Opinion ID: 4533209
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: beam forming technique

Text: As to claims 8 and 16 of the ’916 patent, GAS alleges that the Board too broadly construed “beam forming technique” as “a modulation configuration.” GAS urges that we adopt its narrower interpretation: “constructive and destructive interference to illuminate specific portions or areas of a cell or sector thereby improving link quality and reducing interference effects.” Appellant’s Br. at 28. We see no error with the Board’s rejection of GAS’s narrow construction. When an IPR is instituted from a petition filed before November 13, 2018, as here, the claims are given the “broadest reasonable interpretation” consistent with the controller] claim element in its Surreply,” Reply at 12, GAS would still have failed to meet its burden of establishing prior conception of the remaining claim limitations. 3 Because we find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in declining to address the improperly incorporated documents, we do not reach the question of whether the Board erred in its alternative holding that evaluated those materials by treating claim 1 of the ’916 patent, which recites the “optimum modulation configuration” limitation, as representative of claims 6, 7, 14, and 15, which do not recite an “optimum” modulation configuration. Case: 19-1856 Document: 50 Page: 9 Filed: 05/11/2020 GEN. ACCESS SOLS., LTD. v. SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P. 9 specification. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016); Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018). We review claim construction de novo except for subsidiary factual findings based on extrinsic evidence, which we review for substantial evidence. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318, 333 (2015); In re Hodges, 882 F.3d 1107, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2018). To the extent that the Board construed “beam forming technique,” it was in rejecting GAS’s overly narrow construction in the context of the parties’ dispute over whether Ahy’s use of an antenna selection parameter disclosed the claimed “physical beam forming technique.” We note that Sprint did not propose to construe “beaming forming technique” as “a modulation configuration,” instead explaining that GAS’s expert, Dr. Humphrey, had contradicted GAS’s own claim construction position by testifying that a “physical beam forming technique is just a modulation configuration.” J.A. 5174–75 (citing J.A. 5674 at ll. 14–17). The Board agreed with Sprint’s arguments that GAS’s proposed construction was unduly narrow and that Ahy discloses a “beam forming technique,” but did not expressly adopt any construction of “beam forming technique.” See J.A. 26 (“We agree with Petitioner.”). Here, the Board weighed claim construction testimony from GAS’s expert and found it unpersuasive. As the Board correctly noted, GAS does not rely on any intrinsic support from the ’916 specification, but rather supports its narrow claim construction only with Mr. Humphrey’s bare assertion that “[b]eam forming is accomplished through constructive and destructive interference to illuminate specific portions or areas of a cell or sector thereby improving link quality and reducing interference effects.” J.A. 5099. Moreover, as Sprint pointed out, Mr. Humphrey also testified to the contrary that a “physical beam forming Case: 19-1856 Document: 50 Page: 10 Filed: 05/11/2020 10 GEN. ACCESS SOLS., LTD. v. SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P. technique” in the context of claims 8 and 16 of the ’916 patent refers to a “modulation configuration.” J.A. 5674 at ll. 10–17; see also J.A. 5675 ll. 18–20 (“Well, here [physical beam forming technique is] being defined as a modulation configuration.”). In view of Mr. Humphrey’s conclusory and inconsistent testimony, the Board fairly credited Sprint’s expert, Mr. Proctor, who explained that the “[s]election of different sets of combinations of antennas will result in different coverage patterns and similarly constitutes use of different ‘physical beam forming techniques.’” J.A. 27. In sum, we decline to adopt GAS’s narrow construction of “beam forming technique.” GAS has offered no intrinsic evidence to support such a narrow reading, and the Board’s weighing of the expert testimony was supported by substantial evidence.