PTAB

IPR2024-00707

Hewlett Packard Enterprises Co v. Cobblestone Wireless LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Wireless Communications Systems and Methods
  • Brief Description: The ’802 patent describes methods and systems for wireless communication that transmit information over two separate frequency ranges simultaneously using a single transmitter architecture. The purported innovation overcomes prior art systems that were allegedly limited to transmitting over a single channel centered on a single frequency.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-9 are obvious over IEEE 802.11n D2.0 in view of IEEE 802.11-2007

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: IEEE 802.11n D2.0 (a 2007 draft amendment to the IEEE 802.11 standard) and IEEE 802.11-2007 (the 2007 base standard).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the IEEE 802.11n D2.0 draft standard explicitly discloses the core invention of the ’802 patent. Specifically, D2.0 introduced "HT duplicate" and "non-HT duplicate" transmission formats where the same data is transmitted over two adjacent 20 MHz channels to create a single 40 MHz channel. This directly maps to the limitations of claim 1, which requires simultaneously transmitting first and second information across first and second frequency ranges using the same wireless transmitter. Petitioner contended the equations and transmit spectrum masks in the standards define the claimed first and second frequency ranges, each with distinct center, highest, and lowest frequencies. Dependent claims were also argued to be met, for instance, claim 2's requirement for non-overlapping frequency ranges is met by the gap between the two 20 MHz channels, and claim 3's use of a single power amplifier is inherent in the standard transmitter architecture shown in IEEE 802.11-2007 for processing a composite baseband signal.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine IEEE 802.11n D2.0 with the IEEE 802.11-2007 standard because D2.0 was explicitly created as an amendment to the base standard. Its purpose was to provide enhancements for higher throughput, and a POSITA would have necessarily implemented the D2.0 formats using the foundational protocols and architectures defined in the 802.11-2007 standard. Strong commercial interest in designing products with 40 MHz bandwidth provided further motivation.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the draft amendment was designed to work in conjunction with the existing standard to achieve predictable increases in data rates and reliability.

Ground 2: Claims 1-4 and 9 are obvious over Shearer

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Shearer (Application # 2006/0018249).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Shearer, which is directed to increasing bandwidth in 802.11n systems, discloses a transmitter that processes two 20 MHz 802.11a input signals "substantially simultaneously." Shearer teaches processing these signals on separate lower and upper frequency paths, shifting their respective center frequencies, and then aggregating them before amplification by a single high-powered amplifier (HPA). This architecture directly teaches the method of claim 1, including transmitting information across two distinct frequency ranges simultaneously with a single transmitter. Petitioner mapped Shearer's disclosure of 16.5 MHz of active subcarriers within each 20 MHz channel to the claimed frequency ranges and its 20 MHz frequency difference between the paths to the non-contiguous channel requirement of claim 2. The aggregation of signals before a single HPA was argued to meet claim 3's "same power amplifier" limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine: Not applicable as this ground is based on a single reference. Shearer alone was contended to render the claims obvious.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in implementing Shearer’s system, as it provides a detailed architecture for achieving a known goal (increased bandwidth) using conventional wireless components.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. The parallel district court litigation was asserted to be in its early stages, with minimal investment and discovery not yet complete. Petitioner also stipulated that, if IPR is instituted, it will not pursue in district court the same invalidity grounds for the challenged claims. Finally, Petitioner contended the merits of the petition are particularly compelling, as the Patent Owner’s infringement contentions rely on the "non-HT duplicate" format, the very same functionality disclosed as prior art in the IEEE 802.11n D2.0 standard.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-9 of the ’802 patent as unpatentable.