PTAB

IPR2018-01018

Ruckus Wireless Inc v. XR Communications LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Forced Beam Switching in Wireless Communication Systems having Smart Antenas
  • Brief Description: The ’728 patent discloses systems and methods for a wireless access point using a smart antenna to selectively cause a client device to switch its connection from one transmitted beam to another. The system determines if a better beam is available for the client device and can force a switch, particularly to maintain communication quality as the client device moves.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Reudink and Antonio - Claim 16 is obvious over Reudink in view of Antonio.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Reudink (Patent 7,039,441) and Antonio (Patent 6,028,858).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Reudink discloses the fundamental wireless communication system of claim 16. Reudink teaches a base station (an access point) with a multi-beam antenna that communicates with remote stations (receiving devices). The system in Reudink probes the receiving device by sending messages across various beams, and the receiving device measures signal strength and reports back preferred beam information via an uplink message. Based on this uplink, the base station determines and directs the receiving device to associate with an acceptable beam. Petitioner asserted that Reudink thus teaches nearly all elements of claim 16, including the access point with a phased array antenna and transceiver, the process of sending downlink messages, receiving uplink transmissions with signal parameter information, and determining if a receiving device should associate with a different beam.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that while Reudink teaches a complete system, its method for beam switching is inefficient, especially for mobile devices. Antonio was argued to solve this specific problem by teaching a more advanced messaging protocol for beam handoffs. Antonio discloses a base station sending a "Handoff Direction Message" (HDM) containing an explicit "add beam set" and "drop beam set" to instruct a user terminal precisely which beams to start using and which to stop using. Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Antonio’s efficient handoff messaging with Reudink’s system to improve performance. Modifying Reudink's "direction message" to include Antonio's "add/drop" beam sets would speed up beam acquisition for mobile users and reduce overall network signaling load, a well-known goal in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that a POSITA would have a high expectation of success. The proposed combination involved substituting or adding Antonio’s well-defined message fields into Reudink's existing messaging protocol. Since both patents operate in the same technical field of multi-beam wireless communications and address analogous problems, a POSITA would understand that incorporating Antonio's more specific handoff commands into Reudink's system would predictably result in faster and more reliable beam switching without requiring undue experimentation.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "phased array antenna": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "array of antenna elements that transmits beams by changing the phases of the signals at the antenna elements." This construction was argued to be consistent with the patent’s intrinsic record and the Patent Owner's own proposed construction in related district court litigation.
  • "operatively associate": Petitioner proposed the construction "establish a communication link with." This was based on language in the ’728 patent specification describing an "association process that establishes a communication link" and was also consistent with positions in the parallel litigation.
  • "access point": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a wireless network device configured to communicate over wireless links with multiple other wireless devices." This construction was derived from the patent equating the term with "base station" and disclosures in the provisional application to which the ’728 patent claims priority.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314 and 325, asserting that the General Plastic factors favored institution. Petitioner emphasized that this was its first IPR petition challenging the ’728 patent and that it was not involved in other pending IPRs against the same patent (IPR2018-00725 and IPR2018-00764). It was argued that the grounds were not cumulative because the primary reference, Reudink, was not considered during the original prosecution and was not asserted in the other IPR petitions, presenting new arguments and art for the Board’s consideration.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claim 16 of the ’728 patent as unpatentable.