PTAB

IPR2025-01565

Samsung Electronics America Inc v. Massively Broadband LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Wireless Device with Multiband Antenna
  • Brief Description: The ’763 patent describes a wireless device that uses a single multiband antenna to transmit and receive signals across a plurality of different frequency bands. The technology aims to eliminate the need for multiple antennas in a single device, particularly for simultaneous communication.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground I: Anticipation/Obviousness over Wen - Claims 1-3 and 5 are anticipated by or obvious over Wen.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wen (European Pat. App. No. 1,914,835).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Wen disclosed all elements of the challenged claims. Wen described a mobile wireless device with a single "common antenna" used by a "plurality of wireless radio frequency (RF) transceivers," each operating at a different frequency. Petitioner asserted this met the limitations of an antenna used by multiple transceivers in different bands. Furthermore, Petitioner contended that Wen's antenna was tuned using passive elements ("leg portions" of a patch antenna) that were selected via electronic control, as a controller selectively operated transceivers connected to different feed points on the antenna, thereby tuning its operating frequency.
    • Key Aspects: This ground asserted that Wen's disclosure of using a controller to selectively connect transceivers to different parts of the antenna either directly taught or rendered obvious both an "actively tuned antenna" and an antenna "tuned by one or more passive elements which are selected or interconnected using electronic control."

Ground II: Obviousness over Wen, Ella, and Govind - Claims 6-15 are obvious over Wen in view of Ella and Govind.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wen (European Pat. App. No. 1,914,835), Ella (Patent 7,786,819), and Govind (Patent 7,489,914).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon Wen's wireless device by modifying it with teachings from Govind and Ella. Petitioner argued it would have been obvious to replace Wen's plurality of single-band transceivers with a "multi-band transceiver" as taught by Govind. For the limitations requiring a tuner and controller, Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would incorporate the tuner and controller system from Ella, which disclosed an apparatus for adaptively tuning an antenna to optimize impedance matching. The resulting combination allegedly met all limitations of claims 6-15.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Wen and Govind to achieve the well-understood benefits of miniaturization and component reduction by using a single multiband transceiver instead of multiple separate ones. A POSITA would then be motivated to add Ella's tuner to this system to improve performance, a known technique for optimizing power transfer and signal strength in multiband antenna systems.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a high expectation of success, as combining well-known components like multiband transceivers and tuners with a standard multiband antenna system involved routine engineering and would have produced predictable results.

Ground III: Obviousness over Rubinshteyn and Wen - Claims 1-3 and 5 are obvious over Rubinshteyn in view of Wen.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Rubinshteyn (Application # 2004/0125027) and Wen (European Pat. App. No. 1,914,835).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Rubinshteyn disclosed a wireless device with a tunable, multiband planar antenna that could operate on two frequencies simultaneously using a single transmitter and receiver. Rubinshteyn also disclosed tuning the antenna with passive elements (capacitors and inductors) selected by a controller. Petitioner asserted that to the extent Rubinshteyn's single transmitter/receiver pair did not meet the "plurality of transmitters, receivers or transceivers" limitation, a POSITA would look to Wen. Wen explicitly taught using a plurality of distinct transceivers with a shared multiband antenna.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a POSITA designing a multiband wireless system would have recognized that using a single multiband transceiver (as in Rubinshteyn) or a plurality of single-band transceivers (as in Wen) were two known, finite, and predictable design alternatives. A POSITA would have been motivated to substitute Wen's plurality-of-transceivers architecture into Rubinshteyn’s device to meet specific design constraints, a simple and obvious modification.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as a straightforward substitution of one known transceiver configuration for another in an otherwise compatible multiband antenna system, leading to a high expectation of success.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including grounds based on Rubinshteyn in view of Ella, and further combinations that incorporated Vlahos (Patent 5,926,751) to teach RF isolation elements for claim 16. These grounds relied on similar motivations to combine known components to achieve predictable improvements.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "isolation means for isolating said one or more components from more than one particular frequency band..." (Claim 16): Petitioner argued this term was a means-plus-function limitation under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §112, Paragraph 6.
    • Function: "isolating said one or more components from more than one particular frequency band of said plurality of frequency bands."
    • Structure: Petitioner identified the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification as "circuitry that provides overload protection, shielding, and/or filters out unwanted bands." This construction was central to Petitioner's argument that prior art filters, such as those in Vlahos, provided the structure for the claimed function.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-17 of the ’763 patent as unpatentable.