Google LLC v. Geoscope Technologies Pte Ltd

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2023-01214
• Patent #: 8,320,264
• Filed: August 9, 2023
• Petitioner(s): Google LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd.
• Challenged Claims: 1, 3, 6, 11, 13, 15, 20-21, 25-27

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Determining Path Loss in a Wireless Communication System
• Brief Description: The ’264 patent discloses methods and systems for determining the path loss of a signal in a wireless communication system. The purported innovation is performing this determination on an active communication channel using transmitted and received signal strengths, without disabling other channels or dedicating a specific channel for the measurement.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 3, 6, 11, 13, 15, 20-21, and 25-27 are anticipated by or obvious over Almgren, with certain limitations further rendered obvious by Stilp, Weaver, Silventoinen, and Tayloe.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Almgren (Patent 6,137,993), Stilp (Patent 6,184,829), Weaver (Patent 5,917,811), Silventoinen (Patent 6,498,932), and Tayloe (Patent 5,023,900).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Almgren anticipates all limitations of the challenged claims. Almgren discloses determining path loss (termed "amplification factors") in a cellular radio communication system by measuring transmitted and received power levels on active radio channels. This is done continuously without dedicating a specific channel for path loss measurement or rearranging the frequency plan. Almgren’s system includes base stations (receivers) and mobile stations (wireless devices) operating in cells, and it determines path loss as a function of the transmitted power from a mobile station and the power level received at a base station.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): To the extent Almgren is found not to explicitly teach every element, Petitioner asserted obviousness. A POSITA would combine Stilp and Weaver with Almgren to understand that Almgren’s base stations would conventionally be configured with sectors to mitigate multipath fading and reduce interference. A POSITA would combine Silventoinen to confirm that the Slow Associated Control Channel (SACCH) used in systems like Almgren's is an active communication channel for transmitting measurement data. For claims requiring location identification (e.g., claim 11), a POSITA would combine Tayloe’s teachings on using signal strength measurements for geolocation to improve Almgren’s system for functions like channel assignment and interference avoidance.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because combining these references involves applying conventional, well-known techniques (sectoring, geolocation) to a standard cellular system to achieve predictable improvements.

Ground 2: Claims 1, 3, 6, 11, 13, 15, 20-21, and 25-27 are anticipated by or obvious over Haartsen, with certain limitations further rendered obvious by Stilp, Weaver, Silventoinen, and Tayloe.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Haartsen (Patent 5,491,837), Stilp (Patent 6,184,829), Weaver (Patent 5,917,811), Silventoinen (Patent 6,498,932), and Tayloe (Patent 5,023,900).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Haartsen anticipates the challenged claims by disclosing a method for determining path loss for adaptive channel allocation while a call is in progress. Haartsen teaches using periodic measurements of Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) on active traffic channels or pilot signals. Path loss is calculated as a function of the known base station transmit power and the measured RSSI at the mobile station, all without disabling other communication channels. The system operates with cells, sectors, and active frequency channels.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Alternatively, Petitioner argued obviousness. A POSITA would combine Haartsen with Stilp and Weaver to confirm that Haartsen’s base stations, which are disclosed as having multiple antennas, would be understood to represent cells with one or more sectors, a conventional configuration. A POSITA would also have been motivated to implement the geolocation techniques of Tayloe within Haartsen's system to enhance its interference prediction and handoff capabilities, which rely on the location of mobile and base stations.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in combining these features as it would involve implementing known signaling schemes and geolocation technologies into a conventional cellular network to achieve the predictable result of improved network performance.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "path loss": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "the difference between the transmitted signal power and the received signal power." This construction was stipulated to in related district court litigation and is consistent with the patent’s specification.
• "wireless device": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a mobile device configured to communicate while unattached to any physical wires." This aligns with the examples provided in the specification, such as mobile telephones.
• "indication of transmission signal strength": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "information specifying the strength (e.g., in dBm) at which said signal was transmitted by the wireless device." This construction is consistent with the technical context of calculating path loss.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv is unwarranted. Key arguments included that the parallel district court litigation is in an early stage, with no trial date set and expert discovery incomplete. Petitioner also noted its diligence in filing the IPR petition shortly after the full scope of asserted claims was known.
• Petitioner further argued that denial under §325(d) would be inappropriate because the primary prior art references, Almgren and Haartsen, are material, non-cumulative, and were never considered by the USPTO during the original prosecution of the ’264 patent.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 3, 6, 11, 13, 15, 20-21, and 25-27 of the ’264 patent as unpatentable.