throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 40
`Entered: May 9, 2019
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`HYTERA COMMUNICATIONS CORP. LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
`PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`In response to a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) filed by Hytera
`
`Communications Corp. Ltd. (“Petitioner”), we instituted an inter partes
`review of claims 1, 6, 7, 11–13, 15, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 6,591,111 B1
`(“the ’111 patent”). Paper 7 (“Dec.”). During the trial, Motorola Solutions,
`Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Response (Paper 18, “PO Resp.”) to which
`Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 29, “Reply”) and Patent Owner filed an
`authorized Sur-Reply (Paper 35, “Sur-Reply”). Petitioner filed a Motion to
`Exclude evidence filed by Patent Owner, which Patent Owner opposed, and
`to which Petitioner replied. Papers 33, 36, 38. An oral hearing was held
`with the parties, and a copy of the transcript was entered into the record.
`Paper 39 (“Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Decision is a Final
`Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of the
`claims on which we instituted trial. Based on the record before us, Petitioner
`has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 6, 7, and 12 of
`the ’111 patent are unpatentable, but Petitioner has not shown that claims 11,
`13, 15, and 16 are unpatentable.
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`A. The ’111 Patent
`1. Overview
`The ’111 patent “relates to a group radio communication system
`which implements point-to-multipoint communications.” Ex. 1001, 1:6–8.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`“Point-to-multipoint (PTM) refers to a communication circuit in which a
`single signal goes from originating group member to many destination or
`target group members,” with PTM communications sometimes being
`referred to in the ’111 patent as “monologs.” Id. at 1:15–17, 1:28–32. In
`particular, the patent addresses the implementation of point-to-multipoint
`communications between independent radio sub-networks, which “are
`coupled together through a group controller to form an overall network for
`point-to-multipoint communications.” Id. at 1:8–12. For example,
`subscribers in one radio sub-network (such as a city police department) may
`need to communicate with subscribers in a different radio sub-network (such
`as a federal agency). Id. at 1:54–63. The patent identifies two principal
`challenges in doing so: inefficient use of existing communication
`infrastructures and incompatibilities between the independent radio sub-
`networks. Id. at 1:42–63.
`Figure 1 of the ’111 patent is reproduced below.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a layout of group radio communication system 20, which
`includes data communication network 22 coupled to group controller 24 and
`a number of radio sub-networks 26. Id. at 2:31–35. Data communication
`network 22 is a packet switched network, i.e. it “merely includes addressing
`information in data packets and sends the addressed data packets . . . for
`delivery to their intended destinations on a packet-by-packet basis.” Id. at
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`3:42–50. Each radio sub-network 26 includes radio sub-network controller
`30, base station 32, and subscriber radios 34. Id. at 2:36–38. Within each
`sub-network 26, radio sub-network controller 30 coordinates among call
`requests from the subscribers within the sub-network. Id. at 2:36–49. Each
`sub-network 26 also includes converter 28, which translates between
`protocols used in network 22 and the data communication protocol used by
`group controller 24. Id. at 2:36–38, 4:34–35.
`The ’111 patent discloses that group controller 24 “may be
`implemented using conventional computer technology . . . , including, for
`example, a processor unit, a memory unit, a hard drive unit, I/O units such as
`video display, keyboard, mouse, and the like, and an interface to gateway
`50.” Id. at 3:65–4:3. Figure 8 is reproduced below.
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`
`
`Figure 8 provides a flow chart of a group control process performed by
`group controller 24 “to manage a common point-to-multipoint
`communication session involving point-to-multipoint communication
`sessions in more than one radio sub-network 26.” Id. at 9:28–33. Group
`control process 152 “is carried out in response to computer software stored
`in a memory portion . . . of group controller 24 and executed by a processor
`portion . . . of group controller 24.” Id. at 9:33–36. Task 154 filters packets
`received from data communication network 22 such that group control
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`process 152 is performed for a specified group of subscriber radios 34,
`which may be located in a variety of sub-networks 26. Id. at 9:39–44.
`The remaining steps shown in Figure 8 manage a communication
`session by identifying whether a packet containing monolog traffic is
`received at step 156, and duplicating and distributing the packets to all non-
`originating radio subnetworks 26 for the group. Id. at 9:47–10:3. “Tokens”
`are “intangible construct[s] used to manage a PTM communication session,”
`such as by representing “the permission to be the origination point for a
`point-to-multipoint monolog.” Id. at 6:39–42. When token grants are
`received at step 160, conflicts are resolved at step 162, such as with “a
`prioritization scheme which prioritizes by subscriber radio ID, radio sub-
`network ID, or the like.” Id. at 10:4–17. When token releases are received
`at step 166, the release message is duplicated and distributed to all non-
`originating radio sub-networks at step 168. Id. at 10:36–50.
`
`
`2. Illustrative Claims
`Independent claims 1 and 13 are illustrative of the claims at issue, and
`are reproduced below.
`1. A group radio communication system comprising:
`a first radio sub-network configured to implement point-
`to-multipoint communication sessions within said first radio sub-
`network;
`a second radio sub-network configured to implement
`point-to-multipoint communication sessions within said second
`radio sub-network; and
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`
`a group controller in data communication with said first
`radio sub-network and said second radio sub-network, said group
`controller being configured to manage a common point-to-
`multipoint communication session involving said first radio sub-
`network and said second radio sub-network;
`a packet switched data communication network coupled
`between said first radio sub-network and said group controller
`and between said second radio sub-network and said group
`controller;
`a radio sub-network controller associated with each of said
`first and second radio sub-networks and a plurality of subscriber
`radios in communication with said radio sub-network controller,
`and
`
`each of said radio sub-network controllers is configured to
`resolve conflicts between substantially concurrent requests from
`said plurality of subscriber radios in communication with said
`radio sub-network controller to be origination points for a point-
`to-multipoint monolog and
`to provide subscriber
`traffic
`distribution
`to said plurality of subscriber
`radios
`in
`communication with said radio sub-network controller.
`
`Ex. 1001, 11:21–50.
`13. A method of implementing a common point-to-multipoint
`communication session involving first and second radio sub-
`networks, said method comprising:
`coupling said first radio sub-network to a packet switched
`communication network;
`coupling said second radio sub-network to said packet
`switched communication network;
`coupling a group controller to said data communication
`network;
`routing a point-to-multipoint monolog from said first radio
`sub-network through said group controller to said second radio
`sub-network;
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`
`converting said point-to-multipoint monolog into packets
`for distribution
`through
`said packet
`switched data
`communication network and said group controller;
`receiving said point-to-multipoint monolog at a first
`converter configured to communicate in said first radio sub-
`network using a communication protocol established for said
`first radio sub-network; and
`transmitting said point-to-multipoint monolog as packets
`over said packet switched data communication network using a
`protocol
`established
`for
`said packet
`switched data
`communication network.
`
`Ex. 1001, 13:1–24.
`
`
`Ex. 1003
`Ex. 1004
`Ex. 1005
`Ex. 1006
`Ex. 1007
`
`B. Evidence
`Petitioner relies on the following references.
`Maggenti
`US 6,301,263 B1
`Oct. 9, 2001
`Shepherd
`US 5,398,248
`Mar. 14, 1995
`Grube
`US 5,987,331
`Nov. 16, 1999
`Stubbs
`WO 99/63773
`Dec. 9, 1999
`Kent
`US 5,659,881
`Aug. 19, 1997
`
`Petitioner also provides Declarations by Michael Davies. Exs. 1002, 1018.
`Mr. Davies was cross-examined by Patent Owner, and a transcript of his
`deposition was entered into the record. Ex. 2004. Patent Owner provides a
`Declaration by Kevin C. Almeroth, Ph.D. Ex. 2003. Dr. Almeroth was
`cross-examined by Petitioner, and a transcript of his deposition was also
`entered into the record. Ex. 1017.
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`
`C. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 6, 7, 11–13, 15, and 16 as unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the following combinations of references:
`(1) Maggenti and Shepherd; (2) Grube and Shepherd; and (3) Stubbs and
`Kent. Pet. 3.
`
`
`D. Real Parties in Interest
`In addition to itself, Petitioner identifies Hytera America, Inc., and
`Hytera Communications America (West), Inc., as real parties in interest.
`Pet. 74. Patent Owner identifies only itself as a real party in interest. Paper
`4, 1.
`
`
`
`E. Related Proceedings
`Both parties identify In the Matter of Certain Two-Way Radio
`Equipment and Systems, Related Software and Components Thereof, 337-
`TA-1053 (ITC), and Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Hytera Communications
`Corp. Ltd., No. 1:17-cv-01972 (N.D. Ill.), as related proceedings in which
`the ’111 patent has been asserted. Pet. 74; Paper 4, 1.
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Legal Principles
`A claim is unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if
`the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`“such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time
`the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
`said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
`406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of
`underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of
`the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
`prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective
`indicia of non-obviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. Graham v. John
`Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`Additionally, the obviousness inquiry typically requires an analysis of
`“whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in
`the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In
`re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring “articulated
`reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
`obviousness”)); see In re Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., 832 F.3d 1327, 1333
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG
`v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
`To prevail on its challenges, Petitioner must demonstrate by a
`preponderance of the evidence that the claims are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C.
`§ 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). “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
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`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. National Graphics,
`Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v.
`Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the
`burden of proof in inter partes review). Furthermore, Petitioner does not
`satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory
`statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016).
`
`
`B. Level of Skill in the Art
`Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would
`have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer
`engineering, or computer science, or a related field, along with at least two
`to three years of experience in telecommunications and networking, or an
`equivalent degree and/or experience.” Pet. 13. According to Petitioner,
`“[a]dditional education might compensate for a deficiency in experience,
`and vice-versa.” Id.
`Patent Owner does not advocate for a particular level of skill in the art
`in its Response, but Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Almeroth, sets forth a
`proposed level of skill that is similar to that advocated by Petitioner. Ex.
`2003 ¶ 32. In light of that similarity, we see no compelling basis to deviate
`from Petitioner’s proposal and adopt it for this Decision.
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`
`C. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review proceeding based on a petition filed prior to
`November 13, 2018, 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) (2017); Cuozzo
`Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the
`use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard). Under the broadest
`reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms generally are given their
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary
`skill in the art at the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An inventor may provide a meaning for a
`term that is different from its ordinary meaning by defining the term in the
`specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`In the Institution Decision, we addressed construction of two terms.
`In particular, we preliminarily construed the term “group controller,” which
`is recited in independent claims 1 and 13, as “a computational device that
`manages a point-to-multipoint communication session.” Dec. 11. Patent
`Owner expressly “agrees with the Board’s construction,” PO Resp. 8, and
`Petitioner does not dispute our preliminary construction. In addition, the
`Institution Decision noted our preliminary agreement with Patent Owner that
`“independent claim 1 requires that each radio sub-network includes a radio
`sub-network controller.” Dec. 12. Again, Patent Owner expressly “agrees
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`with this construction,” PO Resp. 8, and Petitioner does not dispute it.
`Because we see no compelling reason to alter these constructions in light of
`the record developed during the trial, we adopt them for this Decision.
`
`
`D. Obviousness over Stubbs and Kent
`1. Overview of Stubbs
`Stubbs describes a wireless network that uses general packet radio
`service (“GPRS”) to implement virtual push-to-talk functionality. Ex. 1006,
`abst. Figure 3 of Stubbs is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`Figure 3 is a schematic illustration of a public land mobile network
`(“PLMN”) that uses the global system for mobile communications (“GSM”).
`Id. at 9:4–5. The PLMN includes GPRS support nodes, including serving
`GPRS support nodes (“SGSNs”) 40 and gateway GPRS support node
`(“GGSN”) 44 that interfaces the PLMN with external packet data
`network 46. Id. at 9:5–12. “It contains routing information for active GPRS
`users in the PLMN, which is used to transmit data packets,” with GGSN 44
`providing a mapping function that allows mobile users to be identified in
`packet data network 46. Id. at 9:12–19. SGSNs 40, which are in
`communication with GGSN 44 and base station controllers (“BSCs”) 4,
`serve mobile stations 8 in their routing areas, with each SGSN establishing a
`mobility management context and a routing context with GGSN 44 used by
`mobile station 8 to access packet data network 46. Id. at 4:8–9, 10:5–11.
`Other PLMNs may similarly be supported by GGSN 56. Id. at 10:15–17.
`In addition, Figure 3 shows additional structure that includes packet
`handler 48, packet store 50, packet user database 52, and service
`management terminal 54. Id. at 11:17–20. These components are
`responsible for “setting up virtual connections between GPRS users in the
`PLMN,” “storing data packets which are intended for distribution to GPRS
`users within the PLMN,” and “hold[ing] call group records for identifying
`the members of a call group” and “identification records for each mobile
`subscriber in the PLMN.” Id. at 11:21–13:3.
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`
`2. Overview of Kent
`Kent describes “a distributed method of arbitrating talk group call
`contentions in a multisite system.” Ex. 1007, 1:7–12. Kent explains that
`“call contention in a multisite environment can occur when multiple callers
`at different sites attempt to transmit on a common talk group (Call Group) at
`nearly the same moment.” Id. at 11:6–9. Accordingly, Kent teaches
`resolution of talk group call contention “to avoid the potential performance
`bottleneck and ‘single point of failure’ mode that would arise from a
`conventional central arbitration scheme.” Id. at 11:9–14. Instead, Kent
`“utilizes a distributed approach to contention arbitration wherein each site
`interface autonomously checks for contention and resolves occurrences by
`determining which call should be given priority based upon a predetermined
`common arbitration scheme.” Id. at 11:14–19.
`
`
`3. Combination of Stubbs and Kent
`Petitioner argues that claims 1, 6, 7, 11–13, 15, and 16 would have
`been obvious over the combination of Stubbs and Kent, specifically by
`incorporating the decentralized arbitration taught by Kent into the system
`taught by Stubbs. Pet. 55–57. Petitioner reasons that one of skill in the art
`would combine the teachings in light of Kent’s explicit recognition that its
`decentralized arbitration would “avoid the potential performance bottleneck
`and ‘single point of failure’ mode that would arise from a conventional
`central arbitration scheme,” and Petitioner supports that reasoning with
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`testimony by Mr. Davies. Id. at 56–57; Ex. 1007, 11:9–14; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 84–
`85.
`
`
`
`a. Independent Claim 1
`i. Summary of Petitioner’s Argument
`Petitioner draws an express correspondence between the limitations of
`independent claim 1 and its proposed combination of Stubbs and Kent. Pet.
`57–67. In doing so, Petitioner observes that Stubbs discloses a mobile
`communications system with a radio interface and thereby discloses a group
`radio communication system, as recited in the preamble of claim 1. Id. at 57
`(citing Ex. 1006, abst., 5:1–4; Ex. 1002 ¶ 141). For the first and second
`recited “radio sub-network[s] configured to implement point-to-multipoint
`communication sessions within [the respective] radio sub-network[s],”
`Petitioner identifies Stubbs’s structure, shown in Figure 3 above, of a PLMN
`with GGSN 44. Pet. 57–58. Petitioner further reasons that the second radio
`sub-network is disclosed by Stubbs’s second GGSN 56. Id. at 59. These
`identifications are sufficient in light of Stubbs’s specific teaching that GGSN
`56 is part of another PLMN, such that one of skill in the art would
`reasonably have understood that the full sub-network structure shown for
`GGSN 44 is reproduced for GGSN 56. Ex. 1006, 28:13–19.
`Petitioner’s argument is also sufficient that “a radio sub-network
`controller [is] associated with each of said first and second radio sub-
`networks and a plurality of subscriber radios in communication with said
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`radio sub-network controller.” Pet. 64. For this limitation, Petitioner
`identifies the BSC as performing the functions of the radio sub-network
`controller because it is responsible for encapsulating data prior to
`transmission outside a radio sub-network. Id. (citing Ex. 2006, 15:15–19).
`With respect to the requirement that each radio sub-network controller
`be configured to resolve conflicts, Petitioner relies on the combination of
`Stubbs and Kent, pointing to similarities in their disclosures, particularly
`between a mobile switching center (“MSC”) described in Stubbs and a
`multi-site switch described in Kent. Id. at 64–65. Stubbs’s MSC is
`described as provided with a link by the BSCs and as “provid[ing]
`conventional circuit switching with a public services telephone network
`(PSTN), and a Metro Packet Switch (MPS) which provides switching for the
`dispatch services.” Ex. 1006, 3:11–15. Petitioner reasons that one of
`ordinary skill in the art would accordingly apply Kent’s distributed
`arbitration as effected with its multi-site switch to the teachings of Stubbs.
`Pet. 64–67.
`With respect to the “group controller,” Petitioner identifies multiple
`components, including management terminal 54, PUD 52, and packet
`handler 48. Id. at 60 (“Stubbs discloses a management terminal 54 acting as
`a group controller”; “Stubbs also discloses a management terminal 54 and
`PUD 52. . . . Together, these elements define a group controller”), 61
`(“Packet handler 48 can also be a part of the group controller”), 62 (version
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`of Stubbs Fig. 3 with highlighting by Petitioner). In doing so, Petitioner
`identifies the following explicit disclosure in Stubbs:
`In the above description, virtual connections between mobile
`stations operating in the same PLMN are controlled by the packet
`handler. As illustrated in Figure 3, a GGSN 56 of another PLMN
`is also accessible, via the packet data network 46 from the packet
`handler. Therefore, the packet handler may also be used to set
`up virtual connections between mobile stations operating within
`the PLMN illustrated, and mobile stations operating in other
`PLMNs which include a GPRS infrastructure. In addition, the
`packet handler 48 is also able to control virtual connections
`between a mobile station operating the PLMN illustrated and
`fixed terminals, such as the fixed terminal 58 illustrated in Figure
`3, connected to the packet data network 46.
`
`Ex. 1006, 28:13–22 (emphasis added); Pet. 60. In addition, Petitioner
`identifies IP network 46 shown in Figure 3 above, which is coupled to
`management terminal 54 via intermediate elements, as corresponding to the
`recited “packet switched data communication network.” Id. at 63.
`Patent Owner disputes a number of aspects of how Petitioner draws
`these correspondences between the claim and the combination of Stubbs and
`Kent. We address these arguments below.
`
`
`ii. Conflict Resolution
`Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner has failed to show that
`Stub[b]s, alone or in combination with Kent, teaches or suggests the claimed
`radio sub-network controllers that claim 1 requires be configured ‘to resolve
`conflicts between substantially concurrent requests from said plurality of
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`subscriber radios in communication with said radio sub-network
`controller to be origination points for a point-to-multipoint monolog.’” PO
`Resp. 14 (quoting Ex. 1001, 11:43–48). Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`summarizes its argument as follows: “Stubbs in combination with Kent fails
`to disclose this element because integrating the conflict resolution scheme of
`Kent into Stubbs would resolve conflicts for a network as a whole rather
`than within each of the radio sub-networks.” Sur-Reply 3–4. But this does
`not address Petitioner’s more limited argument, which is that “the
`combination of Stubbs/Kent teaches conflict resolution in each ‘radio sub-
`network’ by associated ‘radio sub-network controllers.’” Reply 6. Indeed,
`we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner “largely focuses on rebutting
`arguments not included in the asserted combination.” Id. at 7.
`Central to Patent Owner’s argument is its characterization that a
`“hierarchical scheme [is] disclosed and claimed by the ’111 patent.” PO
`Resp. 19 (citation omitted). In addressing independent claim 1, Patent
`Owner motivates this characterization by focusing on the claim’s
`requirement that “‘each of said radio sub-network controllers is configured
`to resolve conflicts between substantially concurrent requests from said
`plurality of subscriber radios in communication with said radio sub-
`network controller,’ and further that each radio sub-network controller must
`‘provide subscriber traffic distribution to said plurality of subscriber radios
`in communication with said radio sub-network controller.’” Id. (quoting
`Ex. 1001, 11:44–51) (emphases by Patent Owner)). According to Patent
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`Owner, Figure 1 of the ’111 patent illustrates a “hierarchical arbitration
`topology” in which “radio sub-network controller 30 . . . must resolve
`conflicts and provide subscriber traffic distribution to the subscriber radios
`34 and 35 within its radio sub-network.” Id. at 18–19; see id. at 40. “The
`radio sub-network controller does not resolve conflicts between devices in
`other sub-networks.” Id. But such a negative limitation, i.e. precluding the
`resolution of conflicts in other sub-networks with the same scheme, is not
`recited in the claim, and Patent Owner’s argument improperly seeks to
`narrow the claim by importing such a limitation from an embodiment
`disclosed in the specification. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367
`F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“We have cautioned against reading
`limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in the
`specification, even if it is the only embodiment described, absent clear
`disclaimer in the specification.”).
`In assessing the propriety of importing a requirement of a
`“hierarchical arbitration topology” under the specific factual circumstances
`at issue here, the testimony of the respective experts is instructive. Although
`Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Almeroth, provides direct testimony that
`supports Patent Owner’s position that the claim requires “hierarchical
`conflict resolution” that involves “the simultaneous use of both a group
`controller and a radio sub-network controller to implement call management
`and conflict resolution,” Ex. 2003 ¶ 118, Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Davies,
`expressly disagrees. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 59, 77, 118; Ex. 1018 ¶ 10. As Mr.
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`Davies observes, “[t]he term ‘hierarchical arbitration topology’ appears
`nowhere in the ‘111 patent specification or claims,” and Mr. Davies also
`states that the “group controller” recited in claim 1 “is not required to
`perform arbitration or resolve conflicts.” Ex. 1018 ¶ 10. This leads Mr.
`Davies to conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would not read
`the ‘111 patent to require the ‘hierarchical arbitration topology’ as described
`by Patent Owner and Dr. Almeroth.” Id. Thus, in considering the teachings
`of Kent, Mr. Davies opines that “whether Kent teaches a ‘hierarchical
`arbitration topology’ is irrelevant because the claims of the ‘111 patent do
`not require it, and the ‘111 patent neither uses that phrase nor explains its
`meaning.” Id. ¶ 11.
`Petitioner explored the bases for Dr. Almeroth’s contrary opinion on
`cross-examination. Acknowledging that the phrase “hierarchical arbitration
`topology” does not appear in the ’111 patent, Dr. Almeroth explained that he
`was “using it as a general characterization of what the invention is.” Ex.
`1017, 19:6–13, 142:8–13. In addition, Dr. Almeroth appeared to agree that
`the phrase does not require two levels of conflict resolution, but instead
`“requires two levels of where you are doing conflict resolution and
`management.” Id. at 138:8–15 (“I don’t know that there needs to be a
`separate level of conflict resolution distinct from the first level as opposed to
`managing the communication and facilitating that communication at the
`group controller level.”). More specifically, Dr. Almeroth conceded that the
`claim does not require the recited “group controller” to resolve conflicts. Id.
`
`22
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`at 136:6–11 (“I don’t think that that is a specific requirement of the group
`controller. It’s something that could be within scope of managing that
`session, though.”).
`Weighing the testimony of the two experts, we find that Mr. Davies
`articulates the more compelling position, particularly in light of claim
`language that does not expressly require multiple levels of arbitration. It is
`thus irrelevant, as Mr. Davies suggests, that “Kent does not disclose or
`contemplate systems where individual sites or portions of the network
`operate on a different scheme.” See PO Resp. 21. Rather, we determine that
`Petitioner makes a sufficient showing with respect to the conflict-resolution
`element of claim 1 in its articulation of the combination of Stubbs and Kent.
`That is, Petitioner provides sufficient evidence that one of skill in the art
`would apply Kent’s distributed arbitration as effected with its multi-site
`switch to the teachings of Stubbs. As Petitioner asserts, a person of ordinary
`skill in the art “would appreciate that the combination of Stubbs and Kent
`results in the required conflict resolution in each radio sub-network.” Reply
`7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 163; Ex. 1018 ¶ 12). In addition, as Petitioner asserts,
`“the combination of Stubbs and Kent, informed by the similarities between
`Kent’s Multi-Site Switch and Stubbs’ MSC linked to the BSC, teaches
`
`23
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`‘radio sub-network controllers’ configured to resolve conflicts.” Id. (citing
`Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 157–163; Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 12–13).1
`
`
`iii. Packet Switched Data Communication Network
`Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s combination of Stubbs and
`Kent does not meet claim 1’s requirement that the group radio
`communication system comprise “a packet switched data communication
`network coupled between said first radio sub-network and said group
`controller and between said second radio sub-network and said group
`controller.” PO Resp. 33–35. Patent Owner appears to argue that Stubbs
`fails to disclose the reciting “coupl[ing]” between the radio sub-networks
`and the group controller because “the GPRS data network in Stubbs is a
`packet-switched data network.” Id. at 34. In doing so, Patent Owner
`
`
`1 Based on a statement made by Mr. Davies during his deposition, Patent
`Owner argues that Petitioner relies on a “new inherency argument—which
`should be understood as a clear admission that Stubbs does not disclose the
`functionality required by the claims.” PO Resp. 15. During cross-
`examination, referring to the BSC of Stubbs, Mr. Davies testified that
`conflict resolution is “inherent in what a BSC does.” Ex. 2004, 98:10–99:3.
`It is not apparent that Mr. Davies intended to use the word “inherent” in its
`legal sense, and Petitioner’s argument “does not rely solely on Stubbs’
`BSC—even inherently—to teach the conflict resolution.” Reply 8. Rather,
`as discussed above, Petitioner relies on the combination of Stubbs and Kent
`to reach the conflict resolution recited in the claim. Petitioner confirmed this
`un

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket