PTAB

IPR2016-00620

Qualcomm Inc v. Bandspeed Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Approach for Managing the Use of Communications Channels Based on Performance
  • Brief Description: The ’500 patent discloses methods for improving frequency hopping (FH) wireless communication systems, such as Bluetooth, by adaptively managing communication channels. The system tests channel performance, creates a modified hopping sequence using only "good" channels, and includes a mechanism to revert from the adapted sequence back to a default hopping sequence based on specified criteria like time elapsing or performance degradation.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Dabak - Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10-18, 20, 23, and 25-28 are obvious over Dabak.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Dabak (Patent 7,684,465).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Dabak, which aims to improve Bluetooth performance, discloses every element of the challenged claims. Dabak teaches a master device communicating with a slave device using a "normal Bluetooth hopping" sequence (the claimed "default hopping sequence"). The master device performs measurements on all frequencies to determine channels with the least interference ("testing" and "selecting a subset"). The system then implements a Master-Slave Dwelling (MSD) technique, where it communicates on a selected "good" frequency, which Petitioner contended constitutes an "adapted hopping sequence." Crucially, Dabak explicitly discloses reverting back to the "normal Bluetooth hopping" either after a specified time period ("time Ti") or if new interference is detected ("based on results of the monitoring").
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground is based on a single reference. The argument was that Dabak's teachings either directly disclose or render obvious the claimed invention. For elements not explicitly identical, Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have found it obvious to implement minor variations, such as using a plurality of good channels in the adapted sequence instead of one, to achieve Dabak's stated goal of improving data rates.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in implementing the claimed method, as it represents a straightforward application of the principles and system architecture described in Dabak.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Dabak in view of Kockmann - Claims 1-31 are obvious over Dabak in view of Kockmann.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Dabak (Patent 7,684,465) and Kockmann (Patent 6,909,737).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Dabak provides the primary framework for an adaptive FH system that reverts to a default sequence. To the extent Dabak might be seen as deficient, Kockmann supplies the missing elements. Specifically, if Dabak's use of a single "dwell frequency" is not considered an "adapted hopping sequence" comprising a subset of channels, Kockmann explicitly teaches creating a "modified sequence" that "comprises only undisturbed carrier frequencies," thereby using a plurality of good channels. Furthermore, Kockmann teaches the binary classification of channels as "disturbed" or "non-disturbed," which corresponds to the "occupied" and "clear" limitations in certain dependent claims. Kockmann also discloses using a timeout, teaching that a channel is inhibited for a "previously defined time," which aligns with the ’500 patent’s "clear channel usage timeout."
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Dabak and Kockmann because both references address the same problem: improving communication performance in FH systems by adaptively avoiding channels with interference. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Kockmann's more detailed method of creating a modified sequence from multiple good channels into Dabak's overall system architecture to achieve the predictable result of enhanced communication reliability and throughput.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The combination involves applying known techniques from Kockmann to the system of Dabak to solve a known problem, and a POSITA would have expected this combination to function as intended and yield the predictable benefit of improved performance.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "hopping sequence": Petitioner argued for the construction previously adopted by the PTAB in a related case: "the order in which the communications network hops among the set of frequencies."
  • "clear" and "occupied" channel: As the ’500 patent uses "good" and "bad" channels, Petitioner proposed that a POSITA would equate "clear" with "good" (low interference) and "occupied" with "bad" (high interference).
  • "default hopping sequence": Petitioner argued this term should be construed as "an original hopping sequence that does not change based on channel performance," consistent with the specification and related proceedings.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-31 of the ’500 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.