Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
` Paper 21
` Entered: July 22, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC. AND LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,1
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and GARTH D. BAER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining Challenged Claim Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`1 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`(collectively “Samsung”) were terminated from the proceeding. Paper 20.
`
`
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`
` Paper 21
` Entered: July 22, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC. AND LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,1
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and GARTH D. BAER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining Challenged Claim Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`1 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`(collectively “Samsung”) were terminated from the proceeding. Paper 20.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Apple Inc., LG Electronics, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively “Petitioner”) filed a
`Petition for inter partes review of claims 17 and 18 of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,868,079 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’079 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Uniloc
`2017 LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary
`Response, we instituted inter partes review, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, as
`to claims 17 and 18 based on all challenges set forth in the Petition. Paper 7
`(“Decision to Institute” or “Dec.”).
`Subsequent to institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
`Response (Paper 9, “PO Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s
`Response (Paper 10, “Pet. Reply”), and Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply
`(Paper 11, “Sur-reply”). On April 23, 2020, we held an oral hearing. A
`transcript of the hearing is of record. Paper 17 (“Tr.”).
`On May 15, 2020, Petitioner filed an unopposed request to withdraw
`the challenges set forth in the Petition with respect to claim 18. Ex. 3001.
`In essence, Petitioner requests removal of the challenges to claim 18 from
`the Petition as if claim 18 was never challenged. Id. We grant Petitioner’s
`request. We modify our Decision to Institute to institute inter partes review,
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, as to only claim 17 based on all challenges set
`forth in the Petition.
`On June 8, 2020, we granted the parties’ joint motion to terminate the
`proceeding with respect to Samsung. Paper 20.
`In our Scheduling Order, we notified the parties that “any arguments
`not raised in the [Patent Owner] response may be deemed waived.” See
`Paper 8, 7; see also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756,
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“The patent owner response . . . should identify all
`the involved claims that are believed to be patentable and state the basis for
`that belief.”). Patent Owner argues that it “does not concede, and
`specifically denies, that there is any legitimacy to any arguments in the
`instant Petition that are not specifically addressed” in its Patent Owner
`Response. PO Resp. 19 n.9. We decline to speculate as to what Patent
`Owner considers is not legitimate in the Petition. Any arguments for
`patentability not raised in the Patent Owner Response are deemed waived.
`For the reasons that follow, we conclude that Petitioner has proven by
`a preponderance of the evidence that claim 17 of the ’079 patent is
`unpatentable.
`
`A. Related Matters
`Petitioner and Patent Owner indicate that the ’079 patent is the subject
`of several court proceedings. Pet. 78–79; PO Resp. 3. The ’079 patent also
`is the subject of Board proceeding IPR2020-00038. IPR2020-00038 was
`filed by Motorola Mobility LLC and institution was granted. See Motorola
`Mobility LLC, v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2020-00038, Paper 9 (PTAB April
`13, 2020).
`
`B. The ’079 Patent
`The ’079 patent describes “a method of operating a radio
`communication system,” where the radio communication system is “required
`to be able to exchange [signaling] messages between a Mobile Station (MS)
`and a Base Station (BS).” Ex. 1001, 1:7–8, 1:18–20. The ’079 patent
`further describes that an object of the invention “is to improve the efficiency
`of the method by which a MS requests resources from a BS.” Id. at 1:56–58.
`The ’079 patent describes a secondary station (i.e., MS) transmitting a
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`request for resources to a primary station (i.e., BS) in a time slot allocated to
`the secondary station, where the secondary station re-transmits the request in
`at least a majority of its allocated time slots until an acknowledgment is
`received from the primary station. Id. at 1:60–67. Because there is no
`possibility of requests from different secondary stations colliding, a
`secondary station can re-transmit requests in each allocated time slot. Id. at
`2:3–5. Further, the primary station can improve the accuracy with which it
`determines whether a request was sent by a particular secondary station if
`the received signal strength is close to the detection threshold by examining
`the received signals in multiple time slots allocated to the secondary station
`in question. Id. at 2:9–14.
`An example radio communication system is illustrated in Figure 1,
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`Figure 1 is a block diagram of a radio communication system comprising a
`primary station (BS) 100 and a plurality of secondary stations (MS 110). Id.
`at 3:10–12. Communication from BS 100 to MS 110 takes place on
`downlink channel 122, while communication from MS 110 to BS 100 takes
`place on uplink channel 124. Id. at 3:19–21.
`
`C. Challenged Claim
`Petitioner challenges independent claim 17 of the ’079 patent. Claim
`17 is reproduced below.
`17. A method of operating a radio communication
`system, comprising:
`allocating respective time slots in an uplink channel to a
`plurality of respective secondary stations; and
`transmitting a respective request for services to establish
`required services from at least one of the plurality of respective
`secondary stations to a primary station in the respective time
`slots;
`
`wherein the at least one of the plurality of respective
`secondary stations re-transmits the same respective request in
`consecutive allocated time slots without waiting for an
`acknowledgement until said acknowledgement is received from
`the primary station,
`wherein the primary station determines whether a request
`for services has been transmitted by the at least one of the
`plurality of respective secondary stations by determining
`whether a signal strength of the respective transmitted request of
`the at least one of the plurality of respective secondary stations
`exceeds a threshold value.
`Ex. 1001, 8:12–33.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`As modified above, we instituted trial based on all asserted grounds of
`unpatentability under 35 U.S.C.2 as follows:
`Claim
`35 U.S.C. §
`References
`17
`103(a)
`Wolfe3, Bousquet4, Patsiokas5
`Wolfe, Bousquet, Everett6,
`17
`103(a)
`Patsiokas
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Principles of Law
`To prevail in its challenge to Patent Owner’s claim, Petitioner must
`demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence7 that the claim is
`unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2012); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) (2018). A
`patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
`
`
`2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Because the ’079
`patent has an effective filing date before the effective date of the applicable
`AIA amendments, we refer to the pre-AIA versions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and
`103.
`3 US 4,763,325, issued August 9, 1988 (Ex. 1005, “Wolfe”).
`4 US 6,298,052 B1, issued October 2, 2001 (Ex. 1006, “Bousquet”).
`5 PCT Application Publication No. WO 1992/21214, published November
`26, 1992 (Ex. 1007, “Patsiokas”).
`6 VERY SMALL APERTURE TERMINALS (VSATS), Institution of Electrical
`Engineers (IEE), Telecommunication Series 28, First Edition (John L.
`Everett ed., Peter Peregrinus Ltd. 1st ed. 1992) (“Everett,” filed as Part 1 and
`Part 2, both parts identified as Ex. 1008). See also Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 5–7.
`7 The burden of showing something by a preponderance of the evidence
`requires the trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is more
`probable than its nonexistence before the trier of fact may find in favor of
`the party who carries the burden. Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v.
`Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
`pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).
`The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
`determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
`of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective evidence of
`nonobviousness.8 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill
`In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors
`may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art;
`prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are
`made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active
`workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`(citation omitted). Petitioner relies on the testimony of Dr. Paul Steffes, who
`testifies that a person with ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Master
`of Science Degree in an academic area emphasizing telecommunications
`systems, or an equivalent field (or a similar technical Master’s Degree, or
`higher degree) with a concentration in telecommunications systems” or “a
`Bachelor’s Degree (or higher degree) in an academic area emphasizing
`telecommunications systems with two or more years of work experience in
`telecommunications systems.” Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 31). Patent
`Owner does not propose an alternative assessment. See generally PO Resp.
`
`
`8 Patent Owner does not present any objective evidence of nonobviousness
`as to the challenged claim.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`We adopt Dr. Steffes’s assessment of a person with ordinary skill in
`the art as it is consistent with the ’079 patent and the asserted prior art. We
`further note that the prior art of record in the instant proceeding reflects the
`appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261
`F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding the Board may omit specific
`findings as to the level of ordinary skill in the art “where the prior art itself
`reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”).
`
`C. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review for a petition filed on or after November 13,
`2018, “[claims] of a patent . . . shall be construed using the same claim
`construction standard that would be used to construe the [claims] in a civil
`action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the [claims] in
`accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claims as
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history
`pertaining to the patent.” See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard
`for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and
`Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,358 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018) (now codified at
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`1303, 1312– 14 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
` “acknowledgment”
`Claim 17 recites “wherein the at least one of the plurality of respective
`secondary stations re-transmits the same respective request in consecutive
`allocated time slots without waiting for an acknowledgement until said
`acknowledgment is received from the primary station.” Petitioner proposes
`that “acknowledgment” should be construed to mean “a message sent from
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`the primary station to the secondary station stating the primary station’s
`receipt of the secondary station’s request.” Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 34).
`In our Decision to Institute, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed claim
`construction for “acknowledgment” to mean “a message sent from the
`primary station to the secondary station stating the primary station’s receipt
`of the secondary station’s request.” Dec. 6–7. Neither party has indicated
`that our interpretation was improper, and we do not perceive any reason or
`evidence that now compels any deviation from our initial interpretation.
`Accordingly, “acknowledgment” means “a message sent from the primary
`station to the secondary station stating the primary station’s receipt of the
`secondary station’s request.”
`For purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe any
`other claim term. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d
`795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed
`that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean
`Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the
`context of an inter partes review).
`
`D. Asserted Obviousness of Claim 17 over Wolfe, Bousquet, Everett, and
`Patsiokas
`Petitioner contends claim 17 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`as obvious over Wolfe, Bousquet, Everett, and Patsiokas. Pet. 16–57, 73–
`78. In support of its showing, Petitioner relies upon the declaration of Dr.
`Steffes. Id. (citing Ex. 1003).
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`1. Wolfe
`Wolfe describes a method of frame management in a time division
`multiple access (TDMA) communication system in which a fixed time frame
`is divided into segments that are assigned to separate stations. Ex. 1005,
`4:47–51. Each station is responsible for the management of its own
`segment. Id. at 4:51–52. The frame is further provided with an overflow
`area. Id. at 4:52–53. Whenever a station overflows the capacity of its own
`assigned segment, a request is made to a central station to assign a small slot
`in the overflow area to that station. Id. at 4:53–56. The control of the slot
`reverts to the central station when its use by the station terminates. Id. at
`4:56–57.
`An example format of a frame of a TDMA system is illustrated in
`Figure 3 reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 3 is a timing diagram illustrating a “format for a TDMA frame”. Id.
`at 5:16–17. “The frame begins with two reference bursts RBa and RBb,
`which are separately assigned to each of two reference stations.” Id. at
`5:17–20. “A preallocated segment is subdivided into traffic bursts TB1 –
`TBN” where “[e]ach of the traffic bursts are assigned to one of N ground
`stations 10.” Id. at 5:35–36. The TDMA frame also includes an overflow
`area that is divided into overflow slots, where each of the overflow slots is
`assigned to one of traffic bursts TB’1 – TB’M, and where unused slots
`represent spare overflow capacity. Id. at 6:1–4.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`2. Bousquet
`Bousquet describes a shared resource transmission system that is used
`to set up transmission between a calling station and a called station.
`Ex. 1006, 1:7–9. The system entails a calling station sending data packets
`using a resource shared with other stations, where the data packets are access
`packets for setting up a call between a calling station and a called station.
`Id. at 1:18–21. “The various stations share the resource without any prior
`reservation of time slots and without any temporal synchronization of the
`stations.” Id. at 1:22–24. “Because there is no reservation, collisions can
`occur between access packets sent by different stations.” Id. at 1:24–26. To
`limit call set-up time and the probability of collision of access packets
`transmitted by a station, each station requiring to set up a call transmits at
`least two access packets without waiting for an acknowledgment between
`sending the access packets. Id. at 2:49–54. More specifically, the same
`access packet is sent n times (n>1) in a given time period whether an
`acknowledgment message is received from the station to which these
`packets are sent or not. Id. at 2:54–57. “The systematic repetition of the
`access packets in the predefined time period therefore increases the
`probability that at least one of the packets will reach the destination station,
`which reduces the time necessary to set up a call.” Id. at 3:53–56.
`3. Patsiokas
`Patsiokas describes a method and apparatus whereby a
`communication unit transmits a communication channel request and the
`nearest base site makes the communication channel grant. Ex. 1007, 4:11–
`14.9 “A base site receives the channel request signal, measures the received
`
`
`9 Citations are to page numbers located at the bottom of the pages.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`signal strength (RSS or RSSI) level of the received signal, and if that level is
`above a first threshold level, a communication channel is granted to the
`requesting unit, thus establishing a communication link.” Id. at 4:14–18.
`The first threshold level is a predetermined value of decibels above a
`maximum sensitivity level of a base site. Id. at 6:34–36. Then, the base site
`maintains the communication link as long as the RSSI level does not drop
`below a second threshold level that is substantially lower than the first
`threshold level. Id. at 4:18–21. The second threshold level is the maximum
`sensitivity level of the base site. Id. at 6:30–31.
`
`4. Everett
`Everett describes a communication system involving “Very Small
`Aperture Terminals (VSATs),” where a VSAT includes any form of small
`terminal system. Ex. 1008, 1.10 Typically, a VSAT communication system,
`or VSAT system, comprises a hub earth station, with a larger aperture
`antenna, controlling a cluster of VSATs, with smaller antennas. Id. at 2–3.
`The objective of the VSAT system is to provide an end-to-end
`communication link for a user. Id. at 8. An example VSAT system is
`illustrated in Figure 1.6 reproduced below.
`
`
`10 Like the parties do, we cite to the internal page numbers of the pages
`rather than the page numbers included at the bottom of each page.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1.6 illustrates three forms of a VSAT system. Id. at 11–12.
`According to Everett, these three forms include: (a) data distribution
`(involving a one-way communication link); (b) data gathering (also
`involving a one-way communication link); or (c) interactive (involving a
`two-way communication link). Id. at 11. A typical two-way VSAT system
`involves a hub in a star configuration transmitting a time division multiplex
`(TDM) stream to all VSATs in the network. Id. at 14. A VSAT with a
`message for the hub will transmit a short duration burst on a calling channel
`requesting access to a channel to transmit its message. Id. The hub
`acknowledges the request, assigns a channel and the VSAT changes
`frequency and transmits its message. Id. In a busy network, there will be
`collisions between some access request bursts and the VSAT may not get an
`acknowledgment from the hub. Id. Under these circumstances, the VSAT
`re-transmits its burst request after a pseudo randomly determined interval
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`and continues doing so until it receives an acknowledgment and is assigned
`a channel. Id.
`Everett further describes an access channel that provides all the
`signaling information from a VSAT to a hub, where the VSAT can, inter
`alia, request a channel, and where the VSAT can re-transmit this request
`after a pre-determined delay in the event of a collision with another channel
`request sent by another VSAT. Id. at 337–38. Everett further describes a
`control channel, where the control channel is a signaling channel used by the
`hub to respond to VSAT requests on the access channel. Id. at 338. The
`control channel has a defined packet structure to allow responses to the
`VSAT, including, inter alia, an acknowledge channel used to send back
`“clear-to-transmit” messages to the VSAT. Id. at 339.
`5. Discussion
`Petitioner contends that the “Wolfe-Bousquet-Patsiokas” combination
`renders claim 17 obvious for the reasons described in connection with
`Petitioner’s “Ground 1,” but to the extent that Wolfe does not render obvious
`the proposed construction of “acknowledgment” and re-transmission until an
`acknowledgment is received, Petitioner argues that Everett in combination
`with Wolfe, Bousquet, and Patsiokas meets those claimed limitations as
`proposed in “Ground 2.” Pet. 75. The two challenges are otherwise the
`same. Id. at 16–57, 73–78. For purposes of this Decision, we focus our
`analysis on Petitioner’s challenge that claim 17 is unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Wolfe, Bousquet, Everett, and Patsiokas
`(Ground 2).
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`Claim 17 recites a “method of operating a radio communication
`system, comprising.”11 Petitioner contends that Wolfe describes a satellite
`communication system in which ground stations 10 and reference station 18
`communicate over wireless satellite signals. Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1005, 1:13–
`2:9). Petitioner further contends, and we agree, that in Wolfe’s system,
`transmissions between the ground stations and the satellite occur at a radio
`frequency, and that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have
`found a satellite communication system operating at radio frequency to be a
`radio communication system. Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 7:23–28; Ex. 1003 ¶ 85).
`Petitioner explains, and we agree, that by describing a method of frame
`management for a satellite communication system operating at radio
`frequency, Wolf describes a “method of operating a radio communication
`system.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s showing with
`respect to Wolfe meeting the preamble of claim 17. See generally PO Resp.
`Claim 17 recites “allocating respective time slots in an uplink channel
`to a plurality of respective secondary stations.” Petitioner contends, and we
`find, that Wolfe describes a plurality of ground stations 10 (respective
`secondary stations) where each station is given a portion of a pre-allocated
`segment of a divided TDMA frame for uplink to satellite 12 (allocating
`respective time slots in an uplink channel). Id. at 41–43 (citing Ex. 1005,
`1:13–2:9, 5:6–15, 5:34–46, 8:65–68, Figs. 1, 3; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 86–87). Patent
`Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s showing with respect to Wolfe meeting
`this limitation. See generally PO Resp.
`
`
`11 We need not resolve the issue of whether the preamble is limiting
`because, regardless of whether the preamble is limiting, Petitioner shows
`that Wolfe meets the preamble.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`Claim 17 recites “transmitting a respective request for services to
`establish required services from at least one of the plurality of respective
`secondary stations to a primary station in the respective time slots.”
`Petitioner contends, and we find, that Wolfe’s ground station 10 (secondary
`station) signals to reference station 18 (primary station) that a channel is
`required using its preallocated time slot. Id. at 43 (citing Ex. 1005, 5:6–15,
`6:10–31.) Petitioner contends, and we agree, that Wolfe’s signal from
`ground station 10 to reference station 18 for additional capacity is a
`transmitted request for services to establish required services because the
`channel is required to complete a telephone call. Id. at 43–44 (citing
`Ex. 1005, 6:10–31). Petitioner explains that Wolfe’s ground station 10
`forwards the received call request to reference station 18 as a connection
`request for allocation of an additional time slot in the overflow section. Id.
`Petitioner relies on annotated Wolfe Figure 3 to illustrate Wolfe’s
`description of ground station 10 transmitting a respective request for
`services to establish required services in the respective time slots, which
`results in reference station 18 allocating to a ground station 10 an overflow
`slot. Id. at 44–45 (citing Ex. 1005, Abstract, 1:8–11, 2:32–38, 4:47–57, 5:6–
`15, 5:52–58, 6:10–50, 8:6–9, 8:55–68, Fig. 3; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 88–92). We
`determine that Petitioner has shown sufficiently how Wolfe meets the
`limitation and Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s showing. See
`generally PO Resp.
`Claim 17 recites “wherein the at least one of the plurality of respective
`secondary stations re-transmits the same respective request in consecutive
`allocated time slots without waiting for an acknowledgement until said
`acknowledgement is received from the primary station.” Petitioner relies on
`Everett for its description of acknowledgments and re-transmission until an
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`acknowledgment is received. Pet. 75; Reply 9 (“the proposed combination
`relies only on Everett’s concept of using acknowledgments and ceasing re-
`transmissions”). Petitioner relies on Bousquet in combination with Wolfe to
`meet “at least one of the plurality of respective secondary stations re-
`transmits the same respective request in consecutive allocated time slots
`without waiting for an acknowledgment.” See e.g., Pet. 48–53; Pet. Reply 4.
`Petitioner contends, and we agree, that Everett describes a secondary
`station (VSAT) that receives an acknowledgment when a primary station
`(hub) acknowledges the request, which is separate from the primary station’s
`task of assigning a channel. Pet. 75 (citing Ex. 1008, 14, 337–339). We
`further agree with Petitioner that a person having ordinary skill in the art
`would have appreciated that Everett’s technique offered benefits to
`communication systems because Everett describes providing “the hub with
`the necessary control over VSAT transmissions and also prevents a VSAT
`. . . from repeatedly transmitting in an attempt to establish contact with the
`hub.” Id. (citing Ex. 1008, 207; Ex. 1003 ¶ 143). Petitioner contends, and
`we agree, that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been
`motivated to implement Everett’s technique of sending acknowledgments in
`Wolfe’s satellite system, where bandwidth is limited, to prevent unnecessary
`continued re-transmissions and to further safeguard Wolfe’s system. Id. at
`76–77 (citing Ex. 1008, 14, 207; Ex. 1005, 2:26–31; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 145–146).
`It is not disputed that Everett describes sending acknowledgments to
`cease re-transmissions. PO Resp. 10. Patent Owner argues, however, that
`Everett fails to disclose re-transmitting the same respective request “in
`consecutive allocated time slots without waiting for an acknowledgment
`until said acknowledgment is received from the primary station.” PO
`Resp. 10 (emphasis in original), 12; see also Sur-reply 8–9. Petitioner does
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`not rely on Everett alone to teach the entire phrase of “re-transmits the same
`respective request in consecutive allocated time slots without waiting for an
`acknowledgment until said acknowledgment is received from the primary
`station.”12 Patent Owner’s argument (PO Resp. 10–11) that in Everett’s
`system, re-transmissions are done at randomly selected time intervals, which
`fails to meet the claimed “in consecutive allocated time slots” portion of the
`disputed phrase overlooks the challenge in its entirety. The Petition does not
`rely on Everett to show re-transmissions in consecutive time slots.
`Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments regarding
`Everett.
`Petitioner relies on Bousquet for its description of re-transmission of
`the same request without waiting for an acknowledgment. Pet. 48–49 (citing
`Ex. 1006, 2:48–60, 3:53–56; Ex. 1003 ¶ 97). In particular, Bousquet
`describes “each station requiring to set up a call should transmit at least two
`access packets without waiting for an acknowledgment between sending the
`access packets.” Ex. 1006, 2:48–53. According to Bousquet, re-
`transmission “is done within a time period less than that required for a round
`trip of a packet between the calling station and the called station.” Id. at
`2:57–59. Bousquet further describes “systematic repetition of the access
`packets in the predefined time period therefore increases the probability that
`at least one of these packets will reach the destination station, which reduces
`the time necessary to set up a call.” Id. at 3:53–56. Although Bousquet
`describes that “[t]he n packets transmitted can be transmitted on the same
`carrier frequency and spaced in time, preferably at random,” Bousquet
`
`12 See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[O]ne cannot show
`non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
`rejections are based on combinations of references.”).
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`further describes that packets can be transmitted on different carrier
`frequencies “with a temporal distribution.” Id. at 3:57–61.
`Petitioner contends a person having ordinary skill in the art would
`have understood that Bousquet’s technique of reducing call setup time to be
`applicable to Wolfe’s TDMA system. First, Petitioner contends, and we
`agree, that both Wolfe and Bousquet describe satellite communication
`systems for handling call requests designed to support communications
`between a primary station and at least one secondary station. Pet. 25–27, 49
`(citing Ex. 1005, 1:13–31; Ex. 1006, code (57), 1:12–21, 2:10–21).
`Petitioner further contends, and we agree, that it was known that long time
`delays were associated with transmissions in a satellite-based system. Id. at
`27–28 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:65–4:14; Ex. 1006, 1:58–64). As explained
`above, Bousquet describes that (1) a station requiring to set up a call will
`transmit at least two access packets without waiting for an acknowledgment
`between sending the access packets, (2) re-transmission is done within a
`time period less than that required for a round trip of a packet between a
`calling station and a called station, and (3) systematic repetition of the access
`packets in the predefined time period increases the probability that at least
`one of the packets will reach the destination station, which reduces the time
`necessary to set up a call. Ex. 1006, 2:48–53, 2:57–59, 3:53–56.
`We agree with Petitioner that because “Bousquet describes that
`‘[o]ther implementations are possible’ including transmission of packets
`with ‘temporal spacing,’” a person having ordinary skill in the art “would
`have found Bousquet’s techniques to be applicable [to] systems where
`packet transmission is ‘spaced in time,’ like transmissions of a TDMA
`system, such as Wolfe’s.” Pet. 50 (citing Ex. 1005, 1:1–15; Ex. 1006, 2:25–
`28, 3:57–64; Ex. 1003 ¶ 99). We give substantial weight to Dr. Steffes’s
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`testimony that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have found it
`obvious to apply Bousquet’s approach to reduce call setup time even though
`Bousquet applies a contention-based approach to uplink signaling as
`compared to Wolfe’s contention-free system,” because his testimony is
`supported by Bousquet itself. Ex. 1003 ¶ 99 (citing Ex. 1006, 3:57–64,
`where Bousquet describes that packets can be transmitted on different carrier
`frequencies “with a temporal distribution” (emphasis added)). Based on the
`record before us, we determine that a person having ordinary skill in the art
`at the time of the invention would have understood that Bousquet’s
`technique of systematic repetition of transmitting a request from a secon
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
