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 IPR2015-01872
`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
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01872
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
` 
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ........................ 1 
`Real Parties-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .......................... 1 
`A.
` 
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ..................................... 1 
`B.
` 
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information Under
`C.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and (4) ............................................................... 1 
`PAYMENT OF FEES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ......................... 2 
`II. 
`III.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(A) ......................................................................................................... 2 
`IV.  THIS PETITION IS NOT BARRED BY 35 U.S.C. § 315(B) ....................... 3 
`V. 
`THE BOARD SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO
`INSTITUTE THIS PETITION ........................................................................ 5 
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 7 
`  Description of the Purported Invention of the ’994 Patent ................... 7 
`A.
`B. 
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’994 Patent ...................... 8 
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) ..................................................................................... 8 
`The Specific Art and Statutory Grounds for Challenges ...................... 9 
`A.
` 
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 9 
`B.
` 
`  Means-Plus-Function – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ................................ 9 
`C.
`VIII.  EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PETITIONERS’ CHALLENGE OF
`CLAIMS ........................................................................................................ 15 
`IX.  THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT CLAIMS 1-25
`ARE UNPATENTABLE ............................................................................... 16 
`Ground 1:  Claims 1-25 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`over Lu alone or further in view of Pankaj ...................................... 16 
`1.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 18 
` 
`2.
`Claims 11 and 24....................................................................... 35 
` 
`3.
`Claims 2 and 12 ......................................................................... 37 
` 
`4.
`Claims 3 and 13 ......................................................................... 38 
` 
`5.
`Claims 4 and 14 ......................................................................... 39 
` 
`
`VI. 
`
`VII. 
`
`i
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01872
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`6.
`Claims 5 and 15 ......................................................................... 40 
` 
`7.
`Claims 6 and 16 ......................................................................... 44 
` 
`8.
`Claims 7 and 17 ......................................................................... 49 
` 
`9.
`Claims 8 and 18 ......................................................................... 50 
` 
`  Claims 9 and 19 ......................................................................... 52 10.
`
`
`  Claim 10 .................................................................................... 53 11.
`
`  Claim 20 .................................................................................... 55 12.
`
`  Claim 21 .................................................................................... 55 13.
`
`  Claim 22 .................................................................................... 57 14.
`
`  Claim 23 .................................................................................... 59 15.
`
`  Claim 25 .................................................................................... 59 16.
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60 
`
`X. 
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01872
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`U.S. Court of Appeals Cases 
`TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`514 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 10
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 10
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board Cases 
`Conopco, Inc. dba Unilever v. The Proctor & Gamble Co.,
`IPR2014-00506, Paper 25 (Dec. 10, 2014) ............................................................ 5
`
`The Brinkmann Corp. v. A&J Manufacturing, LLC,
`IPR2015-00056, Paper No. 10 (PTAB Mar. 23, 2015) ......................................... 4
`
`Statutes, Rules, and Regulations 
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .......................................................................................................... 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................... 9, 16
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................ 10
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ......................................................................................................2, 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325 .......................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 ................................................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.68 ....................................................................................................... 16
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .................................................................................... 2, 8, 15, 16
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ....................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 ....................................................................................................... 61
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .....................................................................................................1, 2
`
`iii
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01872
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994 to Speight (“’994 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,480,911 to Lu (“Lu”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0183066 to Pankaj
`(Pankaj)
`IPR2014-01170 Petition filed August 6, 2014
`
`IPR2014-01170 Institution Decision entered February 17, 2015 as
`Paper 9
`Expert Declaration of Mark R. Lanning
`
`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
`Rate Controlled Servers for Very High-Speed Networks
`
`v
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01872
`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)
` Real Parties-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`A.
`Petitioners, Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, are the real
`
`parties-in-interest.
`
` Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`B.
`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 U.S. District
`
`Court for the District of Delaware and asserts infringement of the ’994 Patent:
`
`Defendant
`Case Number
`1:13-cv-01668-LPS (D. Del.) AT&T Mobility LLC et al.
`1:14-cv-01229-LPS (D. Del.) AT&T Mobility LLC et al.
`1:13-cv-01669-LPS (D. Del.) Cricket Communications, Inc.
`1:14-cv-01230-LPS (D. Del.) Cricket Communications, Inc.
`1:13-cv-01670-LPS (D. Del.) Nextel Operations Inc. et al.
`1:14-cv-01231-LPS (D. Del.) Nextel Operations Inc. et al.
`1:13-cv-01671-LPS (D. Del.) T-Mobile USA Inc. et al.
`1:14-cv-01232-LPS (D. Del.) T-Mobile USA Inc. et al.
`1:13-cv-01672-LPS (D. Del.) United States Cellular Corp.
`1:14-cv-01233-LPS (D. Del.) United States Cellular Corp.
`
`Petitioners have not been served with a complaint alleging infringement in the
`
`Filing Date
`10/7/13
`9/25/14
`10/7/13
`9/25/14
`10/7/13
`9/25/14
`10/7/13
`9/25/14
`10/7/13
`9/25/14
`
`above-captioned actions. Petitioners have intervened in each of these actions.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information Under
`
`1
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01872
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and (4)
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)-(4), Petitioners designate 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)
`
`Petitioners consent to service by e-mail and may be served at the above addresses.
`
`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
`
`and that Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`on the grounds identified herein.
`
`Petitioners further certify that: (1) Petitioners do not own the ’994 Patent; (2)
`
`Petitioners (the only real-parties-in-interest) have not filed a civil action
`
`challenging the validity of a claim of the ’994 Patent (35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1)); (3)
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01872
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`Petitioners have not been served with a complaint alleging infringement of the
`
`’994 Patent (35 U.S.C. § 315(b)); (4) 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) does not prohibit this
`
`inter partes review; (5) this Petition is filed after the issuance of the ’994 Patent
`
`and the ’994 Patent is not currently the subject of a post-grant review; (6) the
`
`grounds of this Petition are not redundant (or substantially the same) as the
`
`grounds in IPR2014-01170; and (7) Petitioners were not aware of the prior art
`
`comprising the grounds of this Petition at the time of the filing of IPR2014-01170.
`
`IV. THIS PETITION IS NOT BARRED BY 35 U.S.C. § 315(B)
`Section 315(b) precludes institution of an IPR “if the petition is filed more
`
`than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner . . . is served with a complaint
`
`alleging infringement of the patent.” To date, however, Ericsson has not been
`
`served with such a complaint due to Patent Owner’s own strategic litigation
`
`decisions. Specifically, driven by a pursuit for higher royalties, Patent Owner
`
`chose to sue only Ericsson’s customers rather than Ericsson itself. Because
`
`Ericsson has never been served with a complaint alleging patent infringement of
`
`the ’994 Patent, § 315(b) has no application, and therefore, does not bar the present
`
`petition.
`
`Even setting aside this condition precedent to the application of § 315(b)
`
`(i.e., service of a complaint for patent infringement), the clock for the one-year bar
`
`for Ericsson could not have started until the Court permitted Ericsson to intervene
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01872
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`in the litigation against its customers on September 8, 2014.1 Prior to that date,
`
`Ericsson was not a party to the litigation.
`
`Despite Patent Owner’s strategic decision to not serve a complaint against
`
`Ericsson as required by § 315(b), Patent Owner may seek to impose the one-year
`
`bar on Ericsson anyway. Indeed, in the related district court litigations, Patent
`
`Owner made unfounded allegations that Ericsson is in privity with the district court
`
`defendants, citing factors such as participation in a joint defense group and sharing
`
`litigation counsel. These factors, however, do not establish privity. See The
`
`Brinkmann Corp. v. A&J Manufacturing, LLC, IPR2015-00056, Paper No. 10 at 8
`
`(PTAB Mar. 23, 2015) (finding privity was not established from entering a joint
`
`defense agreement, re-using arguments from invalidity contentions, and sharing
`
`invalidity expert witnesses). Privity, instead, requires some form or exercise of
`
`control over the IPR proceedings. Id. (rejecting privity argument where there was
`
`
`1 Notably, the Board previously concluded that, for purposes of the one-year bar, an
`
`amended complaint cannot be “served” until the corresponding motion for leave is
`
`granted by the court—until then, the amended complaint is “merely a proposed
`
`complaint, not an actual ‘complaint.’” TRW Automotive US LLC v. Magna Elecs., Inc.,
`
`IPR2014-00293, Paper 18 at 7 (PTAB Jun. 27, 2014). Similarly, a potential intervenor
`
`would only be eligible for service of a complaint in the relevant litigation after the
`
`Court grants its motion to intervene.
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01872
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`no evidence that non-petitioning defendants were involved in preparation of IPR
`
`petition); see also Official Patent Trial Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48759-60. Here,
`
`Petitioners are completely distinct entities from the wireless-carrier defendants,
`
`were solely responsible for the pursuit of the IPR petitions, and funded and
`
`prepared the IPR petitions entirely on their own. To the extent that Patent Owner
`
`advances arguments regarding the one-year bar in its Preliminary Response to this
`
`Petition, Petitioners may seek authorization to respond to those arguments.
`
`V. THE BOARD SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO
`INSTITUTE THIS PETITION
`Although Petitioners filed a prior IPR petition regarding the ’994 Patent for
`
`which review was not instituted (Ex. 1004), the Board should exercise its
`
`discretionary power to institute here. Whether the Board should exercise its
`
`discretionary power to grant a second petition depends on the circumstances of the
`
`case. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d); see also Conopco, Inc. dba Unilever v. The Proctor &
`
`Gamble Co., IPR2014-00506, Paper 25 at 3-4 (Dec. 10, 2014). As explained
`
`below, many reasons justify institution of this petition.
`
`First, this Petition presents only one ground based on two newly-discovered
`
`and compelling prior art references that were not known and not reasonably
`
`available to Petitioners at the time the first petition was filed. This newly available
`
`prior art, which was discovered as a result of a search performed subsequent to the
`
`Board’s denying institution of the first petition, convincingly discloses and/or
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01872
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`renders obvious the points of novelty stressed by the Patent Owner, and therefore,
`
`should be considered by the Board. Moreover, this prior art is applicable to each
`
`and every claim of the ’994 Patent.
`
`Petitioners’ counsel conducted numerous searches for prior art relevant to
`
`the ‘994 Patent. Petitioners’ counsel used these search results to focus the efforts of
`
`a third-party professional search firm engaged to further search for relevant
`
`references. Petitioners’ counsel then spent considerable time and efforts further
`
`searching for relevant references before filing the IPR2014-01170 Petition. In
`
`response to the Board’s decision denying that petition, Petitioners’ counsel
`
`performed further extensive searches and, approximately two months later,
`
`identified the new references cited herein. Accordingly, because neither prior art
`
`reference was known to the Petitioners at the time the first petition was filed, these
`
`grounds could not have been reasonably raised at the time of the first petition..
`
`Second, as explained below, the disclosures and arguments in this Petition
`
`are substantially different from the first petition. The Board found that Petitioners
`
`did not sufficiently demonstrate how the prior art allocates a proportion of “the
`
`total number of cell slots for the entire communication resource as opposed to one
`
`particular tier and how the allocation of that total to a particular tier is determined”
`
`in the first petition. (Ex. 1005 at 9-10) The first petition also argued one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have known to allocate different weights based upon
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01872
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`the number of users because the prior art disclosed setting service weights based
`
`upon a newly added network user. (Ex. 1004 at 31) The Board disagreed, however,
`
`finding that the prior art “does not disclose that the number of sources of traffic
`
`(‘users’) affects the allocation of weight to a particular queue” and “does not
`
`suggest that different weights are allocated to each queue based on the number of
`
`users requiring access to the communication resource.” (Ex. 1005 at 11) In the
`
`present Petition, Petitioners’ arguments show that the primary reference expressly
`
`discloses these aspects—indeed, the primary reference describes and illustrates that
`
`the number of users affects the weight value assigned to a particular queue, and
`
`that different weights are assigned to each queue based upon the number of users
`
`requiring available resources for communication.
`
`Finally, this Petition is brought so that the unpatentability of the ’994
`
`Patent’s claims may be properly considered in view of compelling new prior art
`
`that could not have been reasonably raised in the prior petition. Petitioners,
`
`therefore, respectfully request that the Board consider the Petition on the merits
`
`and exercise its discretion to institute review.
`
`VI.
`
`INTRODUCTION
` Description of the Purported Invention of the ’994 Patent
`A.
`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 or levels of
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01872
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`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, 8:1-19) 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, 2:23-25)
`
`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
`
`publications available before the priority date of the ’994 Patent.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’994 Patent
`B.
`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)
`
`VII. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01872
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioners challenge
`
`Claims 1-25 of the ’994 Patent as unpatentable.
`
` The Specific Art and Statutory Grounds for Challenges
`A.
`The earliest priority claimed by the ’994 Patent is October 24, 2001.
`
`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 is requested
`
`in view of the following prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
`
`1. Lu (Ex. 1002) was filed on September 23, 1999 and issued on November
`
`12, 2002 as U.S. Patent No. 6,480,911. Thus, Lu is prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e).
`
`2. Pankaj (Ex. 1003) was filed on October 10, 2001 and claims priority to
`
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/283,885, filed on April 12, 2001 and
`
`published as U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2002/0183066. Thus, Pankaj
`
`is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
` Claim Construction
`B.
`A claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification.” (37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)) For all claim terms,
`
`Petitioners have applied the broadest reasonable construction as understood by a
`
`person of ordinary skill at the time of earliest priority (“POSA”).
`
` Means-Plus-Function – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`C.
`Claims 11-19 of the ’994 Patent recite limitations that include the term
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01872
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`“means,” which creates a presumption that they are written in means-plus-function
`
`format under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶ 6. TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 514 F.3d 1256,
`
`1259 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`Claim 24 of the ’994 Patent recites limitations that include the term “logic
`
`for.” The claim does not include the term “means,” however in assessing whether a
`
`claim is a means-plus-function term, the Federal Circuit has indicated that “the
`
`essential inquiry is not merely the presence or absence of the word ‘means’ but
`
`whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the
`
`art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.” Williamson v.
`
`Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As the Board held in
`
`IPR2014-01170, “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. 1005 at 7) Accordingly, Claim 24 should be interpreted as a means-
`
`plus-function claim for the same reasons the Board previously elected to “interpret
`
`Claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.” (Ex. 1005 at 7)
`
`Petitioners submit the claim chart below identifies disclosure that could be
`
`relied upon as structure for performing such functions. (Ex. 1006, ¶ 42)
`
`Claim 11(a): “means for allocating a tier of service for each of a plurality of
`individual packet data queues, wherein the means for allocating allocates different
`weights to each tier of service based on a number of users requiring access to the
`available communication resource”
`Claim 24(a): “logic for allocating a tier of service for each of a plurality of
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01872
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`individual packet data queues, wherein the means for allocating allocates different
`weights to each tier of service based on a number of users requiring access to the
`available communication resource”
`Function: Allocate a tier or level of service for each of the individual packet data
`queues, wherein the means for allocating allocates different weights to each tier of
`service based on a number of users requiring access to the available
`communication resource.
`Algorithm/Structure: “It is envisaged that the various packet data
`queuing/ordering components within the RNC 236-240 are realised in this
`embodiment in integrated component form.” (Ex. 1001, 8:20-22)
`“[T]he queuing algorithm function is implemented preferably in a digital signal
`processor. However, it is within the contemplation of the invention that the
`queuing algorithm function described in the above embodiments can be embodied
`in any suitable form of software, firmware or hardware. The queuing algorithm
`function may be controlled by processor-implementable instructions and/or data,
`for carrying out the methods and processes described, which are stored in a
`storage medium or memory.” (Ex. 1001, 8:26-34; see also (Ex. 1001, 8:35-43))
`“The packet data queuing algorithm in the RNC processor 248 [firmware and/or
`software] is based around the concept of employing different tiers of service. In
`particular, each tier, of a number of tiers of service, is configured to provide users
`with a commitment that a proportion of the entire system bandwidth will be
`allocated to users operating on that particular tier. As a simple example, if we
`assume two-tiers of service with a single user in each tier, we might allocate 75%
`of the entire system resource to the user of the higher tier and 25% of the entire
`resource to the user of the lower tier.” (Ex. 1001, 6:46-55)
`“Furthermore, in the preferred embodiment of the invention, in order to control
`the relative proportions of system bandwidth allocated to each tier, different
`weights are allocated for each tier. Hence, the ith tier may be defined with a tier
`weight Stier —
`i.” (Ex. 1001, 6:59-63)
`Claim 11(b): “means for determining a total number of data packets that can use
`an available communication resource”
`Claim 24(b): “logic for determining a total number of data packets that can use
`an available communication resource”
`Function: Determine a total number of data packets that can use an available
`communication resource.
`Algorithm/Structure: “[W]e assume that allocation of resources by the RNC
`236 can only be made at certain time interval or rounds (also possibly referred to
`as frames), as occurs in known packet data systems. Hence, for example, users
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01872
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`compete for a 10 Mbps link, the users transmit data packets of length 1 kbit and
`that the round period is 10 msec. Therefore, in each round 100 packets are
`allocated.” (Ex. 1001, 6:29-35)
`“The total number of data packets that can be allocated in a single round, β310,
`can then be determined.” (Ex. 1001, 7:33-46; see also 8: 26-34)
`Claim 11(c): “means, operably coupled to the aforementioned means, for
`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”
`Claim 24(c): “logic, operably coupled to the aforementioned means, for
`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”
`Function: Allocate a proportion of the 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.
`Algorithm/Structure: “In the ith tier, let us assume that Ntier —
`i users are
`determined as wishing to transmit data packets. Thus, the proportion of the entire
`system resource, allocated to the 1th tier, (within a system employing a total of L
`tiers), can be defined by the following function 325:”
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001, 7:33-44)
`“Assuming that there are L tiers we define the number of packets allocated to each
`tier; θ1 . . . θL. Thus, θi packets 345 can be allocated to the ith tier, where: θi=φtier —
` *β
`
`[3]
`Within each tier, packets are then allocated in a round-robin fashion in the
`following manner. γ packets are allocated to the user whose ID is at the
`head 375 of the tier queue. γ is selected offline as a value that defines the number
`of packets that can be allocated to a user when at the head of the tier queue.
`Alternatively, it can be determined from an algorithm that attempts to counteract
`the fact that user throughputs vary dependent on radio-channel conditions.” (Ex.
`1001, 7:46-59)
`“The processor-implementable instructions and/or data may include . . . [n]ew
`values of Stier — i for allocating respective proportions of the available
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01872
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`communication resource to an individual tier.” (Ex. 1001, 8:35-43)
`“The packet data queuing algorithm in the RNC processor 248 [firmware and/or
`software] is based around the concept of employing different tiers of service. In
`particular, each tier, of a number of tiers of service, is configured to provide users
`with a commitment that a proportion of the entire system bandwidth will be
`allocated to users operating on that particular tier. As a simple example, if we
`assume two-tiers of service with a single user in each tier, we might allocate 75%
`of the entire system resource to the user of the higher tier and 25% of the entire
`resource to the user of the lower tier.” (Ex. 1001, 6:46-55; see also 8:26-35)
`Claim 11(d): “scheduling means to provide said communication resource to
`queued packet data users on a tier-by-tier basis, such that said resource is made
`available to all tiers”
`Claim 24(d): “scheduling logic for providing said communication resource to
`queued packet data users on a tier-by-tier basis, such that said resource is made
`available to all tiers”
`Function: Provide a communication resource to queued packet data users on a
`tier-by-tier basis such that the resource is made available to all tiers.
`Algorithm/Structure: “[O]ne or more processing elements 248 contained with
`one or more RNCs 236-240 have been adapted, to facilitate packet data queuing
`and scheduling.” (Ex. 1001, 6:14-17; see also 6:46-55)
`“It will be understood that the tier based weighted fair queuing algorithm . . . is
`more flexible to changes in the overall number of users served changes (each tier
`is provided with a constant share of the overall bandwidth irrespective of the
`number of users in that tier).” (Ex. 1001, 8:67 – 9:2; see also 8:26-35)
`Claim 12: “means for allocating a proportion of a total number of data packets
`provides a commitment that a proportion of an entire communication system
`bandwidth is allocated to users operating on a particular tier”
`Function: Provides a commitment that a proportion of an entire communication
`system bandwidth is allocated to users operating on a particular tier.
`Algorithm/Structure: “The packet data queuing algorithm in the RNC processor
`248 [firmware and/or software] is based around the concept of employing
`different tiers of service. In particular, each tier, of a number of tiers of service, is
`configured to provide users with a commitment that a proportion of the entire
`system bandwidth will be allocated to users operating on that particular tier.” (Ex.
`1001, 6:46-51)
`Claim 13: “means for allocating different weights to each tier of service is
`operable for providing a differential level of service in the allocation of said
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01872
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`communication resource between said tiers”
`Function: Provide a differential level of service in the allocation of said
`communication resource between said tiers.
`Algorithm/Structure: See supra Claim 11(a); see also Ex. 1001, 3:6-9 (“It is
`possible to extend the scheme by defining parameters φ1 . . . φN (weights) that set
`the number of bits allocated to each user per round. This extension allows
`differential service rates to be provided to different users.”).
`Claim 14: “means for