PTAB

IPR2022-01567

VolksWAGen Group Of AmERICa Inc v. Neo Wireless LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and System for Multi-Carrier Packet Communication with Reduced Overhead
  • Brief Description: The ’450 patent describes a method for allocating communication resources in an orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) system. The method defines a communication segment using two parameters: a starting time-frequency coordinate and a number (N) of time-frequency resource units, which allegedly reduces signaling overhead.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Vijayan089 and Laroia - Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-17 are obvious over Vijayan089 in view of Laroia.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Vijayan089 (Application # 2005/0058089) and Laroia (Application # 2005/0277429).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Vijayan089 discloses the core elements of the challenged claims, including an OFDM system that allocates resources over a segment of a time-frequency plane. Specifically, Vijayan089 teaches defining an assigned segment by two parameters: "the start of the segment" (a starting coordinate) and "the length of the segment" (a number of transmission slots, or N). Petitioner contended this mapping of a 2-D resource grid onto a 1-D strip using a start and length is the same technique claimed in the ’450 patent to reduce overhead. Laroia was argued to supply the limitation of assigning an identifier to a mobile station to allow it to identify messages intended for it.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine the references to add a well-known device identification function (taught by Laroia) to Vijayan089’s efficient resource allocation system. Petitioner asserted this is a simple, predictable improvement, as Vijayan089 already discloses "unicast communications," which implies the need for device-specific addressing. Both references also share a common goal of minimizing power consumption.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the known technique of device identification with a conventional OFDM resource allocation scheme, as both references describe standard OFDM systems and the combination yields predictable results.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Vijayan475 and Wu - Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-17 are obvious over Vijayan475 in view of Wu.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Vijayan475 (Application # 2005/0141475) and Wu (Application # 2005/0063345).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Vijayan475, like Vijayan089, teaches defining a resource segment using a starting coordinate and a number of slots (N-value) to reduce signaling overhead. However, Vijayan475 defines its segments differently, using "Start Offset," "Slot Info," and "Stream Lengths" parameters and applying its allocation to a "multiplexed logical channel (MLC)" rather than a "physical layer channel." Petitioner contended that Wu discloses the missing element of assigning a specific identifier (a "sixteen bit UE identifier") to a mobile device to route messages in an OFDM system.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was presented as analogous to Ground 1: a POSITA would be motivated to improve Vijayan475's system by incorporating Wu's explicit teaching of a UE identifier to enable reliable unicast communications. This would allow a mobile device to efficiently discern its own allocated resource slots from others.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because the combination involves implementing a known, ubiquitous technique (device identification) into a standard OFDM framework to achieve a predictable improvement in functionality.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Vijayan089, Laroia, and Choi - Claims 6, 12, and 18 are obvious over the combination of Vijayan089, Laroia, and Choi.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Vijayan089 (Application # 2005/0058089), Laroia (Application # 2005/0277429), and Choi (Application # 2005/0243774).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds upon the combination of Vijayan089 and Laroia from Ground 1 to address the dependent claims that further require applying "repetition coding." Petitioner argued that Choi explicitly teaches enhancing data transmission by using "repetition encoding" to improve error correction in OFDM systems, and that it can be applied in the time and/or frequency domains.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Choi's repetition coding with the system of Vijayan089 and Laroia to achieve a more robust data transmission scheme. Petitioner asserted that improving error correction is a constant goal in wireless systems, and Vijayan089 already acknowledges using redundancy for "forward error correction coding," making the addition of Choi's specific technique a natural and obvious improvement.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in applying the simple, well-known technique of repetition coding to the time-frequency resource units of a standard OFDM system to improve its robustness.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge for claims 6, 12, and 18 based on the combination of Vijayan475, Wu, and Choi, which relied on a similar theory of adding Choi's repetition coding to the base system of Vijayan475 and Wu.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Fintiv Factors (§314(a)): Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. The parallel district court litigation, part of a multi-district litigation (MDL), was in a very early stage with no trial date set and a median time-to-trial of 46.8 months. This timeline would place any trial well after the PTAB's statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision (FWD). Petitioner also stipulated that it would not pursue the same invalidity grounds in district court if an inter partes review (IPR) is instituted.
  • Serial Petitioning (§325(d)): Petitioner argued that denial based on serial petitioning concerns is not warranted. Petitioner itself had not previously challenged the ’450 patent. While a different party (Dell Inc.) had previously filed an unsuccessful IPR (IPR2021-01486), this petition presents new, substantively different prior art and unpatentability theories. Petitioner contended that the primary references (Vijayan089 and Vijayan475) were never applied during prosecution or in the prior IPR, and that they teach the key claimed features that the Board found lacking in the prior art asserted by Dell. This, Petitioner argued, satisfies the Advanced Bionics framework for institution.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-18 of Patent 10,447,450 as unpatentable.