PTAB

IPR2019-00326

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Traxcell Technologies LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System for Tuning a Wireless Network Using Mobile Device Data
  • Brief Description: The ’320 patent discloses a system for tuning wireless network parameters to optimize coverage and mitigate performance issues. The system uses a mobile device's location and associated performance data to determine and suggest corrective actions, such as adjusting a base station's transmit power.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness of Claims 1 and 4 over Garceran, Chiang, and Johansson

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Garceran (Patent 6,522,888), Chiang (Canadian Application # 2,325,644), and Johansson (Patent 6,442,391).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of these three references taught every limitation of independent claims 1 and 4. Garceran was asserted to teach a system for optimizing wireless coverage by adjusting a base station's downlink transmit power based on mobile unit location and performance data (e.g., RSSI, BER). Chiang was cited for its teaching of using mobile location to enhance network performance, specifically for making an "intelligent decision" regarding uplink power control to avoid the instability of conventional methods. Finally, Petitioner asserted that Johansson taught the "no access flag" limitation, which was added during prosecution to overcome prior art. Johansson disclosed a user-settable indicator, stored in a network database like the HLR, to permit or deny a third party's request for the user's location data, directly addressing user privacy.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Garceran's downlink control with Chiang's uplink control to create a comprehensive, location-based power management system. Such a combination was argued to be a known necessity for optimizing CDMA networks and solving the well-known near-far problem. A POSITA would have been further motivated to integrate Johansson's privacy feature to address the widely known and discussed privacy concerns inherent in location-based services, thereby creating a more complete and commercially viable system.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended the combination would yield predictable results. Garceran and Chiang, both from Lucent, described nearly identical network architectures, which would facilitate a straightforward integration. Johansson disclosed that its privacy solution was broadly applicable to all mobile telecommunication systems and involved only a "minor modification," ensuring a high likelihood of successful implementation.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 over Garceran, Chiang, and Johansson in view of 3GPP

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Garceran (Patent 6,522,888), Chiang (Canadian Application # 2,325,644), Johansson (Patent 6,442,391), and 3GPP (3GPP Technical Specification 25.433 v.4.0.0).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination in Ground 1 to address dependent claims 2, 3, 5, and 6, which added limitations related to receiving and using an "error code." Petitioner argued that while Garceran and Chiang disclosed detecting error conditions (e.g., sudden signal drops, poor service locations), they did not specify the use of a coded message. The 3GPP standard, a foundational specification for 3G/UMTS networks, was asserted to provide this missing element. 3GPP explicitly defined standardized codes for communicating performance metrics like Signal-to-Interference Ratio (SIR) and the difference between measured and target SIR (SIR_error) in a "Dedicated Measurement Report" sent from a base station to a network controller. Petitioner argued these standardized codes are the "error codes" recited in the claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing the Garceran/Chiang system would have been motivated to look to an existing, important standard like 3GPP for an efficient method to communicate error conditions. Using standardized codes was asserted to be a well-known technique for providing a compact and efficient signaling mechanism, which is critical for minimizing overhead in bandwidth-constrained wireless systems. Transmitting a 6-bit code instead of a 32-bit or 64-bit floating point number was a clear advantage.
    • Expectation of Success: Because 3GPP was a foundational standard for the very type of 3G networks at issue, integrating its well-known signaling methods into the proposed system would have been a natural and obvious choice for a POSITA, with a high expectation of successfully creating an efficient error-reporting mechanism.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued for specific constructions of two key term groups that it contended were central to the invalidity analysis.
    • "coupled"/"coupling": Petitioner argued this term should be given its ordinary and customary meaning and should not require a direct physical connection. This construction was asserted to be necessary to properly read the claims on the prior art, where components are functionally linked and in communication but may pass through other network elements.
    • "referenc[es]/[ing] the performance data": Petitioner argued this phrase should be construed to mean "comparing performance data to a target or threshold." This interpretation was deemed critical, as the prior art systems of Garceran and Chiang perform their core function by making corrective decisions based on comparing measured signal quality against predefined thresholds or historical statistical data.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • A central technical argument underpinning the obviousness grounds was that a POSITA would have found it obvious to consolidate the various functions from the prior art references onto a single "first computer." Petitioner contended that the prior art itself (Garceran, Chiang, Johansson), as well as the ’320 patent’s own specification, explicitly acknowledged that the functional boundaries between network components (e.g., MSC, BSC, RNC) were not rigid. These references taught that functions could be distributed or co-located on the same physical hardware as a matter of routine design choice.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested that the Board institute an inter partes review (IPR) of claims 1-6 of Patent 9,510,320 and cancel those claims as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.