PTAB

IPR2015-00369

Apple Inc v. DSS Technology Management Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Personal Data Network
  • Brief Description: The ’290 patent describes a bidirectional wireless data network for communication between a central microcomputer unit and multiple peripheral units. The system purports to achieve low power consumption by using "code sequences" to control transmitters in a low duty cycle, pulsed mode of operation based on a Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) scheme.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness of Claims 1-4 over Barber

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Barber ("BodyLAN™: A Low-Power Communications System," a 1996 Master's Thesis).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Barber discloses every element of the challenged claims. Barber’s “Hub” was asserted to be the claimed “server microcomputer unit” and its “Personal Electronic Assistants (PEAs)” the “peripheral units.” Barber teaches a star-configured TDMA network designed for low-power operation “within the sphere of the body,” which Petitioner contended meets the short-range limitation. The claimed “code sequence” that determines transmission intervals was argued to be disclosed by Barber’s use of attachment beacons; these beacons form an initial TDMA plan and are described as a sequence of bits defining time intervals for beacon arrival, thereby controlling when the Hub and PEAs are energized.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner noted that the author of the Barber thesis, Thomas J. Barber Jr., thanked Philip Carvey, the named inventor of the ’290 patent, in the reference.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 1-4 over Natarajan in view of Neve

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Natarajan (Patent 5,241,542) and Neve (Patent 4,887,266).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Natarajan teaches the core system of a base station (“server”) communicating with multiple mobile units (“peripheral units”) using a scheduled multi-access protocol to conserve battery power. Natarajan’s use of header information containing a bit-vector sequence (a series of ones and zeros) to designate which mobile units should power on their transmitters or receivers in specific time slots was argued to teach the claimed “code sequence.” This sequence effectively energizes transmitters in low duty cycle RF bursts.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that while Natarajan teaches the importance of coordinated timing for its power-saving protocol, it does not explicitly disclose a mechanism for synchronizing the mobile units with the base station. A POSITA seeking to implement Natarajan’s system would combine it with a well-known method for synchronizing devices in a wireless network, such as that taught by Neve. Neve discloses a master station providing synchronization signals to slave stations within dedicated time slots to ensure coordinated communication, a conventional solution to a known problem.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these elements, as it involved applying a known synchronization technique to improve a similar time-scheduled communication system to achieve the predictable result of reliable, power-efficient communication.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "within short range of said server unit": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "within 20 meters of said server unit." This construction was based on the patent specification, which provides "within 20 meters" as the sole example for the term. Petitioner argued this construction was necessary because the term has no plain and ordinary meaning in the art and would otherwise be indefinite.
  • "code sequence": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a series of values, where each value in the series represents a time slot where a unit's transmitter is energized or a time slot where a unit's transmitter is depowered." This construction was derived from the patent’s description of how such sequences control the operation of transmitters in a low duty cycle mode.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Priority Date: A central contention was that the ’290 patent is not entitled to the March 6, 1996 priority date of its parent application for the challenged claims. Petitioner argued that the limitation "adapted to operate within short range of said server unit" constituted new matter first introduced in the application filed on October 14, 1997, that matured into the ’290 patent. This later effective filing date is critical for establishing the Barber thesis (published April 11, 1996) as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) for Ground 1.

6. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §325(d), asserting the two grounds presented are not redundant. It was argued that each ground has unique strengths: Ground 1 (Barber) is strong as a single-reference challenge but is contingent on the Board accepting Petitioner’s priority date argument. Ground 2 (Natarajan and Neve) is stronger in that the references pre-date even the earlier priority date, but it is a combination of references. Petitioner contended that instituting on both distinct grounds was necessary to avoid prejudice.

7. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-4 of Patent 6,128,290 as unpatentable.