Intel Corp v. Hera Wireless SA

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2018-01371
• Patent #: 7,962,103
• Filed: July 17, 2018
• Petitioner(s): Intel Corporation
• Patent Owner(s): Hera Wireless S.A.
• Challenged Claims: 1-6

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Radio Apparatus and Radio Communication Method
• Brief Description: The ’103 patent describes a radio communication system, such as a mobile terminal, that utilizes Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) technology to form multiple spatial paths with a base station. The purported invention involves the terminal storing a value indicating the potential number of formable spatial paths (multiplicity) and transmitting this value to the base station at a predetermined time to facilitate communication.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-6 are anticipated by or obvious over Wallace

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Wallace (Application # 2002/0193146).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Wallace, which was not considered during prosecution, disclosed every element of the challenged claims. Wallace taught a MIMO system where a mobile station communicates with a base station over multiple spatial paths. It disclosed an adaptive array unit (a receiver/transceiver performing spatial matched filtering), a storage unit (memory device 1114 or processor registers), and a control unit (central processor 1112). Wallace’s mobile station stored and transmitted “diversity capability information,” including the “number of receive antennas,” and Channel State Information (CSI), such as SNR values. Petitioner contended these values correspond to the claimed “value indicating possible multiplicity.” The transmission occurred at a “predetermined timing” during call setup negotiations, satisfying that limitation.
  • Key Aspects: For dependent claims, Wallace was alleged to teach transmitting this information before communication (claims 2 and 5) as part of the initial link setup. It also taught using CSI (e.g., SNR values) to determine if a spatial path’s quality was sufficient for “normal reception,” thus disclosing the limitation of claims 3 and 6.

Ground 2: Claims 1-6 are obvious over Wallace in view of Ling

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Wallace (Application # 2002/0193146) and Ling (Application # 2003/0003880).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: As an alternative, Petitioner argued that if Wallace alone did not render the claims obvious, the combination with Ling did. Ling, which shares inventors and subject matter with Wallace, taught using compressed “data rate indicators” as a form of CSI feedback. A zero-rate indicator explicitly instructed the transmitter not to use a particular antenna/path, directly corresponding to the ’103 patent’s concept of storing the “number of spatial paths capable of attaining normal reception.” Ling also taught reporting this CSI feedback “periodically” during communication.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Ling’s teachings with Wallace’s system to improve the efficiency of CSI feedback. Using Ling’s data rate indicators would reduce the data burden on the feedback channel and provide more direct instructions on which spatial paths to use, enhancing the adaptability of Wallace’s system to changing channel conditions. Ling’s teaching of periodic updates would further Wallace’s goal of adjusting communications as link quality degrades over time.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success as both references address the same technical problem (adapting MIMO communications) in highly similar systems, and the combination involved applying a known technique (periodic, compressed feedback) to improve a known system.

Ground 3: Claims 1-6 are anticipated by or obvious over Paulraj

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Paulraj (Patent 6,351,499).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Paulraj, also not before the examiner, disclosed all claimed elements. Paulraj taught a MIMO system where a receiver determines the optimal number of spatial streams (parameter “k”) based on measured quality parameters (e.g., SINR, error rates). This parameter “k” and the underlying quality metrics are values indicating possible multiplicity. Paulraj disclosed storing these values beforehand in various memory elements, such as database 92 or S-T code lookup block 100, which function as the claimed “storage unit.” The system’s adaptive controller 60 and receiver processing blocks 84/86 act as the claimed “control unit,” controlling the transmission of feedback containing these values.
  • Key Aspects: The transmission occurred at a predetermined timing, either at system initialization or “regularly” as channel conditions changed, thereby anticipating the timing element. Paulraj’s use of quality metrics to determine which paths were usable directly taught the limitation of claims 3 and 6 concerning paths capable of normal reception.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claims 1-6 over Paulraj in view of Mukerjee (Patent 5,479,484). This ground argued that if Paulraj were found to lack an explicit disclosure of a processor or memory for storing and controlling transmission, it would have been obvious to incorporate the conventional processor and memory taught by Mukerjee to perform these well-known functions.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued for the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim terms. However, in the event the Board applied means-plus-function analysis under §112, ¶6 to the terms ending in “unit,” Petitioner proposed the following constructions based on the specification:
  • “adaptive array unit”: A digital signal processor running a program for performing adaptive array processing, and equivalents.
  • “storage unit”: A memory for storing the value indicating possible multiplicity, and equivalents.
  • “control unit”: A controller or processor running a program to control the transmission of the value, and equivalents.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) would be inappropriate. It contended that the primary prior art references relied upon (Wallace, Ling, Paulraj, and Mukerjee) were not before the examiner during the original prosecution of the ’103 patent. Petitioner asserted these references were materially different from and not cumulative of the art previously considered, warranting a new review of patentability.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-6 of the ’103 patent as unpatentable.