Huawei Technologies Co Ltd v. Maxell Ltd

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2019-00576
• Patent #: 6,973,334
• Filed: January 16, 2019
• Petitioner(s): Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
• Patent Owner(s): Maxell Ltd.
• Challenged Claims: 4 and 6

2. Patent Overview

• Title: CELLULAR TELEPHONE
• Brief Description: The ’334 patent relates to a method of controlling transmission power in a cellular telephone used in a Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) system. The method involves adjusting a power amplifier’s bias condition based on gain data stored in memory to improve efficiency.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 4 and 6 are obvious over Weiland in view of Dent.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Weiland (Patent 5,452,473) and Dent (Patent 5,430,760).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Weiland taught a CDMA radiotelephone transmitter with a variable amplitude amplifier and a power amplifier, which uses both open-loop and closed-loop power control. Weiland disclosed using stored correction tables (a memory) containing gain and bias data to control the amplifiers and maintain a desired output power. However, it did not explicitly teach performing open-loop control first and then closed-loop control. Dent allegedly supplied this missing element by describing the conventional practice for random access call setup where open-loop power control is performed first to establish a connection, followed by closed-loop control to fix the power level as specified by the base station. The combination was argued to teach controlling the amplifier gain and bias using a function defining a relation between stored bias and gain data, where the bias condition increases gradually as the phone moves farther from the cell site.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Weiland and Dent to apply a known, advantageous technique to a known system for predictable results. Specifically, a POSITA would incorporate Dent’s random access power control sequence into Weiland’s system to minimize interference with other radiotelephones, ensure radiated emissions remain within acceptable levels, and improve the reliability of call setup, all of which were known benefits of this control sequence.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a standard power control sequence (Dent) to a standard CDMA transmitter architecture (Weiland). Both references described similar components performing similar functions, leading to a high degree of predictability and a reasonable expectation of success.

Ground 2: Claims 4 and 6 are obvious over Matero in view of Ozluturk and Alberth.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Matero (Patent 5,752,172), Ozluturk (Patent 5,841,768), and Alberth (Patent 5,589,796).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Matero disclosed the basic elements of a CDMA cellular telephone with a transmitter having a variable amplitude amplifier and a power amplifier. Ozluturk provided the explicit teaching of a conventional power control sequence for channel establishment: performing an open-loop power "ramp-up" first until an acknowledgement is received from the base station, followed by closed-loop control. Alberth was argued to teach the final key elements: controlling amplifier gain and bias using data stored in memory and defining a functional relationship between them. Alberth disclosed using stored power level values to control the amplifier gain and generating a corresponding bias voltage as a direct function of that gain control signal. This combination allegedly taught all limitations, including the gradual increase of the bias condition to a maximum value as output power increases when the phone is far from the station.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to combine these references to improve a known system with conventional techniques. Ozluturk would be combined with Matero to implement a well-understood and reliable method for establishing a channel while avoiding interference. Alberth would then be added to this system to provide a more efficient and integrated method for controlling the amplifiers. Using Alberth’s method of storing gain and bias data in memory and linking them functionally would reduce hardware complexity, optimize power consumption, and increase amplifier efficiency—all known goals in the field.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as highly predictable. It involved integrating established power control sequences (Ozluturk) and amplifier control methods (Alberth) into a standard CDMA phone (Matero). As all components were known to be compatible and performed their expected functions, a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) based on other IPR petitions filed against the ’334 patent by different petitioners. Petitioner asserted that this was its first and only petition against the patent, making the General Plastic factors for "follow-on" petitions inapplicable. It further argued that even if the factors were considered, they would weigh against denial because the grounds and prior art combinations presented were entirely new and had never been considered by the Patent Office or the Board.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 4 and 6 of the ’334 patent as unpatentable.