PTAB

IPR2014-01036

Apple Inc v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING MULTICARRIER SIMULCAST TRANSMISSION
  • Brief Description: The ’210 patent relates to a two-way communication system that uses a plurality of base transmitters for broadcasting in simulcast using multi-carrier modulation techniques. The system divides base transmitters into zonal assignments to maximize information throughput.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Saalfrank - Claims 1 and 10 are anticipated by Saalfrank under 35 U.S.C. §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Saalfrank (German Patent Publication No. DE4102408).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Saalfrank disclosed every element of claims 1 and 10. Saalfrank described a multi-carrier simulcast system for "common-wave radio broadcasting" using a Coded Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplex (COFDM) method. This system comprised multiple transmitter stations within a region that "simultaneously emit transmission signals with the same modulation content on the very same transmission frequency and/or the same carrier frequencies." Petitioner contended this taught the claimed first and second spatially separated transmitters. Further, Saalfrank taught that "individual carriers are each modulated with one part of the digital data," which Petitioner asserted met the limitation that each carrier signal represents a portion of the information signal not represented by others.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Saalfrank and Nakamura - Claim 19 is obvious over Saalfrank in view of Nakamura under 35 U.S.C. §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Saalfrank (German Patent Publication No. DE4102408) and Nakamura (Yasuhisa Nakamura et al., 256 QAM Modem for Multicarrier 400 Mbit/s Digital Radio, 1987).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that claim 19 recites functionality largely identical to claim 1 but in means-plus-function format, requiring the specific transmitter structures disclosed in Figures 13 or 14 of the ’210 patent. While Saalfrank taught the overall simulcast system and method, it did not detail a specific transmitter structure. Petitioner asserted that Nakamura disclosed a multicarrier modem transmitter structure that is functionally and structurally the same as the transmitter shown in Figure 14 of the ’210 patent, including modulators, a combiner, amplifiers, and the implicit need for control logic and an antenna.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to implement Saalfrank's common-wave transmission system would have been motivated to use a well-known, high-performance multicarrier transmitter like that described in Nakamura. Saalfrank's system required a multicarrier transmitter, and Nakamura's was a known and suitable example capable of handling the data throughput required for the radio programs described by Saalfrank.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings, as it involved implementing a known functional system (Saalfrank) with a known and compatible hardware component (Nakamura's transmitter) without substantial alteration.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Witsaman and Bingham - Claims 1, 10, and 19 are obvious over Witsaman in view of Bingham under 35 U.S.C. §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Witsaman (Patent 5,365,569) and Bingham (John A. C. Bingham, Multicarrier Modulation for Data Transmission, 1990).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Witsaman taught a simulcast broadcast system for paging that used multiple, spatially separated transmitters to "all broadcast the same paging signal at the same time." However, Witsaman's system was based on single-carrier modulation. Bingham taught the benefits of replacing older single-carrier systems on telephone networks (like the one Witsaman used) with multicarrier modulation (MCM), explaining that MCM provides greater immunity to impulse noise and fast fades. Petitioner contended the combination taught all limitations of claims 1 and 10. For claim 19, Petitioner asserted that Bingham's disclosure of an MCM transmitter provided the specific structure (modulators, combiner) required by the means-plus-function limitations, which was the same as that shown in Figure 13 of the ’210 patent.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Witsaman's simulcast paging system with Bingham's MCM technology to gain the explicitly stated benefits of improved signal robustness and immunity to noise and interference. Bingham provided a clear rationale and design procedure for implementing MCM on the exact type of network Witsaman employed.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was a predictable implementation of an improved modulation technique onto an existing system architecture. Bingham provided the necessary design parameters for MCM transmitters and receivers, giving a POSITA a clear path and high expectation of success.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "a . . . transmitter" (Claims 1, 10): Petitioner argued for a plain and ordinary meaning where the term refers to a distinct structural unit. Citing prior court orders, Petitioner contended that transmitting multiple signals or outputs from a single structural unit cannot suffice as multiple transmitters.
  • "means for transmitting a first/second plurality of carrier signals..." (Claim 19): Petitioner asserted these were means-plus-function terms under 35 U.S.C. §112, para. 6. Based on the specification and prior court orders, Petitioner argued the corresponding structure was either the "base transmitter 1300" of Figure 13 or the "base transmitter 1400" of Figure 14 of the ’210 patent, including all their depicted components (data input, control logic, modulators, combiners, amplifiers, antenna) and their equivalents.
  • "transmit[ting]...in simulcast" (Claims 1, 10, 19): Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "transmitting the same information at the same time," with the understanding that a single transmitter cannot operate in simulcast with itself simply by using multi-carrier modulation. This construction was also based on prior court orders.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1, 10, and 19 of the ’210 patent as unpatentable.