Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,310,993
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ERICSSON INC. and TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
`Petitioners,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01330
`United States Patent No. 8,310,993
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD,
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P. O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`i
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,310,993
`
`V.
`
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) .......................... 1
`A.
`Real Parties-in-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ........................... 1
`B.
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ..................................... 1
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information Under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.8(b)(3) and (4) ............................................................................... 2
`PAYMENT OF FEES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ......................... 2
`II.
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ....... 3
`IV.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 3
`A. Description of the ’993 Patent ............................................................... 3
`B.
`Summary of Invalidity Arguments ........................................................ 5
`C.
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’993 Patent ...................... 5
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(b) .......................................................................................................... 6
`A.
`The Specific Art and Statutory Grounds for Challenges ...................... 7
`B.
`How Challenged Claims are to be Construed ....................................... 8
`1.
`Transfer Communication Protocol (TCP)…………………………….9
`
`VI. EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PETITIONERS’ CHALLENGE OF THE
`CLAIMS .......................................................................................................... 9
`VII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS 1-12 ARE UNPATENTABLE ...................................................... 10
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 4-8, and 10-12 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) over Sipola in view of Bergstrom and AAPA ..........................10
`Ground 2: Claims 3 and 9 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Sipola in view of Bergstrom, AAPA, and Rinne .................................30
`Ground 3: Claims 1, 2, 4-8, and 10-12 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) over Kakani in view of Sipola and AAPA ................................32
`Ground 4: Claims 3 and 9 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Kakani in view of Sipola, AAPA, and Rinne .......................................46
`Ground 5: Claims 1, 2, 4-8, and 10-12 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) over Koning in view of Bergstrom and AAPA .........................48
`Ground 6: Claims 3 and 9 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Koning in view of Bergstrom, AAPA, and Rinne ................................59
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,310,993
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`
`In re Swanson
`
`540 F.3d 1368, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................. 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ................................................................................................. 7, 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ................................................................................................. 7, 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................ 6, 10, 30, 32, 46, 48, 59
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319........................................................................................... 1, 60
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(b) ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) ................................................................................................. 3
`
`
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.68 ....................................................................................................... 10
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42 ...................................................................................................... 1, 60
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 (e)(1) ............................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 (a)(1) ............................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 (b)(1) ............................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 (b)(2) ............................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 (b)(3) ............................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,310,993
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 (b)(4) ............................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1) .......................................................................................... 10
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) .......................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,310,993
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,310,993 to Speight (the “’993 Patent”)
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`Declaration of Mark Lanning re the ’993 Patent with appendices
`
`Office Action issued February 13, 2012, Prosecution History of
`’993 Patent
`Response to Office Action filed July 12, 2012, Prosecution History
`of ’993 Patent
`Interview Summary of Interview Conducted July 27, 2012,
`Prosecution History of ’993 Patent
`Notice of Allowability with Examiner’s Amendment issued
`August 14, 2012, Prosecution History of ’993 Patent
`U.S. Patent No. 7,260,073 to Sipola (“Sipola”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0054347 to Kakani (“Kakani”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,005,481 to Bergstrom, et al. (“Bergstrom”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,706,274 to Koning, et al. (“Koning”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,572,250 to Rinne, et al. (“Rinne”)
`
`Response to Office Action filed February 18, 2011, Prosecution
`History of U.S. Patent No. 8,031,654
`Response to Office Action filed June 1, 2010, Prosecution History
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,031,654
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,310,993
`
`Petitioners Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (collectively
`
`“Ericsson” or “Petitioners”) respectfully request inter partes review under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42 for Claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,310,993 (the “’993 Patent”), attached hereto as Ex. 1001.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)
`
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`Petitioners, Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, are the real
`
`parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`Petitioners are aware of the following pending judicial matters that may
`
`affect, or be affected by a decision in this proceeding. Each matter was filed in the
`
`United States District Court for the District of Delaware and asserts infringement
`
`of the ’993 Patent:
`
`Filing Date
`Defendant
`Case Number
`October 7, 2013
`1:13-cv-01668-UNA AT&T Mobility LLC et al
`1:13-cv-01669-UNA Leap Wireless International Inc. et al October 7, 2013
`1:13-cv-01670-UNA Nextel Operations Inc. et al
`October 7, 2013
`1:13-cv-01671-UNA T-Mobile USA Inc. et al
`October 7, 2013
`1:13-cv-01672-UNA United States Cellular Corporation
`October 7, 2013
`
`Petitioners filed motions to intervene in each of these actions on April 29, 2014.
`
`No ruling has been issued on these motions to intervene. Petitioners are not aware
`
`of any other judicial or administrative matter that would affect, or be affected by, a
`
`decision in this proceeding, except for U.S. Patent No. 8,031,654, and currently
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,310,993
`
`pending Application No. 13/672,079 (filed November 8, 2012), which claim
`
`common priority with the ʼ993 Patent.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information Under
`C.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and (4)
`
`
`
`Petitioners provide the following designation of counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel
`J. Robert Brown, Jr. (Reg. No. 45,438)
`rbrown@dfw.conleyrose.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`Conley Rose, P. C.
`Granite Park Three
`5601 Granite Parkway, Suite 500
`Plano, Texas 75024
`(972) 731-2288 (phone)
`(972) 731-2289 (fax)
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Charles J. Rogers (Reg. No. 38,286)
`crogers@conleyrose.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`Conley Rose, P. C.
`1001 McKinney Street, Suite 1800
`Houston, TX 77002
`(713) 238-8049 (phone)
`(713) 238-8008 (fax)
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4), Petitioners may be served at the above
`
`addresses for lead and back-up counsel. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(1),
`
`Petitioners consent to electronic service by e-mail. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.10(b), a Power of Attorney accompanies this Petition.
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`
`
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge $23,000 to Deposit Account
`
`No. 50-1515 for the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition. The
`
`undersigned further authorizes payment for any additional fees due in connection
`
`with this Petition to be charged to the above-referenced Deposit Account.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,310,993
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioners certify that the ’993 Patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and that Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`on the grounds identified herein. Petitioners further certify that: (1) Petitioners do
`
`not own the ’993 Patent; (2) Petitioners have not been served with a complaint
`
`alleging infringement of the ’993 Patent; (3) 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) does not
`
`prohibit this inter partes review; and (4) this Petition is filed after issuance of the
`
`’993 Patent, and the ’993 Patent is not currently the subject of a post-grant review.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Description of the ’993 Patent
`
`The ’993 Patent relates to allocating resources for sending uplink
`
`acknowledgments (ACKs) of transmission control protocol (TCP) segments in
`
`wireless networks. (Ex. 1001, Abstract) When a sender transmits data to a receiver,
`
`the receiver sends an ACK or message back to the sender confirming receipt of
`
`data. (Ex. 1002, ¶ 30) According to the ’993 Patent, “in TCP the receiver does not
`
`immediately send an acknowledgment for every received segment” from a wireless
`
`network, because most prior art schemes employ a “delayed ACK” feature in
`
`which a delay timer starts when a first TCP segment is received. (Ex. 1001, col. 3,
`
`ll. 36-39) Pursuant to “[RFC 1122]: ‘When used, a TCP receiver MUST NOT
`
`excessively delay acknowledgments. Specifically, an ACK SHOULD be generated
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,310,993
`
`for at least every second full-sized segment.’” (Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 51-54)
`
`Therefore, if the delay timer expires after a second TCP segment is received, the
`
`receiver should transmit an ACK to the network. (Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 39-41)
`
`However, a user equipment (UE), such as a mobile device or handset, needs
`
`to send the network a request for uplink resources in order to transmit the ACK
`
`after receiving the second TCP segment, and then wait to receive a message from
`
`the network allocating the requested uplink resources to the UE. (Ex. 1001, col. 4,
`
`ll. 35-41) “Notably, a significant latency 350 exists with this request for an
`
`allocated resource.” (Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 41-42) The ’993 Patent purports to
`
`address this issue by having a network count TCP segments as they are transmitted
`
`to the UE, and then allocate uplink resources to the UE when the count reaches a
`
`certain number such as two. (Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 62-67) The ’993 Patent suggests
`
`that the benefit of counting is that it allows the network to know how many
`
`unacknowledged TCP segments have been transmitted to the UE. (Ex. 1001, col. 8,
`
`ll. 47-52) The network may use this knowledge to allocate a sufficient amount of
`
`resources for the UE to send an uplink ACK: “UE then responds with a stand-alone
`
`ACK data segment,” where “the stand-alone ‘ACK’ data segment may be
`
`immediately placed in allocated UL resources in 540, so there is no requirement to
`
`transmit a message to request UL resources.” (Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 56-61)
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,310,993
`
`B.
`
`Summary of Invalidity Arguments
`
`It was well known at the time of invention of the ’993 Patent for a network
`
`to count the number of segments it sent to a UE. (See, e.g., Ex. 1007, Abstract; Ex.
`
`1010, Abstract) Indeed, as Mr. Lanning confirms, the ’993 Patent’s claimed feature
`
`of counting packets transmitted by the network to the UE would have been obvious
`
`to one skilled in the art because it is necessary to be in compliance with RFC 1122
`
`(“an ACK SHOULD be generated for at least every second full-sized segment”), as
`
`noted in the Background of the ’993 Patent itself. (Ex. 1002, ¶ 74) It was also well
`
`known for a network to allocate an appropriate amount of uplink resources so that
`
`a UE can transmit data including acknowledgements. (See, e.g., Ex. 1007, Fig. 1;
`
`Ex. 1008, ¶ 33; Ex. 1009, ¶ 27) Further still, it was well known to allocate the
`
`uplink resources in response to a downlink transmission so that the UE may send
`
`an uplink ACK without having to separately request resources to do so. (See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1008, ¶ 40; Ex. 1009, ¶ 17) Accordingly, as discussed in further detail below,
`
`there is a “reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at
`
`least one of the claims challenged.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(b).
`
`C.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’993 Patent
`
`On August 16, 2006, the inventor of the ’993 Patent filed British App. No.
`
`0616241.6. On March 20, 2007, the inventor of the ’993 Patent filed U.S. App. No.
`
`11/726,397, which issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,031,654 (“the Parent application”) and
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,310,993
`
`purportedly claims priority to the British application. The ’993 Patent is a
`
`continuation of the Parent application and was filed as U.S. App. No. 13/234,904
`
`on September 16, 2011.
`
`The Examiner issued a first and only Office Action (Ex. 1003) on February
`
`13, 2012, rejecting Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Kakani (Ex. 1008) in view of WO 2005/002148 (“Speight”). On July 12, 2012, the
`
`Applicant filed a response (Ex. 1004) amending Claim 1 and adding Claims 2-14.
`
`As discussed further below, the Applicant argued that Kakani and Speight did not
`
`disclose a wireless network counting segments transmitted to a UE and sending an
`
`allocation message in response to the count exceeding a predetermined number.
`
`(Ex. 1004, p. 14, ll. 13-20) As a result of an Examiner-Initiated Interview
`
`conducted on July 27, 2012 (Ex. 1005), the Examiner entered an Examiner’s
`
`amendment and allowed the case. (Ex. 1006) As discussed below, Claims 1 and 8
`
`were amended to include the following subject matter from Claims 6 and 13: “and
`
`the allocation of uplink resources is sufficient to have information indicating
`
`acknowledgment.”
`
`V.
`
`
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(b)
`
`Petitioners request that Claims 1-12 of the ’993 Patent be found
`
`unpatentable.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,310,993
`
`A. The Specific Art and Statutory Grounds for Challenges
`
`
`
`The earliest priority claimed by the ’993 Patent is August 16, 2006.
`
`Petitioners have not evaluated the propriety of the priority claim or whether the
`
`claims in the ’993 Patent are supported by the disclosure of the Parent application
`
`or the British application. Petitioners have assumed, arguendo, that the ’993 Patent
`
`is entitled to the earliest claimed priority date. Petitioners request inter partes
`
`review of Claims 1-12 (“Challenged Claims”) in view of the following prior art
`
`references:
`
`
`
`1. Sipola (Ex. 1007) was filed on December 2, 2002 and published on June
`
`3, 2004. Thus, Sipola constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), § 102(a),
`
`and/or § 102(e).
`
`
`
`2. Kakani (Ex. 1008) was filed on September 5, 2003 and published on
`
`March 10, 2005. Thus, Kakani constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), §
`
`102(a), and/or § 102(e).
`
`
`
`3. Bergstrom (Ex. 1009) is a national application of PCT App. No.
`
`PCT/SE2005/000786 filed on May 26, 2005. The international application
`
`designated the United States and was published in English. Therefore, Bergstrom
`
`constitutes prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and/or § 102(a).
`
`
`
`4. Koning (Ex. 1010) was filed on July 29, 2005 and published on February
`
`16, 2006. Therefore, Koning constitutes prior art at least under 35 U.S.C.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,310,993
`
`§ 102(a) and/or § 102(e).
`
`
`
`5. Rinne (Ex. 1011) is a national application of PCT App. No.
`
`PCT/IB2006/001474 filed on February 24, 2006. The international application
`
`designated the United States and was published in English. Therefore, Rinne
`
`constitutes prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and/or § 102(a).
`
`
`
`6. Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”) - the “Background of the
`
`Invention” section and FIGS. 1-3 of the ’993 Patent (Ex. 1001) constitute
`
`applicant-admitted prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`B. How Challenged Claims are to be Construed
`
`A claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The claim terms that would
`
`benefit from claim construction by the Board are identified below. For all other
`
`claim terms, Petitioners have applied the broadest reasonable construction as
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at or around the time of the earliest
`
`priority date of August 16, 2006.
`
`As set forth by the Federal Circuit, the “broadest reasonable construction”
`
`standard is fundamentally different from the claim construction that applies in
`
`litigation. In re Swanson, 540 F.3d 1368, 1377‐78 (Fed. Cir. 2008). By identifying
`
`the broadest reasonable construction for certain terms in the claims below,
`
`Petitioners offer no position on the proper claim construction for any purpose
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,310,993
`
`outside the instant inter partes review, including for purposes of litigation. For
`
`example, narrower constructions may apply to any one or more claims terms in
`
`contexts outside the present inter partes review.
`
`1. Transfer Communication Protocol (TCP)
`
`Mr. Lanning notes that the ’993 Patent refers to TCP as “transfer
`
`communication protocol,” but TCP is more commonly referred to as “transmission
`
`control protocol.” (Ex. 1002, ¶ 41) The ’993 Patent points readers to “[RFC 793]
`
`for a full description of the TCP protocol.” (Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 28-29) As
`
`indicated under the “Other Publications” section on the front cover of the ’993
`
`Patent, RFC 793 is a document entitled “Transmission Control Protocol.” (Ex.
`
`1001, p. 1) Given the context of the ’993 Patent, Mr. Lanning confirms that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand “transfer communication protocol” in the
`
`’993 Patent to mean “transmission control protocol.” (Ex. 1002, ¶ 41) Thus, for the
`
`purpose of the instant inter partes review petition, the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of “transfer communication protocol” in the ’993 Patent includes
`
`“transmission control protocol.”
`
`VI. EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PETITIONERS’ CHALLENGE OF THE
`CLAIMS
`
`
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5), a list of Exhibits identifying all exhibits
`
`supporting this Petition, with each exhibit assigned a respective exhibit number, is
`
`submitted herewith. Additionally, the relevance of the evidence to the challenges
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,310,993
`
`raised, including identification of specific portions of the evidence that support the
`
`challenge, may be found below. Although Petitioners do not necessarily view the
`
`preamble of the various claims to be limiting, Petitioners nevertheless present
`
`relevant evidence for preamble features. Petitioners further submit a declaration of
`
`Mr. Mark Lanning, which includes detailed claim charts, in support of this Petition
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68. (Ex. 1002)
`
`VII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS 1-12 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1), Petitioners request inter partes review of
`
`
`
`Claims 1-12 of the ’993 Patent based on the following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 4-8, and 10-12 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`over Sipola in view of Bergstrom and AAPA
`
`As confirmed by Mr. Lanning, the method claims (7-12) do not include any
`
`
`
`materially different limitations from their corresponding network claims (1-6). (Ex.
`
`1002, ¶ 44) Therefore, the discussions for all grounds herein are directed to the
`
`network claims but apply equally to the corresponding method claims.
`
`i. Claims 1 & 7
`
`
`
`The claim charts below specify where each element of the claims are found
`
`in the prior art, with annotations added in parentheses for ease of reference. The
`
`prior art is summarized in the following discussion.
`
`Sipola proposes “a method for scheduling of plural packet data flows
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,310,993
`
`transmitted via a single transmission resource, wherein each data flow uses a
`
`retransmission scheme[.] The method includes . . . detecting that a number of data
`
`packets has been transmitted via the transmission resource, and in response thereto,
`
`generating an acknowledgment message including the acknowledgment status of
`
`each of number of data packets and allocating another one of the plural data flows
`
`to the single transmission resource.” (Ex. 1007, Abstract)
`
`
`
`Similar to the ’993 Patent, Bergstrom recognizes that prior to an uplink
`
`transmission, “the UE must first transmit a scheduling request to the Node B, to
`
`inform the Node B that data is available for transmission,” and that “this procedure
`
`causes a delay.” (Ex. 1009, col. 2, ll. 15-19 (emphasis added)) Bergstrom adds,
`
`“since most applications involve sending feedback messages in the uplink, such as
`
`Transfer Control Protocol (TCP) acknowledgements . . . , the delay in uplink
`
`scheduling will affect the performance significantly of the downlink data traffic.”
`
`(Ex. 1009, col. 2, ll. 44-49) Thus, “it would be desirable to be able to start an
`
`uplink transmission without performing a preceding scheduling request, in
`
`particular when the uplink transmission is a response of a previously transmitted
`
`downlink transmission.” (Ex. 1009, col. 3, ll. 20-23 (emphasis added))
`
`
`
`AAPA admits it was well known at the time of the ’993 Patent for a UE to
`
`send an ACK upon receiving at least one TCP segment from a network. AAPA also
`
`admits it was well known for the UE to request an allocation of uplink resources to
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,310,993
`
`transmit the ACK. Mr. Lanning confirms one of ordinary skill would understand to
`
`have a network count packets transmitted to a UE on the downlink so that an
`
`acknowledgment procedure is carried out after transmitting a predetermined
`
`number of packets, as taught by Sipola, and to allocate uplink resources for the UE
`
`to send an uplink TCP acknowledgment in response to the downlink transmission,
`
`as taught by Bergstrom, in order to reduce scheduling delays and comply with RFC
`
`1122. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 71, 74)
`
`Claim 1
`(pre) A wireless
`network
`comprising:
`(a) a circuit located
`in
`the wireless
`network,
`
`the
`(b) wherein
`circuit
`buffers
`segments
`of
`transfer
`communication
`protocol
`(TCP)
`data for downlink
`(DL) transmission;
`
`Sipola (Ex. 1007), Bergstrom (Ex. 1009), AAPA (Ex. 1001)
`“a mobile communication system” (Ex. 1007, col. 1, ll. 32-
`33)
`
`“The MAC layer performs the signaling needed to instruct
`which terminal MS is allowed to transmit in the uplink and
`to indicate to which MS each block is targeted. The packet
`scheduler as a functional entity controls the behavior of
`MAC. For downlink transmission, it can be considered that
`the packet scheduler also activates the selected RLC
`instance to generate the block to be transmitted. In a
`practical
`implementation,
`these
`instances/
`entities/
`functionalities are typically implemented close to each
`other and they all reside in the Packet Control Unit (PCU)
`logical element.” (Ex. 1007, col. 2, ll. 1-11)
`“[T]he invention relates to the scheduling of data blocks of
`multiple data flows over a single resource, where each flow
`uses a retransmission scheme providing for retransmission
`of packet data of a respective flow for which a positive
`acknowledgment of delivery to a destination of packet data
`was not obtained.” (Ex. 1007, col. 1, ll. 37- 42)
`“When TCP is used (for bulk data transfer) in ‘request and
`allocate’ wireless communication systems (i.e. one using
`the shared channel concept), a message flow between a UE
`305 and the network 310 occurs, similar to the data flow
`illustrated in FIG. 3. Here, at least one full-sized TCP
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,310,993
`
`segment arrives at a network’s DL buffer, in step 315.”
`(Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 23-28 (emphasis added); see also FIG.
`3 (labeled “Prior Art”))
`“The delayed ACK feature is shown diagrammatically in
`FIG. 2 [labeled as “Prior Art”] and explained in 220, with a
`TCP segment 215 transmitted between a transmitter 205
`and a receiver 210 (note that the typical configuration in
`wireless systems will be that the network is the transmitter
`and the UE is the receiver).” (Ex. 1001, col. 3, l. 64-col. 4,
`l. 1 (emphasis added))
`“Generally, the present invention is applicable to any
`packet data flows to be scheduled for transmission via a
`single transmission resource . . . . The single resource may
`for example be an air (radio) interface in a mobile
`communication system.” (Ex. 1007, col. 1, ll. 27-33)
`“The control device . . . comprising . . . a transmitter
`configured to transmit at least one packet of the packet data
`flow.” (Ex. 1007, Claim 17)
`“The packet data flows are multiplexed on a single
`timeslot, e.g. in downlink DL, from a network entity (e.g.
`base station BS) to a terminal (e.g. mobile station MS).”
`(Ex. 1007, col. 2, l. 65-col. 3, l. 1; see also Fig. 1)
`“detecting that a number of data packets has been
`transmitted via the transmission resource.” (Ex. 1007,
`Abstract)
`“A control device comprising: a scheduler configured to
`allocate one of a plurality of data flows to a single
`transmission resource for
`transmission, [and] a first
`detector configured to detect that the number of packet data
`has been transmitted.” (Ex. 1007, Claim 13 (emphasis
`added))
`“It is assumed that the predetermined number of blocks
`constituting a continuously scheduled packet data flow
`comprises 4 blocks blk0 to blk3 which are consecutively
`transmitted in time.” (Ex. 1007, col. 7, l. 67 to col. 8, l. 3)
`“The network entity transmits blocks blk0 to blk3 to the
`terminal MS. As the network entity ‘knows’ that only four
`blocks in this example are to be transmitted, the fourth
`block blk3 includes a poll.” (Ex. 1007, col. 8, ll. 6-9)
`the “detecting that a certain number of packet data has been
`
`transmitter
`(c) a
`arranged
`to
`transmit
`the
`buffered segments
`of TCP data to a
`user
`equipment
`(UE);
`
`(d) the circuit is
`further configured
`to count a number
`of
`transmitted
`segments of TCP
`data;
`
`(e) wherein
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`further
`is
`circuit
`in
`configured,
`the
`response
`to
`count exceeding a
`predetermined
`number,
`
`
`(f) to transmit a
`message
`that
`indicates
`an
`allocation of uplink
`resources
`to
`transfer an uplink
`segment and
`the
`allocation of uplink
`resources
`is
`sufficient to have
`information
`indicating
`acknowledgment;
`and
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,310,993
`
`transmitted via the transmission resource, and in response
`thereto” (Ex. 1007, col. 4, ll. 27-31 (emphasis added))
`See also Ex. 1007, col. 7, l. 38.
`“After all blocks up to the e.g. predetermined number of
`blocks has been transmitted for TBF1, another packet data
`flow, i.e. TBF2 is allocated to the resource. While blocks of
`TBF2 are transmitted, the acknowledgment message ACK
`concerning the previously allocated TBF1 is transmitted.”
`(Ex. 1007, col. 9, ll. 18-22 (emphasis added))
`“The present invention is a method for scheduling of plural
`packet data flows transmitted via a single transmission
`resource, wherein . . . the method compris[es] the steps of:
`allocating one of the plural data flows to the single
`transmission resource for transmission, the data flow
`comprising a number of packet data, first detecting that a
`certain number of packet data has been transmitted via the
`transmission resource, and in response thereto, generating
`an
`acknowledgment
`message
`including
`the
`acknowledgment status of each of the number of data
`packets.” (Ex. 1007, col. 4, ll. 18-31 (emphasis added))
`“The scheduler gives a single (currently allocated) data
`flow a ‘continuous,’ i.e. cyclic/repeated transmission turn .
`. . . The ARQ protocol instance provides for sending an
`acknowledgment message which includes the receive status
`of blocks until a certain last block.” (Ex. 1007, col. 6, ll.
`40-47)
`“The expression ‘certain last block’ means that a certain
`(sometimes predetermined) number of data packets are
`transmitted per continuous packet data flow before an
`acknowledgment procedure is carried out for this number
`of packets.” (Ex. 1007, col. 6, ll. 60-64 (emphasis added))
`“[T]he decision when an acknowledgment message should
`be sent is always made by the network. In downlink data
`transfer, this is accomplished by polling (requesting) the
`MS to transmit the Ack/Nack.” (Ex. 1007, col. 7, ll. 8-12)
`“FIG. 1b
`illustrates a similar scenario
`in uplink
`transmission . . . . Prior to the transmission of a block blk,
`the network entity informs the terminal by means of so-
`called uplink state flags USF of the availability of uplink
`resources for transmission of the terminal.” (Ex. 1007, col.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,310,993
`
`8, ll. 48-54 (emphasis added))
`“The UE 305 then transmits 335 a message to the network
`310, requesting UL resources to transmit an ACK message,
`as shown in step 340. In response thereto, the network 310
`transmits a message to the UE 305 allocating UL resources,
`as shown in step 345. Thereafter, the UE 305 is able to
`implement the data transfer in step 355, which includes an
`‘ACK’ message.” (Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 35-41 (emphasis
`added))
`“[I]t would be desirable to be able to start an uplink
`transmission . . . when the uplink transmission is a response
`of a previously transmitted downlink transmission. That is
`achieved by
`the Node B of
`the present
`invention
`comprising . . . means for scheduling an uplink data
`tr