UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`AND ZTE (USA) INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`INVT SPE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________
`
`Case IPR2018-01473
`(Patent 6,611,676 B2)
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: January 8, 2020
`__________
`
`Before THU A. DANG, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
`BARBARA BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`AND ZTE (USA) INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`INVT SPE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________
`
`Case IPR2018-01473
`(Patent 6,611,676 B2)
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: January 8, 2020
`__________
`
`Before THU A. DANG, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
`BARBARA BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`ADAM P. SEITZ, ESQ.
`Erise IP
`7015 College Park Blvd, Suite 700
`Overland Park, KS 66211
`(913) 777-5611
`adam.seitz@eriseIP.com
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JOHN K. HARTING, ESQ
`Robins Kaplan, LLP
`800 Lasalle Avenue, Suite 2800
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`(612) 349-8787
`jharting@robinskaplan.com
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday, January
`
`8, 2020, commencing at 1:04 p.m. at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
`
`
`
`(1:04 p.m.)
`JUDGE DANG: We are here for IPR2018-01473, U.S. Patent
`Number 6,611,676.
`I am Judge Dang. With me here in Alexandria is Judge Benoit. And
`appearing by video is Judge Turner.
`Please refer to your demonstratives by number so that Judge Turner
`will be able to follow along.
`Okay, let's start with appearances. Petitioner.
`MR. SEITZ: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Adam Seitz with the
`law firm of Erise IP. Also with me from Apple is Aaron Huang.
`JUDGE DANG: Okay.
`MR. HARTING: Good afternoon, Your Honors. John Harting from
`Robins Kaplan on behalf of the Patent Owner INVT SPE LLC. With me is
`Mary Pheng and Cyrus Morton, also of Robins Kaplan. And Courtney
`Quish of INVT.
`JUDGE DANG: Thank you.
`Each side will have 60 minutes. Petitioner has the ultimate burden
`of establishing patentability, and will proceed first. Also, you may reserve
`rebuttal time, so please let me know whether or not you would like to
`rebuttal certain time.
`Patent Owner will also have a chance to reserve rebuttal time. Okay.
`Petitioner, would you like to start? And let me know if you'd like to
`have rebuttal time.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`MR. SEITZ: Yes, thank you. I'd like to reserve 20 minutes for
`rebuttal.
`JUDGE DANG: Okay.
`MR. SEITZ: And it seems to be the theme of the day, we're having
`some more technical issues. So, I will not be able to pull up the
`demonstratives on the screen for you to see. I understand that you will have
`the demonstratives, so I'm just going to refer to them by slide so that they'll
`be easier to follow along.
`If Your Honors are ready?
`JUDGE DANG: Yes.
`MR. SEITZ: May it please the Board. Starting with DX-2 we have
`one remaining ground on the 676 petition, ground one. The Patent Owner
`has disclaimed Claims 4 and 10, which was ground two, so I'm going to be
`discussing a combination of Keskitalo, Exhibit 1004, with Lindell, Exhibit
`1005.
`
`Before getting to the substance of the combination I want to discuss
`the basics of the technology between Keskitalo and the 676 patent.
`Looking now to slide DX-3, we see the 676 patent is directed
`towards power and rate adjustments that are going to improve the quality of
`a received signal. So, here we're talking about telecommunications signals.
`And in a typical communications system -- cell phones and a base station --
`there's going to be a lot of interference that occurs. It can be interference
`from the number of cell phones or communications signals that are coming
`through the air. It can be interference from other buildings. It can be
`interference from a number of different things.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`So, there are a lot of signals that need to be basically put aside so that
`you can get your original transmission, original data from the sender. So
`when the original signal reaches a receiver it may have interference that has
`degraded the signal and the data that's contained within that signal.
`One way to reduce that interference or to ensure that you're going to
`get your data is to increase the power, the power -- the signal power, which
`is we're going to be talking and have talked this morning already about the
`signal-to-noise ratio or the signal-to-interference ratio. So one way to ensure
`that your message gets to the base station and is able to be discerned through
`all of the other noise that's out there is to increase the power.
`Now, that's not always practical. There are limits to what you can do
`in increasing the power. There's limits to how much your cell phone can
`actually use power-wise to transmit. There's limits on a health perspective.
`And there's limits when you're between two different base stations for
`maybe being on that middle ground, right, where you're still connected to
`one base station but potentially could connect to another and you'd cause
`interference yourself if you increase the power.
`So, with those limits there needs to be a solution for a way to still
`maintain your data quality without increasing the power. And the 676
`proposes doing that, but instead of adjusting the power, it's going to adjust
`the transmission rate.
`Specifically, what it proposes is adjusting the spreading code to
`protect signals, the signals that the cell phone is sending, from errors.
`Moving to DX-4, the way in which the 676 patent accomplishes this
`is through an adjustment to the spreading codes. Now, there's two different
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`aspects to the 676. The first is power. That is still a component of ensuring
`that your signal arrives there without noise. And in the 676 they're going to
`measure your signal-to-interference ratio or your signal-to-noise ratio and
`they're going to see where that is. Is it bigger than the target or is it smaller
`than the target? And then it will adjust your power up or down accordingly.
`However, there are situations where you can no longer increase your
`power. And in that situation what the 676 patent proposes is to adjust the
`spreading rate. And that is a way to decrease the amount of data that will be
`transmitted.
`In a CDMA system the spreading code is basically how spread out
`your data is on a particular frequency. To arrive at a spreading code we
`have a code that identifies my signal as compared to a different signal as
`compared to a different code that would identify one of your signals if you're
`on the cell phone network as well. That code is multiplied for the data that I
`want to send, it's spread out among the frequency, and then it's transmitted
`with all of the other signals that are in the air.
`When it arrives somewhere, that same spreading code is used in
`reverse to find my signal. By using a bigger spreading code I send less data,
`but I ensure that it's not going to be susceptible to the errors and the
`interference that might be out there. So, in this situation the 676 patent says
`we'll leave the power alone and we'll adjust our spreading rate.
`Keskitalo, our main reference, addresses the same problem and
`proposes the same solution. I'm looking at DX-5 now. In Keskitalo they're
`again in a CDMA situation, or a CDMA system, and Keskitalo notes that the
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`optimum situation for the cell phone network is when all signals arrive at the
`base station with the same signal-to-noise ratio.
`How is this done? One way in which that's done is to adjust the
`power that's being used. And so, the base station will send power signals to
`the cell phones, to the mobile devices, telling them to increase or decrease
`the power. However, Keskitalo notes that there's going to be situations, just
`like the 676 notes, where you cannot increase your power.
`Two examples given in Keskitalo. One is where you're already at
`your max power for a particular cell phone and it can't increase anymore.
`Another example given in Keskitalo is where a cell phone is between
`two different networks, two different base stations, between two different
`cell towers for example, and increasing my power would cause interference
`on another cell phone tower while I'm still connected to the other cell phone
`tower.
`
`So the solution to this, according to Keskitalo, is to adjust the
`spreading ratio of the signal. Again, you're going to decrease the data rate,
`the transmission rate, but by increasing your spreading ratio, spreading that
`out amongst more frequency, you're going to ensure that your signal arrives
`with your data, and it's not going to be as susceptible to the errors from the
`interference. So, the higher the spreading ratio the better that system will
`tolerate interference, and the better chance you'll have of avoiding errors.
`Moving to DX-6, I'm going to focus on Claim 7 which is
`representative of the other claims. There are three aspects to the claims for
`how the 676 accomplishes this, accomplishes its solution.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`There's power control, which we talked about, that's going to have a
`transmission power controller. It increases or decreases your transmission
`power.
`
`There's a second component that's going to measure your average
`power and compare that average power. And in the 676, Claim 7, what it
`describes is having an average transmission power calculation circuitry that's
`going to calculate an average value of the transmission power that has been
`used.
`
`There's going to be what's called an allowable transmission power
`holder circuitry. And that is going to hold a predetermined allowable
`transmission power value. This is the value of power or the threshold power
`that you have set in your system for the max that you can use.
`Then there's going to be a comparison circuitry, described in Claim
`7, that compares the circuitry. It's going to look at your average value of
`your power and compare that to the allowable transmission power. And
`based on where you are, seeing how close I am to that threshold or that
`allowable power, or if I'm out, it is then going to look at rate change
`circuitry, which is going to adjust my transmission rates according to the
`comparison result, which is where we're going to adjust the spreading rate.
`Moving to slide DX-7, have to look at Keskitalo, our ground one,
`Keskitalo in view of Lindell. Now, Keskitalo teaches power control, as I've
`talked about already. It's going to send power signals to adjust whether the
`signal has more power or less power. And it teaches that it's going to change
`your transmission rate if you're already at your max power.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`Now, the one thing that Keskitalo doesn't tell us is what this max
`power is. That max power, for example, we don't know from Keskitalo
`whether it's a discrete max power, an absolute max power. We also don't
`know whether that could be an average max power. Keskitalo is silent on
`that aspect.
`So we rely on Lindell which teaches measuring an average power
`using a comparator circuitry and comparing that with a stored threshold. So,
`Lindell brings in our average power measurement and then the aspect of
`looking at your average power and comparing that to a threshold that you
`have set.
`So the combination we have proposed here for the 676 patent is that
`we use Keskitalo's rate change triggered by Lindell's average power
`comparison, which permits both goals. It reduces the interference caused by
`increasing power in Keskitalo, and it's going to give you the ability to watch
`your average power for the goals described in Lindell which, as we'll get
`into later, talk about reducing the amount of exposure risk one might have to
`RF signals.
`Moving to slide DX-8, there's three arguments that I'm going to
`focus on here. The Patent Owner has raised questions about Lindell and
`how it describes what they've referred to as a fused functionality, which is an
`on/off switch and not a power reduction aspect.
`They've also raised arguments regarding Lindell's average power
`teachings being directed to a longer period of time than the time periods that
`are being discussed in Keskitalo and the 676 patent.
`And then, finally, we're going to address the motivations to combine.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`Let's start with the fuse functionality. In the Patent Owner's
`response, the Patent Owner described Lindell's fuse functionality where
`there's a transmitting disable circuit that's activated. They continued that
`same argument in the surreply, saying that Lindell's fuse or shutoff switch
`would frustrate the purpose of Keskitalo.
`Now, what's described in Lindell is this fuse or shutoff switch. They
`are correct there. There is an aspect of Lindell that says, okay, we're going
`to monitor to see how much average power you have. Lindell was directed
`at looking at the amount of power that has been exposed to a user over time.
`And if you've reached your maximum power, that average now rises up to
`my threshold, one of the embodiments in Lindell shuts your system off. So,
`there's no more exposure because there's no more power: a fuse, in other
`words.
`
`The fuse argument, however, is irrelevant to our proposed grounds.
`First, the fuse functionality and how Lindell handles its power is not
`part of our combination, which is why I say it's irrelevant. We have used
`Lindell for its comparison circuit, the ability to look at your average power
`and compare it to a threshold. We have not relied on Lindell to say, what
`would you do with your power once you reach that threshold?
`Keskitalo already has those aspects for us, saying when my power
`can no longer be increased or I'm at my max power, I'm going to adjust my
`transmission rate. So, the question of how Lindell manages its power once a
`threshold is reached is not a component of the reference that we have relied
`upon.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`And as we heard this morning, a similar theme, you don't take the
`entirety of your combination, of your reference, and try and shoehorn it into
`the original base reference. We've taken the component that was missing
`from Keskitalo, which is the comparison aspect of the power, and taken that
`from Lindell and added it in. So this question of fuse functionality is
`irrelevant.
`Second, that's not the only embodiment that's disclosed in Lindell.
`So the Patent Owner is incorrect that Lindell teaches only a cutoff or a fuse
`functionality. In fact, Lindell teaches two different embodiments, one of
`which is a fuse or a shutoff circuit, but the second of which is that the power
`can alternatively be lowered rather than cut off. And if you were to look at
`the abstract of Lindell, we would see that it specifically says that the power
`can alternatively be lowered.
`There's also a disclosure at column 7, lines 4 to 26 in Lindell, that
`describes this second embodiment that they explicitly say uses the same
`average comparison circuitry where the power has been lowered instead of
`shut off.
`So Patent Owner is incorrect that the fuse functionality is the only
`functionality or only embodiment described in Lindell.
`Finally, Patent Owner is incorrect that this power reduction aspect of
`Lindell was not discussed in our petition. Moving to slide DX-11, you can
`see two citations in our petition, at 19 and 22, that discuss this very
`embodiment, this second embodiment where the power is reduced in Lindell
`as opposed to the reduction of -- or that shutoff of the power, the fuse
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`functionality. We see the abstract, where it says output power may be
`automatically reduced; the petition at 19.
`We also see the petition at 22, citing from Lindell at 2, 5 to 7, talking
`about output power can automatically -- can be automatically reduced to a
`lower level.
`So, these excerpts are from our petition and describe the very same
`portion of Lindell that the Pet -- or the Patent Owner has said do not exist.
`So, it's irrelevant. But, we acknowledge that Lindell did include this second
`embodiment that related to the power reduction aspect once the comparison,
`the average power comparison was done.
`Moving to slide DX-12, the second argument made by Patent Owner
`relates to this timescale argument. The Patent Owner argues that Lindell --
`JUDGE BENOIT: I'm sorry, counsel, I don't mean to interrupt now
`that you've gone over the other slide, but you clearly gave me an opportunity
`to ask a question about slide 11.
`MR. SEITZ: Yes.
`JUDGE BENOIT: But I'd like to.
`When I look at slide 11 I see you citing Lindell and I see you citing
`the Singer declaration that refers to Lindell. I don't see a reference to the
`petition itself.
`MR. SEITZ: Oh yes, I'm sorry. The petition is in the bottom-left
`corner of that slide.
`JUDGE BENOIT: I see.
`MR. SEITZ: The petition at 19 and 22.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`JUDGE BENOIT: Thank you. It's the same format you've used
`before. So --
`MR. SEITZ: Yes.
`JUDGE BENOIT: -- I apologize for that.
`MR. SEITZ: Oh, that's okay. I should have, I should have pointed
`that out. Petition at 19 and 22. And then the individual pictures, the
`screenshots that are included on DX-11 do also include citations for the
`Singer declaration and to Lindell itself.
`JUDGE BENOIT: Thank you.
`MR. SEITZ: Moving back to slide DX-12, let's address the
`timescale argument.
`Another argument made by Patent Owner is that the timescales
`addressed in Keskitalo, the 676 patent, and Lindell are different, and thus
`would not be amenable to combining Lindell and Keskitalo in the manner
`proposed by Petitioner.
`So, specifically, Patent Owner has argued that Lindell does not
`control short-term average transmission power levels, which they describe
`on the order of milliseconds, which they also describe as the objective of the
`676 patent. And so, they make the point that Lindell is contrary to the 676
`patent and also contrary to Keskitalo, both of which are looking at,
`according to Patent Owner, operating on timescales of single digit
`milliseconds.
`Moving to slide DX-14 -- I'm going to skip 13 -- we have a citation
`to Patent Owner's expert, Dr. Vojcic, who during his deposition described
`that the patentee for the 676 patent was concerned about averages, and he
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`wanted to consider longer term aspects for those averages talking about the
`average power, so that the system would not react immediately on short-
`term variations.
`The point of this here from Dr. Vojcic was to make clear that the 676
`patent was also concerned about longer time periods and not fluctuating
`based on the mere millisecond adjustments to power. So, Dr. Vojcic himself
`agreed that the 676 is focused on shorter term, but also is focused on the
`longer term aspects of getting an average power.
`These citations on DX-14 are to Exhibit 1012 of the Vojcic depo
`transcript, page 21, lines 11 to 25. So, when he was asked a question:
`"Using average transmission power in the 676 invention presents changes
`due to very small timescale events?" He responded, "That's correct."
`Asked further, "But ensures that larger timescale events are captured
`and responded to appropriately?" His answer was, "That's correct."
`So the 676 patent, at least according to Dr. Vojcic, is not solely or
`narrowly focused on these very short time limits, it also is focused on longer
`time limits. But perhaps the more pertinent question is whether that's even
`something that's required in the claims.
`Moving to Slide DX-15, there's a fundamental question here of
`whether the claims require some sort of construction that would require a
`very specific delineation of a time frame. And we asked this question to Dr.
`Vojcic: "Do the claims of the 676 patent require any particular time frame?"
`This is from slide DX-15. His answer is, "No."
`Again, Exhibit 1012, the Vojcic transcript, page 22, lines 1 to 17.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`He went on and he was asked: "Okay. So, one of skill in the art
`would understand that the claims may not cover very, very small timescale
`adjustments but would capture longer-scale?" His answer is, "That's
`correct."
`So, the 676 patent itself is, number one, not exclusively limited to
`single digit millisecond averages as Patent Owner has suggested but, number
`two, and I would say more importantly, is not so limited in the claims. The
`claims themselves do not have or require any particular time frame. And it
`would be wrong to include such a time frame under the construction for BRI
`purposes here, particularly when their expert has admitted that the claims
`include no such requirement for a time frame.
`Moving to slide DX-16, I want to talk a little bit about the
`motivations to combine. The Patent Owner, we contend, has ignored very
`key motivations to combine between Keskitalo and Lindell. They've
`mischaracterized the combinations and the motivations to combine, and have
`made arguments about why a POSITA would not have looked at those
`references, why it wouldn't succeed, and how they both relate to wireless
`communication, but that's not enough according to Patent Owner.
`Focusing on slide DX-17, our petition, along with Dr. Singer's
`declaration, presented a number of very well-reasoned, real world
`motivations to combine. For example, Keskitalo, looking at DX-17,
`Keskitalo doesn't specify whether the power threshold is discrete or based on
`an average power, which is one of the things that I started with when talking
`about Keskitalo. It talks about a situation where you're already at your max
`power, but what it doesn't tell us is whether that max power is an average
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`that it has calculated, whether it's a max power of the system, or some other
`max power. It's silent to that aspect.
`A POSITA would have recognized and realized the benefits of using
`an average such as that set forth in Lindell, which is explained by Dr. Singer
`in Exhibit 1003, in paragraph 42. Lindell is a perfect example of an average
`power-based threshold that, according to Dr. Singer, a POSITA would have
`looked at.
`Why would somebody have looked at Lindell? Which is an
`excellent question. During this time frame, as Lindell notes, there were
`significant concerns from the FCC about the amount of exposure that users
`of cell phones were going to have from to RF signals. And there were
`concerns about whether those signals would cause cancer or other problems,
`health problems for users of cell phones. So, as Lindell notes, all mobile
`devices were going to be required to limit the amount of R exposure -- RF
`exposure, excuse me, that a user would be subject to.
`So, Lindell's solution was addressing a real world problem that was
`going to be required of all cell phones at the time, of anything that would use
`RF communication. And that comes from the petition at page 21, citing
`Lindell at 1, 22 to 29, discussing how this RF -- reducing the amount of RF
`signals that you would be subject to is going to be a requirement that is
`instituted on all phones or all mobile devices.
`Moving to Slide 18, the petition also discussed why this would be
`beneficial to incorporate, why Lindell and his RF exposure reduction method
`would be useful in Keskitalo. Lindell itself tells us that it could be
`implemented in preexisting system designs through easily-made software
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`modifications or merely taking the integrator circuit, which is what Lindell
`calls its comparison, to figure out the average, the integrator circuit, and
`including that in the device.
`And, of course, this makes sense. As Lindell himself noted, this was
`going to be a requirement to reduce the amount of exposure for all mobile
`devices that users would be subject to. And so he explicitly noted -- and we
`have it here in the petition at 23, and also in Lindell itself at 2, 13 to 17 -- he
`noted that you could implement this designed preexisting system through
`simply software modifications or through his easy comparator circuit, his
`integrator circuit.
`Finally, the petition pointed out that incorporating Lindell's average
`power circuitry allows the device to accomplish two different goals, two
`separate goals, the first of which would be Keskitalo's goal of minimizing
`interference. And, again, going back to where I started, one of the goals of
`Keskitalo was you will be at a spot where you are already at your max
`power, or I'm right at the edge of two different cell networks or towers, base
`stations, and if I increase my power I'm going to cause unnecessary
`interference to another base station.
`So, there is a goal of making sure that you don't increase your power
`in those situations but it would still be accomplished with Keskitalo under
`our proposed combination, but you also have Lindell's goal that you would
`include by using the average and looking at the average amount of power
`that is occurring. So, in our combination you have Keskitalo that has this
`integrator circuit or this comparison average power circuit from Lindell, and
`it is going to monitor the average power that has been used, it's going to set
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`that average power as a threshold, and then we're going to compare our
`power to see where I am in comparison to that threshold.
`And once I reach that threshold, number one, we're going to have the
`goal of Lindell which is to reduce -- or it's going to be required of reducing
`the amount of RF exposure that a user would have and, number two, we'll
`then have the system of Keskitalo that will say I've reached my threshold
`limit and now instead of increasing power I'm going to adjust the
`transmission rate through the spreading code that we discussed earlier.
`So, our combination would actually accomplish both goals of
`Keskitalo and Lindell.
`And I think this is probably the shorter of our two that we're going to
`discuss today. So, unless there's any questions, I will reserve the remainder
`of my time.
`JUDGE DANG: Actually, I have a question.
`MR. SEITZ: Yes?
`JUDGE DANG: You said that Lindell notes that all mobile devices
`would be required to limit their RF exposure. But I guess the motivation to
`combine with Keskitalo would be -- well, I guess my question would be why
`would it be obvious to use average in Keskitalo, okay? Because Lindell has
`the average, but I get that. But you're using the RF exposure as the reason to
`combine, but is it the reason to combine the average as the threshold in
`Keskitalo?
`Because Keskitalo, as I know it, and I understand the position that,
`you know, Lindell shuts it off. And I understand that the claims did not
`require whether or not it's a fuse, doesn't require whether or not it's long-
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`term or short-term. But I guess the question we're addressing here is why
`would it be obvious to put average inside Keskitalo?
`MR. SEITZ: Yes. So, I'm going to answer this two ways. I'm going
`to tell you what I can recall off the top of my head. And when I sit down I'll
`pull up Dr. Singer's declaration --
`JUDGE DANG: Okay.
`MR. SEITZ: -- and I'll get you the specific citations. Because he did
`walk through a number of those.
`JUDGE DANG: Okay.
`MR. SEITZ: What I can recall off the top of my head from Dr.
`Singer is that we don't know -- and again, if we go back to what we don't
`know about Keskitalo -- we don't know whether Keskitalo is using an
`average or if it's using just the max power.
`Dr. Singer said let's assume that it's the max power. There are
`significant drawbacks to that. The max power, if you're using your max
`power it's going to cause interference with other signals. What's that going
`to do? It's going to degrade everybody else's cell phone signal as they're
`trying to have a conversation when those signals arrive at the base station.
`So, always looking at max power as a solution is going to cause
`interference with other users, and it's going to cause interference with other
`base stations.
`Second problem with always using max power is it's going to be a
`massive drain on battery life. And as we noted, finding ways to increase
`your battery life is going to be beneficial. One of the ways that we described
`to do that is to look at the average power.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`So, I can run something at max power that's going to be a battery
`drain. But what Dr. Singer says, you'd be motivated to look at using average
`power because, presumably, that average power is going to less than your
`maximum power, which is going to be another reason that you would want
`to combine or look to something like Lindell for how you could have an
`average power that would also help with battery life.
`For the other reasons to combine, as Dr. Singer notes, was the fact
`that phones were going to be required to reduce the amount of RF exposure.
`And maybe I'm doing a bad job explaining that. But let's just say
`that Keskitalo is going to have its maximum, maximum power for sending a
`signal. That might ultimately result in somebody, a user, who's holding that
`phone up to their head, might ultimately result in you being subject to much
`more RF exposure than was going to be allowed under the standards that
`were coming into place. So, someone would look to say how could I use the
`system of Keskitalo, which gives me a good way to reduce interference and
`ensure that my signal is not going to be degraded by all the noise, but still
`use that system without the problems of subjecting people to significant RF
`exposure as it going to be required.
`So, for that addition reason, Dr. Singer said someone would look to a
`solution like Lindell because it allows me to say let's -- instead of max
`power that might subject you to too much unhealthy exposure, I'm going to
`look for an average power that is going to subject you to much, much less,
`and that would ultimately be the amount that would be allowable under the
`regulations that were going to come out.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`So, those three. And there may be more, there may not. I'll look
`when I sit down. But those three were the main focuses of Dr. Singer and
`what we described for why someone would look to average power instead
`of, for example, max pow
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
