PTAB

IPR2023-01416

Nokia Of America Corp v. General Access Solutions Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Profile Creating Apparatus and Method for Use in a Communication System
  • Brief Description: The ’477 patent discloses a system and method for improving the speed and accuracy of receiving burst data signals in a wireless communication system. The system creates and stores a "profile" of signal-related and channel-related parameter values at a base station for a specific subscriber, and then uses that stored profile to process subsequent data bursts from the same subscriber.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 13, 15-17, and 19-20 over Genossar

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Genossar (Patent 6,643,321).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Genossar discloses every element of the challenged claims. Genossar teaches a point-to-multipoint communication system where a base station modem (the claimed "profile-creating apparatus") receives bursts from terminal stations. This modem includes a receive portion (the "profile parameter determiner") that calculates and stores parameters from an initial burst to improve the processing of subsequent bursts from the same terminal. Genossar explicitly teaches determining and storing both "signal-related parameters" (e.g., carrier frequency offset) and "channel-related parameters" (e.g., equalizer coefficients). These stored parameters, or profiles, are then reused as the basis for processing subsequent transmissions, directly mapping to the limitations of independent claims 1 and 16.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that dependent claims are also anticipated, as Genossar's equalizer coefficients are representative of channel conditions like fading (claims 3-5), and its carrier frequency offset is a signal characteristic (claims 8-9).

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 2, 10-12, 14, and 18 over Genossar in view of WiMAX

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Genossar (Patent 6,643,321) and WiMAX (IEEE 802.16.1 Draft Standard).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Genossar teaches the base system of creating and storing communication profiles, as established in Ground 1. WiMAX, an industry standard for broadband wireless access, was argued to supply the remaining limitations. Specifically, WiMAX explicitly teaches using a "contention period" for initial station registration and ranging, where subscriber stations transmit initial bursts to the base station (claim 2). During this ranging process, the base station determines and communicates adjustments for timing offset (a "time-shift characteristic," claim 10), RF power levels (claim 12), and Forward Error Correction (FEC) type (claim 11).
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Genossar’s parameter optimization system with the teachings of a well-known industry standard like WiMAX. The motivation would be to enhance Genossar's system with a standardized, interoperable method for handling initial network access and parameter adjustment, a common and necessary function in multi-subscriber wireless networks.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in this combination, as it involved applying a known parameter storage technique (Genossar) to a standardized communication protocol (WiMAX) to solve the predictable problem of efficiently managing initial transmissions in a fixed wireless system.

Ground 3: Anticipation of Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 13, 15-17, and 19-20 over Barratt '470

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Barratt ’470 (Patent 5,909,470).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: As an alternative to Genossar, Petitioner argued Barratt ’470 independently anticipates the claims. Barratt ’470 describes a base station with Digital Signal Processors (DSPs) that function as the claimed "profile parameter determiner." These DSPs determine parameters from an initial burst in a TDMA timeslot (a "channel") and use them to process subsequent bursts. Barratt ’470 teaches determining "signal-related parameters" like frequency offset and time alignment, as well as "channel-related parameters" such as antenna weights derived from spatial processing. These parameters are obtained from a previous frame and used as the starting estimate for the current frame, thus disclosing the storage and reuse of a "profile" as claimed.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner highlighted that Barratt ’470’s disclosure of using antenna arrays and spatial processing directly teaches determining antenna parameters (claim 6) and equalization weighting values (claims 3-5), which are representative of channel conditions.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that claims 7, 11, and 12 are obvious over Barratt ’470 in view of Barratt ’490 (Patent 5,592,490), and that claims 2, 14, and 18 are obvious over Barratt ’470 in view of the Personal Handy Phone System (PHS) standard. These grounds relied on Barratt '490 to supply teachings on antenna parameters related to the sending station and on PHS to supply teachings of a contention period for initial system access.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. The parallel district court litigation is in its very early stages, with a trial date not set to begin until at least January 2025, well after the statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision (FWD). Petitioner contended that minimal resources have been invested in the court case, as discovery is preliminary and claim construction is not yet scheduled. Furthermore, the petition addresses all 20 claims of the ’477 patent, whereas the district court case will likely involve a narrowed set of claims, preventing a complete overlap. Petitioner asserted the merits of the petition are strong and based on prior art that was never considered during the original prosecution.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’477 patent as unpatentable.