Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 66
`Entered: March 6, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`BROADCOM CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WI-FI ONE, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00601
`Patent 6,772,215 B1
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00601
`Patent 6,772,215 B1
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Broadcom Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter
`
`partes review of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 15, 22, 25, 26, 29, 32, 34, 45, 46, 49,
`
`52, and 54 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,772,215 B1
`
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’215 patent”). Paper 3 (“Pet.”). Telefonaktiebolaget L. M.
`
`Ericsson1 (“Patent Owner”) filed an election to waive its Preliminary
`
`Response. Paper 22. On March 10, 2014, we instituted an inter partes
`
`review of all challenged claims on certain grounds of unpatentability alleged
`
`in the Petition. Paper 29 (“Dec. to Inst.”).
`
`After institution of trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response
`
`(Paper 40, “PO Resp.”) to which Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 49, “Pet.
`
`Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude (Paper 53), which
`
`Petitioner opposed (Paper 58). Patent Owner filed a Reply to Petitioner’s
`
`Opposition to its Motion to Exclude. Paper 59. Oral hearing was held on
`
`December 8, 2014.2
`
`The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
`
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`
`Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims
`
`1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 15, 22, 25, 26, 29, 32, 34, 45, 46, 49, 52, and 54 of the ’215
`
`patent are unpatentable. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is denied.
`
`
`
`1 On July 11, 2014, Patent Owner filed an Updated Mandatory Notice
`indicating that the ’215 patent had been assigned to Wi-Fi One, LLC, and
`that Wi-Fi One, LLC and PanOptis Patent Management, LLC were now the
`real parties-in-interest. Paper 43.
`2 A transcript of the oral hearing is included in the record as Paper 65.
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00601
`Patent 6,772,215 B1
`
`
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner indicate that the ’215 patent is involved
`
`in a case captioned Ericsson Inc. v. D-LINK Corp., Civil Action No. 6:10-
`
`cv-473 (E.D. Tex.) (“D-Link Lawsuit”), and in an investigation at the U.S.
`
`International Trade Commission captioned In the Matter of Certain
`
`Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Tablet
`
`Computers, Media Players and Televisions, and Components Thereof, ITC
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-862. Pet. 1–2; Paper 6, 1. Patent Owner also identifies an
`
`appeal at the Federal Circuit captioned Ericsson Inc. v. D-LINK Corp., Case
`
`Nos. 2013-1625, -1631, -1632, and -1633. Paper 6, 1. Petitioner also filed
`
`two petitions for inter partes review of related patents: IPR2013-00602
`
`(U.S. Patent No. 6,466,568) and IPR2013-00636 (U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,424,625).
`
`B. The ’215 Patent
`
`The ’215 patent relates to the telecommunications field and, in
`
`particular, to a method for minimizing feedback responses in Automatic
`
`Repeat Request (ARQ) protocols. Ex. 1001, 1:14–17. When data is
`
`conveyed between nodes in a network, certain algorithms are used to recover
`
`from the transmission of erroneous data and the loss of data between the
`
`nodes. Id. at 1:20–23. An algorithm commonly used is referred to as an
`
`ARQ protocol. Id. at 1:23–25. Each node, or peer entity, in a network
`
`includes a receiver and a sender. Id. at 1:26–29. The units of data conveyed
`
`between peer entities commonly are referred to as Protocol Data Units
`
`(“PDUs”). Id. at 1:29–30. The basic function of an ARQ protocol is to
`
`allow the receiver to request that the sender retransmit PDUs that were lost
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00601
`Patent 6,772,215 B1
`
`
`
`during transmission or contained errors. Id. at 1:33–37. The receiver can
`
`inform the sender about which PDUs were received correctly and/or can
`
`inform the sender about which PDUs were not received correctly. Id. at
`
`1:38–41. When the sender receives this information, it retransmits the “lost”
`
`PDUs. Id. at 1:41–42. Several ARQ protocols, such as Stop-and-Wait
`
`ARQ, Go-back-N ARQ, and Selective-Repeat ARQ, existed at the time that
`
`the ’215 patent was filed and were well known. Id. at 2:17–21.
`
`Figure 1 of the ’215 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates the use of ARQ protocols. Id. at 2:22–23. A sequence of
`
`transmitted Data-PDUs (“D-PDUs”) and Status-PDUs (“S-PDUs”) is shown.
`
`Id. at 2:28–29. A D-PDU includes user data, a sequence number (“SN”),
`
`and possibly piggybacked error control information. Id. at 2:29–31. The
`
`sequence number (“SN”) is associated with each D-PDU to identify that
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00601
`Patent 6,772,215 B1
`
`
`
`specific D-PDU. Id. at 2:32–34. An S-PDU includes status information but
`
`no user information. Id. at 2:31–32.
`
`According to the ’626 patent, two main methods were used in the
`
`prior art for coding the SNs within S-PDUs: (1) a list of SNs to be
`
`retransmitted; and (2) a bitmap to represent the SNs to be retransmitted. Id.
`
`at 2:48–52. As such, known S-PDUs included a format identifier that could
`
`be used by a receiver to distinguish between the different PDU formats.
`
`Figures 2 and 3 of the ’215 patent are reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 2 shows an S-PDU that uses the list method to code SNs. Id. at 2:60–
`
`62. Figure 3 shows an S-PDU that uses the bitmap method to code SNs. Id.
`
`at 3:18–19. According to the ’215 patent, a significant problem with
`
`existing ARQ protocols is that fixed length messages are used, which leads
`
`to a waste of bandwidth because unnecessary overhead information is
`
`transmitted. Id. at 3:46–50; see also id. at Table 1, 4:1–13. According to the
`
`’215 patent, a significant need existed for a method that can be used to
`
`minimize the size of S-PDUs in an ARQ protocol or, if it is not possible to
`
`fit all SNs into a single S-PDU, to maximize the number of SNs in an S-
`
`PDU with limited size. Id. at 4:33–38.
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00601
`Patent 6,772,215 B1
`
`
`
`To address these issues, the ’215 patent discloses a method whereby
`
`different mechanisms for indicating erroneous D-PDUs can be combined in
`
`a single S-PDU. Id. at 4:43–48. Each message includes three fields: type
`
`information, length information, and a value. Id. at 5:60–66. In a first
`
`embodiment of the invention, a bitmap message can be constructed using a
`
`number of methods to represent the length of the bitmap (i.e., the LENGTH
`
`field). Id. at 6:19–48. Likewise, a list message can list only erroneous SNs
`
`or can combine the prior art list method with the list of only erroneous SNs.
`
`Id. at 6:58 –7:51. In accordance with a second embodiment of the invention,
`
`a number of different message types can be combined to create an S-PDU.
`
`Id. at 7:52–54. Figure 8, reproduced below, illustrates how an S-PDU can
`
`be constructed in accordance with this embodiment:
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 8, the resulting S-PDU includes two BITMAP’
`
`messages and one LIST’ message. Id. at 8:43–44. For comparison with the
`
`prior art techniques, Table 3 is reproduced below.
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00601
`Patent 6,772,215 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`Table 3 shows the sizes of S-PDUs constructed in accordance with the prior
`
`art list and bitmap methods, and also with the combination method described
`
`in accordance with the second embodiment. Id. at 9:27–30. As illustrated
`
`by Table 3, the size of S-PDUs resulting from the combination method
`
`described in the ’215 patent is significantly smaller than that of the S-PDUs
`
`resulting from the prior art methods. Id. at 9:32–35.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 15, 25, and 45 are independent.
`
`Claim 1 is reproduced below:
`
`A method for minimizing feedback responses in an ARQ
`1.
`protocol, comprising the steps of:
`
`sending a plurality of
`communication link;
`
`first data units over a
`
`receiving said plurality of first data units; and
`
`responsive to the receiving step, constructing a message
`field for a second data unit, said message field including a type
`identifier field and at least one of a sequence number field, a
`length field, and a content field.
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00601
`Patent 6,772,215 B1
`
`
`
`D. The Instituted Ground of Unpatentability
`
`We instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 15, 22, 25, 26,
`
`29, 32, 34, 45, 46, 49, 52, and 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by
`
`Seo (US 6,581,176, issued June 17, 2003) (Ex. 1002).
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)
`
`Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner is subject to the 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(b) bar as a privy to the D-Link Defendants, and because the D-Link
`
`Defendants are real parties-in-interest to this action, despite Petitioner’s
`
`failure to designate them as such under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2).” PO Resp. 8.
`
`According to Patent Owner, Petitioner is in privity with defendants named in
`
`the D-Link Lawsuit (Ericsson Inc. v. D-Link Corp., 6:10-cv-473) because,
`
`inter alia, “[Petitioner] has an indemnity relationship with Dell and
`
`Toshiba.” Id. at 8–12. Patent Owner also argues that the defendants named
`
`in the D-Link Lawsuit (the “D-Link Defendants”) are real parties-in-interest
`
`to this proceeding because Petitioner has a “substantive legal relationship
`
`with at least Dell and Toshiba,” Petitioner used the same prior art references
`
`as the D-Link Defendants, and the Petition was filed after the D-Link
`
`Defendants abandoned their invalidity case regarding the ’215 patent in the
`
`D-Link Lawsuit. Id. at 12–14.
`
`Petitioner counters that “[Patent] Owner has raised this identical
`
`argument twice, and failed each time,” and that “[t]his third attempt relies on
`
`exactly the same arguments [Patent] Owner made to this Board and the
`
`Federal Circuit and should be rejected for the same reasons.” Pet. Reply 1.
`
`Petitioner continues that, “[Patent] Owner offers no new reason whatsoever
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00601
`Patent 6,772,215 B1
`
`
`
`for this Board to reverse its prior decision that [Patent] Owner’s proferred
`
`‘evidence’ and legal authorities fail to amount to anything more than
`
`‘speculation’ or ‘a mere possibility’ that [Petitioner] is in privity with the D-
`
`Link Defendants or that the D-Link Defendants are real parties-in-interest.”
`
`Id. We find Petitioner’s arguments persuasive.
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence are not different
`
`substantively from the arguments and evidence presented in its Motion for
`
`Additional Discovery (Paper 14). The arguments and evidence are
`
`unpersuasive for same reasons explained in our Decision on Patent Owner’s
`
`Motion for Additional Discovery (Paper 23), which we adopt and
`
`incorporate by reference.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see
`
`also In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, No. 2014-1301, 2015 WL
`
`448667, at *5–*8 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2015) (“Congress implicitly adopted the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard in enacting the AIA,” and “the
`
`standard was properly adopted by PTO regulation”). Under the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An inventor may rebut that presumption
`
`by providing a definition of the term in the specification with reasonable
`
`clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00601
`Patent 6,772,215 B1
`
`
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to
`
`be read from the specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
`
`1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`1. “responsive to the receiving step, constructing a message field for a
`second data unit, said message field including a type identifier field”
`
`Petitioner proposes that this phrase be construed as “responsive to the
`
`receiving step, generating a message field including a field that identifies the
`
`message type of the feedback response message from a number of different
`
`message types.” Pet. 5. Petitioner states that this construction was proposed
`
`by Patent Owner and adopted by the Court in the D-Link Lawsuit. Pet. 8
`
`(citing Ex. 1005, 9). Petitioner does not dispute this construction. Pet. 8.
`
`The proposed construction replaces “constructing” with “generating,” and
`
`replaces “type identifier field” with “a field that identifies the message type
`
`of the feedback response message from a number of different message
`
`types.” Although this construction has been adopted in the D-Link Lawsuit,
`
`we are not persuaded that it is the broadest reasonable interpretation of this
`
`limitation.
`
`For example, the antecedent basis for “the feedback response
`
`message” in the proposed construction is the “feedback responses” of the
`
`preamble. “In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential
`
`structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to
`
`the claim.” Catalina Marketing Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289
`
`F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-
`
`Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). “Conversely, a
`
`preamble is not limiting ‘where a patentee defines a structurally complete
`
`invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00601
`Patent 6,772,215 B1
`
`
`
`intended use for the invention.’” Id. (quoting Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473,
`
`478 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
`
`If we were to adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction, it would
`
`introduce a dependency upon the preamble, thereby causing the preamble to
`
`limit the invention.3 Accordingly, in the Decision to Institute, we explained
`
`that we were not persuaded that Petitioner’s proposed construction would be
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim because no term of the
`
`claim, as drafted, has its antecedent basis in the preamble. Dec. to Inst. 10.
`
`Patent Owner argues that we provided, in the Decision to Institute,
`
`“no case law for [the] proposition that introducing a dependency upon the
`
`preamble would cause the preamble to limit the invention,” and that this
`
`proposition “appears to be focused on antecedent basis issue.” PO Resp. 26.
`
`As we explained in the Decision to Institute, Patent Owner’s proposed
`
`construction uses the phrase “the feedback response,” the antecedent basis
`
`for which is the “feedback response” of the preamble. Dec. to Inst. 10. We
`
`decline to construe claim 1 in a way that the preamble becomes “necessary
`
`to give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claim. Id. Moreover, the plain
`
`language of claim 1 requires the “type identifier field” be included in a
`
`“message field for a second data unit” (emphasis added). It does not require
`
`that that “message field” be for a “feedback response.” By requiring the
`
`recited “type identifier field” to “identif[y] a message type of a feedback
`
`response message,” Patent Owner’s proposed construction implicitly limits
`
`
`
`3 This result would be contrary to Petitioner’s proposed construction of the
`preambles as non-limiting. Pet. 7, 8.
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00601
`Patent 6,772,215 B1
`
`
`
`the recited “second data unit” to a feedback response message. Patent
`
`Owner provides no support for such a construction.
`
`The ’215 patent does not define explicitly the term “type identifier
`
`field,” but does uses it several times to describe a field in an S-PDU that
`
`indicates whether that S-PDU includes a list or a bitmap. Ex. 1001, 6:20,
`
`8:2, 8:16; see also id. at 7:58–61, 8:8–10, 8:55–57 (describing a “type
`
`identifier”). For example, Table 2 depicts a column labeled “Type
`
`Identifier,” that includes NO_MORE, LIST’, BITMAP’, and ACK. Id. at
`
`9:1–9. Accordingly, in the Decision to Institute, we construed “type
`
`identifier field” as “a field of a message that identifies the type of that
`
`message.”
`
`Patent Owner argues that our construction is overly broad because it
`
`“would cover a mere S-PDU as in the prior art . . . [b]ut the specification
`
`distinguishes ‘the present invention’ from the prior art S-PDU.” PO Resp.
`
`26 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:38–40, 4:43–63). Patent Owner does not elaborate.
`
`Petitioner counters that “[Patent] Owner concedes invalidity under the
`
`Board’s construction based on the admitted prior art,” and that “invalidity of
`
`the claims in light of the prior art is not grounds for rejecting this Board’s
`
`well-reasoned claim construction.” Pet. Reply 4.
`
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. Patent Owner’s
`
`proposed construction differs from ours in that it limits the message to “a
`
`feedback message” and states explicitly what is only implicit in our
`
`construction—i.e., “from a number of different message types.” It is not
`
`evident which of those two additional limitations Patent Owner contends
`
`distinguish the prior art S-PDU. Indeed, the ’215 patent describes the prior
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00601
`Patent 6,772,215 B1
`
`
`
`art S-PDU as a “feedback response” (See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:38–45) and
`
`describes how it may have a number of different message types (See, e.g., id.
`
`at 2:63–3:45, Figs. 2, 3). In any event, the ’215 patent distinguishes “the
`
`present invention”—not the “type identifier field”—from the prior art. Even
`
`assuming that the patentee intended to draft the claims, as a whole, to
`
`distinguish a prior art S-PDU, Patent Owner identifies insufficient support in
`
`the claims or Specification for its proposed construction of the term “type
`
`identifier field.”
`
`Finally, in the Decision to Institute, we alternatively construed “type
`
`identifier field” as “any type of data.” Dec. to Inst. 11–12. Patent Owner
`
`argues that “[b]ecause the type identifier field is not instructional or
`
`otherwise written material, the ‘printed matter’ doctrine does not apply.” PO
`
`Resp. 27. According to Patent Owner, “the type identifier field in the
`
`challenged claims is not printed matter, and further, it defines functional
`
`characteristics of the claimed method and system.” Id. at 31. We are
`
`persuaded that the recited “type identifier field” is not non-functional
`
`descriptive material.
`
`Accordingly, we maintain our construction of “type identifier field” as
`
`“a field of a message that identifies the type of that message.”
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00601
`Patent 6,772,215 B1
`
`
`
`2. “means for receiving said plurality of first data units, and
`constructing one to several message fields for a second data unit, said
`one to several message fields including a type identifier field and at
`least one of a sequence number field, a length field, a content field, a
`plurality of erroneous sequence number fields, and a plurality of
`erroneous sequence number length fields, each of said plurality of
`erroneous sequence number fields associated with a respective one of
`said plurality of erroneous sequence number length fields”
`
`Independent claim 45 recites a “means for receiving . . . .” Petitioner
`
`contends that this term is a means-plus-function element invoking 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112, paragraph 64. We agree because (1) the limitation uses the phrase
`
`“means for”; (2) the term “means for” is modified by functional language;
`
`and (3) the term “means for” is not modified by any structure recited in the
`
`claim to perform the claimed function. In the Decision to Institute, we
`
`determined that the function of the “means for receiving . . .” is
`
`receiving said plurality of first data units, and constructing one
`to several message fields for a second data unit, said one to
`several message fields including a type identifier field and at
`least one of a sequence number field, a length field, a content
`field, a plurality of erroneous sequence number fields, and a
`plurality of erroneous sequence number length fields, each of
`said plurality of erroneous sequence number fields associated
`with a respective one of said plurality of erroneous sequence
`number length field.
`
`Dec. to Inst. 12–15. We also construed the structure for performing the
`
`recited function to be the sender and receiver of a peer entity. Id. Neither
`
`party disputes our initial construction of this term, and Patent Owner agrees
`
`
`
`4 Section 4(c) of the AIA re-designated 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, as 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112(f). Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 296–07 (2011). Because the
`’215 patent has a filing date before September 16, 2012 (effective date), we
`will refer to the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 112, in this decision.
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00601
`Patent 6,772,215 B1
`
`
`
`with our determination of the corresponding structure (PO Resp. 31). We
`
`maintain our construction.
`
`3. “for minimizing feedback responses in an ARQ protocol” (Preambles)
`
`The preamble of each independent claim recites “for minimizing
`
`feedback responses in an ARQ protocol.” In the Decision to Institute, we
`
`determined that the preambles do not limit the claims. Dec. to Inst. 15.
`
`Neither party disputes our initial construction of this term, and Patent Owner
`
`agrees with it (PO Resp. 325). We maintain our construction.
`
`4. “means for sending a plurality of first data units over said
`communication link to said second peer entity”
`
`Independent claim 45 recites a “means for sending . . . .” Petitioner
`
`contends that this term is a means-plus-function element invoking 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112, paragraph 6. We agree because (1) the limitation uses the phrase
`
`“means for”; (2) the term “means for” is modified by functional language;
`
`and (3) the term “means for” is not modified by any structure recited in the
`
`claim to perform the claimed function. In the Decision to Institute, we
`
`determined that the function of the “means for sending a plurality of first
`
`data units over said communication link to said second peer entity” is
`
`“sending a plurality of first data units over said communication link to said
`
`second peer entity.” Dec. to Inst. 15–17. We also construed the structure
`
`for performing the recited function to be the sender of a peer entity. Id.
`
`
`
`5 Patent Owner’s Response appears to have swapped headings IV.B.3 and
`IV.B.4 inadvertently, such that this claim term is argued under the heading
`“for minimizing feedback responses in an ARQ protocol,” and that term is
`argued under the heading “means for sending.”
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00601
`Patent 6,772,215 B1
`
`
`
`Neither party disputes our initial construction of this term, and Patent
`
`Owner agrees with our determination of the corresponding structure (PO
`
`Resp. 31–326). We maintain our constructions.
`
`C. The Challenged Claims – Anticipated by Seo
`
`Petitioner argues that claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 15, 22, 25, 26, 29, 32, 34,
`
`45, 46, 49, 52, and 54 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
`
`anticipated by Seo. Pet. 21–45. In support of this ground of unpatentability,
`
`Petitioner provides detailed explanations as to how each claim limitation is
`
`disclosed by Seo, and relies upon the Declaration of Dr. Bims (Ex. 1004).
`
`Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 31–70).
`
`Patent Owner counters that claim 1 is not anticipated by Seo because
`
`(1) Seo’s NAK_TYPE does not “identif[y] the message type of a feedback
`
`response message from a number of different message types,” as the parties’
`
`proposed construction of “type identifier field” requires, because Seo
`
`discloses only a single message type; and (2) Seo’s NAK_TYPE field is not
`
`included in a “message field,” as required by each of the challenged claims.
`
`PO Resp. 37–40. Patent Owner also argues that Seo does not disclose a
`
`length field, as required by independent claim 15. Id. at 40–41.
`
`Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and supporting
`
`evidence, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 15, 22, 25, 26, 29,
`
`32, 34, 45, 46, 49, 52, and 54 are anticipated by Seo.
`
`
`
`6 See n.5 above.
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00601
`Patent 6,772,215 B1
`
`
`
`Seo (Exhibit 1002)
`
`Seo describes a method for transmitting control frames and user data
`
`frames in a mobile radio communications system. Ex. 1002, 1:10–12.
`
`Specifically, Seo discusses a modification of the Radio Link Protocol
`
`(“RLP”) specified in international standard IS-707 for a Code Division
`
`Multiple Access (“CDMA”) mobile radio communication system. Id. at
`
`1:14–19, 5:28–30. According to the RLP retransmission procedure, a
`
`Negative Acknowledgement (“NAK”) RLP control frame for a particular
`
`user data frame can be transmitted more than once at the same time to ensure
`
`reliability and, in response to receiving each NAK, the missing user data
`
`frame will be retransmitted. According to the invention of Seo, rather than
`
`transmitting each NAK corresponding to each missed user data frame, a
`
`single NAK corresponding to all missed user data frames is transmitted to
`
`the sender. Id. at 5:31–36.
`
`Figure 4 of Seo is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00601
`Patent 6,772,215 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 4 shows the structure of a RLP NAK control frame according to the
`
`invention of Seo. Id. at 5:42–43. The NAK control frame of Seo includes a
`
`field NAK_TYPE with a length of 2 bits to indicate a NAK type. Id. at
`
`5:53–54.
`
`If the value of NAK_TYPE is “00,” the receiver is requesting
`
`retransmission of a range of missed user data frames (Id. at 5:54–57), and
`
`the fields FIRST, LAST, FCS, and padding exist (Id. at 6:18–19). FIRST is
`
`the 12-bit sequence number of the first data frame for which retransmission
`
`is requested. Id. at 5:63–65. LAST is the 12-bit sequence number of the last
`
`data frame for which retransmission is requested. Id. at 5:65–67. SEQ, with
`
`a length of 8 bits, is a data frame sequence number. Id. at 5:57–58.
`
`If the value of NAK_TYPE is “01,” the receiver is requesting
`
`retransmission of missed user data frames using a bitmap, and the field
`
`NAK_MAP_COUNT exists. Id. at 6:8–21. If the value of the field
`
`NAK_MAP_COUNT+1 exists, then the fields NAK_MAP_SEQ and
`
`NAK_MAP exist. Id. at 6:21–22. NAK_MAP_SEQ is the 12-bit sequence
`
`number of the first data frame in the NAK Map for which retransmission is
`
`requested. Id. at 6:8–11. NAK_MAP is an 8-bit bitmap identifying the
`
`missing user data frames for which retransmission is requested, wherein the
`
`most significant bit corresponds to the user data frame identified by
`
`NAK_MAP_SEQ+1. Id. at 6:11–15.
`
`Analysis
`
`In light of the arguments and evidence, Petitioner has demonstrated,
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence, that the challenged claims are
`
`unpatentable as anticipated by Seo.
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00601
`Patent 6,772,215 B1
`
`
`
`For example, independent claim 1 recites “sending a plurality of first
`
`data units over a communication link.” Seo discloses a “transmitting
`
`station” that sends user data frames to a “receiving station” over a “radio
`
`section between a receiving station and the transmitting station.” Ex. 1002,
`
`5: 28–41; see also id. at 8:24–27 (“transferring user data frames of a radio
`
`link protocol (RLP) from a transmitting station to a receiving station”), Fig.
`
`6 (“Transmitting Station A”). The user data frames transport user traffic
`
`data. Id. at 1:21–22.
`
`Claim 1 also recites “receiving said plurality of first data units.” Seo
`
`discloses a “receiving station” that receives user data frames from the
`
`“transmitting station.” Id. at 1:21–22, 5:28–41, 8:24–27, Fig. 6 (“Receiving
`
`Station B”).
`
`Finally, claim 1 recites “responsive to the receiving step, constructing
`
`a message field for a second data unit, said message field including a type
`
`identifier field and at least one of a sequence number field, a length field,
`
`and a content field.” Seo discloses an “RLP NAK” message that includes a
`
`field NAK_TYPE that identifies whether the message identifies a range of
`
`sequence numbers or uses a bitmap. If the value of NAK_TYPE is “00,” the
`
`RLP NAK message includes two fields—FIRST and LAST—with “the 12-
`
`bit sequence number of the first data frame for which a retransmission is
`
`required,” and “the 12-bit number of the last data frame for which a
`
`retransmission is required,” respectively. Ex. 1002, 5:54–57, 5:63–67, 6:17–
`
`18. If the value of NAK_TYPE is “01,” the RLP NAK message includes a
`
`field NAK_MAP_SEQ with “the 12-bit sequence number of the first data
`
`frame in this NAK Map for which [] retransmission is requested.” Id. at
`
`19
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00601
`Patent 6,772,215 B1
`
`
`
`6:9–11. On this record, we are persuaded that Seo’s RLP NAK message
`
`includes a type identifier field (NAK_TYPE), and a sequence number field
`
`(FIRST, LAST, or NAK_MAP_SEQ). We are persuaded that Seo discloses
`
`this limitation whether “type identifier field” is construed to mean “a field of
`
`a message that identifies the type of that message,” or, in the alternative, to
`
`mean any type of data.
`
`Claim 2 recites “wherein said message field comprises a bitmap
`
`message.” Claim 6 recites similarly “wherein said content field comprises a
`
`bitmap.” Seo discloses that, if the value of NAK_TYPE is “01,” the RLP
`
`NAK message includes a field NAK_MAP “with a length of 8 bits [that] is a
`
`bit-map identifying the missing user data frames for which a retransmission
`
`is requested.” Id. at 6:11–13. On this record, we are persuaded that Seo
`
`discloses claims 2 and 6.
`
`Claim 4 recites “wherein said sequence number field includes any
`
`sequence number from said plurality of first data units.” Claim 8 recites
`
`similarly “wherein said second data unit comprises information about
`
`missing or erroneous said first data units.” As discussed above, the RLP
`
`NAK message includes fields with sequence numbers for which
`
`retransmission is requested—i.e., the sequence number of a data unit
`
`previously sent by the transmitting station but not missed by the receiving
`
`station. See, e.g., Id. at 2:46–51 (“That is, the receiving station requests the
`
`transmitting station to retransmit the missed user data frames hereto.”)
`
`(emphasis added). On this record, we are persuaded that Seo discloses
`
`claims 4 and 8.
`
`20
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00601
`Patent 6,772,215 B1
`
`
`
`Petitioner also argues that claims 15, 22, 25, 26, 29, 32, 34, 45, 46, 49,
`
`52, and 54 are disclosed by Seo. Pet. 23–33, 38–41. We are persuaded that
`
`the evidence of record supports Petitioner’s contentions.
`
`Patent Owner presents several arguments as to how Petitioner has
`
`failed to provide an adequate reason to modify the references to reach the
`
`claimed invention and why Seo does not teach all of the limitations of the
`
`claims. PO Resp. 32–42. Petitioner responds to these arguments. Pet.
`
`Reply 1–15. We address each argument in turn below.
`
`Whether Seo discloses “a number of different message types”
`
`Patent Owner argues that, “the NAK_TYPE field in Seo does not
`
`‘identif[y] the message type of a feedback response message from a number
`
`of different message types’ because Seo merely discloses a single message
`
`type.” PO Resp. 37. According to Patent Owner, “Seo’s NAK frame has a
`
`constant size and format, containing both a bitmap and a list, regardless of
`
`NAK_TYPE,” and “the NAK frame . . . always contains the same fields
`
`whose content varies with the contents of the NAK_TYPE field.” Id. at 38.
`
`Patent Owner continues that “Seo’s NAK_TYPE field merely indicates
`
`which fields within the message field will contain zero values and which
`
`fields will contain non-zero values.” Id. According to Patent Owner,
`
`“Figure 4 represents a single control frame that includes fields for both a list
`
`of first and last sequence numbers and bitmaps,” and that the “only change is
`
`that certain fields contain non-zero values, depending on the value of the
`
`NAK_TYPE.” Id. at 39.
`
`Petitioner counter