DOCKET NO: 0111168-00240
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PATENT: 6,772,215
`
`INVENTOR: Bela Rathonyi et al.
`
`
`
`
`
`FILED: March 29, 2000
`
` ISSUED: August 3, 2004
`
`
`
`TITLE: Method for Minimizing
`Feedback Responses in ARQ Protocols
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,772,215
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,772,215
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES ................................................................... 1
`Real Parties-in-Interest ...................................................................... 1
`Related Matters .................................................................................. 1
`Counsel .............................................................................................. 2
`Service Information ........................................................................... 3
`Certification of Grounds for Standing ............................................... 3
`OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .......... 3
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ........................................ 3
`Grounds for Challenge ....................................................................... 4
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 4
`OVERVIEW OF THE ‘215 PATENT .................................................. 9
`Automatic Repeat Request Protocols ................................................ 9
`Alleged Invention of the ‘215 Patent ............................................... 13
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ............... 16
`The Seo Reference ........................................................................... 16
`The Gong Reference ........................................................................ 17
`SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ............................................ 17
`Ground 1: The Challenged Claims are Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102 by Seo ..................................................................................... 17
`Seo Discloses Multiple Feedback Responses............................... 17
`Seo Anticipates Independent Claim 1 .......................................... 21
`Seo Anticipates Dependent Claims 2 and 6 ................................. 22
`Seo Anticipates Dependent Claims 4 and 8 ................................. 23
`Seo Anticipates Independent Claim 15 ........................................ 23
`Seo Anticipates Dependent Claim 22 ........................................... 25
`Seo Anticipates Independent Claim 25 ........................................ 26
`Seo Anticipates Dependent Claims 29 and 32 ............................. 28
`Seo Anticipates Dependent Claim 34 ........................................... 28
`i
`
`
`
`I.
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`D.
`E.
`II.
`A.
`B.
`III.
`IV.
`A.
`B.
`V.
`A.
`B.
`VI.
`A.
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`7.
`8.
`9.
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,772,215
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Seo Anticipates Dependent Claim 26 ........................................... 29
`Seo Anticipates Independent Claim 45 and Dependent Claims 46,
`49, 52, and 54 ............................................................................... 29
`Patent Owner’s Prior Response to Seo ......................................... 34
`Summary Chart ............................................................................. 37
`Ground 2: The Challenged Claims Are Anticipated Under 35
`U.S.C. § 102 By Gong ..................................................................... 41
`Gong Discloses Multiple Feedback Responses ............................ 41
`Gong Anticipates Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 2,
`4, 6, and 8 ..................................................................................... 44
`Gong Anticipates Independent Claim 15 and Dependent Claim 2246
`Gong Anticipates Independent Claim 25 and Dependent Claims
`26, 29, 32, and 34 ......................................................................... 47
`Gong Anticipates Independent Claim 45 and Dependent Claims
`46, 49, 52, and 54 ......................................................................... 49
`Patent Owner’s Prior Response to Gong ...................................... 50
`Summary Chart ............................................................................. 52
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 56
`
`
`
`10.
`11.
`
`12.
`13.
`B.
`
`1.
`2.
`
`3.
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`7.
`VII.
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,772,215
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`Broadcom Corporation (“Petitioner”) is the real party-in-interest and submits
`
`this inter partes review Petition (“Petition”) for review of certain claims of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,772,215 (“the ‘215 patent”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`B. Related Matters
`International Trade Commission
`
`The ‘215 patent is currently the subject of an International Trade
`
`Commission hearing that started September 17, 2013 (Investigation No. 337-TA-
`
`862). There has already been fact discovery and expert discovery with expert
`
`reports being exchanged. Petitioner understands that the ITC Staff Attorney has
`
`recommended that the asserted claims of the ‘215 patent be found invalid under
`
`either Seo (Ex. 1002) or Gong (Ex. 1003), the two references cited in this Petition.
`
`District Court
`
`In September 2010, Ericsson Inc. et al. (the “Patent Owner”) filed suit in the
`
`Eastern District of Texas against D-Link Systems, Inc., Netgear, Inc., Belkin
`
`International, Inc., Dell, Inc., Toshiba Corporation, Acer Inc., and Gateway Inc.
`
`(the “Defendants”) alleging infringement of several U.S. patents, including the
`
`‘215 patent. (See Ericsson Inc., et al. v. D-LINK Corp., et al., Civil Action No.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`6:10-CV-473 (LED/KGF) (“Texas Litigation”)).1 The Patent Owner’s
`
`U.S. Patent 6,772,215
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`infringement allegations were based in part on Defendants’ use of Petitioner’s Wi-
`
`Fi compliant products, such as the BCM4313 and BCM4321. The Patent Owner
`
`did not allege that Petitioner infringed any patent asserted in the Texas Litigation,
`
`and Petitioner was not a party to the Texas Litigation.
`
`Following an eight-day trial, the jury found claim 1 of the ‘215 patent
`
`infringed. The Defendants, who were allowed only 15 hours to present their case
`
`for the five (5) patents2, damages and certain equitable issues, did not address the
`
`invalidity of the ‘215 patent at trial.
`
`C. Counsel
`Lead Counsel: Dominic E. Massa (Registration No. 44,905)
`
`Backup Counsel: Michael A. Diener (Registration No. 37,122)
`
`
`
`
`1
`On November 19, 2011, Intel Corporation filed a Motion to Intervene in the
`
`Texas Litigation, which the court granted on May 4, 2012.
`
`2
`
`Ericsson also asserted the following additional patents at trial in the Texas
`
`Litigation: U.S. Patent No. 6,330,435 (the “‘435 patent”), U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,519,223 (the “‘223 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,424,625 (the “‘625 patent”), and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,466,568 (the “‘568 patent”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 6,772,215
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`Email: Michael A. Diener, michael.diener@wilmerhale.com
`
`Post and Hand Delivery: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, 60
`
`State Street, Boston, MA 02109
`
`Telephone: 617-526-6454
`
`
`
`Facsimile: 617-526-5000
`
`E. Certification of Grounds for Standing
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 15, 22, 25, 26, 29, 32, 34, 45, 46, 49, 52, and 54 of the
`
`‘215 patent (the “Challenged Claims”) as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102, in
`
`view of either of two references set out below.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`A.
`Petitioner relies upon the following patents and printed publications to show
`
`that the Challenged Claims are anticipated and therefore invalid:
`
`1.
`
`Seo, U.S. Patent No. 6,581,176 (“Seo”) (Ex. 1002), which was filed
`
`on Dec. 31, 1998, and is prior art to the ‘215 patent under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`§ 102(e).
`
`U.S. Patent 6,772,215
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`2.
`
`Fengmin Gong et al., “An Application-Oriented Error Control Scheme
`
`for High-Speed Networks,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, Vol. 5, No. 5
`
`(1996) (“Gong”) (Ex. 1003), which was published on Oct. 5, 1996, and is prior art
`
`to the ‘215 patent under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 15, 22, 25, 26, 29, 32,
`
`34, 45, 46, 49, 52, and 54 (the “Challenged Claims”), as unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102.
`
`Ground 1: the Challenged Claims are anticipated under § 102 by Seo.
`
`Ground 2: the Challenged Claims are anticipated under § 102 by Gong.
`
`This Petition, supported by the Declaration of Dr. Harry Bims (“Bims
`
`Declaration” or “Bims Decl.”) (Ex. 1004) filed with this Petition, demonstrates that
`
`there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least
`
`one of the challenged claims and that each of the challenged claims is unpatentable
`
`for the reasons cited in this petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`III. Claim Construction
`The claims in an inter partes review should be given their “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification” as commonly understood by
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`those of ordinary skill in the art.3 See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Additionally, where
`
`U.S. Patent 6,772,215
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`the claim to be construed contains a means-plus-function or step-plus-function
`
`limitation as permitted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the construction of the claim
`
`below identifies the specific portions of the specification that describe the
`
`structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.104(b)(3).
`
`The following relevant constructions relate to terms that have been disputed
`
`or may be disputed.
`
`Claim Term
`[1] responsive to the receiving
`
`Construction
`responsive to the receiving step, generating a
`
`step, constructing a message
`
`message field including a field that identifies
`
`field for a second data unit,
`
`the message type of the feedback response
`
`said message field including a
`
`message from a number of different message
`
`type identifier field
`
`types
`
`[2] means for receiving said
`
`Function: receiving said plurality of first data units,
`
`
`3
`A person of ordinary skill in the art for the ‘215 patent would have a
`
`bachelor’s or graduate degree in a relevant field, such as electrical or computer
`
`engineering or computer science, with some amount of work experience in
`
`communications. (See Bims Decl. at ¶ 17; Ex. 1004).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`Claim Term
`plurality of first data units, and
`
`U.S. Patent 6,772,215
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Construction
`and constructing one to several message fields for a
`
`constructing one to
`
`second data unit, said one to several message fields
`
`several message fields for a
`
`including a type identifier field and at least one of a
`
`second data unit, said one to
`
`sequence number field, a length field, a content
`
`several message fields
`
`field, a plurality of erroneous sequence number
`
`including
`
`fields, and a plurality of erroneous sequence number
`
`[a] a type identifier field and
`
`length fields, each of said plurality of erroneous
`
`[b] at least one of
`
`sequence number fields associated with a respective
`
`[i] a sequence number field,
`
`one of said plurality of erroneous sequence number
`
`[ii] a length field,
`
`length fields.
`
`[iii] a content field,
`
`Corresponding structure: the receiver of an entity
`
`[iv] a plurality of erroneous
`
`capable of constructing one or more message fields
`
`sequence number fields,
`
`including
`
`and
`
`[a] a type identifier field and
`
`[v] a plurality of erroneous
`
`[b] at least one of
`
`sequence number length fields,
`
`each of said plurality of
`
`erroneous sequence number
`
`fields associated with a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[i] a sequence number field,
`
`[ii] a length field,
`
`[iii] a content field,
`
`[iv] a plurality of erroneous sequence number
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`Claim Term
`respective one of said plurality
`
`Construction
`fields, and
`
`U.S. Patent 6,772,215
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`of erroneous sequence number
`
`
`
`[v] a plurality of erroneous sequence number
`
`length fields
`
`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.
`
`(See ‘215 Patent, FIG. 1 (ARQ Entity-2 12); 1:26-
`
`29; 2:22-24; 2:63-3:16; 3:17-28; 6:8-48; Ex. 1001).
`
`[3] the preambles of the
`
`Not substantive limitations of the claims.
`
`claims: “for minimizing
`
`
`
`feedback responses in an ARQ
`
`protocol”
`
`[4] means for sending a
`
`Function: sending a plurality of first data units over
`
`plurality of first data units over
`
`said communication link to said second peer entity.
`
`said communication link to
`
`Corresponding structure: a transmitter of an entity
`
`said second peer entity
`
`capable of sending a plurality of first data units over
`
`a communication link to a peer entity. (‘215 patent,
`
`FIG. 1 (ARQ Entity-1 10); 1:26-41; Ex. 1001).
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`The above construction for Term [1], which appears in claims 1, 15 and 25,
`
`U.S. Patent 6,772,215
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`was proposed by the Patent Owner and was adopted by the Court in a Claim
`
`Construction Order in the Texas Litigation. (See Ex. 1005, p. 9). Petitioner does
`
`not dispute this construction for purposes of this Petition.
`
`The construction of Term [2] above, which is in claim 45, identifies the
`
`specific portions of the specification that describe the structure for performing the
`
`recited function. The only structure disclosed in the ‘215 patent with the ability to
`
`create messages with different fields is an ARQ entity 12, which would have a
`
`processor. (See Bims Decl., ¶ 20, Ex. 1004).
`
`Regarding the preambles of the claims (Term [3] above), the Patent Owner
`
`submitted an expert report in the Texas Litigation that stated “a person of ordinary
`
`skill would not read this portion of the preamble as a limitation of the claims.
`
`Rather, this describes a possible use for the claimed invention.” (Ex. 1006, p.
`
`245).4 The Court in the Texas Litigation also did not treat the preambles as
`
`substantive limitations of the claims it its Markman Order. (See Ex. 1005 at pp. 7-
`
`9). For purposes of this Petition, Petitioner agrees that the preambles are not
`
`
`4
`The Report has a confidentiality legend. Portions of the Report never made
`
`available to Petitioner have been redacted; it is Petitioner’s understanding that this
`
`redacted material was the only alleged confidential information in the Report.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`substantive limitations.
`
`U.S. Patent 6,772,215
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`The construction of Term [4] above identifies those specific portions of the
`
`specification that describe the minimum structure necessary for performing the
`
`recited function, and is consistent with the level of structure shown in the ‘215
`
`patent. The only disclosed corresponding structure is the ARQ entity. (See Bims
`
`Decl. at ¶ 21, Ex. 1004)
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘215 PATENT5
`A. Automatic Repeat Request Protocols
`The ‘215 patent relates to a communication system with an Automatic
`
`Repeat Request (“ARQ”) protocol. An ARQ protocol uses acknowledgements
`
`and/or timers to assist a transmitter in retransmitting protocol data units (“PDUs”)
`
`that are not received or that are incorrectly received.6 In some types of systems, a
`
`transmitter transmits PDUs to a receiver, and the receiver provides the transmitter
`
`with positive acknowledgement feedback (known as “ACKs” or “PACKs”)
`
`indicating that one or more PDUs were correctly received, and/or negative
`
`acknowledgement feedback (NAKs or NACKs) indicating one or more PDUs were
`
`5
`Dr. Bims confirms that this section accurately describes the ‘215 patent.
`
`(Bims Decl. at ¶ 16, Ex. 1004).
`
`6
`
`These PDUs could also be referred to as packets, frames, or cells. (See, e.g.,
`
`’215 Patent at 1:59-63; 10:2-5, Ex. 1001).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`not correctly received. (’215 Patent, FIG. 1; 2:33-36, Ex. 1001). The transmitter
`
`U.S. Patent 6,772,215
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`and/or receiver may use a timer as an alternative to PACKs and NACKs, or in
`
`addition to PACKs and NACKs, to determine whether a PDU appears to have been
`
`lost. The transmitter can use the feedback (or lack of receiving feedback) to
`
`retransmit packets that are negatively acknowledged or that were not
`
`acknowledged. (Id. at 1:33-36, Ex. 1001). The ‘215 patent identifies examples of
`
`protocols that use ARQ, including GSM and GPRS cellular protocols. (Id. at 1:63-
`
`2:1, Ex. 1001).
`
`Figure 1 of the ‘215 patent (below) shows two ARQ peer entities 10 and 12
`
`communicating with each other.
`
`
`
`’215 Patent, Figure 1 (Ex. 1001)
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`Transmitting entity 10 transmits data PDUs (D-PDUs) to receiving entity 12,
`
`U.S. Patent 6,772,215
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`which transmits status PDUs (S-PDUs) to transmitting entity 10. D-PDUs contain
`
`user data; S-PDUs contain status (control) information, but no user data. (Id. at
`
`2:22-62, Ex. 1001).
`
`Each D-PDU has an associated sequence number (“SN”) with a value of n
`
`(SN=n) to identify that specific D-PDU to the receiver. Typically, some number of
`
`sequence numbers, e.g., 64, are used in a modulo manner (i.e., 0, 1, 2, … 61, 62,
`
`63, 0, 1, 2, …). The receiver can send an acknowledgment (ACK=n) to
`
`acknowledge a specific D-PDU, or the acknowledgement can be cumulative for all
`
`D-PDUs with an SN<n; that is, an ACK for SN=n could be used to acknowledge
`
`the D-PDU with SN=n and all earlier D-PDUs. A negative acknowledgment
`
`(NAK=n) can be used to indicate that a D-PDU with an SN=n has not been
`
`correctly received. (Id. at 2:27-36, Ex. 1001).
`
`The ‘215 patent identifies two prior art types of S-PDUs, also referred to in
`
`the patent as “feedback responses” (see, id. at Title and Abstract, Ex. 1001), to
`
`indicate one or more sequence numbers of missing D-PDUs:
`
`(1) a list of sequence numbers (id. at FIG. 2; 2:63-3:17, Ex. 1001), and
`
`(2) a bitmap to represent the sequence numbers to be retransmitted (id. at
`
`FIG. 3; 3:18-45, Ex. 1001).
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`With a list approach, as set forth below in Figure 2 of the ‘215 patent, the
`
`U.S. Patent 6,772,215
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`receiver sends a length field to identify a number (N) of SNs, and N fields of
`
`specific SNs.
`
`
`
`‘215 Patent, Figure 2 (Ex. 1001)
`
`For a bitmap approach (Figure 3 of the ‘215 patent, below), the receiver
`
`sends a starting sequence number (SSN) field containing the sequence number of
`
`the last correctly received in-sequence D-PDU, and a bitmap field with a series of
`
`zeros and ones indicating which subsequent D-PDUs were correctly received. (Id.
`
`at 3:17-36, Ex. 1001).
`
`‘215 Patent, Figure 3 (Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`For example, an S-PDU with SSN=10 and a bitmap of 0101 (with “0”
`
`U.S. Patent 6,772,215
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`meaning “not received”) would indicate that D-PDUs with SN=11 and SN=13
`
`were not correctly received, and that D-PDUs with SN=12 and SN=14 were
`
`correctly received. With a list approach of Figure 2, this same information could
`
`be sent with the following fields: LENGTH=2, SN=11, and SN=13.
`
`B. Alleged Invention of the ‘215 Patent
`The ‘215 patent asserts that the prior art list and bitmap approaches “can be
`
`combined in a single S-PDU” to “optimize performance” based on some criteria,
`
`such as minimizing the size of S-PDUs, or maximizing the number of SNs that can
`
`fit in a fixed length S-PDU. (Id. at 2:47-53; 5:51-59, Ex. 1001). Essentially, the
`
`‘215 patent asserts that a receiver can use one of multiple different types of
`
`feedback, identified via a “type identifier field,” to indicate to the transmitter
`
`which type of feedback response is being used for a given set of PDUs. (See, e.g.,
`
`id. at Type field in FIGS. 4-7, Ex. 1001).
`
`Figure 4 below shows an example of the fields used for a bitmap feedback
`
`response, such as a type field to indicate “BITMAP”, a FSN (first sequence
`
`number) field to indicate where a bitmap starts, a LENGTH field to indicate how
`
`long the bitmap is, and a “Bitmap” field. (Id. at 6:25-47, Ex. 1001).
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 6,772,215
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`‘215 Patent, Figure 4 (Ex. 1001)
`
`Figures 5 and 6 show examples of two types of list feedback responses.
`
`Figure 5 uses length fields to indicate how many SNs are present, followed by
`
`fields of SNs, shown here as non-consecutive SNs. (Id. at 6:65-7:27, Ex. 1001).
`
`
`
`‘215 Patent, Figure 5 (Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Figure 6 uses a first SN, followed by a length, to allow a more compact
`
`U.S. Patent 6,772,215
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`representation where there are many consecutive erroneous or lost packets. (id. at
`
`7:28-52, Ex. 1001).
`
`
`
`‘215 Patent, Figure 6 (Ex. 1001)
`
`Fig. 7 below shows a positive ACK as the feedback response type. When a
`
`positive ACK is used as the feedback type, it includes only a type field and a
`
`sequence number or SN. The SN provides a cumulative acknowledgement for all
`
`SNs less than the one transmitted. (Id. at 8:15-22, Ex. 1001).
`
`
`
`‘215 Patent, Figure 7 (Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`
`
`V. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`U.S. Patent 6,772,215
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`The ‘215 patent admits that list responses and bitmap responses were each
`
`known in the art. The ‘215 patent asserts as its alleged novelty a method and
`
`system that provides two or more feedback types from which the receiver can
`
`choose. But there is nothing new about allowing a receiver to choose among
`
`different types of feedback responses in an ARQ system. Indeed, as explained
`
`below, prior art that was not before the examiner during the prosecution of the ‘215
`
`patent disclosed receivers that can choose among different types of feedback
`
`responses that use a type identifier field to indicate which type of response is being
`
`transmitted, and that include a bitmap as an option.
`
`A. The Seo Reference
`Seo is a patent, assigned on its face to LG Information and Communication
`
`Ltd., relating to improving the reliability of NAK transmissions and preventing
`
`delay of frames. A further goal of Seo is to improve throughput per unit time.
`
`(Seo, 3:58-4:2, Ex. 1002). Seo describes these benefits in the context of a wireless
`
`CDMA cellular system. (Id. at 1:14, Ex. 1002). Seo was filed December 31, 1998,
`
`and therefore is prior art under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 6,772,215
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`The Gong Reference
`
`B.
`Gong is an IEEE article by a professor and graduate student at Washington
`
`University. The paper describes an error control scheme for a high-speed network.
`
`(Gong, Title, Ex. 1003). The stated objective is to satisfy the application error
`
`tolerance with minimum transmission overhead, and to achieve high throughput.
`
`(Id. at 671, Ex. 1003). Gong was published in October 1996, and therefore is prior
`
`art under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`VI. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), the below sections, as confirmed by the
`
`Bims Declaration (Ex. 1004), demonstrate in detail how the prior art discloses each
`
`and every limitation of the Challenged Claims, and how each Challenged Claim is
`
`anticipated by Seo and also by Gong.
`
`A. Ground 1: The Challenged Claims are Anticipated Under 35
`U.S.C. § 102 by Seo
`1.
`As shown below, and confirmed in the Bims Declaration (Ex. 1004), Seo
`
`Seo Discloses Multiple Feedback Responses
`
`anticipates the Challenged Claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102. A summary table of
`
`cites in Seo is provided at the end of this Section VI(A), and may include
`
`additional cites, such as claims of Seo that also disclose certain limitation of the
`
`challenged claims.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`Seo discloses two types of ARQ feedback responses:
`
`U.S. Patent 6,772,215
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
` A first type that identifies a first and last sequence number (SN)
`
`of frames (packets or PDUs) to be retransmitted (“First/Last
`
`Approach”) (Seo, 5:54-6:6, Ex. 1002); and
`
` A second type that includes one or more bitmaps (“Bitmap
`
`Approach”) (Id. at 6:6-22, Ex. 1002).
`
`The receiver disclosed in Seo indicates to the transmitter which type of
`
`feedback is being used through a field called NAK_TYPE (i.e., a type of negative
`
`acknowledgement). (Id. at 5:53-54, Ex. 1002). In the example provided in Figure
`
`4 of Seo (below), the receiver can switch from one type of feedback to the other
`
`type of feedback, and from one response to the next. (Id. at 6:26-49, Ex. 1002; see
`
`also Bims Decl. at ¶¶ 24-25; Ex. 1004).
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 6,772,215
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`Seo, Figure 4 (Ex. 1002)
`
`A NAK_TYPE value of “00” indicates the First/Last Approach, and can be
`
`used to indicate a series of missing data units. In this case, the fields include
`
`FIRST and LAST, each of which is an SN of a missing frame. The first and last
`
`SNs indicate a series of sequence numbers extending from the first to the last
`
`missing frame. (Seo, 5:63-67; Ex. 1002). For example, FIRST = 10 and LAST =
`
`15 indicates that the six data units with sequence numbers 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and
`
`15 are all missing or erroneous. This is an alternative to specifying a first SN and a
`
`number (length) of subsequent frames; e.g., FIRST = 10 and LENGTH = 6 (or 5,
`
`depending on the protocol). (Bims Decl. at ¶ 26, Ex. 1004).
`
`A NAK_TYPE value of “01” indicates the Bitmap Approach. The fields
`
`include a NAK_Map_Count field to indicate a number of bitmaps, and a
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`
`NAK_Map field that contains an 8 bit bitmap. The NAK_Map_Count value is a
`
`U.S. Patent 6,772,215
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`number that is one less than the number of bitmaps. For example, a
`
`NAK_Map_Count value of “00” would indicate 1 bitmap, and a binary value of
`
`“10” (which = 2) would indicate three bitmaps. If there are multiple bitmaps, a
`
`starting sequence number (NAK_Map_SEQ) is provided for each bitmap. Figure 4
`
`shows that the value of NAK_Map is listed twice, once as 8 bits and once blank.
`
`One of ordinary skill would understand it to be 8 bits in both cases. (Seo, 6:5-21,
`
`Ex. 1002; see also Bims Decl. at ¶ 27, Ex. 1004).
`
`Seo describes an example where one type of feedback (First/Last Approach)
`
`can be used where there is a series of consecutive missing frames, and a different
`
`type of feedback (Bitmap Approach) can be used where there is a group of non-
`
`consecutive missing frames. (Seo, 6:22-49; Ex. 1002). One of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would understand that using different types of feedback as disclosed in Seo
`
`in an optimal way could reduce the number of bits to be transmitted and therefore
`
`more efficient. In this example, where there is a series of consecutive missing
`
`packets (e.g., SN 4 through SN 13), once could use the First/Last Approach,
`
`whereas if there are individual non-consecutive packets missing, the Bitmap
`
`Approach would likely be more efficient. (Seo, 6:25-49, Ex. 1002; see also Bims
`
`Decl. at ¶ 28, Ex. 1004).
`
`The NAK_TYPE field has two bits, and therefore could be used to indicate
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`
`four values. Seo does not identify specific uses of binary values of “10” and “11”.
`
`U.S. Patent 6,772,215
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would understand these values to be unused and/or
`
`reserved for future use. Reserving (or not using) certain values for a field is not
`
`unusual and is common in protocols. One of ordinary skill would understand that
`
`Seo would allow further types of feedback to be defined. (Bims Decl. at ¶ 29, Ex.
`
`1004).
`
`Seo Anticipates Independent Claim 1
`
`2.
`Claim 1 reads:
`
`1. A method for minimizing feedback responses in an ARQ protocol,
`
`comprising the steps of:
`
`[a] sending a plurality of first data units over a communication link;
`
`[b] receiving said plurality of first data units; and
`
`[c] 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 [i] sequence number field, [ii] a length field, and
`
`[iii] a content field.
`
`Seo discloses claim elements 1[a] and 1[b]. Seo describes a system in which
`
`a transmitter (Figures 6-7, Transmitting Station A, Ex. 1002) in a system, such as a
`
`cellular mobile radio system, sends a plurality of first data units to a receiver, and a
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`
`
`receiver (Figures 6-7, Receiving Station B, Ex. 1002) receives the first plurality of
`
`U.S. Patent 6,772,215
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`data units. (Seo, e.g., Figures 6-7; 3:58-4:2; 5:28-41; 7:30-8:3, 8:22-47, Ex. 1002;
`
`see also Bims Decl. at ¶ 31, Ex. 1004).
`
`Seo also discloses claim element 1[c]. In Seo, the receiver can use radio link
`
`protocol (“RLP”) control frames, one of which is an RLP NAK frame for negative
`
`acknowledgements. (Seo, 5:42-46 and 1:14- 2:29, Ex. 1002). This RLP NAK
`
`feedback response has a “type identifier field” (NAK_TYPE), and has at least one
`
`of a sequence number field, a length field, and a content field. Specifically, Seo
`
`discloses a content field that can include a bitmap (NAK_Map). (Id. at Fig. 4, and
`
`5:47-6:22, Ex. 1002; see also Bims Decl. at ¶ 32, Ex. 1004). Seo also discloses
`
`sequence number fields, such as FIRST, LAST, and NAK_Map_SEQ. (Seo, Fig. 4,
`
`5:54-67, and 6:7-14, Ex. 1002; see also Bims Decl. at ¶ 32, Ex. 1004).
`
`Accordingly, claim 1 is anticipated by Seo and is not patentable.
`
`Seo Anticipates Dependent Claims 2 and 6
`
`3.
`Claim 2 reads: The method of claim 1, wherein said message field
`
`comprises a bitmap message.
`
`Claim 6 reads: The method of claim 1, wherein said content field comprises
`
`a bitmap.
`
`In Seo, the RLP NAK feedback response has a “type identifier field”
`
`(NAK_TYPE), and a content field (which is part of the claimed “message field”)
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`
`
`that can include a bitmap (NAK_Map). (Seo, Fig. 4; 5:47-6:22; 9:17-53; Ex. 1002;
`
`U.S. Patent 6,772,215
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`see also Bims Decl. at ¶ 34, Ex. 1004). Accordingly, claims 2 and 6 are
`
`anticipated by Seo and are not patentable.
`
`Seo Anticipates Dependent Claims 4 and 8
`
`4.
`Claims 4 reads: The method of claim 1, wherein said sequence number field
`
`includes any sequence number from said plurality of first data units.
`
`Claims 8 reads: The method of claim 1, wherein said second data unit
`
`comprises information about missing or erroneous said first data units.
`
`In Seo, the RLP NAK feedback response includes sequence number fields
`
`(e.g., FIRST, LAST, or NAK_Map_SEQ) that identify missing or erroneously
`
`received first data units. (Seo, Fig. 4; 4:30-34; 5:47-6:22; 7:9-16; 8:63-67; Ex.
`
`1002). Seo discloses a response that comprises information about missing or
`
`erroneously received first data units with either the First/Last Approach or the
`
`Bitmap Approach. (Seo, Fig. 4; 5:47-6:22; 7:9-16; 9:17-53; Ex. 1002; see also
`
`Bims Decl. at ¶ 36, Ex. 1004). Accordingly, claims 4 and 8 are anticipated by Seo
`
`and are not patentable.
`
`Seo Anticipates Independent Claim 15
`
`5.
`Claim 15 reads as follows:
`
`15. A method for minimizing feedback responses in an ARQ protocol,
`
`comprising the steps of: [a] sending a plurality of first