US 8542763

I'll search for information on this specific patent number.

Let me search for any CAFC 2026 docket activity involving this patent.

Let me do one more targeted check for litigation/IPR activity specific to this patent.

US Patent 8,542,763 — Analyst Summary

Sources consulted: Google Patents full text (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8542763/en), Justia Patents (https://patents.justia.com/patent/8542763), and open web searches for USPTO/PTAB and CAFC activity. I did not have direct live access to USPTO PatentCenter or the CAFC docket system in this session, so docket-status statements below are search-based, not registry-verified.

Bibliographic data

Legal status — note a discrepancy: the authoritative Google Patents record supplied to me states "Expired – Fee Related, expires 2025-03-08," with an "Adjusted expiration" event dated 2025-03-08. One search snippet returned "Active, expires" instead. Per the operating rule to prefer the authoritative full text, I treat the patent as expired (fee-related, adjusted expiration 2025-03-08) — i.e., it apparently lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees. This is a status data point, not a legal conclusion.

Abstract (verbatim, as supplied)

"Systems and methods are described for coordinating transmissions in distributed wireless systems via user clustering. For example, a method according to one embodiment of the invention comprises: measuring link quality between a target user and a plurality of distributed-input distributed-output (DIDO) distributed antennas of base transceiver stations (BTSs); using the link quality measurements to define a user cluster; measuring channel state information (CSI) between each user and each DIDO antenna within a defined user cluster; and precoding data transmissions between each DIDO antenna and each user within the user cluster based on the measured CSI."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

The claim set retrieved runs at least 1–18; claims 1 and 18 are the independent claims I could positively identify. Caveat: the claim listing I retrieved was truncated mid-claim-18, so I cannot rule out further independent claims beyond 18 — treat the count as uncertain.

Claim 1 (method) — four steps:

1. Measure link quality between a target user and multiple DIDO distributed antennas belonging to base transceiver stations.
2. Use those link-quality measurements to define a "user cluster" — i.e., select the subset of distributed antennas whose signal the target user can actually detect/receive reliably (the spec frames the user cluster as antennas with received signal strength above the noise or interference level; every user defines its own cluster).
3. Measure CSI between each user and each DIDO antenna inside that defined cluster.
4. Precode the data transmissions between those in-cluster DIDO antennas and the users reachable by them, based on the measured CSI.

Claim 18 (system) — a parallel apparatus/system claim: multiple wireless users; multiple BTSs with antennas establishing multiple concurrent DIDO channels to those users; wherein the BTSs and/or the users measure link quality of the channels and use those measurements to define a user cluster; and the BTSs and/or users further measure CSI between each user and each DIDO antenna (the retrieved text cuts off at the precoding element).

Notable dependent-claim subject matter (context for the independents): link quality as SNR/SINR (claim 2); training-signal-based estimation (claim 3); identifying the subset of antennas with non-zero link-quality metrics (claim 4); applying DIDO precoding with inter-DIDO-cluster interference (IDCI) cancellation at BTSs in an interfering cluster to null RF at a target user in an interfering zone (claims 5–10, including zero-RF-energy points, M antennas creating up to M−1 nulls, and block diagonalization); sharing CSI across all BTSs via the base station network / BSN (claims 11–12); UL/DL reciprocity for TDD (claim 13); feedback channels for FDD and feedback restricted to non-zero link-quality-matrix entries (claims 14–15); and SVD-based precoding using the right singular vector of the null subspace of the effective channel matrix (claims 16–17).

One-line gestalt: rather than coordinating every antenna in a DIDO cluster, the patent defines a per-user "user cluster" from measured link quality, measures CSI only within that cluster, and precodes only over that subset — which both enables coherent combining at the target user and lets the system scale by adding antennas to satisfy K > M for null-steering.

Litigation / CAFC 2026 docket check

• I found no CAFC 2026 docket entry, appeal, or PTAB proceeding specifically identifying US 8,542,763. Searches for "8542763" plus Federal Circuit, appeal, and 2026 returned unrelated matters (e.g., VLSI v. Intel concerning 8,566,836; Spero v. Mercedes-Benz; various IPR institution lists). No result tied 8,542,763 to a 2026 Federal Circuit case.
• The '763 patent appears in Rearden's DIDO-family history, which was litigated in Rearden LLC v. [The Walt Disney Company](/litigations/by-plaintiff/The%20Walt%20Disney%20Company) et al. (N.D. Cal. 3:17-cv-04006 and related cases) — but the substantive claims in those cases centered on copyright (MOVA Contour) and some patent claims that the parties resolved by stipulation; the published appellate activity I found relates to the copyright side (Ninth Circuit), not to a 2026 CAFC appeal of '763.
• Explicit uncertainty: I cannot confirm from a primary registry source that no IPR/PGR or CAFC proceeding exists for this patent. If you need a definitive answer, that should be verified directly against USPTO PatentCenter/PTAB (IPR, PGR, reexam) and the CAFC docket (appeal number by patent number), since my searches were secondary-source only.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 8542763.

Let me search more specifically for litigation databases and the patent number.

Let me search targeted litigation databases for this specific patent.

Litigation Search Report — U.S. Patent No. 8,542,763

Bottom line

I could not identify any litigation — district court, ITC, or Federal Circuit — specifically asserting or involving U.S. Patent No. 8,542,763 ("the '763 patent"). Searches of the ID as an exact string returned only patent-office and citation material (the Google Patents record and citations of the '763 patent in later patents such as U.S. 11,516,694), not any case docket or opinion naming it.

What I searched and what turned up

The Rearden-related litigation that did surface is not about this patent:

• Rearden LLC v. [The Walt Disney Company](/litigations/by-plaintiff/The%20Walt%20Disney%20Company), et al., No. 3:17-cv-04006-JST (N.D. Cal.) and the coordinated cases (e.g., Rearden LLC v. Crystal Dynamics, Inc., 4:17-cv-04187) — these concern the MOVA Contour motion-capture assets (copyright, trademark, patent claims on the MOVA technology), not the DIDO wireless patents.
• Shenzhenshi Haitiecheng Science & Technology Co. v. Rearden LLC, No. 3:15-cv-00797-JST (N.D. Cal.) — the "SHST" ownership dispute over the MOVA assets.

None of those dockets name the '763 patent (which is a DIDO/wireless patent, not a MOVA/imaging patent).

Relevant context about the '763 patent (from the authoritative patent record)

• Assignee: Rearden LLC (originally Rearden LLC); inventors Forenza, Lindskog, Perlman
• App. No.: 12/917,257; filed 2010-11-01; granted 2013-09-24
• Priority date: 2004-04-02; earliest claimed priority from App. No. 10/817,731
• Legal status: "Expired – Fee Related," adjusted expiration 2025-03-08
• It is a continuation-in-part of a large family of related DIDO applications (12/802,988; 12/802,976; etc.)

The lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees ("expired – fee related") is consistent with the patent never having been asserted while in force.

Important caveats

I must be explicit about the limits of this search, per the instruction not to fabricate:

1. I was unable to query the primary sources directly. I could not run live queries against PACER, Docket Navigator, the Unified Patents litigation portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist), or Lex Machina. My results come from general web search, which does not comprehensively index every district-court docket.
2. "No results" here is not a legal conclusion. A suit naming the '763 patent could exist but be unindexed; and the patent may have been named in a complaint, IPR, or counterclaim not surfaced by these queries.
3. The Google Patents page I retrieved did not display a litigation entry for the '763 patent. That is suggestive but not dispositive — such tabs are dynamically populated and may not appear in a text dump.

Recommended verification steps before relying on this

To close the gap on sources I could not reach:

1. USPTO Patent Center / Assignment for App. No. 12/917,257 — check the "Litigation" and assignment histories.
2. Unified Patents Portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com) — search the exact number; this portal aggregates district-court, ITC, and PTAB activity.
3. Docket Navigator / Lex Machina — search 8,542,763 and, more broadly, Rearden LLC as patent plaintiff.
4. Free Law Project / CourtListener RECAP — full-text search for the patent number in complaints.
5. PTAB — check for any IPR/PGR involving the '763 patent (none found; note the family's later patents do appear in IPR filings).

Conclusion: Based on the searches available to me, no litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 8,542,763 is known. I found only the patent's own record and citations to it. I recommend confirming via the primary databases above, since I could not access them directly.

PTAB Proceedings Report — U.S. Patent No. 8,542,763

Source for the proceedings list: the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block provided in this task (USPTO Open Data Portal ingest). Web search was used only as a secondary sweep for older/not-yet-indexed filings and for appellate follow-on. All patent bibliographic data below is taken from the authoritative full text supplied (Google Patents, US8542763B2, fetched 2026-09-24).

---

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings are on file against U.S. Patent No. 8,542,763 — no IPR, no PGR, no CBM — so there is no breakdown by status to report and no claim has ever been canceled, sustained, or construed by the Board; the defensive posture this gives a defendant is not "hardened patent" and not "claims are dead," but rather "untested patent": the entire prior-art universe is still available to you, and no petitioner-side estoppel under § 315(e)(2) runs against anyone.

Two caveats, stated plainly:

1. The ODP block itself flags that "web search may surface older or recently-filed proceedings the ODP hasn't indexed yet." My web sweep (PTAB decision PDFs, PTAB docket aggregators, Rearden-related litigation materials) returned no AIA petition, institution decision, FWD, or appeal referencing the '763 patent by number. I could not query PTAB E2E / Docket Navigator / CourtListener directly from this environment, so treat this as "no activity found in the two sources available," not as a forensic negative.
2. Neither source revealed any proceeding, so the claim-level outcome fields below are genuinely not applicable rather than unreported. I will not populate them with speculation.

Relevant context from the patent's own face: granted 2013-09-24 (app. 12/917,257, filed 2010-11-01, CIP of the 12/802,9xx family), earliest priority 2004-04-02, current assignee Rearden LLC. Legal status is Expired – Fee Related, adjusted expiration 2025-03-08. That has a direct effect on your options (below).

Because there is no proceeding to march through "most-impactful first," I have substituted the closest available proxy — a verification log and the reasons the absence matters.

(No proceeding numbers to report)

• Type: — (none on file)
• Filed: — (none on file)
• Status: — (none on file)
• Judge panel: — (no panel ever convened)
• Petition grounds: — (no ground ever pled)
• Institution decision: — (no § 314(a) or § 324(a) decision exists)
• Final Written Decision: — (none; no claim of the '763 patent has ever been construed by the Board under Phillips or BRI)
• Settlement / termination: — (no § 317 settlement, no adverse judgment)
• Appeal: — (no CAFC appeal of an FWD; nothing to appeal)
• Defensive value: You get the rarest posture in this space — a 2004-priority Rearden DIDO patent with a clean PTAB history. Nothing binds you. You may raise any § 102/§ 103 ground, on any reference, without § 325(d) "previously presented art" risk from a prior petitioner, and without any Board-favorable claim construction to rebut.

Verification log (what was checked, 2026-09-30)

I want to be explicit about a limitation: several hits returned by the sweeps were stray matches on unrelated patents that happen to be numbered or nicknamed "'276" or "'763" (e.g., voice-controlled-device and 3D-NAND patents). I excluded those; none involve Rearden or US 8,542,763. If you need a court-grade confirmation, the authoritative check is PTAB E2E (https://ptab.uspto.gov) plus the PTAB "Patent Number Search" on the USPTO site, queried on the literal number 8,542,763.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: all claims of '763 are UNTESTED. There is no canceled claim, no surviving-after-IPR claim, and no Board-confirmed claim, because no trial has ever been instituted. If you are looking for a "claim 1 is dead, cite the FWD" argument, it does not exist here and I will not manufacture one. Conversely, if opposing counsel tells you this patent has been "validated" or "survived PTAB," that is false — as of the most recent ODP ingest it has never been before the Board. What the patent does carry is a fee-related lapse with an adjusted expiration of 2025-03-08, which is its own defense-adjacent fact: the patent is expired, so the practical exposure is back damages for the pre-expiration window (six-year § 286 lookback), not an injunction or ongoing royalties.

Estoppel landscape: clean, and it favors you. § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches only to a petitioner that obtained an FWD, and no one did. There is no prior petitioner, no privy, no real-party-in-interest chain to trace, and therefore no ground that is off the table for a defendant today. § 325(d) likewise poses no discretionary-denial risk from "the same or substantially the same art previously presented to the Office" — the only art of record is whatever the examiner cited during the 2010–2013 prosecution. The sole timing constraint to watch is the § 315(b) one-year bar running from service of a complaint on you: that clock is now the binding constraint, not any existing proceeding. Note also that for a patent with 2004 priority, a PGR is unavailable (the 9-month post-grant window closed on 2014-06-24) and a CBM is unavailable (transitional program sunset for new petitions on 2020-09-16, and these are radio-transmission claims, not a financial-product business method). IPR is the only AIA vehicle left.

Pattern signals: none of the usual ones fire. There is no repeat petitioner on this patent (there is no petitioner at all), no patent-owner PTAB appeal track record to evaluate, and no defensive aggregator — notably, I found no Unified Patents filing against any Rearden DIDO patent in the results returned. Rearden's aggressive posture in the district courts (the MOVA/Contour campaigns against Dell, Disney, and the studios) is a different patent family; the DIDO portfolio, including '763, appears not to have drawn a PTAB counterattack. That asymmetry is informative: well-asserted patents of this vintage and claim structure normally attract IPRs, so the absence suggests either that '763 has not been asserted in a way that gave a well-funded defendant both the incentive and the § 315(b) trigger, or that defendants settled or defended on other grounds.

---

Recommended next steps

• Demand-letter response. If a demand cites US 8,542,763, do not concede any validity posture. There is no FWD, no institution decision, and no Board construction to reckon with. The correct framing is: no AIA trial has ever been instituted against this patent; its claims are unadjudicated; and it lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees with an adjusted expiration of 2025-03-08. Demand the claim chart and the asserted claims by number, and confirm the asserted priority chain, since the '763 patent is a continuation-in-part (filed 2010-11-01) claiming priority back to 2004-04-02 — CIP priority to the 2004 root is a fact question worth pressure-testing, because any claim element lacking § 112 support in the 2004 parent gets a 2010 effective filing date and faces a materially larger prior-art field.
• IPR timing. If you are a defendant served with a complaint asserting '763, your § 315(b) one-year clock is the only hard deadline. Because the patent is expired, the Board will construe claims under Phillips (no BRI), and the practical relief sought is cancellation of claims you would otherwise face for past damages. An IPR against an expired patent is fully available — expiration does not moot AIA review.
• Prior-art freedom. With zero § 315(e)(2) estoppel and zero § 325(d) history, you have a free hand on art selection. Grounds may be built on any § 102/§ 103 combination, including combinations that a prior petitioner would have been estopped from re-running had one existed.
• Verify before you rely on the negative. Two independent checks worth running, which I could not complete here: (1) PTAB E2E search on patent number 8,542,763 (https://ptab.uspto.gov); (2) a CourtListener / CAFC docket search for any appeal captioned with Rearden as appellant or appellee referencing the '763 patent. If both come back empty, the "no PTAB activity on file" conclusion is solid, and the absence is itself the signal: this patent's claims have never been administratively tested, so its validity is an open question, not a settled one — in your favor.

I'll research the assignment record for US 8,542,763 using the sources specified.

Let me dig into the specific assignment record and Rearden's litigation/NPE profile.

Let me try to pin down the specific recording reel/frame and correspondent for the Rearden assignment.

Ownership Reconstruction — US 8,542,763 B2

Data-provenance caveat up front. I could not directly query the USPTO Assignment Center (no interactive access was available in this session), and my external searches did not surface a reel/frame number or a correspondent of record for this patent's assignment. The assignment facts below are taken from the authoritative patent record you supplied (Google Patents legal-events section for US8542763B2), which lists exactly one assignment event. Where the source does not expose a field (reel/frame, execution date, correspondent), I say so rather than invent a value. Verify at the Assignment Center search page before relying on this for any filing: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (and the mirrored legacy UI https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html — search Patent Number 8542763).

Inventors

Unusual-pattern check: none of the classic fire-sale precursors appear. There was no post-filing exodus of inventors: Perlman owns the assignee, and Forenza/Lindskog remained associated with the Rearden DIDO program (Forenza later became the technical lead associated with Perlman's Artemis Networks, the commercialization vehicle for this DIDO/pCell family). An inventor who is also the assignee's owner is the inverse of the "inventors bail out within 12 months" tell.

Original assignee

Rearden LLC — named on the issued patent as "Assignee: Rearden, LLC, Mountain View, CA (US)." Rearden is the privately held holding/R&D company of Stephen G. Perlman (WebTV, OnLive, MOVA Contour), which aggregates his inventions across wireless (DIDO/pCell), imaging (MOVA), RF power transfer, and consumer software.

• Primary line of business: IP holding and technology development; it is not a merchant chipset/equipment vendor for the claims of this patent. The DIDO/pCell technology was later carried toward productization through Perlman's Artemis Networks, with Rearden as the patent-holding affiliate.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Not established for this patent. Rearden's own operating businesses were MOVA (facial capture) and related ventures; no commercial DIDO/pCell radio product embodying claim 1 was identified. Treat "ships a product embodying the claims" as not established.
• Current status: operating (not dissolved, not in bankruptcy in any proceeding surfaced). Rearden, LLC was still appearing as a patent applicant through 2025 (e.g., Australian Official Journal of Patents entries naming Rearden, LLC as applicant). No Chapter 7/11 proceeding for Rearden was found.
• Legal-status note / discrepancy: the supplied authoritative text lists status "Expired - Fee Related, expires 2025-03-08" with a recorded "2025-03-08 Adjusted expiration." A third-party aggregator (onscope) lists the grant as "In Force." Following your rule to prefer the authoritative patent text, I treat this grant as lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees (2025-03-08) — itself a meaningful finding (the owner let the patent go rather than monetize/assert it).

Assignment timeline

Only one assignment is reflected in the authoritative record. There are no post-issuance assignments, and the current assignee equals the original assignee.

• Date not exposed (executed) / recorded 2013-01-31 — Reel not retrievable / Frame not retrievable
  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest (Assignment).
  • Assignor: Antonio Forenza; Erik Lindskog; Stephen G. Perlman (jointly, as inventors).
  • Assignee: REARDEN, LLC.
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable from the sources I could reach. I will not guess a name or firm.
  • Context: Standard inventor-to-company assignment vesting title in the filing entity. Not a fire-sale, securitization, or transfer-to-asserter.

No other recorded conveyances (no Security Agreement, Merger, Change of Name, License, Release, or Correction) appear for this patent number. I could not confirm the reel/frame or the recording correspondent; the Assignment Center must be queried directly to fill those two fields.

Note on a lookalike document (not this patent): Rearden court filings reference a 2019 "nunc pro tunc assignment" created to evidence transfer of the MOVA Contour software copyright (Rearden's litigation against Disney). That is a copyright instrument concerning a different asset — it is not an assignment of US 8,542,763 and is excluded from the chain above.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8542763
    2004 : Earliest priority date claimed
    2010 : CIP application filed
    2013 : Inventors assign rights to Rearden LLC
         : Patent issued to Rearden LLC
    2025 : Patent lapsed for unpaid maintenance fees

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The only recorded conveyance moves title into the original filing entity (inventors → Rearden, LLC), not from an operating company into a licensing-only LLC. No "IP/Patents/Holdings/Ventures" successor appears.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. No assignee in the chain matches the named NPE lists (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). Rearden LLC is the original-owner/holding company of its founder-inventor; third-party tracking (Stanford NPE Litigation Database) classifies Rearden's Disney action as a "Product company" plaintiff, not an NPE.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. Not assessable: the correspondent of record could not be retrieved. A single link would not be a finding under your recurrence standard regardless.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. A single assignment; no chained LLC-to-LLC transfers within 24 months, no shared correspondent address or common principals across successors.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No assignment dated within 6 months before any suit naming US 8,542,763. Rearden's actually-filed patent suits (e.g., Rearden LLC v. Walt Disney Co., N.D. Cal. 3:17-cv-04006 and the Crystal Dynamics action) asserted MOVA facial-capture patents — U.S. 8,659,668; 7,605,861; 7,548,272; 7,567,293; 8,207,963 — not this DIDO patent.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 proceeding for Rearden LLC was surfaced; no sale of this patent in a bankruptcy estate.
7. Privateering — not present. Rearden asserts in its own name (the parent), not through a separate NPE arm asserting on its behalf, and the patents it asserted were MOVA-family, not US 8,542,763.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN; the patent simply remained with Rearden until it lapsed.

Verdict

Insufficient data — the record contains only the original assignment.

Justification: the authoritative legal-events record for US 8,542,763 shows a single assignment — inventors Forenza, Lindskog and Perlman to REARDEN, LLC, recorded 2013-01-31 — with the current assignee still Rearden, LLC. Under your rubric, a chain consisting of only the original assignment drives the "Insufficient data" verdict, and no reel/frame or correspondent was retrievable to build out the record further. On the evidence available, zero of the eight NPE signals are present: there is no shell-LLC transfer, no known-asserter assignee, no cascading conveyance, no pre-suit transfer, and no defensive-aggregator termination — the patent simply remained with its founder-owned holding company until it lapsed at the 2025-03-08 maintenance-fee date. Verify the reel/frame and correspondent at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search Patent Number 8542763) before treating any field above as final.

I'll research US 8542763 and its cited prior art. Let me start with several searches.

Let me look at the specific citation tables for the patent.

US 8,542,763 B2 — Prior-Art Citation Analysis

1. Scope and a necessary caveat about my search

I ran targeted searches for the citation record of US 8,542,763 B2 ("Systems and methods to coordinate transmissions in distributed wireless systems via user clustering"). I was able to confirm the patent's identity, dates, assignee, and the reference material it cites in its own text.

What I could not retrieve: the authoritative examiner-facing citation table — i.e., the "References Cited" block on the front page of the printed patent (U.S. Patent Documents + Foreign Patent Documents + Other Publications) and the equivalent "Citations" tab on Google Patents / the Justia "Patent Citations" table. My searches returned the specification text of the '763 patent, but the fetched pages did not include that table, and several search hits returned citation tables belonging to other documents (e.g., the PCT search report for PCT/US2013/039770 / publication WO2013169674A1; the EPO search reports for EP15154383 and EP14382583; and the Justia citation list for US 10,320,455, a later family member). Under my operating rules I will not attribute those lists to the '763 patent, and I will not fabricate a "References Cited" table.

Below I therefore give (a) the citations I can verify from the patent's own face and text, with full bibliographic detail, and (b) a clearly-labelled note on the third-party art that is commonly cited against this family but that I could not confirm as a citation of the '763 patent itself.

---

2. The patent being analyzed (the anticipation target)

Discrepancy flag: one search snippet displayed the status as "Active, expires"; the authoritative Google Patents text fetched for this analysis states Expired – Fee Related. Per my rules I treat the full authoritative text as controlling and note the conflicting snippet rather than reconciling it silently.

Claim substance (from the abstract and claim-language index): independent claim 1 is a method comprising (i) measuring link quality between a target user and a plurality of DIDO distributed antennas of BTSs; (ii) using the link-quality measurements to define a user cluster; (iii) measuring CSI between each user and each DIDO antenna within the defined cluster; and (iv) precoding data transmissions between each DIDO antenna and each user within the cluster based on the measured CSI. Dependent-claim vocabulary reflected in the record includes interfering users, matrix, vector, training signals, quality metrics, and decomposition (SVD / null-subspace). Any §102 analysis must be run against these elements: link-quality-driven antenna subset selection ("user cluster") + CSI within the cluster + null-creating precoding.

---

3. Patent citations appearing on the face of US 8,542,763 (verified from the patent text)

These are the related U.S. applications/patents that the '763 patent identifies in its "Related Applications" / "CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS" section. They are literally cited by the patent, so they belong in any citation survey.

Analysis conclusion for this group. Every item in the table is either (a) a priority/continuation document to which the '763 patent itself claims benefit, or (b) a commonly owned application by the same inventive entity. None qualifies as prior art under §102(a)(1) (not publicly available before the effective filing date in a way that discloses the claim) and none is a proper §102(a)(2) reference (same inventors/assignee, and the §102(b)(2)(A)/(C) exceptions apply). No claim of US 8,542,763 is anticipated by any of these citations. Their real function in the record is to claim priority and to incorporate disclosure by reference.

---

4. Non-patent literature cited in the specification of US 8,542,763

These are the third-party references the applicant itself lists in the Background/References:

Analysis conclusion for this group. None of these references discloses the four-step claim combination (link-quality measurement → user-cluster definition → in-cluster CSI → cluster-bounded precoding that creates RF energy at the target and nulls at other users reachable by the cluster's antennas). Several are after the 2004-04-02 priority date outright. They are best characterized as §103 background art, not §102 anticipatory art, for any claim of the '763 patent.

---

5. Art I could NOT confirm as a citation of US 8,542,763 (do not treat as its citation list)

For completeness and to prevent misattribution, the following appeared in my searches but belong to other documents' citation lists:

• WO 2013/169674 A1 / PCT/US2013/039770 search report cites (among others) US 2011/0218543 A1, WO 2012/006172 A1, US 2010/0023018 A1, US 2011/0218546 A1, US 7,623,902 B2 — these are citations within a Rearden PCT search report, and the document quotes "DISCLOSURE FROM RELATED APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 12/917,257" (the '763 application). They are not the '763 patent's own References Cited block.
• JP 5,499,032 B2 cites "A Dynamic Clustering Approach in Wireless Networks with Multi-Cell Cooperative Processing" (ICC '08, May 2008), "Network coordination for spectrally efficient communications in cellular systems" (IEEE Wireless Comm., Aug 2006), 3GPP R1-082886 "Coordinated multi-cell transmission for LTE-Advanced downlink" (Aug 2008), and "Inter-Cell Interference Mitigation Through Limited Coordination." These are conceptually very close to "user clustering," but they are (i) cited against a different patent and (ii) all post-date the '763 patent's 2004-04-02 priority date — so they could not be §102 art against '763 claims entitled to that priority.
• US 10,320,455 (later Rearden family member with the same title) carries an extensive NPL citation list (Foschini "The Value of Coherent Base Station Coordination" CISS 2005; Foschini et al., "Coordinating multiple antenna cellular networks…" Proc. IEEE 2006; Heath & Love; Hochwald vector-perturbation, etc.). That list belongs to the '455 patent's prosecution, not to the '763 patent, though it is a reasonable proxy given the shared specification.

I list these only to flag them; attributing them to the '763 patent's citation table would be fabrication.

---

6. Preliminary §102(102) bottom line

• No verified citation of US 8,542,763 anticipates any of its claims.
  • The patent's own "patent citations" are its priority/related Rearden applications, all same-inventor/same-assignee, disqualified as §102(a)(2) art by the §102(b)(2)(A)–(C) exceptions (and they are priority documents, not prior art).
  • The NPL cited in the specification is broadcast-channel/MIMO theory, MU-MIMO, dirty-paper, LTE standardization, and numerical-linear-algebra material. It does not disclose the claimed link-quality-driven user-cluster selection combined with in-cluster CSI precoding that nulls other reachable users. It cannot support §102; it is §103 material at most.
• Critical date matters: With a listed priority date of 2004-04-02, the effective filing date for these claims — if the priority chain (through US 10/817,731) supports them — is 2004-04-02. Anything published after that date (Yu & Cioffi Sep 2004; Sharif & Hassibi Feb 2005; the 3GPP specs; the 2006–2008 CoMP/"dynamic clustering" literature) is outside the prior-art window unless the priority is successfully challenged.

---

7. What I recommend to complete the task rigorously

To produce the exact, citation-by-citation §102 table you asked for — "for each reference, full citation, publication/filing date, brief description, and which claim(s) it potentially anticipates" — I need the actual "References Cited" table of US 8,542,763, which my searches did not surface. It is obtainable from any of:

1. USPTO PatentCenter / Patent Application Information Retrieval for application 12/917,257 — the "References Cited" / "IDS" and "Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)" documents.
2. Google Patents → US8542763B2 → "Citations" tab (patent citations) and "Cited By" tab (forward citations).
3. Justia / FreePatentsOnline "Patent Citations" table for patent 8,542,763 specifically (not for the 10,320,455 family member).
4. The file wrapper for the 12/917,257 application, which will also show any examiner-cited art and any §102 rejections actually made (none of which, on the family history, matured into a validity problem because the '763 patent granted with these claims).

If you can paste the "References Cited" block from any of those sources, I will immediately produce the per-reference §102(a)/§102(b)/§102(e) mapping against claims 1–N of the '763 patent, using the claim vocabulary identified above (link-quality metrics/thresholds, user-cluster definition, CSI report, training/beacon signals, effective-channel matrix, null-subspace/SVD precoding, interfering users).

Confidence statement: I am confident in the patent's identity, dates, assignee, claim substance, and in the characterization of the related-application and NPL citations above. I am not confident about — and have deliberately not stated — the exact contents of the front-page "References Cited" table, because I could not retrieve it. I have not guessed at those references.

I'll ground the candidate references before building the §103 combinations.

Confirmed a citation anomaly worth flagging. Let me verify the remaining candidate references.

Now let me verify the dynamic-clustering CoMP reference and look for pre-2004 distributed-antenna art.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 8,542,763 B2

35 U.S.C. § 103 | Grounded on the Prior-Art section above

---

0. Bottom line up front

No verified reference in the Prior-Art section anticipates any claim of '763. The Prior-Art section closed with exactly that finding (§§ 3–6). That means § 103 is the only invalidity theory left standing on the present record, and it is a theory that must be built, not found.

My conclusion, stated with its dependency up front:

This is the single most important sentence in this analysis: '763 is a continuation-in-part. The "user clustering" limitations are the CIP-added subject matter. If those limitations are not supported under pre-AIA § 112 ¶ 1 in the 2004 root application (10/817,731, "NVIS/space-time coding"), the claims get the 2010-11-01 filing date and the § 103 case is made. Under PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008), once a challenger shows a limitation lacks support in the parent, the patent owner bears the burden of production to prove entitlement to the earlier date. That allocation is the fulcrum of any obviousness challenge here.

Two contradictions with the Prior-Art section I must flag rather than paper over (per the operating instruction to flag contradictions explicitly):

1. Pre-AIA vs. AIA framing. The Prior-Art section analyzed citations under § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) — AIA vocabulary. But US 12/917,257 was filed 2010-11-01, i.e., before 2013-03-16, so pre-AIA § 102 and § 103 govern '763 itself. The practical result is largely the same (the 2006–2008 MCP papers become § 102(b) art, not § 102(a)(1) art), but the statutory labels matter for a petition. The same applies to the framing of the related 12/802,9xx filings as "§ 102(a)(2) art" — pre-AIA, they are § 102(e) art, and § 103(c) common ownership removes them from § 103 entirely.
2. A citation-number/title inversion. The Prior-Art section lists 3GPP R1-082886 as "Coordinated multi-cell transmission for LTE-Advanced downlink." My searches show the reverse: R1-082886 = Samsung, "Inter-Cell Interference Mitigation Through Limited Coordination" (TSG RAN WG1 #54, Jeju, Aug. 18–22, 2008), while "Coordinated multi-cell transmission for LTE-Advanced downlink" is ETRI R1-082896 (same meeting). Do not propagate the Prior-Art section's title for R1-082886 into a pleading. (Confidence: high — multiple independent citation lists, including the front matter of US 9,521,554 and US 8,396,006, give the Samsung title for '886.)

---

1. Legal framework applied

• Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966): scope and content of the prior art; differences between prior art and claims; PHOSITA level; secondary considerations.
• KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007): motivation need not be found in the references themselves; it may come from "design incentives and other market forces," "common sense," the nature of the problem, or the "interrelated teachings of multiple patents." A PHOSITA "is also a person of ordinary creativity." Where there are "a finite number of identified, predictable solutions," pursuing them is obvious absent unexpected results.
• In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981): the test is what the combined teachings suggest; a reference need not contain the very limitation the examiner salts into it.
• In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986): teaching away requires a reference to criticize, discredit, or discourage the claimed approach. Criticizing a different approach is not teaching away from the claim.
• In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (adopted by KSR): some articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning.
• PowerOasis, 522 F.3d 1299: priority burden shifts to the patent owner upon a challenger's showing of no support in the parent — plus In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292 (Fed. Cir. 1995), on CIP priority and § 112 ¶ 1.

---

2. Person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA)

For either critical date, the PHOSITA is:

• An M.S. (or B.S. + 3–5 years) in electrical engineering or equivalent, with 2–5 years of hands-on experience in multiuser/multi-antenna wireless physical-layer design; working knowledge of OFDM, channel estimation by pilots/training, CSI feedback, linear precoding (zero-forcing, block diagonalization) and information-theoretic precoding (dirty-paper coding); and working familiarity with cellular architecture including base-station backhaul.
• Critically for Scenario B (2010 date): by 2008–2010 the PHOSITA is presumed to track the CoMP/MCP literature as it appears — this was the single hottest physical-layer topic in the 3GPP LTE-Advanced work item, and the MCP papers were appearing at ICC, GLOBECOM, PIMRC, and in the RAN1 document stream. A PHOSITA in 2010 is not permitted the fiction that this literature was obscure.
• For Scenario A (2004 date): the PHOSITA has the same core multiuser-MIMO skill set but is not presumed to know 2006–2009 network-MIMO work. Distributed antenna systems, transmit-side null-steering, and BD precoding were all known.

---

3. Claim-element decomposition (the map the combinations must hit)

Using the claim vocabulary reconstructed in the Prior-Art section (claims 1–18; caveat: the retrieved claim set was truncated mid-claim-18, so treat the count as uncertain and verify claims beyond 18):

---

4. Reference inventory — with provenance discipline

Verified bibliographically (independent confirmation this session, or confirmed verbatim in the supplied record):

Provenance flags — read before citing any of these in a petition:

• The [P1]–[M1], [S1], [Z1] MCP cluster was NOT retrieved from the '763 patent's own References Cited table. The Prior-Art section was explicit that it could not retrieve that table. These references surfaced in the citation lists of other documents (JP 5,499,032 B2 and the later Rearden-family member US 10,320,455 / US 11,146,313). That does not disqualify them as § 103 art — printed publications are § 102(b)/§ 103 art regardless of whether the examiner found them — but it does mean you must pull and verify each one's publication date and content before relying on it.
• Everything in § 3 of the Prior-Art section (the 12/802,9xx related applications) is disqualified as § 103 art. They are priority documents to a common owner. Pre-AIA § 103(c) removes them from § 103 even where they would otherwise be § 102(e) art. Do not build a combination on them.
• The specification's own statements are usable as applicant-admitted prior art (AAPA). '763 says: "Alternative techniques for multiuser systems, such as BD precoding, compute the precoding weights to maximize throughput in the downlink broadcast channel"; that transmit-side beamforming weights "are calculated to pre-cancel inter-user interference and maximize the SINR to every user"; and that SVD of H yields a weight vector in the null subspace creating "K points of zero RF energy" with "up to (M−1) points." Those admissions supply claims 5–10 and 16–17's building blocks without any reference at all. This is the cheapest part of the § 103 case.

---

5. COMBINATION 1 (primary — Scenario B, filed 2010-11-01)

[P1] Papadogiannis/Gesbert/Hardouin, ICC 2008 + [F1] Karakayali/Foschini/Valenzuela, IEEE WCM Aug. 2006 (+ optionally [F2], [S1], [Z1]) + [P2] Papadogiannis et al., PIMRC 2008 + the AAPA of the '763 specification itself.

5.1 What each reference contributes

[P1] (ICC 2008) — retrieved text confirms it teaches: (i) forming clusters of cooperating base stations for multi-cell cooperative processing; (ii) that cluster formation is a selectable design variable, with the paper comparing static clustering against a novel dynamic greedy algorithm for cluster formation; (iii) that "MSs are associated with the BSs that they receive the strongest SNR from"; (iv) that clusters are sized so that "each cluster has 4 antennas, [and] it can serve up to 4 MSs simultaneously in a spatially orthogonal way"; (v) that a central control unit (C-CU) "gathers all the local CSIR of the network and designs the beamforming matrix"; and (vi) the express rationale that "only a limited number of base stations (BSs) can cooperate in order for the overhead to be affordable" and that "for a specific MS it is more effective to force the BSs with the most favourable channel conditions exchange CSI and cooperate irrespective of their geographical location."

That is, in substance: measure link quality → select a per-user subset of transmitters → route CSI for that subset → jointly beamform over it. That is claim 1.

[F1] (2006) — supplies the precoding mechanics and the backhaul requirement, as confirmed by the retrieved abstract/derivative text: coherent multi-base transmission with a zero-forcing pre-filter of the form A = H^H(H H^H)^{-1} (which is exactly a null-creating precoder: y → d + n, i.e., interference forced to zero at every non-intended user); the express statement that "each base station requires data to be transmitted to all mobiles," that "base station i requires knowledge of the channel between base station k and mobile j," and that "base stations are synchronized, channel information is instantaneously available at transmitter." [F2] adds that the scheme was evaluated for (4 transmit antennas per base, 4 receive antennas per user) configurations and for both zero-forcing and dirty-paper-coding variants.

[P2] (PIMRC 2008) — supplies claims 4 and 15 almost verbatim in spirit: users feed back only the channel coefficients whose average SNR exceeds an absolute threshold, where "the multi-cell setting impacts the channel statistics as channels to different BSs undergo different pathloss and large-scale fading," and the technique is expressly intended to cut both feedback and inter-base backhaul overhead.

[AAPA] ('763 spec) — supplies BD precoding, transmit-side pre-cancellation, SVD null-subspace weight computation, and "M antennas → up to M−1 points of zero RF energy" as known.

5.2 Element-by-element mapping to claim 1

Every element is present in [P1] alone as a matter of substance, with [F1] supplying the precoder mathematics and [F2]'s (4,4) configuration supplying the multi-antenna-per-node case. [P1] even directly teaches the "add antennas until K ≤ M" scalability trick the '763 specification relies on ("it can serve up to 4 MSs simultaneously in a spatially orthogonal way" from a 4-antenna cluster, i.e., the K ≤ M constraint the '763 patent's specification discusses in connection with FIGS. 39–41).

5.3 Why the PHOSITA would have combined them — the motivation

Six independent, mutually reinforcing rationales, each of which alone would satisfy KSR's "articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning":

1. The problem is the same problem, framed identically. [F1]'s opening premise — "Intercell interference limits the capacity of wireless networks" — is the exact problem '763 sets out to solve. When references address the same technical problem, combination is obvious. KSR; In re Keller.
2. The overhead tradeoff forces the subset selection. [P1] reasons expressly that MCP "inevitably requires increased signaling overhead and inter-base communication," so "only a limited number of base stations (BSs) can cooperate in order for the overhead to be affordable." That is a direct, articulated incentive to do precisely what claim 1(b) requires: define a per-user subset rather than coordinating everything. This is the strongest single motivation available, because it comes out of the reference itself, not from hindsight. [M1] (backhaul-constrained cooperative transmission) reinforces it.
3. Static clustering is suboptimal, for a stated physical reason. [P1] explains that forcing geographically fixed clusters to cooperate "does not fully exploit the macro-diversity provided by the distributed nature of MCP," and that edge-of-cluster users "will always have a degraded performance." That is an express teaching that the cluster should be chosen by measured channel quality, not geography — i.e., claim 1(a)→(b), and the enablement for the '763 patent's "reconfigurability... the user-cluster follows its moves" disclosure.
4. Feedback/backhaul minimization is a universally recognized design objective. [P2] supplies the thresholding mechanism and its benefit. Adding a threshold rule to a subset-selection scheme is a predictable, finite-design-variable optimization — KSR "obvious to try" — with the tradeoff (SNR threshold ↑ → feedback ↓ → rate ↓) fully characterized in [P2].
5. The precoder is a known tool applied to a known matrix. Once the subset is chosen and its CSI gathered, the effective channel is an ordinary MIMO broadcast matrix; ZF/ZF-BD/SVD-null-space are the standard, already-admitted tools for it. KSR: "if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious."
6. Design incentive from standards pressure. By 2008–2010, CoMP was a formal LTE-Advanced study item; the RAN1 document stream ([R1], [R2]) created a strong, documented industry pull toward exactly the cluster-selection + coordinated-precoding architecture. KSR "design incentives and other market forces."

Reasonable expectation of success: high and documented. [F2] reported measured "enormous spectral efficiency improvement"; [P1] reported that a 2-cell dynamic cluster outperformed static coordination with much larger cluster sizes; [S1] reported distributed multi-cell ZF beamforming results. The underlying linear algebra is deterministic, and the performance is characterized across the very (1,1)/(2,2)/(4,4) configurations that bracket the '763 embodiment. There is no missing-enablement gap.

5.4 The one gap to close — and it is narrow

The only genuine daylight between [P1] and claim 1(b) is a naming and framing difference: [P1] clusters base stations; claim 1 clusters distributed antennas of BTSs "for a target user." The patent owner will argue "user cluster" is a distinct, user-centric concept. Three answers:

1. Structurally identical. A BS cluster and "the union of the antennas of the BTSs in that cluster" are the same physical set. In [P1]'s own worked example, "4 BSs with 2 antennas each... cluster size is 2, which implies that each cluster consists of 2 BSs... each cluster has 4 antennas." The cluster is defined in terms of its antennas in the reference.
2. User-centricity is express. [P1] ties cluster membership to the individual MS's SNR: "for a specific MS it is more effective to force the BSs with the most favourable channel conditions to cooperate." [P2] is even more explicitly per-user ("whether they should engage in MCP"). The reference's own rebuttal to static clustering is that macro-diversity should be exploited per-user — which is claim 1(b).
3. No different result. The claim does not require the cluster to be unique to one user for all time, nor to exclude antennas shared with another user's cluster. '763's own FIG. 37 shows overlapping user-clusters for U1 and U8. A shared-antenna, per-user-selected set reads on [P1].

Verdict on Combination 1: an articulated prima facie § 103 case against claim 1 and claims 2–17, contingent on the 2010-11-01 effective filing date.

---

6. COMBINATION 2 (standards-based alternative — Scenario B)

[R1] Samsung R1-082886 + [R2] R1-090140 / R1-090657 ("Clustering for CoMP transmission" / "Dynamic cell clustering for CoMP") + [C1] Caire & Shamai 2003 + [W1] Wong/Murch/Letaief 2003

What it contributes. R1-082886 (retrieved summary) describes coordinated beamforming across cells in which: the beams of neighboring cells collide; a master scheduler coordinates three interfering sectors; a preferred beam index (PMI) of the serving sector and CQI are exchanged; "partial CSI is needed to exchange between the cells"; and the scheduler "calculates sum capacity with the selected UE from each cell" — i.e., link-quality/CSI exchange driving coordinated transmission selection. [R2] supplies the explicit "clustering for CoMP" and "dynamic cell clustering" concepts by name and number. [C1] supplies the information-theoretic grounding for transmit-side multiuser precoding; [W1] supplies block diagonalization (joint channel diagonalization) as the concrete linear precoder.

Motivation: standards-track, backward-compatible evolution of the same system (this is a "same field, same problem, obvious improvement" combination); the PMI/CQI exchange is an express teaching of feeding back link-quality-driven information between coordinating points; [W1] is the natural precoder choice to realize [C1]'s broadcast-channel gains in a multiuser cellular setting. Reasonable expectation of success: the technique was adopted into the LTE-Advanced work item precisely because it worked.

Caveat: [R1] is a limited-coordination scheme (CSI exchange, PMI coordination) rather than full joint processing, so it is a better fit for claim 14–15 (feedback restricted to non-zero / partial entries) and claim 2–4 than for the joint-transmission aspect of claim 1(d). Use it as the secondary reference in a combination, not the primary.

---

7. COMBINATION 3 (defensive — Scenario A: priority holds to 2004-04-02)

If the patent owner carries its PowerOasis burden, only pre-2004-04-02 art is available. The best available combination from the Prior-Art section's list:

[SZ1] Shamai & Zaidel 2001 (co-processing at the transmitting end across cells) + [W1] Wong/Murch/Letaief 2003 (joint-channel diagonalization / BD for multiuser MIMO) + [C1] Caire & Shamai 2003 (multiantenna Gaussian broadcast channel, zero-forcing asymptotics) + [B1] Bengtsson 2002 ("a pragmatic approach to multi-user spatial multiplexing") + the recognized knowledge of distributed antenna systems

Honest assessment: this is a weaker, and presently incomplete, case. [SZ1] supplies multi-cell co-processing with the computational burden placed at the transmitter; [W1]/[C1] supply multiuser null-creating precoding; the '763 Background itself admits WiFi/cellular/MANET/beamforming as the prior art landscape. But the decisive element — link-quality-driven selection of a per-user antenna subset across distributed transmitters — is not squarely disclosed by any pre-2004 reference identified in the Prior-Art section. Sustaining Scenario A requires:

• a pre-2004 distributed-antenna-system reference showing geographically separated antennas coordinated to serve users (the DAS literature predates 2000, but I have not verified a specific citation and will not fabricate one);
• a pre-2004 macro-diversity / soft-handoff reference showing selection of the serving transmitter set based on measured link quality (CDMA soft handoff and "best-server" selection doctrines are the obvious candidates, but again: pull and verify); and
• ideally, a declaration from a PHOSITA establishing the 2004 knowledge base, since Scenario A leans on "general knowledge" more heavily than Scenario B does.

Practical conclusion: Scenario A is defensible but costs more and is more vulnerable to a "hindsight" attack. The correct strategic move is to lead with the priority challenge and hold Combination 3 in reserve.

---

8. Claim-by-claim § 103 conclusion

Across the set: the only claims that require real argument are the independent claim 1 and independent claim 18 (and claims 10 and 13 as secondary). Every other claim rides on a reference or an admission that maps to it with little or no interpretive strain.

---

9. Anticipated patent-owner rebuttals and how they fare

---

10. Verification gaps — what would move confidence from "high" to "definitive"

1. Pull [P1], [P2], [F1], [F2], [S1], [Z1], [M1] in full and confirm publication dates and the passages cited above. They currently come from third-party citation lists, not from the '763 file wrapper or from the papers themselves. Everything in § 5.2–5.3 is contingent on that verification. (This is the single highest-value next step.)
2. Obtain the '763 "References Cited" table from PatentCenter for App. 12/917,257 (PTO-892 / IDS) — the Prior-Art section could not retrieve it. If the examiner did cite MCP art and the applicant traversed it, the prosecution history is itself an admission about the state of the art and about what distinguishes the claims.
3. Obtain the full claim set (the retrieved text truncated mid-claim-18). Confirm the number of independents and the exact wording of claim 1(b) — whether it says "define a user cluster for the target user" or something narrower materially affects the § 5.4 argument.
4. Map the priority chain limitation-by-limitation against 10/817,731 (and against 11/256,478 / 7,711,030, which the CIP also claims). This is the gating issue.
5. Verify [R2]'s R1-100172 date relative to 2010-11-01; drop it if it post-dates the filing.
6. Confirm [SZ1] (Shamai & Zaidel, VTC 2001) — I have it only as a citation within [F2]'s reference list, not from the primary source. If it says what its title says (co-processing at the transmitting end to enhance cellular downlink capacity), it is the strongest pre-2004 reference in the set and is worth retrieving for the Scenario-A fallback.
7. Do not rely on Gesbert et al., "Multi-cell MIMO cooperative networks: a new look at interference," IEEE JSAC 28(9) — that issue is December 2010, after the 2010-11-01 filing date. One citation list I retrieved dated it "January 2010"; the volume/issue numbering (28(9)) indicates December. Verify before use; on the current record it is not prior art.

---

11. Summary judgment for the analyst

The '763 patent is a CIP whose novelty lives entirely in the CIP-added "user cluster" concept, and the 2006–2009 multicell cooperative processing literature independently arrived at the same architecture — link-quality-measured, dynamically selected, per-user subsets of geographically distributed transmitters, with coordinated null-creating precoding over the subset's effective channel and CSI routed over backhaul — for the same stated reason ('763's own words: "spatial diversity is a function of antenna spacing," so cluster the distributed antennas rather than co-located ones; [P1]'s words: "only a limited number of BSs can cooperate in order for the overhead to be affordable" and static clusters "do not fully exploit the macro-diversity provided by the distributed nature"). Combine [P1] + [F1] + [P2] with the patent's own admitted prior art, and claim 1 and claims 2–17 fall to § 103 — provided the 2004-04-02 priority claim does not survive scrutiny.

So the entire case reduces to one question, and it is a § 112 question, not a § 103 question: does the 2004 root application support "using the link quality measurements to define a user cluster"? Prove that it does not, and the obviousness case is straightforward. Assume that it does, and you are litigating on a narrowed field of pre-April-2004 art where the Prior-Art section has not yet found the necessary reference.