[00:00:02] Speaker 03:
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is now open and in session.

[00:00:07] Speaker 03:
God save the United States and its honorable court.

[00:00:15] Speaker 01:
Good morning, everyone.

[00:00:16] Speaker 01:
The first argued case this morning, December 20, 2092, Intel Cooperation Against Qualcomm Incorporated.

[00:00:26] Speaker 01:
Mr. Lazier.

[00:00:29] Speaker 05:
May it please the court.

[00:00:31] Speaker 05:
It is undisputed that the lead prior art document teaches each and every component of the radio frequency receiver circuitry claimed in the independent claims of 356 patents.

[00:00:44] Speaker 01:
Which is that lead prior art that you're referring to?

[00:00:51] Speaker 05:
Your Honor, this is the lead prior art document that was the primary reference, the anticipatory reference in ground one of the IPR petitions underlying

[00:01:01] Speaker 05:
this appeal.

[00:01:03] Speaker 01:
Okay, thank you.

[00:01:07] Speaker 05:
To find the claims patentable nonetheless, the board committed two separate errors.

[00:01:12] Speaker 05:
Reversing either of those errors requires reversing the board's final written decision.

[00:01:19] Speaker 05:
The first error is found in appendix pages 71 to 72.

[00:01:24] Speaker 05:
And it's the board's erroneous construction of the claim language, carrier aggregation.

[00:01:31] Speaker 05:
The board improperly added two limitations to that term, requiring that the carriers be, quote, combined as a single virtual channel, close quote, in order to be, quote, provide higher bandwidth.

[00:01:46] Speaker 05:
Now, while both of those added phrases were erroneous, I plan to focus today primarily on the board's addition of the phrase combined as a single virtual channel.

[00:01:59] Speaker 05:
And the reason that I'll do so is that the board's later determination that Lee does not anticipate the claims is based entirely on that language, which your honors can see at Appendix Page 78.

[00:02:13] Speaker 05:
So if this court agrees that the inclusion of that limitation combined as a single virtual channel was error, then the board's finding of no anticipation must be reversed.

[00:02:26] Speaker 02:
So this is Judge Rainer.

[00:02:28] Speaker 02:
Does the feasibility study commit to play here in your argument?

[00:02:37] Speaker 05:
With respect to the first ground, Your Honor, that's an anticipation ground based solely on Lee.

[00:02:42] Speaker 05:
Ground two was an obviousness ground where the feasibility study was used in combination with Lee.

[00:02:50] Speaker 05:
And there's no dispute that the feasibility study discloses a carrier aggregated signal even under the board's improperly narrowed construction requiring that single virtual channel.

[00:03:06] Speaker 04:
Mr. Lanterre, getting to the feasibility study, is that describing a carrier aggregation signal in the sense

[00:03:16] Speaker 04:
there are multiple carriers being somehow combined or bonded together into a single signal?

[00:03:26] Speaker 05:
There was no dispute that that's what the feasibility study discloses.

[00:03:31] Speaker 05:
And Your Honor, I'm not sure that there's a lot of clarity in the record as to what exactly the board thought combines a single virtual channel.

[00:03:39] Speaker 05:
means because that language appears nowhere in the intrinsic record.

[00:03:43] Speaker 05:
But what the feasibility study does talk about is what it calls component carriers.

[00:03:50] Speaker 05:
And what that appears to mean is that if you are, for example, broadcasting, let's say, a single video,

[00:03:57] Speaker 05:
When you broadcast that video, instead of sending it over one channel, you would break the video into two parts and simultaneously send the stream on two different channels as opposed to a single channel.

[00:04:14] Speaker 05:
Now, the lead prior reference, what that teaches is a system where you simultaneously transmit a Bluetooth signal and a Wi-Fi signal at the same time.

[00:04:27] Speaker 05:
And the Bluetooth signal and the Wi-Fi signal will have different information on that.

[00:04:32] Speaker 05:
And the lead receiver will receive both of those things at the same time and process them both downstream.

[00:04:40] Speaker 04:
And what makes that aggregation though?

[00:04:44] Speaker 04:
I mean, there's no activity that is akin to rolling them all up into a single signal or anything like that.

[00:04:54] Speaker 04:
Am I right about that in terms of Lee, in terms of its Bluetooth signals coming in at the same time Wi-Fi signals are coming in?

[00:05:02] Speaker 05:
Your Honor is correct that there would not be in Lee a combining at the back end of the Wi-Fi and Bluetooth signal to create, for example, a single video.

[00:05:12] Speaker 05:
But remember, what the claims here are about has nothing to do with what happens in the baseband processor, which is where that activity would occur.

[00:05:20] Speaker 05:
This is all about the RF front end, the amplifier stage of the device.

[00:05:28] Speaker 05:
And at the amplifier stage, all that happens is signals come in and they're amplified.

[00:05:33] Speaker 05:
They're made stronger so that they can be used downstream.

[00:05:37] Speaker 05:
And the 356 patent does not discuss anywhere

[00:05:41] Speaker 05:
combining signals later on to create a single channel or anything of the like.

[00:05:48] Speaker 05:
And so if we focus on what the claims here are actually about, they're very broadly written to a receiver architecture where the low noise amplifiers can be independently enabled or disabled.

[00:06:00] Speaker 05:
That's what Qualcomm got this patent on.

[00:06:03] Speaker 05:
And it does not discuss at all combining or not combining two different signals.

[00:06:09] Speaker 04:
Well, let me get you to.

[00:06:11] Speaker 04:
the heart of the question for me on claim construction.

[00:06:16] Speaker 04:
The patent owner did not invent the concept of carrier aggregation.

[00:06:21] Speaker 04:
That was already something that was known in the art.

[00:06:24] Speaker 04:
And there is several references in the record that illustrate that carrier aggregation was an established term of art in this field.

[00:06:38] Speaker 04:
And when you look

[00:06:40] Speaker 04:
and the British application and the LTE release and then that other United States patent.

[00:06:47] Speaker 04:
Altogether, the board concluded that carrier aggregation did necessarily mean some kind of bonding or rolling up or combining of all these various carriers into a single thing.

[00:07:00] Speaker 04:
They called it a single virtual channel.

[00:07:05] Speaker 04:
And if that's right, then the next question is,

[00:07:10] Speaker 04:
What in the patent suggests to us that the patent drafter necessarily created its own personal definition of the already established meaning of carrier aggregation?

[00:07:25] Speaker 05:
Your Honor, first, I would disagree with the premise that it's right that all of the prior art describes carrier aggregation specifically as combining

[00:07:40] Speaker 05:
next appeal, we can talk about the British application and Uehara where those descriptions are identical.

[00:07:50] Speaker 05:
So I don't think that's accurate.

[00:07:51] Speaker 05:
But to answer your honest question directly, if we look at the 356 patent, it's very clear that when Balkan wrote this patent, it conveyed that carrier aggregation would have a very broad meaning.

[00:08:06] Speaker 05:
At column ones, line 32 to 33, it says carrier aggregation is simultaneous operation on multiple carriers.

[00:08:15] Speaker 05:
Now, we think that's lexicography under Stinger and Edwards, but even if it's not,

[00:08:21] Speaker 05:
It is very clearly a statement from the patentee as to what the patentee thought the plain meaning of carrier aggregation was at the time the patent application was filed.

[00:08:33] Speaker 05:
It's what it conveyed to the public.

[00:08:34] Speaker 05:
It said carrier aggregation, which is simultaneous operation on multiple carriers.

[00:08:41] Speaker 04:
What about at column five, starting at approximately line 17 down to, say, line 22?

[00:08:51] Speaker 04:
Joint appendix 116.

[00:08:53] Speaker 04:
So column five, the patent talks about carrier mode.

[00:08:57] Speaker 04:
And carrier mode is when you receive one input RF signal, comprising multiple transmissions on M sets of carriers, and then ultimately provide one output RF signal for each set of the carriers.

[00:09:18] Speaker 04:
So to me that reads like you're getting one signal in which has all of those carriers somehow embedded in that one signal.

[00:09:29] Speaker 04:
And then the circuitry divides that signal up into multiple output signals, each output signal representing a different set of carriers.

[00:09:42] Speaker 04:
So doesn't that suggest that carrier aggregation modes

[00:09:49] Speaker 04:
is talking about the concept is they're all rolled up into one thing together.

[00:09:54] Speaker 04:
They're literally aggregated.

[00:10:00] Speaker 05:
Your Honor, respectfully, I think there might just be a misunderstanding about the technology here.

[00:10:06] Speaker 05:
That statement at column five describes exactly what happens in the lead prior reference.

[00:10:13] Speaker 05:
What we're talking about here is an RF receiver.

[00:10:16] Speaker 05:
They typically have multiple antennas, but for all of our discussion, we can assume they all have one antenna because Lee depicts one antenna, the 356 patent depicts one antenna.

[00:10:28] Speaker 05:
That antenna is going to receive whatever signals are out on the airwaves that that antenna is capable of receiving.

[00:10:35] Speaker 05:
And when those come in, the issue is a low noise amplifier typically has a certain range.

[00:10:43] Speaker 05:
it's only really able to effectively amplify signals within a particular limitation of bandwidth channels.

[00:10:53] Speaker 05:
And so what both we and the 356 patent describe is, if we know we're going to have multiple carriers coming over the airwaves, such that one LNA is not, one low noise amplifier can't technologically process in an efficient way those signals, we need to have parallel paths

[00:11:13] Speaker 05:
so that we have a low noise amplifier that's set to process one of the carriers we want to receive and a different low noise amplifier that's set to process another carrier that we want to receive.

[00:11:23] Speaker 05:
And so what column five is talking about is if I know I've got more than one carrier coming in, I have to have enough LMAs to handle each of the carrier frequency ranges that I need to handle.

[00:11:38] Speaker 05:
And the invention of the 356 patent is, in the Calcabori reference, you had two amplifiers in parallel.

[00:11:47] Speaker 05:
The first one was always on, and the second one was sometimes on, depending on whether you were receiving one carrier signal or multi-carrier signals.

[00:11:56] Speaker 05:
And the way Qualcomm got the patent was by convincing the examiner in an interview that their invention was different because in their invention, you could turn that first amplifier on and off.

[00:12:07] Speaker 05:
and you could turn the second amplifier on and off independently.

[00:12:11] Speaker 05:
And that's what's being discussed at column five of the lines that you cited, Your Honor.

[00:12:15] Speaker 05:
That has nothing to do with the origins of the signal or whether they originated from a single place or what happens in the device after the signals are amplified.

[00:12:28] Speaker 05:
And I think if Your Honor looks at column four, lines 46 to 48, for example,

[00:12:34] Speaker 05:
the board's claim construction would read out that embodiment of what's described as carrier aggregation there.

[00:12:41] Speaker 05:
It says, wireless device 110 may receive multiple transmissions from one or more cells or base stations on multiple carriers at different frequencies for carrier aggregation.

[00:12:53] Speaker 05:
Obviously, if the signals originated from different cells or towers, they're not coming from a single source and being rolled into a single signal.

[00:13:02] Speaker 05:
They're coming from different origin.

[00:13:05] Speaker 04:
Did you have an expert testify to that about what you're talking about now on column four, reading out an embodiment?

[00:13:11] Speaker 05:
I don't think testified about reading out an embodiment.

[00:13:16] Speaker 05:
Our expert did testify about the entirety of the patent specification and focused primarily, I think, on the statements where the patentee says exactly what carrier aggregation is, which is simultaneous operation on multiple carriers.

[00:13:32] Speaker 05:
But I would like to speak briefly about the obviousness ground, because I can see my time is running short.

[00:13:42] Speaker 01:
Proceed, because this will be helpful for the ensuing argument as well.

[00:13:47] Speaker 01:
Please continue.

[00:13:48] Speaker 01:
We'll save you rebuttal time.

[00:13:50] Speaker 05:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:13:52] Speaker 05:
Your Honor, this is not the typical obviousness case where you have a reference that needs to be modified in order to reach the claim limitations.

[00:14:04] Speaker 05:
Here, it's undisputed that the least circuitry

[00:14:07] Speaker 05:
Unchanged will process the single virtual channel carrier aggregated signal that is described in the feasibility study.

[00:14:17] Speaker 05:
So the only question on obviousness is, would a person of skill in the art reading the feasibility study be motivated to want to use a carrier aggregated signal?

[00:14:30] Speaker 05:
And if so, then that person knows that the lead prior art reference will process that carrier aggregated signal.

[00:14:40] Speaker 05:
The board made two errors in finding that there was no obviousness here.

[00:14:46] Speaker 05:
And its first error was that it applied a very heightened and incorrect

[00:14:51] Speaker 05:
standards for what Intel had to show.

[00:14:54] Speaker 05:
It said that there's not a showing of obviousness because Intel didn't show that the particular circuitry of Lee was, quote, necessary to unlock the benefits of carrier aggregation that's disclosed in the feasibility study.

[00:15:13] Speaker 05:
And that's not the test.

[00:15:14] Speaker 05:
The Novartis case that we cite in our brief and others clearly hold

[00:15:19] Speaker 05:
And just because it's not the only thing that could work doesn't mean that it's not obvious.

[00:15:26] Speaker 05:
And the second error that the board made is that the board said, well, it wouldn't be obvious to combine the carrier aggregated signal of the feasibility study with the circuitry of LEED because LEED doesn't talk about a single virtual channel.

[00:15:42] Speaker 05:
But of course, that was the test for obvious.

[00:15:45] Speaker 05:
Mr. Landier?

[00:15:47] Speaker 04:
Yes, sir.

[00:15:49] Speaker 04:
we were to read those board statements along with the rest of the board decision as providing the following thrust, which is the case for obviousness here presented by Intel is simply too skeletal and underdeveloped because it doesn't explain why a person of skill in the art would even consider

[00:16:18] Speaker 04:
plugging in a carrier aggregation signal into LEA.

[00:16:22] Speaker 04:
The petition talks about benefits that come with using the carrier aggregation signal, but the petition doesn't explain why those benefits would necessarily be yielded in the LEA reference.

[00:16:42] Speaker 04:
LEA is already using multiple carriers, right?

[00:16:46] Speaker 04:
So the question is,

[00:16:48] Speaker 04:
Why, in the context of Lee, would someone of skill in the art consider this feasibility study, you know, using this new candidate of a signal called a carrier aggregation signal?

[00:17:04] Speaker 04:
I think that's, if I understand the board to be saying that, then I don't think that's a legal error to be in that understanding of the case.

[00:17:16] Speaker 04:
Is that right?

[00:17:18] Speaker 05:
I don't think it's right, Your Honor.

[00:17:19] Speaker 05:
And I think that the way you framed it, well, perhaps is what the board, as you say, is the gist, or I forget what word you used.

[00:17:28] Speaker 05:
That's exactly backwards from how the obviousness ground was set forth in the petition and the declaration.

[00:17:39] Speaker 05:
And it's exactly the opposite, I would say, of the way that this should be viewed.

[00:17:44] Speaker 05:
The feasibility study says,

[00:17:46] Speaker 05:
The next generation of LTE is going to send these carrier aggregated signals.

[00:17:54] Speaker 05:
It says that carrier aggregation has all sorts of benefits, and those will be good for consumers.

[00:18:04] Speaker 05:
And then it says to receive this carrier aggregated signal,

[00:18:08] Speaker 05:
If it's going to be a non-contiguous set of carriers, which LTE is going to offer, you will need to use a receiver front end with multiple, what it calls AGC, gain control.

[00:18:25] Speaker 05:
That's another way of saying, and the expert declaration says this.

[00:18:28] Speaker 05:
That's just another word for low-noise amplifiers.

[00:18:31] Speaker 05:
So the feasibility study says to people of skill in the art, the next generation of LTE devices is going to have this type of pair aggregation.

[00:18:40] Speaker 05:
That will have all sorts of benefits.

[00:18:43] Speaker 05:
And in order to receive it, you're going to need a radio frequency front end with multiple motorized amplifiers.

[00:18:52] Speaker 04:
We need not an LTE system, right?

[00:18:55] Speaker 05:
That's right.

[00:18:56] Speaker 04:
But you're right.

[00:18:57] Speaker 04:
It's not just merely using the next generation

[00:19:02] Speaker 04:
configuration of LTE using this LTE-based aggregation signal.

[00:19:08] Speaker 04:
It's something different.

[00:19:10] Speaker 04:
I guess that's part of it.

[00:19:13] Speaker 04:
Maybe that's part of the concern of the board is that more needed to be said and explained about why you would no longer, for lease purposes, use the Bluetooth Wi-Fi signals

[00:19:27] Speaker 04:
And why would you switch over to this LTE-based system?

[00:19:32] Speaker 04:
What, in the context of LEAD, do you get more?

[00:19:35] Speaker 04:
Or what's the rationale for doing that when LEAD is already using multiple carriers?

[00:19:44] Speaker 05:
Your Honor, again, I think that that's the opposite way of looking at it from how we present it in the system, not the right way.

[00:19:50] Speaker 05:
Imagine that you received a notice that said,

[00:19:55] Speaker 05:
We're going to start running a ferry route from Pames Point to National Harbor.

[00:20:00] Speaker 05:
And you have to make it there in 15 minutes.

[00:20:03] Speaker 05:
So you should use a speedboat.

[00:20:07] Speaker 05:
Somebody then says, well, I'm going to use a particular brand of speedboat to make that ferry route.

[00:20:13] Speaker 05:
It's not not obvious to use that particular brand of speedboat to make the ferry run because you could have used some other brand of speedboat or because that particular brand of speedboat hadn't been used in the Potomac before.

[00:20:27] Speaker 05:
All we're saying here is everybody in the field receives a notice that says

[00:20:33] Speaker 05:
You need to do this in order to continue on the track of LTE.

[00:20:39] Speaker 05:
And your receiver will need to have multiple LMAs in the front end.

[00:20:45] Speaker 05:
The person that's still in the art knows all of the prior art.

[00:20:48] Speaker 05:
And the most obvious thing for that person to do is to say, what technology do I already have that I don't need to modify at all that I can use in order to continue to sell receivers that design receivers and make receivers that will comport with the LTE standard?

[00:21:08] Speaker 05:
And that was our obviousness case, Your Honor.

[00:21:11] Speaker 05:
And if you review the declaration, for example, Dr. Fay, at appendix pages 1092 to 1097, there's nothing cursory or conclusory about this ball.

[00:21:21] Speaker 05:
What Dr. Fay is saying is a person still in the yard who receives that notice from the standard-setting body will be motivated to want to continue to comply with the standard and have the features that the standard sets forth.

[00:21:37] Speaker 02:
Yes, Robert.

[00:21:41] Speaker 02:
I see that the board said that Intel failed to adequately address why an ordinary skilled artisan would have considered using the feasibility study.

[00:21:51] Speaker 02:
Why did they address that point?

[00:21:55] Speaker 05:
Is your item referring to a particular sentence in the board's decision?

[00:22:00] Speaker 02:
It's a JA-84, and in one quoting it says,

[00:22:05] Speaker 02:
that the board said Intel failed to adequately address why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered using the feasibility study carrier aggregated single with least amplifier blocks.

[00:22:17] Speaker 02:
The argument is that it's immaterial, but I want you to answer the question whether you actually made a showing.

[00:22:29] Speaker 05:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:22:30] Speaker 05:
I'm sorry for not seeing the sentence, but I think you may not have

[00:22:34] Speaker 05:
I read the remainder of that sentence.

[00:22:37] Speaker 05:
There it is.

[00:22:38] Speaker 05:
I think there's a, what the board says there, and this is exactly the error we're alleging.

[00:22:44] Speaker 05:
It's the secondary.

[00:22:45] Speaker 05:
It says, we find that petitioner does not adequately address why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered using feasibility studies carried or aggregated signal with loose amplifier clocks when we does not teach combining carriers as a single.

[00:23:00] Speaker 05:
virtual channel.

[00:23:01] Speaker 02:
That is just illogical, because I get it that you think that that's wrong, that the board made an error in that particular statement in view of the fact that the feasibility study teaches carrier aggregation.

[00:23:16] Speaker 02:
So it doesn't matter that Lee does not do that.

[00:23:20] Speaker 02:
But don't you still have to have some indication as to why a procedure was combined?

[00:23:28] Speaker 02:
Other than the fact that you got two pieces of water, I know that when combined you get a certain result, but don't you have to have a reason to combine?

[00:23:39] Speaker 05:
Yes, and the petition and the declaration clearly set that forth.

[00:23:45] Speaker 05:
The reason to do the combination is, if you don't do the combination, you don't get the benefits of carrier aggregation.

[00:23:53] Speaker 05:
You can't receive this single virtual channel carrier aggregated signal.

[00:23:59] Speaker 05:
And the person of skill in the art would want to do so.

[00:24:02] Speaker 05:
And then the question is, well, is there a piece of priority?

[00:24:06] Speaker 04:
Well, wait a second.

[00:24:07] Speaker 04:
Because why?

[00:24:08] Speaker 04:
Because why?

[00:24:10] Speaker 04:
You know, the recited benefit in the study for carrier aggregation is in comparison to using a signal that's only using one carrier.

[00:24:24] Speaker 04:
And so you therefore, with the feasibility study, what you are getting as a benefit is a wider transmission bandwidth by having

[00:24:35] Speaker 04:
a carrier aggregation signal that is sending data across multiple carriers instead of a single carrier.

[00:24:42] Speaker 04:
However, as I've been alluding to a couple times, Lee already gets you data coming in over multiple carriers.

[00:24:51] Speaker 04:
And so converting that to a so-called carrier aggregation signal, you're just still going to get multiple carrier bandwidth data transmission.

[00:25:05] Speaker 04:
So if Lee were just a single carrier signal coming in, then I would understand the logic behind what your proposed benefits are based on what the feasibility study says.

[00:25:19] Speaker 04:
But right now, based on the fact that Lee already teaches you're getting data coming in across multiple carriers at the moment, I do not understand why you get benefits.

[00:25:31] Speaker 04:
just based on that loan statement and feasibility study alone.

[00:25:39] Speaker 05:
And I'm not trying to test your patience, but I heard when you said, you said it a few times, I want to make sure I address your, what you're saying.

[00:25:51] Speaker 05:
We discloses circuitry for processing an incoming set of signals.

[00:25:58] Speaker 05:
The focus of LEAD, just like the focus of the 356 patent is, what is the amplifier circuitry that you're going to use when you know that you're going to have information coming in over and

[00:26:17] Speaker 05:
The example given, so that's what the patent focuses on, the example given admittedly is a Bluetooth signal and a Wi-Fi signal being simultaneously broadcast and then received by the circuitry of process.

[00:26:34] Speaker 05:
What the feasibility study offers is, according to Qualcomm, is

[00:26:40] Speaker 05:
that it's the same thing as what's coming into Lee in the sense that it's multiple carriers on the airways that need to be processed at the same time.

[00:26:49] Speaker 05:
But now, instead of those being Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, those are originating from one source, and they are these component carriers.

[00:27:00] Speaker 05:
So what I think your honor is saying is that essentially because you don't have to change anything in Lee,

[00:27:08] Speaker 05:
in terms of the circuitry in order to process.

[00:27:11] Speaker 04:
What I'm saying is, what I'm saying is I don't understand what the benefits are.

[00:27:15] Speaker 04:
What are the, what is the added benefit that you get if you rip out the Wi-Fi and Bluetooth signals and instead use a carrier aggregation signal when you, in Lee it already in a pre-existing way has the benefit

[00:27:36] Speaker 04:
having a wider transmission bandwidth because it's already using multiple carriers.

[00:27:42] Speaker 05:
Now I understand, Your Honor.

[00:27:44] Speaker 05:
Apologies for not understanding.

[00:27:46] Speaker 05:
So the benefit is this.

[00:27:48] Speaker 05:
In Lee, you are receiving Wi-Fi and Bluetooth at the same time.

[00:27:54] Speaker 05:
But those are two different things, right?

[00:27:57] Speaker 05:
Maybe you're sending video over your Bluetooth

[00:28:03] Speaker 05:
The feasibility study now says, okay, we can be sending a single thing.

[00:28:09] Speaker 05:
It could be a single streaming video or your FaceTime call.

[00:28:13] Speaker 05:
We're going to break that FaceTime call into two and send it over to separate channels at the same time.

[00:28:24] Speaker 05:
And what the feasibility study says there is,

[00:28:27] Speaker 05:
That is going to allow us to get the movie to you faster, right?

[00:28:35] Speaker 05:
Because instead of sending the whole movie across one channel, we can send it simultaneously across two.

[00:28:42] Speaker 05:
And therefore, cut the time to get the movie from point A to point B in half.

[00:28:48] Speaker 05:
And that's the added difference that Judge Trennan.

[00:28:52] Speaker 04:
And that is what's happening.

[00:28:54] Speaker 04:
And I just want to point out that

[00:28:55] Speaker 04:
That's not the way the case for obviousness was pitched in your petition or your reply.

[00:29:04] Speaker 04:
In terms of explaining what the benefits are in the context of lead, as opposed to just deciding in the abstract the benefits that the feasibility study identifies in comparison to a signal with just a single carrier.

[00:29:27] Speaker 05:
I respectfully disagree with that, Your Honor.

[00:29:30] Speaker 05:
I think when doctors say this, discuss this, when this was discussed in the petition, we did talk about the component carrier concept from the feasibility study and did reference the portions of the feasibility study that talk about doing this.

[00:29:48] Speaker 05:
So I would respectfully disagree that we didn't make that argument.

[00:29:51] Speaker 05:
That was precisely the argument we were making with respect to this reference.

[00:29:58] Speaker 05:
And I think that the argument that, I'm sorry, that the questions that your honor is now asking, I don't think that those trap the findings that the board made here.

[00:30:10] Speaker 05:
What the board did was it said, it didn't show why it would be necessary to use police circuitry in order to unlock the benefits of the feasibility studies peri-regulated signal.

[00:30:23] Speaker 05:
And that's not the right analysis.

[00:30:28] Speaker 01:
Okay, any more questions for counsel at the moment?

[00:30:34] Speaker 01:
All right, let's hear from the other side and we'll save you rebuttal time.

[00:30:38] Speaker 01:
And of course we have the ensuing cases.

[00:30:41] Speaker 01:
Okay, Mr. Mayor, go ahead.

[00:30:44] Speaker 03:
Good morning and may it please the court.

[00:30:46] Speaker 03:
In five separate final written decisions decided by two differently composed panels, the board reached the same conclusion.

[00:30:55] Speaker 03:
The panel unanimously adopted Qualcomm's construction

[00:30:58] Speaker 03:
a carrier aggregation, and rejected Intel's overly broad construction.

[00:31:04] Speaker 03:
The board's decisions carefully vetted the claim language, the specification, the prosecution history, and the prior references in the intrinsic record.

[00:31:13] Speaker 03:
And the board found that all of this evidence supported Qualcomm's construction.

[00:31:19] Speaker 02:
So this is Judge Rainer.

[00:31:22] Speaker 02:
I'd like for you to get back to that motivation to combine.

[00:31:26] Speaker 02:
And Intel argues that.

[00:31:28] Speaker 02:
The board made a legal error in this application of the launch standard and apparently requiring that Lee also contain the language which apparently that the feasibility study disclosed.

[00:31:45] Speaker 02:
Can you address that argument real quick?

[00:31:48] Speaker 03:
Absolutely, R. The board did not create a new standard especially for Intel or just for these IPRs.

[00:31:54] Speaker 03:
Rather, when that statement is viewed in proper context, the board held Intel to its proofs of establishing why a skilled artisan would have looked to Lee to combine with the feasibility study.

[00:32:08] Speaker 03:
Intel's theory, the only one it offered was that the feasibility study and Lee could have been combined to achieve the benefits of theory aggregation.

[00:32:19] Speaker 03:
But given that the feasibility study already teaches

[00:32:23] Speaker 03:
using a dual RF front end to achieve the benefits of carrier aggregation.

[00:32:29] Speaker 03:
There would have been no reason under Intel's theory for skilled artisans to look to LEA for the same dual RF front end.

[00:32:38] Speaker 03:
As the board's reasoning makes clear, to simply put, LEA adds nothing to the feasibility study for purposes of achieving the benefits of carrier aggregation, which is Intel's theory, that is not already disclosed

[00:32:51] Speaker 03:
by the feasibility study itself.

[00:32:54] Speaker 02:
What does it matter whether or not LEED teaches carrier aggregation in view that the feasibility study teaches that?

[00:33:05] Speaker 03:
Because under Intel theory, there was no reason to combine LEED with the feasibility study, given that the feasibility study already disclosed the architecture for a dual front end that Intel looks to lead to supply.

[00:33:22] Speaker 03:
So absent another motivation to combine, there was no reason to combine those two references in a manner claimed.

[00:33:36] Speaker 03:
And that's important, Your Honor, because in this case and in the subsequent appeals, Intel's theory on motivation combined is largely identical.

[00:33:46] Speaker 03:
Their expert has three paragraphs that largely track

[00:33:49] Speaker 03:
across all three appeals.

[00:33:53] Speaker 03:
And nowhere have the board founders, the experts, identified a sufficient reason for a motivation to combine.

[00:34:01] Speaker 03:
Mr. Lanterre pointed to the declarations, and if you see in paragraph 133 of Dr. Faye's declaration, in appendix 1092, Dr. Faye notes that the feasibility study discloses cherry aggregation.

[00:34:18] Speaker 03:
In paragraph 134, at appendix 1093, Dr. Fay summarizes the feasibility study disclosure that carrier aggregation can be used with a dual RF front end, having a gain control, a mixture, and an ADD converter.

[00:34:33] Speaker 03:
And Dr. Fay also states that LEA provides the same dual front end.

[00:34:37] Speaker 03:
But as the board found, what Intel and Dr. Fay failed to explain is why a skilled artisan would have looked to leave dual RF front end

[00:34:48] Speaker 03:
when the feasibility study already discloses that structure for use with carrier aggregation.

[00:34:53] Speaker 03:
That is what it is.

[00:34:55] Speaker 02:
Wouldn't a person skilled in the art be looking for wider bandwidth?

[00:35:00] Speaker 02:
That's what this is all about.

[00:35:01] Speaker 02:
Wider bandwidth and spectrum aggregation.

[00:35:06] Speaker 03:
That's right.

[00:35:06] Speaker 03:
And the feasibility study says you can achieve wider bandwidth and spectrum aggregation with a specific dual front end structure.

[00:35:15] Speaker 03:
So there would have been no reason to leave

[00:35:18] Speaker 03:
to supply that same structure that is already present in the feasibility study.

[00:35:23] Speaker 03:
What the board is saying is that LEED really adds nothing under Intel's motivation combined that isn't already disclosed by the feasibility study itself.

[00:35:34] Speaker 04:
Just to follow up on Judge Raina's question, I think the theory of obviousness here is there are benefits that come with carrier aggregation.

[00:35:47] Speaker 04:
We know that you would send it into a receiver with multiple front-end amplifiers.

[00:35:58] Speaker 04:
Lee is a receiver with multiple front-end amplifiers.

[00:36:02] Speaker 04:
And it's receiving all kinds of different signals.

[00:36:06] Speaker 04:
And why wouldn't you use a care?

[00:36:10] Speaker 04:
Why wouldn't it be obvious to use this new

[00:36:15] Speaker 04:
of transmitting signal to a receiver into Lee's receiver and any other receiver that has this architectural design.

[00:36:29] Speaker 04:
It's not a question of Lee in particular, but it's more like, you know, we have all these different receiver architectures out there.

[00:36:45] Speaker 04:
They all receive, they all have these multiple amplifier designs.

[00:36:53] Speaker 04:
And that's exactly what the carrier aggregation signals are suited for, at least in particular circumstances.

[00:37:02] Speaker 04:
So what's so hard to understand about why not using this new kind of signal scheme?

[00:37:13] Speaker 03:
hindsight, there would have been no reason for a person who is going to RTE lead with the feasibility study.

[00:37:19] Speaker 03:
Because the feasibility study already identifies the dual RF front end architecture for which Intel looks to lead.

[00:37:28] Speaker 03:
It's already there.

[00:37:29] Speaker 04:
That's the scary thing about your argument to me, is that you're actually bringing closer together the two references.

[00:37:38] Speaker 04:
You're almost portraying them

[00:37:42] Speaker 04:
as mirror images of each other in such a way that it becomes more and more obvious to just go ahead and use a carrier signal, carrier aggregation signal in Lee, given that the feasibility study, as you seem to be acknowledging, is already using a carrier aggregation signal to a very, very close cousin of the structure that's described in Lee.

[00:38:08] Speaker 04:
So that, it actually, as you can see,

[00:38:13] Speaker 04:
It's making me wonder about your case.

[00:38:15] Speaker 03:
Well, let me disambiguate that, Your Honor.

[00:38:18] Speaker 03:
Under this record, there was no motivation for anyone to look to leave in view of the feasibility study.

[00:38:25] Speaker 03:
Because the only motivation Intel identified was to unlock the benefits of carrier aggregation.

[00:38:31] Speaker 03:
But the feasibility study already tells you how to do that.

[00:38:34] Speaker 03:
As the board found, there's no reason to look to leave or any particular reference on this record.

[00:38:41] Speaker 03:
And I think that this court's analysis in active video is instructive, where the court explains that a conclusory statement that skilled artisans would have known based on a common feature how to combine any number of references to achieve the claimed invention is not sufficient and is fraught with hindsight bias.

[00:39:01] Speaker 03:
And that's the case here.

[00:39:04] Speaker 02:
Councilor, I thought that the board refused

[00:39:08] Speaker 02:
considerably because it doesn't teach combining carriers as a single virtual channel.

[00:39:15] Speaker 02:
That's where the board faulted with respect to Lee.

[00:39:21] Speaker 02:
But why does that matter if that particular teaching is contained, is disclosed in the feasibility study?

[00:39:33] Speaker 02:
The feasibility study does teach carrier aggregation, and yet the board says,

[00:39:38] Speaker 02:
You can't combine lead because it doesn't teach carrier aggregation.

[00:39:44] Speaker 03:
The board's analysis there explains that there would have been no reason under the theory that Intel proffered to look to lead to make the combination.

[00:39:54] Speaker 03:
There's nothing unique about lead that would recommend itself under Intel's theory for use of carrier aggregation.

[00:40:02] Speaker 04:
Are you familiar with the court's TQ delta opinion?

[00:40:07] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:40:09] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:40:10] Speaker 04:
So, I mean, to me, I saw a potential parallel between what's going on here and what happened in TQ Delta where this court concluded there was no motivation to modify the references because there the concern was even if a skilled artisan could have,

[00:40:38] Speaker 04:
combine those teachings in a way that would create the claim convention.

[00:40:44] Speaker 04:
There was nothing in the record that explained why it would have even occurred to a person of skill in the art to have made that modification.

[00:40:56] Speaker 04:
And so that's what I'm wondering.

[00:41:00] Speaker 04:
Is that what's going on here?

[00:41:02] Speaker 04:
Is that what the board was trying to communicate here, is that?

[00:41:08] Speaker 04:
All we have is a description of the benefits of the feasibility study in the abstract without actually connecting it to the specific context of the Lee reference and why someone looking at Lee, it would have occurred to them to try to do this, switch over to using a carrier aggregation signal.

[00:41:31] Speaker 03:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:41:32] Speaker 03:
Under Intel theory, it would have, as the board explained, there would have been no reason to look to Lee.

[00:41:47] Speaker 03:
And further out, Your Honor, the board findings here, the motivations combined is a purely factual issue that's reviewed under substantial evidence.

[00:41:58] Speaker 03:
On this record, there's no basis for displacing the board's finding that Intel failed to carry its motivation, I'm sorry, failed to carry its burden to establish a motivation to combine feasibility study and lead in a manner claimed.

[00:42:18] Speaker 03:
Unless your honors have any questions, I'll get back to court.

[00:42:21] Speaker 03:
It's time.

[00:42:22] Speaker 04:
Just really quickly, the claim construction question.

[00:42:26] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:42:26] Speaker 04:
I mean, that seemed to be the primary debate both below and here.

[00:42:30] Speaker 04:
The opposing council today talked about how the board's claim construction is too narrow because it reads out an embodiment discussed in column four.

[00:42:46] Speaker 04:
Do you have a response to that?

[00:42:49] Speaker 03:
So a couple responses, Your Honor.

[00:42:51] Speaker 03:
I think that argument was raised and undeveloped for the first time in a reply brief.

[00:42:56] Speaker 03:
There's no evidence of that in the record.

[00:42:58] Speaker 03:
I don't see how it leaves out that embodiment in any way.

[00:43:01] Speaker 03:
So there's nothing inconsistent with that passage and the board's construction here.

[00:43:08] Speaker 02:
Council, was there proof proffer to show that combining

[00:43:15] Speaker 02:
the feasibility study with Lee would result in a wider bandwidth.

[00:43:21] Speaker 02:
Does bringing Lee aboard, does that produce wider bandwidth or spectrum aggregation?

[00:43:28] Speaker 03:
It does not, Your Honor, because under Intel theory, Lee simply adds nothing that's not already present in the feasibility study.

[00:43:39] Speaker 04:
Just to put a finer point on Judge Raina's question,

[00:43:44] Speaker 04:
Do you get wider transmission bandwidth than you already get in Li if you switch out the Bluetooth and Wi-Fi signals and replace them with a carrier aggregation signal?

[00:43:59] Speaker 03:
A carrier aggregation signal would allow you to extend the bandwidth for a particular signal because you can then use multiple carriers to transmit that signal.

[00:44:08] Speaker 03:
In Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, you have two different signals.

[00:44:11] Speaker 03:
But the only way you would get there, in this case, is through hindsight.

[00:44:17] Speaker 02:
Did you make these hindsight arguments in your brief?

[00:44:22] Speaker 03:
I believe we explained that.

[00:44:24] Speaker 03:
So in the 2240 case, yes.

[00:44:27] Speaker 03:
In the 2092 case, I believe our analysis was that they failed to establish the claim.

[00:44:33] Speaker 03:
They failed to establish why you would combine the claim.

[00:44:36] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry.

[00:44:37] Speaker 03:
They failed to establish why the references would be combined in a manner claim, which is, in effect, a hindsight analysis.

[00:44:50] Speaker 01:
Okay, any more questions for council at the moment?

[00:44:58] Speaker 01:
Okay, thank you.

[00:44:59] Speaker 01:
Then we'll hear rebuttal.

[00:45:02] Speaker 05:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:45:04] Speaker 05:
You didn't say it this way, Judge Schen, but I think that council's answer to your last question was yes, that we would get higher bandwidth if you combined the carrier aggregated signal of the feasibility study

[00:45:21] Speaker 05:
Lee without it.

[00:45:23] Speaker 05:
Let me just make three quick points.

[00:45:26] Speaker 05:
The first is the thrust of the argument that we just heard about combining Lee and the feasibility study is... Mr. Lanier, did you find something in your petition or your reply that actually says that?

[00:45:42] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:45:43] Speaker 04:
You get more in the context of the Lee system?

[00:45:52] Speaker 05:
Not in height verbal, Your Honor, but the answer to your question is yes.

[00:45:57] Speaker 05:
If we turn to Appendix Page 1092, this is Dr. Fay's declaration of the 009.

[00:46:09] Speaker 04:
I was talking about your petition or your petitioner reply.

[00:46:15] Speaker 05:
Yes, Your Honor, the petition.

[00:46:17] Speaker 05:
Sorry, I'll just get the right site for you, Your Honor.

[00:46:23] Speaker 05:
The petition, I was citing Dr. Fay's declaration that the same is set forth in the petition.

[00:46:32] Speaker 05:
Let me explain what it is while I find the site and then I will give you the site.

[00:46:38] Speaker 05:
What we said in both the, what Dr. Fay said in his declaration and what is reflected in our petition is that the feasibility study teaches, this is paragraph 133,

[00:46:49] Speaker 05:
that LTE Advanced extends release eight with support for carrier aggregation, where two or more component carriers, CCs, are aggregated to support wider transmission bandwidths up to 100 megahertz and four spectrum aggregation.

[00:47:07] Speaker 05:
And then the following paragraph states again that you would have been motivated

[00:47:14] Speaker 05:
to turn to the amplification circuitry of lead because you want to unlock that potential.

[00:47:20] Speaker 05:
So what Dr. Say is saying there and what it is in our petition as well, the corresponding section, is that the feasibility study is telling you that you're going to get wider transmission bandwidth if you use this form of carrier aggregation.

[00:47:40] Speaker 05:
He says specifically that the person still in the art would be motivated to use the lead prior art reference in order to get that wider carrier aggregation.

[00:47:54] Speaker 05:
Now, does he do a comparison specifically between the amount of transmission bandwidth you get with the combination of Bluetooth and Wi-Fi

[00:48:06] Speaker 05:
And the amount that you get with this type of carrier aggregation, he does not.

[00:48:12] Speaker 05:
But I don't think that that's the relevant question here, because there was no dispute below.

[00:48:18] Speaker 05:
And I believe Qualcomm even argued that you don't get as much of a bandwidth boost by just using Bluetooth and Wi-Fi together, because those are smaller frequency bands.

[00:48:34] Speaker 05:
And Your Honor, as I was

[00:48:36] Speaker 05:
I will get that site for your honor, but did want to just make two points before I run out of time.

[00:48:42] Speaker 05:
And this turns back to the plane construction.

[00:48:45] Speaker 05:
The claim construction here is long because it flips the Phillips analysis on its head.

[00:48:50] Speaker 05:
It gives priority to prior references over statements that are directly in the patent itself.

[00:48:57] Speaker 05:
The patent specification is the single best source of what the claim language means.

[00:49:04] Speaker 05:
And in particular, if your honors return to column one at lines

[00:49:14] Speaker 05:
37 to 39.

[00:49:16] Speaker 05:
You'll see that the patent itself

[00:49:19] Speaker 05:
specifically shows that the intended usage of carrier aggregation is broader than simply a component carrier.

[00:49:28] Speaker 05:
Because what the sentence says here is a carrier may be referred to as a component carrier.

[00:49:33] Speaker 05:
That's one option.

[00:49:35] Speaker 05:
But it also could be a frequency channel, a cell, et cetera.

[00:49:39] Speaker 05:
And there's no dispute that in LEAD, the receiver is receiving two different frequency channels.

[00:49:44] Speaker 05:
One frequency channel is Wi-Fi, and the other is Bluetooth.

[00:49:48] Speaker 05:
The board did the opposite of what Phillips told us to do here.

[00:49:52] Speaker 05:
It started with Falcom's proposed construction, and then it scoured the record to try to find something to support that proposed construction.

[00:50:01] Speaker 05:
It never found the language single virtual channel in any of the prior art or anything else in the intrinsic record.

[00:50:09] Speaker 05:
And yet, it ruled that the claims destruction was what it was because the prior artists that supports the

[00:50:19] Speaker 05:
It made no findings that the patent specification itself would support that.

[00:50:23] Speaker 05:
And there's no argument that the intrinsic record in terms of distinguishing over Hirose supports a single virtual channel.

[00:50:31] Speaker 05:
It's simply not there.

[00:50:33] Speaker 05:
Your Honor, we would ask respectfully that the claim's instruction be reversed.

[00:50:41] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:50:41] Speaker 01:
If anything else at the moment, we will continue at any point that still requires evolution.

[00:50:48] Speaker 01:
when we get to the next case.

[00:50:50] Speaker 01:
All right, so that this case now is submitting