Apple Inc v. Apex Beam Technologies LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00894
• Patent #: 10,462,767
• Filed: May 1, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Apple Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Xiaobo Zhang
• Challenged Claims: 1-20

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Method and Device in UE and Base Station Used for Paging
• Brief Description: The ’767 patent discloses methods for paging a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system that supports multiple numerologies (i.e., different subcarrier spacings). The invention determines paging opportunities based on the specific numerology being used, involving monitoring a first signaling in designated time intervals to schedule a paging message.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Yeo and TS36 - Claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 14-16, 19, and 20 are obvious over Yeo in view of TS36.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Yeo (Patent 10,491,447) and TS36 (3GPP Technical Specification 36.304).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Yeo taught the core concepts of the independent claims, including a paging method in a 5G system supporting multiple numerologies. Yeo disclosed using a control channel signal (PDCCH), the claimed "first signaling," to schedule a data channel signal (PDSCH) carrying a paging message, the claimed "first radio signal." This occurred during specific time intervals called paging occasions (POs). However, Petitioner contended that Yeo lacked specific implementation details for how a UE determines its particular POs. TS36, an established 4G/LTE standard, allegedly supplied these missing details. It provided explicit formulas that use a UE identifier (UE_ID) and system bandwidth location to calculate the exact POs a UE must monitor, thereby teaching the limitation of using a subband's location to determine the monitoring time intervals.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to implement the 5G paging system described in Yeo, which Yeo itself stated was based on LTE principles, would combine it with the well-known LTE standard, TS36. This combination would be necessary to fill in the specific, essential implementation details that Yeo omitted, thereby creating a functional system.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have a high expectation of success because combining the general 5G framework of Yeo with the specific, standardized formulas of TS36 would predictably result in a working paging system where each UE can identify its unique paging occasions.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Yeo, TS36, and Mallick - Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, and 18 are obvious over Yeo, TS36, and Mallick.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Yeo (Patent 10,491,447), TS36 (3GPP Technical Specification 36.304), and Mallick (WO 2016/136143).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the Yeo and TS36 combination to address dependent claims related to organizing paging occasions into multiple time windows. Petitioner argued that Mallick taught an improved paging procedure for Coverage Enhancement (CE), particularly for Machine-Type Communication (MTC) devices. Mallick disclosed organizing paging opportunities into larger Discontinuous Reception (DRX) cycles containing an integer number of radio frames. This structure directly mapped to claim limitations requiring a "first time window" to belong to one of "Z time windows." Mallick further taught determining these paging occasions using a UE_ID, satisfying limitations requiring a "feature ID" to determine the monitoring intervals within the larger cycle.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, having combined Yeo and TS36, would be motivated to incorporate Mallick's teachings to improve the system's efficiency, especially for MTC/mMTC devices which Yeo also discusses. Mallick’s method of creating distinct CE paging possibilities advantageously reduced network burden and UE power consumption, providing a clear reason for its inclusion to enhance the base system.
  • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because Mallick's system was designed to be compatible with the 3GPP framework and used the same fundamental formulas as TS36 to determine paging occasions. Integrating Mallick's CE scheduling improvements into the Yeo-TS36 base system would be a straightforward and predictable enhancement.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued that the terms "receiver module" (in claim 11) and "transmitter module" (in claim 16) should be construed as means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
• Petitioner identified the claimed functions as "to monitor" and "to receive" for the receiver modules, and "to transmit" for the transmitter modules, and pointed to corresponding structures in the ’767 patent specification, such as a transmitter/receiver, processor, and antenna.
• Petitioner also maintained that the challenged claims are rendered obvious by the prior art regardless of whether these specific constructions are adopted or if the terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and the cancellation of claims 1-20 of Patent 10,462,767 as unpatentable.