Intel Corp v. Hera Wireless SA

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2018-01373
• Patent #: 8,934,851
• Filed: July 17, 2018
• Petitioner(s): Intel Corporation
• Patent Owner(s): Hera Wireless S.A.
• Challenged Claims: 1-9

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Radio Communication Apparatus and Radio Communication Method
• Brief Description: The ’851 patent describes a radio communication system using Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) technology. The purported invention involves a radio apparatus that stores a value indicating "possible multiplicity" (the potential to form multiple spatial communication paths) and transmits or receives this value at a predetermined timing to manage the communication link.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-9 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 before the examiner, disclosed all limitations of the challenged claims. Wallace taught a MIMO system where a mobile station communicates its capabilities to a base station. This communication included "diversity capability information," such as the number of receive/transmit antennas, and Channel State Information (CSI), such as Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) values for each spatial subchannel. Petitioner asserted these values correspond to the claimed "value indicating possible multiplicity." Wallace further disclosed storing these values in a memory device (e.g., a look-up table) before transmission and controlling the transmission via a central processor at a predetermined timing, such as during the initiation of a communication link or within scheduled time slots in a TDMA system.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): For any elements arguably not explicitly disclosed, Petitioner contended it would have been an obvious design choice to use Wallace’s disclosed memory to store the capability information before transmission to achieve a predictable result.

Ground 2: Claims 1-9 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: This ground asserted that Ling’s teachings remedy any potential deficiencies in Wallace. Ling, which shared inventors and an assignee with Wallace, taught enhancing CSI feedback by using "data rate indicators." These indicators, calculated from SNR estimates, could explicitly instruct a transmitter which antennas or paths not to use (e.g., by setting a data rate of zero), thereby serving as a value indicating possible multiplicity. Ling also explicitly taught reporting this CSI feedback "periodically" during communication to adapt to changing channel conditions.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Ling’s teachings with Wallace to improve the efficiency and performance of Wallace’s system. Incorporating Ling’s data rate indicators would reduce the amount of feedback data transmitted, and implementing periodic CSI reporting would allow the system to better adapt to changing channel conditions, a stated goal of Wallace.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as both references addressed similar MIMO systems, and implementing Ling's more efficient feedback mechanism in Wallace's system was a straightforward application of known principles to achieve predictable benefits.

Ground 3: Claims 1-9 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 argued Paulraj disclosed a MIMO system where communication parameters were optimized by adjusting the number of spatial streams, denoted by the parameter "k." In one mode, a receiver measured channel quality (e.g., interference), determined the optimal value of k, stored it in a database or lookup table, and fed it back to the transmitter. In another mode, the receiver fed back the raw quality parameters, and the transmitter calculated and stored k. Petitioner contended that both the parameter k and the underlying quality measurements were values "indicating possible multiplicity." Paulraj disclosed transmitting this information at predetermined times, such as during call initialization and "regularly" during a session to adapt to channel changes. These functions were controlled by an "adaptive controller" and stored in a "database," mapping directly to the claimed control and storage units.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): To the extent any claim element was not explicitly met, Petitioner argued that using memory to store values before transmission was a well-known technique, making its application in Paulraj conventional and predictable.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge for claims 4-6 over Paulraj in view of Mukerjee (Patent 5,479,484), arguing Mukerjee’s disclosure of using a processor and memory in a mobile unit for storing and controlling transmission of data made it obvious to apply the same conventional techniques to Paulraj’s system.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued that the terms "communication unit," "reception unit," "storage unit," and "control unit" should be given their plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITA.
• For example, a "storage unit" is simply a memory, and a "control unit" is a controller or processor.
• Petitioner noted that if the Board were to apply means-plus-function treatment under 35 U.S.C. §112 ¶6, the analysis would not change, as the specification disclosed corresponding structures (e.g., a memory MMU, a control circuit/processor) that performed the claimed functions, and the prior art disclosed these same structures.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) was inappropriate because the primary prior art references relied upon (Wallace, Ling, and Paulraj) were not before the examiner during the original prosecution of the ’851 patent.
• Petitioner contended that these references were materially different from and not cumulative of the art previously considered, as they taught specific feedback mechanisms for managing MIMO spatial paths (e.g., transmitting antenna counts, CSI, or the "k" parameter) that were central to the invalidity arguments.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-9 of the ’851 patent as unpatentable.