PTAB

IPR2016-01209

Apple Inc v. Evolved Wireless LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and Apparatus for Generating and Transmitting Code Sequence in a Wireless Communication System
  • Brief Description: The ’916 patent discloses methods for generating a code sequence of a desired length in a wireless communication system. The method involves generating a base code sequence of a different length and then modifying it, for example by inserting a cyclic prefix or postfix, to achieve the desired length.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10 under §102 over Zhuang175

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Zhuang175 (Patent 7,426,175).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Zhuang175 expressly discloses every element of the challenged claims. Zhuang175 teaches a method for pilot signal transmission using sequences constructed from Generalized Chirp-Like (GCL) sequences. It describes generating a sequence of a desired pilot length (the "second length") by starting with a sequence of a prime number length (the "first length") and performing a "cyclic extension" by repeating the beginning elements of the first sequence and appending them to the end. Zhuang175 further discloses applying "further modifications" to these extended sequences, explicitly giving "circular shifting of the sequence" as an example. Petitioner asserted that Zhuang175's disclosure of transmitting these pilot signals meets the limitations for transmitting a reference signal sequence.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner contended the patent examiner erroneously allowed the ’916 patent because the applicant made misleading statements that the "cited portions" of Zhuang175 did not disclose circular shifting, while uncited portions of the same reference explicitly did.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 4 and 9 under §103 over Zhuang175 in view of Popovic

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Zhuang175 (Patent 7,426,175) and Popovic ("Generalized chirp-like polyphase sequences with optimum correlation properties," IEEE Trans. On Information Theory, July 1992).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed the additional limitation in claims 4 and 9 that the code sequence is a Zadoff-Chu (ZC) sequence. Petitioner argued that Zhuang175 discloses using GCL sequences for pilot signals due to their ideal correlation properties. Popovic, a technical article on sequences with optimum correlation properties, discloses that GCL sequences are a general class of polyphase sequences and that ZC sequences are a special case of GCL sequences.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have been motivated to use the ZC sequence taught by Popovic in the system of Zhuang175. Popovic explains that ZC sequences provide the same optimal auto- and cross-correlation properties as the more general GCL sequences but are computationally simpler to generate. Using ZC sequences would reduce processing loads and power consumption, a well-known design goal in wireless communications, particularly for mobile devices.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as using a ZC sequence was merely the selection of a specific, advantageous type of GCL sequence for its known properties to achieve a predictable improvement in computational efficiency.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 6-8 and 10 under §103 over Zhuang175 in view of Fukuta

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Zhuang175 (Patent 7,426,175) and Fukuta (Application # 2007/0270273).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground provided an alternative argument for the apparatus claims, particularly addressing the "code sequence generator" of claim 6. Petitioner argued that to the extent the Patent Owner asserts the generator must be a unitary device, Fukuta supplies this teaching. Fukuta, which is analogous art concerning reference sequences in OFDM systems, explicitly discloses a transmitter that is a unitary device within a base unit. This transmitter comprises a "cell-specific sequence generator" and a "circular shifter" that perform the claimed functions of generating a sequence via cyclic extension and then performing a circular shift.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings because Zhuang175 and Fukuta address the same problems using highly similar GCL-based sequences. A POSITA would have looked to Fukuta's explicit disclosure of a unitary transmitter structure to implement the sequence generation and shifting functions required by Zhuang175's system. This would be a straightforward application of a known device structure to perform its intended function in a similar system.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would have been expected, as it involved incorporating a known hardware configuration (Fukuta's transmitter) into a similar system (Zhuang175's) to achieve the predictable result of generating and transmitting pilot sequences.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10 are obvious over Zhuang175 in view of Hou (Patent 8,116,195) to more explicitly teach circular shifting. Further combinations of Zhuang175, Hou, Fukuta, and Popovic were asserted against claims 4 and 9 to cover all claim limitations under various alternative theories.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "acquiring/generating a code sequence... by a cyclic extension..." (claims 1, 6): Petitioner argued for a broad construction encompassing one or more operations that include performing a cyclic extension, not a process limited only to cyclic extension. This construction is based on the open-ended definitions of "acquire," "generate," and "by," and the specification's failure to disclaim other operations.
  • "a code sequence generator" (claim 6): Petitioner contended this term is not a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. §112(6) because it does not use the word "means." It should therefore be given its plain and ordinary meaning as a device that generates a code sequence, which is not limited to a single, unitary device.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-10 of the ’916 patent as unpatentable.