PTAB

IPR2025-01419

Google LLC v. Telcom Ventures LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Adaptive Enablement of Communications Modes
  • Brief Description: The ’199 patent relates to systems and methods for adaptively enabling communication modes on a smartphone based on satisfying a proximity criterion with an external entity. The technology allows a smartphone to use a short-range air interface to communicate with the entity while separately using a different, long-range air interface for network communication services.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-19 are obvious over Barnett in view of Waters.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Barnett (Application # 2009/0170483) and Waters (International Publication No. WO 2006/087503).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Barnett disclosed the core limitations of independent claims 1 and 10. Barnett taught a smartphone using a first air interface (NFC) to communicate with an in-store entity (an NFC-enabled display) for shopping and payment functions. The same smartphone also used a second, different air interface (cellular network) to receive communication services, with the entity functioning independently of the cellular service. Petitioner contended that Barnett’s disclosure of bringing the phone "proximate" to an NFC display satisfied the "detecting a proximity condition" limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that Barnett did not explicitly disclose triggering the short-range communication in response to a "physiological parameter." To supply this limitation, Petitioner turned to Waters, which taught enhancing the security of NFC transactions by selectively enabling the NFC tag only upon sensing a physiological parameter, such as a user's fingerprint or the heat from their hand. A POSITA would combine Waters' security feature with Barnett's retail transaction system to improve security and prevent unauthorized NFC access, a known problem in the art. The combination would have been a predictable solution to improve the security of the system disclosed by Barnett.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both references related to NFC-enabled mobile devices for transactions and involved the straightforward application of a known security technique (physiological sensors from Waters) to an existing system (Barnett's retail environment).

Ground 2: Claims 3 and 13 are obvious over Barnett and Waters in view of Wang.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Barnett (Application # 2009/0170483), Waters (WO 2006/087503), and Wang (Application # 2007/0286147).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Barnett and Waters from Ground 1 to address claims 3 and 13, which further required the second air interface (i.e., the cellular network) to be based on an Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexed (OFDM) and/or Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) protocol. Petitioner argued that while the Barnett/Waters combination provided the base system, Wang supplied the missing element by teaching the use of OFDM/OFDMA protocols for cellular networking to improve frequency spectrum utilization and efficiency.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a POSITA would be motivated to improve the performance of the cellular communication system in the device disclosed by Barnett and Waters. Wang taught that OFDM/OFDMA provided a more flexible and efficient method for bandwidth assignment in cellular networks. Therefore, a POSITA would have looked to Wang to implement a known and beneficial protocol to improve the performance, reliability, and efficiency of the underlying cellular communications in the primary combination.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected as it involved integrating a well-known, standardized cellular communication protocol (OFDM/OFDMA from Wang) into the known cellular system of Barnett to achieve the predictable benefit of improved network performance.

Ground 3: Claims 5 and 15 are obvious over Barnett and Waters in view of Sakamoto.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Barnett (Application # 2009/0170483), Waters (WO 2006/087503), and Sakamoto (Application # 2007/0026893).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground also built upon the Barnett and Waters combination, adding Sakamoto to address claims 5 and 15. These claims required that detecting the proximity condition be based, at least in part, on a "measurement of signal strength of the short-range signal." Petitioner contended that Sakamoto explicitly taught an NFC circuit with a "radio-signal strength determining means" to measure the strength of a received RF signal. In Sakamoto, communication was only allowed if the measured signal strength exceeded a predetermined threshold, ensuring the devices were close enough for a reliable connection.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing the Barnett/Waters system would have been motivated to enhance the reliability and security of the NFC connection. Sakamoto provided a known solution to a known problem: initiating communication only when a signal is sufficiently strong prevents data corruption from noise and reduces the risk of dropped connections during a transaction. A POSITA would combine Sakamoto's signal-strength measurement technique with the Barnett/Waters system to ensure a stable and reliable NFC link before transmitting sensitive information.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in implementing this modification, as it involved incorporating a known diagnostic technique (measuring signal strength from Sakamoto) into a known communication system (NFC from Barnett/Waters) to achieve the predictable result of enhanced connection reliability.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-19 of the ’199 patent as unpatentable.