PTAB

IPR2018-01318

Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Quality of Service in a Wireless Communication Environment
  • Brief Description: The ’206 patent is directed to providing Quality of Service (QoS) in a wireless communication environment. The technology involves a method for classifying Internet Protocol (IP) flows, scheduling the classified flows for transmission over a shared wireless bandwidth, and allocating resources based on end-user QoS requirements in a packet-centric, point-to-multi-point telecommunications system.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Forslöw, Brasche, and Goodman - Claims 9-11, 17-18, 20, 27, 29-33, 38, 41, 44, and 78 are obvious over Forslöw in view of Brasche and Goodman.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Forslöw (Patent 6,937,566), Brasche (a 1997 IEEE Communications Magazine article), and Goodman (a 1997 IEEE Communications Magazine article).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Forslöw teaches the core method of independent claim 9. Specifically, Forslöw's GGSN and SGSN nodes perform a "method for IP flow classification" by receiving IP packet flows, classifying packets into different QoS delay classes based on end-user requirements, and storing them in corresponding queues. Forslöw's Base Station Subsystem (BSS) then "schedules" these packets for transmission over a shared wireless medium using priority queuing algorithms. To address limitations in dependent claims, Petitioner asserted that Brasche explicitly teaches the "dynamically" allocating limitation of claim 2, describing GPRS as being "characterized by dynamic bandwidth allocation." Furthermore, Goodman provides the necessary details for claim 9's requirement of allocating bandwidth "on a slot within a frame basis" by disclosing the standard GPRS TDMA frame structure, which is divided into eight time slots.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references because Forslöw expressly suggests implementing its QoS concepts in a GPRS network. To build a functional and interoperable GPRS system based on Forslöw, a POSITA would have naturally consulted well-known GPRS implementation guides like Brasche and Goodman for standard details on dynamic resource allocation and frame structure.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination involves integrating standard, well-documented GPRS features (dynamic allocation and frame structure from Brasche and Goodman) into a system explicitly designed for a GPRS environment (Forslöw). This represented a predictable implementation, not an inventive step.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Forslöw, Brasche, Goodman, and Lin - Claims 9-11, 17-18, 20, 27, 29-33, 38, 41, 44, and 78 are obvious over Forslöw, Brasche, and Goodman in view of Lin.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Forslöw (Patent 6,937,566), Brasche (an IEEE article), Goodman (an IEEE article), and Lin (Patent 6,400,701).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground supplemented the core combination from Ground 1 with Lin to address a potentially narrower construction of the "subscriber customer premises equipment (CPE) station" limitation. Petitioner argued that while Forslöw teaches a "mobile host" comprising a computer terminal and mobile radio, the ’206 patent's own specification defines CPE as a device "residing on the premises of a customer." If this stricter construction were adopted, Lin explicitly discloses a personal computer residing at a subscriber's premises that is coupled to a wireless network, thus satisfying the limitation. The core teachings from Forslöw, Brasche, and Goodman remain as argued in Ground 1.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to substitute Lin's fixed CPE for Forslöw's mobile computer as a simple design choice. Both references disclose a similar architecture—a computer terminal coupled to a radio communicating with a base station. The substitution would be a predictable variation to adapt the system for a fixed wireless application, which was a known use case at the time.
    • Expectation of Success: The substitution of a fixed user terminal for a mobile one was a well-understood design choice in wireless systems. A POSITA would expect it to function predictably within the GPRS framework taught by Forslöw, Brasche, and Goodman, with no change to the underlying QoS and scheduling mechanisms.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Forslöw and Passas - Claims 9-11, 17-18, 20, 27, 29-33, 38, 41, 44, and 78 are obvious over Forslöw in view of Passas.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Forslöw (Patent 6,937,566) and Passas (a 1997 IEEE Communications Magazine article).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented an alternative path to obviousness, particularly for the "dynamically allocating" limitation of claim 2. Forslöw was used to teach the base system of QoS-based packet classification and scheduling. Passas was then combined to teach a specific, well-known method for dynamically allocating bandwidth in a Time-Division Duplex (TDD) system. Passas describes a variable frame structure with movable boundaries between uplink ("UP period") and downlink ("DOWN period"), allowing allocation to adapt to asymmetric traffic demands, which directly maps to the "dynamically allocating" requirement.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that a POSITA implementing Forslöw's system, which requires but does not detail a resource allocation scheme, would have recognized the need to select a specific implementation. Dynamic TDD, as taught by Passas, was a known and advantageous solution for efficiently handling the asymmetric data traffic common in multimedia services. A POSITA would combine Passas with Forslöw to improve bandwidth utilization and overall system efficiency, a recognized design goal.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in applying Passas's dynamic TDD allocation scheme to Forslöw's packet scheduling system. The combination involved applying a known and predictable resource management technique to a system that inherently required one, improving its performance in a foreseeable manner.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge (Ground 4) based on the combination of Forslöw, Passas, and Lin, which leveraged the arguments for modifying Forslöw with both the TDD allocation scheme from Passas and the fixed CPE from Lin.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner’s arguments hinged on the construction of "customer premises equipment (CPE) station." Petitioner contended that under a broad interpretation where a mobile host qualifies as CPE, Forslöw alone would render certain claims obvious. However, to preemptively address a narrower construction requiring a device to be physically located at a customer's premises—a construction supported by the ’206 patent's own specification—Petitioner relied on the Lin reference in Ground 2 to explicitly teach this element.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 9-11, 17-18, 20, 27, 29-33, 38, 41, 44, and 78 of Patent RE46,206 as unpatentable.