PTAB

IPR2015-00576

Apple Inc v. Cellular Communications Equipment LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method for Multicode Transmission by a Subscriber Station
  • Brief Description: The ’174 patent describes a method for controlling transmission power in a wireless communication system where a subscriber station uses multiple codes to transmit on different channels. The method involves determining and maintaining a "transmit power difference" (or "power headroom") between the maximum available power and the current total transmit power to prevent transmission failures when power levels need to be increased.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation and Obviousness over Hall - Claims 1, 6, 9, 14, and 18 are anticipated by Hall, and Claims 1-19 are obvious over Hall.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hall (Patent 5,991,618).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hall discloses all limitations of the challenged independent claims. Hall teaches a power control scheme for a CDMA system where a subscriber station determines a "power margin" (the difference between its maximum and current transmit power) and a "power margin requirement." Petitioner asserted that Hall's "power margin requirement" is analogous to the ’174 patent's "transmit power difference." Hall’s system evaluates whether to grant a request for a new communication mode (e.g., adding a data channel to a voice call) by comparing the power margin to the power margin requirement. If the request is granted, the new power margin requirement is maintained for the duration of the new mode. Petitioner contended this process directly maps to the claimed steps of determining and maintaining a transmit power difference at the start of a new message transmission.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): As an alternative to anticipation, Petitioner argued that even if Hall does not explicitly disclose every limitation, any missing elements would have been obvious modifications. For example, it would have been common sense for a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) to maintain a power margin for a set duration to avoid operating in undesirable modes, making the claimed "maintaining" step an obvious design choice to achieve a predictable result.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in implementing these minor, common-sense modifications to Hall's existing power control scheme.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Hall in view of Reed - Claims 1-19 are obvious over Hall in view of Reed.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hall (Patent 5,991,618) and Reed (Patent 7,689,239).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner presented this combination as a fallback, arguing that if Hall is found not to teach determining the transmit power difference "at the start of a message transmission," Reed supplies this element. Reed explicitly discloses a power control scheme that calculates "headroom"—defined as the difference between the maximum transmitter power and the power level required for a particular data rate—when a mobile station establishes a new communication channel. This headroom calculation is performed at the start of a transmission and is used to determine the maximum data rate for that new channel. The combination of Hall's system for managing communication modes and Reed's method for calculating headroom at the start of a transmission was alleged to teach every limitation of the challenged claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Hall and Reed because both references address the same fundamental problem of managing transmit power and data rates in wireless systems. Petitioner argued a POSITA would be motivated to modify Hall's scheme with Reed's more specific headroom calculation method to solve known problems in the art, such as avoiding excessive headroom (which lowers achievable data rates) or inadequate headroom (which reduces robustness). This combination would have been an obvious design choice to improve the performance and efficiency of the power control system.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining two known power management techniques from the same technical field to achieve improved performance would have yielded predictable results.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "a transmit power difference": Petitioner argued this term should be construed as "a difference (or distance) between transmit powers." This construction is based on the claim language specifying a difference "between on one hand a total maximum transmit power... and on another hand a total transmit power." Petitioner asserted this is consistent with the specification and the well-known technical term "power headroom."
  • "determining [a transmit power difference] which is to be maintained" / "maintaining a previously determined transmit power difference": Petitioner argued these phrases should be construed as determining or maintaining a minimum required distance between transmit powers. Citing the specification, Petitioner contended that "maintaining" a difference means ensuring the actual difference is greater than or equal to the determined value, not that it must be held perfectly constant. This construction was central to mapping Hall, which requires a calculated "power margin" to exceed a "power margin requirement."

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner noted that the ’174 patent was the subject of a prior inter partes review, IPR2014-01134, filed by a different party (Amazon.com, Inc.). However, Petitioner argued against discretionary denial by stating that this petition presents a new primary reference, Hall, which was not addressed in the prior IPR. Furthermore, this petition challenges all claims 1-19 of the ’174 patent, whereas the prior proceeding challenged only a subset of the claims.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-19 of the ’174 patent as unpatentable.