PTAB

IPR2016-01891

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 describes radio frequency (RF) data transmission devices. The technology involves dividing a high-rate data stream into multiple smaller-rate streams, selecting multiple channels for transmission, and then transmitting these smaller streams over a wideband RF signal using multiple modulators.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Tiedemann, Jacobs, and Gilhousen - Claims 12, 18, 20, 23, 40, and 41 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 that Tiedemann, the primary reference, teaches the core of the invention: a multi-channel cellular RF system for bidirectional communication between base stations and mobile stations. Tiedemann’s system divides high-rate data streams, sends them over multiple channels, and uses a controller to manage channel assignment. Jacobs, incorporated by reference into Tiedemann, was cited to teach a variable rate vocoder that serves as a data source and measures information throughput. Gilhousen, also incorporated by reference, was cited to teach how multiple devices are addressed in a CDMA system, satisfying the "addressable device" limitation of the claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a strong motivation to combine, noting that Tiedemann explicitly incorporates both Jacobs and Gilhousen by reference to describe components of its system. A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references to build a complete, functional, and addressable multi-channel communication system as described by Tiedemann itself.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because the primary reference directs the combination to achieve its own stated objectives, and the combination involves integrating well-understood components for their intended purposes.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Tiedemann, Jacobs, Gilhousen, and Gorsuch - Claims 12, 18, 20, 23, 40, and 41 are obvious over Tiedemann in view of Jacobs, Gilhousen, and Gorsuch.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Tiedemann (Patent 5,859,840), Jacobs (Patent 5,414,796), Gilhousen (Patent 5,103,459), and Gorsuch (Patent 6,081,536).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative to Ground 1, adding Gorsuch to provide more explicit teachings for certain claim limitations. Petitioner argued that Gorsuch teaches using a CPU controller to measure information throughput by determining the rate at which data fills a buffer. This measurement is then used to dynamically allocate the necessary number of subchannels for data transmission. This disclosure was used to supplement the teachings of Tiedemann and Jacobs regarding the claim limitations of measuring throughput and instructing modulators based on that throughput (claim 12[g] and 12[h]). Gorsuch also explicitly teaches connecting addressable devices like portable computers over a multi-channel cellular system.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Gorsuch's efficient channel allocation and throughput measurement techniques with the system of Tiedemann to improve performance and resource management. This represents a predictable improvement by applying a known technique (buffer-based throughput measurement) to a known system (Tiedemann’s multi-channel cellular network) to achieve a desired, predictable result of enhanced efficiency.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was predictable as it involved combining well-known processor-controlled buffer management and dynamic channel allocation techniques with a standard cellular communication architecture to improve its data handling capabilities.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "RF channel": Petitioner argued for a broad construction of "an RF path for transmitting electric signals." This construction avoids limiting the term to specific frequency bands and is broad enough to encompass various channel types disclosed in the prior art, such as the code channels used in Tiedemann's CDMA system.
  • "Address" and "addressable device": Petitioner proposed construing "address" as "information identifying a device or location" and "addressable device" as "a device identifiable by its address." This broad interpretation was crucial for mapping the claim language to the telephone numbers, user IDs, and IP addresses disclosed in the Gilhousen and Gorsuch prior art.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Analogous Art: Petitioner contended that the prior art references, which focus on over-the-air (OTA) cellular telephone systems, are analogous to the field of the ’565 patent, which also discloses over-the-wire (OTW) systems. It was argued that both fields concern the same fundamental problem: transmitting high-rate data streams over an RF signal by dividing the stream and using multiple channels, making the teachings of one field directly pertinent to the other.

6. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) was inappropriate. It was noted that while related patents were cited during prosecution, the primary reference, Tiedemann, was not. Petitioner asserted that Tiedemann is a superior reference because it discloses dynamic channel allocation, a key feature allegedly missing from the art considered by the Examiner. Further, Gorsuch was distinguished from a related patent cited during prosecution, arguing it was used here to teach different concepts.

7. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 12, 18, 20, 23, 40, and 41 of the ’565 patent as unpatentable.