`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. SUMMARY OF THE ’917 PATENT ............................................................ 1
`A. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALLEGED INVENTION OF THE ’917 PATENT ............... 1
`B. SUMMARY OF THE PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE ’917 PATENT ................ 1
`C. LEVEL OF SKILL OF A PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......... 4
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104 .................................................................................................................... 4
`A. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A) .............................. 4
`B. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) AND RELIEF
`REQUESTED ............................................................................................................ 5
`C. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3) ............................. 5
`IV. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ’917 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE 6
`A. SHOWING OF ANALOGOUS, PRIOR ART .......................................................... 6
`B. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-3 AND 9-10 ARE OBVIOUS OVER DECKER IN VIEW OF
`ABROL .................................................................................................................... 9
`V. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 59
`VI. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ..................... 60
`A. REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST .......................................................................... 60
`B. RELATED MATTERS ..................................................................................... 60
`C. LEAD AND BACK-UP COUNSEL .................................................................... 60
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases:
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016)………………...………6
`
`AM General LLC v. UUSI, LLC, IPR2016-01050, Paper No. 17
`(PTAB Nov. 14, 2016) ..……………………………………….…………………..9
`
`
`Statutes:
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b)…………..………………………………...…..…………………..6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (pre AIA)…...……………………………………………….…8
`
`Regulations:
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)………………………………………………………….….60
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) …...…………………………………………………….…60
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) …...…………………………………………………….…60
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and (b)(4) ….……………………………………….….....60
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)………………………………………………………...….5, 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104…………………………………..……………………...…....4, 5
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”)
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`of claims 1-3 and 9-10 (collectively, the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,075,917 (“the ’917 Patent”). ’917 Patent (Ex. 1001).
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’917 PATENT
`A. Description of the alleged invention of the ’917 Patent
`The ’917 Patent generally describes a system and method of detecting error-
`
`affected data transmitted over a wireless network and requesting retransmission.
`
`’917 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 1:5-8, 1:64-67. The ’917 Patent discusses doing so more
`
`quickly by detecting error-affected data at the physical layer, rather than waiting
`
`for this step to be performed at the radio link control layer. Id. at 1:40-50, 2:28-44.
`
`To manage this functionality, abbreviated sequence numbers are generated and
`
`associated with packet data units, reducing the amount of information transmitted
`
`between the sides and simplifying the positive or negative acknowledgement
`
`process. Id. at 2:45-54.
`
`B.
`Summary of the prosecution history of the ’917 Patent
`The Application that resulted in the ’917 Patent was filed on October 9,
`
`2001, as U.S. App. No. 09/973,312. ’917 Patent (Ex. 1001). The ’917 Patent
`
`purports to claim priority to German Patent Application No. 100 50 117, filed
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`October 11, 2000. For purposes of this IPR, Petitioner applies the priority date of
`
`October 11, 2000, to all Challenged Claims. Should it become an issue as to
`
`whether the ’917 Patent is entitled to the October 11, 2000, priority date, Petitioner
`
`reserves the right to provide further evidence regarding an insufficient priority
`
`claim.
`
`On September 21, 2005, the Examiner issued a non-final rejection, objecting
`
`to informalities and requesting clarification of dependent claims 4-8, but citing no
`
`prior art directly and finding allowable subject matter in claims 1-3, 9, and 10. ’917
`
`Patent File History (Ex. 1002) at 61.
`
`In response, the Applicant amended the claims to address the Examiner’s
`
`concerns. Id. at 69-73. The Examiner subsequently issued a notice of allowance for
`
`claims 1-10, issuing as the ’917 Patent on July 11, 2006. Id. at 81.
`
`C.
`Summary of unpatentability of the Challenged Claims
`As discussed above, the purported invention of the ’917 Patent is
`
`unambiguously identifying each packet data unit with an abbreviated sequence
`
`number. ’917 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 2:45-54. However, use of an abbreviated or
`
`shortened sequence number to identify a packet data unit was known prior to the
`
`’917 Patent’s priority date. In particular, U.S. Patent No. 6,507,582 to Abrol
`
`teaches generating shortened sequence numbers from assigned sequence numbers
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`to unambiguously identify an item of data:
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`The RLP sequence number 240 in each retransmit frame 230 may
`optionally be shortened in the same ways as discussed for RLP
`sequence numbers as long as doing so causes no sequence number
`ambiguity.
`
`*************
`The type field is followed by the RLP sequence number. When
`possible without causing sequence number ambiguity, shortened
`RLP sequence numbers of 8 bits are used. At other times, shortened
`RLP sequence numbers of 14 bits or full 20-bit RLP sequence
`numbers are contained by the RLP header.
`Abrol (Ex. 1005) at 8:19-21, 9:16-21; see also id. at 10:49-54, 12:64–13:6
`
`(emphases added).
`
`Id. at Fig. 6.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`As established in the claim mappings of Section IV, the purported
`
`distinguishing feature of abbreviated sequence numbers was known, as evidenced
`
`in Abrol.
`
`D.
`Level of skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art
`A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’917 Patent would
`
`have been a person having a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer
`
`science, or the equivalent and three years of experience working with digital
`
`communication systems or in network engineering. Alternatively, the skilled
`
`person would have had a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer
`
`science, or the equivalent with an emphasis on digital communication systems or
`
`network engineering. Additional education may substitute for lesser experience
`
`and vice-versa. Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 33.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104
`A. Grounds for standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioner certifies that the ’917 Patent is available for IPR and that
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the claims of
`
`the ’917 Patent. Specifically, Petitioner states: (1) Petitioner is not the owner of the
`
`’917 Patent, (2) Petitioner has not filed a civil action challenging the validity of
`
`any claim of the ’917 Patent, and (3) this Petition is not filed more than one year
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`after the Petitioner having been served with a complaint alleging infringement of
`
`the ’917 Patent.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and relief
`requested
`In view of the prior art and evidence presented, claims 1-3 and 9-10 of the
`
`’917 Patent are unpatentable and should be cancelled. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1).
`
`Further, based on the prior art references identified below, IPR of the Challenged
`
`Claims should be granted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2).
`
`Proposed Grounds of Unpatentability
`Ground 1: Claims 1-3 and 9-10 are obvious under § 103(a) over
`U.S. Patent No. 5,946,320 to Decker (“Decker” or “Ex. 1004”) in
`view of U.S. Patent No. 6,507,582 to Abrol (“Abrol” or “Ex. 1005”)
`
`
`Exhibits
`
`Ex. 1004,
`Ex. 1005
`
`Section IV(B) identifies where each element of the Challenged Claims is
`
`found in the prior art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). The exhibit numbers of the
`
`supporting evidence relied upon to support the challenges are provided above and
`
`the relevance of the evidence to the challenges raised are provided in Section IV.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5). Exhibits 1001–1009 are also attached.
`
`C. Claim construction under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`In this proceeding, claim terms of an unexpired patent should be given their
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`§ 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144-46 (2016).
`
`Unless otherwise expressly discussed, Petitioner applies the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of all claim terms below. Petitioner does not, however, waive any
`
`argument in any litigation that claim terms in the ’917 Patent are indefinite or
`
`otherwise invalid nor does Petitioner waive its right to raise additional issues of
`
`claim construction in any litigation.
`
`IV. THERE
`IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE
`’917 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE
`A.
`Showing of analogous, prior art
`1.
`Decker is analogous, prior art to the ’917 Patent
`Decker issued August 31, 1999, qualifying as prior art to the ’917 Patent
`
`under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Decker (Ex. 1004). Decker discloses a method
`
`for transmitting packet data over a cellular system according to the type II ARQ
`
`method including ACK acknowledgements (acknowledgement that transmission
`
`successfully received) and NAK acknowledgements (acknowledgement that
`
`transmission not successfully received). Id. at Abstract. Specifically, Decker
`
`teaches:
`
`In order to attain the objects there is provided a method for
`transmitting packet data in an air interface of a digital cellular radio
`a hybrid
`forward
`error
`telephone
`system
`based
`on
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`correction/automatic repeat request, i.e. FEC/AR[Q] type II,
`comprising the following steps for each packet:
`…d) deciding on transmission success at the receiver side,
`based on the stored data and sending a positive acknowledgement
`(ACK) if the transmission has been decided to be successful and a
`negative acknowledgement (NAK) if not;
`Id. at 1:54-2:11 (emphases added). As will be detailed below, Decker provides for
`
`testing for correct reception of transmitted data and transmitting a positive (ACK)
`
`or negative (NAK) acknowledgement at the physical layer of a receiving side.
`
`In both Decker and the ’917 Patent, a method of wireless communication is
`
`performed using the type II hybrid ARQ method. Compare Decker (Ex. 1004) at
`
`Abstract, with ’917 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Abstract. Because both Decker and the
`
`’917 Patent are directed
`
`to methods of enhanced communication and
`
`acknowledging error-affected transmissions, Decker is in the same field of
`
`endeavor and is reasonably pertinent to the same problem as the claimed invention
`
`in the ’917 Patent. Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶¶ 49-50. Therefore, Decker is also
`
`analogous to the claimed invention in the ’917 Patent. Decker was not cited or
`
`considering during prosecution of the ’917 Patent.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`2.
`Abrol is analogous, prior art to the ’917 Patent
`Although Decker
`teaches
`transmitting
`positive
`
`negative
`
`and
`
`acknowledgements, Decker does not expressly discuss assigning abbreviated
`
`sequence numbers to packet data units. As discussed in detail below, it was well
`
`known at the time of the ’917 Patent to employ abbreviated sequence numbers in
`
`wireless communication systems. One example is Abrol, filed May 27, 1999, and
`
`qualifying as prior art with regard to the ’917 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (pre-
`
`AIA). Abrol (Ex. 1005).
`
`Abrol describes an improved method of transmitting a data stream using
`
`“shortened” sequence numbers. Abrol (Ex. 1005) at Abstract. Abrol explains that a
`
`shortened sequence number may be used in ARQ based on retransmission requests
`
`“without causing sequence number ambiguity.” Id. at 2:1-11, 6:59–7:15, 8:19-21.
`
`Because Abrol, like the ’917 Patent, discloses a system and method of reducing the
`
`overhead in wireless communication error control protocols, it is in the same field
`
`of endeavor and is reasonably pertinent to the same problem as the ’917 Patent.
`
`Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 52. Therefore, Abrol is also analogous to the claimed
`
`invention in the ’917 Patent. Abrol was not cited or considered during prosecution
`
`of the ’917 Patent.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`B. Ground 1: Claims 1-3 and 9-10 are obvious over Decker in view of
`Abrol
`1.
`Claim 1
`1[Preamble]: A wireless network comprising a radio network controller and a
`plurality of assigned [terminals]1, which are each provided for exchanging data
`according to the hybrid ARQ method an [sic] which form a receiving and/or
`transmitting side, in which a physical layer of a transmitting side is arranged for
`
`
`To the extent the preamble is limiting, Decker teaches a wireless network, as
`
`claimed. In particular, Decker teaches a data communication system that transmits
`
`packet data in an air interface of a digital cellular radio telephone system:
`
`It is therefore an object of the present invention to provide a data
`communication system which can secure a high throughput within
`
`
`1 Claim 1 appears to contain a typographical error. The correct claim should read
`
`“terminals” rather than “to signals” based on a) common sense and English vocabulary,
`
`b) consistency with the specification and dependent claim 2, and c) the final version of
`
`the claims appearing in the prosecution history of the ’917 Patent prior to the Examiner
`
`issuing a Notice of Allowance. ’917 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Abstract, 1:5-8, claim 2; ’917
`
`Patent File History (Ex. 1002) at 69; Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at 53; see AM General LLC
`
`v. UUSI, LLC, IPR2016-01050, Paper No. 17 at 10-16 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2016) (using
`
`indicators such as those listed for determining whether correction of errors is subject to
`
`reasonable debate).
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`packet radio transmission systems, even when the channel error rate is
`fluctuating, to be implemented e.g. within the GSM mobile radio
`system.
`
`
`
`Another object of the present invention is to provide a data
`communication system which needs a minimum of processing effort
`at sender and receiver side.
`
`
`
`In order to attain the objects there is provided a method for
`transmitting packet data in an air interface of a digital cellular
`radio
`telephone system based on a hybrid
`forward error
`correction/automatic repeat request, i.e. FEC/AR[Q] type II…
`Decker (Ex. 1004) at 1:46-58 (emphases added). A PHOSITA would have
`
`reasonably understood that a “digital cellular radio telephone system” is a wireless
`
`network, as cellular telephone systems operating on radio frequencies are well-
`
`known “networks” transmitting data without the use of wires. Expert Decl. (Ex.
`
`1003) at ¶ 54.
`
`Regarding the claimed “radio network controller” and “plurality of assigned
`
`terminals,” Decker’s “digital cellular radio telephone system” implemented within
`
`the GSM standard satisfies these claim limitations. The GSM standard details
`
`communication protocols between a base station radio network controller and a
`
`plurality of mobile terminals within range of the base station. Expert Decl. (Ex.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`1003) at ¶ 54, citing Global System for Mobile Communication (GSM) [GSM
`
`04.22] (Ex. 1006) at 3 (“GSM Standard”) (referenced by Decker (Ex. 1004) at
`
`1:25-29). A PHOSITA would have understood that such a digital cellular radio
`
`telephone system would comprise a network controller for any individual “cell” of
`
`coverage, configured for exchanging data with a plurality of terminals (e.g.,
`
`cellular phones). Id. The terminals (phones) are assigned to the particular network
`
`controller in that they selectively communicate with the network controller in
`
`closest proximity—that is, all terminals (phones) within a given cell communicate
`
`with that cell’s network controller and are thus assigned to it while they remain
`
`within the particular cell. Id.
`
`Decker also expressly teaches transmitting data from a “sender side,”
`
`receiving data at a “receiver side,” and deciding on transmission success at a
`
`“receiver side.” Decker (Ex. 1004) at Abstract; see also id. at 1:5-10 (disclosing
`
`that the invention relates to “data communication systems which perform
`
`transmission and reception of digital data through duplex communications
`
`systems”). Thus, a PHOSITA would have reasonably understood that Decker’s
`
`method for transmitting packet data using the GSM standard in a digital cellular
`
`radio telephone system includes employing the method with a radio network
`
`controller and a plurality of assigned terminals. Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 54.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`“a physical layer of a transmitting side is arranged for”
`
`As will be shown below for each of the limitations of Claims 1(a)–1(c),
`
`Decker in view of Abrol teaches “a physical layer of the transmitting side”
`
`performing the respective claimed step.
`
`[1(a)]: storing coded transport blocks in a memory, which blocks contain at least
`a packet data unit which is delivered by an assigned radio link control layer and
`can be identified by a packet data unit sequence number,
`
`
`“coded transport blocks … contain[ing] at least a packet data unit”
`(taught by Decker)
`
`Claim 1(a) recites a coded transport block containing at least a packet data
`
`unit. The ’917 Patent discusses the relationship between packet data units and
`
`coded transport blocks as follows:
`
`The packet data units are formed in the RLC layer and packed to
`transport blocks in the MAC layer, which transport blocks are
`transmitted by the physical layer from the radio network controller to
`a terminal or vice versa over the available transport channels. In the
`physical layer the transport blocks are provided with a cyclic
`redundancy check (CRC) and coded together. The result of this
`operation is referred to as a coded transport block. The coded
`transport blocks contain a packet data unit and control
`information.
`’917 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 5:4-12 (emphases added).
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`The ’917 Patent thus describes coded transport blocks as being met by, at the
`
`least, blocks of data provided with a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) and coded
`
`together. Id. at 5:9-12; Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 58. A CRC is a well known
`
`error-detecting code and is further well known as a type of frame check sequence
`
`(FCS). Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 62, citing GSM Standard (Ex. 1006) at 7,
`
`Section 2, Definition for “frame check sequence” (defining a “frame check
`
`sequence” as a “field of redundant information based on a cyclic code, used for
`
`error detection”).
`
`The ’917 Patent also describes the coded transport block as containing a
`
`packet data unit and “control information.” ’917 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 5:11-12. The
`
`’917 Patent does not define or discuss “control information,” but a PHOSITA
`
`would reasonably understand “control information” to include, for example, header
`
`information (including the abbreviated sequence number recited in Claim 1(b)) and
`
`any FCS information, such as the described CRC. Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 65,
`
`citing 3GPP (Ex. 1007) at 23, *Note (referring to “protocol control information
`
`(e.g. header)”) (further opining that header and frame check sequence information
`
`are types of “control information” because such information is commonly encoded
`
`and transmitted with a data item for use in identifying or otherwise providing
`
`information to facilitate the correct transmission and decoding of the data item).
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`Referring to the Claim 1(a) limitation of “coded transport blocks … which
`
`blocks contain at least a packet data unit,” Decker teaches the claimed “packet data
`
`unit.” Decker teaches a “method for transmitting packet data in an air interface of a
`
`digital cellular radio telephone system.” Decker (Ex. 1004) at 1:54-58. A disclosed
`
`first step of the method for transmitting packet data is “encoding the bits of the
`
`packet of user data, header and frame check sequence, using error correcting codes
`
`and storing the resulting bits for transmission at the sender side.” Decker (Ex.
`
`1004) at 1:59-62. A PHOSITA would reasonably understand that Decker’s
`
`teaching of “packet data” and a “packet of user data” meets the claimed “packet
`
`data unit.” Id. at 1:54-62; Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 60 (noting that Decker is
`
`directed to a method for transmitting packet data).
`
`Decker also teaches the claimed “coded transport block.” Similar to the ’917
`
`Patent, which refers to the result of coding together transport blocks provided with
`
`a CRC as “coded transport blocks,” Decker teaches “encoding the bits of the
`
`packet of user data, header and frame check sequence.” Compare ’917 Patent (Ex.
`
`1001) at 5:8-11, with Decker (Ex. 1004) at 1:59-62. Thus, Decker expressly
`
`teaches coding of the “packet of user data” (i.e., the claimed packet data unit) with
`
`control information such as the header and frame check sequence. See generally,
`
`Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶¶ 61-63 (opining that Decker’s encoded bits of the
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`packet of user data, header, and FCS is equivalent to the ’917 Patent’s discussion
`
`of “coded transport block” containing a packet data unit and control information).
`
`In more detail, Decker teaches encoding the packet data with a frame check
`
`sequence, including a CRC. See generally Decker (Ex. 1004) at 1:59-62, 3:21-30,
`
`4:53-55. A CRC is a well known type of frame check sequence, such that Decker’s
`
`teaching of encoding the packet data and frame check sequence teaches or
`
`otherwise renders obvious providing a CRC, as described in the ’917 Patent.
`
`Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶¶ 61-62.
`
`Yet further, Decker expressly teaches that when decoding, the transmitted
`
`codeword is checked for a CRC: “An exact decision on a successful transmission
`
`needs a complete run of the channel decoder and cyclic redundancy check.”
`
`Decker (Ex. 1004) at 4:53-55. A PHOSITA would reasonably understand from
`
`Decker that because determining whether a successful transmission occurred
`
`includes running a cyclic redundancy check, then the packet of user data was
`
`originally encoded with the cyclic redundancy check. Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at
`
`¶ 63 (further noting Decker’s teaching at 2:12-19 of detecting a mismatching frame
`
`check sequence at the receiver side, which leads to a negative acknowledgement).
`
`It would be non-sensical to perform a CRC to determine successful transmission of
`
`an encoded packet if the packet was not otherwise encoded with the CRC. Id.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`Thus, a PHOSITA collectively reading the teachings of Decker at 1:59-62
`
`and 3:21-30, stating encoding the packet of user data and a frame check sequence,
`
`with the teaching at 4:53-55, stating that a successful transmission determination is
`
`made by running a CRC at the decoder, would understand that Decker teaches
`
`encoding the packet of user data (i.e., the claimed packet data unit) with a CRC.
`
`Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶¶ 61-63.
`
`Additionally, Decker teaches that the packet of user data, header, and FCS
`
`(which a PHOSITA would understand is a CRC, as detailed above) are coded
`
`together, such as via a convolutional code. Decker (Ex. 1004) at 3:21–4:62
`
`(generally discussing convolutionally encoding a sequence, including providing a
`
`puncturing code). Because the ’917 Patent refers to the “coded transport blocks” as
`
`transport blocks provided with a CRC and “coded together” (Ex. 1001 at 5:8-12),
`
`Decker’s teaching of encoding packet data units and an FCS (which would
`
`otherwise be understood by a PHOSITA to be a CRC) via a convolutional code
`
`satisfies the claimed “coded transport blocks.” Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 64
`
`(further opining that the ’917 Patent does not provide any detail on what code is
`
`used to “code together” the transport blocks).
`
`To the extent it is determined that a “coded transport block,” as claimed,
`
`includes “control information,” Decker also teaches such. As noted above, Decker
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`teaches encoding the packet of user data with header information and a frame
`
`check sequence, which a PHOSITA would reasonably understand are types of
`
`control information. Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶¶ 65-66, citing Decker (Ex. 1004)
`
`at 1:59-62, 3:21-30 (disclosing encoding the bits of the packet data, header, and
`
`FCS). Decker further discloses that each layer 1 frame includes a header and an
`
`FCS to ensure successful transmission. Decker (Ex. 1004) at 2:12-19. Because
`
`Decker teaches including, at the least, a header for each layer 1 frame, a PHOSITA
`
`would reasonably understand or otherwise find it obvious that Decker teaches the
`
`encoded bits of packet data and header to include “control information.” Expert
`
`Decl. (Ex. 1004) at ¶¶ 65-66.
`
`“storing” coded transport blocks in a memory (taught by Decker)
`
`Decker also teaches “storing coded transport blocks in a memory,” as
`
`claimed in Claim 1(a). Specifically, Decker states “encoding the bits of the packet
`
`of user data, header and frame check sequence, using error correcting codes and
`
`storing the resulting bits for transmission at the sender side.” Decker (Ex.
`
`1004) at 1:59-62 (emphasis added). A PHOSITA would reasonably understand or
`
`otherwise find it obvious that “storing the resulting bits … at the sender side”
`
`means the encoded bits are stored in a memory. Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 67.
`
`Storage of digital data in a memory is a well understood concept in digital data
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`transmission systems, such as Decker. Id. (further noting Decker teaches storage of
`
`the received data at the receiver side in a memory at 4:9-14). Additionally, Decker
`
`teaches (in claim 2) that “the size of Air-Interface-Units is constant and can be
`
`carried by an undivided number of TDMA bursts, i.e. 456 bit, as in 4 GSM bursts.”
`
`Decker (Ex. 1004) at 6:64-67; see also id. at 2:13-19. A PHOSITA would
`
`reasonably understand that because Decker’s method is implemented “within the
`
`GSM mobile radio system” (Decker at 1:45-49), and further because GSM is a
`
`TDMA-based physical layer or “air interface” (Decker at 2:19-20), then the
`
`transmitting side must be able to store the packet data of size 456 bits. Expert Decl.
`
`(Ex. 1003) at ¶ 67, citing Decker (Ex. 1004) at 3:42-45. The transmitting side must
`
`therefore have at least enough temporary storage for 456 bits of data because each
`
`bit requires some finite length of time to physically transmit. Id. Therefore, a
`
`PHOSITA would reasonably understand Decker teaches storing the coded
`
`transport blocks (i.e., Decker’s encoded packet of user data, header information,
`
`and frame check sequence) in a memory.
`
`To the extent it is deemed that Decker does not teach storing coded transport
`
`blocks in a memory, Abrol teaches such, as discussed below.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`“a physical layer of a transmitting side is arranged for storing coded
`transport blocks” (taught by Decker)
`
`Regarding the limitation that “a physical layer of the transmitting side” be
`
`arranged for performing the step of Claim 1(a), Decker teaches such. As a brief
`
`background, the ’917 Patent explains the exchange of control information and data
`
`with a layer model according to the 3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project),
`
`which defines the physical layer as L1 or “layer 1.” See ’917 Patent (Ex. 1001) at
`
`4:36-59 (referring to the layer model according to the 3GPP, cited as Ex. 1007);
`
`3GPP Radio Interface Protocol Architecture (Ex. 1007) at 6-7, 12 (defining “L1”
`
`as “Layer 1 (physical layer)”). A PHOSITA would reasonably understand that the
`
`physical layer (or layer 1) as described in the ’917 Patent for use in a wireless
`
`network is generally equivalent to layer 1 of the ISO-OSI reference model, which
`
`provides for seven layers in a wired network. Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶¶ 68-69,
`
`citing Applications of CDMA (Ex. 1008) at 94-95. The top four layers of the seven
`
`layers of the ISO-OSI model are not needed for use in a wireless network, and
`
`therefore, wireless networks at the priority date of the ’917 Patent commonly
`
`comprised
`
`three
`
`layers. Id. Thus,
`
`the physical
`
`layer (layer 1)
`
`in any
`
`telecommunication system to which the OSI Model is applied refers to the
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`hardware and software responsible for establishing and maintaining a physical data
`
`connection. Id.
`
`Decker teaches the physical layer claimed in Claim 1. Specifically, Decker
`
`teaches a “layer 1” (particularly applied to a GSM system) performing functions
`
`such as coding and modulating data, as well as the specific steps recited in Claims
`
`1(a)–1(c). Decker (Ex. 1004) at 1:21-24, 1:46-50, 2:12-30, 4:24-45. In more detail,
`
`Decker teaches transmitting layer 1 frames over the air interface:
`
`the VRRA (Variable Rate Reservation Access)
`Within
`proposal, layer 1 frames are transmitted within blocks of 4
`consecutive GSM bursts over the air interface (FIG. 1). To ensure a
`successful transmission a header (H) and a frame check sequence
`(FCS) are added to each data unit (FIG. 2). In the type I mechanism
`this VRRA frame is now encoded using a punctured half rate
`convolutional coder and transmitted in 4 consecutive GSM TD MA
`slots.
`Decker (Ex. 1004) at 2:12-19. Decker thus teaches layer 1 frames are amended to
`
`include a header and FCS, encoded, and transmitted in four GSM bursts. The
`
`amended (to include a header) and encoded layer 1 frame is referred to as a
`
`“VRRA frame.” And, as already shown, this amended and encoded layer 1 frame,
`
`i.e., the VRRA frame, satisfies the claimed “coded transport block” in Claim 1(a).
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`To transmit the VRRA frame over the air interface in GSM bursts, a
`
`PHOSITA would reasonably understand that storage of the VRRA frame occurs in
`
`the physical layer, i.e., layer 1. Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 70. First, a PHOSITA
`
`would reasonably understand that because the VRRA frame is a layer 1 frame, the
`
`frame is formed in the physical layer. Id. Second, Decker expressly discloses
`
`transmitting these “layer 1 frames” (which are amended to include header and FCS
`
`and encoded) to a receiving side. Id., citing Decker (Ex. 1004) at 2:12-19. Third,
`
`applying a similar rationale as discussed above for “storage” in a memory, in order
`
`to transmit the layer 1 frames within blocks of 4 consecutive GSM bursts, the
`
`frames must be stored in the physical layer (i.e., layer 1). Id. Therefore, Decker
`
`teaches that a “physical layer of a transmitting side” is arranged for performing the
`
`claimed step of storing coded transport blocks in a memory. Id.
`
`The teachings of Abrol for Claim 1(a)
`
`Decker does not expressly teach that the packet of user data “is delivered by
`
`an assigned radio link control layer and can be identified by a packet data unit
`
`sequence number,” as claimed in Claim 1(a). In related art, Abrol teaches such. A
`
`reason to combine A