PTAB

IPR2025-00762

OnePlus Technology Shenzhen Co Ltd v. Pantech Corp

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and apparatus for sequential forwarding considering multi-flow in dual connectivity system
  • Brief Description: The ’573 patent discloses methods and user equipment (UE) for managing data reception in wireless systems supporting dual connectivity, where a UE receives multi-flow data from both a macro base station (eNB) and a small eNB. To address out-of-sequence packet delivery inherent in such systems, the patent proposes using an "in-sequence timer" at the Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) layer, which starts when a packet is missed, to wait for its arrival before delivering data sequentially to upper layers.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Koskinen - Claims 1-5 and 8-12 are obvious over Koskinen

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Koskinen (Application # 2014/0301362).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Koskinen teaches all limitations of the challenged claims. Koskinen discloses a dual-connectivity Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN) system where a UE receives data from a source eNB (macro station) and a target eNB (small station) over two independent radio links. This setup can lead to data gaps, which Koskinen addresses by repurposing a reordering timer from the Radio Link Control (RLC) layer for use in the higher PDCP layer. Petitioner contended this PDCP timer is the claimed "in-sequence timer." Koskinen further discloses that the timer's expiry value can be configured by Radio Resource Control (RRC) messages sent from the source eNB, satisfying the claim requirement of receiving timer information from the macro base station.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This is a single-reference ground. However, Petitioner argued that for limitations requiring the RRC message to include a specific PDCP-configuration Information Element (IE) with a field for the timer value, it would have been an obvious design choice for a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA). A POSITA implementing Koskinen's RRC-configurable timer would have naturally used a standard IE structure, as specified in 3GPP standards, to convey the timer value, requiring only routine skill.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because using an IE field to configure a timer via an RRC message was a well-known, conventional technique that would yield the predictable result of setting the timer's duration in the UE.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Koskinen and Sammour - Claims 1-5 and 8-12 are obvious over Koskinen in view of Sammour

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Koskinen (Application # 2014/0301362) and Sammour (Application # 2009/0149189).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative in case Koskinen is found not to render obvious the limitations requiring a PDCP-configuration IE with a specific field for the timer value. Koskinen provides the foundational dual-connectivity system with an RRC-configurable PDCP reordering timer. Sammour, which addresses configuring PDCP sub-layers in LTE systems, explicitly discloses using IEs within RRC messages for this purpose. Specifically, Sammour teaches a "Flush Timer IE" to indicate the value of a timer that the UE should use for reordering, directly supplying the missing limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA seeking to implement the RRC-configurable timer described in Koskinen would combine it with Sammour's teachings. Both references are in the same technical field (LTE communication protocols) and address the same problem of configuring PDCP layer functions. A POSITA would combine them to use Sammour's reliable and standardized IE-based method to deliver the timer value required by Koskinen's system.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involves applying a known configuration technique (Sammour's IEs) to a system that already contemplates such timers and RRC configuration (Koskinen), which is a straightforward integration of compatible concepts.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Deenoo and Sammour - Claims 1-5 and 8-12 are obvious over Deenoo in view of Sammour

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Deenoo (Application # 2016/0021581) and Sammour (Application # 2009/0149189).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Deenoo serves as an alternative primary reference, disclosing a dual-connectivity system where a single data radio bearer is split between a macro and a small cell. Deenoo explicitly teaches a PDCP "re-ordering algorithm" at the UE that uses a timer, which is started upon detection of an out-of-sequence packet. This maps directly to the core invention of the ’573 patent. As in Ground 2, Sammour was cited to explicitly teach the use of a "Flush Timer IE" within an RRC message to provide the timer's value to the UE, a detail Petitioner argued is at least implicitly taught by Deenoo's disclosure of RRC-based configuration.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA implementing Deenoo's PDCP reordering timer would combine it with Sammour's explicit disclosure of using IEs to configure such timers. The motivation is strong as both references are directed to enhancing LTE system functionality, address PDCP layer configuration in dual-connectivity scenarios, and were assigned to the same entity. The combination provides a complete, workable system using established techniques.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Success would be expected, as the combination merely applies Sammour's specific and well-understood RRC messaging technique to configure the reordering timer already contemplated by Deenoo's system architecture and algorithms.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d), noting that the prior art asserted in the petition was not cited or considered during the original examination and is therefore not cumulative.
  • Petitioner also argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv. It contended that the scheduled trial date in the parallel district court litigation (E.D. Tex.) is late April 2026, which is around the same time as or later than the projected Final Written Decision (FWD) in this IPR. Petitioner asserted that court investment has been minimal and that it has offered a broad stipulation not to pursue in the district court any invalidity ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in the IPR, mitigating concerns of duplicative efforts and conflicting decisions.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-5 and 8-12 of Patent 10,863,573 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.