throbber
Trials@uspto.goV
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 16
`Date Entered: April 7, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (USA) INC., SONY MOBILE
`COMMUNICATIONS AB, SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`
`SONY ELECTRONICS, INC., SONY CORP. OF AMERICA, and
`
`SONY CORP.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`ADAPTIX, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2014-01524
`
`Patent 6,947,748 B2
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
`JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`1. BACKGROUND
`
`Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc., Sony Mobile
`
`Communications AB, Sony Mobile Communications, Inc., Sony Electronics,
`
`SPRINT 1010
`
`

`
`lPR2014-01524
`
`Patent 6,947,748 B2
`
`lnc., Sony Corp. of America, and Sony Corp. (collectively, “Petitioner”)
`
`filed a request for an inter partes review of claims 6, 8, 9, 11, and 19-22 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,947,748 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’748 patent”) under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 311-319. See Paper 6 (“Petition” or “Pet.”). Patent Owner Adaptix, Inc.
`
`filed a preliminary response. See Paper 12 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have
`
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314. Section 314 provides that an inter partes
`
`review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the
`
`petition .
`
`.
`
`. shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
`
`petition.”
`
`For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to
`
`claims 6, 8, 9, and 19-22 of the ’748 patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`According to Petitioner, the ’748 patent is involved in the following
`
`lawsuits: Adaptix, Inc. v. AT&T, Inc., No. 6:12-cv-00017 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Adaptix, Inc. v. Pantech Wireless, Inc., No. 6:12-cv-00020 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Adaptix, Inc. v. Cellco Partnership, No. 6:12-cv-00120 (E.D. Tex.); Adaptix,
`
`Inc. v. Huawei Techs. Co., Ltd., Nos. 6:13-cv-00438, ’439, ’440, and ’441
`
`(E.D. Tex.); Adaptix, Inc. v. ZTE C0rp., Nos. 6:13-cv-00443, ’444, ’445, and
`
`’446 (E.D. Tex.); Adaptix, Inc. v. NEC CASIO Mobile Commc ’ns, Ltd., Nos.
`
`6:13-cv-00585 and ’922 (E.D. Tex.); Adaptix, Inc. v. Pantech Wireless, Inc.,
`
`No. 6:13-cv-00778 (E.D. Tex.); Adaptix, Inc. v. Blackberry Limited, Nos.
`
`5:14-cv-01380, ’386 and ’387 (N.D. Cal.); Adaptix, Inc. v. Kyocera C0rp.,
`
`Nos. 3:14-cv-02894 and ’895 (ND. Cal.); Adaptix, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., Nos.
`
`5:13-cv-01776, ’1777, and ’2023 (ND. Cal.); Adaptix, Inc. v. AT&T, Inc.,
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01524
`
`Patent 6,947,748 B2
`
`No. 5:13-cv-01778 (N.D. Cal.); Adaptix, Inc. v. Cellco Partnership, No.
`
`5:13-cv-01844 (ND. Cal.); Adaptix, Inc. v. Dell, Inc., No. 5:14-cv-01259
`
`(ND. Cal.); Adaptix, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 5:14-cv-01379 (ND.
`
`Cal.); Adaptix, Inc. v. Sony Mobile C0mmc’ns, Inc., No. 5:14-cv-01385
`
`(ND. Cal.); Adaptix, Inc. v. ASUSTek, No. 5:14-cv-03112 (ND. Cal.); and
`
`Adaptix, Inc. v. HTC C0rp., Nos. 5:14-cv-02359 and ’360 (ND. Cal.). Pet.
`
`1-2. The ’748 patent is also involved in Case IPR2015-00319 (PTAB Nov.
`
`26, 2014) and was involved in Case IPR2014-01406 (PTAB Aug. 28, 2014),
`
`which was terminated by the Board on January 29, 2015.
`
`B. The ’748 Patent
`
`The ’748 patent relates to subcarrier selection for each of multiple
`
`subscribers (e.g., mobile phones) that includes measuring channel and
`
`interference information for subcarriers based on pilot symbols received
`
`from a base station. Ex. 1001, Abstract. Orthogonal frequency division
`
`multiplexing (OFDM) is an efficient modulation scheme for signal
`
`transmission over frequency-selective channels. Id. at col. 1, 11. 13-15. The
`
`invention employs orthogonal frequency division multiple access
`
`(OFDMA), which is a method for multiple access using the basic format of
`
`the OFDM modulation scheme. Id. at col. 1, ll. 26-41; see generally id. at
`
`col. 1, l. 5 — col. 2, l. 19, col. 2, ll. 59-66.
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01524
`
`Patent 6,947,748 B2
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claim 8, reproduced below, is illustrative.
`
`8. A method for subcarrier selection for a system
`employing orthogonal frequency division multiple access
`(OFDMA) comprising:
`
`a subscriber measuring channel and interference
`information for a plurality of subcarriers based on pilot symbols
`received from a base station;
`
`the subscriber selecting a set of candidate subcarriers;
`
`the subscriber providing feedback information on the set
`of candidate subcarriers to the base station;
`
`the subscriber sending an indication of coding and
`modulation rates that the subscriber desires to employ for each
`cluster; and
`
`the subscriber receiving an indication of subcarriers of
`the set of subcarriers selected by the base station for use by the
`subscriber.
`
`D. Asserted Prior Art
`
`Ritter
`Hasheml
`Hashem 11
`
`Frodigh
`
`July 29, 1999
`DE 19800953 Cl
`US 6,721,569 B1 Apr. 13, 2004
`US 6,701,129 B1 Mar. 2,2004
`
`Ex. 10021
`Ex. 1003
`Ex. 1004
`
`US 5,726,978
`
`Mar. 10. 1998
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 38, no. 7, July 2000 (excerpts) (Ex.
`1006) (“IEEE”).
`
`1 The parties refer to Exhibit 1002 as “Ritter,” which is an English
`translation of DE 19800953 C1. The German patent document has been
`entered as Exhibit 1023.
`
`4
`
`

`
`1PR2014-01524
`
`Patent 6,947,748 B2
`
`Chuang and Sollenberger, Spectrum Resource Allocation for Wireless
`Packet Access with Application to Advanced Cellular Internet Service, IEEE
`JOURNAL ON SELECTED AREAS IN COMMUNICATIONS, Vol. 16, no. 6 (Aug.
`1998) (Ex 1007) (“Chuang”).
`
`Cimini, et al., Advanced Cellular Internet Service (ACIS), IEEE
`Communications Magazine (Oct. 1998) (Ex. 1008) (“Cimini”).
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) against claims 6, 8, 9, 11, and 19-22 (Pet. 4):
`
`Ritter, Hashem I, and Hashem II
`
`6, 8, 9, and 19-22
`
`
`
`IEEE and Chuang
`
`IEEE and Cimini
`
`6, 8, 9, 11, and 19-22
`
`6, 8, 9, 11, and 19-22
`
`11. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Interpretation
`
`In an inter partes review, the Board construes claim terms in an
`
`unexpired patent using their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,764 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012).
`
`Although Petitioner submits constructions for several terms (Pet. 8-
`
`12), for purposes of this Decision we do not find construction of any terms
`
`necessary at this stage in the proceeding. Further, Patent Owner in its
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01524
`
`Patent 6,947,748 B2
`
`Preliminary Response does not contest Petitioner’s construction of any terms
`
`that affect the necessary determinations in this Decision. See Prelim. Resp.
`
`7-9 .
`
`B. Disclaimer — Claim I I
`
`On the day Patent Owner filed the Preliminary Response (January 12,
`
`2015), Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer for claim 11. Prelim. Resp.
`
`2 n.1; Ex. 2003. Accordingly, claim 11 is not subject to any ground of
`
`unpatentability in this proceeding. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.107 (e) (“No inter
`
`partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims”).
`
`C. Proposed Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`I. Section I 03 (a) — Ritter, Hashem I, and Hashem II
`
`Petitioner submits that the subject matter of claims 6, 8, 9, and 19- 22
`
`would have been obvious over the combination of Ritter, Hashem I, and
`
`Hashem II. Petitioner submits a detailed analysis of each of the claims,
`
`applies the prior art, and relies on the testimony of Professor Robert Akl.
`
`Pet. 18-27; Exhibit 1009.
`
`Patent Owner argues that because Hashem I and Hashem II are
`
`directed to a “single-user” OFDM system, as opposed to a multiple-user
`
`OFDMA system (as in Ritter), one of ordinary skill in the art would not
`
`combine the teachings of Ritter and the Hashem references because OFDM
`
`can be used to support multiple users without using OFDMA. Prelim. Resp.
`
`15-20. Patent Owner’s argument, however, is not responsive to the ground
`
`proposed by Petitioner. Ritter teaches OFDMA. See, e.g., Pet. 21; Ex.
`
`1002, 4. The ground proposed does not rely on the Hashem references as
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01524
`
`Patent 6,947,748 B2
`
`teaching OFDMA, nor does it submit that those references should be
`
`modified in view of any of Ritter’s teachings. Moreover, Patent Owner’s
`
`allegation (Prelim. Resp. 20) that OFDM systems as taught by Hasheml and
`
`Hashem II are “entirely different” from, “if not contrary” to, the claimed
`
`invention is not consistent with the intrinsic evidence. According to the ’748
`
`patent, OFDMA was known as “another method for multiple access, using
`
`the basicformat of OFDM.” Ex. 1001, col. 1, 11. 29-31 (emphasis added).
`
`Patent Owner also employs a patent law term of art in alleging that the
`
`Hashem references “teach away” from OFDMA and combination with
`
`Ritter, although the arguments are not consistent with what may constitute a
`
`“teaching away.” See Pet. 17-20. “A reference may be said to teach away
`
`when a person of ordinary skill, upon [examining] the reference, would be
`
`discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led
`
`in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.”
`
`Para—Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1090 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1995) (alteration in original) (quoting In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1994)). Patent Owner’s allegations of “teaching away” are based
`
`on the view that the Hashem references describe OFDM systems. However,
`
`the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not
`
`constitute a teaching away from any of the alternatives when the disclosure
`
`does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed. In
`
`re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Gurley, 27
`
`F.3d. at 553). Patent Owner does not point to any disclosure in Hashem I or
`
`Hashem II that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages use of
`
`OFDMA as taught by Ritter,
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01524
`
`Patent 6,947,748 B2
`
`Patent Owner argues, further, that it would not have been obvious to
`
`combine an “overhead-consuming” pilot-symbol approach that Ritter
`
`avoided, such that the combination would “defeat the purpose of Ritter
`
`avoiding pilots and increase system overhead.” Prelim. Resp. 22; see also
`
`id. at 26. As evidentiary support, Patent Owner refers to paragraphs 50 and
`
`51 of Exhibit 2002. Id. at 22, 26. Exhibit 2002 purports to be an expert
`
`report of Michael Caloyannides, Ph.D. (“the Caloyannides Report”) filed in
`
`related U.S. District Court actions.
`
`The Caloyannides Report is, however, an expert report directed to
`
`rebuttal of another expert report. See Ex. 2002, 1. The Caloyannides Report
`
`merely refers to the other expert report, not of record in this proceeding,
`
`which is alleged to “note[] that Ritter proposed a novel measurement
`
`technique that specifically avoided the use of known, non-data-bearing pilot
`
`symbols from the base station so as to save ‘overhead.’” Id. 1] 50. Neither
`
`Patent Owner, nor the Caloyannides Report at the indicated paragraphs,
`
`establishes that Ritter “avoided” the “pilot-symbol approach” in the interest
`
`of not consuming “overhead,” or for any other reason.
`
`Patent Owner submits that Ritter teaches neither an index indication
`
`of a candidate cluster with its SINR (signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio)
`
`value nor an indication of coding and modulation rates. Prelim. Resp. 24.
`
`Yet, Patent Owner acknowledges that Petitioner does not rely on Ritter for
`
`those teachings. Id. at 23; see, e.g., Ex. 1009 1] 144 (relying on Hashem
`
`references), 1] 150 (pp. 66-67) (claim chart referring to Hashem references).
`
`We are, therefore, not persuaded that Ritter’s deficiencies are fatal to the
`
`proposed ground of rejection.
`
`

`
`IPR20l4-01524
`
`Patent 6,947,748 B2
`
`2. Secondary Considerations
`
`Patent Owner submits that there are “objective indicia” that
`
`demonstrate non-obviousness of the invention. We address first the
`
`evidence that Patent Owner places under the category of “skepticism of the
`
`experts.” Prelim. Resp. 53, 54-57.
`
`Patent Owner submits that Exhibit 2004 is a “[c]oncept evaluation”
`
`that discusses four proposed concepts to be pursued, at that time, as the next
`
`Universal Mobile Telecommunication System standard. Id. at 54.
`
`According to Patent Owner, the document “explains three OFDMA based
`
`approaches referred to collectively as ‘Concept B7” Id. Patent Owner
`
`continues that in the first meeting of the European Telecommunication
`
`Standards Institute (“ETSI”) delegates were asked to vote for one of the
`
`“four proposed concepts,” which included Concept B. Prelim. Resp. 55.
`
`Concept [3 received zero percent of the votes, while votes went to other
`
`“approaches” that did not include OFDM or OFDMA. Id. at 55-56. In the
`
`next ETSI meeting, again, Concept [3 received zero percent of the votes. Id.
`
`at 56. Patent Owner provides technical committee reports of the meetings as
`
`Exhibits 2005 and 2006.
`
`Patent Owner does not, however, point to evidence that establishes
`
`why Concept [3 was disfavored by the ETSI delegates. Nor does Patent
`
`Owner explain how any of the “three OFDMA based approaches” might
`
`relate to the claimed invention, other than the fact that the claims recite
`
`“OFDMA.” Because Patent Owner characterizes the evidence as showing
`
`“skepticism of the experts,” the evidence is presented, presumably, to
`
`demonstrate that the Concept [3 “OFDMA based approaches” were thought
`
`to represent impossible or impractical technologies as late as the ETSI
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01524
`
`Patent 6,947,748 B2
`
`second meeting, January 1998 (Ex. 2006, 1). At the time of invention,2
`
`however, OFDMA was known to be a method that supports multiple access
`
`for multiple subscribers. Ex. 1001, col. 1, l. 26 — col. 2, l. 5.
`
`Referring to the Caloyannides Report, Patent Owner submits further
`
`that a long-felt but unmet need “to provide a new generation of wireless
`
`technology that would improve throughput” was met by “4G/LTE” mobile
`
`phones that “may” achieve data transmission rates that are “10 to 100 times
`
`faster than 3G mobile phones.” Prelim. Resp. 58-59; Ex. 2002 1] 340.
`
`Patent Owner does not correlate the claimed invention to the asserted
`
`evidence of meeting a “long-felt need” beyond the claims reciting
`
`“OFDMA,” which was not an unmet need because it was known at the time
`
`of invention. Ex. 1001, col. 1, l. 26 — col. 2, l. 5.
`
`Patent Owner also refers to the Caloyannides Report as demonstrating
`
`commercial success of “4G/LTE based products.” Prelim. Resp. 59-60.
`
`The Caloyannides Report, however, does not refer to any evidence in this
`
`record of commercial success of “4G/LTE based products,” nor does it refer
`
`to any evidence in this record tending to show that limitations from claim 8,
`
`which are reproduced in the Caloyannides Report, were responsible for any
`
`“commercial success.” See Ex. 2002 1] 344 (“Further information and
`
`evidence about the commercial success that has followed the use of these
`
`aspects of the [’748 patent] is provided in my infringement report involving
`
`the same patent[]”). The “infringement report” referenced by Exhibit 2002
`
`has not been provided as an exhibit in this proceeding. Expert testimony
`
`2 On this record, the date of invention is the filing date of the ’748 patent
`application, December 15, 2000, or nearly three years after the second ETSI
`meeting.
`
`10
`
`

`
`lPR2014-01524
`
`Patent 6,947,748 B2
`
`that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is
`
`based is entitled to little or no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).
`
`Moreover, even if commercial success were established, Patent
`
`Owner’s allegations would not support a prima facie case of nexus.
`
`A prima facie case of nexus is generally made out when
`the patentee shows both that there is commercial success, and
`that the thing (product or method) that is commercially
`successful is the invention disclosed and claimed in the patent.
`When the thing that is commercially successful is not
`coextensive with the patented invention—for example, if the
`patented invention is only a component of a commercially
`successful machine or process—the patentee must show prima
`facie a legally sufficient relationship between that which is
`patented and that which is sold.
`
`Demaco Corp. v. F. Van LangsdoiflLicensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1988). However, “if the commercial success is due to an
`
`unclaimed feature of the device” or “if the feature that creates the
`
`commercial success was known in the prior art, the success is not pertinent.
`
`)7
`
`Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
`
`The Caloyannides Report (11 344) alleges that limitations of claim 8
`
`represent, at most, an “essential element” of only one part of “current LTE
`
`networks.” Further, to the extent that OFDMA might contribute to
`
`“commercial success,” OFDMA was known in the prior art and, thus, not
`
`pertinent. See Ex. 1001, col. 1, l. 26 — col. 2, l. 5.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we find Patent’s Owner’s evidence of
`
`secondary considerations to be entitled to little weight in support of non-
`
`obviousness. We emphasize, however, that our weighing of the evidence in
`
`support of non-obviousness is for purposes of this Decision only, as we are
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01524
`
`Patent 6,947,748 B2
`
`limited to consideration of the record that exists at this preliminary stage of
`
`the proceeding.
`
`3. Section I 03(a) — Ritter, Hashem I, and Hashem II —
`
`Conclusion
`
`Upon consideration of the Petition and weighing the evidence in this
`
`record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable
`
`likelihood that claims 6, 8, 9, and 19-22 would have been obvious over the
`
`combination of Ritter, Hashem I, and Hashem II.
`
`4. Section I 03 (a) — Other Asserted Grounds
`
`In view of the ground on which we institute inter partes review of
`
`claims 6, 8, 9, and 19-22, we do not institute review based on the additional
`
`asserted grounds that these claims are unpatentable for obviousness over
`
`combinations of references that involve IEEE, Chuang, or Cimini. See 35
`
`U.S.C. 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`The Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the
`
`ground of obviousness over Ritter, Hashem I, and Hashem II as to claims 6,
`
`8, 9, and 19-22.
`
`The Board has not made a final determination on the patentability of
`
`any challenged claim.
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR20l4-01524
`
`Patent 6,947,748 B2
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is
`
`ORDERED that an interpartes review is instituted as to claims 6, 8,
`
`9, and 19-22 of the ’748 patent on the ground of obviousness under 35
`
`U.S.C. § l03(a) based on Ritter, Hashem I, and Hashem II;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 3 l4(a), inter
`
`partes review of the ’748 patent is instituted with trial commencing on the
`
`entry date of this Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 3l4(c) and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.4, notice is given of the institution of the trial; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to the grounds
`
`identified immediately above, and no other ground is authorized for the ’748
`
`patent claims.
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01524
`
`Patent 6,947,748 B2
`
`For Petitioner:
`
`Scott Bloebaum
`
`ANDREWS KURTH LLP
`
`scottbloebaum@andrewskurth.com
`
`Scott McKeown
`
`OBLON SPIVAK
`
`CPdocketmckeown@ob1on.corn
`
`For Patent Owner:
`
`Amedeo Ferraro
`
`Wesley Meinerding
`MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP
`aferraro@martinferraro.com
`Wmeinerding@martinferraro.com

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket