Dali Wireless, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 7, 2021

IPR2020-01466 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 7, 2021)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 18
571.272.7822 Entered: July 7, 2021

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Petitioner,

v.

DALI WIRELESS INC.,
Patent Owner.
____________

IPR2020-01466
Patent 8,682,338 B2
____________

Before MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Senior Lead Administrative Patent Judge,
and KARL D. EASTHOM and SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent
Judges.

HAAPALA, Senior Lead Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Denying Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
35 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)

IPR2020-01466
Patent 8,682,338 B2

2
CommScope Technologies LLC (“Petitioner”) requests rehearing of
our Decision (Paper 16, “Dec.”) denying institution of an inter partes review
of claims 1–12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,682,338 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’338
patent”). Paper 17 (“Req. Reh’g”).
On rehearing, the burden of showing that the Decision should be
modified lies with Petitioner, the party challenging the Decision. See 37
C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The request must specifically identify all matters the
party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where
each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, a reply, or
a sur-reply.” Id. “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will
review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).
Petitioner first contends that we erred because we overlooked
disclosures in Hettstedt1 that the remote units are themselves reconfigured to
support uplink transmissions. See Req. Reh’g 1–8. More particularly,
Petitioner asserts the Board overlooked column 5, lines 3–14 of Hettstedt,
which discloses the following:
The remote radio heads are equipped to transmit four carriers
over the full RF bandwidth of each service but channel-selective
at least in uplink. In this way, a remote radio head can operate
individually for dedicated operators only. Since frequency
allocation of each carrier can be tuned remotely by the cell
management unit CMU, the remote radio heads RH1 to RH5 can
represent an individual cell and/or can be part of a greater cell.
Thus, in both cases, extension of capacity and/or coverage, can
be achieved.

Id. at 3 (citing Ex. 1005, 5:3–14). Petitioner contends that Hettstedt’s
remote radio heads are themselves reconfigured to activate new channels in

1 U.S. Patent No. 8,032,148 B2 to Hettstedt et al., issued October 4, 2011
(“Hettstedt”) (Ex. 1005).
IPR2020-01466
Patent 8,682,338 B2

3
the uplink because Hettstedt’s “radio head’s channel selective uplink
components are also tuned (i.e., reconfigured) to activate additional carriers
back to the CMU.” Id. at 4. Petitioner asserts that Hettstedt “discloses more
than merely ‘shifting’ the address of a carrier’s packet in the downlink from
the CMU,” but rather “Hettstedt teaches that new carriers must also be
‘activated’ and that the activation is ‘in’ the remote radio heads.” Id.
We are not persuaded of error in our Decision that Petitioner failed to
establish Hettstedt discloses the “reconfiguring each remote radio unit.” See
Dec. 15. We disagree that we overlooked any arguments presented in the
Petition with respect to this limitation. In its analysis of the “reconfiguring
each remote radio unit” limitation in the Petition, Petitioner relied on
Hettstedt’s disclosure that the CMU controls the frequency allocation of
each carrier to the remote radio heads “by changing the MAC address of a
specific carrier packet to correspond no longer to a first remote radio head,
but instead be addressed to a different radio head in a high traffic area.” See
Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1005, 5:10–11; 3:8–16; 4:35–39). Our Decision
expressly addressed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence:
After reviewing Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence,
and Patent Owner’s response, we determine Petitioner fails to
establish Hettstedt discloses “reconfiguring each remote radio
unit” as we construe the claim (changing the configuration of
each remote radio unit). Petitioner relies on Hettstedt’s
disclosure that the CMU controls allocation of each carrier by
changing the MAC addresses of carrier packets to disclose the
recited “reconfiguring.” See Pet. 22. However, while changing
the MAC addresses of carrier packets may result in an increase
or decrease of the number of carriers assigned to a radio head by
the CMU when routing traffic, it does not reconfigure (change)
the configuration of the remote radio head itself. As we noted in
our analysis of the claim construction of this term, the plain
language of the claim requires that the remote radio head itself
IPR2020-01466
Patent 8,682,338 B2

4
be reconfigured. Petitioner’s analysis does not address how
Hettstedt discloses reconfiguring the remote radio unit itself.
Dec. 15.
In its rehearing request, Petitioner now newly argues that we
overlooked Hettstedt’s disclosure that remote radio heads are channel-
selective in the uplink (i.e., column 5, lines 6–8 of Hettstedt). But
Petitioner’s new analysis and explanation that Hettstedt’s teaches
“reconfiguring each remote radio unit head” because its radio units are
channel selective in the uplink was not presented in the Petition, and we
could not have overlooked arguments or evidence not before us.2 See 37
C.F.R. 42.71(d). A petition must include “a detailed explanation of the
significance of the evidence.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2). We are not
persuaded of any error in our Decision that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a
reasonable likelihood of prevailing in establishing that claim 1 is anticipated
by Hettstedt. See Dec. 13–15.

2 We acknowledge Petitioner’s reliance on Hettstedt’s column 5, lines 6–8
on page 21 of the Petition; however, the Petition relied on this portion of
Hettstedt for Element F of claim 1 (“configuring each remote radio unit to
receive or transmit a respective subset of the plurality of carriers, each
respective subset of the plurality of carriers including a number of carriers”),
not for Element G of claim 1 (“reconfiguring each remote radio unit by
. . .”). See Pet. 21. Petitioner’s Rehearing Request also points to reliance on
Hettstedt’s column 5, lines 6–8 on page 10 of the Petition and in paragraphs
of Dr. Acampora’s testimony (see Req. Reh’g 6–8 (citing Pet. 10; Ex. 1003
¶¶ 46–54)), however (i) page 10 of the Petition and paragraphs 46–52 of Dr.
Acampora’s testimony are not addressing the “reconfiguring each remote
radio unit” limitation, and (ii) while paragraphs 53–54 of Dr. Acampora’s
testimony addresses the “reconfiguring each remote radio unit” these
paragraphs do not reference Hettstedt’s column 5, lines 6–8. See Pet. 10;
Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 46–54.
IPR2020-01466
Patent 8,682,338 B2

5
The next argument Petitioner presents in its rehearing request is that
the Board overlooked that Wu3 discloses remotes that are reconfigurable.
Req. Reh’g 8–13. In particular, Petitioner argues “the Board overlooked that
Wu’s remotes (RTUs) are channel selective” and that as the desired channels
change pursuant to Wu’s “disclosed routing policy, the RTUs are themselves
reconfigured to send different channels back over the fiber link to the host
unit.” Id. at 8. Petitioner further argues that, as pointed out in its Petition,
Wu discloses “the ‘desirable channels’ can be changed based on rules or
triggers defined in a routing policy to allocate more channels to a desired
region when needed” and that when the routing policy dictates a change, the
channel selective components of the RTUs are themselves reconfigured to
send back to the host unit the new set of desired channels. Id. at 10; see also
id. at 11–12 (Petitioner’s assertions that these arguments and features of Wu
were identified at pages 15–17 and 69–70 of the Petition). Petitioner further
asserts that the Petition points out the carrier allocations to the remote units
would change over time in response to the routing policy. Id. at 12 (citing
Pet. 71–73).
We are not persuaded of error in our Decision that Petitioner failed to
establish Wu discloses “reconfiguring each remote radio unit.” See Dec. 22.
In its challenge based on Wu, Petitioner relied on Wu’s disclosure that its
routing policy can be reconfigured or updated to allocate additional carriers
to a particular RTU in response to changing circumstances (e.g., based on
analysis of metrics that include current traffic load). See Pet. 71–72. Our
Decision did not overlook any arguments presented with respect to the

3 U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2010/0128676 A1, published May 27,
2010 (“Wu”) (Ex. 1022).
IPR2020-01466
Patent 8,682,338 B2

6
“reconfiguring” limitation. Rather, we expressly addressed Petitioner’s
arguments and evidence as follows:
Petitioner asserts Wu discloses the “reconfiguring each
remote radio unit” limitation recited in claim 1. . . . Petitioner
relies on Wu’s description of routing channels to RTUs, using a
switch, according to a routing policy, where the routing policy
can be updated or reconfigured as desired and the routing policy
can redistribute carriers based on metrics that include current
traffic load. . .
Patent Owner argues Wu does not disclose reconfiguring
the remote radio units themselves. Prelim. Resp. 62. We agree.
In particular, Wu discloses that its switch can route, allocate, or
distribute channels based on a routing policy, but does not
disclose reconfiguring (changing the configuration of) the RTUs
themselves. See Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 11, 40, 43–44. Although making
changes to a routing policy may increase or decrease the channels
available to a RTU, the change in capacity is not done by
reconfiguring the RTU.
Dec. 22.
In its Rehearing Request, Petitioner now presents new analysis and
argument for the “reconfiguring” limitation and asserts Wu discloses when
the routing policy dictates a change, the channel selective components of the
RTUs are themselves reconfigured (Req. Reh’g 10–11). But this analysis
was not presented in the Petition. Therefore, these arguments could not have
been overlooked and we decline to reconsider our decision based on new
arguments raised in the rehearing request. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded of any error in our Decision that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a
reasonable likelihood of prevailing in establishing that claim 1 is anticipated
by Wu. See Dec. 22.
Finally, Petitioner argues our claim construction of the term
“reconfiguring each remote radio unit” was in error because it overlooked
the term “by.” Req. Reh’g 13–15. In particular, Petitioner asserts the plain
IPR2020-01466
Patent 8,682,338 B2

7
language of claim 1 recites performing “reconfiguring each remote radio by”
performing [b] (the “determining a load percentage” limitation) and [c] (the
“increasing or decreasing limitation”), and, therefore, performing [b] and [c]
is an example of performing [a]. Id. at 13–14. Id. at 13–14. Petitioner
argues our construction that [b] and [c] must be performed by reconfiguring
the remote unit (performing some change to the remote unit itself)
contradicts the claim language and improperly reads limitations from the
specification into the claims. Id. at 14–15.
We are unpersuaded that we misconstrued the phrase “reconfiguring
each remote radio unit by.” Petitioner’s proposed claim construction in the
Rehearing Request does not give patentable weight to the claimed
“reconfiguring each remote radio unit.” Although we agree with Petitioner
that claim 1 requires limitations [b] and [c] (i.e., “determining a load
percentage” and “increasing or decreasing the number of carriers”), we
disagree with Petitioner that the term “by” before limitations [b] and [c]
would require what comes before “by” to have no patentable weight.
Rather, as stated in our Decision:
we adopt the district court’s construction and construe
“reconfiguring each remote radio unit” to be “changing the
configuration of each remote unit.” We additionally note that the
claim term requires that it is the remote radio unit itself that is
changed because the “remote radio unit” is the direct object of
the verb “reconfiguring.” This is consistent with the specification
of the ’338 patent, which describes reconfiguring the RRUs
themselves.

Dec. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:1–13, 7:16–31, 8:8–21, 8:48–55, 11:28–39).
We conclude that Petitioner has not identified any matter that we
misapprehended or overlooked, much less in a manner that constitutes an
IPR2020-01466
Patent 8,682,338 B2

8
abuse of discretion. Therefore, we decline to alter our Decision to deny
institution based on the arguments raised in the Rehearing Request.

In view of the foregoing, it is:
ORDERED that Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing is denied.

IPR2020-01466
Patent 8,682,338 B2

9
For PETITIONER:
Philip Caspers
Samuel Hamer
CARLSON CASPERS VANDENBURGH & LINDQUIST
pcaspers@ccvl.com
shamer@carlsoncaspers.com

For PATENT OWNER:
David Schumann
Michael Kim
Michael Saunders
FOLIO LAW GROUP PLLC
david.schumann@foliolaw.com
michael.kim@foliolaw.com
mike.saunders@foliolaw.com