UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ERICSSON INC. AND
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case No. Unassigned
`Patent No. RE46,206
`____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`CLAIMS 1, 45, 46, 48, 122, 123, and 124
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. RE46,206
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent RE46,206
`
`I.
`
`IV.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`Summary of Unpatentability Grounds .................................................. 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES, STANDING, AND FEES .............................. 1
`Mandatory Notices ................................................................................ 1
`Certification of Grounds for Standing ................................................... 2
`Fees ........................................................................................................ 3
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’206 PATENT ......................................................... 3
`Subject Matter of the ’206 Patent .......................................................... 3
`SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART ...................................................................... 4
`Forslöw (QoS-Based Scheduling in Wireless Networks), ................... 4
`Turina (Future Slot Scheduling) ............................................................ 5
`Lin (Customer Premises Equipment In Wireless Networks) ................ 6
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 7
`Isochronous ........................................................................................... 8
`Periodic Variation................................................................................10
`VI. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ..............................11
`Ground 1: Forslöw Anticipates Claim 1 .............................................11
`Ground 2: The Forslöw-Turina Combination Renders Claim 45
`Obvious................................................................................................30
`Ground 3: The Forslöw-Turina-Chennakeshu Combination Renders
`Claim 46 Obvious ................................................................................45
`Ground 4: The Forslöw-Turina-Oliveira Combination Renders Claim
`48 Obvious ..........................................................................................53
`Ground 5: The Forslöw-Lin Combination Renders Claim 1 Obvious
` .............................................................................................................63
`i
`
`V.
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent RE46,206
`
`Ground 6: The Forslöw-Lin-Turina Combination Renders Claim 45
`Obvious................................................................................................70
`Ground 7: The Forslöw-Lin-Turina-Chennakeshu Combination
`Renders Claim 46 Obvious .................................................................71
`Ground 8: The Forslöw-Lin-Turina-Oliveira Combination Renders
`Claim 48 Obvious ................................................................................71
`Ground 9: The Forslöw-Turina Combination Renders Claims 122-123
`Obvious................................................................................................72
`Ground 10: The Forslöw-Turina-Chennakeshu Combination Renders
`Claim 124 Obvious ..............................................................................79
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 79
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent RE46,206
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE46,206 to Jorgensen (the “’206 Patent”)
`
`CV of Zygmunt Haas
`
`Expert Declaration of Zygmunt Haas
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,937,566 (“Forslöw”)
`
`GSM 03.64 V6.0.0
`
`GSM 05.02 V5.0.0
`
`Exhibit number reserved for use in related proceedings
`C. Oliveira, J.B. Kim, and T. Suda, “Quality-of-Service Guarantee in
`High-Speed Multimedia Wireless Networks,” IEEE, pp. 728-34
`(“Oliveira”)
`J. Cai and D. Goodman, “General Packet Radio Service in GSM,”
`IEEE Communications Magazine, pp. 122-31 (“Goodman”)
`
`U.S. Provisional No. 60/054469 (“Forslöw Provisional”)
`
`U.S. Provisional No. 60/092,452 (“Jorgensen Provisional”)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement from the prosecution history of the
`’206 Patent
`
`Declaration of Sylvia Hall-Ellis
`
`C. Yang and J. Huang, “A Multimedia Synchronization Model and Its
`Implementation in Transport Protocols,” IEEE Journal on Selected
`Areas in Communications, pp. 212-215
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,295,450 (“Lyer”)
`
`Exhibit number reserved for use in related proceedings
`
`Exhibit number reserved for use in related proceedings
`
`iii
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent RE46,206
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`Exhibit number reserved for use in related proceedings
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,400,701 (“Lin”)
`
`U.S Patent No. 6,031,832 (“Turina”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,020,056 (“Chennakeshu”)
`Computer Dictionary & Handbook by Charles J. Sippl et al., 3rd ed.
`(1981) (“Computer Dictionary”)
`Patent Owner’s Infringement Contentions for the ’206 Patent
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent RE46,206
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Ericsson
`
`Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`
`(collectively,
`
`“Petitioners”) request inter partes review (“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq. of Claims 1, 45, 46, 48, 122, 123, and 124 of the ’206
`
`Patent.
`
`Petitioners assert that there is a reasonable likelihood that the challenged
`
`claims are unpatentable and request review of, and cancellation of, the challenged
`
`claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102-103.
`
`Summary of Unpatentability Grounds
`
`Ground
`1
`2
`3
`
`Summary
`Claim 1 is anticipated by Forslöw
`Claim 45 is rendered obvious by Forslöw and Turina
`Claim 46 is rendered obvious by Forslöw, Turina, and
`Chennakeshu
`Claim 48 is rendered obvious by Forslöw, Turina, and Oliveira
`Claim 1 is rendered obvious by Forslöw and Lin
`Claim 45 is rendered obvious by Forslöw, Turina, and Lin
`Claim 46
`is
`rendered obvious by Forslöw, Turina,
`Chennakeshu, and Lin
`Claim 48 is rendered obvious by Forslöw, Turina, Oliveira, and
`Lin
`Claims 122-123 are rendered obvious by Forslöw and Turina
`Claim 124 is rendered obvious by Forslöw, Turina, and
`Chennakeshu
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES, STANDING, AND FEES
`
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`10
`
`Mandatory Notices
`
`Real Party in Interest: The real parties in interest are Ericsson Inc. and
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent RE46,206
`
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson.
`
`Related Matters: The ’206 Patent is subject to a pending lawsuit entitled
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00577-JRG (E.D.
`
`Tex.) (the “Litigation”), in which Petitioners Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget
`
`LM Ericsson are defendants. Certain claims of the ’206 Patent also are the subject
`
`of the following IPR petitions filed by Petitioners: IPR2018-00758; IPR2018-
`
`00782.
`
`Lead Counsel: Lead Counsel is Brian W. Oaks (Reg. No. 44,981), and back-
`
`up counsel is Harrison Rich (Reg. No. 65,132).
`
`Service Information: Baker Botts L.L.P., 98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite
`
`1500, Austin, Texas 78701-4078; Tel. (512) 322-2500; Fax (512) 322-2501; Baker
`
`Botts L.L.P., 2001 Ross Ave., Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75201; Tel. (214) 953-
`
`6500; Fax (214) 953-6503. Petitioners consent to service by e-mail at
`
`DLEricssonIV_206IPR@BakerBotts.com. A Power of Attorney is concurrently
`
`filed under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`Certification of Grounds for Standing
`
`Petitioners certify that the ’206 Patent is available for IPR. Petitioners are
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting IPR of the ’206 Patent.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent RE46,206
`
`Fees
`
`The Office is authorized to charge any fees that become due in connection
`
`with this Petition to Deposit Account No. 02-0384, Ref. No. 017997.1306.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’206 PATENT
`
`Subject Matter of the ’206 Patent
`
`The ’206 Patent is generally directed to providing Quality of Service
`
`(“QoS”) in a wireless communication environment. Ex. 1001, 3:39-41. The
`
`provision of QoS in communications systems was well known as of the filing of
`
`the ’206 Patent. Indeed, the ’206 Patent describes a number of existing
`
`communication systems that provided QoS. For example, conventional wireline
`
`networks used circuit switching to “achieve acceptable end user quality of
`
`service.” Id., 3:50-52.
`
`While the ’206 Patent states that traditional, prior art QoS schemes were not
`
`optimal for wireless networks (see, e.g., id., 12:60-13:4, 14:26-42), the claims of
`
`the ’206 Patent do not recite any details of a wireless-specific QoS solution.
`
`Instead, the ’206 Patent merely claims well-known concepts of classifying packets
`
`based on end-user QoS requirements and scheduling the packets in a wireless,
`
`packetized environment. As demonstrated below, however, using those well-
`
`known concepts in a wireless, packetized environment was already known at the
`
`time of the ’206 Patent.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent RE46,206
`
`IV.
`
`SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART
`
`The broadly-recited concepts in Claim 1 and the challenged dependent
`
`claims were well known before the ’206 Patent. In addition to the extensive
`
`background knowledge that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would
`
`have had regarding those concepts—as evidenced at least by the then-existing
`
`concepts described in the ’206 Patent—the references below render the challenged
`
`claims invalid.
`
`Forslöw (QoS-Based Scheduling in Wireless Networks)1, 2
`Forslöw—an Ericsson patent—relates to the provision of QoS in a wireless
`
`communications network, such as a Global System for Mobile communications
`
`1 Although Forslöw is cited on the face of the ’206 Patent, Forslöw was never used
`
`in a prior art rejection. Instead, Applicant submitted an information disclosure
`
`statement citing Forslöw with 109 other references (Ex. 1012, p. 3), resulting in
`
`Forslöw being listed on the face of the ’206 Patent among 10 columns of other
`
`cited references (Ex. 1001, p. 3).
`
`2 Forslöw was filed on May 29, 1998, and issued on August 30, 2005. Ex. 1004,
`
`Cover. Even if the ’206 Patent were entitled to the July 10, 1998 filing date of its
`
`provisional application, Forslöw would still be prior art under § 102(e) as of
`
`Forslöw’s May 29, 1998 filing date.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent RE46,206
`
`(“GSM”) network implementing the General Packet Radio Service (“GPRS”), to
`
`communicate data packets to and from mobile devices. Ex. 1004, Abstract, 4:51-
`
`64, 7:66-8:4. Forslöw describes that a mobile host specifies its QoS requirements
`
`“for each individual application flow.” Ex. 1004, 4:51-54, 11:46-50. Forslöw then
`
`classifies and schedules packets of the application flow according to those QoS
`
`requirements. Id., 12:27-44, 12:52-13:6, 13:13-19, 13:25-44, Fig. 11.
`
`Turina (Future Slot Scheduling)3
`Certain claims of the ’206 Patent relate to assigning future slots in a
`
`transmission frame and placing packets of an IP flow in those slots in an
`
`isochronous manner. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Claims 45-46 and 122-123. Turina—
`
`another Ericsson patent—describes a reservation scheme that assigns a dedicated
`
`time slot in each TDMA frame for transmissions to a mobile station, as shown in
`
`Figure 3 reproduced and annotated below.
`
`3 Turina was filed on November 27, 1996, issued on February 29, 2000, and is thus
`
`§ 102(e) prior art. Ex. 1020, Cover. Turina was not considered during the
`
`prosecution of the ’206 Patent.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent RE46,206
`
`Future frames
`“1” and “2”
`
`Assigned
`TDMA slots
`4 and 5
`
`Current
`frame “0”
`
`Lin (Customer Premises Equipment In Wireless Networks)4
`Whereas Forslöw describes a “mobile” host communicating with base
`
`stations of a wireless network, Lin describes that it was also well-known that
`
`computers residing at a subscriber’s premises could communicate with a base
`
`station of a wireless network.
`
` Lin describes a “fixed wireless access
`
`telecommunications system” that includes a number of subscriber radio terminals,
`
`each having a transceiver and antenna that communicate with radio base stations.
`
`4 Lin is a U.S. Patent that was filed on March 31, 1998, and issued on June 4, 2002.
`
`Lin is therefore prior art under at least § 102(e). Lin was not considered during
`
`original prosecution.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent RE46,206
`
`Ex. 1019, 1:30-35. Those radio base stations are coupled to a telephone network.
`
`Id., 1:35-40. These subscriber radio terminals are coupled to computers residing at
`
`a subscriber’s premises. Id., 1:30-35, 1:63-66. Lin illustrates this architecture as
`
`follows:
`
`Id. Thus, Lin discloses a personal computer residing on a subscriber’s premises
`
`that is used to connect to a telephone network.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The Phillips standard governs interpretation of the claim terms in the ’206
`
`Patent. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The
`
`’206 Patent purportedly claims the benefit of a July 9, 1999 non-provisional
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent RE46,206
`
`application and contains a terminal disclaimer over that patent. The ’206 Patent
`
`therefore expires on July 9, 2019. If the PTAB institutes trial, the ’206 Patent will
`
`expire during the pendency of this IPR. Accordingly, Petitioner has applied the
`
`Phillips standard rather than the broadest reasonable interpretation standard
`
`applicable to unexpired patents.
`
`Petitioners propose that the Board construe the following terms:
`
`Isochronous
`The ’206 Patent uses the term “isochronous” in Claims 45-46, 48, and 123-
`
`124. The ’206 Patent specification describes “isochronous” as “consistent timed
`
`access of network bandwidth for time sensitive voice and video” and “in phase
`
`with respect to time” such that “the data [is] dispersed in the same slot between
`
`frames, or in slots having a periodic variation between frames.” Ex. 1001, 12:24-
`
`26, 59:43-46. The ’206 Patent illustrates isochronous reservations in Figure 14,
`
`reproduced and annotated below.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent RE46,206
`
`Specifically, Figure 14 illustrates a “two-dimensional block diagram 1400 of the
`
`advanced reservation algorithm” with “isochronous advance reservations” of slots
`
`for frame N and future frames (e.g., N+1 to N+x). Ex. 1001, 59:11-12. The grey
`
`slots in frames N+1 to N+x indicate “equal time spaced slot reservations in future
`
`frames” for particular data flows. Id., 58:48-51. The description and illustration of
`
`isochronous reservations also are consistent with dictionary definitions of
`
`isochronous, which recite: “having a regular periodicity.” Ex. 1022, p. 267. Thus,
`
`based on the above discussion, a POSITA would have understood the term
`
`“isochronous” to mean “consistent timed access interval.” See Ex. 1003, ¶ 83.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent RE46,206
`
`This “consistent timed access interval” includes both a periodic variation between
`
`slots (“a consistent time interval other than the frame duration interval”) and no
`
`periodic variation between slots (“a consistent time interval equal to the frame
`
`duration interval”), as discussed in detail below. Id.
`
`Periodic Variation
`The ’206 Patent uses the term “periodic variation” in Claims 46 and 124.
`
`The ’206 Patent does not set forth a special meaning for this term. However, with
`
`reference to annotated Figure 14 below, the specification describes “diagonal
`
`reservation 1482 [annotated in green] shows a jitter sensitive signal receiving a slot
`
`varying by a period of one between sequential frames.” Ex. 1001, 59:51-54.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent RE46,206
`
`In other words, the reserved slot is in a different position in each subsequent frame
`
`and such position varies by a fixed number of slots from frame to frame. Ex. 1003,
`
`¶ 85. As an example, “[i]f the frame-to-frame interval is 0.5 ms and the slot-to-slot
`
`interval is 0.01ms, then a slot can be provided to the IP flow every 0.5 minus 0.01,
`
`equals 0.49 [ms].” Ex. 1001, 59:56-59. In other words, the provided slot in each
`
`frame is one slot earlier than in the previous frame. Ex. 1003, ¶ 85.
`
`Therefore, a POSITA would have understood the term “periodic variation”
`
`to mean “a consistent time interval other than the frame duration interval.” See id.,
`
`¶ 86.
`
`IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`VI. THERE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`Ground 1: Forslöw Anticipates Claim 1
`1. Claim 1
`Claim 1[pre]. “A method for IP flow classification grouping IP flows in a
`
`packet-centric wireless point to multi-point telecommunications system, said
`
`method comprising:”
`
`If the PTAB finds the preamble limiting, Forslöw discloses “IP flows.”
`
`Forslöw describes that the GGSN receives an “IP packet application flow destined
`
`for the mobile host.” Ex. 1004, 13:9-11. This “IP packet application flow” is
`
`depicted as the “IP packet flow” in annotated Figure 12 below:
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent RE46,206
`
`Forslöw also discloses plural “application flows.”5 Id., 12:59-61; 3:26-37; 5:1-12.
`
`Accordingly, Forslöw’s IP packet application flows disclose “IP flows.”
`
`Forslöw discloses a “method for IP flow classification grouping IP flows” by
`
`describing a procedure for classifying (i.e., “grouping”) packets from IP packet
`
`5 Forslöw uses “IP packet flow” and “application flow” interchangeably. Ex. 1003,
`
`¶ 87 n.6. Forslöw describes that an application flow includes packets and that the
`
`packets are IP packets. Ex. 1004, 5:3-6, 8:12-14, 8:45-49, 13:10. Forslöw’s
`
`application flow or IP packet flow is an “IP flow,” because it is a flow of IP
`
`packets. Ex. 1003, ¶ 87 n.6.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent RE46,206
`
`application flows into different QoS classes. Generally, Forslöw describes
`
`performance of a “packet classification” function. Id., 12:52-57. More
`
`specifically, Forslöw describes “classify[ing] . . . application flows” (id., 12:60-62)
`
`and classifying packets from those IP packet application flows. Id., 12:28-31;
`
`13:13-15, 13:25-27, 13:37-396, 16:64-67, Fig. 12 (stating that “[t]he incoming
`
`packets are CLASSIFIED by . . . QoS delay class” and that “[t]he IP packets are
`
`CLASSIFIED into . . . QoS delay class”).
`
` Forslöw also provides detailed examples of classification of packets from
`
`application flows according to end-user QoS requirements in connection with the
`
`use of different queues of packets designated for corresponding QoS classes. Ex.
`
`1004, 12:28-31. Annotated Figure 11 of Forslöw illustrates an example of these
`
`QoS-class queues in the SGSN and BSS:
`
`6 The “incoming data” is identified as “frames of packets.” Ex. 1004, 12:66-67. A
`
`POSITA would have understood that “incoming data” refers to “packets.” Ex.
`
`1003, ¶ 88 n.7.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent RE46,206
`
`QoS queues
`of packets
`
`QoS queues
`of packets
`
`The SGSN uses “three different levels of queues . . . to classify . . . packets.”
`
`Id., 12:36-37. As shown in Figure 11 and described in the specification, the
`
`SGSN’s queues of “packets” are based on QoS classes. Id., 12:38-44 (explaining
`
`three different QoS queues of “packets” in the SGSN), Fig. 12 (noting that the
`
`SGSN classifies “packets” into QoS delay class); Ex. 1003, ¶ 90 (explaining QoS
`
`delay class queues in the SGSN); see also Ex. 1004, 13:48-51 and 13:64-66. “The
`
`SGSN also classifies the packets corresponding to . . . quality of service delay
`
`class. . . . The queued data is then transferred to the BSS, which classifies the
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent RE46,206
`
`incoming data by . . . quality of service delay class.” Ex. 1004, 13:25-39.7 As
`
`Figure 11 shows, the BSS includes “a queue for each of four quality of service
`
`delay classes QoS 1 – QoS 4” into which the received “packets” are classified. Id.,
`
`12:33-36, 12:28-31 (“[V]arious queues/buffers are employed in the BSS” to
`
`“classify and schedule packets in an individual application flow based on the
`
`flow’s reserved quality of service.”); Ex. 1003, ¶ 91 (explaining QoS delay class
`
`queues in the BSS). By classifying packets from IP flows into respective QoS
`
`classes, Forslöw discloses a “method for IP flow classification grouping IP flows.”
`
`Forslöw discloses performance of its method “in a packet-centric wireless
`
`point to multi-point telecommunications system.” Forslöw implements the
`
`classification techniques described above in a “GSM/GPRS cellular telephone
`
`network” (i.e., a “telecommunications system”). Ex. 1004, 7:27-33, 7:66-8:4. This
`
`GPRS network is illustrated in Figure 2 of Forslöw:
`
`7 A POSITA would have recognized that “incoming data” refers to the “packets”
`
`received from the SGSN, as the queue from which the SGSN sends data to the BSS
`
`is a “queue storing packets” (as described at Ex. 1004, 12:42-44). Ex. 1003, ¶ 90
`
`n.8.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent RE46,206
`
`The GSM/GPRS cellular telephone network is a “wireless” system, because it is a
`
`“cellular” network that communicates packets over a “shared physical radio
`
`medium between multiple mobile stations and the GPRS network.” Ex. 1004,
`
`4:13-16, 13:45-47, 4:3-12; Ex. 1003, ¶ 94 (explaining that a POSITA would have
`
`understood that a GSM/GPRS network was a “wireless” telecommunication
`
`system and that Forslöw’s references to “radio” communications disclose
`
`“wireless” communications). The GPRS network also is a “point to multi-point
`
`telecommunications system,” because the network communicates packets from a
`
`BSS (i.e., a “point” in the GPRS network) to multiple mobile hosts in a cell (i.e.,
`
`“multi-point”). Ex. 1004, 13:7-44 (explaining a packet communication from the
`
`GPRS network to a mobile host via the BSS), Fig. 12 (illustrating a packet
`
`communication (i.e., the “RLC/MAC arrow” from the BSS to the mobile host)),
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent RE46,206
`
`4:13-16 (disclosing plural mobile hosts), 3:44-47 (describing “point-to-multipoint
`
`packets”); Ex. 1003, ¶ 94 (explaining that a POSITA would have understood a
`
`GSM/GPRS network to be a “point to multi-point” telecommunications system).
`
`The GPRS network is a “packet-centric . . . system,” because it is a packet-
`
`switched network that uses packets to transmit information from a sender (e.g., an
`
`ISP) to a destination (e.g., a mobile host). Ex. 1004, 1:40-44, 13:7-47 (describing
`
`packetized communication from an ISP to a mobile host over the GPRS network);
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶ 94.
`
`The above disclosure is not merely incidental, as Forslöw’s Claim 16, like
`
`Claim 1 of the ’206 Patent, recites a method of classifying packets from an
`
`application flow: “[A] method comprising . . . classifying and scheduling packets
`
`corresponding to each application flow.” Ex. 1004, 16:3-24.
`
`Claim 1[a]. “analyzing an Internet Protocol (IP) flow in a packet-centric
`
`manner”
`
`As noted above for Claim 1[pre], Forslöw discloses an “IP flow” and thus
`
`also discloses “an Internet Protocol (IP) flow.”
`
`Forslöw discloses “analyzing an Internet Protocol (IP) flow in a packet-
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent RE46,206
`
`centric manner” for at least three reasons.8 First, Forslöw discloses that the GGSN
`
`receives packets from an IP packet application flow and then “analyzes [the]
`
`received packets and only permits those packets having a destination or source
`
`corresponding to one of the mobile host network layer addresses.” Ex. 1004, 5:49-
`
`59, 15:53-58, 9:53-55, 10:15-18, 13:7-11, Fig. 12 (illustrating that the GGSN
`
`receives an “IP packet flow”). To perform this analysis, the GGSN, for example,
`
`analyzes packet headers in packets using a “packet filter” to determine if each
`
`packet of the flow has the “correct IP address.” Id., 10:10-18, 9:50-55; Ex. 1003, ¶
`
`97. This analysis is done in a “packet-centric manner,” because the analysis is
`
`performed individually on each of the “received packets” of the flow in the packet-
`
`switched GPRS network. Ex. 1003, ¶ 97. Forslöw thus discloses these limitations
`
`by the GGSN analyzing packets from an IP flow. Id. Second, the GGSN and
`
`SGSN each analyze packets from an IP flow to determine how to classify the
`
`packets based on the end-user’s QoS requirements. For example, the GGSN
`
`8 The ’206 Patent describes analyzing an “IP packet” of an “IP flow.” Ex. 1001,
`
`41:24-26. And, Patent Owner’s Infringement Contentions assert that this limitation
`
`is met when network components analyze an individual packet of an IP flow. Ex.
`
`1007, pp. 3-4.
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent RE46,206
`
`“receives . . . an IP packet application flow” and “classifie[s] [the packets] by PDP
`
`context/quality of service delay class.” Ex. 1004, 13:9-15; see also id., 13:25-27.
`
`To classify the packets into the proper QoS delay class, the GGSN and SGSN
`
`analyze the packets to determine the proper classification of the packets. Ex. 1003,
`
`¶ 97. This analysis also is done in a “packet-centric manner,” because the GGSN
`
`and SGSN perform the analysis individually on each of the received “packets.” Id.
`
`Third, the GGSN and SGSN also analyze packets from an IP flow when
`
`encapsulating and decapsulating received packets. The GGSN analyzes packets
`
`from an IP flow when it encapsulates a received packet with a GTP-U header that
`
`includes the reserved QoS and tunnel identifier for that particular packet’s flow,
`
`and sends the packet to the SGSN. Ex. 1004, 13:19-21; Ex. 1003, ¶ 97. The
`
`SGSN also analyzes packets from an IP flow by decapsulating the received packets
`
`(Ex. 1004, 2:65-3:3) and using the tunnel identifier in the GTP-U header, which
`
`maps to the agent circuit ID, to perform packet filtering.9
`
`Id., 10:10-18, 9:50-55;
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶ 97.
`
`9 Patent Owner’s Infringement Contentions assert that these limitations are met
`
`when an eNodeB analyzes the tunnel endpoint identifier in a packet’s GTP-U
`
`header. Ex. 1007, p. 3.
`
`19
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent RE46,206
`
`Claim 1[b]. “classifying said IP flow”
`
`The ’206 Patent describes that an “IP flow analyzer” classifies “packets.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 48:56-58. Similarly, Patent Owner’s Infringement Contentions assert
`
`that an eNodeB classifies an IP flow when it associates a “packet” from an IP flow
`
`with a radio bearer. Ex. 1023, p. 7. Patent Owner’s apparent interpretation is that
`
`this step is met by classifying a packet from an IP flow.
`
`As noted above for Claim 1[pre], Forslöw describes classifying packets from
`
`an IP packet application flow at the GGSN and SGSN. By classifying packets
`
`from an IP flow at the GGSN and SGSN, Forslöw discloses “classifying said IP
`
`flow.” Ex. 1003, ¶ 99.
`
`Claim 1[c]. “scheduling said IP flow for transmission over a shared wireless
`
`bandwidth between a wireless base station and at least one subscriber customer
`
`premises equipment (CPE) station”
`
`Forslöw discloses the “scheduling” step. Generally, the specification
`
`describes scheduling packets from an IP packet application flow. Ex. 1004, 12:27-
`
`31, 8:45-49, 12:57-64.
`
`More specifically, once packets from an IP flow have been classified into
`
`QoS queues, Forslöw schedules those classified packets for transmission over the
`
`GPRS shared radio medium by applying scheduling algorithms that dictate, based
`
`20
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent RE46,206
`
`on the end user QoS requirements, which packets get sent and on which resources.
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 100-01. For example, Forslöw discloses that the BSS employs a
`
`FIFO scheduling algorithm to schedule packets within each QoS class and a
`
`priority queuing scheduling algorithm that schedules packets from the higher
`
`priority QoS classes before the lower priority QoS classes. Ex. 1004, 12:66-13:610,
`
`13:39-44. Forslöw’s scheduling of packets also includes assigning resources for
`
`transmission of the packets. EX. 1004, 13:43-45; EX. 1003, ¶ 101 (explaining that
`
`“packet resource assignment” involves determining the physical resources over
`
`which to transmit a packet and is packet scheduling). Accordingly, by scheduling
`
`packets from an IP flow, Forslöw discloses “scheduling said IP flow.”
`
`In fact, Forslöw’s Claim 16 recites the identical concept recited in
`
`challenged Claim 1: “ scheduling packets corresponding to each application flow
`
`from the external network to the mobile radio host over the bearer in accordance
`
`10 A POSITA would have understood “LLC frames” to disclose “packets.” Ex.
`
`1003, ¶ 101 n.13. Indeed, it was well known to a POSITA that a GPRS LLC frame
`
`included a header, a payload, and a check sequence. Id. Those “packets” are part
`
`of a received IP packet application flow. Ex. 1004, 13:7-47 (describing scheduling
`
`of packets from a received IP packet application flow); Ex. 1003, ¶ 101 n.13.
`
`21
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent RE46,206
`
`with the quality of service corresponding to the application packet stream.” Ex.
`
`1004, 15:63-16:24.
`
`Forslöw’s scheduling of packets in the BSS, discussed above, is done for the
`
`purpose of transmitting those packets over the shared physical radio medium from
`
`the BSS to the mobile host (i.e., “for transmission over a shared wireless
`
`bandwidth”).11 Ex. 1004, 13:43-47, 8:45-50, Fig. 12 (illustrating transmission to
`
`the mobile host after scheduling); Ex. 1003, ¶ 103. Indeed, Forslöw describes a
`
`11 The scheduling performed in Forslöw’s GGSN and SGSN is likewise done “for
`
`transmission over a shared wireless bandwidth,” because the packets scheduled in
`
`those nodes are ultimately transmitted over the shared physical radio medium from
`
`the BSS to the mobile host. Ex. 1004, 13:7-47 (describing a “message sequence
`
`for forwarding network layer packets to the mobile host from the ISP” where
`
`packets are scheduled for ultimate communication to the mobile host at each of the
`
`GGSN, SGSN, and BSS); Ex. 1003, ¶ 103 n.14. Notably, this limitation recites an
`
`intended purpose (i.e., that scheduling is done for the ultimate purpose of
`
`communicating the packets). Forslöw’s GGSN and SGSN’s scheduling of those
`
`packets is done for the ultimate purpose of sending the packets to the mobile host
`
`via the BSS. Id.
`
`22
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent RE46,206
`
`“shared physical radio medium between multiple mobile stations and the GPRS
`
`network” (i.e., “a shared wireless bandwidth between” a mobile station and the
`
`GPRS network). Ex. 1004, 4:13-16, 13:45-47, 4:3-12; Ex. 1003, ¶ 103 (explaining
`
`that a POSITA would have understood that a GSM/GPRS air interface in the
`
`context of Forslöw’s disclosures was a “shared wireless bandwidth”).
`
`Turning to the claimed “customer premises equipment station (STA),”
`
`Patent Owner contends that a “UE [user equipment]” meets that limitation in the
`
`concurrent district court litigation. Ex. 1023, p. 88; Ex. 1003, ¶ 104 (explaining
`
`that “user equipment” is a mobile device used to communicate with a base station).
`
`Patent Owner’s apparent interpretation of this term is that a mobile device that
`
`communicates with a base station meets this limitation.
`
`Under Patent Owner’s interpretation, Forslöw discloses “a customer
`
`premises equipment station (STA),” because Forslöw describes “a mobile host 12
`
`including a computer terminal 14 and mobile radio 16” that communicates with the
`
`BSS. Ex. 1004, 2:14-17, Fig. 2 (illustrating the mobile host coupled to various
`
`networks through the BSS), Fig. 12 (illustrating communication from the BSS to
`
`the mobile host). Forslöw discloses that the mobile host is used to connect to
`
`various networks, such as the GPRS cellular telephone network and the public
`
`switched telephone network. Id., 2:22-28, 2:56-59, Fig. 2; Ex. 1003, ¶ 105.
`
`23
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent RE46,206
`
`Forslöw’s BSS discloses “a wireless base station,” because it is a “base
`
`station subsystem” that communicates wirelessly over a radio interface with
`
`mobile radios. Ex. 1004, 2:14-23; Fig. 12 (illustrating a communication from the
`
`BSS to the mobile host). Annotated Figure 3, shown below, confirms that the BSS
`
`communicates wirelessly with the mobile