Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
` Paper No. 7
` Entered: July 25, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC., LG ELECTRONICS, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`CO., LTD., AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case 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.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`
` Paper No. 7
` Entered: July 25, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC., LG ELECTRONICS, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`CO., LTD., AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case 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.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.”). Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by
`statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any
`response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
`petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the Petition and
`Preliminary Response, we conclude the information presented shows that
`there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the
`unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims.
`
`A. Related Matters
`Petitioner and Patent Owner indicate that the ’079 patent is the subject
`of several court proceedings. Pet. 78–79; Prelim. Resp. 3.
`
`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
`request for resources to a primary station (i.e., BS) in a time slot allocated to
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`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 retransmit 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.
`
`
`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.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`at 3:10–12. Communication from BS 100 to MS 110 takes place on a
`downlink channel 122, while communication from MS 110 to BS 100 takes
`place on an uplink channel. Id. at 3:19–21.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner challenges independent claims 17 and 18 of the ’079 patent.
`Claims 17 and 18 are 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.
`18. A radio communication system, comprising:
`a primary station and a plurality of respective secondary
`stations;
`the primary station having means for allocating respective
`time slots in an uplink channel to the plurality of respective
`secondary stations to transmit respective requests for services to
`the primary station to establish required services;
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`wherein the respective secondary stations have means for
`re-transmitting the same respective requests in consecutive
`allocated time slots without waiting for an acknowledgement
`until said acknowledgement is received from the primary station,
`wherein said primary station determines whether a request
`for services has been transmitted by at least one of the respective
`is secondary stations by determining whether a signal strength of
`the respective transmitted request of the at least one of the
`respective secondary stations exceeds a threshold value.
`Ex. 1001, 8:34–53.
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts that claims 17 and 18 are unpatentable based on the
`following grounds. Pet. 1:
`References
`Wolfe2, Bousquet3, and Patsiokas4
`Wolfe, Bousquet, Everett5, and
`Patsiokas
`
`Challenged Claims
`17 and 18
`17 and 18
`
`Basis1
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`
`1 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.
`2 US 4,763,325, issued August 9, 1988 (Ex. 1005, “Wolfe”).
`3 US 6,298,052, issued October 2, 2001 (Ex. 1006, “Bousquet”).
`4 PCT Application Publication No. 1992/021214, published Nov. 26, 1992
`(Ex. 1007, “Patsiokas”).
`5 John L. Everett, Very Small Aperture Terminals (VSATs), Institution of
`Electrical Engineers (IEE), Telecommunication Series 28, First Edition
`(1992) (“Everett,” filed as Part 1 and Part 2, both parts identified as
`Ex. 1008). See also Ex. 1017.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. 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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019); 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 (Oct. 11,
`2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018); 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.” Claim 18 recites
`similar functional language for the “means for re-transmitting.” Petitioner
`proposes that “acknowledgment” should be construed 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.” Pet. 8–9 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 34). Petitioner contends that the proposed construction is
`consistent with the claim language, specification, and file history of the ’079
`patent and that the construction is supported by a plain meaning of the term
`“acknowledgment,” as evidenced by standard dictionary definitions at the
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`time of the invention. Id. at 9 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 3, 2:5–8, 2:23–24, 2:40–
`47, 3:66–4:7; Ex. 1002, passim; Ex. 1003 ¶ 34; Ex. 1015, 25; Ex. 1016, 9–
`10). At this juncture of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not oppose
`Petitioner’s proposed construction. Prelim. Resp. 8–9. For purposes of the
`decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction.
`“means for allocating”
`Independent claim 18 recites “the primary station having means for
`allocating respective time slots in an uplink channel to the plurality of
`respective secondary stations to transmit respective requests for services to
`the primary station to establish required services.” Petitioner argues that the
`“means for allocating” limitation recited in claim 18 is a means-plus-
`function limitation and should be construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth
`paragraph. Pet. 9–13.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), Petitioner must propose a
`construction under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, for any means-plus-
`function limitation, “identify[ing] the specific portions of the specification
`that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed
`function.”6 Petitioner identifies the function associated with the “means for
`allocating” as “allocating respective time slots in an uplink channel to the
`plurality of respective secondary stations to transmit respective requests for
`services to the primary station.” Id. at 10.
`
`
`6 Section 42.104(b)(3) of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations refers
`to § 112(f). Section 4(c) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L.
`No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), re-designated 35 U.S.C. § 112,
`sixth paragraph, as 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Because the ’079 patent has a filing
`date before September 16, 2012 (effective date of the relevant section of the
`AIA), we refer to § 112, sixth paragraph.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`Petitioner argues that the ’079 patent “does not link structure of the
`primary station to the ‘allocating’ function.” Id. at 10. Petitioner contends,
`however, based on averments made during litigation by Patent Owner, that
`the corresponding structure for the “means for allocating” should be
`interpreted “to cover microcontroller 102 performing the algorithms
`contained in 3:25–32, 36–41, or an equivalent.” Id. at 12 (citing Ex. 1013,
`1). Patent Owner “does not offer a competing definition” for the “means for
`allocating.” Prelim. Resp. 9.
`We agree with Petitioner’s contentions that the “means for allocating”
`recited in claim 18 should be construed according to 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth
`paragraph. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348
`(Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (“[T]he use of the word ‘means’ in a claim
`element creates a rebuttable presumption that § 112, para. 6 applies.”). We
`further agree that a computer programmed to perform the recited function is
`included as part of the corresponding structure for the “means,” and, thus,
`agree that the corresponding structure includes software (i.e., an algorithm).
`For purposes of this discussion, we focus on the recited function “allocating
`respective time slots in an uplink channel to the plurality of respective
`secondary stations to transmit respective requests for services to the primary
`station.” Petitioner argues that the corresponding structure for the algorithm
`for this claimed function is found at “3:25–32, 36–41.” Pet. 12. Column 3,
`lines 25 to 41, of the ’079 patent Specification is reproduced as follows:
`The uplink channel 124 is divided into a succession of frames
`202, each of length 10 ms, and each MS 110 registered with the
`BS 100 is allocated a time slot 204 in each frame in which it can
`transmit a request for service. Although only ten time slots 204
`are shown in each frame 202, in practice there may be many more
`per frame.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`Although it is anticipated that a single dedicated uplink
`channel 124 will provide sufficient capacity in normal situations,
`it is possible for there to be more mobile stations 110 registered
`with a BS 100 than there are available time slots in each frame.
`In such circumstances the BS 100 can either make another uplink
`channel 124 available for fast signaling purposes or increase the
`capacity of the existing channel by not allocating a time slot for
`every MS 110 in every frame.
`Ex. 1001, 3:25–41 (emphasis added).
`Petitioner fails to explain how the above passage is representative of
`an algorithm used by the primary station’s microcontroller 102 to perform
`the recited function. The above passage, at most, describes the function
`recited in the “means for allocating” phrase, by describing that each MS 110
`registered with the BS 100 is allocated a time slot 204 in each frame for
`transmitting a request for service. There is no description of how the
`microcontroller allocates the time slot(s), i.e., which steps the computer uses
`to perform the “allocating” function. Importantly, Petitioner argues that
`claim 18 should be interpreted such that it is a computer that does the
`allocating of respective time slots to the plurality of respective secondary
`stations to transmit respective requests for services to the primary station.
`Pet. 11. To us, that would necessarily include some algorithm for
`performing the function, which is absent from the above passage.
`In sum, the corresponding structure for the “means for allocating”
`includes software with no sufficiently described algorithm for the software.
`It is well established that “the corresponding structure for a § 112 ¶ 6 claim
`for a computer-implemented function is the algorithm disclosed in the
`specification.” Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. vs. Int’l Game Tech., 521
`F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc., 417
`F.3d 1241, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Petitioner’s proposed structure includes
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`software, but “[s]imply reciting ‘software’ without providing some detail
`about the means to accomplish the function is not enough.” Finisar Corp. v.
`DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340–41 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also
`Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, 574 F.3d 1371, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
`(holding disclosed “access control manager” insufficient structure to
`perform “means for assigning access to and control of the data”). Petitioner
`fails to direct us to any description, whether in prose, flow chart, or any
`other manner, that provides sufficient structure for allocating as claimed.
`See Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340. Nor is it enough that a hypothetical person of
`ordinary skill in the art would know how to design software for allocating
`time slots as claimed. See Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1385–86. Some type of
`algorithm would be required to complete the function of allocating time slots
`to the plurality of secondary stations, but Petitioner has not identified
`sufficiently such an algorithm in the Specification.
`For these reasons, Petitioner has not sufficiently identified a structure
`(e.g., algorithm) corresponding to the function “for allocating respective
`time slots in an uplink channel to the plurality of respective secondary
`stations to transmit respective requests for services to the primary station to
`establish required services” recited in claim 18 as required for such a
`computer-implemented function.
`For purposes of this decision, we need not expressly construe any
`other claim term at this time. 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. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid
`Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`B. Principles of Law
`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 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;7 and (4) when in evidence, objective
`evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18
`(1966).
`
`C. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 17 and 18 over Wolfe, Bousquet, and
`Patsiokas, and over Wolfe, Bousquet, Everett, and Patsiokas
`Petitioner contends claims 17 and 18 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over (1) Wolfe, Bousquet, and Patsiokas, and
`(2) Wolfe, Bousquet, Everett, and Patsiokas. Pet. 16–78. In support of its
`showing, Petitioner relies upon the declaration of Dr. Steffes. Id. (citing
`Ex. 1003).
`
`
`7 Relying on the testimony of Dr. Paul G. Steffes, Petitioner offers an
`assessment as to the level of skill in the art at the time of the ’079 patent.
`Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 31–32). At this time, Patent Owner does not
`propose an alternative assessment. Prelim. Resp. 7. To the extent necessary,
`and for purposes of this Decision, we accept the assessment offered by
`Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’079 patent and the asserted prior art.
`
`11
`
`
`
`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 each
`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.
`
`12
`
`
`
`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. A base site receives the channel request signal, measures the received
`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
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`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, 1.8 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.
`
`
`8 Page citations are to those numbers in the left hand corner of the exhibit.
`
`14
`
`
`
`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
`retransmits its burst request after a pseudo randomly determined interval and
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`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 retransmit this request after
`a pre-determined delay in the event of a collision with another channel
`request sent by another VSAT. Id. at 337–8. 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 for Claim 17
`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. Pet.
`75. The challenges are otherwise similar. Id. at 16–78.
`Claim 17 recites a “method of operating a radio communication
`system, comprising.” 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 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
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`communication system operating at radio frequency to be a radio
`communication system. Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 7:23–28; Ex. 1003 ¶ 85).
`Petitioner explains that by describing a method of frame management for a
`satellite communication system operating at radio frequency, Wolf describes
`a “method of operating of operating a radio communication system.” Id.
`Claim 17 recites “allocating respective time slots in an uplink channel
`to a plurality of respective secondary stations.” Petitioner contends 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).
`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 that Wolfe’s ground station (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 further contends 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 stations
`10 transmitting a respective request for services to establish required
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`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).
`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 contends
`that Wolfe describes that reference station 18 (primary station) sends a
`transmission to a requesting ground station 10 (secondary station) that states
`receipt of the request and indicates whether an allocation is being made,
`meeting Petitioner’s proposed construction for “acknowledgment.” Id. at
`46–47 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:23–36). Petitioner further contends that Wolfe
`describes that if a request is denied and the primary station will not make an
`allocation, the primary station only transmits an acknowledgment that the
`request has been received and an allocation is not being made. Id.
`Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have
`found Wolfe’s description at column six, lines twenty-three to thirty-one to
`render obvious transmission of an acknowledgment, which is separate from
`transmissions related to Wolfe’s making the allocation. Id. at 46–47 (citing
`Ex. 1005, 6:23–36; Ex. 1003 ¶ 94).
`Petitioner further asserts that a person having ordinary skill in the art
`would have found re-transmission obvious based on typical
`acknowledgement processing in telecommunication systems. Id. at 47
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 95). Petitioner further contends that to the extent that
`Wolfe does not disclose that the primary station’s transmission is an
`acknowledgment of a request, a person having ordinary skill in the art would
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`have found it obvious that Wolfe’s secondary station re-transmits the request
`until an acknowledgment is received. Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 6:23–26;
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 95).
`Dr. Steffes, relying on Everett to support his assertions, testifies that a
`person having ordinary skill in the art would have found use of
`acknowledgments and re-transmission to have been obvious in light of
`Wolfe’s disclosure and knowledge of satellite communication systems.
`Id. at 48 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 96; Ex. 1008, 317–318, Fig. 17.7). For example,
`Dr. Steffes opines that Everett teaches that a secondary station in a satellite
`communication system will not receive an acknowledgement from the
`primary station if the data is lost during transmission. Ex. 1003 ¶ 96 (citing
`Ex. 1008, 317–318, Fig. 17.7). Dr. Steffes further opines that under such
`scenario, the secondary station, having not received an acknowledgement,
`will re-transmit data until the secondary station receives an
`acknowledgment. Id. Alternatively, Petitioner relies on Everett to meet
`Petitioner’s proposed construction of “acknowledgment” and re-
`transmission until an acknowledgment is received. Pet. 75.
`Petitioner further contends that Bousquet performs re-transmission of
`the same request and does so without waiting for an acknowledgment. Id. at
`48–49 (citing Ex. 1006, 2:48–60, 3:53–56; Ex. 1003 ¶ 97). 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.” Ex. 1006, 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. Petitioner contends a person having ordinary skill in the art would
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`Patent 6,868,079 B1
`
`
`have understood that Bousquet’s technique to be applicable to Wolfe’s
`TDMA system and that altering Wolfe to implement Bousquet’s technique
`to continue re-transmission in consecutive time slots would have been
`obvious. Pet. 50 (citing Ex. 1005, 1:13–15; Ex. 1006, 2:25–28, 3:57–64;
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 99). For example, Petitioner explains, with supporting eviden
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
