Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01754/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01754-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
HTC Corporation
Appellee
IPCOM GmbH & Co.
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IPCOM GMBH & CO.,

Appellant

v.

HTC CORPORATION,

Appellee

______________________ 

2015-1754

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, in No. 95/001,193.

______________________ 

Decided: July 11, 2016

______________________ 

MEREDITH MARTIN ADDY, Tabet DiVito & Rothstein, 

LLC, Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. Also represented 

by MATTHEW MICHAEL HOLUB, Katten Muchin Rosenman 

LLP, Chicago, IL; JEFFREY A. FINN, Finn IP Law, PC, Los 

Angeles, CA.

MICHAEL A. OBLON, Perkins Coie, LLP, Washington,

DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by DAN L.

BAGATELL, TYLER R. BOWEN, Phoenix, AZ. 

______________________ 

Case: 15-1754 Document: 54-2 Page: 1 Filed: 07/11/2016
2 IPCOM GMBH & CO. v. HTC CORPORATION

Before PROST, Chief Judge, PLAGER and LOURIE, Circuit 

Judges.

PROST, Chief Judge. 

This appeal is from a decision by the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal 

Board (“Board”) in an inter partes reexamination of U.S. 

Patent No. 7,043,751 (“’751 patent”). The ’751 patent was 

issued to Robert Bosch GmbH in May 2006 and was later 

assigned to IPCom GmbH & Co. (“IPCom”). In 2009, HTC 

Corporation (“HTC”) requested inter partes reexamination of the ’751 patent and the examiner rejected all 

claims as anticipated and/or obvious in view of the prior 

art. The Board affirmed all rejections. On appeal are 

only three claims: claims 6, 26, and 30. For the reasons 

stated below, we affirm the Board’s rulings. 

BACKGROUND

Cell phones communicate with cell towers by sending 

or receiving data over a shared “channel,” such as a 

“random access channel” (“RACH”). However, if many 

phones try to use the RACH at the same time, the channel may become overloaded, and some messages will not 

be transmitted to the cell tower. To reduce overload, 

cellular networks can manage access to the channel and 

thereby limit the number of phones that can transmit 

messages over the channel at a given time. 

The ’751 patent describes a method and system for allocating access rights to channels in a wireless network. 

’751 patent col. 1 ll. 9–11. At given times, the network 

provides “access authorization data” to cell phones (also 

called “subscriber stations”) within the network by broadcasting “information signals” over a signaling channel. 

Id. at col. 4 ll. 41–45. A phone within the network compares the access authorization data with stored values in 

the phone to determine whether it has been granted 

Case: 15-1754 Document: 54-2 Page: 2 Filed: 07/11/2016
IPCOM GMBH & CO. v. HTC CORPORATION 3

access to the channel. Id. at col. 5 ll. 20–24; col. 7 ll. 16–

22. As the volume of phones and transmissions increases, 

the network adjusts the access authorization data parameters so fewer phones can access the channel at a given 

time. 

There are two types of access authorization data described in the ’751 patent: “access class data” (“ACD”) (or 

“access class information” (“ACI”)) and an “access threshold value” (“ATV”). Id. at col. 1 ll. 22–64. ACD restricts 

network access based on the phone’s “user class,” which is 

the class assigned to the phone by its “subscriber identification module” (SIM card). A phone seeking access to the 

network would perform an “access class test,” whereby it 

would compare its user class to the ACD provided by the 

network to determine if it was granted access. Id. Different phones have different user classes; for example, a 

phone belonging to an emergency responder may have a 

higher-priority class than a phone belonging to another 

user. Id. Thus, the emergency responder’s phone would 

be more likely than that of another user to be granted 

access to the network at times of overload. Id.

The network may also provide an ATV, which restricts access based on a random distribution. Using an 

ATV, a phone seeking access to the network would perform a random number test, whereby the phone would 

generate a random number and compare that number to 

the broadcast ATV to determine whether it is granted 

access. Id. at col. 5 ll. 16–25. 

The ’751 patent teaches that when a phone wants to 

send a message, the phone first determines whether the 

access authorization data provided by the network includes ACD, an ATV, or both. Id. at col. 1 ll. 25–29, 45–

64. If only ACD is provided, the phone only performs the 

access class test. Id. at col. 6 l. 65–col. 8 l. 5. If the network only provides an ATV, the phone only performs the 

random number test. Id. at col. 5 l. 36–col. 6 l. 64. If both 

Case: 15-1754 Document: 54-2 Page: 3 Filed: 07/11/2016
4 IPCOM GMBH & CO. v. HTC CORPORATION

ACD and an ATV are provided, the phone first performs 

the user class test, and then, if that fails, it performs the 

random number test. Id. at col. 8 ll. 6–27. The phone 

repeats this process each time it wants to transmit a 

message. 

The relevant pieces of prior art are the GSM Specifications. GSM (the “Global System for Mobile Communications”) is a periodically-updated standard developed by 

the European Telecommunications Standards Institute to 

describe protocols for cellular networks. At the time of 

the filing of the ’751 patent, the March and October 1998 

GSM 04.60 Specifications (collectively, the “GSM Specifications”) were in effect. Relevant to this appeal, the GSM 

Specifications disclose techniques by which a phone can 

access and transmit information over a channel (called 

the “PRACH”). According to the GSM Specifications, for a 

phone to gain access to the PRACH, it would first need to 

obtain permission to access the network through an 

access class test. After passing the access class test, the 

phone would need to pass an additional test before it 

could transmit messages over the PRACH. The GSM 

Specifications refer to this as “packet access” control and 

include a “packet access procedure” that compares an 

ATV (called a “persistence level”) to a random number to 

determine whether a particular phone can transmit 

messages over the network. Thus, a phone would generate a random number and compare it to the persistence 

level; if the random number is greater than or equal to 

the persistence level value, then the message would be 

transmitted. The phone would repeat this process every 

time it wants to send a message over the network.

This case began with a declaratory judgment lawsuit 

filed by HTC against IPCom, to which IPCom responded 

by counterclaiming for infringement of the ’751 patent. In 

2012, the district court granted HTC’s motion for partial 

summary judgment of noninfringement. IPCom appealed 

that ruling and we affirmed the district court. While the 

Case: 15-1754 Document: 54-2 Page: 4 Filed: 07/11/2016
IPCOM GMBH & CO. v. HTC CORPORATION 5

district court case was pending, HTC filed a request for 

inter partes reexamination of all 13 claims of the ’751 

patent based on anticipation and obviousness in view of 

the GSM Specifications alone or in combination with 

secondary references. The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office granted the request and rejected all 

claims as unpatentable. In response, IPCom moved to 

add new claims 14–31 and later amended many of those 

claims in response to rejections. The examiner again 

rejected all claims, first in an Action Closing Prosecution, 

and then, after IPCom responded, in a Right of Appeal 

Notice. IPCom appealed to the Board, which affirmed the 

examiner’s rejections. IPCom then requested reconsideration, but the Board denied the request. IPCom then 

timely appealed to us. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) (2012).

DISCUSSION

We review the Board’s legal determinations de novo 

and its underlying factual determinations for substantial 

evidence. Rambus Inc. v. Rea, 731 F.3d 1248, 1251 (Fed. 

Cir. 2013). Anticipation is a question of fact and thus the 

Board’s anticipation determination is reviewed for substantial evidence. Also, during reexamination, claims are 

given “their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent 

with the specification.” In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 

1274 (Fed. Cir. 2011). 

There are three claims on appeal: claims 6, 26, and 

30. Claims 6 and 26 are representative of the issues here. 

Claim 6 recites, in relevant part: 

A method for allocating rights of access to at least 

one telecommunications channel . . . comprising 

the steps of . . . comparing the access threshold 

value with a random number . . . and granting a 

right of access to a telecommunications channel of 

the at least one subscriber station as a function of 

an outcome of the comparison; and further comCase: 15-1754 Document: 54-2 Page: 5 Filed: 07/11/2016
6 IPCOM GMBH & CO. v. HTC CORPORATION

prising asking . . . whether the access authorization data include . . . access class information . . . 

in which case . . . the at least one subscriber station is assigned to an at least one predetermined 

user class to which access to at least one telecommunication channel . . . is granted. 

’751 patent at claim 6 (emphases added). Claim 26 recites, in relevant part, 

A subscriber station to which an access to at least 

one telecommunication channel . . . can be granted, comprising: . . . an evaluation unit . . . , the 

evaluation unit for asking . . . , on the basis of the 

access class data, whether the access authorization data include an access threshold value for 

comparison of the access threshold value with a 

random number or a pseudo-random number, and 

for ascertaining, as a function of an outcome of a 

comparison whether an access of the at least one 

subscriber station to the at least one telecommunications channel is enabled.

J.A. 4900 (emphases added). IPCom contends that the 

Board erred in construing the terms “access” and “right of 

access” in claims 6, 26, and 30 and the phrase “asking . . .

on the basis of the access class data” in claim 26. We take 

each argument in turn. 

With respect to claims 6 and 30, the Board found that 

they were anticipated by the GSM Specifications because 

the GSM Specifications disclosed granting access to a 

network through the use of a random number test using 

ATV. IPCom argues that was erroneous. It contends that 

the GSM Specifications teach that access to the network 

is granted solely through the access class test (using 

ACD), whereas the ’751 patent teaches that access to the 

network can be granted through either the class test 

(using ACD) or the random number test (using an ATV). 

Thus, IPCom argues that the GSM Specifications cannot 

Case: 15-1754 Document: 54-2 Page: 6 Filed: 07/11/2016
IPCOM GMBH & CO. v. HTC CORPORATION 7

anticipate the ’751 patent because it does not disclose 

both options for granting access. 

IPCom is incorrect. It is true that in the first step of 

the technique disclosed in the GSM Specifications, a 

phone uses ACD, not an ATV, to initially gain access to 

the network. But, the GSM Specifications further disclose 

that after a phone has the permission to access the network, it still needs to use an ATV in order to gain permission to transmit a message over the network. And every 

time the phone wants to send a message, it needs to 

request access to the network again through a random 

number test using an ATV. As the Board determined, the 

claims merely refer to “right of access” and are not limited 

to the “initial” access to the network. Thus, under the 

broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the term 

“right of access” can be construed to include both the first 

request for access to the network and the subsequent 

requests to transmit messages over the network. 

IPCom’s arguments to the contrary are unavailing. 

IPCom contends that the claims only deal with the first 

attempt to gain access to the network and that everything 

that happens after the phone has gained such access is 

irrelevant, including attempted transmissions. But none 

of the citations it provides to the claim language or the 

specification support such a narrow reading. The claims 

generally refer to granting “rights of access” to the RACH 

or say that “access” to the RACH “is enabled” or “can be 

granted.” The claims do not say whether that right of 

access includes only the initial permission to be on the 

network or if it also includes the ability to transmit messages over the network. Moreover, the ’751 patent recognizes that a phone may need to make subsequent requests 

for access, stating:

Before each access to the RACH 30 by the first 

mobile station 5, the evaluation unit 60 draws a 

random . . . number R and asks whether the ranCase: 15-1754 Document: 54-2 Page: 7 Filed: 07/11/2016
8 IPCOM GMBH & CO. v. HTC CORPORATION

dom . . . number R is at least as great as the access threshold value S. Only then is access to the 

[RACH] allowed. 

’751 patent col. 5 ll. 20–25 (emphasis added). Thus, 

reading the claims to cover more than merely the initial 

access to the network is consistent with the specification. 

IPCom also argues that requiring a phone to pass 

tests before attempting a first transmission on the RACH 

is for “preventing” overload, whereas, in the event of data 

collision, requiring a phone to pass tests before making 

subsequent attempts to transmit on the RACH is for 

“relieving” existing overload. IPCom contends that the 

’751 patent is directed to “preventing” overload and thus 

the “right of access” language can only refer to the first 

attempt to access the network. But neither the claim 

language nor the specification make any distinction 

between “prevention” and “relief” of overload. Indeed, the 

specification describes restricting access to “avoid[]” 

overload, id. at col. 4 ll. 10–12, and lists a number of ways 

to attain “relief of the [RACH],” id. at col. 10 ll. 24–41. 

Because there is no meaningful difference between prevention and relief as explained in the ’751 patent, IPCom’s argument on this front is unpersuasive. The Board 

thus correctly construed “right of access” under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard to include subsequent attempts to access the network to transmit a 

message. 

IPCom also challenges the Board’s ruling that claim 

26 is anticipated by the GSM Specifications. IPCom 

argues that the Board erred in construing the claim to 

cover “anything that happens after the ‘asking’ ‘on the 

basis of access class data.’” Appellant’s Br. 49. But the 

Board did no such thing. Instead, the Board concluded 

that the claim requires nothing more than asking whether an ATV is present based on any aspect of the access 

class data. It does not require, as IPCom argues, that the 

Case: 15-1754 Document: 54-2 Page: 8 Filed: 07/11/2016
IPCOM GMBH & CO. v. HTC CORPORATION 9

“asking” depend upon “information encoded in the ACD.” 

Id. at 50. IPCom improperly imports the preferred embodiment of the ’751 patent—whereby a phone determines 

whether or not to use an ATV based on whether it was 

granted access using ACD—into the claims. As the Board 

noted, if IPCom wanted to limit the claims in such a 

manner, it could have. Instead, claim 26 merely requires, 

in some way, asking whether to look at an ATV based on 

ACD. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this 

claim is satisfied by the GSM Specifications, where access

is initially determined on the basis of ACD and thereafter 

is based upon an ATV. We therefore conclude that the 

Board properly found claim 26 anticipated by the GSM 

Specifications. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s decision. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-1754 Document: 54-2 Page: 9 Filed: 07/11/2016