PTAB

IPR2022-00525

NXP USA Inc v. MediaTek Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Activity Coordination for Coexisting Radio Modules
  • Brief Description: The ’531 patent relates to an activity coordination method for devices with multiple co-located radio modules, such as WiMAX and Bluetooth. The method aims to reduce interference and save power by coordinating the operational schedules of the different radios.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Alpert and BT Standard - Claim 1 is obvious over Alpert in view of the BT Standard.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Alpert (Application # 2009/0180451) and BT Standard ("Specification of the Bluetooth System" Version 2.1 + EDR, published July 26, 2007).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Alpert taught a wireless communication device with co-located radio access communication devices (RACDs), such as a first WiMAX radio and a second Bluetooth (BT) radio, that coordinate their activities to avoid interference. Petitioner contended a POSITA would have implemented Alpert’s general coexistence framework by using the well-known BT Standard. The BT Standard allegedly disclosed using the "TYPE" field in a packet header as an "indicator" that specifies a traffic pattern—i.e., the number of slots allocated for forthcoming transmission (TX) or reception (RX) operations. Alpert further taught that the second radio's activity pattern is determined according to the first radio's pattern and that packets are rescheduled ("sent at a later time") to avoid collisions, which Petitioner mapped to the claim limitation of changing slot allocations when interference is estimated.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing Alpert's coordination system would combine it with the BT Standard because it was the fundamental specification for creating a functional BT radio. Doing so was advantageous for ensuring compliance and interoperability with other BT devices. The combination represented the predictable integration of a standard protocol into a general system architecture.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination involved implementing a well-defined, standard protocol (BT Standard) within the known coexistence framework taught by Alpert.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Alpert, BT Standard, and Hall - Claims 1 and 9 are obvious over Alpert and the BT Standard in view of Hall.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Alpert (Application # 2009/0180451), BT Standard, and Hall (Application # 2009/0312010).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted this combination rendered claims 1 and 9 obvious. While Alpert and the BT Standard provided the foundational system, Hall allegedly supplied the specific solution for avoiding the exact interference scenarios ("Reception Collision" and "Transmission Collision") addressed by the ’531 patent. Hall explicitly disclosed and illustrated a method for enabling Bluetooth and WiMAX coexistence by scheduling concurrent transmissions and concurrent receptions. Petitioner argued Hall's timing diagrams, which showed BT transmissions occurring during WiMAX transmissions and BT receptions occurring during WiMAX receptions, directly taught the claimed concept of changing slot allocations to avoid interference. This concrete example of scheduling provided a clear path to implementing the functionality recited in the "wherein" clauses of claims 1 and 9.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, seeking to implement the coexistence system of Alpert and the BT Standard, would be motivated to consult Hall for a known, effective technique to resolve interference. Hall addressed the same problem of collocated WiMAX/BT interference and provided a working solution (concurrent operations) that Alpert suggested was possible. This combination was presented as a logical step to improve a known device (Alpert's) with a known technique (Hall's) to yield predictable results.
    • Expectation of Success: Hall provided a detailed description and figures illustrating a successful scheduling solution, giving a POSITA a reasonable expectation that implementing this known technique in Alpert's system would successfully avoid interference.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted alternative Grounds 3 and 4, which were identical to Grounds 1 and 2, respectively, but argued that claim limitations 1[c] and 9[c] ("selectively determined") are satisfied for the same reasons as limitations 1[d]/9[d] and 1[e]/9[e] ("changed...when...interfered").

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that no terms required express construction and should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.
  • Petitioner noted that during prosecution, the Examiner interpreted the "first and second radio modules" as means-plus-function terms. While Petitioner contended this was incorrect as no clear and unmistakable disavowal of scope occurred, it argued that even under a means-plus-function construction, Alpert disclosed the corresponding structures (e.g., transceiver, controller) or their equivalents.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) would be inappropriate due to material errors made by the Patent Office during prosecution of the parent ’633 patent.
  • The core arguments were that the Examiner did not consider the BT Standard or Hall at all, and while Alpert was considered, the Examiner did not rely on it in a rejection and overlooked the specific teachings on which Petitioner relied to show the claimed interference-avoidance functionality. Petitioner asserted that these unconsidered references and arguments, along with new expert testimony, presented a different and stronger case than what the Examiner reviewed.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1 and 9 of the ’531 patent as unpatentable.