`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,075,917
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. SUMMARY OF THE ’917 PATENT ............................................................ 1
`A. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALLEGED INVENTION OF THE ’917 PATENT ............... 1
`B. SUMMARY OF THE PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE ’917 PATENT ................ 1
`C. LEVEL OF SKILL OF A PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......... 4
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104 .................................................................................................................... 4
`A. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A) .............................. 4
`B. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) AND RELIEF
`REQUESTED ............................................................................................................ 5
`C. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3) ............................. 5
`IV. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ’917 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE 6
`A. SHOWING OF ANALOGOUS, PRIOR ART .......................................................... 6
`B. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-3 AND 9-10 ARE OBVIOUS OVER DECKER IN VIEW OF
`ABROL .................................................................................................................... 9
`V. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 59
`VI. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ..................... 60
`A. REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST .......................................................................... 60
`B. RELATED MATTERS ..................................................................................... 60
`C. LEAD AND BACK-UP COUNSEL .................................................................... 60
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases:
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016)………………...………6
`
`AM General LLC v. UUSI, LLC, IPR2016-01050, Paper No. 17
`(PTAB Nov. 14, 2016) ..……………………………………….…………………..9
`
`
`Statutes:
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b)…………..………………………………...…..…………………..6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (pre AIA)…...……………………………………………….…8
`
`Regulations:
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)………………………………………………………….….60
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) …...…………………………………………………….…60
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) …...…………………………………………………….…60
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and (b)(4) ….……………………………………….….....60
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)………………………………………………………...….5, 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104…………………………………..……………………...…....4, 5
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”)
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`of claims 1-3 and 9-10 (collectively, the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,075,917 (“the ’917 Patent”). ’917 Patent (Ex. 1001).
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’917 PATENT
`A. Description of the alleged invention of the ’917 Patent
`The ’917 Patent generally describes a system and method of detecting error-
`
`affected data transmitted over a wireless network and requesting retransmission.
`
`’917 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 1:5-8, 1:64-67. The ’917 Patent discusses doing so more
`
`quickly by detecting error-affected data at the physical layer, rather than waiting
`
`for this step to be performed at the radio link control layer. Id. at 1:40-50, 2:28-44.
`
`To manage this functionality, abbreviated sequence numbers are generated and
`
`associated with packet data units, reducing the amount of information transmitted
`
`between the sides and simplifying the positive or negative acknowledgement
`
`process. Id. at 2:45-54.
`
`B.
`Summary of the prosecution history of the ’917 Patent
`The Application that resulted in the ’917 Patent was filed on October 9,
`
`2001, as U.S. App. No. 09/973,312. ’917 Patent (Ex. 1001). The ’917 Patent
`
`purports to claim priority to German Patent Application No. 100 50 117, filed
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`October 11, 2000. For purposes of this IPR, Petitioner applies the priority date of
`
`October 11, 2000, to all Challenged Claims. Should it become an issue as to
`
`whether the ’917 Patent is entitled to the October 11, 2000, priority date, Petitioner
`
`reserves the right to provide further evidence regarding an insufficient priority
`
`claim.
`
`On September 21, 2005, the Examiner issued a non-final rejection, objecting
`
`to informalities and requesting clarification of dependent claims 4-8, but citing no
`
`prior art directly and finding allowable subject matter in claims 1-3, 9, and 10. ’917
`
`Patent File History (Ex. 1002) at 61.
`
`In response, the Applicant amended the claims to address the Examiner’s
`
`concerns. Id. at 69-73. The Examiner subsequently issued a notice of allowance for
`
`claims 1-10, issuing as the ’917 Patent on July 11, 2006. Id. at 81.
`
`C.
`Summary of unpatentability of the Challenged Claims
`As discussed above, the purported invention of the ’917 Patent is
`
`unambiguously identifying each packet data unit with an abbreviated sequence
`
`number. ’917 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 2:45-54. However, use of an abbreviated or
`
`shortened sequence number to identify a packet data unit was known prior to the
`
`’917 Patent’s priority date. In particular, U.S. Patent No. 6,507,582 to Abrol
`
`teaches generating shortened sequence numbers from assigned sequence numbers
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`to unambiguously identify an item of data:
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`
`The RLP sequence number 240 in each retransmit frame 230 may
`optionally be shortened in the same ways as discussed for RLP
`sequence numbers as long as doing so causes no sequence number
`ambiguity.
`
`*************
`The type field is followed by the RLP sequence number. When
`possible without causing sequence number ambiguity, shortened
`RLP sequence numbers of 8 bits are used. At other times, shortened
`RLP sequence numbers of 14 bits or full 20-bit RLP sequence
`numbers are contained by the RLP header.
`Abrol (Ex. 1005) at 8:19-21, 9:16-21; see also id. at 10:49-54, 12:64–13:6
`
`(emphases added).
`
`Id. at Fig. 6.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`As established in the claim mappings of Section IV, the purported
`
`distinguishing feature of abbreviated sequence numbers was known, as evidenced
`
`in Abrol.
`
`D.
`Level of skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art
`A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’917 Patent would
`
`have been 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. Alternatively, 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. Additional education may substitute for lesser experience
`
`and vice-versa. Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 33.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104
`A. Grounds for standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioner certifies that the ’917 Patent is available for IPR and that
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the claims of
`
`the ’917 Patent. Specifically, Petitioner states: (1) Petitioner is not the owner of the
`
`’917 Patent, (2) Petitioner has not filed a civil action challenging the validity of
`
`any claim of the ’917 Patent, and (3) this Petition is not filed more than one year
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`after the Petitioner having been served with a complaint alleging infringement of
`
`the ’917 Patent.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and relief
`requested
`In view of the prior art and evidence presented, claims 1-3 and 9-10 of the
`
`’917 Patent are unpatentable and should be cancelled. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1).
`
`Further, based on the prior art references identified below, IPR of the Challenged
`
`Claims should be granted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2).
`
`Proposed Grounds of Unpatentability
`Ground 1: Claims 1-3 and 9-10 are obvious under § 103(a) over
`U.S. Patent No. 5,946,320 to Decker (“Decker” or “Ex. 1004”) in
`view of U.S. Patent No. 6,507,582 to Abrol (“Abrol” or “Ex. 1005”)
`
`
`Exhibits
`
`Ex. 1004,
`Ex. 1005
`
`Section IV(B) identifies where each element of the Challenged Claims is
`
`found in the prior art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). The exhibit numbers of the
`
`supporting evidence relied upon to support the challenges are provided above and
`
`the relevance of the evidence to the challenges raised are provided in Section IV.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5). Exhibits 1001–1009 are also attached.
`
`C. Claim construction under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`In this proceeding, claim terms of an unexpired patent should be given their
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`§ 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144-46 (2016).
`
`Unless otherwise expressly discussed, Petitioner applies the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of all claim terms below. Petitioner does not, however, waive any
`
`argument in any litigation that claim terms in the ’917 Patent are indefinite or
`
`otherwise invalid nor does Petitioner waive its right to raise additional issues of
`
`claim construction in any litigation.
`
`IV. THERE
`IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE
`’917 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE
`A.
`Showing of analogous, prior art
`1.
`Decker is analogous, prior art to the ’917 Patent
`Decker issued August 31, 1999, qualifying as prior art to the ’917 Patent
`
`under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Decker (Ex. 1004). Decker discloses a method
`
`for transmitting packet data over a cellular system according to the type II ARQ
`
`method including ACK acknowledgements (acknowledgement that transmission
`
`successfully received) and NAK acknowledgements (acknowledgement that
`
`transmission not successfully received). Id. at Abstract. Specifically, Decker
`
`teaches:
`
`In order to attain the objects there is provided a method for
`transmitting packet data in an air interface of a digital cellular radio
`a hybrid
`forward
`error
`telephone
`system
`based
`on
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`correction/automatic repeat request, i.e. FEC/AR[Q] type II,
`comprising the following steps for each packet:
`…d) deciding on transmission success at the receiver side,
`based on the stored data and sending a positive acknowledgement
`(ACK) if the transmission has been decided to be successful and a
`negative acknowledgement (NAK) if not;
`Id. at 1:54-2:11 (emphases added). As will be detailed below, Decker provides for
`
`testing for correct reception of transmitted data and transmitting a positive (ACK)
`
`or negative (NAK) acknowledgement at the physical layer of a receiving side.
`
`In both Decker and the ’917 Patent, a method of wireless communication is
`
`performed using the type II hybrid ARQ method. Compare Decker (Ex. 1004) at
`
`Abstract, with ’917 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Abstract. Because both Decker and the
`
`’917 Patent are directed
`
`to methods of enhanced communication and
`
`acknowledging error-affected transmissions, Decker is in the same field of
`
`endeavor and is reasonably pertinent to the same problem as the claimed invention
`
`in the ’917 Patent. Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶¶ 49-50. Therefore, Decker is also
`
`analogous to the claimed invention in the ’917 Patent. Decker was not cited or
`
`considering during prosecution of the ’917 Patent.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`2.
`Abrol is analogous, prior art to the ’917 Patent
`Although Decker
`teaches
`transmitting
`positive
`
`negative
`
`and
`
`acknowledgements, Decker does not expressly discuss assigning abbreviated
`
`sequence numbers to packet data units. As discussed in detail below, it was well
`
`known at the time of the ’917 Patent to employ abbreviated sequence numbers in
`
`wireless communication systems. One example is Abrol, filed May 27, 1999, and
`
`qualifying as prior art with regard to the ’917 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (pre-
`
`AIA). Abrol (Ex. 1005).
`
`Abrol describes an improved method of transmitting a data stream using
`
`“shortened” sequence numbers. Abrol (Ex. 1005) at Abstract. Abrol explains that a
`
`shortened sequence number may be used in ARQ based on retransmission requests
`
`“without causing sequence number ambiguity.” Id. at 2:1-11, 6:59–7:15, 8:19-21.
`
`Because Abrol, like the ’917 Patent, discloses a system and method of reducing the
`
`overhead in wireless communication error control protocols, it is in the same field
`
`of endeavor and is reasonably pertinent to the same problem as the ’917 Patent.
`
`Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 52. Therefore, Abrol is also analogous to the claimed
`
`invention in the ’917 Patent. Abrol was not cited or considered during prosecution
`
`of the ’917 Patent.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`B. Ground 1: Claims 1-3 and 9-10 are obvious over Decker in view of
`Abrol
`1.
`Claim 1
`1[Preamble]: A wireless network comprising a radio network controller and a
`plurality of assigned [terminals]1, which are each provided for exchanging data
`according to the hybrid ARQ method an [sic] which form a receiving and/or
`transmitting side, in which a physical layer of a transmitting side is arranged for
`
`
`To the extent the preamble is limiting, Decker teaches a wireless network, as
`
`claimed. In particular, Decker teaches a data communication system that transmits
`
`packet data in an air interface of a digital cellular radio telephone system:
`
`It is therefore an object of the present invention to provide a data
`communication system which can secure a high throughput within
`
`
`1 Claim 1 appears to contain a typographical error. The correct claim should read
`
`“terminals” rather than “to signals” based on a) common sense and English vocabulary,
`
`b) consistency with the specification and dependent claim 2, and c) the final version of
`
`the claims appearing in the prosecution history of the ’917 Patent prior to the Examiner
`
`issuing a Notice of Allowance. ’917 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Abstract, 1:5-8, claim 2; ’917
`
`Patent File History (Ex. 1002) at 69; Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at 53; see AM General LLC
`
`v. UUSI, LLC, IPR2016-01050, Paper No. 17 at 10-16 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2016) (using
`
`indicators such as those listed for determining whether correction of errors is subject to
`
`reasonable debate).
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`packet radio transmission systems, even when the channel error rate is
`fluctuating, to be implemented e.g. within the GSM mobile radio
`system.
`
`
`
`Another object of the present invention is to provide a data
`communication system which needs a minimum of processing effort
`at sender and receiver side.
`
`
`
`In order to attain the objects there is provided a method for
`transmitting packet data in an air interface of a digital cellular
`radio
`telephone system based on a hybrid
`forward error
`correction/automatic repeat request, i.e. FEC/AR[Q] type II…
`Decker (Ex. 1004) at 1:46-58 (emphases added). A PHOSITA would have
`
`reasonably understood that a “digital cellular radio telephone system” is a wireless
`
`network, as cellular telephone systems operating on radio frequencies are well-
`
`known “networks” transmitting data without the use of wires. Expert Decl. (Ex.
`
`1003) at ¶ 54.
`
`Regarding the claimed “radio network controller” and “plurality of assigned
`
`terminals,” Decker’s “digital cellular radio telephone system” implemented within
`
`the GSM standard satisfies these claim limitations. The GSM standard details
`
`communication protocols between a base station radio network controller and a
`
`plurality of mobile terminals within range of the base station. Expert Decl. (Ex.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`1003) at ¶ 54, citing Global System for Mobile Communication (GSM) [GSM
`
`04.22] (Ex. 1006) at 3 (“GSM Standard”) (referenced by Decker (Ex. 1004) at
`
`1:25-29). A PHOSITA would have understood that such a digital cellular radio
`
`telephone system would comprise a network controller for any individual “cell” of
`
`coverage, configured for exchanging data with a plurality of terminals (e.g.,
`
`cellular phones). Id. The terminals (phones) are assigned to the particular network
`
`controller in that they selectively communicate with the network controller in
`
`closest proximity—that is, all terminals (phones) within a given cell communicate
`
`with that cell’s network controller and are thus assigned to it while they remain
`
`within the particular cell. Id.
`
`Decker also expressly teaches transmitting data from a “sender side,”
`
`receiving data at a “receiver side,” and deciding on transmission success at a
`
`“receiver side.” Decker (Ex. 1004) at Abstract; see also id. at 1:5-10 (disclosing
`
`that the invention relates to “data communication systems which perform
`
`transmission and reception of digital data through duplex communications
`
`systems”). Thus, a PHOSITA would have reasonably understood that Decker’s
`
`method for transmitting packet data using the GSM standard in a digital cellular
`
`radio telephone system includes employing the method with a radio network
`
`controller and a plurality of assigned terminals. Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 54.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`“a physical layer of a transmitting side is arranged for”
`
`As will be shown below for each of the limitations of Claims 1(a)–1(c),
`
`Decker in view of Abrol teaches “a physical layer of the transmitting side”
`
`performing the respective claimed step.
`
`[1(a)]: 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,
`
`
`“coded transport blocks … contain[ing] at least a packet data unit”
`(taught by Decker)
`
`Claim 1(a) recites a coded transport block containing at least a packet data
`
`unit. The ’917 Patent discusses the relationship between packet data units and
`
`coded transport blocks as follows:
`
`The packet data units are formed in the RLC layer and packed to
`transport blocks in the MAC layer, which transport blocks are
`transmitted by the physical layer from the radio network controller to
`a terminal or vice versa over the available transport channels. In the
`physical layer the transport blocks are provided with a cyclic
`redundancy check (CRC) and coded together. The result of this
`operation is referred to as a coded transport block. The coded
`transport blocks contain a packet data unit and control
`information.
`’917 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 5:4-12 (emphases added).
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`The ’917 Patent thus describes coded transport blocks as being met by, at the
`
`least, blocks of data provided with a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) and coded
`
`together. Id. at 5:9-12; Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 58. A CRC is a well known
`
`error-detecting code and is further well known as a type of frame check sequence
`
`(FCS). Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 62, citing GSM Standard (Ex. 1006) at 7,
`
`Section 2, Definition for “frame check sequence” (defining a “frame check
`
`sequence” as a “field of redundant information based on a cyclic code, used for
`
`error detection”).
`
`The ’917 Patent also describes the coded transport block as containing a
`
`packet data unit and “control information.” ’917 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 5:11-12. The
`
`’917 Patent does not define or discuss “control information,” but a PHOSITA
`
`would reasonably understand “control information” to include, for example, header
`
`information (including the abbreviated sequence number recited in Claim 1(b)) and
`
`any FCS information, such as the described CRC. Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 65,
`
`citing 3GPP (Ex. 1007) at 23, *Note (referring to “protocol control information
`
`(e.g. header)”) (further opining that header and frame check sequence information
`
`are types of “control information” because such information is commonly encoded
`
`and transmitted with a data item for use in identifying or otherwise providing
`
`information to facilitate the correct transmission and decoding of the data item).
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`Referring to the Claim 1(a) limitation of “coded transport blocks … which
`
`blocks contain at least a packet data unit,” Decker teaches the claimed “packet data
`
`unit.” Decker teaches a “method for transmitting packet data in an air interface of a
`
`digital cellular radio telephone system.” Decker (Ex. 1004) at 1:54-58. A disclosed
`
`first step of the method for transmitting packet data is “encoding the bits of the
`
`packet of user data, header and frame check sequence, using error correcting codes
`
`and storing the resulting bits for transmission at the sender side.” Decker (Ex.
`
`1004) at 1:59-62. A PHOSITA would reasonably understand that Decker’s
`
`teaching of “packet data” and a “packet of user data” meets the claimed “packet
`
`data unit.” Id. at 1:54-62; Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 60 (noting that Decker is
`
`directed to a method for transmitting packet data).
`
`Decker also teaches the claimed “coded transport block.” Similar to the ’917
`
`Patent, which refers to the result of coding together transport blocks provided with
`
`a CRC as “coded transport blocks,” Decker teaches “encoding the bits of the
`
`packet of user data, header and frame check sequence.” Compare ’917 Patent (Ex.
`
`1001) at 5:8-11, with Decker (Ex. 1004) at 1:59-62. Thus, Decker expressly
`
`teaches coding of the “packet of user data” (i.e., the claimed packet data unit) with
`
`control information such as the header and frame check sequence. See generally,
`
`Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶¶ 61-63 (opining that Decker’s encoded bits of the
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`packet of user data, header, and FCS is equivalent to the ’917 Patent’s discussion
`
`of “coded transport block” containing a packet data unit and control information).
`
`In more detail, Decker teaches encoding the packet data with a frame check
`
`sequence, including a CRC. See generally Decker (Ex. 1004) at 1:59-62, 3:21-30,
`
`4:53-55. A CRC is a well known type of frame check sequence, such that Decker’s
`
`teaching of encoding the packet data and frame check sequence teaches or
`
`otherwise renders obvious providing a CRC, as described in the ’917 Patent.
`
`Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶¶ 61-62.
`
`Yet further, Decker expressly teaches that when decoding, the transmitted
`
`codeword is checked for a CRC: “An exact decision on a successful transmission
`
`needs a complete run of the channel decoder and cyclic redundancy check.”
`
`Decker (Ex. 1004) at 4:53-55. A PHOSITA would reasonably understand from
`
`Decker that because determining whether a successful transmission occurred
`
`includes running a cyclic redundancy check, then the packet of user data was
`
`originally encoded with the cyclic redundancy check. Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at
`
`¶ 63 (further noting Decker’s teaching at 2:12-19 of detecting a mismatching frame
`
`check sequence at the receiver side, which leads to a negative acknowledgement).
`
`It would be non-sensical to perform a CRC to determine successful transmission of
`
`an encoded packet if the packet was not otherwise encoded with the CRC. Id.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`Thus, a PHOSITA collectively reading the teachings of Decker at 1:59-62
`
`and 3:21-30, stating encoding the packet of user data and a frame check sequence,
`
`with the teaching at 4:53-55, stating that a successful transmission determination is
`
`made by running a CRC at the decoder, would understand that Decker teaches
`
`encoding the packet of user data (i.e., the claimed packet data unit) with a CRC.
`
`Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶¶ 61-63.
`
`Additionally, Decker teaches that the packet of user data, header, and FCS
`
`(which a PHOSITA would understand is a CRC, as detailed above) are coded
`
`together, such as via a convolutional code. Decker (Ex. 1004) at 3:21–4:62
`
`(generally discussing convolutionally encoding a sequence, including providing a
`
`puncturing code). Because the ’917 Patent refers to the “coded transport blocks” as
`
`transport blocks provided with a CRC and “coded together” (Ex. 1001 at 5:8-12),
`
`Decker’s teaching of encoding packet data units and an FCS (which would
`
`otherwise be understood by a PHOSITA to be a CRC) via a convolutional code
`
`satisfies the claimed “coded transport blocks.” Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 64
`
`(further opining that the ’917 Patent does not provide any detail on what code is
`
`used to “code together” the transport blocks).
`
`To the extent it is determined that a “coded transport block,” as claimed,
`
`includes “control information,” Decker also teaches such. As noted above, Decker
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`teaches encoding the packet of user data with header information and a frame
`
`check sequence, which a PHOSITA would reasonably understand are types of
`
`control information. Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶¶ 65-66, citing Decker (Ex. 1004)
`
`at 1:59-62, 3:21-30 (disclosing encoding the bits of the packet data, header, and
`
`FCS). Decker further discloses that each layer 1 frame includes a header and an
`
`FCS to ensure successful transmission. Decker (Ex. 1004) at 2:12-19. Because
`
`Decker teaches including, at the least, a header for each layer 1 frame, a PHOSITA
`
`would reasonably understand or otherwise find it obvious that Decker teaches the
`
`encoded bits of packet data and header to include “control information.” Expert
`
`Decl. (Ex. 1004) at ¶¶ 65-66.
`
`“storing” coded transport blocks in a memory (taught by Decker)
`
`Decker also teaches “storing coded transport blocks in a memory,” as
`
`claimed in Claim 1(a). Specifically, Decker states “encoding the bits of the packet
`
`of user data, header and frame check sequence, using error correcting codes and
`
`storing the resulting bits for transmission at the sender side.” Decker (Ex.
`
`1004) at 1:59-62 (emphasis added). A PHOSITA would reasonably understand or
`
`otherwise find it obvious that “storing the resulting bits … at the sender side”
`
`means the encoded bits are stored in a memory. Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 67.
`
`Storage of digital data in a memory is a well understood concept in digital data
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`transmission systems, such as Decker. Id. (further noting Decker teaches storage of
`
`the received data at the receiver side in a memory at 4:9-14). Additionally, Decker
`
`teaches (in claim 2) that “the size of Air-Interface-Units is constant and can be
`
`carried by an undivided number of TDMA bursts, i.e. 456 bit, as in 4 GSM bursts.”
`
`Decker (Ex. 1004) at 6:64-67; see also id. at 2:13-19. A PHOSITA would
`
`reasonably understand that because Decker’s method is implemented “within the
`
`GSM mobile radio system” (Decker at 1:45-49), and further because GSM is a
`
`TDMA-based physical layer or “air interface” (Decker at 2:19-20), then the
`
`transmitting side must be able to store the packet data of size 456 bits. Expert Decl.
`
`(Ex. 1003) at ¶ 67, citing Decker (Ex. 1004) at 3:42-45. The transmitting side must
`
`therefore have at least enough temporary storage for 456 bits of data because each
`
`bit requires some finite length of time to physically transmit. Id. Therefore, a
`
`PHOSITA would reasonably understand Decker teaches storing the coded
`
`transport blocks (i.e., Decker’s encoded packet of user data, header information,
`
`and frame check sequence) in a memory.
`
`To the extent it is deemed that Decker does not teach storing coded transport
`
`blocks in a memory, Abrol teaches such, as discussed below.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`“a physical layer of a transmitting side is arranged for storing coded
`transport blocks” (taught by Decker)
`
`Regarding the limitation that “a physical layer of the transmitting side” be
`
`arranged for performing the step of Claim 1(a), Decker teaches such. As a brief
`
`background, the ’917 Patent explains the exchange of control information and data
`
`with a layer model according to the 3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project),
`
`which defines the physical layer as L1 or “layer 1.” See ’917 Patent (Ex. 1001) at
`
`4:36-59 (referring to the layer model according to the 3GPP, cited as Ex. 1007);
`
`3GPP Radio Interface Protocol Architecture (Ex. 1007) at 6-7, 12 (defining “L1”
`
`as “Layer 1 (physical layer)”). A PHOSITA would reasonably understand that the
`
`physical layer (or layer 1) as described in the ’917 Patent for use in a wireless
`
`network is generally equivalent to layer 1 of the ISO-OSI reference model, which
`
`provides for seven layers in a wired network. Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶¶ 68-69,
`
`citing Applications of CDMA (Ex. 1008) at 94-95. The top four layers of the seven
`
`layers of the ISO-OSI model are not needed for use in a wireless network, and
`
`therefore, wireless networks at the priority date of the ’917 Patent commonly
`
`comprised
`
`three
`
`layers. Id. Thus,
`
`the physical
`
`layer (layer 1)
`
`in any
`
`telecommunication system to which the OSI Model is applied refers to the
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`hardware and software responsible for establishing and maintaining a physical data
`
`connection. Id.
`
`Decker teaches the physical layer claimed in Claim 1. Specifically, Decker
`
`teaches a “layer 1” (particularly applied to a GSM system) performing functions
`
`such as coding and modulating data, as well as the specific steps recited in Claims
`
`1(a)–1(c). Decker (Ex. 1004) at 1:21-24, 1:46-50, 2:12-30, 4:24-45. In more detail,
`
`Decker teaches transmitting layer 1 frames over the air interface:
`
`the VRRA (Variable Rate Reservation Access)
`Within
`proposal, layer 1 frames are transmitted within blocks of 4
`consecutive GSM bursts over the air interface (FIG. 1). To ensure a
`successful transmission a header (H) and a frame check sequence
`(FCS) are added to each data unit (FIG. 2). In the type I mechanism
`this VRRA frame is now encoded using a punctured half rate
`convolutional coder and transmitted in 4 consecutive GSM TD MA
`slots.
`Decker (Ex. 1004) at 2:12-19. Decker thus teaches layer 1 frames are amended to
`
`include a header and FCS, encoded, and transmitted in four GSM bursts. The
`
`amended (to include a header) and encoded layer 1 frame is referred to as a
`
`“VRRA frame.” And, as already shown, this amended and encoded layer 1 frame,
`
`i.e., the VRRA frame, satisfies the claimed “coded transport block” in Claim 1(a).
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00259
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917
`To transmit the VRRA frame over the air interface in GSM bursts, a
`
`PHOSITA would reasonably understand that storage of the VRRA frame occurs in
`
`the physical layer, i.e., layer 1. Expert Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 70. First, a PHOSITA
`
`would reasonably understand that because the VRRA frame is a layer 1 frame, the
`
`frame is formed in the physical layer. Id. Second, Decker expressly discloses
`
`transmitting these “layer 1 frames” (which are amended to include header and FCS
`
`and encoded) to a receiving side. Id., citing Decker (Ex. 1004) at 2:12-19. Third,
`
`applying a similar rationale as discussed above for “storage” in a memory, in order
`
`to transmit the layer 1 frames within blocks of 4 consecutive GSM bursts, the
`
`frames must be stored in the physical layer (i.e., layer 1). Id. Therefore, Decker
`
`teaches that a “physical layer of a transmitting side” is arranged for performing the
`
`claimed step of storing coded transport blocks in a memory. Id.
`
`The teachings of Abrol for Claim 1(a)
`
`Decker does not expressly teach that the packet of user data “is delivered by
`
`an assigned radio link control layer and can be identified by a packet data unit
`
`sequence number,” as claimed in Claim 1(a). In related art, Abrol teaches such. A
`
`reason to combine A
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
