PTAB

IPR2018-01477

Apple Inc v. Invt SPE Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Communication Apparatus, Communication System, and Communication Method
  • Brief Description: The ’439 patent discloses a method for adaptive modulation and coding (AMC) in an Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) communication system. To reduce feedback overhead and simplify processing, the invention combines multiple frequency "subbands" into predefined "subband groups" and applies a single, common modulation and coding scheme to each entire group.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Li in view of Walton - Claims 1, 3, 5-11 are obvious over Li in view of Walton.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Li (Patent 6,904,283) and Walton (Patent 7,885,228).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Li discloses the foundational elements of an OFDM system with AMC where subcarriers are organized into "clusters" (equivalent to the ’439 patent’s "subbands") and then further partitioned into "groups" to reduce feedback overhead. However, Li still reports channel quality (SINR) for each individual cluster within a group. Petitioner asserted that Walton addresses the same problem of excessive feedback overhead in multi-channel systems. Walton teaches calculating a single "operating SNR" for an entire group of channels and selecting one common transmission mode (i.e., modulation and coding parameters) to be used for all channels in that group. Petitioner contended that combining Li's system of predefined subband groups with Walton's method of applying a single modulation/coding scheme to an entire group renders the limitations of independent claims 1, 8, 10, and 11 obvious.
    • Petitioner further argued that dependent claims are met by the combination. For instance, claim 3's requirement for grouping subbands at "predetermined intervals" is taught by Li's exemplary embodiment (FIG. 6), which shows groups formed from non-contiguous clusters. Claim 8's limitation of deciding coding parameters by "assigning a weight" to the sum of information bits is taught by Walton's "back-off factor," which discounts the average SNR (and thus total throughput) based on channel variability to prevent overloading weaker subbands.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine Li and Walton to achieve a common goal explicitly stated in both references: reducing feedback overhead. While Li's grouping reduces some overhead, it still requires feedback for each cluster within a group. A POSITA would have recognized that applying Walton's method of calculating a single transmission mode for the entire group to Li's system would further reduce feedback, directly advancing Li's stated objective.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that combining these known techniques would have been straightforward. Both references operate in the same technical field of OFDM communication systems and address the same well-known problem. Applying a group-based parameter selection from Walton to a group-based allocation system from Li was a predictable combination of known elements to achieve a desired improvement.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Li, Walton, and Vijayan - Claims 2 and 4 are obvious over Li in view of Walton and in further view of Vijayan.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Li (Patent 6,904,283), Walton (Patent 7,885,228), and Vijayan (Patent 7,221,680).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds upon the Li and Walton combination from Ground 1 to address the specific subband grouping patterns recited in claims 2 and 4. Claim 2 requires grouping "neighboring" (i.e., contiguous) subbands, while claim 4 requires selecting "all of the subbands" in the frequency spectrum. Petitioner argued that while Li teaches an exemplary grouping of subbands at spaced intervals, it does not explicitly disclose these specific patterns.
    • Petitioner introduced Vijayan, which explicitly teaches various methods for arranging subbands into groups as known, interchangeable design choices. Vijayan discloses a scheme where "each group contains Nspg consecutive usable subbands," directly teaching the contiguous grouping required by claim 2. Vijayan also discloses a scheme where a user is "allocated all Ndsb data subbands," teaching the method required by claim 4.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a POSITA would have been motivated to implement the Li/Walton system using the alternative grouping schemes taught by Vijayan. Li itself describes its spaced-interval grouping as merely "exemplary," suggesting other patterns were known. Vijayan presents contiguous, spaced, and pseudo-random grouping as a set of known options. A POSITA would have understood these to be interchangeable design choices and would have selected the grouping pattern best suited for a particular implementation, such as using contiguous blocks as taught by Vijayan, to realize known performance benefits.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that modifying the Li/Walton system by substituting one known subband grouping technique (from Vijayan) for another (from Li) would have been a simple, predictable design choice for a POSITA, not requiring any undue experimentation. The interchangeability of these grouping methods was well understood in the art.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-11 of the ’439 patent as unpatentable.