Wi-LAN Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 5, 2020

IPR2020-00304 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2020)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 9
571-272-7822 Date: August 5, 2020

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

HUIZHOU TCL MOBILE COMMUNICATION CO. LTD., TCT MOBILE
(US) INC. and TCL MOBILE COMMUNICATION (HK) CO., LTD.,
Petitioner,
v.
WI-LAN INC,
Patent Owner.

IPR2020-00304
Patent 9,854,577 B2

Before GARTH D. BAER, KAMRAN JIVANI, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
35 U.S.C. § 314

IPR2020-00304
Patent 9,854,577 B2
2
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co. Ltd., TCT Mobile (US)
Inc., and TCL Mobile Communication (HK) Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”) filed a
Petition requesting inter partes review of claims 1–22 (all claims) of U.S.
Patent No. 9,854,577 B2 (“the ’577 patent,” Ex. 1001). Paper 1 (“Pet.”).
Wi-LAN Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6
(“Prelim. Resp.”). Pursuant to our authorization, Petitioner filed a Reply,
and Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply. Paper 7 (“Reply”); Paper 8 (“Sur-
reply”).
Institution of an inter partes review is authorized when “the
information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that
there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect
to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
We have considered the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Reply, the
Sur-reply, and accompanying exhibits submitted by the parties. For the
reasons explained below, we do not institute an inter partes review.
B. Related Matters
The parties identify Wi-LAN Inc., et al. v. Huizhou TCL Mobile
Communication Co. Ltd., et al., 8:19-cv-00870 (C.D. Cal.) as a related
matter. Pet. 2; Paper 4, 2–3.
C. Real Parties in Interest
Petitioner identifies Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co. Ltd.,
TCT Mobile (US) Inc., TCL Mobile Communication (HK) Co., Ltd., and
TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd. as real parties in interest.
Pet. 1–2.
IPR2020-00304
Patent 9,854,577 B2
3
Patent Owner states, “Wi-LAN Labs, Inc. (Delaware) is a subsidiary
of WiLAN USA, Inc. (Florida), which is a subsidiary of Wi-LAN
Technologies Inc. (Delaware), which is a subsidiary of Wi-LAN Inc.
(CBCA), which is a subsidiary of Quarterhill Inc. (CBCA).” Paper 4, 2.
D. The ’577 Patent and Illustrative Claim
The ’577 patent discloses aggregating multiple channels to increase
the effective bandwidth of a wireless device. Ex. 1001, 3:25–53, 5:43–61,
Figs. 1, 3B. As disclosed in the ’577 patent, downlink data is divided, and
then transmitted on a first and second channel simultaneously. Id. at 5:55–
61. Identification of the channels to be aggregated for downlink
transmission is transmitted to the terminal device via control channels. Id. at
23:39–49.
Figure 1 of the ’577 patent, reproduced below, illustrates an
embodiment.

IPR2020-00304
Patent 9,854,577 B2
4
Figure 1 is a block diagram of a wireless environment including first
channel 110(1), second channel 110(2), base station(s) 102, subscriber
station(s) 104(1)–104(n), and wireless link(s) 106(1)–106(m). Ex. 1001,
2:48–49, 5:46–51. As disclosed in the ’577 patent, the embodiment of
Figure 1 illustrates a “single service 112 is being communicated using
multiple aggregated channels 110.” Id. at 5:45–47. Specifically, “a first
channel 110(1) and a second channel 110(2) are channel-aggregated for
communications via wireless link 106(m) for single service 112.” Id. at
5:48–50.
Claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced below.
1. A wireless device comprising:
a receive unit; and
a processor; and
the receive unit and the processor are configured to receive
control data via control channels over at least a first
communication channel or a second communication channel, the
control data including a first assignment of downlink resources
for the first communication channel and a second assignment of
downlink resources for the second communication channel;
wherein the first assignment of downlink resources
indicates assigned orthogonal frequency division multiple access
(OFDM) subcarriers of the first communication channel and the
second assignment of downlink resources indicates assigned
OFDM subcarriers of the second communication channel; and
the receive unit and the processor are further configured to
receive downlink data on the assigned OFDM subcarriers of the
first communication channel and the assigned OFDM subcarriers
of the second communication channel;
wherein at least a portion of the downlink data is received
at least in part simultaneously on the first communication
channel and the second communication channel; and
the processor is configured to combine at least a portion of
the received downlink data from the first communication channel
IPR2020-00304
Patent 9,854,577 B2
5
and the second communication channel to produce data for a
single service.

Id. at 24:21–51.
E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–22 of the ’577
patent on the following grounds:
Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. §1 Reference(s)/Basis
1, 3–6, 8–12, 14–17,
19–22
103(a) Gorokhov2
2, 13 103(a) Gorokhov, Jung3
7, 18 103(a) Gorokhov, Zhao4
10, 21 103(a) Gorokhov, Walton5
1, 3–5, 11, 12, 14–16,
22
103(a) Ryu,6 Yamaura7
2, 13 103(a) Ryu, Yamaura, Jung
7, 18 103(a) Ryu, Yamaura, Zhao
10, 21 103(a) Ryu, Yamaura, Walton
Petitioner relies on the testimony of its expert, Dr. Titus Lo, in support
of its arguments. Ex. 1003 (“Lo Declaration”).

1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to
35 U.S.C. § 103 that became effective after the filing of the application for
the ’577 patent. Therefore, we apply the pre-AIA version of this section.
2 Gorokhov et al., US 8,582,592 B2, published Mar. 6, 2008 (Ex. 1004).
3 Jung et al., WO 2006/001671 A1, published Jan. 5, 2006 (Ex. 1012).
4 Zhao et al., US 2005/0152409 A1, published Jul. 14, 2005 (Ex. 1013).
5 Walton et al., US 6,493,331 B1, published Dec. 10, 2002 (Ex. 1014).
6 Ryu, KR 2005/0053377, published Jun. 8, 2005 (English translation)
(Ex. 1008).
7 Yamaura et al., US 2003/0224731 A1, published Dec. 4, 2003 (Ex. 1011).
IPR2020-00304
Patent 9,854,577 B2
6
II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
Because the Petition was filed after November 13, 2018, we construe
the challenged claims 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). 37
C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). This rule adopts the same claim construction
standard used by federal district courts, which follow Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under this standard, the words of
a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which
is the meaning the term would have to a person of ordinary skill8 at the time
of the invention, in the context of the entire patent including the
specification. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13.
For purposes of determining whether to institute trial, we construe the
term “single service” as described below. We need not address the
constructions of any other terms. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan
Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need
only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary
to resolve the controversy’ . . . .” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. &
Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).

8 Petitioner asserts, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that a “person of
ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’) with respect to the claimed subject
matter in the ‘577 Patent would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical
engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and
around two years of experience in the design or development of
telecommunication systems, or the equivalent, [and] [a]dditional educational
or industrial experience could qualify if those additional aspects compensate
for a deficit in one of the other aspects of the requirements stated above.”
Pet. 10; Ex. 1003, ¶15. We adopt this undisputed description of the level of
ordinary skill in the art.
IPR2020-00304
Patent 9,854,577 B2
7
Claim 1 recites “the processor is configured to combine at least a
portion of the received downlink data from the first communication channel
and the second communication channel to produce data for a single service.”
Ex. 1001, 24:48–51 (emphasis added). Petitioner does not propose a
construction for “single service.” Pet. 10–15; Reply 1. Patent Owner argues
that “single service” should be construed as a “data service” such as email,
streaming, or a video call, and not a service provider (such as “AT&T
Wireless, Verizon Wireless, etc.”). Prelim. Resp. 9. Patent Owner argues
that Petitioner has effectively (if not expressly) interpreted “single service”
as meaning a single service provider, which Patent Owner argues is an
incorrect construction and not supported by the evidence. Id. Petitioner
replies that its Petition does not refer to any particular service provider, and
states that Patent Owner’s argument is a “red herring.” Reply 1.
We agree with and adopt Patent Owner’s construction of “single
service.” As Patent Owner asserts, the ’577 patent consistently describes a
single service as comprising integrated data that has been divided up for
communication across different channels, and does not mean a
communications “service provider.” For example, the ’577 patent discloses:
For an exemplary embodiment of channel aggregation, each
wireless communication link 106 may be comprised of two or
more aggregated (communication) channels 110. As illustrated
in particular for wireless link 106(m), a single service 112 is
being communicated using multiple aggregated channels 110.
More specifically, a first channel 110(1) and a second channel
110(2) are channel-aggregated for communications via wireless
link 106(m) for single service 112. Although only two channels
110(1) and 110(2) and a single service 112 are explicitly
illustrated, channel aggregation may be implemented using any
number of two or more communication channels and may
involve more than one service. In an example embodiment,
integrated data is divided into first data and second data. The
IPR2020-00304
Patent 9,854,577 B2
8
first data is transmitted on a first channel. The second data is
simultaneously transmitted on a second channel such that the
first data and the second data are transmitted in a coordinated
manner by aggregating the first channel and the second
channel.
Ex. 1001, 5:43–61.
The foregoing passage describes the transmission of data, and does
not distinguish any particular service providers. Similarly, Figure 1 of the
’577 patent illustrates a network environment in which the “single service”
112 is distinct from the network(s) 108 (i.e., single service is distinct from
network provider). See supra; see also Ex. 1001, 5:55–61; id. at 15:8–23,
3:61–63 (“The channel aggregation module is to formulate an integrated
data set for a single service from the first data set and the second data set.”).
Further, the ’577 patent distinguishes producing data for a “single
service” from using aggregated channels on an “entire service” basis, in
which “all data of one service for a particular subscriber station is sent over
a first channel, and all data of another service for the particular subscriber
station is sent over a second channel.” Ex. 1001, 16:22–33 (emphases
added). Specifically, dividing on an “entire service basis” involves “a
predefined ordering scheme . . . for those services that can have data packets
for the same service take different paths.” Id.
Petitioner does not offer any evidence contradicting Patent Owner’s
arguments that “single service” should be construed as a data service and not
a service provider. For the foregoing reasons, we adopt Patent Owner’s
proposed construction of this term. Based on our analysis of Petitioner’s
contentions below, we need not address the parties’ proposed constructions
of other terms. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017.
IPR2020-00304
Patent 9,854,577 B2
9
B. Principles of Law
A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 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). 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 ordinary skill in the art; and (4) any secondary
considerations,9 if in evidence. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–
18 (1966).
C. Alleged Obviousness over Gorokhov
(Claims 1, 3–6, 8–12, 14–17, 19–22)
Petitioner asserts claims 1, 3–6, 8–12, 14–17, and 19–22 of the ’577
patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the teachings of
Gorokhov. Pet. 16–43.
1. Overview of Gorokhov
Gorokhov10 discloses “wireless resource allocation,” and specifically,
“assigning and using resources corresponding to discontinuous portions of

9 The parties do not present arguments or evidence of secondary
considerations.
10 The parties dispute whether Gorokhov qualifies as prior art under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e), and specifically, whether Gorokhov’s provisional
applications sufficiently support the claim(s) and relevant disclosures in
Gorokhov. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 38–55; Reply 1; Dynamic Drinkware v.
Nat’l Graphics, 800 F.3d 1375, 1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 2009). These issues are
moot, in view of our determination that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown
IPR2020-00304
Patent 9,854,577 B2
10
bandwidth.” Ex. 1004, 2:55–56. As disclosed in Gorokhov, “[t]he disjoint
portions of bandwidth allocated for use to a terminal may be separated by a
carrier band, e.g., 1.25 MHz or more, which is not available for use, e.g.,
because it is owned by another service provider.” Id. at 2:64–3:1. Some
embodiments are implemented “using OFDM signals wherein a wireless
terminal may generate or receive an OFDM symbol including subcarriers.”
Id. at 3:1–3.
2. Independent Claims 1 and 12
Claim 1 recites “the processor is configured to combine at least a
portion of the received downlink data from the first communication channel
and the second communication channel to produce data for a single service.”
Ex. 1001, 24:47–51. Claim 12, the only other independent claim in the ’577
patent, similarly recites “combining at least a portion of the received
downlink data from the first communication channel and the second
communication channel to produce data for a single service.” Id. at 26:4–7.
For the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has not
sufficiently demonstrated how Gorokhov teaches or suggests these claim
elements. See Prelim. Resp. 55–63.
Petitioner argues that “combining” data is disclosed in Gorokhov’s
description of assigning first and second communication channels, wherein
the wireless terminal then “receives the data streams on the disjoint portions
of bandwidth, and demodulates, deinterleaves, and decodes the stream to
recover the transmitted traffic data.” Pet. 31–32 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:36–37,
10:31–34, 16:39–44, 18:7–13). Petitioner further argues that Gorokhov

that Gorokhov teaches or suggests all of the elements of any challenged
claim.
IPR2020-00304
Patent 9,854,577 B2
11
teaches that data is produced as part of the recited “single service” because
“a service provider’s base station uses non-contiguous channels to transmit
to a wireless terminal because there are sometimes gaps in the licensed
spectrum that a specific provider can use (e.g., a different provider uses it).”
Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1004, 2:49–51, 13:15–19). Petitioner also argues that
“Gorokhov teaches performing FFTs on the input data streams [citing
Ex. 1004, 7:32–37] and a [person of ordinary skill] would understand that
the data would need to be combined in some form (whether to perform a
single FFT or two FFTs).” Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 74–75).
Petitioner’s explanations, however, do not sufficiently demonstrate
that Gorokhov teaches or suggests the recited “single service.” First, as
discussed above in section II.A, we construe “single service” to refer to a
specific data service, not a service provider. Thus, Gorokhov’s description
of “different provider[s]” using different parts of the wireless spectrum does
not equate to teaching “produc[ing] data for a single service” as recited in
claim 1. As Patent Owner argues, Gorokhov repeatedly discloses the
creation of discontinuous bands due to a “communications service provider
not being licensed in that bandwidth at that location.” Prelim. Resp. 57; Ex.
1004, 13:15–19; see also id. at 2:49–51 (“where the discontinuous bands
were separated by a bandwidth corresponding to the width of a service
provider’s carrier, e.g., 1.25 MHz or more in some cases”). Service
providers creating discontinuous bands, however, is not producing “data for
a single service,” as recited in claim 1.
The term “single service” is not disclosed in Gorokhov. Prelim.
Resp. 58. Further, although Gorokhov discloses that only a particular
service provider can use certain licensed spectrum, a single service provider
is not (for the reasons explained above) a “single service” as recited in claim
IPR2020-00304
Patent 9,854,577 B2
12
1. Petitioner argues that Gorokhov’s disclosure of “FFTs” (Fast Fourier
Transforms) would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill to
mean “data would need to be combined.” Pet. 32. Petitioner, however,
provides no support for this argument other than a passage in Dr. Lo’s
testimony that merely repeats Petitioner’s citations to Gorokhov (including
Gorokhov’s general description of performing FFTs). Petitioner also asserts
that “Gorokhov’s processor combines the downlink data from the disjoint
portions of bandwidth (the first/second communication channel) to produce
data for a single service.” Pet. at 31 (emphasis added). Again, however,
Petitioner has not provided any citations or explanation regarding this
alleged teaching in Gorokhov.
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not demonstrated a
reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness challenge to claims 1
and 12 based on Gorokhov.
3. Dependent Claims 3–6, 8–11, 14–17, 19–22
Claims 3–6, 8–11, 14–17, and 19–22 each depend from claim 1 or
claim 12. Petitioner’s obviousness contentions rely on the same alleged
teachings of Gorokhov for the “single service” limitation as discussed above.
Thus, Petitioner’s contentions and arguments for these claims do not cure
the deficiencies identified above, regarding claims 1 and 12.
Petitioner, therefore, has not shown a reasonable likelihood of
prevailing on its obviousness challenge to claims 3–6, 8–11, 14–17, and 19–
22 based on the teachings of Gorokhov.
D. Alleged Obviousness over Gorokhov and Additional References
(Claims 2, 7, 10, 13, 18, 21)
Claims 2, 7, 10, 13, 18, and 21 each depend from claim 1 or claim 12.
Petitioner’s obviousness contentions rely on the same alleged teachings of
IPR2020-00304
Patent 9,854,577 B2
13
Gorokhov for the “single service” limitation as discussed above. Petitioner’s
reliance on additional references for claims 2, 7, 10, 13, 18, and 21 does not
relate to the “single service” limitation. Thus, Petitioner’s contentions and
arguments for these claims do not cure the deficiencies identified above.
Petitioner, therefore, has not shown a reasonable likelihood of
prevailing on its obviousness challenge to claims 2, 7, 10, 13, 18, and 21
based on Gorokhov and the additional references cited by Petitioner.
E. Alleged Obviousness over Ryu and Yamaura
(Claims 1, 3–5, 11, 12, 14–16, 22)
Petitioner asserts claims 1, 3–5, 11, 12, 14–16, and 22 of the ’577
patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combined teachings of Ryu and Yamaura. Pet. 54–76.
1. Overview of Ryu
Ryu discloses “channel aggregation applied when a base station
allocates an additional traffic channel to a terminal in order to increase
throughput between the terminal and the base station in a wireless access
network.” Ex. 1008, 1. Ryu discloses that “the transmission
speed/reliability (performance) of different carriers allocated to a specific
subscriber may vary, and the transmission speed/reliability of a specific
carrier may vary across different subscribers.” Id. at 2. Ryu further
discloses “a method of providing carrier aggregation between terminal and a
base station.” Id.
2. Overview of Yamaura
Yamaura discloses a radio communication system for orthogonal
frequency division multiplexing (“OFDM”) modulation. Ex. 1011 ¶ 2. The
system reduces “loads in a base station or a terminal station when control
IPR2020-00304
Patent 9,854,577 B2
14
signals are transmitted from a base station to a terminal” as described
therein. Id. at ¶ 31.
3. Independent Claims 1 and 12
Petitioner’s arguments and evidence regarding this alleged ground of
obviousness, and our analysis thereof, are similar to the contentions based on
Gorokhov. We again focus on the claim limitation “combine . . . to produce
data for a single service” (claim 1) and “combining . . . to produce data for a
single service” (claim 12). See supra. For the reasons explained below, we
determine that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the combination of
Ryu and Yamaura teaches or suggests these claim elements. See Prelim.
Resp. 63–76.
Petitioner argues that Ryu teaches the “combine” limitation of claims
1 and 12 as follows:
Ryu’s core network (single service) transmits data that is
recombined at the end user device (wireless device configured
to combine received downlink data from the first/second
communication channel). . . . [A]n aggregation control
message . . . is sent to aggregate traffic channels to send data
over. Before the aggregation message is sent, the “core
network … transmits user data to the L3 layer of the base
station … [and] [t]he base station … determines whether to
perform carrier aggregation.” [Exhibit 1008, ¶ 49]. If carrier
aggregation is to be performed, the base station sends an
aggregation control message, and sends the data that it received
from the core network.

Pet. 69 (emphasis added). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in
the art “would understand that the carrier aggregated data would be
combined at the end user device, and would have been from a single service
from the core network.” Pet. 69 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶163).
Petitioner’s argument, however, again conflates a service provider
IPR2020-00304
Patent 9,854,577 B2
15
with a “single service” as recited in claims 1 and 12. See Pet. 69 (“Ryu’s
core network (single service) transmits data.”); supra Sect. II.A. Although
Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill “would [have] under[stood]”
carrier aggregated data “would have been from a single service,” this
argument implies that a “service” is in fact a service provider, and in any
event, Petitioner has not sufficiently explained the support for this argument.
The brief portion of Dr. Lo’s expert testimony cited by Petitioner merely
repeats Petitioner’s unsupported argument, without explaining where the
relevant teaching is found in Ryu. Pet. 69 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 163).
Like Gorokhov, Ryu does not refer to a “single service,” or to
producing data for a single service. Rather, Ryu distinguishes between
single carrier and multi-carrier systems. Ex. 1008 ¶ 4 (“In a multi-
subscriber, single carrier communication system that uses time division
multiplexing (TDM), channels can be shared by multiple subscribers in time
division. . . . [T]he transmission speed/reliability (performance) of different
carriers allocated to a specific subscriber may vary, and the transmission
speed/reliability of a specific carrier may vary across different
subscribers.”). Petitioner does not rely on Yamaura for the “single service”
limitation.
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not demonstrated a
reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness challenge to claims 1
and 12 based on the combination of Ryu and Yamaura.
4. Dependent Claims 3–5, 11, 14–16, 22
Claims 3–5, 11, 14–16, and 22 each depend from claim 1 or claim 12.
Petitioner’s obviousness contentions rely on the same alleged teachings of
Ryu for the “single service” limitation as discussed above. Thus,
IPR2020-00304
Patent 9,854,577 B2
16
Petitioner’s contentions and arguments for these claims do not cure the
deficiencies identified above.
Petitioner, therefore, has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
prevailing on its obviousness challenge to claims 3–6, 8–11, 14–17, and 19–
22 based on the combination of Ryu and Yamaura.
F. Alleged Obviousness over Ryu, Yamaura, and Additional References
(Claims 2, 7, 10, 13, 18, 21)
Claims 2, 7, 10, 13, 18, and 21 each depend from claim 1 or claim 12.
Petitioner’s obviousness contentions rely on the same alleged teachings of
Ryu regarding the “single service” limitation of claims 1 and 12, as
discussed above. Petitioner’s reliance on additional references for claims 2,
7, 10, 13, 18, and 21 does not relate to the “single service” limitation. Thus,
Petitioner’s contentions and arguments for these claims do not cure the
deficiencies identified above.
Petitioner, therefore, has not shown a reasonable likelihood of
prevailing on its obviousness challenge to claims 2, 7, 10, 13, 18, and 21
based on the combination of Ryu, Yamaura, and the additional references
cited by Petitioner.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not shown
a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any ground presented, and we
therefore deny institution.

IV. ORDER
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.

IPR2020-00304
Patent 9,854,577 B2
17
FOR PETITIONER:
John P. Schnurer
Miguel Bombach
Yun (Louise) Lu
Bing Ai
Vinay Sathe
Kevin Patariu
PERKINS COIE LLP
schnurer-ptab@perkinscoie.com
bombach-ptab@perkinscoie.com
lu-ptab@perkinscoie.com
ai-ptab@perkinscoie.com
sathe-ptab@perkinscoie.com
patariu-ptab@perkinscoie.com

FOR PATENT OWNER:
Barry J. Bumgardner
Matthew C. Juren
NELSON BUMGARDNER ALBRITTON P.C.
barry@nbafirm.com
matthew@nbafirm.com