PTAB

IPR2018-01185

Ericsson Inc. v. INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Scheduling Uplink Data Transmissions
  • Brief Description: The ’018 patent discloses a method for scheduling uplink data transmissions in a wireless network. The system distributes scheduling functions between a network scheduler and a "UE mirror scheduler" in the user equipment (UE), which prioritizes data transmissions based on parameters received from the network.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Passas-I and Eckberg - Claims 12, 14, 20, 22, and 24 are obvious over Passas-I in view of Eckberg.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Passas-I ("Improving Traffic Scheduling in Wireless ATM Networks") and Eckberg ("Meeting the Challenge: Congestion and Flow Control Strategies for Broadband Information Transport").
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Passas-I discloses a distributed scheduling architecture similar to the ’018 patent, with a "Master Scheduler" in the network access point (AP) and a "Slave Scheduler" in the mobile terminal (MT). The Slave Scheduler uses a leaky-bucket regulator to prioritize transmissions, allocating resources first to connections with positive token counts ("second parameter") before those with zero or negative token counts ("third parameter"). However, Passas-I does not explicitly teach that the network sends the initial leaky-bucket parameters ("first parameter") to the MT. Eckberg, an authority on leaky-bucket regulators expressly cited by Passas-I, was argued to cure this deficiency by teaching that leaky-bucket parameters are established via a negotiation between the network and the end device at connection setup, where the network can accept, deny, or modify the parameters, thus necessitating that the network send the final parameters to the device.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Passas-I and Eckberg because Passas-I explicitly cites Eckberg as a foundational reference for its leaky-bucket regulator. This would have prompted a POSITA to consult Eckberg to implement the system, leading them to incorporate Eckberg’s teaching of parameter negotiation and sending the final parameters from the network to the MT.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as combining the references involved applying Eckberg’s well-known ATM connection setup and negotiation techniques to the wireless ATM system of Passas-I. The result—a system where the network sends scheduling parameters to the UE—was predictable.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Passas-I, Passas-II, and Eckberg - Claims 13, 16-18, 21, and 25 are obvious over Passas-I and Eckberg in further view of Passas-II.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Passas-I, Eckberg, and Passas-II ("MAC Protocol and Traffic Scheduling for Wireless ATM Networks").
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground incorporated the arguments from Ground 1 and addressed the dependent claims, which further require reporting "indications of buffer occupancies" from the UE to the network. Petitioner contended that while Passas-I discloses "reservation requests" for bandwidth, Passas-II provides the specific implementation detail. Passas-II, which describes the same "WAND" system as Passas-I, explicitly teaches that reservation requests sent from the MT to the AP "identify the MT connection and the number of ATM cells of that connection in the MT output buffer." This directly teaches the claimed "indications of buffer occupancies."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Passas-I and Passas-II because they describe different aspects of the same WAND research project. Passas-I focuses on the Slave Scheduler (in the UE), while Passas-II details the Master Scheduler (in the network). A POSITA seeking to implement the complete system would naturally consult both papers for a full understanding, leading them to use Passas-II’s specific disclosure for implementing the reservation requests mentioned in Passas-I.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be predictable, as it involved using implementation details from Passas-II to flesh out the system described in Passas-I, resulting in an expected improvement in scheduling efficiency by providing the network with precise buffer status.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Passas-I, Eckberg, and Phadnis - Claims 12, 14, 20, 22, and 24 are obvious over Passas-I and Eckberg in further view of Phadnis.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Passas-I, Eckberg, and Phadnis (Patent 7,512,065).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented an alternative to Ground 1, adding Phadnis to further support the teaching of the network sending parameters to the UE. Petitioner argued that Phadnis, like Eckberg, discloses an ATM virtual circuit (VC) setup process. Phadnis teaches that after a setup request, the network sends back an "acceptance message" containing the "accepted parameters," which may be different from those initially requested. This was presented as confirming that sending modified or approved traffic parameters (like the "first parameters" of the ’018 patent) from the network to the end device was a known technique.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing the ATM-based system of Passas-I and looking to Eckberg for negotiation details would also have been motivated to look to other ATM references like Phadnis to understand messaging flows and implementation options for VC setup, a known and related art.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining Phadnis would yield the predictable result of an explicit acceptance message containing the final leaky-bucket parameters being sent from the network to the UE for use in its scheduler.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge (Ground 4) against claims 13, 16-18, 21, and 25 based on the combination of Passas-I, Passas-II, Eckberg, and Phadnis, incorporating the arguments from Grounds 2 and 3.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Plurality of Radio Bearers": Petitioner argued this term, central to all challenged claims, should be construed as "services that associate quality of service (QoS) with data flows carried over a wireless link." This construction was asserted to be consistent with the ’018 patent's specification, which describes radio bearers as having "service specifications" to differentiate QoS for various IP flows. Petitioner contended that under this construction, the "wireless ATM connections" of Passas-I, which are associated with different QoS and service classes, qualify as "radio bearers."

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 12-14, 16-18, 20-22, and 24-25 of the ’018 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.