PTAB

IPR2025-00293

Google LLC v. Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and Apparatus for Transmitting Channel State Information
  • Brief Description: The ’161 patent discloses methods for a User Equipment (UE) to transmit channel state information to a base station. The invention focuses on configuring a Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) index table to support higher-order 256-state quadrature amplitude modulation (256QAM) for 5G communications by defining specific code rate values for 256QAM, in addition to legacy modulation schemes.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Xia and 3GPP - Claims 1-6 are obvious over Xia in view of 3GPP TS 36.213.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Xia (International Publication No. WO 2014/194681) and 3GPP TS 36.213 v.10.4 (“3GPP 36.213”).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Xia discloses a nearly identical invention. Specifically, Xia teaches a method for a UE to transmit channel quality information using a predetermined CQI table that is updated to support 256QAM. Petitioner asserted that Xia’s “Table 6-3” discloses a CQI table containing every key feature of the challenged claims, including four CQI index values for 256QAM with the exact same minimum (711) and maximum (948) code rate values claimed in the ’161 patent. The only material difference identified by Petitioner is that for the intermediate CQI index 13, Xia discloses a code rate value of 790, whereas the ’161 patent claims a value of 797. Petitioner contended that this minor difference does not confer patentability, as Xia explicitly teaches flexibility by allowing for “approximately” constant intervals between CQI entries, rather than requiring precise values. Furthermore, Petitioner noted that the ’161 patent itself states the 797 value "may be configured," implying it is one of several possibilities and not a critical value. Petitioner argued that 3GPP 36.213, a foundational standard for LTE systems, discloses the standard use of reference signals for channel quality measurement, directly corresponding to limitations in the claims not explicitly detailed in Xia.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) seeking to implement the LTE-based system of Xia would have been motivated to consult the relevant 3GPP standards, such as 3GPP 36.213, to ensure compliance and understand standard implementation details. This would have led a POSITA to use the reference signal techniques taught by 3GPP 36.213 for measuring channel quality within Xia’s framework. The primary motivation for modifying Xia’s disclosed 790 code rate to the claimed 797 value was presented as a simple design choice. Given that Xia teaches the same 256QAM parameters (four entries with endpoints of 711 and 948) and allows for "approximate" intervals, selecting a slightly different intermediate value like 797 would have been an obvious and routine optimization.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success. Combining the 3GPP 36.213 standard with Xia’s system would be a straightforward and predictable integration of a known standard with a compatible system. Similarly, substituting the 790 code rate value with 797 was argued to be a predictable adjustment, as the art recognized a range of acceptable values for intermediate CQI entries, and the difference between 790 and 797 is minimal and falls within an acceptable tolerance for such design.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • §314(a) (Fintiv): Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv, asserting that the parallel district court litigation is in its early stages with minimal investment from the court. Key events like the claim construction hearing are not scheduled until March 2025, and the trial date is a distant and uncertain September 8, 2025. Petitioner contended these factors, combined with the strong merits of the petition, weigh heavily in favor of institution.
  • §325(d): Petitioner argued that denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) is inappropriate because the examiner committed a material error during prosecution by failing to consider Xia as a primary reference. The examiner was never presented with, and did not consider, the key argument that Xia’s Table 6-3 discloses a nearly identical CQI table to the one claimed. The prior art combination relied upon by the examiner was substantially different and did not present the same straightforward obviousness case as the grounds in the petition. This failure to appreciate the full scope of Xia's disclosure, Petitioner argued, constitutes a material error justifying review.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-6 of Patent 10,009,161 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.