Trials@uspto.gov
`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
`
`
`
`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
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
