PTAB

IPR2024-00708

Dell Inc v. Ax Wireless LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Header Repetition in a Communications Environment
  • Brief Description: The ’146 patent relates to methods and systems for improving the reliability of wireless communications by using header repetition. The invention describes a receiver capable of distinguishing between a first packet format with a single header field and a second packet format that includes a second, repeated header field, thereby enhancing the likelihood of correctly decoding critical packet information.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Yu - Claims 1-10 are obvious over Yu

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Yu (Application # 2007/0115802).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Yu, which sought to expand the range of IEEE 802.11a/g networks, discloses every element of the challenged claims. Yu teaches a system with two distinct frame formats: a conventional "normal-range" format (the "first packet format") with a single "SIGNAL" header field, and an "expanded range" format (the "second packet format") that includes a "Repeated SIGNAL" field. This repeated field serves as the claimed "second header field being a repetition of the first header field." Yu’s receiver is explicitly configured to receive both formats and includes an "OFDM demodulation controller" that determines whether a received frame includes the repeated signal field. This controller distinguishes the second packet format from the first by detecting the repeated header and selects the appropriate demodulation mode accordingly, meeting the limitations of independent claims 1 and 6.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that Yu's expanded range functionality, designed to increase communication reliability at a distance, inherently relies on the same principles claimed in the ’146 patent.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Hansen and WWiSE - Claims 1-10 are obvious over Hansen in view of WWiSE

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hansen (Application # 2006/0182017) and WWiSE (IEEE 802.11-05/0149r5, a proposal for the 802.11n standard).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have modified the 802.11-compliant wireless transceiver disclosed in Hansen to support the packet formats taught by WWiSE. WWiSE describes both a Normal Range (NR) packet format (the "first packet format") with a single "SIG-N" header symbol, and an Extended Range (ER) packet format (the "second packet format") for improved reliability. The ER format includes the initial SIG-N symbol followed by a second, repeated "ER-SIG-N" symbol. Critically, WWiSE teaches embedding a one-bit "REXT" field in the first SIG-N header to explicitly signal whether the packet is NR (REXT=0) or ER (REXT=1). In the combined system, Hansen’s receiver would distinguish between the two formats by decoding the first header, reading the REXT bit, and thereby detecting the presence or absence of the second, repeated header field.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner provided several rationales for the combination. First, Hansen expressly discusses creating a compromise proposal based on earlier 802.11n proposals, including from the WWiSE consortium, providing a direct teaching to combine. Second, repeating a header to introduce temporal diversity was a known technique to improve signal robustness in fading channels, and a POSITA would apply this known technique to Hansen's transceiver to achieve the predictable result of an extended communication range.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success. Both Hansen and WWiSE relate to the same 802.11n standards development effort, making them highly compatible. The proposed modifications—programming a transceiver to generate and detect an optional repeated header based on a control bit—were common and well-understood practices in evolving wireless communication protocols.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) and the Fintiv factors is inappropriate. Petitioner has offered a Sotera stipulation in the parallel district court litigation, agreeing not to pursue the same invalidity grounds raised in this IPR. Petitioner also contended that the petition presents a "compelling, meritorious challenge," noting that the patent owner’s own provisional application acknowledged that the core concepts of repeated and extended headers were publicly proposed during standards development prior to the patent's priority date.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-10 of the ’146 patent as unpatentable.