PTAB

IPR2018-00647

Rohde & Schwarz GmbH & Co., KG v. Tektronix, Inc.

Title: Multi-Domain Test and Measurement Instrument
Brief Description: The ’719 patent relates to a test and measurement instrument featuring a time domain channel and a frequency domain channel. The instrument includes an acquisition system to acquire data from both channels and a controller to set different acquisition parameters for each channel.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Hansen (Patent 4,802,098).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hansen, which discloses a digital bandpass oscilloscope, teaches every element of the challenged independent and dependent claims. Hansen's architecture processes an input signal through a shared down-conversion path that then bifurcates, sending data to a time domain path for interpolation and to a frequency domain path for spectrum analysis (FFT). Petitioner asserted this parallel processing from a common data source meets the limitation that channels are "not used to process the same signal sequentially," a clause added during prosecution to distinguish prior art. Petitioner further argued Hansen discloses a controller (a microprocessor and waveform processing unit) that sets different acquisition parameters (e.g., sample rates, time windows, bandwidths) for each domain and an acquisition system that time-aligns data derived from a common origin in memory.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Hansen (Patent 4,802,098), Pickerd (Patent 6,681,191).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Claim 2 adds a trigger system configurable to trigger acquisition based on an event in either the time or frequency domain channel. Petitioner argued that while Hansen does not expressly show a trigger, Pickerd teaches a frequency domain analysis system with trigger circuitry that generates a pulse to start data acquisition at a defined reference point, such as a zero-crossing of the input signal.
- Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Pickerd’s standard trigger circuitry with Hansen's oscilloscope. The motivation was to provide reproducible, gated signal acquisition, which was a known and commercially essential feature for oscilloscopes to allow users to analyze specific events reliably.
- Expectation of Success: The combination was a straightforward integration of a conventional trigger circuit into a known instrument type, which would have yielded the predictable result of stable, triggered waveform displays.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Hansen (Patent 4,802,098), Witte (Spectrum & Network Measurements, 1992).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: These claims add an input port (claim 6), contemporaneous processing (claim 7), and a housing (claim 9). Petitioner asserted that Witte, a textbook on test and measurement instruments, explicitly discloses these as fundamental and conventional features. Witte shows standard instrument housings that encapsulate components and provide a user interface, as well as the basic concept of input ports for receiving signals.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to add these conventional features to Hansen's oscilloscope for predictable benefits. Adding a housing and input port from Witte would provide portability, protection, and standard connectivity. Configuring Hansen’s separate processing paths to operate contemporaneously would enable real-time display updates of both domains, preventing the data misalignment that could occur when toggling between non-synchronous channels.
- Expectation of Success: Integrating a standard housing, input port, and parallel processing logic into an oscilloscope design were well-known methods that would predictably result in a functional, portable, and more user-friendly instrument.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Hansen (Patent 4,802,098), Nara 451 (EP Application # EP 2 096 451).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Claims 14 and 15 require a controller to set different time periods and bandwidths, respectively, for the two channels. While Hansen shows this for analyzing different signals, Nara 451 discloses a signal analyzer with a "zoom function" for analyzing a single signal with varying resolution in both the time and frequency domains.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to inspect fine details in both domains of the same signal in Hansen's oscilloscope would have been motivated to implement a zoom function as taught by Nara 451. This would allow a user to set a short time period for the time-domain display (to see fine temporal details) while setting a longer time period for the frequency-domain display (to achieve fine spectral resolution), a common analysis technique.
- Expectation of Success: Implementing zoom functionality was an abundant and well-understood technique in signal analysis at the time, and its application to Hansen's dual-domain architecture would have been a predictable modification.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an alternative ground that claims 3, 6, and 7 are obvious over Hansen alone, arguing these features are inherently disclosed or would have been obvious even under a narrower claim construction requiring completely non-overlapping channels.

"channel": Petitioner proposed the construction "a set of path(s) for signals." This construction was argued to be critical because it does not preclude the time and frequency domain channels from sharing common circuitry at the front-end, a key aspect of Petitioner's mapping of the Hansen reference.
"time align": Petitioner proposed the construction "substantially synchronized in time." This was argued to be satisfied by processes that use a common system clock or derive data from a common origin in memory, which Petitioner alleged Hansen discloses.
"input port": Petitioner proposed the construction "a connector of a test and measurement instrument." This broad interpretation was intended to cover not only external BNC-style connectors but also internal connection points, such as the port of an acquisition memory that feeds data to the processing channels.

Petitioner argued against discretionary denial by asserting its grounds are not redundant with those in a co-pending IPR (IPR2018-00643), citing different primary references and different legal theories (anticipation vs. obviousness). Petitioner also contended that its multiple grounds within this petition are not redundant because they are based on different claim construction theories (e.g., broad vs. narrow interpretations of "channel" and "input port"), ensuring the viability of its challenge regardless of the Board's final construction.

Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-10 and 12-15 of Patent 8,675,719 as unpatentable.