PTAB

IPR2025-00449

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. Vasu Holdings LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Mobile Communication Device and Method of Controlling Same
  • Brief Description: The ’281 patent describes a mobile communication device capable of performing wireless handover between different networks, such as a cellular network and a Wi-Fi network. The purported invention involves a multi-step process for switching from Wi-Fi to cellular, which uses a timer to establish a time window for measuring Wi-Fi signal strength and compares it against two different, predefined thresholds to trigger the handover.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness of Claim 23 over Enzmann, Dorenbosch, Chaskar, and Willhoff

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Enzmann (Application # 2005/0136927), Dorenbosch (Application # 2005/0048977), Chaskar (Application # 2004/0137902), and Willhoff (Patent 6,049,715).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of these references taught all elements of claim 23. Enzmann was asserted to disclose a basic framework for a mobile device with two communication modules (cellular and 802.1x) and a system for switching between them based on signal strength. Dorenbosch was cited for teaching dual-mode hardware with transceivers that could be placed in a sleep mode to conserve power. Critically, Chaskar was argued to teach the specific multi-step, dual-threshold handover logic that formed the basis of the ’281 patent’s allowance. Chaskar described detecting when a Wi-Fi signal falls below a first threshold (Th2), initiating a potential handoff, and then measuring again within a second time window to see if it falls below a second, lower threshold (Th3) before completing the switch to cellular. Finally, Willhoff was alleged to teach using a timer to establish specific time windows for averaging signal strength to ensure robust measurements.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Enzmann’s basic handover system with Dorenbosch’s power-saving sleep mode features for the obvious benefit of improving battery life. A POSITA would then incorporate Chaskar’s dual-threshold logic into this system to improve handover reliability and reduce spurious handoffs, a well-known problem. Finally, a POSITA would look to Willhoff to provide a known and predictable method—using a timer to define measurement windows—for implementing Chaskar’s signal strength averaging concept.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination involved applying known solutions from analogous art to address predictable problems in wireless network handovers.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claim 45 over Iizuka, Chaskar, and Willhoff

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Iizuka (Application # 2005/0282541), Chaskar (’902 application), and Willhoff (’715 patent).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended this combination rendered method claim 45 obvious. Iizuka was argued to disclose a method for handing over a call from a wireless LAN to a telephone network when signal quality deteriorates. Iizuka’s system included a "call-management server" that functions as the claimed "interface server," which establishes a second communication link (the voice call) without disrupting the first communication link (the VoIP call). This new link is then re-directed to the mobile device. As in Ground 1, Chaskar was used to supply the specific dual-threshold (Th2, Th3) signal strength comparison logic to replace Iizuka’s more general "call quality deteriorates" trigger. Willhoff was again relied upon for its teaching of using a timer to establish the time windows for Chaskar’s signal strength measurements.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to modify Iizuka’s system with Chaskar’s more precise, dual-threshold triggering mechanism to enhance handover reliability and prevent premature switching. The motivation to then incorporate Willhoff was to provide a standard, well-understood implementation detail (a timer) for the signal strength measurement windows described in Chaskar, thereby making the system more robust.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued success would have been predictable, as the combination merely integrated known techniques from the same field to improve the performance of a network handover system in a conventional manner.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges (Grounds 3 and 4) based on the combinations of Grounds 1 and 2, respectively, in further view of Donovan (Application # 2005/0063348). Donovan was cited for its explicit disclosure of a communication module transitioning between a "sleep mode" and an "active mode" to further support the arguments related to power management.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) was improper because the primary references relied upon (Enzmann, Dorenbosch, Willhoff, Iizuka, Donovan) were never considered during prosecution. Although Chaskar was previously cited, it was not considered in the specific combinations asserted in the petition, which present a new and more complete obviousness rationale that the Examiner did not have an opportunity to evaluate.
  • Petitioner also argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv factors based on a co-pending district court case. It was asserted that the case is in its very early stages, with a trial date set for November 2025, well after the statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision (FWD) in the IPR. Petitioner stated its intent to seek a stay of the litigation pending the outcome of the IPR.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 23 and 45 of Patent 10,368,281 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.