PTAB

IPR2021-01486

Dell Inc v. Neo Wireless LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and System for Multi-Carrier Packet Communication with Reduced Overhead
  • Brief Description: The ’450 patent discloses a method for multi-carrier wireless communication, based on the IEEE 802.16 (WiMAX) standard, between a base station and a mobile station. The invention focuses on allocating and identifying time-frequency resources for downlink data transmission in an Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) system to reduce control signaling overhead.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-18 are obvious over Kim in view of IEEE802.16-2004.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kim (Application # 2005/0157803) and IEEE802.16-2004 (an IEEE Standard).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of Kim and the IEEE802.16-2004 standard taught every limitation of the challenged claims. Kim disclosed the foundational framework: a wireless communication system based on the IEEE 802.16 standard using OFDMA for downlink transmissions. Kim taught using a frame structure composed of time slots, where each slot comprises multiple OFDM symbols and frequency subcarriers. Critically, Kim described allocating "channel resources" (equivalent to the ’450 patent’s "segments") for different users, where these resources are composed of a basic allocation unit (a single subchannel over a single time slot), which is equivalent to the patent's "resource unit."

    Petitioner asserted that the IEEE802.16-2004 standard, which is the official, consolidated version of the standard upon which Kim’s system is based, provided the specific implementation details to complete the claimed invention. For instance, while Kim described a "control message" to identify a mobile station and locate its data, IEEE802.16-2004 specified the precise mechanisms. It taught assigning a unique 16-bit "connection ID (CID)" to each mobile station (the claimed "identifier"). The standard also defined a "DL-MAP" message that contains an "OFDMA Symbol offset" (time coordinate) and a "Subchannel offset" (frequency coordinate) to identify the precise starting location of a user's data burst within a frame. Petitioner argued these two offsets together constituted the claimed "starting time-frequency coordinate." The combination thus taught a mobile station receiving a CID and using the time-frequency coordinates to locate and recover its data, as claimed.

    For dependent claims, Petitioner argued the combination also taught the required details. For example, Kim disclosed allocating a variable number of subchannels per slot, including an example of 8 subchannels, meeting the limitation of N=2, 4, or 8. The combination also taught modular coding, as Kim’s coding rate depended on the number of allocated resource units (subchannels per slot), and further taught applying repetition coding, a feature explicitly disclosed in both Kim and the IEEE standard’s DL-MAP message structure.

    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Kim with IEEE802.16-2004 because Kim explicitly described a system based on the IEEE 802.16a standard. IEEE802.16-2004 was the direct, consolidated successor to that standard. A POSITA seeking to implement Kim's higher-level system would have naturally and obviously consulted the prevailing IEEE standard to supply specific, well-known implementation details for functions like station identification (using the standard CID) and resource location signaling (using the standard symbol and subchannel offsets).

    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success. The combination involved applying the detailed, standardized protocols from IEEE802.16-2004 to a system (Kim) that was expressly designed to operate under the principles of that very standard. This amounted to using known techniques with known devices to achieve predictable results.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. The parallel district court litigation was in a very early stage, with no substantive orders issued, no discovery conducted, and no Markman hearing scheduled. Petitioner asserted it acted with diligence, filing the IPR petition more than four months before the statutory one-year bar date. Crucially, Petitioner stipulated that if the IPR were instituted, it would not pursue any invalidity grounds in the district court based on the prior art asserted in the petition, thereby eliminating concerns of duplicative effort and promoting judicial efficiency. Petitioner also argued that the merits of the challenge were particularly strong, as the primary references were not considered by the Examiner during the original prosecution.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-18 of Patent 10,447,450 as unpatentable.