Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 11
`
`Entered: April 20, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ERICSSON INC. and TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01331
`Patent 6,640,248 B1
`
`
`Before BRIAN J. MCNAMARA, DAVID C. MCKONE, and
`BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`SUMMARY
`
`Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (collectively,
`
`“Petitioner”) request rehearing of the Board’s decision not to institute an inter
`
`partes review of U.S. Patent 6,640,248 B1 (Ex. 1001) (the “’248 patent”)
`
`(Paper 9 (“Decision”)) entered February 24, 2015. Paper 10 (“Rehearing
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 11
`
`Entered: April 20, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ERICSSON INC. and TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01331
`Patent 6,640,248 B1
`
`
`Before BRIAN J. MCNAMARA, DAVID C. MCKONE, and
`BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`SUMMARY
`
`Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (collectively,
`
`“Petitioner”) request rehearing of the Board’s decision not to institute an inter
`
`partes review of U.S. Patent 6,640,248 B1 (Ex. 1001) (the “’248 patent”)
`
`(Paper 9 (“Decision”)) entered February 24, 2015. Paper 10 (“Rehearing
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01331
`Patent 6,640,248 B1
`
`
`Req.”). For the reasons that follow, Petitioner’s request for rehearing is
`
`denied.
`
`DISCUSSION
`The applicable standard for a request for rehearing is set forth in
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part:
`
`A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for
`rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. The
`burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the
`party challenging the decision. The request must specifically
`identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended
`or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously
`addressed in a motion, opposition, or a reply.
`
`Petitioner argues that the Decision misapprehends: (1) why “an
`
`application-aware resource allocator at the MAC layer” is disclosed by
`
`Ganz; and (2) why “an application-aware resource allocator at the MAC
`
`layer” is disclosed by Ganz in view of Haddock. Rehearing Req. 1–9. The
`
`arguments are unpersuasive.
`
`A. Ganz
`
`Petitioner argues the Board misapprehended or overlooked why “an
`
`application aware resource allocator at the MAC layer” is disclosed by
`
`Ganz. Rehearing Req. 2–6. In particular, Petitioner argues that the Board
`
`misapprehends what Petitioner points to as the “resource allocator” in Ganz.
`
`Id. at 2. Petitioner argues that:
`
`[r]ather than solely identify Ganz’s resource manager as the
`relevant “resource allocator,” Petitioners rely more broadly on
`components at the “MAC layer” including “[i]n particular, an
`adaptive MAC polling approach in combination with a resource
`manager” as the “application-aware resource allocator at the
`MAC layer.
`
` Id. at 2–3
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01331
`Patent 6,640,248 B1
`
`
`Petitioner argues that “media control modules 222 further includes
`
`MAC 320, which logically also resides at the MAC layer.” Id. at 3–4.
`
`“Thus, all three components of ‘media control modules 222’ are at the MAC
`
`layer.” Id. at 4.
`
`To the extent that the Petition identified media control modules 222 as
`
`the MAC layer, rather than just MAC 320, we considered and rejected that
`
`argument. Dec. 8–9. Specifically, we found that the evidence presented by
`
`Petitioner, namely the testimony of Mr. Lanning, identified MAC 320 as
`
`corresponding to the MAC layer. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 48, 75). Mere
`
`disagreement with this finding is not grounds for rehearing.
`
`Petitioner also argues that the Board overlooked Ganz’s “Summary of
`
`the Invention.” Rehearing Req. 4. Petitioner directs attention to the
`
`transitional phrase “in particular,” which Petitioner alleges “creates a
`
`relationship between these two sentences that, in context, signals further
`
`specificity as to what exactly implements QoS requirements at the MAC
`
`layer.” Id. at 4. We did not overlook or misapprehended this argument.
`
`The decision specifically addresses this cited portion of Ganz and explains
`
`that “[n]either Petitioner, nor the testimony of Mr. Lanning that Petitioner
`
`points to, however, explains anything more about how these portions of
`
`Ganz disclose how the resource manager of Ganz is ‘at the MAC layer,’ as
`
`required by claim 1.” Decision 7–8.
`
`Petitioner also argues that the Board “inadvertently relied on a
`
`typographical error” in the Petition, which identified MAC 320 as the MAC
`
`layer 320. Rehearing Req. 5–6. Petitioner does not, however, address the
`
`other instances where the Petitioner also refers to MAC 320 as the MAC layer.
`
`See Decision 9. Also, as the Decision notes, paragraph 48 of Mr. Lanning’s
`
`Declaration states that a MAC layer allocates resources along with other media
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01331
`Patent 6,640,248 B1
`
`
`control modules. Id. at 8–9. This consistent testimony by Mr. Lanning
`
`undermines Petitioner’s argument that the testimony on which we relied
`
`included a typographical error. Petitioner argues the Board overlooked the next
`
`paragraph of Mr. Lanning’s declaration, which states that media control
`
`modules 222 include resource manager 322 and MAC 320. Rehearing Req. 6.
`
`As explained in the Decision, however, “Figure 3 of Ganz simply depicts that
`
`resource manager 322 is part of media control modules 222,” but Petitioner
`
`“has not explained persuasively how resource manager 322 or media control
`
`modules 222 reside at the MAC layer.” Decision 10. Thus, we are not
`
`persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked the argument that “an
`
`application-aware resource allocator at the MAC layer” is disclosed by
`
`Ganz.
`
`B. Ganz in combination with Haddock
`
`Petitioner argues the Board misapprehended or overlooked why “an
`
`application-aware resource allocator at the MAC layer” is disclosed by Ganz
`
`in combination with Haddock. However, Petitioner merely directs attention
`
`to the Abstract of Haddock without explaining further what the Board
`
`misapprehended or overlooked. Rehearing Req. 8.
`
`Moreover, as explained in the Decision, Petitioner refers to the claim
`
`chart of claim 1 and related disclosures of Ganz, not Haddock, as disclosing
`
`the “application-aware resource allocator at the MAC layer.” Decision 10.
`
`Thus, the Petition does not allege that Haddock remedies the deficiencies of
`
`Ganz with respect to the “application-aware resource allocator at the MAC
`
`layer” requirement of claim 1. Id. We could not have misapprehended or
`
`overlooked an argument not adequately explained in the briefing. Accordingly,
`
`we are not persuaded of error.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01331
`Patent 6,640,248 B1
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s request for rehearing is denied.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01331
`Patent 6,640,248 B1
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`J. Robert Brown, Jr.
`Charles J. Rogers
`CONLEY ROSE, P.C.
`rbrown@dfw.conleyrose.com
`crogers@conleyrose.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Herbert Hart
`David Petty
`MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD
`hhart@mcandrews-ip.com
`dpetty@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`
`
`
`
`6
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
