PTAB

IPR2018-00655

Huawei Device Co Ltd v. Optis Wireless Technology LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and Apparatus for Multicarrier Communication
  • Brief Description: The ’569 patent discloses a multicarrier communication method and apparatus, particularly for Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) signals. The technology arranges encoded data into code blocks along a time-frequency domain, adjusting the arrangement based on the signal's reception state (e.g., signal-to-interference ratio feedback) to improve the error correction rate.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-10, 21-30, and 41-42 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 teaches nearly every limitation of the challenged claims. Wallace discloses a communication system using OFDM that maps different types of encoded data (e.g., voice, traffic data) to symbols and groups of symbols within a time-frequency domain. It further teaches dynamically allocating resources based on channel state information (CSI) feedback from a receiver. According to Petitioner, the primary element not explicitly taught by Wallace is mapping data to symbols "in an increasing order" along the frequency or time index. Petitioner contended that Ishikawa remedies this deficiency. Ishikawa explicitly discloses mapping data to symbols in a time-frequency domain sequentially—first in an increasing order along the frequency index within a timeslot, and then proceeding to the next timeslot in an increasing order along the time index. This sequential mapping is taught by Ishikawa as a method to prevent "degradation of the error correction capability."
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Wallace and Ishikawa for several reasons. Both references are from the same field of OFDM wireless communications and address improving error correction by mapping data in a time-frequency domain. A POSITA looking to improve the error correction and diversity of the system in Wallace would have looked to known, simple techniques like the sequential mapping taught in Ishikawa. This combination represented a predictable solution using a finite number of known design choices to improve a known device.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying Ishikawa’s known mapping technique to Wallace’s system to yield the predictable result of improved error correction and transmission robustness.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • “group of symbols” / “groups of symbols”: Petitioner argued that while no formal construction was necessary, the broadest reasonable interpretation for these terms must encompass "an arrangement of symbols to which data is mapped." This position was based on the patent’s prosecution history, where the applicant, facing a written description rejection, pointed to "code blocks" in the specification’s figures as support for the newly added claim terms "first data," "second data," and their mapping. As the specification describes arranging code blocks, Petitioner contended this context dictates the meaning of "groups of symbols."

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d), asserting that the petition did not present the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously considered by the USPTO. It was noted that neither Wallace nor Ishikawa was applied by the Examiner during the prosecution of the ’569 patent. Furthermore, the petition was supported by the declaration of an expert, Dr. Jonathan Wells, which constituted new evidence and analysis not before the Examiner.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-10, 21-30, and 41-42 of the ’569 patent as unpatentable.