PTAB

IPR2018-00653

Huawei Device Co Ltd v. Optis Wireless Technology LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and Apparatus for Multicarrier Communication
  • Brief Description: The ’569 patent discloses a method and apparatus for multicarrier communication, particularly using Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM). The technology focuses on arranging encoded data into code blocks across a time-frequency domain to improve the error correction rate, where the arrangement is adjusted based on signal reception state feedback from a receiver.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Wallace in view of Ishikawa - Claims 11-20, 31-40, 43, and 44 are obvious over Wallace in view of Ishikawa.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wallace (Patent 6,473,467) and Ishikawa (Patent 5,646,935).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Wallace taught or suggested every limitation of the challenged claims except for mapping data to symbols "in an increasing order" according to the frequency or time index. Wallace disclosed an OFDM communication system that maps various types of encoded data (e.g., pilot, control, voice, traffic) to symbols and groups of symbols within a time-frequency domain. This mapping in Wallace is dynamic, using channel state information (CSI) feedback from a receiver to precondition transmissions and allocate resources, thereby achieving frequency and temporal diversity to improve error correction. Wallace’s system included a reception apparatus with receiving and decoding sections, and its disclosed data mapping created distinct first and second parts of a domain containing symbols and groups of symbols.

      Petitioner contended that Ishikawa supplied the missing "increasing order" limitation. Ishikawa taught a digital transmission system that arranges data for transmission by mapping it sequentially to symbols in a time-frequency domain. Specifically, Ishikawa disclosed mapping data "in a sequential [increasing] order" first along the frequency direction (row direction) within a given timeslot, and then proceeding to the next timeslot in an increasing order along the time direction (column direction). This method was explicitly taught to prevent the "degradation of the error correction capability."

    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner asserted three primary motivations for a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to combine the references. First, Wallace and Ishikawa were from the same field of endeavor—OFDM-based wireless communication systems—and addressed the same problem of mapping data to symbols to improve transmission reliability. Second, Ishikawa provided an explicit teaching and a predictable, low-cost solution for ordering data mapping to enhance the frequency diversity and error correction already sought by Wallace. Third, both references described using known techniques (improving frequency and temporal diversity) to improve similar devices in the same way (enhancing error correction), making the combination a matter of applying a known technique to a known system to achieve a predictable improvement.

    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings because applying Ishikawa's known, simple sequential mapping technique to Wallace's system would predictably improve its error correction robustness without requiring undue experimentation.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "group of symbols" / "groups of symbols": Petitioner argued that while a formal construction was not required, the broadest reasonable interpretation of "group of symbols" must encompass "an arrangement of symbols to which data is mapped." This interpretation was based on the ’569 patent's disclosure of adjusting the "arrangement" of signals in "code block units" and the applicant’s reliance on figures depicting code blocks as support for the "groups of symbols" limitation during prosecution. This position was critical to mapping Wallace's disclosure of distinct data blocks (e.g., DATA 1, VOICE 3) to the claimed "groups of symbols."

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) would be inappropriate because the asserted ground was not considered by the Examiner during prosecution of the ’569 patent. The primary combination of Wallace and Ishikawa was not raised, applied, or analyzed by the Office. Therefore, the petition did not present the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments that were previously considered.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests that the Board institute an inter partes review (IPR) and cancel claims 11-20, 31-40, 43, and 44 of the ’569 patent as unpatentable.