Pet.4.
`
`Patent Owneradditionally identifies [PR2022-01567. Paper4,3. We
`
`further note that Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Ford Motor Company both
`
`havefiled petitions substantially identical to the instant Petition, along with
`
`motions for joinderas petitioners in this proceeding. IPR2023-00079,
`
`Papers 1, 3; IPR2023-00764, Papers1, 3.
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01539
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`D. The ’512 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The *512 patent issued on March 30, 2021, from an application filed
`
`on September 4, 2020, which is a continuation of several previously filed
`
`applications, the earliest of which wasfiled on January 20, 2005. Ex. 1001,
`
`codes (22), (45), (63), 1:10-29. The ’512 patentalso claimspriority to a
`
`provisional application filed on January 29, 2004.
`
`/d. at code (60), 1:29-31.
`
`The *512 patent provides “methodsto define the transmission formats
`
`of the cell-specific and commonpilot subcarriers that enable a receiverto
`
`perform different system functions.” Ex. 1001, 3:37—40. Accordingto the
`
`°512 patent, “signal reception can be improved by manipulating phase values
`
`of the pilot subcarriers and by using powercontrol.” /d. at 3:43-45.
`
`The *512 patent describes that wireless networksinclude base stations
`
`to cover designatedareasor cells. Ex. 1001, 1:44—46. For “multi-carrier
`
`wireless communications,” such as “orthogonal frequency division multiple
`
`access (OFDMA),” “network information provided by a portionoftotal
`
`subcarriers such as pilot subcarriers”facilitates “important system functions
`
`such as frequency synchronization and channel estimation.” /d. at 1:36—40,
`
`3:55-57. “Ina multi-cell environment, for example, the base station
`
`transmitter of each cell transmits its own pilot subcarriers, in addition to data
`
`carriers, to be used by the receivers within the cell.” /d. at 1:54-57. The
`
`°512 patent states that “degradation due to multipath propagation” and
`
`interference betweensignals from different base stations adversely affect
`
`“pilot-dependent functions.” /d. at 1:57-61.
`
`In the *512 patent, a pilot generation andinsertion functional block
`
`“generates pilot subcarriers and inserts them into predetermined frequency
`
`locations.” Ex. 1001, 3:6—8. The “pilot subcarriers are divided into two
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01539
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`different groups accordingto their functionalities, and hencetheir distinct
`
`requirements.” /d. at 3:10-12.
`
`“Thefirst group is called ‘cell-specific pilot subcarriers,’ and will be
`
`used by the receiver 104 to extract information unique to each individual
`
`cell,” suchas for “use[] in channel estimation whereit is necessary for a
`
`particular receiverto be able to differentiate the pilot subcarriers that are
`
`intended for its use from those of other cells.” Ex. 1001, 3:17—23. “For
`
`these pilot subcarriers, counter-interference methodsare necessary.” Jd. at
`
`3:23-24.
`
`“The second group is termed ‘commonpilot sub-carriers,’ and are
`
`designed to possess a set of characteristics commonto all base stations ofthe
`
`system.” Ex. 1001, 3:25—27. “[E]very receiver 104 within the system 1s
`
`able to exploit these commonpilot subcarriers to perform necessary
`
`functions without interference problem,” such as for a “frequency
`
`synchronization process, where it is not necessary to discriminate pilot
`
`subcarriers of different cells, but it is desirable for the receiver to combine
`
`coherently the energy of commonpilot subcarriers with the same carrier
`
`index from different cells, so as to achieverelatively accurate frequency
`
`estimation.” /d. at 3:27—36.
`
`Figure 9 of the °512 patent is below reproduced.
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01539
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`
`S
`
`\ t é
`
`~XO
`
`Branch 9
`
`(b}
`£iG, F
`
`Figure 9 shows examples of multiple antenna applications of the *512
`
`patent’s communication system. Ex. 1001, 2:28—29, 7:44-45. “Incase (a)
`
`where there is only one transmission branchthat is connected to an array of
`
`antennas 902 through a transformer 904(e.g., a beam-forming matrix), the
`
`implementation is exactly the same as in the case of single antenna.” /d. at
`
`745-59. “Incase (b) of multiple transmission branches connected to
`
`different antennas 906 (e.g., in a transmission diversity schemeor a
`
`multiple-input multiple-output scheme), the cell-specific pilot subcarriers for
`
`transmission branchesare usually defined by a multiple-antenna scheme
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01539
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`whereas the commonpilot subcarriers for each transmission branchare
`
`generated to meet the requirements. .
`
`. for frequency estimation or. .
`
`. for
`
`timing estimation.” /d. at 7:49—57.
`
`E.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`
`The ’512 patent includes claims 1—30, all ofwhich Petitioner
`
`challenges. Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 8, 15, and 23 are
`
`independent. Reproduced below is claim 1.
`
`1.—An orthogonal frequency division multiple access
`(OFDMA)-compatible base station that uses subcarriers in a
`frequency domain and timeslots in a time domain, theORPDMA-
`compatible base station comprising:
`a plurality of antennas; and
`a transmitter operably coupledto the plurality of antennas;
`the transmitter configured to:
`insert first pilots of a first type onto a first plurality of
`subcarriers, wherein thefirst pilots are cell-specific pilots; and
`insert data and second pilots of a second type onto a
`second plurality of subcarriers;
`wherein at least some subcarriers of the first plurality of
`subcarriers or the second plurality of subcarriers are beam-
`formed; and
`the plurality of antennas configured to transmit the first
`plurality of subcarriers and the secondplurality of subcarriersin
`at least one of the timeslots;
`wherein the second type is different than the first type and
`wherein the first pilots do not interfere with the secondpilots.
`
`Ex. 1001, 9:46-67.
`
`Independent claim 8 recites “[a] method performedby an orthogonal
`
`frequency division multiple access (OFDMA)-compatible basestation.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 10:25—26. Independentclaims 15 and 23 recite “[a]n orthogonal
`
`frequencydivision multiple access (OFDMA)-compatible mobile station”
`
`and “[a] method performed by an orthogonal frequency division multiple
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01539
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`access (OFDMA)-compatible mobile station,” respectively.
`
`/d. at 10:64—65,
`
`12:4-6.
`
`FF. AssertedPrior Art andProffered TestimonialEvidence
`
`Petitioner identifies the following referencesasprior art in the
`
`asserted grounds ofunpatentability:
`
`1004
`
`US 7,120,395 B2, issued Oct. 10, 2006
`US 2002/0163879 AI, published Nov. 7, 2002
`US 2004/0131007 A1, published July 8, 2004
`US 2004/0179627 A1, published Sept. 16, 2004
`WO2004/049618 A1, published June 10, 2004
`
`1005
`1007
`1017
`1006
`
`Pet. 5. Petitioner states that “all references relied upon herein are priorart as
`
`of January 29, 2004,” “[t]he °512 patent’s earliest possible priority date.” Jd
`
`According to Petitioner, Kim, Tong, Ketchum, and Smeeareprior art under,
`
`at least, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e); and Liis prior art under,at least, pre-
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).! Jd.
`
`Petitioner also provides a Declaration of Dr. Paul Min. Ex. 1003.
`
`Patent Ownerprovides a Declaration of William P. Alberth Jr. Ex. 2001.
`
`' The relevant sections of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”),
`Pub. L. No. 112—29, 125 Stat. 284 (Sept. 16, 2011), took effect on March 16,
`2013. Because the ’512 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. 5 (stating but not concedingthat “[t]he
`°512 patent’s earliest possible priority date is January 29, 2004’).
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01539
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`G. Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitionerasserts that claims 1—30 are unpatentable on the following
`
`grounds:
`
`
`
`|103(a)|Kim,Tong
`1, 3,4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13-15, 17, 18, 20, 22,
`
`23, 25, 26, 28, 30 103(a)|Ketchum,Li
`5, 12,21,29
`Ketchum, Li, Smee
`
`Pet. 6.
`
`A. Legal Standards
`
`Il. ANALYSIS
`
`“Tn an [interpartes review], the petitioner has the burden from the
`
`onset to show with particularity why the patent [claim] it challenges is
`
`unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2016). This burden ofpersuasion nevershifts to Patent Owner.
`
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’] Graphics, Inc. , 800 F.3d 1375, 1378
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015). The Board may authorize an interpartes review if we
`
`determinethat the information presented in the Petition showsthat there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respectto at least one
`
`of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`Petitioner contendsthat the challenged claims of the 512 patent are
`
`unpatentable under § 103. Pet. 3. A claim is unpatentable under§ 103 if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art 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 /nt’] Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`(2007). The question of obviousnessis resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01539
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`factual determinations, including:
`
`(1) the scope and contentofthe prior art;
`
`(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). When evaluating a combination of teachings, we mustalso
`
`“determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known
`
`elements in the fashion claimedby the patent at issue.” KSR,550 U.S. at
`
`418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Whether a
`
`combination of elements producesa predictable result weighs in the ultimate
`
`determination of obviousness.
`
`/d. at416—417.
`
`B. Level ofOrdinary Skill in the Art
`
`Petitioner contendsthat one of ordinary skill in the art “would have a
`
`bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer
`
`science, or an equivalentfield, or an advanced degree in thosefields, as well
`
`as least 3-5 years of academic or industry experience in mobile wireless
`
`communications, or comparable industry experience.” Pet. 11—12 (citing
`
`Ex. 1003 § 65). Patent Owner doesnot dispute Petitioner’s proposal and
`
`does not proposea level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim.
`
`Resp.
`
`Based on the preliminary record, we adopt Petitioner’s asserted level
`
`of ordinary skill only to determine whetherthere is a reasonable likelihood
`
`that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
`
`challenged in the Petition.
`
`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),
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01539
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`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.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2021); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`Petitionerstates that “[s]olely for the purposesofthis Petition,
`
`Petitioner submits that all claim terms should receive their plain and
`
`ordinary meaning in the context of the 512 patent specification.” Pet. 12
`
`(citing Ex. 1003 4 66).
`
`Patent Ownerprovides “the claim construction positions regarding the
`
`patent-at-issue taken in briefing by the parties in the district court
`
`proceedings co-pending with this proceeding.” Prelim. Resp. 4. According
`
`to Patent Owner, after multiple roundsof discussion in a jointly agreed to
`
`process, all parties in related litigation “arrived at a list of agreed-upon claim
`
`constructions andalist of claim construction disputes.” Jd. at 5 (citing
`
`Ex. 2009 (“Joint Rule 26 Report and Proposed Scheduling Order” from /n
`
`Re: Neo Wireless, LLC Patent Litigation)).
`
`Patent Ownerarguesthat, even though Petitioner participated, it took
`
`“no position on how to construe the claims in the court proceedings.”
`
`Prelim. Resp. 5—6 (citing Ex. 2004 (“Agreed Claim Terms” from /n Re: Neo
`
`Wireless, LLC Patent Litigationy, Ex. 2005 (“Disputed Claim Terms” from
`
`In Re: Neo Wireless, LLC Patent Litigation)). After further discussion,
`
`according to Patent Owner, “Petitioner and Patent Owneragreedthat
`
`Petitioner will be bound by the Court’s construction of any claim of *512,
`
`and the PTAB’s potential adoption of any such construction.” /d. at 6 (citing
`
`Ex. 2006 (“Notice of Stipulation Regarding Claim Construction”from /n
`
`Re: Neo Wireless, LLC Patent Litigation)).
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01539
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`Patent Ownernotesthat the parties dispute the meaning of “wherein
`
`the first plurality of subcarriers and the secondplurality of subcarriers are
`
`receivedin at least one of the time slots” and “secondpilots of a second
`
`type.” Prelim. Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2005, 7). All independentclaimsrecite
`
`“second pilots of a second type,” and only independentclaims 15 and 23
`
`recite “wherein the first plurality of subcarriers and the secondplurality of
`
`subcarriers are receivedin at least one of the timeslots.” Ex. 1001, 9:57,
`
`10:33, 11:7-10, 12:11-14.
`
`For “second pilots of a second type,” Patent Ownerarguesthat,
`
`“Tg]iven that Petitioner has chosen not to express any claim construction
`
`analysis in this IPR,” Petitioner has “opted to implicitly apply the same
`
`understanding ofthe claims as the Patent Owner” and “waived any contrary
`
`claim construction position in this litigation.” Prelim. Resp. 7-8. Patent
`
`Owner, thus, contends that “the Board does not need to construethis
`
`limitation in this IPR.” /d. at 8.
`
`For “wherein the first plurality of subcarriers and the secondplurality
`
`of subcarriers are receivedin at least one ofthe time slots,” Patent Owner
`
`contendsthat its arguments are consistent with its proposed construction in
`
`relatedlitigation which is “wherein the first plurality of subcarriers and the
`
`second plurality of subcarriers are receivedin at least one of the same time
`
`slots.” Prelim. Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2005, 7) (emphasis added).
`
`On the present record, we agree with Patent Ownerthat “secondpilots
`
`of a second type” does not need express interpretation. Prelim. Resp. 8. We
`
`also see no reason to interpret expressly the wherein clause quoted above at
`
`this stage because Patent Ownerhasnot yet presentedits support for
`
`adopting its proposedinterpretation which, as Patent Ownernotes, is in
`
`dispute. Prelim. Resp. 8; Ex. 2005, 7. Patent Owner should consider
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01539
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`explaining how the language ofthe claims, the Specification, prosecution
`
`history, and possibly other evidence support its proposed interpretation. We
`
`note that Patent Owner’s interpretation requires adding “same”to the
`
`wherein clause, but the record at this stage does not make clear why claims
`
`15 and 23 should be narrowed in that manner, whenthe plain language of
`
`the claims is broader.
`
`Patent Owneralso provides claim construction arguments for a
`
`similarly wordedrecitation in claim 1. See Prelim. Resp. 35-37.
`
`Specifically, for “plurality of antennas configured to transmit the first
`
`plurality of subcarriers and the secondplurality of subcarriersin at least one
`
`of the time slots,” Patent Ownerarguesthat “the plain meaning of the claims
`
`requires that there must be ‘at least one time slot’ where‘the first plurality of
`
`subcarriers and the secondplurality of subcarriers’ are both transmitted.”
`
`Id. at 35 (citing Ex. 2001 4 79).
`
`According to Patent Owner, the phrase should not be interpreted as
`
`“merely requir[ing] that the signals generally be transmitted in one or more
`
`time slots,” “because pilots, as with any other signal, are necessarily
`
`transmitted in some time slot, and transmitting them in one or more time
`
`slots does not add any meaningful limitation to the Claims.” Prelim.
`
`Resp. 35.
`
`Patent Ownerasserts that the Specification supports its view of “in at
`
`least one of the timeslots.” Prelim. Resp. 35—36 (citing Ex. 2001 4 82):
`
`Ex. 2001 § 82 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:34—38, Fig. 1). Patent Owneralso states
`
`that “Petitioner appears to apply the same understanding as Patent Ownerto
`
`the claims.” /d. (citing Pet. 35-36). According to Patent Owner, “[g]iven
`
`that Petitioner has chosen notto present any claim construction analysis and
`
`has, instead, opted to implicitly apply the same understanding ofthe claims
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01539
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`as the Patent Owner,it has waived any contrary claim construction position
`
`in this litigation.” /d. at 36.
`
`On the present record, we agree with Patent Ownerthat Petitioner
`
`appearsto be interpreting “plurality of antennas configured to transmit the
`
`first plurality of subcarriers and the secondplurality of subcarriers in at least
`
`one of the timeslots” to require that the first and secondpluralities of
`
`subcarriers be transmitted in at least one timeslot in the first challenge based
`
`on Kim and Tong. See Pet. 35—36; Prelim. Resp. 35—36. For the reasons
`
`described below, we determine that Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood
`
`that it would prevail with respectto at least claim 1 in thefirst challenge.
`
`We,thus, see no reason to interpret expressly this wherein clause to
`
`determine whetheror notto institute trial. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912
`
`F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Boardis required to construe ‘only
`
`those terms .. . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to
`299
`
`resolve the controversy.”
`
`(quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g,
`
`Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).
`
`The meaning of the phrase “in at least one of the time slots,” however,
`
`is in dispute. As noted above, the record now before us, even with the
`
`additional arguments presented for claim 1, does not indicate why the phrase
`
`should be interpreted to mean “in at least one of the same time slots” when
`
`the plain language of the claims is broader. See Prelim. Resp. 35—36 (citing
`
`Ex. 2001 § 82); Ex. 2001 4 82 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:34-38, Fig. 1).
`
`Further, we determine that no other claim term requires express
`
`interpretation at this preliminary stage. Realtime Data,912 F.3d at 1375.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01539
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`D. Asserted Obviousness Based on Kim and Tong
`
`1. Kim(Ex. 1004)
`
`Kim “relates to a method and apparatus for embodying and
`
`synchronizing downlink signals in a mobile communication system.”
`
`Ex. 1004, 1:14-16. In particular, Kim “relates to a methodfor generating a
`
`structure of a preamble and a pilot appropriate for downlinks of an OFDMA
`
`(orthogonal frequency division multiplexing access)-basedcellular system.”
`
`Id. at 1:17-20. Figure 1 of Kim is below reproduced.
`
`FIG.1
`
`iN
`uv
`ru
`
`
`x—
`
`} Skt
`
`Sut
`
`Skt
`
`
`
`§ ont | Sat a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Synchrontaations peombe
`
`
`
`Cellsearch
`
`precmbe
`
`amma dat
`
`Figure 1 is a “structural diagram of a frame of a downlink signal in an
`
`OFDMA-based mobile communication system.” Ex. 1004, 8:14-15. Kim
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01539
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`states that “[i]n general, a terminal is required to read signals ofa base
`
`station and synchronize its time and frequency with the terminal for mitial
`
`synchronization.” /d. at 1:23—25. “[T]|he frame ofthe downlink signal
`
`comprises Np slots 10 and 20, and one slot 10 and 20 includes Ns; symbols.”
`
`Id. at 11:18-19. “One slot 10 from among the Ny,slots 10 and 20 is a
`
`commonslot,” and the remainingslots are traffic slots.
`
`/d. at 11:19-21.
`
`“Thetraffic slot 20 includes a pilot symbol given with respect to the time
`
`axis and the frequency axis.” /d. at 12:6-8.
`
`The pilot symbols “have a pattern”that “can be varied”so thatslot
`
`and frequency synchronizationscan be estimated, and the cell can be
`
`“searched by using a specific pilot pattern for each cell and finding a cross
`
`correlation on the available pattern.” Ex. 1004, 24:6—11. In describing
`
`Figure 10, which shows“patterns ofpilots of downlink signals in an
`
`OFDMA-based mobile communication system,” Kim states that “Q: patterns
`
`from amongthe Q patterns are used in commonbyall the cells, and residual
`
`Q2(=Q-Q1) patterns are defined to be different for the respective cells,” so
`
`that “the slot synchronization is found with a lesser amountof calculation by
`
`using the Qi commonpatterns, and the cells are searched by using the
`
`residual Q2 patterns or a preamble.” /d. at 9:16—18, 24:23-25:5.
`
`Thepilot pattern of Figure 10 “is used in commonforall the
`
`antennas.” Ex. 1004, 31:10—11. The “positions ofthe pilot symbols APo,
`
`AP, AP2, and AP; according to the respective antennas are modified for
`
`each predeterminedperiod, and the patterns for changing the positions of the
`
`pilot symbols APo, APi , AP2, and AP; accordingto the respective antennas
`
`are differently allocated for the respective cells Ci and C2.” /d. at 31:12—16.
`
`Kim also provides“a brief block diagram for a downlink signal
`
`configuring device of a base station of an OFDMA-based mobile
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01539
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`communication system.” Ex. 1004, 45:21—23, Fig. 21. “[D]Jownlink signal
`
`configuring device 2100 comprises a preamble generator 2110, a pilot
`
`pattern generator 2120, and a time-frequency-antenna mapper 2130,” and
`
`preamble generator 2110 “includes a synchronization preamble generator
`
`2111 and acell search preamble generator 2112”that “generatesa pilot
`
`pattern per transmit antenna.” /d. at 46:2—7, 46:9-10, Fig. 21. “The time-
`
`frequency-antenna mapper 2130... maps the data accordingto the time,
`
`frequency, and antenna, and outputs mappedresults to the OFDM
`
`transmitter 2101 per transmit antenna 2102.” /d. at 46:11—16, Fig. 21.
`
`2. Tong (Ex. 1005)
`
`Tong “relates to wireless communications,”particularly “to
`
`selectively choosing a select numberof antennas within a larger array
`
`through whichto transmit data to a receiver, as well as techniquesfor
`
`reinforcing transmitted signals using available antennas.” Ex. 1005, 1:5—9.
`
`According to Tong, “there is a need to provide signal reinforcementin the
`
`communication channel to provide a beam-formingeffect in an efficient
`
`mannerin a [multiple-mput multiple-output (““MIMO”)] system.” /d. at
`
`1:62—-67. Tong’s “transmission architecture is intended to represent a variety
`
`of multiple access architectures, including, but not limited to. .
`
`. orthogonal
`
`frequency division multiplexing (OFDM).” Jd. at 4:49-55; see also id. at
`
`14:24—25 (stating that “the present invention 1s also beneficial in OFDM
`
`environments’’).
`
`Tong’s base station 14 simultaneously modulates, amplifies, and
`
`transmits analog signals. Ex. 1005, 8:64—66, Fig. 4. Base station 14
`
`communicates with user elements 16.
`
`/d. at 3:23—24, Fig. 1. “[T]he
`
`transmitted data may be precededbypilot signals, which are known by the
`
`intended user element 16”that “mayusethe pilot signals for channel
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01539
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`estimation and interference suppression and the headerforidentification of
`
`the basestation 14.” /d. at 8:66—9:5.
`
`At user element 16, a signal processing function “generate[s] a
`
`channel quality measurement”that accounts for “channel conditions and/or
`
`signal-to-noise ratios for each receive path.” Ex. 1005, 6:27-32. “A
`
`channel quality indicator (CQI) may be determined based on the recovered
`
`data.” /d. at 6:59-60.
`
`Tongstates that “unused or spare transmit antennas”can be “used to
`
`achieve additional gain,” and “a spare transmit antennais used to
`
`redundantly transmit data being transmitted over another of the transmit
`
`antennas”so as “to effectively reinforce transmission.” Ex. 1005, 8:50—59.
`
`“The technique of transmitting the same data simultaneously from multiple
`
`transmit antennas in a mannerintendedto allow the energy of the multiple
`
`transmitted signals to combine in the channelin a constructive fashion to
`
`provide additional gain is referred to as beam-forming.” /d. at 8:61—66.
`
`“In general, beam-forming seeksto increase the signal-to-noise ratio
`
`at a receiver.” Ex. 1005, 9:3-4. According to Tong, “beam-forming in an
`99 66
`
`MIMOenvironment”
`
`“providesnot only additional diversity gain, but that
`
`additional transmit antennacanalso be usedfor layer-based beam-forming,
`
`thus further improving the system capacity.” /d. at 11:23-28. Figure 7A of
`
`Tongis below reproduced.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01539
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`
`
`MIMO
`|
`DECODING |
`
` MIMO
`
`ENCODING
`
`
`
`
`
`FIG. 7A
`
`Figure 7A shows an exemplary beam-forming arrangement.
`
`Ex. 1005, 2:53-54. Figure 7A “assume[s] that there are three transmit
`
`antennas 40:—403 and twolayers (L=2) for transmitting to the receiver,” and
`
`“It]he layers are represented by Si“and S2™, respectively.” /d. at 11:61-64.
`
`“During MIMOencoding,the data S:”is transmitted from transmit antenna
`
`401, while the data S2is .
`
`.
`
`. transmitted simultaneously from transmit
`
`antennas 402 and 403.” /d. at 11:64—12:1. “The data transmitted from
`
`transmit antennas 402 and 403 combine during transmissionto effectively
`
`reinforce each other and provide a stronger signal at the receiver.” /d. at
`
`12:1-4.
`
`3.
`
`Independent Claim I
`
`Petitioner argues that Kim discloses the preamble ofclaim 1, if the
`
`preamble is limiting. Pet. 23—24 (citing Ex. 1003 4 52-53, 103-105;
`
`Ex. 1004, Abstr., 1:23—25, 11:18-21, 12:6—-10, 24:2—25:5, 45:21-46:1,
`
`Fig. 1). For “a plurality of antennas; and a transmitter operably coupled to
`
`the plurality of antennas,” Petitioner argues that Kim teachesa plurality of
`
`transmit antennas 2102 coupled to OFDM transmitter 2101.
`
`/d. at 24-25
`
`(citing Ex. 1003 § 106; Ex. 1004, 30:11—21, 46:2—16, Fig. 21).
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01539
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`For “the transmitter configured to:
`
`insert first pilots of a first type
`
`onto a first plurality of subcarriers, wherein thefirst pilots are cell-specrtfic
`
`pilots,” Petitioner argues that Kim teachesinserting pilot symbols, and that
`
`the pilots include a Q: pattern commonto all cells and a Q: pattern different
`
`for eachcell. Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:23-7:11, 24:2-11, 24:20-25:5,
`
`26:3—7, 48:22—49:4), 27-28 (citing Ex. 1003 4] 109-110). Petitioner also
`
`argues that Kim showsthree example pilot patterns inserted onto different
`
`subcarriers.
`
`/d. at 26—27 (citing Ex. 1003 Jf 107-109; Ex. 1004, 12:6—10,
`
`24:2-8, 24:20-25:5, 26:3—7, Fig. 10). Petitioner, thus, argues that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Kim’s transmitteris
`
`configuredto insert a first pilot as required by the claim.
`
`/d. at 28 (citing
`
`Ex. 1003 4§ 107-111).
`
`For the transmitter being configured to “insert data and secondpilots
`
`of a second type onto a secondplurality of subcarriers,” Petitioner argues
`
`that Kim teachesits downlink includes pilot symbols andtraffic data.
`
`Pet. 28-29 (citing Ex. 1003 99 112-113; Ex. 1004, 11:18-21, 46:11-16,
`
`Fig. 1). According to Petitioner, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understoodthat the traffic data is inserted into subcarriers in a traffic slot not
`
`occupied by pilot symbols.
`
`/d. at 29-30 (citing Ex. 1003 J§ 112-113).
`
`Petitioner also argues with reference to previous contentions that Kim
`
`teachesits pilot signal having different Q: and Q:pilot patterns and the
`
`different pilot patterns being inserted into different subcarriersin thetraffic
`
`slots of the downlink signal. Pet. 30—32 (citing Ex. 1003 9 114-115;
`
`Ex. 1004, 12:2—10, 25:3—9, 25:18—26:7, Figs. 1, 10). Petitioner, thus, argues
`
`that Kim’s transmitter teachesthe limitation.
`
`/d. at 33 (citing Ex. 1003
`
`49 112-118).
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01539
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`For “wherein at least some subcarriersofthe first plurality of
`
`subcarriers or the secondplurality of subcarriers are beam-formed,”
`
`Petitioner argues that Kim modified by Tong would have rendered obvious
`
`the limitation. Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1003 J§ 119-121). According to
`
`Petitioner, “Kim does not expressly disclose that at least some of these
`
`subcarriers are beam-formed,” but Tong does.
`
`/d.
`
`Petitioner argues that Tong discloses a wireless communication
`
`system with a basestation that transmits data and pilot signals by beam-
`
`forming. Pet. 33—34 (citing Ex. 1005, Abstr., 8:50—66, 11:60—12:4,
`
`Fig. 7A). Petitioner also argues with reference to contentions summarized
`
`below that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
`
`implement beam-forming in Kim with a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`Id. at 34 (citing Ex. 1003 4 121).
`
`For “the plurality of antennas configured to transmit the first plurality
`
`of subcarriers and the secondplurality of subcarriers in at least one of the
`
`time slots,” Petitioner refers to its arguments for the preamble and contends
`
`that Kim’s transmit antennastransmit traffic data and pilot symbols in time
`
`slots. Pet. 34-35 (citing Ex. 1003 J 122-124; Ex. 1004, 12:4—12, 46:11—
`
`16, Fig. 1). Petitioner also contendsthat the asserted first and second
`
`pluralities of subcarriers are implemented in a single OFDM symbol and
`
`transmitted in a single time slot.
`
`/d. at 35—36 (citing Ex. 1003 9] 125-126;
`
`Ex. 1004, 31:10—16, 58:12—14, Fig. 1).
`
`For “wherein the second type is different than thefirst type and
`
`wherein the first pilots do not interfere with the secondpilots,” Petitioner
`
`argues that Kim’s Q: and Q:pilot patterns are different because one is
`
`commontoall cells, the other is specific to each cell, and both are used for
`
`different purposes. Pet. 36—37 (citing Ex. 1003 9] 127-128; Ex. 1004, 25:3-
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01539
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`5, 25:18—26:7). Petitioner also argues that one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have understood that Kim’s pilot patterns do not interfere with each
`
`other because they are “inserted on diff
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
