Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 11
`Date: January 31, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
`PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 11
`Date: January 31, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
`PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`A. Background and Summary
`Apple Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”)
`requesting institution of an inter partes review of claims 1–12, 14, 19, and
`24 of U.S. Patent No. 8,982,863 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’863 patent”). Smart
`Mobile Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”) did not file a Preliminary
`Response.
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review may not be instituted
`“unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail
`with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon
`consideration of the Petition and for the reasons explained below, we
`determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing
`with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.
`Thus, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–12, 14, 19, and
`24 of the ’863 patent on all presented challenges. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu,
`138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 (2022).
`B. Real Parties in Interest
`Petitioner identifies Apple Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. as real parties in interest. Pet. 87.
`Patent Owner only identifies itself as a real party in interest. Paper 5, 1.
`C. Related Matters
`The parties identify Smart Mobile Techs. LLC v. Apple Inc., 6-21-cv-
`00603 (W.D. Tex.) as a related matter. Pet. 87; Paper 5, 1.
`We instituted inter partes reviews of related patents. Samsung Elecs.
`Co., Ltd. v. Smart Mobile Techs. LLC, IPR2022-00766, Paper 14 (PTAB
`Oct. 26, 2022) (Decision Granting Institution); Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`Smart Mobile Techs. LLC, IPR2022-01004, Paper 13 (PTAB Dec. 5, 2022)
`(Decision Granting Institution); Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Smart Mobile
`Techs. LLC, IPR2022-01005, Paper 10 (PTAB Dec. 5, 2022) (Decision
`Granting Institution). Other related patents are challenged in IPR2022-
`01248 and IPR2022-01249.
`D. The ’863 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’863 patent issued on March 17, 2015 from an application filed
`on September 22, 2014, which is a continuation application of several
`previously filed continuation and continuation-in-part applications, the
`earliest of which was filed on June 4, 1999. Ex. 1001, codes (22), (45), (63),
`1:7–17.
`The ’863 patent states that an unfulfilled need exists for multiple
`transmitters and receivers (“T/R”) in a cellular telephone or mobile wireless
`device (“CT/MD”). Ex. 1001, 1:48–49. Figure 5A of the ’863 patent is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 5A shows a “a dual antenna, dual T/R unit in a CT/MD
`interfacing with a dual processor.” Ex. 1001, 2:15–17. Dual antenna 508
`and dual T/R unit 504 interface with dual processor 506 in dual band
`system 500. Id. at 4:37–39. System 500 can communicate through
`outputs 510, which can be “fibre optic channel, ethernet, cable, telephone, or
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`other.” Id. at 4:42–45. “The multiple processors 506 allow for parallel and
`custom processing of each signal or data stream to achieve higher speed and
`better quality of output.” Id. at 4:51–53.
`“By extension the feature of multiple antennas, multiple T/R units and
`multiple processors is extendable to the network switch box or network
`switch boxes that form a local, wide area, [v]irtual private network or
`connect to the Internet.” Ex. 1001, 4:45–48. The ’863 patent states that “a
`CT/MD and a network switch box are very similar in many ways” but
`“completely different functional units, with the CT/MD providing personal
`services and the network switch box providing system services.” Id. at
`3:16–19; see also id. at 5:40–45 (describing network switch box 552 and
`CT/MD 502 similarly). The network switch box “may be used in the
`wireless mode only in a wireless network or it may also be connected to one
`or more networks by wired and wireless means to fully leverage all the
`input/output ports.” Id. at 5:16–20. “The network switch box may have a
`universal serial bus (USB) port, a coaxial cable port, a standard telephone
`(POTS) port, a twisted pair port, Ethernet port, and most importantly an
`optical port.” Id. at 9:50–53.
`“A server such as Server C controls the communication protocols in
`conjunction with the network switching box or other devices, such as
`CT/MD.” Ex. 1001, Abstr.; see also id. at 4:49–51 (describing similarly
`Server C of CT/MD 502). In one embodiment, “Server C 910 oversees the
`allocation of data to the different channels and keeps the process under
`control.” Id. at 7:9–10. In another embodiment, Server C 1030 interfaces
`with separate data streams or a combined data stream 1028. Id. at 7:28–30,
`Fig. 10. Similarly, Server C 1130 interfaces with combined data stream
`1128. Id. at 7:55–57, Fig. 11. Server C 1314 can supervise at least one of
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`virtual private networks (“VPN”) 1302, 1306, 1310. Id. at 8:45–47, 8:66–
`67, Fig. 13.
`E. Illustrative Claim
`The ’863 patent includes 24 claims, of which Petitioner challenges
`claims 1–12, 14, 19, and 24. Claims 1 and 14 are independent, and
`reproduced below is claim 1.
`1.
`A system for controlling Internet Protocol (IP) based
`wireless devices, IP based cellular phones, networks or network
`switches by servers comprising:
`an IP enabled wireless device including a portable device
`or a cellular phone, said IP enabled wireless device comprising a
`plurality of antennas and ports, wherein the IP enabled wireless
`device is configured for voice and data communication and
`comprises a plurality of transmit and receive units;
`a first server connected to at least one internet protocol
`enabled network, said server configured with a controller in
`communication with a plurality of network devices; and
`a network switchbox, wherein the network switchbox is
`configured with a plurality of ports, wherein the network switch
`box is connected to at least two networks, wherein the network
`switchbox is configured to transmit and receive one or more data
`packets between the at least two networks.
`Ex. 1001, 11:59–12:10.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`F. Asserted Prior Art and Proffered Testimonial Evidence
`Petitioner identifies the following references as prior art in the
`asserted grounds of unpatentability:
`Name
`Reference
`Hardwick US 5,550,816, issued Aug. 27, 1996
`Matero
`US 5,768,691, issued June 16, 1998
`Ahopelto US 5,970,059, filed Jan. 8, 1996, issued Oct. 19,
`1999
`US 6,697,632 B1, filed May 7, 1998, issued Feb. 24,
`2004
`
`Sood
`
`Exhibit
`1008
`1007
`1005
`
`1009
`
`Pet. 17. Petitioner argues that Hardwick is prior art under § 102(b), Matero
`is prior art under § 102(a), and Ahopelto and Sood are prior art under
`§ 102(e).1 Id. Petitioner also provides a Declaration of Dr. Michael Allen
`Jensen. Ex. 1003.
`G. Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–12, 14, 19, and 24 are unpatentable on
`the following grounds:
`
`35
`Claim(s) Challenged
`U.S.C. §
`1–6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 19, 24 103(a)
`7, 9
`103(a)
`12
`103(a)
`
`References/Basis
`Ahopelto, Matero
`Ahopelto, Matero, Hardwick
`Ahopelto, Matero, Sood
`
`Pet. 17.
`
`
`1 The relevant sections of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”),
`Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (Sept. 16, 2011), took effect on March 16,
`2013. Because the ’863 patent claims priority to an application filed before
`that date, our citations to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 in this Decision are to
`their pre-AIA versions. See also Pet. 1 (requesting the challenged claims be
`canceled under “(pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)”).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Legal Standards
`“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the
`onset to show with particularity why the patent [claim] it challenges is
`unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016). This burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner.
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378
`(Fed. Cir. 2015). The Board may authorize an inter partes review if we
`determine that the information presented in the Petition shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one
`of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`Petitioner contends that the challenged claims of the ’863 patent are
`unpatentable under § 103(a). Pet. 17. A claim is unpatentable under
`§ 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior
`art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at
`the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art
`to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
`U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis
`of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of
`the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
`prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) where in evidence, so-called
`secondary considerations of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). When evaluating a combination of teachings, we
`must also “determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the
`known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550
`U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`Whether a combination of elements produces a predictable result weighs in
`the ultimate determination of obviousness. Id. at 416–417.
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had
`a working knowledge of the wireless communication arts pertinent to the
`’863 patent” and “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer
`engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of
`experience related to the design or development of wireless communication
`systems, or the equivalent.” Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–28).
`Petitioner also argues that “[l]ack of work experience can be remedied by
`additional education, and vice versa.” Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–28).
`Based on the preliminary record, we adopt Petitioner’s asserted level
`of ordinary skill only to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood
`that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
`challenged in the Petition.
`C. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, the claims are construed
`using 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 pertaining to
`the patent.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2021); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`Petitioner argues that “said server configured with a controller in
`communication with a plurality of network devices” recited by claim 1
`“should be understood to recite that a server is ‘configured with a controller’
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`and that it is the server that is ‘in communication with a plurality of network
`devices.’” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:1–4; Ex. 1003 ¶ 54). Petitioner
`supports its contention with citations to the Specification and declarant
`testimony. Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:51–63, 6:20–26, 6:65–7:10,
`7:21–30, 7:48–57, 8:45-55, Figs. 7, 9; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 55–57).
`Petitioner also argues that, “for the purposes of this proceeding,” the
`remaining terms should be “given their plain and ordinary meaning.”
`Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 30, 53).
`Based on the cited portions of the Specification and declaration, we
`preliminarily adopt Petitioner’s understanding of “said server configured
`with a controller in communication with a plurality of network devices” to
`mean that the recited server is “configured with a controller” and that the
`same server is “in communication with a plurality of network devices” to
`determine whether Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
`See Pet. 11–12; Ex. 1001, 4:51–63, 6:20–26, 6:65–7:10, 7:21–30, 7:48–57,
`8:45–55, Figs. 7, 9; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 54–57.
`We also determine that no other claim term requires express
`interpretation. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir.
`2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in
`controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”)
`(quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803
`(Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`D. Asserted Obviousness Based on Ahopelto and Matero
`Petitioner argues with citations to record evidence that claims 1–6, 8,
`10, 11, 14, 19, and 24 would have been rendered obvious in view of
`Ahopelto and Matero. Pet. 23–75. Petitioner notes that it “applies prior art
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`in a manner consistent with Patent Owner’s allegations of infringement
`before the district court.” Pet. 10 n.1.
`For the reasons below, Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing on this challenge.
`1. Ahopelto (Ex. 1005)
`Ahopelto “relates to routing data packets independently of protocol
`between a mobile station of a packet radio network and a party connected to
`an external network.” Ex. 1005, 1:11–14. Figure 1 of Ahopelto is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 shows two General Packet Radio Service (“GPRS”)
`networks and associated local and data networks. Ex. 1005, 3:63–64, 4:41–
`43. According to Ahopelto, GPRS is a new service in the Global System for
`Mobile Communication (“GSM”), a digital mobile communication system,
`and Ahopelto “is particularly well suited” for implementing GPRS in GSM.
`Id. at 1:28–35, 4:29–34.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`The telecommunication system of Figure 1 shows two GPRS
`operators 1, 2, and each has two GPRS support nodes (“GPRS SN”), a
`GPRS home support node (“GPRS HSN”), GPRS gateway support node
`(“GPRS GSN”), and interworking functions (“IWF”), all of which are
`interconnected by an intra-operator backbone network. Ex. 1005, 4:41–49.
`The intra-operator backbone network may be a local network. Id. at 6:7–10.
`Each GPRS SN “controls a packet data service within the area of one or
`more cells in a cellular packet radio network” and is connected to a part of a
`GSM mobile system, such as base station controller (“BSS”) or base station
`(“BTS”). Id. at 4:50–58. A mobile station (“MS”), such as mobile station 3
`and portable computer 4, communicates with BTS over a radio interface and
`with a GPRS SN over a mobile communication network. Id. at 4:58–62,
`5:16–19. Mobile station 3 and portable computer 4 can be “integrated into
`one unit.” Id. at 5:31–34.
`Each GPRS GSN connects one operator to another operator of the
`GPRS network and other data networks, such as inter-operator backbone
`network, IP network, or X.25 network. Ex. 1005, 6:16–19. An IWF is
`provided between a GPRS GSN and other networks. Id. at 6:20–21.
`Different operators communicate through a GPRS GSN and the inter-
`operator backbone network. Id. at 6:28–30.
`A host computer (“Host”) is connected to a local network and to an
`IPX network via a router. Ex. 1005, 6:50–53. The Host can send data
`packets to and receive data packets from a mobile station even when
`different protocols are used. Id. at 7:17–42, 8:27–45, Figs. 2–5.
`2. Matero (Ex. 1007)
`Matero relates particularly “to circuits used in single and dual band
`radio telephones, such as cellular telephones.” Ex. 1007, 1:5–8. Matero
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`describes that band switching was accomplished with a mechanical relay or
`switch, but a mechanical switch required “a large and bulky component with
`a slow switching time.” Id. at 1:40–50. Matero also describes using an
`electronic switch, but such a switch “introduces a significant insertion loss
`into the RF path” or required higher transmitter power. Id. at 1:50–65.
`Matero provides an “antenna switching circuitry for use in a radio
`telephone of a type that includes a first transceiver operable in a first
`frequency band and a second transceiver operable in a second frequency
`band” and “a first antenna port and a second antenna port.” Ex. 1007, 2:55–
`59. Figure 6 of Matero is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 6 shows an embodiment that “employs impedance matching
`lengths of transmission line to couple the duplexers to two antenna
`switches.” Ex. 1007, 4:45–48. The embodiment shown “employs lengths of
`transmission line (LI–L4) to couple the duplexers 5 and 5' to two antenna
`switches 14 and 16” and “thus overcomes the problems associated with the
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`conventional approach.” Id. at 5:44–49. “Although the embodiment of FIG.
`6 employs the two electronic switches 14 and 16 (or mechanical switches if
`so desired), there is only one switch in the RF signal path,” so that “the
`insertion loss is not doubled.” Id. at 5:51–55. Matero also describes an
`embodiment “particularly useful for systems where the frequency of the
`higher band is a multiple of the frequency of the lower band, e.g. GSM . . .
`and PCN.” Id. at 8:19–22.
`3. Claim 1
`a) Asserted Teachings and Suggestions
`For the preamble “[a] system for controlling Internet Protocol (IP)
`based wireless devices, IP based cellular phones, networks or network
`switches by servers,” Petitioner argues that Ahopelto teaches the recited
`“server” because its GPRS gateway support node or GGSN has server
`functionality that would have exercised control over packet routing.
`Pet. 23–25 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77, 78; Ex. 1005, 7:35–42, 8:40–41, 10:22–
`23, 10:48–50, 10:56–59, Fig. 1; Ex. 1006, 11:51–55; Ex. 1010, 87; Ex. 1011,
`15:10–18, Fig. 9); see also id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–26) (noting that
`“additional prior art” is cited “to demonstrate the background knowledge” of
`an ordinarily skilled artisan and “to provide contemporaneous context to
`support Petitioner’s assertions regarding what a [person of ordinary skill in
`the art] would have understood from the prior art”), 23 (citing Ex. 1003
`¶ 76). Petitioner also argues that the GGSN’s server functionality also
`controlled “mobile stations’ access to networks external to the public land
`mobile network” and would have controlled “forwarding traffic or not.” Id.
`at 25 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 80–81; Ex. 1006, 5:32–39, 14:1–10, 16:44–48;
`Ex. 1011, 15:13–18; Ex. 1021, 3). Petitioner further argues that Ahopelto
`discloses controlling IP based wireless devices, networks, and network
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`switches. Id. at 25–28 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 82–30; Ex. 1005, Abstr., 4:41–62,
`5:2–7, 5:16–34, 6:16–19, Fig. 1; Ex. 1022, 528).
`For “an IP enabled wireless device including a portable device or a
`cellular phone, said IP enabled wireless device comprising a plurality of
`antennas and ports,” Petitioner argues that Ahopelto’s mobile station teaches
`the recited IP enabled wireless device. Pet. 28–29 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 91–
`92; Ex. 1005, 5:16–34, Fig. 1). Petitioner also argues that Matero teaches a
`mobile device with antennas and antenna ports and so, in the proposed
`combination, Ahopelto’s mobile station would have included such antennas
`and ports. Id. at 29–30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 93–97; Ex. 1007, 1:5–8, 2:59–60,
`8:19–25, Fig. 6).
`For “wherein the IP enabled wireless device is configured for voice
`and data communication and comprises a plurality of transmit and receive
`units,” Petitioner argues that Ahopelto teaches a device configured for voice
`and data communication. Pet. 30–32 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 98–101; Ex. 1005,
`1:20–22, 1:28–35, 4:29–34, 5:25–34, Fig. 1; Ex. 1006, 1:30–38; Ex. 1012,
`1:10–12, 1:26–30, 1:37–39). Petitioner also argues that Matero teaches a
`device with multiple transmit and receive units. Id. at 32–33 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 102–103; Ex. 1007, 2:55–59, Fig. 6).
`For “a first server connected to at least one internet protocol enabled
`network,” Petitioner argues that Ahopelto’s GGSN server functionality to
`determine protocol type would have rendered obvious the recited first server.
`Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 104–105; Ex. 1005, 7:35–40, 8:40–41).
`Petitioner alternatively argues that the GGSN’s Access Server would teach
`the recited first server. Id. at 33–34 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 106; Ex. 1005, Fig. 1;
`Ex. 1006, 11:51–55; Ex. 1010, 87; Ex. 1011, 15:10–18, Fig. 9). Petitioner
`also argues that the GGSN server functionality is connected to an IP enabled
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`network. Id. at 34–35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 107–108; Ex. 1005, 6:16–19,
`6:37–42, Fig. 1).
`For “said server configured with a controller in communication with a
`plurality of network devices,” Petitioner argues that it would have been
`obvious that a processor or controller implements the GGSN’s server
`functionality because Ahopelto teaches implementing the GGSN on
`computers and it was known that a GGSN was “based on a
`hardware/software platform.” Pet. 35–36 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 109–111;
`Ex. 1005, 6:7–15, 7:35–40, 8:40–41; Ex. 1010, 84). Petitioner alternatively
`argues that a GGSN controls operation of an access server for a particular
`packet network, and so it would have been obvious that the proposed
`combination has a “server configured with a controller.” Id. at 36 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 112–113; Ex. 1006, 14:1–5, Fig. 8). Petitioner also argues that
`the GGSN is in communication with multiple network devices, including
`another GGSN, GPRS SN, base transceiver, and router. Id. at 36–38 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 114–118; Ex. 1005, 4:50–58, 6:7–21, 6:50–53, 7:20–26, Fig. 1).
`For “a network switch box, wherein the network switch box is
`configured with a plurality of ports,” Petitioner argues that Ahopelto’s
`GGSN includes a routing functionality that connects different data packet
`networks, such as another GPRS system, inter-operator backbone network,
`X.25 network, and IP network, so that the GGSN’s routing functionality
`operates as a network switch box. Pet. 38–39 (citing Ex. 1005, Abstr., 6:16–
`19), 39–40 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 124; Ex. 1005, Fig. 1). Petitioner also argues
`that the GGSN acts like an IP router to external packet networks. Id. at 39
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 119–122; Ex. 1006, 5:15–24; Ex. 1010, 85, 87; Ex. 1013,
`14:1–3; Ex. 1014, 2:9–11). Petitioner further argues that it would have been
`obvious that connecting between networks would have done through the
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`GGSN’s routing functionality. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 123; Ex. 1010, 84, 87;
`Ex. 1022, 12). Petitioner additionally argues that it would have been
`obvious that the GGSN has multiple ports for its routing functionality. Id. at
`40 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 125–126; Ex. 1005, Fig. 1; Ex. 1013, 14:1–3).
`For “wherein the network switch box is connected to at least two
`networks,” Petitioner argues that Ahopelto teaches many examples of the
`GGSN having routing functionality between two networks, such as between
`intra-operator backbone network X.25 and IPX WAN network. Pet. 40–42
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 127–131; Ex. 1005, 7:17–35, 8:40–45, Figs. 1, 2, 6, 8,
`10, 12).
`For “wherein the network switch box is configured to transmit and
`receive one or more data packets between the at least two networks,”
`Petitioner argues that Ahopelto teaches the GGSN’s routing functionality
`transmitting data packets to mobile devices and receiving data packets from
`mobile devices between two networks. Pet. 42–44 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 132–
`137; Ex. 1005, 6:16–19, 7:21–42, 8:27–45, Figs. 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12; Ex. 1006,
`5:15–24).
`b) Asserted Reason to Combine
`Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`considered Ahopelto and Matero to be analogous art because both pertain to
`wireless networking. Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 68–69; Ex. 1005, Abstr.;
`Ex. 1007, Abstr.). According to Petitioner, one of ordinary skill in the art
`would have combined Ahopelto with Matero because Matero “addresses
`insertion loss and switching time issues” and “reduced insertion loss while
`maintaining a fast switching speed.” Pet. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 73–74;
`Ex. 1007, 1:40–66, 5:44–49). Petitioner contends that the proposed
`combination “would also beneficially have reduced power consumption
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`from reduced insertion loss, providing better battery life” and “result in a
`radio telephone operable in both GSM and PCN bands.” Id. at 23 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 74).
`Petitioner further contends that the proposed combination would have
`
`been
`
`nothing more than the combination of known elements
`(Ahopelto’s mobile station operating in GSM and/or PCN
`networks, and Matero’s transceiver circuitry used in GSM and/or
`PCN radio telephones), according to known methods (using
`Matero’s dual-band transceivers in Ahopelto’s packet radio
`network), to yield predictable results (Matero’s radio telephone
`operating in Ahopelto’s GSM and/or PCN network(s)).
`Pet. 23 (Ex. 1003 ¶ 75). Petitioner additionally contends that one of
`ordinary skill in the art would have turned to Matero for details about mobile
`stations serving as endpoints because Ahopelto focuses on routing between
`networks. Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 69–71; Ex. 1005, Abstr., 1:11–14,
`5:2–7, 5:16–34; Ex. 1007, 1:5–8, 2:55–60). Petitioner argues that one of
`ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success
`in combining Ahopelto and Matero because both relate to GSM and PCN.
`Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71–72; Ex. 1005, 1:32–67; Ex. 1007, 8:19–25;
`Ex. 1012, 1:37–41).
`Based on the arguments presented in the Petition and the evidence
`cited in the record, Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in
`its obviousness challenge to claim 1 based on Ahopelto and Matero.
`4. Dependent Claims 2–6, 8, 10, and 11
`Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites “further comprising a
`second network switch box, wherein the first network switch box is
`configured to transmit and receive a plurality of data packets from and to the
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`second network switch box over at least one network path.” Ex. 1001,
`12:11–15.
`Petitioner argues that Ahopelto teaches that the routing functionality
`of a GGSN is a network switch box and that a router is a second network
`switch box. Pet. 45–46 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:48–55; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 120–122,
`138–139, 141; Ex. 1005, 6:50–53, Figs. 1, 8, 10, 12; Ex. 1022, 528).
`Petitioner also argues that Ahopelto teaches the GGSN communicating with
`the router to route data packets between a mobile station and an external
`host. Id. at 46–48 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 142–146; Ex. 1005, Abstr., 3:55–57,
`7:11–14, 8:12–15, Figs. 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12).
`Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and recites “wherein the controller is
`configured to control the first network switch box to use a first network path
`to send at least one data packet to the second network box and to reconfigure
`the first network box to use a second network path to send at least one data
`packet.” Ex. 1001, 12:16–20.
`Petitioner argues that Ahopelto teaches that its GGSN has a controller
`and the GGSN’s server functionality controls the routing functionality to
`send a data packet to the router. Pet. 48–50 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 147–149;
`Ex. 1005, Abstr., 3:55–57, 6:7–15, 10:13–19, 10:22–33, Fig. 10; Ex. 1006,
`14:1–5; Ex. 1010, 84). Petitioner also argues that Ahopelto teaches that the
`GGSN can reconfigure its routing functionality to send data packets by
`another route. Id. at 50–51 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 150–155; Ex. 1005, 9:50–
`10:10, 10:34–36, 10:39–55, Figs. 8, 10, 12).
`Claim 4 depends from claim 2 and recites “wherein the server is
`configured to dynamically control and change the network flow between the
`first network switch box and second network switch box such that the first
`network switch box and second network switch box transmit and receive
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`data packets using dynamically changing network paths.” Ex. 1001, 12:21–
`26.
`
`Petitioner argues that Ahopelto teaches that the GGSN’s server
`functionality changes network paths based on which one supports the data
`packet’s protocol and, thus, shows dynamically controlling and changing
`network paths. Pet. 52 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 156–160; Ex. 1005, 2:28–53,
`4:29–30, Figs. 10, 12).
`Claim 5 depends from claim 2 and recites “wherein the server is
`configured to control the first network switch box to switch between a first
`network path and a second network path in response to a network
`condition.” Ex. 1001, 12:27–30.
`Petitioner argues that Ahopelto teaches that the GGSN’s server
`functionality changes network paths based on which one supports the data
`packet’s protocol and, if the protocol is not supported (the asserted network
`condition), the GGSN sends the data packet through a different network
`using encapsulation. Pet. 53–54 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 161–165; Ex. 1005,
`10:6–10, Figs. 10, 12).
`Claim 6 depends from claim 2 and recites “wherein the server is
`configured to control the first network switch box to switch between a first
`network path and a second network path in response to an application.”
`Ex. 1001, 12:31–34.
`Petitioner argues that Ahopelto teaches that the GGSN’s server
`functionality changes network paths based on a data packet’s protocol which
`depends on the application associated with the data packet or based on
`billing or security reasons. Pet. 54–55 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 166–172;
`Ex. 1005, Abstr., 6:54–61, 9:50–57, 10:13–21, 10:34–36, 10:39–47, Figs. 8–
`13).
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`Claim 8 depends from claim 2 and recites “further comprising at least
`two machines, wherein a first machine generates a first data stream to send
`to the second machine via the first network box and the second machine is
`configured to receive the first data stream from the first network box.”
`Ex. 1001, 12:37–41.
`Petitioner notes that claim 8 recites a “first network box,” while
`claim 1 recites a “first network switch box.” Pet. 55 n.2. Petitioner argues
`that Ahopelto teaches a mobile station sending data packets (a data stream)
`to a host, and the data packets are routed by the GGSN’s routing function,
`the asserted network switch box. Pet. 55–57 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 173–177;
`Ex. 1005, 10:63–11:6, Fig. 12).
`Claim 10 depends from claim 2 and recites “wherein at least one
`network is an overlay network, virtual network and/or virtual private
`network.” Ex. 1001, 12:45–47. Petitioner argues that Ahopelto’s GPRS
`network was known to be an overlay to a GSM network and that Ahopelto
`would have rendered obvious a virtual private network because a protocol
`for implementing a virtual private network was known and could be used in
`Ahopelto. Pet. 57–58 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 178–183; Ex. 1005, 1:32–35,
`1:52–54, 4:29–34, Fig. 1; Ex. 1015, 8:53–55; Ex. 1020, 45:54–67, 46:1–5).
`Claim 11 depends from claim 2 and recites “wherein the server is
`configured to send control parameters to the network switch box using at
`least one protocol.” Ex. 1001, 12:48–50. Petitioner argues that the GGSN’s
`server functionality would have controlled the routing functionality by
`sending control parameters based on determining how to forward a data
`packet. Pet. 58–61 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 184–192; Ex. 1005, 7:37–40, 8:40–
`41, 10:22–23, 10:48–50, 10:56–59; Ex. 1006, 12:60–65, 13:6–12, 14:6–10;
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`Ex. 1010, 84, 87; Ex. 1021, 3, 10; Ex. 1022, 11–12;
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
