Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 21
`Entered: September 25, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`GENERAL ACCESS SOLUTIONS, LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-01178
`Patent 9,225,555 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before KEN B. BARRETT, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
`CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`Opinion for the Board filed by ZADO, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`Opinion Dissenting filed by STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ZADO, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 21
`Entered: September 25, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`GENERAL ACCESS SOLUTIONS, LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-01178
`Patent 9,225,555 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before KEN B. BARRETT, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
`CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`Opinion for the Board filed by ZADO, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`Opinion Dissenting filed by STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ZADO, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01178
`Patent 9,225,555 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Background and Summary
`A.
`Unified Patents, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a request for inter partes
`review of claims 1–20 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`9,225,555 B2 (“the ’555 patent,” Ex. 1001). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). General
`Access Solutions, Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response.
`Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We instituted an inter partes review of all
`challenged claims on all asserted grounds, specifically patentability under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) of (1) claims 1–20 as obvious over Hohnstein1 and Phillips,2
`and (2) claims 1–20 as obvious over Hohnstein and Agrawal.3 Paper 7
`(“Inst. Dec.”).
`Subsequent to institution, Patent Owner filed a Response. Paper 12
`(“PO Resp.”). Petitioner filed a Reply. Paper 13 (“Reply”). Oral hearing
`was held on June 14, 2018. Paper 20 (“Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). Having reviewed the
`arguments of the parties and the supporting evidence, we find that Petitioner
`has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that each of the
`challenged claims is unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d).
`
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 6,816,706 B1 (issued Nov. 9, 2004). (Ex. 1002).
`2 John A. Phillips & Gerard Mac Namee, Personal Wireless Communication
`With DECT and PWT (1998). (Ex. 1003).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 5,722,051 (issued Feb. 24, 1998). (Ex. 1005).
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01178
`Patent 9,225,555 B2
`
`
`Related Matters
`B.
`The parties assert the ’555 patent is involved in the following
`proceedings: General Access Solutions, Ltd. v. Pantech Co., Ltd. et al.,
`Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-01348-RWS (E.D. Tex.); General Access
`Solutions, Ltd. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-
`01349-RWS (E.D. Tex.); General Access Solutions, Ltd. v. Novatel
`Wireless, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-01350-RWS (E.D. Tex.); General
`Access Solutions, Ltd. v. Xiaomi, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-01351-RWS
`(E.D. Tex.). Pet. 1–2; Paper 5, 2.
`
`The ’555 Patent
`C.
`The ’555 patent was filed on August 6, 2012. Ex. 1001, [21]. The
`’555 patent claims priority, through a series of continuations, to an
`application filed on April 20, 2001 (hereinafter, “critical date”), the earliest
`possible filing date to which the ’555 patent can claim priority. Id. at [63].
`The parties do not dispute this is the priority date for the ’555 patent.
` The ’555 patent describes wireless communication systems that
`include a wireless communication device in communication both with a base
`station and mobile stations. Ex. 1001, 5:29–32. Figure 2 is reproduced
`below.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01178
`Patent 9,225,555 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 2 “illustrates a functional block diagram of a fixed wireless access
`(FWA) communication system.” Ex. 1001, 6:25–26. Communication
`system 210 provides for radio communications between a fixed-site base
`station, of which base station 212 is exemplary, and fixed site subscriber
`stations, of which subscriber station 214 is exemplary. Id. at 7:33–37.
`Located at subscriber station 214 is integrated access device (“IAD”) 224
`which forms a transceiver that transmits signals to and receives signals from
`base station 212. Id. at 7:42–49. Base station 212 is coupled to access
`process 228, which is coupled to communication network 232—a network
`such as a public switched telephone network or packet data network. Id. at
`7:56–62. Coupled to communication network 232 is correspondent
`node 234. Id. at 7:62–63. Accordingly, a communication path may be
`formed between IAD 224 and correspondent node 234. Id. at 63–67.
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01178
`Patent 9,225,555 B2
`
` Also located at subscriber station 214 is wireless local area network
`(“WLAN”) transceiver 238 connected to the circuitry of IAD 224. Id. at
`8:5–8. “The WLAN transceiver defines a coverage area 242 defining a
`cell.” Id. at 8:8–9. Mobile station 244 positioned within cell 242 is capable
`of communicating with WLAN transceiver 238. Id. at 8:9–11. “Because of
`the connection of the WLAN transceiver to the transceiver of [IAD 224],
`signals originated at the mobile station . . . can . . . be provided to the
`transceiver of [IAD 224] . . . and, thereafter, be communicated to another
`device, such as the correspondent node 234.” Id. at 8:19–26. “Analogously,
`signals originated at . . . correspondent node [234], or elsewhere, can be
`communicated to the mobile station.” Id. at 8:26–28.
`Figure 5 is reproduced below.
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01178
`Patent 9,225,555 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 5 illustrates “a fixed wireless access communication system similar to
`that shown in Figure 2” but “also illustrating a plurality of cellular coverage
`areas defined by about a plurality of subscriber stations.” Id. at 6:34–38.
`Figure 5 shows “a plurality of subscriber stations 214 [that] include WLAN
`transceivers 238 (shown in Fig. 2) connected to corresponding [IADs 224].”
`Id. at 11:6–10. Each WLAN transceiver defines a coverage area 242. Id. at
`10–12. A mobile station initially positioned within a first coverage area 242
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01178
`Patent 9,225,555 B2
`
`defined by a first WLAN transceiver at a first subscriber station “is
`permitted movement, such as out of the coverage area defined by the [first
`WLAN] transceiver positioned at a first subscriber station and into the
`coverage area defined by a [second] WLAN transceiver of [a second]
`subscriber station.” Id. at 11:19–25. Upon this movement, “a handover of
`communications is effectuated from the first WLAN transceiver to [the
`second] WLAN transceiver” to “permit continued communications with the
`mobile station.” Id. at 11:25–29.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`D.
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 11 are independent, and
`claims 2–10 and 12–20 depend directly or indirectly from either claim 1 or
`claim 11. Claim 1, reproduced below (disputed limitation emphasized), is
`illustrative:
`1. A wireless communication device, comprising:
`a first transceiver in direct wireless communication with a
`terrestrial base station, wherein the terrestrial base station
`is in direct wireless communication with a plurality of
`wireless communication devices; and
`a second wireless local area network transceiver in direct
`wireless broadband communication with a plurality of
`computing devices located within a coverage area of the
`second transceiver, the second transceiver being coupled
`to the first transceiver wherein;
`the first transceiver receives a first signal from the base station,
`the first signal intended for a first computing device of
`the plurality of computing devices, the second wireless
`local area network transceiver determines signal
`characteristics of the first computing device, and the
`second transceiver transmits the first signal to the first
`computing device based on the determined signal
`characteristics of the first computing device; and
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01178
`Patent 9,225,555 B2
`
`the second transceiver receives a second signal from the first
`computing device, the second signal intended for the base
`station, and the first transceiver transmits the second
`signal to the base station.
`
`Ex. 1001, 12:52–13:7 (emphasis added).
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`Principles of Law
`A.
`“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the
`onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is
`unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review
`petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the
`grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden never shifts to
`Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800
`F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter
`partes review). To prevail, Petitioner must establish the facts supporting its
`challenge by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37
`C.F.R. § 42.1(d).
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if “the differences
`between the subject matter sought to be patented 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)
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01178
`Patent 9,225,555 B2
`
`the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness,
`i.e., secondary considerations. Anticipation is the epitome of
`obviousness. See Cohesive Techs., Inc. v. Waters Corp., 543 F.3d 1351,
`1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining it is commonly understood that prior art
`references that anticipate a claim will usually render that claim
`obvious); Mendenhall v. Cedarapids, Inc., 5 F.3d 1557, 1563 (Fed. Cir.
`1993) (holding that verdict of nonobviousness was not inconsistent with
`verdict of anticipation by prior public use, despite “legal homily” that
`anticipation is the epitome of obviousness).
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`B.
`“Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in
`the art (‘POSITA’) for this patent would have been a telecommunications
`engineer having the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree or equivalent
`knowledge obtained through work experience, including several years of
`experience in the design of telecommunications systems.” Prelim. Resp. 4;
`see Pet. 10; PO Resp. 9. We adopt the parties’ agreed-upon description of
`the level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Claim Construction
`C.
`The Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–45 (2016). Under this standard, absent any special
`definitions, claim terms carry their ordinary and customary meaning, as
`would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the
`entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01178
`Patent 9,225,555 B2
`
`Cir. 2007). Below we interpret the term “wireless local area network
`transceiver” (also referred to in the patent as “WLAN transceiver”
`(Ex. 1001, 8:5)). We determine no other terms require express construction.
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir.
`1999).
`
`Background
`1.
`The Petition proposes a construction for the term “wireless
`communication device.” Pet. 14–15. The Preliminary Response proposes
`constructions for the terms “terrestrial base station” and “wireless local area
`network transceiver.” Prelim. Resp. 16–20. In the Institution Decision, we
`preliminarily construed the term “terrestrial base station” as “a ground-based
`device that provides connectivity of devices (mobile or otherwise) to other
`communication networks, such as telephone or data networks.” Inst.
`Dec. 8–12. We did not expressly construe any other claim terms.
`The Patent Owner Response argues we should construe the term
`“wireless local area network transceiver,” as recited in claims 1 and 11, to
`mean “a transceiver that provides direct wireless connectivity between
`multiple computing devices within a limited geographic area.” PO Resp. 16.
`Petitioner replies that we should interpret the term to mean “a transceiver
`that forms part of a local network and facilitates communications with
`devices in the network.” Reply 5.
`
`“WLAN transceiver”
`2.
`Challenged independent claims 1 and 11 recite a wireless
`communication device/system comprising a “wireless local area network
`transceiver” (hereinafter also referred to as “WLAN transceiver”) (Ex. 1001,
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01178
`Patent 9,225,555 B2
`
`12:52, 12:57, 13:37, 14:8–9). The ’555 specification does not expressly
`define the term “WLAN transceiver.” Therefore, we accord this term its
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary
`skill in the art, in the context of the entire disclosure. Translogic, 504 F.3d
`at 1257.
`The ’555 patent describes transceivers as devices that both transmit
`and receive signals. Claims 1 and 11 recite that each of the first transceiver
`and second WLAN transceiver transmits and receives signals. Ex. 1001,
`12:62, 13:6–7, 14:5, 14:16–17 (reciting “the first transceiver receives a first
`signal” and “the first transceiver transmits the second signal” (emphasis
`added)); Ex. 1001, 12:67–13:1, 13:4, 14:10–11, 14:14 (reciting “the second
`transceiver transmits the first signal” and “the second transceiver receives a
`second signal” (emphasis added)). Similarly, the Summary of the ’555
`patent describes transceivers as devices that both transmit and receive
`signals. Id. at 5:32–45 (disclosing “[t]he first transceiver receives a first
`signal,” “the first transceiver transmits the second signal,” “the second
`transceiver transmits the first signal,” “the second transceiver receives a
`second signal” (emphasis added)).
`Therefore, consistent with its use in the patent, we determine a
`“transceiver” is a “device that can both transmit and receive signals.”
`We turn now to whether the term transceiver had a particular meaning
`in the context of a WLAN. The ’555 specification describes a WLAN
`transceiver as a transceiver that defines a WLAN coverage area. Ex. 1001,
`8:8–9 (“[t]he WLAN transceiver defines a coverage area 242 defining a
`cell.”). The specification also states:
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01178
`Patent 9,225,555 B2
`
`FIG. 5 illustrates another view of the communication
`system 210, here illustrating an implementation in which a
`plurality of subscriber stations 214 include WLAN
`transceivers 238 (shown in FIG. 2) connected to corresponding
`integrated access devices 224 (also shown in FIG. 2). The
`coverage areas 242 defined by respective ones of the WLAN
`transceivers are shown in the figure.
`Id. at 11:6–12. The specification explains that the WLAN transceiver is
`capable of communicating (transmitting and receiving radio signals over
`radio links) with mobile stations within the network defined by the
`transceiver. Id. at 8:9–13 (stating “[a] mobile station 244 positioned within
`the cell 242 is capable of communicating with transceiver 238. That is to
`say, the radio link 246 is formable between the [WLAN] transceiver 238 and
`the mobile station 244.”). This understanding of WLAN transceiver is
`consistent with the claim language. Claim 1 recites the WLAN transceiver
`is “in direct wireless broadband communication with a plurality of
`computing devices located within a coverage area of the second [WLAN]
`transceiver.” Ex. 1001, 12:57–60 (emphasis added). We determine,
`therefore, that a WLAN transceiver is a transceiver that defines the coverage
`area of the wireless local area network.
`The specification does not specify dimensions for the area covered by
`a WLAN transceiver, but indicates the area is relatively small. Ex. 1001,
`4:66–5:3 (describing the communication range of mobile stations in “micro-
`cellular networks, private networks, and WLANs” as “relatively small”).
`The specification’s description is consistent with dictionary definitions of
`the term “local area network” (“LAN”), which describe a LAN coverage
`area as being limited, relatively limited, and small, but which do not provide
`specific dimensions. PO Resp. 18 (citing Ex. 2008, 392 (“A computer
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01178
`Patent 9,225,555 B2
`
`network located on a user’s premises within a limited geographical area.”
`(emphasis added)); Ex. 2009, 276 (“A group of computers and other devices
`dispersed over a relatively limited area and connected by a communications
`link that enables any device to interact with any other on the network.”
`(emphasis added)); Ex. 2010, 331 (“A system in which personal computers
`and electronic office equipment are linked together (usually with a wiring-
`based cabling scheme) within a small area to form a network.” (emphasis
`added))). The specification also enumerates a non-limiting list of exemplary
`subscriber premises, of which WLAN coverage areas may be comprised,
`including “different types of residential and commercial buildings, including
`single family homes, multi-tenant offices, small business enterprises ‘SBE’,
`medium business enterprises (MBE), and so-called ‘SOHO’ (small
`office/home office) premises.” Ex. 1001, 6:58–63. The specification also
`discloses the WLAN coverage area may be a cell, e.g., a cellular coverage
`area, and uses the terms “coverage area” 242 and “cell” 242 interchangeably.
`Id. at 6:36, 8:8–13.
`The ’555 patent also indicates the signals transmitted and received by
`a WLAN transceiver are wireless. The claims recite a “wireless
`communication device[/system],” and recite that the WLAN transceiver is
`“in direct wireless broadband communication.” Ex. 1001, 12:52, 12:57–58,
`13:37, 13:49–14:1. The specification also discloses a WLAN transceiver
`being in radio, e.g., wireless, communication. Ex. 1001, 8:14–16.
`Therefore, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of
`the disclosure of the ’555 patent, we interpret the term “wireless local area
`network transceiver” as “a transceiver that transmits and receives wireless
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01178
`Patent 9,225,555 B2
`
`signals and defines a coverage area that is relatively small or geographically
`limited.” We further determine that the coverage area may be a “cell.”
`We disagree with the approach taken by Petitioner and Patent Owner,
`discussed below (infra §§ II.C.3–4), of relying on the definition of a network
`(i.e., LAN or WLAN), or of requiring a WLAN transceiver to form part of a
`WLAN. The claim term at issue does not itself require a wireless local area
`network, but rather recites a particular type of transceiver. Nothing in the
`specification or claims indicates the term WLAN transceiver should be
`construed to require any of the features set forth in the parties’ proposed
`constructions. That no WLAN is required is consistent with an ordinary use
`of the term “transceiver” in the context of networks provided in Webster’s
`New World Computer Dictionary, which defines “transceiver” in the context
`of two different networks—LANs and wireless wide area networks
`(“wireless WANs”). Webster’s New World Computer Dictionary 377 (10th
`ed. 2003) (Ex. 3001). In the context of LANs, the definition of transceiver is
`an adapter that enables a workstation to connect to network cabling. Id.
`(defining transceiver as “1. In local area networks (LANs), an adapter that
`enables a workstation to connect to the network cabling.”). In the wireless
`context, the definition specifies that sent and received communication
`signals are radio, i.e., wireless, signals. Id. (defining transceiver as “2. In
`wireless wide area networks (WANs), a modem that can send and receive
`data via radio frequencies. See PDA.”). Notably, although the transceiver
`may be employed in a network, the features of the network are not imported
`into the definition of the term transceiver.
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01178
`Patent 9,225,555 B2
`
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction
`3.
`Petitioner’s proposed construction, that a WLAN transceiver is “a
`transceiver that forms part of a local area network and facilitates
`communications with devices in the network,” is vague. Reply 5. Petitioner
`does not explain how a WLAN transceiver forms part of a LAN or what is
`meant by facilitates communications with devices in the network.
`Petitioner’s construction fails to identify the features a WLAN transceiver
`would need to have in order to form part of a WLAN and facilitate
`communications between devices within the WLAN. For reasons discussed
`above (supra § II.C.2), the features of a WLAN transceiver disclosed in the
`’555 patent include the ability to transmit and receive wireless signals and to
`define a WLAN coverage area. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 8:9–31.
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction
`4.
`As we discussed above, Patent Owner proposes that we construe
`WLAN transceiver as “a transceiver that provides direct wireless
`connectivity between multiple computing devices within a limited
`geographic area.”4 PO Resp. 16. Our interpretation of this term addresses
`
`
`4 We note that this construction adds narrowing limitations to, and is at odds
`with, Patent Owner’s proposed construction in the Preliminary Response.
`Patent Owner earlier construed WLAN transceiver as “a transceiver that
`sends and receives wireless signals in a limited coverage area, such as a
`home, school, university, hotel, office, residential or commercial building.”
`Prelim. Resp. 18. Like our construction, Patent Owner’s original
`construction acknowledged a WLAN transceiver is a transceiver that
`transmits and receives wireless signals, and, like our construction, it
`acknowledged the coverage area to be limited. Patent Owner did not attempt
`to narrow the construction of WLAN transceiver as it does now. Patent
`Owner’s currently proposed construction would require direct connectivity
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01178
`Patent 9,225,555 B2
`
`Patent Owner’s contention that a WLAN provides connectivity within a
`limited geographic area. Below we address Patent Owner’s proposal that a
`WLAN transceiver “provides direct wireless connectivity between multiple
`computing devices.”
`As an initial matter, the claim language does not support requiring
`direct wireless connectivity between multiple computing devices, i.e.,
`directly between two computing devices. The claims recite “direct wireless
`connectivity,” but not “between multiple computing devices” as proposed by
`Patent Owner. Rather, the claims recite the direct connectivity is between
`the WLAN transceiver and a plurality of computing devices. Ex. 12:57–60,
`13:48–14:1 (Claims 1 and 11 reciting the WLAN transceiver is “in direct
`wireless broadband communication with a plurality of computing devices.”).
`It is improper to write Patent Owner’s proposed language into the claims.
`Also, Patent Owner’s direct wireless connectivity requirement finds
`no support in the ’555 specification. We agree with Petitioner that not a
`single embodiment of the specification discloses, much less requires, a
`WLAN transceiver that provides direct wireless connectivity between
`multiple computing devices. Reply 3–5. The specification describes a
`single computing device within the WLAN in communication only with the
`WLAN transceiver, and does not disclose multiple computing devices in
`direct wireless communication with each other. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 8:4–14,
`Fig. 2, 11:6–38, Fig. 5; see also Reply 4–5. For example, with regard to
`Figure 2, mobile station 244, e.g., a computing device, does not
`
`
`between multiple devices. Patent Owner does not account for this
`significant change in course with its construction of WLAN transceiver.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01178
`Patent 9,225,555 B2
`
`communicate directly with any other computing device, either within or
`outside of the WLAN. Rather, signals to and from mobile station 244 are
`communicated indirectly to a device—correspondent node 234—outside the
`WLAN (i.e., coverage area 242 of WLAN transceiver 238) via WLAN
`transceiver 238, IAD 224, base station 212, access remote 228, and
`communication network 232. Ex. 1001, 8:11–40, Fig. 2 (showing signal
`path and showing correspondent node 234 is outside area 242 covered by
`WLAN transceiver 238). With regard to the embodiment illustrated in
`Figure 5, a single mobile station communicates with a WLAN transceiver
`within a first WLAN, and upon leaving the coverage area defined by the first
`WLAN transceiver, communicates with a second WLAN transceiver
`defining a second WLAN coverage area. Id. at 11:6–38, Fig. 5. There is no
`disclosure in the ’555 patent of direct wireless connectivity between multiple
`computing devices within the same network, much less of a WLAN
`transceiver providing such connectivity.
`Rather than rely on claim language and the specification to support
`the direct connectivity between devices requirement, Patent Owner relies on
`extrinsic evidence, including arguments regarding extrinsic definitions of the
`terms WLAN and LAN and arguments regarding a specific WLAN standard.
`For reasons discussed below, the record does not support Patent Owner’s
`contention that direct connectivity between multiple computing devices was
`an essential feature of WLANs or LANs. Furthermore, to the extent this
`non-essential feature is described in the art, a WLAN transceiver has not
`been shown to provide it. See, e.g., Reply 4 (“If there were direct wireless
`connectivity between the ’555 patent’s personal computers, then the wireless
`local area network transceiver would play no role in providing it.”).
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01178
`Patent 9,225,555 B2
`
`
`IEEE 802.11
`a.
`In support of its contention that a WLAN transceiver must provide
`direct wireless connectivity between multiple computing devices, Patent
`Owner relies on features of a specific wireless network standard,
`IEEE 802.11 (“802.11”), also known as Wi-Fi. PO Resp. 19–21. As a basis
`for incorporating selected features of 802.11 into the general definition of
`WLAN, Patent Owner essentially argues a skilled artisan would have
`understood WLAN to be limited to wireless networks compliant with
`802.11, to the exclusion of other WLAN networks that are based on other
`protocols or standards. Patent Owner asserts its declarant, Mr. Struhsaker,
`“establishes” that a skilled artisan in the relevant time frame would have
`understood that WLAN “meant a wireless network compliant with the IEEE
`802.11 Wi-Fi industry standard, the accepted industry standard for wireless
`computer networks by 2001.” PO Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 2007 ¶ 29 (stating
`802.11 was “the accepted industry standard for wireless local area networks”
`and a skilled artisan “would have understood that a [WLAN] meant a
`wireless network compliant with . . . 802.11”)). Mr. Struhsaker provides
`only a bare assertion, citing no supporting or corroborating evidence.
`Ex. 2007 ¶ 29. Contrary to his assertion, several competing WLAN
`standards were well known as of the critical date. For example, Mr.
`Struhsaker cites a 1997 reference titled “IEEE 802.11 Wireless Local Area
`Networks” (hereinafter “the 1997 IEEE article”) (Ex. 2015) (Ex. 2007 ¶ 49,
`citing Ex. 2015) that describes HIPERLAN as an alternative WLAN
`standard to 802.11:
`Currently, there are two emerging WLAN standards: the
`European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI)
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01178
`Patent 9,225,555 B2
`
`High-Performance European Radio LAN (HIPERLAN) and the
`802.11 WLAN.
`Ex. 2015, 117. Mr. Struhsaker nonetheless testifies that by 2001, 802.11
`was the accepted industry standard for wireless local area networks, but his
`testimony is contradicted by the evidence. Ex. 2007 ¶ 29. For example, Mr.
`Struhsaker cites a 2001 reference titled “Wireless communication: the next
`wave of Internet technology” (hereinafter “the 2001 Wireless article”)
`(Ex. 2012) (Ex. 2007 ¶ 38, citing Ex. 2012) that acknowledges not all
`WLANs conformed to 802.11 at the time:
`It is essential to adopt technology standards for wireless LANS.
`Unfortunately, most standards do not remain in place long
`because constantly evolving technology advances require yet
`another change. The standard chosen by a business use should
`be one that it can afford, and that is interoperable with
`technologies such as Internet Protocol (IP), Ethernet, Point-to-
`point Protocol (PPP), and Asynchronous Transfer Mode
`(ATM).
`Ex. 2012, 223 (emphasis added). Furthermore, the 2001 Wireless article
`indicates 802.11 had not yet been widely adopted. Id. at 225 (“As
`government regulations become more relaxed, the IEEE 802.11b standard
`shows promise of being widely adopted by the industry”). Therefore, we
`find a skilled artisan as of 2001 would not have understood WLAN to mean
`a network compliant with 802.11.
`In addition, the ’555 patent does not mention 802.11, much less limit
`the disclosure of WLAN to 802.11. Reply 9–11.
`For the foregoing reasons, it is improper to limit the understanding of
`the term WLAN to networks that comply with 802.11, or to read selected
`features of 802.11 into the definition of WLAN. See E-Pass Tech., Inc. v.
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01178
`Patent 9,225,555 B2
`
`3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (holding it was improper
`for a district court to rely on the ANSI industry standard to limit the
`dimensions of a recited “electronic multi-function card” where there was no
`basis in the ordinary meaning of the claim term or in the claim language to
`impose restrictions of the industry standard).
`The dissent finds, nonetheless, that use of the known term “wireless
`local area network” in the ’555 patent would have brought to the mind of
`one of skill in the art the 802.11 standard for wireless local area networks.
`Even if this were so, there is no basis to import features of 802.11 into the
`ordinary meaning of the term WLAN or into the claim language. Moreover,
`even if we were to import features of 802.11 into our construction, direct
`wireless connectivity between multiple devices was not an essential feature
`of 802.11, much less of a WLAN. E-Pass Tech., 343 F.3d at 1368. Patent
`Owner asserts “an essential, defining feature of a wireless local area network
`under the IEEE 802.11 Wi-Fi standard was that the devices on the network
`could directly communicate with one another ‘within the network.’” PO
`Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 45–47). Patent Owner states this feature of
`802.11 was recognized in the 1997 IEEE article. Id. (citing Ex. 2015, 117).
`We disagree that this feature is described as essential. The 1997 IEEE
`article describes one possible 802.11 network configuration—ad hoc—that
`facilitated direct connectivity between computing devices. Ex. 2015, 117
`(“An ad hoc network is a deliberate grouping of stations into a single BSS
`for the purposes of internetworked communications without the aid of an
`infrastructure network.”); see also Reply 17 (“Patent Owner also cites to an
`article titled ‘IEEE 802.11 Wireless Local Area Networks (EX2015) to
`support its construction, and relies on a type of communication called ‘ad-
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01178
`Patent 9,225,555 B2
`
`hoc.’”). The ability to create ad hoc networks is not described as an
`essential feature of a WLAN. On the contrary, the 1997 IEEE article
`describes an alternative to the ad hoc network configuration—called
`infrastructure—that did not involve direct wireless connectivity between
`multiple computing devices. Id. (explaining that infrastructure networks “in
`the context of 802.11 are established using [access points]” through which
`traffic is sent); see also Ex. 1020 ¶ 36 (“The [802.11] specifications of
`wireless LAN outlines two possible modes of operations: client/server and
`ad hoc mode WLAN. In the client/server WLAN—also often called as an
`infrastructure configuration—terminals communicate with base stations or
`access points (AP), which form the coverage area.” (emphasis added)). A
`network us
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
