`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Date: December 4, 2019
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
`MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`On May 29, 2019, Petitioner filed a Petition to institute inter partes
`review of claims 1 and 2 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent
`No. 7,016,676 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’676 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent
`Owner filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the
`information presented in the Petition 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having considered
`all submissions of both parties, we determine that Petitioner has shown a
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the
`unpatentability of each of claims 1 and 2 of the ’676 patent.
`We institute an inter partes review of claims 1 and 2 of the
`’676 patent with respect to all grounds of unpatentability presented in the
`Petition.
`Related Matters
`B.
`The parties identify the following civil actions involving the
`’676 patent:
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 8:18-
`cv-02053 (C.D. Cal.);
`Uniloc 2017 LLC, et al. v. Google LLC, No. 2:18-cv-
`00495 (E.D. Tex.);
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc., et
`al., No. 2:18-cv-00513 (E.D. Tex.);
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc., et al.,
`No. 2:18-cv-00514 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC, et al. v. Google LLC, No. 2:18-cv-
`00448 (E.D. Tex.);
`Uniloc 2017 LLC, et al. v. AT&T, Inc., et al., No. 2:18-
`cv-00379 (E.D. Tex.);
`Uniloc 2017 LLC, et al. v. Verizon Communications
`Inc., et al., No. 2:18-cv-00380 (E.D. Tex.); and
`Uniloc 2017 LLC, et al. v. Microsoft Corporation,
`No. 8:18-cv-01279 (C.D. Cal.).
`Pet. Xi; Paper 3, 2; Prelim. Resp. 3–4.
`Patent Owner also identifies other petitions for inter partes review of
`claims in the ’676 patent: IPR2019-01541, IPR2019-01550,
`IPR2019-01349, IPR2019-01350, and IPR2019-01125. Prelim. Resp. 3–4.
`The petitioner in IPR2019-01125 is also the petitioner in this proceeding.
`
`C.
`
`The ’676 Patent
`The ’676 patent “relates to a method of alternate control of radio
`systems of different standards in the same frequency band.” Ex. 1001, 1:7–
`9. For example, the two standards can be that of “US radio system
`IEEE802.11a and the European ETSI BRAN HiperLAN/2.” Id. at 1:19–20.
`“The two radio systems transmit in the same frequency bands between
`5.5 GHz and 5.875 GHz with approximately the same radio transmission
`method, but different transmission protocols.” Id. at 1:20–23.
`Specifically, under either of ETSI BRAN HiperLAN/2 or
`IEEE802.11a, radio systems utilize the same radio transmission method,
`i.e., a 64-carrier OFDM method and adaptive modulation and coding. Id.
`at 28–31. However, the Medium Access Control (MAC) of the two
`systems is totally different. Id. at 1:34–35. For these two standards, the
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`
`frequency band “is comprised between 5.15 GHz and 5.825 GHz.” Id.
`at 5:35–37.
`The ETSI BRAN HiperLAN/2 utilizes a centrally controlled
`reservation-based method in which a radio station takes over the role of a
`central station coordinating the radio resources. Id. at 1:35–38. That
`central radio station (Access Point, AP) periodically signals the MAC frame
`structure. Id. at :38–41. Figure 1 of the ’676 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 1 shows the structure of the HiperLAN/2 MAC frame. Id. at
`4:45–46. “In a HiperLAN/2 system the central controller can be controlled
`via the Access Point (AP) which periodically generates the MAC frame and
`then transmits the data of the broadcast phase to individually control the
`service quality (Packet delay sending rate and so on) of individual links.”
`Id. at 4:50–54. Figure 2 of the ’676 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 2 diagrammatically shows the media access in systems
`
`working in accordance with the radio interface standard IEEE802.11a. Id.
`at 4:47–49. The Specification describes the IEEE802.11a standard as
`follows:
`The IEEE802.11a standard describes a CSMA/CA (Carrier
`Sense Multiple Access/Collision Avoidance) method not based
`on reservations, in which all the radio stations listen in on the
`medium and assume that the channel is unused for a minimum
`duration (Short InterFrame Space, SIFS) before 802.11a-MAC
`frames, thus user data packets, are transmitted if necessary. The
`method is highly suitable for self-organizing ad hoc networks,
`but requires positive acknowledgements of all the packets.
`Id. at 1:43–51. The Specification further describes the standard as follows:
`FIG. 2 shows by way of example the sequence for media access
`in accordance with IEEE802.11a. In accordance with a variant
`of the standard a station is to then transmit an RTS packet
`(Ready To Send) and wait for a CTS packet (Clear To Send)
`from the addressed station before it is allowed to transmit user
`data. All the other stations in the radio coverage area set a time
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`
`
`monitoring (Network Allocation vector, NAV) and do not
`transmit until
`the addressed station has been sent an
`acknowledgment (ACKnowledge, ACK).
`Id. at 1:53–62.
`
`Figure 3 of the ’676 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 3 illustrates two wireless local area networks in accordance with a
`first radio interface standard and a second radio interface standard of the
`’676 patent. Id. at 4:43–44. The ’676 patent describes the standards as
`follows:
`A first wireless local area network comprises three
`
`stations 10, 11, and 12. These three stations 10, 11, and 12
`work in accordance with the first radio interface standard A,
`for example, in accordance with the HiperLAN/2 standard.
`
`A second wireless local area network includes four
`stations 14, 15, 16, and 17. These four stations 14, 15, 16, and
`17 work in accordance with the second radio interface
`standard B, for example, in accordance with the IEEE802.11a
`standard.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`
`Id. at 5:22–30 (emphases added). In both standards, the frequency band is
`the same. Id. at 5:35–37.
`Central control station 13 is provided which controls the alternate
`access by the first wireless network and the second wireless network to the
`common frequency band. Id. at 5:39–41. The Specification describes the
`alternate access control as follows:
`[T]he station 13 sends a broadcast message to the stations 14 to
`17 of the IEEE802.11a standard when the stations 10 to 12 do
`not need transmission capacity. This broadcast message
`preferably contains time information which informs the stations
`14 to 17 of the IEEE802.11[a] standard how long they are
`allowed to utilize the common frequency band.
`
`If the stations 10 to 12 of the first wireless network are
`HiperLAN/2 stations, the control station 13 preferably also
`operates as the central control station (Access Point) of the
`HiperLAN/2 network and co-ordinates its radio resources. In
`HiperLAN/2 systems it is planned beforehand at what time the
`stations are allowed to send. For this purpose the HiperLAN/2
`systems have a central controller (Access Point, AP) which
`receives the request for capacity from the various stations and
`assigns capacity accordingly. The central station 13 is
`preferably also provided for carrying out the function of the
`access point of the HiperLAN/2 standard.
`Id. at 5:42–63.
`
`The Specification describes that the control station is provided “for
`controlling the access to the frequency band for stations operating in
`accordance with the first radio interface standard.” Id. at 2:63–67
`(emphasis added). The Specification further describes that the control
`station is provided “for releasing the common frequency band for access by
`stations operating in accordance with the second radio interface standard,
`if stations operating in accordance with the first radio interface standard
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`
`do not request access to the frequency band.” Id. at 3:7–13 (emphasis
`added). According to the Specification, “the first radio interface standard is
`given priority over the second radio interface standard in this manner.” Id.
`at 3:13–15 (emphasis added). The Specification states the following: “In
`accordance with the invention a control station is provided which controls
`the alternate use of the common frequency band of the two radio interface
`standards.” Id. at 2:45–47.
`Claim 1 is independent. Claim 2 depends from claim 1. Claims 1
`and 2 are reproduced below:
`1. An interface-control protocol method for a radio
`system which has at least one common frequency band that
`is provided for alternate use by a first and a second radio
`interface standard, the radio system comprising:
`stations which operate in accordance with a first radio
`interface standard and/or a second radio interface
`standard, and
`a control station which controls the alternate use of the
`frequency band,
`wherein the control station controls the access to the
`common frequency band for stations working in
`accordance with the first radio interface standard
`and—renders the frequency band available for access
`by the stations working in accordance with the second
`radio interface standard if stations working in
`accordance with the first radio interface standard do
`not request access to the frequency band.
`2. The method as claimed in claim 1, herein the control
`station determines the respective duration in which the
`stations working in accordance with the second radio
`interface standard are allowed to utilize the frequency band.
`Ex. 1001, 6:20–24.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`
`D.
`
`
`Evidence Relied Upon by Petitioner
`Petitioner relies on the following references:1
`
`References2
`HomeRF3
`
`HomeRF
`Tutorial
`
`HomeRF
`Liaison
`Report
`
`Lansford
`
`Kevin J. Negus et al., HomeRF:
`Wireless Networking for the Connected
`Home, 7 IEEE PERSONAL
`COMMUNICATIONS 20–27 (2000).
`Jim Lansford et al., HomeRF: Bringing
`Wireless Connectivity Home, IEEE
`802.11, 1–27 (1999),
`http://www.ieee802.org/11/Documents/
`DocumentArchives/1999_docs/90548S-
`WPAN-HomeRF-Tutorial-Office-
`97.pdf.
`Tim Blaney, HomeRFTM Working
`Group 3rd Liaison Report, IEEE
`802.11, 1–13 (1998),
`http://www.ieee802.org/11/Documents/
`DocumentArchives/1998_docs/82997S-
`HomeRF-3rd-Liaison.pdf.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,937,158 B2
`
`Date
`Feb. 29,
`2000
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1006
`
`Mar. 18,
`1999
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`Nov. 5,
`1998
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Aug. 30,
`2005
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`
`1 The ’676 patent issued from Application No. 10/089,959, which is the
`designated United States application of International Application No.
`PCT/EP01/09258 filed under 35 U.S.C. § 371 on Aug. 8, 2001. Ex. 1001,
`Codes 21, 22, 86. The § 371 (c)(1), (2), (4) date is April 4, 2002. Id.
`2 In the interest of consistency and to avoid confusion, we adopt Petitioner’s
`designated abbreviations for the cited prior art references. See Pet. viii-ix.
`3 When citing to HomeRF, we refer to the original page numbers in small
`print and not the large inserted page numbers at the bottom right of each
`page of Exhibit 1006.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`
`
`Petitioner additionally relies on the Declarations of Peter Rysavy
`(Ex. 1004), Gerard P. Grenier (Ex.1007), Christina Boyce (Ex. 1010), and
`Rene DelaRosa (Ex. 1011). Petitioner also cites to page 3 of Webster’s
`New World College Dictionary (4th ed. 1999) (“Webster’s Dictionary”)
`(Ex. 1005) for the meaning of “accordance.” Pet. 21–22.
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`1 and 2
`
`1 and 2
`
`1 and 2
`
`1 and 2
`
`Basis4
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`References
`HomeRF
`HomeRF and HomeRF
`Tutorial
`HomeRF and HomeRF
`Liaison Report
`Lansford
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`For petitions filed on or after November 13, 2018, we use the same
`claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a
`civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in
`accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history
`
`
`4 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125
`Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), revised 35 U.S.C. § 103 effective March 16,
`2013. Because the challenged patent was filed before March 16, 2013, we
`refer to the pre-AIA version of § 103.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`
`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)). The Petition here was filed on May 29,
`2019. Paper 2. We apply the claim construction standard from Phillips v.
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“the Phillips
`standard”).
`Claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary
`meaning as would be understood by one with ordinary skill in the art in the
`context of the specification, the prosecution history, other claims, and even
`extrinsic evidence including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries,
`and learned treatises, although extrinsic evidence is less significant than the
`intrinsic record. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–1317. Usually, the
`specification is dispositive, and it is the single best guide to the meaning of
`a disputed term. Id. at 1315.
`The specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim
`term by the patentee, or the specification may reveal an intentional
`disclaimer or disavowal of claim scope by the inventor. Id. at 1316. If an
`inventor acts as his or her own lexicographer, the definition must be set
`forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`precision. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243,
`1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The disavowal, if any, can be effectuated by
`language in the specification or the prosecution history. Poly-America, L.P.
`v. API Indus., Inc., 839 F.3d 1131, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “In either case,
`the standard for disavowal is exacting, requiring clear and unequivocal
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`
`evidence that the claimed invention includes or does not include a particular
`feature.” Id.
`Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed,
`and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor
`Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed.
`Cir. 2017); Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361
`(Fed. Cir. 2011); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795,
`803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`Claim 1 recites: “stations which operate in accordance with a first
`radio interface standard and/or a second radio interface standard.”
`Ex. 1001, 6:24–26. Petitioner proposes that the phrase means “two or more
`devices in a wireless network, each of which operates in a manner that is in
`agreement with or conforms to a first radio standard, a second radio
`standard, or both a first and a second radio standard, or variants thereof.”
`Pet. 22. It is uncertain what is meant by “or variants thereof,” and
`Petitioner has not provided adequate explanation to justify expanding the
`scope of the phrase to include, expressly, variants of radio interface
`standards. Furthermore, all references applied by Petitioner disclose radio
`interface standards. Patent Owner contends that construing this phrase is
`unnecessary. Prelim. Resp. 6. We agree.
`Petitioner further proposes to include express recitation of “wireless
`network” in the construction, because the communications are said to be in
`accordance with first and second “radio” interface standards and a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that operation in accordance
`with “radio” interface standards requires a wireless network. Pet. 20. We
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`
`need not resolve this proposed construction, because all references applied
`by Petitioner disclose a wireless network.
`Claim 1 recites: “renders the frequency band available for access by
`the stations working in accordance with the second radio interface standard
`if stations working in accordance with the first radio interface standard do
`not request access to the frequency band.” Ex. 1001, 6:32–36. Petitioner
`proposes that this phrase means “makes the frequency band available for
`transmission by stations working in accordance with the second radio
`interface standard for periods during which the common frequency band is
`not being used by stations operating in accordance with the first radio
`interface standard that have requested access to the band.” Pet. 25.
`Petitioner proposes to limit “access” to a frequency band to
`transmissions over the frequency band such that it does not cover reception
`over the frequency band. Id. at 24. We need not resolve this question
`because all references relied on by Petitioner to meet this limitation disclose
`transmissions over the frequency band. It is a non-issue whether “access”
`covers reception with no transmission.
`Petitioner further asserts that in claim 1 there is no antecedent basis
`for “the stations working in accordance with the second radio interface
`standard.” Pet. 24. The basis for the contention is that prior to such
`reference claim 1 only recites stations which operate in accordance with a
`first radio interface standard “and/or” a second radio interface standard. Id.
`Whether or not there is precise, exact, and literal antecedent basis is
`inconsequential here. We readily understand the phrase, given the earlier
`recitation in the claim, to be referring to whichever station or stations that
`are working with the second radio interface standard. Even Petitioner does
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`
`not contend that claim 1 requires at least two stations which operate in
`accordance with the second radio interface standard.
`Finally, Petitioner proposes to change the language “if stations
`working in accordance with the first radio interface standard do not request
`access to the frequency band” to “for periods during which the common
`frequency band is not being used by stations operating in accordance with
`the first radio interface standard that have requested access to the band.” Id.
`at 25. No explanation has been provided to justify such a major rewriting
`of the claim. The original language makes no mention of “use,” just
`“request,” and Petitioner’s proposal eliminates an express condition that is
`present in the original claim language. Consequently, we do not adopt
`Petitioner’s proposed construction.
`For claim 2, Petitioner asserts that the term “respective duration”
`should be construed as “time period.” Id. Patent Owner has not expressed
`disagreement. Prelim. Resp. 6. Petitioner’s proposed construction is in
`accordance with the term’s plain and ordinary meaning and appears
`consistent with the Specification. However, nothing hinges on Petitioner’s
`proposed construction. It is a non-issue.
`
`For purposes of this Decision, we need not make any express
`construction except for the phrase “controls the alternate use of the
`frequency band,” and to identify the specific steps that are within the
`claimed method. We discuss the meaning of the phrase “controls the
`alternate use of the frequency band” within the discussion of the merits
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`
`below, where more context is provided to facilitate the explanation. We
`discuss in this Section what step or steps are required by claims 1 and 2.5
`The Steps within the Method of Claim 1
`1.
`Claim 1 begins with the recitation “[a]n interface-control method for
`a radio system” but follows only with recitations of the components of the
`radio system and a “wherein” clause that sets forth what the control station
`does in certain circumstances. Ex. 1001, 6:20–36. We recognize claim 1 as
`a method claim, but no step or steps within the method are facially evident.
`We resort to the Specification for clues on how to read this claim.
`Notably, claim 1 first recites two types of components of a radio
`system: (1) stations and (2) a control station. Id. Next, in a wherein clause
`(“wherein clause”) following the paragraphs defining these two types of
`components, the claim recites that “the control station controls . . . and[
`]renders . . . .” Id. at 6:29–36. Corresponding disclosure in the
`Specification relating to the two actions included in the wherein clause
`reads as follows:
`[T]he control station is provided, on the one hand, for
`controlling the access to the frequency band for stations
`operating in accordance with the first radio interface standard.
`If the first radio interface standard is, for example, the
`HiperLAN/2 standard, the control station performs the function
`of the central controller (Access Point AP) in accordance with
`this standard. In that case the stations of the HiperLAN/2
`standard send a request for capacity to the control station and
`
`
`5 If Patent Owner disagrees with our identification of the steps in the claims,
`the issue may be raised in the Patent Owner Response, post institution.
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`
`
`the control station allocates transmission 5 capacity to each
`respective station.
`
`On the other hand, the control station is provided in an
`advantageous embodiment of the invention . . . for releasing the
`common frequency band for access by stations operating in
`accordance with the second radio interface standard, if stations
`operating in accordance with the first radio interface standard
`do not request access to the frequency band. . . . The release of
`the common frequency band for the second radio interface
`standard may be effected, for example, explicitly by the sending
`of control information to the stations of the second radio
`interface standard.
`
`Ex. 1001, 2:63-3:6 (emphases added). This portion of the Specification
`describes a control station “provided” for carrying out the two
`functionalities named in the wherein clause. It reflects a step-like
`disclosure that is outside of merely defining what a component does, and it
`corresponds readily to the functionalities included within the wherein clause
`of claim 1.
`In light of the Specification, as noted above, we read the wherein
`clause of claim 1 as setting forth two steps, both carried out by the control
`station: (1) “controls access to the common frequency band for stations
`working in accordance with the first radio interface standard,” and
`(2) “renders the frequency band available for access by the stations working
`in accordance with the second radio interface standard if stations working in
`accordance with the first radio interface standard do not request access to
`the frequency band.” That is consistent with how Petitioner has applied
`claim 1, although Petitioner has not expressly articulated these specific
`steps.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`
`
`We recognize that the written description is not a substitute for claim
`language and cannot be used to rewrite the claim language, and that it is
`important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the
`claim. SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875
`(Fed. Cir. 2004). That is not the case here. Rather, we simply look to the
`written description to determine how the claim language is properly read in
`light of that written description, reasonably, to set forth the steps of the
`claimed method. See id.
`The Steps within the Method of Claim 2
`2.
`Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and thus includes all of the steps from
`claim 1. Claim 2 further recites a single wherein clause,6 similar to the
`wherein clause of claim 1 but setting forth a different functionality of the
`control station. As with claim 1, claim 2 does not explicitly recite any step.
`However, for reasons similar to that supporting our reading of claim 1’s
`wherein clause as setting forth two steps, we read claim 2’s wherein clause
`as setting forth an additional step.
`The Specification describes as follows:
`[C]ontrol is effected in that the control station determines the
`respective duration
`in which
`the stations operating
`in
`accordance with the second radio interface standard can utilize
`the common frequency band.
`Ex. 1001, 3:30-33. The description refers to effecting control, in a step-like
`manner, outside of merely defining what a component does. Also, the act
`
`
`6 Actually, claim 2 recites “herein” rather than “wherein.” Ex. 1001, 6:37.
`We treat the “herein” recitation the same as a “wherein” recitation, because
`the “herein” appears to be a misspelling for “wherein” in that context and
`no recognizable meaning is apparent if it is literally read as “herein.”
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`
`of effecting control corresponds readily to the functionality included within
`the wherein clause of claim 2. Therefore, we read the wherein clause of
`claim 2 as setting forth another step carried out by the control station, in
`addition to those of claim 1. Specifically, claim 2 sets forth the step,
`performed by the control station, of: “determines the respective duration in
`which the stations working in accordance with the second radio interface
`standard are allowed to utilize the frequency band.”
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`B.
`Petitioner asserts that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected
`by one who “would have had a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering
`and Computer Science, or a related subject and one or more years of
`experience working with wireless networks and related standards, and
`would have had an understanding of work being done by companies within
`the field of wireless networks and related standards, e.g., systems or
`protocols for shared access of wireless networks by different protocols.”
`Pet. 19. Petitioner also asserts that less work experience may be
`compensated by a higher level of education. Id. Patent Owner neither
`disputes Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art nor
`presents its own articulation of the same. Prelim. Resp. 4.
`On this record, we have no reason to disagree with Petitioner’s
`articulation of the level of ordinary skill, except to note that the qualifier “or
`more” as applied to the years of working experience expands the level to
`encompass that of an expert, which is inappropriate for the level of
`“ordinary skill.” Therefore, we adopt the Petitioner’s articulation, but
`without the expansive qualifier “or more” as applied to working experience.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`
`C. Alleged Unpatentability of Claims
`
`1 and 2 as Obvious over HomeRF
`Overview of HomeRF
`1.
`HomeRF describes a specification for a shared wireless access
`protocol named SWAP, an acronym for Shared Wireless Access Protocol,
`for wireless voice and data networking within the home. Ex. 1006, 20,
`Abstr. Figure 1 is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 1 shows the SWAP home network that supports both
`
`isochronous clients that are slaves to the main home PC and an
`asynchronous network of peer devices which is effectively a wireless
`Ethernet. Id. at 21, 1:36–40. The system includes a control point, usually
`connected to the main home PC through USB. Id. at 21, 1:40–42. This
`control point is not absolutely necessary for devices in the asynchronous
`network of Figure 1. Id. at 21, 1:42–44.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`
`“The isochronous clients, such as cordless telephones, wireless
`
`headsets, or remote I/O devices to the home PC (a consumer personal
`information manager, PIM), are always bound to the control point, which
`assigns them guaranteed bandwidth for bounded latency communication.”
`Id. at 21, 1:46–51. “[D]ata transfer on the asynchronous network between
`any two peers is directly to each other as opposed to routed through the
`control point.” Id. at 21, 1:53–55. The asynchronous devices can also
`communicate to the main home PC as with any other asynchronous peer
`device. Id. at 21, 1:51–52.
`
`The control point acts as a gateway between the main home personal
`computer (PC), the public switched telephone network (PTSN), and all
`SWAP-compatible devices in the network. Id. at 21, 2:62–64. Three kinds
`of devices can be in a SWAP network: (1) the control point or CP;
`(2) Voice devices (isochronous data devices, also called I-nodes); and
`(3) Asynchronous devices, also called A-nodes. Id. at 21, 2:60–67.
`
`The control point manages the network to provide priority access to
`the radio medium for isochronous devices over asynchronous peer-peer
`devices. Id. at 22, 1:4–5. HomeRF describes that the SWAP protocol is a
`hybrid, i.e., client-server between the control point and voice devices, and
`peer-to-peer between data devices. Id. at 22, 1:6–8.
`The asynchronous and isochronous SWAP devices operate in
`accordance with different radio interface standards for accessing the
`transmission medium. Id. at 23, 1:18–26. For instance, the MAC protocol
`uses TDMA (time-division multiple access) for transmission of isochronous
`data, e.g., interactive voice, and CSMA with collision avoidance
`(CSMA/CA) derived from wireless LAN standards such as IEEE802.11 and
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`
`OpenAir for transmission of asynchronous data. Id. at 23, 1:18–23. The
`SWAP MAC protocol provides “[g]ood support for voice and data by using
`both TDMA and CSMA/CA access mechanisms.” Id. at 23, 1:25–26.
`Figure 2 is illustrative and reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 2 shows an example of a typical SWAP network consisting of two
`A-nodes, one I-node, and a control point CP. Id. at 22, 2:11–12. As shown
`in Figure 2, the A-nodes (asynchronous peer-peer devices) operate in
`accordance with CSMA transmission protocol, and the I-node (isochronous
`voice devices) operate in accordance with TDMA transmission protocol.
`See id. at 23, 1:18–23.
`
`The use of two different radio interface standards in SWAP is
`illustrated in part through Figure 4 which is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 4 shows a superframe implemented by the SWAP MAC protocol.
`Id. at 23, 2:22–23.
`
`Each SWAP superframe includes two contention-free periods (CFPs)
`and a contention period. Id. at 23, 2:23–25. The access mechanism used
`during each CFP is TDMA, and the access mechanism used during each
`contention period is CSMA/CA. Id. at 23, 2:29–31. The duration of each
`superframe is fixed, and the start of the superframe is the point at which a
`station begins to hop to a new channel and ends immediately before the
`station starts to hop to the next channel. Id. at 23, 2:25–29.
`
`The CFPs are used to support up to four high quality voice
`connections using TDMA. Id. at 23, 2:16 to 5, 1:2. With regard to the two
`contention free periods CFP1 and CFP2, HomeRF describes the following:
`Each CFP is divided into a number of pairs of fixed-length
`slots, two per voice connection. The first slot in each pair is used
`to transmit voice data from the CP to a node (downlink), and the
`second is used to transmit voice data from a node to the CP
`(uplink). In a managed network a beacon is transmitted
`immediately after the hop. This beacon is used to maintain
`network synchronization, control the format of the superframe,
`