PTAB

IPR2014-00101

Starwood Hotels Resorts Worldwide Inc v. Lone Star WiFi LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Network Transmitting System
  • Brief Description: The ’286 patent describes a system for providing differentiated wireless network access based on user credentials. The system uses multiple network streams, transmitted from overlapping areas, to offer different tiers of service (e.g., full vs. limited internet access, varying bandwidth) controlled by distinct keys.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Liu and PAWNs - Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, and 11-13 are obvious over Liu in view of PAWNs.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Liu (Patent 7,177,637) and PAWNs (a February 2002 publication titled PAWNs: Satisfying the Need for Ubiquitous Secure Connectivity and Location Services).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Liu disclosed the core architecture of the claimed invention, teaching a wireless access point that provides multiple access modes (e.g., a secure "private mode" and a "public mode") to support both authorized and non-authorized users. The public mode offered free or limited paid-per-use services. PAWNs was presented as a publication that addressed practical challenges in deploying such public wireless networks, explicitly teaching service models with tiered access, including free local services and paid models with full internet access and differentiated bandwidth allocation. The combination of Liu's dual-mode access point with PAWNs's tiered service models allegedly rendered the claims obvious. For example, Liu's private and public modes mapped to the claimed first and second network streams, while PAWNs taught differentiating these streams by speed, payment requirement, and access level (e.g., full internet vs. limited webpages), as claimed.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Liu and PAWNs because they address the same technical problem of providing differentiated public wireless access. Petitioner contended that PAWNs provided well-known, practical solutions and design choices (e.g., tiered service plans) that a POSITA would have naturally used to implement the more general system described in Liu.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying known service differentiation techniques from PAWNs to a standard wireless network architecture from Liu, which would have yielded predictable results.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Liu, PAWNs, and Hagen - Claims 3, 6-7, 10, and 14-18 are obvious over Liu and PAWNs in further view of Hagen.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Liu (Patent 7,177,637), PAWNs (a 2002 publication), and Hagen (Application # 2002/0075844).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the Liu/PAWNs combination by adding Hagen to disclose limitations related to specific types of service differentiation, particularly access to Voice over IP (VoIP) or video services. Petitioner asserted that Hagen explicitly taught a system that supports VoIP and video calls over the network and uses bandwidth allocation policies to prioritize such delay-sensitive traffic for premium users. This teaching was argued to supply the missing element in claims like claim 3, which requires a first access level providing video over IP and a second level that does not.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, having combined Liu and PAWNs to create a tiered access system, would look to references like Hagen for common methods of differentiating service tiers. Providing enhanced services like VoIP or video to higher-paying tiers was described as an obvious and well-known design choice for monetizing a public network. Hagen merely provided an explicit example of this known technique.

Ground 3: Obviousness over ORINOCO, PAWNs, and Liu - Claims 1-18 are obvious over ORINOCO in view of PAWNs and further in view of Liu.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: ORINOCO (a November 2002 user's guide for the ORiNOCO AP-1000), PAWNs (a 2002 publication), and Liu (Patent 7,177,637).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground approached the invalidity argument from a hardware implementation perspective, with ORINOCO as the primary reference. Petitioner argued ORINOCO disclosed a physical access point with two network interface card slots, allowing for two distinct, individually securable network interfaces operating from the same location. These interfaces could be configured with different security modes (e.g., one open, one requiring an authorization password), directly mapping to the claimed "first networking device" and "second networking device" transmitting separate streams. PAWNs and Liu were then used to supply the high-level service models for these physically separate network interfaces. For instance, a POSITA would configure ORINOCO's first interface for paid, full-access service (as taught by PAWNs) and the second interface for limited, free public access (as taught by Liu).
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to implement a functional system. While PAWNs and Liu taught what differentiated services to offer, ORINOCO taught how to implement such differentiation using specific, commercially available hardware with configurable security. The combination represented the practical application of the service models from PAWNs and Liu onto the flexible hardware platform disclosed in ORINOCO.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Networking Device": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a component for transmitting and receiving network transmissions." This construction was argued to be consistent with the specification's disclosure of using single or multiple network cards to implement the invention.
  • "Key": Petitioner proposed construing "key" as "an encryption code or a code that allows access." This was based on the patent's abstract, which provides examples like an "encryption key" or a "key indicating that they have paid for service."
  • "Overlapping Area": Petitioner argued this phrase should be interpreted as "transmitting from any area within the transmission area of the first networking device." This construction was asserted to be consistent with the specification's description of using multiple network cards "over the same airspace."

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-18 of the ’286 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.