Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 27
`
`
`Entered: March 10, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`BROADCOM CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET L. M. ERICSSON
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 27
`
`
`Entered: March 10, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`BROADCOM CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET L. M. ERICSSON
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`
`
`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 (Ex. 1001, “the ’568 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”).
`
`Telefonaktiebolaget L. M. Ericsson (“Patent Owner”) filed an election to
`
`waive its preliminary response. Paper 20. We have jurisdiction under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides as follows:
`
`THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter
`partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines
`that the information presented in the petition filed under section
`311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there
`is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`Upon consideration of the petition, we determine that the information
`
`presented by Petitioner establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner would prevail in showing unpatentability of the challenged claims
`
`of the ’568 patent. Accordingly, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we institute an
`
`inter partes review of claims 1-6 of the ’568 patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner indicate that the ’568 patent is involved
`
`in a case captioned Ericsson Inc., et al. v. D-LINK Corp., et al., Civil Action
`
`No. 6:10-cv-473 (E.D. Tex.) (“Texas Litigation”). Pet. 1-2; Paper 6 at 1.
`
`Patent Owner also identifies an appeal at the Federal Circuit captioned
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`
`Ericsson Inc., et al. v. D-LINK Corp., et al., Case Nos. 2013-1625, -1631, -
`
`1632, and -1633. Paper 6 at 1. Petitioner also has filed two petitions for
`
`inter partes review of related patents: IPR2013-00601 (U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,772,215), IPR2013-00636 (U.S. Patent No. 6,424,625).
`
`B. The ’568 patent
`
`The ’568 patent relates generally to radiocommunications 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, col. 1, ll. 13-17.
`
`Figure 2 of the ’598 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 col. 5, ll. 11-15. Each TDMA frame has a duration
`
`of 40 milliseconds and supports six half-rate logical channels, three full-rate
`
`logical channels, or greater bandwidth channels as indicated in the table
`
`below:
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`
`
`
`
`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 col. 2, ll. 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 col. 5, ll. 31-47. Conventionally, this format
`
`is used for each time slot in a TDMA frame—i.e., all six time slots. Id. at ll.
`
`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 col. 6, l. 66 –
`
`col. 7, l. 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
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`
`three time slots. Id. at col. 7, ll. 4-8. Likewise, the CDVCC field need not
`
`be transmitted by the base station at triple rate. Id. at ll. 10-17.
`
`To address these issues, the ’568 patent discloses an alternative slot
`
`format to accommodate the different communication services described
`
`above. Id. at col. 5, ll. 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, col. 7, ll. 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 ll. 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 ll. 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
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`
`type of information (e.g., voice, video, or data) being conveyed in the
`
`payload. Id. at col. 3, ll. 11-16, col. 9, ll. 27-32. This information can be
`
`used by the receiving equipment to aid in processing the information
`
`conveyed in the payload. Id. at col. 3, ll. 16-19. For example, in a
`
`multimedia connection, the information being transferred may rapidly vary
`
`between voice, data, and video. Id. at col. 9, ll. 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 ll. 35-38.
`
`C. Exemplary 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. References Relied Upon
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following references:
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`
`
`Morley
`
`Sharma
`
`US 5,488,610
`
`Jan. 30, 1996
`
`US 5,500,859
`
`Mar. 19, 1996
`
`Menand
`
`US 5,548,532
`
`Aug. 20, 1996
`
`Adams
`
`US 5,541,662
`
`July 30, 1996
`
`Padovani
`
`US 5,659,569
`
`Aug. 19, 1997
`
`Zehavi
`
`US 5,581,575
`
`Dec. 3, 1996
`
`Michel Mouly, Marie-Bernadette Pautet, “The GSM
`System for Mobile Communications,” Cell & Sys.
`Correspondence, 1992 (“GSM”)
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`E. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner argues that the challenged claims are unpatentable based
`
`upon the following grounds:
`
`Reference[s]
`
`Basis Claims challenged
`
`Morley
`
`Morley
`
`Sharma
`
`Sharma
`
`Menand
`
`Menand
`
`Adams
`
`Padovani
`
`Padovani and Zehavi
`
`§ 102
`
`1-6
`
`§ 103
`
`5 and 6
`
`§ 102
`
`1-4 and 6
`
`§ 103
`
`5 and 6
`
`§ 102
`
`1-6
`
`§ 103
`
`5 and 6
`
`§ 103
`
`1-6
`
`§ 102
`
`1-6
`
`§ 103
`
`4
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. 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);
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012). Also, 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).
`
`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
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`
`of “transmission characteristics” such as channel coding. Id. Based on the
`
`specification and corroborating arguments made during prosecution of the
`
`’568 patent, we agree. The ’568 patent uses the term “services” to refer to
`
`“various types of information” being transmitted on traffic channels, and
`
`explicitly lists “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.” Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll.
`
`18-29. On this record, we are persuaded that, in the context of the ’568
`
`patent, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “service type identifier” is
`
`an identifier that identifies the type of information conveyed in the payload,
`
`including but not limited to video, voice, data, and multimedia.
`
`Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s construction.
`
`B. 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. Bims. Id. (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 29-37).
`
`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.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 is a block diagram showing the main components of
`
`communication system 10 of Morley’s invention. Id. at col. 2, ll. 52-53, 66-
`
`67. Controller 18 comprises processor 19, storage means 20,
`
`multiplexer/demultiplexer 22, voice coder/decoder 24, and line interface 27.
`
`Id. at col. 3, ll. 1-9. Communication system 10 can be used to share voice
`
`and visual data with another user of a similar system. Id. at ll. 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
`
`high speed modem (V32bis) connected to the Public Switched Telephone
`
`Network (PSTN) or a GSM mobile network). Id. at col. 5, ll. 4-6, 39-41;
`
`col. 99, ll. 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 col. 5, ll. 41-44, 52-53. The content of each frame is
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`
`determined by the applications and may change during the call. Id. at ll. 55-
`
`56, 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 col. 6, ll. 22-25.
`
`Sixteen possible headers for supporting one voice channel and up to three
`
`data channels are shown in the table below:
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`
`
`Analysis
`
`In light of the arguments and evidence, Petitioner has established a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims are unpatentable as
`
`
`
`anticipated by Morley.
`
`For example, independent claim 1 recites
`
`transmission
`for
`information
`for arranging
`a processor
`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.
`
`Morley discloses 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. Ex. 1002, col. 3, ll. 4-9,
`
`33-41. Under the direction of processor 19, multiplexer 22 arranges voice
`
`and non-voice data for transmission in frames. Id. at col. 5, ll. 4-6, 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, col. 6, ll. 4-55. A frame
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`
`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, col. 6, ll. 22-32, col. 7, ll. 1-17.
`
`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.” Morley discloses a “high speed modem 26” for
`
`transmitting the frames arranged by multiplexer 22 over the PSTN or using
`
`GSM. Id.at col. 3, l. 3, ll. 58-59, col. 4, ll. 42-44, col. 99, ll. 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.” Morley discloses implementing the claimed invention using
`
`GSM. Id. at col. 99, ll. 40-45. In addition, Petitioner argues that a “base
`
`station” and a “mobile station” are inherent in GSM (Pet. 23), and cites the
`
`Bims Declaration for the following:
`
`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.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`
`
`Petitioner also argues that claims 2-4 are disclosed by Morley. Pet.
`
`22-23. On this record, Petitioner’s showing is reasonable.
`
`Conclusion
`
`We are persuaded that Petitioner has established a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claims 1-6 are unpatentable
`
`as anticipated by Morley.
`
`C. 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. Id. (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 71-79).
`
`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 Figure 1, col. 4, ll. 2-4. Satellite receiver 14 enables
`
`reception of packetized digital data streams over a satellite link. Id. at ll. 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 ll. 9-12.
`
`Figure 5 is reproduced below.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 5 illustrates a packetized digital data stream, including video packet
`
`80, audio packet 82, and associated data packet 84. Id. at col. 7, ll. 9-14.
`
`Video packet 80, audio packet 82, and associated data packet 84 each
`
`comprise a packet header and payload. Id. at ll. 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 ll. 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 ll. 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 ll. 32-37.
`
`Analysis
`
`In light of the arguments and evidence, Petitioner has established a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious
`
`over Adams.
`
`For example, independent claim 1 recites
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`
`
`transmission
`for
`information
`for arranging
`a processor
`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.
`
`Adams teaches 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. Ex. 1006, col. 7,
`
`ll. 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 and 5; col. 2, ll. 54-
`
`65, col. 3, ll. 33-36, col. 3, l. 65-col. 4, l. 6, col. 4, ll. 9-14, 25-34, and col. 6,
`
`ll. 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.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`
`
`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
`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 view
`of Adams. Adams is focused on a receiver, while the claims are
`to a transmitting device. However, one of ordinary skill in the art
`would have understood that the Adams reference implicitly
`teaches a communication station for transmitting packetized
`digital data streams, including the three types of payload, in
`Adams. Therefore it would have been obvious to provide a
`transmitter for sending the type of data that Adams receives.
`
`Ex. 1009 ¶ 71. We are persuaded by the reasoning in the above-quoted
`
`analysis of Dr. Bims.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`
`
`Claim 5 recites “wherein said communication station is a base
`
`station.” Adams teaches transmission of packetized digital data streams over
`
`a satellite link. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 2-14. Petitioner argues
`
`that “[i]t is well-known in the art that such satellite communication devices
`
`include base stations.” Pet. 50 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 76). Dr. Bims testifies as
`
`follows:
`
`Dependent claim 5 recites that the communication station is a
`base station. Adams discloses transmission of packetized
`digital data streams over a satellite link, and thus the transmitter
`would typically be a base station. (Id. at Figure 1, 3:65-5:22).
`It is well-known in the art that such satellite communications
`devices
`include base stations.
` Adams also discloses
`communication of an analog or digital video signal over a
`coaxial transmission line.
` Transmission over a coaxial
`transmission line is typically by a head-end, or base station.
`Further, I believe it would have been obvious to provide Adams
`over almost any wireless system. Adams does not require any
`particular type of system, and thus could use systems like
`cellular systems with base stations. This would be the use of a
`known technique (of providing payloads and identifiers)
`applied to a known type of device (base station) to yield the
`predictable result of allowing the base station to send content
`and identify the packets that make up the content.
`
`Ex. 1009 ¶ 76. We are persuaded by the reasoning in the above-quoted
`
`analysis of Dr. Bims.
`
`Claim 6 recites “wherein said communication station is a mobile
`
`station.” Adams teaches computer system 10 for receiving packetized
`
`digital data streams. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, Fig. 1, col. 3, l. 65 – col. 4, l. 1.
`
`Petitioner argues that it was known for computer systems to send video,
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`
`audio, and data, and that such computer systems could be mobile, such as
`
`with laptop computers. Pet. 50-51 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 77). Dr. Bims testifies
`
`as follows:
`
`Dependent claim 6 recites that the station is a mobile station. It
`would have been obvious to provide a protocol for sending
`voice, video, and data to a mobile station, as a mobile station
`(e.g., like the laptop in Menand) could create multiple types of
`content to be sent, and therefore it would have been obvious to
`provide the ability to identify what type of data was included in
`a packet to allow the packet to be processed appropriately. This
`would be the use of a known technique (of providing payloads
`and identifiers) applied to a known type of device (mobile) to
`yield the predictable result of allowing the mobile to send
`content and identify the packets that make up the content.
`
`Ex. 1009 ¶ 77. We are persuaded by the reasoning in the above-quoted
`
`analysis of Dr. Bims.
`
`Petitioner also argues that claims 2-4 are taught or suggested by
`
`Adams. Pet. 48-49. On this record, Petitioner’s showing is reasonable.
`
`Conclusion
`
`We are persuaded that Petitioner has established a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claims 1-6 are unpatentable
`
`as obvious over Adams.
`
`D. Other Grounds
`
`Petitioner also asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`
`
`Reference[s]
`
`Morley
`
`Sharma
`
`Sharma
`
`Menand
`
`Menand
`
`Padovani
`
`Padovani and Zehavi
`
`Basis Claims challenged
`
`§ 103
`
`5 and 6
`
`§ 102
`
`1-4 and 6
`
`§ 103
`
`5 and 6
`
`§ 102
`
`1-6
`
`§ 103
`
`5 and 6
`
`§ 102
`
`1-6
`
`§ 103
`
`4
`
`Pet. 28-45, 54-59. Those asserted ground are redundant in light of the
`
`determination that there is a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims
`
`are unpatentable based on the grounds of unpatentability on which we
`
`institute an inter partes review. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`
`presented in the petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claims 1-6 of
`
`the ’568 patent.
`
`The Board has not made a final determination on the patentability of
`
`any challenged claims.
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review is
`
`hereby instituted as to claims 1-6 of the ’568 patent on the following
`
`grounds:
`
`1. Claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Morley;
`
`2. Claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Adams;
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that all other grounds raised in Petitioner’s
`
`petition are denied because they are deficient for the reasons discussed
`
`above;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial on the
`
`grounds of unpatentability authorized above; the trial commences on the
`
`entry date of this decision; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that an initial conference call with the Board
`
`is scheduled for 2:00 PM Eastern Time on April 1, 2014; the parties are
`
`directed to the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide1 for guidance in preparing
`
`for the conference call, and should be prepared to discuss any proposed
`
`changes to the Scheduling Order entered concurrently herewith and any
`
`motion the parties anticipate filing during the trial.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,765-66 (Aug.
`14, 2012).
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Dominic E. Massa
`Michael A. Diner
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
`dominic.massa@wilmerhale.com
`michael.diener@wilmerhale.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Peter J. Ayers
`J. Christopher Lynch
`LEE & HAYES PLLC
`peter@leehayes.com
`chris@leehayes.com
`
`
`22
`
`
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
