PTAB

IPR2018-01543

Intel Corp v. Hera Wireless SA

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Transmitting Apparatus and Transmitting Method
  • Brief Description: The ’400 patent describes a transmitting apparatus for Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) signals in a wireless system supporting both legacy non-MIMO (Multiple-Input Multiple-Output) and newer MIMO communications. The technology focuses on generating a MIMO data packet (burst signal) that is backwards-compatible with legacy devices but uses a different pilot signal pattern to distinguish it from non-MIMO packets.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1 and 2 are obvious over TGn-Sync in view of 802.11a.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: TGn-Sync (IEEE 802.11-04/889r0 Proposal Technical Specification, Aug. 13, 2004) and 802.11a (IEEE Std 802.11a-1999(2003)).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of TGn-Sync and 802.11a disclosed all limitations of claims 1 and 2. The 802.11a standard provided the baseline legacy non-MIMO system, including the burst format, pilot subcarrier locations (-21, -7, 7, 21), pilot signal pattern (1, 1, 1, -1), and use of BPSK modulation. TGn-Sync, a technical proposal for adding MIMO capabilities to 802.11a, disclosed the claimed MIMO burst format with the required sequence of signals: a legacy non-MIMO training signal, a legacy non-MIMO control signal, a new MIMO control signal, a new MIMO training signal, and MIMO data. TGn-Sync explicitly taught using the same pilot subcarriers as 802.11a but disclosed different pilot signal patterns for the MIMO transmissions, while maintaining the same BPSK modulation scheme. TGn-Sync also taught using Cyclic Delay Diversity (CDD) to transmit burst fields, meeting the final limitation of claim 1.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references because TGn-Sync was explicitly designed as a backwards-compatible extension to the 802.11a standard. It relied upon and frequently cross-referenced 802.11a for legacy components, making the combination a natural and intended progression of the technology.
    • Expectation of Success: There was a high expectation of success, as TGn-Sync was a detailed technical specification from leading technology companies that provided a clear roadmap for implementing MIMO functionality within an 802.11a environment.

Ground 2: Claims 1 and 2 are obvious over Sun in view of 802.11a and Larsson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sun (Patent 7,616,698, which claims priority to the ’775 application filed April 19, 2004), 802.11a (IEEE Std 802.11a-1999(2003)), and Larsson (Patent 6,842,487).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Sun, like TGn-Sync, disclosed a MIMO system built upon the legacy 802.11a standard. Sun taught the claimed MIMO burst format, including a legacy non-MIMO training signal, a legacy non-MIMO control signal, a MIMO control signal, a MIMO training signal, and MIMO data in the specified order. Sun also disclosed using the same pilot subcarriers as 802.11a but created different pilot signal patterns by applying different polarity sequences to the MIMO signals versus the legacy signals. The underlying modulation scheme (BPSK-compatible) remained the same. To meet the final limitation, Petitioner argued that Larsson taught the use of CDD. While Sun mentioned CDD and its priority application taught phase-shifting, Larsson provided an explicit disclosure of CDD to improve frequency diversity and prevent beamforming in multi-antenna OFDM systems.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Sun and 802.11a because Sun’s system was designed for backward compatibility with 802.11a. A POSITA would have been further motivated to incorporate the teachings of Larsson to add the well-known CDD technique to Sun’s system to gain the predictable benefits of increased frequency diversity and avoidance of signal interference, as taught by Larsson.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining the known technique of CDD from Larsson with Sun's MIMO system to achieve predictable improvements would have carried a high expectation of success for a POSITA.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that the term "generator" should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. However, should the Board determine the term triggers means-plus-function treatment under pre-AIA §112, ¶6, Petitioner contended the corresponding structure in the ’400 patent’s specification would be the "data separating unit 20 and modulation unit 22 together with its functional blocks operating under the control of control unit 20," and their equivalents. This construction was central because Petitioner argued the prior art disclosed an equivalent structure for performing the claimed generation function.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) was inappropriate because the asserted prior art and arguments were new to the Patent Office.
  • The primary combination in Ground 2 (Sun, 802.11a, Larsson) was never presented to or considered by the examiner.
  • For Ground 1, while TGn-Sync was cited in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) late in prosecution, the examiner never substantively reviewed or addressed it. The combination of TGn-Sync with 802.11a was entirely new.
  • Critically, Petitioner asserted that these new combinations remedy the specific deficiencies the examiner identified in the previously cited art, as they directly teach the pilot signal modulation and pattern limitations that formed the basis for allowance.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1 and 2 of the ’400 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.