Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 8
`
`
` Entered: November 15, 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 IPR2018-01058
`Patent 7,359,971 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, MINN CHUNG, and
`AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 8
`
`
` Entered: November 15, 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 IPR2018-01058
`Patent 7,359,971 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, MINN CHUNG, and
`AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01058
`Patent 7,359,971 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (collectively,
`
`“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting an inter partes
`
`review of claims 12, 14, 15, 18, 21, 22, 25, 27, 33, and 37 (the “challenged
`
`claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,359,971 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’971 patent”).
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response
`
`(Paper 5, “Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the
`
`information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . 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);
`
`see 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court held that a final
`
`written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) must decide the patentability of all
`
`claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348,
`
`1359–60 (2018). Taking into account the arguments presented in Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented
`
`in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`
`would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged
`
`claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged
`
`claims (12, 14, 15, 18, 21, 22, 25, 27, 33, and 37) of the ’971 patent, based
`
`on all grounds raised in the Petition.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`According to the parties, the ’971 patent is the subject of the
`
`following district court litigation: Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile
`
`USA, Inc. et al., No. 2:17-cv-00577-JRG (E.D. Tex.). Pet. 1; Paper 4, 2. In
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01058
`Patent 7,359,971 B2
`
`addition, the parties indicate that other related patents held by Patent Owner
`
`are the subject of petitions filed by Petitioner in various proceedings before
`
`the Board, including Patent 6,628,629 in IPR2018-00727; Patent 7,412,517
`
`in IPR2018-01007; and Patent RE46,206 in IPR2018-00758 and IPR2018-
`
`00782. Pet. 1–2; Prelim. Resp. 2–3. Patent Owner indicates that Patent
`
`RE46,206 is also the subject of the petitions filed by Petitioner in IPR2018-
`
`01121 and IPR2018-01318. Prelim. Resp. 3. According to Patent Owner,
`
`Petitioner also has filed a petition challenging certain claims of Patent
`
`RE46,406 in IPR2018-01256. Id.
`
`B. The ’971 Patent
`
`The ’971 patent concerns telecommunications and, more specifically,
`
`“implementing a QoS [quality of service] aware wireless point-to-multi-
`
`point transmission system.” Ex. 1001, 3:37–40. As background, the ’971
`
`patent describes that, conventionally, different telecommunication networks
`
`such as voice, data, and video networks have been customized for the type of
`
`traffic each is intended to transport. Id. at 3:44–46. For example, voice
`
`traffic is latency sensitive but is less demanding on the quality of
`
`transmission, whereas data traffic, e.g., transmission of a spreadsheet, is not
`
`latency sensitive but requires error-free delivery. Id. at 3:46–51. The ’971
`
`patent describes that, with convergence of separate voice, data and video
`
`networks into a single broadband telecommunications network, a system that
`
`provides QoS for various types of traffic to be transported on the network is
`
`desired to ensure end user satisfaction. Id. at 3:56–60.
`
`According to the ’971 patent, QoS “can be thought of as a mechanism
`
`to selectively allocate scarce networking, transmission and communications
`
`resources to differentiated classes of network traffic with appropriate levels
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01058
`Patent 7,359,971 B2
`
`of priority” where “the nature of the data traffic, the demands of the users,
`
`the conditions of the network, and the characteristics of the traffic sources
`
`and destinations all modify how the QoS mechanism is operating at any
`
`given instant.” Id. at 13:45–52. The ’971 patent describes that wireless
`
`networks present particular challenges over their wireline counterparts in
`
`delivering QoS. Id. at 3:61–62; 11:65–67. In addition to the traditional
`
`problems of the wireline communications, such as data errors, latency, and
`
`jitter, wireless transmission may encounter further problems, such as high
`
`inherent bit error rates (BERs), limited bandwidth, user contention, and radio
`
`interference. Id. at 11:67–12:45. The ’971 patent states that a QoS-aware
`
`wireless system is desired to address all these problems. Id. at 12:46–47.
`
`Figure 3B of the ’971 patent is reproduced below.
`
`Figure 3B depicts a block diagram illustrating an exemplary wireless point-
`
`to-multipoint network of the ’971 patent. Id. at 5:35–38.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01058
`Patent 7,359,971 B2
`
`
`As shown in Figure 3B, wireless base station 302 communicates
`
`wirelessly with wireless subscriber customer premise equipment (CPE) 294d
`
`via antenna 290d and antenna 292d. Id. at 42:36–38. Subscriber CPE 294d,
`
`in turn, communicates with subscriber workstation 120d via a network
`
`connection. Id. at 42:48–51, Fig. 3B. Figure 3B also illustrates that wireless
`
`base station 302 is connected to data network 142, which, in turn, is
`
`connected to host workstation 136a. Id. at 42:27–30, Fig. 3B.
`
`Figure 5A of the ’971 patent is reproduced below.
`
`Figure 5A depicts Internet protocol (IP) flows from a subscriber host to a
`
`wireless base station and then to a destination host. Id. at 5:41–43.
`
`Specifically, flow 500 depicted in Figure 5A illustrates that IP packets flow
`
`from subscriber workstation 120d through subscriber CPE station 294d, then
`
`over a wireless transmission medium to wireless base station 302, and
`
`eventually over a wireline link of data network 142 to host workstation 136a.
`
`
`
`Id. at 75:52–57.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01058
`Patent 7,359,971 B2
`
`
`As illustrated in Figure 5A and described in the accompanying text,
`
`flow 500 includes IP flows through various “layers” of the networking
`
`protocol stack architecture, such as the application layer, the TCP/UDP
`
`layer, the IP layer, the data link Ethernet layer, the data link MAC (Media
`
`Access Control) layer, and the physical layer. Id. at 75:66–76:25. The
`
`layers of the networking protocol stack architecture, through which the IP
`
`packets flow from a source host to a destination host, is also illustrated in
`
`Figure 4 (not reproduced herein). See id. at 42:54–48:67, Fig. 4.
`
`The protocols of different networking layers operate largely
`
`independent of each other. For example, an IP network can operate over
`
`various data link or MAC layer networks, such as an Ethernet data network
`
`or an ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) network. Id. at 37:58–62.
`
`Similarly, the IP network and the data link layer network can operate over
`
`any physical layer network, such as an optical network or a wireless link
`
`over the air. Id. at 37:65–67; 43:1–16.
`
`According to the ’971 patent, at the wireless base station, the QoS-
`
`aware scheduling of the wireless transmission of data packets takes place at
`
`the data link layer or the MAC layer. Id. at 43:13–26; 49:10–12; 49:35–38.
`
`Specifically, the ’971 patent describes that a MAC layer can read header
`
`information in the packets to analyze and schedule an IP packet of an IP
`
`flow. Id. at 43:20–23. IP packets of the IP flow are identified by analyzing
`
`the header information to determine QoS requirements of the IP flow “so
`
`that the IP flow can be characterized, classified, presented, prioritized and
`
`scheduled” for wireless transmission over the air. Id. at 43:23–26.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01058
`Patent 7,359,971 B2
`
`
`The ’971 patent describes that IP packets of IP flows are wirelessly
`
`transmitted over the air using MAC transmission air frames. Id. at 54:32–
`
`35. Figure 12B of the ’971 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 12B illustrates an exemplary time division multiple access/time
`
`division duplex (TDMA/TDD) MAC air frame 1220. Id. at 55:33–34. As
`
`shown in Figure 12B, MAC air frame 1220 includes data slots 1224a,
`
`1224b, 1224c, and 1224d, which, in turn, can contain control packet 1226a,
`
`data packet 1226b, data packet 1226c, and data packet 1226d, respectively.
`
`Id. at 55:42–45. In other words, data packets of an IP flow are placed in the
`
`MAC air frame slots for wireless transmission over the air.
`
`According to the ’971 patent, the data packets of an IP flow are
`
`assigned to the slots of future MAC air frames based on the priority of the IP
`
`flow. Id. at 61:65–62:1. For example, IP data flows that are both jitter and
`
`latency sensitive are given the highest priority, followed by flows that are
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01058
`Patent 7,359,971 B2
`
`highly latency sensitive but not jitter sensitive. Id. at 62:49–52. The IP
`
`flows of a lowest latency sensitivity are given the lowest priority. Id. at
`
`62:53–54. The assignments of the transmission slots of future MAC air
`
`frames to data packets based on the priority of the IP flow are performed
`
`according to an “advanced reservation algorithm.” Id. at 61:65–62:1.
`
`Figure 14 of the ’971 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 14 is an exemplary two-dimensional block diagram of an advanced
`
`reservation algorithm. Id. at 61:40–41. As depicted in Figure 14, MAC
`
`frame scheduler 1566 assigns future air transmission slots in downlink frame
`
`(for transmission from the wireless base station to a wireless subscriber
`
`station) n 1402, n+1 1404, n+2 1406, and so on, to IP flow data packets
`
`based on the priority of the IP data flow. Id. at 61:41–62:1.
`
`According to the ’971 patent, “[f]or calls that are sensitive to jitter,
`
`meaning calls that are time sensitive, it is important to maintain an
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01058
`Patent 7,359,971 B2
`
`isochronous (i.e., in phase with respect to time) connection.” Id. at 62:2–5.
`
`For such signals, the advanced reservation algorithm assigns the data packets
`
`to the same slot at each future air frame, which means that the data packets
`
`are “dispersed in the same slot between frames, or in slots having a periodic
`
`variation between frames.” Id. at 62:5–7. For example, vertical reservation
`
`1480 shown in Figure 14 illustrates the data packets of a jitter sensitive
`
`signal (or flow) receiving the same slot in each frame for downlink
`
`transmission. Id. at 62:7–9. In another example, “diagonal reservation”
`
`1482 shows the data packets of a jitter sensitive flow receiving a slot varying
`
`by a period of one between sequential frames, creating a “diagonal” pattern
`
`of reservations, as depicted in Figure 14. Id. at 62:12–17.
`
`For flows that are latency sensitive, but not jitter sensitive, the data
`
`packets can be assigned one (or more) slots in each frame, but the slot(s)
`
`need not be periodic between frames, as with jitter sensitive calls. Id. at
`
`62:33–37. For flows that are less latency sensitive, fewer slots per frame can
`
`be assigned for transmission over the air. Id. at 62:40–41.
`
`According to the ’971 patent, using these principles, the advanced
`
`reservation algorithm can assign the slots from highest priority to lowest
`
`priority, exhausting the number of available slots in future MAC air frames.
`
`Id. at 62:46–49. “IP data flows that are both jitter and latency sensitive can
`
`be assigned slots with periodic patterns first (e.g., patterns 1480, 1482, 1484
`
`and 1486), followed by flows that are highly latency sensitive (but not jitter
`
`sensitive), et cetera, until the flows of lowest latency sensitivity are assigned
`
`to slots.” Id. at 62:49–54.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01058
`Patent 7,359,971 B2
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, only claim 12 is independent. Claim 12 is
`
`illustrative of the challenged claims and is reproduced below.
`
`12. A quality of service (QoS) aware, wireless communications
`system comprising:
`
`a wireless access point base station coupled to a first data
`network; one or more host workstations coupled to said first
`data network;
`
`in wireless
`one or more wireless network stations
`communication with said wireless access point base station
`over a shared wireless network using a packet-centric
`protocol; and
`
`a scheduler that allocates resources of said shared wireless
`network among said wireless network stations to optimize
`end-user quality of service (QoS) for an Internet Protocol (IP)
`flow, wherein said IP flow is associated with at least one of a
`latency-sensitive and a jitter-sensitive application;
`
`wherein said scheduler comprises assigning means for assigning
`future slots of a transmission frame to a portion of said IP flow
`in said transmission frame for transmission over said shared
`wireless network,
`
`wherein said assigning means comprises:
`
`means for applying an advanced reservation algorithm:
`
`means for reserving a first slot for a first data packet of an
`Internet Protocol (IP) flow in a future transmission frame
`based on said algorithm:
`
`means for reserving a second slot for a second data packet of said
`IP flow in a transmission frame subsequent in time to said
`future transmission frame based on said algorithm,
`
`wherein said second data packet is placed in said second slot in
`an isochronous manner to the placing of said first data packet
`in said first slot.
`
`Ex. 1001, 84:58–85:21.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01058
`Patent 7,359,971 B2
`
`
`D. Asserted Prior Art and Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner cites the following references in its challenges to
`
`patentability.
`
`Reference and Relevant Date(s)
`
`Designation
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Deborah A. Dyson and Zygmunt J. Haas, A
`Dynamic Packet Reservation Multiple Access
`Scheme for Wireless ATM, MILCOM 97
`PROCEEDINGS 687, Nov. 3–5, 1997
`
`D. Raychaudhuri et al., WATMnet: A
`Prototype Wireless ATM System for
`Multimedia Personal Communication, 1996
`IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON
`COMMUNICATIONS 469, June 23–27, 1996
`
`Dyson
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Raychaudhuri Ex. 1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,459,682 B1 (filed Apr. 7,
`1998; issued Oct. 1, 2002)
`
`Ellesson
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Petitioner also cites the Declaration of Dr. Zygmunt Haas In Support
`
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,359,971 (Ex. 1003).
`
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 1).
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`
`Statutory Basis
`
`References
`
`12, 14, 15, 21, 22, 25,
`27, 33, and 37
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Raychaudhuri and Dyson
`
`18
`
`
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Raychaudhuri, Dyson, and
`Ellesson
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01058
`Patent 7,359,971 B2
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Zygmunt Haas, describes a person of ordinary
`
`skill as having a B.Sc. in Electrical Engineering or a related field with three
`
`years of experience in the field of telecommunication networks. Ex. 1003
`
`¶ 38. Patent Owner does not address this issue explicitly. For purposes of
`
`this Decision, we apply the definition provided by Dr. Haas.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`Noting that the ’971 patent will expire while this proceeding is
`
`pending, both Petitioner and Patent Owner agree that the claim construction
`
`principles articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005), apply in this proceeding. Pet. 11; Prelim. Resp. 22–23.
`
`Under Phillips, relying first on intrinsic evidence and secondarily on
`
`extrinsic evidence, we give a claim term “the meaning that the term would
`
`have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the
`
`invention.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315–18.
`
`Petitioner proposes constructions for the terms “isochronous” and
`
`“packet-centric protocol” recited in claim 12, “no periodic variation” recited
`
`in claim 14, and several means-plus-function terms recited in claims 12 and
`
`18. Pet. 11–25. Patent Owner disputes constructions for the terms
`
`“isochronous,” “no periodic variation,” and “packet-centric protocol,” and
`
`additionally proposes a construction for the term “packet.” Prelim. Resp.
`
`23–30. We consider each of the parties’ proposed constructions below.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01058
`Patent 7,359,971 B2
`
`
`1. “Isochronous”
`
`Petitioner asserts that the ’971 patent describes “isochronous” as
`
`“consistent timed access of network bandwidth for time-sensitive voice and
`
`video” and “in phase with respect to time” such that “the data [is] dispersed
`
`in the same slot between frames, or in slots having a periodic variation
`
`between frames.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 13:63–64, 62:4–6). Citing the
`
`illustration in Figure 14, Petitioner argues that “isochronous” should be
`
`construed to mean “consistent timed access interval” and that for avoidance
`
`of doubt “this ‘consistent timed access interval’ includes both a periodic
`
`variation between slots (‘a consistent time interval other than the frame
`
`duration interval’) and no periodic variation between slots (‘a consistent
`
`time interval equal to the frame duration interval’).” Id. at 12–13 (citing
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65–66).
`
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s proposed construction is
`
`inconsistent with Petitioner’s construction of a similar term (“in an
`
`isochronous manner” as “according to a consistent time interval”) in related
`
`district court litigation because Petitioner’s proposed construction in the
`
`district court litigation omits the word “access.” Prelim. Resp. 23–24 (citing
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al., No. 2:17-cv-00577-
`
`JRG (E.D. Tex.); Ex. 2018, Ex. A at 1). Patent Owner notes that because a
`
`Phillips construction applies both to this proceeding and the district court
`
`proceeding, “isochronous” should be construed to mean “providing for
`
`consistent timed access” to be consistent with the construction proposed by
`
`Patent Owner in the district court. Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 2019, 3).
`
`Claim 12 recites “said second data packet is placed in said second slot
`
`in an isochronous manner to the placing of said first data packet in said first
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01058
`Patent 7,359,971 B2
`
`slot.” Ex. 1001, 85:19–21. The terms “said first slot” and “said second slot”
`
`refer to previously recited terms “a first slot for a first data packet of an
`
`Internet Protocol (IP) flow in a future transmission frame” and “a second
`
`slot for a second data packet of said IP flow in a transmission frame
`
`subsequent in time to said future transmission frame,” respectively. Id. at
`
`85:13–18 (emphasis added). Thus, the claim language indicates that the
`
`term “an isochronous manner” describes the relationship in time between a
`
`first slot and a second slot, where a first data packet and second data packet
`
`are placed, respectively.
`
`Consistent with the claim language, the Specification of the ’971
`
`patent uses the term “isochronous” to describe the relationship in time
`
`between the assigned slots in successive MAC frames for data packets of an
`
`IP flow. For example, as discussed above in Section II.B., the Specification
`
`describes placing the data packets of a jitter sensitive flow in MAC air
`
`frames “to maintain an isochronous (i.e., in phase with respect to time)
`
`connection,” meaning the data packets are “dispersed in the same slot
`
`between frames, or in slots having a periodic variation between frames.” Id.
`
`at 62:2–7.
`
`The IEEE Dictionary defines “isochronous” as
`
`(1) The time characteristic of an event or signal recurring at
`known, periodic time intervals.
`
`(LM/C) 8802-6-1994
`(2) A communication stream transport that is uniform in time.
`The delivery of the physical stream of information is recurring
`at regular intervals.
`(C/LM/COM) 802.9a-1995w, 8802-9-1996
`(3) The essential characteristic of a time-scale or a signal such
`that the time intervals between consecutive significant instances
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01058
`Patent 7,359,971 B2
`
`
`either have the same duration or durations that are integral
`multiples of the shortest duration.
`
`(C/MM) 1394-1995
`(4) Uniform in time (i.e., having equal duration) and recurring
`at regular intervals.
`
`(C/MM) 1394a-2000
`
`Ex. 3001, 3.1
`
`Thus, the common thread among Petitioner’s proposed construction,
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction, and the intrinsic and extrinsic
`
`evidence is that “isochronous” refers to regular, consistent or recurring time
`
`intervals. Therefore, for purposes of this Decision, we construe “in an
`
`isochronous manner” to mean “in a consistent timed interval.”
`
`2. “No Periodic Variation”
`
`Petitioner asserts that the ’971 patent does not define explicitly the
`
`meaning of “no periodic variation,” but instead describes “vertical
`
`reservation 1480” of Figure 14 as showing “a jitter sensitive signal receiving
`
`the same slot for downlink communication in each frame.” Pet. 13 (citing
`
`Ex. 1001, 62:7–9). Citing the example in the Specification that if the
`
`frame-to-frame interval is 0.5 ms, a slot is provided to the IP flow every
`
`0.5 ms, Petitioner asserts that the slot reservation interval is the same as the
`
`frame duration interval, so that the same slot is reserved in each frame. Id.
`
`at 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 67–68). Relying on the cited evidence, Petitioner
`
`proposes that we construe “no periodic variation” to mean “a consistent time
`
`interval equal to the frame duration interval.” Id.
`
`
`1 IEEE 100 THE AUTHORITATIVE DICTIONARY OF IEEE STANDARDS TERMS
`(7th ed. 2000) (Ex. 3001).
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01058
`Patent 7,359,971 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner contends that the plain and ordinary meaning is the
`
`appropriate construction, but does not articulate a plain and ordinary
`
`meaning and does not dispute explicitly Petitioner’s proposed construction
`
`as inconsistent with the use of the term in the ’971 patent. Prelim. Resp. 25.
`
`As Petitioner’s proposed construction appears to be consistent with
`
`the plain and ordinary meaning in the context of this proceeding, we adopt,
`
`for purposes of this Decision, Petitioner’s proposed construction of “periodic
`
`variation” to mean “a consistent time interval equal to the frame duration
`
`interval.”
`
`3. “Packet-Centric Protocol”
`
`The term “packet-centric protocol” is recited in claim 12. The parties’
`
`claim construction dispute over this term centers on whether ATM protocols
`
`or ATM networks are excluded from the scope of “packet-centric protocol.”
`
`Citing the Specification and the testimony of Dr. Hass, Petitioner asserts that
`
`an ATM network is an example of a system using a “packet-centric
`
`protocol.” Pet. 15–16. Patent Owner, on the other hand, asserts that a
`
`“packet-centric protocol” excludes ATM circuit-centric protocols, based on
`
`purported disclaimers made during the prosecution of the related patents.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 13–22, 29–30.
`
`The term “packet-centric protocol” is recited only once in claim 12.
`
`No other challenged claims recite “packet-centric protocol.” The full
`
`limitation where the term appears recites “one or more wireless network
`
`stations in wireless communication with said wireless access point base
`
`station over a shared wireless network using a packet-centric protocol.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 84:64–67 (emphasis added). Thus, the “packet-centric protocol”
`
`recited in the claim is a network protocol used in communication between a
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01058
`Patent 7,359,971 B2
`
`wireless base station and a wireless network station over a shared wireless
`
`network.
`
`As discussed above in Section II.B., the ’971 patent describes that
`
`wireless base station 302 and subscriber CPE station 294d communicate
`
`with each other over a networking protocol stack that includes multiple
`
`layers of networking protocols, such as the TCP/UDP layer, the IP layer, the
`
`data link MAC (Media Access Control) layer, and the physical layer. Id. at
`
`42:54–48:67, 75:66–76:25, Figs. 4, 5A. The parties do not dispute that at
`
`least the IP protocol used in the IP layer is a “packet-centric protocol”
`
`recited in claim 12. See Prelim. Resp. 12 (describing the IP protocol as the
`
`protocol used in a packet-switched network (citing Ex. 1001, 31:14–32)).
`
`We note that the claim recites “using a packet-centric protocol,” not “using
`
`only a packet-centric protocol.” Thus, the term “using a packet-centric
`
`protocol” would read on a network communication system as long as the
`
`system’s protocol stack includes an IP layer, regardless of what protocols are
`
`used below in the data link layer, the MAC layer, or the physical layer.
`
`As also discussed above in Section II.B., the ’971 patent describes an
`
`example of the networking protocol stack architecture, where an IP network
`
`can operate over various data link or MAC layer networks, such as an ATM
`
`network. Ex. 1001, 37:58–62. For the reasons discussed above, the term
`
`“using a packet-centric protocol” would read on such a network
`
`communication system regardless of whether an ATM network uses a
`
`packet-centric protocol. As discussed below, an issue raised in this case is
`
`whether the prior art disclosing transmission of IP packets over a wireless
`
`ATM network renders the claim unpatentable. Because we need not resolve
`
`the question of whether an ATM network uses a packet-centric protocol to
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01058
`Patent 7,359,971 B2
`
`determine this issue, it is not necessary to resolve the parties’ claim
`
`construction dispute over the term “packet-centric protocol” or to formally
`
`construe the term at this stage. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad
`
`Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[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))).
`
`4. “Packet”
`
`Petitioner does not propose a construction of the term “packet.”
`
`Patent Owner proposes that “packet” be construed to mean “a piece or
`
`segment of a data/media stream that serves as a unit of transmission over a
`
`packet switched network.” Prelim. Resp. 26. Patent Owner notes that in the
`
`context of related U.S. Patent 7,496,674 B3 (“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 26–28 (citing Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual
`
`Ventures I LLC, Case IPR2014-00527, slip op. at 8–9 (PTAB May 18,
`
`2015); Ex. 2001, 8–9). Similar to the discussion above on the construction
`
`of “packet-centric protocol,” Patent Owner’s argument is focused on its
`
`contention that the term “packet” recited in the challenged claims excludes
`
`ATM cells. Id. at 27–28.
`
`The term “packet” is mentioned only 4 times in claim 12, and all in
`
`the context of placing a data packet in a slot in a transmission frame (or
`
`reserving a slot for a data packet in a transmission frame) for transmission
`
`over a wireless network. Claim 12 recites “reserving a first slot for a first
`
`data packet of an Internet Protocol (IP) flow in a future transmission frame,”
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01058
`Patent 7,359,971 B2
`
`“reserving a second slot for a second data packet of said IP flow in a
`
`transmission frame subsequent in time to said future transmission frame,”
`
`and “said second data packet is placed in said second slot in an isochronous
`
`manner to the placing of said first data packet in said first slot.” Ex. 1001,
`
`85:13–22 (emphases added). As discussed above in Section II.B., the ’971
`
`patent describes placing IP packets in the slots of MAC air frame for
`
`wireless transmission over the air. Id. at 54:32–35, 55:33–34, 55:42–45.
`
`Other than requiring that the transmission frames are transmitted over
`
`a shared wireless network, claim 12 does not limit the recited transmission
`
`frames to any particular type of frames. Patent Owner does not cite, nor do
`
`we discern, anything in the Specification that limits the recited transmission
`
`frames to any particular wireless network. Thus, a system that places IP
`
`packets in the slots of a transmission frame in a manner recited in the claim
`
`would teach the limitations set forth above, regardless of whether the
`
`transmission frame is a MAC air frame or a wireless ATM cell. For the
`
`reasons discussed below, we need not resolve the question of whether an
`
`ATM network is a packet switched network or formally construe the term
`
`“packet” in order to determine whether the prior art disclosing transmission
`
`of IP packets over a wireless ATM network renders the claim unpatentable.
`
`See Nidec Motor, 868 F.3d at 1017.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01058
`Patent 7,359,971 B2
`
`
`5. Mean-Plus-Function Terms
`
`Petitioner contends that the claim terms of the challenged claims
`
`reciting “means” should be interpreted as means-plus-function limitations
`
`under § 112, ¶ 6,2 as follows. Pet. 17–25.
`
`Term
`
`Proposed Construction
`
`“assigning means for
`assigning future slots of a
`transmission frame to a
`portion of said IP flow in said
`transmission frame for
`transmission over said shared
`wireless network”
`(claim 12)
`
`“means for applying an
`advanced reservation
`algorithm” (claim 12)
`
`Claimed Function: “assigning future slots
`of a transmission frame to a portion of said
`IP flow in said transmission frame for
`transmission over said shared wireless
`network”
`
`Corresponding Structure: downlink
`scheduler 1566 or uplink scheduler 1666,
`implementing an algorithm that assigns
`future slots to a portion of an IP flow based
`on the priority of the IP flow
`
`Claimed Function: “applying an advanced
`reservation algorithm”
`
`Corresponding Structure: downlink
`scheduler 1566 or uplink scheduler 1666
`implementing an algorithm that determines
`the latency and jitter sensitivity of flows
`and then determines how to assign slots
`based on that determination (e.g.,
`periodically or not, with what period)
`
`“means for reserving a first
`slot for a first data packet of
`an Internet Protocol (IP) flow
`
`Claimed Function: “reserving a first slot
`for a first data packet of an Internet
`Protocol (IP) flow in a future transmission
`
`
`2 Section 4(c) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29,
`125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), re-designated 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, as
`35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Because the ’971 patent has a filing date prior to
`September 16, 2012, the effective date of § 4(c) of the AIA, we refer to the
`pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 112. See AIA § 4(e).
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01058
`Patent 7,359,971 B2
`
`
`Term
`
`Proposed Construction
`
`in a future transmission frame
`based on said algorithm”
`(claim 12)
`
`“means for reserving a second
`slot for a second data packet
`of said IP flow in a
`transmission frame subsequent
`in time to said future
`transmission frame based on
`said algorithm” (claim 12)
`
`“means for taking into account
`service level agreement (SLA)
`based priorities for said IP
`flow” (claim 18)
`
`frame based on said algorithm”
`
`Corresponding Structure: downlink
`scheduler 1566 or uplink scheduler 1666
`implementing an algorithm for assigning a
`first future slot that is at least one frame in
`the future from the current frame based on
`the determination by the reservation
`algorithm of the latency and jitter-
`sensitivity of the flows
`
`Claimed Function: “reserving a second
`slot for a second data packet of said IP
`flow in a transmission frame subsequent in
`time to said future transmission frame
`based on said algorithm”
`
`Corresponding Structure: downlink
`scheduler 1566 or uplink scheduler 1666
`implementing an algorithm for assigning a
`second future slot in a frame that is at least
`two frames in the future from the current
`frame based on the determination by the
`reservation algorithm of the latency- and
`jitter-sensitivity of the flows
`
`Claimed Function: “taking into account
`service level agreement (SLA) based
`priorities for said IP flow”
`
`Corresponding Structure: downlink
`sc
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
