PTAB

IPR2016-00879

MVG Inc v. ETS LindgRen Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Systems and Methods for Over the Air Performance Testing of Wireless Devices with Multiple Antennas
  • Brief Description: The ’869 patent describes systems and methods for over-the-air (OTA) performance testing of wireless devices, particularly those with multiple-input and multiple-output (MIMO) capabilities. The invention creates an artificial multipath environment using a plurality of antennas surrounding a device under test (DUT) in an anechoic chamber, a variable path simulator to introduce different delay spreads, and a wireless communication tester.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Iwai - Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 11-12, 14, 17, and 19 are anticipated by Iwai under 35 U.S.C. §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Iwai (Japanese Patent Publication P2005-227213A).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Iwai disclosed every element of the challenged independent and dependent claims. Iwai described an antenna evaluation device for testing mobile terminals in a multipath environment. This system included a plurality of antennas (scatterer 102) arranged at various angles around a DUT (110) within an anechoic chamber (401). Each antenna was connected via a separate path to a variable path simulator—comprising an attenuation circuit (115) and a phase circuit (116)—that was configured to introduce different, user-defined delay spreads to simulate fading. The system also included a communication tester—comprising a network analyzer (118) and distribution circuit (117)—connected to the simulator. Petitioner contended that the claimed "simultaneous" operation was inherently disclosed in Iwai, as it is necessary to create the described multipath fading effects. Iwai was also shown to disclose features of dependent claims, such as user-selectable delay spreads, antennas equally disposed in a circle, and the use of different polarizations.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Iwai and Wallace - Claims 2, 7, 9, and 16 are obvious over Iwai in view of Wallace ’841.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Iwai, Wallace ’841 (Patent 6,208,841).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Iwai disclosed the base system, while Wallace ’841 supplied the motivations and teachings for additional features in the dependent claims. Specifically, Wallace taught using a programmable switch (26) to couple signals to different antennas to change the test geometry (mapping to claim 2). It also disclosed using movable antennas to test various spatial characteristics (claim 7), providing a user interface via a controller (32) to program test parameters (claim 9), and running successive test simulations with different multipath conditions (claim 16).
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references as both are directed to solving the same problem of simulating a multipath test environment. It would have been an obvious design choice to augment the foundational system of Iwai with the known flexibility-enhancing features taught by Wallace. This would improve the system's ability to simulate a wider range of real-world conditions, which was a known goal in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying known techniques (switching, repositioning antennas, user programming) from Wallace to a similar system (Iwai) for their intended and predictable purposes.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Iwai and Liu - Claim 13 is obvious over Iwai in view of Liu.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Iwai, Liu (Application # 2007/0136046).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground specifically addressed claim 13, which required the MIMO tester to include a "plurality of RF sources, each RF source generating a separate one of the emulated channels." While Iwai’s network analyzer functions as a tester, Liu explicitly disclosed a testing device for MIMO systems that generates multiple distinct input signals (s1, s2...sm) from a plurality of RF sources, which are then fed into a channel emulator.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these teachings because both Iwai and Liu described modular test architectures where a tester supplies signals to a channel simulator. Given the known need to test emerging MIMO devices, it would have been obvious to substitute the generic tester in Iwai's system with the specific multi-source MIMO tester disclosed in Liu. This would allow for more accurate and robust MIMO performance evaluation.
    • Expectation of Success: Swapping a modular component (the tester) with another known component designed for that purpose would have yielded predictable results.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that claims 15 and 18 are obvious over Iwai in view of Sibecas (for specific polarization features) and a broader obviousness ground against all challenged claims based on combinations of Iwai with the PROPSim Manual, Erceg, and Liu.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "delay spread": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "amount of time delay or phase shift." This construction was based on expert testimony and the patent specification, which used the terms interchangeably and explained that delay spreads create multipath environments by altering signal timing and phase.
  • "spatial channels": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "communication channels." This construction was argued to be critical for distinguishing the "M" channels generated by the communication tester from the "N" separate paths of the variable path simulator, a distinction emphasized by the patent owner during prosecution.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-2, 5-9, and 11-19 of the ’869 patent as unpatentable.