PTAB

IPR2016-00999

CommScope Technologies LLC v. Communications Components AnTenna Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency
  • Brief Description: The ’582 patent discloses a method and system for increasing subscriber capacity in a cellular network by replacing a conventional sector antenna with a multi-beam "split-sector" antenna. The replacement antenna generates multiple asymmetrical sub-sector beams that reduce handover overlap with neighboring beams while maintaining the critical coverage area of the original sector antenna.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Yea - Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11-15, 18-22, 24, and 27 are anticipated by Yea.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Yea (Ji-Hae Yea, Smart Antennas for Multiple Sectorization in CDMA Cell Sites, RF Design, April 2001).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Yea disclosed every element of the independent claims. Yea described a field trial where a conventional three-sector antenna configuration was replaced with a six-sector configuration using Metawave’s SpotLight 2000 smart antenna system to increase capacity. Polar plots in Yea (Figs. 4 and 8) demonstrated that the new six-sector configuration used asymmetrical beams, maintained the overall coverage area of the replaced three-sector antenna, and reduced the size of "softer handoff regions" (i.e., overlap) between adjacent sub-sectors.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner supported its analysis with its expert’s measurements of the beam patterns in Yea, which confirmed asymmetry and reduced overlap, directly mapping to the key limitations added during prosecution to secure the patent.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Yea and the Metawave Website - Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11-15, 18-22, 24, and 27 are obvious over Yea in view of the Metawave Website and general knowledge of steered antennas.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Yea (RF Design, Apr. 2001) and the Metawave Website (archived pages from 2001 describing the SpotLight 2000 system).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative in case Yea was found not to inherently or expressly disclose the "asymmetrical" beam limitation. Petitioner asserted that the Metawave Website, which described the same SpotLight 2000 system tested in Yea, taught that the system used steered planar array antennas. It was well-known in the art that steering the beams of a planar array antenna necessarily and inherently results in asymmetrical radiation patterns.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, seeking to implement the capacity-increasing solution described in Yea, would have looked to the manufacturer's (Metawave's) own product literature. This literature revealed the use of steered planar arrays, a common and well-understood technology for creating multiple beams. A POSITA would combine Yea's system-level description with the Metawave Website's technical details to understand how to build the system.
    • Expectation of Success: The use of steered planar arrays to create multiple beams was a conventional technique. A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in implementing Yea's system using such antennas and would have expected the resulting beams to be asymmetrical as a predictable consequence of beam steering.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous additional obviousness grounds for various dependent claims, including combinations of Yea with:

    • Mouly (a 1992 text on GSM systems) for teachings on control resource allocation (claims 3-5).
    • Smith ’935 Patent for teachings on using a symmetrical central beam alongside asymmetrical beams to manage interference (claims 8, 16, 23).
    • Wästberg (’591 patent) and Derneryd (a 1999 article) for teachings on generating asymmetrical beams with minimal side lobes and using passive networks (claims 17, 25, 26).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Critical Coverage Area": Petitioner argued, based on prosecution history, that this term means the radiation pattern of a sector antenna not including the areas overlapping between sectors. This construction was critical because the patentee had distinguished prior art by arguing that its invention reduced this overlap while maintaining the non-overlapped coverage area.
  • "Asymmetrical": Petitioner contended that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, "asymmetry" should be construed to include both deliberate and inherent asymmetry. This was central to its argument that prior art using steered-beam planar arrays met the limitation, as steering inherently disturbs the electrical symmetry of the antenna and produces an asymmetrical beam shape.
  • The "Wherein" Clause: This clause, added during prosecution to achieve allowance, recites "wherein said at least one asymmetrical sub-sector coverage area reduces overlap...while maintaining the critical coverage area." Petitioner argued this clause requires a direct comparison showing that the new antenna's overlap is less than the old antenna's overlap, a condition it asserted was explicitly shown in the figures of Yea.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Inherent Asymmetry of Steered Beams: A core technical contention underpinning multiple grounds was that any planar array antenna with "steered" beams is inherently asymmetrical. Petitioner argued that as a beam is steered away from the array's perpendicular axis, the interaction between the array factor and the decreasing gain of individual radiating elements necessarily and inevitably causes the main beam to become asymmetrical. Petitioner asserted this was a fundamental principle of antenna design well-known to a POSITA and not an inventive concept.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-28 of Patent 8,311,582 as unpatentable.