PTAB

IPR2021-00762

Corning Optical Communications LLC v. Dali Wireless Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Neutral Host Architecture for a Distributed Antenna System
  • Brief Description: The ’508 patent relates to a remotely reconfigurable remote radio head unit (RRU) for transporting radio frequency signals. The claimed RRU comprises a remotely reconfigurable access module adapted to receive reconfiguration parameters from a remote location and a plurality of band modules, each having separately reconfigurable parameters.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over FlexWave and Wala - Claims 1-5, 8, and 10-12 are obvious over the FlexWave Prism Manual in view of Wala.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: FlexWave Prism Manual (a 2009 system reference manual for an ADC Telecommunications product) and Wala (Patent 8,737,454).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the FlexWave Prism Manual (FlexWave) discloses a complete, remotely reconfigurable modular wireless communications platform that meets most limitations of independent claim 1. This platform includes a remote access module (the "SeRF module") and a plurality of band modules (RF modules with "DART" cards). Petitioner contended that Wala, a patent assigned to the same entity (ADC Telecommunications), discloses the internal structure and functionality of the system described in FlexWave. Crucially, Petitioner asserted that Wala explicitly discloses "bidirectional digital communication" between the SeRF and DART modules—the very limitation added during prosecution of the ’508 patent to overcome prior art rejections.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine FlexWave and Wala to gain a complete understanding of the system's capabilities. Because FlexWave is a product manual and Wala is a patent from the same company describing the underlying technology, Petitioner argued a POSITA would naturally consult both to understand the product's detailed implementation.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because the references describe nearly the same system, with Wala providing the granular detail for the high-level system disclosed in FlexWave.

Ground 2: Obviousness over FlexWave, Wala, and Batruni - Claims 6 and 7 are obvious over the FlexWave Prism Manual and Wala in further view of Batruni.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: FlexWave Prism Manual, Wala (Patent 8,737,454), and Batruni (Application # 2009/0029664).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner established the base system using FlexWave and Wala, which disclose band modules containing power amplifiers. Dependent claim 6 requires digital predistorters, and claim 7 requires a crest factor reduction algorithm. Petitioner argued that Batruni explicitly teaches both of these features. Batruni discloses using a digital predistorter to compensate for power amplifier nonlinearities and a crest factor reducer to improve power amplifier efficiency. Petitioner noted that the Examiner cited Batruni for these same limitations during prosecution.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, knowing the base system from FlexWave and Wala includes power amplifiers, would be motivated to improve their performance. Petitioner argued that incorporating the digital predistorter and crest factor reduction techniques from Batruni was a known method for improving amplifier efficiency and would have been an obvious modification to pursue.

Ground 3: Obviousness over FlexWave, Wala, and Rhy - Claim 9 is obvious over the FlexWave Prism Manual and Wala in further view of Rhy.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: FlexWave Prism Manual, Wala (Patent 8,737,454), and Rhy (Application # 2010/0008669).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: After establishing the base system with FlexWave and Wala, Petitioner addressed dependent claim 9, which requires the access module to be disposed in a "modified hybrid star configuration." Petitioner asserted that Rhy, which was also cited by the Examiner during prosecution, expressly discloses a "ring hybrid star network" and teaches its use in optical communication systems.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner pointed to Wala's explicit disclosure that its remote stations could be networked using various arrangements, including "any combination of ring, tree, or daisy chain configurations." Given this express suggestion to use different network topologies, a POSITA would have been motivated to look to known configurations like the hybrid star network taught by Rhy as a simple design choice.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. The core arguments were that the co-pending district court litigation was in its early stages, with a trial date more than a year away and discovery not yet commenced. Petitioner also contended that the IPR presents new prior art (FlexWave and Wala) and arguments not previously considered by the USPTO, and that the IPR challenges all patent claims (1-12) while the district court would likely only address a subset, ensuring the IPR would be a more efficient and complete forum for resolving patentability.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-12 of Patent 9,826,508 as unpatentable.