PTAB

IPR2016-01890

Cisco Systems Inc v. ChanBond LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Intelligent Device System and Method for Distribution of Digital Signals on a Wideband Signal Distribution System
  • Brief Description: The ’565 patent relates to radio frequency (RF) data transmission devices and methods. The disclosed technology involves an intelligent device that divides an incoming high-rate digital data stream into multiple smaller-rate streams, selects multiple RF channels, and transmits the smaller streams concurrently over a wideband signal distribution system.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 37 and 39 are obvious over Tiedemann in view of Jacobs and Gilhousen.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Tiedemann (Patent 5,859,840), Jacobs (Patent 5,414,796), and Gilhousen (Patent 5,103,459).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued this combination taught every limitation of the challenged claims, which depend from independent claim 12. Tiedemann was asserted to disclose the core intelligent device—a multi-channel cellular RF system for bidirectional communication between a base station and mobile stations. Tiedemann’s system divides high-rate data, transmits it over a primary channel and additional assigned channels, and uses a controller to process channel assignment messages to receive and recombine the data. Gilhousen, which Tiedemann incorporated by reference, was argued to teach the use of addresses (e.g., "mobile unit address or user ID") to identify and communicate with specific mobile stations in a CDMA system, thus meeting the "addressable device" limitation. Jacobs, also incorporated by reference, taught a variable rate vocoder that measures information throughput, which Petitioner argued satisfied the limitation of measuring throughput to efficiently allocate the minimum number of channels required.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine these references because Tiedemann explicitly incorporated both Jacobs and Gilhousen to provide details for its disclosed system. The combination was presented as a natural and predictable integration to create a complete, addressable, multi-channel communication system capable of handling variable data rates, which was a well-understood goal in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in combining the references. All three patents were directed to the same field of cellular communications, addressed complementary aspects of a single system, and their integration was suggested by the primary reference itself, promising predictable results.

Ground 2: Claims 37 and 39 are obvious over Tiedemann in view of Jacobs, Gilhousen, and Gorsuch.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Tiedemann (’840 patent), Jacobs (’796 patent), Gilhousen (’459 patent), and Gorsuch (Patent 6,081,536).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative, adding Gorsuch to the combination in Ground 1 out of an abundance of caution. Petitioner argued Gorsuch provided more explicit teachings for certain claim limitations, particularly those related to measuring throughput and processing multiple distinct data streams. Gorsuch taught a system for transmitting high-rate data to portable computers by dynamically allocating multiple subchannels. Crucially, Gorsuch explicitly disclosed measuring information throughput by determining the rate at which data fills a buffer and generating "subchannel request messages" based on that measurement. Furthermore, Gorsuch taught receiving separate digital information streams (e.g., voice data for a telephone and web data for a computer) addressed to different devices and combining them for transmission, which was argued to be directly relevant to the limitations of dependent claim 39.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Gorsuch's teachings with the Tiedemann system to enhance its performance and efficiency, a strong motivation driven by market demands for higher data rates. Gorsuch provided a known and well-documented method for dynamic channel allocation and throughput measurement that would predictably improve Tiedemann’s resource management. The combination would result in a more sophisticated high-data-rate cellular system, a clear objective in the field at the time.
    • Expectation of Success: The integration of Gorsuch's techniques for dynamic resource allocation into the cellular framework of Tiedemann would have been a predictable endeavor for a POSITA. Both systems operated in the same technical field and used compatible concepts, ensuring a reasonable expectation of success.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "RF channel": Petitioner proposed construing this term as "an RF path for transmitting electric signals." This broad construction was argued as necessary to encompass the varied multiplexing techniques disclosed in the prior art, such as CDMA code channels, TDMA time slots, and FDMA frequency bands, rather than being limited to a specific physical frequency.
  • "Address" and "addressable device": Petitioner argued for construing "address" as "information identifying a device or location" and "addressable device" as "a device identifiable by its address." This construction was critical to mapping the prior art, which disclosed various identifiers like telephone numbers, user IDs, and IP addresses, to the claim limitations, thereby demonstrating that the concept was well-known beyond a specific protocol.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 37 and 39 of Patent 8,984,565 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.