PTAB

IPR2016-01185

Apple Inc v. Evolved Wireless LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method of Transmitting and Receiving Radio Access Information in a Wireless Mobile Communications System
  • Brief Description: The ’373 patent discloses a method for a mobile terminal to perform a random access procedure during a handover from a serving base station to a target base station. The technology aims to reduce delays and collisions by having the target base station determine and provide a dedicated, non-contention preamble to the mobile terminal via the source base station.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Etemad and Son - Claims 15-21 and 23-24 are obvious over Etemad in view of Son.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Etemad (Patent 7,693,517) and Son (Patent 7,570,618).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Etemad discloses a method for handover in a wireless system where a target base station reserves access information, such as a ranging channel and a basic connection identifier (CID), and forwards this information to the mobile station via the serving base station. This allows the mobile station to perform an initial ranging procedure to access the target. However, Etemad does not explicitly teach assigning a dedicated ranging code. Son was argued to cure this deficiency by teaching that during a handover, a target base station assigns a specific ranging code to the mobile station to enable a "fast handover." The combination of Etemad’s handover process with Son’s assignment of a dedicated ranging code allegedly renders the limitations of independent claims 15 and 24 obvious. For instance, the assigned ranging code from Son is the claimed "dedicated preamble," and it is "determined by the target base station" as required.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Son with Etemad to implement a faster and more efficient handover. Son explicitly teaches that assigning a dedicated ranging code allows for a "fast handover." A POSITA would have understood that reserving a specific code reduces contention between mobile stations, a known issue, thereby increasing handover speed and network efficiency.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because both Etemad and Son describe handover methods within the same technological framework (IEEE 802.16 "WiMax" protocol). The proposed combination would be a straightforward implementation using known techniques to achieve a predictable result.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Etemad, Son, and WiMax-2004 - Claim 19 is obvious over Etemad and Son in view of WiMax-2004.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Etemad (Patent 7,693,517), Son (Patent 7,570,618), and WiMax-2004 (IEEE Std. 802.16-2004).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the combination of Etemad and Son from Ground 1 to address the limitations of claim 19, which requires the access information to include a "transmission characteristic" related to "frequency and time." Petitioner argued that while the Etemad/Son combination teaches a "reserved ranging channel," the WiMax-2004 standard explicitly details how such channels are implemented in an OFDMA system. WiMax-2004 teaches that a ranging channel is defined as a specific set of subcarrier frequencies used during a particular range of symbol offsets (a specific time period) within a frame. This explicit teaching of frequency and time parameters for the ranging channel directly meets the "transmission characteristic" limitation of claim 19.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing the handover system of Etemad and Son, which are both described in the context of IEEE 802.16, would have been motivated to consult the official WiMax-2004 standard for implementation details. Conforming the system to the standard’s definition of a ranging channel would ensure interoperability with other WiMax network components, which is a strong technical motivation.
    • Expectation of Success: The result would be predictable, as it amounts to applying the standard specifications (WiMax-2004) to a system (Etemad/Son) designed to operate within that standard.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Etemad, Son, and Petrovic - Claim 25 is obvious over Etemad and Son in view of Petrovic.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Etemad (Patent 7,693,517), Son (Patent 7,570,618), and Petrovic (Patent 7,508,792).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addresses claim 25, which requires the source and target base stations to be "enhanced Node B" (eNB) stations within an "Evolved Universal Mobile Telecommunication System (E-UMTS)." Petitioner argued that Petrovic discloses a handover method in an E-UMTS architecture between a "source Node B+" and a "target Node B+," which correspond to the claimed eNBs. The combination involves implementing the fast handover procedure from Etemad and Son within the E-UMTS architecture described by Petrovic.
    • Motivation to Combine: A key goal stated in Petrovic is the reduction of "handover delay" in its E-UMTS system. The Etemad/Son combination provides an established method for achieving a "fast handover" by reducing contention. A POSITA would have been motivated to apply the known fast handover technique of Etemad/Son to the E-UMTS system of Petrovic to achieve Petrovic’s own stated objective of improved handover performance.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because the underlying principles of random access and handover are common across different wireless architectures (WiMax and E-UMTS). Implementing a known efficiency improvement from one system into another with similar goals and functional components would be a predictable modification for a POSITA.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "random access procedure": Petitioner argued this term should be construed to encompass the "initial ranging procedure" used in WiMax systems. This construction is critical because the primary prior art references (Etemad and Son) describe "ranging," and equating it with the claimed "random access procedure" is necessary to map the references to the claims.
  • "handover": Petitioner contended this term should be given its plain meaning of a "transfer of a terminal's connection" and should not be limited to "hard" or "break-before-make" handovers, as the Patent Owner argued in related litigation. This broader construction allows prior art describing "soft" handovers, like Etemad, to be applicable.
  • "target base station": Petitioner argued against the Patent Owner's proposed construction that the target must be determined by the source base station. Petitioner asserted the term should mean "the base station to which a terminal's connection may be transferred," allowing for scenarios where the mobile station makes the determination, as disclosed in Etemad.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 15-21 and 23-25 of the ’373 patent as unpatentable.