Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: January 16, 2024
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`MICROSOFT CORP., DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., AND DELL INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`OZMO LICENSING LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2023-01060
`Patent 8,599,814 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, LARRY J. HUME and
`STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: January 16, 2024
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`MICROSOFT CORP., DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., AND DELL INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`OZMO LICENSING LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2023-01060
`Patent 8,599,814 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, LARRY J. HUME and
`STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01060
`Patent 8,599,814 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Microsoft Corp., Dell Technologies Inc., and Dell Inc. (“Petitioner”)
`filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Petition” or “Pet.”) requesting an inter partes
`review of claims 1−13 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`8,599,814 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’814 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–
`319. Ozmo Licensing LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response.
`Paper 7 (“Preliminary Response” or “Prelim. Resp.”).
`The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314, which
`provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the
`information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response shows
`that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2022) (“The Board institutes the
`trial on behalf of the Director.”). Upon consideration of the contentions and
`the evidence of record, we conclude that Petitioner has established a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in demonstrating the unpatentability of at
`least one challenged claim of the ’814 patent. Accordingly, we grant
`Petitioner’s request and institute an inter partes review.
`BACKGROUND
`II.
`
`Real Parties in Interest
`A.
`Petitioner states that Microsoft Corp., Dell Technologies Inc., and
`Dell Inc. are real parties in interest. Pet. 1.
`
`Patent Owner states that Ozmo Licensing LLC is owner and the real
`party in interest. Paper 8, 1 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notices).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01060
`Patent 8,599,814 B2
`
`
`Related Matters
`B.
`The parties identify various district court litigation matters, pending or
`dismissed in the Western District of Texas, involving the ’814 patent.
`Pet. 1; Paper 8, 2−3. Patent Owner further notes that a patent related to the
`’814 patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,264,991 (“the ’991 patent”), is involved in an
`instituted, and pending, inter partes review: Unified Patents v. Ozmo
`Licensing, IPR2023-00193. See Paper 3 (identifying also related district
`court litigation matters concerning the ’991 patent). According to Patent
`Owner, the ’991 patent is related to the ’814 patent via a claim of benefit.
`Id. at 3−4 (noting that seven other patents also claim benefit of the ’814
`patent).
`
`The ’814 Patent
`C.
`The ’814 patent relates generally to wireless communications, and
`more specifically to “seamlessly integrating short-range wireless personal
`area networks (‘WPANs’) into longer-range wireless local area network
`(‘WLANs’). Ex. 1001, 1:25−29.
`The ’814 patent explains that WLAN connectivity is widely
`implemented via 802.11x protocols and correspondingly compliant
`equipment. Id. at 1:40−67. One mode of operation of WLAN configuration
`is the infrastructure mode, in which an access point (“AP”) manages the
`infrastructure network. Id. at 2:1−11. Through the AP, the network
`connects to the Internet and other WLANs, and stations (“STAs”) become
`associated to the infrastructure network. Id. at 2:11−20.
`“In contrast to WLAN, no such unifying standard exists for WPAN.” Id. at
`2:22−23. Instead, mixtures of standardized and proprietary protocols have
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01060
`Patent 8,599,814 B2
`
`been developed, such as Bluetooth. Id. at 2:23−35. Furthermore, when
`implementing WPAN technology in the vicinity of or within the WLAN
`network, devices may be using the same 2.4 GHz frequency band
`asynchronously, causing severe interference. Id. at 2:35−44.
`One alternative is to use WLAN circuitry in the stations of a WPAN.
`Id. at 2:45−48. However, a WLAN station (STA) used in WPAN
`applications would undesirably result in having to replace batteries of the
`WPAN devices more frequently. Id. at 2:48−62. Furthermore, the WLAN
`STAs typically communicate at a comparatively high data rate and need to
`regularly listen to the beacons the AP transmits, even when on power save
`mode. Id. at 3:1−28.
`An exemplary system is shown in Figure 3, reproduced below.
`
`Figure 3 depicts WPAN 10 integrated with WLAN 6 to form
`
`integrated network 5. Ex. 1001, 4:63−66. WLAN 6 is 802.11x compliant
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01060
`Patent 8,599,814 B2
`
`and may operate in either infrastructure mode (as described above) or in ad
`hoc mode. Id. at 5:1−4. STAs 8 include an 802.11x compliant wireless
`circuit, are associated with and synchronized to AP 7, and periodically listen
`to beacons from AP 7. Id. at 5:7−14.
`
`Figure 3 also depicts WPAN 10 including power-sensitive stations 11
`(“PS-STA”). Id. at 5:19−20. A PS-STA is defined as “a device that is
`battery-operated and for which maximizing battery-life is beneficial to the
`application and/or user.” Id. at 5:20−22. The PS-STA is typically in sleep
`mode most of the time, waking up occasionally to communicate and
`exchange information. Id. at 5:27−30. Each PS-STA 11 is equipped with a
`wireless circuit that can communicate directly with a standard 802.11x-
`compliant wireless circuit. Id. at 5:30−33. The PS-STA 11 is not required,
`however, to be fully compliant with the 802.11x specification and some PS-
`STAs 11 may have reduced power dissipation thereby extending the battery
`life. Id. at 5:34−36.
`
`Figure 3 further depicts wireless hub 12 that facilitates seamless
`communication between the WLAN and the WPAN. Id. at 5:49−51.
`Wireless hub 12 includes a wireless 802.11x-compliant wireless circuit that
`communicates with AP7 of infrastructure WLAN 6 and with PS-STAs 11 of
`WPAN 10. Id. at 5:51−54. Wireless hub 12 is placed within range of the
`PS-STAs 11, about 30 feet, and also within range of AP7, typically about
`300 feet. Id. at 5:66−6:4. The wireless hub can be integrated within an
`electrical power outlet, as well as other electrical devices, such as light
`bulbs, light switches, thermostats, energy meters, personal computers,
`personal digital assistants, cellular phones, home entertainment equipment,
`and the like. Id. at 6:5−13.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01060
`Patent 8,599,814 B2
`
`
`The ’814 patent describes further embodiments. For instance, it
`describes a WPAN used to connect a headset to a mobile phone, or a
`mouse/keyboard to a laptop, or a remote control to a wireless-enabled
`electronic device. Id. at 9:36−47. In these cases, the computing device (i.e.,
`mobile phone or laptop) communicates with the WPAN device (such as the
`headset or other peripherals), using a secondary network protocol, also
`referred to as WPAN protocol, to reduce interference. Id. at 9:60−10:5;
`10:11−16; 10:30−33. This secondary network protocol is an “overlay
`protocol that is partially compatible with the WLAN protocol, but not
`entirely, in terms of power, frame contents and sequences, timing, etc.” Id.
`at 10:1−5. As explained by the ’814 patent, the secondary network (WPAN)
`protocol, “might be 802.11x frames with new frame arrangements adapted
`for WPAN needs, such as reduced latency, power, etc.” Id. at 10:5−8.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`D.
`Of the challenged claims, claim 1 is independent. Claim 1 is
`reproduced below, with relevant language discussed in detail below
`italicized.
`
`1. A network-enabled hub, usable for facilitating data
`communications between two or more wireless devices that are
`configured to communicate indirectly with each other via the
`network-enabled hub, comprising:
`an interface to a wireless radio circuit that can send and
`receive data wirelessly, providing the hub with bi-directional
`wireless data communication capability;
`logic for processing data received via the wireless radio
`circuit;
`logic for generating data to be transmitted by the wireless
`radio circuit;
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01060
`Patent 8,599,814 B2
`
`
`logic for initiating and maintaining wireless network
`connections with nodes of a wireless network external to the
`network-enabled hub, maintaining at least a first wireless
`network connection using a first wireless network protocol and a
`second wireless network connection using a second wireless
`network protocol,
`that can be maintained, at
`times,
`simultaneously with each other in a common wireless space,
`wherein the second wireless network protocol is an overlay
`protocol with respect to the first wireless network protocol in that
`communications using the second wireless network protocol are
`partially consistent with the first wireless network protocol and
`at least some of the communications using the second wireless
`network protocol impinge on at least some antennae used for the
`first wireless network; and
`data forwarding logic, implemented in the network-
`enabled hub using hardware and/or software, that forwards data
`between an originating node and a destination node, wherein the
`originating node is a node in one of the first and second wireless
`networks and the destination node is a node in the other of the
`first and second wireless networks.
`
`Ex. 1001, 25:16–36 (emphasis added). The italicized language is referred to
`hereinafter as the “overlay protocol limitation.”
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01060
`Patent 8,599,814 B2
`
`
`Asserted Grounds and Testimony
`E.
`Petitioner presents the challenges summarized in the chart below.
`Pet. 3.
`Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a)1
`1, 3, 5−7, 9−13
`
`2
`1, 4, 7, 8
`
`1
`
`103(a)
`103(a)
`
`103(a)
`
`Reference/Basis
`Sugar,2 Bluetooth,3 and
`Shin4
`Sugar, Bluetooth, Shin, and
`Cromer5
`Giaimo6 and Sinivaara7
`Gurevich,8 Hansen,9
`802.11-1999,10 802.11b,11
`and 802.11g12
`
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), included revisions to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 that became
`effective after the earliest effective filing date of the challenged claims.
`Therefore, we apply the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Our
`decision is not affected by which version is used.
`2 US 2002/0061031 A1, published May 23, 2002 (Ex. 1004, “Sugar”).
`3 Specification of the Bluetooth System, Core, Version 1.1, Feb. 22, 2001
`(Ex. 1006, “Bluetooth”).
`4 US 2004/0071123 A1, published April 15, 2004 (Ex. 1005, “Shin”).
`5 US 2005/0165909 A1, published July 28, 2005 (Ex. 1022, “Cromer”).
`6 US 2004/0090924 A1, published May 13, 2004 (Ex. 1008, “Giaimo”).
`7 WO 2005/006659 A1, published January 20, 2005 (Ex. 1007, “Sinivaara”).
`8 US 2005/0174962 A1, published August 11, 2005 (Ex. 1010, “Gurevich”).
`9 US 2005/0180368 A1, published August 18, 2005 (Ex. 1009, “Hansen”).
`10 ANSI/IEEE Standard 802.11, 1999 Edition (R2003) (Part 11: Wireless
`LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY)
`Specifications (Ex. 1017, “802.11-1999”).
`11 IEEE Standard 802.11b-1999, Higher-Speed Physical Layer Extensions in
`2.4 GHz Band, (Approved September 16, 1999) (Ex. 1018, “802.11b-
`1999”).
`12 IEEE Standard 802.11g-2003, Amendment 4: Further Higher Data Rate
`Extension in the 2.4 GHz Band (Approved June 12, 2003) (Ex. 1019,
`“802.11g-2003”).
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01060
`Patent 8,599,814 B2
`
`
`Petitioner supports its challenge of invalidity with a declaration of Zhi
`Ding, Ph.D., filed as Exhibit 1002 (“Ding Decl.”).
`Patent Owner has not submitted testimonial evidence at this stage of
`the proceeding.
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`A.
`Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art
`(POSA) “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering,
`computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, with at least two
`years of experience in the field of wireless communication systems and
`protocols, with an allowance for additional education or experience that
`might substitute for those requirements.” Pet. 7. Petitioner also states that a
`person having ordinary skill in the art would have been skilled at working
`with the Bluetooth Specification and 802.11/a/b/g standards.” Id. (citing
`Ding Decl. ¶¶ 27, 28. Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary
`skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp.
`At this stage of the proceeding, there is no dispute concerning the
`proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. We adopt Petitioner’s assessment,
`which at this juncture appears reasonable given the specification of the
`’814 patent and asserted prior art of record.
`
`Claim Construction
`B.
`In inter partes review proceedings based on petitions filed on or after
`November 13, 2018, such as this one, we construe claims using the same
`claim construction standard that would be used in a civil action under
`35 U.S.C. § 282(b), as articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01060
`Patent 8,599,814 B2
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), and its progeny. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`(2019).
`
`“Overlay Protocol”
`1.
`At this juncture there is a claim construction issue for the term
`“overlay protocol” recited in claim 1 of the ’814 patent. The Petition states
`that “overlay protocol” means “a protocol governing a second network,
`which protocol has aspects in common with a first network protocol to
`provide one or more advantages.” Pet. 8. According to Petitioner, this
`definition is explicitly provided in the intrinsic record of the patent and is
`consistent with the disclosed embodiments and the file history. Id. at 8−9.
`Petitioner also states that the district court has construed certain terms of the
`’814 patent and that Petitioner has applied those constructions in this
`proceeding. Pet. 8; Ex. 1036. We note, however, that Petitioner failed to
`explain that its proposed construction of “overlay protocol” is different from
`the district court’s claim construction. Nor does the Petition provide
`argument for why the Board should adopt a construction that is different
`from the one the district court has adopted.
`Patent Owner points out that Petitioner’s statement regarding claim
`construction is disingenuous because, although Petitioner purports to apply
`the district court’s construction of “overlay protocol,” the Petition implicitly
`applies a construction that the court rejected. Prelim. Resp. 19.
`Faced with this dispute, we now consider the claim construction that
`the district court issued for “overlay protocol.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`(“Any prior claim construction determination concerning a term of the claim
`in a civil action, or a proceeding before the International Trade Commission,
`that is timely made of record in the inter partes review proceeding will be
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01060
`Patent 8,599,814 B2
`
`considered.”). According to the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, (Nov.
`2019), 45–46, available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuide
`Consolidated/ (“Trial Practice Guide”), the Board will give the district court
`claim construction the appropriate weight upon considering, among the non-
`exclusive factors, the similarities between the present record and the record
`in the district court, and whether the district court determination is final.
`The Claim Construction Order of July 5, 2023 includes a construction
`for the term “overlay protocol,” as follows: “protocol governing a second
`network, which protocol has aspects in common with a first network
`protocol to reduce interference such that the second and first network can
`co-exist.” Ex. 1036, 6 (“the 2023 Order”). The 2023 Order states that a
`more-detailed order explaining the analysis for the court’s constructions will
`be forthcoming. Id. at 1. Although the record before us leaves us unaware
`of whether the court has issued the follow-on analysis to the 2023 Order, the
`record before us includes another, and final, claim construction order with a
`detailed analysis of the ’814 patent’s “overlay protocol.” Ex. 1015 (issued
`on September 20, 2022) (“the 2022 Order”). Referring to the ’814 patent
`claim language, that 2022 Order explains the court’s analysis as follows:
`The contextual use of the term “overlay protocol” in the
`claims provides some clarity as to its scope and meaning. For
`example, claim 1 recites that “the second wireless network
`protocol is an overlay protocol with respect to the first wireless
`protocol in that communications using the second wireless
`network protocol are partially consistent with the first wireless
`network protocol.” See ’814 Patent at 14:63–15:1. This usage
`indicates that an overlay protocol is one that shares some
`commonality with another protocol.
`Ex. 1015, 24.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01060
`Patent 8,599,814 B2
`
`The 2022 Order further addresses the parties’ dispute as to whether
`
`the construction should address reduced interference and co-existence. Id. at
`25−26; see also Ex. 1024, 12:24−16:2 (arguing to the court that the issue of
`reducing interference so the two networks can coexist was an improper
`inclusion of specific embodiments into the claim). The court’s analysis
`stressed that the “overlay protocol” is discussed extensively in U.S.
`Publication No. US 2006/0227753 A1 (Ex. 1012, “Vleugels I”), which the
`’814 patent incorporates by reference. Ex. 1015, 24; Ex. 1001, 1:16−21.
`The court noted that Vleugels I defines “overlay protocol” as having
`“elements that are reuses of elements of a PWN protocol to provide one or
`more advantages.” Ex. 1015, 25 (quoting Ex. 1012, 9:39−41). The court did
`not stop there; it relied on further descriptions of the overlay protocol from
`Vleugels I, including the following quote, which describes the advantages
`provided by the common aspects of the protocols:
`[T]here are many benefits of using an SWN protocol such as an
`802.11x overlay instead of an all 802.11x protocol and by
`suitable design of the SWN protocol, the SWNs and the PWN can
`co-exist . . .
`In the example of FIG. 3(d), it may be expected that mouse 320,
`keyboard 322, mobile phone 340 and headset 306 are not
`programmed for, and/or do not have circuits to support, use with
`an 802.11x primary network, but nonetheless they might use an
`SWN protocol that has many aspects in common with an 802.11x
`protocol, modified to accommodate the different needs of SWN
`devices while providing a measure of co-existence.
`Id. (citing Ex. 1012, 10:15−29) (emphasis added by the court). Relying on
`additional citations to Vleugels I, with mentions of avoiding interference, the
`court was persuaded that the construction proposed by Patent Owner was
`supported by the intrinsic evidence and should be adopted. Ex. 1015, 26. In
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01060
`Patent 8,599,814 B2
`
`other words, the court found support in the intrinsic record for the
`proposition that the “overlay protocol” of a second network has aspects in
`common with a first network protocol “to reduce interference such that the
`second and first network can co-exist.”
`In this proceeding, Petitioner has proposed a claim construction that is
`broader than the district court’s claim construction. Under Petitioner’s
`construction, the common aspects between the “overlay protocol” and the
`first protocol merely confer “one or more advantages.” This construction is
`similar to the position previously argued to the district court. See
`Ex. 1036, 6; see also Ex. 1013, 4. There the defendant proffered the
`Vleugels I definition that the second protocol reuses elements of the first
`protocol “to provide one or more advantages.” Ex. 1036, 6. Patent Owner is
`correct that the district court considered, but did not adopt, a proposed
`construction that states general “advantages” of the common elements
`between protocols.
`It is important for us to note that our claim construction standard is the
`same as the standard applied in district court and was adopted to avoid
`decisions that construe the same or similar claims of a patent inconsistently
`across the different forums. Changes to the Claim Construction Standard
`for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and
`Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,342 (Oct. 11, 2018). “Minimizing
`differences between claim construction standards used in the various fora
`will lead to greater uniformity and predictability of the patent grant,
`improving the integrity of the patent system.” Id. Petitioner has the burden
`of providing sufficient support for the claim construction it provided here,
`including an explanation for why the Board should consider anew a
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01060
`Patent 8,599,814 B2
`
`construction the district court considered (including the same intrinsic
`evidence support) but did not adopt. Trial Practice Guide, 48.
`After reviewing the district court’s claim construction analysis and the
`similarities between the failed arguments there and the proposed
`construction here, and considering the lack of explanation by Petitioner
`regarding why we should deviate from the prior construction, we hereby
`adopt the district court’s claim construction of “overlay protocol”—protocol
`governing a second network, which protocol has aspects in common with a
`first network protocol to reduce interference such that the second and first
`network can co-exist. At this juncture, we find reasonable the inclusion of
`the benefit to reduce interference such that the networks can co-exist
`because it aligns with the general descriptions of the overlay protocol. See
`Ex. 1001, 9:60−10:10 (explaining that communication with the WPAN
`device might proceed without interference from the conventional WLAN,
`such as by coordinating usage of the wireless medium using the overlay
`protocol that is partially compatible with the WLAN protocol).
`We turn now to Patent Owner’s assertion that an unpatentability
`theory that relies on the Bluetooth protocol as an overlay protocol flouts the
`“overlay protocol” definition. Prelim. Resp. 19. This argument is directed
`to Petitioner’s asserted obviousness challenge over Sugar, Shin, and
`Bluetooth. Id. Although Patent Owner may be correct that an implied claim
`construction could be lurking in Petitioner’s challenge, we are inclined at
`this juncture to evaluate the issue as part of our analysis on the merits
`applying the construction of the term as stated above. Accordingly, we
`analyze the issue in connection with our discussion of the asserted grounds.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01060
`Patent 8,599,814 B2
`
`
`Consequently, given our analysis of the 2023 Order and 2022 Order as
`discussed above and considering the dispute over the scope of “overlay
`protocol,” we preliminarily adopt the district court’s construction for
`purposes of this Decision.
`2. Means Plus Function Terms
`Petitioner states that several claim terms are subject to 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112(f) and that both parties agree on their construction as follows.
`Pet. 9−10. Patent Owner does not dispute these assertions. Below is a
`summary of these terms and the stated construction, which we apply for
`purposes of this Decision.
`
`Function
`As recited
`
`Structure
`Processing unit 28
`
`As recited
`
`Processing unit 28
`
`Wireless circuit 27,
`processing unit 28, and
`software platform 36
`(that enables the circuit
`to connect to both
`networks
`simultaneously)
`Processing unit 28
`executing algorithms at
`12:13−13:14
`Processing unit 28
`executing the algorithm
`at 7:66−8:7
`
`Term
`logic for processing
`data received via a
`wireless radio circuit
`logic for generating
`data to be transmitted
`by the wireless radio
`circuit
`logic for initiating and
`maintaining . . .
`
`As recited
`
`As recited
`
`logic to coordinate a
`mutually agreeable
`inactivity period
`routing module for . . . As recited
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01060
`Patent 8,599,814 B2
`
`
`Term
`logic for uniquely
`identifying . . .
`
`Function
`As recited
`
`Structure
`Processing unit 28
`routing based on IP
`addresses
`
`No other terms require discussion at this point in the proceeding. See,
`e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d
`1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe 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))).
`
`C. Overview of the Asserted References
`Petitioner relies on many references for the asserted grounds. We
`summarize the most relevant below.
`Overview of Sugar (Ex. 1002)
`1.
`Sugar discloses interference mitigation or collision avoidance systems
`and procedures to allow different WPAN and WLAN communication
`protocols to coexist in the same frequency band. See Ex. 1004. Abstr., ¶ 2.
`Sugar describes the existence of several wireless network protocols sharing
`the same unlicensed frequency spectrum (2.4 GHz unlicensed frequency
`band), which caused interference problems between different networks, such
`as IEEE 802.11b and Bluetooth. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 3, 4. Sugar recognizes that
`although these technologies were designed to work reliably with some
`frequency interference, they were not designed to co-exist with each other.
`Id. ¶ 6. Sugar then provides a multi-protocol wireless communication
`device (MPD) that acts as a node, hub or terminal on two or more wireless
`local or personal area networks, simultaneously. Id. ¶ 39. For instance, an
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01060
`Patent 8,599,814 B2
`
`MPD may be a hub that operates simultaneously to communicate using
`protocols A and B with terminal nodes. Id. Some terminals may use only
`protocol A, some terminals may use only protocol B, and other terminals
`may use both. Id.
`Figure 1 of Sugar (reproduced below) shows an example of a system
`in which an MPD communicates with various terminals.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts system 10, with MPD 12 that communicates with terminal
`nodes 14, 16, 18, 20, 22. Terminals 14 and 22 are wireless communication
`devices that operate using a first protocol, such as 802.11. Id. ¶ 42.
`Terminals 16 and 20 are wireless communication devices that operate using
`a second communication protocol, such as Bluetooth. Id. Sugar explains
`that two nodes each using WLAN technologies may nevertheless have
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01060
`Patent 8,599,814 B2
`
`different protocols that differ in bandwidth, packet duration, and transmit
`power. Id. ¶¶ 48−50. Those same nodes, however, may be frequency
`hopped and occasionally overlap in frequency. Id. ¶ 49.
`Sugar notes that interference occurs when two or more
`communication protocol signals overlap in time and frequency. Id. ¶ 51.
`The term “collision” is used to describe the case where two or more signals
`attempt to occupy a common medium at the same time. Id. Sugar also
`explains generally that an MPD may implement various techniques to
`mitigate interference, such as filter notching, prioritizing, polling, and
`delaying or scheduling transmission as determined by the collision
`algorithm. Id. ¶¶ 52−64.
`Some of the algorithms for mitigating interference in Sugar, address
`implementing the Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Avoidance
`(CSMA/CA) technique of the 802.11 standard. Id. ¶ 71. For instance, Sugar
`explains that using CSMA/CA, the sending node listens for a carrier on the
`802.11 channel. Id. If the node detects that the channel is idle for at least
`one Distributed Coordination Function Interframe Space (DIFS), the node
`will transmit its data. Id. Otherwise, a counter is randomly generated to
`back off transmission, and when the counter reaches zero, the sending node
`transmits. Id. The node that receives the message waits one Short
`Interframe Space (SIFS) before transmitting an acknowledge message
`(ACK). Id. ¶ 72. If the sending node does not receive the ACK within a
`timeout period, it concludes the message was lost and attempts to transmit
`again (after executing another random backoff counter procedure). Id.
`Sugar also explains that the Bluetooth protocol uses two data links:
`the Synchronous Connection Oriented (SCO) data link and the
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01060
`Patent 8,599,814 B2
`
`Asynchronous Connectionless (ACL) data link. Id. ¶ 81. The SCO link
`carries digitized speech or video in full duplex mode, which means that SCO
`packets come in pairs—one packet for the downlink, the other for the uplink.
`Id. The ACL link carries asynchronous data for file transfer in 1, 3, 5 slots.
`Id. ¶ 82. With SCO packet there is no retransmission, but with ACL
`packets, the nodes use an ACK or no ACK retransmission scheme. Id.
`To guarantee an acceptable level of voice quality for voice and data
`users, Sugar’s MPD assigns a higher delivery priority to Bluetooth SCO
`packets than to Bluetooth ACL or 802.11 data. Id. ¶ 84. To guarantee
`reliable delivery of the Bluetooth SCO packets, Sugar’s MPD transmits a
`“guard packet” on the 802.11 network immediately preceding the
`transmission of the SCO packet that falls inside the 802.11 band. Id. ¶ 85.
`The “guard packet” is an 802.11 message that takes control of the 802.11
`link so other 802.11 devices do not transmit and the SCO packets are
`guaranteed delivery. Id. The MPD also transmits a “packet trailer” to
`provide additional protection from 802.11 terminals transmitting during
`SCO packet delivery. Id. ¶ 87. The MPD will also apply the filter notch
`technique to ensure that the packet trailer does not interfere with the
`Bluetooth SCO packet. Id. ¶ 88.
`Sugar discloses different forms of a guard packet. One alternative of
`a guard packet is useful in an MPD that functions as an 802.11 access point
`(AP) and as either a Bluetooth master or a Bluetooth slave. Id. ¶ 91. In this
`mode, the guard packet uses a sequence of clear-to-send (CTS) packets,
`which the 802.11 stations interpret as delaying access to the medium for a
`period of time. Id. Another alternate mode of a guard packet is useful for an
`MPD that functions as an 802.11 station as well as Bluetooth master/slave,
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01060
`Patent 8,599,814 B2
`
`and uses a sequence of ready-to-send (RTS) packets and a silent or “no TX”
`interval. Id. ¶ 92. An 802.11 AP that receives the RTS and the silent
`interval will transmit a CTS and reserves the medium for the 802.11 node to
`transmit/receive synchronous data. Id.
`Overview of Shin (Ex. 1005)
`2.
`Shin discloses an apparatus and method for linking a WLAN terminal
`and a Bluetooth terminal, to enable communications between them.
`Ex. 1005, Abstr., ¶ 2. Shin explains that WLAN terminals have hardware
`and software for establishing an ad hoc network among those terminals, and
`that Bluetooth terminals have hardware and software for first determining if
`a service profile wants communication between terminals and that
`communications ensue as described in the Bluetooth profile. Id. ¶ 5.
`Bluetooth terminals communicate only with other Bluetooth terminals, and
`WLAN terminals communicate only with WLAN module-based terminals,
`making it impossible to establish an ad hoc network between Bluetooth and
`WLAN terminals. Id. ¶ 6.
`Shin describes the various functions of the Open System
`Interconnection (OSI) framework in the context of Bluetooth and WLAN
`communications. Id. ¶¶ 23−36. In particular, Shin describes the RF or
`physical layer of the OSI as the layer responsible for the Bluetooth and
`WLAN frequency operations in the 2.4 GHz band. Id. ¶¶ 23, 35. Further,
`Shin explains that the media access control (MAC) layer of the WLAN
`protocol stack manages modulation and transmission on the transmission
`line and determines whether or not there is a collision, using the CSMA/CA
`protocol. Id. ¶¶ 34−37. Shin also describes that both the WLAN and
`Bluetooth protocols use a TCP/IP layer, the third OSI layer, in which an IP
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01060
`Patent 8,599,814 B2
`
`protocol handles the delivery and the TCP protocol handles the arrangement
`of data into packets. Id. ¶¶ 29, 30, 39. An IP address is a unique address of
`a computer in an organization and can be assigned automatically as a
`computer connects to a different location in the network. Id. ¶ 39.
`Shin describes a structure of a mixed protocol stack of Bluetooth and
`WLAN, according to Figure 3, reproduced below. Id. ¶ 40.
`
`
`Figure 3 above describes the layers common to the
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
