PTAB

IPR2018-01472

Apple Inc v. Invt SPE Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Cellular Communication Method
  • Brief Description: The ’563 patent describes methods for a mobile station in a Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) system to maintain synchronization with a base station during periods of no data transmission. The invention proposes continuing to transmit control data (pilot and power control symbols) in "burst frames" but at a controlled, less frequent interval to conserve power while allowing for immediate communication restart.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Nakamura and Okumura - Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10, 12-13, 15-16, 18, 20 are obvious over Nakamura in view of Okumura.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nakamura (Patent 6,026,279) and Okumura (a 1995 IEICE publication).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Nakamura taught the core invention: a CDMA system that transmits "necessary signals" (control data) to maintain a radio channel even when no user data is being transmitted. Nakamura further disclosed reducing the frequency of these necessary signals (i.e., "thinning") during such periods. While Nakamura disclosed that its necessary signals could include pilot symbols and transmission power control (TPC) symbols in separate embodiments, it did not explicitly teach combining them. Okumura, however, explicitly taught a DS-CDMA system where pilot symbols and TPC symbols are sent together in the same code channel to realize technical benefits.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references because Nakamura itself suggested that its necessary signals could "contain any one or more of" pilot signals and power control information, which Petitioner contended was a direct invitation to include both. Okumura provided a well-known and beneficial method for doing so in the same field of technology. Therefore, implementing Nakamura's system using the combined pilot/TPC symbol structure from Okumura was a predictable and desirable design choice.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be straightforward, as it involved applying a known control signal structure (Okumura) to a system designed to accommodate such signals (Nakamura), leading to the predictable outcome of improved channel maintenance.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Nakamura, Okumura, and Juntti - Claims 4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 17, 19, 21 are obvious over Nakamura in view of Okumura and in further view of Juntti.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nakamura (Patent 6,026,279), Okumura (a 1995 IEICE publication), and Juntti (Patent 5,564,074).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon Ground 1 to address claims requiring the transmission power of burst frames to be a "value extracted from received data." Petitioner asserted that the primary combination of Nakamura and Okumura taught all other limitations of these claims. The additional reference, Juntti, was introduced to teach this specific power control feature. Juntti disclosed "open loop" power control, where a mobile device measures the signal power received from the base station and uses that measurement to control its own transmit power accordingly, which directly meets the claim limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to add Juntti's teaching to the Nakamura/Okumura system as a solution for situations where closed-loop power control (i.e., receiving TPC commands) is unavailable or unreliable, such as in poor channel conditions. Petitioner argued that open-loop power control was a well-known alternative in CDMA systems. Adding this capability would make the system more robust and efficient, preventing the mobile device from transmitting at an unnecessarily high power and wasting battery.
    • Expectation of Success: Incorporating a known open-loop power control method into a CDMA system would be a simple modification for a POSITA and would predictably improve the system's performance, especially when TPC symbols cannot be reliably received.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Bhagalia and Abe - Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10, 12-13, 15-16, 18, 20 are obvious over Bhagalia in view of Abe.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Bhagalia (Canadian Patent No. 2,222,705) and Abe (Patent 5,987,020).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner presented this as an alternative ground, arguing that Bhagalia disclosed a CDMA system that transmits control information (including pilot and TPC symbols) at a "low rate level" in a "standby mode" when user traffic ceases, thereby teaching the core concept of generating control-only burst frames. However, Bhagalia did not explicitly teach transmitting these bursts "cyclically once every N slots." Abe was introduced to supply this teaching, as it disclosed a system that uses a counter to trigger "reduced transmission" bursts at a preset, cyclical period during periods of silence.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing Bhagalia's "low rate level" transmission would need to define a specific rate. Abe provided a known and simple method for achieving a specific, reduced rate through cyclical, counter-based transmissions. Combining Abe's cyclical timing mechanism with Bhagalia's standby mode was argued to be a natural and common-sense design choice to implement the general concept taught in Bhagalia.
    • Expectation of Success: The proposed modification was straightforward and would predictably result in a power-efficient system that maintained synchronization, achieving the stated goals of both references.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge (Ground 4) against claims 4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 17, 19, and 21 based on Bhagalia in view of Abe and in further view of Juntti, incorporating the same "open loop" power control arguments from Ground 2.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that several claim terms were means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6 and proposed constructions based on structures disclosed in the ’563 patent’s specification.
  • "transmission frame generation means": Construed as the "transmission data conversion circuit 301" and its equivalents, programmed to insert pilot and TPC symbols into transmission data.
  • "burst frame generation means": Construed as the "burst frame generation circuit 307" and its equivalents, programmed to generate frames of only pilot and TPC symbols when no data is transmitted.
  • "transmission interval control means": Construed as the "transmission interval control circuit 308" and its equivalents, programmed to control the transmission interval of burst frames cyclically or non-cyclically.
  • "pilot symbol": As the term was not explicitly defined, Petitioner argued its broadest reasonable interpretation should include any synchronization signals (symbols, bits, etc.) or synchronization control information, consistent with industry understanding and the patent's use of the symbol for maintaining synchronization.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-21 of Patent 6,466,563 as unpatentable.