Sierra Wireless Inc v. Koninklijke KPN NV

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2018-00320
• Patent #: 6,212,662
• Filed: December 15, 2017
• Petitioner(s): Sierra Wireless, Inc. and Sierra Wireless America, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Koninklijke KPN N.V.
• Challenged Claims: 1-4

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Method and Devices for the Transmission of Data with Transmission Error Checking
• Brief Description: The ’662 patent discloses a device and method for detecting errors in data transmissions. The core concept involves varying original data by permuting bit positions within a data block before generating supplementary check data, which allegedly improves the detection of systematic or repeating errors that prior art methods might miss.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Divsalar and Cioffi - Claims 1-4 are obvious over Divsalar in view of Cioffi.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Divsalar ("Turbo Codes for PCS Applications," a 1995 IEEE conference paper) and Cioffi (Patent 5,596,604).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of Divsalar and Cioffi taught every element of the challenged claims. Independent claim 1 requires a "generating device" (to generate check data), a "varying device" to vary original data, and a "permutating device" to perform bit position permutation within a block. Petitioner contended Divsalar’s disclosure of turbo codes, which use encoders ("generating device") preceded by interleavers ("varying/permutating device") to reorder data bits within a block, met these limitations. Cioffi was argued to supplement Divsalar by teaching the use of varied forward error correction coding (FECC) and different interleaving levels for different data types (e.g., voice vs. video).
  • For the dependent claims, Petitioner argued Divsalar’s pseudo-random interleavers modify the permutation over time (meeting claim 2), and its use of different interleavers for different data transmission rates (e.g., 9.6 Kbps vs. 13 Kbps) modifies the permutation based on the original data (meeting claim 3). For claim 4, Petitioner asserted that implementing Divsalar's varied interleaving functions would have made it obvious to a POSITA to use a table to store the different permutation schemes.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the references to improve performance in a communication system. Divsalar identified a need for improved interleaver designs in turbo codes. Cioffi provided a detailed technique for optimizing interleaving based on data type and reliability requirements (e.g., low-delay voice vs. high-reliability video). A POSITA would have been motivated to apply Cioffi’s sophisticated interleaving strategies to enhance the performance of Divsalar’s turbo coding system.
  • Expectation of Success: Both references are in the same field of error control systems for communications and address improving performance through interleaving and encoding. Combining their teachings was presented as a predictable application of known techniques to achieve improved results.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Barbulescu and Cioffi - Claims 1-4 are obvious over Barbulescu in view of Cioffi.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Barbulescu ("Rate-Compatible Turbocodes," a 1995 Electronics Letters article) and Cioffi (Patent 5,596,604).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Barbulescu, like Divsalar, taught a turbo coding system using an interleaver to vary original data bits prior to an encoder generating supplemental check data. Barbulescu specifically disclosed a system for "unequal error protection," where different levels of protection are applied to different blocks or sub-blocks of data. This was achieved by varying the coding rate and using different interleavers (e.g., for different sub-blocks), which directly taught modifying the permutation based on the original data (claim 3) and over time (claim 2). Petitioner asserted that storing the different permutation functions required for Barbulescu's de-interleaver to function would have made the use of a table (claim 4) obvious.
  • Motivation to Combine: Barbulescu introduced the concept of unequal rate encoding in turbo codes as a "proposed method." A POSITA seeking to implement and improve upon this method would have looked to Cioffi, which provided a detailed, practical technique for using multiple levels of interleaving to balance performance considerations like delay and error rate for different data types. Combining the two would improve the performance of Barbulescu's system.
  • Expectation of Success: Both references address enhancing the reliability of transmissions using interleaving for different types of signals. A POSITA would have reasonably expected to successfully integrate Cioffi's detailed interleaving techniques into Barbulescu's turbo code framework.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges for claim 4, adding Rhines (Patent 5,392,299) to the primary combinations to explicitly teach the use of a look-up table for storing interleaving functions.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) would be inappropriate because the petition presented new and independent grounds not considered in two prior IPR proceedings (IPR2016-00392 and IPR2017-02089). The petition asserted it relied on key prior art references (Divsalar, Cioffi, Rhines) not previously considered by the Patent Office in any proceeding. Furthermore, it argued that where it did use a previously considered reference (Barbulescu), it was presented in new combinations designed to remedy specific deficiencies identified by the PTAB in the earlier IPRs.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review of claims 1-4 of the ’662 patent and cancellation of those claims as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.