PTAB

IPR2023-01267

LG Electronics Inc v. Pantech Wireless LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Methods for Managing Wireless Network Resources
  • Brief Description: The ’809 patent discloses methods for a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) to manage and release assigned network resources. The core of the invention is a process for releasing an enhanced dedicated channel (E-DCH) resource after determining there is no further data to transmit, which is confirmed by checking that both an E-DCH buffer and a Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) buffer are empty.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Wager and TS25.321 - Claims 1, 4, 6, and 10 are obvious over Wager in view of TS25.321.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wager (Application # 2009/0225709) and TS25.321 (3GPP Technical Specification TS 25.321 v7.5.0).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Wager taught a UE-triggered resource release mechanism for an E-DCH resource in a CELL_FACH state. This release is initiated after the UE’s transmission buffer is empty, which it signals to the base station by setting the Total E-DCH Buffer Status (TEBS) to zero. Wager also taught that the release occurs after all HARQ processes have finished, confirmed by receiving an acknowledgement (ACK). However, Wager did not explicitly detail the management of the HARQ buffer itself. Petitioner asserted that TS25.321, a UMTS standard, supplied this missing detail by teaching a protocol where a UE flushes its HARQ buffer upon receiving an ACK, thereby rendering the buffer "empty." The combination of Wager’s release trigger (empty E-DCH buffer and completed HARQ processes) with TS25.321’s HARQ buffer management (flushing to empty) allegedly rendered the limitations of independent claims 1 and 6 obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Wager with TS25.321 because Wager proposed a system for a UMTS environment and TS25.321 provided the standardized, well-known protocol for managing HARQ processes within that same environment. The combination would improve the reliability and efficiency of Wager's resource release scheme by using a standard method to ensure data integrity and proper buffer management.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination involved implementing a standard protocol (TS25.321) into a system (Wager) designed for the same technological framework (UMTS) to perform its intended function.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Lee, Nokia, and TS25.321 - Claims 1, 4, 6, and 10 are obvious over Lee in view of Nokia and TS25.321.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lee (WO 2007/078155), Nokia (R2-073254), and TS25.321.
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Lee disclosed a general method for a UE in an evolved UMTS system to initiate the release of radio resources once its transmission buffer has "no data left for transmission." Nokia was argued to provide key context by teaching the use of faster E-DCH channels and HARQ for uplink transmissions while a UE is in the CELL_FACH state, improving data rates and reliability. The combination of Lee and Nokia described a system that releases E-DCH resources in a CELL_FACH state when a buffer is empty. As in Ground 1, TS25.321 was asserted to provide the standard mechanism for determining buffer status, teaching the use of the TEBS=0 signal for an empty E-DCH buffer and the flushing of the HARQ buffer to make it empty upon successful transmission.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Lee’s efficient resource release concept with Nokia’s specific improvements for uplink transmissions in the CELL_FACH state to create a more robust system. TS25.321 would be incorporated as the natural, standardized solution for implementing the buffer status signaling and management required by the combined Lee/Nokia system, thereby improving resource allocation efficiency.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because all three references operate within the same UMTS technological field and address the common problems of efficient resource management and reliable data transmission.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Wager, TS25.321, and Sarkkinen - Claims 2-3, 5, and 7-9 are obvious over Wager and TS25.321 in further view of Sarkkinen.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wager, TS25.321, and Sarkkinen (Application # 2006/0176845).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination in Ground 1 to address limitations in the dependent claims. Sarkkinen was argued to teach using a UE-side inactivity timer that starts when the last data packet is transmitted; resource release is triggered upon the timer's expiration. This addressed the inactivity timer limitations of claims 2-3 and 8-9. Sarkkinen also taught completing a transmission and releasing resources upon detecting an "error condition," such as a radio link failure, which addressed the limitations of claims 5 and 7.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to modify the Wager/TS25.321 system with Sarkkinen's teachings to improve performance. Sarkkinen explicitly taught that its UE-side timer was superior to network-side timers (like one disclosed in Wager) for reducing delays. Furthermore, incorporating Sarkkinen's teachings on handling radio link failures would improve the overall integrity and robustness of the resource release process.
    • Expectation of Success: Sarkkinen was explicitly designed to be compatible with existing wireless systems and to improve their resource release procedures, providing a clear path and a high expectation of success for its integration.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combining Lee/Nokia/TS25.321 with Sarkkinen for dependent claims. Further grounds added TS25.331 (for teachings on cell reselection) to the primary combinations to challenge claims 5 and 7. Finally, all prior combinations were challenged in further view of Chun (Application # 2006/0251027) for its explicit disclosure of conventional processor and transmitter hardware to address limitations in claims 6-10.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under both 35 U.S.C. §325(d) and §314(a).
  • §325(d) (Same or Substantially Same Art): Petitioner contended that the asserted grounds were not substantially the same as those considered during prosecution. Key references like Sarkkinen and TS25.331 were never considered. While Wager was considered for the parent patent, the ’809 patent’s claims differ materially by adding the "HARQ buffer" limitation, which alters the patentability analysis and Wager's applicability.
  • §314(a) (Fintiv Factors): Petitioner argued against denial under Fintiv, stating that it intends to seek a stay in the co-pending district court litigation. The litigation was described as being in its early stages, with a trial date set for July 2024 but a median time-to-trial for the judge suggesting a more realistic date in late 2024, well after a Final Written Decision would issue. Petitioner also asserted the compelling merits of its petition weighed heavily in favor of institution.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-10 of the ’809 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.