PTAB

IPR2020-00396

Google LLC v. Uniloc 2017 LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Ad-Hoc Radio Communication System
  • Brief Description: The ’522 patent describes ad-hoc radio communication systems, such as Bluetooth networks, where communicating stations are assigned master or slave roles. The determination of which station becomes the master is based on performance characteristics of their antennas in their local environments or on other factors like access to mains power.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 6-8 are obvious over Morris in view of Hulyalkar and Sugaya.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Morris (Application # 2003/0149794), Hulyalkar (WO 99/11081), and Sugaya (Patent 6,804,209).
  • Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner argued that the primary reference, Morris, discloses the foundational ad-hoc network where stations negotiate to determine a master based on a set of suitability parameters. However, Morris does not explicitly base this determination on antenna performance or access to mains power. Petitioner contended it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to supplement Morris’s master-selection criteria with the teachings of Hulyalkar, which explicitly uses antenna performance (i.e., received signal strength) to select a master, and Sugaya, which teaches prioritizing a station with access to mains power to ensure network stability.
    • Prior Art Mapping:
      • Claim 6 (Independent): Petitioner asserted that Morris teaches an ad-hoc radio communication system with a plurality of stations that negotiate to select a master. This negotiation involves comparing "operating modes," which reflect each station's suitability based on parameters like mobility and power resources, effectively establishing a master/slave rank. To meet the limitation of using "antenna performance characteristics," Petitioner argued that Hulyalkar teaches determining a station’s rank based on signal quality assessments, such as the strength of a received signal, which reflects antenna performance in its local environment. Combining Hulyalkar's antenna performance metric with Morris's negotiation framework would have been an obvious improvement. Morris already discloses enabling the station with the "preferable" operating mode (i.e., highest rank) to become the master.
      • Claim 7 (Dependent): This claim adds that the antenna performance is determined "dynamically." Petitioner argued Hulyalkar teaches this limitation through its "quality assessments," which are provided to the central controller "periodically or on demand." This repeated measurement of signal strength over time under real-world conditions constitutes a dynamic determination of antenna performance.
      • Claim 8 (Dependent): This claim requires determining rank based on "access to mains power." Petitioner asserted that Sugaya explicitly teaches this feature. Sugaya explains that selecting a master with access to AC (mains) power is preferable to one running on battery power, as a depleted battery could cause the master to fail and disrupt the entire network.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Hulyalkar with Morris to improve the master selection process and overall network efficiency. Morris already contemplates using "other parameters" to determine suitability, and Hulyalkar's use of signal strength is a well-understood and effective parameter for ensuring reliable communication. A POSITA would further incorporate Sugaya's teaching on mains power to enhance network stability and prevent disruptions caused by a battery-powered master losing power, which was a known problem.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have a high expectation of success. The combination would primarily involve a software modification to the CPU in Morris's system to incorporate additional metrics (signal strength and power source) into the existing negotiation protocol. Since all references describe similar ad-hoc network architectures, integrating these known techniques for improving network performance would have been straightforward and predictable.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Antenna performance characteristics ... in view of the antenna's local environment": For the purpose of the IPR, Petitioner adopted the Patent Owner's proposed construction from related litigation, which defines the term as "a measure of the signal quality or signal strength of the antenna." This construction was central to mapping Hulyalkar, which teaches measuring received signal strength.
  • "Antenna means" (Claim 7): Petitioner argued this term is presumptively a means-plus-function term under §112, ¶6, with the function of "operating as an 'antenna'" and the corresponding structure being a physical antenna as depicted in the patent's figures. Alternatively, if not a means-plus-function term, its plain meaning is simply "an antenna." Petitioner contended that under either interpretation, the unpatentability analysis remains the same.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be inappropriate because this petition presents meaningfully different challenges than those in prior-filed IPRs by Samsung against the same patent.
  • Key distinctions asserted included:
    • The petition relies on a different primary reference (Morris), whereas Samsung used its Hulyalkar reference as the primary reference.
    • The petition relies on a different version of the Hulyalkar prior art (a PCT publication) than Samsung (a U.S. patent).
    • The statutory ground is different; this petition asserts obviousness, while Samsung’s corresponding challenge was for anticipation.
    • The staggered litigation timelines between Google and Samsung justified the later filing date, negating any suggestion of improper "follow-on" petitioning.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 6, 7, and 8 of Patent 6,980,522 as unpatentable.