Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`Paper 8
`Entered: November 13, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`ERICSSON INC. AND
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2018-01007
`Patent 7,412,517 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, MINN CHUNG, and AMBER L. HAGY,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`
`Paper 8
`Entered: November 13, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`ERICSSON INC. AND
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2018-01007
`Patent 7,412,517 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, MINN CHUNG, and AMBER L. HAGY,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01007
`Patent 7,412,517
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`A. Background
`Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (collectively
`“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 1, 2,
`4, 12, 13, and 15 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,412,517
`(Ex. 1001, “’517 Patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet”). Intellectual Ventures I LLC
`(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 5 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. An
`inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the
`information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any
`response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`For the reasons provided below, we determine, based on the record
`before us, there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in
`showing the unpatentability of all of the challenged claims. We institute on
`all grounds asserted in the Petition.
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`The parties represent that the ’517 Patent is at issue in
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00577-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.). Pet. 2; Paper 4, 2. The parties indicate Petitioner has filed
`petitions for IPR challenging other related patents held by Patent Owner,
`including IPR2018-00727 challenging Patent 6,626,629; IPR2018-01058
`challenging Patent 7,359,971; and IPR2018-00758, IPR2018-00782,
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01007
`Patent 7,412,517
`IPR2018-01121, IPR2018-01256, and IPR2018-01318 challenging Reissued
`Patent No. RE46,206. Pet. 2; Prelim. Resp. 2.
`
`C. The ’517 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’517 Patent discloses a packet-centric wireless point to multi-
`point telecommunications system including a wireless base station, a first
`data network, host workstations, and subscriber customer premise equipment
`(CPE) stations, and including resource allocation for shared bandwidth
`among subscriber CPE stations to optimize end-user Quality of Service
`(QoS). See Ex. 1001, 4:35–52, Fig. 2D.
`Figure 13 of the ’517 Patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 13 is a block diagram 1300 illustrating how a flow scheduler
`functions. See Ex. 1001, 6:26–27, 58:53–55.
`Block diagram 1300 includes: flow scheduler 604, 634 (which
`is a combination of downlink flow scheduler 604 and uplink flow
`scheduler 634), downlink transmission subframe 1202 (i.e., the
`next MAC downstream subframe), uplink transmission subframe
`1204 (i.e., the current MAC upstream subframe). . . . downstream
`reservation first-in-first-out queue 1322, class 1 downstream
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01007
`Patent 7,412,517
`queue 1302, class 2 downstream queue 1304, [] class 3
`downstream queue 1306. . . . current upstream subframe 1344
`(with the current upstream subframe 1204 about to be stored in
`it), previous upstream sub frames 1346, 1348, 1350, class 1
`upstream reservation request queue 1308, class 2 upstream
`reservation request queue 1310, and class 3 upstream reservation
`request queue 1312.
`Ex. 1001, 58:53–59:3. An IP-flow QoS class queueing processor (shown in
`Figs. 15A and 15B) queues the received data packets into class 1 packet
`flow queues 1324, 1326 and 1328, class 2 packet flow queues 1330, 1332,
`1334, and class 3 packet flow queues 1336, 1338, 1340, and 1342. See id. at
`59:4–9. Class 1, class 2, and class 3 packet flow queues are respectively
`assigned to class 1 downstream queue 1302, class 2 downstream queue
`1304, and class 3 downstream queue 1306 based on inputs from a
`hierarchical class-based priority processor, a virtual private network (VPN)
`directory enabled (DEN) data table and a service level agreement (SLA)
`priority data table (shown in Fig. 15B). See id. at 59:10–17; see also 49:55–
`64 (describing same with respect to Fig. 15B). Flow scheduler 604, 634
`schedules these downlink data packets onto downlink transmission subframe
`1202. See id. at 59:17–19.
`
`Reservation requests for future upstream slots arrive at wireless base
`station as part of the current upstream subframe 1204 received from a CPE
`subscriber station over the wireless medium. See id. at 59:31–34. Current
`upstream subframe 1204 can temporarily store reservation requests for
`analysis and scheduling of uplink packets (as shown in Fig. 8B). See id. at
`59:34–37. Previous upstream subframes 1346, 1348, 1350 include upstream
`reservation requests awaiting upstream frame slot allocations in future
`upstream sub frames 1204. See id. at 59:37–40. “Reservation request
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01007
`Patent 7,412,517
`blocks (RRBs) . . . include a request for a number of slots for a single IP
`flow identifier # and class of the flow.” Id. at 59:40–43. RRBs also include
`subslots that include a subscriber ID and IP-flow priority and type. See id. at
`56:48–53, Fig. 12K. Upstream reservation requests by IP flow and class are
`queued onto class 1, class 2, and class 3 upstream reservation request queues
`1308, 1310, 1312 by IP flow QoS class queueing processor (shown in Fig.
`16A and 16B). See id. at 59:43–49. “Flow scheduler 604 and 1566, and
`634, and 1666, uses these downstream reservations and upstream reservation
`requests to assign slots to data packets in the next downstream transmission
`subframe 1202 and upstream transmission sub frame 1204, respectively.”
`Id. at 59:49–53.
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Challenged claims 1 and 12 are independent, with claims 2 and 4, and
`13 and 15, dependent therefrom, respectively. Claim 1 is illustrative and
`reproduced below:
`1. A method for allocating a shared wireless bandwidth in a
`packet-centric wireless point to multi-point telecommunications
`system, the method comprising:
`analyzing contents of packets to be communicated over the
`shared wireless bandwidth in a downlink direction from a
`wireless base station to at least one customer premises
`equipment (CPE) station;
`to be
`for packets
`analyzing
`reservation
`requests
`communicated in the unlink1 direction from the at least
`one CPE station to the wireless base station, wherein each
`reservation request comprises a subscriber identifier and
`at least one other subscriber attribute, wherein the
`analyzing includes processing the subscriber identifier and
`
`
`1 The term “unlink” appears to be a typographical error.
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01007
`Patent 7,412,517
`the at least one other subscriber attribute to schedule
`packets in the uplink direction; and
`allocating the shared wireless bandwidth between the wireless
`base station transmitting in the downlink direction and the
`at least one CPE station transmitting in the uplink direction
`based on the analyzed contents and the analyzed
`reservation requests, wherein allocating
`the shared
`bandwidth comprises:
`assigning slots in a frame to the at least one CPE station;
`and
`communicating the assigned slots to the at least one CPE
`station in a reservation request acknowledgement
`section of a frame.
`Ex. 1001, 81:27–52.
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of the following claims of the
`’517 Patent on the following grounds and prior art (Pet. 1, 27–75):
`Claims
`Statutory Basis
`References
`1, 2, 4, 12, 13, 15
`§ 103
`Passas-I2 and Sriram3
`1, 2, 4, 12, 13, 15
`§ 103
`Passas-I, Sriram and Lin4
`1, 2, 4, 12, 13, 15
`§ 103
`Passas-I, Sriram, and Pasternak5
`1, 2, 4, 12, 13, 15
`§ 103
`Passas-I, Sriram, Pasternak, and Lin
`The Petition also relies on the Declaration of Dr. Zygmunt Haas. Ex. 1003.
`
`
`2 Ex. 1005, Nikos Passas et al., Quality of Service-Oriented Medium Access
`Control for Wireless ATM Networks, 35 IEEE Communications 11, 42
`(1997) (“Passas-I”).
`3 Ex. 1004, U.S. Patent No. 5,463,620, issued Oct. 31, 1995 (“Sriram”).
`4 Ex. 1012, U.S. Patent No. 6,400,701 B2, filed Mar. 31, 1998, issued June
`4, 2002 (“Lin”).
`5 Ex. 1006, U.S. Patent No. 6,157,614, filed Oct. 22, 1997, issued Dec. 5,
`2000 (“Pasternak”).
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01007
`Patent 7,412,517
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`Claims of an unexpired patent that will not expire before issuance of a
`final written decision are interpreted using the broadest reasonable
`interpretation in light of the specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)(2016);
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016).
`Petitioner asserts that the ’517 Patent will expire on July 9, 2019, during the
`pendency of trial. See Pet. 21–22. Petitioner asserts that the Phillips
`standard should govern claim construction for the ’517 Patent. See id. at 21
`(citing Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Promos Techs. Inc., Case IPR2017-01414, slip
`op. 9 (PTAB Nov. 17, 2017) (Paper 6)); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
`F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Patent Owner agrees that the
`claims should be construed using the Phillips standard. See Prelim. Resp.
`11.
`
`In view of the expiration date during the pendency of this proceeding,
`we agree that the Phillips standard should govern. Thus, we construe the
`claim terms in accordance with their ordinary and customary meaning, as
`would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention, in the context of the ’517 Patent Specification. See generally
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–14.
`Packet-Centric
`The term “packet-centric” is recited in the preamble of claim 1.
`Petitioner asserts that “packet-centric” is not limiting and does not give
`vitality to the claim. See Pet. 22 (citing In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257
`(CCPA 1976); Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358
`(Fed. Cir. 2010); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298,
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01007
`Patent 7,412,517
`1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner contends the recitation of “packet-centric”
`in the preamble “merely . . . describ[es] the technological environment the
`claimed method is intended to be performed in, which is merely a statement
`of intended use.” Id. at 22–23.
`In response, Patent Owner contends that numerous statements made
`during the prosecution of related Patent Application 09/349,477 (“’477
`Application”) confirm that “packet-centric” in the preamble is limiting and
`excludes asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) systems. See Prelim. Resp.
`12–13. Patent Owner contends, “[t]he applicant of the ’477 application did
`not believe that ATM is a ‘packet-centric protocol’,” and “explicitly stated
`numerous times that ATM is not packet-centric.” Id. (quoting Ex. 2007, 8–
`11, 13; citing Ex. 2008, 8–11, 13; Ex. 2012, 13). Patent Owner contends the
`Board should give “packet-centric” meaning because “[i]n circumstances
`where preamble language is relied on as limiting during prosecution, it
`should be given effect by the Board.” Id. at 13–14 (citing Phillips
`Petroleum Co. v. Huntsman Polymers Corp., 157 F.3d 866, 872–73 (Fed.
`Cir. 1998); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
`For the purpose of this Decision, we are persuaded that the preamble
`language “packet-centric” is not entitled to patentable weight because it
`recites an intended use for the method recited in claim 1. The body of claim
`1 does not recite “packet-centric.” The method steps recited in the body of
`claim 1 would be performed the same regardless of its intended use in a
`packet-centric system. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments that
`“packet-centric” should be entitled to patentable weight based on certain
`statements made by the applicant during prosecution of the related ’477
`Application. Patent Owner’s arguments are misplaced because, in the
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01007
`Patent 7,412,517
`related application, the term addressed by the applicant’s arguments was
`“packet-centric protocol,” which was recited multiple times in the body of
`the claims at issue. See Ex. 2007, 2, 5, 8–11; Ex. 2008, 2, 5, 8–11; Ex. 2012,
`2, 8–11. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, the applicant of the ’477
`Application did not assert during prosecution that the preamble recitations of
`“[a] packet centric wireless point to multi-point telecommunications system”
`were limiting. See Ex. 2007, 2, 5, 8–11; Ex. 2008, 2, 5, 8–11; Ex. 2012, 2,
`8–11.
`Accordingly, for the purpose of this Decision, we do not give
`patentable weight to the preamble recitation “packet-centric” of claim 1.
`Petitioner also contends that “[s]hould the Board conclude that
`‘packet-centric’ limits the claim, the Board should construe ‘packet-
`centric . . . system’ to mean ‘a . . . system that utilizes packets to transmit
`information from a sender of the information to a destination of said
`information,’ and does not “exclude packet-centric networks that also
`happen to be ‘circuit centric.’” Pet. 23–24; see id. at 25–26 (Petitioner’s
`supporting arguments). Patent Owner, in response, argues that a packet-
`centric system excludes asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) circuit-centric
`systems. See Prelim. Resp. 12, 14–22. Specifically, Patent Owner argues
`the ’517 Patent Specification distinguishes a packet-switched network from
`an ATM circuit-centric network. See id. at 14–15 (citing Pet. 24–25;
`Ex. 1001, 33:62–34:5, 35:45–47).
`Because we determine that, on this record and for the purpose of this
`Decision, the recitation of “packet-centric” in the preamble of claim 1 is not
`entitled to patentable weight, we need not construe explicitly this term. See
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01007
`Patent 7,412,517
`1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1695 (April 30, 2018)
`(“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the
`extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v.
`Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Nonetheless,
`we do not agree with Patent Owner, for purposes of this Decision, that the
`claim 1 preamble recitation “packet-centric” excludes an ATM circuit-
`centric network based on the ’517 Patent Specification. Although Patent
`Owner directs us to ’517 Patent Specification disclosures explaining
`differences between a “packet-switched network” and a “circuit centric
`network” (see Prelim. Resp. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 33:62–34:5)), we note
`that claim 1 does not recite “packet-switched network.” The preamble of
`claim 1 merely recites “packet-centric . . . system,” and Patent Owner does
`not direct us to ’517 Patent Specification disclosures that explicitly exclude
`an ATM network from a “packet-centric . . . system.” For example, the ’517
`Patent Specification also discloses in one embodiment “data network 142
`can be an internet protocol (IP) network over an ATM network.” Ex. 1001,
`36:62–63.
` We also do not agree, for the purpose of this Decision, that the
`preamble recitation “packet-centric” of claim 1 excludes an ATM circuit-
`centric network based on statements by the applicants during the prosecution
`of related patents. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that, during
`prosecution of related Patent 6,862,622 (“’622 Patent”), “the applicant did
`not believe that ATM is a packet-centric protocol.” Prelim. Resp. 16–18
`(quoting Ex. 2007, 8–10, 13; Ex. 2008, 8–11; Ex. 2012, 13). Patent Owner,
`however, does not persuasively explain the significance of the prosecution
`statements directed to “packet-centric protocol,” recited multiple times in
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01007
`Patent 7,412,517
`the body of the ’622 Patent claims to the ’517 Patent claim 1 preamble
`recitation “packet-centric . . . system.” See Ex. 2007, 2 (claim 1), 5 (claim
`13), 8–11; Ex. 2008, 2 (claim 1), 5 (claim 3), 8–11; Ex. 2012, 13). Patent
`Owner also argues that, during prosecution of related Patent 6,640,248
`(“’248 Patent”), the applicant linked the claim language at issue there (“a
`packet centric manner that is not circuit-centric and does not use
`asynchronous transfer mode (ATM)”) to the fact that ATM is circuit-centric
`and therefore not packet-centric. See Prelim. Resp. 18 (citing Pet. 26; Ex.
`1008, 83:14–15; Ex. 2015, 6). Patent Owner, however, does not
`persuasively explain the relevance of the applicant’s prosecution arguments
`addressing “in a packet-centric manner that is not circuit-centric and does
`not use asynchronous transfer mode (ATM)” recited explicitly in the body of
`claim 1 of the ’248 Patent (see Ex. 2015, 1, 6), to the ’517 Patent claim 1
`preamble recitation “packet-centric . . . system.”
`Contents of [the] Packets / Packets
`Independent claims 1 and 12 recite “contents of [the] packets” and
`recite the term “packets” multiple times in the body of each claim.
`Petitioner asserts that the Board should construe “contents of the packets” as
`“information in the header field of the packets, the payload field of the
`packets, or both,” and “should not interpret the term as excluding the header
`field.” Pet. 26. Petitioner also asserts that its proposed construction is
`consistent with the ’517 Patent Specification and Patent Owner’s
`interpretation in its infringement contentions. See id. at 26–27 (quoting
`Ex. 1001, 18:52–57, 61:36–48; citing Ex. 1011, 14–15).
`Patent Owner contends “packet” should be construed as “contents of a
`piece or segment of a data/media stream that serves as a unit of transmission
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01007
`Patent 7,412,517
`over a packet switched network.” Prelim. Resp. 22–23. Patent Owner notes
`that, in the context of related Patent 7,496,674 (“the ’674 Patent”), another
`panel of the Board construed “packet” to mean “a piece or segment of a
`data/media stream that serves as a unit of transmission over a packet
`switched network.” Id. at 23–24 (quoting Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual
`Ventures I LLC, Case IPR2014-00527, slip op. at 8–9 (PTAB May 18, 2015)
`(Ex. 2001, 9)). Patent Owner also contends that the intrinsic evidence
`confirms that asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) cells are not packets
`because ATM is circuit-centric and operates in a circuit-switched network.
`See id. at 24 (incorporating by reference Prelim. Resp. 12–22). According to
`Patent Owner, “[b]y definition, ATM cells are excluded from being [in] a
`packet-centric protocol or used in a packet-switched network.” Id.
`(emphasis omitted). Patent Owner argues that the ’517 Patent distinguishes
`ATM cells from packets. See id. at 24–25 (citing Ex. 1001, 36:66–37:2,
`35:45–47, 35:50–52); see also id. at 26 (providing numerous quotations of
`’571 Patent disclosures of ATM cell, ATM cell-switching, ATM circuit-
`centric cells, ATM cell circuit-centric, etc.). Patent Owner also argues the
`prosecution history of related patents (Patent 6,680,922 (“’922 Patent”) and
`the ’622 Patent) confirms Patent Owner’s construction. See id. at 27–28
`(quoting Ex. 2005, 3–4; Ex. 2007, 8–9, 13; citing Ex. 2008, 8–9, 13; quoting
`BASF Agro B.V. v. Makhteshim Agan of N. Am., Inc., 519 F. App’x 1008,
`1015 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Southwall Techs., Inc., v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d
`1570, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
`We do not agree with Patent Owner that the construction of “packets”
`should exclude cells, or ATM cells in particular. Turning first to the
`intrinsic record, we disagree with Patent Owner’s narrow reading of the ’517
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01007
`Patent 7,412,517
`Patent Specification as stating that ATM cells are excluded from a packet-
`switched network. Prelim. Resp. 24. Undermining that argument, for
`example, is the disclosure in the ’517 Patent, pointed out by Petitioner, that:
`“[p]acket switching breaks a media stream into pieces known as, for
`example, packets, cells or frames.” Ex. 1001, 30:29–30 (emphasis added);
`see Pet. 23.
`Moreover, Patent Owner’s reliance on construction of the term
`“packet” in the context of an inter partes review of a different patent is
`unavailing. See Prelim. Resp. 23–24. Although the panel in IPR2014-
`00527 (“’527 IPR”) adopted a claim construction for “packet” that referred
`to a packet-switched network, Patent Owner does not persuasively explain
`the relevance of that construction to its proposed construction of “contents of
`packets” in the claims before us. In particular, Patent Owner fails to
`acknowledge that the claims at issue in the ’527 IPR differ significantly
`from the claims at issue before us. For example, the claims at issue in the
`’527 IPR recite “packets” in the context of a first security protocol on a
`wired data network, and a second security protocol on a wireless network
`(see Ex. 2001, 3), whereas, in the claims before us, “contents of the packets”
`is not recited in the context of any protocol, but is recited in the context of
`communication over a shared wireless bandwidth in a downlink direction.
`Patent Owner also does not persuasively explain the relevance of
`statements made during the prosecution of the related ’922 and ’622 Patents.
`As noted above, the arguments during prosecution of the ’622 Patent
`addressed the claim recitations of “packet-centric protocol.” See Ex. 2007,
`2, 5, 8–11; Ex. 2008, 2, 5, 8–11; Ex. 2012, 2, 8–11. Similarly, the
`arguments during prosecution of the ’922 Patent also addressed the claim
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01007
`Patent 7,412,517
`recitations of “packet-centric protocol.” See Ex. 2005, 3–4. Here, in
`contrast, claim 1 recites a “packet-centric . . . system.”
`Accordingly, for the purpose of this Decision, we do not agree that the
`terms “packets” or “contents of the packets” exclude ATM cells. In any
`event, as demonstrated in the analysis below, we need not otherwise
`construe explicitly “packets” or “contents of the packets.” See Nidec v.
`Zhongshan, 868 F.3d at 1017.
`B. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`1. Unpatentability of Claims 1, 2, 4, 12, 13, and 15 over
`Passas-I and Sriram
`a. Overview of Passas-I (Ex. 1005)
`Passas-I discloses a Mobile Access Scheme Based on Contention and
`Reservation for Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) (MASCARA). See
`Ex. 1005, 5–7. The multiple access technique used in MASCARA for
`uplink and downlink is based on time division multiple access (TDMA)
`where time is divided into variable-length time frames, which are further
`divided into time slots equal in duration to the ATM cell payload plus the
`radio and MAC specific header. See id. at 7 (MASCARA: THE MEDIUM
`ACCESS CONTROL PROTOCOL IN WAND). Multiplexing of uplink (from the
`mobile terminals (MTs) to the access point (AP)) and downlink traffic (from
`the AP to the MTs) is based on time division duplex (TDD). Slot allocation
`is performed dynamically with the use of the scheduling algorithm to match
`current user needs and attain high statistical multiplexing gain, and provide
`the QoS required by the individual connection. See id. Cells coming from
`the ATM layer are formed into MAC protocol data units (MPDUs) and
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01007
`Patent 7,412,517
`delivered to the radio physical layer for transmission, while MPDUs coming
`from the physical layer are processed and ATM cells extracted. Id.
`Figure 2 of Passas-I is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 2 of Passas-I depicts the MASCARA variable length time frame
`divided into a frame header (FH) period, a DOWN period for downlink
`traffic, an UP period for uplink data traffic, and a CONTENTION period for
`control information. Ex. 1005, 7 (MASCARA: THE MEDIUM ACCESS
`CONTROL PROTOCOL IN WAND). The MASCARA protocol is a hub or
`access point (AP) based protocol. See id. “The AP schedules the
`transmission of its uplink and downlink traffic and allocates bandwidth
`dynamically, based on traffic characteristics and QoS requirements, as well
`as the current bandwidth needs of all connections.” Id. The current needs of
`an uplink connection from a specific MT are sent to the AP through
`“reservation requests,” which are either piggybacked in the data MPDUs the
`MT sends in the UP period, or contained in special “control MPDUs” in the
`CONTENTION period. See id. At the end of the frame, the AP constructs
`the next frame, (i.e., the length of the frame and each of its periods and the
`position of the slots allocated to each downlink and uplink connection)
`according to the MASCARA scheduling algorithm, “taking into account the
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01007
`Patent 7,412,517
`reservation requests sent by the MTs, the arriving cells for each downlink
`connection, and the traffic characteristics and QoS requirements of all
`connections.” Id. The frame construction information is broadcast to the
`MTs in the FH period at the beginning of each frame. See id.
`The scheduling algorithm is called Prioritized Regulated Allocation
`Delay-Oriented Scheduling (PRADOS), which has two main objectives of
`traffic regulation based on traffic characteristics (i.e., peak cell rate (PCR),
`cell delay tolerance (CDT) and cell delay variation tolerance (CDVT), and
`maintenance of the delay constraints of the connections in the radio
`interface. See Ex. 1005, 8 (THE SCHEDULING ALGORITHM OF MASCARA).
`The scheduling algorithm is separated into two independent actions,
`performed in parallel: specifying how many requests for slot allocation from
`each active connection will be serviced in the current frame, and
`determining the exact location in the frame of the time slot allocated to each
`serviced request. See id.
`Table 1 of Passas-I is reproduced below:
`
`
`Table 1 of Passas-I depicts a table of priority numbers and service classes.
`See Ex. 1005, 8 (THE SCHEDULING ALGORITHM OF MASCARA). For
`specifying how many requests for slot allocation will be serviced in the
`current frame, the scheduling algorithm assigns priorities to connections as
`shown in Table 1, and combines the priorities with a leaky bucket traffic
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01007
`Patent 7,412,517
`regulator. See id. Tokens for each connection are generated at a fixed rate
`equal to the mean cell rate, and the size of the pool is equal to the burst size
`of the connection as declared and agreed upon at the time of connection set
`up. See id. For every slot allocated a connection, a token in removed from
`the corresponding pool. See id.
`b. Overview of Sriram (Ex. 1004)
`Sriram discloses bandwidth allocation, transmission scheduling, and
`congestion avoidance on broadband communication networks. See
`Ex. 1004, 1:12–15. “Information is transmitted through the network by
`means of special kinds of digital information packets known as ATM cells.”
`Id. at 3:16–18. The header contains a field identifying the call type or
`payload of the ATM cell. See id. at 3:29–31. Traffic types found in high-
`speed asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) networks are classified as: Type
`1A: Delay-Sensitive Isochronous High Bandwidth Services; Type 1B:
`Delay-Sensitive Non-Isochronous High Bandwidth Services; Type 2: Delay-
`Insensitive High Bandwidth Services; and Type 3: Low Bandwidth
`Statistically Multiplexed Services. See id. at 3:56–57, 3:61–62, 4:10–11,
`4:27, 4:44–45. The traffic classification may be accomplished at a virtual
`circuit level, in which the header in each ATM cell may provide virtual
`channel identifier (VCI) information in a virtual channel field. See id. at
`4:54–57. The call type may be determined based on information obtained
`from the sending terminal at call setup time. See id. at 4:57–59. Each ATM
`switch involved in call routing can maintain a table, which maps VCIs to
`call types for all calls flowing through the switch, and the traffic
`classification can be used to implement resource sharing methods. See id. at
`4:59–63; 5:7–34; Fig. 5.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01007
`Patent 7,412,517
`
`c. Analysis
`(1) Independent Claim 1
`For the purpose of this Decision and based on Petitioner’s citations to
`Passas-I, Sriram, and Petitioner’s declarant testimony (Ex. 1003), we are
`persuaded that Petitioner establishes sufficiently that the combination of
`Passas and Sriram teaches each of the limitations recited in independent
`claim 1.
`Petitioner asserts that Passas-I teaches “analyzing contents of packets
`to be communicated over the shared wireless bandwidth in a downlink
`direction from a wireless base station to at least one customer premises
`equipment (CPE) station,” based on the Passas-I disclosure of a scheduling
`algorithm that constructs time division multiple access (TDMA) frames by
`taking into account the arriving cells for each downlink connection. See Pet.
`32–33 (citing Ex. 1005, 44). According to Petitioner, Passas-I discloses the
`scheduling algorithm sorts connections according to their service class and
`priorities. See id. at 33 (quoting Ex. 1005, 45; reproducing Ex. 1005, Table
`1). Petitioner asserts that the disclosures of Passas-I teaches a person of
`ordinary skill in the art to analyze arriving downlink cells and to allocate
`downlink slots based on their service class. See id. at 33–34 (citing
`Ex. 1005, 44; Ex. 1003 ¶ 103). Petitioner also asserts that Passas–I teaches
`that the analysis is on “packets to be communicated in the downlink
`direction from the wireless base station to the at least one customer premises
`equipment (CPE),” as recited in claim 1, based on Patent Owner’s
`interpretation that the mobile terminals (MTs) of Passas-I teach at least one
`CPE station. See Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1011, 14; Ex. 1003 ¶ 112).
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01007
`Patent 7,412,517
`Petitioner, however, acknowledges that “Passas-I does not expressly
`describe how the connection and service class for downlink cells is
`determined (i.e., by analyzing the content of the packet), but such an analysis
`of the cell header would [have] be[en] obvious to a [person of ordinary skill
`in the art] with knowledge of well-known ATM traffic classification
`techniques taught by Sriram.” Id. at 34; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 104 (stating same).
`According to Petitioner, Sriram teaches analyzing the ATM cell header of
`arriving cells to identify the associated ATM connection and service class,
`and assigning each ATM connection a virtual channel identifier (VCI) at the
`time the connection is set up, which can thereafter be included in the ATM
`cell header of cells transmitted on that connection. See Pet. 34 (quoting
`Ex. 1004, 4:54–63). Petitioner also asserts Sriram discloses “[e]ach ATM
`switch involved in the call routing can maintain a table which maps VCIs to
`call types for all the calls flowing through that switch.” Id. (quoting
`Ex. 1004, 4:59–61). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the
`art would have understood that the “call types” described by Sriram
`correspond to the “service classes” shown in Table 1 of Passas-I. See id. at
`34–35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 103).
`Petitioner also asserts that Sriram describes the call types are
`determined based on information obtained at call setup time. See Pet. 35
`(quoting Ex. 1004, 4:56–59). According to Petitioner, analysis of the ATM
`cell header to identify the connection and look up the QoS requirements
`established for the connection at setup was well-known. See id. (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 107). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have understood that the ATM connection setup and the virtual
`channel identifier (VCI) identification process described by Sriram “was the
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01007
`Patent 7,412,517
`mechanism underlying ATM’s ‘ability to flexibly support a wide range of
`services with quality-of-service (QoS) guarantees.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1005,
`42; citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 107). According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary
`skill in the art
`would have understood in view of Sriram that the QoS
`requirements of the connections in Passas-I would be established
`during connection setup. Ex. 1003, ¶ 108; Ex. 1005, at 45
`(describing that certain paramet
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
