`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 60
`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 IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568 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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568 B1
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Broadcom Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter
`
`partes review of claims 1–6 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,466,568 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’568 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”).
`
`Telefonaktiebolaget L. M. Ericsson1 (“Patent Owner”) filed an election to
`
`waive its Preliminary Response. Paper 20. On March 10, 2014, we
`
`instituted an inter partes review of all challenged claims on certain grounds
`
`of unpatentability alleged in the Petition. Paper 27 (“Dec. to Inst.”).
`
`After institution of trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response
`
`(Paper 36, “PO Resp.”) and a Motion to Amend (Paper 38, “Mot. to
`
`Amend”). Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 46, “Pet. Reply”) and an
`
`Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (Paper 47, “Opp. to Mot. to
`
`Amend”). Patent Owner then filed a Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to its
`
`Motion to Amend. Paper 49 (“PO Reply). 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
`
`1–6 of the ’568 patent are unpatentable. Petitoner’s Motion to Amend is
`
`denied.
`
`
`
`1 On July 11, 2014, Patent Owner filed an Updated Mandatory Notice
`indicating that the ’568 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 40.
`2 A transcript of the oral hearing is included in the record as Paper 59.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568 B1
`
`
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner indicate that the ’568 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”). 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:
`
`IPR2013-00601 (U.S. Patent No. 6,772,215) and IPR2013-00636 (U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,424,625).
`
`B. The ’568 patent
`
`The ’568 patent relates generally to radio communications systems,
`
`such as cellular or satellite systems, that use digital traffic channels in a
`
`multiple access scheme, such as time division multiple access (“TDMA”) or
`
`code division multiple access (“CDMA”). Ex. 1001, 1:13–17.
`
`Figure 2 of the ’568 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 2 depicts how, in a TDMA system, the consecutive time slots on a
`
`radio channel are organized in TDMA frames of, for example, six slots each
`
`so that a plurality of distinct channels can be supported by a single radio
`
`carrier frequency. Id. at 5:11–15. Each TDMA frame has a duration of 40
`
`milliseconds and supports six half-rate logical channels, three full-rate
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568 B1
`
`
`logical channels, or greater bandwidth channels as indicated in the table
`
`below:
`
`
`
`As shown in the table, a full-rate digital traffic channel (“DTC”), for
`
`example, uses two slots of each TDMA frame—i.e., the first and fourth,
`
`second and fifth, or third and sixth. Id. at 2:8–11.
`
`A conventional downlink DTC slot format is defined as shown in
`
`Figure 3, reproduced below.
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 3, a slot includes a SYNC field, SACCH field, two
`
`DATA fields used to transmit the “payload” of the slot, a CDVCC field, and
`
`a reserved bit CDL field. Id. at 5:31–47. Conventionally, this format is used
`
`for each time slot in a TDMA frame—i.e., all six time slots. Id. at 5:47–49.
`
`However, if a mobile station is using a triple rate downlink connection—i.e.,
`
`it is reading the DATA fields of each of time slots 1, 2, and 3—some of the
`
`other fields provided in the conventional downlink time slot of Figure 3 need
`
`not be transmitted in each time slot. Id. at 6:66–7:4. For example, a mobile
`
`station need not receive SACCH at triple rate; that is, a mobile station may
`
`only need to receive one SACCH for every three time slots. Id. at 7:4–8.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568 B1
`
`
`Likewise, the CDVCC field need not be transmitted by the base station at
`
`triple rate. Id. at 7:10–17.
`
`To address these issues, the ’568 patent discloses an alternative slot
`
`format to accommodate the different communication services described
`
`above. Id. at 5:50–52.
`
`Figure 6 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`As illustrated in Figure 6, in one embodiment of the invention, the fields that
`
`are conventionally used for SACCH and CDVCC information in slots 2 and
`
`3 can be replaced by FOC information. Id. at Fig. 6, 7:8–10. Omitting these
`
`fields in time slots 2 and 3 (as well as 5 and 6) provides an opportunity to
`
`inform other mobile stations of information pertaining to their uplink
`
`connections. Id. at 7:21–25. For example, the FOC fields can be used to
`
`inform another mobile station that a previously transmitted packet was not
`
`properly received and should be retransmitted. Id. at 7:26–29.
`
`According to another embodiment of the invention, the FOC may
`
`serve the purpose of a service type identifier by providing information
`
`relating to the same connection as the payload or data field in that time slot,
`
`such as a service type identifier that informs the mobile or base station of the
`
`type of information (e.g., voice, video, or data) being conveyed in the
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568 B1
`
`
`payload. Id. at 3:11–16, 9:27–32. This information can be used by the
`
`receiving equipment to aid in processing the information conveyed in the
`
`payload. Id. at 3:16–19. For example, in a multimedia connection, the
`
`information being transferred may rapidly vary between voice, data, and
`
`video. Id. at 9:32–34. In such a case, the FOC can inform a mobile station
`
`of the type of information being transmitted so that the mobile station will
`
`know how to process the received information. Id. at 9:35–38.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claim 1 is independent. Claim 1 is
`
`reproduced below:
`
`1.
`
`A communication station comprising:
`
`a processor for arranging information for transmission
`including providing at least one first field in which payload
`information is disposed and providing at least one second field,
`separate from said first field, which includes a service type
`identifier which identifies a type of payload information
`provided in said at least one first field; and
`
`a transmitter for transmitting information received from
`said processor including said at least one first field and said at
`least one second field.
`
`D. Prior Art Supporting the Instituted Grounds
`
`The following prior art was asserted in the instituted grounds:
`
`Morley
`
`Adams
`
`US 5,488,610
`
`Jan. 30, 1996
`
`US 5,541,662
`
`July 30, 1996
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568 B1
`
`
`
`E. The Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`The following table summarizes the challenges to patentability on
`
`which we instituted inter partes review:
`
`Reference Basis Claims challenged
`
`Morley
`
`§ 102
`
`1–6
`
`Adams
`
`§ 103
`
`1–6
`
`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 ’568 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
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568 B1
`
`
`Federal Circuit and should be rejected for the same reasons.” Pet. Reply 1.
`
`Petitioner continues that, “[Patent] Owner offers no new reason whatsoever
`
`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 11). The arguments and evidence are
`
`unpersuasive for same reasons explained in our Decision on Patent Owner’s
`
`Motion for Additional Discovery (Paper 21), 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
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568 B1
`
`
`by providing a definition of the term in the specification with reasonable
`
`clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480
`
`(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).
`
`Independent claim 1 recites “a service type identifier which identifies
`
`a type of payload information.” Petitioner proposes that this phrase be
`
`construed as “an identifier that identifies the type of information conveyed in
`
`the payload. Examples of types of information include, but are not limited
`
`to, video, voice, data, and multimedia.” Pet. 7–8. Petitioner argues that this
`
`construction is consistent with the broadest reasonable construction in light
`
`of the specification and is consistent with how the term “service” is used in
`
`the ’568 patent. Id. Petitioner further argues that, during prosecution of the
`
`’568 patent, Patent Owner distinguished the recited “service type identifier”
`
`from a prior art identifier that identified “transmission characteristics.” Id. at
`
`8 (citing Ex. 1016, 5 (distinguishing the claimed service type identifier as
`
`“claiming the use of a field to identify the type of payload information and
`
`not the type of channel coding.”) (emphasis added)). Thus, according to
`
`Petitioner, the recited “service type identifier” cannot encompass identifiers
`
`of “transmission characteristics” such as channel coding. Id.
`
`The language of claim 1 requires that the “service type identifier”
`
`identify only “a type of payload information provided in said at least one
`
`first field.” The ’568 patent states the following:
`
`In addition to voice information being transmitted on the traffic
`channels, various other types of data can and will be transmitted
`thereon.
` For example, facsimile (fax)
`transmissions are
`commonly supported by radiocommunication systems. Similarly,
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568 B1
`
`
`
`packet data transmissions, which divide information streams into
`packets rather
`than providing dedicated (i.e., “connection-
`oriented”) channels for each information stream, will be supported
`in radiocommunication systems. Other types of information
`transmission, e.g., video or hybrid voice, data and video to
`support internet connections, will likely be supported in the
`future.
`
`These various types of information communication (also
`referred to herein as different “services”) will likely have
`different optimal transmission characteristics.
`
`Ex. 1001, 2:25–30 (emphasis added). Thus, the ’568 patent uses the term
`
`“services” to refer to “various types of information communication” and lists
`
`explicitly “facsimile (fax) transmissions . . . , packet data transmissions, . . .
`
`[and o]ther types of information transmission, e.g., video or hybrid voice,
`
`data and video to support internet connections.” Id. Accordingly, in the
`
`Decision to Institute, we construed “service type identifier” to mean an
`
`identifier that identifies the type of information conveyed in the payload,
`
`including but not limited to video, voice, data, and multimedia.
`
`Patent Owner argues that our construction is “inconsistent with the
`
`intrinsic evidence as it gives no meaning to ‘service type’ and is therefore
`
`unreasonable.” PO Resp. 21. Specifically, Patent Owner contends that our
`
`construction reads out the requirement that the service type identifier
`
`identify a “service type.” Id. According to Patent Owner, the broadest
`
`reasonable construction of “service type identifier which identifies a type of
`
`payload information” is “an identifier that identifies a transmission
`
`characteristic of the service and the type of information conveyed in the
`
`payload.” Id. at 21–23.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568 B1
`
`
`
`Petitioner counters that “the phrase ‘of the service’ lacks antecedent
`
`basis,” and that “neither such occurrence [of the term ‘service type
`
`identifier’ in the Specification] supports [Patent] Owner’s proposed
`
`construction. Pet. Reply 5.
`
`We find Petitioner’s arguments persuasive. Neither instance of
`
`“service type identifier” in the ’568 patent suggests that a “service type
`
`identifier” must identify a transmission characteristic. The first instance
`
`describes the “service type identifier” as identifying only “the type of
`
`information.” Ex. 1001, 3:11–19 (“a service type identifier which informs
`
`the mobile or base station of the type of information (e.g., voice, video or
`
`data) being conveyed in the payload.”). The second instance describes how
`
`“the FOC fields may also serve the purpose of the service type identifier.”
`
`Id. at 9:28–29. In this embodiment, “the FOC [i.e., service type identifier]
`
`can provide information regarding the type of service which the associated
`
`payload is currently supporting, the channel coding and/or interleaving
`
`associated therewith.” Id. at 9:29–32 (emphasis added). The use of “and/or”
`
`makes clear that a “service type identifier” may provide only information
`
`regarding the type of service, and need not necessarily also provide
`
`information about channel coding, which Patent Owner recognizes as
`
`transmission characteristics (Tr. 50:3–6).
`
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s
`
`reliance on the district court’s construction is misplaced (PO Resp. 24)
`
`because we did not rely on the district court’s construction.
`
`We also are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that “the
`
`Board erred when it characterized ‘services’ as ‘various types of information
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568 B1
`
`
`being transmitted on traffic channels’” because “services” refers to “various
`
`types of information transmission.” PO Resp. 24–25. Patent Owner
`
`identifies no support in the ’568 patent for its contention that “types of
`
`information transmission” includes the characteristics of transmitting that
`
`information. Even assuming that the ’568 patent defined “service type
`
`identifier” in a way that required it to identify transmission characteristics,
`
`Petitioner’s expert explains how transmission characteristics can be inferred
`
`from the type of payload. Pet. Reply 9 (citing Ex. 1023 ¶ 4). We are,
`
`therefore, not persuaded that identification of transmission characteristics
`
`would necessarily require anything more than identifying the type of
`
`payload.
`
`Accordingly, we maintain our construction of “service type identifier”
`
`as “an identifier that identifies the type of information conveyed in the
`
`payload, including but not limited to video, voice, data, and multimedia.”
`
`C. The Challenged Claims – Anticipated by Morley
`
`Petitioner argues that claims 1–6 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b) as anticipated by Morley. Pet. 18–27. In support of this ground of
`
`unpatentability, Petitioner provides detailed explanations as to how each
`
`claim limitation is disclosed by Morley, and relies upon the Declaration of
`
`Dr. Harry Bims (Ex. 1009). Id. (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 29–37).
`
`Patent Owner counters that claim 1 is not anticipated because Morley
`
`does not disclose (1) a “service type identifier” as that term is construed by
`
`Patent Owner; or (2) any “identifier which identifies a type of payload
`
`information provided in said at least one first field,” as recited in claim 1.
`
`PO Resp. 27–37.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568 B1
`
`
`
`Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and supporting
`
`evidence, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–6 are anticipated by Morley.
`
`Morley (Exhibit 1002)
`
`Morley describes a multiplexer for use in a system for transmitting
`
`more than one type of data, e.g., voice and data. Ex. 1002, Abstract.
`
`Figure 2 of Morley is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 2 is a block diagram showing the main components of
`
`communication system 10 of Morley’s invention. Id. at 2:52–53, 2:66–67.
`
`Controller 18 comprises processor 19, storage means 20,
`
`multiplexer/demultiplexer 22, voice coder/decoder 24, and line interface 27.
`
`Id. at 3:1–9. Communication system 10 can be used to share voice and
`
`visual data with another user of a similar system. Id. at 3:10–11.
`
`Multiplexer 22 multiplexes the voice and data signals, adds synchronization
`
`information, and transmits the composite signal to the physical layer (e.g., a
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568 B1
`
`
`high speed modem (V32bis) connected to the Public Switched Telephone
`
`Network (PSTN) or a GSM mobile network). Id. at 5:4–6, 5:39–41, 99:40–
`
`46. The composite signal is organized into frames each containing a header
`
`and one or more complete voice frames and/or other non-voice data. Id. at
`
`5:41–44, 5:52–53. The content of each frame is determined by the
`
`applications and may change during the call. Id. at 5:55–56, 5:63–64.
`
`Figures 5a to 5g, reproduced below, show the structures of some
`
`possible frames.
`
`In Figures 5a to 5g, “H” is a header field that identifies the frame type,
`
`which is used to identify the contents of a frame. Id. at 6:22–25. Sixteen
`
`possible headers for supporting one voice channel and up to three data
`
`channels are shown in the table below:
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568 B1
`
`
`
`Analysis
`
`Independent claim 1 recites
`
`
`
`transmission
`information for
`a processor for arranging
`including providing at least one first field in which payload
`information is disposed and providing at least one second field,
`separate from said first field, which includes a service type
`identifier which identifies a type of payload information
`provided in said at least one first field.
`
`Petitioner relies upon Morley’s disclosure of controller 18—e.g., a PC—
`
`comprising processor 19—e.g., an Intel 386 processor—and multiplexer
`
`22—e.g., a GMM/Sync 2 CCP intelligent communications card and
`
`software. Pet. 20–21; see also Ex. 1002, 3:4–9, 3:33–41. Under the
`
`direction of processor 19, multiplexer 22 arranges voice and non-voice data
`
`for transmission in frames. Ex. 1002, 5:4–6, 5:39–44. A frame may contain
`
`at least a field V (voice) or D (non-voice data) in which payload information
`
`is disposed. Id. at Figs. 5a–5g, 6:4–55. A frame also contains a separate
`
`field, H (header), that identifies the frame type—i.e., the type of payload
`
`information—as voice only, data only, or voice and data. Id. at Figs. 5a–5g,
`
`6:22–32, 7:1–17.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568 B1
`
`
`
`Claim 1 also recites “a transmitter for transmitting information
`
`received from said processor including said at least one first field and said at
`
`least one second field.” Petitioner relies upon Morley’s disclosure of high
`
`speed modem 26 for transmitting the frames arranged by multiplexer 22 over
`
`the PSTN or using GSM. Pet. 21; see also Ex. 1002, 3:3, 3:58–59, 4:42–44,
`
`99:40–45.
`
`Claim 5 recites “wherein said communication station is a base
`
`station.” Claim 6 recites similarly “wherein said communication station is a
`
`mobile station.” Petitioner relies upon Morley’s disclosure of implementing
`
`the claimed invention using GSM. Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1002, 99:40–45). In
`
`addition, Petitioner argues that a “base station” and a “mobile station” are
`
`inherent in GSM (Pet. 23–24), and Dr. Bims testifies as follows:
`
`It is inherent that GSM radio communications systems include
`base stations, and it is also known that base stations can receive
`data from mobile stations and retransmit data to other mobile
`stations. It is also inherent that GSM radio communications
`systems include mobile stations. Base stations and mobile
`stations in a GSM cellular system, or in other cellular systems,
`each have a processor for processing data to be sent, and a
`transmitter for sending data. That processor sends data that has
`been arranged in frames defined by the GSM protoco1. (See,
`e.g., Mouly and Pautet, GSM, Ex. 1008, pp. 89–99).
`
`Ex. 1009 ¶ 36. We are persuaded by the reasoning in the above-quoted
`
`analysis of Dr. Bims.
`
`Petitioner also argues that claims 2–4 are disclosed by Morley.
`
`Pet. 22–23.
`
`We are persuaded that Petitioner’s citations support Petitioner’s
`
`contentions. Patent Owner presents several arguments as to why Morley
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568 B1
`
`
`does not teach all of the limitations of the claims. PO Resp. 27–37.
`
`Petitioner responds to these arguments. Pet. Reply 6–11. We address each
`
`argument in turn below.
`
`Whether Morley discloses a “service type identifier”
`
`Patent Owner argues that the header of Morley’s mux frame is not a
`
`“service type identifier” because Morley does not disclose separate services.
`
`PO Resp. 32. According to Patent Owner, “separate voice and data services
`
`for the mux frame require that the voice frame and data each be
`
`independently communicated, rather than communicated as a single
`
`composite unit.” Id. (citing Ex. 2020 ¶ 40). Patent Owner acknowledges
`
`that Morley’s mux frame may contain voice only, data only, or a
`
`combination, but argues that a “the mux frame is not optimized for separate
`
`communication of the voice and the data.” Id. at 32–33. Patent Owner
`
`concludes that “[b]ecause M[o]rley describes only one type of information
`
`communication, it cannot disclose a service type identifier.” Id. at 33.
`
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument because it is not
`
`commensurate with the language of claim 1. Claim 1 does not require a
`
`plurality of types of information communication. Patent Owner attempts to
`
`import these limitations into the term “service type identifier,” but the
`
`language of claim 1 requires only that the “service type identifier” identify a
`
`type of payload information, and our construction requires only that it
`
`“identifies the type of information conveyed in the payload.” Patent Owner
`
`concedes that Morley’s header identifies the type of information in the
`
`payload—i.e., voice only, data only, or a combination. Accordingly, we are
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568 B1
`
`
`not persuaded that Morley’s header does not disclose the claimed “service
`
`type identifier.”
`
`Patent Owner also argues that Morley does not construe a “service
`
`type identifier,” as Patent Owner construes that term. PO Resp. 33–35. We
`
`decline to adopt Patent Owner’s construction of “service type identifier” for
`
`the reasons discussed above. As a result, Patent Owner’s argument is
`
`unpersuasive.
`
`Lastly, Patent Owner argues that Morley’s header does not “identif[y]
`
`a type of payload information,” as recited in claim 1, because it “defines the
`
`format (or structure) of the information transmitted, rather than ident[ies] the
`
`payload data itself.” PO Resp. 35–37. Morley’s header identifies the frame
`
`type as voice only, data only, or some combination. Pet. 19–20 (citing
`
`Ex. 1002, Figs. 5a-g, 6:22–32, 7:1–17. The receiver uses this information to
`
`identify the type of payload information in the frame and write it to the
`
`appropriate buffer. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1002, 10:19–22). By identifying the
`
`frame type, the header necessarily identifies the type of payload information
`
`in the frame. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Morley’s header does
`
`not “identif[y] the type of payload information.”
`
`Dependent claims
`
`Patent Owner argues that dependent claims 2–6 are not anticipated by
`
`Morley for the same reasons as independent claim 1. PO Resp. 37. We are
`
`not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments regarding independent claim 1
`
`for the reasons discussed above.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568 B1
`
`
`
`Conclusion
`
`We are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–6 are unpatentable as
`
`anticipated by Morley.
`
`D. The Challenged Claims – Obvious over Adams
`
`Petitioner argues that claims 1–6 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Adams. Pet. 45–54. In support of this ground of
`
`unpatentability, Petitioner provides detailed explanations as to how each
`
`claim limitation is taught or suggested by Adams, and relies upon the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Bims (Ex. 1009). Id. (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 71–79).
`
`Patent Owner argues that (1) Adams’s ID tag is not a “service type
`
`identifier” because it does not convey transmission characteristics; (2)
`
`Adams’s ID tag does not “identif[y] a type of payload information provided
`
`in said at least one first field,” as recited in claim 1; and (3) Adams does not
`
`teach or suggest a “base station” or “mobile station,” as recited in claims 5
`
`and 6, respectively. PO Resp. 40–46.
`
`Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and supporting
`
`evidence, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–6 are obvious over Adams.
`
`Adams (Exhibit 1006)
`
`Adams describes an interactive video system that processes a video
`
`data stream and an associated data stream corresponding to the video data
`
`stream. Ex. 1006, Abstract. The interactive video system includes satellite
`
`receiver 14, cable television (“CATV”) receiver 16, or television broadcast
`
`receiver 18. Id. at Fig. 1, 4:2–4. Satellite receiver 14 enables reception of
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568 B1
`
`
`packetized digital data streams over a satellite link. Id. at 4:5–6. The
`
`packetized digital data streams received by satellite receiver 14 include
`
`video data packets, audio data packets, and associated data packets. Id. at
`
`4:9–12.
`
`Figure 5 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 5 illustrates a packetized digital data stream, including video packet
`
`80, audio packet 82, and associated data packet 84. Id. at 7:9–14. Video
`
`packet 80, audio packet 82, and associated data packet 84 each comprise a
`
`packet header and payload. Id. at 7:15–17. Video packet 80 includes (1) a
`
`video payload that provides digital video data; and (2) a header with a video
`
`identifier (VIDEO_ID) that identifies the packet as carrying video data. Id.
`
`at 7:22–26. Audio packet 82 includes (1) an audio payload; and (2) a header
`
`with an audio identifier (AUDIO_ID) that identifies the packet as carrying
`
`audio data. Id. at 7:27–31. Associated packet 84 includes (1) an associated
`
`data payload; and (2) a header with an associated data identifier (DATA_ID)
`
`that identifies the packet as carrying associated data. Id. at 7:32–37.
`
`Analysis
`
`Independent claim 1 recites
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568 B1
`
`
`
`transmission
`information for
`a processor for arranging
`including providing at least one first field in which payload
`information is disposed and providing at least one second field,
`separate from said first field, which includes a service type
`identifier which identifies a type of payload information
`provided in said at least one first field.
`
`Petitioner relies upon Adams’s teaching of digital video packets that include
`
`a first field with payload information—i.e., video payload, audio payload, or
`
`associated data payload—and a second field, separate from the first field,
`
`with a service type identifier—i.e., VIDEO_ID, AUDIO_ID, or
`
`DATA_ID—that identifies the type of payload information provided in the
`
`first field. Pet. 47–48 (citing Ex. 1006, 7:9–37).
`
`Petitioner acknowledges that Adams teaches explicitly only a
`
`receiver. Pet. 47. Petitioner argues that Adams teaches implicitly “a
`
`communication station with a processor for formatting the audio and video
`
`data, and a transmitter for transmitting a packetized digital data stream to the
`
`device shown in Adams.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006, Figs. 1, 5, 2:54–65, 3:33–36,
`
`3:65–4:6, 4:9–14, 4:25–34, 6:7–26; Ex. 1009 ¶ 72). Dr. Bims testifies as
`
`follows:
`
`Adams discloses receiving “at least one first field” in which
`payload information is disposed because in Adams each packet
`that is received includes an audio payload, a video payload, or a
`data payload. An object of the invention in Adams is to enable
`a content programmer to create a video display screen from a
`programming studio. (Id. at 2:21–23.) Because Adams
`discloses implementing a content programmer, it is obvious (if
`not inherent) that the communication station sending to Adams
`include a processor for arranging information for transmission.
`Adams also discloses receiving “at least one second field,
`separate from the first field” that identifies a type of payload
`information because Adams discloses that each video packet
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568 B1
`
`
`
`includes a packet header that includes an identifier that
`identifies whether audio, video, or data is carried in the packet
`payload. (Id. at Figures 3, 5, and 6, 6:7–58, 7:8–37). One of
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood the Adams
`reference to teach a transmitter for transmitting said at least one
`first field and said at least one second field on said radio
`channel.
`
`Ex. 1009 ¶ 72. We are persuaded by the reasoning in the above-quoted
`
`analysis of Dr. Bims.
`
`Claim 1 also recites “a transmitter for transmitting information
`
`received from said processor including said at least one first field and said at
`
`least one second field.” As with the limitation above, Petitioner
`
`acknowledges that Adams teaches explicitly only a receiver, and argues that
`
`Adams teaches implicitly the recited “transmitter.” Pet. 47 (citing Ex. 1009
`
`¶ 71). Dr. Bims testifies as follows:
`
`The subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious in