PTAB

IPR2018-00709

LG ELECTRONICS, INC. v. WI-LAN INC.

Log In

1. Case Identification

  • Case #: IPR2018-00709
  • Patent #: 8,867,351
  • Filed: February 27, 2018
  • Petitioner(s): LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc.
  • Patent Owner(s): Wi-LAN Inc., Wi-LAN USA, Inc., Wi-LAN Labs, Inc.
  • Challenged Claims: 1, 3-7, and 9-12

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Apparatus, System and Method for the Transmission of Data with Different QoS Attributes
  • Brief Description: The ’351 patent is directed to a method and apparatus for managing data transmission from multiple logical channel queues, each with different quality of service (QoS) attributes, over a shared output link. The core technology involves a "prioritization and queuing engine" that uses a two-loop algorithm to select and allocate bandwidth based on priority and a "traffic shaping rate."

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1 and 3 are obvious over Pagan in view of Aatresh and Bauman.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Pagan (Patent 8,713,641), Aatresh (Patent 6,067,301), and Bauman (Patent 7,474,668), with Bauman’s teachings supported by its provisional application (U.S. Provisional Application 60/385,868).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Pagan discloses a "nomadic router" for a mobile device that can queue and transmit data but lacks specifics on the queuing mechanism. Aatresh was asserted to supply these details by teaching an I/O controller that manages queues using a combination of strict priority and weighted fair queuing (WFQ) to handle different QoS levels and distribute unused bandwidth. Bauman was then argued to teach the implementation of WFQ using a "leaky bucket" algorithm, which provides a priority-specific rate limit for each queue, directly corresponding to the ’351 patent’s "traffic shaping rate."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Aatresh with Pagan to add sophisticated, well-known QoS management to Pagan’s basic mobile router, thereby improving performance and avoiding queue starvation. Subsequently, a POSITA would implement the resulting WFQ system using Bauman's leaky bucket technique, a known method for providing traffic shaping and achieving fine-grained control over bandwidth, which was a predictable improvement for such systems.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying known and compatible queuing techniques from Aatresh and Bauman to a standard mobile router taught by Pagan. Petitioner asserted that since all references operate in the same field of wireless communications and address similar problems, a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in producing an operable system with the predictable benefit of enhanced QoS control.

Ground 2: Claims 7 and 9 are obvious over Pagan in view of Aatresh, Bauman, and Blaney.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Pagan (’641 patent), Aatresh (’301 patent), Bauman (’668 patent), and Blaney (Patent 5,608,606).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the core combination of Ground 1 to address the device claims. Pagan was argued to teach a mobile device (a laptop with a nomadic router implemented as a PCMCIA card) and a "communication card." Blaney was asserted to teach the known practice of embedding a complete radio transceiver into a PCMCIA card to provide wireless capabilities, including cellular data, to portable computers.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to implement the "communication card" of Pagan's mobile device using the integrated wireless transceiver taught by Blaney. This would predictably equip the mobile router with cellular communication capabilities, a desirable feature for a "nomadic" device. The combination was presented as a straightforward integration of a known component (Blaney's transceiver card) into a compatible system (Pagan's PCMCIA-based router) to achieve a known goal.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that combining these known elements would have been simple and predictable, as Blaney’s transceiver is designed for the very type of portable device and PCMCIA interface disclosed in Pagan.

Ground 3: Claims 4-6 are obvious over Pagan in view of Aatresh, Bauman, and Chuah.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Pagan (’641 patent), Aatresh (’301 patent), Bauman (’668 patent), and Chuah (Patent 6,327,254).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground adds Chuah to the core combination to address claims related to dynamic bandwidth allocation and packet segmentation. Chuah was argued to teach a system where a base station dynamically allocates uplink bandwidth on a frame-by-frame basis to optimize network utilization. Chuah also explicitly teaches fragmenting (i.e., segmenting) packets to fit within the dynamically allocated bandwidth for a given frame.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Chuah's teachings with the Pagan/Aatresh/Bauman system to improve bandwidth management in a cellular network. Dynamic allocation by a base station, as taught by Chuah, is a well-known method to optimize resource use. Further, applying Chuah’s packet segmentation would allow the mobile device to avoid wasting allocated bandwidth, a clear and recognized benefit.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was asserted to be predictable, as it involved applying known network management techniques from Chuah (dynamic allocation and segmentation) to the mobile communication system established by the primary combination to optimize its performance in a cellular environment.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge for claims 10-12 over Pagan in view of Aatresh, Bauman, Blaney, and Chuah, which relied on combining the teachings of all cited references.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that institution is warranted and not redundant with a concurrently filed petition (IPR2018-00710). It was asserted that the two petitions rely on different evidence and contentions, with the other petition arguing the ’351 patent is not entitled to its claimed priority date and relying on different prior art. Petitioner contended that considering both petitions would not place a significant burden on the Patent Owner or the Board, arguing against discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d).

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 3-7, and 9-12 of the ’351 patent as unpatentable.