PTAB

IPR2015-00015

T-Mobile USA Inc v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

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 combines multi-carrier modulation with simulcast broadcasting techniques. The invention aims to maximize information throughput by using multiple transmitters to simultaneously broadcast information over several closely spaced carrier frequencies, allowing for high data transfer rates while remaining within the limitations of simulcast technology.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. §102 by Saalfrank

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Saalfrank (German Patent Publication No. DE4102408).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Saalfrank discloses every element of claims 1 and 10. Saalfrank teaches a nationwide network of "common-wave radio...transmitter stations" that "simultaneously emit" signals with the "same modulation content," which meets the simulcast limitation. Its use of Coded Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplex (COFDM) with a "plurality of individual carriers" meets the multi-carrier limitation. Petitioner further contended that Saalfrank's disclosure that "individual carriers are each modulated with one part of the digital data" and that the modulation content is "identical for all transmitter stations" teaches the claimed system where first and second transmitters simulcast a plurality of carrier signals representing partitioned information.

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

  • 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, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications (Apr. 1987)).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 1 but recites the transmitter elements in means-plus-function format, requiring the specific transmitter structure disclosed in Figures 13 and 14 of the ’210 patent. While Saalfrank teaches the overall multi-carrier simulcast system, it does not detail a specific transmitter structure. Nakamura, however, discloses a 256 Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (QAM) based transmitter whose structure, Petitioner argued, is "nearly identical" to the structure shown in Figure 14 of the ’210 patent, thereby supplying the missing structural details.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Nakamura's transmitter with Saalfrank's system as a matter of routine design. Saalfrank describes the required functionality of its transmitters without specifying their internal structure, leaving the implementation open to known designs. A POSITA would have selected a known, high-performance transmitter like Nakamura's, which offered benefits such as "good phase jitter performance," to implement the Saalfrank system.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because Nakamura's transmitter was a well-understood component with performance capabilities (up to 400 Mbit/s) far exceeding the requirements of Saalfrank's broadcast system, ensuring compatibility.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 1, 10, and 19 under §103 over Witsaman in view of Bingham

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Witsaman (Patent 5,365,569) and Bingham (John A. C. Bingham, Multicarrier Modulation for Data Transmission, IEEE Communications Magazine (May 1990)).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Witsaman discloses a "simulcast broadcast system" for paging where multiple, spatially separated stations "broadcast the same paging signal at the same time." However, Witsaman is agnostic about the specific modulation format used. Bingham teaches the known benefits of employing multicarrier modulation (MCM) in the exact type of network Witsaman describes (a publicly switched telephone network, or PSTN). Bingham explains how to partition an information signal into blocks of bits to modulate a plurality of carriers, thereby teaching the multi-carrier limitations of the challenged claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Bingham's MCM technique with Witsaman's simulcast system to achieve well-known advantages, including "greater immunity to impulse noise and fast fades." Bingham explicitly promotes replacing older single-carrier systems in PSTNs with MCM and provides detailed design parameters, directly motivating a POSITA to upgrade the Witsaman system with the superior MCM technology.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination would have been predictable and successful because Bingham provides explicit design requirements for implementing MCM in a network like Witsaman's. Furthermore, the practice of transmitting MCM signals in simulcast from geographically dispersed transmitters was already established in the art prior to the ’210 patent’s priority date.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "a...transmitter" (Claims 1 and 10): Petitioner argued this term should be construed by its plain and ordinary meaning but with the critical understanding that it refers to a distinct structural unit. Consequently, a single piece of hardware transmitting multiple signals or outputs cannot satisfy the claims' requirement for both a "first transmitter" and a "second transmitter."
  • "means for transmitting a...plurality of carrier signals" (Claim 19): Petitioner asserted these means-plus-function terms require the specific structures disclosed in the ’210 patent's specification corresponding to the recited function. This structure includes the "base transmitter" components depicted in Figures 13 and 14 (e.g., control logic, modulators, combiners, power amplifiers, antenna) and their equivalents.
  • "transmit[ting]...in simulcast" (Claims 1, 10, and 19): Petitioner proposed a construction meaning "transmitting the same information at the same time from a plurality of transmitters by modulating a plurality of carrier signals by the same information signal." This construction emphasizes that the underlying information signal must be identical across transmitters, even if the final transmitted carrier signals differ slightly (e.g., due to frequency offsets), and reinforces that a single transmitter cannot operate in simulcast with itself.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 10, and 19 of Patent 5,915,210 as unpatentable on all asserted grounds.