PTAB

IPR2021-00559

Quectel Wireless Solutions Co Ltd v. Koninklijke Philips NV

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System, Method, and Devices for Multi-Path Communication
  • Brief Description: The ’599 patent discloses a radio communication system with a primary station (e.g., base station) and a secondary station (e.g., mobile station), both having one or more antennas. The system improves performance in a Multi-Input Multi-Output (MIMO) framework by transmitting multiple data packets substantially simultaneously over different subsets of available communication paths.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Raleigh, Fong, TS25.213, and TS25.306 - Claims 19-20, 33, 35-38, and 40-42 are obvious over the combination.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Raleigh (Patent 6,144,711), Fong (WO 01/80476A1), TS25.213 (3GPP Technical Specification v3.2.0), and TS25.306 (3GPP Technical Specification v3.0.0).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Raleigh taught the foundational MIMO communication system, disclosing the transmission of data symbols over a plurality of substantially independent spatial subchannels between a primary and secondary station. Fong was asserted to teach a standard Automatic Repeat reQuest (ARQ) protocol, including determining if data is received correctly and notifying the primary station with positive (ACK) or negative (NACK) acknowledgements. Petitioner contended that TS25.213 disclosed the conventional practice of using the same channelization and scrambling parameters for transmitting control signaling like ACK/NACKs on a dedicated physical control channel. Finally, TS25.306 was argued to teach that a secondary station (UE) reports its capabilities, such as the maximum number of simultaneous transport channels it can process, to the primary station.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would combine these references to implement a well-known, reliable, and efficient communication system. A POSITA would have been motivated to add Fong’s standard ARQ functionality to Raleigh’s MIMO system to improve data transmission reliability. They would then look to the 3GPP standards (TS25.213 and TS25.306) to implement this functionality in a predictable and standardized way, ensuring compatibility and efficient resource management.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying known techniques (ARQ, capability reporting) and standards to a known system type (MIMO) to achieve predictable improvements in reliability and performance.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Raleigh, Fong, TS25.213, TS25.306, and Eriksson - Claims 21 and 39 are obvious over the combination.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: The combination from Ground 1 plus Eriksson (Patent 6,865,233).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination in Ground 1, adding Eriksson to address the limitation of using a different modulation and/or coding scheme for retransmissions. Petitioner argued that Eriksson explicitly taught adjusting the modulation/coding scheme for retransmitted data blocks relative to the original transmission, particularly based on measured link quality.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, having already built the system in Ground 1, would have been motivated to incorporate Eriksson’s teachings to further enhance performance. Modifying the modulation/coding scheme for retransmissions was a known technique to improve the likelihood of successful reception and dynamically adapt to changing link conditions, thereby reducing latency and improving overall system efficiency.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Dabak, TS25.301, Fong, TS25.213, and TS25.306 - Claims 19-20, 33, 36-38, and 40-42 are obvious over the combination.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Dabak (Patent 6,643,338), TS25.301 (3GPP Technical Specification v3.3.0), Fong (WO 01/80476A1), TS25.213, and TS25.306.
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented an alternative primary reference, Dabak, which taught a space-time block coded transmit antenna diversity system for WCDMA. Petitioner asserted that Dabak disclosed the simultaneous transmission of different data signals over multiple paths. The 3GPP standard TS25.301 was introduced to teach ARQ and retransmission functionality specifically within the WCDMA framework’s RLC sublayer. The remaining references (Fong, TS25.213, TS25.306) were argued to provide the same teachings as in Ground 1 (detailed ACK/NACK signaling, use of standard codes, and capability reporting).
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that a POSITA implementing Dabak’s WCDMA system would have been directly motivated to consult the relevant 3GPP standards (TS25.301, TS25.213, TS25.306) for implementation details. This would ensure the system was compliant with emerging standards and compatible with other devices, making the combination a predictable and logical design choice.

Ground 4: Obviousness over Dabak, TS25.301, Fong, TS25.213, TS25.306, and Eriksson - Claims 21, 35, and 39 are obvious over the combination.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: The combination from Ground 3 plus Eriksson (Patent 6,865,233).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Similar to Ground 2, this ground added Eriksson’s teaching of adaptive modulation/coding for retransmissions to the WCDMA-based system established in Ground 3. It also relied on Eriksson’s disclosure of transmitting channel quality feedback information from the receiver to the transmitter to address claim 35.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was identical to that in Ground 2: to incorporate a known technique for improving the robustness and efficiency of retransmissions into the established prior art system. A POSITA would have seen this as a routine optimization to yield the predictable benefit of higher reliability.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • §314(a) (Fintiv Factors): Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv, asserting that the parallel district court litigation was in its infancy. Key arguments were that no trial date had been set, no significant investment had been made by the court or parties, there was no overlap between the petition’s grounds and any invalidity contentions in the litigation, and the petition's merits were particularly strong.
  • §325(d) (Advanced Bionics/Becton Factors): Petitioner argued that its new art and arguments warranted institution. It contended that the combination of Fong and TS25.213 was never before the Examiner and was directly pertinent to the limitation added to the claims to secure allowance (“wherein the same channelization and scrambling parameters are utilized” for ACK/NACK transmission). Petitioner asserted the Examiner mistakenly allowed the claims under the assumption this feature was not in the prior art. Therefore, the petition raised a serious question of patentability based on art and arguments the Office had not previously considered.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 19-21, 33, and 35-42 of the ’599 patent as unpatentable.