PTAB

IPR2015-01048

ETS LindgRen Inc v. Microwave Vision SA

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Device and Method for Determining At Least One Variable Associated with the Electromagnetic Radiation of An Object Being Tested
  • Brief Description: The ’170 patent describes a system for measuring the electromagnetic radiation patterns of an object, such as a cell phone antenna. The system comprises a support for holding the object under test, a network of measurement probes arranged in a substantially circular arc, and a mechanical structure for creating relative tilting or pivoting movement between the support and the probe network to enable a more complete spherical characterization of the radiation pattern.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Iversen in view of Speicher - Claim 12 is obvious over Iversen in view of Speicher.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Iversen (a 2000 IEEE conference paper) and Speicher (Patent 4,282,529).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Iversen disclosed all elements of claim 12 except for a mechanism to pivot the support relative to the network of probes. Iversen taught a system with a styrofoam mast (support) and a circular arc of 64 probes for antenna measurement. To supply the missing pivoting element, Petitioner pointed to Speicher, which disclosed a "gimbaled platform" (a goniometer) that acts as a support capable of being aimed or scanned. Petitioner asserted Speicher's mechanism directly corresponds to the structure recited in the ’170 patent for implementing the claimed "means for pivoting."
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that Iversen explicitly taught the desirability of achieving a "full sphere measurement" of an antenna's radiation pattern. A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), seeking to achieve this goal with Iversen's static system, would have been motivated to incorporate a known pivoting mechanism. Speicher, as analogous art in the field of positioning devices for measurement, provided a known, predictable solution for pivoting a support to gather data from more angles.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the two references, as it involved applying a known mechanical pivoting system (Speicher) to a known antenna measurement array (Iversen) to achieve the predictable result of more complete data acquisition.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Iversen in view of Fleming - Claim 12 is obvious over Iversen in view of Fleming.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Iversen (a 2000 IEEE conference paper) and Fleming (Patent 6,983,547).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented an alternative to Ground 1. As before, Iversen was asserted to teach the basic support and probe array. Fleming was offered as an alternative prior art reference teaching the missing pivoting mechanism. Fleming disclosed a goniometer for an automated apparatus that provided "tip" and "tilt" features, allowing for precise movement along an arcuate path to change the angular relationship of an object under test. Petitioner argued Fleming's goniometer structure met the limitations of the "means for pivoting" element of claim 12.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was identical to Ground 1: a POSITA would combine a known goniometer (Fleming) with an antenna measurement system (Iversen) to achieve the known goal of full spherical characterization. Fleming provided another finite, predictable solution to the problem of how to pivot the object under test.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be a predictable integration of known technologies for their established purposes.

Ground 3: Obviousness over McKivergan in view of Speicher - Claim 12 is obvious over McKivergan in view of Speicher.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: McKivergan (Patent 6,329,953) and Speicher (Patent 4,282,529).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that McKivergan, a reference previously considered by the Examiner, taught substantially all elements of claim 12, including a spherical probe array and a support on a "test pedestal" that is "rotated step-wise over a range of elevation and azimuth angles." Petitioner argued this rotation to change the elevation angle inherently taught the concept of pivoting the support relative to the probes. The alleged shortcoming of McKivergan was the lack of an explicit disclosure of the specific support-pivoting mechanism described in the ’170 patent. Speicher was introduced to supply this specific mechanism, disclosing a well-known goniometer suitable for imparting precise pivotal movement.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, understanding from McKivergan the need to change the elevation angle of the support, would have been motivated to look for known, reliable mechanisms to implement this movement. Speicher provided such a mechanism. The motivation was to implement the functionality suggested in McKivergan using a known solution from analogous art to achieve complete spherical measurements.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in using Speicher's standard pivoting technology to implement the elevation changes taught by McKivergan.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including McKivergan in view of Fleming. A fifth ground argued that if claim 12 is construed to cover pivoting of either the probes or the support, it lacks priority to its original French application, making it obvious over a 2003 presentation by the Patent Owner (Satimo).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "means for pivoting one or more of the network of probes and the support": Petitioner argued this phrase requires movement of both the probes and the support. Petitioner contended that the plain and ordinary meaning of the conjunctive "and" mandates this reading. It was noted that other claims in the ’170 patent used the word "or," demonstrating that the patentee knew how to claim alternatives when intended. This construction was central to the invalidity arguments, as much of the prior art taught pivoting only the support or the probes, but not necessarily both.
  • "means for providing a plurality of measurements": Petitioner argued this means-plus-function limitation is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112. The petition asserted that the specification failed to disclose any corresponding structure or algorithm for performing the claimed function of "providing" measurements, beyond the physical components (support, probes, pivoting means) that were already separately recited in the claim. Without a clear link to sufficient corresponding structure, Petitioner argued the scope of the claim was not reasonably ascertainable.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claim 12 of the ’170 patent as unpatentable.