PTAB

IPR2023-00978

Cellco Partnership v. General Access Solutions Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Wireless Communication System
  • Brief Description: The ’931 patent discloses a wireless access network where base stations use time division duplex (TDD) communication and beamforming techniques to transmit directed scanning beam signals to wireless devices located in different sectors of a cell site.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Vornefeld and Atsuta - Claims 28-29 are obvious over Vornefeld in view of Atsuta.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Vornefeld (an IEEE Communication Magazine article from 1999) and Atsuta (Patent 6,160,800).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that in a prior IPR, the Patent Owner conceded that Vornefeld anticipated independent claims 1 and 19, from which challenged claims 28 and 29 depend. Vornefeld teaches a TDD wireless system using beamforming to transmit a broadcast signal and then first downlink data to one sector within a single TDD frame. The challenged claims add the limitation of transmitting second downlink data to an other sector within the same TDD frame. Petitioner argued that Atsuta, which was not previously considered, explicitly teaches transmitting downlink data to subscribers in different sectors within a single TDMA frame to simplify hardware and reduce system complexity.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Vornefeld and Atsuta to improve the efficiency and reduce the complexity of Vornefeld’s system. Atsuta’s method of using a single frame for multi-sector transmissions solves the known problem of computational complexity and simplifies the required hardware, representing an obvious design choice to enhance Vornefeld’s functionally similar system.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the frame structures and time-slot-based protocols in both references are consistent and directly compatible.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Vornefeld and Goldburg - Claims 28-29 are obvious over Vornefeld in view of Goldburg.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Vornefeld (an IEEE Communication Magazine article from 1999) and Goldburg (Patent 6,154,661).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground again relied on Vornefeld as the primary reference disclosing the base TDD beamforming system. Petitioner contended that Goldburg, like Atsuta, teaches transmitting to subscribers in different subdivisions of a cell site (termed "regions") within a single TDD frame. Goldburg’s technique enhances beamforming by calculating specific weight vectors for each subscriber's region to create targeted, narrow beams that reduce interference. This provides the missing element of transmitting to a second distinct location within the same frame.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Goldburg’s use of regions and weight vectors into Vornefeld’s system to improve beamforming precision and minimize interference, a recognized goal in the art. As Vornefeld already provided a framework for using weight vectors, applying Goldburg’s more detailed technique would be a logical next step to enhance system performance.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Success would be expected because both references use a TDMA frame structure with timeslots for different users and employ weight vectors for beamforming, making the techniques highly compatible.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Youssefmir and Atsuta - Claims 28-29 are obvious over Youssefmir in view of Atsuta.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Youssefmir (Patent 6,795,409) and Atsuta (Patent 6,160,800).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Youssefmir, a new primary reference not previously considered, teaches all elements of the base independent claims, including a TDD system with a smart antenna that transmits to multiple different user terminals within a single frame. While Youssefmir recognizes cell sectorization, Petitioner used Atsuta to explicitly teach that the different users receiving data in different timeslots of the same frame can be located in different sectors.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine the references as they address the same problem of efficient, frame-based broadcasting. Since Youssefmir already teaches multi-user transmission in a single frame and acknowledges sectorization, implementing Atsuta’s known method for organizing those transmissions by sector within that frame would be an obvious design choice to improve organization and leverage the benefits of sectorization, such as simplified hardware.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would expect success because Atsuta's description of transmitting to multiple sectors within a single frame directly matches and complements Youssefmir’s protocol of transmitting to multiple subscribers within a single frame.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combinations of Vornefeld, Atsuta, and Goldburg in further view of Tangemann (a 1994 IEEE publication). Tangemann was cited for its teaching of dividing a cell site into "minisectors" to allow for more precise beam transmission, which Petitioner argued aligned with the Patent Owner's broad construction of "sector."

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that the challenged claims are obvious under any reasonable construction of the term "sector." For the purposes of the petition, Petitioner adopted the Patent Owner's construction from related litigation, where "sector" is defined broadly as "a portion of a cell site." Petitioner asserted this construction is critical because prior art like Goldburg and Tangemann, which describe dividing a cell site into "regions" or "minisectors," would then meet the claim limitation.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued discretionary denial under Fintiv is unwarranted. Citing recent Director guidance, Petitioner contended that the presence of a "compelling unpatentability challenge" is a more important consideration than the schedule of a parallel district court case. The challenge was argued to be compelling because the Patent Owner has already conceded in a prior IPR that the primary reference (Vornefeld) anticipates the independent claims from which the challenged claims depend.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 28 and 29 of the ’931 patent as unpatentable.