PTAB

IPR2018-01118

Google LLC v. SEVEN Networks, LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Offloading Application Traffic to a Shared Communication Channel for Signaling Optimization in a Wireless Network
  • Brief Description: The ’600 patent describes systems and methods for reducing network traffic and power consumption on a mobile device. The invention achieves this by "offloading" application traffic from an application-specific channel to a shared, common communication channel, thereby allowing the application-specific channel to be blocked or closed when not in active use.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 7 and 11 by Black

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Black (Application # 2011/0182220).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Black discloses every limitation of claims 7 and 11. Black teaches a system for reducing energy drain on a mobile device by eliminating keep-alive messages. It does this by closing a first, non-common channel (a TCP/IP connection specific to an application) and offloading notifications onto a second, common channel (a USSD channel). Black allegedly discloses blocking the first channel by closing the TCP/IP session; monitoring the second (USSD) channel for notifications; unblocking the first channel by re-opening the TCP/IP session when a notification arrives so the application can perform an action (e.g., download data); and re-blocking the first channel after the action is complete. For claim 11, Petitioner asserted that closing the TCP/IP session inherently blocks input to the application layer, meeting the claimed limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Not applicable (anticipation ground).
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Not applicable (anticipation ground).

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claim 12 over Black in view of Bentley

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Black (Application # 2011/0182220) and Bentley (Patent 6,529,723).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the teachings of Black as applied to claim 7. Claim 12 adds the limitation that the system "notifies a user about application traffic." Petitioner argued that while Black discloses sending a notification of change (e.g., email arrival) to the mobile device, it may not explicitly state this notification is presented to the user. Bentley, which relates to automated user notification systems, was introduced to supply this teaching. Bentley explicitly discloses a notification interface that provides notifications, including emails, to a user.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Black with Bentley to improve the user experience of Black's system. It would have been a simple and predictable modification to configure the notifications already being sent to the device in Black to be presented to the user, as taught by Bentley, to inform the user of events like an incoming email so they could take appropriate action.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as combining a known user notification method (from Bentley) with a mobile communication system (from Black) was a well-understood and common practice to make systems more user-friendly.

Ground 3: Anticipation of Claims 7 and 11 by Islam

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Islam (Application # 2007/0135080).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative to the grounds based on Black, contingent on a different interpretation of the term "channel." While Black was argued to teach a "logical" channel, Islam was argued to teach a "physical" channel. Petitioner contended Islam discloses a method for improving battery life in user equipment (UE) by transitioning between Radio Resource Control (RRC) states. Islam allegedly meets claim 7 by blocking a first, non-common channel (a dedicated channel in the Cell_DCH state) by disconnecting from it and moving to an idle state. It offloads traffic onto a second, common channel (a paging channel, Cell_PCH) which is monitored in idle mode. Upon receiving a page (monitored traffic), the UE unblocks the first channel by re-establishing the RRC connection to the dedicated channel to perform an action (receive data), and then re-blocks it by returning to idle mode after the data exchange is complete.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Not applicable (anticipation ground).
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Not applicable (anticipation ground).
    • Key Aspects: This ground's strength relies on the argument that the patent's term "channel" is broad enough to cover the physical radio channels (RRC states) described in Islam, providing a distinct invalidity theory from the logical channels in Black.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous additional obviousness challenges. These included combining Black with Mullen (Application # 2003/0101338) to explicitly teach dropping/rejecting IP packets as a method of "blocking." Similar combinations were asserted for Islam. Further grounds combined Black or Islam with Soliman (Application # 2012/0173901) to address a potentially narrower interpretation of "offloading" that requires active diversion of traffic to a secondary communication circuit.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "channel": This term was central to the petition's structure. Petitioner argued the specification does not limit "channel" to either a physical or a logical channel. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, it should encompass both.
    • Petitioner presented invalidity grounds under two alternative interpretations:
        1. A logical channel, such as the TCP/IP and USSD connections in Black.
        1. A physical channel, such as the dedicated and paging radio channels in different RRC states described by Islam.
  • This dual-pronged strategy was designed to invalidate the claims regardless of which interpretation the Board adopted.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 7, 11, and 12 of the ’600 patent as unpatentable on all asserted grounds.