PTAB

IPR2023-00963

General Motors LLC v. Neo Wireless LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and System for Multi-Carrier Packet Communication with Reduced Overhead
  • Brief Description: The ’450 patent discloses a resource allocation method for orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) communication systems. The method aims to reduce control overhead by defining communication segments in a time-frequency plane using "time-frequency resource units," where each segment is identified by a "starting time-frequency coordinate" and a number of units ("N").

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-17 are obvious over Vijayan089 and 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 teaches all limitations of the challenged claims except for assigning a specific identifier to the mobile station. Vijayan089 discloses an OFDM system that allocates resources by defining segments of "transmission slots" using two parameters: a starting time-frequency coordinate ("the starting subband and symbol period") and a length ("the length of the segment"), which corresponds to the claimed N-value. Laroia explicitly teaches assigning a "terminal identification (ID) information" to a wireless terminal so it can identify messages intended for it.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Laroia's identifier with Vijayan089's system to implement the "unicast communications" that Vijayan089 discloses but does not detail. Since assigning identifiers was a well-known technique to differentiate between wireless devices, a POSITA would have naturally looked to a reference like Laroia to implement this functionality. Furthermore, both references share the goal of minimizing power consumption, which this combination would achieve.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because combining the well-known technique of assigning device identifiers (Laroia) with a conventional OFDM resource allocation system (Vijayan089) involves applying known solutions to yield predictable results.

Ground 2: Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-17 are obvious over Vijayan475 and Wu

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Vijayan475 (Application # 2005/0141475) and Wu (Application # 2005/0063345).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Vijayan475 teaches a similar resource allocation scheme to Vijayan089 but applies it to a "multiplexed logical channel (MLC)" rather than a physical one. Vijayan475 defines segments of time-frequency "slots" using parameters that define a starting coordinate ("Start Offset," "Slot Info") and a number of slots ("Stream Lengths"). Wu discloses an OFDM system where a base station assigns a "sixteen bit UE identifier" to each user equipment to identify which receiver should receive the current downlink content.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation is parallel to Ground 1. Vijayan475 discloses unicast communications but does not specify how to implement identifiers. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Wu's explicit teaching of a UE identifier to improve the functionality of Vijayan475's system, allowing each wireless device to discern its own allocated slots and messages from others. This combination would be a straightforward implementation of a known technique.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected, as it amounts to combining known prior art elements (a specific UE identifier from Wu with an OFDM slot allocation system from Vijayan475) to achieve the predictable result of enabling targeted unicast communication.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges for claims 6, 12, and 18 (which add a "repetition coding" limitation) by combining Choi (Application # 2005/0243774) with the prior art combinations of Ground 1 and Ground 2. Petitioner argued Choi teaches using repetition encoding to improve error correction and provide more robust data transmission, and a POSITA would have been motivated to apply this known technique to the systems of Vijayan089/Laroia and Vijayan475/Wu to improve their reliability.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) based on Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. The parallel district court litigation is in its early stages, with no trial date set and minimal investment of resources by the court or parties. Petitioner stipulated that, if the IPR is instituted, it will not raise at trial any invalidity challenges based on the prior art asserted in the petition, mitigating concerns of duplication. Finally, Petitioner argued the merits are strong, as evidenced by the Board's prior institution of a related IPR (IPR2022-01567) presenting the same grounds, which this petition seeks to join.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-18 of the ’450 patent as unpatentable.