PTAB

IPR2019-01283

BlackBerry Corp v. Uniloc 2017 LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method of Controlling a Network, Radio Network Controller and Terminal
  • Brief Description: The ’487 patent discloses a method for controlling a wireless communications network, such as a Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) network. The technology focuses on an optimized process for selecting a suitable Transport Format Combination (TFC), which dictates how data is multiplexed for transmission. The purported invention is integrating a "minimum bit rate criteria" applicable to logical channels into the TFC selection algorithm to ensure a minimum quality of service.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over 3GPP Standards Combination - Claims 11-13 are obvious over TS25.321 in view of R2-010182 and TS25.302.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: TS25.321 (3GPP Technical Specification V3.6.0, Dec. 2000), R2-010182 (3GPP Change Request, Jan. 2001), and TS25.302 (3GPP Technical Specification V3.6.0, Oct. 2000).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of these three contemporaneous 3GPP standards, none of which were considered by the Examiner, taught every limitation of the challenged claims. TS25.321, the base Medium Access Control (MAC) protocol specification, disclosed the overall UMTS network architecture, including the mapping of logical channels to transport channels and a TFC selection algorithm based on an "absolute priority scheme." TS25.302 provided complementary details about the physical layer, defining the set of valid TFCs. The critical reference, R2-010182, was an explicit change request for TS25.321 that identified a flaw in its absolute priority algorithm—namely, that it could lead to the "exclusion of some logical channels." To solve this, R2-010182 proposed modifying the algorithm to add new parameters, including a "MinGBr: Min guaranteed bit rate," which it described as "the basic needs of the logical channel." This proposed modification directly taught the purported novel feature of the ’487 patent: a selection algorithm using a minimum bit rate criteria for each logical channel.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have been strongly motivated to combine these references. R2-010182 was explicitly a change request for TS25.321 and copied its algorithm verbatim to show the proposed modifications. A POSITA seeking to understand or improve the algorithm in TS25.321 would have naturally looked to such change requests. Furthermore, TS25.321 (MAC layer) and TS25.302 (physical layer) were complementary standards for adjacent layers of the same UMTS protocol stack, authored by the same standards body, and they cross-referenced each other. A POSITA would have needed to consult both to gain a comprehensive understanding of the system.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success. R2-010182 provided a specific, engineered solution with precise changes to solve a known problem in the TS25.321 algorithm. The combination represented a straightforward implementation of a proposed improvement within the established 3GPP framework.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Peisa - Claims 11-13 are obvious over Peisa.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Peisa (Patent 6,850,540).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Peisa, which disclosed packet scheduling in a UMTS network, rendered the claims obvious. Peisa described a MAC layer in a Radio Network Controller (RNC) or terminal (UE) that scheduled data flows by selecting valid TFCs. Crucially, Peisa taught selecting TFCs "based on guaranteed rate transmission rates." Petitioner focused on the TFC selection algorithm detailed in Peisa’s Figure 8, which used a "two-step scoring process." This process explicitly obtained parameters for each logical channel, including a "Guaranteed Rate," and used this rate to calculate a score for each potential TFC. The algorithm then selected the TFC that ensured "at least the guaranteed rate for each flow" is met. Petitioner argued this "Guaranteed Rate" parameter used in the selection algorithm was a direct teaching of the claimed "minimum bit rate criteria applicable to the respective logic channel."
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner emphasized that while the Examiner considered Peisa during prosecution, the rejection and subsequent withdrawal were based on a different and less relevant portion of Peisa's disclosure. The arguments presented in the petition, particularly those centered on the detailed algorithm of Figure 8, were argued to be new and more pertinent, thereby overcoming the prosecution history.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 11-13 of the ’487 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.