PTAB

IPR2024-00951

Ericsson Inc v. Active Wireless Technologies LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: PHYSICAL UPLINK CONTROL CHANNEL (PUCCH) FORMAT ADAPTION FOR 5TH GENERATION (5G) NEW RADIO (NR)
  • Brief Description: The ’443 patent relates to a method in 5G wireless systems for adapting Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request Acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) feedback. The method differentiates feedback granularity based on whether a downlink channel is scheduled in a common search space (CSS), providing a single acknowledgement bit for the entire transport block (TB), or in a user equipment-specific search space (USS), providing individual acknowledgement bits for smaller code block groups (CBGs).

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Wang - Claims 1-5 are obvious over Wang.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wang (Patent 11,206,108).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Wang teaches a method for enhancing data transmission performance that directly corresponds to the challenged claims. Wang explicitly disclosed adopting a "single bit HARQ-ACK feedback method" for Downlink Control Information (DCI) in a common search space (CSS) and a "multi-bit HARQ-ACK feedback method" for DCI in a user-specific search space (USS). This teaching allegedly maps directly to the core limitations of independent claims 1, 3, 4, and 5, which require differentiating HARQ-ACK feedback (one bit per TB vs. one bit per CBG) based on the scheduling search space (CSS vs. USS). For dependent claim 2, Petitioner asserted that Wang's disclosure of a UE processor that determines a method for dividing code blocks and generates HARQ-ACK information inherently teaches the claimed "determining circuitry" configured to determine a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) resource.
    • Motivation to Combine: As this ground relies on a single reference, Petitioner contended the motivation was inherent in Wang's stated purpose of enhancing data transmission performance. A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have recognized that applying Wang's disclosed method of differentiating HARQ-ACK feedback based on search space would predictably improve system efficiency.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that because Wang explicitly described the claimed method, a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in implementing it.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Yang - Claims 1-5 are obvious over Yang.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Yang (Patent 11,012,221) and its priority document, the ’048 application.
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Yang, like Wang, independently rendered the claims obvious. Yang allegedly taught configuring HARQ-ACK feedback based on whether a transmission is scheduled in a CSS or USS. For CSS-based transmissions, Yang disclosed that a "TB-unit retransmission scheduling and per-TB (TB level) A/N feedback operation is applicable/configurable." Conversely, for transmissions "based not on CSS but on USS," Yang disclosed that a "CBG-unit retransmission scheduling and per-CGB A/N feedback configuration operation is applicable/configurable." Petitioner contended this directly taught the central limitations of claims 1, 3, 4, and 5. For dependent claim 2, Petitioner argued that Yang's teaching that an "A/N payload size and a corresponding PUCCH format can be set" based on the number of CBGs satisfied the "determining circuitry" limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted the motivation was inherent in Yang's disclosure, which aimed to create a flexible and efficient HARQ-ACK feedback mechanism for different scheduling scenarios in advanced wireless systems. A POSITA would have been motivated to implement Yang's teachings to balance feedback overhead and retransmission granularity.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner claimed a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because Yang provided a clear and detailed framework for differentiating HARQ-ACK feedback based on the scheduling search space, directly addressing the problem solved by the ’443 patent.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny institution. Under 35 U.S.C. §325(d), Petitioner contended denial was improper because the primary prior art references, Wang and Yang, were never considered during prosecution. Regarding discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) and the Fintiv factors, Petitioner asserted that the petition presented compelling merits and that Petitioners stipulated they would not pursue the same invalidity grounds in the parallel district court litigation. Petitioner further argued that the litigation was in its early stages, with the trial scheduled for March 2025, well after the projected institution date, minimizing any concerns of inefficiency or conflicting decisions.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-5 of the ’443 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.