PTAB

IPR2023-00964

General Motors LLC v. Neo Wireless LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Methods and Apparatus for Multi-Carrier Communication Systems with Adaptive Transmission and Feedback
  • Brief Description: The ’941 patent relates to link adaptation techniques in Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) communication systems. The technology involves adaptively adjusting transmission parameters—specifically antenna transmission schemes and subchannel configurations—based on changing channel conditions to improve system performance.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over 802.16a and Heath - Claims 1-14 are obvious over 802.16a in view of Heath.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: 802.16a (a collective reference for IEEE Std 802.16-2001 and its amendment, IEEE Std 802.16a-2003) and Heath (Patent 6,937,592).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the IEEE 802.16a standard discloses the core elements of the challenged claims. Specifically, 802.16a teaches an OFDM system with a base station serving multiple mobile stations, the use of a control channel (via a DL-MAP message) to convey transmission parameters, and the availability of both transmission diversity (STC) and multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) schemes (via AAS). 802.16a also discloses using both distributed subcarriers ("distributed carrier permutation") and localized subcarriers ("adjacent carrier permutation") and indicating the choice via the control channel. Heath discloses an OFDM system that adaptively selects between transmission diversity and MIMO modes based on channel conditions to optimize performance.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Heath’s adaptive selection logic with the system defined in the 802.16a standard. While 802.16a provides the different antenna schemes, it does not explicitly detail how to select between them based on conditions. Heath addresses this exact issue, providing the logic to select the appropriate scheme to improve bit rates or reduce fading effects. A POSITA would incorporate this known technique to achieve the predictable improvement of enhanced system performance in the 802.16a framework.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in this combination, as it involved applying a known optimization technique (Heath's mode selection) to a well-defined, standardized system (802.16a) to achieve a predictable outcome.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Walton040 and Li017 - Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-14 are obvious over Walton040 in view of Li017.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Walton040 (Application # 2003/0125040) and Li017 (Application # 2002/0147017).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Walton040 discloses a multi-cell, multiple-access MIMO-OFDM communication system that adaptively adjusts operating parameters based on channel state information (CSI) and communicates these parameters to mobile terminals via a control channel. However, Petitioner argued Walton040 does not explicitly describe how to group subcarriers into subchannels. Li017 addresses this by teaching a method to intelligently select between "coherence clusters" (localized subcarriers) for static users and "diversity clusters" (distributed subcarriers) for mobile users or those near cell edges to mitigate intercell interference and improve performance.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Li017's subcarrier allocation strategy with Walton040's system. The multi-cell system of Walton040 would inherently suffer from the intercell interference and varying channel conditions that Li017's techniques are designed to solve. Incorporating Li017's method for selecting subchannel configurations based on user mobility and location would be a known way to improve the performance and robustness of the Walton040 system.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because the combination applies a known solution (Li017's intelligent subcarrier grouping) to address a known problem (interference and performance degradation in a multi-cell system like Walton040).

Ground 3: Obviousness over Walton040, Li017, and Tufvesson - Claims 2 and 9 are obvious over Walton040 in view of Li017 and Tufvesson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Walton040 (Application # 2003/0125040), Li017 (Application # 2002/0147017), and Tufvesson (a 1997 IEEE publication).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on Ground 2 to address dependent claims 2 and 9, which require that the transmission parameters indicate a "training pilot pattern." While Walton040 and Li017 teach using pilots for channel estimation, they do not explicitly state that the control message indicates the specific pilot pattern. Tufvesson, which is directed to pilot-assisted channel estimation, explains that the pilot pattern is among the information transferred to a mobile station when it logs into a new cell so it can perform channel estimation.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teaching of Tufvesson with the Walton040/Li017 system. For the mobile station to properly perform the channel estimation required by Walton040 and Li017, it must first know the pilot pattern being transmitted. Tufvesson provides the common-sense, necessary step of communicating this pattern via a control channel. This modification would be a simple and logical addition to ensure the base system functions as intended.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination would be highly predictable and expected to succeed, as it merely involves adding a necessary piece of information (the pilot pattern) to an existing control message to enable a known function (channel estimation).

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. The parallel district court litigation is in a very early stage, as no trial date has been set, and the median time to trial in that district is over 46 months.
  • Petitioner further argued that it has stipulated not to pursue in the parallel litigation any invalidity challenges that are raised or could have been reasonably raised in this IPR, mitigating concerns of duplicative efforts.
  • Petitioner contended that the strong merits of the petition weigh in favor of institution and that the Board is better suited to address the complex technical issues than a district court.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-14 of Patent 10,075,941 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.