Koninklijke Philips N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 16, 2021

IPR2021-00558 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2021)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 7
571-272-7822 Date: September 16, 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.

IPR2021-00558
Patent 9,178,577 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
13, 17, 19, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,178,577 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’577
IPR2021-00558
Patent 9,178,577 B2
2
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 13, 17, 19,
and 20 of the ’577 patent.
B. Real Parties in Interest
Petitioner identifies Quectel Wireless Solutions Co. Ltd. as a real
party in interest (Pet. 58), and Patent Owner identifies Koninklijke Philips
N.V. as a real party in interest (Paper 4, 2). A related patent is challenged in
IPR2021-00559.
C. Related Matters
The parties indicate that the ’577 patent is the subject of Koninklijke
Philips N.V. v. Quectel Wireless Solutions Co. Ltd., Case No. 20-cv-01707
(D. Del.). Pet. 58–59; Paper 4, 2; Ex. 1100 (Complaint).
D. The ’577 Patent (Ex. 1001)
The ’577 patent issued on November 3, 2015 from an application filed
on April 23, 2002 which claims priority to a foreign application filed on
April 25, 2001. Ex. 1001, codes (22), (45), (63).
The ’577 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, 1:6–9. The ’577 patent
“describes a system with particular reference to the Universal Mobile
IPR2021-00558
Patent 9,178,577 B2
3
Telecommunications System (UTMS)” but states that its “techniques are
equally applicable to use in other mobile radio systems.” Id. at 1:9–13.
Figure 1 of the ’577 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, 3:25–26, 3:45–47. Primary station 100
includes data source 102 that provides a data stream for transmitting to
secondary station 110. Id. at 3:47–49. 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 3:49–53. 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 3:54–55.
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, 4:11–15. Parallel to serial converter 114 recombines the data sub-
IPR2021-00558
Patent 9,178,577 B2
4
streams and provides the recombined data stream to data output block 112.
Id. at 4:15–17.
The ’577 patent states that “[a]n ARQ (Automatic Repeat reQuest)
scheme is needed to ensure correct delivery of each data packet.” Ex. 1001,
1:67–2:2; see also id. at 4:43–44 (describing “[a]n example of an ARQ
scheme operating in known manner . . . in FIG. 3.”). Figure 4 of the ’577
patent is reproduced below.

Figure 4 is a diagram illustrating the operation of an ARQ scheme
according to the ’577 patent. Ex. 1001, 3:32–35. In Figure 4, “each data
sub-stream is allocated a separate ARQ channel.” Id. at 5:11–12. 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 5:12–17. The transmission “can be done in a CDMA (Code
Division Multiple Access) system using the same channeli[z]ation and
scrambling codes.” Id. at 5:17–19.
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,
5:20–26. In response, BS 100 re-transmits packet P2 on DL2 and transmits
next packet P3 on DL1. Id. at 5:26–28.
IPR2021-00558
Patent 9,178,577 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, 5:28–31.
BS 100 re-transmits P3 on DL1 and transmits next packet P4 on DL2. Id. at
5:31–33. “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 optimi[z]ed by avoiding such
antennas or beams.” Id. at 5:43–46.
E. Illustrative Claim
The ’577 patent includes claims 1–20, of which Petitioner challenges
claims 13, 17, 19, and 20. Of those, claims 13 and 17 are independent, and
claim 13 is reproduced below.
13. 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, the data packets being transmitted via
different subsets of the plurality of paths;
receiving, by the secondary station, the plurality of
data packets;
determining, by the secondary station, whether the
plurality of data packets were received correctly;
signaling said determination to the primary station;
signaling to the primary station a number of
simultaneous data streams that the secondary station is
capable of receiving or processing; and
receiving a re-transmission of incorrectly received
data packets via selected ones of the subsets of the
plurality of paths, said selected ones of the subsets of the
plurality of paths corresponding to the subsets of the
plurality of paths utilized for an initial transmission of the
incorrectly received data packets, and
IPR2021-00558
Patent 9,178,577 B2
6
wherein at least one of a modulation scheme and a
coding scheme for re-transmission of said data packets on
said selected ones of the subsets of the plurality of paths is
different from the modulation and coding scheme utilized
for said selected ones of the subsets of the plurality of
paths during said initial transmission of said data packets.
Ex. 1001, 9:66–10:29.
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
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
TS25.306 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. 4; see also id. at 4–5 (arguing that April 25, 2001 is the earliest possible
priority date); Ex. 1015 (Declaration of Craig Bishop regarding the public
accessibility of Ex. 1006). Petitioner further provides a Declaration of
Robert Akl D.Sc. (Ex. 1003).
IPR2021-00558
Patent 9,178,577 B2
7
G. Asserted Grounds
Petitioner asserts that claims 13, 17, 19, and 20 would have been
unpatentable on the following grounds:
Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis
13, 17, 19, 20 1031 Raleigh, Eriksson, TS25.306
13, 17, 19, 20 103 Raleigh, Fong, 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 ’577 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
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).

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 ’577 patent claims priority to an application filed before
that date, our citations to 35 U.S.C. § 103 are to its pre-AIA version.
IPR2021-00558
Patent 9,178,577 B2
8
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. 9–10 (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. at 10 (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.
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
IPR2021-00558
Patent 9,178,577 B2
9
’577 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. 10. 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. 12–18
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
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).
IPR2021-00558
Patent 9,178,577 B2
10
D. Challenges Based on Raleigh
Petitioner challenges claims 13, 17, 19, and 20 as unpatentable over
Raleigh, Eriksson, and TS25.306 with citations to the asserted references
and declarant testimony. Pet. 4, 17–38. Petitioner also challenges the same
claims as unpatentable over Raleigh, Fong, TS25.306, and Eriksson. Id. at
4, 38–52.
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 the references as proposed in the Petition. Prelim.
Resp. 17–37.
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.
IPR2021-00558
Patent 9,178,577 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
IPR2021-00558
Patent 9,178,577 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. Eriksson (Ex. 1012)
Eriksson particularly relates “to mode signalling involving multiple
modulation and coding schemes, link adaptation and incremental
redundancy in digital communication systems.” Ex. 1012, 1:7–11. Eriksson
states that “ARQ techniques involve analyzing received blocks of data for
errors and requesting retransmission of blocks which contain errors.” Id. at
2:32–34. Eriksson also describes that, for a Generalized Packet Radio
Service, a “block sequence check (BCS) . . . can be used by a receiver to
check for errors in the information field.” Id. at 2:34–45. Eriksson further
describes that the receiver processes blocks after demodulation, evaluates
blocks for errors using BCS, and sends a request to a transmitting entity if
there are errors. Id. at 2:50–55.
In an exemplary embodiment, Eriksson describes that the transmitting
entity can retransmit blocks using the original modulation and coding
IPR2021-00558
Patent 9,178,577 B2
13
scheme or vary, change, or adjust the scheme for retransmission. Ex. 1012,
3:53–62, 4:15–20, 5:29–35.
3. 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 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
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

2 Because Petitioner cites to the exhibit pages of Fong, we also cite to the
exhibit pages in this Decision.
IPR2021-00558
Patent 9,178,577 B2
14
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.
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”
stands for “User Equipment.” Id. at 5. Petitioner’s excerpt of Table 5.1 of
TS25.306 is reproduced below.

Pet. 28 (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.
IPR2021-00558
Patent 9,178,577 B2
15
5. Independent Claim 13
a) Challenge Based on Raleigh, Eriksson, and TS25.306
(1) “transmitting, by the primary station, substantially
simultaneously, a plurality of data packets to the secondary
station, the data packets being transmitted via different
subsets of the plurality of paths”
For the limitation quoted above, which Petitioner refers to as “[13.1],”
Petitioner argues that Raleigh alone teaches or suggests the transmitting step.
Pet. 19–23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 76–80; 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 20.
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. at 20–21
(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 (i.e., substantially
simultaneously),” “that the multiple data symbols are 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 21–23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 79; Ex. 1004, 16:8–24, 16:36–48, 16:59–61,
17:16–39, 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 13, because Raleigh describes symbols
IPR2021-00558
Patent 9,178,577 B2
16
instead of data packets. Prelim. Resp. 18 (citing Pet. 19–20); see also id. at
20–21 (arguing that Raleigh’s “symbol” is not the recited “data packet”
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 13, and
quotes arguments from the Petition with emphases on Petitioner’s use of
“symbol.” Id. at 19–20 (quoting from Pet. 20–23).
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. 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 76–79). 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. (citing
Ex. 1006; Ex. 1012).
As pointed out by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 19–20), Petitioner’s
relied-upon portions of Raleigh relate only to symbols. See Pet. 20–23. 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 “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”).
IPR2021-00558
Patent 9,178,577 B2
17
Petitioner, however, does not further argue or provide additional
evidence that Raleigh’s symbols teach or suggest the recited “data packets.”
See Pet. 20–23. 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
¶¶ 76–80. Other than Raleigh and declarant testimony, Petitioner does not
point elsewhere in the record for the recited “data packet.” See Pet. 20–23.
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, the data packets being
transmitted via different subsets of the plurality of paths,” as required by
independent claim 13.
(2) “receiving, by the secondary station, the plurality of data
packets”
Petitioner labels the limitation quoted above “[13.2]” and contends
that Raleigh teaches or suggests the limitation. Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1003
¶¶ 81–84; 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 13 because Raleigh describes symbols, not data packets.
Prelim. Resp. 22–23.
Petitioner relies on portions of Raleigh discussed above that pertain to
symbols. See Pet. 23. 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
¶¶ 81–84. Thus, for the same reasons stated above, Petitioner provides
IPR2021-00558
Patent 9,178,577 B2
18
insufficient argument and evidence that Raleigh teaches or suggests
“receiving, by the secondary station, the plurality of data packets,” as
required by claim 13.
(3) “determining, by the secondary station, whether the
plurality of data packets were received correctly” and
“signaling said determination to the primary station”
For “determining, by the secondary station, whether the plurality of
data packets were received correctly,” labeled “[13.3],” Petitioner argues
that Raleigh alone teaches or suggests the recited determining step. Pet. 23–
24 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85–89; Ex. 1004, 23:36–53, Figs. 4–6, 22).
According to Petitioner, one of ordinary skill in the art “would have
understood that the Reed Solomon codewords are used to determine whether
data packets were correctly received by the secondary station, and if not, a
retransmission would be requested.” Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1004, 23:36–44;
Ex. 1003 ¶ 86).
Petitioner also argues that “[t]o the extent that Raleigh does not
explicitly disclose element [13.3], such a feature was known in prior art
systems similar to Raleigh” and that “Eriksson discloses a system similar to
Raleigh in that they both relate to ARQ techniques.” Pet. 24–25 (citing
Ex. 1012, 2:32–34, 2:37–52).
According to Petitioner, the proposed combination of Raleigh and
Eriksson (1) “would have beneficially provided a system where a secondary
station (receiver) can determine whether data is received with errors 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 without error at a receiver so that a retransmission can be
determined and requested, as taught by Eriksson) to a known system
IPR2021-00558
Patent 9,178,577 B2
19
(Raleigh’s communication system) ready for improvement to yield
predictable results,” and “would have led to predictable results without
significantly altering or hindering the functions performed by the wireless
communication system.” Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 88; Ex. 1004, 23:47–
49; Ex. 1012, 2:49–55).
For “signaling said determination to the primary station,” labeled
“[13.4],” Petitioner argues that “[t]he teachings of Raleigh in view of
Eriksson provides this Element.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–92). In
particular, Petitioner argues that “Eriksson expressly describes signaling said
determination to the primary station” and “[f]or at least the reasons
discussed above with respect to Element [13.3], [one of ordinary skill in the
art] would have been motivated to implement the system and method of
Raleigh in a manner suggested by Eriksson so as to determine whether data
transmitted by the transmitter is correct[ly] received by the receiver.” Id. at
26–27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 91; Ex. 1012, 2:49–55, 7:48–57, 9:41–92).
Patent Owner responds that “Raleigh already uses Reed Solomon
coding to allow for detecting whether data is received with errors in the
system of Raleigh in order for data to be retransmitted, as needed, so there is
no need for any system of Eriksson for checking for data received with
errors in Raleigh.” Prelim. Resp. 25; see also id. at 27 (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 acknowledgement reports of Eriksson 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.
IPR2021-00558
Patent 9,178,577 B2
20
Patent Owner further argues that “Reed Solomon codewords in Raleigh are
not data packets, so even if Raleigh were modified in view of Eriksson to
provide an acknowledgement report for each Reed Solomon codeword in
Raleigh, that would not teach the claimed limitation.” Id. at 26–27.
Petitioner fails to provide sufficient reasons for modifying Raleigh in
view of Eriksson. 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 by the secondary station, and if not, a
retransmission is requested.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 86; Ex. 1004,
23:36–44). Petitioner then argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have combined Raleigh and Eriksson “so that the receiver determines
whether data transmitted by the transmitter has errors.” Id. at 25.
Petitioner proposes modifying Raleigh for a feature that Petitioner
contends is already present in Raleigh. See Pet. 24–26. Petitioner’s other
asserted reason, applying the known technique of “determining whether data
is correctly received without error 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 25. Petitioner’s final assertion that the modification would
not significantly alter or hinder the functions of a wireless communication
system likewise does not address why one of ordinary skill in the art would
have modified Raleigh for a feature that Petitioner contends Raleigh already
has. See id. at 26.
Additionally, Petitioner’s asserted reasons for combining Raleigh and
Eriksson do not address modifying Raleigh to transmit positive
acknowledgements. Petitioner refers to its arguments for “determining, by
IPR2021-00558
Patent 9,178,577 B2
21
the secondary station, whether the plurality of data packet were received
correctly” to contend that Raleigh would have been modified in view of
Eriksson “so as to determine whether data transmitted by the transmitter is
correct[ly] received by the receiver.” See Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 91). As
discussed above, Petitioner’s reasons for modifying Raleigh in view of
Eriksson’s suggestion address only determining whether data is received
correctly by the receiver, not signaling the determination to a primary
station. See Pet. 25–27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 88, 91).
Moreover, we do not understand Petitioner to be arguing that one of
ordinary skill in the art, aware of Eriksson, would have understood Raleigh
already signals a determination of whether data was received correctly
because Petitioner’s arguments expressly indicate that Petitioner is relying
on Eriksson for expressly describing the step of signaling the determination
to a primary station. See Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1012, 2:49–55).
Petitioner’s declarant testimony does not explain further the asserted
reasons for combining Raleigh and Eriksson. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 88, 91.
Specifically, paragraph 88 of Petitioner’s declarant testimony similarly only
addresses modifying Raleigh to determine whether data is received
correctly. 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 Eriksson 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 Eriksson (including
determining whether data is correctly received) to Raleigh’s wireless
communication system (and to its receiver, specifically) would have led to
IPR2021-00558
Patent 9,178,577 B2
22
predictable results without significantly altering or hindering the functions
performed by the wireless communication system.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 88.
For the signaling step, Petitioner’s declarant states that “Eriksson
teaches that ‘control blocks which are transmitted periodically’ between ‘the
receiving entity’ and ‘the transmitting entity’ may include
‘acknowledgement reports’” and that:
For the same reasons discussed above regarding [13.3], a
POSITA would have been motivated to implement the method
and system of Raleigh with the ARQ and retransmission
techniques described in Eriksson to provide a system where a
receiver can determine whether data is correctly received, and if
not, request retransmission of that data.
Ex. 1003 ¶ 91.
Based on the record before us, Petitioner’s arguments do not present a
sufficient reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified
Raleigh in view of Eriksson for the recited step of “signaling said
determination to the primary station.”
b) Challenge Based on Raleigh, Fong, TS25.306, and Eriksson
(1) “transmitting, by the primary station, substantially
simultaneously, a plurality of data packets to the secondary
station, the data packets being transmitted via different
subsets of the plurality of paths” and “receiving, by the
secondary station, the plurality of data packets”
For “transmitting, by the primary station, substantially
simultaneously, a plurality of data packets to the secondary station, the data
packets being transmitted via different subsets of the plurality of paths,”
Petitioner argues that “[t]he predictable Raleigh-Fong-TS25.306-Eriksson
combination provides this element for the same reasons already detailed
above” for the first proposed combination of Raleigh, Eriksson, and
TS25.306. Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 123). Also, for “receiving, by the
IPR2021-00558
Patent 9,178,577 B2
23
secondary station, the plurality of data packets,” Petitioner again argues that
“[t]he predictable Raleigh-Fong-TS25.306-Eriksson combination provides
this element for the same reasons already detailed above” for the first
proposed combination starting with Raleigh. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 124).
Patent Owner responds that “the Petition does not make any further
argument based on Fong, but instead merely relies on its same analysis as
for Ground 1.” Prelim. Resp. 33 (citing Pet. 42, 46–47, 50). Patent Owner,
thus, refers to the same arguments asserted for the first challenge to contend
that the combination of Raleigh, Fong, TS25.306, and Eriksson does not
teach or suggest, at least, the limitations quoted above. Id. at 33–34. Patent
Owner also argues that Fong does not cure the deficiencies of the first
proposed combination. Id. at 34 (citing Ex. 1005, 7:19–22).
For the reasons discussed above for the first proposed combination,
Petitioner does not provide sufficient explanation or evidence that symbols
would be understood to teach or suggest the recited data packets. Thus,
Petitioner does not show adequately that Raleigh teaches or suggests
“transmitting, by the primary station, substantially simultaneously, a
plurality of data packets to the secondary station, the data packets being
transmitted via different subsets of the plurality of paths” and “receiving, by
the secondary station, the plurality of data packets,” as required by
independent claim 13.
(2) “determining, by the secondary station, whether the
plurality of data packets were received correctly” and
“signaling said determination to the primary station”
Regarding “determining, by the secondary station, whether the
plurality of data packets were received correctly,” Petitioner argues that
Raleigh alone teaches or suggests the determining step. Pet. 43 (citing
IPR2021-00558
Patent 9,178,577 B2
24
Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 125–129; Ex. 1004, 23:36–53, Figs. 4–6, 22). According to
Petitioner, one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that the
Reed Solomon codewords are used to determine whether data packets were
correctly received by the secondary station, and if not, a retransmission
would be requested.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 23:36–44; Ex. 1003 ¶ 126).
Petitioner also argues that “[t]o the extent that Raleigh does not
explicitly disclose element [13.3], Fong discloses ‘receive side physical
layer operations’ that include ‘determin[ing] whether the received physical
layer frame is a good physical layer frame (step 506).’” Pet. 43–44 (citing
Ex. 1005, 10:23–28). In Petitioner’s view, the proposed combination of
Raleigh and Fong (1) “would have beneficially 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,”
and (3) “would have led to predictable results without significantly altering
or hindering the functions performed by the wireless communication
system.” Pet. 44–45 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 128).
As for “signaling said determination to the primary station,” Petitioner
proposes combining Raleigh and Fong. Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 130–
132). Petitioner argues that “Fong discloses signaling said determination to
the primary station.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 130; Ex. 1005, 5:8–16, 10:29–
35, Fig. 5).
Patent Owner responds that “Fong does not cure the deficiencies with
respect to the other cited references, and there is no motivation to alter
Raleigh as suggested in the Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 34. Patent Owner
IPR2021-00558
Patent 9,178,577 B2
25
argues that Raleigh does not teach or suggest any operations on data packets
or retransmission of data packets and that Raleigh’s Reed Solomon
codeword is not a data packet. Id. at 34–35 (citing Pet. 43; Ex. 1004, 5:52–
60, 23:36–53). Patent Owner also argues that one of ordinary skill would
not have combined Raleigh and Fong for the reasons presented in the
Petition because “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.” Id. at 35 (citing
Pet. 43–44). Patent Owner additionally 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
35–36.
Petitioner fails to provide sufficient reasons for modifying Raleigh
with the teachings 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 data packets were correctly
received by the secondary station, and if not, a retransmission would be
requested.” Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 125–129; Ex. 1004, 23:36–53,
Figs. 4–6, 22). 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 44 (citing Ex. 1003
¶ 128).
Petitioner proposes modifying Raleigh for a feature that, according to
Petitioner, is already present in Raleigh. See Pet. 43–44. Petitioner’s other
asserted reason (applying the known technique of “determining whether data
IPR2021-00558
Patent 9,178,577 B2
26
is correctly 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
44. Petitioner’s final assertion that the modification would not significantly
alter or hinder the functions of a wireless communication system likewise
does not address why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified
Raleigh for a feature that Petitioner contends Raleigh already has. See id. at
44–45.
Petitioner’s cited declarant testimony pertains to (1) the teachings of
Raleigh (see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 125–126), (2) the teachings of Fong (see id. ¶ 127),
and (3) why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Raleigh
and Fong so that Raleigh “determines whether data transmitted by the
transmitter is received with[] or without error” (see id. ¶ 128). The
testimony, however, does not further explain or provide additional evidence
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Raleigh for a
feature Petitioner asserts it already has.
Additionally, Petitioner’s asserted reasons for combining Raleigh and
Fong do not address modifying Raleigh to signal a primary station the
determination of whether data packets were correctly received. Although
Petitioner argues that “Fong discloses signaling said determination to the
primary station,” it does not provide any reason why one of ordinary skill in
the art would have modified Raleigh in view of Fong so that Raleigh’s
system includes “signaling said determination to the primary station,” as
required by claim 13. See Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 130; Ex. 1005, 5:8–16,
10:29–35, Fig. 5). Petitioner’s cited declarant testimony pertains only to the
teachings of Fong and does not address why one of ordinary skill in the art
IPR2021-00558
Patent 9,178,577 B2
27
would have modified Raleigh in view of Fong for “signaling said
determination to the primary station.” See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 130–132.
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 signals a determination to a primary station because Petitioner’s
arguments expressly indicate that Petitioner is relying on Fong for such
signaling. See Pet. 45 (arguing that “Fong discloses signaling said
determination to the primary station”).
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 steps of “determining, by the
secondary station, whether the plurality of data packets were received
correctly” and “signaling said determination to the primary station.”
6. Independent Claim 17
Independent claim 17 recites “a transceiver configured to: receive a
plurality of data packets transmitted substantially simultaneously by the
primary station, the packets being transmitted via different subsets of the
plurality of paths” and “signal a determination of which data packets are
received correctly to the primary station.” Ex. 1001, 11:13–19.
In the challenge based on Raleigh, Eriksson, and TS25.306, Petitioner
refers to its arguments for independent claim 13 and adds arguments that
Raleigh teaches the recited transceiver. Pet. 34–37 (citing also Ex. 1003
¶¶ 107–110, 112–115). In the challenge based on Raleigh, Fong, TS25.306,
and Eriksson, Petitioner refers to its arguments for claim 13 and the first
proposed combination. Id. at 50–52 (citing also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 147–153, 155).
Petitioner does not provide any further explanation or citations to evidence,
IPR2021-00558
Patent 9,178,577 B2
28
other than for the recited transceiver. Id. at 34–37, 50–52; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 107–
115, 147–153 (referring to testimony for claim 13).
Patent Owner responds that independent claim 17 is not unpatentable
over (1) Raleigh, Eriksson, and TS25.306 or (2) Raleigh, Fong, TS25.306,
and Eriksson for the reasons asserted for independent claim 13. Prelim.
Resp. 32–33, 36.
For the same reasons discussed above for claim 13, Petitioner fails to
show that claim 17 is unpatentable over either Raleigh, Eriksson, and
TS25.306 or Raleigh, Fong, TS25.306, and Eriksson.
7. Dependent Claims 19 and 20
Petitioner argues with citations to the references and declarant
testimony that claims 19 and 20 are unpatentable over the combinations of
(1) Raleigh, Eriksson, and TS25.306 and (2) Raleigh, Fong, TS25.306, and
Eriksson. Pet. 37–38, 52.
Patent Owner responds that claims 19 and 20 depend from
independent claim 17 and that Petitioner has not shown these claims are
unpatentable for the same reasons asserted for claim 17. Prelim. Resp. 33,
37.
Petitioner’s arguments for claims 19 and 20 do not remedy the
deficiencies discussed above for the challenged independent claims.
Pet. 37–38, 52. Petitioner, thus, fails to show that claims 19 and 20 are
unpatentable over either Raleigh, Eriksson, and TS25.306 or Raleigh, Fong,
TS25.306, and Eriksson.

IPR2021-00558
Patent 9,178,577 B2
29
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.

IPR2021-00558
Patent 9,178,577 B2
30
For PETITIONER:
Michael Hawkins
Jennifer Huang
Baile Xie
Patrick Bisenius
Jun Li
Nicholas Stephens
Kim Leung
Rishi Gupta
Terry Stalford
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
hawkins@fr.com
jjh@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 Beck
Eley Thompson
Justin Sobaje
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
jsobaje@foley.com
GBeck@foley.com
EThompson@foley.com