PTAB

IPR2015-01978

LG Electronics Inc v. Core Wireless Licensing SARL

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Mobile Communications
  • Brief Description: The ’634 patent discloses a mobile terminal capable of operating on multiple, incompatible backbone networks. The terminal communicates with radio access networks using a common low-level signaling protocol and can download and apply new high-level protocol stacks based on signals received from the network indicating the type of backbone network available.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over GSM Specifications and Rostoker - Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are obvious over GSM 02.01, GSM 04.06, GSM 04.07, and GSM 04.08 in view of Rostoker.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: A collection of Global System for Mobile Communications technical specifications published by 1996 (collectively, “GSM Specifications”) and Rostoker (Patent 6,006,105).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the GSM Specifications taught the core elements of a user terminal with a wireless interface operating in a layered protocol system. Specifically, the GSM Specifications disclosed using lower-level protocols (Layers 1 and 2) to transmit messages for various alternative higher-level protocols (Layer 3), such as Call Control (CC), Short Message Service (SMS), and Mobility Management (MM). The selection of the appropriate high-level protocol was based on signaling information, such as a "Protocol Discriminator" field within the message header. While the GSM Specifications inherently required a processor and formatting hardware, Rostoker explicitly disclosed these missing elements: a "formatting device" in the form of a digital signal processor (DSP) and a "control unit" in the form of a micro-controller to implement and manage these protocols.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine the well-established GSM protocol system with Rostoker’s teachings to solve the known industry problem of creating a single cellular device that could operate on multiple, incompatible backbone networks (e.g., GSM and CDMA). Rostoker was directed to this exact problem, teaching a "self-adapting" phone, making its application to the ubiquitous GSM standard an obvious design choice.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination involved applying known processing components (from Rostoker) to implement a well-defined, standardized protocol stack (from the GSM Specifications) to achieve the predictable result of a multi-protocol capable handset.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Expanded Prior Art - Claims 4, 20, and 22 are obvious over GSM 02.01, GSM 02.03, GSM 04.06, GSM 04.07, GSM 04.08, GSM 05.08, and GSM 07.01 in view of Rostoker and the knowledge of a POSITA.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: An expanded set of GSM Specifications and Rostoker (Patent 6,006,105).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claims requiring a control unit that receives a "type signal" indicative of the high-level protocol to be used. The combination of GSM Specifications taught this concept extensively. GSM 05.08 disclosed that a mobile station identifies a network by reading its Broadcast Control Channel (BCCH), which Petitioner contended was a type signal identifying the network as GSM. Further, GSM 04.08 and 07.01 disclosed using "information elements" to ensure compatibility and select appropriate protocols for services like facsimile. Rostoker taught a control unit that performs "environmental sampling" to detect "set up instructions" broadcast by different networks (e.g., GSM, CDMA), using this information to select and apply the correct high-level protocol stack for the detected backbone network.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation remained the desire to achieve interoperability. A POSITA seeking to enable a GSM device to operate on other networks would have looked to solutions like Rostoker, which already taught a mechanism for detecting different network types and selecting the appropriate protocols. It would have been obvious to integrate Rostoker's network detection and protocol selection logic with the standard GSM framework.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Rostoker - Claim 23 is obvious over Rostoker and the knowledge of a POSITA.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Rostoker (Patent 6,006,105).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Rostoker alone, supplemented by the general knowledge of a POSITA, rendered the method of claim 23 obvious. The claim recites a method of wireless communication where a radio access network (RAN) is coupled to multiple incompatible backbone networks. Rostoker disclosed this system architecture, describing base stations (a RAN) connected to a "multi-faceted" network controller that provides access to various incompatible networks like GSM, CDMA, and TDMA. A POSITA would have understood that such systems inherently operate using layered low-level and high-level signaling protocols, as this was the standard architecture for all cellular communications at the time. Rostoker further taught providing a plurality of high-level protocols (GSM, CDMA, etc.) at the mobile terminal and selecting among them based on the network detected.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner stated that for the purposes of the IPR proceeding, it accepted the patent owner’s proposed constructions for key terms.
  • "low level ... protocols": Construed as protocols for radio interface-dependent functions corresponding to Layers 1 and 2 of the OSI model and the Radio Resource (RR) sublayer of Layer 3.
  • "high level ... protocols": Construed as any signaling protocols at Layer 3 and above. This construction was central to Petitioner's argument that the patent claimed a well-known layered protocol architecture where a lower layer selects among multiple available upper layers.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • A central technical premise of the petition was that layered communication architectures based on the OSI model were fundamental and pervasive in wireless systems prior to the ’634 patent’s priority date.
  • Petitioner contended that the concept of "type signaling"—using information in a lower-level protocol to select which of several alternative higher-level protocols should process a message payload—was a common, non-inventive technique used to manage complexity and enable modularity in such systems. Examples cited included the "Protocol" field in Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) frames and the "Protocol Discriminator" field in GSM messages.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4, 6-7, 20, 22-23, and 25 of the ’634 patent as unpatentable.