PTAB

IPR2013-00602

Broadcom Corp v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Multi-Rate Radiocommunication Systems and Terminals
  • Brief Description: The ’568 patent discloses a method for radiocommunication systems to handle multiple data service types. The alleged invention involves using a dedicated field in a data transmission, separate from the main payload field, to include a "service type identifier" that explicitly informs the receiving device about the type of information (e.g., voice, video, data) contained in the payload for proper processing.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation - Claims 1-6 are anticipated by Morley under 35 U.S.C. §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Morley (Patent 5,488,610).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Morley discloses every element of the challenged claims. Morley describes a communication system that transmits various data types, such as voice and data, by organizing signals into frames. Petitioner asserted that these frames constitute the claimed "communication station" and include a payload portion (the "first field") and a separate header (the "second field"). Crucially, Morley’s header contains a "Header Value" that explicitly identifies the frame type—e.g., "Voice Only," "Data 0," or "Voice + Data 0"—which Petitioner contended is a direct equivalent of the ’568 patent’s "service type identifier." Morley also discloses that the frame type can change from frame to frame, anticipating dependent claim 2, and discusses transmitting voice and visual data (anticipating claims 3 and 4). Finally, Petitioner argued that Morley's disclosure of implementing the system in a GSM context inherently teaches its use in base stations (claim 5) and mobile stations (claim 6).

Ground 2: Obviousness - Claims 5-6 are obvious over Morley under 35 U.S.C. §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Morley (Patent 5,488,610).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: To the extent that implementing Morley’s system in a base station (claim 5) or mobile station (claim 6) was not considered inherent, Petitioner argued it would have been obvious. Morley explicitly discloses that its multiplexing scheme has "applications in radio communications," including GSM service.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to apply Morley's data framing and identification protocol to known components of a GSM system, such as base stations and mobile stations. This was presented as a straightforward application of a known technique (Morley's framing) to a known system (a cellular network) to achieve a predictable result: efficient handling of multiple data types in a wireless environment.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination would have yielded predictable results, as both Morley’s multiplexing and the functions of base and mobile stations in a GSM system were well understood at the time.

Ground 3: Anticipation - Claims 1-4 and 6 are anticipated by Sharma under 35 U.S.C. §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sharma (Patent 5,500,859).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Sharma, which relates to computer-assisted digital communications, discloses the claimed invention. Sharma teaches a packet protocol for transferring different information types, including DATA, VOICE, and QUALIFIED information. Each packet structure includes the payload data (the "first field") and is preceded by a synchronization character followed by an "ID/LI character" (the "second field"). Petitioner contended this ID/LI character, which specifies the packet type, is a "service type identifier." Sharma further discloses that its protocol allows for mixing different information types in a data stream and contemplates extensions for video and use in mobile contexts, thereby anticipating claims 2-4 and 6.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous additional anticipation and obviousness challenges. These included arguments that claims 1-6 are anticipated by Menand (Patent 5,548,532) and Padovani (Patent 6,659,569), and that claims 1-6 are obvious over Adams (Patent 5,541,662). An additional ground alleged claim 4 is obvious over Padovani in view of Zehavi (Patent 5,581,575). These arguments relied on similar principles, identifying prior art systems that used separate fields or headers (e.g., SCID in Menand, header bits in Padovani, ID tags in Adams) to identify the type of data (audio, video, interactive) in a corresponding payload.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "a service type identifier which identifies a type of payload information": Petitioner argued for adopting the construction from a related district court litigation: "an identifier that identifies the type of information conveyed in the payload." This construction was central to the petition's arguments. Petitioner emphasized that during the ’568 patent’s prosecution, the Patent Owner distinguished the invention from prior art by stating it was "claiming the use of a field to identify the type of payload information and not the type of channel coding." Petitioner asserted that its proposed construction is consistent with this prosecution history and the specification, whereas the Patent Owner’s litigation position—that the identifier specifies "transmission characteristics"—was an improper attempt to rewrite the claims.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-6 of the ’568 patent as unpatentable.