EXHIBIT 19 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 1 of 44 PageID #: 2591
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS 

AMERICA, INC., GOOGLE LLC, and CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,

Petitioners

v.

XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, D/B/A VIVATO TECHNOLOGIES,

Patent Owner

____________

IPR2022-00613

Patent No. 10,594,376

____________

PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 2 of 44 PageID #: 2592
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction........................................................................................................ 1

II. ’376 Patent (Ex. 1001)....................................................................................... 1

A. Summary of ’376 patent ................................................................................. 1

B. Challenged Claims.......................................................................................... 3

C. Level of Skill in the Art.................................................................................. 5

D. Claim Construction......................................................................................... 6

III. Petitioners’ Asserted Grounds and References.................................................. 9

A. Gerlach Primary Reference ............................................................................ 9

B. Barratt and Okamoto Secondary References................................................ 11

IV. Petitioners Fail to Show Invalidity of the “Processor” Limitations................. 11

A. Requirements of “Processor” Limitations.................................................... 12

B. The Petition fails to show that Gerlach discloses the claimed “processor.” 15

C. The Petition fails to show that Gerlach suggests or renders obvious the 

claimed “processor.” ........................................................................................... 19

D. The Petition fails to show that Gerlach in combination with Barratt suggests 

or render obvious the claimed “processor.” ........................................................ 27

V. Petitioners Fail to Show Invalidity of the “Transceiver” Limitations ............. 29

VI. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 37

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 3 of 44 PageID #: 2593
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

ii

Patent Owner’s Exhibit List

Exhibit Description

2001 Joint Claim Construction Statement, XR Communications v. Samsung, 

W.D. Tex. Case No. 21-cv-00626-ADA, Dkt. No. 40 (June 8, 2022)

(“JCCC”)

2002 U.S. Patent Publication 2004/0014429 (“Guo”)

2003 Case Readiness Status Report, XR Communications v. Samsung, W.D. 

Tex. Case No. 21-cv-00626-ADA, Dkt. No. 24 (Dec. 13, 2021)

2004 Order Appointing Technical Advisor, XR Communications v. 

Samsung, W.D. Tex. Case No. 21-cv-00626-ADA, Dkt. No. 34 (Apr. 

21, 2022)

2005 Defendants’ Preliminary Invalidity Contentions for U.S. Patent No. 

10,594,376 in XR Communications v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. 

and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., W.D. Tex. Case No. 21-CV00626-ADA, XR Communications v. Google LLC, W.D. Tex. Case 

No. 21-CV-00625-ADA, and XR Communications v. Cisco Systems, 

Inc. and Meraki LLC, W.D. Tex. Case No. 21-CV-00623-ADA

2006 Plaintiff XR Communications, LLC’s Preliminary Disclosure Of 

Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions cover pleadings in XR 

Communications v. Cisco Systems, Inc. and Meraki LLC, W.D. Tex. 

Case No. 21-CV-00623-ADA

2007 Plaintiff XR Communications, LLC’s Preliminary Disclosure Of 

Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions cover pleadings in XR 

Communications v. Google LLC, W.D. Tex. Case No. 21-CV-00625-

ADA

2008 Plaintiff XR Communications, LLC’s Preliminary Disclosure Of 

Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions cover pleadings in XR 

Communications v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung 

Electronics America, Inc., W.D. Tex. Case No. 21-CV-00626-ADA

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 4 of 44 PageID #: 2594
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

iii

2009 July 25, 2022, Order Assigning the Business of the Court as it Relates 

to Patent Cases (W.D. Tex.)

2010 Court’s Preliminary Claim Constructions in XR Communications v. 

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, 

Inc., W.D. Tex. Case No. 21-CV-00626-ADA, XR Communications 

v. Google LLC, W.D. Tex. Case No. 21-CV-00625-ADA, and XR 

Communications v. Cisco Systems, Inc. and Meraki LLC, W.D. Tex. 

Case No. 21-CV-00623-ADA

2011 9/1/22 Markman Hearing Transcript in XR Communications v. 

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, 

Inc., W.D. Tex. Case No. 21-CV-00626-ADA, XR Communications 

v. Google LLC, W.D. Tex. Case No. 21-CV-00625-ADA, and XR 

Communications v. Cisco Systems, Inc. and Meraki LLC, W.D. Tex. 

Case No. 21-CV-00623-ADA

2012 Special Master Report and Recommendation on Claim Construction, 

XR Comm’ns LLC v. D-Link Sys., C.D. Cal. Case No. 8:17-cv-569-

DOC-JDE, Dkt. No. 280 (Jan. 27, 2022)

2013 Order Adopting Special Master’s Report and Recommendations re: 

Clam Construction, XR Comm’ns LLC v. D-Link Sys., C.D. Cal. Case 

No. 8:17-cv-569-DOC-JDE, Dkt. No. 312 (Apr. 18, 2022)

2014 Claim Construction Order, XR Comm’ns LLC v. Cisco Sys., W.D. 

Tex. Case No. 6:21-cv-00623-ADA, Dkt. No. 56 (Sept. 30, 2022)

2015 Transcript of Deposition of Zhi Ding, Ph.D. on Jan. 30, 2022

2016 “Transceiver” in IEEE 100 Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE 

Standards Terms, 7th Ed. (2000)

2017 “Transceiver” in McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical 

Terms, Fourth Edition (1989)

2018 Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, D. Sc.

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 5 of 44 PageID #: 2595
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

1

I. Introduction

The Petition rests on two faulty premises. First, Petitioners must show that 

Gerlach discloses or renders obvious, alone or in combination with Barratt, a 

“processor” configured to perform specific steps, with specific structural 

relationships to other claimed structures. Second, Petitioners must show that Gerlach 

discloses or renders obvious, alone or in combination with Barratt, a “transceiver” 

coupled to the processor and to the claimed smart antenna. 

Both of these structures are prominently absent from Gerlach, the primary 

reference, and Petitioners’ efforts to shoehorn these structures into Gerlach’s 

disclosures under the guise of inherent disclosure or single-reference obviousness 

all fail. And instead of presenting proper evidence of motivation to combine Gerlach 

with Barratt, Petitioners rely on hindsight and conclusory expert testimony, which is 

rebutted by the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Branimir Vojcic. Because 

the Petition cannot show a “processor” or a “transceiver” as claimed, the Petition 

fails to meet its burden to prove unpatentability of any challenged claim.

II. ’376 Patent (Ex. 1001)1

A. Summary of ’376 patent

The ’376 patent (Ex. 1001) is entitled “Directed wireless communication” and 

relates to “a multi-beam directed signal system [] implemented to communicate over 

1 See Ex. 2018, Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, D. Sc. (“Vojcic Decl.”) ¶¶ 29–32.

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 6 of 44 PageID #: 2596
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

2

a wireless communication link via an antenna assembly with client devices.” ’376 

patent at 3:11-15. The ’376 patent focuses on updating the spatial distribution of the 

beams based on feedback information from connected client devices, like laptops 

and mobile phones in the field of wireless communications, including “WiFi” 

networks that operate in accordance with “IEEE 802.11” standards. The ’376 Patent 

generally relates to “beam- forming,” which is depicted in several figures, including 

Figures 2, 3, 5, 6, 12, 14, and 15. 

As the patent explains, “beam- forming” refers to when the “electromagnetic 

waves are focused in a desired direction,” unlike a conventional omni-directional 

transmission that transmits in all directions. ’235 Patent, 5:22-55. The patent 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 7 of 44 PageID #: 2597
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

3

describes improvements in “beam-forming,” including sending a probing signal to 

two or more client devices and receiving feedback information from each device. 

Based on the received feedback information, the system determines where to place 

transmission peaks and transmission nulls to improve and optimize communications 

with multiple client devices. For example, the system enables patterns of 

electromagnetic signals that provide “a first transmission peak” at a first client 

device, “a second transmission peak” at a second client device, and “a first 

transmission null” at a third client device. In this example, the system 

advantageously improves communications with the first and second client devices, 

while blocking interference from the third client device. 

The ’376 patent recites a Provisional Patent Application No. 60/423,660, filed 

on Nov. 4, 2002, but claim priority to at least February 1, 2002.

B. Challenged Claims

The Petition challenges claims 1–34 of the ’376 patent. Pet. at 2. Independent 

claim 1 is representative for purposes of the arguments in this POR. Claim 1 recites:

[1P] A data-communications networking apparatus, 

comprising:

[1A] a processor configured to:

[1A(i)] generate a probing signal for transmission to at least 

a first client device and a second client device;

[1A(ii)] generate a first data stream for transmission to the 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 8 of 44 PageID #: 2598
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

4

first client device; and

[1A(iii)] generate a second data stream for transmission to 

the second client device; and

[1B] a transceiver operatively coupled to the processor 

and configured to:

[1B(i)] transmit the probing signal to at least the first client 

device and the second client device via a smart 

antenna;

[1B(ii)] wherein the smart antenna is operatively coupled to 

the transceiver and comprises a first antenna 

element and a second antenna element;

[1C] wherein one or more of the processor, the 

transceiver, or the smart antenna is further 

configured to:

[1C(i)] receive a first feedback information from the first 

client device in response to the transmission of the 

probing signal;

[1C(ii)] receive a second feedback information from the 

second client device in response to the transmission 

of the probing signal;

[1C(iii)] determine where to place transmission peaks and 

transmission nulls within one or more spatially 

distributed patterns of electromagnetic signals 

based in part on the first and the second feedback 

information;

[1C(iv)] transmit the first data stream to the first client 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 9 of 44 PageID #: 2599
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

5

device via the one or more spatially distributed 

patterns of electromagnetic signals; and

[1C(v)] transmit the second data stream to the second client 

device via the one or more spatially distributed 

patterns of electromagnetic signals;

[1D] wherein transmission of the first data stream and 

transmission of at least part of the second data 

stream occur at the same time; and

[1E] wherein the one or more spatially distributed 

patterns of electromagnetic signals are configured 

to exhibit a first transmission peak at a location of 

the first client device and a second transmission 

peak at a location of the second client device.

The other independent claims (claims 12, 22, and 32) have similar limitations, 

and the Petition generally treats claim 1 as representative of those claims. The 

remaining claims (claims 2–11, 13–21, 23–31, and 33–34) are dependent claims that 

further limit the prior independent claims.

C. Level of Skill in the Art

A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) of the patented technology 

at the time of the invention of the asserted patents would have a bachelor’s degree 

in electrical engineering or the equivalent and 2–3 years of work experience with 

digital wireless communication, or the equivalent. Vojcic Decl. ¶¶ 16–19.

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 10 of 44 PageID #:

2600
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

6

Petitioners’ definition of the level of ordinary skill is: “A person having 

ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical 

Engineering or a related field, and three to four years of work experience in wireless 

communications, or a Master’s degree and at least two years of work experience in 

wireless communications.” Ding Decl. (EX-1003) at ¶¶ 22–25.

Although Patent Owner’s and Petitioners’ proposed level of skill in the art is 

slightly different, none of Dr. Vojcic’s opinions or the arguments in this POR would 

be different under Petitioners’ level of ordinary skill.

D. Claim Construction

Claim construction order shave been entered in related district court actions 

construing certain terms of the ’376 patent and giving certain terms their plain and 

ordinary meaning. In XR Comm’ns LLC v. D-Link Sys., No. 8:17-cv-569-DOC-JDE, 

Dkt. No. 280 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2022), the Special Master in that action 

recommended the following constructions relevant to the claims at issue here:

Term Special Master’s Recommendation

“a processor configured to: generate a 

probing signal for transmission to at 

least a first client device and a second 

client device”

Plain meaning.

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 11 of 44 PageID #:

2601
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

7

Term Special Master’s Recommendation

“wherein one or more of the processor, 

the transceiver, or the smart antenna is 

further configured to: ...”

Plain meaning

(As discussed above, the claims require

only that “one or more” “is further

configured,” not necessarily that each

and every one of “the processor,” “the

transceiver,” and “the smart antenna” is

so configured)

“an 802.11 standard” “one of the IEEE 802.11 standards that 

existed at the time of the invention”

In the same action, XR Comm’ns LLC v. D-Link Sys., No. 8:17-cv-569-DOCJDE, Dkt. No. 312 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2022), the court in that action adopted the 

following constructions relevant to the claims at issue here:

Term Court’s Construction

“a processor configured to: generate a 

probing signal for transmission to at 

least a first client device and a second 

client device”

Plain meaning.

“wherein one or more of the processor, 

the transceiver, or the smart antenna is 

further configured to: ...”

Plain meaning

(As discussed in the R&R, the claims 

require only that “one or more” “is 

further configured,” not necessarily

that each and every one of “the 

processor,” “the transceiver,” and “the 

smart antenna” is so configured, see 

R&R at 25.)

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 12 of 44 PageID #:

2602
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

8

Term Court’s Construction

“an 802.11 standard” “one of the IEEE 802.11 standards that 

existed at the time of the invention”

In XR Comm’ns LLC v. Cisco Sys., No. 6:21-cv-00623-ADA, Dkt. No. 56 

(W.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2022), the court in that action adopted the following 

constructions relevant to the claims at issue here:

Term Court’s Final Construction

“802.11 Standard” Plain-and-ordinary meaning.

“transmission nulls” Plain and ordinary meaning wherein 

the plain-and-ordinary meaning is 

“portions of one or more spatially 

distributed patterns of electromagnetic

signals where transmissions of no or 

insignificant energy are selectively 

directed.”

“transmission peaks” Plain-and-ordinary meaning1

1 – Note not for the jury: The plainand-ordinary meaning of “transmission 

peaks” includes relative maxima.

Patent Owner and its expert Dr. Vojcic have applied the plain and ordinary 

meaning of each claim term. Dr. Vojcic’s opinions and the arguments in this POR 

would be the same either without claim construction or under any of the claim 

construction orders described above.

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 13 of 44 PageID #:

2603
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

9

III. Petitioners’ Asserted Grounds and References

The Petition asserts two grounds unpatentability (Pet. at 2): 

• Ground 1: Claims 1-9, 12-18, and 22-34 are obvious in light of Gerlach 

and Barratt

• Ground 2: Claims 10-11 and 19-21 are obvious in light of Gerlach, Barratt, 

and Okamoto

A. Gerlach Primary Reference

Gerlach (Ex. 1005) was previously considered during prosecution of the ’376 

Patent. Gerlach relates to optimizing the directional properties of information 

signals. Gerlach, Abstract. As Petitioners’ note, Gerlach “provides limited 

disclosure of the architecture of a network-based wireless apparatus”, providing 

only “conceptual figures.” Pet. at 16. In particular, Petitioners acknowledge that 

Gerlach’s Figs. 3a and 3b (which Petitioners’ rely upon throughout their Petition) 

only “conceptually depict[s] portions of the wireless communication system.” Pet. 

at 21 (discussing the preamble). Indeed, Fig. 3a and the corresponding disclosures 

fail to disclose many elements of the independent claims of the ’376 patent.

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 14 of 44 PageID #:

2604
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

10

For example, Petitioners admit that Gerlach does not teach or suggest various 

limitations of the ’376 patent’s challenged claims, including, as the Petition admits:

• Gerlach does not disclose the ‘376 patent’s “processor” because 

“Gerlach does not explicitly describe the component that generates” its 

signals. Pet. at 27.

• Gerlach does not disclose the ’376 patent’s “transceiver” because 

“Gerlach’s Figures do not explicitly show a transmitter or receiver” 

(and Petitioners point to no disclosure of a transmitter alone, receiver 

alone, or a transceiver within Gerlach). Pet. at 31. 

• Gerlach does not disclose the ‘376 patent’s “memory” because Gerlach 

“does not explicitly mention the use of a memory.” Pet. at 43. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 15 of 44 PageID #:

2605
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

11

• Gerlach does not disclose “feedback signals [being] received by a 

receiver and provided to the weight computer after appropriate signal 

processing,” in Fig. 3a or anywhere else in Gerlach. Pet at 49.

B. Barratt and Okamoto Secondary References

Barratt (Ex. 1006) was previously considered during prosecution of the ’376 

patent. Barratt relates to “using antenna arrays and signal processing to dramatically 

increase the capacity and performance of wireless communication systems.” Barratt

at 1:15–18. Petitioners rely on Barratt as an obviousness combination with Gerlach 

for various limitations that Gerlach does not disclose. See Pet. at 15 (alleging that 

Barratt provides missing details from Gerlach, including “the architecture of a 

network-based wireless apparatus including its transmitting array, and of handling 

uplink communication between the remote devices and network-based apparatus”).

Okamoto (Ex. 1007) relates to algorithms which were studied and simulated 

in connection with wireless communications. Okamoto at 1. Petitions only use 

Okamoto in an obviousness combination under Ground 2 for certain limitations in 

dependent claims 10, 19, and 21. See Pet. at 74 (“[T]he combination [of Gerlach and 

Barratt] does not explicitly disclose IEEE 802.11 or wireless local area networks as 

recited in claims 10, 19 and 21. Okamoto discloses these limitations.”).

IV. Petitioners Fail to Show Invalidity of the “Processor” Limitations

The Petition asserts that “the combination of Gerlach and Barratt discloses or 

suggests ‘a processor’ configured as described in the limitations discussed in 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 16 of 44 PageID #:

2606
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

12

Sections X.B.2.b(i) and X.B.2.b(ii).” Ex. 1003 ¶ 105; Pet. at 30–31. But Dr. Ding 

and Petitioners have failed to show that the combination of Gerlach and Barratt 

discloses or suggests “a processor configured to . . .” as required by claim 1 and the 

challenged claims.

A. Requirements of “Processor” Limitations

Claim 1 of the ’376 patent recites, in part, the following requirements of the 

claimed “processor”:

[1A] a processor configured to:

[1A(i)] generate a probing signal for transmission to at least a first client

device and a second client device;

[1A(ii)] generate a first data stream for transmission to the first client 

device; and

[1A(iii)] generate a second data stream for transmission to the second

client device; and

Claim 1 also recites the “processor,” “transceiver,” and “smart antenna” as 

separate elements. See claim [1C] (“wherein one or more of the processor, the 

transceiver, or the smart antenna is further configured to”). Based on this claim 

language, a POSITA would understand that the claimed “processor,” “transceiver,” 

and “smart antenna” are distinct components. Vojcic Decl. ¶¶ 41–42. This is 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 17 of 44 PageID #:

2607
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

13

consistent with the remaining language of claim 1. For example, claim [1B] recites 

“a transceiver operatively coupled to the processor and configured to . . .” None of 

the claim language of claim 1 or other challenged claims indicates that the 

“processor,” “transceiver,” and “smart antenna” can be satisfied by the same 

component. Id. A POSITA would understand that they are distinct components of 

the overall “data-communications networking apparatus.” Id.

The specification and prosecution history of the ’376 patent is also consistent 

with the claimed “processor,” “transceiver,” and “smart antenna” being distinct 

components. For example, figures and corresponding written description depict the 

processor and smart antenna as separate components. See, e.g., Figs. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8A, 

8B, 13 (and corresponding written description):

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 18 of 44 PageID #:

2608
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

14

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 19 of 44 PageID #:

2609
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

15

B. The Petition fails to show that Gerlach discloses the claimed 

“processor.” 

The Petition and Dr. Ding asserts that “Gerlach inherently discloses or at least 

suggests a processor configured to perform the functionality of the limitations [of 

claim 1].” Ex. 1003 ¶ 109; Pet. at 28. This fails. Gerlach does not disclose or suggest 

the claimed processor, and the Petition fails to show that Gerlach alone discloses or 

renders the “processor” limitations obvious. Vojcic Decl. ¶¶ 43–49.

As an initial matter, Gerlach does not disclose the claimed processor, i.e., “a 

processor configured to: generate a probing signal for transmission to at least a first 

client device and a second client device; generate a first data stream for transmission 

to the first client device; and generate a second data stream for transmission to the 

second client device.” Claim [1A]–[1A(iii)]. As the Petition and Dr. Ding 

acknowledges, “while Gerlach describes the general concept of a wireless 

communications system, it has a limited description of the implementation details of 

a wireless network-apparatus. The specific implementation is left as a design choice 

to one who implements the system.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 93–94. Because Gerlach only 

describes the “general concept” of a wireless communication system and fails to 

describe the “implementation details” of the system at the level required by the 

claims, Gerlach fails to disclose expressly or at all a “processor” that satisfies the 

requirements of claim 1.

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 20 of 44 PageID #:

2610
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

16

For example, the Petition and Dr. Ding points to signal 17(1) of Gerlach as 

the claimed “probing signal.” Ex. 1003 Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 116–17 (annotating Gerlach Fig. 

3a “to show probing signal 17(1) at left and probing signal 17(m) at right”); Pet. at 

24–25 (asserting that Gerlach’s wireless system “transmits the same ‘probing signal’ 

(e.g., 17(1)) to ‘at least a first client device and a second client device’ (e.g., 16(1)-

16(m))”). Dr. Ding further points to information signals 19(1) and 19(m) as the 

claimed “first data stream” and “second data stream,” respectively. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 121–

23; Pet. at 27 (asserting that “Gerlach discloses or suggests ‘a first data stream [e.g., 

19(1)] for transmission to the first client device [e.g., 16(1)]’ and ‘a second data 

stream [e.g., 19(m)] for transmission to the second client device [16(m)].’”).

But Gerlach has no disclosure of where or how signal 17(1) or information 

signals 19(1) and 19(m) are generated. This is evident from Figs. 3a and 3b of 

Gerlach (and corresponding written description) that merely show the signals 17 and 

19 in isolation and not originating from any other component (Ex. 1005, Figs. 3a, 3b 

annotated), and explicitly not emanating from shown weight computer 40:

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 21 of 44 PageID #:

2611
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

17

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 22 of 44 PageID #:

2612
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

18

Accordingly, there is no disclosure in Gerlach of a “processor configured to” 

generate signal 17(1). A POSITA would understand that the alleged probing signals 

17(1) . . . 17(m) need not be generated by a processor at all and, for example, could 

be hard coded into the system. Vojcic Decl. ¶ 47. Nor is there any disclosure in 

Gerlach of “a processor configured to” generate information signals 19(1) and 

19(m). Nor is there any disclosure in Gerlach of the same processor that generates 

all of signals 17(1), 19(1), and 19(m), as required by Dr. Ding’s mapping of Gerlach 

to the claimed processor that generates “a probing signal,” “first data stream,” and 

“second data stream.”

Indeed, the Petition acknowledges that “Although Gerlach teaches that the 

transmitting array receives both probing signals 17 and information signals 19 for 

transmission, Gerlach does not explicitly describe the component that generates 

these signals.” Pet. at 27. This demonstrates that Gerlach does not disclose or suggest 

the component that generates signals 17 and information signals 19. Further, it 

confirms that Gerlach does not disclose or suggest that the same component

generates signals 17 and information signals 19. Those details are entirely missing 

from Gerlach. For these reasons, Gerlach fails to disclose claimed “processor” 

recited in claim 1 of the ’376 patent. Vojcic Decl. ¶ 48

For the same reasons, the “processor” limitations are not inherent and Gerlach 

fails to inherently disclose those limitations. Vojcic Decl. ¶ 49. Inherency requires a 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 23 of 44 PageID #:

2613
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

19

limitation to be necessarily or always present. Based on this, “a processor configured 

to generate . . .” of claim 1 of the ‘376 patent cannot be inherent in Gerlach. At a 

minimum, and based on Petitioner’s and Dr. Ding’s own statements, there are 

various architectural designs or implementations of Gerlach that would not satisfy 

the “processor” limitations. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 93–94 (acknowledging that Gerlach has 

limited implementation details and that the “specific implementation is left as a 

design choice to one who implements the system.”). For example, it would not be 

required to implement probing signals in a processor, and there is no suggestion of 

that in Gerlach. Vojcic Decl. ¶. A probing signal could simply be generated in 

hardware depending on the implementation or design. As another example, different 

hardware components (e.g., baseband modulators) other than a processor could be 

used to generate Gerlach’s signals 17 and information signals 19. Id. Further, each 

signal 17(1)-17(m) and 19(1), and 19(m) could be generated by hardware and 

different hardware components. Id.

C. The Petition fails to show that Gerlach suggests or renders 

obvious the claimed “processor.”

In the alternative, the Petition and Dr. Ding assert that Gerlach alone 

“suggests” or renders obvious the processor limitations. This fails because Petitioner 

and Dr. Ding are using claim 1 of the ’376 patent as a roadmap to speculate 

obviousness. Vojcic Decl. ¶¶ 50–63. Further, Dr. Ding’s opinions boil down to his 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 24 of 44 PageID #:

2614
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

20

assertion that Gerlach “could be” implemented with a processor that allegedly 

satisfies the requirements of claim 1, but he fails to show that a POSITA “would be”

motivated to do so, especially in view of Gerlach’s very narrow focus on the antenna 

array block. This is evident since Dr. Ding asserts in blanket fashion various 

implementations of Gerlach that would not even satisfy the “processor” limitations. 

Dr. Ding fails to distinguish between the different implementations he proposes, 

which undermines any assertion that a POSITA would be motivated to pursue a 

particular implementation. As a result, Dr. Ding fails to show the “why” and “how” 

a POSITA would be motivated to modify Gerlach to arrive at the claimed invention. 

Dr. Ding asserts at paragraph 107 that: “A person having ordinary skill in the 

art would have understood that one or more processors would be used to generate 

“information signals 19 and probing signals 17.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 107. As support, Dr. 

Ding cites several references that perform baseband modulation (bit-to-symbol 

mapping) to argue that a POSITA would understand that “a processor configured” 

would implement baseband modulation required to generate information signals. 

But there is no suggestion in Gerlach for such a need as Gerlach is narrowly focused 

on using feedback signals to form an antenna pattern with a single peak for the 

intended receiver using an antenna array. Vojcic Decl. ¶ 51.

In view of Gerlach’s teachings, a POSITA would not understand or be 

motivated to implement baseband modulators in Gerlach’s processor as Petitioner 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 25 of 44 PageID #:

2615
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

21

and Dr. Ding suggests. Id. ¶ 52. Notably, the Barratt secondary reference explicitly 

does not implement baseband modulators in the processor. This undermines Dr. 

Ding’s assertion that a POSITA would implement baseband modulators in a 

processor based on Gerlach alone. Therefore, it would not be obvious to implement 

baseband modulation for forming information signal in a processor. Id. Likewise, it 

would not be obvious to implement probing signals in a processor because there is 

no suggestion for that in Gerlach and probing signals could be simply generated in 

hardware. Id. None of these modifications have any support in Gerlach, which has 

limited or no implemental details of the system and (according to Dr. Ding) the 

“specific implementation is left as a design choice to one who implements the 

system.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 93–94. Dr. Ding is attempting to implement Gerlach to 

allegedly satisfy the claims, but impermissibly using claim 1 of the ’376 patent as a 

roadmap for doing so Id.

To support a suggestion of a processor in Gerlach configured to implement 

the “processor limitations” of claim 1 of the ’376 patent, Petitioner and Dr. Ding 

points to weight computer 40 in Gerlach for processing feedback signals (Ex. 1005, 

3:45-47). Ex. 1003 ¶ 108; Pet. at 29. That portion of Gerlach states: “Feedback 

signals 32 are conveyed to weight computer 40 in array 12 for processing.” Ex. 1005 

at 3:45–47. But that disclosure in Gerlach is by no means a suggestion of a processor 

configured to generate probing signals and a first and second data streams as required 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 26 of 44 PageID #:

2616
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

22

by claim 1. Vojcic Decl. ¶ 53. Gerlach’s weight computer 40 in array 12 extracts 

information from feedback signals to compute weights and achieve beam forming 

objectives (“Feedback signals 32 are conveyed to weight computer 40 in array 12 

for processing,” Ex. 1005, 3:46-48), no need for an additional processor is disclosed.

Id. Narrowly focused Gerlach (on the antenna array block) does not need a processor 

for generating probing signals or to perform baseband modulation. Id.Moreover, 

Gerlach explicitly shows in Figs. 3a and 3b that probing signals (17) and information 

signals (19) are not emanating from weight computer (40) that Dr. Ding suggests 

being “a processor configured to.” Id.

This further demonstrates that Gerlach does not suggest a processor that 

generates probing signals 17 and information signals 19. Id. ¶ 54. If it did, one would 

expect a processor to be shown in Gerlach’s figures or for signals 17 and information 

signals 19 to be emanating from weight computer 40. Thus, Petitioner and Dr. Ding’s 

conclusory statement is not supported by his citation to Gerlach. Moreover, 

explained above, probing signals could be generated in hardware, just as baseband 

modulators for generating modulating signals could be advantageously implemented 

outside a processor, as shown in Barratt. Vojcic Decl. ¶ 51. Petitioner is using 

impermissible hindsight to read into Gerlach what is not disclosed suggested in the 

reference.

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 27 of 44 PageID #:

2617
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

23

The Petition on page 29 and Dr. Ding in paragraph 108 summarizes their 

obviousness theory and conclusion based on Gerlach alone. They assert: “A person 

having ordinary skill in the art would have sought to use a processor—whether the 

same processor that implements the weight computer or one or more additional 

processors—to execute software instructions for generating modulating signals.” 

Ex. 1003 ¶ 108; Pet. at 29. This theory fails for several dispositive reasons. As a 

result, Gerlach does not render obvious the “processor” limitations. 

First, Dr. Ding’s generalized assertion that a POSITA “would have sought to 

use a processor” in Gerlach is insufficient for meeting the “processor” limitations.

Vojcic Decl. ¶ 56. Claim 1 of the ’376 patent requires a processor configured to 

generate a probing signal for multiple client devices and to generate a first data 

stream for transmission to a first client device and a second data stream for 

transmission to a second client device. The Petition and Dr. Ding’s generalized 

motivation to use a processor in Gerlach is not specific to the claim requirements. 

For example, the Petition does not describe any motivation for using a processor to 

generate probing signals (compared to other hardware or architecture designs). Id. 

Nor does the Petition describe any motivation for using the same processor to 

generate first and second data streams. Id. Especially since Gerlach fails to disclose 

the claimed “processor,” the Petition needed to explain why and how a POSITA 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 28 of 44 PageID #:

2618
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

24

would implement a processor in Gerlach to arrive at the claimed invention. The 

Petition and Dr. Ding failed to do so.

Second, the Petition and Dr. Ding’s primary theory that a POSITA would have 

sought to use “the same processor that implements the weight computer” (Ex. 1003 

¶ 108) as the claimed “processor” is fatally flawed. Vojcic Decl. ¶¶ 57–61. Dr. Ding 

and Petitioners repeatedly identifies Gerlach’s weight computer 40 as part of the 

claimed “smart antenna.” See, e.g.:

• “Accordingly, weight computer 40, components of transmitting array 12 

(highlighted blue in annotated Fig. 3b above) and the antenna array 

together are a “smart antenna” because these components allow the 

directed beampattern to be adjusted.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 139 (emphasis added);

• “As shown in Gerlach’s Fig. 3b, the antenna elements, components of 

transmission array that adjust the generated beampattern, and the weight 

computer (collectively the ‘smart antenna’) are coupled to the transmitter 

and receiver (‘transceiver’)” Ex. 1003 ¶ 139 (emphasis added).

• Accordingly, weight computer 40, components of transmitting array 12 

(shaded blue in Fig. 3b) and the antenna array collectively comprise 

“smart antenna” because these components allow the directed 

beampattern to be adjusted. Ding, ¶139.” Pet. at 38.

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 29 of 44 PageID #:

2619
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

25

The Petition and Dr. Ding likewise asserts that weight computer 40 is part of the 

claimed “smart antenna” to support their mapping for the challenged dependent 

claims that recite “one or more of the processor, the transceiver, or the smart antenna

is further configured to . . .” See Claims 2–6, 13–17, 23–29, 33–34.

Furthermore, the Petitioner and Dr. Ding’s theory that weight computer 40 

could be claimed “a processor” is clearly wrong in view of Gerlach itself that states 

that weight computer 40 is part of antenna array (Feedback signals 32 are conveyed 

to weight computer 40 in array 12 for processing,” Ex. 1005, 3:46-48), as also noted 

by Dr. Ding. Ex. 1003 ¶ 71. Moreover, Dr. Ding is mapping, in view of Gerlach, 

array 12 (including weight computer 40) as claimed smart antenna for the limitation 

“wherein one or more of the processor, the transceiver, or the smart antenna is further 

configured to: ... transmit first data stream ... transmit the second data stream ...” 

Ex. 1003 ¶ 170-173. It is incorrect to use weight computer 40 for both the claimed 

“processor” and “smart antenna.” Vojcic Decl. ¶ 59.

Because Gerlach’s weight computer 40 is already part of the alleged “smart 

antenna,” it cannot constitute the separate “processor” claim element. Vojcic Decl. 

¶ 61. As discussed above, both the claim language and specification of the ’376 

patent support the understanding that the “processor” and “smart antenna” are 

distinct components. Id. A POSITA would not understand that Gerlach’s weight 

computer 40 could both be a portion of the claimed “smart antenna” and the claimed 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 30 of 44 PageID #:

2620
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

26

“processor.” Id. Therefore, Dr. Ding’s primary obviousness theory that a POSITA 

would have sought to use “the same processor that implements the weight computer” 

as the claimed processor would not even work. The resulting combination (itself 

inadequately explained) would not meet the claim language reciting “processor,” 

“transceiver,” and “smart antenna” as separate elements.

Third, the Petitioner’s and Dr. Ding’s overall assertion, that a POSITA “would 

have sought to use a processor—whether the same processor that implements the 

weight computer or one or more additional processors” demonstrates the lack of 

motivation to combine here. Vojcic Decl. ¶¶ 63. The Petition and Dr. Ding merely 

identify several possibilities for the hypothetical processor, primarily as the weight 

computer or one or more additional, unknown processors somewhere in the system. 

At most, this shows that different implementations are possible (with or without 

additional processors), and that some undisclosed permutation is alleged to satisfy 

claim 1. Id. But the Petition and Dr. Ding fail to distinguish between the different 

implementations he proposes, including those that cannot satisfy the claims. Id.

This undermines any assertion that POSITA would be motivated to pursue a 

particular implementation that allegedly satisfies the “processor” limitations. Dr. 

Ding is opining that a POSITA could do certain implementations, not that a POSITA 

would be motivated to do so. Nor does Dr. Ding give any specific explanation or 

evidence for why a POSITA would be motivated to implement Gerlach to meet the 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 31 of 44 PageID #:

2621
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

27

claimed “processor,” beyond the general motivation of using processors, which may 

or may not meet the claims. Id.

Fourth, the Petition and Dr. Ding’s reference to “one or more additional 

processors” is entirely non-specific and unsupported. Vojcic Decl. ¶¶ 63. Dr. Ding 

fails to articulate what they are, where they are located, and what functions they 

perform. Id. Such a theory fails for the same reasons above. In view of Gerlach, the 

Petition and Dr. Ding have failed to explain any motivation for adding “one or more 

additional processors” to perform the claimed functions. Id. The Petition and Dr. 

Ding are attempting to implement Gerlach to satisfy claim 1, but impermissibly 

using claim 1 of the ’376 patent as a roadmap for doing so. Id.

D. The Petition fails to show that Gerlach in combination with 

Barratt suggests or render obvious the claimed “processor.”

For the same reasons as Gerlach alone, Gerlach in combination with Barratt 

fails to suggest or render obvious the claimed “processor.” Vojcic Decl. ¶¶ 64–66. 

The Petition and Dr. Ding’s reliance on Barratt does not cure any of the deficiencies 

discussed above for the obviousness theory based on Gerlach alone. Id. Indeed, the 

combination with Barratt includes additional deficiencies that further undermine the 

theory.

The Petition and Dr. Ding suggests that a POSITA “would have found it 

obvious to implement Barratt’s signal modulators 25 in software on a processor, 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 32 of 44 PageID #:

2622
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

28

either using the same CPU as the base station controller or using one or more 

additional processors.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 111; Pet. at 30. This fails and again is

impermissible hindsight. The Petition and Dr. Ding is using the invention as a 

roadmap to obviousness. First, a POSITA would understand that the base station 

controller normally does not do signal modulation, just as the signal modulators in 

Barratt were explicitly outside of the base station controller. Vojcic Decl. ¶ 65. 

Second, there was not suggestion in Barratt, nor has the Petition or Dr. Ding pointed 

to any, that signal modulators could be implemented in one or more processors. Id. 

The Petition and Dr’s. Ding theory is that signal modulators could be implemented 

in software running on processors. Id. But Barratt undermines that theory because it 

shows the opposite. Id. It shows dedicated the use of dedicated signal modulators, 

not software-based signal modulators running on the processor. Id.

The Petition and Dr. Ding assert that “a person having ordinary skill in the art 

would have found it obvious to incorporate Barratt’s modulators/processor(s) in 

Gerlach to generate the probing and first/second information signals for the reasons 

discussed in Section X.B.1.” Pet. at 30; Ding Decl. ¶ 112. This fails. First, Dr. Ding 

in Section X.B.1 did not discuss motivation to combine Gerlach and Barratt to 

incorporate Barratt’s signal modulators in Gerlach to generate the probing and 

first/second information signals. Further, as discussed above, the Petition and Dr. 

Ding’s obviousness logic is flawed for various reasons and, a POSITA would not be 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 33 of 44 PageID #:

2623
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

29

motivated to modify Barratt to include signal modulators in the base station 

controller or other processor. Vojcic Decl. ¶ 66. Nor would a POSITA be motivated 

to bring such modified processor in Barratt into Gerlach (which itself is unexplained)

Id. For example, the Petition and Dr. Ding has never adequately articulated why a 

POSITA would be motivated to add a processor to Gerlach to generate probing 

signals (and other limitations) where Gerlach has no such suggestion. Id. Barratt 

does not address that deficiency since it does not describe probing signals or 

Gerlach’s feedback concepts. Id.

V. Petitioners Fail to Show Invalidity of the “Transceiver” Limitations

Under its plain and ordinary meaning, “transceiver” refers to a single unit 

comprising a transmitter and a receiver, with common circuit components for 

transmitting and receiving. Vojcic Decl. ¶ 67; Ex. 2016 (“The combination of radio 

transmitting and receiving equipment in a common housing, usually for portable or 

mobile use, and employing common circuit components for both transmitting and 

receiving.”); Ex. 2017 (“A radio transmitter and receiver combined in one unit and 

having switching arrangements such as to permit use of one or more tubes for both 

transmitting and receiving.”). In particular, a combination of a transmitter with an 

unrelated receiver, e.g., a receiver for a different communication technology, is not 

a “transceiver.” Vojcic Decl. ¶ 67.

Petitioner concedes that Gerlach does not expressly disclose either a receiver 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 34 of 44 PageID #:

2624
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

30

or a transmitter, much less a transceiver. Pet. at 32. In fact, as Dr. Vojcic explains, 

Gerlach shows and describes the transmit and receive channels as entirely separate, 

teaching away from the use of a transceiver as described and claimed in the ’376 

Patent. Vojcic Decl. ¶ 68.

Petitioner’s assertion is that Gerlach inherently discloses at least a transmitter 

because it must include a transmitter to transmit signals 18. Pet. at 32. The Petition 

identifies only a single location for the transmitter in Gerlach: as part of transmitting 

elements 14. Id. (“The transmitting elements 14 in Gerlach's network-based 

apparatus each must include a transmitter to effectuate the transmission of signals 

18 to the remote devices.”). Petitioner also argues that Gerlach must include a 

receiver in order to receive the feedback signals 32. Id. 

As Dr. Vojcic explains, Petitioner and its expert do not show the presence of 

a receiver. Gerlach does not specify or limit how feedback signals 32 are transferred 

from receivers 16 to weight computer 40. Vojcic Decl. ¶ 70. In many possible 

embodiments, feedback signals are transferred using some separate channel 

unrelated to the channel used for transmissions signals 18. Id. For example, it is 

possible to use wires for the feedback signals 32, or to send the feedback signals 

using a different radio link. Id. A POSITA would understand that such an 

embodiment would be beneficial because, for example, it would reduce contention 

on the forward channel and would cleanly separate the forward and reverse channels.

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 35 of 44 PageID #:

2625
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

31

In each of these situations, Dr. Vojcic explains that an embodiment of Gerlach 

would not include a transceiver under the plain and ordinary meaning of that term. 

Vojcic Decl. ¶ 71. For example, the transmit and receive chains might use different 

technologies. Or, in the case of using different radio bands, the transmitter and 

receiver would be separated, for example by having separate front ends and other 

parts of the transmit and receive chains, in contrast to the plain and ordinary meaning 

of “transceiver.” Vojcic Decl. ¶ 71.

Furthermore, Petitioner does not show that the supposed transmitter and 

receiver in Gerlach form a single unit or have common components. Vojcic Decl. 

¶ 72. Again, in the Petition’s sole theory, the putative transmitters are within 

transmitting elements 14, and the putative receiver is associated with feedback 

signals 32. There is no logical relationship shown between transmitting elements 14

and feedback signals 32. Vojcic Decl. ¶ 72. As shown in Gerlach, there are several 

components separating transmitting elements 14 and feedback signals 32, including 

connections 60, the weight matrix with its complex amplitudes 13, and the entirety 

of weight computer 40. Gerlach, Figs. 3a, 3b. The Petition gives no basis why these 

separately located transmitters and receiver would be formed in a single unit or share 

common components. See Vojcic Decl. ¶ 72.

Specifically, the Petition does not show that Gerlach inherently discloses that 

the supposed transmitters and receivers form a single unit and share common 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 36 of 44 PageID #:

2626
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

32

components, because there are many possible embodiments that do not have those 

attributes. Vojcic Decl. ¶ 73. For example, if the feedback signals 32 are received 

using antenna element(s) distinct from the forward channel elements 14, then it 

would be unlikely for the transmitter(s) and receiver(s) to share components. Id. 

Furthermore, if the forward and reverse channels are designed to operate 

simultaneously (e.g., using different frequency bands), then the transmitter(s) and 

receiver(s) would necessarily be fully independent. Id.

In addition, the Petition does not establish that it would be obvious to modify 

Gerlach to add a unitary transceiver for both the transmit elements 14 and the 

reception of feedback signals 32. As Dr. Vojcic explains above, there are numerous 

possible implementations of Gerlach, many of which would not include a transceiver 

as claimed. Vojcic Decl. ¶ 74. Furthermore, Petitioner and its expert do not provide 

specific, nonconclusory explanations or evidence why it would be obvious, in light 

of Gerlach alone, to contain a transceiver in which the transmitter and receiver share 

components. Id.

Presumably realizing that its inherent disclosure theory is insufficient, 

Petitioner relies on an obviousness combination with Barratt to show a “transceiver.” 

Pet. at 33-35. This does not succeed either. In the primary obviousness theory

regarding Gerlach and Barratt, the disclosure of a multichannel transmitters 14 and 

multichannel receivers 15 purportedly constitutes a “transceiver.” Pet. at 33-34. This 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 37 of 44 PageID #:

2627
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

33

does not show a transceiver, because it suffers from the same technical flaws as the 

theory based on Gerlach alone. Vojcic Decl. ¶¶ 75-76. 

For example, Barratt discloses that transmitters 14 are coupled to transmit 

antenna elements 18, and receivers 15 are coupled to receive antenna elements 19. 

Ex. 1006, Fig. 1; id. at 8:60-67 (describing separate transmit antennas 18). 

Transmitters 14 and receivers 15 are not even coupled to each other as disclosed in 

Barratt, much less are they part of a single unitary transceiver. Vojcic Decl. ¶ 76. 

Furthermore, Barratt expressly teaches that the uplink channel (associated with 

receivers 15) and downlink channel (associated with transmitters 14) may be 

qualitatively different. Barratt at 9:1-17:

In the illustrative embodiment the number Ncc of downlink 

conventional channels is the same as the number Ncc of uplink 

conventional channels. In other embodiments, there may be different 

numbers of uplink and downlink conventional channels. Furthermore, 

the channels may be of different types and bandwidths as is the case for 

an interactive television application where the downlink is comprised 

of wideband video channels and the uplink employs narrowband 

audio/data channels.

Additionally, the illustrative embodiment shows the same number of 

antenna elements, m, for transmit and receive. In other embodiments, 

the number of transmit antenna elements and the number of receive 

antenna elements may be different, up to and including the case where 

transmit employs only one transmit antenna element in an 

omnidirectional sense such as in an interactive television application.

In the cases where the uplink and downlink channels are different, a single 

transceiver may not be used. Vojcic Decl. ¶ 77. Therefore, even if Dr. Ding is correct 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 38 of 44 PageID #:

2628
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

34

that a POSITA would combine Gerlach and Barratt, Dr. Ding does not show that the 

combination renders obvious the use of a transceiver as taught and claimed in the 

’376 Patent. Vojcic Decl. ¶ 77. 

Finally, the Petition turns to a secondary obviousness reference, relying on a 

brief alternative embodiment of Barratt in an attempt to establish a transceiver in 

which the transmitter and receiver share components, as required by the plain and 

ordinary meaning of “transceiver. ” Pet. at 35 (quoting Barratt at 20:30-35). But there 

is no explanation why a POSITA would be motivated to combine Gerlach, not with 

Barratt’s primary and preferred embodiment, but with the sketchily disclosed 

alternative embodiment of 20:30-35. In his report, Dr. Ding gives only one reason 

why a POSITA would combine this embodiment of Barratt with Gerlach: “A person 

having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this embodiment 

having a shared antenna array and duplexer to minimize the space and cost taken by 

the antenna arrays at a base station which is size constrained and to minimize overall 

base station cost.” Ding Decl. ¶ 82.

As Dr. Vojcic explains, Dr. Ding has not shown that a POSITA would be 

motivated to combine Gerlach with the specific alternative embodiment of Barratt 

that contains a shared antenna array and duplexer. Vojcic Decl. ¶ 79. In particular, 

Dr. Ding gives no explanation why a POSITA would consider space and cost to be 

important enough to justify the use of a shared antenna array and duplexer. Id. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 39 of 44 PageID #:

2629
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

35

Nothing in Gerlach teaches that cost or space are significant considerations. Id. Dr. 

Ding improperly relies on these entirely generic “motivations,” which if accepted 

would motivate virtually any putative improvement and impermissibly expand the 

obviousness analysis to allow unlimited picking and choosing among elements of 

prior art. As Dr. Vojcic explains, there are furthermore downsides to the alternative 

Barratt embodiment—downsides that Dr. Ding and the Petition ignore. Vojcic Decl. 

¶ 79. For example, using a shared antenna array and duplexer eliminates several 

attributes of both Gerlach and Barratt, and Dr. Ding does not explain why a POSITA 

at the time of the invention would find these compromises worthwhile. Id.

In fact, Barratt’s primary embodiment (see Ex. 1006, Fig.1), which Dr. Ding 

used for the transceiver (Ex. 1008 ¶ 127), explicitly discloses completely separate 

sets of transmit and receive antenna array elements. Vojcic Decl. ¶ 80. It therefore 

is teaching away from Dr. Ding’s obviousness theory of shared antenna arrays and 

duplexer. For the argument that transmitters and receivers share common elements, 

the duplexer and antenna array, Dr. Ding is using the alternative embodiment of Fig. 

8 in Barrat. Dr. Ding is mixing the two incompatible embodiments without 

explaining how the incompatibility could be overcome. Id.

For example, as described above, Barratt explicitly teaches the benefits in 

design flexibility provided by the use of separate uplink and downlink channels, for 

example by having high-bandwidth downlink channels for television or video and 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 40 of 44 PageID #:

2630
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

36

the uplink channels can be optimized for lower bandwidth, or by using only an 

omnidirectional, single-antenna uplink channel instead of the more complex and 

power-consuming multi-antenna downlink channel. Barratt at 9:1-17; Vojcic Decl. 

¶ 81. Furthermore, a POSITA would understand that using separate uplink and 

downlink channels, with separate transmitter(s), receiver(s), and antenna element(s), 

would allow the use of distinct frequency bands, and numerous other design 

possibilities to tailor the wireless system for the unique demands of the uplink and 

downlink channels respectively. Vojcic Decl. ¶ 81. Using different frequency bands 

as in Barratt, sufficiently separated, e.g. 900 MHz and 2 GHz bands, would 

necessitate the use of separate antennas to achieve acceptable antenna efficiencies in 

each band. Vojcic Decl. ¶ 81. 

Therefore, even if the Petition and Dr. Ding were generally correct that a 

POSITA would be motivated to combine Gerlach and Barratt in general, they have

not shown that a POSITA would use the specific alternative embodiment with a 

shared antenna array and a duplexer. Rather, a POSITA considering these two 

references together would choose the primary embodiment of Barratt, with separate 

uplink and downlink channels, which more closely resembles the embodiments of 

Gerlach, with separate data transmission and feedback channels (corresponding to 

transmission signals 18 and feedback signals 32, respectively). Vojcic Decl. ¶ 82.

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 41 of 44 PageID #:

2631
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

37

VI. Conclusion

The above two deficiencies for the “processor” limitations and “transceiver” 

have been discussed for independent claim 1. But they apply to all challenged claims 

(claims 1–34) under both asserted grounds. Therefore, the Board should find that 

Petitioners have failed meet their burden to prove unpatentability for any challenged

claim of the ’376 patent.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: January 13, 2023 /s/ Reza Mirzaie

Reza Mirzaie, Reg. No. 69,138 

Philip X. Wang, Reg. No. 74,621

Russ August & Kabat

12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Fl.

Los Angeles, CA 90025

Phone: (310) 826-7474

rmirzaie@raklaw.com

pwang@raklaw.com

rak_vivato@raklaw.com

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 42 of 44 PageID #:

2632
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

CERTIFICATION REGARDING WORD COUNT

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.24(d), Patent Owner certifies that there are 7,346

words in the paper excluding the portions exempted under 37 C.F.R. §42.24(a)(1).

Dated: January 13, 2023 /s/ Reza Mirzaie

Reza Mirzaie

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 43 of 44 PageID #:

2633
IPR2022-00613 (’376 patent)

PATENT OWNER RESPONSE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(1))

The undersigned hereby certifies that the above document was served on 

January 13, 2023, by filing this document through the Patent Trial and Appeal Board 

End to End system as well as delivering a copy via electronic mail upon the following 

attorneys of record for Petitioners:

Ali R. Sharifahmadian (Reg. No. 48,202) 

ali.sharifahmadian@arnoldporter.com

Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP

601 Massachusetts Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20001-3743

Tel: 202-942-5000

Fax: 202-942-5999

Back-Up Counsel for Petitioners: 

Jennifer A. Sklenar (Reg. No. 40,205)

jennifer.sklenar@arnoldporter.com

Paul Margulies (Reg. No. 59,580)

paul.margulies@arnoldporter.com

Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP

601 Massachusetts Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20001-3743

Tel: 202-942-5000

Back-Up Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.:

Lori A. Gordon (Reg. No. 50,633)

lorigordon@perkinscoie.com

Perkins Coie LLP 700 Thirteenth Street, N.W., Suite 800

Washington, DC 20005-3960

Tel: 202-654-6200

Dated: January 13, 2023 /s/ Reza Mirzaie

Reza Mirzaie 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-6 Filed 08/12/24 Page 44 of 44 PageID #:

2634