PTAB

IPR2021-00639

Cradlepoint Inc v. 3G Licensing SA

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method for Resolving Contention Among Applications Requiring Data Connections Between a Mobile Communications Device and a Wireless Network
  • Brief Description: The ’611 patent describes a system for managing a limited number of concurrent data connections on a mobile device. When a new connection is requested and the device cannot establish an additional one, the system performs "contention arbitration" by prioritizing existing connections to select one for release, thereby freeing resources for the new connection.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-25 are Anticipated or Obvious over Oksala

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Oksala (International Publication No. WO 2005/099294).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Oksala, which was not cited during prosecution, teaches all limitations of the challenged claims. Oksala describes a mobile station managing transmission resources for multiple data connections. When a new connection is requested and resources are constrained, the mobile station first determines if joint use by existing and new connections is possible. If not, it selects an existing connection for potential QoS re-negotiation or release. This selection process involves prioritizing existing connections based on parameters such as connection priority or establishment time (duration), directly teaching the claimed method of contention management.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): To the extent any limitation was not explicitly disclosed, Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have found it obvious to apply Oksala’s prioritization teachings among multiple existing connections. A POSITA would select the lowest-priority connection for release, as this is the inherent purpose of a priority indicator.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success as this involves applying a disclosed prioritization scheme for its intended purpose.

Ground 2: Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, 17-21, 23, and 24 are obvious over Baggstrom in view of TS23.107v6.3.0

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Baggstrom (Application # 2005/0070290) and TS23.107v6.3.0 (a 3GPP Technical Specification).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Baggstrom, which was before the examiner, teaches a mobile terminal resolving resource contention by signaling an existing application to disconnect to permit a new connection. During prosecution, the applicant argued Baggstrom failed to teach prioritizing the existing data connections. Petitioner argued the 3GPP standard TS23.107v6.3.0 remedies this alleged deficiency by explicitly teaching an "Allocation/Retention Priority" parameter used to prioritize data connections (bearers) during admission control, especially when resources are scarce. This directly teaches the prioritization element the examiner found lacking in Baggstrom alone.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to improve Baggstrom's system using a known, standardized technique. Baggstrom teaches a network adhering to WCDMA/UMTS protocols and interrupting lower-priority uses of resources. A POSITA would find it obvious to use a known parameter like the Allocation/Retention Priority, already defined in the relevant WCDMA/UMTS standards (TS23.107), to implement this prioritization more effectively and ensure standard compliance.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved integrating a standard-defined priority attribute into a system designed to operate within that standards framework, which would predictably result in more intelligent and granular control over connection preemption.

Ground 3: Claims 1-5, 7-9, 18-21, and 23-25 are obvious over Oksala in view of TS24.008v6.6.0

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Oksala (WO 2005/099294) and TS24.008v6.6.0 (a 3GPP Technical Specification).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: While arguing Oksala alone renders the claims unpatentable, Petitioner asserted that to any extent Oksala does not explicitly teach "determining if a further wireless data connection can be effected," the 3GPP standard TS24.008v6.6.0 supplies this element. The standard defined a hard limit on the number of concurrent packet data protocol (PDP) contexts (i.e., data connections) a mobile station could establish, based on a limited range of available Network Service Access Point Identifier (NSAPI) values. Thus, determining if a new connection could be made would involve checking if this standard-imposed limit had been reached.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings because Oksala's system is described as operating according to 3GPP standards, including the General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) standard where TS24.008 is applicable. It would be an obvious and necessary step to implement Oksala’s resource-checking functionality in a way that respects the explicit connection limits imposed by the very standard it was designed to follow.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in programming a check for NSAPI allocations as part of Oksala's existing resource management process to ensure compatibility with the 3GPP standard.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combinations of Oksala with Yoshioka (Patent 7,376,442) to teach features like analyzing a plurality of contention parameters and prompting a user for confirmation, and with Matsumoto (Application # 2004/0098526) to teach a hierarchical analysis of contention parameters.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be improper. The challenges rely heavily on prior art that the examiner never considered during prosecution, such as Oksala, Yoshioka, Matsumoto, and the specific versions of the 3GPP standards.
  • For the ground based on Baggstrom, which was previously considered, Petitioner argued it presents a new combination with TS23.107v6.3.0 that supplies the specific element the applicant previously argued was missing, constituting a new argument and evidence.
  • Petitioner also asserted that the parallel district court litigations were in their early stages, with the earliest trial date nearly two years from the petition filing date, making an IPR an efficient use of resources.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-25 of the ’611 patent as unpatentable.