PTAB

IPR2018-01779

Wilson Electronics LLC v. Cellphone Mate Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Apparatus and methods for radio frequency signal boosters
  • Brief Description: The ’839 patent discloses a cellular signal booster that amplifies signals between a base station and a mobile device. The alleged novelty is a booster architecture that uses separate amplification paths for different uplink frequency channels but employs a single, shared amplification path to simultaneously boost two different, adjacent downlink frequency channels (e.g., Bands XII and XIII).

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Aida and Kenington - Claims 1, 7, 11, 17, 19, and 22 are obvious over Aida in view of Kenington.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Aida (Japanese Pat. Pub. No. H8-256101A) and Kenington (Patent 8,290,536).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Aida disclosed a cellular signal booster with multiple uplink and downlink paths, including a shared path that simultaneously amplifies two contiguous uplink frequency bands using a common band-pass filter and amplifier. Kenington was argued to disclose a similar transceiver architecture with separate uplink paths and a shared downlink path, explicitly teaching an amplifier in each amplification path. The combination of Aida’s shared path for contiguous bands and Kenington’s inclusion of amplifiers in each path allegedly rendered the limitations of claim 1 obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to improve signal amplification in the booster taught by Aida would have been motivated to incorporate the amplifiers taught in each amplification path of Kenington. This was presented as a predictable combination of known elements to achieve the known goal of signal amplification.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success as combining amplifiers and filters in signal booster circuits was a well-understood and routine practice in the art.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Van Buren - Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 11, 17, 19, 20, and 22 are anticipated by or obvious over Van Buren.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Van Buren (Patent 8,755,399).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Van Buren disclosed all elements of the challenged claims. Specifically, Van Buren was argued to teach a signal booster framework that processes two uplink channels on separate amplification paths while processing two downlink channels from different, "spectrally adjacent" frequency bands (specifically Bands XII and XIII) on a single, shared amplification path. This shared path allegedly included a common band-pass filter and amplifier chain, directly mapping to the limitations of independent claims 1 and 17.
    • Key Aspects: This ground was asserted as both anticipation under 35 U.S.C. §102 and, alternatively, obviousness under §103. The core of the argument was that Van Buren’s disclosure was comprehensive and directly read on the claims, particularly its teaching of combining the specific adjacent downlink bands recited in the ’839 patent.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Aida/Kenington and Sahota - Claims 3-5, 8, and 20 are obvious over Aida and Kenington in view of Sahota.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Aida (Japanese Pat. Pub. No. H8-256101A), Kenington (Patent 8,290,536), and Sahota (Application # 2012/0302188).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination in Ground 1 to address dependent claims reciting specific cellular bands. Petitioner argued that while Aida and Kenington taught the fundamental architecture of combining contiguous or adjacent bands in a shared path, Sahota explicitly disclosed the specific frequency bands recited in the claims (Bands II, IV, V, XII, and XIII). Sahota also taught that the downlink channels for Bands XII and XIII are contiguous.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, knowing from Aida and Kenington that contiguous bands could be amplified on a shared path, would be motivated to apply this technique to the known contiguous Bands XII and XIII as disclosed by Sahota. This was framed as applying a known technique to a known problem (amplifying specific cellular bands) to yield predictable results.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because it involved applying a standard signal processing architecture to well-known, standardized cellular frequency bands.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combining Aida/Kenington with the TEKO Repeater product literature to arrive at multi-band limitations, and combining Van Buren with Sahota or the TEKO Repeater to further support the unpatentability of claim 8. These arguments relied on similar theories of combining known elements for predictable results.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued for constructions of proximity terms under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard.
    • "Contiguous" was defined to mean frequency bands that are overlapping or share a common boundary (e.g., one band ends at 746 MHz and the next begins at 746 MHz).
    • "Adjacent" was defined more broadly to include bands that are separated by a frequency range but do not have an intervening, incompatible cellular service band.
    • This distinction was central to Petitioner's argument that prior art teaching the combination of contiguous bands (Aida) would render the combination of merely adjacent bands (as claimed) obvious to a POSITA.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 11, 17, 19, 20, and 22 of the ’839 patent as unpatentable.