`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a)
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`4
`
`4
`
`4
`
`5
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`16
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Table of Contents
`
`II.
`
`THE ‘917 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Effective Filing Date of the ‘917 Patent
`
`Overview of the ‘917 Patent
`
`Prosecution History of the ‘917 Patent
`
`III. RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`V.
`
`PETITIONER DOES NOT PROVE A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD OF UNPATENTABILITY FOR ANY
`CHALLENGED CLAIM
`
`Claim Construction Standard
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`No prima facie obviousness for “storing abbreviated sequence
`numbers whose length depends on the maximum number of coded
`transport blocks to be stored and which can be shown unambiguously
`in a packet data unit sequence number”
`18
`
`1.
`
`Abrol is deficient, at least as failing to teach “abbreviated
`sequence numbers whose length depends on the maximum
`number of coded transport blocks to be stored”
`18
`
`C.
`
`The Petition does not establish that Decker teaches or renders obvious
`“a physical layer of a receiving side is provided for testing the correct
`reception of the coded transport block” of Claim 1.
`22
`
`D. No prima facie obviousness for the recitation “storing abbreviated
`sequence numbers whose length depends on the maximum number of
`coded transport blocks to be stored and which can be shown
`unambiguously in a packet data unit a sequence number” of Claims 9
`and 10.
`24
`
`E.
`
`No prima facie obviousness for the recitation “a physical layer of a
`receiving side is arranged as a receiving side for testing the correct
`reception of the coded transport block” of Claims 9 and 10.
`
`25
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`F.
`
`No prima facie obviousness for the recitation “a physical layer of a
`receiving side…for sending a positive acknowledgment command to
`the transmitting side over a back channel when there is correct
`reception and a negative acknowledge command when there is error-
`affected reception” of Claims 9 and 10.
`26
`
`VI. THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF INTER PARTES REVIEW IS
`THE SUBJECT OF A PENDING APPEAL
`
`VII. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`27
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §313 and 37 C.F.R. §42.107(a), Uniloc 2017 LLC (the
`
`“Patent Owner” or “Uniloc”) submits Uniloc’s Preliminary Response to the Petition
`
`for Inter Partes Review (“Pet.” or “Petition”) of United States Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`(“the ‘917 patent” or “Ex. 1001”) filed by Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) in IPR2019-
`
`00259.
`
`In view of the reasons presented herein, the Petition should be denied in its
`
`entirety as failing to meet the threshold burden of proving there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
`
`Uniloc addresses each ground and provides specific examples of how
`
`Petitioner failed to establish that it is more likely than not that it would prevail with
`
`respect to at least one of the challenged ‘917 Patent claims. As a non-limiting
`
`example described in more detail below, the Petition fails the all-elements-rule in
`
`not addressing every feature of any of the challenged claims.
`
`Accordingly, Uniloc respectfully requests that the Board decline institution of
`
`trial on Claims 1-3 and 9-10 of the ‘917 Patent.
`
`II. THE ‘917 PATENT
`
`A. Effective Filing Date of the ‘917 Patent
`
`The ‘917 patent is titled “Wireless Network with a Data Exchange According
`
`to the ARQ Method.” The ‘917 Patent issued on July 11, 2006, from United States
`
`Patent Application No. 09/973,312, filed October 9, 2001, which claims priority to
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`German Patent Application No. 100 50 117, filed October 11, 2000. The Petition
`
`does not dispute that the effective filing date of the ‘917 Patent as October 11, 2000.
`
`B. Overview of the ‘917 Patent
`
`The ‘917 Patent discloses various embodiments of a communication network
`
`intended for use in wireless communications. In general terms, the ‘917 Patent
`
`addresses challenges with wireless networks having a radio network controller, and
`
`terminals in communication with the radio network controller. (Ex. 1001; 1:5-7).
`
`Data transmitted between the radio network controller and the terminals is
`
`transmitted through channels predefined by the radio network controller. (Ex. 1001;
`
`3: 57-60). The radio link from the radio network controller to the terminals is referred
`
`to as the downlink, and the radio link from the terminals to the radio network
`
`controller is referred to as the uplink. (Ex. 1001; 3:62-67).
`
`The network may be operated using a layer model, or protocol architecture, in
`
`accordance with a set of standards, known as the 3rd Generation Partnership Project
`
`(3GPP); Technical Specification Group (TSG) RAN; Working Group 2 (WG2):
`
`Radio Interface Protocol Architecture: TS25.301 V3.6.0). (Ex. 1001; 6:9-16).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`As explained with reference to Fig. 2 of the ‘917 Patent, the layer model has
`
`three protocol layers: the physical layer PHY, a data connection layer including sub-
`
`layers MAC, for Medium Access Control, and RLC, for Radio Link Control, and the
`
`layer RRC for radio resource control. (Ex. 1001, 4:43-48). The RRC layer is
`
`responsible for signaling between the radio network controller and the mobile
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`terminals. (Ex. 1001, 4:49-51). The sub-layer RLC controls radio links between
`
`remote terminals and radio network controllers. (Ex. 1001; 4:51-53). The layer RRC
`
`controls layers MAC and PHY via control lines 10 and 11. The layer RRC can thus
`
`control the configuration of the MAC and PHY layers. (Ex. 1001, 4:53-56). The
`
`physical layer PHY makes transport links 12 available to the MAC layer (Ex. 1001,
`
`4:56-57). The MAC layer makes logic channels 13 available to the RLC layer. (Ex.
`
`1001, 4:57-58). The RLC layer is available to applications via access points 14. (Ex.
`
`1001, 4:58-59).
`
`Packet data units for transmission are formed in the RLC layer, and are packed
`
`in transport blocks in the MAC layer, and provided to the physical layer. The
`
`transport blocks are transmitted between the radio network controller and terminals
`
`by the physical layer. (Ex. 1001, 5:).
`
`Identification of error-affected packets and retransmission of error-affected
`
`packet data units is accomplished in multiple manners. Using the hybrid Automatic
`
`Repeat Request (ARQ) method Type II or Type II, a received packet data unit
`
`affected by an error is buffered and, after additional incremental redundancy, is
`
`decoded together with the received packet data unit affected by error. In the ARQ
`
`method Type II, the incremental redundancy is useless without the buffered, and
`
`error-affected, packet. In the ARQ method Type II the incremental redundancy can
`
`be decoded without the buffered, error-affected, packet. A message as to error-free
`
`reception is sent by the receiving device only when the receiving RLC layer
`
`establishes on the basis of an RLC sequence number that packet data units are
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`lacking. (Ex. 1001; 1:40-43). The RLC sequence number, or packet data unit
`
`sequence number, is transmitted in parallel with the coded transport block or the
`
`incremental redundancy required afterwards, as side information, thereby permitting
`
`the receiving side to detect which coded transport block is concerned or which
`
`buffered coded transport block the additionally transmitted redundancy refers to
`
`when a coded transport block is retransmitted (Ex. 1001; 5: As a result, the packet
`
`data unit must be buffered over a long time period until an incremental redundancy
`
`is requested, and then, after successful decoding, the reception may be
`
`acknowledged as correct. (Ex. 1001; 1:43-45). The period of time that the packet
`
`data unit must be buffered is particularly long on the network side, as the physical
`
`layer and the RLC layer are usually located on different hardware components on
`
`the network side. (Ex. 1001; 1:48-50).
`
`The ‘917 Patent addresses the challenge of buffering the error-affected data
`
`for a long period of time by having the receiving physical layer check whether the
`
`coded transport block has been transmitted correctly. (Ex. 1001; 6:9-11). The ‘917
`
`Patent further provides for transmission of an acknowledge command over a back
`
`channel between a physical layer of a transmitting device and the physical layer of
`
`a receiving device. (Ex. 1001; 2:30-33). This transmission of the acknowledge
`
`command provides that a correct or error-affected transmission of a transport block
`
`is provided to the transmitting side much more rapidly than previously known. (Ex.
`
`1001; 2:33-36). As a result, a repetition of transmission with incremental redundancy
`
`may be affected rapidly. This enables the receiving side to buffer the received coded
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`transport block affected by error for a shorter time period. (Ex. 1001; 2:38-40). The
`
`memory capacity needed on average for buffering received coded transport blocks
`
`affected by error is reduced. (Ex. 1001; 2:42-44).
`
`Referring to Fig. 3 of the ‘917 Patent, an example is provided.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`Here, transport blocks TB0 to TB4, to be transmitted for a time period of two
`
`radio frames RF, each having a duration of one Transmission Time Interval (TTI)
`
`are shown. (Ex. 1001; 6:44-48). Multiple channels, including the physical channel
`
`PHC, which carries the transport blocks, the side information channel SI, which
`
`carries information about the redundancy version and the abbreviated sequence
`
`number of a transport block, and the back-channel BC are shown. (See Ex. 1001;
`
`6:27 – 7:16). As the ‘917 Patent explains, the correct or error-affected reception is
`
`checked in the physical layer in the radio frame RF which comes after the
`
`transmission time interval. (Ex. 1001; 6:56-58). Thus, for transport block TB1,
`
`which is transmitted during the first radio frame of Fig. 3, error-checking is
`
`performed during the second of the four radio frames shown in Fig. 3, and the
`
`positive acknowledge command ACK is transmitted via back channel BC during the
`
`third radio frame. (Ex. 1001; 6:60-61). The transmission of transport blocks TB2,
`
`TB3 and TB4 is completed during the second of the four radio frames, and error
`
`checking is performed during the third radio frame. During the fourth radio frame,
`
`the positive acknowledgment command ACK for the transport blocks TB4 and TB2,
`
`and the negative acknowledgment command NACK for transport block TB3, are
`
`transmitted via back channel BC (Ex. 1001; 6:62-65).
`Further, the ‘917 Patent teaches the use of abbreviated sequence numbers to
`
`reduce the extent of information that is required to be additionally transmitted for
`
`managing the transport blocks and packet data units. (Ex. 1001; 2:45-49). In one
`
`embodiment, the ‘917 Patent teaches that “abbreviated sequence number is
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`
`determined by the number of M coded transport blocks which, on the receiving side,
`
`can at most be buffered simultaneously.” (Ex. 1001, 5:41-44). The ‘917 Patent goes
`
`on to state that the number of M coded transport blocks is the logarithm to the base
`
`of 2, rounded to the next higher natural number. (Ex. 1001, 5:44-44) Thus, the
`
`maximum number of coded transport blocks to be stored is the same as the maximum
`
`number of coded transport blocks that can be buffered simultaneously.
`
`The ‘917 Patent issued with three independent claims, namely claims 1, 9 and
`
`10. The text of those three independent claims is copied herein for the convenience
`
`of the Board:
`
`1. A wireless network comprising a radio network controller
`
`and a plurality of assigned to signals, which are each provided for
`
`exchanging data according to the hybrid ARQ method and which form
`
`a receiving and/or transmitting side, in which a physical layer of a
`
`transmitting side is arranged for
`
`storing coded transport blocks in a memory, which blocks
`
`contain at least a packet data unit which is delivered by an assigned
`
`radio link control layer and can be identified by a packet data unit
`
`sequence number,
`
`storing abbreviated sequence numbers whose length depends on
`
`the maximum number of coded transport blocks to be stored and which
`
`can be shown unambiguously in a packet data unit sequence number,
`
`and for
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`transmitting coded transport blocks having at least an assigned
`
`abbreviated sequence number and
`
`a physical layer of a receiving side is provided for testing the
`
`correct reception of the coded transport block and for sending a positive
`
`acknowledge command to the transmitting side over a back channel
`
`when there is correct reception and a negative acknowledge command
`
`when there is error-affected reception.
`
`
`
`9. A radio network controller in a wireless network
`
`comprising a plurality of terminals, which radio network controller is
`
`provided for exchanging data with the terminals and which forms a
`
`receiving and/or transmitting side, in which a physical layer of the radio
`
`network controller arranged as a transmitting side for
`
`storing coded transport blocks in a memory, which blocks
`
`contain at least a packet data unit which is delivered by an assigned
`
`radio link control layer and can be identified by a packet data unit
`
`sequence number,
`
`storing abbreviated sequence numbers whose length depends on
`
`the maximum number of coded transport blocks to be stored and which
`
`can be shown unambiguously in a packet data unit a sequence number,
`
`and for
`
`transmitting coded transport blocks having at least an assigned
`
`abbreviated sequence number and
`
`a physical layer of the radio network controller is arranged as a
`
`receiving side for testing the correct reception of a coded transport
`
`block from a terminal and for sending a positive acknowledge
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`command to a terminal over a back channel when there is correct
`
`reception and a negative knowledge command when there is error-
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`affected reception.
`
`
`
`10. A terminal in a wireless network comprising further terminals
`
`and a radio network controller, which terminal is provided for
`
`exchanging data with the terminals and which forms a receiving and/or
`
`transmitting side, in which a physical layer of the terminal is arranged
`
`as a transmitting side for
`
`storing coded transport blocks in a memory, which blocks
`
`contain at least a packet data unit which is delivered by an assigned
`
`radio link control layer and can be identified by a packet data unit
`
`sequence number,
`
`storing abbreviated sequence numbers whose length depends on
`
`the maximum number of coded transport blocks to be stored and which
`
`can be shown unambiguously in a packet data unit a sequence number,
`
`and for
`
`transmitting coded transport blocks to the radio network
`
`controller having at least an assigned abbreviated sequence number and
`
`A physical layer of the terminal is arranged as a receiving side
`
`for testing the correct reception of a coded transport block from the
`
`radio network controller and for sending a positive acknowledge
`
`command to the radio network controller over a back channel when
`
`there is correct reception and a negative acknowledge command when
`
`there is error-affected reception.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History of the ‘917 Patent
`
`The ‘917 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 09/973,312,
`
`filed October 9, 2001 (the ‘312 Application), which claims priority of German
`
`Application No. 10050117.6, filed October 11, 2000. The ‘312 Application was filed
`
`with 10 claims, including 3 independent claims (Ex. 1002, pp. 13-15). Information
`
`Disclosure Statements were filed in the ‘312 Application on January 8, 2002 and
`
`September 22, 2003, identifying: 3rd Generation Partnership Project, Technical
`
`Specification Group Radio Access Network, Report on Hybrid ARQ Type II/III
`
`(Release 2000), 3G TR 25.835 v0.0.0, TS-RAN Working Group 2 (Radio L2 and
`
`Radio L3, France, August 15-21, 2000).
`
`In a first Office Action, mailed September 21, 2005, independent claims 1 and
`
`9-10, were objected to for various informalities and dependent claims 4-8 were
`
`rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. (Ex. 1002, p. 59-61). The Office
`
`Action confirmed that the Examiner considered the references cited in the
`
`Information Disclosure Statements. (Ex. 1002, pp. 63-64). The Office Action further
`
`included a list of prior art considered by the Examiner, namely U.S. Patent
`
`Publication No. 2001/0036169 (Ratzel), U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0157927
`
`(Yi, et al.) and U. S. Patent Publication No. 204/0246917 (Cheng, et al.). (Ex. 1002,
`
`p. 65). The Ratzel reference discloses, in a digital packet radio receiver network, an
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`automatic repeat request, or ARQ, in which a very short sequence number is utilized
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`for space efficiency. (Ex. 1002, p. 99).
`
`An Amendment and Response was filed on January 23, 206. (Ex. 1002, pp.
`
`68-75). In the Amendment, independent claims 1, 9 and 10 were amended to correct
`
`minor informalities. (Ex. 1002, pp. 69-71). Dependent claims 4, 5, 7 and 8 were
`
`amended to clarify that the recited physical layer may be of the sending side or the
`
`transmitting side, and that an acknowledge command may be transmitted form either
`
`the sending side or the transmitting side. (Ex. 1002; p. 70).
`
`The USPTO issued a Notice of Allowance on February 27, 2006. (Ex. 1002,
`
`p. 78). The issue fee was paid on May 24, 2006. (Ex. 1002; p.85). The application
`
`issued as the ‘917 Patent on July 1, 2006.
`
`III. RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`The following proceedings are currently pending cases concerning U.S. Pat.
`
`No. 7,075,917 (EX1001). There are no pending district court cases between Patent
`
`Owner and Petitioner concerning the ‘917 Patent.
`
`
`
`Case Caption
`
`Microsoft Corporation v. Uniloc
`2017 LLC
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. AT&T Services,
`Inc. et al
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Microsoft
`Corporation
`
`Number
`
`District
`
`Filed
`
`IPR2019-00973 PTAB Apr. 19, 2019
`
`2:19-cv-00102 EDTX Mar. 26, 2019
`
`8:18-cv-02053 CDCA Nov. 17, 2018
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Caption
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Verizon
`Communications Inc. et al
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`Number
`
`District
`
`Filed
`
`2:18-cv-00513 EDTX Nov. 17, 2018
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`
`
`The Petition proposes a level of ordinary skill in the art of a person having a
`
`bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or the equivalent and
`
`three years of experience working with digital communication systems or in network
`
`engineering. (Petition, p. 4). The Petition alternatively proposes that the skilled
`
`person would have had a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer
`
`science, or the equivalent with an emphasis on digital communication systems or
`
`network engineering. (Petition, p. 4).
`
`At this time, Patent Owner also does not provide its own definition because,
`
`even applying the definition proposed by Petitioner, Petitioner has not met its
`
`burden.
`
`V. PETITIONER DOES NOT PROVE A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD
`OF UNPATENTABILITY FOR ANY CHALLENGED CLAIM
`
`Patent Owner demonstrates that Petitioners have failed to establish that it is
`
`more likely than not that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the
`
`challenged ‘917 Patent claims. By not addressing additional arguments, Patent
`
`Owner in no way concedes that any argument by Petitioner is correct.
`
`Petitioners have the burden of proof to establish entitlement to relief. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Because the Petition only presents a theory of obviousness,
`
`Petitioner must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`challenged patent claims would have been obvious in view of the references cited in
`
`the Petition. Petitioner “must specify where each element of the claim is found in
`
`the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4).
`
`The Board should reject the Petition because Petitioners fail to meet this burden for
`
`any of the grounds.
`
`The Petition is stylized as presenting the following ground:
`
`Ground Claim(s)
`1
`1-3 and 9-10
`
`Statute Reference(s)
`103
`U.S. Patent No. 5,946,320 (Decker) and U.S.
`Patent No.6,507,582 (Abrol).
`
`
`
`A. Claim Construction Standard
`
`As of the filing date of the Petition, November 12, 2018,1 the standard for
`
`claim construction in Inter Partes Review is the standard of “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.100(b) (effective May 2, 2016). For all claim terms, Uniloc requests that the
`
`Board adopt the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification. In re
`
`Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC, 822 F.3d 1282, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis
`
`original), citing Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015) (“A construction that is unreasonably broad and which does not reasonably
`
`reflect the plain language and disclosure will not pass muster.”).
`
`
`
`Notwithstanding any particular definition for this term, the Board can
`
`determine that Petitioner failed to meet its burden for other claim features as
`
`described below.
`
`
`1 The claim construction standard was modified on November 13, 2018.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`B. No prima facie obviousness for “storing abbreviated sequence
`numbers whose length depends on the maximum number of coded
`transport blocks to be stored and which can be shown
`unambiguously in a packet data unit sequence number”
`
`The Petition fails to establish prima facie obviousness of at least the following
`
`recitation: “storing abbreviated sequence numbers whose length depends on the
`
`maximum number of coded transport blocks to be stored and which can be shown
`
`unambiguously in a packet data unit sequence number” as recited in Independent
`
`Claim 1.
`
`1.
`
`
`Abrol is deficient, at least as failing to teach “abbreviated
`sequence numbers whose length depends on the maximum
`number of coded transport blocks to be stored”
`
`Abrol does not disclose at least the Claim 1’s recitation of “abbreviated
`
`sequence numbers whose length depends on the maximum number of coded
`
`transport blocks to be stored.”
`
`The Petitioner asserts that Abrol teaches this recitation (Petition, pp. 33-37).
`
`However, as is clear from Abrol, there is no disclosure that the selection of the two
`
`lengths of abbreviated sequence numbers depend on the maximum number of
`
`coded transport blocks to be stored.
`
`The Petitioner has failed to carry its burden of showing that the abbreviated
`
`sequence number scheme of Abrol is based on the maximum number of coded
`
`transport blocks to be stored. Indeed, the Petition effectively concedes that Abrol
`
`does not explicitly disclose this recitation at all, instead arguing that one of ordinary
`
`skill would read this recitation into Abrol. (Petition, p. 35). As demonstrated below,
`
`Abrol does not in fact teach this recitation at all, and indeed contemplates a
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`maximum number of coded transport blocks to be stored that requires a sequence
`
`number that is not abbreviated.
`
`Abrol is concerned with adapting the RLP protocol to enable efficient
`
`transmission of a byte stream through a channel of varying capacity. (Ex. 1005; 3:23-
`
`25). Abrol observes that in the RLP2 protocol, sequence numbers are used to denote
`
`frame numbers. (Ex. 1005; 3:42-44). Abrol notes that, as a result of the use of
`
`sequence numbers to designate frames, a negative acknowledgment message would
`
`require retransmission of an entire frame, and that if a single frame contains 750
`
`bytes of data, the need to retransmit an entire frame would overwhelm the capacity
`
`of a low-capacity channel. (See Ex. 1005; 3:52 to 4:11).
`
`Abrol addresses this problem by providing sequence numbers assigned to
`
`individual bytes, instead of sequence numbers assigned to frames. (Ex. 1005; 4:12-
`
`24). Abrol acknowledges that a disadvantage of using a byte sequence number
`
`instead of a frame sequence number is the larger data requirement for transmitting a
`
`sequence number for each byte, as opposed to only transmitting a sequence number
`
`for each frame. (Ex. 1005; 4:25-27). Abrol provides a scheme in which sequence
`
`numbers have a 20-bit size, which may be shortened to 8-bits or 14-bits (Ex. 1005:
`
`9:18-21), to reduce the amount of sequence number data being transmitted, as
`
`discussed below.
`
`Abrol carefully selects portions of the sequence number space which will go
`
`unassigned to transmitted data bits. (Ex. 1005; 4:49-52). Abrol chooses the unused
`
`portion of the sequence number space such that the first byte of each new transmitted
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`data frame starts at a predetermined distance, called a page size, from the first byte
`
`of the previous data frame. (Ex. 1005; 4:63-66). Abrol provides the example of a
`
`first byte in frame n having a sequence number of 1000, with a page size of 100,
`
`then the first byte of frame n+1 will start on the next page with a sequence number
`
`of 1100. (Ex. 1005; 4:67).
`
`Abrol goes into detail as to selection of two possible lengths of the shortened
`
`sequence number. As noted above, Abrol teaches assigning byte sequence numbers
`
`having a length of 20 bits, which may be shortened to one of 8 bits or 14 bits. (Ex.
`
`1005: 9:18-21). Abrol makes clear that: “In the preferred embodiment of the
`
`invention, most frames carrying data to be transmitted for the first time use an 8-bit
`
`RLP sequence number.” (Ex. 1005; 9:41-43). Notably, Abrol does not indicate that
`
`the preferred 8-bit length of the sequence number for most frames carrying data for
`
`the first time is dependent on the number of bytes to be stored. Thus, Abrol teaches
`
`a preferred abbreviated sequence number length, 8-bits, that is selected
`
`independently of the maximum number of coded transport blocks to be stored.
`
`Accordingly, Abrol’s teaching of an 8-bit abbreviated sequence number clearly does
`
`not disclose the recited “abbreviated sequence numbers whose length depends on
`
`the maximum number of coded transport blocks to be stored.”
`
`As an alternative to the 8-bit byte sequence number length, Abrol teaches a
`
`14-bit RLP sequence number length. Abrol teaches that such 14-bit RLP sequence
`
`numbers may be used to avoid sequence number ambiguity in the event that an
`
`outstanding frame has the same 8-bit RLP sequence number as would otherwise be
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`used by the next frame to be transmitted. (Ex. 1005, 9:49-51). By outstanding frame,
`
`Abrol means a frame that has not been explicitly or implicitly acknowledged. (Ex.
`
`1005; 6:64-65). However, the use of such an abbreviated 14-bit sequence number is
`
`not dependent on the maximum number of coded transport blocks to be stored, but
`
`only on a current number of frames that have not been acknowledged. Thus, Abrol’s
`
`teaching of selection of an abbreviated 14-bit sequence number does not teach the
`
`recited “abbreviated sequence numbers whose length depends on the maximum
`
`number of coded transport blocks to be stored.”
`
`Abrol also teaches the use of full length 20-bit sequence numbers under
`
`certain circumstances. One example given in the specification is that, if more than
`
`216 bytes are outstanding, retransmit frames carrying such data bytes include the
`
`entire 20-bit sequence number. (Ex. 1005; 7:10-14). The use of such a full length
`
`20-bit sequence number of course does not teach the recitation “abbreviated
`
`sequence numbers whose length depends on the maximum number of coded
`
`transport blocks to be stored,” as the 20-bit sequence number is the full-length
`
`number, and not an abbreviated sequence number at all.
`
`Still further, since Abrol teaches transmission of data using full-length 20-bit
`
`sequence numbers, Abrol contemplates a receiver buffer that can accommodate a
`
`volume of data requiring full-length 20-bit sequence numbers. Thus, Abrol does not
`
`base a length of an abbreviated sequence number on a capacity of the receiver buffer.
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to carry its burden of establishing that it is
`
`more likely than not that Abrol teaches “abbreviated sequence numbers whose
`
`length depends on the maximum number of coded transport blocks to be stored.”
`
`C. The Petition does not establish that Decker teaches or renders
`obvious “a physical layer of a receiving side is provided for testing
`the correct reception of the coded transport block” of Claim 1.
`
`The Petition fails to establish that Decker teaches “a physical layer of a
`
`receiving side is provided for testing the correct reception of the coded transport
`
`block” as recited in Claim 1.
`
`Decker teaches addressing challenges in connection with error correction
`
`schemes in packet radio channels. (See Ex. 1004; 1:5-16). Decker, in particular,
`
`states that its data communication system needs a minimum of processing effort at
`
`the sender and receiver side. (Ex. 1004; 1:51-53). Decker notes that an exact decision
`
`on successful transmission needs a complete run of the channel decoder and cyclic
`
`redundancy check. (Ex. 1004; 2:47-49). This can only be done immediately within
`
`a next control slot if an enormous amount of processing power is included at the
`
`receiver side. (Ex. 1004; 2:49-51; 4:55-57). The reference to a “next control slot”
`
`refers to the time periods C allocated to control messages sent from the receiver to
`
`the transmitter, such as on the downlink during transmission of data via an uplink,
`
`as illustrated in Figure 1 of Decker:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`
`
`Decker addresses this problem by providing soft decision decoding (Ex. 1004;
`
`4:24-25), or a mismatching frame check sequence. (Ex. 1004; 2:19-21). These
`
`techniques permit the receiver to make a predicted decision as to reception with a
`
`limited number of processor instructions. (Ex. 1004; 5:5-8).
`
`Decker is absolutely void of disclosure that determination of the predicted
`
`decision is made in the physical layer of the receiver. Indeed, Decker never identifies
`
`separate layers of the receiver, and thus does not allocate the respective functions of
`
`predicted decisions and exact decisions into separate layers.
`
`The Petition argues that Decker’s predicted decision is performed by the
`
`physical layer, on the grounds that Decker refers to layer 1 frames, and that
`
`processing of layer 1 frames is performed in the physical layer. (Petition, p. 48).
`
`However, as conceded by the Petition, Decker broadly teaches that the determination
`
`of whether the data in the layer 1 frame was successfully transmitted is made at the
`
`receiver side hardware (Petition, p. 48; Ex. 1004; 4:24-60).
`
`The Petitioner’s Expert Declaration determines that layer 1 frames “are stored
`
`and formed “in the physical layer,” requiring no knowledge or consideration of
`
`higher-level frames.” (Ex. 1003; p. 40). This statement identifies that layer 1 frames
`
`are formed, on the transmitting side, in the physical layer, but is silent as to
`
`processing on the receiving side. The Petitioner’s Expert argues that, because
`
`Decker teaches that decoding begins after the soft decision process occurs, the soft
`
`decision process must be an earlier determination at the physical layer. (Ex. 1003; p.
`
`23
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`56). However, there is nothing in Decker to indicate that the soft decision process i
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
