Research in Motion Corporationv.Wi-Lan USA Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2013

08265096 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2013)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 8
571-272-7822 Entered: July 29, 2013

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

RESEARCH IN MOTION CORPORATION
Petitioner,

v.

WI-LAN USA INC.
Patent Owner.

Case IPR2013-00125
Patent 5,515,369

Before JAMESON LEE, GLENN J. PERRY, and THOMAS L. GIANNETTI,
Administrative Patent Judges.

PERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
37 C.F.R. § 42.108

Case IPR2013-00125
Patent 5,515,369

2
I. INTRODUCTION

Research in Motion Corporation (“RIM”) filed a petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
requesting inter partes review of claims 5-7 and 9 of Patent 5,515,369 (Ex. 1001,
“the ’369 patent”). Patent Owner, Wi-LAN, Inc. (“Wi-LAN”), filed a preliminary
response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”) on April 30, 2013. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 314.
The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C.
§ 314(a), which provides as follows:
THRESHOLD -- The Director may not authorize an inter partes
review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any
response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable
likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of
the claims challenged in the petition.
Upon consideration of the petition and Wi-LAN’s preliminary response, we
determine that the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that RIM
would prevail on at least one alleged ground of unpatentability with respect to
claims 5-7 and 9 of the ’369 patent. Accordingly, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we
do not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted on any of claims 5-7 and 9.
Therefore, the petition for instituting inter partes review is not granted.
A. Related Proceedings
RIM indicates that the following litigation would affect or be affected by a
decision in this proceeding: Wi-LAN USA Inc. et al. v. Research In Motion Ltd., et
al., Case No. 12-cv-20232 (S.D. Fla.).
Case IPR2013-00125
Patent 5,515,369

3
B. The ’369 Patent (Ex. 1001)
The ‘369 Patent relates to wireless communication among plural nodes of a
network, e.g., a mesh network. It describes a technique for establishing a multi-
channel hopping band plan for a node of a communication network. Ex. 1001 at
1:6-12. Each node has a receiver and a transmitter. Ex. 1001 at Abstract. A target
(receiving) node develops its own unique channel hopping band plan (“band plan”)
and communicates that band plan to a source (transmitting) node which then stores
the band plan in a link list table and uses it to send messages to the target node.
Id., Abstract. The band plan is communicated by the target node to the source
node by sending data (node-specific seed value and channel punchout mask) to the
source node that enables the source node to re-create the target node’s band plan.
Ex. 1001 at 4:14-16. Development of a unique band plan for a node is explained
with reference to Fig. 2 of the ’369 Patent, which is reproduced below.
Case IP
Patent 5

A
These n
Patent 4
unaccep
“X’d” o
“puncho
are repr
31. The
constitu
using ra
R2013-00
,515,369
list of net
etwork ch
:19-21. U
table inter
ut channel
ut mask”
esented by
order of c
ting the ba
ndom num
125
work chan
annels are
ndesirable
ference) a
s in a list 3
20. Ex. 10
a list 40 o
hannels in
nd plan. E
bers gene
Fig. 2
nels 10 is
monitored
channels
re exclude
0. Chann
01 at 4:26
f “availab
list 40 is
x. 1001 a
rated by se
4
of the ‘36
organized
by a node
(e.g., dete
d from the
els exclud
-28. Chan
le channel
randomize
t 4:32-36.
eding a ps
9 patent
in a natur
developin
rmined by
plan bein
ed (X’d ou
nels rema
s” for the
d to form
Randomi
eudo-rand
al order of
g a band p
the target
g develope
t) are ind
ining after
node. Ex.
a list of ch
zation is c
om numb
frequenci
lan. ‘369
node to ha
d. See Fi
icated by a
exclusion
1001 at 4:
annels 50
arried out
er generato

es.

ve
g. 2,

s
29-

r
Case IPR2013-00125
Patent 5,515,369

5
with a unique seed value associated with the node developing the band plan. Ex.
1001 at 4:37-53. To communicate its band plan to other nodes, a node, having
developed a plan, need only communicate its unique seed value and its punchout
mask indicating which channels are to be eliminated before re-ordering the list 40
of channels. For example, using the unique seed value and channel punchout mask
associated with node A, node B can reconstruct node A’s band plan and use it
whenever node B wants to send a message to node A.
Claim 5, the only independent claim at issue, is reproduced below, with
emphasis on disputed terms. It explains how a node develops its unique channel
hopping band plan.
5. In a node operable on a communications network
having a plurality of shared-medium channels and having
a plurality of channel-agile nodes each node capable of
transmitting and receiving data over a plurality of said
channels, a method for establishing a unique channel-
hopping band plan for that node and communicating that
band plan to other nodes in the network comprising the
steps of:

a) assigning to that node a unique seed value;

b) determining a channel punchout mask, said mask
indicating those channels on which the node experiences
interference or is otherwise unable to receive data;

c) applying said mask to a list of network channels to
eliminate undesirable channels and therefore to obtain a
list of available node channels;

d) randomizing said list of available node channels by
Case IPR2013-00125
Patent 5,515,369

6
using a deterministic pseudorandom number generator
seeded with said seed value thereby obtaining a unique
channel-hopping band plan; and

e) communicating said unique channel-hopping band
plan to other nodes in the network by transmitting data
from which said other nodes may derive said unique
channel-hopping band plan.

C. Prior Art Relied Upon by Petitioner1
RIM relies upon the following prior art references:

Munday Patent 5,377,221 Filed 5/10/1985 (Ex. 1002)

Jackson “Advanced HF
Anti-Jam Network
Architecture”

1990 (Ex. 1003)
Flammer Patent 5,079,768 Filed 9/11/1990 (Ex. 1004)

D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
RIM alleges that claims 5-7 and 9 are unpatentable based on the following
grounds:
1. Claim 5 is anticipated by Munday under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e);

1 The petition relies on the testimony of Michael Pursley, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1005).
Case IPR2013-00125
Patent 5,515,369

7
2. Claims 5 and 72 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness
over Munday;
3. Claims 5 and 9 are anticipated by Jackson under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b);
4. Claim 7 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over
Jackson;
5. Claim 6 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over
Jackson and Flammer.

II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
Consistent with the statute and the legislative history of the AIA, the Board
interprets claim terms by applying the broadest reasonable construction in the
context of the specification in which the claims reside. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see
Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012).

2 Although Petitioner does not style an argument directed to the obviousness of
claim 5, argument nonetheless is presented in the discussion of claim 5 over
Munday, urging that a “channel punchout mask” would have been obvious. We
regard that argument as an obviousness assertion of claim 5 over Munday.
Case IPR2013-00125
Patent 5,515,369

8
channel punchout mask
Petitioner correctly points out that the ‘369 patent does not define “channel
punchout mask” specifically. Petitioner argues for a construction of “channel
punchout mask” that does not require any particular structure. Petition at 5.
Petitioner points to a portion of the prosecution history for the ‘369 patent.
During prosecution, Patent Owner distinguished the claimed channel punchout
mask from Pirillo’s3 “dynamic table” by saying that the channel punchout mask
was determined at the receiving end [of a transmission] and then communicated to
potential transmitting nodes.
Patent Owner argues in its Preliminary Response that Petitioner’s
construction of “channel punchout mask” is too broad and is inconsistent with
Petitioner’s argument made in the parallel litigation. Patent owner presents the
following chart contrasting the two constructions. Prelim. Resp. at 6.

3 U.S. 5,361,401, a reference applied during original prosecution.
Case IPR2013-00125
Patent 5,515,369

9
Our broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification is that a
“channel punchout mask” includes any coded information that communicates that
certain members of a set of channels are available and certain members of the set
of channels are not available. The claims impose limitations as to the manner in
which the channel punchout mask is used, but we do not read those limitations into
the term “channel punchout mask.” Our construction of “channel punchout mask”
does not require any particular format as long as it conveys information indicating
which channels are available and which are not available. The term “channel
punchout mask” itself does not require the use of “1s” and “0s” to indicate which
channels are available and which channels are not available.

unique seed value
Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner suggests any specific construction for
the term “unique seed value.” However, we construe this claim term in order to
apply the cited prior art.
Petitioner makes at least two statements with regard to “unique seed value.”
Petitioner states that for a pseudo-random number generator to generate a unique
pseudo-random sequence, the generator must be supplied with a unique seed value.
Petition at 6, citing to the Pursley Declaration (Ex. 1005) ¶ 18. Petitioner further
states that the application of different seed values to a pseudo-random number
generator results in different pseudo-random sequences. Petition at 5- 6, citing to
Pursley Declaration ¶ 19. We have no reason to disagree with these statements.
Our broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification is that a
“unique seed value” is a seed value different from all other seed values as used in
Case IPR2013-00125
Patent 5,515,369

10
context. Claim 5 requires certain action occurring “in a node.” Limitation (a)
requires “assigning to that node a unique seed value.” We interpret that as
requiring that the seed value assigned to that node must be different from the seed
value assigned to any other node of the plurality of nodes in the communications
network.

III. PROPOSED GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
A. Claim 5 anticipated by Munday (Ex. 1002)
Munday describes a frequency hopping radio communication system having
a plurality of radios. Ex. 1002, Abstract. When a radio is not transmitting or
receiving, it monitors the signal strength of signals being transmitted on each of the
available hop channels to assess a level of interference. Id. It selects a subset of
available hop channels having the lowest interference levels and stores a list of
channels so identified. Id. When the radio is ready to transmit a message, it first
transmits its list of channels. After the channel list has been sent, the transmitting
radio then transmits its message in accordance with a band plan including only
those frequencies on the list. Id. The intended receiver receives the message by
listening on the frequencies called for by the band plan. Synchronization is
provided between transmitter and receiver. Ex. 1002, 2:7-14. Munday’s Fig. 1,
reproduced below, shows the architecture of a radio of the communication system:
Case IP
Patent 5

A
words id
sequenc
a pseud
“key of
from tim
radios.
purpose
synchro
further w
R2013-00
,515,369
E
keystream
entifying
e. Ex. 100
o-random
the day” t
ing unit 3
Ex. 1002 a
s to ensure
nism.” Ex
ith respe
125
x. 1002, F
generato
a 64 chann
2 at 3:61-6
sequence.
hrough inp
4. Ex. 10
t 4:7-9. T
that all ra
. 1002 at 4
ct to Mund
ig. 1 show
r 26 (lowe
el subset
8. The ke
Ex. 1002
ut 30 at lo
02 at 4:2-1
he timing
dios have
:9-15. Op
ay’s Figs.
11
s an embo
r left of Fi
of the 256
ystream g
at 4:1-2. I
wer left of
0. The “k
signal is “
their key s
eration of
2A-2D, re
diment of
g. 1) gene
channels
enerator id
t is contro
Fig. 1, an
ey of the d
used for s
tream gen
the Mund
produced
a radio.
rates a seq
to be used
entifies th
lled by tw
d (2) a tim
ay” is com
ynchroni[z
erators op
ay system
below.
uence of d
during a
e channel
o inputs: (
ing signal
mon to a
]ation
erating in
is explain

ata
s in
1) a

ll
ed
Case IP
Patent 5

M
7:15. A
assessin
looking
it is read
channel
transmit
message
assessin
transmi
transmi
R2013-00
,515,369
Ex. 100
unday de
s shown o
g signal st
for a sync
y to trans
s on which
channels
” labels in
g signal st
ssion. A r
ssion, rece
125
2, Figs. 2A
scribes rad
n line 2A,
rength (no
signal (no
mit, it tran
a followi
to transmi
2A. Onc
rength of t
eceiving ra
ives a list
-2D illus
io operatio
when a ra
te label on
te label at
smits a sy
ng messag
t the mess
e the mess
he comple
dio (line 2
of channel
12
trate opera
n with res
dio is neith
five left-m
sixth from
nc signal,
e will be t
age. See “
age has be
te channe
C), when
s (ninth bl
tion of a M
pect to Fi
er transm
ost block
the left b
followed b
ransmitted
transmit c
en transm
l set to pre
it is ready
ock from t
unday ra
g. 2. Ex. 1
itting nor r
s of line 2
lock of lin
y a list of
. It then u
hannels” a
itted, it res
pare for a
to receive
he left) on

dio.
002 at 5:2
eceiving,
A) and
e 2A). W
transmit
ses the
nd “transm
umes
future
a
which a
8 to
it is
hen
it
Case IPR2013-00125
Patent 5,515,369

13
message will follow. It then receives the message on those channels (10th block
from the left). Keystream generator 26 of Radio 2 is synchronized with the
keystream generator of Radio 1. See Ex. 1002 at 7:13-15.
Petitioner argues that each limitation of claim 5 is disclosed by Munday.
We are unpersuaded. In particular, Munday does not disclose assigning a unique
seed value to a node as required by claim 5’s limitation (a). Nor does it disclose
randomizing a list of available node channels using a deterministic pseudo-random
number generator seeded with said seed value (referring to the unique seed value)
as required by claim 5’s limitation (d). In addition, Munday does not disclose the
channel punchout mask as required by claim 5’s limitations (b) and (c).
Claim 5 requires a node to generate its hopping plan based on a unique seed
value associated with that node. Petitioner argues that the “sync data” applied to a
Munday radio constitutes the claimed unique seed value. Petition at 17. In the
alternative, Petitioner argues that the “key of the day” constitutes the unique seed
value. Petition at 17.
Patent Owner points out that neither Munday’s “key of the day” nor
Munday’s “timing signal,” both used to generate a “sequence of data words” to
randomize a subset of channels, is unique to a node. Prelim. Resp. at 15. Our
review of Munday confirms Patent Owner’s position. Munday states:
The keystream generator is itself controlled by two inputs. First,
there is an input on a line 30 which represents the "key of the
day". This is a multibit data signal which is fed in manually by
the operator and determines the basic pseudo-random sequence.
Obviously, the same "key of the day" must be fed into all radios
in the system. Secondly, the keystream generator is controlled by
a timing signal on a line 32 from a timing unit 34. The signal on
Case IPR2013-00125
Patent 5,515,369

14
line 32 determines the current operating position, within its
pseudo-random sequence, of the keystream generator 26 and is
used for synchronization purposes to ensure that all radios have
their key stream generators operating in synchronism.

Munday 4: 2-15 (emphasis added).
We understand the above-quoted portion of Munday as meaning that the
“key of the day” is used as a seed to determine a pseudo-random sequence in all
radios of the Munday system. The timing signal allows the radios to synchronize
with one another so that they can communicate by operating at the same point in
the pseudo-random sequence when transmitting and receiving. The “key of the
day” is common to all radios so that all radios will generate the same pseudo-
random sequence. Therefore, Munday does not assign a unique seed value to a
node and utilize it as required by claim 5’s limitations (a) and (d).
Petitioner argues that Munday discloses a “channel punchout mask” as
required by claim 5’s limitation (b) and uses that channel punchout mask as
required by claim 5’s limitation (c). Petition at 17-19. Petitioner’s argument is
essentially that the term “channel punchout mask” should not be limited to any
particular structure. Petition at 18.
According to Petitioner, eliminating unused channel frequencies in the
predetermined set of frequency channels to form the subset consisting of the
channel frequencies having the lowest interference corresponds to “applying said
mask to a list of network channels to eliminate undesireable channels and therefore
to obtain a list of available node channels,” as recited in claim 5. Petition at 18-19.
Case IPR2013-00125
Patent 5,515,369

15
Petitioner has not pointed to any specific data or information that meets our
claim construction above. Our claim construction requires some kind of data that
indicates which channels are to be used and which channels are not to be used.
That information would be applied to a channel list in order to produce the list of
channels to be randomized and used for transmission. Therefore, we are
unpersuaded that Munday discloses and uses a “channel punchout mask” as
required by claim 5.
Even assuming that Munday discloses a “channel punchout mask,” claim 5
nevertheless is not anticipated by Munday because it does not disclose the
assignment of a unique seed value to a node as required by claim 5’s limitation (a)
and the use of such unique seed values to randomize as required by claim 5’s
limitation (d).
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not demonstrated that there is a
reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner would prevail in establishing that claim 5
is anticipated by Munday.
B. Claims 5 and 7 obvious in view of Munday
Nor do we find a reasonably likelihood that the Petitioner would prevail in
establishing that claims 5 and 7 would have been obvious in view of Munday.
Claim 7, reproduced below, depends from claim 5 and further requires the
use of “0s” and “1s” for the channel punchout mask.
7. The method according to claim 5 wherein said mask is
a sequence of bits, each bit having a value of either 0 or
1, where bits of one value correspond to channels in the
channel list that are used by the node and bits of the other
Case IPR2013-00125
Patent 5,515,369

16
value correspond to channels in the channel list that are
not used by the node and are therefore to be eliminated
from the node's channel-hopping band plan.

A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR
Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is
resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope
and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter
and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-
called secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
Petitioner argued that claim 7 would have been obvious in view of Munday.
Petition at 22-23. This argument is supported by the testimony of Dr. Michael
Pursley. See Pursley Declaration, Ex. 1005 at ¶ ¶ 6-10.
Petitioner’s arguments are summarized as follows:
a. Each Munday radios monitors all channels and has knowledge of them.
b. It was well-known to use a mask of “0s” and “1s” to distinguish between
channels with excessive interference and those with a tolerable level of
interference.
c. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that there is no
need to transmit full binary representations of the channel frequencies because
Case IPR2013-00125
Patent 5,515,369

17
communicating a mask reduces overhead and complexity of conveying
information.
d. One of ordinary skill in the art was aware that transmitting the entire
pseudo-random sequence of frequencies in a band plan would require excessive
transmission time and that transmitting only information for obtaining a pseudo-
random sequence would require less transmission time.
Even if we were persuaded that it would have been obvious to utilize a
channel punchout mask as required by claim 5 and, in particular, a punchout mask
using “1s” and “0s” as required by claim 7, claims 5 and 7 nevertheless require the
use of a unique seed value assigned to each node as required by claim 5. No
persuasive evidence is presented with regard to how the “unique seed value”
limitations of these claims are met. Therefore, we conclude that the Petition does
not establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail
with respect to establishing that claims 5 and 7 would have been obvious in view
of Munday.

Claims 5 and 9 anticipated by Jackson (Ex. 1003)
Petitioner argues that claims 5 and 9 are anticipated by Jackson (Ex. 1003).
Petition at 24-33.
Case IP
Patent 5

Ja
reprodu
frequen

N
Fig. 2) c
unique t
network
R2013-00
,515,369
ckson des
ced below
cy hopping
etwork us
ommunic
o each HF
control st
125
cribes a ne
, for comm
.
Fig. 2 of Ja
ers of “HF
ate with ea
2000 AJ
ation (NC
twork arc
unicating
ckson sho
2000 AJ
ch other u
MODE rad
S) using “o
18
hitecture s
among “H
wing netw
MODE” ra
sing frequ
io. Each
rderwire
hown in J
F 2000 A
ork archit
dios (low
ency hopp
radio com
links” that
ackson Fig
J MODE”
ecture.
er right bo
ing plans
municates
allow the
. 2,
radios usi
x of Jacks
that are
with a
NCS to
ng

on
Case IP
Patent 5

broadca
to send
routing,
E
unique f
without
The uni
common
informa
commun
pattern
R2013-00
,515,369
st general
messages
priority se
ach netwo
requency
colliding
Jac
que freque
sub-set o
tion (e.g.,
icated to
that is orth
125
and netwo
to the NCS
ttings, fre
rk user co
hopping p
with one a
kson Fig.
ncy hoppi
f frequenc
viability o
the NCS.
ogonal to
rk control
related to
quency ho
mmunicate
lan so that
nother as s
4 showing
ng plans a
ies (“hop
f various c
The NCS
the hoppin
19
messages
network
p set assig
s with oth
network u
hown in J
orthogon
re develop
set”). The
hannels) g
assigns to
g patterns
to users an
control, m
nments, et
er network
sers can s
ackson Fig
al hopping
ed central
hop set is
athered by
each user
assigned t
d allow n
ultiple acc
c. Ex. 100
users by
hare comm
. 4, reprod
patterns.
ly at the N
selected b
network
a unique h
o others.
etwork use
ess contro
3 at 208,
using its o
on chann
uced belo
CS from a
ased on
users and
opping
Ex. 1003 a
rs
l,
¶ 2.
wn
els
w.

t
Case IPR2013-00125
Patent 5,515,369

20
209, col. 1, ¶ 1. Multiple orthogonal waveforms can occupy the same hopping
bandwidth as illustrated by hop sets #1 and #2 in the same time frames, as shown
in Ex. 1003 Fig. 4, above.
Petitioner argues that Jackson anticipates claims 5 and 9. Petition at 24-33.
We are unpersuaded.
Petitioner argues that Jackson assigns a unique seed value to a node as
required by claim 5’s limitation (a). Petition at 26-27. Petitioner further argues
that available channels are randomized using the unique seed value as required by
claim 5’s limitation (d). Petition at 29-30.
Jackson describes that the hop set of available channels is developed
centrally at the NCS, rather than “in a node” as is required by claim 5, based on
reports from HF 2000 radios of channel conditions. Jackson then produces the
individual hopping patterns at the NCS and communicates them to respective
network users using the orderwire links from the NCS to the individual radios.
Ex. 1003 at 209, col. 2, ¶ 2. Petitioner correctly notes that in Jackson each user is
assigned a unique hopping pattern. Petition at 26; Ex. 1003 at 209, col. 1 ¶ 1; and
211, col. 1 ¶ 1.
However, Jackson does not explain how the individualized hopping patterns
are created, other than to indicate that symbols are pseudo-randomly selected from
the hop set. Ex. 1003 at 210, col. 2 ¶ 1. The Pursley Declaration states that the
unique hopping pattern is developed by applying a pseudo-random sequence to the
frequencies of the hop set. Ex. 1005 at ¶ 13.
In an embodiment described in the Jackson specification each hopping
pattern “contains a 64 frequency hop set which is selected from 512 frequencies.”
Case IPR2013-00125
Patent 5,515,369

21
Ex. 1003 at 210, col. 1, ¶ 3. The 64/512 hop set is used for all radios on the
network. As channel conditions change, the NCS may change the hop set used by
all radios and the hopping patterns unique to each network user.
Jackson’s NCS-developed hopping patterns are non-overlapping and time-
spaced to provide signal orthogonality among radios. Ex. 1003 at 211, col. 1.
However, there is no evidence to suggest that in Jackson producing a set of
orthogonal hopping patterns from a single hop set requires the use of a unique seed
value assigned to a radio. Jackson does not explain how the hopping patterns are
created other than to say that symbols are pseudo-randomly selected. Ex. 1003 at
210, col 2, ¶ 1.
Petitioner infers that Jackson must have developed its orthogonal hopping
patterns using a unique seed and pseudo-random number generator because a) it
was “well-known” to use a pseudo-random sequence to generate a unique hopping
pattern and b) it is mandatory to provide a pseudo-random number generator with a
unique seed value. Petition at 26-27 and Pursley Declaration ¶¶ 14-21. That
inference is not supported by the evidence. Even assuming that the NCS uses a
pseudo-random number generator and a seed value, there is insufficient evidence
to establish that the NCS uses a seed value that is unique to a radio to generate the
hopping pattern for that radio. Thus, the limitations of claim 5 related to the
assigning of a unique seed value to a node and the use of that unique seed value to
generate the hopping pattern for that node are not met.
Another limitation of claim 5 also is not disclosed. Claim 5 is directed to
steps carried out in a node. Jackson, in contrast, describes that the hopping
patterns are developed centrally by the NCS and are distributed to the radios
Case IPR2013-00125
Patent 5,515,369

22
(nodes). According to claims 5 and 9 of the ‘369 patent, a node makes its own
determination of which channels to use for its band plan. Thus, according to claim
5, before randomization, the sub-set of channels used by nodes A and B may be
quite different, each reflecting channel conditions as determined by the respective
nodes developing their band plans. In contrast, the Jackson “hop set” is
determined centrally by the NCS and is common to all network users before an
individual hop plan is developed for a network user from that hop set. Thus, the
limitation of claim 5 requiring the steps set forth in the body of the claim to be
carried out “in a node” is not met.
Petitioner argues that Jackson discloses a channel punchout mask. Petition
at 27. We do not agree.
Petitioner argues that Jackson monitors and estimates channel quality and
strength so that frequency assignments can be adjusted. Petition at 27, citing Ex.
1003 at 209 col. 2, ¶ 2. Monitoring results are reported to the NCS for overall link
quality analysis. Petition at 27, citing to Ex. 1003 at 210, col. 1 ¶ 1. Petitioner
further argues that the channel monitoring results in the selection of a subset of
channels to create a hop set (e.g., a 64-frequency hop). Petition at 27 citing to Ex.
1003 at 209, col. 2, par 2; and 210 col. 1, ¶¶ 1,3; and Ex. 1005 at ¶ 20. According
to Petitioner, this hop set constitutes a “channel punchout mask.”
Our construction of “channel punchout mask” requires some data that
indicates which channels are available and which channels are not available. This
data would be applied to a list of available channels to produce the hop set. The
Jackson hop set does not satisfy the requirements of a channel punchout mask as
we have construed the term. Petitioner has not pointed to any particular piece of
Case IPR2013-00125
Patent 5,515,369

23
data or information that is applied to the available channels to specify which are
and which are not available for producing hopping patterns. Thus, there is
insufficient persuasive evidence to establish that the channel punchout mask
limitations of claim 5 are disclosed by Jackson.
We find that Jackson does not meet certain limitations of claim 5.
Petitioner’s argument of anticipation of dependent claim 9 based on Jackson fails
for the same reasons articulated above.
Therefore, we conclude that the Petition does not establish a reasonable
likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claims 5 and 9 are
anticipated by Jackson.

Claim 7 obvious over Jackson

Claim 7, depends from claim 5 and further requires the punchout mask rely
on the use of “0s” and “1s.”
We note Petitioner’s argument, relying on the Pursley Declaration, that it
would have been obvious to use a channel punchout mask of “1s” and “0s” to
indicate which channels are available to form a hop set. Even assuming that to be
true, Jackson does not disclose the use of a seed value that is unique to a radio
(node) to generate a band plan for that radio as required by claim 5. For the
reasons discussed supra, we are not persuaded by the arguments pertaining to the
“unique seed value” presented by Petitioner in connection with claim 7.
Therefore, we conclude that the Petition does not present sufficient evidence
to establish that it is reasonably likely that Petitioner would prevail in establishing
that claim 7 would have been obvious in view of Jackson.
Case IPR2013-00125
Patent 5,515,369

24

C. Claim 6 obvious over Jackson in view of Flammer

Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and recites, in part, “wherein said seed value
is derived from an address of the node.”
Flammer teaches a frequency hopping packet communication system based
on use of a receiver's frequency hopping timing and identification to control
communication. Ex. 1004, Abstract. A frequency hopping band plan, involving
the number of channels and the pseudo-random pattern of frequency change and
nominal timing of changes, is universally known to each node in the network. Id.
Frequency hopping is implemented by the division of communication slots and the
accumulation of slots into epochs, wherein each epoch equals the total number of
available slots (number of channels times the number of time frames per channel).
Id.
A transmitting node tracks the pre-established frequency hopping pattern for
its target receiver based on previously-acquired information. The transmission
node identifies a receiver node and a current frequency channel of such receiver
node. The transmission node then checks the frequency channel to determine if it
is available, e.g., not in use and within an acceptable noise margin. If unavailable,
the transmission node delays transmission to the identified node to a later slot.
During the delay, the transmission node identifies another receiver node and a
corresponding current frequency channel. The steps of identifying a receiver node
and checking the corresponding current frequency channel are repeated until a
node having an available frequency channel is identified. Id.
Case IPR2013-00125
Patent 5,515,369

25
According to Petitioner, Flammer describes a random offset seed value that
is derived from a node address. Ex. 1004 at 7:58-59. We agree that Flammer
teaches that it was known to develop a seed from a node address. However, the
address-derived seed value is not used to generate a pseudo-random sequence band
plan for each node. Rather, it is used to provide a random “offset” at startup of
each node for its use of time slots through which nodes cycle their packets. Ex.
1004 at 7:55-60. Thus, the address-derived seed is used for a different purpose
than that for which the unique seed value of claim 6 is used.
Accepting the notion that Flammer teaches that it was known to develop a
seed value from a node address does not help to render the subject matter of claim
6 as a whole obvious from the teachings of Jackson and Flammer. The teachings
of Flammer do not suggest that Jackson would have used a seed value unique to a
radio to develop a hopping plan for that radio.
Therefore, we conclude that the Petition does not present persuasive
evidence that it is reasonably likely that Petitioner would prevail in establishing
that claim 6 would have been obvious in view of Jackson and Flammer.

Case IPR2013-00125
Patent 5,515,369

26
IV. CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, we determine that the information presented in the
petition does not establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
would prevail on at least one alleged ground of unpatentability with respect to
claims 5-7 and 9 of the ’369 patent.

IV. ORDER
It is
ORDERED that the petition for instituting inter partes review is not
granted.

Case IPR2013-00125
Patent 5,515,369

27
For PETITIONER:

Robert C. Mattson, Esq.
W. Todd Baker
Monica S. Ullagaddi, Esq.
Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP
CPdocketMattson@oblon.com
CPDocketBaker@oblon.com

For PATENT OWNER:

Anthony S. Volpe, Esq.
Ryan W. O’Donnell
Robert D. Leonard
Volpe & Koenig, P.C.
avolpe@vklaw.com
rleonard@vklaw.com

lb