Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ERICSSON INC. and TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
`Petitioners,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01170
`Patent 7,385,994
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD,
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P. O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ........................ 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Real Parties-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ......................... 1
`
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ..................................... 1
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information Under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.8(b)(3) and (4) ............................................................................... 2
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ......................... 2
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A) ...... 2
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Description of the Purported Invention of the ’994 Patent .................. 3
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’994 Patent ...................... 4
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(B) ......................................................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Specific Art and Statutory Grounds for Challenges....................... 4
`
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 6
`
`1.
`
`“User” .......................................................................................... 6
`
`C. Means-Plus-Function ............................................................................ 7
`
`VI. EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PETITIONERS CHALLENGE OF
`CLAIMS ....................................................................................................... 10
`
`VII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT CLAIMS 1-25
`ARE UNPATENTABLE ....................................................................10
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-7, 10-17, and 20-25 are Obvious Under 35 U.S.C.
`§103(a) over Mäkelä in view of Giroux ............................................10
`
`Ground 2: Claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 are Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`over Mäkelä in view of Giroux and Yamamoto ................................27
`
`Ground 3: Claims 1-7, 10-17, 20, and 23-25 are Unpatentable as Obvious
`in view of Hluchyj and Tzeng ............................................................30
`
`Ground 4: Claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 are Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`over Hluchyj in view of Tzeng and Yamamoto .................................43
`
`Ground 5: Claims 21 and 22 are Unpatentable as Obvious over Hluchyj
`in view of Tzeng and Mäkelä .............................................................44
`
`Ground 6: Claims 1-7, 10-17, 20, and 23-25 are Unpatentable as Obvious
`over Hluchyj in view of Giroux ..........................................................45
`
`Ground 7: Claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 are Obvious Under § 103(a) over
`Hluchyj in view of Giroux and Yamamoto ........................................58
`
`Ground 8: Claims 21 and 22 are Unpatentable as Obvious in view of
`Hluchyj in view of Giroux and Mäkelä .............................................59
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`In re Swanson
`
`
`
`540 F.3d 1368, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................... 6
`
`TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp.
`
`514 F.3d 1256, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................... 8
`
`Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n
`
`161 F.3d 696, 703-704 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................... 8
`
`Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lightinig, Inc.
`
`382 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................... 8
`
`Visual Networks Operations, Inc. v. Paradyne Corp.
`
`No. Civ. A. DKC 2004-0604, 2005 WL 1411578, at *30 (D. Md. June
`
`15, 2005) ................................................................................................ 8
`
`ABB Atomation, Inc. v. Schlumberger Res. Mgmt. Svcs., Inc.
`
`No. Civ. A. 01-077-SLR, 2003 WL 1700013, at *1 (D. Del. March 27,
`
`2003) ...................................................................................................... 8
`
`Function Media, LLC v. Google, Inc.
`
`
`
`708 F.3d 1310, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................... 9
`
`Blackberry Corp. v. MobileMedia Ideas, LLC
`
`
`
`IPR 2013-00036, Paper No. 65 (March 7, 2014) .................................. 9
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ...................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ....................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ...........................................................................5, 6, 10, 27, 43, 58
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311-319 .............................................................................................. 1, 60
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) .................................................................................................. 3
`
`
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.68 ......................................................................................................... 10
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42 ............................................................................................................. 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 (a)(1) .............................................................................................. 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 (e)(1) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 (a)(1)................................................................................................. 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 (b)(1) ................................................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 (b)(2) ................................................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 (b)(3) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 (b)(4) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) .................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .................................................................................................. 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ....................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) .................................................................................................. 2
`
`v
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1) ........................................................................................... 10
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(1)-(2) ...................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(5) .......................................................................................... 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994 to Speight (“’994 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,336,661 to Mäkelä, et al. (“Mäkelä”)
`
`International Publication No. WO97/14240 to
`Inventors/Applicants Giroux, et al. (“Giroux”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,231,633 to Hluchyj, et al. (“Hluchyj”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,438,135 to Tzeng (“Tzeng”)
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,993,041 to Yamamoto (“Yamamoto”)
`
`Office Action issued February 8, 2007, Prosecution History of
`’994 Patent
`Amendment in Response to Office Action, filed May 8, 2007,
`Prosecution History of ’994 Patent
`First Notice of Allowance issued July 23, 2007, Prosecution
`History of ’994 Patent
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, GB-2338372, 12-15-1999
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,614,790 to Veres, et al. (“Veres”)
`
`Office Action issued September 12, 2007, Prosecution History of
`’994 Patent
`Amendment in Response to Office Action filed December 12,
`2007, Prosecution History of ’994 Patent
`Second Notice of Allowance issued January 29, 2008, Prosecution
`History of ’994 Patent
`Expert Declaration of Mark Lanning
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`vii
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1016
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`Newton’s Telecom Dictionary 134, 509 (17th ed. 2001)
`(“Newton”)
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`Petitioners Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (collectively
`
`“Ericsson” or “Petitioners”) respectfully request inter partes review under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. Part 42 of Claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,385,994 (the “’994 Patent”), attached hereto as Ex. 1001.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)
`
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`Petitioners, Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, are the real
`
`parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`Petitioners are aware of the following pending judicial matters that may be
`
`affected by a decision in this proceeding. Each matter was filed in the United
`
`States District Court for the District of Delaware and asserts infringement of the
`
`’994 Patent:
`
`Filing Date
`Defendant
`Case Number
`October 7, 2013
`1:13-cv-01668-UNA AT&T Mobility LLC et al
`1:13-cv-01669-UNA Leap Wireless International Inc. et al October 7, 2013
`1:13-cv-01670-UNA Nextel Operations Inc. et al
`October 7, 2013
`1:13-cv-01671-UNA T-Mobile USA Inc. et al
`October 7, 2013
`1:13-cv-01672-UNA United States Cellular Corporation
`October 7, 2013
`
`Petitioners filed motions to intervene in each of these actions on April 29,
`
`2014. No ruling has been issued on these motions to intervene. Petitioners are not
`
`aware of any other judicial or administrative matter that would affect, or be
`
`affected by, a decision in this proceeding.
`
`1
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information Under
`C.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and (4)
`
`
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), Petitioners provide the following designation
`
`of counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel
`J. Robert Brown, Jr. (Reg. No. 45,438)
`rbrown@dfw.conleyrose.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`Conley Rose, P. C.
`Granite Park Three
`5601 Granite Parkway, Suite 500
`Plano, Texas 75024
`(972) 731-2288 (phone)
`(972) 731-2289 (fax)
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Charles J. Rogers (Reg. No. 38,286)
`crogers@conleyrose.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`Conley Rose, P. C.
`1001 McKinney Street, Suite 1800
`Houston, TX 77002
`(713) 238-8049 (phone)
`(713) 238-8008 (fax)
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4), Petitioners may be served at the above
`
`addresses for lead and back-up counsel. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(1),
`
`Petitioners consent to electronic service by e-mail. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.10(b), a Power of Attorney accompanies this Petition.
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge $28,000 to Deposit Account
`
`No. 50-1515 for the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition. The
`
`undersigned further authorizes payment of any additional fees that may be due in
`
`connection with this Petition to be charged to the above-referenced Deposit
`
`Account.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioners certify that the ’994 Patent is available for inter partes review
`
`2
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`and that Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`on the grounds identified herein. Specifically, Petitioners further certify that: (1)
`
`Petitioners do not own the ’994 Patent; (2) Petitioners have not been served with a
`
`complaint alleging infringement of the ’994 Patent; (3) 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) does
`
`not prohibit this inter partes review; and (4) this Petition is filed after issuance of
`
`the ’994 Patent, and the ’994 Patent is not currently the subject of a post-grant
`
`review.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Description of the Purported Invention of the ’994 Patent
`
`
`The ’994 Patent generally relates to packet data queuing and scheduling
`
`methods for allocating shared communication resources. (Ex. 1001, Abstract) The
`
`specification purports to describe assigning queues to different tiers of service and
`
`allocating different weights to each tier of service so that the communication
`
`resource is provided to queued packet data users on a tier-by-tier basis. (Ex. 1001,
`
`col. 6, Abstract) In particular, the ’994 Patent describes optimizing use of a limited
`
`communication resource, especially “[i]n a packet data based system where a high
`
`number of subscriber units may require resources for packet transmissions at
`
`unknown and irregular intervals.” (Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 23-25)
`
`As will be shown in detail herein, the ’994 Patent is obvious in view of
`
`various packet queuing and scheduling techniques disclosed in patents and
`
`3
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`publications available before the priority date of the ’994 Patent.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’994 Patent
`
`The inventors of the ’994 Patent filed British App. No. 0125502.5 on
`
`October 24, 2001. The ’994 Patent was filed as U.S. App. No. 10/278,342 on
`
`October 23, 2002, and claims priority to the British application. During
`
`prosecution of the ’994 Patent, several office actions and responses to office
`
`actions were filed, leading to a Notice of Allowance dated January 29, 2008. (See
`
`Ex. 1007-1009, Ex. 1012-1014) The Veres reference (Ex. 1011) was the only
`
`reference cited in the rejection of the claims. Veres is also available as British
`
`application GB-2338372. (See Ex. 1010) The ’994 Patent subsequently issued on
`
`June 10, 2008. (See Ex. 1001)
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(b)
`
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioners challenge
`
`V.
`
`
`
`Claims 1-25 the ’994 Patent as unpatentable.
`
`A. The Specific Art and Statutory Grounds for Challenges
`
`
`The earliest priority claimed by the ’994 Patent is October 24, 2001.
`
`Petitioners have not evaluated the propriety of the priority claim or whether the
`
`claims in the ’994 Patent are supported by the disclosure of British App. No.
`
`0125502.5. Petitioners have assumed, arguendo, that the ’994 Patent is entitled to
`
`the foreign priority claim of October 24, 2001. Inter partes review of Claims 1-25
`
`4
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`is requested in view of the following prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
`
`1. Mäkelä (Ex. 1002) was filed as international application PCT/EP01/00465
`
`on January 16, 2001 and later published as WO01/74027. The international
`
`application was filed after November 29, 2000, was published in English, and
`
`designated in the U.S. Thus, Mäkelä is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`2. Giroux (Ex. 1003) was filed as international application PCT/CA96/00681
`
`on October 11, 1996 and published on April 27, 1997. Thus, Giroux is prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`3. Hluchyj (Ex. 1004) was filed on July 11, 1990 and published on July 27,
`
`1993. Thus, Hluchyj is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`4. Tzeng (Ex. 1005) was filed on October 21, 1999. Thus, Tzeng is prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`5. Yamamoto (Ex. 1006) was filed on May 24, 2001. Thus, Yamamoto is
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`Ground Proposed Statutory Rejections for the ’994 Patent
`1
`Claims 1-7, 10-17 and 20-25 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over
`Mäkelä in view of Giroux
`Claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over
`Mäkelä in view of Giroux and Yamamoto
`Claims 1-7, 10-17, 20, and 23-25 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`over Hluchyj and Tzeng
`Claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over
`Hluchyj in view of Tzeng and Yamamoto
`Claims 21 and 22 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Hluchyj in
`view of Tzeng and Mäkelä
`Claims 1-7, 10-17, 20, and 23-25 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`5
`
`6
`
`5
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`7
`
`8
`
`over Hluchyj in view of Giroux
`Claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over
`Hluchyj in view of Giroux and Yamamoto
`Claims 21 and 22 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Hluchyj in
`view of Giroux and Mäkelä
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`
`A claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) The claim terms that would
`
`benefit from claim construction by the Board are identified below. For all other
`
`claim terms in the inter partes review, Petitioners have applied the broadest
`
`reasonable construction based on the meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`or around the time of the earliest priority date identified as October 24, 2001.
`
`As the Federal Circuit recognizes, the “broadest reasonable construction”
`
`standard is fundamentally different from the claim constructions that applies in
`
`litigation. In re Swanson, 540 F.3d 1368, 1377‐78 (Fed. Cir. 2008). By identifying
`
`the broadest reasonable construction for certain terms in the claims below,
`
`Petitioners offer no position on the proper claim construction for any purpose
`
`outside the instant inter partes review, including for purposes of litigation. For
`
`example, narrower constructions may apply to any one or more claim terms in
`
`contexts outside the present inter partes review.
`
`1.
`
`“User”
`
`
`
`The specification of the ’994 Patent does not provide a corresponding
`
`6
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`definition for the term “user” in the specification. Rather, the specification
`
`inconsistently refers to any of “users,” “clients,” “nodes,” and “sources,” all of
`
`which transmit data packets. In particular, the specification states that “individual
`
`clients 112, 114, 116 have data packets to be transferred through a network.” (Ex.
`
`1001, Fig. 1, col. 2, ll. 47-48) The specification further refers to “separate queues
`
`for packets from each user 112, 114, 116” and also that “users transmit data
`
`packets.” (Ex. 1001, col. 2, l. 67-col. 3, l. 1; col. 6 ll. 34-35; see also col. 5 ll. 31-
`
`33) The specification also refers to “packet data sources” and “sources not using
`
`their full share of the available communication bandwidth.” (Ex. 1001, see, e.g.,
`
`col. 3, ll. 31-32) In view of the specification, one of skill in the art would have
`
`understood that “user” includes at least “a source of a data packet,” but does not
`
`limit the source of the data packet to any particular node or device. This
`
`understanding further encompasses any clients, nodes, connections, and sessions.
`
`Mr. Lanning confirms that such an interpretation is reasonable and does not
`
`conflict with usage of the term in the specification. (Ex. 1015, ¶ 36) Therefore, for
`
`purposes of this inter partes review petition, the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`of “user” is “a source of a data packet.”
`
`C. Means-Plus-Function
`
`
`Claims 11-19 of the ’994 Patent recite limitations that include the term
`
`“means,” which creates a presumption that they are written in means-plus-function
`
`7
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`format under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶ 6. TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 514 F.3d 1256,
`
`1259 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Although this presumption may be rebutted if the limitation
`
`includes structure that performs the specified function, none of the limitations
`
`include such structure. Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l trade
`
`Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 703-704 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`Claim 24 of the ’994 Patent recites limitations that include the term “logic
`
`for.” The claim does not include the term “means,” which creates a rebuttable
`
`presumption that the claim is not written in means-plus-function format under 35
`
`U.S.C. §112, ¶ 6. Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354,
`
`1359 (2004). However, this presumption may be overcome if the claim limitation
`
`“fails to recite sufficiently definite structure” or recites a “function without reciting
`
`sufficient structure for performing that function.” Id. at 1358. Indeed, the term
`
`“logic” would not be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as providing
`
`sufficiently definite structure for performing the claimed function. (Ex. 1015, ¶ 40)
`
`(Ex. 1015, ¶ 40); see also Visual Networks Operations, Inc. v. Paradyne Corp., No.
`
`Civ. A. DKC 2004-0604, 2005 WL 1411578, at *30 (D. Md. June 15, 2005)
`
`(holding that “logic for” claims were subject to means plus function analysis
`
`because “[l]ogic can be implemented in computer code, in hardware, or in some
`
`combination of both, but logic, itself, does not constitute a structure or device”);
`
`ABB Atomation, Inc. v. Schlumberger Res. Mgmt. Svcs., Inc., No. Civ. A. 01-077-
`
`8
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`SLR, 2003 WL 1700013, at *1 (D. Del. Mar. 27, 2003) (concluding that “‘logic’
`
`does not recite sufficient structure to avoid means-plus-function analysis”).
`
`Because Claim 24 fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, the presumption that
`
`the claim is not written in means-plus-function format is rebutted. Accordingly,
`
`Claim 24 should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Mr. Lanning confirms
`
`that one of skill in the art would identify “the packet data queuing algorithm in the
`
`RNC processor, . . . [and/or a] queuing algorithm function implemented preferably
`
`in a digital signal processor, . . . [or] embodied in any suitable form of software,
`
`firmware or hardware” as the only possible disclosure that could be relied on for
`
`structure for the recited functions in Claims 11-19 and 24. (Ex. 1015, ¶ 41,
`
`identifying the limitation, the function, and the corresponding disclosure relating to
`
`Claims 11-19 and 24)
`
`Despite this disclosure serving as the only possible structure that could be
`
`relied on for the recited function, the ’994 Patent specification does not disclose
`
`any specific algorithm for performing the recited functions for Claims 11-19 and
`
`24 as required for computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations. See,
`
`e.g., Function Media, LLC v. Google, Inc., 708 F.3d 1310, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
`
`(holding that a computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation is indefinite
`
`because the specification failed to disclose the specific algorithm used by the
`
`computer to perform the recited function); see also Blackberry Corp. v.
`
`9
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`MobileMedia Ideas, LLC, IPR 2013-00036, Paper No. 65 (Mar. 7, 2014)
`
`(terminating inter partes review proceeding because specification did not disclose
`
`specific algorithm to perform recited function of a computer-implemented means-
`
`plus-function term).
`
`VI. EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PETITIONERS CHALLENGE OF
`CLAIMS
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5), a list of Exhibits identifying all
`
`exhibits supporting this Petition, with each exhibit assigned a respective exhibit
`
`number, is submitted herewith. Additionally, the relevance of the evidence to the
`
`challenges raised, including identification of specific portions of the evidence that
`
`support the challenges, may be found below. Although Petitioners do not
`
`necessarily view the preamble of the various claims to be limiting, Petitioners
`
`nevertheless present relevant evidence for preamble features. Petitioners further
`
`submit a declaration of technical expert Mark Lanning, which includes detailed
`
`claim charts, in support of this Petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68. (Ex. 1015)
`
`VII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT CLAIMS 1-25
`ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1), Petitioners request inter partes review of
`
`Claims 1-25 of the ’994 Patent based on the following grounds.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-7, 10-17, and 20-25 are Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`over Mäkelä in view of Giroux
`
`
`
`Mäkelä is directed to packet data queuing and scheduling systems in which
`
`10
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`data packets are queued based on priority and the queues are weighted relative to
`
`other queues according to priority. (Ex. 1002, Abstract) The assigned weights can
`
`be adjusted based on the number of logical connections associated with the
`
`respective queue. (Ex. 1002, see, e.g., col. 5, ll. 50-60) Giroux is also directed to
`
`packet processing and queuing, specifically utilizing fair queue servicing using
`
`dynamic weights taking into account connection addition and removal. (Ex. 1003,
`
`see, e.g., p. 2, ll. 5-8; p. 3, ll. 18-21)
`
`For ease of reference, Petitioners refer to claim portions in the discussion
`
`below by shorthand designations as identified in the chart provided below.
`
`Claim
`Portion
`[1pre]
`
`[1a]
`
`[1b]
`
`[1c]
`
`[1d]
`
`[1e]
`
`Claim 1
`
` A method of processing queued data packets in a packet data
`communication system, the method comprising:
`allocating a tier of service for each of a plurality of individual packet
`data queues, wherein allocating a tier of service comprises:
`determining a total number of data packets that can use an available
`communication resource;
`allocating different weights to each tier of service based on a number of
`users requiring access to the available communication resource;
`allocating a proportion of said total number of data packets to a number
`of the tiers of service to allow individual packet data queues on a
`number of tiers to share a communication resource; and
`providing said communication resource to queued packet data users on a
`tier-by-tier basis, such that said communication resource is made
`available to a number of tiers.
`
`
`Regarding Claim portion [1pre], Figure 1 of Mäkelä discloses a
`
`communication system capable of providing wireless packet switched services for
`
`a user. (Ex. 1002, col. 4, ll. 35-52) “The data packets are sent forward from the
`
`11
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`queues e.g. by using WFQ (Weighted Fair Queuing).” (Ex. 1002, col. 5, ll. 45-47)
`
`Thus, to the extent the preamble is limiting, Mäkelä discloses Claim portion [1pre].
`
`Regarding Claim portion [1a], Figure 3 of Mäkelä discloses “assign[ing]
`
`weights to queues of a plurality of transmission queues based on relative priorities
`
`of the data packets.” (Ex. 1002, Fig. 3; see also col. 2, l. 65-col. 3, l. 2; col. 5, ll.
`
`43-49) Mr. Lanning has confirmed that these relative priorities associated with
`
`each of the plurality of transmission queues correspond to tiers of services. (Ex.
`
`1015, ¶ 53) Thus, Mäkelä discloses Claim portion [1a].
`
`Regarding Claim portion [1c], Mäkelä discloses “adjustment of the weights
`
`of the queues in accordance with the number of PDP contexts that are using the
`
`queues.” (Ex. 1002, Fig. 3, Table 1, Table 2, col. 5, ll. 51-53) The data being
`
`transmitted and processed by the queues in Mäkelä is associated with a PDP
`
`context, which is a type of logical connection, beginning at activation of the PDP
`
`context. (Ex. 1002, col. 2, ll. 55-64; col. 5, ll. 50-57) Further, the queues treat each
`
`PDP context as a “source of data.” (Ex. 1002, col. 3, ll. 12-15 (describing “data
`
`packets that belong to the PDP contexts”)) Thus, as confirmed by Mr. Lanning, a
`
`PDP context is “a user”. (Ex. 1015, ¶ 54-56) Accordingly, PDP contexts which
`
`have data packets queued for transmission are “users requiring access to the
`
`available communication resource.” (Ex. 1015, ¶ 56) Therefore, the cited portion
`
`of Mäkelä discloses “adjustment of the weights of the queue in accordance with the
`
`12
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`number of [users] that are using the queues,” which discloses Claim portion [1c].
`
`(Ex. 1002, Fig. 3)
`
`Regarding Claim portion [1e], Mäkelä discloses that “the data packet
`
`handling function 24 will transmit first 500 1st priority packets from the queue 21,
`
`followed by 30 2nd priority packets from queue 22 and 100 3rd priority packets
`
`from queue 23.” (Ex. 1002, Fig. 3, col. 6, ll. 46-49) Thus, Mäkelä transmits packets
`
`on a queue-by-queue basis in order of priority. Mr. Lanning confirms that, as the
`
`priorities of the queues correspond to tiers of service, Mäkelä transmits the packets
`
`associated with the PDP contexts on a “tier-by-tier basis.” (Ex. 1015, ¶ 57)
`
`Accordingly, Mäkelä discloses Claim portion [1e].
`
`Giroux, in the same field of endeavor, teaches Claim portions [1b] and [1d].
`
`For example, Figure 1 discloses that “Timescale [Ts] = ~ 100 cell units,” which is
`
`the number of cells that can be sent in a given time. (Ex. 1003, Fig. 1) As
`
`confirmed by Mr. Lanning, a cell is a data packet of fixed-length. (Ex. 1015, ¶ 58;
`
`see also Ex. 1016, pp. 134, 509) The ’994 Patent states that “For simplicity, it is
`
`also assumed that packets are always of fixed size.” (Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 35-37)
`
`Figure 3 further discloses a service weight (Wi) which is the “number of cells to be
`
`served in [Ts] for output queue i.” (Ex. 1003, Fig. 3) The relationship between
`
`these elements is shown by “Wi =µ i·Ts,” which indicates that the service weight
`
`(Wi) is a proportion of the total number of cells that can be sent in a given time.
`
`13
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`(Ex. 1003, see p. 5, l. 20-p. 6, l. 3) Thus, as confirmed by Mr. Lanning, Giroux
`
`determines that 100 cell units are available to be allocated in a sampling interval Ts
`
`and further determines a service weight (Wi) for each queue representing the
`
`portion of those 100 cell units allocated to each queue. (Ex. 1015, ¶ 58)
`
`Accordingly, Giroux discloses Claim elements [1b] and [1d].
`
`As shown above, Mäkelä and Giroux disclose all of the elements of Claim 1.
`
`One of skill in the art would have understood to use the dynamic weighted fair
`
`queuing (DWFQ) method for processing cells as taught in Giroux with the
`
`weighted queuing method for processing packets disclosed in Mäkelä. In
`
`particular, Giroux addresses the problem highlighted in Mäkelä: “the WFQ 24
`
`cannot function in the most efficient manner because the possibly substantially
`
`high values of the effective weights . . . [t]his may cause intolerable delays in the
`
`queues with lower priorities. A solution for this is use of e.g. a WF2Q algorithm or
`
`similar capacity distribution scheme that evens the situation.” (Ex. 1002, col. 6, ll.
`
`53-61) Mr. Lanning confirms that one of skill in the art would have understood that
`
`Giroux describes a capacity distribution scheme since the weighting of the queues
`
`is adjusted each time interval (Ts). Mr. Lanning confirms that one of skill in the art
`
`would be motivated to combine the teachings of Giroux with Mäkelä because it is
`
`using Giroux’s known technique of weighting queues in a time interval (i.e., Ts) to
`
`improve the fairness to users of different service classes. (Ex. 1015, ¶ 59) Thus,
`
`14
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`Claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over Mäkelä in view of Giroux.
`
` Claim
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6. [6a]
`
`6. [6b]
`
`7.
`
`10.
`
`
`
`Preamble: “The method of processing queued data packets in a packet
`data communication system according to”
`“claim 1, wherein said allocating a proportion of a total number of data
`packets further comprises: providing a commitment that a p