PTAB

IPR2016-01500

Apple Inc v. Cellular Communications Equipment LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Implicit Redundancy Version Assignment in Wireless Networks
  • Brief Description: The ’022 patent relates to methods for implicit assignment of redundancy versions (RVs) for system information (SI) transmitted from a base station to user equipment in an LTE wireless network. The allegedly inventive aspect is a specific mathematical equation used to calculate the optimal RV sequence based on a subframe’s position within an SI transmission window, while excluding certain non-eligible subframes.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1 and 6 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over the Nokia Contribution.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nokia Contribution (3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Written Contribution R1-083717).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the Nokia Contribution, a technical paper published before the ’022 patent’s actual filing date, disclosed every limitation of claims 1 and 6. Petitioner asserted the Nokia Contribution taught a method for implicit RV determination that starts the assignment of the optimal RV sequence (<0231...>) at the beginning of the corresponding SI-window. The reference also allegedly taught excluding specific subframes not eligible for SI transmission—including uplink subframes, multicast (MBSFN) subframes, and subframe #5 in even-numbered radio frames—from the RV mapping. Finally, Petitioner contended the Nokia Contribution explicitly disclosed using the exact mathematical equation recited in the challenged claims to calculate the RV sequence, thereby ensuring the sequence is continuous over adjacent radio frames.

Ground 2: Claims 1 and 6 are obvious over Wang in view of 3GPP TS 36.331.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wang (Application # 2010/0189039) and 3GPP TS 36.331 (V8.2.0 Release 8).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Wang taught a method for implicit RV assignment in an LTE system that addresses the same problems as the ’022 patent. Wang allegedly disclosed assigning the optimal RV sequence of 0, 2, 3, 1 at the start of an SI-window and excluding non-SI subframes (such as uplink and multicast subframes) from the assignment process. Critically, Wang taught calculating the RV sequence using the identical mathematical equation claimed in the ’022 patent. To the extent Wang did not explicitly teach "detecting the start" of the SI-window, Petitioner asserted that 3GPP TS 36.331, the governing LTE standard, explicitly required this as the first step in any SI acquisition procedure.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing Wang’s LTE-based system would combine its teachings with the 3GPP TS 36.331 standard to ensure the system was interoperable with other LTE systems. The 3GPP standard provided the necessary, well-known implementation details for SI scheduling that Wang omitted, making the combination a logical step to create a functional, compliant system.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination would have been predictable and straightforward, as it involved incorporating a standard, required procedure from the 3GPP specification into a system (Wang) designed to operate under that very standard.

Ground 3: Claims 1 and 6 are obvious over Love in view of 3GPP TS 36.331.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Love (Patent 8,144,712) and 3GPP TS 36.331 (V8.2.0 Release 8).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground, which targeted the patent's earliest possible priority date, argued that Love taught key aspects of the claimed invention. Love’s "Transmission Opportunity Technique" mapped RVs only to valid transmission subframes within an SI-window. When combined with the 3GPP standard (which defines which subframes are not transmission opportunities), this technique inherently taught excluding uplink, multicast, and predetermined subframes in even-numbered radio frames. Love’s separate "Subframe Number Technique" taught using a modulo-based mathematical calculation to produce the optimal 0, 2, 3, 1 RV sequence.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Love with the 3GPP standard for LTE interoperability. Furthermore, a POSITA would be motivated to apply the efficient modulo-based calculation from Love’s "Subframe Number Technique" to the "Transmission Opportunity Technique" to achieve the known, optimal RV sequence. Petitioner argued the specific equation in the '022 patent was merely an obvious design choice to implement this combination, as the inputs (subframe position within the SI-window), output (the 0, 2, 3, 1 sequence), and calculation method (modulo arithmetic) were all well-known in the art and taught by Love.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as applying a known calculation method to a known problem to achieve a known optimal result was a predictable and routine engineering task.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "redundancy version signaling module configured to..." (Claim 6): Petitioner acknowledged that this functional claim term could be subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6. For the purposes of the IPR, Petitioner argued that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the term should be construed to encompass the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification, namely software, hardware, firmware, or a combination thereof for performing the recited functions of detecting the start of a transmission window and assigning an RV sequence.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Priority Date Entitlement: A central contention of the petition was that the ’022 patent was not entitled to the filing date of its provisional application. Petitioner argued the provisional application lacked written description support for the specific mathematical equation recited in claims 1 and 6. The provisional allegedly disclosed a different, more complex equation, which was later replaced by the claimed equation in the non-provisional filing. This argument formed the basis for asserting prior art (Nokia Contribution, Wang) dated between the provisional and non-provisional filing dates.

6. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the challenges presented were not cumulative or redundant to rejections made during prosecution. Specifically, it contended that Ground 3, while using the Love reference previously cited by the Examiner, relied on a different prior art combination (Love in view of 3GPP TS 36.331) and was supported by a new expert declaration not available to the Examiner. The petition also strategically presented its grounds to address the different potential priority dates for the patent.

7. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1 and 6 of the ’022 patent as unpatentable.