`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
`
`