PTAB

IPR2023-01147

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless v. General Access Solutions, Ltd.

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Wireless Communication Bridge Between WWAN and WLAN
  • Brief Description: The ’794 patent is directed to a device that functions as an intermediary bridge between a wireless wide area network (WWAN) and a wireless local area network (WLAN). The device is configured to receive downlink signals from a base station over the WWAN and re-transmit them over the WLAN to local mobile stations.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-4 and 6 are anticipated by and/or obvious over Palmer

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Palmer (Patent 6,556,553).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Palmer discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Palmer describes a wireless communication system with a central antenna on an administration building (the "base station") that communicates wirelessly with remote antennas located on various remote buildings (the "first wireless transceiver"). This establishes the WWAN link. Each remote building contains a local area network where the remote antenna is coupled to one or more wireless access points (the "second wireless transceiver"), which provide wireless connectivity to portable terminals (the "mobile stations") via a WLAN link. Petitioner asserted this structure meets limitations [1.a] and [1.b]. Palmer further describes the system receiving downlink signals from the central antenna and providing them to the access point, which in turn re-transmits the signal to a portable terminal, meeting limitation [1.c]. Finally, Palmer explicitly teaches the network monitoring signal characteristics—such as signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), received signal strength indicator (RSSI), and bit error rate (BER)—to determine if a connection has degraded and whether to roam the terminal to another access point, thus teaching the monitoring and routing of limitation [1.d].
    • Motivation to Combine: To the extent any minor element was not explicitly disclosed (e.g., making components removable or integrated), Petitioner argued it would have been an obvious design choice for a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) to improve serviceability or reduce costs.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have had a high expectation of success in implementing Palmer's system, as it relies on well-understood network topologies and standard components.

Ground 2: Claims 1-6 are obvious over Hohnstein and Palmer

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hohnstein (Patent 6,816,706), Palmer (Patent 6,556,553).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Hohnstein discloses the core structure of the invention. Hohnstein's system includes distribution points that communicate wirelessly with access points, which in turn serve subscriber units. The access points contain a backhaul system (first transceiver) for WWAN communication and an access system (second transceiver) for WLAN communication. Petitioner highlighted that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, in a prior Final Written Decision (FWD) for a related patent, found that Hohnstein disclosed these fundamental elements. Palmer was introduced to explicitly teach the specific monitoring and routing limitation [1.d]—namely, the second transceiver monitoring downlink signal characteristics for multiple mobile stations and routing information based on those characteristics to facilitate seamless roaming.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, starting with Hohnstein’s system which already performs handoffs, would be motivated to incorporate the specific and detailed signal monitoring techniques taught by Palmer. The goal, shared by both references, was to improve the system's ability to maintain a continuous and transparent connection for a roaming mobile device. Using Palmer’s monitoring method would be a known and logical way to enhance the handoff function already present in Hohnstein.
    • Expectation of Success: There would be a high expectation of success in this combination. It involves applying a known monitoring technique from Palmer to a system from Hohnstein that was already designed to perform the exact function (handoff) that the technique improves.

Ground 3: Claims 1-6 are obvious over Palmer and Mahany

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Palmer (Patent 6,556,553), Mahany (Patent 5,790,536).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground uses Mahany to supplement Palmer, addressing potential deficiencies. For example, to address the "integrated device" limitation of claim 5, Mahany discloses an access server with an integrated LAN transceiver circuit and WAN transceiver circuit in a single device. Mahany also explicitly distinguishes between LAN and WAN protocols, reinforcing the argument that Palmer's distinct network segments would use distinct protocol types.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to implement Palmer's system using an integrated device as taught by Mahany to achieve well-known benefits of miniaturization, reduced component count, and lower manufacturing costs.
    • Expectation of Success: Integrating Palmer's separate components into a single unit as taught by Mahany would be a routine engineering task with a high expectation of success, as combining networking functions into a single device was common practice.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combining Palmer with Agrawal (Patent 5,722,051) to further support teachings of specific signal monitoring techniques, and a combination of Hohnstein and Agrawal for similar reasons.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that while no terms require formal construction, the term "monitoring" should be interpreted in light of the ’794 patent's disclosure. Petitioner contended that because the patent does not describe the transceiver performing any monitoring action beyond receiving measurements reported by the mobile station, the act of the transceiver simply receiving these reports satisfies the "monitoring" limitation.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. Citing recent Director guidance, Petitioner asserted that the presence of a "compelling unpatentability challenge" is a dominant factor that weighs against denial. Petitioner contended that its grounds, particularly those based on Hohnstein and the Board's prior FWD on a nearly identical patent, present a compelling case for unpatentability with a high likelihood of success.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-6 of the ’794 patent as unpatentable.