PTAB

IPR2016-01899

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 ’679 patent discloses radio frequency (RF) transmission devices that de-multiplex high-rate data streams into smaller streams, use a processor to select multiple channels for transmission, and use modulators to transmit the smaller-rate streams over the selected channels.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Tiedemann, Gilhousen, and Jacobs - Claims 12-14, 26-27, and 38-40 are obvious over Tiedemann in view of Gilhousen and Jacobs.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Tiedemann (Patent 5,859,840), Gilhousen (Patent 5,103,459), and Jacobs (Patent 5,414,796).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Tiedemann, a multi-channel cellular RF system, disclosed most limitations of independent claim 12. Tiedemann’s base stations and mobile stations were identified as the claimed “intelligent device” for bi-directional communication. Petitioner asserted that Tiedemann’s receive-side circuitry met the “demodulator unit” limitation, its multiplexor met the “first combiner” limitation, and its transmit-side circuitry met the “modulator unit” limitation. To supplement Tiedemann’s disclosure, Petitioner relied on Gilhousen and Jacobs, both of which are incorporated by reference into Tiedemann. Petitioner argued that Gilhousen taught the “addressable device” limitation by describing how mobile units in a CDMA system are addressed. For the “traffic sensor” limitation, Petitioner argued it was taught by the variable rate vocoder in Jacobs, which senses the data rate of a digital stream to select an output packet rate.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would combine these references because Tiedemann explicitly incorporated Gilhousen and Jacobs by reference. Gilhousen was incorporated to explain the addressing of mobile units in Tiedemann’s CDMA system, and Jacobs was incorporated to provide an exemplary variable-rate data source (a vocoder). Therefore, a POSITA would have looked to these references to understand the complete operation of the system disclosed in Tiedemann.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination merely involved consulting references expressly identified by the primary reference to understand its full implementation.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Tiedemann, Gilhousen, Jacobs, and Gorsuch - Claims 12-14, 26-27, and 38-40 are obvious over Tiedemann in view of Gilhousen, Jacobs, and Gorsuch.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Tiedemann (Patent 5,859,840), Gilhousen (Patent 5,103,459), Jacobs (Patent 5,414,796), and Gorsuch (Patent 6,081,536).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative, adding Gorsuch to provide further support for several limitations if the Board found the primary combination insufficient. Petitioner argued that Gorsuch provided a stronger teaching of the "traffic sensor" and "addressable device" limitations. Gorsuch explicitly taught a traffic sensor in the form of an input buffer that senses its fill rate and generates a request for additional channels when capacity is exceeded. Gorsuch also expressly disclosed connecting addressable devices, such as portable computers and telephones, to a multi-channel RF system to receive high-rate data. Further, Petitioner argued that Gorsuch taught determining the number of required channels by comparing the measured information throughput against the information capacity of a single channel.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a POSITA would combine Gorsuch with Tiedemann’s system to enhance its capabilities for transmitting high-rate, non-voice data to addressable devices like computers. This was a well-known goal at the time, driven by market demand for mobile internet access. Combining Gorsuch’s method for dynamically allocating channels based on buffer fill rates with Tiedemann’s multi-channel framework represented the application of a known technique to a similar system to yield predictable results.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in applying Gorsuch’s data handling techniques to Tiedemann’s cellular system, as both operate in the analogous field of multi-channel RF communications and address the common problem of efficient high-rate data transmission.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "RF Channel": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as “an RF path for transmitting electric signals.” This construction is broader than limiting channels to specific frequency bands and was argued to be consistent with the specification and supported by industry dictionaries. This broader meaning was crucial for Petitioner's argument that the channels disclosed in the prior art (e.g., CDMA code channels, TDMA time slots) met the claim limitation.
  • "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 construction was based on the specification’s reference to IP addresses and was argued to be consistent with the term’s ordinary meaning in the art. This was central to the argument that the mobile stations in Tiedemann, as identified by phone numbers or user IDs described in Gilhousen, qualified as addressable devices.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 12-14, 26-27, and 38-40 of the ’679 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.