NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,

Appellant

v.

XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, DBA VIVATO 

TECHNOLOGIES,

Appellee

______________________ 

2020-1105

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2018-

00762.

______________________ 

Decided: November 25, 2020

______________________ 

DAVID L. MCCOMBS, Haynes & Boone, LLP, Dallas, TX, 

for appellant. Also represented by THEODORE M. FOSTER,

DEBRA JANECE MCCOMAS; ANGELA OLIVER, Washington, 

DC.

 KAYVAN B. NOROOZI, Noroozi PC, Los Angeles, CA, for 

appellee. 

 ______________________ 

Case: 20-1105 Document: 42 Page: 1 Filed: 11/25/2020
2 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC

Before MOORE, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

MOORE, Circuit Judge. 

Cisco Systems, Inc. appeals the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final written decision holding Cisco had not 

proven that claims 1–9 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,611,231 

would have been obvious. For the reasons discussed below, 

we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

The ’231 patent relates to wireless communication systems and methods that utilize an adaptive antenna to 

transmit signals with selectively placed transmission 

peaks and nulls, potentially minimizing interference. ’231 

patent at 1:15–17, 2:3–8, 7:41–48. Claim 1 is representative and recites: 

1. An apparatus for use in a wireless routing network, the apparatus comprising:

an adaptive antennas; 

at least one transmitter operatively coupled to said 

adaptive antenna; 

at least one receiver operatively coupled to said 

adaptive antenna; 

control logic operatively coupled to said transmitter and configured to cause said at least one transmitter to output at least one transmission signal to 

said adaptive antenna to transmit corresponding 

outgoing multi-beam electromagnetic signals exhibiting a plurality of selectively placed transmission peaks and transmission nulls within a far field 

region of a coverage area based on routing information; and 

search receiver logic operatively coupled to said 

control logic and said at least one receiver and configured to update said routing information based at 

Case: 20-1105 Document: 42 Page: 2 Filed: 11/25/2020
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC 3

least in part on cross-correlated signal information 

that is received by said receiver using said adaptive 

antenna. 

(emphasis added).

Cisco petitioned for inter partes review of claims 1–9 

and 12 of the ’231 patent. In its final written decision, the 

Board construed the term “cross-correlated signal information that is received by said receiver” as requiring “that 

the ‘signal information’ that is ‘received’ by the ‘adaptive 

antenna’ must be ‘cross-correlated’ at the time it is ‘received.’” J.A. 10, 20. Based on that construction, the Board 

found that Cisco’s prior art combination did not disclose the 

cross-correlation limitation of claim 1. The Board therefore 

held that Cisco had not proven that claims 1–9 and 12 of 

the ’231 patent would have been unpatentable as obvious. 

DISCUSSION

Cisco challenges the Board’s construction of “cross-correlated signal information that is received by” the claimed 

adaptive antenna. We review the Board’s ultimate claim 

construction de novo and any underlying factual determinations involving extrinsic evidence for substantial evidence. Paice LLC v. Ford Motor Co., 881 F.3d 894, 902 

(Fed. Cir. 2018). Because Cisco’s petition was filed before 

November 13, 2018, we give claims in the unexpired ’231 

patent their “broadest reasonable interpretation” consistent with the specification. See Cuozzo Speed Techs., 

LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016). 

Cisco contends the Board erred in construing the 

phrase “cross-correlated signal information that is received 

by said receiver using said adaptive antenna” as requiring 

that the signal information be cross-correlated before the

signal information is received. It argues the claim language is ambiguous and, as properly interpreted, includes 

signal information that is cross-correlated after it is received. We do not agree. 

Case: 20-1105 Document: 42 Page: 3 Filed: 11/25/2020
4 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC

Claim 1 recites a receiver configured to update routing 

information “based at least in part on cross-correlated signal information that is received by said receiver using [an] 

adaptive antenna.” “Cross-correlated” is a past-participial 

adjective that modifies “signal information.” And the 

phrase “that is received by said receiver” is a relative 

clause modifying the claimed “cross-correlated signal information.” The plain language of the claim, therefore, unambiguously requires that the signal information is crosscorrelated at the time it is received. 

The language of independent claims 20 and 52 of the 

’231 patent further supports our interpretation. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en 

banc) (“Other claims of the patent in question, both asserted and unasserted, can also be valuable sources of enlightenment as to the meaning of a claim term.”). Claims 

20 and 52 recite an adaptive antenna configured to receive 

at least one electromagnetic signal and to “cross-correlate 

data sequences in said at least one received signal.” Unlike 

claim 1, claims 20 and 52 expressly contemplate cross-correlation after signal information is received. As the Board 

correctly held, the broadest reasonable interpretation of 

claim 1 requires that the “signal information” “received” by 

the “adaptive antenna” already be “cross-correlated” at the 

time it is received.

Cisco argues this interpretation excludes from claim 1 

the only written description embodiment of the claimed 

search receiver logic, illustrated in Figure 22, where the 

signal information is cross-correlated after it is received.1 

As a preliminary matter, we note that there are many 

1 The parties dispute whether Figure 15 of the ’231 patent discloses a second embodiment wherein the adaptive 

antenna receives cross-correlated signal information. We 

do not resolve this dispute as it does not affect our decision 

here. 

Case: 20-1105 Document: 42 Page: 4 Filed: 11/25/2020
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC 5

embodiments disclosed that do not require cross-correlation after signal receipt. Moreover, other claims, such as 

20 and 52, expressly include the relevant portion of the embodiment disclosed in Figure 22, requiring cross-correlation after receipt. There is no requirement that “each and 

every claim ought to be interpreted to cover each and every 

embodiment.” PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical 

Commc’ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 755 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Regardless, nothing in the written description shows the patentee intended to deviate from the plain meaning of claim 

1; there is no language in the written description suggesting that cross-correlating the signal information after it is 

received is important, essential, or necessary to the 

claimed invention. See Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker 

Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[T]o deviate 

from the plain and ordinary meaning of a claim term . . . 

the patentee must, with some language, indicate a clear intent to do so in the patent.”). In fact, the written description expressly states that “the invention defined in the [] 

claims is not necessarily limited to the specific features or 

steps described.” ’231 patent at 28:66–29:2. Likewise, of 

the more than one dozen “implementations” described, 

Cisco identifies only the embodiment of Figure 22 as disclosing signal information cross-correlated after it is received. See, e.g., id. at 9:22–46. Therefore, neither the 

embodiment of Figure 22 nor the written description persuades us to deviate from the plain, unambiguous language 

of claim 1. See Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 525 

F.3d 1200, 1215–16 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[W]here we conclude 

that the claim language is unambiguous, we have construed the claims to exclude all disclosed embodiments.”). 

Cisco further contends dependent claim 2 makes clear 

that claim 1 must encompass “cross-correlated signal information” that is cross-correlated after it is received. We will 

not reach the merits of this argument, that claim 2 causes 

us to deviate from the plain meaning of claim 1, because 

Cisco never raised this argument with the Board. 

Case: 20-1105 Document: 42 Page: 5 Filed: 11/25/2020
6 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC

Accordingly, we decline to consider Cisco’s argument made 

in the first instance on appeal. MCM Portfolio LLC v. 

Hewlett-Packard Co., 812 F.3d 1284, 1294 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 

2015). 

CONCLUSION

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments 

and do not find them persuasive. Because the Board did 

not err in its construction and because Cisco does not challenge the Board’s decision under its construction, we affirm. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 20-1105 Document: 42 Page: 6 Filed: 11/25/2020