PTAB

IPR2020-00362

Unified Patents LLC v. Zyrcuits IP LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Spread-Spectrum Transmitter
  • Brief Description: The ’307 patent discloses a spread-spectrum transmitter for digital communications systems. The technology involves a specific architecture where data is first processed by a forward-error-correction (FEC) encoder and an interleaver, then stored in a memory as N-bit groups called "symbols," which are subsequently used by a chip-sequence encoder to select a corresponding orthogonal signal for transmission.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 3, and 4 are obvious over Falconer in view of Vijayan and AAPA.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Falconer (Patent 5,159,608), Vijayan (Patent 6,151,296), and Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) from the ’307 patent.
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Falconer, which discloses a spread-spectrum transmitter with an FEC encoder, a bit-level interleaver, and a "mapper," teaches nearly all limitations of the challenged claims. Falconer’s mapper receives interleaved bits, groups them, and selects a corresponding orthogonal signal (e.g., a Walsh code). Petitioner contended the only element not explicitly detailed in Falconer is a discrete memory for storing the grouped bits prior to mapping. Vijayan was asserted to supply this teaching, as it explicitly discloses a "signal space grouper" that receives interleaved bits and groups them into "symbols" (of 'm' bits each) before they are mapped. This grouper was argued to be a form of memory.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Falconer with Vijayan’s grouper to achieve a predictable result. Petitioner argued that since Falconer teaches that bits "are grouped" before mapping without specifying the mechanism, a POSITA would look to known techniques for implementation. Vijayan provided an intuitive and easy-to-implement solution with its dedicated grouper. The combination represented a simple design choice between two equivalent alternatives: integrating the grouping function within the mapper (implicit in Falconer) or using a separate, discrete memory component (taught by Vijayan).
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involved implementing a known component (Vijayan's grouper) into a similar system (Falconer's transmitter) to perform its well-known function of storing bits in groups. This required only minor modifications and would predictably result in a functional transmitter.

Ground 2: Claims 1, 3, and 4 are obvious over Falconer in view of Robinson and AAPA.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Falconer (Patent 5,159,608), Robinson (Patent 5,928,371), and AAPA.

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground leveraged a different embodiment of Falconer that uses a group-level interleaver. Petitioner argued this combination also rendered the claims obvious. As in Ground 1, Falconer taught the core transmitter architecture. Robinson was introduced to teach the memory element, specifically disclosing an interleaver system that uses an external "interleaver memory" and an "output buffer" (26). Petitioner asserted that this output buffer stores interleaved data as bytes or symbols before subsequent processing, thereby satisfying the "memory for storing N bits" limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Robinson's memory and buffer architecture into Falconer’s group-level interleaving system. Falconer expressed a desire to increase the distance between consecutive data bits, a feature that Robinson's use of independent memories is specifically designed to facilitate. Therefore, modifying Falconer’s interleaver with Robinson’s more flexible memory-and-buffer approach was a logical step to improve a known system for a known purpose.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination would have been predictable. Both Falconer and Robinson relate to interleaving in communications systems, and incorporating Robinson's known technique of using an output buffer to temporarily store interleaved data into Falconer's transmitter was a straightforward application of known design principles to achieve the predictable result of storing grouped data prior to mapping.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claim 3 based on Falconer, Kanno (Patent 5,535,220), and AAPA, where Kanno was cited for its disclosure of using memory banks in an interleaver circuit to store data.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner contended that the key claim terms—"FEC encoder," "interleaver," "memory," "chip-sequence encoder," and "transmitter section"—are not means-plus-function (MPF) limitations under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6.
  • The core of this argument was that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand these terms to connote a sufficiently definite structure. Petitioner further argued that the patentee’s explicit use of the word "means" in other, non-challenged claims of the patent family (e.g., claim 2 of the ’307 patent) created a strong presumption that the challenged claims were intentionally drafted to not invoke MPF status.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1, 3, and 4 of Patent 6,671,307 as unpatentable.