PTAB

IPR2018-00486

Unified Patents Inc v. Iron Oak Technologies LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Apparatus for Automatically Selecting Communication Paths
  • Brief Description: The ’658 patent describes an apparatus and method for automatically selecting a communication path from a plurality of available paths. The system uses a memory storing multiple ordered lists of communication paths, with each list being associated with a specific communication attribute (e.g., priority), to allow a processor to select the most appropriate path for a given communication request.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, and 11 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Eriksson alone or in combination with Schellinger.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Eriksson (Patent 5,448,750), Schellinger (Patent 5,842,122).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Eriksson, which discloses a system for dynamic channel allocation (DCA) in mobile networks, taught every element of the challenged claims. Eriksson’s base station functions as the claimed "apparatus," comprising a processor (CPU), memory, and channel selector. This apparatus automatically selects a communication channel ("communication path") for a mobile device.
      • The memory in Eriksson stores multiple ordered lists of available channels. Each list corresponds to a specific transmission loss interval, which Petitioner argued is a "communication attribute" as claimed. Because weaker signals (higher transmission loss) are given access to a better or larger set of channels, Eriksson’s system establishes a priority for communication based on this attribute. Thus, Eriksson’s memory stores a "plurality of ordered lists of communication paths," with each list "associated with one of a plurality of communication attributes representing a separate priority."
      • Eriksson’s CPU receives a signal from a mobile device, which constitutes a "request for communication." The CPU processes this signal to determine its transmission loss, thereby identifying the "indicated communication attribute." Based on this attribute, the CPU automatically selects the appropriate ordered list and selects a channel from it, thus teaching a processor that "automatically select[s] a communication path from an ordered list associated with the indicated communication attribute."
      • For dependent claim 3, which requires a higher-priority list to contain more paths than a lower-priority list, Petitioner asserted that Eriksson’s List 1 (highest priority) contains all available channels, while Lists 2 and 3 (lower priority) contain progressively fewer, thereby satisfying the limitation.
      • For dependent claims 4 and 11, which require selecting the "first available communication path," Petitioner pointed to Eriksson’s teaching of testing channels in a ranked order and allocating the first one that satisfies predefined quality criteria.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): To the extent "communication paths" is narrowly interpreted to require different technologies (e.g., cellular, satellite), Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine Eriksson with Schellinger. Schellinger disclosed a dual-mode phone that switches between different communication systems (cordless, microcellular, cellular) based on attributes like cost and signal quality. A POSITA would combine the systems to modify Eriksson’s DCA method to allocate channels from multiple system types, thereby providing better service, greater flexibility, and lower-cost options.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because combining the teachings was merely the substitution of one known element (Eriksson’s single-technology channels) for another known element (Schellinger’s multi-technology paths) to achieve the predictable result of a more versatile channel allocation system.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Term: "communication paths"
  • Proposed Construction: Petitioner proposed the term be construed as “paths that allow a node to transmit signals to or receive signals from another node.”
  • Argument: Petitioner argued this construction is consistent with the patent’s specification, which provides a broad set of examples (e.g., cellular, satellite, microwave links) and discloses that different paths can be of the same technology (e.g., multiple land-based cellular networks). This broad construction allows Eriksson’s “channels” to be considered “communication paths.” Petitioner noted that during prosecution, the applicant did not dispute that multiple satellite stations using the same technology constituted different communication paths. Petitioner further contended that even if a narrower construction requiring different technologies were adopted, the claims would be obvious over the combination of Eriksson and Schellinger.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1, 3, 4, 8, and 11 of the ’658 patent as unpatentable.