PTAB

IPR2018-00782

Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Providing Quality of Service in a Wireless Communication Environment
  • Brief Description: The ’206 patent is directed to a method for managing data traffic in a wireless network. The method involves classifying a plurality of packets according to end-user Quality of Service (QoS) requirements and then scheduling the classified packets for communication over a shared wireless bandwidth according to a defined scheduling algorithm. The patent acknowledges that prior art systems like Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) and protocols like Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) provided QoS, but asserts they were not optimal for wireless environments.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Forslöw - Claims 111-115, 118, 120, 121, 133, and 135 are anticipated by Forslöw under 35 U.S.C. §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Forslöw (Patent 6,937,566).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Forslöw, which discloses providing QoS in a General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) wireless network, teaches every element of the challenged claims. Independent claim 109, upon which the challenged claims depend, recites classifying packets according to end-user QoS requirements and scheduling them. Petitioner asserted Forslöw discloses this by describing a mobile host (the end-user) specifying its QoS needs (e.g., rate and delay) via an RSVP message. The network then classifies packets into different queues (e.g., QoS 1-4) within the Base Station Subsystem (BSS) and Serving GPRS Support Node (SGSN) based on these requirements. Forslöw further discloses scheduling these classified packets using known algorithms, such as first-in-first-out (FIFO) and priority queuing, for transmission over a shared wireless medium.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that Forslöw’s disclosure of performing these classifying and scheduling steps at its BSS satisfies the limitations of dependent claims requiring performance at a "wireless base station" (claim 111) or "access point" (claim 113). For claims requiring communication of QoS requirements from a "station" (e.g., a "customer premises equipment station" in claim 114 or a "wireless wide area network station" in claim 120), Petitioner argued Forslöw’s mobile host meets these limitations, relying on the Patent Owner's allegedly broad interpretation of these terms in co-pending litigation.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Forslöw and Lin - Claim 114 is obvious over Forslöw in view of Lin under 35 U.S.C. §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Forslöw (’566 patent) and Lin (Patent 6,400,701).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative to anticipation, contingent on a narrower construction of "customer premises equipment (CPE) station" in claim 114. If a CPE station is required to be a device physically residing at a customer's premises (per the ’206 patent’s specification), Petitioner argued Forslöw’s disclosure of a "mobile host" might not explicitly meet this limitation. In this scenario, Forslöw teaches all other elements of the claim. Lin was introduced to supply the missing element, as it explicitly discloses a personal computer residing at a subscriber's premises that is used to connect to a wireless network via a radio base station.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Forslöw and Lin because it represented a simple design choice. The combination would involve a simple substitution of a known type of computer terminal (Lin's premises-based PC) for another (Forslöw's mobile computer terminal). Petitioner asserted both references show the same fundamental architecture—a computer coupled to a radio transceiver that communicates with a base station and connects to a telephone network (PSTN). This functional equivalence and architectural similarity would have motivated a POSITA to make the substitution.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making this substitution. The change would be predictable and would not alter the fundamental operation of either Forslöw's QoS classification and scheduling schemes or the basic function of the computer terminal itself.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • The petition's invalidity arguments for the various "station" claims (114, 118, 120) were presented under alternative claim constructions for the term "customer premises equipment (CPE) station."
    • The primary argument for anticipation (Ground 1) relied on the Patent Owner's alleged litigation position that "CPE station" is a broad term that encompasses mobile devices, such as the "mobile host" disclosed in Forslöw.
    • The alternative argument for obviousness (Ground 2) addressed a narrower construction, derived from the ’206 patent's specification, where a "CPE station" is a device physically "residing on the premises of a customer." This narrower reading, which may not be met by Forslöw alone, formed the basis for combining it with Lin.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Petitioner challenged the priority date for claims 114, 118, and 120, arguing they are not entitled to the benefit of the ’206 patent’s provisional application filed on July 10, 1998.
  • The contention was that the provisional application lacks adequate written description support for the claimed step of "communicating said end-user QoS requirements between a customer premises equipment station (STA) and an access point (AP)."
  • By invalidating the 1998 priority date, the effective filing date for these claims would become that of the non-provisional application (July 9, 1999). This would make Forslöw, which was filed on May 29, 1998, effective as §102(e) prior art against these claims, strengthening the anticipation argument.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 111-115, 118, 120, 121, 133, and 135 of Patent RE46,206 as unpatentable.