Court Opinion

ID: 9956169
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-01 13:01:27.985186+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:19.223225
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1123   Document: 78     Page: 1   Filed: 03/19/2024

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                     SISVEL S.P.A.,
                        Appellant

                            v.

   TCT MOBILE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, TCT
    MOBILE, INC., TCT MOBILE (US) INC., TCT
       MOBILE (US) HOLDINGS, INC., TCL
   COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS
  LIMITED, HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.,
   SIERRA WIRELESS, ULC., TELIT CINTERION
  DEUTSCHLAND GMBH F/D/B/A THALES DIS AIS
            DEUTSCHLAND GMBH,
                     Appellees
              ______________________

                       2023-1123
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2021-
 00678.
                  ______________________

                Decided: March 19, 2024
                ______________________

    TIMOTHY DEVLIN, Devlin Law Firm LLC, Wilmington,
 DE, for appellant. Also represented by NEIL A. BENCHELL,
 ANDREW PETER DEMARCO, ROBERT J. GAJARSA.
Case: 23-1123     Document: 78     Page: 2    Filed: 03/19/2024

 2          SISVEL S.P.A. v. TCT MOBILE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

     JEREMY DEANE PETERSON, PV Law LLP, Washington,
 DC, for appellees TCT Mobile International Limited, TCT
 Mobile, Inc., TCT Mobile (US) Inc., TCT Mobile (US) Hold-
 ings, Inc., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Lim-
 ited. Also represented by BRADFORD CANGRO.

    JEFFREY R. GARGANO, K&L Gates LLP, Chicago, IL, for
 appellee Honeywell International Inc. Also represented by
 BRIAN PAUL BOZZO, Pittsburgh, PA; ERIK HALVERSON, San
 Francisco, CA.

     AMANDA TESSAR, Perkins Coie LLP, Denver, CO, for ap-
 pellee Sierra Wireless, ULC. Also represented by DANIEL
 TYLER KEESE, Portland, OR.

    GUY YONAY, Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz LLP,
 New York, NY, for appellee Telit Cinterion Deutschland
 GmbH. Also represented by KYLE AUTERI, I.
                ______________________

      Before LOURIE, LINN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
 LOURIE, Circuit Judge.
      Sisvel S.p.A. (“Sisvel”) appeals from a final written de-
 cision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
 Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) finding claims
 1, 3–5, 11, and 13–15 of U.S. Patent 8,971,279 (the “’279
 patent”) unpatentable as obvious. TCT Mobile Int’l Ltd., et
 al. v. Sisvel S.p.A., IPR202-00678 (P.T.A.B. June 7, 2023),
 J.A. 1–54 (“Decision”). For the reasons provided below, we
 affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
     The ’279 patent relates to improvements in network
 communication efficiency in advanced LTE networks for
 cellular phones. To better allocate network resources, cell
 phones (i.e., user equipment or “UE”) are assigned certain
Case: 23-1123    Document: 78      Page: 3    Filed: 03/19/2024

 SISVEL S.P.A. v. TCT MOBILE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED          3

 intervals in which to transmit data and certain frequencies
 for that transmission. See ’279 patent, col. 3 ll. 31–37. One
 method of allocation is Semi-Persistent Scheduling
 (“SPS”), which provides user equipment with a transmis-
 sion time and frequency that is valid for a limited period of
 time, rather than having the user equipment request per-
 mission to transmit each time. See id. col. 3 ll. 44–62. Un-
 der an SPS regime, a user equipment is said to be
 “activated” during its allocated time period for transmis-
 sion and is considered “deactivated” when that time period
 is over. Id. To deactivate the user equipment, the base
 station will transmit a message called an “SPS deactiva-
 tion signal” to the user equipment informing the user
 equipment that its assigned frequency was released. Id.
      The ’279 patent is directed to a method of sending more
 efficient SPS deactivation signals that essentially “piggy-
 back” on existing messages. Appellant’s Br. at 5. One such
 teaching is a method of filling a preexisting binary field
 (e.g., resource indication value or “RIV”) with all “1”s to
 serve as an SPS deactivation notice. See ’279 patent, col.
 4–5 passim; id. col. 26 ll. 2–26. In the patented system, the
 string of ones would always be processed as an invalid
 value and never mistaken for a valid resource allocation
 message, providing stability to the network, regardless of
 size. Appellant’s Br. at 6–8; ’279 patent Fig. 16. Repre-
 sentative claim 1 is reproduced below:
    1. A method for deactivating Semi-Persistent
    Scheduling (SPS) transmission in a wireless mobile
    communication system, the method comprising:
         performing, by a User Equipment (UE), a
         SPS transmission at an interval of a sub-
         frame period configured by a radio resource
         control (RRC) signal;
         receiving, by the UE, a Physical Downlink
         Control Channel (PDCCH) signal with a
         Radio Network Temporary Identifier
Case: 23-1123       Document: 78       Page: 4      Filed: 03/19/2024

 4           SISVEL S.P.A. v. TCT MOBILE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

          (RNTI), wherein the PDCCH signal in-
          cludes a first field related to a resource al-
          location; and
          performing a procedure for deactivating
          the SPS transmission if the PDCCH signal
          satisfies conditions for SPS deactivation,
          wherein the conditions for SPS deactiva-
          tion include:
          the RNTI is a SPS Cell RNTI (SPS C-
          RNTI); and
          the first field is entirely filled with ‘1’.
 ’279 patent, col. 26 ll. 2–26 (emphases added). The other
 challenged independent claim, claim 11, contains the same
 requirement that “the conditions for SPS deactivation in-
 clude . . . the first field is entirely filled with ‘1’.” Id. col. 27
 ll. 13–15.
     TCT Mobile International Limited, TCT Mobile, Inc.;
 TCT Mobile (US) Inc.; TCT Mobile (US) Holdings, Inc.; TCL
 Communication Technology Holdings Limited; Honeywell
 International Inc.; Sierra Wireless, Inc.; and Thales Dis Ais
 Deutschland GMBH (collectively, “Honeywell”) petitioned
 for inter partes review. Honeywell asserted four grounds
 including (1) obviousness based on Samsung 1 and Nokia 2

     1  TDOC R2-084455, SPS RESOURCE RELEASE, 3GPP
 TSG-RAN2#63 MEETING, Jeju, South Korea (August
 18–22, 2008), J.A. 1744.
     2  RI-083718, MISSING DETAILS OF SEMI-PERSISTENT
 SCHEDULING, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG1 MEETING #54BIS, Pra-
 gue, Czech Republic (September 29–October 3, 2008), J.A.
 1742–43.
Case: 23-1123    Document: 78      Page: 5    Filed: 03/19/2024

 SISVEL S.P.A. v. TCT MOBILE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED          5

 and (2) obviousness based on Samsung and Dahlman. 3
 Samsung is a technical specification by an industry stand-
 ards group considering potential codes for SPS deactiva-
 tion. It proposes that “all 1s could be a good candidate” for
 such a code, but with no explanation of why. J.A. 1744.
 Nokia is a technical specification by the same industry
 standards group that proposes filling a field with all zeroes
 to serve as a codeword for “SPS release.” J.A. 1742. Dahl-
 man is a book that provides background information on
 wireless technology, particularly on a resource block allo-
 cation field, but it does not mention the use of a specific
 value as a codeword for SPS deactivation.
     Sisvel argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art
 would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in
 the proposed combinations because of the allegedly exten-
 sive calculations that would have been required to ensure
 that filling the field entirely with ones would be invalid in
 all circumstances, regardless of network size. Decision,
 J.A. 34. Sisvel cited the testimony of its expert witness
 stating that a skilled artisan in this field would have de-
 manded mathematical certainty that the solution would
 work for all size networks. Id. at J.A. 37.
      The Board held all challenged claims unpatentable as
 obvious based on both asserted grounds, Dahlman together
 with Samsung as well as Nokia together with Samsung.
 The Board found that claim 1 (and claim 11) did “not re-
 quire performing any calculations prior to filling the ‘first
 field’ entirely with 1s,” nor did it require any particular
 field size. Decision, J.A. 34–35. It therefore found no need
 to resolve the parties’ dispute as to whether or not a person
 of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of cal-
 culating whether or not the use of all 1s would be invalid

     3 ERIK DAHLMAN ET AL., 3G EVOLUTION: HSPA AND
 LTE FOR MOBILE BROADBAND 1–608 (2d ed. 2008), J.A.
 1091.
Case: 23-1123    Document: 78      Page: 6    Filed: 03/19/2024

 6          SISVEL S.P.A. v. TCT MOBILE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

 in all circumstances. Id. The Board also found that Hon-
 eywell had demonstrated a reasonable expectation of suc-
 cess in combining Samsung and Dahlman because
 Samsung (1) describes its solution as “simple,” (2) states
 that “all 1s could be a good candidate,” and (3) uses the
 same DCI format for signaling SPS deactivation as Dahl-
 man. Id. at J.A. 34–38 (quoting J.A. 1744). See also id. at
 44–45 (making similar findings with regard to the Sam-
 sung and Nokia combination). It noted that, despite
 Sisvel’s expert testimony that a person of ordinary skill
 would have demanded certainty of success, “‘the expecta-
 tion of success need only be reasonable, not absolute.’” Id.
 at J.A. 37 (quoting Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d
 1348, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).
     Sisvel appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
 § 1295(a)(4)(A).
                         DISCUSSION
      Sisvel argues on appeal that the Board erred in finding
 a motivation to combine Samsung and Dahlman with a rea-
 sonable expectation of success. Honeywell responds that
 the Board’s finding is without legal error and based on sub-
 stantial evidence. Honeywell further argues that Sisvel
 failed to appeal the Board’s invalidation of the claims based
 on Samsung and Nokia, and the appeal can therefore be
 affirmed on that ground without consideration of Sisvel’s
 arguments on the other ground. Sisvel replies that its ar-
 guments are with respect to the Samsung reference, which
 is present in both grounds, and it therefore did not forfeit
 any such argument or appeal.
      Because of the weakness of Sisvel’s position on the mer-
 its, we choose not to address the forfeiture argument. The
 Board’s finding of obviousness is soundly based in both fact
 and law. Samsung expressly teaches “to use all 1s in [the]
 RB assignment field on SPS resource allocation . . . to re-
 lease the SPS resource” and that “all 1s could be a good
 candidate.” J.A. 1744. It further describes that solution as
Case: 23-1123     Document: 78      Page: 7    Filed: 03/19/2024

 SISVEL S.P.A. v. TCT MOBILE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED            7

 a “simple release mechanism.” Id. That language is une-
 quivocal. The reference explicitly teaches both the chal-
 lenged element (i.e., “to use all 1s in [the] RB assignment
 field on SPS resource allocation”) and provides for a rea-
 sonable expectation of success in implementing that ele-
 ment (i.e., “all 1s could be a good candidate”). Id.
      That Samsung does not explain why it selected all ones
 or list out the calculations proving its effectiveness does not
 defeat its plain teaching. See, e.g., In re Corkill, 771 F.2d
 1496, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“Although [the inventor] de-
 clared that it cannot be predicted how any candidate will
 work in a detergent composition, but that it must be tested,
 this does not overcome [the prior art]’s teaching that hy-
 drated zeolites will work.”). The law only requires that a
 person of ordinary skill in the art have a reasonable expec-
 tation of success, not an absolute one. Pfizer, 480 F.3d at
 1364. Although different fields of art may have differences
 in what constitutes a “reasonable” expectation of success,
 such differences are not determinative in this case. Hon-
 eywell’s expert witness testified that using all ones would
 avoid calculations and be a simple design choice, which the
 reference itself echoes. Decision, J.A. 36; J.A. 1744 (de-
 scribing the solution as “simple”). And, as the Board found,
 there is nothing in the record showing that using all ones
 would not work or would be exceedingly difficult to imple-
 ment. Decision, J.A. 37. Sisvel asks us to ignore the plain
 text of the reference and impose an inappropriately high
 standard on expectation of success, which we decline to do.
     The Board therefore did not err in concluding that in-
 dependent claims 1 and 11 would have been obvious over
 Dahlman (or Nokia) together with Samsung and we affirm
 those holdings. See Appellant’s Reply Br. at 18 (asserting
 that the Board’s interpretation of Samsung, common to
 both grounds, was the critical basis for the Board’s find-
 ings); Decision, J.A. 45 (referencing “Patent Owner’s argu-
 ments that are common” to both grounds). Because Sisvel
 does not separately argue for the patentability of the
Case: 23-1123    Document: 78    Page: 8    Filed: 03/19/2024

 8         SISVEL S.P.A. v. TCT MOBILE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

 challenged dependent claims, the Board’s finding of obvi-
 ousness of claims 3–5 and 13–15 is likewise affirmed.
                       CONCLUSION
      We have considered Sisvel’s remaining arguments but
 find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, the de-
 cision of the Board is affirmed.
                       AFFIRMED