PTAB

IPR2018-01256

Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Quality of Service (QoS) in Wireless Communications
  • Brief Description: The ’206 patent is directed to providing Quality of Service (QoS) in a wireless communication environment. The technology involves methods for classifying IP packet flows based on end-user QoS requirements and then scheduling those packets for transmission in a packet-centric, point-to-multi-point wireless system.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claim 19 by Forslöw

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Forslöw (Patent 6,937,566).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Forslöw, which teaches QoS-based scheduling in wireless networks, anticipates every limitation of independent claim 1 and dependent claim 19. Forslöw was asserted to disclose a method for IP flow classification within a GSM/GPRS network by grouping incoming IP packets into different QoS delay classes. Petitioner contended that Forslöw’s system—which schedules these packets for transmission over a shared radio medium between a base station subsystem (BSS) and a mobile host—meets the claim limitations of a “packet-centric wireless point to multi-point telecommunications system” and a “subscriber customer premises equipment (CPE) station.” Forslöw was also argued to disclose allocating bandwidth to optimize end-user QoS by using reservation protocols (like RSVP) to manage resources based on user-requested rate and delay parameters, thereby satisfying all elements of claims 1 and 19.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 2 and 79 over Forslöw in view of Brasche

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Forslöw (Patent 6,937,566) and Brasche ("Concepts, Services, and Protocols of the New GSM Phase 2+ General Packet Radio Service," IEEE Communications Magazine).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground asserted that claim 2’s requirement of “dynamically allocating” shared wireless bandwidth, a detail not explicit in Forslöw, is taught by Brasche. Brasche described the GPRS medium access control protocol as being characterized by "dynamic bandwidth allocation." To meet claim 79, Brasche taught allocating bandwidth in the uplink direction "based on reservation requests" by describing a mobile station sending a random access request that indicates the number of GPRS slots required.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Forslöw with Brasche because Forslöw expressly suggests its system can be implemented using GPRS, and Brasche describes the specific implementation details of that GPRS standard. A POSITA implementing Forslöw's QoS system in a GPRS network would have been motivated to consult GPRS-defining documents like Brasche to implement standard features like dynamic resource allocation.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because implementing Brasche's standard GPRS features into Forslöw's GPRS-based system represented a predictable integration of known and compatible elements.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 6-8 and 15-16 over Forslöw, Brasche, and Goodman

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Forslöw (Patent 6,937,566), Brasche (IEEE Communications Magazine), and Goodman ("General Packet Radio Service in GSM," IEEE Communications Magazine).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built on the Forslöw-Brasche combination by adding Goodman to teach limitations in claims 6-8 and 15-16. Goodman was cited for its description of the GPRS time-division multiple access (TDMA) frame structure, which explicitly teaches the allocation of time slots (a "subframe") within a GPRS multiframe (a "frame"), satisfying claim 6. Goodman further detailed allocating these subframes for dedicated uplink (claim 7) and downlink (claim 8) transmissions, as well as allocating resources for control packets (claim 15) and specific acknowledgement/request slots (claim 16).
    • Motivation to Combine: As Forslöw’s system is based on GPRS, a POSITA would have been motivated to consult another key GPRS reference like Goodman for fundamental details on the TDMA frame and slot structure, which are necessary for practical implementation.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because Goodman merely provided well-known, foundational details of the GPRS architecture, which were fully compatible with the higher-level QoS scheduling system taught by Forslöw and the dynamic allocation taught by Brasche.

Ground 4: Obviousness of Claims 2, 6-8, 15-16, and 79 over Forslöw in view of Passas

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Forslöw (Patent 6,937,566) and Passas ("Quality-of-Service-Oriented Medium Access Control for Wireless ATM Networks," IEEE Communications Magazine).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative, particularly if the claims were construed as limited to a time-division duplex (TDD) system. Passas described a TDMA/TDD method that dynamically allocates slots within a variable-length frame for distinct uplink, downlink, and contention periods. This was argued to directly teach “dynamically allocating” on a “subframe within a frame basis” (claims 2, 6), including for specific uplink (claim 7), downlink (claim 8), and control packet/reservation request (claims 15, 16, 79) purposes.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing Forslöw's QoS allocation would have needed to choose a duplexing scheme, with TDD and FDD being the two known options. Passas described a dynamic TDD scheme with known benefits, such as improved channel efficiency for varying traffic. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Forslöw's QoS logic with Passas's efficient TDD allocation scheme to better support the mix of voice, video, and data streams mentioned in Forslöw.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was a predictable application of a known allocation scheme (Passas's TDD) to a known scheduling method (Forslöw's QoS), which would have been a routine task for a POSITA.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges combining Forslöw with Lin (Patent 6,400,701) to explicitly teach the "customer premises equipment (CPE)" limitation, should it be construed to require a device fixed at a subscriber's premises. These grounds combined Lin with the references above (Brasche, Goodman, Passas) to address all challenged claims under this alternative construction of the CPE limitation.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that the Phillips standard should govern claim interpretation. Its arguments relied on alternate constructions for two key terms.
  • "subscriber customer premises equipment (CPE) station": While Petitioner’s primary position was that Forslöw’s “mobile host” met this term’s plain meaning, it presented alternative grounds using Lin in case the term was construed more narrowly to require a device physically residing on a customer’s premises, based on a specific definition included in the ’206 patent.
  • "dynamically allocating... on a subframe within a frame basis": Petitioner argued this was met by standard GPRS systems (Forslöw/Brasche/Goodman), but also presented the Passas-based grounds as an explicit teaching for TDD systems, in the event the claims were interpreted to be limited to the patent’s disclosed TDD embodiment.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested that the Board institute an inter partes review and cancel claims 2, 6-8, 15-16, 19, and 79 of Patent RE46,206 as unpatentable.