PTAB

IPR2015-00237

Marvell Semiconductor Inc v. Bandspeed Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Approach for Managing the Use of Communications Channels Based on Performance
  • Brief Description: The ’608 patent relates to a communications device that manages the use of communication channels based on performance. The device selects a first set of channels at a first time and later selects a second set of channels based on updated performance data, dynamically adapting the available channels for communication in a network.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1, 4, and 5 by Gerten

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Gerten (Patent 6,760,319).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Gerten anticipates every limitation of claims 1, 4, and 5. Gerten describes a frequency hopping system where a master device identifies channels with strong interference ("bad channels") based on signal strength measurements. The master then modifies the hopping sequence to use the remaining "good channels" and communicates this change to slave devices. Petitioner asserted that Gerten’s initial identification and modification constitutes selecting a "first set of two or more communications channels" at a "first time." Gerten’s disclosure that the master "periodically updates the channels to be avoided" was argued to teach the selection of a "second set" at a "second time that is later than the first time," with the number of channels varying between updates. Gerten was also alleged to teach the use of a default set of all available channels for legacy devices (claim 4) and loading synthesizer codes corresponding to the selected channels into registers (claim 5).

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 2 and 3 over Gerten in view of Cuffaro

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Gerten (Patent 6,760,319) and Cuffaro (Patent 6,418,317).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Gerten discloses most limitations of claims 2 and 3 but fails to explicitly teach transmitting channel performance data over the active communication channels, or a specific "voting" criterion for channel selection. To remedy this, Petitioner relied on Cuffaro. Cuffaro teaches that mobile stations can measure channel quality (e.g., signal strength) and report this performance data back to a base station, satisfying the limitation in claim 2 that performance is based on data "transmitted over one or more of the plurality of communications channels." For claim 3, Cuffaro was argued to disclose a "voting" mechanism where a wireless device makes a "vote" for or against using certain channels based on performance comparisons. The system tallies these votes over time, and a channel is selected for use once it receives a "specified number of votes" (e.g., reaching the maximum positive vote margin).
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Gerten and Cuffaro because both address channel selection to avoid interference. A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Cuffaro’s method of collecting performance data from slave devices into Gerten’s system to obtain a more accurate, network-wide assessment of interference, leading to better identification of "bad channels." The combination was presented as a simple substitution of one known data collection method for another to gain a predictable improvement in system performance.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have an expectation of success because using performance data from multiple network locations (as in Cuffaro) to inform a central channel selection algorithm (as in Gerten) is a straightforward and predictable way to improve network management.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 1 and 3-5 over Gendel in view of Haartsen

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Gendel (Patent 6,115,407) and Haartsen (Patent 7,280,580).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Gendel discloses the core functionality of claim 1. Gendel teaches a frequency hopping system that replaces "used segments" (sets of frequencies) that exhibit high reception errors with "unused segments." This process of identifying and replacing a poor-performing segment constitutes selecting a first set of channels, and a subsequent replacement constitutes selecting a second set at a later time based on performance. Gendel, however, does not explicitly disclose implementing this logic with a processor executing instructions from memory. Haartsen was introduced to supply this limitation, as it expressly discloses that channel selection functions can be embodied in a "processor executing a suitable set of program instructions stored on a computer readable storage medium such as a random access memory (RAM)." For claim 3's "voting" feature, Petitioner argued Gendel’s acknowledgment protocol constitutes voting, where a primary system proposes a segment swap and a secondary system must transmit an acknowledgment (a "vote") to confirm the change before it is executed.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Gendel and Haartsen because they are in the same technical field of frequency hopping communications. Implementing Gendel's channel selection logic using the processor-and-memory architecture taught by Haartsen was argued to be an obvious and conventional design choice for any skilled artisan at the time.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in implementing Gendel's flow-charted logic on a standard processor and memory as taught by Haartsen, as this was a common and well-understood implementation method for communication systems.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge for claim 2 based on the combination of Gendel, Haartsen, and Sage (Patent 5,781,582), where Sage was introduced to teach transmitting error-rate statistics from a mobile station back to a base station.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Hopping Sequence" (claims 2 and 4): Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "the order in which the network hops among a set of frequencies," arguing this is its well-understood meaning in the art.
  • "Vote" (claim 3): Petitioner argued this term should be construed to mean "at least an indication whether to use (or not to use) the communications channel or an indication whether the communication channel is good or bad." This construction is central to Petitioner's argument that the acknowledgment messages in Gendel and the quality comparisons in Cuffaro meet the "voting" limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-5 of the ’608 patent as unpatentable.