PTAB

IPR2022-00339

Apple Inc v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: RESOURCE SIGNALING FOR PUCCH
  • Brief Description: The ’179 patent describes methods for flexible transmission of uplink control signaling in 5G wireless networks. The technology involves a network node sending downlink control information (DCI), including an "acknowledgement position indication," to user equipment (UE) to manage the transmission of Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) feedback on a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH).

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Kim and Fujitsu - Claims 1-18 are obvious over Kim in view of Fujitsu.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kim (Application # 2017/0289981) and Fujitsu (3GPP R1-1608808).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kim disclosed a wireless communication system for enabling HARQ feedback that meets most limitations of the challenged claims. Kim taught a base station sending DCI to a terminal, where the DCI includes HARQ-related information for controlling uplink feedback. This information included separate multi-bit patterns for a timing indication ("xPUCCH subframe index offset") and a resource selection indication ("xPUCCH resource index"), which determines the time and frequency resources for the feedback transmission. For claim limitations requiring a specific slot structure (e.g., at least 14 symbols), Petitioner asserted that Fujitsu disclosed this detail.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) reviewing Kim’s 5G system would seek specific implementation details for subframe structure to ensure efficiency and compatibility with emerging standards. Petitioner argued Fujitsu provided these details, teaching that a standard 1ms subframe in a 5G/NR system includes 14 symbols. A POSITA would combine Fujitsu’s standardized subframe structure with Kim’s feedback signaling system to create a practical and standards-compliant implementation.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a known, standard subframe structure (Fujitsu) to a communication system (Kim), which would have yielded predictable results.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Nokia, Ref3GPP, and 3GPP/TS - Claims 1-18 are obvious over Nokia in view of Ref3GPP and 3GPP/TS.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nokia (WO 2018/127628), Ref3GPP (3GPP R1-1702983), and 3GPP/TS (3GPP TR 38.802 v1.0.0).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted this alternative combination of references also taught all challenged claim limitations. Nokia disclosed a method for scalable HARQ feedback with dynamically varying acknowledgement timing in a New Radio (NR) system. It taught using a timing offset value in a downlink grant to indicate an uplink slot for feedback transmission. Ref3GPP, a 3GPP meeting contribution, supplemented Nokia by teaching the specifics of PUCCH resource allocation, including the use of separate indications for time and frequency/code-domain resources. Ref3GPP explicitly taught using an ARI/ARO-like bit in the DCI for the frequency/code-domain component. To the extent Nokia and Ref3GPP did not specify the number of symbols in a slot, 3GPP/TS provided the NR standard that a slot is defined as 7 or 14 OFDM symbols.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing Nokia’s dynamic timing feedback system would consult industry standards and proposals, such as Ref3GPP, to achieve more efficient resource utilization. Ref3GPP’s proposal for separate time and frequency resource indications would be a natural addition to Nokia’s system to reduce signaling overhead. The POSITA would then refer to the 3GPP/TS technical specification to implement the standard 14-symbol slot structure, ensuring the final system conformed to the agreed-upon NR framework.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining these references involved integrating complementary aspects of a standardized NR communication system, which a POSITA would expect to work together predictably.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges over Kim (or Kim-Fujitsu) in view of Li (Patent 10,158,461) for claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 11-12, 14, and 17-18. Li was cited for its teaching of using an ACK/NACK Resource Indication (ARI) to select from multiple, different PUCCH formats to accommodate varying HARQ feedback payload sizes.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "the acknowledgement position indication is selective between at least two different uplink signaling formats" (Claims 2, 8, 14): Petitioner proposed this phrase should be construed to mean the indication is selected based on at least two different uplink message structures or bit structures corresponding to different uplink resources. This construction was central to mapping prior art that taught selecting different PUCCH formats (e.g., short vs. long formats) based on the size of the HARQ feedback payload.
  • "resources of the configured pool of resources...have one of different associated format...and different payload size" (Claims 6, 12, 18): Citing the prosecution history where these limitations were added to distinguish prior art, Petitioner argued this requires the configured pool to contain resources that inherently differ in their associated transmission format or their payload capacity. This construction allowed Petitioner to map references that disclosed, for example, a set of available PUCCH resources including both short and long formats, which inherently support different payload sizes.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial by noting that while the ’179 patent was the subject of a prior IPR petition filed by Samsung (IPR2021-00587), that petition was dismissed prior to institution. Petitioner asserted that it was not a real party-in-interest in the Samsung IPR, that Samsung is not a real party-in-interest in the present proceeding, and that the parties are not in privity.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-18 of the ’179 patent as unpatentable.