PTAB

IPR2018-00690

Sirius XM Radio Inc v. Fraunhofer Gesellschaft zur Forderung der angewandten Forschung Ev

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Apparatus and Method for Transmitting Information and Apparatus and Method for Receiving Information
  • Brief Description: The ’289 patent relates to digital audio broadcasting (DAB) systems designed to improve signal reliability. The technology involves encoding a bitstream using forward error correction (FEC), partitioning the encoded stream into two differently encoded portions, and transmitting these portions over separate communication channels to achieve time and space diversity against signal fading.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Chen in view of Campanella - Claims 1-15, 17-33, and 35 are obvious over Chen in view of Campanella under 35 U.S.C. §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Chen (Patent 6,347,122) and Campanella (Patent 6,944,139).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Chen teaches the core claimed encoding method. Chen discloses using FEC and partitioning an encoded bitstream into two differently coded, complementary portions (using punctured convolutional codes), where each portion independently allows for the full retrieval of the original information. Petitioner asserted that Campanella supplies the transmission architecture, teaching a DAB system that uses spatially diverse channels (e.g., two geostationary satellites) and time diversity (by delaying a signal to one satellite) to combat signal degradation. The combination of Chen's advanced coding with Campanella's diversity transmission architecture was alleged to render the challenged claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be motivated to combine these references because Chen explicitly states that its coding invention could be implemented in systems utilizing time, space, or other diversity techniques. A POSITA seeking to improve the robustness of a DAB system would naturally look to a known diversity architecture like Campanella to implement Chen’s coding scheme, thereby achieving the predictable benefits of improved signal reliability.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references, as it involved applying a known error correction coding technique to a compatible, known diversity transmission system to achieve the well-understood goal of mitigating channel fading.

Ground 2: Anticipation by Smallcomb - Claims 1-6, 8-14, 17-23, 25-32, and 35 are anticipated by Smallcomb under 35 U.S.C. §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Smallcomb (Patent 6,247,158).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Smallcomb discloses every element of the challenged claims. Smallcomb describes a digital broadcasting system that encodes a bitstream and uses a "Code Bit Decomposition" element to partition it into two "Critical Subsets." Petitioner asserted these subsets directly correspond to the claimed "two portions" because they are coded differently, and each is sufficient to regenerate the original source bits if the other is lost. Furthermore, Smallcomb was alleged to teach transmitting these subsets over spatially diverse channels and implementing time diversity via a fixed time delay, as well as receiving and combining the signals for decoding.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claims 1-15, 17-33, and 35 over Smallcomb in view of Campanella. This ground argued that to the extent Smallcomb was found not to explicitly disclose certain specific diversity implementations (e.g., achieving time and space diversity with a single satellite and a mobile receiver), Campanella expressly taught these techniques, making the combination obvious.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

Petitioner argued for constructions of several means-plus-function claim terms, identifying the corresponding structure from the specification.

  • "delay means for delaying the second portion of output bits..." (claims 1, 5) and "...delaying the portion of bits received via one channel..." (claim 11):
    • Function: Delaying a portion of bits to achieve time diversity (transmitter) or to compensate for an imposed delay (receiver).
    • Proposed Structure: A delay stage, as shown in the patent's figures. This construction was central to mapping prior art disclosures of time diversity.
  • "means for transmitting the output bits..." (claim 2):
    • Function: Transmitting the two portions of output bits via a first and second channel.
    • Proposed Structure: Two transmitters, as described in the specification and claim language. This construction was key to arguments regarding spatial diversity.
  • "depuncturing means for compensating for a puncturing operation..." (claim 13):
    • Function: Compensating for a puncturing operation by attributing equal probabilities to punctured bits.
    • Proposed Structure: A depuncturing unit. This construction was material to the receiver-side decoding claims.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-15, 17-33, and 35 of the ’289 patent as unpatentable.