PTAB

IPR2019-00958

Apple Inc v. Invt SPE LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Communication Apparatus and Communication Method
  • Brief Description: The ’439 patent discloses a method and apparatus for wireless communication in an Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) system. The technology aims to reduce feedback signaling overhead by grouping multiple frequency subbands into "subband groups" and applying a single, joint set of communication parameters (modulation and coding) to each group.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Li, Vijayan, and Hashem - Claims 1-7 are obvious over Li in view of Vijayan and Hashem.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Li (Patent 6,904,283), Vijayan (Patent 7,221,680), and Hashem (Patent 6,721,569).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of these three contemporaneous references, all directed to OFDM systems, teaches every limitation of the challenged claims.
      • Li was asserted to disclose the foundation of the invention: a communication apparatus (a "subscriber" or User Equipment (UE)) that performs channel estimation on a per-subband basis (which Li calls "clusters"). Li further taught a "parameter deciding section" that selects modulation and coding parameters for groups of these clusters based on the channel estimation results. Li also disclosed predefined patterns for grouping clusters, such as selecting subbands at predetermined intervals across the frequency axis.
      • Vijayan was introduced to supply the teaching of applying a joint (common) modulation and coding parameter to an entire subband group. Petitioner contended that while Li decided parameters for groups, Vijayan explicitly taught applying a single, common scheme to all subbands within a group to further reduce feedback overhead and simplify processing. Vijayan also disclosed various patterns for grouping subbands, including selecting neighboring subbands or all subbands within a specific time domain.
      • Hashem was added for its teaching that signaling overhead can be further reduced by having the UE, rather than the base station, calculate the optimal communication parameters ("Link Mode") and transmit only an index or reference for that mode back to the base station. Petitioner argued this modification to Li's system was a simple and obvious design choice.
      • Dependent claims 2-4 were argued to be obvious as they recite specific subband grouping patterns (neighboring, at intervals, or all subbands in a time domain) that were explicitly taught by Li and/or Vijayan as known techniques for forming subband groups.
      • Dependent claims 5 and 6, which involve selecting the modulation/coding parameters with the highest classification or data rate, were argued to be an inherent aspect of any adaptive modulation and coding (AMC) system. Under excellent channel conditions, a POSITA would have naturally selected the highest available data rate for all subbands in a group, as taught by the principles in Li and Vijayan.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would combine these references to solve the well-known problem of reducing feedback overhead in OFDM systems, a goal shared by all three references. A POSITA would have been motivated to improve the system of Li by incorporating Vijayan's more efficient joint parameter approach for subband groups. Subsequently, a POSITA would be further motivated by Hashem to shift the parameter calculation to the UE to achieve even greater efficiency, a known design trade-off at the time.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying known techniques to a known system to achieve predictable results. A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these compatible technologies to improve spectrum efficiency and reduce overhead.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "subband" (claims 1-6): Petitioner proposed this term means "a group of subcarriers in neighboring positions on the frequency domain." This construction was based on the patent's specification and was foundational to mapping Li's "clusters" and Vijayan's "subband groups" to the claimed invention.
  • "pattern storage section" (claim 1): Petitioner proposed this term means "a memory for storing patterns for selecting subbands." This construction was crucial for arguing that the predefined grouping schemes in Li and Vijayan, which a POSITA would have stored in memory, met this limitation even without an explicitly named "section."
  • "modulation parameters with a highest classification" (claim 5): Petitioner proposed this means parameters that achieve the highest throughput compared to other available parameters. This construction supported the argument that selecting the best available modulation scheme under ideal conditions, a basic principle of AMC shown in Li and Vijayan, rendered this claim obvious.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-7 of the ’439 patent as unpatentable.