PTAB

IPR2014-00504

Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: MOBILE WIRELESS HOTSPOT SYSTEM
  • Brief Description: The ’771 patent describes a mobile wireless hotspot system, typically for use in a vehicle, that functions as a "stand-alone system." It includes a short-range wireless access point for local client devices, a long-range wireless interface for connecting to the Internet, and a LAN routing system to manage the data path between them, all without needing to access an external service controller server for core networking functions.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Boehm - Claims 1 and 2 are anticipated by Boehm.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Boehm (Application # 2004/0085944).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Boehm, which was not cited during prosecution, discloses every limitation of claims 1 and 2. Boehm teaches a portable wireless gateway combining a short-range wireless interface (e.g., 802.11b, meeting claim 2), a long-range interchangeable network interface (e.g., GPRS or 1xRTT), and an integrated router. Crucially, Petitioner asserted that Boehm’s router provides local DHCP and network address translation, fulfilling the ’771 patent’s key limitation of a "stand-alone system" that operates "without the need to access an external service controller server"—the very feature added to the claims to overcome prior art during prosecution.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Mitchell in view of Boehm and/or Kellerer - Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 18 are obvious over Mitchell in view of Boehm and/or Kellerer.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mitchell (Patent 7,599,691), Boehm (Application # 2004/0085944), and Kellerer (a 2001 technical article on mobile communication).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Mitchell serves as a base reference, disclosing a mobile communication system for vehicles (e.g., aircraft) with a short-range wireless network for client devices and a long-range satellite link for Internet access. Mitchell also teaches features relevant to dependent claims, including vehicle integration (claim 3), a local content module (claim 4), downloading updates via a short-range link (claim 7), and a WAN manager to maintain a continuous connection (claim 18). To the extent Mitchell does not explicitly teach the "stand-alone" functionality, Petitioner asserted this feature was disclosed by both Boehm and Kellerer.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Mitchell’s mobile platform with the stand-alone functionality of Boehm (local DHCP/NAT) or Kellerer (in-vehicle application servers) to create a more integrated and self-sufficient system. This combination represented the application of a known technique (local network management) to a known system (a vehicle-based hotspot) to achieve the predictable result of improved functionality without reliance on an external server.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as integrating local server functions into a mobile gateway was a well-understood design choice at the time.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Kellerer in view of Boehm - Claims 1-3 and 18 are obvious over Kellerer in view of Boehm.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kellerer (a 2001 technical article) and Boehm (Application # 2004/0085944).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kellerer discloses a vehicle-based gateway server that is itself a stand-alone system, as it contains application servers (e.g., for email) that provide functionality to client devices within the car. Kellerer teaches short-range interfaces (e.g., Bluetooth, WaveLAN) and a long-range GPRS interface for direct Internet access. To the extent Kellerer does not explicitly detail a "LAN routing system," Petitioner argued Boehm's disclosure of a router in a similar portable gateway would have rendered its inclusion obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Kellerer’s gateway architecture with Boehm’s explicit teaching of a router to manage traffic between the internal and external networks. This would be a simple application of a known routing technique to improve Kellerer’s system, yielding the predictable result of a well-managed and secure data path between the short-range and long-range interfaces.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combinations including Veeck (Application # 2005/0039208) as a base reference in view of Kellerer, Boehm, and/or Mitchell, relying on similar theories of combining known elements for predictable results.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "stand-alone system": Petitioner proposed construing this term to mean a mobile system configured to perform functions involved in Internet communications (e.g., DHCP, network address translation) locally, without requiring access to an external controller server. This construction was central to distinguishing the claimed invention from prior art considered during prosecution (i.e., Kokkinen) and aligning it with the teachings of references like Boehm and Kellerer.
  • "long-range, wireless Internet access interface": Petitioner argued this term should be construed to mean an interface that accesses the Internet using a long-range wireless protocol, such as GPRS or 1xRTT. This was based on the specification’s description and the applicant’s statements during prosecution, and it was critical for mapping the cellular data interfaces of Boehm and Kellerer to this claim limitation.
  • "without the need to access an external service controller server": This negative limitation was argued to be the key feature of the "stand-alone system." Petitioner contended that prior art teaching local handling of network services like DHCP, as in Boehm's router, directly meets this limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-4, 7, and 18 of the ’771 patent as unpatentable.