`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`
`Ericsson Inc.
`(“Ericsson”),
`
`Petitioner,
`v.
`UNILOC 2017 LLC (“Uniloc”),
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________
`U.S. Patent No. 7,016,676
`_______________
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2019-01550 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,016,676
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 4
`A.
`Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................ 4
`B.
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 4
`C.
`Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information ........................... 6
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 6
`IV. THE ’676 PATENT AND PROSECUTION HISTORY ................................ 7
`A.
`Summary of the ’676 Patent .................................................................. 7
`B.
`Prosecution and Priority Date of the ’676 Patent .................................. 9
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 10
`V.
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 11
`VII. REQUESTED RELIEF ................................................................................. 11
`VIII. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE ........................................................ 11
`A.
`Challenged Claims and Statutory Grounds ......................................... 11
`B.
`Status as Prior Art ................................................................................ 12
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .... 16
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-2 are unpatentable as obvious over Shellhammer
` ............................................................................................................. 16
`1.
`Summary of Shellhammer ........................................................ 16
`2.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 17
`3.
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 25
`Ground 2: Claim 8 is unpatentable as obvious over the combination of
`Shellhammer and Haartsen .................................................................. 26
`1.
`Summary of Haartsen ............................................................... 26
`2.
`Reasons to Combine Shellhammer and Haartsen ..................... 28
`3.
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 31
`Ground 3: Claim 8 is unpatentable as obvious over the combination of
`Shellhammer and Panasik ................................................................... 38
`- i -
`
`C.
`
`
`
`IX.
`
`B.
`
`

`

`
`
`
`X.
`
`IPR2019-01550 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,016,676
`
`Summary of Panasik ................................................................. 38
`1.
`Reasons to Combine Shellhammer and Panasik ....................... 41
`2.
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 44
`3.
`D. Ground 4: Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable as obvious over Lansford
` ............................................................................................................. 52
`1.
`Summary of Lansford ............................................................... 52
`2.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 53
`3.
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 63
`THE BOARD SHOULD NOT EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION UNDER 35
`U.S.C. §§ 314 OR 325(D) ............................................................................. 68
`A. None of the General Plastic factors weigh in favor of denying
`institution ............................................................................................. 68
`The Office has not previously considered the challenges, so the
`Becton Dickinson factors weigh against denying institution .............. 73
`XI. CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ........................................................... 78
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2019-01550 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,016,676
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`August 29, 2019
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,016,676 to Walke et al. (the “’676 Patent”)
`Ex. 1002
`Prosecution File History of the ’676 Patent
`Ex. 1003 Declaration of Jeffrey Fischer
`Ex. 1004
`CV of Jeffrey Fischer
`Ex. 1005 U.S. Patent No. 6,937,158 to Lansford et al. (“Lansford”)
`Ex. 1006 U.S. Patent No. 7,039,358 to Shellhammer et al. (“Shellhammer”)
`Ex. 1007 U.S. Patent Provisional Application No. 60/196979 to Shellhammer
`et al. (“Shellhammer Provisional”)
`Ex. 1008 U.S. Patent No. 7,280,580 to Haartsen (“Haartsen”)
`Ex. 1009 U.S. Patent No. 6,643,278 to Panasik et al. (“Panasik”)
`Ex. 1010 U.S. Patent No. 6,751,455 to Acampora (“Acampora”)
`Ex. 1011 U.S. Patent No. 6,643,522 to Young (“Young”)
`Ex. 1012 G. Bianchi, “IEEE 802.11—Saturation Throughput Analysis,”
`IEEE COMMUNICATIONS LETTERS, Vol. 2. No. 12 (Dec. 1998)
`Ex. 1013 U.S. Patent No. 6,002,918 to Heiman et al. (“Heiman”)
`Ex. 1014 U.S. Patent No. Jaszewski to 5,933,420 et al. (“Jaszewski”)
`Ex. 1015 U.S. Patent No. Chuah to 6,469,991 (“Chuah”)
`Ex. 1016 U.S. Patent No. 6,345,043 to Hsu (“Hsu”)
`Ex. 1017 ANSI/IEEE Std 802.11, “Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access
`Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications” (1999
`Edition) (“802.11 Std”)
`Ex. 1018 U.S. Patent No. 6,748,444 to Nagashima (“Nagashima”)
`Ex. 1019
`TXED Case No. 2:18-cv-00513, Order Granting Ericsson’s
`Intervention in Verizon case (Dkt. 35)
`TXED Case No. 2:18-cv-00514, Order Granting Ericsson’s
`Intervention in AT&T case (Dkt. 42)
`TXED Case No. 2:18-cv-00513, Uniloc’s Opposition to Ericsson’s
`
`Ex. 1021
`
`Ex. 1020
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Ex. 1022
`
`Ex. 1023
`
`IPR2019-01550 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,016,676
`
`Intervention (Dkt. 19) Verizon Case
`TXED Case No. 2:18-cv-00513, Ericsson’s Answer to the
`Complaint (Dkt. 38) Verizon Case
`TXED Case No. 2:18-cv-00514, Ericsson’s Answer to the
`Complaint (Dkt. 44) AT&T Case
`TXED Case No. 2:18-cv-00514, Uniloc’s Opposition to Ericsson’s
`Intervention (Dkt. 24) AT&T Case
`Ex. 1025 U.S. Patent No. 6,965,942 to Young et al. (“Young”)
`
`Note that the following analysis will cite to the page numbers of the exhibits
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1024
`
`themselves, as opposed to the page numbers provided within the exhibit (since not
`
`all exhibits have such original page numbers). Also, the following analysis may
`
`bold, underline and/or italicize quotations and add color or annotations to the
`
`figures from these exhibits for the sake of emphasis, unless otherwise indicated.
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01550 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 7,016,676
`
`The challenged claims of the U.S. Patent No. 7,016,676 (“the ’676 Patent,”
`
`Ex. 1001) are directed to a method of controlling wireless devices of different
`
`“radio interface standards” sharing the same frequency band. An example of a
`
`“radio interface standard” in the ’676 Patent is known as the 802.11
`
`communication standard. A “standard” is a formal specification that provides for
`
`interoperability between devices from different manufacturers. Ex. 1003, ¶ 176.
`
`Annotated Fig. 3 of the ’676 patent, reproduced below, illustrates a control
`
`station “S” coordinating the use of a shared frequency band by stations “A”
`
`utilizing the HiperLAN communication standard and stations “B” utilizing the
`
`802.11 communication standard.
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01550 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 7,016,676
`
`802.11 stations
`
`HiperLAN stations 
`
`Control station
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 3 (annotated in color); Ex. 1003, ¶ 45
`
`
`
`However, it was well known for a control station to control the alternate use
`
`of a common frequency band by devices using two different communication
`
`standards, along with the other properties of claims 1, 2 and 8. For example,
`
`Shellhammer (Ex. 1006) discloses an access point that controls alternate use of a
`
`shared frequency band by a device that complies with the 802.11 communications
`
`standard and by a device that complies with the Bluetooth communication
`
`standard. Annotated Fig. 1 of Shellhammer is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01550 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 7,016,676
`
`Ex. 1006, Fig. 1 (annotations in color); Ex. 1003, ¶ 55
`
`
`
`In Shellhammer’s system, an access point controls the alternate use of the
`
`frequency band by directing: 802.11 devices to communicate during a first time
`
`period, Bluetooth devices to communicate during the next time period, and 802.11
`
`devices to communicate during a final time period. Thus, Shellhammer discloses
`
`protocol methods like those of the ’676 patent.
`
`As another example, Lansford (Ex. 1005) discloses a controller that controls
`
`the alternate use of a shared frequency band by a device utilizing the HomeRF
`
`standard and a device utilizing the Bluetooth standard.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2019-01550 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,016,676
`
`Given this knowledge of controllers controlling the use of shared spectrum
`
`to accommodate at least two different radio communication standards, at least
`
`claims 1, 2, and 8 of the ’676 patent would have been obvious to a person of skill
`
`in the art. Accordingly, Petitioner requests that the Board review and cancel as
`
`unpatentable claims 1, 2, and 8.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Ericsson Inc. (“Ericsson” or “Petitioner”)
`
`and corporate parent Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson are each a real party-in-
`
`interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), to the best knowledge of the Petitioner,
`
`the ’676 Patent is involved in the following cases involving Petitioner as an
`
`intervenor:
`
` Uniloc 2017 LLC et al. v. AT&T, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-00379,
`Eastern District of Texas
` Uniloc 2017 LLC et al. v. Verizon Communications Inc. et al., Case No.
`2:18-cv-00380, Eastern District of Texas
`
`Further, to the best knowledge of the Petitioner, the ’676 Patent is involved
`
`in the following additional cases not involving Petitioner:
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2019-01550 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,016,676
`
` Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 8:18-cv-02053,
`Central District of California
` Uniloc 2017 LLC et al. v. Google LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00495, Eastern
`District of Texas
` Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc. et al., Case No. 2:18-
`cv-00513, Eastern District of Texas
` Uniloc 2017 LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-00514,
`Eastern District of Texas
` Uniloc 2017 LLC et al. v. Google LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00448, Eastern
`District of Texas
` Uniloc 2017 LLC et al. v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 2:18-cv-
`01279, Eastern District of Texas
` Microsoft Corporation et al. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-01116
` Microsoft Corporation et al. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-01125
` Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-01349
` Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-01350
`
`The ’676 Patent is at issue in the four above-noted inter partes reviews:
`
`IPR2019-01116, IPR2019-01125, IPR2019-01349, and IPR2019-01350. The
`
`Board has not issued Institution Decisions, and no patent owner preliminary
`
`responses have been filed, in these IPRs.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), Petitioner identifies the following
`
`counsel. A power of attorney accompanies this Petition.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2019-01550 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,016,676
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`J. Andrew Lowes
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Back–up Counsel
`Clint Wilkins
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`
`972-680-7557
`Phone:
`214-200-0853
`Fax:
`
`andew.lowes.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 40,706
`
`
`972-739-6927
`Phone:
`214-200-0853
`Fax:
`
`clint.wilkins.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 62,448
`
`972-739-6918
`Phone:
`214-200-0853
`Fax:
`
`samuel.drezdzon.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 67,085
`
`Back–up Counsel
`Samuel Drezdzon
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Please address all correspondence to lead and back-up counsel. Petitioner
`
`consents to electronic service.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ’676 Patent is
`
`available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent claims on the Challenges
`
`identified herein.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01550 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,016,676
`
`
`IV. THE ’676 PATENT AND PROSECUTION HISTORY
`
`A. Summary of 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, 1:5-7.
`
`According to the ’676 Patent, “[w]ideband LANs in accordance with the
`
`HiperLAN/2 and 802.11a standards will operate in the same frequency band in the
`
`future” but schedule transmissions differently. Ex. 1001, 1:65-67, 1:34-47; Ex.
`
`1003, ¶¶ 41-42. The ’676 Patent proposes a system where devices using first and
`
`second radio standards both use the same frequency band, and “a control station is
`
`provided that controls the two-way alternate utilization of the frequency band.” Ex.
`
`1001, Abstract; Ex. 1003, ¶ 43.
`
`The ’676 Patent provides the following example of operation:
`
`[I]t is possible to provide certain predefinable time intervals for the
`use of the first and second radio interface standard and allocate the
`frequency band alternately to the first radio interface standard and
`then to the second radio interface standard in a kind of time-division
`multiplex mode.
`Ex. 1001, 2:52-57.
`
`In annotated Fig. 3 shown below, the ’676 Patent illustrates devices
`
`operating in accordance with different standards—where devices labeled “A” (10,
`
`12, 14) use a first standard such as HiperLAN, devices “B” (14, 15, 16) use another
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01550 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,016,676
`
`
`standard such as 802.11, and the control station “S” (13) controls the alternate use
`
`of the frequency band.
`
`802.11 stations
`
`HiperLAN stations 
`
`Control station
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 3 (annotations in color); Ex. 1003, ¶ 45
`
`
`
`Representative claim 1 of the ’676 Patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01550 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 7,016,676
`
`Ex. 1001, Claim 1
`
`
`
`Notably, as demonstrated below, there is nothing novel about at least claims
`
`1-2 and 8 of the ’676 Patent because all of the elements were taught in the prior art
`
`and it would have been obvious to combine the relevant teachings. Ex. 1003, ¶¶
`
`46-47.
`
`B. Prosecution and Priority Date of the ’676 Patent
`
`The ’676 Patent issued on March 21, 2006, from a PCT application filed on
`
`August 8, 2001 that lists a German foreign priority application filed August 8,
`
`2000. However, the foreign priority was never perfected in the ’676 Patent file
`
`history. Specifically, the Notice of Allowance indicates the following:
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01550 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 7,016,676
`
`
`
`Ex. 1002, p. 282. Accordingly, the priority date for the ’676 Patent is the filing
`
`date of the PCT application, which is August 8, 2001.
`
`None of the prior art used for the invalidity grounds herein was considered
`
`during prosecution of the ’676 Patent.
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected by the prior art of
`
`record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). However, to
`
`the extent a definition is needed, a Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`
`(“POSITA”) at the time of the filing would have had a bachelor’s degree in
`
`electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science or similar field,
`
`and three years of experience in wireless communications systems and networks,
`
`or equivalent. Furthermore, a person with more technical education but less
`
`experience could also meet the relevant standard for POSITAs. Petitioner’s
`
`technical expert, Jeffrey Fischer, whose declaration this Petition cites, was at least
`
`a POSITA at the time of filing. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 21-25.
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01550 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 7,016,676
`
`During IPR, claims are construed according to the standard as set forth in
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 83 Fed. Reg.
`
`51341 (Oct. 11, 2018). Petitioner believes that, for the purposes of this proceeding
`
`and the analysis presented herein, no claim term requires express construction.
`
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`Accordingly, this Petition analyzes the claims consistent with ordinary and
`
`customary meaning as would be understood by a POSITA in light of the
`
`specification. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314-17; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 37-40.
`
`VII. REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`Petitioner asks that the Board review the accompanying prior art and
`
`analysis, institute a trial for inter partes review of claims 1, 2 and 8 and cancel
`
`those claims as unpatentable.
`
`VIII.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`
`A. Challenged Claims and Statutory Grounds
`
`This Petition challenges claims 1, 2 and 8 of the ’676 Patent on the
`
`following grounds.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Ground
`Ground 1
`
`Claim(s)
`1-2
`
`Ground 2
`
`8
`
`Ground 3
`
`8
`
`Ground 4
`
`1-2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01550 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 7,016,676
`
`Basis
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over U.S. Patent No.
`7,039,358, Ex. 1006 (“Shellhammer”)
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over Shellhammer in
`combination with U.S. Patent No. 7,280,580,
`Ex. 1008 (“Haartsen”)
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over Shellhammer in
`combination with U.S. Patent No. 6,643,278,
`Ex. 1009 (“Panasik”)
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over U.S. Patent No.
`6,937,158, Ex. 1005 (“Lansford”)
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Status as Prior Art
`
`As explained in Section IV.B, the priority date for the ’676 Patent is August
`
`8, 2001. Even assuming Patent Owner can demonstrate priority to August 8, 2000,
`
`Shellhammer filed Nov. 16, 2000 is still prior art under at least U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Shellhammer claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application 60/196,979
`
`(“Shellhammer Provisional”), filed on April 13, 2000. Because at least one claim
`
`of Shellhammer is supported by disclosure in the Shellhammer Provisional,
`
`teachings common to Shellhammer and the Shellhammer Provisional are available
`
`as prior art as of Shellhammer Provisional’s filing date. Benitec Biopharma Ltd. v.
`
`Cold Spring Harbor Lab., IPR2016-00014, Paper 7 at 7 (PTAB Mar. 23, 2016)
`
`(noting that a provisional must provide “written descriptive support for at least one
`
`claim” of the prior art patent) (citing Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1381).
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2019-01550 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,016,676
`
`For example, Shellhammer claim elements [1.0], [1.1], [1.2] are found
`
`nearly verbatim in the Shellhammer Provisional. Ex. 1007, pp. 3-8, 10, 14, Fig. 1,
`
`Fig. 2; Ex. 1003, Appendix A (mapping claim 1 to disclosure of Shellhammer
`
`Provisional). The remaining claim elements [1.3] and [1.4] are also disclosed as
`
`demonstrated below and explained more fully in Dr. Fischer’s declaration. Ex.
`
`1003 ____
`
`[1.3] wherein a
`first
`communication
`utilizing the first
`communication
`protocol and a
`second
`communication
`utilizing the
`second
`communication
`protocol are
`carried out at the
`same time, and:
`[1.4] further
`wherein the
`second radio
`transceiver only
`transmits while the
`first radio
`transceiver is not
`transmitting and
`the first radio
`transceiver only
`transmits while the
`second radio
`transceiver is not
`transmitting.
`
`
`
`“ [B]oth Bluetooth and 802.11 enabled devices, may operate
`robustly in the same frequency band at the same time.”
`Shellhammer Provisional, p. 6.
`
`“Since the two devices operate in the same 2.4 GHz ISM
`frequency band the BTM 130, 150 and the MU 120, 140 may
`severely interfere with one another, especially if they are
`housed in a dual mode device 100, 110. Therefore, there is a
`need for coordination between the two devices. One such
`coordination scheme is primarily based on time multiplexing
`of the 802.11 and BT radios, which is especially suitable for a
`controlled environment….” Shellhammer Provisional, p. 8.
`
`“Once all the PSP MU’s 120, 140 receive their packets, the
`AP 20, will send a global Clear to Send (CTS) signal 430 to
`shut down all the 802.11 communications for a NAV
`(Network Allocation Vector) period. At this point the 802.11
`MUs 120, 140 will enable the BTMs … After completion of
`the NAV period 320 the BTMs 130, 150 radio are disabled
`and all BT communications is ceased.” Shellhammer
`Provisional, p. 10.
`
`“One such coordination scheme is primarily based on time
`multiplexing of the 802.11 and BT radios … In this
`embodiment, the Bluetooth systems are enabled or disabled
`according to a global/central signal from the 802.11 AP as
`described herein.” Shellhammer Provisional, p. 8.
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01550 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 7,016,676
`
`
`
`Shellhammer Provisional, Fig. 2.
`
`
`
`Further, Appendix B of Mr. Fischer’s declaration maps the portions of
`
`Shellhammer that are cited to show invalidity to the supporting disclosure in the
`
`Shellhammer Provisional. Ex. 1003, Appendix B. The following table identifies
`
`where the relevant Shellhammer disclosure can be found in the Shellhammer
`
`Provisional. Id.
`
`Shellhammer (Ex. 1006)
`
`1:21-31
`1:34-41
`1:46-48
`1:61-64
`1:67-2:2
`2:20-24
`2:59-62
`5:67-6:11-18
`6:29-41
`8:52-9:23
`
`
`
`Shellhammer Provisional pages (Ex.
`1007)
`3
`3-4
`4
`4
`4
`5
`6
`7-8
`8
`9-10
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`
`
`9:47-48
`
`Fig. 1
`
` Fig. 3
`
`
`IPR2019-01550 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 7,016,676
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 1
`
`Fig. 2
`
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Shellhammer pre-dates even the earliest possible alleged
`
`priority date of the ’676 Patent and is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 50-52.
`
`Lansford filed December 29, 1999, Haartsen filed October 15, 1999, and
`
`Panasik filed December 28, 1999 are all U.S. patents with filing dates before the
`
`’676 Patent, making them prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`
`
`IX.
`
`IPR2019-01550 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,016,676
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-2 are unpatentable as obvious over
`Shellhammer
`1. Summary of Shellhammer
`
`Shellhammer (U.S. Pat. No. 7,039,358; Ex. 1006) is directed to a wireless
`
`radio network in which both 802.11 devices and Bluetooth devices share “the same
`
`frequency band at the same time.” Ex. 1006, 2:59-62.
`
`Shellhammer teaches an example system that includes the following devices:
`
`(1) devices only capable of Bluetooth communications, (2) dual-mode devices
`
`capable of both 802.11 and Bluetooth communications, and (3) an 802.11 access
`
`point (AP), which coordinates the devices’ access to a shared frequency band. Ex.
`
`1006, 5:67-6:11, 6:16-18, 6:29-411; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 53-54.
`
`Shellhammer explains that for the AP to coordinate access to the shared
`
`frequency band, the system uses a “coordination scheme [that] is primarily based
`
`on time multiplexing of the 802.11 and BT radios.” Ex. 1006, 6:35-36. The time-
`
`multiplexing coordination scheme includes having the time period “divided into
`
`three time intervals”: the first interval includes only 802.11 communications; the
`
`second interval includes only Bluetooth communications (called a NAV period);
`
`
`
`1 The system may include other device, i.e., 802.11 only mobile devices, which are
`“not shown” in Fig. 1. Ex. 1006, 9:10-10.
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01550 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,016,676
`
`
`and the third interval includes only 802.11 communications Id., 8:52-9:23; Ex.
`
`1003, ¶¶ 55-58.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 1
`
`a)
`[1.0] 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:
`First, Shellhammer explains that its object is to allow both Bluetooth and
`
`
`
`802.11 enabled devices to share the “same frequency band,” thereby disclosing a
`
`radio system with devices using different radio interface standards and “at least
`
`one common frequency band,” as claimed:
`
`It is therefore an object of this invention to utilize coordination
`techniques to ensure that, for example, both Bluetooth and 802.11
`enabled devices, may operate robustly in the same frequency band
`at the same time.
`
`Ex. 1006, 2:59-62; Ex. 1003, ¶ 59.
`
`
`
`Second, Bluetooth and 802.11 are each a radio interface standard. Bluetooth
`
`devices operate according to a radio interface standard, for example Bluetooth
`
`specification, version 1.1, in the 2.4 GHz ISM frequency band. Ex. 1006, 1:61-67
`
`(“Another example of a wireless specification that also uses the 2.4 GHz ISM
`
`frequency band is Bluetooth™.”). Likewise, IEEE 802.11 devices operate
`
`according to a radio interface standard, for example the “IEEE 802.11 Standard,”
`
`which also uses the “2.4 GHz ISM frequency band.” Id., 1:21-31. Thus, both
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01550 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,016,676
`
`
`802.11 and Bluetooth are “radio interface standards,” as claimed. The labels
`
`“first” and “second” are arbitrary labels and can be applied to either standard for
`
`the purposes of analyzing [1.0]. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 60-62.
`
`
`
`Shellhammer discloses the alternate use of the same frequency band. For
`
`example, Shellhammer discloses an interface-control protocol for “time
`
`multiplexing of the 802.11 and BT [Bluetooth] radios” operating “in the same 2.4
`
`GHz ISM frequency band.” Ex. 1006, 6:29-41. Shellhammer discloses a specific
`
`embodiment of “time multiplexing 802.11 and BT radios.” For example,
`
`Shellhammer discloses that the radio system first conducts communication in
`
`accordance with 802.11 using power-saving mode, then communication in
`
`accordance with Bluetooth during a NAV period, followed by communication in
`
`accordance with 802.11 using active mode:
`
`Referring now to the schematic of FIG. 3 in conjunction with the
`physical layout shown in FIG. 1. There is shown another technique to
`coordinate transmissions. Every 802.11 beacon time period, T 300,
`may be divided into three time intervals: 802.11 communications in
`(PSP) mode—t802.11PSP 310, Bluetooth
`the
`power
`saving
`communications—tNAV 320, and 802.11 communications in the
`active mode CAM—t802.11CAM 330.
`
`Ex. 1006, 8:52-9:13; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 63-65.
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2019-01550 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,016,676
`
`Accordingly, Shellhammer’s disclosure of an interface-control protocol
`
`method for alternating (time multiplexing) between 802.11 and Bluetooth devices
`
`in the same 2.4 GHz frequency band discloses [1.0]. Ex. 1003, ¶ 66.
`
`b)
`[1.1] stations which operate in accordance with a first
`radio interface standard and/or a second radio interface
`standard, and
`Shellhammer discloses a “coordination scheme [] primarily based on time
`
`multiplexing of the 802.11 and BT [Bluetooth] radios.” Ex. 1006, 6:29-41. For
`
`example, in Fig. 1 and its associated discussion, Shellhammer discloses access
`
`points (APs) (20, 30) that utilize the 802.11 radio interface standard, mobile units
`
`(120, 140) that utilize both the 802.11 and Bluetooth radio interface standards, and
`
`Bluetooth devices (160, 170, 180, 190, 200, 210) that use only the Bluetooth radio
`
`interface standard. Ex. 1006, 6:3-15. Annotated Fig. 1 of Shellhammer is shown
`
`below. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 67-68.
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01550 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 7,016,676
`
`Ex. 1006, Fig. 1 (annotations in color); Ex. 1003, ¶ 68
`
`
`
`
`
`Thus, Shellhammer teaches stations (APs) that communicate using 802.11
`
`protocols, stations that communicate using both 802.11 and Bluetooth protocols,
`
`and stations that communicate using Bluetooth protocols, which discloses [1.1].
`
`Bluetooth and 802.11 are each “radio interface standards,” as claimed, and “first”
`
`and “second” are arbitrary labels that could be applied to either standard. Ex. 1003,
`
`¶ 69.
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2019-01550 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,016,676
`
`c)
` [1.2] a control station which controls the alternate use
`of the frequency band,
`d)
`[1.3] wherein the control station controls the access to
`the common frequency band for stations working in
`accordance with the first radio interface standard and—
`Shellhammer discloses an embodiment, illustrated in Fig. 3, that includes an
`
`802.11 access point (AP 20 in Fig. 3) as an example of a “control station.” Ex.
`
`1003, ¶ 70.
`
`
`
`In Shellhammer’s system, an 802.11 access point controls the alternate use
`
`of the frequency band by (1) first directing 802.11 devices to communicate during
`
`a first time period (t802.11PSP), (2) next directing Bluetooth devices to communicate
`
`during the next time period (tNAV), and (3) then directing 802.11 devices to
`
`communicate during a final time period (t802.11CAM):
`
`Every 802.11 beacon time period, T 300, may be divided into three
`time intervals: 802.11 communications in the power saving (PSP)
`mode—t802.11PSP 310, Bluetooth communications—tNAV 320, and
`802.11 communications in the active mode CAM—t802.11CAM 330. …
`[1] At the beginning of each beacon period 300, AP 20 sends a
`beacon signal 350 to the 802.11 PSP MU’s 120, 140 that wake up
`in this period … [2] Once all the PSP MU’s 120, 140 receive their
`packets, the AP 20, may optionally send a global Clear to Send
`(CTS) signal 430 to shut down all the 802.11 communications for a
`NAV (Network Allocation Vector) period. At this point the 802.11
`MUs 120, 140 will enable their associated BTMs 130, 150 … After
`completion of the NAV period 320 the BTM 130, 150 radios are
`- 21 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2019-01550 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,016,676
`
`disabled and all BT communications is ceased. [3] The rest of the
`time (until the next beacon 380)
`is dedicated for 802.11
`Continuously Aware Mode (CAM) MU’s (not shown) that operate
`according to the 802.11 protocol.
`
`Ex. 1006, 8:54-9:13. Figure 3 is reproduced and annotated below according to
`
`these teachings. Ex. 1003, ¶ 71.
`
`Ex. 1006, Fig. 3 (annotations in color); Ex. 1003, ¶ 72
`
`
`
`The embodiment of Fig. 3 illustrates a single AP, “AP1,” controlling the network
`
`by shutting down all 802.11 communications during the TNAV period to allow
`
`Bluetooth communications.
`
`
`
`Thus, the 802.11 AP (“control station”) that “shut[s] down all the
`
`
`
`- 22 -
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01550 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 7,016,676
`
`
`802.11 communications for a NAV [] period,” by the sending of a CTS signal,
`
`controls access to the 2.4 GHz band for both stations operating in accordance with
`
`802.11 as well as stations operating in accordance with Bluetooth (either of which
`
`constituting “stations working in accordance with the first radio interface
`
`standard” for the purpose of analyzing [1.2] and [1.3]), thereby disclosing [1.2]
`
`and [1.3]. Ex. 1003, ¶ 72.
`
`e)
`[1.4] 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.
`For the purposes of analyzing [1.4] in the present Ground #1, 802.11 is the
`
`
`
`“first radio interface standard,” and Bluetooth is the “second radio interface
`
`standard.”
`
`
`
`Shellhammer teaches dividing each beacon time period T into two or three
`
`time intervals. While the present analysis will focus on the embodiment with three-
`
`time-intervals, the analysis is substantially the same for the two-time-interval
`
`embodiments. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 73-74.
`
`
`
`Shellhammer teaches that the 802.11 CTS signal block