ZTE Corporationv.InterDigital Technology Corporation

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 7, 2014

11709970 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 7, 2014)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 11
571-272-7822 Entered: July 7, 2014

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

ZTE CORPORATION and ZTE (USA) INC.,
Petitioner,

v.

INTERDIGITAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
Patent Owner.
____________

Case IPR2014-00275
Patent 7,941,151 B2

Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
37 C.F.R. § 42.108
IPR2014-00275
Patent 7,941,151 B2

2
I. INTRODUCTION
ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) INC. (“Petitioners”) filed a Petition
requesting an inter partes review of claims 1-6, 8, 9, 16-21, 23, and 24 of
U.S. Patent No. 7,941,151 (Ex. 1001, “the ’151 patent”) pursuant to 35
U.S.C. §§ 311-319. Paper 1 (“Pet”). Patent Owner, InterDigital Technology
Corp. (“Patent Owner”), filed a Preliminary Response to the Petition on
April 17, 2014. Paper 9. (“Prelim. Resp.”) We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 314.

II. BACKGROUND
The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35
U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides as follows:
THRESHOLD – The Director may not authorize an inter partes
review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
information presented in the petition filed under section 311
and any response filed under section 313 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.
Petitioner asserts that claims 1-6, 8, 9, 16-21, 23, and 24 (i.e. “the
challenged claims”) are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).1 Pet. 6.
Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we are
not persuaded that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail
in establishing the unpatentability of the challenged claims. We,

1 We do not consider Petitioner’s allegation that “InterDigital’s employees
did not invent the subject matter” (Pet. 4) of the challenged claims of the
’151 patent, because such matters are not within our jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 311(b). Pet. 1-4.
Case IPR2014-00275
Patent 7,941,151

3
consequently, deny the Petition and do not institute an inter partes review of
the ’151 patent based on any of the asserted grounds.

A. Related Proceedings
Petitioner asserts that the ’151 patent is the subject of the following
judicial or administrative matters, Certain Wireless Devices with 3G and/or
4G Capabilities and Components Thereof, U.S.I.T.C Inv. No. 337-TA-868;
InterDigital Commc’ns Inc. v. Huawei Techs. Co., Ltd., Case No. 13-cv-
00008-RGA (D. Del.), filed January 2, 2013; InterDigital Commc’ns Inc. v.
ZTE Corp., Case No. 13-cv-00009-RGA (D. Del.), filed January 2, 2013;
InterDigital Commc’ns Inc. v. Nokia Corp., Case No. 13-cv-00010-RGA
(D. Del.), filed January 2, 2013; and InterDigital Commc’ns Inc. v. Samsung
Elec. Co. Ltd., Case No. 13-cv-00011-RGA (D. Del.), filed January 2, 2013.
Pet. 4.

B. The ’151 Patent (Ex. 1001)
The ’151 patent describes a system and method of wireless
communication that provides channel assignment information used to
support an uplink shared channel (“UL”) and a downlink shared channel
(“DL”). Ex. 1001, 1:16-20. The system includes at least one Node-B or
base station that dynamically allocates radio resources for both UL and DL
transmissions from and to a wireless transmit/receive unit (“WTRU”) via a
common control channel. Id. at 2:19-29. The communication of radio
resource assignment information between Node-B and the WTRU includes a
specific indicator of whether the radio resource assignment is for either UL
or DL transmission. Id. at 3:40-45. The WTRU is configured to determine
Case IPR2014-00275
Patent 7,941,151

4
whether the transmission is for assigning UL or DL radio resource
assignment. Id. at 3:48-50. In one embodiment, the specific indicator may
be contained in one or more unused bits, referred to as the impossible code
combinations, in the channelization code set mapping in the current High
Speed Download Packet Access (HSDPA). Id. at 3:51-4:3. The system may
also include a radio network controller (“RNC”) that controls Node-B to
transmit a message to the WTRU indicating which time slots support UL
channel transmission and which time slots support DL channel
transmissions. Id. at 2:34-40.
Figure 1 of the ’151 patent is reproduced below.

Figure 1 depicts a wireless communication system showing
communication between Node-B and the WTRU 106 via the control
channel, DL, and UL. Id. at 3:24-29. The control channel transmits
assignment information for both UL and DL transmissions to the WTRU
from Node-B. Id. at 3:30-32. Downlink transmission from Node-B to the
WTRU is transmitted via the DL, and uplink transmission from the WTRU
to Node-B is transmitted via the UL. Id. at 3:26-32.
Figure 3 of the ’151 patent is reproduced below.
Case IPR2014-00275
Patent 7,941,151

5

Figure 3 depicts a flowchart that includes the steps of transmitting a
message for radio resource assignment via the common control channel from
Node-B to the WTRU, which receives and demodulates the message at step
204. Id. at 5:25-50. The WTRU then determines if the message is intended
for the WTRU at step 206, and if the message is intended for the WTRU at
step 206, another determination is made regarding whether the message is
for the assignment of radio resources for DL transmission or UL
transmission at step 208. Id. Depending on the determination made in step
208, the WTRU receives data via the DL channel or transmits data via the
UL channel. Id.
Case IPR2014-00275
Patent 7,941,151

6
C. Illustrative Claim
Petitioner challenges claims 1-6, 8, 9, 16-21, 23, and 24 of the ’151
patent, of which claims 1 and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of
the challenged claims, and is reproduced below:
1. A method for utilizing channel assignment
information for an uplink shared channel or a downlink shared
channel, the method comprising:
a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) receiving
downlink control information including downlink or uplink
channel assignment information via a same physical downlink
control channel, both downlink channel assignment information
and uplink channel assignment information being received via
the same physical downlink control channel;
the WTRU determining whether the downlink control
information is intended for the WTRU based on WTRU identity
(ID)-masked cyclic redundancy check (CRC) parity bits, and if
so determining whether the channel assignment information is
for assigning radio resources for the uplink shared channel or
the downlink shared channel; and
the WTRU utilizing the radio resources for the uplink
shared channel or the downlink shared channel.

D. The Prior Art
Petitioner relies on the following prior art references (Pet. 6) and the
declaration of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti (Ex. 1002):

References Patents/Printed Publications Date Exhibit
Siemens
004
3GPP TSG RAN WG 1 #30, Tdoc
R1-030004, Siemens, “Downlink
Control Channel Configuration for
Enhanced Uplink Dedicated
Transport Channel,”
San Diego, USA.
January 7-
10, 2003
1003
Case IPR2014-00275
Patent 7,941,151

7
3GPP 3GPP TS 25.212 V5.2.0,
3rd Generation Partnership Project;
Technical Specification Group
Radio Access Network;
Multiplexing and Channel Coding
(FDD) (Release 5), 2002-2009.
September,
2002
1004
InterDigital
810
TSG-RAN Working Group 1 #22,
InterDigital Comm. Corp.,
“Implicit UE Identification for
HSDPA Downlink Signaling,”
Torino, Italy.
August 27-
31, 2001
1005
Motorola
683
ETSI SMG2 UMTS L1 Expert
Group, Motorola, “Mechanisms for
Managing Uplink Interferences and
Bandwidth,” Espoo, Finland.
December
14-18, 1998
1006
Siemens
010
3GPP TSG RAN WG1/2 Joint
Meeting on HSDPA, Siemens,
“Signaling Requirements for
HSDPA in TDD Mode,”
Sophia Antipolis, France.
April 5-6,
2001
1007

E. The Asserted Grounds
Petitioner challenges claims 1-6, 8, 9, 16-21, 23, and 24 of the
’151 patent based on the following statutory grounds. Pet. 6.
Reference(s) Basis Claims
Challenged
Siemens 004 § 102(b)
or § 103(a)
1-6, 8, 9, 16-
21, 23, and
24
Siemens 004 and Admitted Prior
Art (APA)
§ 103(a) 1-6 and 16-
21
Case IPR2014-00275
Patent 7,941,151

8
Reference(s) Basis Claims
Challenged
Siemens 004 and 3GPP § 103(a) 1-6 and 16-
21
Siemens 004 and InterDigital
810
§ 103(a) 1, 2, 16, and
17
Siemens 004 and Motorola 683 § 103(a) 8 and 23
Siemens 004 and Siemens 010 § 103(a) 8 and 23

III. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Interpretation
In an inter partes review, “[a] claim in an unexpired patent shall be
given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Office Patent Trial
Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,764, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012) (Claim
Construction); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim
terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would
be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
2007). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth in the
specification “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Petitioner proposes using constructions from the pending district court
and ITC proceedings for the following four claim terms: “same physical
downlink control channel”; “channel assignment information”; “shared
Case IPR2014-00275
Patent 7,941,151

9
channel”; and “based on WTRU identity (ID )-masked cyclic redundancy
check (CRC) parity bits.” Pet. 7-9. For three of the claim terms: “same
physical downlink control channel”; “channel assignment information”; and
“based on WTRU identity (ID)-masked cyclic redundancy check (CRC)
parity bits;” Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner should be bound in the
instant proceeding by the broad construction it has proposed in the related
judicial and administrative proceedings. Pet. 7-10. However, Petitioner
does not proffer specific arguments directed to the interpretation of these
claim terms in the instant proceeding. Thus, for purposes of this decision,
we do not construe expressly at this time the claim terms “same physical
downlink control channel”; “channel assignment information”; and “based
on WTRU identity (ID )-masked cyclic redundancy check (CRC) parity
bits.”
With respect to the claim term “shared channel,” Petitioner argues that
this term should be construed to mean a “channel that can convey
information to or from a plurality of WTRUs.” 2 Pet. 9. Taking the position
that the term “shared channel” is properly construed as “a radio resource that
can convey information to or from a plurality of WTRUs,” Patent Owner
points to intrinsic evidence from the surrounding claim language and
specification in support of their construction. Prelim. Resp. 8. For example,
the specification states that “the control channel ‘conveys radio resource
allocation information to a plurality of wireless transmit/receive units
(WTRUs).’” Id. at 9, citing Ex. 1001, 1:33-36. Petitioner’s bald assertion,
that the Patent Owner’s proposed construction from the district court and

2 We note that the body of claim 1 refers specifically to an “uplink shared
channel” or a “downlink shared channel,” and not generally to a “shared
channel”.
Case IPR2014-00275
Patent 7,941,151

10
ITC proceedings “is incorrect,” and that there is no reason to define “shared
channel” as “a radio resource” is not persuasive.3 Pet. 9. For purposes of
this decision, and based on the record before us, we adopt Patent Owner’s
proposed construction of the claim term “shared channel” to mean “a radio
resource that can convey information to or from a plurality of WTRUs” as
the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification.4
For purposes of this decision, we need not construe expressly any of
the other terms in the challenged claims at this time.

B. Anticipation Based On Siemens 004
Petitioner challenges claims 1-6, 8, 9, 16-21, 23, and 24 as anticipated
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Siemens 004, or alternatively, as rendered
obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Siemens 004.5 Pet. 15-33. In
support thereof, Petitioner provides claim charts that identify the disclosure
in Seimens 004 alleged to anticipate the subject matter in claims 1-6, 8, 9,
16-21, 23, and 24. Id. at 51-55. Petitioner further relies on the declaration
of Dr. Madisetti to support the analysis advocated in the Petition. Ex. 1002.
We have considered the arguments and evidence presented, and are not

3 Petitioner’s mere reference to claim construction arguments from another
proceeding, without informing us how these arguments are relevant to the
instant proceeding, are afforded minimal weight. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.104(b)(5).
4 We note that our construction conforms to the definition of “shared
channel” from the 3GPP Dictionary. See Ex. 2008, 25.
5 While Petitioner alleges claims 1-6, 8, 9, 16-21, 23, and 24 are
alternatively unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Siemens 004 (Pet.
6), Petitioner advances no separate obviousness argument in this regard.
Thus, we consider Petitioner’s challenge to the claims only on the basis of
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Case IPR2014-00275
Patent 7,941,151

11
persuaded that Siemens teaches the “uplink shared channel,” as recited in the
preamble, and further in the second determining step of “whether the
channel assignment information is for assigning radio resources for the
uplink shared channel,” as required by each of the challenged claims. A
detailed analysis of our determination follows after a brief overview of
Siemens 004.

1. Overview of Siemens 004 (Ex. 1003)
Siemens 004 is a feasibility study presented to the TRG-RAN
Working Group 1 by Siemens, and titled “Downlink Control Channel
Configuration for Enhanced Uplink Dedicated Transport Channel.”
Ex. 1003, 1. In particular, Siemens 004 discusses re-use of the existing High
Speed Shared Control Channel (HS-SCCH) also for downlink control
information of the enhanced uplink dedicated transport channel (EU-DCH).
Id. Siemens discloses that the same shared control channel may “be used for
ED-DCH and HSDPA users in time multiplex.” Id. Siemens also describes
re-use of the existing HS-SCCH part 1 coding format, and more specifically
the “8 unused codewords within the channelisation code-set field . . .” for
EU-DCH downlink signaling. Id. Siemens 004 further suggests that with
re-use of the HS-SCCH channel and coding format, “detection based on the
implicit UE-ID and decoding of part 1 is identical for HSDPA and EU-DCH
data transmission and receiver implementation is notably simplified.” Id. at
2.

2. Claim 1
Before delving into the specific arguments regarding the limitations
Case IPR2014-00275
Patent 7,941,151

12
allegedly taught by Siemens, we address Patent Owner’s argument that
Siemens 004 does not disclose the “uplink shared channel” required by each
claim, but instead discloses the opposite, an uplink dedicated channel.
Prelim. Resp. 1, 3. The term “uplink shared channel” is initially found in the
preamble of claim 1, which recites “[a] method for utilizing channel
assignment information for an uplink shared channel or a downlink shared
channel.” Ex. 1001, 5:58-60 (emphasis added).
Petitioner relies on the definitions of “uplink channel” and “shared
channel” proffered by Dr. Madisetti to support their argument that Siemens
004 discloses the preamble of claim 1, and in particular that the EU-DCH of
Siemens 004 discloses the recited “uplink shared channel.” Pet. 18-21;
citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 157-159. According to Dr. Madisetti, the EU-DCH
described in Siemens 004 “is an ‘uplink channel’ because it is a channel
used to convey information from a handset to a base station. In addition, the
EU-DCH is a ‘shared channel’ because it can convey information from a
plurality of handsets.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 159.
Pointing to the definitions of “dedicated channel” and “shared
channel” from the 3GPP Dictionary in support of their position, Patent
Owner counters that a dedicated channel is the opposite of a shared channel
because “a dedicated channel is dedicated to a specific UE, whereas shared
channels are dynamically shared between several UEs.” Prelim. Resp. 16,
citing Ex. 2008, 10, 25. Patent Owner maintains that Siemens 004
“consistently refers to an Enhanced Uplink Dedicated (emphasis omitted)
Channel” and not “an uplink shared (emphasis omitted) channel,” as
described in the ’151 patent, and that there is no disclosure in Siemens 004
that suggests that the EU-DCH channel is the same as the enhanced uplink
Case IPR2014-00275
Patent 7,941,151

13
shared channel described and claimed in the ’151 patent. Prelim. Resp. 17-
18.
Patent Owner’s argument has persuaded us that Petitioner has not
identified sufficiently in Siemens 004 that the EU-DCH channel is the same
as the claimed uplink shared channel, because the EU-DCH is described as a
dedicated channel. Likewise, Dr. Madisetti, does not provide sufficient and
persuasive evidence demonstrating that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood the Siemens 004 EU-DCH channel to be the same as
the claimed uplink shared channel. Id. at 18, see Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 151-166.
Indeed, Patent Owner has provided credible evidence showing that the EU-
DCH channel described in Siemens 004 is not the same channel as the
“uplink shared channel” recited in the preamble of claim 1.
We next consider use of the term “uplink shared channel” within the
body of claim 1. In particular, the second determining limitation recites
“determining whether the channel assignment information is for assigning
radio resources for the uplink shared channel or the downlink shared
channel.” Ex. 1001, 6:4-7 (emphasis added).
Petitioner argues that the second determining limitation is met
because “the HS-DSCH described in Siemens 004 is a ‘downlink shared
channel,’ the EU-DCH described in Siemens 004 is an ‘uplink shared
channel,’ and the HS-SCCH transmits ‘channel assignment information’ for
the HS-DSCH and EU-DCH.” Pet. 26. Petitioner relies on the declaration
of Dr. Madisetti to explain how
a person of ordinary skill in the art reviewing Siemens 004
would have understood, if the channelization-code-set includes
one of the 120 codewords used for HSDPA, then a WTRU
could determine whether information in the HS-SCCH is for the
HS-DSCH, which is the “downlink shared channel”; similarly,
Case IPR2014-00275
Patent 7,941,151

14
if the codeword is one of the 8 codewords not used for HSDPA,
then the WTRU could determine whether information in the
HS-SCCH is for the EU-DCH, which is the “uplink shared
channel.”
Ex. 1002 ¶ 197. Dr. Madisetti opines that Siemens 004 discloses the second
determining limitation because both Siemens 004 and the ’151 patent
describe the use of the channelization-code-set field of the HS-SCCH to
determine whether “the channel assignment information is for assigning
radio resources to the HS-DSCH or the Enhanced Uplink channel . . .” and
because Siemens 004 discloses “the same channels used in exactly the same
way” as the ’151 patent. Id. ¶¶ 200-203.
Patent Owner counters that Siemens 004 does not disclose the “second
determining” limitation. Prelim. Resp. 18. Explaining further, Patent
Owner reasons that because Siemens 004 does not disclose an “uplink
shared channel,” it follows that Siemens 004 does not disclose “channel
assignment information . . . for the uplink shared channel.” Prelim. Resp.
18. Moreover, Patent Owner contends that Siemens is silent regarding
channel assignment information even for the “Enhanced Uplink Dedicated
Channel that is disclosed.” Id. While admitting that Siemens discloses
usage of unused codewords for EU-DCH downlink signaling, Patent Owner
submits that Siemens 004 does not disclose the use of codewords to provide
channel assignment information for assigning radio resources for the uplink
shared channel, nor in determining whether the channel assignment
information is for “assigning radio resources for the uplink shared channel or
the downlink shared channel.” Id. at 19. Thus, Patent Owner suggests that
the Siemens 004 EU-DCH downlink signaling need not be channel
assignment information, and instead, could be other control information (i.e.
Case IPR2014-00275
Patent 7,941,151

15
H-ARQ which relates to error correction). Id.
Aside from arguments made with respect to use of the claim term
“uplink shared channel” in the preamble, Petitioner does not proffer
additional arguments regarding further use of the claim term “uplink shared
channel” in the second determining limitation. Because Petitioner failed to
show, with sufficient evidence, that the EU-DCH channel from Siemens 004
is an “uplink shared channel,” as used in the preamble of claim 1,
Petitioner’s further argument that the second determining limitation in the
body of the claim is met because “the EU-DCH [channel] . . . is an ‘uplink
shared channel”’ (Pet. 26) is likewise unpersuasive for the reasons discussed
above. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown that
Siemens 004 discloses the step of “determining whether the channel
assignment information is for assigning radio resources for the uplink shared
channel or the downlink shared channel,” because Siemens 004 does not
disclose an “uplink shared channel.”
Based on the current record, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s
argument that EU-DCH channel described in Siemens 004 is an “uplink
shared channel,” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, Petitioner has not
demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to its
contention that claim 1 is anticipated by Siemens 004.

3. Claims 2-6, and 9
Petitioner asserts that Siemens 004 discloses each of the limitations of
dependent claims 2-6, including: the WTRU ID-masked CRC parity bits
derived from sixteen-bit CRC of claim 2; the downlink control modulation
and coding scheme information of claim 3; the downlink control modulation
Case IPR2014-00275
Patent 7,941,151

16
information new data indicator of claim 4; the downlink control information
redundancy version of claim 5; and the downlink control information hybrid
automatic repeat request information of claim 6. Pet. 28-29. With respect to
dependent claim 9, Petitioner asserts that Siemens 004 likewise discloses
each limitation, including that the downlink control information indicates
whether the channel assignment information is for the uplink shared channel
or the downlink shared channel. Pet. 31-32.
As discussed above with respect to claim 1, our determination
concerning the insufficiency of the evidence with respect to the uplink
shared channel limitation of independent claim 1 applies equally to
dependent claims 2-6, and 9. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a
reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to its contention that
claims 2-6, and 9 are anticipated by Siemens 004.

4. Claim 8
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and further requires that the “physical
downlink control channel carries both downlink and uplink channel
assignment information simultaneously.” Ex. 1001, 6:24-26 (emphasis
added). Initially, Petitioner challenges whether the ’151 patent discloses a
physical downlink control channel that would carry both downlink and
uplink channel assignment information simultaneously. Pet. 30 (citing
Ex. 1002 ¶ 258). This argument is not persuasive, because it is inconsistent
with the specification, which states that the common control channel
occupies “a shared DL radio resource space, as defined by a set of SF-12R
channelization codes, for both DL and UL transmissions simultaneously, and
the WTRU 106 is configured to recognize whether a particular transmission
Case IPR2014-00275
Patent 7,941,151

17
is intended for assigning radio resources for the DL or the UL
transmissions.” Ex. 1001, 3:45-50.
Next, Petitioner notes that Patent Owner may interpret claim 8 to
mean that “downlink and uplink channel assignment information are
received simultaneously but on different control channels,” and proffers
arguments directed to this interpretation. Id. at 30-31. Because Petitioner
did not propose how the claim terms should be construed properly, as
required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), and generally we interpret the claim
terms according to their ordinary and customary meaning, Petitioner’s
arguments are unconvincing.
Based on the record before us, our determination concerning the
insufficiency of the evidence with respect to independent claim 1 equally
applies to dependent claim 8. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated
a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to its contention
that claim 8 is anticipated by Siemens 004.

5. Claims 16-21, 23, and 24
Petitioner argues that independent claim 16 is nearly identical to claim
1, but notwithstanding any differences, Siemens 004 discloses each and
every limitation of claim 16 for the reasons provided with respect to claim 1.
Pet. 32-33. Further, Petitioner argues that Siemens 004 discloses each and
every limitation of claims 17-21, 23, and 24, which depend from claim 16,
and recite the same limitations as claims 2-6 and 8-9 respectively. Pet. 33-
34. Based on the record before us, our determination concerning the
insufficiency of the evidence with respect to independent claim 1 equally
applies to claims 16-21, 23, and 24. Accordingly, Petitioner has not
Case IPR2014-00275
Patent 7,941,151

18
demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to its
contention that claims 16-21, 23, and 24 are anticipated by Siemens 004.

C. Obviousness Based On Siemens 004
1. Discussion Concerning the Grounds of Obviousness
Petitioner asserts additional grounds based, in part, on Siemens 004.
See Section II(E) above. In response to these asserted grounds, Patent
Owner argues that Petitioner fails to identify any disclosure in the APA,
3GPP, InterDigital 810, Motorola 683, and Siemens 010 respectively,
directed to the “uplink shared channel” that is missing from Siemens 004.
Neither does the Petition provide any motivation to modify Siemens 004 to
include this missing element, according to Patent Owner. Prelim. Resp. 23-
38.
Having considered Petitioner’s arguments concerning the combination
of Siemens 004 with each of the APA, 3GPP, Interdigital 810, Motorola
683, and Siemens 010, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has
demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in demonstrating
obviousness of the challenged claims. For the reasons provided above with
regards to the anticipation analysis of Siemens 004, we determine that
Petitioner has not demonstrated sufficiently that Siemens 004 discloses an
“uplink shared channel.” Moreover, Petitioner does not rely on any
disclosure of the secondary references to solve the noted deficiency of
Siemens 004.
Thus, we have reviewed Petitioner’s evidence presented on the ground
of unpatentability of the challenged claims and considered all of the
arguments presented in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. Based on the
Case IPR2014-00275
Patent 7,941,151

19
foregoing analysis, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a
reasonable likelihood that it would prevail as to its contention that claims 1-
6, 8, 9, 16-21, 23, and 24 would have been obvious over the combinations of
Siemens 004 with the APA; 3GPP; Interdigital 810; Motorola 683, and
Siemens 010 respectively.

IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has not
demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is
unpatentable based on the asserted grounds. We, therefore, do not institute
an inter partes review on any of the asserted grounds as to any of the
challenged claims.

V. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
ORDERED that an inter partes review as to claims 1-6, 8, 9, 16-21,
23, and 24 the ’151 patent is DENIED.

Case IPR2014-00275
Patent 7,941,151

20
PETITIONER:

Charles M. McMahon
Hersh H. Mehta
BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
cmcmahon@brinksgilson.com
hmehta@brinksgilson.com

PATENT OWNER:

Jonathan D. Link
Julie M. Holloway
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
jonathan.link@lw.com
julie.holloway@lw.com