PTAB

IPR2025-01595

Samsung Electronics America Inc v. Massively Broadband LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Ultrawideband Wireless Repeater
  • Brief Description: The ’754 patent discloses an ultrawideband (UWB) radio transceiver/repeater system designed to merge wired and wireless networks. The system functions to repeat data signals to extend wireless access to broadband sources, such as the internet, while providing network management and traffic flow control.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Ganz and Larrick - Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15, and 20-26 are obvious over Ganz in view of Larrick.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ganz (Patent 6,584,080) and Larrick (Patent 7,209,523).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Ganz teaches a complete wireless repeater system comprising transceivers, a controller, and software for network management functions like filtering and monitoring. However, Ganz does not explicitly disclose the high-speed and wide-bandwidth performance recited in claim 1. Larrick, which describes an ultra-wideband transceiver, was alleged to supply these missing elements by teaching operation at "data rates in the hundreds of megabits per second" and with bandwidths of 400 MHz, satisfying the claim limitations of "100 Megabits per second or more" and "100 MHz or more."
    • Motivation to Combine: The petition argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Larrick’s high-performance UWB capabilities with Ganz’s established repeater framework. The motivation stemmed from a clear industry trend toward higher data rates and improved spectral efficiency in wireless communications. Incorporating Larrick’s technology would predictably improve the data speed and signal propagation of the Ganz system.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both references operate in the same field of wireless communications, and Larrick provides sufficient technical detail to enable its implementation into a system like that described in Ganz without undue experimentation.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Ganz, Larrick, and Engels - Claims 14 and 19 are obvious over Ganz and Larrick in further view of Engels.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ganz (Patent 6,584,080), Larrick (Patent 7,209,523), and Engels (International Publication No. WO 03/058850).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the Ganz/Larrick combination by adding Engels to teach specific, advanced features. For claim 14, Petitioner argued that Engels explicitly discloses "multiple input multiple output (MIMO) systems," meeting the limitation of employing MIMO or adaptive antenna technology. For claim 19, Petitioner contended that Engels teaches communication in various wireless environments, including "wireless radio telecommunication networks" such as CDMA and TDMA, thereby disclosing operation in a cellular network as recited.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Engels because MIMO and beamforming were well-known, conventional technologies used to improve signal reliability, minimize errors, and increase bandwidth. Adding these conventional techniques to the high-speed Ganz/Larrick repeater was presented as a logical step to enhance its performance and robustness.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a high expectation of success, as implementing well-understood, standard technologies like MIMO into a wireless communication system was a routine design choice for a POSITA at the time.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Ganz, Larrick, and Perlman - Claims 7 and 15-18 are obvious over Ganz and Larrick in further view of Perlman.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ganz (Patent 6,584,080), Larrick (Patent 7,209,523), and Perlman (Application # 2004/0160928).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground adds Perlman to the base combination to address claims related to coverage, environmental adaptability, and automated configuration. Petitioner asserted Perlman teaches using repeaters to solve signal degradation issues, thereby achieving "full range coverage" (claim 7). Perlman was also cited for its disclosure of a "self-configuring feature" where a processor automatically optimizes channel assignments (claim 15) and for its description of providing network connectivity to mobile users in indoor, outdoor, and moving platform environments (claims 16-18).
    • Motivation to Combine: The petition argued a POSITA would be motivated to integrate Perlman’s teachings to solve common, known problems in wireless networking. Applying Perlman’s solutions for extending coverage, automating setup, and ensuring connectivity in various environments would predictably improve the utility and commercial appeal of the base Ganz/Larrick repeater system.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in this combination because Perlman's teachings represented known solutions to known problems, and their implementation would have been well within the skill of an ordinary artisan.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-26 of the ’754 patent as unpatentable.