Sierra Wireless Inc v. KoniNKLijke KPN NV

1. Case Identification

• 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 describes a method for error checking in data transmissions. The system generates supplementary check data based on original data that is first varied by permuting bit positions within a data block, which allegedly improves the detection of systematic or repeating errors.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

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

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Divsalar (a 1995 IEEE conference paper on turbo codes) and Cioffi (Patent 5,596,604).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Divsalar taught all core elements of independent claim 1, including a generating device (encoder) and a varying device (interleaver) that performs a permutation of bits within a data block. Cioffi was cited for teaching forward error correction coding (FECC) and interleaving techniques for error checking. For dependent claims 2 and 3, which require modifying the permutation in time and based on the original data, Petitioner asserted that Divsalar’s teaching of using different interleavers for different data rates (e.g., 9.6 Kbps vs. 13 Kbps) and Cioffi’s disclosure of varying interleaving based on data type (e.g., voice vs. video) rendered these claims obvious. The table limitation of claim 4 was argued to be an obvious and well-known way for a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to store permutation data.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references, both in the field of communications error control, to achieve predictable improvements. Petitioner argued that Divsalar expressly identified a need for improved interleaver design in turbo codes, and Cioffi provided known techniques for optimizing interleaving based on data type, creating a clear motivation to apply Cioffi’s methods to Divsalar’s system to enhance performance.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying known interleaving optimization techniques to a known turbo code architecture, providing a POSITA with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving error correction performance.

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

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Barbulescu (a 1995 journal article on rate-compatible turbo codes) and Cioffi (Patent 5,596,604).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Barbulescu taught a turbo code system for error protection using an encoder (generating device) and an interleaver (varying device) that permutes bits within a block. Barbulescu’s system provided unequal error protection (UEP) by varying the coding for different sub-blocks of data, which taught the core limitations of claim 1. For dependent claims 2 and 3, Petitioner argued Barbulescu taught modifying the permutation over time and based on data characteristics by switching between coding rates (e.g., rate 1/2 and rate 1/3) for different parts of a data frame. As in the first ground, the table of claim 4 was asserted to be an obvious implementation choice for storing permutation functions.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Barbulescu’s proposed UEP turbo code system with the more detailed, multi-level interleaving techniques disclosed in Cioffi. This would provide improved performance and flexibility when using turbo codes to handle multiple types of data with different reliability and latency requirements, a problem addressed by both references.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected to successfully combine the teachings, as it involved integrating known interleaving strategies (Cioffi) into a well-defined system (Barbulescu) to achieve the predictable benefit of enhanced performance.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges specifically targeting claim 4 by adding Rhines (Patent 5,392,299) to the primary combinations. Rhines was cited for its express teaching of using a look-up table coupled to an interleaver circuit to store different shuffling algorithms (permutations), which Petitioner argued would have cured any perceived deficiency in the primary combinations regarding the table limitation.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) would be inappropriate because the grounds presented are new and non-overlapping with prior IPR proceedings filed against the ’662 patent (the Samsung IPR and NEC IPR). Petitioner emphasized that its primary reference, Divsalar, was not previously considered by the Board. Furthermore, Petitioner contended that its combinations involving Barbulescu were new and specifically designed to remedy deficiencies that the PTAB had identified in the grounds asserted in the prior Samsung IPR.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4 of the ’662 patent as unpatentable.