PTAB

IPR2018-00758

Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC

Title: Quality of Service (QoS) in Wireless Communication Systems
Brief Description: The ’206 patent is directed to providing Quality of Service (QoS) in a wireless communication environment. It discloses a method comprising the steps of classifying a plurality of packets according to end-user QoS requirements and scheduling the classified packets for communication over a shared wireless bandwidth.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Forslöw (Patent 6,937,566).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Forslöw discloses every element of the challenged claims. For independent claim 109, Forslöw was asserted to teach a method for scheduling packets by classifying them according to QoS requirements and scheduling them for communication over a shared wireless medium in a GPRS network. Forslöw explicitly described classifying packets into different QoS queues at various network nodes (GGSN, SGSN, BSS) and using scheduling algorithms like FIFO and priority queuing. For the dependent claims, Petitioner contended that Forslöw teaches allocating resources for an IP flow (claim 121), accounting for subscription-based QoS profiles analogous to Service Level Agreements (SLAs) (claim 129), associating IP flows with voice and video applications (claim 132), and operating with mobile stations in a GSM/GPRS cellular network, which constitutes a wide area network (WAN) (claim 134).

Prior Art Relied Upon: Forslöw (Patent 6,937,566) and Goodman (J. Cai and D. Goodman, “General Packet Radio Service in GSM,” IEEE Communications Magazine).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Forslöw provides the foundational system for QoS in a GPRS network, including an access point (the Base Station Subsystem, or BSS) that coordinates and controls access to a shared wireless resource. Goodman was introduced to supply the specific GPRS implementation details for uplink access, as recited in claim 140. Goodman described the standard GPRS procedure where a mobile station sends a "packet channel request" (a reservation request) to the BSS, and the BSS responds with a "packet immediate assignment" (a grant) to allocate uplink resources.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references because Forslöw expressly teaches a system operating in a GPRS network. To implement the system, a POSITA would have been motivated to consult a standard GPRS reference like Goodman to incorporate required, well-known procedures, such as the uplink access protocol, to ensure interoperability.
- Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be predictable, as it involved integrating a standard, well-documented GPRS procedure (from Goodman) into a system expressly designed to operate within the GPRS framework (Forslöw).

Prior Art Relied Upon: Forslöw (Patent 6,937,566), Goodman (IEEE Communications Magazine), and Oliveira (C. Oliveira, et al., "Quality-of-Service Guarantee in High-Speed Multimedia Wireless Networks," IEEE).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: The Forslöw and Goodman combination was argued to teach the underlying method of claim 140. Oliveira was added to teach the limitation of claim 144: "ensuring high priority packets are provided appropriate bandwidth." Oliveira explicitly describes classifying real-time traffic like voice into a high-priority "Class I" and providing it a "guarantee bit rate (GBR) service." This GBR service ensures that high-priority voice packets receive the appropriate bandwidth needed.
- Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that since Forslöw suggests providing a "guaranteed service" for voice traffic, a POSITA would have been motivated to look to a reference like Oliveira, which details QoS for multimedia traffic, to implement such a guarantee. Market forces and design incentives to provide better service for increasingly popular voice applications would also have driven this combination.
- Expectation of Success: Success would have been reasonably expected because the combination involves applying a known technique (GBR for high-priority traffic from Oliveira) to improve a known system (Forslöw/Goodman) that already contemplated different QoS levels.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Forslöw (Patent 6,937,566) and Oliveira (IEEE).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted this combination renders claims 126 and 146 obvious. Forslöw provides the base system of classifying packets according to QoS. For claim 126, Oliveira teaches classifying traffic into delay-sensitive (Class I, e.g., voice/video) and non-delay-sensitive classes, thus teaching the step of "determining whether said IP flow is... a latency sensitive IP flow." For claim 146, Oliveira's teaching of providing a GBR to high-priority voice and video traffic was argued to meet the limitation of "allocating... bandwidth in oversubscribed environments without consequent degradation."
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing Forslöw's general QoS framework would have been motivated to consult Oliveira for specific guidance on how to classify and handle different traffic types like voice and video. This would allow for the implementation of differentiated services, a known design goal with market incentives.
- Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be a predictable application of a specific implementation for multimedia traffic (from Oliveira) to a general QoS framework (from Forslöw).

Petitioner noted that under the Phillips standard, it relied on Patent Owner’s claim interpretations from a concurrent district court litigation to demonstrate invalidity. For example, Petitioner adopted the Patent Owner's broad interpretations of "access point" (any base station communicating with a subscriber) and "wide area network (WAN) wireless network station" (any device operating in a cellular network) to argue that Forslöw anticipates or renders the claims obvious even under those constructions.

A central contention was that claims 140 and 144 are not entitled to the ’206 patent's July 10, 1998 provisional application filing date. Petitioner argued the provisional application fails to disclose key limitations, such as "sending grants from said AP." This later effective filing date (July 9, 1999) would make references like Goodman, published in 1997, prior art under §102.

Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 109, 121, 126, 129, 132, 134, 140, 144, and 146 of the ’206 patent as unpatentable.