Koninklijke Philips N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 3, 2021

IPR2021-00559 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 2021)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 7
571-272-7822 Date: September 3, 2021

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

QUECTEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO. LTD.,
Petitioner,
v.
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
Patent Owner.

IPR2021-00559
Patent 9,635,599 B2

Before KEVIN F. TURNER, HYUN J. JUNG, and RUSSELL E. CASS,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
35 U.S.C. § 314
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background and Summary
Quectel Wireless Solutions Co. Ltd. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition
(Paper 2, “Pet.”) requesting institution of an inter partes review of claims
19–21, 33, and 35–42 of U.S. Patent No. 9,635,599 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the
IPR2021-00559
Patent 9,635,599 B2
2
’599 patent”). Koninklijke Philips N.V. (“Patent Owner”) filed a
Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”).
Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review may not be instituted
“unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail
with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon
consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response and for the reasons
explained below, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable
likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.
Thus, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 19–21, 33,
and 35–42 of the ’599 patent.
B. Real Parties in Interest
Petitioner identifies Quectel Wireless Solutions Co. Ltd. as a real
party in interest (Pet. 83), and Patent Owner identifies Koninklijke Philips
N.V. as a real party in interest (Paper 5, 2).
C. Related Matters
Petitioner indicates that the ’599 patent is the subject of Koninklijke
Philips N.V. v. Quectel Wireless Solutions Co. Ltd., Case No. 20-cv-01707
(D. Del.). Pet. 83; Paper 5, 2; Ex. 1100 (Complaint). A related patent is
challenged in IPR2021-00558.
D. The ’599 Patent (Ex. 1001)
The ’599 patent issued on April 25, 2017 from an application filed on
October 1, 2015, that is a continuation of an application filed on
April 23, 2002 which claims priority to a foreign application filed on
April 25, 2001. Ex. 1001, codes (22), (30), (45), (63), 1:7–11.
The ’599 patent “relates to a radio communication system and further
relates to primary and secondary stations for use in such a system and to a
method of operating such a system.” Ex. 1001, 1:15–18. The ’599 patent
IPR2021-00559
Patent 9,635,599 B2
3
“describes a system with particular reference to the Universal Mobile
Telecommunications System (UTMS)” but states that its “techniques are
equally applicable to use in other mobile radio systems.” Id. at 1:18–22.
Figure 1 of the ’599 patent is reproduced below.

Figure 1 is a block schematic diagram of a Multi-Input Multi-Output
radio system for transmitting downlink packet data from primary station 100
to secondary station 110. Ex. 1001, 3:42–43, 3:66–4:1. Primary station 100
includes data source 102 that provides a data stream for transmitting to
secondary station 110. Id. at 4:1–3. Serial to parallel converter 104
generates a plurality of data sub-streams, and transmitter 106 arranges those
sub-streams to be sent to antennas 108. Id. at 4:3–7. In describing the same
figure, instead of continuing with primary station 100 and secondary
station 110, the ’599 patent begins using base station 100 or BS 100 and
mobile station 110 or MS 110. See id. at 4:6–9.
MS 110 has antennas 118, and the signals received are provided to
receiver 116 that extracts the data sub-streams from the received signal.
Ex. 1001, 4:33–37. Parallel to serial converter 114 recombines the data sub-
IPR2021-00559
Patent 9,635,599 B2
4
streams and provides the recombined data stream to data output block 112.
Id. at 4:37–39.
The ’599 patent states that “[a]n ARQ (Automatic Repeat reQuest)
scheme is needed to ensure correct delivery of each data packet.” Ex. 1001,
2:13–15; see also id. at 4:66–5:12 (describing “[a]n example of an ARQ
scheme operating in known manner . . . in FIG. 3.”). Figure 4 of the
’599 patent is reproduced below.

Figure 4 is a diagram illustrating the operation of an ARQ scheme
according to the ’599 patent. Ex. 1001, 3:49–51. In Figure 4, “each data
sub-stream is allocated a separate ARQ channel.” Id. at 5:35–36. In the
example shown in the figure, at 302, BS 100 transmits substantially
simultaneously two packets P1 and P2 on downlink data sub-streams DL1 and
DL2. Id. at 5:37–41. The transmission “can be done in a CDMA (Code
Division Multiple Access) system using the same channelisation and
scrambling codes.” Id. at 5:42–44.
At 304, MS 110 receives only packet P1 correctly and transmits
substantially simultaneously acknowledgement A1 and negative
acknowledgement N2 on uplink data sub-streams UL1 and UL2. Ex. 1001,
5:45–51. In response, BS 100 re-transmits packet P2 on DL2 and transmits
next packet P3 on DL1. Id. at 5:51–53.
IPR2021-00559
Patent 9,635,599 B2
5
At 306, MS 110 then receives only packet P2 correctly and, thus,
sends acknowledgements A2 and N3 on UL1 and UL2. Ex. 1001, 5:53–56.
BS 100 re-transmits P3 on DL1 and transmits next packet P4 on DL2. Id. at
5:56–58. “BS 100 and/or MS 110 may make use of packets 302 received
incorrectly to identify bad radio channels (i.e. bad antennas 108 or bad
antenna beams), to enable performance to be optimised by avoiding such
antennas or beams.” Id. at 6:1–4.
E. Illustrative Claim
The ’599 patent includes claims 1–42, of which Petitioner challenges
claims 19–21, 33, and 35–42. Of those, claims 19 and 33 are independent,
and claim 19 is reproduced below.
A method of operating a radio communication
system having a communication channel comprising a
plurality of paths between a primary station having a
plurality of antennas and a secondary station having at
least one antenna, the method comprising:
transmitting, by the primary station, substantially
simultaneously a plurality of data packets to the secondary
station, each data packet being transmitted via a different
subset of the plurality of paths,
receiving, by the secondary station, the plurality of
data packets,
determining, by the secondary station, whether each
data packet is received correctly;
notifying the primary station, by the secondary
station, whether each data packet is received correctly,
wherein notifying the primary station whether each data
packet is received correctly comprises transmitting, a
positive acknowledgement (ACK) for each of the plurality
of data packets that are received correctly and a negative
acknowledgement (NACK) for each of the plurality of
data packets that are not received correctly, and wherein
the same channelization and scrambling parameters are
utilized for transmission of each positive acknowledgment
IPR2021-00559
Patent 9,635,599 B2
6
(ACK) or negative acknowledgment (NACK)
corresponding to said plurality of data packets; and
sending the primary station, by the secondary
station, an indication of a number of simultaneous data
streams that the secondary station is capable of receiving
or processing.
Ex. 1001, 10:38–67.
F. Asserted Prior Art and Proffered Testimonial Evidence
Petitioner identifies the following references as prior art in the
asserted grounds of unpatentability:
Name Reference Exhibit
Raleigh US 6,144,711, issued Nov. 7, 2000 1004
Dabak US 6,643,338 B1, issued Nov. 4, 2003, filed
Dec. 3, 1998
1013
Eriksson US 6,865,233 B1, issued Mar. 8, 2005, filed
Feb. 19, 1999
1012
Fong WO 01/80476 A1, published Oct. 25, 2001, filed
Apr. 17, 2001
1005
TS25.301 3rd Generation Partnership Project, Technical
Specification Group Radio Access Network, “Radio
Interface Protocol Architecture (3G TS25.301
version 3.3.0),” 3G TS25.301 version 3.3.0 (Dec.
1999)
1014
TS25.213 3rd Generation Partnership Project, Technical
Specification Group Radio Access Network,
“Spreading and modulation (FDD),” 3G TS25.213
version 3.2.0 (Mar. 2000)
1010
TS25.306 3rd Generation Partnership Project, Technical
Specification Group Radio Access Network, “UE
Radio Access Capabilities,” 3G TS25.306 version
3.0.0 (Dec. 2000)
1006
Pet. 8–9; see also id. at 9 (arguing that April 25, 2001 is the earliest possible
priority date); Ex. 1015 (Declaration of Craig Bishop regarding the public
accessibility of Exs. 1006, 1010, 1014). Petitioner further provides a
Declaration of Robert Akl D.Sc. (Ex. 1003).
IPR2021-00559
Patent 9,635,599 B2
7
G. Asserted Grounds
Petitioner asserts that claims 19–21, 33, and 35–42 would have been
unpatentable on the following grounds:
Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis
19, 20, 33, 35–38, 40–42 1031 Raleigh, Fong, TS25.213, TS25.306
21, 39 103 Raleigh, Fong, TS25.213, TS25.306, Eriksson
19, 20, 33, 36–38, 40–42 103 Dabak, TS25.301, Fong, TS25.213, TS25.306
21, 35, 39 103 Dabak, TS25.301, Fong, TS25.213, TS25.306, Eriksson

II. ANALYSIS
A. Legal Standards
In inter partes reviews, the petitioner bears the burden of proving
unpatentability of the challenged claims, and the burden of persuasion never
shifts to the patent owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail in an inter partes review,
the petitioner must support its challenges by a preponderance of the
evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) (2019).
Petitioner contends that the challenged claims of the ’599 patent are
unpatentable under § 103(a). A claim is unpatentable under § 103(a) if the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the

1 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 ’599 patent claims priority to an application
filed before that date, our citations to 35 U.S.C. § 103 are to its pre-AIA
version.
IPR2021-00559
Patent 9,635,599 B2
8
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007).
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
(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 must also
“determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known
elements in the fashion claimed by 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 produces a predictable result weighs in the ultimate
determination of obviousness. Id. at 416–417.
B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had
Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer
science, or a related field, and 2–3 years of experience related to the design
or development of wireless communication systems, or the equivalent.”
Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 19). Petitioner also argues that “[a]dditional
graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or
significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id.
(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 19).
Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary
skill and does not propose its own level of ordinary skill. See generally
Prelim. Resp.
IPR2021-00559
Patent 9,635,599 B2
9
Based on the record, we adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary
skill to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the
Petition. This level of skill in the art is consistent with the disclosure of the
’599 patent and the prior art of record. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579
(Fed. Cir. 1995).
C. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review based on a petition filed on or after
November 13, 2018, 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),
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) (2019); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
Petitioner argues that “[a]s of the filing of this Petition, no party has
alleged instances of specialized claim terms requiring departure from the
plain and ordinary meaning” and that “no formal construction is necessary in
this proceeding.” Pet. 14. Patent Owner responds that “data packet” is a
“key term” for which Petitioner fails to apply the ordinary and customary
meaning and proposes an interpretation with citations to the record. Prelim.
Resp. 13–18.
Because our analysis below does not depend on a particular
interpretation for any claim term, we determine that no claim term requires
express interpretation. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d
795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (construing explicitly only those claim terms in
IPR2021-00559
Patent 9,635,599 B2
10
controversy and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy);
Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013,
1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes
review).
D. Challenges Based on Raleigh
Petitioner challenges claims 19, 20, 33, 35–38, and 40–42 as
unpatentable over Raleigh, Fong, TS25.213, and TS25.306 with citations to
the asserted references and declarant testimony. Pet. 8, 23–46. Petitioner
also challenges claims 21 and 39 as unpatentable over the same combination
of references further combined with Eriksson. Id. at 8, 48–49.
Patent Owner responds that Raleigh fails to teach or suggest several
limitations of the claims and that Petitioner fails to provide an adequate
reason for combining Raleigh with Fong. Prelim. Resp. 19–31.
For the reasons stated below, Petitioner fails to show a reasonable
likelihood of prevailing with respect to one claim in its challenges based on
Raleigh.
1. Raleigh (Ex. 1004)
Raleigh “relates to digital communication and more particularly to a
space-time communication system.” Ex. 1004, 1:18–20. Figure 6 of
Raleigh is reproduced below.
IPR2021-00559
Patent 9,635,599 B2
11

Figure 6 shows a communication scenario where multipath is found.
Ex. 1004, 3:14–15. According to Raleigh, there is a need for “a system for
more effectively taking advantage of multiple transmitter antennas and/or
multiple receiver antennas.” Id. at 1:60–62.
A wireless embodiment of Raleigh “operates with an efficient
combination of a substantially orthogonalizing procedure (SOP) in
conjunction with . . . a plurality of both transmitter and receiver antenna
elements.” Ex. 1004, 2:10–16. “The SOP decomposes the time domain
space-time communication channel that may have inter symbol interference
(ISI) into a set of parallel, space-frequency, SOP bins.” Id. at 2:16–19.
In Raleigh, the SOP establishes substantially independent spatial
channels, and Raleigh describes the spatial processing at each bin in terms of
symbols transmitted. Ex. 1004, 16:8–34. In such applications, Raleigh
states that “an advantageous embodiment . . . involves encoding the input
data sequence into a digital symbol stream that is then routed in various
IPR2021-00559
Patent 9,635,599 B2
12
beneficial ways through the available parallel space frequency subchannels.”
Id. at 23:3–9.
This embodiment uses a three layer coding system. Ex. 1004, 23:23–
24. “The fourth layer of coding involves an ARQ code that recognizes Reed
Solomon codeword errors at the receiver in the Receiver ARQ Buffer
Control 450 and requests a codeword retransmission from the Transmitter
ARQ Buffer Control 400,” and “[t]he retransmission request is made
through a Reverse Link Control Channel 460.” Id. at 23:36–42. According
to Raleigh, “[t]he reverse control channel is a well known radio system
concept,” and “[t]he detailed operation of the RS encoder and decoder, as
well as the ARQ system is well known to one skilled in the art.” Id. at
23:42–43, 23:47–49.
2. Fong (Ex. 1005)
Fong relates “particularly to the servicing of packetized
communications within . . . cellular wireless networks.” Ex. 1005, 3:3–5.2
Fong states that “packet data units are passed from a link layer of a
transmitter, e.g., base station or mobile IO station, to a physical layer where
they are inserted into a physical layer frame,” and “[t]he physical layer
frame of the transmitter then transmits the physical layer frame to a receiver,
e.g., mobile station or base station across a wireless link.” Id. at 5:8–12.
According to Fong, “[i]f the receiving physical layer receives the
physical layer frame error free, the receiving physical layer sends a positive
acknowledgement to the transmitting physical layer across the wireless
link,” and “if the receiving physical layer does not receive the physical layer

2 Because Petitioner cites to the exhibit pages of Fong, we also cite to the
exhibit pages in this Decision.
IPR2021-00559
Patent 9,635,599 B2
13
frame error free, the receiving physical layer sends a negative
acknowledgment to the transmitting physical layer across the wireless link.”
Ex. 1005, 5:12–16; see also id. at 10:21–35 (describing how the receive side
physical layer operations provide negative and positive acknowledgements
with the logic diagram shown in Fig. 5).
Fong also describes that “ARQ operations at the physical layer depend
upon a fast feedback from the receive side to a transmit side,” wherein “the
positive or negative acknowledge (ACK) signal is sent on a fast reverse
feedback-signaling channel.” Ex. 1005, 11:3–5. In one implementation, the
ACK signal is one bit, and “the ACK bit is punctured into the reverse pilot
channel and extracted at the transmit side.” Id. at 11:5–11. “Another
potential implementation is to use the reverse dedicated control channel (R-
DCCH) to carry this one bit ACK information.” Id. at 11–13.
3. TS25.213 (Ex. 1010)
TS25.213 is a “Technical Specification (TS)” from the “3rd
Generation Partnership Project” and “describes spreading and modulation
for UTRA Physical Layer FDD mode.” Ex. 1010, 5, 7. Figure 1 of
TS25.213 is reproduced below.
IPR2021-00559
Patent 9,635,599 B2
14

Figure 1 shows uplink spreading of Dedicated Physical Control
Channels (“DPCCH”) and Dedicated Physical Data Channels (“DPDCH”).
Ex. 1010, 7–8. Channelization codes cd,n spread DPDCH to chip rate, and
channelization code cc spreads DPCCH to the chip rate. Id. at 7. The spread
signals are then weighted by gain factors βc and βd. Id. at 8. Thereafter, the
weighted signals are summed and scrambled by Sdpch,n and applied to radio
frames. Id. at 9. As shown, “[o]ne DPCCH and up to six parallel DPDCHs
can be transmitted simultaneously.” Id. at 7.
4. TS25.306 (Ex. 1006)
TS25.306 is a “Technical Specification” from the “3rd Generation
Partnership Project” and “identifies the parameters of the access stratum part
of the UE radio access capabilities.” Ex. 1006, 4, 5. The abbreviation “UE”
IPR2021-00559
Patent 9,635,599 B2
15
stands for “User Equipment.” Id. at 5. Petitioner’s excerpt of Table 5.1 of
TS25.306 is reproduced below.

Pet. 35 (emphases added by Petitioner); see also Ex. 1006, 13–14,
Table 5.1. The table lists value ranges for possible UE radio access
capability parameter settings. Id. at 13.
IPR2021-00559
Patent 9,635,599 B2
16
5. Independent Claim 19
a) “transmitting, by the primary station, substantially
simultaneously a plurality of data packets to the secondary
station, each data packet being transmitted via a different
subset of the plurality of paths”
For the limitation quoted above, which Petitioner labels “[19.1],”
Petitioner argues that Raleigh alone teaches or suggests the transmitting step.
Pet. 5, 24–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 83–87; Ex. 1004, 6:57–62, 16:8–24,
16:36–47, 16:59–61, 17:16–39, 23:3–38). In particular, Petitioner argues
that “Raleigh discloses transmitting data symbols over a plurality of paths,
or ‘substantially independent received spatial subchannels.’” Id. at 25.
Petitioner also argues that “Figure 22 shows an example multilayer coding
system where the symbol outputs of a single encoder are distributed among
all of the available space frequency subchannels, where symbols are
transmitted from a transmitter device to a receiver device.” Id. (citing
Ex. 1004, 23:9–12, 23:23–24, Fig. 22). Petitioner further argues that
“Raleigh describes the use of ‘Spatial Processing’ to transmit, by the
transmitter, multiple data symbols in parallel (substantially
simultaneously),” “that each data symbol is transmitted via a different subset
of the plurality of paths,” and “that input symbols are transmitted via
different ‘spatial directions’ of the communication channel.” Id. at 25–26
(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 86; Ex. 1004, 16:8–24, 16:36–48, 16:59–61, 23:23–38).
Patent Owner responds that Raleigh fails to teach or suggest a
plurality of data packets transmitted substantially simultaneously, and each
data packet transmitted via a different subset of a plurality of paths, as
required by independent claim 19, because Raleigh describes symbols
instead of data packets. Prelim. Resp. 19 (citing Pet. 5, 24–26); see also id.
at 21–22 (arguing that Raleigh’s “symbol” is not the recited “data packet”
IPR2021-00559
Patent 9,635,599 B2
17
under Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation) (citing Ex. 1004, 5:35–51,
25:41–55). Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s relied-upon portions of
Raleigh relate to data symbols, not data packets, as recited by claim 19, and
quotes arguments from the Petition with emphases on Petitioner’s use of
“symbol.” Id. at 19–21 (quoting from Pet. 25–26).
Patent Owner further argues that Petitioner’s declarant testimony
“merely quotes the same portion of Raleigh as cited in the Petition without
further elaboration.” Prelim. Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 84–87). Patent
Owner additionally asserts that “[t]he Petition does not allege that any of the
other references cited in Ground 1, either alone or in combination, disclose
or suggest this claim limitation and, indeed, they do not disclose or suggest
this claim limitation.” Id. at 22. Patent Owner provides arguments why the
other cited references fail to teach or suggest the limitation. Id. at 22–23
(citing Ex. 1005, 7:19–22).
As pointed out by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 19–20), Petitioner’s
relied-upon portions of Raleigh relate only to symbols. See Pet. 24–26. The
cited portions of Raleigh explicitly describe and show “symbols,” “a digital
symbol stream,” “symbol outputs,” and “data symbols.” Ex. 1004, 6:57–62
(describing that “symbols from one subchannel do not substantially interfere
with symbols from another subchannel”), 16:8–24 (describing spatial
processing of symbols), 16:36–47 (describing the acceptance of inputs),
16:59–61 (describing received signal sample depending on input symbols),
17:16–39 (describing “substantially independent multiple streams of
symbols”), 23:3–38 (describing “a digital symbol stream” and “symbol
outputs”).
Petitioner, however, does not further argue or provide additional
evidence that Raleigh’s symbols teach or suggest the recited “data packets.”
IPR2021-00559
Patent 9,635,599 B2
18
See Pet. 24–26. Petitioner’s declarant testimony also does not explain
further the arguments or evidence presented in the Petition and does not
provide additional evidence beyond that cited in the Petition. See Ex. 1003
¶¶ 83–87. Other than Raleigh and declarant testimony, Petitioner does not
point elsewhere in the record for the recited “data packet.” See Pet. 24–26.
Because Petitioner does not explain or point to evidence in the record
that symbols would be understood to teach or suggest the recited data
packets, Petitioner does not show sufficiently that Raleigh teaches or
suggests “transmitting, by the primary station, substantially simultaneously a
plurality of data packets to the secondary station, each data packet being
transmitted via a different subset of the plurality of paths,” as required by
independent claim 19.
b) “receiving, by the secondary station, the plurality of data
packets”
Petitioner labels the limitation quoted above “[19.2].” Pet. 5.
Petitioner contends that Raleigh teaches or suggests the limitation. Id. at
26–27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 88–91; Ex. 1004, 16:39–46, 16:59–63, Figs. 4–6).
Patent Owner responds that Raleigh does not teach or suggest receiving data
packets as required by claim 19 because Raleigh describes symbols, not data
packets. Prelim. Resp. 23–24.
Petitioner relies on portions of Raleigh discussed above that pertain to
symbols. See Pet. 26–27. Petitioner’s declarant testimony does not explain
further the arguments or evidence presented in the Petition and does not
provide additional evidence beyond that cited in the Petition. Ex. 1003
¶¶ 88–91. Thus, for the same reasons stated above, Petitioner provides
insufficient argument and evidence that Raleigh teaches or suggests
IPR2021-00559
Patent 9,635,599 B2
19
“receiving, by the secondary station, the plurality of data packets,” as
required by claim 19.
c) “notifying the primary station, by the secondary station,
whether each data packet is received correctly, wherein
notifying the primary station whether each data packet is
received correctly comprises transmitting, a positive
acknowledgement (ACK) for each of the plurality of data
packets that are received correctly and a negative
acknowledgement (NACK) for each of the plurality of data
packets that are not received correctly”
For the limitation quoted above, which Petitioner labels “[19.4],”
Petitioner proposes combining Raleigh and Fong. Pet. 5, 29–30 (citing
Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 97–99; Ex. 1005, 5:8–16, 10:29–35, Fig. 5). Petitioner argues
that “[f]or the reasons articulated above (supra, Analysis of Ground 1,
[19.3]), the resulting Raleigh system (as modified according to Fong’s
suggestion) would provide this notifying operation.” Id. at 30 (citing Ex.
1003 ¶ 98).
For “determining, by the secondary station, whether each data packet
is received correctly,” labeled “[19.3],” Petitioner argues that, “[t]o the
extent that Raleigh does not explicitly disclose element [19.3],” Fong
teaches determining whether received data packets are good based on known
error correction operations. Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1005, 10:21–28, Fig. 5).
According to Petitioner, the proposed combination of Raleigh and
Fong (1) “would have predictably provided a system where a secondary
station (receiver) can determine whether data is correctly received so that
data can be retransmitted, as needed,” (2) “would have been merely the
application of a known technique (determining whether data is correctly
received at a receiver, as taught by Fong) to a known system (Raleigh’s
communication system) ready for improvement to yield predictable results,”
IPR2021-00559
Patent 9,635,599 B2
20
and (3) “would have led to predictable results without significantly altering
or hindering the functions performed by the wireless communication
system.” Pet. 28–29 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 95).
Patent Owner responds that “Raleigh already uses Reed Solomon
coding to allow for detecting whether data is correctly received in the system
of Raleigh in order for data to be retransmitted, as needed, so there is no
need for any system of Fong for checking for correctly received data in
Raleigh.” Prelim. Resp. 26; see also id. at 27–28 (arguing similarly that
“Raleigh already uses Reed Solomon coding to allow for detecting whether
data is correctly received in the system of Raleigh in order for data to be
retransmitted as needed” and adding that “there would have been no need for
any system of Fong for checking for correctly received data in Raleigh”).
Patent Owner argues that “there is no improvement provided for Raleigh
because Raleigh already has a way to check for errors in received data using
the Reed Solomon coding.” Id. at 26. Patent Owner further argues that
“Reed Solomon codewords in Raleigh are not data packets, so there is no
need for any system of Fong for checking for data errors in Raleigh.” Id.
Petitioner fails to provide sufficient reasons for modifying Raleigh in
view of Fong. Petitioner argues that, from Raleigh alone, one of ordinary
skill in the art “would have understood that the Reed Solomon codewords
are used to determine whether the secondary station correctly received the
data packets, and if not, a retransmission is requested.” Pet. 27 (citing
Ex. 1003 ¶ 93; Ex. 1004, 23:36–44). Petitioner then argues that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have combined Raleigh and Fong to
“provide[] a system where a secondary station (receiver) can determine
whether data is correctly received so that data can be retransmitted, as
needed.” Id. at 28.
IPR2021-00559
Patent 9,635,599 B2
21
Petitioner proposes modifying Raleigh for a feature that Petitioner
contends is already present in Raleigh. See Pet. 27–28. Petitioner’s other
asserted reason, applying the known technique of “determining whether data
is corrected received at a receiver” to Raleigh’s known system, also does not
address adequately why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified
Raleigh for a feature that Petitioner argues Raleigh already has. See id. at
28. Petitioner’s final reason likewise does not address why one of ordinary
skill in the art would have modified Raleigh for a feature that Petitioner
argues Raleigh already has. See id. at 29.
Additionally, Petitioner’s asserted reasons for combining Raleigh and
Fong do not address modifying Raleigh to transmit positive
acknowledgements. Petitioner refers to its arguments for “determining, by
the secondary station, whether each data packet is received correctly” to
contend that “the resulting Raleigh system (as modified according to Fong’s
suggestion) would provide this notifying operation.” See Pet. 30 (citing
Ex. 1003 ¶ 98). As discussed above, Petitioner’s reasons for modifying
Raleigh in view of Fong’s suggestion address only determining whether data
is received correctly by the receiver. See Pet. 28–29 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 95).
Petitioner’s reasons for modification do not go on to address why Raleigh
must be modified to transmit positive and negative acknowledgments, even
though Raleigh already provides for retransmission without such
acknowledgements. See id.
Moreover, we do not understand Petitioner to be arguing that one of
ordinary skill in the art, aware of Fong, would have understood Raleigh
already sends positive and negative acknowledgments because Petitioner’s
arguments expressly indicate that Petitioner is relying on Fong for sending
such acknowledgements. See Pet. 28–29 (arguing that Raleigh omits
IPR2021-00559
Patent 9,635,599 B2
22
discussion of the detailed operations of ARQ but “Fong discloses the
detailed operations of ARQ and retransmission”), 29–30 (arguing “Fong
discloses sending either a positive or a negative acknowledgement”).
Petitioner’s declarant testimony does not explain further the asserted
reasons for combining Raleigh and Fong. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 88–91, 95, 98.
Specifically, paragraph 95 of Petitioner’s declarant testimony similarly only
addresses modifying Raleigh to determine whether data is received
correctly. Specifically, for the determining step, Petitioner’s declarant states
that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to combine
the teachings of Raleigh with those of Fong in order to provide a receiver
that determines whether data transmitted by the transmitter is received with[]
or without error for several reasons” and “would have recognized that
applying the ARQ and retransmission teachings of Fong (including
determining whether data is correctly received) to Raleigh’s wireless
communication system (and to its receiver, specifically) would have led to
predictable results without significantly altering or hindering the functions
performed by the wireless communication system.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 95.
For the notifying step, Petitioner’s declarant states that “[a]n
acknowledgement is sent regarding the physical layer frame depending on
whether an error is determined to be present” and that “[f]or at least these
reasons and the reasons discussed above with respect to [the determining
step], the combination of Raleigh and Fong discloses this notification by the
secondary station.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 98.
For the reasons above, Petitioner’s arguments do not present a
sufficient reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified
Raleigh in view of Fong for the recited step of:
IPR2021-00559
Patent 9,635,599 B2
23
notifying the primary station, by the secondary station, whether
each data packet is received correctly, wherein notifying the
primary station whether each data packet is received correctly
comprises transmitting, a positive acknowledgement (ACK) for
each of the plurality of data packets that are received correctly
and a negative acknowledgement (NACK) for each of the
plurality of data packets that are not received correctly.
6. Independent Claim 33
Independent claim 33 recites “at least one antenna configured . . . to
receive a plurality of data packets that were transmitted substantially
simultaneously . . . , each data packet being communicated via a different
subset of the plurality of paths” and “at least one computer processing circuit
configured to: . . . transmit, a positive acknowledgment (ACK) for each of
the plurality of data packets that are received correctly and a negative
acknowledgement (NACK) for each of the plurality of data packets that are
not received correctly.” Ex. 1001, 12:44–50, 12:53–57.
For claim 33, Petitioner refers to its arguments for independent
claim 19 and adds arguments that Raleigh teaches the recited processing
circuit. Pet. 39–41 (citing also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 119–127). Petitioner does not
provide any further explanation or citations to evidence. Id.; Ex. 1003
¶¶ 119–120, 123–127 (referring testimony for claim 19).
Thus, for the same reasons discussed above for claim 19, Petitioner
fails to show that claim 33 is unpatentable over Raleigh, Fong, TS25.213,
and TS25.306.
7. Dependent Claims 20, 21, and 35–42
Petitioner argues with citations to the references and declarant
testimony that claims 20, 35–38, and 40–42 are unpatentable over Raleigh,
Fong, TS25.213, and TS25.306. Pet. 8, 36–39, 41–46. In another ground,
Petitioner contends with citations to the references and declarant testimony
IPR2021-00559
Patent 9,635,599 B2
24
that dependent claims 21 and 39 are unpatentable over Raleigh, Fong,
TS25.213, TS25.306, and Eriksson. Pet. 8, 48–49.
Patent Owner responds that claims 35–38 and 40–42 depend from
independent claim 33 and that Petitioner has not shown unpatentability for
the same reasons asserted for claim 33. Prelim. Resp. 32. Patent Owner
responds that claim 21 depends from independent claim 19, claim 39
depends from independent claim 33, and Eriksson does not address the
deficiencies of Raleigh. Prelim. Resp. 32–33. Patent Owner, thus, argues
that Petitioner has not shown that claims 21 and 39 are unpatentable. Id. at
33.
Petitioner’s arguments for these claims do not remedy the deficiencies
discussed above for the challenged independent claims. Pet. 36–39, 41–46,
48–49. Petitioner, thus, fails to show that claims 20, 35–38, and 40–42 are
unpatentable over Raleigh, Fong, TS25.213, and TS25.306 and that
claims 21 and 39 are unpatentable over Raleigh, Fong, TS25.213, TS25.306,
and Eriksson.
E. Challenges Based on Dabak
Petitioner challenges claims 19, 20, 33, 36–38, and 40–42 as
unpatentable over Dabak, TS25.301, Fong, TS25.213, and TS25.306. Pet. 8,
52–68. Petitioner also challenges claims 21, 35, and 39 as unpatentable over
Dabak, TS25.301, Fong, TS25.213, TS25.306, and Eriksson. Id. at 9, 68–
71.
Patent Owner responds that Dabak fails to teach or suggest several
limitations of the claims and that Petitioner fails to provide an adequate
reason for combining the asserted references. Prelim. Resp. 33–46.
IPR2021-00559
Patent 9,635,599 B2
25
For the reasons stated below, Petitioner fails to show a reasonable
likelihood of prevailing with respect to one claim in its challenges based on
Dabak.
1. Dabak (Ex. 1013)
Dabak “relates to wideband code division multiple access (WCDMA)
for a communication system and more particularly to space time block coded
transmit antenna diversity for WCDMA.” Ex. 1013, 1:9–12. Figure 2 of
Dabak is reproduced below.

Figure 2 is “a block diagram showing signal flow in an STTD
encoder” that can be used with a transmitter. Ex. 1013, 3:18–20, 3:58–59.
“The STTD encoder receives symbol S1 at symbol time T and symbol S2 at
symbol time 2T on lead 200” and “produces symbol S1 on lead 204 and
symbol—S2* on lead 206 at symbol time T, where the asterisk indicates a
complex conjugate operation.” Id. at 3:60–65. “The STTD encoder then
produces symbol S1 on lead 204 and symbol S1* on lead 206 at symbol time
2T.” Id. at 3:66–4:1. “The bit or chip signals of these symbols are
transmitted serially along respective paths 208 and 210” and “subsequently
received at a remote mobile antenna 212 after a transmit time τj
corresponding to the jth path.” Id. at 4:2–3, 4:10–13.
IPR2021-00559
Patent 9,635,599 B2
26
2. Independent Claim 19
a) “transmitting, by the primary station, substantially
simultaneously a plurality of data packets to the secondary
station, each data packet being transmitted via a different
subset of the plurality of paths”
Petitioner argues that Dabak alone teaches or suggests the limitation
quoted above and referred to as “[19.1].” Pet. 5, 53 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 159–
161; Ex. 1013, 1:15–22, 3:44–53, 3:58–4:17, Fig. 2). In particular,
Petitioner argues that “Figure 2 show[s] data symbols S1 and -S2*
transmitted substantially simultaneously during the symbol time 0~T, and
data symbols S1* and S2 transmitted substantially simultaneously during the
symbol time T~2T, all from a transmitter to a receiver.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003
¶ 160; Ex. 1013, 3:58–4:17).
Patent Owner responds that Dabak fails to teach or suggest a plurality
of data packets transmitted substantially simultaneously, and each data
packet transmitted via a different subset of a plurality of paths, as required
by independent claim 19. Prelim. Resp. 33–34. Specifically, Patent Owner
argues that the relied-upon portions of Dabak describe data symbols, not
data packets; that Dabak’s symbols “are not transmitted substantially
simultaneously on different paths,” and that “the signal from the first
antenna ANT 1 and the signal from the second antenna ANT 2 are both
transmitted along plural signal paths, which are the same Paths 1 . . . j for
both signals.” Id. at 36–37 (citing Ex. 1013, 3:60–4:1, 4:6–10, 4:18–5:30,
Figs. 2, 3, 8).
Patent Owner also responds that the “Petition does not allege that any
of the other references cited in Ground 3, either alone or in combination,
disclose or suggest this claim limitation and, indeed, they do not disclose or
suggest this claim limitation.” Prelim. Resp. 37. Patent Owner further
IPR2021-00559
Patent 9,635,599 B2
27
provides arguments that TS25.301, Fong, TS25.213, and TS25.306 fail to
teach or suggest transmitting substantially simultaneously data packets via a
different subset of paths. Id. at 37–38.
As argued by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 36–37), Petitioner’s relied-
upon portions of Dabak relate only to symbols. See Pet. 53. The cited
portions of Dabak explicitly describe “symbols.” Ex. 1013, 1:15–22
(describing code division multiple access systems), 3:44–53 (describing a
transmitter that receives and encodes symbols), 3:58–4:17 (describing the
signal flow in an encoder shown in Fig. 2). Petitioner, however, does not
further argue or provide additional evidence that Dabak’s symbols teach or
suggest the recited “data packets.” See Pet. 53.
Petitioner’s declarant testimony also does not explain further the
arguments or evidence presented in the Petition and does not provide
additional evidence beyond that cited in the Petition. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 159–
161. Other than Dabak and declarant testimony, Petitioner does not point
elsewhere in the record for the recited “data packet.” See Pet. 53.
Also, Petitioner fails to show that Dabak’s symbols are transmitted
substantially simultaneously with each symbol being transmitted via a
different subset of paths. Instead, Dabak shows in Figure 2 and describes
that “symbols are transmitted serially along respective paths 208 and 210,”
and that Figure 2 shows symbols sent on all the paths between transmitting
antennas ANT 1 and ANT 2 and receiving Mobile Antenna 212. Ex. 1013,
4:2–3, 4:10–13, Fig. 2.
Petitioner, thus, does not show sufficiently that Dabak teaches or
suggests “transmitting, by the primary station, substantially simultaneously a
plurality of data packets to the secondary station, each data packet being
IPR2021-00559
Patent 9,635,599 B2
28
transmitted via a different subset of the plurality of paths,” as required by
independent claim 19.
b) “receiving, by the secondary station, the plurality of data
packets”
Petitioner contends that Dabak teaches or suggests the limitation
quoted above and referred to as “[19.2]. Pet. 5, 53–54 (citing Ex. 1003
¶¶ 162–163; Ex. 1013, 4:18–30, 6:8–14, Figs. 2, 8). Patent Owner responds
that Raleigh does not teach or suggest receiving data packets as required by
claim 19 because Dabak describes symbols, not data packets. Prelim.
Resp. 38–39.
Petitioner relies on portions of Dabak discussed above that pertain to
symbols. See Pet. 53–54. Petitioner’s declarant testimony does not explain
further the arguments or evidence presented in the Petition and does not
provide additional evidence beyond that cited in the Petition. Ex. 1003
¶¶ 162–163. Thus, for the reasons stated above, Petitioner provides
insufficient argument and evidence that Dabak teaches or suggests
“receiving, by the secondary station, the plurality of data packets,” as
required by claim 19.
3. Independent Claim 33
Independent claim 33 recites “at least one antenna configured . . . to
receive a plurality of data packets that were transmitted substantially
simultaneously . . . , each data packet being communicated via a different
subset of the plurality of paths.” Ex. 1001, 12:44–50.
For claim 33, Petitioner refers to its arguments for independent
claim 19 and adds arguments that Dabak teaches the recited processing
circuit. Pet. 62–63 (citing also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 186–193). Petitioner does not
IPR2021-00559
Patent 9,635,599 B2
29
provide any further explanation or citations to evidence. Id.; Ex. 1003
¶¶ 186–187, 190–193 (referring testimony for claim 19).
Thus, for the same reasons discussed above for claim 19, Petitioner
fails to show that claim 33 is unpatentable over Dabak, TS25.301, Fong,
TS25.213, and TS25.306.
4. Challenges to Dependent Claims 20, 21, 35–39, and 40–42
Petitioner argues with citations to the references and declarant
testimony that claims 20, 36–38, and 40–42 are unpatentable over the
proposed combination of Dabak, TS25.301, Fong, TS25.213, and TS25.306.
Pet. 61–62, 63–68. In another ground, Petitioner argues that claims 21, 35,
and 39 are unpatentable over the above proposed combination further
modified by Eriksson with citations to these references and declarant
testimony. Pet. 68–71.
Patent Owner responds that claim 20 depends from independent claim
19, claims 36–38 and 40–42 depend from independent claim 33, and that
Petitioner fails to show that the asserted references teach or suggest these
challenged dependent claims for the reasons discussed for claims 19 and 33.
Prelim. Resp. 45. Patent Owner also responds that Eriksson does not
remedy the deficiencies of Petitioner’s proposed combination based on
Dabak, and thus, Petitioner fails to show that the references teach or suggest
dependent claims 21, 35, and 39. Id. at 46.
Petitioner’s arguments for these claims do not remedy the deficiencies
discussed above for the challenged independent claims. Pet. 61–62, 63–71.
Petitioner, thus, fails to show that claims 20, 36–38, and 40–42 are
unpatentable over the proposed combination of Dabak, TS25.301, Fong,
TS25.213, and TS25.306 and that claims 21, 35, and 39 are unpatentable
over Dabak, TS25.301, Fong, TS25.213, TS25.306, and Eriksson.
IPR2021-00559
Patent 9,635,599 B2
30
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, Petitioner does not show that there is a
reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the
challenged claims.

IV. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no inter partes review is
instituted.

IPR2021-00559
Patent 9,635,599 B2
31
FOR PETITIONER:
Michael T. Hawkins
Jennifer J. Huang
Baile Xie
Patrick J. Bisenius
Jun Li
Nicholas Stephens
Kim Leung
Rishi Gupta
Terry J. Stalford
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
IPR51477-0005IP1@fr.com
jhuang@fr.com
xie@fr.com
bisenius@fr.com
Li@fr.com
nstephens@fr.com
leung@fr.com
rgupta@fr.com
stalford@fr.com

FOR PATENT OWNER:
George C. Beck
Eley O. Thompson
Justin M. Sobaje
Matthew Horton
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
PhilipsIPRs-Quectel@foley.com
GBeck@foley.com
EThompson@foley.com