PTAB

IPR2016-01169

Ericsson Inc v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: High Speed Data Transmission Using Expanded Bit Durations In Multiple Parallel Coded Data Streams
  • Brief Description: The ’032 patent discloses a method for high-speed data transmission in a wireless system. The method involves dividing a high-rate serial data stream into multiple parallel low-rate bit streams, expanding the bit duration of the parallel streams, modulating each stream with a unique modulating sequence, and summing the modulated streams for transmission on a single carrier.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Sasaki 1994 in view of Sasaki 1991 - Claims 1-3, 7, and 9 are obvious over Sasaki 1994 in view of Sasaki 1991.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sasaki 1994 (S. Sasaki et al., “Performance Evaluation of Parallel Combinatory SSMA Systems in Rayleigh Fading Channel,” an IEEE publication) and Sasaki 1991 (S. Sasaki et al., “Performance of Parallel Combinatory Spread Spectrum Multiple Access Communication Systems,” an IEEE publication).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of Sasaki 1994 and Sasaki 1991 teaches all limitations of independent claim 1. Sasaki 1994 discloses a "parallel combinatory spread spectrum" system that performs the core steps of the ’032 patent: converting an incoming serial data stream into k parallel channels, expanding the bit duration by a factor of k, modulating the parallel streams with orthogonal pseudo-noise (PN) sequences, and summing the results for transmission. Sasaki 1994 also discloses the key mathematical relationships claimed, including that the sequence period (NTc) equals the expanded symbol duration (kTd) and that the processing gain N is greater than the number of parallel streams k (N>k).
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the references because Sasaki 1994 expressly cites Sasaki 1991 as describing a fundamentally similar system model in a different noise environment. Sasaki 1994 is silent on certain implementation details, such as the case where all available modulating sequences are used. A POSITA would look to Sasaki 1991, which explicitly teaches a "simple SS parallel transmission system" when the number of selected sequences (r) equals the total available sequences (M), which also equals the number of parallel streams (k). This combination provides a complete, working system that maps directly to the ’032 patent's claims.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining the system architecture of Sasaki 1994 with the specific implementation details from Sasaki 1991 would be a predictable integration of known elements, leading to a functional parallel spread spectrum system with expected performance characteristics.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Sasaki 1994, Sasaki 1991, and Rice - Claim 4 is obvious over Sasaki 1994 in view of Sasaki 1991, further in view of Rice.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sasaki 1994, Sasaki 1991, and Rice (Patent 5,210,770).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addresses dependent claim 4, which requires the modulating PN sequences to be selected from the group of m-sequences, Kasami sequences, and Gold sequences. While the primary Sasaki combination teaches using orthogonal PN sequences, it does not specify the exact type. Rice explicitly teaches that these specific sequence types were well-known and commonly used as PN spreading codes in spread-spectrum communication systems.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing the system of Sasaki 1994 would be motivated to select a specific, known type of PN sequence. Rice provides a finite list of well-known, advantageous sequences (m-sequences, Gold, Kasami). It would have been an obvious design choice to select from these established sequence types to implement the generic PN sequence requirement of Sasaki.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Sasaki 1994, Sasaki 1991, and Fattouche - Claim 8 is obvious over Sasaki 1994 in view of Sasaki 1991, further in view of Fattouche.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sasaki 1994, Sasaki 1991, and Fattouche (Patent 5,555,268).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addresses dependent claim 8, which adds the step of inserting a pilot channel with data unrelated to the incoming data stream for estimating channel parameters. The Sasaki references are silent on pilot channels. Fattouche teaches a spread spectrum system where pilot frames containing known information symbols are inserted alongside data frames to "estimate and equalize for the various types of channel distortions."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA building the communication system of Sasaki would recognize the known problem of channel distortion and the need for equalization. It would be obvious to incorporate a known solution, such as the pilot insertion scheme taught by Fattouche, to improve the robustness and performance of the Sasaki system, a predictable and common engineering practice.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge for claims 5-6 over Sasaki 1994 and Sasaki 1991, further in view of Kato (Patent 5,583,851). This ground argued Kato taught creating the required orthogonal PN sequences by multiplying a pseudo-noise series with orthogonal codes.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "chip duration": Petitioner argued this term means "the time duration of a chip of the modulating sequence, which varies inversely to N [processing gain]." This construction was based on the patent's formula Tc=KTb/N and arguments made during prosecution that an increase in N is accompanied by a decrease in chip duration (Tc).
  • "sequence period": Petitioner argued this term means "the time duration of the modulating sequence, which remains fixed as N varies." This was based on prosecution history where the applicant fixed the symbol duration T (equal to the sequence period) to argue for patentability, creating a clear disavowal of claim scope.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-9 of the ’032 patent as unpatentable.