Comcast Corp v. Entropic Communications LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2024-00430
• Patent #: 8,284,690
• Filed: February 15, 2024
• Petitioner(s): Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Entropic Communications, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-24

2. Patent Overview

• Title: RECEIVER DETERMINED PROBE
• Brief Description: The ’690 patent describes a communication method where a first node (e.g., a receiver) sends a "probe request" to a second node (e.g., a transmitter), specifying a first set of parameters for a desired response. The second node determines a second set of parameters and generates a "probe" (the response) according to both sets of parameters, which is then transmitted back to the first node.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-24 are anticipated by or obvious over IEEE-802.16, optionally in view of Won

• Prior Art Relied Upon: IEEE-802.16 (the "WiMAX" standard, published 2004) and Won (Application # 2008/0198826).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the well-known "ranging" procedure in the IEEE-802.16 standard discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. In this procedure, a Subscriber Station (SS) sends a "Ranging Request" (the claimed "probe request") to a Base Station (BS). This request includes a "first plurality of parameters," such as a "Requested Downlink Burst Profile," which specifies the desired format (e.g., modulation type) for the response. The BS receives this request, determines a "second plurality of parameters" (e.g., timing and power adjustments), and generates a "Ranging Response" (the claimed "probe") according to both sets of parameters. The Ranging Response is then transmitted back to the SS, completing the claimed method. Dependent claims were argued to be obvious modifications, such as specifying the number of times to transmit the probe to improve contention resolution.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): To address claim 8, which requires the probe request to be generated by a "network operator" separate from the transmitting node, Petitioner combined IEEE-802.16 with Won. Won teaches using a user terminal to generate and upload a probe request to a service access point. A POSITA would combine Won with the IEEE-802.16 system to give users or administrators more direct control over the ranging process, particularly to diagnose and resolve connection issues.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in this combination because it involves applying a known technique (user-initiated probing from Won) to a similar system (IEEE-802.16) to achieve the predictable result of enhanced user control over network diagnostics.

Ground 2: Claims 1-24 are anticipated by or obvious over Waxman

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Waxman (Application # 2007/0223402).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Waxman’s disclosure of an active scanning process for extending wireless connectivity anticipates or renders obvious the claims. In Waxman, a communication station (second node) sends a probe request to a wireless access point (AP, or first node). The probe request specifies a "first plurality of parameters," including a "requested transmission scheme" (e.g., STBC or beamforming) and the number of antennas to use. These parameters define the form of the probe response. The AP receives the request, determines a "second plurality of parameters" (e.g., matrix weights for STBC or beamforming), and generates a probe response according to both the requested scheme and its determined parameters. The AP then transmits this probe response back to the station.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued that to the extent Waxman does not explicitly teach determining a "second plurality of parameters," it would have been obvious. Since Waxman teaches dynamically generating a response based on a requested scheme (e.g., STBC), a POSITA would have understood that the AP must determine multiple internal parameters (e.g., encoding matrices) to implement that scheme.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in determining the necessary parameters for generating the probe response, as this is a fundamental requirement for implementing the advanced transmission schemes taught by Waxman.

Ground 3: Claims 1-24 are anticipated by or obvious over DOCSIS-2.0, optionally in view of ISO8802-2 or Zuckerman

• Prior Art Relied Upon: DOCSIS-2.0 (Data-Over-Cable Service Interface Specifications, 2006), ISO8802-2 (an IEEE standard for logical link control), and Zuckerman (Application # 2007/0121573).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner alleged that the DOCSIS-2.0 standard's "ranging" and "testing" procedures meet the claim limitations. In the ranging procedure, a Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS, first node) transmits an Upstream Channel Descriptor (UCD) message (the "probe request") to a Cable Modem (CM, second node). The UCD specifies parameters like modulation type and rate. The CM uses these parameters, along with its own determined parameters, to generate and transmit a Ranging Request (the "probe") back to the CMTS. In the testing procedure, the CMTS sends a Test Request to the CM, which then generates and transmits a Test Response. The combination with ISO8802-2 was asserted to provide further detail on the generation of the Test Response packet data unit (PDU).
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): To address claims requiring OFDMA transmission (e.g., claim 10), Petitioner combined DOCSIS-2.0 with Zuckerman. Zuckerman teaches the advantages of using OFDMA in cable networks to improve spectral efficiency and network performance. A POSITA would combine Zuckerman’s OFDMA techniques with the DOCSIS-2.0 framework to improve its performance and address known issues like noise and congestion, which is a straightforward application of a known technology to improve a known system.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have expected success in implementing OFDMA in a DOCSIS network, given their familiarity with deploying various modulation schemes over cable infrastructure to enhance performance.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous additional obviousness challenges combining Waxman or DOCSIS-2.0 with Giesberts (Application # 2005/0124340), Zuckerman, and Won to disclose specific parameters recited in dependent claims (e.g., number of symbols, cyclic-prefix length, transmit power).

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §314(a) based on the Fintiv factors. It was asserted that the co-pending district court litigation is at a very early stage, with only motions to dismiss having been considered and no trial date set. Petitioner stated it would request a stay of the litigation if the IPR is instituted. Furthermore, the petition challenges all claims (1-24), whereas the patent owner has only asserted claims 7-8 in the litigation, weighing in favor of institution to promote efficiency.
• Petitioner also argued against denial under §325(d), stating that the grounds presented rely on prior art references and combinations that were never considered by the examiner during prosecution. Petitioner contended the examiner erred by failing to appreciate that the prior art did teach determining a "second plurality of parameters" to generate a probe, which was a key basis for allowance.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-24 of Patent 8,284,690 as unpatentable.