`571.272.7822
`
`
` Paper 21
` Entered: July 22, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC. AND LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,1
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and GARTH D. BAER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining Challenged Claim Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`1 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`(collectively “Samsung”) were terminated from the proceeding. Paper 20.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Apple Inc., LG Electronics, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively “Petitioner”) filed a
`Petition for inter partes review of claims 17 and 18 of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,868,079 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’079 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Uniloc
`2017 LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary
`Response, we instituted inter partes review, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, as
`to claims 17 and 18 based on all challenges set forth in the Petition. Paper 7
`(“Decision to Institute” or “Dec.”).
`Subsequent to institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
`Response (Paper 9, “PO Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s
`Response (Paper 10, “Pet. Reply”), and Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply
`(Paper 11, “Sur-reply”). On April 23, 2020, we held an oral hearing. A
`transcript of the hearing is of record. Paper 17 (“Tr.”).
`On May 15, 2020, Petitioner filed an unopposed request to withdraw
`the challenges set forth in the Petition with respect to claim 18. Ex. 3001.
`In essence, Petitioner requests removal of the challenges to claim 18 from
`the Petition as if claim 18 was never challenged. Id. We grant Petitioner’s
`request. We modify our Decision to Institute to institute inter partes review,
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, as to only claim 17 based on all challenges set
`forth in the Petition.
`On June 8, 2020, we granted the parties’ joint motion to terminate the
`proceeding with respect to Samsung. Paper 20.
`In our Scheduling Order, we notified the parties that “any arguments
`not raised in the [Patent Owner] response may be deemed waived.” See
`Paper 8, 7; see also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756,
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“The patent owner response . . . should identify all
`the involved claims that are believed to be patentable and state the basis for
`that belief.”). Patent Owner argues that it “does not concede, and
`specifically denies, that there is any legitimacy to any arguments in the
`instant Petition that are not specifically addressed” in its Patent Owner
`Response. PO Resp. 19 n.9. We decline to speculate as to what Patent
`Owner considers is not legitimate in the Petition. Any arguments for
`patentability not raised in the Patent Owner Response are deemed waived.
`For the reasons that follow, we conclude that Petitioner has proven by
`a preponderance of the evidence that claim 17 of the ’079 patent is
`unpatentable.
`
`A. Related Matters
`Petitioner and Patent Owner indicate that the ’079 patent is the subject
`of several court proceedings. Pet. 78–79; PO Resp. 3. The ’079 patent also
`is the subject of Board proceeding IPR2020-00038. IPR2020-00038 was
`filed by Motorola Mobility LLC and institution was granted. See Motorola
`Mobility LLC, v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2020-00038, Paper 9 (PTAB April
`13, 2020).
`
`B. The ’079 Patent
`The ’079 patent describes “a method of operating a radio
`communication system,” where the radio communication system is “required
`to be able to exchange [signaling] messages between a Mobile Station (MS)
`and a Base Station (BS).” Ex. 1001, 1:7–8, 1:18–20. The ’079 patent
`further describes that an object of the invention “is to improve the efficiency
`of the method by which a MS requests resources from a BS.” Id. at 1:56–58.
`The ’079 patent describes a secondary station (i.e., MS) transmitting a
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`request for resources to a primary station (i.e., BS) in a time slot allocated to
`the secondary station, where the secondary station re-transmits the request in
`at least a majority of its allocated time slots until an acknowledgment is
`received from the primary station. Id. at 1:60–67. Because there is no
`possibility of requests from different secondary stations colliding, a
`secondary station can re-transmit requests in each allocated time slot. Id. at
`2:3–5. Further, the primary station can improve the accuracy with which it
`determines whether a request was sent by a particular secondary station if
`the received signal strength is close to the detection threshold by examining
`the received signals in multiple time slots allocated to the secondary station
`in question. Id. at 2:9–14.
`An example radio communication system is illustrated in Figure 1,
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`Figure 1 is a block diagram of a radio communication system comprising a
`primary station (BS) 100 and a plurality of secondary stations (MS 110). Id.
`at 3:10–12. Communication from BS 100 to MS 110 takes place on
`downlink channel 122, while communication from MS 110 to BS 100 takes
`place on uplink channel 124. Id. at 3:19–21.
`
`C. Challenged Claim
`Petitioner challenges independent claim 17 of the ’079 patent. Claim
`17 is reproduced below.
`17. A method of operating a radio communication
`system, comprising:
`allocating respective time slots in an uplink channel to a
`plurality of respective secondary stations; and
`transmitting a respective request for services to establish
`required services from at least one of the plurality of respective
`secondary stations to a primary station in the respective time
`slots;
`
`wherein the at least one of the plurality of respective
`secondary stations re-transmits the same respective request in
`consecutive allocated time slots without waiting for an
`acknowledgement until said acknowledgement is received from
`the primary station,
`wherein the primary station determines whether a request
`for services has been transmitted by the at least one of the
`plurality of respective secondary stations by determining
`whether a signal strength of the respective transmitted request of
`the at least one of the plurality of respective secondary stations
`exceeds a threshold value.
`Ex. 1001, 8:12–33.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`As modified above, we instituted trial based on all asserted grounds of
`unpatentability under 35 U.S.C.2 as follows:
`Claim
`35 U.S.C. §
`References
`17
`103(a)
`Wolfe3, Bousquet4, Patsiokas5
`Wolfe, Bousquet, Everett6,
`17
`103(a)
`Patsiokas
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Principles of Law
`To prevail in its challenge to Patent Owner’s claim, Petitioner must
`demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence7 that the claim is
`unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2012); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) (2018). A
`patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
`
`
`2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Because the ’079
`patent has an effective filing date before the effective date of the applicable
`AIA amendments, we refer to the pre-AIA versions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and
`103.
`3 US 4,763,325, issued August 9, 1988 (Ex. 1005, “Wolfe”).
`4 US 6,298,052 B1, issued October 2, 2001 (Ex. 1006, “Bousquet”).
`5 PCT Application Publication No. WO 1992/21214, published November
`26, 1992 (Ex. 1007, “Patsiokas”).
`6 VERY SMALL APERTURE TERMINALS (VSATS), Institution of Electrical
`Engineers (IEE), Telecommunication Series 28, First Edition (John L.
`Everett ed., Peter Peregrinus Ltd. 1st ed. 1992) (“Everett,” filed as Part 1 and
`Part 2, both parts identified as Ex. 1008). See also Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 5–7.
`7 The burden of showing something by a preponderance of the evidence
`requires the trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is more
`probable than its nonexistence before the trier of fact may find in favor of
`the party who carries the burden. Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v.
`Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
`pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).
`The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
`determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
`of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective evidence of
`nonobviousness.8 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill
`In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors
`may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art;
`prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are
`made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active
`workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`(citation omitted). Petitioner relies on the testimony of Dr. Paul Steffes, who
`testifies that a person with ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Master
`of Science Degree in an academic area emphasizing telecommunications
`systems, or an equivalent field (or a similar technical Master’s Degree, or
`higher degree) with a concentration in telecommunications systems” or “a
`Bachelor’s Degree (or higher degree) in an academic area emphasizing
`telecommunications systems with two or more years of work experience in
`telecommunications systems.” Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 31). Patent
`Owner does not propose an alternative assessment. See generally PO Resp.
`
`
`8 Patent Owner does not present any objective evidence of nonobviousness
`as to the challenged claim.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`We adopt Dr. Steffes’s assessment of a person with ordinary skill in
`the art as it is consistent with the ’079 patent and the asserted prior art. We
`further note that the prior art of record in the instant proceeding reflects the
`appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261
`F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding the Board may omit specific
`findings as to the level of ordinary skill in the art “where the prior art itself
`reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”).
`
`C. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review for a petition filed on or after November 13,
`2018, “[claims] of a patent . . . shall be construed using the same claim
`construction standard that would be used to construe the [claims] in a civil
`action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the [claims] in
`accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claims as
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history
`pertaining to the patent.” See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard
`for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and
`Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,358 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018) (now codified at
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`1303, 1312– 14 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
` “acknowledgment”
`Claim 17 recites “wherein the at least one of the plurality of respective
`secondary stations re-transmits the same respective request in consecutive
`allocated time slots without waiting for an acknowledgement until said
`acknowledgment is received from the primary station.” Petitioner proposes
`that “acknowledgment” should be construed to mean “a message sent from
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`the primary station to the secondary station stating the primary station’s
`receipt of the secondary station’s request.” Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 34).
`In our Decision to Institute, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed claim
`construction for “acknowledgment” to mean “a message sent from the
`primary station to the secondary station stating the primary station’s receipt
`of the secondary station’s request.” Dec. 6–7. Neither party has indicated
`that our interpretation was improper, and we do not perceive any reason or
`evidence that now compels any deviation from our initial interpretation.
`Accordingly, “acknowledgment” means “a message sent from the primary
`station to the secondary station stating the primary station’s receipt of the
`secondary station’s request.”
`For purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe any
`other claim term. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d
`795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed
`that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean
`Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the
`context of an inter partes review).
`
`D. Asserted Obviousness of Claim 17 over Wolfe, Bousquet, Everett, and
`Patsiokas
`Petitioner contends claim 17 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`as obvious over Wolfe, Bousquet, Everett, and Patsiokas. Pet. 16–57, 73–
`78. In support of its showing, Petitioner relies upon the declaration of Dr.
`Steffes. Id. (citing Ex. 1003).
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`1. Wolfe
`Wolfe describes a method of frame management in a time division
`multiple access (TDMA) communication system in which a fixed time frame
`is divided into segments that are assigned to separate stations. Ex. 1005,
`4:47–51. Each station is responsible for the management of its own
`segment. Id. at 4:51–52. The frame is further provided with an overflow
`area. Id. at 4:52–53. Whenever a station overflows the capacity of its own
`assigned segment, a request is made to a central station to assign a small slot
`in the overflow area to that station. Id. at 4:53–56. The control of the slot
`reverts to the central station when its use by the station terminates. Id. at
`4:56–57.
`An example format of a frame of a TDMA system is illustrated in
`Figure 3 reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 3 is a timing diagram illustrating a “format for a TDMA frame”. Id.
`at 5:16–17. “The frame begins with two reference bursts RBa and RBb,
`which are separately assigned to each of two reference stations.” Id. at
`5:17–20. “A preallocated segment is subdivided into traffic bursts TB1 –
`TBN” where “[e]ach of the traffic bursts are assigned to one of N ground
`stations 10.” Id. at 5:35–36. The TDMA frame also includes an overflow
`area that is divided into overflow slots, where each of the overflow slots is
`assigned to one of traffic bursts TB’1 – TB’M, and where unused slots
`represent spare overflow capacity. Id. at 6:1–4.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`2. Bousquet
`Bousquet describes a shared resource transmission system that is used
`to set up transmission between a calling station and a called station.
`Ex. 1006, 1:7–9. The system entails a calling station sending data packets
`using a resource shared with other stations, where the data packets are access
`packets for setting up a call between a calling station and a called station.
`Id. at 1:18–21. “The various stations share the resource without any prior
`reservation of time slots and without any temporal synchronization of the
`stations.” Id. at 1:22–24. “Because there is no reservation, collisions can
`occur between access packets sent by different stations.” Id. at 1:24–26. To
`limit call set-up time and the probability of collision of access packets
`transmitted by a station, each station requiring to set up a call transmits at
`least two access packets without waiting for an acknowledgment between
`sending the access packets. Id. at 2:49–54. More specifically, the same
`access packet is sent n times (n>1) in a given time period whether an
`acknowledgment message is received from the station to which these
`packets are sent or not. Id. at 2:54–57. “The systematic repetition of the
`access packets in the predefined time period therefore increases the
`probability that at least one of the packets will reach the destination station,
`which reduces the time necessary to set up a call.” Id. at 3:53–56.
`3. Patsiokas
`Patsiokas describes a method and apparatus whereby a
`communication unit transmits a communication channel request and the
`nearest base site makes the communication channel grant. Ex. 1007, 4:11–
`14.9 “A base site receives the channel request signal, measures the received
`
`
`9 Citations are to page numbers located at the bottom of the pages.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`signal strength (RSS or RSSI) level of the received signal, and if that level is
`above a first threshold level, a communication channel is granted to the
`requesting unit, thus establishing a communication link.” Id. at 4:14–18.
`The first threshold level is a predetermined value of decibels above a
`maximum sensitivity level of a base site. Id. at 6:34–36. Then, the base site
`maintains the communication link as long as the RSSI level does not drop
`below a second threshold level that is substantially lower than the first
`threshold level. Id. at 4:18–21. The second threshold level is the maximum
`sensitivity level of the base site. Id. at 6:30–31.
`
`4. Everett
`Everett describes a communication system involving “Very Small
`Aperture Terminals (VSATs),” where a VSAT includes any form of small
`terminal system. Ex. 1008, 1.10 Typically, a VSAT communication system,
`or VSAT system, comprises a hub earth station, with a larger aperture
`antenna, controlling a cluster of VSATs, with smaller antennas. Id. at 2–3.
`The objective of the VSAT system is to provide an end-to-end
`communication link for a user. Id. at 8. An example VSAT system is
`illustrated in Figure 1.6 reproduced below.
`
`
`10 Like the parties do, we cite to the internal page numbers of the pages
`rather than the page numbers included at the bottom of each page.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1.6 illustrates three forms of a VSAT system. Id. at 11–12.
`According to Everett, these three forms include: (a) data distribution
`(involving a one-way communication link); (b) data gathering (also
`involving a one-way communication link); or (c) interactive (involving a
`two-way communication link). Id. at 11. A typical two-way VSAT system
`involves a hub in a star configuration transmitting a time division multiplex
`(TDM) stream to all VSATs in the network. Id. at 14. A VSAT with a
`message for the hub will transmit a short duration burst on a calling channel
`requesting access to a channel to transmit its message. Id. The hub
`acknowledges the request, assigns a channel and the VSAT changes
`frequency and transmits its message. Id. In a busy network, there will be
`collisions between some access request bursts and the VSAT may not get an
`acknowledgment from the hub. Id. Under these circumstances, the VSAT
`re-transmits its burst request after a pseudo randomly determined interval
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`and continues doing so until it receives an acknowledgment and is assigned
`a channel. Id.
`Everett further describes an access channel that provides all the
`signaling information from a VSAT to a hub, where the VSAT can, inter
`alia, request a channel, and where the VSAT can re-transmit this request
`after a pre-determined delay in the event of a collision with another channel
`request sent by another VSAT. Id. at 337–38. Everett further describes a
`control channel, where the control channel is a signaling channel used by the
`hub to respond to VSAT requests on the access channel. Id. at 338. The
`control channel has a defined packet structure to allow responses to the
`VSAT, including, inter alia, an acknowledge channel used to send back
`“clear-to-transmit” messages to the VSAT. Id. at 339.
`5. Discussion
`Petitioner contends that the “Wolfe-Bousquet-Patsiokas” combination
`renders claim 17 obvious for the reasons described in connection with
`Petitioner’s “Ground 1,” but to the extent that Wolfe does not render obvious
`the proposed construction of “acknowledgment” and re-transmission until an
`acknowledgment is received, Petitioner argues that Everett in combination
`with Wolfe, Bousquet, and Patsiokas meets those claimed limitations as
`proposed in “Ground 2.” Pet. 75. The two challenges are otherwise the
`same. Id. at 16–57, 73–78. For purposes of this Decision, we focus our
`analysis on Petitioner’s challenge that claim 17 is unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Wolfe, Bousquet, Everett, and Patsiokas
`(Ground 2).
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`Claim 17 recites a “method of operating a radio communication
`system, comprising.”11 Petitioner contends that Wolfe describes a satellite
`communication system in which ground stations 10 and reference station 18
`communicate over wireless satellite signals. Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1005, 1:13–
`2:9). Petitioner further contends, and we agree, that in Wolfe’s system,
`transmissions between the ground stations and the satellite occur at a radio
`frequency, and that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have
`found a satellite communication system operating at radio frequency to be a
`radio communication system. Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 7:23–28; Ex. 1003 ¶ 85).
`Petitioner explains, and we agree, that by describing a method of frame
`management for a satellite communication system operating at radio
`frequency, Wolf describes a “method of operating a radio communication
`system.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s showing with
`respect to Wolfe meeting the preamble of claim 17. See generally PO Resp.
`Claim 17 recites “allocating respective time slots in an uplink channel
`to a plurality of respective secondary stations.” Petitioner contends, and we
`find, that Wolfe describes a plurality of ground stations 10 (respective
`secondary stations) where each station is given a portion of a pre-allocated
`segment of a divided TDMA frame for uplink to satellite 12 (allocating
`respective time slots in an uplink channel). Id. at 41–43 (citing Ex. 1005,
`1:13–2:9, 5:6–15, 5:34–46, 8:65–68, Figs. 1, 3; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 86–87). Patent
`Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s showing with respect to Wolfe meeting
`this limitation. See generally PO Resp.
`
`
`11 We need not resolve the issue of whether the preamble is limiting
`because, regardless of whether the preamble is limiting, Petitioner shows
`that Wolfe meets the preamble.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`Claim 17 recites “transmitting a respective request for services to
`establish required services from at least one of the plurality of respective
`secondary stations to a primary station in the respective time slots.”
`Petitioner contends, and we find, that Wolfe’s ground station 10 (secondary
`station) signals to reference station 18 (primary station) that a channel is
`required using its preallocated time slot. Id. at 43 (citing Ex. 1005, 5:6–15,
`6:10–31.) Petitioner contends, and we agree, that Wolfe’s signal from
`ground station 10 to reference station 18 for additional capacity is a
`transmitted request for services to establish required services because the
`channel is required to complete a telephone call. Id. at 43–44 (citing
`Ex. 1005, 6:10–31). Petitioner explains that Wolfe’s ground station 10
`forwards the received call request to reference station 18 as a connection
`request for allocation of an additional time slot in the overflow section. Id.
`Petitioner relies on annotated Wolfe Figure 3 to illustrate Wolfe’s
`description of ground station 10 transmitting a respective request for
`services to establish required services in the respective time slots, which
`results in reference station 18 allocating to a ground station 10 an overflow
`slot. Id. at 44–45 (citing Ex. 1005, Abstract, 1:8–11, 2:32–38, 4:47–57, 5:6–
`15, 5:52–58, 6:10–50, 8:6–9, 8:55–68, Fig. 3; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 88–92). We
`determine that Petitioner has shown sufficiently how Wolfe meets the
`limitation and Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s showing. See
`generally PO Resp.
`Claim 17 recites “wherein the at least one of the plurality of respective
`secondary stations re-transmits the same respective request in consecutive
`allocated time slots without waiting for an acknowledgement until said
`acknowledgement is received from the primary station.” Petitioner relies on
`Everett for its description of acknowledgments and re-transmission until an
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`acknowledgment is received. Pet. 75; Reply 9 (“the proposed combination
`relies only on Everett’s concept of using acknowledgments and ceasing re-
`transmissions”). Petitioner relies on Bousquet in combination with Wolfe to
`meet “at least one of the plurality of respective secondary stations re-
`transmits the same respective request in consecutive allocated time slots
`without waiting for an acknowledgment.” See e.g., Pet. 48–53; Pet. Reply 4.
`Petitioner contends, and we agree, that Everett describes a secondary
`station (VSAT) that receives an acknowledgment when a primary station
`(hub) acknowledges the request, which is separate from the primary station’s
`task of assigning a channel. Pet. 75 (citing Ex. 1008, 14, 337–339). We
`further agree with Petitioner that a person having ordinary skill in the art
`would have appreciated that Everett’s technique offered benefits to
`communication systems because Everett describes providing “the hub with
`the necessary control over VSAT transmissions and also prevents a VSAT
`. . . from repeatedly transmitting in an attempt to establish contact with the
`hub.” Id. (citing Ex. 1008, 207; Ex. 1003 ¶ 143). Petitioner contends, and
`we agree, that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been
`motivated to implement Everett’s technique of sending acknowledgments in
`Wolfe’s satellite system, where bandwidth is limited, to prevent unnecessary
`continued re-transmissions and to further safeguard Wolfe’s system. Id. at
`76–77 (citing Ex. 1008, 14, 207; Ex. 1005, 2:26–31; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 145–146).
`It is not disputed that Everett describes sending acknowledgments to
`cease re-transmissions. PO Resp. 10. Patent Owner argues, however, that
`Everett fails to disclose re-transmitting the same respective request “in
`consecutive allocated time slots without waiting for an acknowledgment
`until said acknowledgment is received from the primary station.” PO
`Resp. 10 (emphasis in original), 12; see also Sur-reply 8–9. Petitioner does
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`not rely on Everett alone to teach the entire phrase of “re-transmits the same
`respective request in consecutive allocated time slots without waiting for an
`acknowledgment until said acknowledgment is received from the primary
`station.”12 Patent Owner’s argument (PO Resp. 10–11) that in Everett’s
`system, re-transmissions are done at randomly selected time intervals, which
`fails to meet the claimed “in consecutive allocated time slots” portion of the
`disputed phrase overlooks the challenge in its entirety. The Petition does not
`rely on Everett to show re-transmissions in consecutive time slots.
`Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments regarding
`Everett.
`Petitioner relies on Bousquet for its description of re-transmission of
`the same request without waiting for an acknowledgment. Pet. 48–49 (citing
`Ex. 1006, 2:48–60, 3:53–56; Ex. 1003 ¶ 97). In particular, Bousquet
`describes “each station requiring to set up a call should transmit at least two
`access packets without waiting for an acknowledgment between sending the
`access packets.” Ex. 1006, 2:48–53. According to Bousquet, re-
`transmission “is done within a time period less than that required for a round
`trip of a packet between the calling station and the called station.” Id. at
`2:57–59. Bousquet further describes “systematic repetition of the access
`packets in the predefined time period therefore increases the probability that
`at least one of these packets will reach the destination station, which reduces
`the time necessary to set up a call.” Id. at 3:53–56. Although Bousquet
`describes that “[t]he n packets transmitted can be transmitted on the same
`carrier frequency and spaced in time, preferably at random,” Bousquet
`
`12 See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[O]ne cannot show
`non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
`rejections are based on combinations of references.”).
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`further describes that packets can be transmitted on different carrier
`frequencies “with a temporal distribution.” Id. at 3:57–61.
`Petitioner contends a person having ordinary skill in the art would
`have understood that Bousquet’s technique of reducing call setup time to be
`applicable to Wolfe’s TDMA system. First, Petitioner contends, and we
`agree, that both Wolfe and Bousquet describe satellite communication
`systems for handling call requests designed to support communications
`between a primary station and at least one secondary station. Pet. 25–27, 49
`(citing Ex. 1005, 1:13–31; Ex. 1006, code (57), 1:12–21, 2:10–21).
`Petitioner further contends, and we agree, that it was known that long time
`delays were associated with transmissions in a satellite-based system. Id. at
`27–28 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:65–4:14; Ex. 1006, 1:58–64). As explained
`above, Bousquet describes that (1) a station requiring to set up a call will
`transmit at least two access packets without waiting for an acknowledgment
`between sending the access packets, (2) re-transmission is done within a
`time period less than that required for a round trip of a packet between a
`calling station and a called station, and (3) systematic repetition of the access
`packets in the predefined time period increases the probability that at least
`one of the packets will reach the destination station, which reduces the time
`necessary to set up a call. Ex. 1006, 2:48–53, 2:57–59, 3:53–56.
`We agree with Petitioner that because “Bousquet describes that
`‘[o]ther implementations are possible’ including transmission of packets
`with ‘temporal spacing,’” a person having ordinary skill in the art “would
`have found Bousquet’s techniques to be applicable [to] systems where
`packet transmission is ‘spaced in time,’ like transmissions of a TDMA
`system, such as Wolfe’s.” Pet. 50 (citing Ex. 1005, 1:1–15; Ex. 1006, 2:25–
`28, 3:57–64; Ex. 1003 ¶ 99). We give substantial weight to Dr. Steffes’s
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`testimony that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have found it
`obvious to apply Bousquet’s approach to reduce call setup time even though
`Bousquet applies a contention-based approach to uplink signaling as
`compared to Wolfe’s contention-free system,” because his testimony is
`supported by Bousquet itself. Ex. 1003 ¶ 99 (citing Ex. 1006, 3:57–64,
`where Bousquet describes that packets can be transmitted on different carrier
`frequencies “with a temporal distribution” (emphasis added)). Based on the
`record before us, we determine that a person having ordinary skill in the art
`at the time of the invention would have understood that Bousquet’s
`technique of systematic repetition of transmitting a request from a secon