PTAB

IPR2022-00616

Dell Inc v. Neo Wireless LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Methods and Apparatus for Cellular Broadcasting and Communication System
  • Brief Description: The ’517 patent discloses a multi-carrier wireless communication method for a mobile device to concurrently receive data packets on multiple radio-frequency (RF) bands. The system uses different subframe configurations for the different RF bands, with frame boundaries aligned in time to enable concurrent reception.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Zheng, Walton, and Corson - Claims 1-6, 13, and 15 are obvious over Zheng in view of Walton and Corson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Zheng (Application # 2006/0193338), Walton (Application # 2004/0082356), and Corson (Application # 2004/0141502).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of Zheng, Walton, and Corson taught every limitation of the challenged claims. Zheng disclosed a multi-carrier communication system that schedules data transmissions to a mobile station over multiple carriers simultaneously to improve spectrum efficiency, satisfying the core limitations of receiving scheduling information for multiple RF bands. However, Zheng lacked specific details on frame structures. Walton was alleged to supply this missing detail by teaching a frequency division multiplexed (FDM) system with specific frame and subframe structures for different channel types (e.g., broadcast vs. dedicated). Crucially, Walton taught aligning the frame boundaries of signals on different RF bands to enable simultaneous reception and using different subframe configurations for different traffic types. Finally, while Zheng implied mobile stations could receive multiple carriers simultaneously, Corson explicitly disclosed the necessary hardware, teaching a mobile device with multiple receiver circuits for concurrently receiving multiple communication signals. Petitioner contended this combination rendered the methods and apparatus of claims 1 and 13 obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references to achieve predictable results. A POSITA implementing Zheng’s high-level multi-carrier system would have looked to known techniques for frame structuring, such as those in Walton, to achieve benefits like improved synchronization and power savings. Walton’s disclosure was presented as a straightforward implementation of the concepts suggested in Zheng. Similarly, to enable the simultaneous reception required by Zheng, a POSITA would have found it obvious to incorporate the well-known multi-receiver architecture taught by Corson, as this represented a simple duplication of known parts to expand the mobile device’s reception capability.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because all three references operate in the same technical field of wireless communications between base stations and mobile devices. Combining Walton's detailed frame structures and Corson's multi-receiver hardware with Zheng's multi-carrier scheduling system involved applying known principles to yield the predictable result of an efficient, synchronized multi-carrier communication system.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that no formal claim constructions were necessary, as the prior art rendered the challenged claims unpatentable under any reasonable interpretation, including the patent owner's proposed constructions in co-pending litigation.
  • "traffic characteristics": Petitioner asserted that to the extent the term required construction, it should be understood as "the type of traffic being transmitted (e.g., voice, data, video)." Petitioner argued that Walton disclosed different subframe structures for different traffic types, such as broadcast messages, user packets, and idle state messages, which met this limitation.
  • "frame boundaries": Petitioner argued that a POSITA would understand this term to refer to the boundaries between complete frames. Walton was alleged to meet this limitation by explicitly teaching that downlink frames on different channels are "aligned at the frame boundaries."

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) based on Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. The core arguments were that the co-pending district court litigation was at a very early stage, with no trial date set, no substantive orders issued, and minimal discovery having occurred.
  • Petitioner further contended that it had filed the petition well before the one-year statutory bar and had stipulated that, if the inter partes review (IPR) was instituted, it would not pursue the same invalidity grounds in the district court. This stipulation was argued to eliminate any significant overlap between the proceedings and promote judicial efficiency, weighing strongly in favor of institution.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-6, 13, and 15 of the ’517 patent as unpatentable.