PTAB

IPR2018-01289

Ericsson Inc. v. INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Scheduling Uplink Data Transmissions
  • Brief Description: The ’466 patent describes methods for scheduling uplink data transmissions in wireless networks. The technology involves distributing scheduling functions between a network device (e.g., a base station) and user equipment (UE), where the network sends parameters that the UE uses to prioritize and allocate its own uplink resources across multiple data channels.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness of Independent Claims over Passas-I and Eckberg - Claims 1, 4, 6, and 9 are obvious over Passas-I in view of Eckberg.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Passas-I ("Improving Traffic Scheduling in Wireless ATM Networks," a 1998 article by Nikos Passas et al.) and Eckberg ("Meeting the Challenge: Congestion and Flow Control Strategies for Broadband Information Transport," a 1990 article by A.E. Eckberg, Jr.).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of Passas-I and Eckberg teaches all limitations of the independent claims. Passas-I described a wireless ATM system with a distributed scheduling architecture, including a "Master Scheduler" in the access point (AP, or base station) and a "Slave Scheduler" in the mobile terminal (MT, or UE). The Slave Scheduler in Passas-I used a leaky-bucket regulator with connection-specific parameters (e.g., mean cell rate, burst size) to prioritize uplink transmissions. This prioritization occurred in two rounds: first for connections with positive token counts (the "second parameter" > 0) and then for connections with zero or negative token counts (the "third parameter" <= 0). The token count for each connection was derived from its leaky-bucket parameters (the "first parameter"). While Passas-I disclosed this two-tiered prioritization at the UE, it did not explicitly state that the network transmits the "first parameters" to the UE. Eckberg, which Passas-I expressly cited as an authority on leaky-bucket regulators, filled this gap by teaching that leaky-bucket parameters are established via a negotiation between the network and the end device at connection setup. This negotiation inherently involves the network sending approved or modified parameters to the end device for it to use.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Passas-I and Eckberg because Passas-I directly cited Eckberg as a foundational reference for its leaky-bucket regulator design. This would have prompted a POSITA to consult Eckberg for implementation details not fully specified in Passas-I, such as how the leaky-bucket parameters are established and communicated.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination would have yielded predictable results. Applying Eckberg’s well-known parameter negotiation process to Passas-I's scheduling system would predictably result in a method where the network sends parameters to the UE, which the UE then uses for its local scheduling decisions, as claimed.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Dependent Claims over Passas-I, Passas-II, and Eckberg - Claims 2, 5, 7, and 10 are obvious over the combination of 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," a 1998 article by Nikos Passas et al.).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon Ground 1 to address dependent claims that require the UE to transmit "indications of buffer occupancies" to the network. Passas-I disclosed that the UE sends "reservation requests" to the AP to inform it of the "current bandwidth needs of all connections." However, Passas-I did not specify the exact content of these requests. Passas-II, a companion paper by the same authors on the same "WAND" system, clarified this detail. Passas-II explicitly stated that reservation requests "identify the MT connection and the number of ATM cells of that connection in the MT output buffer." This directly taught reporting buffer occupancies for each channel to the network.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Passas-I and Passas-II because they were written by the same authors, describe different aspects of the same wireless ATM system, and were published concurrently. One focused on the Slave Scheduler (UE) while the other detailed the Master Scheduler (network). A POSITA seeking a complete understanding of the system would have read them together.
    • Expectation of Success: Incorporating the specific buffer occupancy reporting from Passas-II into the general reservation request framework of Passas-I was a matter of simple design choice. It would have predictably resulted in a system where the network is more accurately informed of the UE's needs, allowing for more efficient uplink resource allocation.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges. Ground 3 argued that Passas-I, Eckberg, and Phadnis (Patent 7,512,065) rendered claims 1, 4, 6, and 9 obvious, using Phadnis to explicitly teach sending parameters for multiple virtual circuits in a single setup message. Ground 4 argued that Passas-I, Passas-II, Eckberg, Phadnis, and Pasternak (Patent 6,157,614) rendered claims 2, 5, 7, and 10 obvious, adding Pasternak to show it was known to include multiple reservation requests (i.e., multiple buffer occupancies) in a single message format.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 of the '466 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.