PTAB

IPR2022-00660

NXP U v. MediaTek Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Methods for Responding to Co-Located Coexistence (CLC) Request from a Mobile Electronic Device and Communications Apparatuses Capable of Controlling Multi-Radio Coexistence
  • Brief Description: The ’056 patent describes a communications apparatus containing multiple co-located wireless radio modules, such as Bluetooth and WiMAX. The apparatus includes a control module that coordinates the operations of the different radios to avoid signal interference, primarily by generating a traffic allocation for one radio based on the traffic pattern of another.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 6 and 9 are obvious over Bitran and Zhu

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Bitran (Application # 2007/0275746) and Zhu (Patent 8,472,331).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Bitran disclosed a multi-function wireless terminal with co-located Bluetooth (first radio module) and WiMAX (second radio module) transceivers. Bitran’s “coexistence processor,” part of the WiMAX transceiver, performs most of the claimed functions: it detects Bluetooth activity, obtains the Bluetooth traffic pattern (slot allocations), and generates a corresponding WiMAX traffic pattern with lower precedence to coordinate operations and avoid interference. Petitioner contended that Bitran taught every limitation of the independent claims except for transmitting the generated WiMAX traffic pattern to the base station via a request message.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that Bitran’s system inherently requires the WiMAX base station to be aware of the traffic pattern to avoid scheduling conflicting transmissions. Zhu was cited as teaching a solution to this exact problem. Zhu disclosed a "Coexistence Bitmap Protection" (CBP) request message used by a mobile device to send a traffic pattern (a bitmap of "bad spots") to its WiMAX base station to manage coexistence with other radios. A POSITA would combine Zhu's explicit messaging technique with Bitran’s coexistence system to provide the base station with the necessary traffic pattern information, which was a known problem with a known solution.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because combining the references involved applying a known messaging technique (from Zhu) to a known system (from Bitran) to achieve the predictable result of informing the base station about the terminal's co-existence requirements.

Ground 2: Claims 6 and 9 are obvious over Bitran, Zhu, and Xhafa

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Bitran (Application # 2007/0275746), Zhu (Patent 8,472,331), and Xhafa (Patent 7,826,459).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground supplemented Ground 1, arguing that even if Bitran and Zhu did not render the "learning phase" limitation of claim 6[d] obvious, the addition of Xhafa would. Petitioner asserted that Bitran’s WiMAX module entered a period of link suspension when the Bluetooth module performed inquiry or page procedures for link establishment. Xhafa was cited for teaching a controller that explicitly enters a "learning phase" upon detecting a newly activated traffic flow. In this phase, Xhafa's controller monitors and maps the new traffic flow's parameters to inform its scheduling decisions. This functionality, Petitioner argued, was directly analogous to the claimed learning phase.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Xhafa's learning technique with Bitran's system to improve it. While Bitran’s system paused WiMAX activity for Bluetooth link establishment, it would be a predictable improvement to use that time to actively learn the parameters of the new Bluetooth traffic, as taught by Xhafa. This would allow for more accurate and efficient scheduling of WiMAX traffic once the new Bluetooth link became active, consistent with Bitran's goal of avoiding mutual interference.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect this combination to work predictably. The modification involved incorporating a known technique for learning new traffic flows (from Xhafa) into an existing coexistence system (from Bitran) that already accommodated periods of inactivity for one radio, making the integration straightforward and the outcome predictable.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) would be inappropriate. Although Bitran was cited during prosecution of the ’056 patent, it was never applied in a rejection, and the novel combinations with Zhu and Xhafa (which were never considered by the Examiner) presented material arguments that were not before the Office. Petitioner contended the Examiner’s failure to reject the claims over these combinations constituted a material error. Further, Petitioner argued that art considered during prosecution of the parent ’853 patent was not cumulative because Bitran disclosed limitations not present in that art.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 6 and 9 of Patent 9,265,056 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.