`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