Paper: 8
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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,
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
