PTAB

IPR2019-00947

Kathrein USA, Inc. v. Fractus S.A.

Log In

1. Case Identification

  • Patent #: 7,250,918
  • Filed: April 9, 2019
  • Petitioner(s): KATHREIN USA, INC., T-MOBILE US, INC.
  • Patent Owner(s): FRACTUS, S.A.
  • Challenged Claims: 1, 5, 9, 12, 15, 22, 24, 25, 27

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: INTERLACED MULTIBAND ANTENNA ARRAYS
  • Brief Description: The ’918 patent relates to antenna arrays for wireless communication. It discloses an interlaced multiband antenna array that uses multiband antenna elements at positions where conceptual mono-band arrays would coincide, enabling simultaneous operation across multiple frequency bands to support various cellular communication standards.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Raguenet and Shapiro - Claims 1, 5, 9, 12, and 25 are obvious over Raguenet in view of Shapiro.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Raguenet (Patent 5,434,580) and Shapiro (Patent 5,043,738).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Raguenet teaches the fundamental structure of an interlaced multiband antenna array, including embodiments where all positions are occupied by "composite" multiband elements. Raguenet further discloses that these composite elements can be comprised of a "two-resonator patch." Petitioner contended that Shapiro teaches a specific, well-known implementation of a two-resonator patch—namely, a dual-band, aperture-coupled stacked patch element. The combination of Raguenet's array architecture with Shapiro's specific element was alleged to teach all limitations of the independent claims. Specifically, Raguenet's array of composite elements satisfies the "juxtaposition" of mono-band arrays, while Shapiro provides the "single multiband antenna" with the required electrical properties for operation in multiple frequency bands.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would combine Shapiro’s known stacked-patch element with Raguenet’s array because it represented a simple substitution of a known, inexpensive, and easy-to-manufacture element to realize Raguenet’s more general "two-resonator patch" concept. This substitution would have been expected to yield predictable results.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have a reasonable expectation of success in designing the combined antenna to operate at desired cellular frequencies (e.g., around 900 MHz and 1800 MHz as claimed) by applying the known frequency scaling and impedance matching techniques also taught by Shapiro.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Derneryd - Claims 1, 5, 9, 12, 15, 22, 24, 25, and 27 are obvious over Derneryd.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Derneryd (WO 98/37592).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Derneryd alone teaches all limitations of the challenged claims. Derneryd discloses an interlaced multiband antenna array for a base station, comprising stacked-patch dual-band elements arranged in a linear or two-dimensional array. This structure, where dual-band elements occupy all positions, results from the conceptual "juxtaposition" of high- and low-frequency mono-band arrays. Derneryd's "single dual frequency patch antenna element" is shown to operate simultaneously at two frequency bands, such as the 800-900 MHz and 1800-1900 MHz cellular bands.
    • Motivation to Combine (N/A): This ground is based on a single reference. Petitioner pre-emptively argued that even if Derneryd does not explicitly state the radiation and impedance patterns are "similar" across bands, a POSA would have been inherently motivated to tailor the elements to achieve this. Such properties are a fundamental design criterion for multiband base station antennas to ensure functionality.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have a high expectation of success in achieving similar electrical properties across bands by applying the well-known techniques of frequency scaling and adjusting patch geometry, which Derneryd itself discloses.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Snygg - Claims 1, 5, 9, 12, 15, 22, 24, 25, and 27 are obvious over Snygg.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Snygg (Patent 6,239,750).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Snygg teaches a multiband antenna array that is "virtually identical" to the embodiments shown in the ’918 patent. Snygg discloses an interlaced array utilizing a combination of stacked-patch multiband elements and mono-band elements. The arrangement results from the "juxtaposition" of two mono-band arrays, with Snygg's stacked-patch, dual-band element serving as the "single multiband antenna" at positions where the mono-band arrays coincide. Snygg's elements are aperture-coupled and designed to operate simultaneously on cellular bands such as 800-900 MHz and 1800-1900 MHz.
    • Motivation to Combine (N/A): This ground is based on a single reference. Similar to the Derneryd ground, Petitioner argued that a POSA reading Snygg would have understood that achieving similar radiation and impedance patterns is a primary design goal for a base station antenna and would have been motivated to ensure its elements met this requirement for proper functionality.
    • Expectation of Success: Given that Snygg's antenna is designed for well-known cellular communication systems, a POSA would have reasonably expected to successfully implement the elements with the required electrical properties using standard antenna design techniques.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "multiband antenna": Petitioner applied the definition from the ’918 patent's specification, which describes an antenna formed by electromagnetically coupled elements that interact to produce similar radiation and impedance patterns in multiple frequency bands.
  • "juxtaposition of a plurality of mono-band arrays": Petitioner argued this term refers to the conceptual interleaving or placement of antenna elements in an array, consistent with the specification's language. Petitioner contested the Patent Owner's litigation-proposed construction of "overlapping," arguing it is inconsistent with the patent and introduces an unnecessary mental step.
  • "antenna element" and "element": Petitioner adopted the Patent Owner's proposed construction from parallel district court litigation, which defines the term as an "individual antenna that makes up an array."

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that this petition presents different arguments and non-redundant grounds, warranting institution. It was asserted that the primary prior art references relied upon (Raguenet, Derneryd, Snygg, and Shapiro) were not applied by the examiner during the original prosecution of the ’918 patent. Petitioner also distinguished the grounds within this petition (and a concurrently filed petition) as relying on different prior art combinations that teach distinct array arrangements (e.g., combinations of mono-, dual-, and triple-band elements vs. stacked patch elements), making them neither vertically nor horizontally redundant.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 5, 9, 12, 15, 22, 24, 25, and 27 as unpatentable.