Adaptix, Inc. v. Ericsson, Inc. et al

Filing 73

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION ORDER re Claim Construction. Signed by Magistrate Judge Caroline Craven on 7/22/2015. (sm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
ADAPTIX, INC.,
v.
ERICSSON, INC., et al.
___________________________________
ADAPTIX, INC.,
v.
ERICSSON, INC., et al.
___________________________________
ADAPTIX, INC.,
v.
ERICSSON, INC., et al.
___________________________________

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

No. 6:14-CV-501

No. 6:14-CV-502

No. 6:14-CV-503

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The above-referenced case was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate
Judge for pre-trial purposes in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. Before the Court are Plaintiff’s
Opening Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. No. 46), Defendants’ response (Dkt. No. 51), and
Plaintiff’s reply (Dkt. No. 56). 1 Also before the Court are the parties’ Local Patent Rule
(“P.R.”) 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Dkt. No. 45) and P.R. 4-5(d)
Joint Claim Construction Chart (Dkt. No. 60, Ex. A).
A claim construction hearing, in accordance with Markman v. Westview Instruments,
Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996), was held in Texarkana
on June 17, 2015. After hearing the arguments of counsel and reviewing the relevant pleadings,

1

References to docket numbers herein are to Civil Action No. 6:14-CV-501 unless otherwise
indicated.
1

presentation materials, other papers, and case law, the Court finds the disputed terms of the
patents-in-suit should be construed as set forth herein.
Table of Contents
I. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 4
II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................... 6
III. CONSTRUCTION OF AGREED TERMS ........................................................................ 8
IV. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN THE ’172 PATENT ............................. 9
A. “diversity cluster of subcarriers,” “diversity cluster,” and “coherence cluster” ................... 9
B. “coherence bandwidth” ....................................................................................................... 14
C. “reconfiguring cluster classification” .................................................................................. 15
V. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN THE ’808 PATENT ............................ 17
A(i). “spatial signature” ........................................................................................................... 17
A(ii). “spatial signature vectors” ............................................................................................. 22
A(iii). “2-D spatial signatures,” “2-D spatial signature vectors,” and “broadband spatial
signature vectors” ............................................................................................................... 23
A(iv). “broadband spatial signature vectors associated with each subscriber” and
“broadband spatial signature vectors of the subscribers” ................................................... 23
A(v). “2-D spatial signatures of an accessing subscriber and one or more subscribers with
on-going traffic,” “2-D spatial signature vectors of the new subscriber and other
subscribers with on-going traffic,” and “2-D spatial signatures of the new subscriber
and one or more subscribers with on-going traffic” ........................................................... 24
A(vi). “new accessing subscriber spatial signature” and “new subscriber spatial signature” . 25
A(vii). “on-going traffic spatial signature” .............................................................................. 25
B. “on-going traffic” and “subscribers with on-going traffic” ................................................ 26
C.(i) “new accessing subscriber spatial signature register” and “new subscriber spatial
signature register” ............................................................................................................... 27
C.(ii) “on-going traffic spatial signature register” ................................................................... 29
D. “an OFDMA traffic channel allocator”............................................................................... 30
E. “subscriber units to communicate with the base station using an orthogonal frequencydivision multiple-access (OFDMA) protocol” ................................................................... 35
F. “OFDMA traffic channel” ................................................................................................... 35
G. “down converter” ................................................................................................................ 38
H. “OFDMA”........................................................................................................................... 38
2

VI. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN THE ’283 PATENT ........................... 40
A. “cluster of subcarriers” ....................................................................................................... 40
B. “allocating additional clusters to the subscriber” ................................................................ 41
C. “a system employing orthogonal frequency division multiple access (OFDMA)” ............ 41
D. “a plurality of groups of at least one cluster of subcarriers”............................................... 42
E. “OFDMA” ........................................................................................................................... 44
VII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 44
EXHIBIT A.................................................................................................................................. 45
EXHIBIT B .................................................................................................................................. 46

3

I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Adaptix Inc. (“Plaintiff”) asserts United States Patents No. 6,870,808
(“’808 Patent”), 6,904,283 (“’283 Patent”), and 7,146,172 (“’172 Patent”) (collectively, the
“patents-in-suit”) by Defendants Ericsson Inc., Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Cellco
Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile USA, Inc., and Sprint Spectrum L.P.
(“Defendants”).
In general, the patents-in-suit relate to wireless communications, such as for cellular
telephones. More specifically, the patents-in-suit relate to orthogonal frequency division
multiple access (“OFDMA”), in which the communication frequency bandwidth is divided into
smaller “subcarriers.” These subcarriers are at closely-spaced frequencies but are “orthogonal,”
meaning that they do not substantially interfere with one another. The patents-in-suit disclose
systems and methods for allocating subcarriers among multiple “subscribers,” such as mobile
cellular telephone units.
The ’808 Patent, titled “Channel Allocation in Broadband Orthogonal FrequencyDivision Multiple-Access/Space-Division Multiple-Access Networks,” issued on March 22,
2005, and bears a filing date of October 18, 2000. Plaintiff submits: “The ’808 patent teaches
allocating sub-carriers to each subscriber while taking into account frequency-dependent spatial
information, e.g., associated with the use of plural base station antennas.” Dkt. No. 46 at 3.
The ’283 Patent, titled “Multi-Carrier Communications with Group-Based Subcarrier
Allocation,” issued on June 7, 2005. The ’172 Patent, titled “Multi-Carrier Communications
with Adaptive Cluster Configuration and Switching,” issued on December 5, 2006. Plaintiff
submits: “The ’172 patent allocates sub-carriers in the form of different types of clusters for
different subscribers, namely ‘coherence clusters’ and ‘diversity clusters.’” Dkt. No. 46 at 2-3.

4

Plaintiff also submits: “The ’283 patent discloses feedback approaches based on groups of
clusters of subcarriers.” Id. at 3. The ’283 Patent and the ’172 Patent are both continuations-inpart of United States Patent No. 6,947,748, which bears a filing date of December 15, 2000.
Plaintiff’s opening brief submits Plaintiff is asserting Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13
of the ’172 Patent, Claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 13, 14, 31, 32, 34 and 41 of the ’808 Patent, and Claims 92,
93, 94, 98, 99, 101, 102 and 107 of the ’283 Patent. Dkt. No. 46 at 1. Plaintiff argues the
accused products operate in accordance with certain LTE (“Long Term Evolution”) wireless
communication standards, which are sometimes referred to in common parlance as “4G LTE.”
Id. at 3. 2
The Court previously construed disputed terms in the patents-in-suit in a Memorandum
Opinion and Order entered in the co-pending case of Adaptix, Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc.,
et al., No. 6:12-CV-22, Dkt. No. 141, 2014 WL 894844 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2014) (Craven, J.)
(referred to herein as the “Alcatel” case). 3 The Court also denied a motion for reconsideration in
Alcatel. Id., Dkt. No. 170 (E.D. Tex. May 1, 2014) (Schneider, J.).
Defendants re-urge, in footnotes, various constructions that were proposed in Alcatel, but
Defendants have not presented argument here as to those proposals:
Defendants submit that their previously presented constructions were the correct
ones, and respectfully request that those constructions be adopted for the reasons
Defendants presented in their claim construction brief dated December 20, 2013,
and request for reconsideration dated March 12, 2014. However, recognizing that
the Court is unlikely to be inclined to revisit claim construction issues that the
Court has already considered and ruled on, and without waiving appeal rights
with respect to the constructions advanced in [Alcatel], Defendants focus this

2

Plaintiff submits “[t]he Ericsson defendants provide the accused base stations for use in the
cellular telephone networks of Sprint, Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile.” Id. at 1 n.1.
3

This Memorandum Opinion and Order was also entered in related Civil Action Nos.
6:12-CV-122, -123, -369, 6:13-CV-49, -50.
5

brief on resolving issues that remain in dispute even assuming the Court were to
adopt its earlier constructions.
Dkt. No. 51 at 2 n.3; see id. at 4 n.5, 6 n.7, 9 n.11, 15 n.14, 17 n.16, 17 n.17, 18 n.18, 20 n.19, 28
n.26, The Court hereby rejects Defendants’ footnoted proposals for the same reasons set forth in
Alcatel (see No. 6:12-CV-22, Dkt. Nos. 141 & 170).
II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
The claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to
exclude. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Claim terms
are given their ordinary and customary meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention, unless there is clear evidence in the patent’s specification or prosecution history
that the patentee intended a different meaning. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13. Claim
construction is informed by the intrinsic evidence: the patents’ specifications and file histories.
Id. at 1315-17. Courts may also consider evidence such as dictionary definitions and treatises to
aid in determining the ordinary and customary meaning of claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d
at 1322. Further, “[o]ther claims, asserted and unasserted, can provide additional instruction
because ‘terms are normally used consistently throughout the patent.’” SmartPhone Techs. LLC
v. Research in Motion Corp., No. 6:10-CV-74-LED-JDL, 2012 WL 489112, at *2 (E.D. Tex.
Feb. 13, 2012) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314). “Differences among claims, such as
additional limitations in dependent claims, can provide further guidance.” Id.
A court should “avoid the danger of reading limitations from the specification into the
claim[s].” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. For example, “although the specification often describes
very specific embodiments of the invention, [the Federal Circuit has] repeatedly warned against
confining the claims to those embodiments.” Id. The Federal Circuit has “expressly rejected the
contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be
6

construed as being limited to that embodiment.” Id. This is not only because of the
requirements of Section 112 of the Patent Act, but also because “persons of ordinary skill in the
art rarely would confine their definitions of terms to the exact representations depicted in the
embodiments.” Id. Limitations from the specification should only be read into the claims if the
patentee “acted as his own lexicographer and imbued the claim terms with a particular meaning
or disavowed or disclaimed scope of coverage, by using words or expressions of manifest
exclusion or restriction.” E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
2003) (citations omitted); Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1367
(Fed. Cir. 2012).
Similarly, the prosecution history may not be used to infer the intentional narrowing of a
claim absent the applicant’s clear disavowal of claim coverage. Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV
Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). “To be given effect, such a
disclaimer must be made with reasonable clarity and deliberateness.” Id.
In general, prior claim construction proceedings involving the same patents-in-suit are
“entitled to reasoned deference under the broad principals of stare decisis and the goals
articulated by the Supreme Court in Markman, even though stare decisis may not be applicable
per se.” Maurice Mitchell Innovations, LP v. Intel Corp., No. 2:04-CV-450, 2006 WL 1751779,
at *4 (E.D. Tex. June 21, 2006) (Davis, J.); see TQP Development, LLC v. Inuit Inc., No. 2:12CV-180, 2014 WL 2810016, at *6 (E.D. Tex. June 20, 2014) (Bryson, J.) (“[P]revious claim
constructions in cases involving the same patent are entitled to substantial weight, and the Court
has determined that it will not depart from those constructions absent a strong reason for doing
so.”); see also Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 839-40 (2015) (“prior
cases will sometimes be binding because of issue preclusion and sometimes will serve as

7

persuasive authority”) (citation omitted); Markman, 517 U.S. at 390 (“[W]e see the importance
of uniformity in the treatment of a given patent as an independent reason to allocate all issues of
claim construction to the court.”).
Guided by these principles of claim construction, this Court directs its attention to the
patents-in-suit and the disputed claim terms.
III. CONSTRUCTION OF AGREED TERMS
The Court hereby adopts the following agreed-upon constructions:
Term
“SINRs”

Patent /
Claims
’808 Pat.,
Cls. 9, 41

Agreed Construction
“Signal-to-Interference-plus-Noise Ratios”

“new subscriber”

’808 Pat.,
“subscriber that has requested access but has not
Cls. 14, 32, 41 been assigned a traffic channel”

“accessing subscriber”

’808 Pat.,
Cls. 9, 31, 34

“subscriber that has requested access but has not
been assigned a traffic channel”

“new accessing subscriber”

’808 Pat.,
Cls. 31, 34

“subscriber that has requested access but has not
been assigned a traffic channel”

“allocate OFDMA channels
using the broadband spatial
signature vectors of the
subscribers”

’808 Pat.,
Cl. 1

“allocate each of multiple OFDMA channels
using more than one subscriber’s broadband
spatial signature vectors”

“selection” / “selected”

’283 Pat.,
Cl. 92

“choice” / “chosen”

“SINR”

’283 Pat.,
Cl. 101

“Signal-to-Interference-plus-Noise Ratio”

“a group identifier”

’283 Pat.,
Cl. 102

“one or more data bits that identify the group”

Dkt. No. 45, Ex. A.

8

IV. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN THE ’172 PATENT
A. “diversity cluster of subcarriers,” “diversity cluster,” and “coherence cluster”
“diversity cluster of subcarriers” and “diversity cluster”
(’172 Patent, Claims 1, 4, 5, 10, 13)
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

“logical unit of multiple physical subcarriers
that are relatively far apart, as compared to the
subcarriers of a coherence cluster”

“logical unit that exists at the time of
allocation, as opposed to being constructed or
defined in hindsight, of multiple physical
subcarriers that are relatively far apart, as
compared to the subcarriers of a coherence
cluster”

“coherence cluster”
(’172 Patent, Claims 1, 7, 13)
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

“logical unit of multiple physical subcarriers
that are relatively close together, as compared
to the subcarriers of a diversity cluster”

“logical unit that exists at the time of
allocation, as opposed to being constructed or
defined in hindsight, of multiple physical
subcarriers that are relatively close together, as
compared to the subcarriers of a diversity
cluster”

Dkt. No. 60, Ex. A at 1-3 (emphasis added by the parties).
(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff proposes the Alcatel construction and argues that in Alcatel the Court rejected
proposals similar to Defendants’ present proposal. Dkt. No. 46 at 6-7.
Defendants respond that the Court’s construction should include the Court’s finding that
a cluster must exist at the time of allocation. Dkt. No. 51 at 4; see id. at 7. Defendants explain:
“Defendants are not asking the Court to substantively change the construction it entered in the

9

related case, but rather to make explicit in its construction the point that Judge Schneider made in
his commentary justifying the Court’s construction.” Id. at 6; see id. at 7.
Plaintiff replies that, in Alcatel, the Court “has already rejected Defendants’ invitation to
rearrange the claim language saying, ‘[b]ecause this is self-evident from the claim language,
however, the Court need not modify or clarify the constructions of the disputed terms.’” Dkt.
No. 56 at 1.
At the June 17, 2015 hearing, Defendants reiterated the Court has already found that
“‘clusters’ used for purposes of feedback” must be tied to the “allocated clusters.” See Dkt.
No. 68, 6/17/2015 Hr’g Tr. at 67:25-68:9. Defendants urged that clarification of the Court’s
Alcatel construction is appropriate because Plaintiff’s infringement theory in the co-pending
Alcatel case is that two blocks of subcarriers could be either a single diversity cluster or two
coherence clusters, “[a]nd the only way I could tell the difference is if I looked back at which
particular allocation algorithm was used to choose the particular resource blocks.” Id. at 69:2371:3.
(2) Analysis
Claims 1 and 7 of the ’172 Patent, for example, recite (emphasis added)
1. A method for use in allocating subcarriers in an OFDMA system comprising
allocating at least one diversity cluster of subcarriers to a first subscriber;
and
allocating at least one coherence cluster to a second subscriber, such that
communication with the first and second subscribers is able to occur by
simultaneously using the at least one diversity cluster and the at least one
coherence cluster, respectively.
***
7. The method defined in claim 1 wherein subcarriers of one coherence cluster
are within the coherent bandwidth of a channel between a base station and a
subscriber.

10

In Alcatel, the Court construed these disputed terms in the manner Plaintiff now proposes
here. See Alcatel, Dkt. No. 141 at 9-18. In particular, the Court summarized the parties’ oral
arguments presented at the Alcatel claim construction hearing as follows:
At the February 13, 2014 hearing, Defendants argued that Plaintiff’s proposed
constructions blur the distinction between diversity and coherence clusters and
would allow for post hoc, retrospective identification of such clusters.
Defendants also urged that clusters must be classified prior to allocation because
otherwise it would be impossible to determine or change the ratio between the
types of clusters as required in dependent Claim 9. Defendants further argued that
Plaintiff’s proposals would eliminate any differentiation between Claim 1 and
dependent Claim 7.
Plaintiff responded that Defendants’ proposals are far too narrow because, for
example, a coherence cluster need not include any adjacent subcarriers. Instead,
Plaintiff argued, the issue is the spread between the “outermost” subcarriers in the
cluster. Plaintiff also proposed the following alternative constructions:
“coherence cluster” means “logical unit of multiple physical subcarriers that are
close together such that the outer subcarriers are close to each other”; and
“diversity cluster” means “logical unit of at least two disjoint, physical subcarriers
spread over the spectrum to make probable that the outermost subcarriers in the
cluster are outside the coherence bandwidth.”
Id. at 11-12. The Court rejected any reference to “coherence bandwidth,” finding it to be a
feature of a preferred embodiment that should not be imported into the disputed terms, and the
Court found:
. . . [T]he specification teaches that “coherence” and “diversity” are relative terms
because those terms are used in relation to one another. For example, the
specification explains that in network environments having both fixed subscribers
and mobile subscribers, coherence clusters can provide higher performance for
fixed subscribers whereas diversity clusters are more reliable for mobile
subscribers. . . .
***
. . . [T]he specification discloses the disputed terms in such a relative manner, as
discussed above, and all of the claims of the ‘172 Patent require both a diversity
cluster and a coherence cluster, such that the two are necessarily available for
mutual comparison. At the February 13, 2014 hearing, Plaintiff had no objection
to construing the disputed terms with reference to one another. Defendants had
no objection to this general principle but maintained that the identification of
11

diversity clusters and coherence clusters, by whatever measure, must occur prior
to allocation and must be done for the purposes set forth in Defendants’ proposed
constructions.
***
. . .Defendants have failed to identify any reasonably clear definition of, or clear
support for, the word “defined,” which would tend to confuse rather than clarify
the scope of the claims. Defendants’ proposed constructions are therefore
rejected. Defendants’ proposal of the word “defined” is also discussed as to the
term “cluster of subcarriers” in the ‘283 Patent, below.
Id. at 16-18. As to “clusters of subcarriers,” then, the Court explained:
The recital of “partitioning subcarriers” [in Claim 24 of the ’283 Patent]
seemingly lends support to Defendants’ proposal of the word “defined.” The
specification, however, discloses that clusters of subcarriers are “reconfigurable”
and that cluster allocation can depend upon subcarrier-specific information * * *
On balance, Defendants have failed to identify any reasonably clear definition of,
or clear support for, the word “defined.” As to Defendants’ underlying argument
that a cluster must be “defined” before it can be allocated . . ., Defendants have
not proposed that the Court impose any required order of steps for the claims in
which the disputed term appears. Nonetheless, the agreed-upon proposal that a
cluster must be a “logical unit” suggests that the cluster must exist before it can be
allocated. This requirement is also evident on the face of the claims, such as in
the recital of “allocating at least one cluster in the one or more groups of clusters
. . .” in above-quoted Claim 24 [of the ’283 Patent]. Ultimately, the question of
whether an accused instrumentality includes a “logical unit” of subcarriers (as
opposed to a “random” collection of subcarriers, as Defendants have stated
Plaintiff may rely upon) is a factual dispute regarding infringement rather than a
legal dispute regarding claim construction. See PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus.
Corp., 156 F.3d 1351, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (noting that “the task of determining
whether the construed claim reads on the accused product is for the finder of
fact”).
In sum, Defendants’ proposal of “defined” is redundant and would tend to
confuse rather than clarify the scope of the claims. Defendants’ proposed
construction is therefore rejected. The parties are otherwise in agreement as to the
proper construction.
The Court accordingly hereby construes “cluster of subcarriers” to mean “logical
unit of multiple physical subcarriers.”
Id. at 84-85 (emphasis omitted).

12

In denying Defendants’ objections and motion for reconsideration in Alcatel, the Court
found:
Defendants request clarification that subcarriers in a diversity cluster are chosen
because they are relatively far apart. Similarly, Defendants request clarification
that subcarriers in a coherence cluster are chosen because they are relatively close
together.
***
On balance, although Claim 1 requires at least one diversity cluster and at least
one coherence cluster, Defendants have failed to justify importing a requirement
that a base station must distinguish between these two types of clusters. Indeed,
Claim 1 does not recite a base station. Instead, the method of Claim 1 demands
only that at least one of each type of cluster is allocated. The state of mind of the
base station, so to speak, is not a claim limitation.
Nonetheless, Defendants are correct that the “at least one diversity cluster” and
the “at least one coherence cluster” must exist at the time of allocation, as
opposed to being constructed or defined in hindsight. Because this is self-evident
from the claim language, however, the Court need not modify or clarify the
constructions of the disputed terms.
Alcatel, Dkt. No. 170 at 3-4.
As the Court noted, the specification discloses that clusters of subcarriers are
“reconfigurable,” and cluster allocation can depend upon subcarrier-specific information. See
’172 Patent at 5:10-18 & 6:10-21; see also Alcatel, Dkt. No. 141 at 84 (quoted above).
Nonetheless, the Court also found that “the ‘at least one diversity cluster’ and the ‘at least one
coherence cluster’ must exist at the time of allocation.” Alcatel, Dkt. No. 170 at 3-4.
Thus, a logical unit of multiple physical subcarriers must be allocated, and the allocated logical
unit of multiple physical subcarriers must have existed as a particular logical unit prior to
allocation.
Defendants’ proposal of clarifying the Alcatel constructions so as to refer to a logical unit
“that exists at the time of allocation” is therefore appropriate. See, e.g., GE Lighting Solutions,

13

LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook
Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Defendants’ proposal of the phrase “as opposed to
being constructed or defined in hindsight,” however, is unnecessary in light of the Court
adopting the phrase “that exists at the time of allocation.” Further, the negative limitation
proposed by Defendants would tend to confuse rather than clarify the scope of the claims, in
particular as to the meanings of the words “constructed” and “hindsight.”
The Court accordingly hereby construes the disputed terms as set forth in the following
chart:
Term
“diversity cluster of subcarriers”
“diversity cluster”

“coherence cluster”

Construction
“logical unit that exists at the time of allocation
and that is comprised of multiple physical
subcarriers that are relatively far apart, as
compared to the subcarriers of a coherence
cluster”
“logical unit that exists at the time of allocation
and that is comprised of multiple physical
subcarriers that are relatively close together, as
compared to the subcarriers of a diversity
cluster”

B. “coherence bandwidth”
This term is no longer disputed and is not presented in the parties’ P.R. 4-5(d) Joint
Claim Construction Chart. See Dkt. No. 51 at 2 n.4; see also Dkt. No. 60, Ex. A at 1-3. The
Court therefore does not address this term.

14

C. “reconfiguring cluster classification”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

“changing the ratio of the number of diversity
clusters to the number of coherence clusters”

“changing the ratio of the number of diversity
clusters to the number of coherence clusters
available for selection by the base station”

Dkt. No. 60, Ex. A at 3 (emphasis added by the parties). The parties submit this term appears in
Claim 9 of the ’172 Patent.
(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff submits that in Alcatel the parties agreed upon the construction Plaintiff now
proposes here. Dkt. No. 46 at 8. As to Defendants’ present proposal, Plaintiff argues “[s]uch
additional verbiage would result in an unneeded inconsistency when compared with [Alcatel].”
Id. Plaintiff further argues: “It is clear from a non-limiting embodiment in the specification that
the number of each type of cluster used, and accordingly the resulting ratio when changed
(reclassified), can be based on the particular types of users (i.e. mobile or fixed) -- not on a
particular number of clusters that are somehow ‘predefined’ and therefore ‘available for
selection’ as proposed by the Defendants’ construction.” Id. (citing ’172 Patent at 16:56-63).
Defendants respond that “Defendants’ construction seeks to clarify that this limitation,
like the cluster term itself, cannot be met by merely examining in hindsight different collections
of subcarriers that were allocated to different users. Instead, because the clusters ‘must exist at
the time of allocation as opposed to being constructed or defined in hindsight,’ it follows that the
ratio of the number of diversity clusters to coherence clusters must also exist at the time of
allocation.” Dkt. No. 51 at 7.
Plaintiff replies that the language proposed by Defendants is unnecessary because “their
additional language tracks the limitations they seek to add to the terms ‘diversity’ and ‘coherence

15

cluster,’ which are being addressed separately in this process,” and “Defendants’ defeat a
puzzling strawman argument that [Plaintiff’s] position ‘seeks to collapse the reconfiguration step
into the ‘intelligent selection’ step.’’” Dkt. No. 56 at 2.
(2) Analysis
Claims 1 and 9 of the ’172 Patent recite (emphasis added)
1. A method for use in allocating subcarriers in an OFDMA system comprising
allocating at least one diversity cluster of subcarriers to a first subscriber;
and
allocating at least one coherence cluster to a second subscriber, such that
communication with the first and second subscribers is able to occur by
simultaneously using the at least one diversity cluster and the at least one
coherence cluster, respectively.
***
9. The method defined in claim 1 further comprising reconfiguring cluster
classification when population of mobile and fixed subscribers in a cell changes.
The specification discloses:
The ratio/allocation of the numbers of coherence and diversity clusters in a cell
depends on the ratio of the population of mobile and fixed subscribers. When the
population changes as the system evolves, the allocation of coherence and
diversity clusters can be reconfigured to accommodate the new system needs.
FIG. 12 illustrates a reconfiguration of cluster classification which can support
more mobile subscribers than that in FIG. 9.
’172 Patent at 16:56-63 (emphasis added).
On balance, Defendants have not adequately justified introducing an “available for
selection” limitation into above-quoted Claim 9. See id. at 16:18-29 & Fig. 11. Instead, the
discussion of the “cluster” terms, above, adequately addresses that the clusters must exist as
particular logical units of multiple physical subcarriers at the time of allocation.

16

The Court therefore hereby construes “reconfiguring cluster classification” to mean
“changing the ratio of the number of diversity clusters to the number of coherence
clusters.”
V. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN THE ’808 PATENT
A(i). “spatial signature”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

“vector representing spatial characteristics of a
channel”

“vector(s) representing spatial characteristics
of a channel including the extent to which
existing spatial channels between respective
subscribers and a base station interfere”
Alternatively:
“vectors representing spatial characteristics
of channels that can be used to determine the
extent to which the existing spatial channels
between respective subscribers and the base
station interfere”

Dkt. No. 60, Ex. A at 3-4; see Dkt. No. 68, 6/17/2015 Hr’g Tr. at 14:3-6. The parties submit this
term appears in Claims 1, 2, 9, 13, 14, 31, 32, 34, and 41 of the ’808 Patent.
(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff proposes the Alcatel construction and submits that “[a] spatial signature provides
information regarding the characteristics of what are known as spatial channels existing between
different transmit antennas of a base station and receive antennas of subscribers.” Dkt. No. 46
at 10. Plaintiff also argues Defendants’ proposed construction should be rejected because “[t]he
various embodiments in the ’808 specification make clear that when interference is determined,
it is determined from (not represented by) the spatial signature.” Id. at 11 (citing ’808 Patent at
1:55-57 and 5:12-15). Further, Plaintiff argues, Defendants are “trying to engraft an SDMAspecific limitation onto claims that are clearly meant to encompass the broader category of

17

spatial multiplexing techniques generally, of which SDMA is but one example.” Dkt. No. 46 at
11 (citing ’808 Patent at 1:25-28 & 3:12-18); see id. at 1:25-28 (“space-division multiple-access
(SDMA)”). Plaintiff explains that “[w]ith SDMA, separate spatial channels are allocated to
respective different subscribers, whereas, with spatial multiplexing, more than one separate
spatial channel may be allocated to the same subscriber.” Dkt. No. 46 at 11 n.10. Finally,
Plaintiff argues claim differentiation as to Claims 15 and 25 of the ’808 Patent, which expressly
recite SDMA limitations. Id. at 11.
Defendants respond that, as agreed by Plaintiff in the Alcatel claim construction
proceedings, “spatial signatures necessarily represent characteristics that can be used to
determine whether one subscriber’s channel interferes with another subscriber’s channel.” Dkt.
No. 51 at 10. Defendants argue “[n]othing about Defendants’ construction mandates that the
spatial signature must be used in an SDMA system. Rather, it merely recognizes what a spatial
signature is, using language straight from the intrinsic evidence and, in particular, the precise
language that [Plaintiff] represented as accurate to this Court in the [Alcatel] case.” Id. at 13.
Nonetheless, Defendants assert “[t]he ‘808 Patent . . . discloses no embodiments where two
spatial channels are transmitted to the same subscriber.” Id.
Plaintiff replies that Defendants have cited Plaintiff’s reply brief in Alcatel out of context
and, moreover, in Alcatel the Court considered and rejected the same argument. Dkt. No. 56
at 3-4. Plaintiff argues the “Farsakh” prior art reference cited by Defendants does not teach that
spatial signatures are limited to representing direction of arrival of a signal. See id. at 4-5.
Plaintiff also reiterates that base stations use spatial signatures to determine relevant information,
but the spatial signatures do not themselves represent such information. Id. at 5. Further,
Plaintiff reiterates that “[b]ecause the Defendants’ construction omits the single subscriber

18

spatial multiplexing scenario, it cannot be correct.” Id. at 6. Finally, Plaintiff submits “two
closely spaced antennae [sic, antennas] on the same device could support nearly orthogonal
spatial channels due to their different phase and amplitude characteristics. Thus, the patent does
not exclude or teach away from single user spatial multiplexing.” Id. at 6-7.
At the June 17, 2015 hearing, Defendants urged that “no one is asking the Court to
construe this term to require that SDMA must be performed,” but Defendants maintained that
“[i]n the patent, the term ‘spatial multiplexing’ is used to refer to “SDMA.” Dkt. No. 68,
6/17/2015 Hr’g Tr. at 15:4-5 & 16:5-6. Plaintiff responded that “the ’808 patent deals with
spatial signatures of antenna pairings. But it does not care, first, if those received antennas are
on two different devices, which is SDMA, undoubtedly within the scope of the ’808 patent, or a
single device with two antennas on that single device, which would be spatial multiplex[ing],
again, also within the scope of the ’808 patent.” Id. at 33:5-11. Plaintiff also asserted the
specification “shows other embodiments for spatial characteristics than just interference, such as
using spatial characteristics to determine the achievable data rate or SINR of a particular
subscriber.” Id. at 27:18-21.
(2) Analysis
As to the purported concession in Plaintiff’s reply brief in Alcatel, Plaintiff’s brief stated:
Defendants’ constructions . . . erroneously require that the gains (purported to be
the recited spatial signature) be of signals received by the base station.
Uplink channels carry data from a handset to the base station, while downlink
channels carry data from the base station to the handset. For example, uploading
a video to a social media site involves primarily an uplink communication, while
streaming music to the handset involves primarily a downlink communication.
Defendants are distorting the meaning of the term “of a subscriber” as it is used in
the claims. As the ’808 patent makes clear, the spatial characteristics of concern
are not about a signal received from a subscriber, but rather are about the extent to

19

which existing spatial channels between respective subscribers and a basestation
interfere, for purposes of OFDMA channel assignments.
Alcatel, Dkt. No. 128 at 15 (attached to Defendants’ present response brief as Exhibit E). On its
face, this statement does not amount to a concession that spatial signatures are necessarily for
determining interference between multiple subscribers. Instead, Plaintiff referred to interference
between spatial channels in general.
Defendants also argue spatial signatures are used for determining interference between
multiple subscribers because “[w]hen the specification makes clear that the invention does not
include a particular feature, that feature is deemed to be outside the reach of the claims of the
patent, even though the language of the claims, read without reference to the specification, might
be considered broad enough to encompass the feature in question.” Microsoft v. Multi-Tech,
Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
The specification discloses, for example, that “[t]he level of interference between cochannel subscribers (sharing the same spectral resource, e.g., the same time slot/the same
frequency/the same code (e.g., the spreading code)[)] is determined by the degree of
orthogonality between their corresponding spatial signatures.” ’808 Patent at 5:12-16. As
another example, the Background of the Invention notes:
Though intuitively promising, an obvious flaw of this scheme is that spatial
channels are rarely orthogonal in practice. In other words, traffic over SDMA
channels are mutually interfering. If multiple subscribers are assigned to one time
slot without considering these spatial characteristics, the one with an unfavorable
spatial configuration may experience significant throughput disadvantages.
Id. at 1:47-54; see id. at 1:25-28 (“One of the most aggressive ways of exploiting the spatial
diversity is space-division multiple-access (SDMA), or spatial multiplexing, that attempts to
multiply the throughput of a wireless network by introducing ‘spatial channels.’”) & 2:1-7 (“e.g.,
assigning the ‘less-interfering’ subscribers to the same time slot to increase the traffic
20

throughput”). The evidence cited by Defendants suggests that SDMA involves spatial
multiplexing, and about this the parties do not appear to disagree. See id.; see also Dkt. No. 51,
Ex. G, 9/11/2013 Cimini dep. at 377:19-378:18. Nonetheless, the presence of multiple
subscribers is a particular application or a particular feature of a disclosed embodiment and
should not be imported into the construction of the disputed terms. See, e.g., Phillips, 415 F.3d
at 1323. Likewise, Defendants have cited the “Farsakh” reference that is cited in the ’808 Patent,
but nothing in Farsakh or the discussion thereof warrants importing a multiple subscriber
limitation. See ’808 Patent at 1:32-34 & 5:16-19.
Thus, on balance, Defendants have not adequately demonstrated any requirement of
multiple subscribers. Finally, Defendants have not shown that spatial signatures must be used to
determine interference. Instead, the specification refers also to “determin[ing] the achievable
rate” and “determin[ing] the SINR”:
In responding to a link request from a new subscriber, or when the base-station
has data to transmit to a standby subscriber, the logic first estimates the spatial
signature of the corresponding subscriber over all, or a predetermined portion of
OFDMA traffic channels. In one embodiment, the estimated information, along
with the spatial characteristics of on-going subscribers are used to determine the
achievable rate of the accessing subscriber over each of the OFDMA channels
(with the presence of on-going SDMA subscribers). In an alternative
embodiment, the estimated information and the spatial characteristics associated
with on-going traffic channels are used to determine the SINR of the accessing
subscriber over each of the OFDMA channels.
Id. at 6:33-45 (emphasis added); see Dkt. No. 45, Ex. A at 1 (parties agree that “SINRs” in the
’808 Patent means “signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratios”).
The Court therefore hereby construes “spatial signature” to mean “vector representing
spatial characteristics of a channel.”

21

A(ii). “spatial signature vectors”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

“vectors representing spatial characteristics of
channels”

“vector(s) representing spatial characteristics
of a channel including the extent to which
existing spatial channels between respective
subscribers and a base station interfere”
Alternatively:
“vectors representing spatial characteristics
of channels that can be used to determine the
extent to which the existing spatial channels
between respective subscribers and the base
station interfere”

Dkt. No. 60, Ex. A at 4-5; see Dkt. No. 68, 6/17/2015 Hr’g Tr. at 14:3-6. The parties submit that
this term appears in Claims 1, 2, 13, and 14 of the ’808 Patent.
Plaintiff proposes the Alcatel construction and reiterates that Defendants are “trying to
engraft an SDMA-specific limitation onto claims that are clearly meant to encompass the broader
category of spatial multiplexing techniques generally, of which SDMA is but one example.”
Dkt. No. 46 at 12.
Defendants present the same arguments for this term as for “spatial signature,” addressed
above. See Dkt. No. 51 at 9-15.
For the reasons set forth above as to the term “spatial signature,” the Court hereby
construes “spatial signature vectors” to mean “vectors representing spatial characteristics of
channels.”

22

A(iii). “2-D spatial signatures,” “2-D spatial signature vectors,” and “broadband spatial
signature vectors”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

“two-dimensional matrices, or sets of vectors,
that represent spatial characteristics of multiple
channels”

“two-dimensional matrices, or sets of vectors,
that represent spatial characteristics, including
the extent to which existing spatial channels
between respective subscribers and a base
station interfere, of multiple channels”

Dkt. No. 60, Ex. A at 5-8. The parties submit these three terms appear in Claims 9, 34, and 41 of
the ’808 Patent, Claims 13 and 14 of the ’808 Patent, and Claims 1, 2, and 13 of the ’808 Patent,
respectively.
Plaintiff proposes the Alcatel construction, and the parties incorporate-by-reference their
arguments as to “spatial signature,” which is addressed above. Dkt. No. 46 at 13; Dkt. No. 51
at 16; Dkt. No. 56 at 2 n.3.
For the reasons set forth above as to the term “spatial signature,” the Court hereby
construes “2-D spatial signatures,” “2-D spatial signature vectors,” and “broadband spatial
signature vectors” to mean “two-dimensional matrices, or sets of vectors, that represent
spatial characteristics of multiple channels.”
A(iv). “broadband spatial signature vectors associated with each subscriber” and
“broadband spatial signature vectors of the subscribers”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

No construction necessary apart from separate
construction of “broadband spatial signature
vectors,” above.

No construction necessary apart from separate
additional construction of “broadband spatial
signature vectors,” above.

Dkt. No. 60, Ex. A at 8-10. The parties submit these terms appear in Claim 1 of the ’808 Patent
and Claims 1 and 13 of the ’808 Patent, respectively.

23

Plaintiff proposes the Alcatel construction, and the parties incorporate-by-reference their
arguments as to “spatial signature,” which is addressed above. Dkt. No. 46 at 13-14; Dkt. No. 51
at 16; Dkt. No. 56 at 2 n.3.
For the reasons set forth above as to the term “spatial signature,” the Court hereby finds
that for “broadband spatial signature vectors associated with each subscriber” and
“broadband spatial signature vectors of the subscribers”: No construction necessary apart
from separate construction of “broadband spatial signature vectors.”
A(v). “2-D spatial signatures of an accessing subscriber and one or more subscribers with
on-going traffic,” “2-D spatial signature vectors of the new subscriber and other
subscribers with on-going traffic,” and “2-D spatial signatures of the new subscriber and
one or more subscribers with on-going traffic”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

No construction necessary apart from the
separate construction of “2-D spatial
signatures,” above.

No construction necessary apart from separate
additional construction of “2-D spatial
signature vectors,” above.

Dkt. No. 60, Ex. A at 10-12. The parties submit these three terms appear in Claim 9 of the ’808
Patent, Claim 14 of the ’808 Patent, and Claim 41 of the ’808 Patent, respectively.
Plaintiff proposes the Alcatel construction, and the parties incorporate-by-reference their
arguments as to “spatial signature,” which is addressed above. Dkt. No. 46 at 14; Dkt. No. 51
at 17; Dkt. No. 56 at 2 n.3.
For the reasons set forth above as to the term “spatial signature,” the Court hereby finds
that for “2-D spatial signatures of an accessing subscriber and one or more subscribers with
on-going traffic,” “2-D spatial signature vectors of the new subscriber and other
subscribers with on-going traffic,” and “2-D spatial signatures of the new subscriber and
one or more subscribers with on-going traffic”: No construction necessary apart from the
separate construction of “2-D spatial signatures.”
24

A(vi). “new accessing subscriber spatial signature” and “new subscriber spatial signature”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

No construction necessary apart from the
separate constructions of “spatial signature,”
“new subscriber,” and “new accessing
subscriber.”

No construction necessary apart from separate
additional construction of “spatial signature,”
above.

Dkt. No. 60, Ex. A at 13-14. The parties submit these terms appear in Claims 31, 32, and 34 of
the ’808 Patent and Claim 32 of the ’808 Patent, respectively.
Plaintiff proposes the Alcatel construction, and the parties incorporate-by-reference their
arguments as to “spatial signature,” which is addressed above. Dkt. No. 46 at 15; Dkt. No. 51
at 18; Dkt. No. 56 at 2 n.3.
For the reasons set forth above as to the term “spatial signature,” the Court hereby finds
that for “new accessing subscriber spatial signature” and “new subscriber spatial
signature”: No construction necessary apart from the separate constructions of “spatial
signature,” “new subscriber,” and “new accessing subscriber.” See Dkt. No. 45, Ex. A
(setting forth agreed-upon constructions for “new subscriber” and “new accessing subscriber”).
A(vii). “on-going traffic spatial signature”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

No construction necessary apart from the
separate constructions of “spatial signature”
and “subscribers with on-going traffic.”

No construction necessary apart from separate
additional construction of “spatial signature,”
above.

Dkt. No. 60, Ex. A at 14-15. The parties submit this term appears in Claims 31, 32, and 34 of the
’808 Patent.
Plaintiff proposes the Alcatel construction, and the parties incorporate-by-reference their
arguments as to “spatial signature,” which is addressed above. Dkt. No. 46 at 15-16; Dkt. No. 51
at 18; Dkt. No. 56 at 2 n.3.
25

For the reasons set forth above as to the term “spatial signature,” the Court hereby finds
that for “on-going traffic spatial signature”: No construction necessary apart from the
separate construction of “spatial signature.”
B. “on-going traffic” and “subscribers with on-going traffic”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

“subscribers that have been allocated traffic
channels and that have on-going traffic”

“subscribers that have been allocated traffic
channels for use on an on-going basis”

Dkt. No. 45, Ex. D at 20; Dkt. No. 46 at 16. The parties submit these terms appear in Claims 9,
14, 31, 32, 34, and 41 of the ’808 Patent and Claims 9, 14, and 41 of the ’808 Patent,
respectively.
Plaintiff proposes the Alcatel construction and argues: “First, the term ‘on-going traffic’
has a distinct meaning from the term ‘subscribers’, since such traffic may or may not involve
subscribers. Second, . . . Defendants are improperly attempting to convert on-going traffic into
on-going use of allocated channels.” Dkt. No. 46 at 17-18 (footnote omitted); see id. at 16.
The terms “on-going traffic” and “subscribers with on-going traffic” appear in
Defendants’ exhibit to the parties’ P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement.
See Dkt. No. 45, Ex. D at 18 & 20. Defendants have not addressed these purportedly disputed
terms in their response brief, and these terms do not appear as distinct disputed terms in the
parties’ P.R. 4-5(d) Joint Claim Construction Chart. See Dkt. No. 60 at Ex. A. The Court
therefore does not address these terms. See CardSoft, LLC v. VeriFone, Inc., 769 F.3d 1114,
1119 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Arguments that are not appropriately developed in a party’s briefing may
be deemed waived.”).

26

C.(i) “new accessing subscriber spatial signature register” and “new subscriber spatial
signature register”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

Plain meaning

“register for storing ‘new accessing subscriber
spatial signatures,’ but not ‘on-going traffic
spatial signatures’”

Dkt. No. 60, Ex. A at 15-16. The parties submit these terms appear in Claims 31, 32, and 34 of
the ’808 Patent and Claim 32 of the ’808 Patent, respectively.
(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff proposes the Alcatel construction and argues “Defendants’ proposed
construction is incorrect because there is no requirement in the specification that a register be
used solely for storing only ‘new accessing subscriber spatial signatures’ or that registers for new
subscribers be completely separate and distinct from registers for subscribers with on-going
traffic.” Dkt. No. 46 at 18.
Defendants respond that the Court in Alcatel found, and the specification supports, “there
must be some organization or division between each type of register.” Dkt. No. 51 at 19.
Plaintiff replies that in light of the Court’s findings in Alcatel, no further construction of
these disputed terms is necessary. Dkt. No. 56 at 7-8.
(2) Analysis
Claims 31, 32, and 34 of the ‘808 Patent recite (emphasis added):
31. A base station comprising:
a plurality of receiving antennas;
a plurality of down converters coupled to the plurality of receiving
antennas;
a new accessing subscriber spatial signature register;
an on-going traffic spatial signature register; and
an OFDMA traffic channel allocator coupled to the new accessing
subscriber spatial signature register and the on-going traffic spatial signature
register.
27

32. The base station defined in claim 31 wherein the channel allocation logic
allocates OFDMA channels to a new subscriber based on information from the
new subscriber spatial signature register and the on-going traffic spatial
signature register.
***
34. The base station defined in claim [3]1 4 wherein the new accessing subscriber
spatial signature register and the on-going traffic spatial signature register store
2-D spatial signatures.
In Alcatel, the Court noted that “distinctly recited limitations are usually interpreted as
distinct structures” (citing Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d
1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010)), and the Court found:
On balance, Defendants have failed to demonstrate that a register can store only
one type of data at a time, i.e., either “new” subscriber spatial signatures or “ongoing” subscriber spatial signatures. Instead, as Plaintiff has argued, a single
structure could be organized or subdivided so as to constitute both a “new
subscriber spatial signature register” and an “on-going traffic spatial signature
register.” Defendants’ proposed constructions are therefore hereby expressly
rejected.
Alcatel, Dkt. No. 141 at 73-74; see also id. (discussing ’808 Patent at 7:26-35 & Figs. 5 & 6).
The Court reaches the same conclusion here and hereby expressly rejects Defendants’
proposed construction. Nonetheless, the parties briefing demonstrates a dispute as to the
meaning of these terms, and clarification of the constructions is appropriate to more clearly
reflect the Court’s above-quoted findings. See, e.g., GE Lighting, 750 F.3d at 1310.
The Court accordingly hereby construes the disputed terms as set forth in the following
chart:

4

This correction from “1” to “31” is set forth in a Certificate of Correction attached to the ’808
Patent. See Dkt. No. 46, Ex. B at p. 18 of 18.
28

Term

Construction

“new accessing subscriber spatial signature
register”

“a register, or a subdivision of a register,
that stores one or more new accessing
subscriber spatial signatures”

“new subscriber spatial signature register”

“a register, or a subdivision of a register,
that stores one or more new subscriber
spatial signatures”

C.(ii) “on-going traffic spatial signature register”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

Plain meaning

“register for storing ‘on-going traffic spatial
signatures,’ but not ‘new accessing subscriber
spatial signatures’”

Dkt. No. 60, Ex. A at 16. The parties submit this term appears in Claims 31, 32, and 34 of the
’808 Patent.
Plaintiff proposes the Alcatel construction and presents similar arguments as for “new
accessing subscriber spatial signature register” and “new subscriber spatial signature register,”
which are addressed above. See Dkt. No. 46 at 20-21.
Defendants respond by incorporating-by-reference their arguments as to “new accessing
subscriber spatial signature register” and “new subscriber spatial signature register,” which are
addressed above. Dkt. No. 51 at 20. Plaintiff replies likewise. Dkt. No. 56 at 7 n.4.
For the same reasons set forth above as to the terms “new accessing subscriber spatial
signature register” and “new subscriber spatial signature register,” the Court hereby construes
“on-going traffic spatial signature register” to mean “a register, or a subdivision of a
register, that stores one or more on-going traffic spatial signatures.”

29

D. “an OFDMA traffic channel allocator”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

“logic configured to allocate OFDMA traffic
channels”

“logic configured to allocate OFDMA traffic
channels based on two-dimensional spatial
signatures”

Dkt. No. 60, Ex. A at 17. The parties submit this term appears in Claim 31 of the ’808 Patent.
(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff proposes the Alcatel construction and argues Defendants’ proposal is
unsupported by the claim language and “would effectively collapse claims 31, 32, and 34 into a
single claim.” Dkt. No. 46 at 21.
Defendants respond that “the patentee clearly and unmistakably argued that ‘the channel
assignment of the present invention is claimed as based on two-dimensional (matrix) spatial
signature,’ as opposed to the Yun reference that purportedly used a one dimensional spatial
signature.” Dkt. No. 51 at 21 (quoting id., Ex. J, 7/19/2004 Amendment and Response to Office
Action at 15-16). Defendants conclude that “[t]he doctrine of claim differentiation is plainly
inapplicable here, in the face of clear and unmistakable prosecution history waiver.” Dkt. No. 51
at 22.
Plaintiff replies that Defendants’ disclaimer argument “was already considered and
rejected in the [Alcatel] case in the context of ‘spatial signatures’ and it should be rejected for the
same reasons here.” Dkt. No. 56 at 8.
At the June 17, 2015 hearing, Defendants clarified that their proposal of “based on twodimensional spatial signatures” “is in the plural . . . because ‘channels’ is in the plural. It’s not
our suggestion here that for any given channel you must use multiple . . . 2-D spatial signatures.”

30

See Dkt. No. 68, 6/17/2015 Hr’g Tr. at 46:16-21. Defendants maintained the prosecution history
requires that at least one two-dimensional spatial signature must be used. See id. at 46:22-24.
(2) Analysis
In the prosecution history at issue, the patentee distinguished the “Yun” reference by
stating as follows:
The Examiner rejected Claims 1-12, 15, 21, 22, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Yun et al. in view of Alamouti et al. Yun discloses a
conventional FDMA system. The Examiner recognizes that Yun fails to disclose
the use of the OFDMA protocol. However, the Examiner believes it was well
known in the art that OFDMA protocols are an improvement over FDMA
protocols and cited Alamouti to teach the use of OFDMA protocols. The
Examiner believes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the use of OFDMA as taught by
Alamouti into Yun. Applicants respectfully disagree.
FDMA is fundamentally different than the OFDMA protocol. In OFDMA, each
subscriber can occupy an arbitrary number of subcarriers of the entire channel
bandwidth, while in FDMA, each subscriber is assigned to only one voice
channel. In other words, each assignment decision in Yun is made based on a
one-dimensional spatial signature, while [a] spatial signature in OFDMA is twodimensional (e.g., a matrix or vector). Thus, the channel assignment decision of
the present invention is claimed as based on [a] two-dimensional (matrix) spatial
signature, which is much more difficult than a narrow band case (e.g., TDMA,
CDMA, FDMA). Applicants respectfully submit that this feature is set forth in
the claims since OFDMA channels are already specified in the claims. Even so,
Applicants have amended claims 11 and 14 and added claims 36, 41, and 43 to
explicitly set forth the two-dimensional nature of the spatial signatures.
Therefore, in view of this, Applicants respectfully submit that the present
invention as claimed in Claims 1-12, 15, 21, 22, and 27 is not obvious in view of
the combination of Yun and Alamouti.
Dkt. No. 51, Ex. J, 7/14/2004 Amendment and Response to Office Action at 15-16 (emphasis
added). 5
In Alcatel the Court considered the prosecution history Defendants have cited here, but
the Court did so in relation to a different dispute. Specifically, the Court ruled:
5

Application claim 21 issued as Claim 31. See id., Ex. K, 11/5/2004 Issue Classification.
31

[T]his prosecution history is not definitive regarding the construction of “spatial
signature” because the patentee explained that “OFDMA channels are already
specified in the claims.” That is, the patentee explained that the two-dimensional
nature of OFDMA is specified by other claim language where applicable.
Defendants’ reliance on the prosecution history for a narrower construction of
‘spatial signature’ as to Claim 31 is . . . hereby expressly rejected.
Alcatel, Dkt. No. 141 at 57 (citation omitted). In other words, the Court found spatial signatures
in general are not necessarily “two-dimensional.” Nonetheless, the patentee stated a “spatial
signature in OFDMA is two-dimensional.” Dkt. No. 51, Ex. J, 7/14/2004 Amendment and
Response to Office Action at 15.
The remaining issue, then, is whether an “OFDMA traffic channel allocator” must
allocate traffic channels based on a spatial signature. In Alcatel, the Court found that “although
Claim 31 recites that the OFDMA traffic channel allocator must be ‘coupled’ to two spatial
signature registers, Claim 31 does not specify that the allocator must allocate based on 2-D
spatial signatures of multiple subscribers.” Alcatel, Dkt. No. 141 at 80 (emphasis added). The
Court in Alcatel therefore rejected the Defendants’ proposal that the disputed term be construed
to mean “logic configured to allocate OFDMA traffic channels to a subscriber using 2-D spatial
signatures of multiple subscribers.” Id. at 79 (emphasis added).
Claims 31, 32, and 34 of the ’808 Patent recite (emphasis added):
31. A base station comprising:
a plurality of receiving antennas;
a plurality of down converters coupled to the plurality of receiving
antennas;
a new accessing subscriber spatial signature register;
an on-going traffic spatial signature register; and
an OFDMA traffic channel allocator coupled to the new accessing
subscriber spatial signature register and the on-going traffic spatial signature
register.
32. The base station defined in claim 31 wherein the channel allocation logic
allocates OFDMA channels to a new subscriber based on information from the

32

new subscriber spatial signature register and the on-going traffic spatial signature
register.
***
34. The base station defined in claim [3]16 wherein the new accessing subscriber
spatial signature register and the on-going traffic spatial signature register store
2-D spatial signatures.
Plaintiff has cited the doctrine of claim differentiation as demonstrating that the
“OFDMA traffic channel allocator” is not limited to allocating “based on” spatial signatures and
is not limited to using “2-D” spatial signatures. See, e.g., Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (“the
presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that
the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim”); Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v.
Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“the doctrine of claim differentiation states the
presumption that the difference between claims is significant”) (quoting Tandon Corp. v. United
States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 831 F.2d 1017, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
Claim differentiation, however, cannot “broaden claims beyond their correct scope,
determined in light of the specification and the prosecution history and any relevant extrinsic
evidence.” Seachange Int’l, Inc. v. C-COR, Inc., 413 F.3d 1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting
Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
Here, as quoted above, in distinguishing the Yun reference from the claim that issued as
Claim 31 (among others), the patentee definitively stated that a “spatial signature in OFDMA is
two-dimensional (e.g., a matrix or vector). Thus, the channel assignment decision of the present
invention is claimed as based on [a] two-dimensional (matrix) spatial signature, which is much
more difficult than a narrow band case (e.g., TDMA, CDMA, FDMA).” Dkt. No. 51, Ex. J,
6

This correction from “1” to “31” is set forth in a Certificate of Correction attached to the ’808
Patent. See Dkt. No. 46, Ex. B at p. 18 of 18.
33

7/14/2004 Amendment and Response to Office Action at 15-16. Also of note, the patentee stated
that “this feature is set forth in the claims since OFDMA channels are already specified in the
claims” (id. at 16), and the disputed term “OFDMA traffic channel allocator” is the only instance
of “OFDMA” recited in Claim 31.
These definitive statements by the patentee should be given effect in the Court’s
construction. See Omega Eng’g v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“As a
basic principle of claim interpretation, prosecution disclaimer promotes the public notice
function of the intrinsic evidence and protects the public’s reliance on definitive statements made
during prosecution.”); see also Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1381
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (“The patentee is bound by representations made and actions that were taken in
order to obtain the patent.”); Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1576 (Fed.
Cir. 1995) (“Claims may not be construed one way in order to obtain their allowance and in a
different way against accused infringers.”).
The Court accordingly rejects Plaintiff’s claim differentiation arguments. See Seachange,
413 F.3d at 1369. Nonetheless, to whatever extent Defendants are proposing that an “OFDMA
traffic channel allocator” must allocate channels based on multiple two-dimensional spatial
signatures,” the above-quoted prosecution history relied upon by Defendants supports a
disclaimer only so as to require use of at least one two-dimensional spatial signature.
The Court accordingly hereby construes “an OFDMA traffic channel allocator” to
mean “logic configured to allocate OFDMA traffic channels based on one or more twodimensional spatial signatures.”

34

E. “subscriber units to communicate with the base station using an orthogonal frequencydivision multiple-access (OFDMA) protocol”
This term is no longer disputed and is not presented in the parties’ P.R. 4-5(d) Joint
Claim Construction Chart. See Dkt. No. 51 at 2 n.4; see also Dkt. No. 60, Ex. A at 3-18. The
Court therefore does not address this term.
F. “OFDMA traffic channel”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

Plain meaning

“one or more physical OFDM subcarriers
assigned to a particular subscriber to carry
information between the base station and
subscriber”
Alternatively:
“one or more physical OFDM subcarriers
assigned to one or more subscribers to carry
information between the base station and
subscriber”

Dkt. No. 60, Ex. A at 17-18; see Dkt. No. 68, 6/17/2015 Hr’g Tr. at 36:15-37:5. The parties
submit this term appears in Claim 31 of the ’808 Patent.
(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff notes this term was not construed in Alcatel or in the litigation in the Northern
District of California. Dkt. No. 46 at 24. Plaintiff also urges that “[t]he jury will readily
comprehend that an ‘OFDMA traffic channel’ is a traffic channel that can be used to carry traffic
using OFDMA.” Id.
Defendants respond that the specification defines what the traffic channel is in an
OFDMA embodiment. Dkt. No. 51 at 23. Defendants argue construction is appropriate because,
in the Alcatel case, “[Plaintiff] is contending that an OFDMA traffic channel covers some
clusters of OFDM sub-carriers, but not all clusters of OFDM subcarriers. In particular,

35

[Plaintiff’s expert] argues that the term is limited only to those clusters of OFDM subcarriers that
carry user traffic, as opposed to control traffic.” Id. (citing id., Ex. L at 5-6). Defendants
conclude that “[w]hile the patent specification clearly explains that an OFDMA traffic channel
(regardless of what traffic it carries) is defined by the one or more OFDM subcarriers used for
transmission by a particular subscriber, there is no embodiment described in the specification
that limits OFDMA traffic channels to particular types of traffic (user versus control).” Dkt.
No. 51 at 23-24.
Plaintiff replies that “Defendants convert OFDMA into OFDM even though these are
very different terms,” and Defendants’ proposal is unclear if it “requires the same subcarriers to
carry information to and from the base station and subscriber.” Dkt. No. 56 at 9.
At the June 17, 2015 hearing, Defendants urged construction is necessary to reject
Plaintiff’s incorrect interpretation that, in Defendants’ words, “sometimes those [OFDM
subcarriers] are traffic channels and sometimes they’re not depending on what kind of
information they carry.” Dkt. No. 68, 6/17/2015 Hr’g Tr. at 37:19-23; see id. at 41:23-25 (“A
traffic channel is the subcarriers that make up the channel; it’s not the kind of information that’s
being transmitted.”). Finally, as to Plaintiff’s above-noted concern in its reply brief as whether
Defendants are attempting to require a particular direction of communication, Defendants stated
that “there’s no intent to interpret it that way. We’re not talking about only going to the base
station or only going to the subscriber.” Id. at 43:13-16.
(2) Analysis
In United States Patent No. 7,072,315 (“’315 Patent”), which was construed in Alcatel
but which is not asserted in the present case, the specification states that “[i]n OFDMA, one or a
cluster of OFDM sub-carriers defines a ‘traffic channel’ . . . .” ’315 Patent at 1:54-58. Also, the

36

’283 Patent discloses that “the base station notifies the subscriber about the cluster allocation
through a downlink common control channel or through a dedicated downlink traffic channel if
the connection to the subscriber has already been established.” ’283 Patent at 6:30-34 (emphasis
added); see id. at 6:37-39 (“each subscriber can . . . send . . . feedback to the base station using a
dedicated traffic channel”). The ’808 Patent discloses that “each traffic channel is a cluster of
OFDM sub-carriers . . . .” ’808 Patent at 3:25-26. Defendants have also cited similar testimony
by one of Plaintiff’s experts. Dkt. No. 51, Ex. G, 9/11/2013 Cimini dep. at 380:2-9.
On balance, however, Defendants have not adequately demonstrated that construction is
appropriate. Plaintiff’s position in the present litigation is that the plain meaning of “OFDMA
traffic channel” is “a traffic channel that can be used to carry traffic using OFDMA.” Dkt.
No. 46 at 24. To whatever extent, if any, Plaintiff has taken a contrary position in other
litigation, claim construction in the above-captioned case is not an appropriate vehicle for
resolving any such dispute.
The Court therefore hereby expressly rejects Defendants’ proposed construction. No
further construction is necessary. See U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Claim construction is a matter of resolution of disputed meanings and
technical scope, to clarify and when necessary to explain what the patentee covered by the
claims, for use in the determination of infringement. It is not an obligatory exercise in
redundancy.”); see also O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351,
1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[D]istrict courts are not (and should not be) required to construe every
limitation present in a patent’s asserted claims.”); Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626
F.3d 1197, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Unlike O2 Micro, where the court failed to resolve the
parties’ quarrel, the district court rejected Defendants’ construction.”).

37

The Court accordingly hereby construes “OFDMA traffic channel” to have its plain
meaning.
G. “down converter”
This term is no longer disputed and is not presented in the parties’ P.R. 4-5(d) Joint
Claim Construction Chart. See Dkt. No. 51 at 2 n.4; see also Dkt. No. 60, Ex. A at 3-18. The
Court therefore does not address this term.
H. “OFDMA”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

“Orthogonal frequency division multiple
access”

“a multiple access scheme in which channels
are distinguished by frequency and the
frequencies are orthogonal”

Dkt. No. 60, Ex. A at 18. The parties submit this term appears in Claims 1, 9, 14, 31, 32, and 41
of the ’808 Patent.
(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff submits that in Alcatel the parties agreed upon the construction Plaintiff now
proposes here, and Plaintiff argues “[a]s OFDMA is expressly defined in the specification, the
Court will not err by adopting such definition.” Dkt. No. 46 at 27.
Defendants respond that, in Alcatel, 7 “[Plaintiff’s] expert (under the guise of the
‘ordinary meaning’ of OFDMA) is attempting to import into that term several details that are, at
best, optional features of OFDMA systems and, in some cases, flatly contradict the patents in
suit.” Dkt. No. 51 at 24. “At best,” Defendants argue, “[Plaintiff’s] attempts to limit OFDMA
. . . is an attempt to import preferred embodiments . . . .” Id. at 25.

7

More specifically, Defendants refer to Civil Action No. 6:12-CV-369. Dkt. No. 51 at 24.
38

Plaintiff replies that “Defendants mischaracterize a background section in Dr. Wells’
Rebuttal Invalidity Report, comparing OFDMA to other access techniques, as somehow trying to
limit the definition. None of their citations actually come from his analyzing the claim terms
against the prior art.” Dkt. No. 56 at 9-10.
At the June 17, 2015 hearing, Plaintiff submitted that, as the Court found in Alcatel, any
disputes about the inherent qualities of OFDMA are factual disputes regarding infringement
rather than legal disputes for claim construction. See Dkt. No. 68, 6/17/2015 Hr’g Tr. at 58:1-8
(citing PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355).
Defendants responded by urging that “[t]he meaning of ‘OFDMA’ is a legal issue and it
should be decided by the Court.” Dkt. No. 68, 6/17/2015 Hr’g Tr. at 61:15-17. Defendants
explained:
[T]hey’ve argued that a system that supports fixed but not mobile subscribers
can’t be OFDMA. They’ve said that a system that can’t assign more than one
channel to a given subscriber, that can’t be OFDMA. They said that a system that
can communicate voice but not data can’t be OFDMA. And systems that can’t
dynamically increase bandwidth allocations can’t be OFDMA. And systems that
cannot perform real-time channel allocations can’t be OFDMA.
Defendants don’t believe any of these qualities are inherent to the OFDMA
systems, and that the Court should explicitly reject any attempt to distinguish
prior art on this basis. And this is a legal issue.
Id. at 62:11-22.
Plaintiff replied that its expert “was simply explaining that [sic] the inherent capabilities
of OFDMA systems, such as what OFDMA enables, not what it requires.” Id. at 66:5-7.
(2) Analysis
In Alcatel, the parties agreed “OFDMA” means “orthogonal frequency division multiple
access.” Alcatel, Dkt. No. 141 at 8. Indeed, the Summary of the Invention of the ’808 Patent

39

refers to “an orthogonal frequency-division multiple-access (OFDMA) protocol.” ’808 Patent at
2:36-37; see id. at 5:44-49; see also ’283 Patent at 1:18-23 & 1:34-39.
On balance, Defendants have not adequately demonstrated that additional construction is
necessary. Even assuming for the sake of argument that claim construction is an appropriate
mechanism for resolving any disputes as to the meaning of “orthogonal frequency division
multiple access” in the relevant art, claim construction in the above-captioned case is not an
appropriate vehicle for resolving any such disputes that may have arisen in other litigation. 8
The Court therefore hereby construes “OFDMA” to mean “orthogonal frequency
division multiple access.”
VI. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS IN THE ’283 PATENT
All of the disputed terms in the ’283 Patent appear in Claim 92. Dkt. No. 51 at 28.
A. “cluster of subcarriers”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

“logical unit of multiple physical subcarriers”

“logical unit of multiple physical subcarriers
existing at the time of allocation, as opposed to
being constructed or defined in hindsight”

Dkt. No. 60, Ex. A at 20.
Plaintiff proposes the Alcatel construction and submits that in Alcatel the Court rejected
the temporal limitation that Defendants are proposing here. Dkt. No. 46 at 28. Defendants
respond by incorporating-by-reference their arguments as to the “cluster” terms in the ’172
Patent, which are addressed above. Dkt. No. 51 at 29.

8

The Court need not reach Plaintiff’s argument that Defendants should be estopped from here
proposing a construction different from the agreed-upon construction in Alcatel. See Dkt. No. 46
at 27 n.16.
40

For the same reasons set forth above as to the terms “diversity cluster of subcarriers,”
“diversity cluster,” and “coherence cluster” in the ’172 Patent, the Court hereby construes
“cluster of subcarriers” to mean “logical unit that exists at the time of allocation and that is
comprised of multiple physical subcarriers.”
B. “allocating additional clusters to the subscriber”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

Plain meaning

“allocating more clusters to the subscriber
beyond those currently allocated to the
subscriber”

Dkt. No. 45, Ex. D at 32; Dkt. No. 46 at 28.
Plaintiff proposes the Alcatel construction and submits that in Alcatel the Court rejected
the language now proposed by Defendants. Dkt. No. 46 at 28; see Alcatel, Dkt. No. 141
at 90-94.
The term “allocating additional clusters to the subscriber” appears in Defendants’ exhibit
to the parties’ P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement. See Dkt. No. 45,
Ex. D at 32. Defendants have not addressed this purportedly disputed term in their response
brief, and this term does not appear as a distinct disputed term in the parties’ 4-5(d) Joint Claim
Construction Chart. See Dkt. No. 60 at Ex. A. The Court therefore does not address this term.
See CardSoft, 769 F.3d at 1119.
C. “a system employing orthogonal frequency division multiple access (OFDMA)”
This term is no longer disputed and is not presented in the parties’ P.R. 4-5(d) Joint
Claim Construction Chart. See Dkt. No. 51 at 2 n.4; see also Dkt. No. 60, Ex. A at 3-18. The
Court therefore does not address this term.

41

D. “a plurality of groups of at least one cluster of subcarriers”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

Plain meaning

“more than one group where each group
includes one or more clusters of subcarriers”

Dkt. No. 60, Ex. A at 21.
(1) The Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff argues that “[n]either this Court nor the Northern District of California has
construed this term,” and “[Plaintiff] sees no sense in Defendants’ re-wording of the claim
language.” Dkt. No. 46 at 30.
Defendants respond that construction is necessary because “[Plaintiff] has revealed in the
[Alcatel] case . . . that it plans through its expert, Dr. Jonathan Wells, to argue that claim
language clearly stating ‘one or more cluster’ should be interpreted to mean ‘at least two
clusters.’” Dkt. No. 51 at 29 (citing id., Ex. D, 9/30/2014 Wells dep. at 253:22-258:2).
Plaintiff replies: “The Defendants justify rewording the claim based on one deposition
cite of [Plaintiff’s] expert. The claim language is unambiguous and needs no further
construction.” Dkt. No. 56 at 10.
At the June 17, 2015 hearing, Defendants argued with reference to Claim 92 that
“[t]here’s nothing here changing what the groups are. We know from the antecedent basis that
the groups have at least one cluster.” Dkt. No. 68, 6/17/2015 Hr’g Tr. at 75:20-22. Plaintiff
responded that “even if Your Honor were to accept Defendants’ proposed construction, we just
want to make something very clear, that this should not -- the construction should only apply to
the first time in Claim 92 of the ’283 patent that you see this term appear.” Id. at 78:19-23.
Defendants replied that “Defendants do request that the Court find that the later limitations refer

42

back to the first limitation and that there’s nothing later in the claim that changes the meaning of
‘the groups’ that were defined in [the first element].” Id. at 79:16-19.
(2) Analysis
Claim 92 of the ’283 Patent recites (emphasis added):
92. A method for subcarrier selection for a system employing orthogonal
frequency division multiple access (OFDMA) comprising:
partitioning subcarriers into a plurality of groups of at least one cluster of
subcarriers; and
receiving an indication of a selection by a subscriber of one or more
groups in the plurality of groups;
allocating at least one cluster in the one or more groups of clusters
selected by the subscriber for use in communication with the subscriber;
receiving additional feedback information on the one or more groups of
clusters; and
allocating additional clusters to the subscriber.
The claim language is sufficiently clear on its face, and Defendants have not
demonstrated that construction is necessary. To whatever extent, if any, Plaintiff has taken a
position in other litigation that is contrary to the plain language of the claim, claim construction
in the above-captioned case is not an appropriate vehicle for resolving any such dispute.
The Court therefore hereby expressly rejects Defendants’ proposed construction. No
further construction is necessary. See U.S. Surgical, 103 F.3d at 1568; see also O2 Micro, 521
F.3d at 1362; Finjan, 626 F.3d at 1207.
The Court accordingly hereby construes “a plurality of groups of at least one cluster of
subcarriers” to have its plain meaning.

43

E. “OFDMA”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

“Orthogonal frequency division multiple
access”

“a multiple access scheme in which channels
are distinguished by frequency and the
frequencies are orthogonal”

Dkt. No. 60, Ex. A at 19.
Plaintiff submits: “This term has been addressed above in connection with the ’808
patent. To avoid repetition, [Plaintiff] incorporates that argument herein by reference.” Dkt. No.
46 at 30. Defendants respond by incorporating-by-reference their arguments as to the same term
in the ’808 Patent. Dkt. No. 51 at 30. Plaintiff replies likewise. Dkt. No. 56 at 9 n.5.
For the same reasons set forth above as to the same term in the ’808 Patent, the Court
hereby construes “OFDMA” to mean “orthogonal frequency division multiple access.”
.

VII. CONCLUSION
The Court hereby orders the claim terms addressed herein construed as indicated.
Summary charts are attached below as Exhibit A (agreed terms) and Exhibit B (disputed terms).
The parties are further ordered that they may not refer, directly or indirectly, to each
other’s claim construction positions in the presence of the jury. Likewise, the parties are ordered
to refrain from mentioning any portion of this opinion, other than the actual constructions
adopted by the Court, in the presence of the jury. Any reference to claim construction
proceedings is limited to informing the jury of the constructions adopted by the Court.
SIGNED this 22nd day of July, 2015.

____________________________________
CAROLINE M. CRAVEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

44

EXHIBIT A
Agreed Claim Term

Patent / Claims

Court’s Construction

“SINRs”

’808 Pat., Cls. 9, 41

“Signal-to-Interference-plus-Noise Ratios”

“new subscriber”

’808 Pat., Cls. 14, 32, 41

“subscriber that has requested access but
has not been assigned a traffic channel”

“accessing
subscriber”

’808 Pat., Cls. 9, 31, 34

“subscriber that has requested access but
has not been assigned a traffic channel”

“new accessing
subscriber”

’808 Pat., Cls. 31, 34

“subscriber that has requested access but
has not been assigned a traffic channel”

“allocate OFDMA
channels using the
broadband spatial
signature vectors of
the subscribers”

’808 Pat., Cl. 1

“allocate each of multiple OFDMA
channels using more than one subscriber’s
broadband spatial signature vectors”

“selection” /
“selected”

’283 Pat., Cl. 92

“choice” / “chosen”

“SINR”

’283 Pat., Cl. 101

“Signal-to-Interference-plus-Noise Ratio”

“a group identifier”

’283 Pat., Cl. 102

“one or more data bits that identify the
group”

45

EXHIBIT B
United States Patent No. 7,146,172
Disputed Claim Term
“diversity cluster of subcarriers”
“diversity cluster”

Court’s Construction
“logical unit that exists at the time of allocation
and that is comprised of multiple physical
subcarriers that are relatively far apart, as
compared to the subcarriers of a coherence
cluster”

“coherence cluster”

“logical unit that exists at the time of allocation
and that is comprised of multiple physical
subcarriers that are relatively close together, as
compared to the subcarriers of a diversity cluster”

“reconfiguring cluster classification”

“changing the ratio of the number of diversity
clusters to the number of coherence clusters”

United States Patent No. 6,870,808
Disputed Claim Term

Court’s Construction

“spatial signature”

“vector representing spatial characteristics of a channel”

“spatial signature vectors”

“vectors representing spatial characteristics of channels”

“2-D spatial signatures”

“two-dimensional matrices, or sets of
vectors, that represent spatial
characteristics of multiple channels”

“2-D spatial signature vectors”
“broadband spatial signature vectors”
“broadband spatial signature vectors associated
with each subscriber”
“broadband spatial signature vectors of the
subscribers”

46

No construction necessary apart from
separate construction of “broadband
spatial signature vectors.”

“2-D spatial signatures of an accessing
subscriber and one or more subscribers with
on-going traffic”

No construction necessary apart from
the separate construction of “2-D spatial
signatures.”

“2-D spatial signature vectors of the new
subscriber and other subscribers with on-going
traffic”
“2-D spatial signatures of the new subscriber
and one or more subscribers with on-going
traffic”
“new accessing subscriber spatial signature”
“new subscriber spatial signature”

No construction necessary apart from
the separate constructions of “spatial
signature,” “new subscriber,” and “new
accessing subscriber.”

“on-going traffic spatial signature”

No construction necessary apart from
the separate construction of “spatial
signature.”

“new accessing subscriber spatial signature
register”

“a register, or a subdivision of a register,
that stores one or more new accessing
subscriber spatial signatures”

“new subscriber spatial signature register”

“a register, or a subdivision of a register,
that stores one or more new subscriber
spatial signatures”

“on-going traffic spatial signature register”

“a register, or a subdivision of a register,
that stores one or more on-going traffic
spatial signatures”

“an OFDMA traffic channel allocator”

“logic configured to allocate OFDMA
traffic channels based on one or more
two-dimensional spatial signatures”

“OFDMA traffic channel”

Plain meaning

“OFDMA”

“orthogonal frequency division multiple
access”

47

United States Patent No. 6,904,283
Disputed Claim Term

Court’s Construction

“cluster of subcarriers”

“logical unit that exists at the time of allocation and
that is comprised of multiple physical subcarriers”

“a plurality of groups of at least
one cluster of subcarriers”

Plain meaning

“OFDMA”

“orthogonal frequency division multiple access”

48