IPR2020-00376
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ERICSSON INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-00376
`U.S. Patent No.: 7,016,676
`Issued: March 21, 2006
`Application No.: 10/089,959
`Filed: August 8, 2001
`
`Title: METHOD, NETWORK AND CONTROL STATION FOR THE TWO-
`WAY ALTERNATE CONTROL OF RADIO SYSTEMS OF DIFFERENT
`STANDARDS IN THE SAME FREQUENCY BAND
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,016,676
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ERICSSON INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-00376
`U.S. Patent No.: 7,016,676
`Issued: March 21, 2006
`Application No.: 10/089,959
`Filed: August 8, 2001
`
`Title: METHOD, NETWORK AND CONTROL STATION FOR THE TWO-
`WAY ALTERNATE CONTROL OF RADIO SYSTEMS OF DIFFERENT
`STANDARDS IN THE SAME FREQUENCY BAND
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,016,676
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00376
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... v
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS ............................................................................................. vii
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................... ix
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8 (b)(1)) ...................... ix
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8 (b)(2)) ............................... ix
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8 (b)(3))
`and Service Information .......................................................... xi
`
`4.
`
`Proof of Service (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6 (e) and 42.105 (a)) ......... xi
`
`5. Word Count Certification (37 C.F.R. § 42.24) ....................... xii
`
`I.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ................................ 1
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND
`RELIEF REQUESTED (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) ........................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`Claims For Which Review Is Requested
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)) ................................................................... 2
`
`B.
`
`Statutory Grounds For Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(2)) ............ 2
`
`IV. BACKGROUND AND STATE OF THE ART .............................................. 3
`
`A. Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art ............................................................ 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Different Radio Interface Standards Operating
`In The Same Frequency Band Was Known .............................. 4
`
`Using A Control Station To Moderate Network
`Traffic Was Known ................................................................... 7
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,016,676
`
`
`
`Page i
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00376
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`3.
`
`“Switching” Frequency To Avoid Interference
`Was Known ................................................................................ 7
`
`B.
`
`Summary Of The Prior Art To The ’676 Patent ................................... 8
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’676 PATENT ........................................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`The ’676 Patent’s Specification ........................................................... 9
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Prosecution History ....................................................................14
`
`The Challenged Claims .....................................................................16
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)) .............................17
`
`A.
`
`Level Of Skill In The Art ...................................................................19
`
`B.
`
`Proposed Constructions .....................................................................19
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`(Claim 1) “Stations Which Operate In Accordance
`With A First Radio Interface Standard And/Or A
`Second Radio Interface Standard” ..........................................19
`
`(Claim 1) “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” ..............................................................22
`
`(Claim 2) “Respective Duration” In Which The Stations
`Working In Accordance With The Second Radio Interface
`Standard Are Allowed To Utilize The Frequency Band ..........25
`
`VII. EACH CHALLENGED CLAIM OF THE ’676 PATENT IS
`UNPATENTABLE OVER THE CITED PRIOR ART
`(37 CFR § 42.104 (b)(4), 37 CFR § 42.104(b)(5)) ......................................25
`
`A. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1 AND 2 ARE OBVIOUS
`OVER HOMERF ...............................................................................25
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,016,676
`
`
`
`Page ii
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00376
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`HomeRF: Wireless Networking For The
`Connected Home .....................................................................26
`
`Claim 1 Is Obvious Over HomeRF .........................................39
`
`HomeRF Shows The Added Limitations Of Claim 2 .............46
`
`B.
`
`GROUND 2: CLAIMS 1 AND 2 ARE OBVIOUS
`OVER HOMERF IN VIEW OF HOMERF TUTORIAL .................46
`
`1.
`
`HomeRF Tutorial .....................................................................46
`
`2. Motivation To Combine The HomeRF References .................51
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 1 Is Obvious Over HomeRF In View
`Of HomeRF Tutorial ...............................................................52
`
`HomeRF In View Of HomeRF Tutorial Shows
`The Added Limitations Of Claim 2. .......................................55
`
`C.
`
`GROUND 3: CLAIMS 1 AND 2 ARE OBVIOUS OVER
`HOMERF IN VIEW OF HOMERF LIAISON REPORT ................55
`
`1.
`
`HomeRF Liaison Report .........................................................55
`
`2. Motivation To Combine HomeRF Liaison
`Report, HomeRF .....................................................................58
`
`3.
`
`Claim 1 Is Obvious Over HomeRF In View
`Of HomeRF Liaison Report ....................................................58
`
`D. GROUND 4: CLAIMS 1 AND 2 ARE OBVIOUS
`OVER LANSFORD ..........................................................................60
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,937,158 (“Lansford”) .................................60
`
`Claim 1 Is Obvious Over Lansford .........................................69
`
`Lansford Shows The Added Limitations Of Claim 2 .............73
`
`VIII. NO OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS .............................74
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,016,676
`
`
`
`Page iii
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00376
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................74
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME
`LIMITATION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.24 ....................................75
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IN COMPLIANCE WITH
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4) ..................................................................................76
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,016,676
`
`
`
`Page iv
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2020-00376
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`
`ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`838 F.3d 1214 (Fed. Cir. 2016).................................................................... 18
`
`Cybersettle, Inc. v. Nat’l Arbitration Forum, Inc.,
`243 F. App’x 603 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .............................................................. 22
`
`Ex Parte John Nicholas
`Gross, Appeal No.
`2011-004811,
`2013 WL 6907805 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2013). ............................................. 20
`
`Ex Parte Randal C.
`Schulhauser, Appeal
`No. 2013-007847,
`2016 WL 6277792 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016) .............................................. 22
`
`IPXL Holdings LLC v. Amazon.com Inc.,
`430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005).................................................................... 22
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014). .................................................................................... 18
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).................................................................... 18
`
`
`Board Decisions
`
`Panel Claw, Inc. v. Sunpower Corp.,
`No. IPR2014-00386, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. June 30, 2014) .............................. 18
`
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ...............................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................. 2, 25
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,016,676
`
`
`
`Page v
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00376
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ...................................................................................................... 18
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .................................................................................................... 1, 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325 ........................................................................................................ 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282 ...................................................................................................... 17
`
`
`Rules
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100.............................................................................................. 1, 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,016,676
`
`
`
`Page vi
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00376
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`No.
`
`1001
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,016,676, “METHOD, NETWORK AND
`CONTROL STATION FOR THE TWO-WAY ALTERNATE
`CONTROL OF RADIO SYSTEMS OF DIFFERENT
`STANDARDS IN THE SAME FREQUENCY BAND,” issued
`March 21, 2006 (the “’676 patent”)
`
`1002
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,016,676, Application No.
`10/089,959 (“’676 FH”)
`
`1003
`
`Reserved
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`Declaration of Peter Rysavy, including Appendix 1 thereto,
`signed and dated Dec. 22, 2019 (“Rysavy Dec.”)
`
`Excerpts of “Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th
`Edition”, © 1999 by Macmillan USA (“Webster’s”)
`
`“HomeRF: Wireless Networking for the Connected Home”, by
`Kevin J. Negus et al., IEEE Personal Communications, Vol. 7,
`Issue 1, pgs. 20-27, Feb. 2000 (“HomeRF”)
`
`Declaration of Gerard P. Grenier, including Exhibit A thereto,
`signed and dated January 2, 2020 (“Grenier Dec.”)
`
`“HomeRF: Bringing Wireless Connectivity Home”, by
`Jim Lansford, Technical Committee Chair for the Home RF
`Working Group, March 9, 1999 (“HomeRF Tutorial”)
`
`“HomeRF™ Working Group 3rd Liaison Report”, by Tim
`Blaney of Commcepts, July 1998 (“HomeRF Liaison Report”)
`
`Declaration of Christina Boyce, including Exhibits A-D thereto,
`signed and dated January 3, 2020 (“Boyce Dec.”)
`
`Declaration of Jennifer Stephens, including Exhibits A and
`B thereto, signed and dated January 2, 2020 (“Stephens
`Dec.”)
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,016,676
`
`
`
`Page vii
`
`
`
`No.
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`IPR2020-00376
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,937,158, “METHOD AND APPARATUS
`FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION BETWEEN
`ELECTRONIC DEVICES,” filed December 29, 1999 and issued
`August 30, 2005 (“Lansford”)
`
`Order regarding Ericsson’s Motion to Intervene, Uniloc 2017
`LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-
`00513, ECF No. 35 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 22, 2019)
`
`Order regarding Ericsson’s Motion to Intervene, Uniloc 2017
`LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-00514,
`ECF No. 42 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2019)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,016,676
`
`
`
`Page viii
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00376
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`1.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8 (b)(1))
`
`Ericsson Inc. (“Ericsson” or “Petitioner”) and
`
`its corporate parent
`
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson are each a real party-in-interest.
`
`2.
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8 (b)(2))
`
`The ’676 patent (Ex. 1001) has been asserted by Uniloc 2017 LLC in the
`
`following litigations:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Microsoft Corporation,
`8:18-cv-02053 (C.D. Cal.), filed November 17, 2018;
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC, et al. v. Google LLC,
`2:18-cv-00495 (E.D. Tex.), filed November 17, 2018;
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc., et al., 2:18-cv-
`00513 (E.D. Tex.), filed November 17, 2018 (“the Verizon case”);
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc., et al.,
`2:18-cv-00514 (E.D. Tex.), filed November 17, 2018 (“the AT&T
`case”);
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC, et al. v. Google LLC,
`2:18-cv-00448 (E.D. Tex.), filed October 31, 2018;
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC, et al. v. AT&T, Inc., et al.,
`2:18-cv-00379 (E.D. Tex.), filed August 29, 2018;
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC, et al. v. Verizon Communications Inc., et al., 2:18-
`cv-00380 (E.D. Tex.), filed August 29, 2018; and
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC, et al. v. Microsoft Corporation, 8:18-cv-01279
`(C.D. Cal.), filed July 24, 2018.
`
`Microsoft Corporation previously challenged claims 1 and 2 of the ʼ676
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,016,676
`
`
`
`Page ix
`
`
`
`patent in IPR2019-01116 (“Microsoft IPR-1116”). The Board instituted review of
`
`claims 1 and 2 based on Microsoft’s petition. IPR2019-01116, Paper 8 (PTAB
`
`IPR2020-00376
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`Dec. 4, 2019).
`
`Additionally, various claims of the ’676 patent were or are being challenged
`
`in the following PTAB matters:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Microsoft Corporation v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-01125
`(P.T.A.B.) (claim 5), institution denied;
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-01349
`(P.T.A.B.) (challenging claims 1, 2, and 5);
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-01350
`(P.T.A.B.) (challenging claims 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9);
`
`Google, LLC v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-01541 (P.T.A.B.)
`(challenging claims 1, 2, 4, and 9); and
`
`Ericsson Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-01550 (P.T.A.B.)
`(challenging claims 1, 2, and 8).
`
`Ericsson is a party in the Verizon case and the AT&T case, as its motion to
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`intervene in each case was granted. See Ex. 1013, Ex. 1014. Both cases are stayed
`
`pending instituted IPRs regarding the patents at issue in those cases. Uniloc 2017
`
`LLC v. Verizon Commc’ns Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-00513, ECF No. 65 (E.D.
`
`Tex. Dec. 31, 2019) (Order granting stay); Uniloc 2017 LLC v. AT&T Services,
`
`Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-00514, ECF No. 77 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 2, 2020) (Order
`
`granting stay).
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,016,676
`
`
`
`Page x
`
`
`
`Petitioner is unaware of any other related matters, or of other patents that
`
`IPR2020-00376
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`claim priority to, or share a claim of priority with, the challenged patent.
`
`3.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.8 (b)(3)) and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`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
`
`
`
`Angela Oliver
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`
`Back-up Counsel
`
`
`972-680-7557
`Phone:
`214-200-0853
`Fax:
`andrew.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
`
`
`
`202-654-4552
`Phone:
`202-654-4252
`Fax:
`angela.oliver.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 73,271
`
`Petitioner consents to service via email at the above email addresses.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), concurrently filed with this Petition is a
`
`Power of Attorney executed by Petitioner and appointing the above counsel.
`
`4.
`
`Proof of Service (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6 (e) and 42.105 (a))
`
`Proof of service of this Petition is provided in the attached Certificate of
`
`Service.
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,016,676
`
`
`
`Page xi
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00376
`Patent 7,016,676
`5. Word Count Certification (37 C.F.R. § 42.24)
`
`Certification of the compliance with the word count limit set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.24 (a)(1)(i) is provided in the attached Certificate of Compliance with Type-
`
`Volume Limits.
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,016,676
`
`
`
`Page xii
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00376
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`I.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`The ’676 patent is directed to the use of a control station that facilitates and
`
`controls alternate access to a common (i.e., the same) frequency band by multiple
`
`radio stations operating in accordance with at least two different radio standards or
`
`variants of those standards. At the time the ’676 application was filed, however, there
`
`was nothing new about providing such alternate access to a common frequency band.
`
`To the contrary, as further described below, multiple patents and printed publications
`
`disclosed the same subject matter claimed by the ’676 patent, years before the
`
`earliest possible priority date of the ’676 patent.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING (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 grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND
`RELIEF REQUESTED (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b))
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, Ericsson Inc.
`
`(“Ericsson” or “Petitioner”) respectfully requests inter partes review of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,016,676 (Ex. 1001, also referred to herein as the “’676 patent”, “challenged
`
`patent,” or “the patent”), allegedly assigned to Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Patent Owner”).
`
`Petitioner asserts that there is a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 2 of
`
`the ’676 patent (the “Challenged Claims”) are unpatentable on the grounds set forth
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,016,676
`
`
`Page 1
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00376
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`herein. For the reasons set forth below, claims 1 and 2 should be found
`
`unpatentable and cancelled.
`
`As noted above in the Mandatory Notices section, the Board previously
`
`instituted review of claims 1 and 2 based on Microsoft’s petition in Microsoft IPR-
`
`1116. The challenges to claims 1 and 2 presented herein are substantively identical
`
`to Microsoft’s challenges in Microsoft IPR-1116 and are based on the same
`
`grounds presented in Microsoft IPR-1116, as further explained in the motion for
`
`joinder submitted with this petition.
`
`A. Claims For Which Review Is Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1))
`
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of claims 1 and 2 (each a “Challenged
`
`Claim,” and collectively the “Challenged Claims”) of the ’676 patent under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 311.
`
`B.
`
`Statutory Grounds For Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(2))
`
`The Challenged Claims are each unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103, based at least on the following specific grounds presented in this Petition:
`
`Reference(s)
`Ground
`Ground 1 HomeRF (Ex. 1006)
`Ground 2 HomeRF in view of
`HomeRF Tutorial (Ex. 1008)
`Ground 3 HomeRF in view of
`HomeRF Liaison Report (Ex.
`1009)
`Ground 4 Lansford (Ex. 1012)
`
`Basis
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims
`1 and 2
`1 and 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`1 and 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`1 and 2
`
`For each ground, in Section VII below, the Petition demonstrates at least a
`
`Page 2
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,016,676
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00376
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`reasonable likelihood that each Challenged Claim is unpatentable.
`
`Other than in Microsoft IPR-1116, neither “the same or substantially the
`
`same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office,” 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 325(d).1 Neither the applicants nor any Examiner addressed whether the
`
`references included in Grounds 1-4 (Exs. 1006, 1008, 1009, and 1012) (or any
`
`reference substantially identical thereto) was prior art or attempted to distinguish
`
`the Challenged Claims from those references.
`
`Thus, other than in Microsoft IPR-1116 and in Ericsson’s earlier filed
`
`petition, no unpatentability ground asserted herein has been previously presented to
`
`the Patent Office.
`
`IV. BACKGROUND AND STATE OF THE ART
`
`The ’676 patent relates to a “Method, network and control station for the two-
`
`way alternate control of radio systems of different standards in the same frequency
`
`band”. ’676 patent, Title.
`
`
`1 Although Ericsson previously relied on the Lansford reference to challenge claims
`
`1 and 2 in Ericsson Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-01550 (P.T.A.B.), as
`
`explained in Ericsson’s concurrently filed paper, Ericsson asks that the Board
`
`prioritize institution of Ericsson’s petition in IPR2019-01550 over institution of
`
`this petition, although the Board should still institute and join this petition given
`
`the identity of arguments between this petition and Microsoft IPR-1116.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,016,676
`
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`A. Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art
`
`The ’676 patent acknowledges that a number of the features recited therein
`
`IPR2020-00376
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`were already known in the art.
`
`1.
`
`Different Radio Interface Standards Operating
`In The Same Frequency Band Was Known
`
`The ’676 patent acknowledges that each of the exemplary radio interface
`
`standards it addresses in its “advantageous embodiments” was already established,
`
`and that stations operating in accordance with these standards operate in the same
`
`frequency band:
`
`A radio system for wireless transmission of information is
`
`allowed to use transmission power only in accordance
`
`with standards. The national
`
`regulation authority
`
`determines on what frequencies with what transmission
`
`power and in accordance with what radio interface
`
`standard a radio system is allowed to transmit. For this
`
`purpose there is provided for so-termed ISM frequency
`
`bands (Industrial Scientific Medical) that radio systems
`
`transmit in the same frequency band in accordance with
`
`different radio interface standards. An example of this is
`
`the US radio system IEEE802.11a and the European
`
`ETSI BRAN HiperLAN/2. 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
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,016,676
`
`
`Page 4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00376
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`protocols.
`
`’676 patent, 1:10-23.2
`
`
`
`The specification goes on to describe these two transmission protocols and
`
`their operation, as well as their interaction within this common frequency band.
`
`The ’676 patent further provides figures 1 and 2, illustrating the function of these
`
`“known” standards:
`
`
`
`
`
`’676 patent, Fig. 1, described id., 4:38-39, 45-46, respectively, as “show[ing] the
`
`frame structure in accordance with the ETSI BRAN HiperLAN/2 standard” and
`
`
`2 Unless otherwise noted, emphasis in quoted language throughout this Petition is
`
`added, and not part of the original document cited.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,016,676
`
`
`Page 5
`
`
`
`“show[ing] the structure of the HiperLAN/2 frame” (German language in figure is
`
`IPR2020-00376
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`in original).
`
`
`
`’676 patent, Fig. 2, described id., 4:47-49 as “diagrammatically show[ing] the media
`
`access in systems working in accordance with the radio interface standard
`
`IEEE802.11a” (German language in original).
`
`A POSITA would have recognized, then, that both Figures 1 and 2 of the ’676
`
`patent, and the accompanying discussion, refer to the state of the art at the time that
`
`the ’676 patent application was filed, as opposed to features introduced by the ’676
`
`patent itself. See Declaration of Peter Rysavy (Ex. 1004, “Rysavy Dec.”), ¶¶ 25-29.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,016,676
`
`
`Page 6
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Using A Control Station To
`Moderate Network Traffic Was Known
`
`IPR2020-00376
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`The ’676 patent further acknowledges that systems operating in accordance
`
`with each of these prior art radio interface standards provided Medium Access
`
`Control, and that systems operating in accordance with ETSI BRAN HiperLAN/2 –
`
`referred to as the “first radio interface standard” in the claimed “advantageous
`
`embodiment” described in the specification – provided a control station, referred to
`
`as an “Access Point”:
`
`The Medium Access Control (MAC) of the two systems is
`
`totally different. ETSI BRAN HiperLAN/2 utilizes a
`
`centrally controlled reservation-based method in which
`
`a radio station takes over the role of a central instance
`
`co-ordinating the radio resources. This central radio
`
`station (Access Point, AP) which may be an access point
`
`to the wide area network, periodically signals every 2 ms
`
`the MAC frame structure from the AP and the associated
`
`stations if required.
`
`’676 patent, 1:34-42. Rysavy Dec., ¶ 30.
`
`3.
`
`“Switching” Frequency To Avoid Interference Was Known
`
`The ’676 patent further acknowledges that both of the prior art radio interface
`
`standards utilized “standardized” methods for “active switching” to another
`
`frequency within the permitted frequency band in the event of interference:
`
`In
`
`the event of
`
`interference, method [sic] were
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,016,676
`
`
`Page 7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00376
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`standardized for an active switching to another frequency
`
`within the permitted frequency band, for controlling
`
`transmission power and for the adaptive coding and
`
`modulation to reduce interference. Radio systems of
`
`wideband LANs of the radio interface standards ETSI
`
`BRAN HiperLAN/2 and IEEE802.11a utilize the same
`
`radio transmission method, a 64-carrier OFDM method
`
`and an adaptive modulation and coding. About the same
`
`modulation and coding methods (Link Adaptation, LA)
`
`are defined for the two standards.
`
`’676 patent, 1:24-33. Rysavy Dec., ¶ 31.
`
`B.
`
`Summary Of The Prior Art To The ’676 Patent
`
`This Petition primarily relies on several pieces of prior art to challenge claims
`
`of the ’676 patent, whether alone, or in conjunction with the patent applicant’s own
`
`admissions regarding the state of the art at the time the ’676 patent application was
`
`filed, as further described above. These prior art references are summarized at the
`
`beginning of each ground in which they are first introduced in Section VII, with a
`
`particular focus on their specific teachings that are relevant to the claim elements
`
`against which they are cited.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’676 PATENT
`
`The ’676 patent, titled “METHOD, NETWORK AND CONTROL STATION
`
`FOR THE TWO-WAY ALTERNATE CONTROL OF RADIO SYSTEMS OF
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,016,676
`
`
`Page 8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00376
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`DIFFERENT STANDARDS IN THE SAME FREQUENCY BAND” issued on
`
`March 21, 2006. The ’676 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`10/089,959 (the “959 application”), filed on April 4, 2002, which is a National Stage
`
`Entry of PCT No. PCT/EP01/09258, filed August 8, 2001 and published as WO
`
`02/13457 A2, which in turn claims priority to a German application, No. 100 39
`
`532.5, filed August 8, 2000.3
`
`
`
`A.
`
`The ’676 Patent’s Specification
`
`The ’676 patent includes 5 independent claims 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, of which claim 1
`
`is the only independent claim challenged here. Each of the first four independent
`
`claims recites “[a]n 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,” while claim 9 recites a “wireless network.”
`
`As discussed above, the ’676 patent applicant admits that it was known for
`
`radio systems using different radio interface standards to broadcast in the same
`
`frequency band, namely “US radio system IEEE802.11a and the European ETSI
`
`BRAN HiperLAN/2”. ’676 patent, 1:10-23, and that it was known to switch to a
`
`
`3 While Petitioner does not agree that the ’676 patent is entitled to its earliest
`
`claimed priority date, resolution of this issue is not required to determine that the
`
`’676 patent is unpatentable, and so the issue of the ’676 patent’s alleged priority is
`
`not addressed herein.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,016,676
`
`
`Page 9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00376
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`different frequency within a common frequency band in the event of detected
`
`interference. Id., 1:24-28.
`
`But, the specification claims “In case of alternating interference, [prior art]
`
`systems do not work efficiently and occupy a frequency channel even at low
`
`transmission rates.” Id., 2:8-10. Against this backdrop, the specification purports to
`
`provide “a method, a wireless network and a control station which make efficient
`
`use of radio transmission channels possible.” Id., 2:11-13. Rysavy Dec., ¶¶ 34-35.
`
`FIG. 3 is the only figure that shows something more than what the patent
`
`admits is known technology. That figure shows providing a “central control station
`
`13” (labeled “S”) to control alternate use of a frequency band by different stations
`
`operating on different standards: “three stations 10, 11 and 12 ... [each labeled “A”,
`
`that] work in accordance with the first radio interface standard A, for example, in
`
`accordance with the HiperLAN/2 standard” and “four stations, 14, 15, 16, and 17 ...
`
`[each labeled “B,” that] work in accordance with the second radio interface standard
`
`B, for example, in accordance with the IEEE802.11a standard.” Id., 5:22-30. This
`
`control station “controls the alternate access by the first wireless network and the
`
`second wireless network to the common frequency band.” Id., 5:39-41.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,016,676
`
`
`Page 10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00376
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`
`
`’676 patent, FIG. 3 (annotated). Rysavy Dec., ¶ 36.
`
`The patent explains that “[t]he control of the alternate use of the common
`
`frequency band may be effected in various ways.” ’676 patent, 2:51-52.
`
`In one example: “it 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.” Id., 2:52-57.
`
`In another example, the first radio interface is prioritized, as the second
`
`wireless network stations are provided frequency band access “if stations operating
`
`in accordance with the first radio interface standard do not request access”:
`
`as claimed in claim 2, the control station is provided, on
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,016,676
`
`
`Page 11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00376
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`the one hand, for controlling the access to the frequency
`
`band for stations operating in accordance with the first
`
`radio interface standard. In that case the stations of the
`
`[first radio interface standard] send a request for capacity
`
`to the control station and the control station allocates
`
`transmission capacity to each respective station.
`
`
`
`On the other hand, 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 do not request access to
`
`the frequency band. In this advantageous embodiment of
`
`the invention the first radio interface standard is given
`
`priority over the second radio interface standard in this
`
`manner. 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.
`
`Id., 2:63 – 3:19. Rysavy Dec., ¶¶ 37-39. Such a scheme was recited in original
`
`claim 2, which was later canceled, and its subject matter added to claim 1 (see
`
`discussion of prosecution history below).
`
`The patent further explains that “[t]his [control] may be effected in an
`
`advantageous manner in that the [control station] sends a broadcast message to the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 7,016,676
`
`
`Page 12
`
`
`
`[second wireless network] stations ... when the [first wireless network] stations ... do
`
`IPR2020-00376
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`not need transmission capacity.” Id., 5:42-45.
`
`The specification further states:
`
`When the integrated controller in accordance with the
`
`invention is used, different radio systems may be made
`
`compatible in the way that they constructively coexist in
`
`the same frequency band and then can provide services
`
`that require a high service quality. The radio spectrum is
`
`clearly used more efficiently; without the implementation
`
`of the new method this is only possible with respect
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
