PTAB

IPR2018-01186

Unified Patents LLC v. Barkan Wireless IP Holdings LP

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Add-on Base Station
  • Brief Description: The ’284 patent discloses an "add-on base station" for a cellular network. The system is designed to enhance an existing telecommunication infrastructure by adding a new wireless cell in a location where a link to a packet-based data network, such as the Internet, is available.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 9-10, 16, and 18 are anticipated by or, in the alternative, obvious over Farris

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Farris (Patent 6,721,306).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Farris discloses every element of the challenged claims. Farris describes a "wireless gateway system" that provides wireless telephone communication and access to a public packet data network. Petitioner asserted that Farris’s "client PC serving as a base station" is a gateway that connects mobile handsets to a packet-based data network (a LAN, which Farris also suggests could be the Internet). This gateway includes a transceiver for the radio link, a LAN interface card to facilitate data flow, and a CPU that acts as a controller. The controller regulates data flow based on information from a "server PC" (the coordination center), which allocates communication channels and manages call data.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): As an alternative to anticipation, Petitioner argued that even if the packet-based network was construed to be the Internet, Farris expressly teaches that its base stations may connect directly to the Internet. A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to substitute the disclosed LAN for the Internet, a known and interchangeable network type, to achieve the predictable result of wide-area connectivity.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making this substitution, as Farris explicitly discloses this as a possible modification, and it would have been within the capabilities of a skilled artisan.

Ground 2: Claims 5, 12, 13, 17, and 20 are obvious over Farris in view of Cheng

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Farris (Patent 6,721,306) and Cheng (Patent 6,806,813).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Farris teaches the base system of a gateway connected to a coordination center, as established in Ground 1. Cheng adds the limitation of reporting the gateway's physical location. Cheng discloses a system for real-time asset location tracking in a network environment, teaching that a base station can be coupled to a network management center and use a GPS receiver to provide its location information to that center.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Farris and Cheng to improve network management. Farris discloses deploying its base stations in large public areas (e.g., airports, convention centers), where tracking the location of expensive network equipment would be advantageous. Cheng explicitly teaches the benefit of tracking assets to get a better view of asset allocation and status. Applying Cheng's known asset tracking technique to Farris's network was presented as a simple combination of prior art elements to gain a predictable benefit.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating Cheng’s location-reporting functionality into Farris's system, as it would have required adding known hardware (e.g., a GPS module) and software to the base station, a straightforward modification.

Ground 3: Claims 4, 11, and 19 are obvious over Farris in view of Yeh

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Farris (Patent 6,721,306) and Yeh (Patent 6,690,929).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that this combination adds the limitation of regulating data flow based on information from a "consideration-related policy database." Yeh discloses a system for dynamically negotiating Quality of Service (QoS) levels with mobile devices based on real-time pricing and billing rates. Petitioner asserted that Yeh's "menu of services at respective given rates," transmitted from a Mobile Switching Center (MSC) to a base station, constitutes a "consideration-related policy database." The base station's intelligent agent (the controller) then regulates data flow by applying policies from this database, for example by influencing system usage based on the chosen rates.
    • Motivation to Combine: While Farris discloses a basic billing system, Yeh teaches the advantages of dynamic, real-time negotiation of billing rates to manage network traffic load. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Yeh’s advanced, market-based billing techniques into the Farris system to achieve more efficient network usage and flexible pricing, a known method for improving system performance.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in implementing Yeh’s pricing policies in Farris's gateway system through known hardware and software modifications.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combining Farris with Lucidarme (WO 99/27729) to add unique identity and encryption features, and further combining with Nelson (Patent 6,760,778) to add encrypted communications between the gateway and coordination center.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "consideration-related policy database" (claims 4, 11, 19): Petitioner argued this term is not defined in the ’284 patent. Based on dictionary definitions of "consideration" (payment, a matter taken into account) and "database" (a collection of organized data), and the patent’s references to "billing policy" and "price policy," Petitioner proposed that a POSITA would have understood the term to mean "a collection of policies which take matters into account, which may include pricing matters." This construction was argued to be critical for mapping the teachings of Yeh, which discloses a menu of services with corresponding rates, onto this limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-21 of the ’284 patent as unpatentable.