Case: 20-1105 Document: 42 Page: 1 Filed: 11/25/2020
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
Appellant
v.
XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, DBA VIVATO
TECHNOLOGIES,
Appellee
______________________
2020-1105
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2018-
00762.
______________________
Decided: November 25, 2020
______________________
DAVID L. MCCOMBS, Haynes & Boone, LLP, Dallas, TX,
for appellant. Also represented by THEODORE M. FOSTER,
DEBRA JANECE MCCOMAS; ANGELA OLIVER, Washington,
DC.
KAYVAN B. NOROOZI, Noroozi PC, Los Angeles, CA, for
appellee.
______________________
Case: 20-1105 Document: 42 Page: 2 Filed: 11/25/2020
2 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
Before MOORE, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
MOORE, Circuit Judge.
Cisco Systems, Inc. appeals the Patent Trial and Ap-
peal Board’s final written decision holding Cisco had not
proven that claims 1–9 and 12 of
U.S. Patent No. 6,611,231
would have been obvious. For the reasons discussed below,
we affirm.
BACKGROUND
The ’231 patent relates to wireless communication sys-
tems and methods that utilize an adaptive antenna to
transmit signals with selectively placed transmission
peaks and nulls, potentially minimizing interference. ’231
patent at 1:15–17, 2:3–8, 7:41–48. Claim 1 is representa-
tive and recites:
1. An apparatus for use in a wireless routing net-
work, the apparatus comprising:
an adaptive antennas;
at least one transmitter operatively coupled to said
adaptive antenna;
at least one receiver operatively coupled to said
adaptive antenna;
control logic operatively coupled to said transmit-
ter and configured to cause said at least one trans-
mitter to output at least one transmission signal to
said adaptive antenna to transmit corresponding
outgoing multi-beam electromagnetic signals ex-
hibiting a plurality of selectively placed transmis-
sion peaks and transmission nulls within a far field
region of a coverage area based on routing infor-
mation; and
search receiver logic operatively coupled to said
control logic and said at least one receiver and con-
figured to update said routing information based at
Case: 20-1105 Document: 42 Page: 3 Filed: 11/25/2020
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC 3
least in part on cross-correlated signal information
that is received by said receiver using said adaptive
antenna.
(emphasis added).
Cisco petitioned for inter partes review of claims 1–9
and 12 of the ’231 patent. In its final written decision, the
Board construed the term “cross-correlated signal infor-
mation that is received by said receiver” as requiring “that
the ‘signal information’ that is ‘received’ by the ‘adaptive
antenna’ must be ‘cross-correlated’ at the time it is ‘re-
ceived.’” J.A. 10, 20. Based on that construction, the Board
found that Cisco’s prior art combination did not disclose the
cross-correlation limitation of claim 1. The Board therefore
held that Cisco had not proven that claims 1–9 and 12 of
the ’231 patent would have been unpatentable as obvious.
DISCUSSION
Cisco challenges the Board’s construction of “cross-cor-
related signal information that is received by” the claimed
adaptive antenna. We review the Board’s ultimate claim
construction de novo and any underlying factual determi-
nations involving extrinsic evidence for substantial evi-
dence. Paice LLC v. Ford Motor Co.,
881 F.3d 894, 902
(Fed. Cir. 2018). Because Cisco’s petition was filed before
November 13, 2018, we give claims in the unexpired ’231
patent their “broadest reasonable interpretation” con-
sistent with the specification. See Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
LLC v. Lee,
136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016).
Cisco contends the Board erred in construing the
phrase “cross-correlated signal information that is received
by said receiver using said adaptive antenna” as requiring
that the signal information be cross-correlated before the
signal information is received. It argues the claim lan-
guage is ambiguous and, as properly interpreted, includes
signal information that is cross-correlated after it is re-
ceived. We do not agree.
Case: 20-1105 Document: 42 Page: 4 Filed: 11/25/2020
4 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
Claim 1 recites a receiver configured to update routing
information “based at least in part on cross-correlated sig-
nal information that is received by said receiver using [an]
adaptive antenna.” “Cross-correlated” is a past-participial
adjective that modifies “signal information.” And the
phrase “that is received by said receiver” is a relative
clause modifying the claimed “cross-correlated signal infor-
mation.” The plain language of the claim, therefore, unam-
biguously requires that the signal information is cross-
correlated at the time it is received.
The language of independent claims 20 and 52 of the
’231 patent further supports our interpretation. See Phil-
lips v. AWH Corp.,
415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
banc) (“Other claims of the patent in question, both as-
serted and unasserted, can also be valuable sources of en-
lightenment as to the meaning of a claim term.”). Claims
20 and 52 recite an adaptive antenna configured to receive
at least one electromagnetic signal and to “cross-correlate
data sequences in said at least one received signal.” Unlike
claim 1, claims 20 and 52 expressly contemplate cross-cor-
relation after signal information is received. As the Board
correctly held, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
claim 1 requires that the “signal information” “received” by
the “adaptive antenna” already be “cross-correlated” at the
time it is received.
Cisco argues this interpretation excludes from claim 1
the only written description embodiment of the claimed
search receiver logic, illustrated in Figure 22, where the
signal information is cross-correlated after it is received. 1
As a preliminary matter, we note that there are many
1 The parties dispute whether Figure 15 of the ’231 pa-
tent discloses a second embodiment wherein the adaptive
antenna receives cross-correlated signal information. We
do not resolve this dispute as it does not affect our decision
here.
Case: 20-1105 Document: 42 Page: 5 Filed: 11/25/2020
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC 5
embodiments disclosed that do not require cross-correla-
tion after signal receipt. Moreover, other claims, such as
20 and 52, expressly include the relevant portion of the em-
bodiment disclosed in Figure 22, requiring cross-correla-
tion after receipt. There is no requirement that “each and
every claim ought to be interpreted to cover each and every
embodiment.” PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical
Commc’ns RF, LLC,
815 F.3d 747, 755 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Re-
gardless, nothing in the written description shows the pa-
tentee intended to deviate from the plain meaning of claim
1; there is no language in the written description suggest-
ing that cross-correlating the signal information after it is
received is important, essential, or necessary to the
claimed invention. See Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker
Corp.,
755 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[T]o deviate
from the plain and ordinary meaning of a claim term . . .
the patentee must, with some language, indicate a clear in-
tent to do so in the patent.”). In fact, the written descrip-
tion expressly states that “the invention defined in the []
claims is not necessarily limited to the specific features or
steps described.” ’231 patent at 28:66–29:2. Likewise, of
the more than one dozen “implementations” described,
Cisco identifies only the embodiment of Figure 22 as dis-
closing signal information cross-correlated after it is re-
ceived. See, e.g.,
id. at 9:22–46. Therefore, neither the
embodiment of Figure 22 nor the written description per-
suades us to deviate from the plain, unambiguous language
of claim 1. See Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
525
F.3d 1200, 1215–16 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[W]here we conclude
that the claim language is unambiguous, we have con-
strued the claims to exclude all disclosed embodiments.”).
Cisco further contends dependent claim 2 makes clear
that claim 1 must encompass “cross-correlated signal infor-
mation” that is cross-correlated after it is received. We will
not reach the merits of this argument, that claim 2 causes
us to deviate from the plain meaning of claim 1, because
Cisco never raised this argument with the Board.
Case: 20-1105 Document: 42 Page: 6 Filed: 11/25/2020
6 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v. XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
Accordingly, we decline to consider Cisco’s argument made
in the first instance on appeal. MCM Portfolio LLC v.
Hewlett-Packard Co.,
812 F.3d 1284, 1294 n.3 (Fed. Cir.
2015).
CONCLUSION
We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments
and do not find them persuasive. Because the Board did
not err in its construction and because Cisco does not chal-
lenge the Board’s decision under its construction, we af-
firm.
AFFIRMED
