US 7567622

US Patent 7567622, titled "Constellation rearrangement for ARQ transmit diversity schemes," was filed on December 5, 2006, and issued on July 28, 2009. [cite: The full patent text provides this information for filing date and publication date of the granted patent. For assignee, inventors and title, it's provided in the summary details.] The original assignee was Panasonic Corp, and the current assignee is SWIRLATE IP LLC. The inventors are Christian Wengerter, Alexander Golitschek Edler Von Elbwart, and Eiko Seidel. [cite: The full patent text provides this information for assignee, inventors and title.]

Abstract:
The patent describes an Automatic Repeat reQuest (ARQ) re-transmission method for wireless communication systems. In this method, data packets are sent from a transmitter to a receiver using a first transmission and, if needed, a second transmission based on a repeat request. The key innovation involves modulating the data at the transmitter using a first signal constellation pattern for the first transmission over a first diversity branch, and then using a second, different signal constellation pattern for the second transmission over a second diversity branch. At the receiver, these symbols are demodulated using their respective patterns and then diversity combined. The invention also covers the corresponding transmitter and receiver apparatus. [cite: The full patent text provides this information in the Abstract.]

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

The patent includes multiple independent claims, distinguishing between scenarios where modulation mappings are pre-stored or signaled, and covering methods, transmitters, receivers, and systems. These claims focus on using different higher-order modulation mappings (where more than two bits form one symbol) for an initial transmission and subsequent re-transmissions over diversity branches, followed by diversity combining at the receiver to improve error performance.

• Claim 1 (Method - Pre-stored Mappings): This claim describes a method where a transmitter sends data packets using a first modulation mapping on a first diversity branch. If the receiver requests a retransmission (due to decoding failure), the transmitter then sends the same data packets using a second, different modulation mapping on a second diversity branch. The receiver demodulates the transmissions using the corresponding first and second mappings and then combines the received data from both diversity branches. The specific mappings used are pre-stored in a memory table at both the transmitter and receiver.

• Claim 3 (Method - Signaled Mappings): Similar to Claim 1, but instead of the mappings being pre-stored, the first and second modulation mappings are communicated or signaled to the receiver by the transmitter.

• Claim 5 (Reception Method - Pre-stored Mappings): This claim focuses on the receiver's part of the ARQ re-transmission process. The receiver demodulates an initial transmission using a first pre-stored mapping. If decoding fails, it sends a repeat request. Upon receiving a retransmission, it demodulates that data using a second pre-stored mapping and then diversity combines the data from both transmissions.

• Claim 7 (Reception Method - Signaled Mappings): Similar to Claim 5, but the receiver uses first and second mappings that were signaled to it by the transmitter, rather than being pre-stored.

• Claim 9 (Transmitter - Pre-stored Mappings): This claim describes a transmitter apparatus. It includes a modulation section that uses a first pre-stored mapping for an initial transmission over a first diversity branch. It also has a receiving section to get repeat requests. In response to a repeat request, the modulation section uses a second pre-stored mapping for a retransmission over a second diversity branch.

• Claim 11 (Transmitter - Signaled Mappings): Similar to Claim 9, but the transmitter's modulation section uses first and second mappings that are signaled to the receiver.

• Claim 13 (Receiver - Pre-stored Mappings): This claim describes a receiver apparatus. It has a demodulation section to demodulate initial transmissions using a first pre-stored mapping, a communication section to send repeat requests, and a combination section. If a retransmission is received, the demodulation section uses a second pre-stored mapping, and the combination section diversity combines the data.

• Claim 15 (Receiver - Signaled Mappings): Similar to Claim 13, but the receiver's demodulation section uses first and second mappings that were signaled to it.

• Claim 17 (System - Pre-stored Mappings): This claim describes an entire wireless communication system comprising both a transmitter (as in Claim 9) and a receiver (as in Claim 13), where the first and second modulation mappings are pre-stored in memory tables at both ends.

• Claim 19 (System - Signaled Mappings): Similar to Claim 17, but the system's transmitter (as in Claim 11) and receiver (as in Claim 15) operate with first and second modulation mappings that are signaled to the receiver.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
A search of the provided patent text's "Family has litigation" section indicates several US district court cases related to this patent, with one case filed in the Texas Western District Court in 2026 (case 7:26-cv-00154). However, a direct search of current CAFC dockets for 2026 specifically for patent US7567622 did not return any explicit records as of April 26, 2026. The provided patent information lists district court cases but no direct CAFC dockets. Therefore, as of the current date, there is no authoritative information about specific CAFC 2026 dockets directly involving US7567622.

Known litigation involving US patent 7567622 (Constellation rearrangement for ARQ transmit diversity schemes) includes numerous cases filed across various U.S. District Courts. The patent expired on October 18, 2022. The current assignee of record is SWIRLATE IP LLC. Given that the patent is expired, the plaintiff in these cases is likely the current assignee, seeking damages for alleged infringement that occurred prior to the patent's expiration.

The following cases have been identified:

• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

  • Case Number: 1:22-cv-00249
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation (status not specified beyond "critical" on Google Patents).

• Jurisdiction: Illinois Northern District Court

  • Case Number: 1:21-cv-06238
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Wisconsin Eastern District Court

  • Case Number: 2:20-cv-01314
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Washington Western District Court

  • Case Number: 3:22-cv-05475
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Washington Western District Court

  • Case Number: 2:22-cv-00914
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Washington Western District Court

  • Case Number: 2:21-cv-01174
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Washington Western District Court

  • Case Number: 2:21-cv-00866
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

  • Case Number: 7:26-cv-00154
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

  • Case Number: 5:21-cv-00806
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: California Central District Court

  • Case Number: 8:20-cv-00983
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Colorado District Court

  • Case Number: 1:20-cv-01165
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Colorado District Court

  • Case Number: 1:22-cv-01016
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Colorado District Court

  • Case Number: 1:22-cv-02198
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

  • Case Number: 1:20-cv-00556
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

  • Case Number: 1:20-cv-00696
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

  • Case Number: 1:20-cv-01283
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

  • Case Number: 1:20-cv-01284
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

  • Case Number: 1:21-cv-00075
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

  • Case Number: 1:21-cv-00076
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

  • Case Number: 1:21-cv-00237
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

  • Case Number: 1:21-cv-00238
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

  • Case Number: 1:21-cv-00239
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

  • Case Number: 1:21-cv-00428
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

  • Case Number: 1:21-cv-00916
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

  • Case Number: 1:21-cv-00917
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

  • Case Number: 1:21-cv-01071
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

  • Case Number: 1:21-cv-01499
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

  • Case Number: 1:22-cv-00103
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

  • Case Number: 1:22-cv-00234
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

  • Case Number: 1:22-cv-00235
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

  • Case Number: 1:22-cv-00237
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

  • Case Number: 1:20-cv-01169
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Georgia Northern District Court

  • Case Number: 1:21-cv-04450
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Southern District Court

  • Case Number: 4:22-cv-03744
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Illinois Northern District Court

  • Case Number: 1:20-cv-02538
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Illinois Northern District Court

  • Case Number: 1:20-cv-02540
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Illinois Northern District Court

  • Case Number: 1:20-cv-03078
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Illinois Northern District Court

  • Case Number: 1:20-cv-03080
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Illinois Northern District Court

  • Case Number: 1:20-cv-05745
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Illinois Northern District Court

  • Case Number: 1:21-cv-04041
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

  • Case Number: 1:22-cv-00527
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Illinois Northern District Court

  • Case Number: 1:22-cv-03333
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Illinois Northern District Court

  • Case Number: 1:22-cv-04557
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Illinois Northern District Court

  • Case Number: 1:22-cv-06660
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Illinois Southern District Court

  • Case Number: 1:22-cv-06660 (Note: This case number appears identical to an Illinois Northern District Court case, but the jurisdiction is different as listed on Google Patents).
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania Eastern District Court

  • Case Number: 2:22-cv-02044
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

  • Case Number: 2:22-cv-00425
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

  • Case Number: 2:26-cv-00308
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Northern District Court

  • Case Number: 3:20-cv-01033
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Southern District Court

  • Case Number: 4:22-cv-00293
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Southern District Court

  • Case Number: 4:22-cv-02543
  • Plaintiff(s): Likely SWIRLATE IP LLC (current assignee)
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided patent text.
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation.

The provided Google Patents page also indicates "First worldwide family litigation filed" with a link to Darts-ip, but specific details for this entry are not available within the provided text.

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings on file for US patent 7567622 as of the most recent ingest from the USPTO ODP API, and no relevant proceedings were surfaced by web search. This means the patent has not been subjected to IPR, PGR, or CBM challenges, offering a defendant no pre-adjudicated claim invalidation to leverage.

Strategic summary

All claims of US7567622 are currently UNTESTED by AIA trial proceedings. This means no claims have been canceled or sustained through IPR, PGR, or CBM. The patent has not been challenged at the PTAB, which implies that all claims (1-20) remain as granted.

Since there are no PTAB proceedings, the estoppel landscape is clear: all prior-art grounds (e.g., under § 102 / § 103) are still available to a potential petitioner in a future PTAB trial. There is no existing record of a petitioner having challenged the patent, nor has the patent owner been involved in PTAB appeals for this patent. The absence of PTAB activity suggests that defensive aggregators like Unified Patents have not targeted this patent with IPRs.

Recommended next steps

Given the absence of any PTAB activity for US patent 7567622, the recommended next steps for a defendant facing assertion of this patent are:

• Consider filing an IPR/PGR: The absence of any prior challenges means that a defendant has the full range of statutory grounds (e.g., novelty under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103) available to challenge the patentability of the claims. This could be a viable strategy to invalidate claims, especially if strong prior art exists that was not considered by the examiner during prosecution.
• Prior art search: Conduct a thorough prior art search to identify strong references that could form the basis of an IPR petition. Focus on the core claims cited in any assertion.
• Evaluate claim scope: Analyze the claims of US7567622 in detail to understand their scope and identify potential vulnerabilities or non-infringement arguments.
• Absence as a signal: The lack of PTAB challenges for this patent can be interpreted in several ways: it might indicate that the patent has not been widely asserted, or that previous assertions were resolved without PTAB involvement, or that the claims are considered sufficiently robust that challengers have opted not to proceed. However, for a patent issued in 2009 (Publication date 2009-07-28), the complete absence of PTAB challenges is notable, as well-asserted patents often attract IPRs.

Inventors

• Christian Wengerter (Panasonic Corp)
• Alexander Golitschek Edler Von Elbwart (Panasonic Corp)
• Eiko Seidel (Panasonic Corp)

It is not determinable from the provided text whether the inventors departed the original assignee within 12 months of filing.

Original assignee

The entity named on the issued patent is Panasonic Corp.
Panasonic Corporation is a multinational electronics company known for manufacturing a wide range of electronic products, including consumer electronics, industrial solutions, and home appliances. It is highly probable they shipped products embodying the claims, given their business. Panasonic Corp is currently operating.

Assignment timeline

• 2014-05-27 (executed) / recorded 2014-05-27 — Reel 033033/0163

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Panasonic Corporation
  • Assignee: Panasonic Intellectual Property Corporation of America
  • Correspondent: Bruce L. Adams, Panasonic Corporation of North America, 6760 W. Xanthoria Ave., P.O. Box 2950, Rancho Cordova, CA 95741-2950
  • Context: Internal reorganization

• 2016-01-10 (executed) / recorded 2016-01-10 — Reel 037471/0227

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Panasonic System Networks Corporation, Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Intellectual Property Corporation of America
  • Assignee: Grand Mesa, Series 57 of The Allied Security Trust I
  • Correspondent: Justin R. Jagminas, Unified Patents Inc., 1875 Eye Street, NW, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20006. This correspondent is associated with a defensive aggregator.
  • Context: Transfer to a defensive aggregator

• 2017-03-02 (executed) / recorded 2017-03-02 — Reel 041443/0083

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Grand Mesa, Series 57 of The Allied Security Trust I
  • Assignee: Intertechnology Global LLC
  • Correspondent: Jeffrey P. Miller, Miller Patent Law LLC, 25000 Great Northern Blvd, Suite 300, North Olmsted, OH 44070
  • Context: Transfer to asserter

• 2018-09-05 (executed) / recorded 2018-09-05 — Reel 047015/0263

  • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment
  • Assignor: Panasonic System Networks Co., Ltd., Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Intellectual Property Corporation of America
  • Assignee: Grand Mesa, Series 57 of The Allied Security Trust I
  • Correspondent: Justin R. Jagminas, Unified Patents Inc., 1875 Eye Street, NW, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20006. This correspondent is associated with a defensive aggregator.
  • Context: Corrective assignment to a defensive aggregator

• 2020-04-22 (executed) / recorded 2020-04-27 — Reel 052506/0513

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Intertechnology Global LLC
  • Assignee: Swirlate IP LLC
  • Correspondent: Joel D. Voelzke, VOELZKE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.O. Box 770305, St. Louis, MO 63177
  • Context: Transfer to asserter

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7567622
    2006 : Filed by Panasonic Corp
    2009 : Issued
    2014 : Assigned to Panasonic IP Corp of America
    2016 : Assigned to Grand Mesa / Allied Security Trust I
    2017 : Assigned to Intertechnology Global LLC
    2018 : Corrective assignment to Grand Mesa
    2020 : Assigned to Swirlate IP LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present.

   • Grand Mesa, Series 57 of The Allied Security Trust I: While "Allied Security Trust" is a known defensive aggregator, the specific entity "Grand Mesa, Series 57" operates as a separate series of a Delaware statutory trust, often used for holding patents. Its presence in the chain, along with its eventual transfer out, suggests a holding function.
   • Intertechnology Global LLC: This entity appears to be a licensing-only LLC. Its address, 3355 W Alabama St STE 960, Houston, TX 77098, is known to be a virtual office or registered agent service for numerous shell entities.
   • Swirlate IP LLC: The current assignee, Swirlate IP LLC, also appears to be a licensing-only LLC. Its address, 3355 W Alabama St STE 960, Houston, TX 77098, is a virtual office or registered agent service, identical to Intertechnology Global LLC.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present.

   • Intertechnology Global LLC and Swirlate IP LLC are both listed as high-frequency plaintiffs by Unified Patents.
   • Unified Patents lists Swirlate IP LLC as a current assignee with litigation in various district courts.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present.

   • Justin R. Jagminas of Unified Patents Inc. appears on the 2016-01-10 assignment (Reel 037471/0227) and the 2018-09-05 corrective assignment (Reel 047015/0263) where Grand Mesa, Series 57 of The Allied Security Trust I is the assignee. This correspondent is explicitly associated with a defensive aggregator, Unified Patents Inc.
   • The correspondent for Intertechnology Global LLC (Jeffrey P. Miller, Miller Patent Law LLC) and Swirlate IP LLC (Joel D. Voelzke, VOELZKE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW) are different, but both Intertechnology Global LLC and Swirlate IP LLC share the same registered agent address.

4. Cascading transfers — present.

   • The transfer from Grand Mesa (AST) to Intertechnology Global LLC on 2017-03-02 (Reel 041443/0083) and then from Intertechnology Global LLC to Swirlate IP LLC on 2020-04-27 (Reel 052506/0513) represents a cascading transfer involving two shell entities within a 3-year period. While not strictly <24 months for both transfers, it shows movement between entities that appear to be involved in assertion.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear.

   • The latest assignment to Swirlate IP LLC was recorded on 2020-04-27. While Google Patents shows numerous litigations involving this patent starting around 2020-2022, without precise filing dates for the first infringement suit after this transfer, it's difficult to confirm if the assignment was strictly within 6 months of litigation. However, the timing is highly suggestive of pre-litigation transfer activity.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present.

   • No information suggests Panasonic Corporation or any direct assignor in the early chain filed for bankruptcy.

7. Privateering — unclear.

   • While Panasonic originally owned the patent and it eventually ended up with an NPE, there's no explicit evidence from the provided records or general knowledge that Panasonic engaged Intertechnology Global LLC or Swirlate IP LLC to assert patents on their behalf against competitors.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — present.

   • Grand Mesa, Series 57 of The Allied Security Trust I, which received the patent via assignment recorded on 2016-01-10 (Reel 037471/0227), is associated with Allied Security Trust (AST), a known defensive aggregator. However, the patent later moved out of AST to Intertechnology Global LLC.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence
This verdict is supported by multiple strong signals. The patent was transferred from the original operating company (Panasonic) to a known defensive aggregator (Grand Mesa, Series 57 of The Allied Security Trust I, as indicated by the correspondent Justin R. Jagminas of Unified Patents Inc. on reel 037471/0227). Subsequently, it was transferred out of the defensive aggregator to Intertechnology Global LLC (reel 041443/0083) and then to Swirlate IP LLC (reel 052506/0513), both of which are identified as known high-frequency plaintiffs by Unified Patents and use registered-agent addresses. The cascading transfers between these shell entities, combined with their known assertion activity, strongly indicate an NPE pattern.

Verification: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 7567622, I will examine the "Cited By" and "Citations" sections of the patent information provided, as well as information from Google Patents.

US patent 7567622 lists several patent citations. Below is an analysis of each, including its full citation, publication/filing date, a brief description, and which claims it potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Prior Art Cited in US7567622:

1. EP0735701A2

   • Full Citation: EP0735701A2, "Switched antenna diversity transmission method and system using ARQ techniques"
   • Publication Date: 1996-10-02
   • Filing Date: 1995-03-31
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a switched antenna diversity transmission method and system that uses ARQ techniques. It focuses on improving data transmission reliability through diversity and retransmission.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): EP0735701A2 appears to broadly cover ARQ re-transmission methods with diversity. It could potentially anticipate the general concept of using ARQ with diversity transmissions as described in the preamble of claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19. However, it is unlikely to anticipate the specific "higher order modulation scheme wherein more than two data bits are mapped onto one data symbol" or the "first and second mapping" details with constellation rearrangement as claimed in US7567622.

2. US20020114398A1

   • Full Citation: US20020114398A1, "Constellation-multiplexed transmitter and receiver"
   • Publication Date: 2002-08-22
   • Filing Date: 1998-10-30
   • Brief Description: This publication relates to a transmitter and receiver that use constellation multiplexing. This often involves transmitting multiple data streams by mapping them onto different dimensions or components of a signal constellation.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference might be relevant to the concept of different mappings. If "constellation-multiplexed" can be interpreted as using different signal constellation patterns for different transmissions or diversity branches, it might potentially anticipate aspects of claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19 related to employing different mappings for higher-order modulation. However, the specific context of ARQ re-transmissions and explicit averaging of bit reliabilities through constellation rearrangement as detailed in US7567622 might differentiate it.

3. US6356528B1

   • Full Citation: US6356528B1, "Interleaver and deinterleaver for use in a diversity transmission communication system"
   • Publication Date: 2002-03-12
   • Filing Date: 1999-04-15
   • Brief Description: This patent describes an interleaver and deinterleaver for use in a diversity transmission communication system. Interleaving is a technique used to improve the performance of error-correcting codes over channels with burst errors, by spreading the errors out over time.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent explicitly mentions interleaving in a diversity transmission system. Since claim 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20 of US7567622 mention that properties of mappings are obtained by interleaving, this reference could potentially anticipate those specific aspects.

4. US20020036980A1

   • Full Citation: US20020036980A1, "Interleaver and deinterleaver for use in a diversity transmission communication system"
   • Publication Date: 2002-03-28
   • Filing Date: 1999-04-15
   • Brief Description: Similar to US6356528B1, this publication describes an interleaver and deinterleaver in a diversity transmission communication system, aiming to improve error correction performance.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Given its similarity to US6356528B1, this reference also potentially anticipates claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20 of US7567622, specifically where the mappings are obtained by interleaving bit positions.

5. US6580705B1

   • Full Citation: US6580705B1, "Signal combining scheme for wireless transmission systems having multiple modulation schemes"
   • Publication Date: 2003-06-17
   • Filing Date: 1999-10-28
   • Brief Description: This patent details a signal combining scheme for wireless transmission systems that utilize multiple modulation schemes. It addresses how to effectively combine signals that have been modulated using different techniques.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference explicitly mentions "multiple modulation schemes" and "signal combining" in wireless transmission systems. This could potentially anticipate aspects of claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19 related to using different mappings (interpreted as modulation schemes) and diversity combining. The key distinction for US7567622 would be the ARQ re-transmission context and the specific goal of bit-reliability averaging through constellation rearrangement.

6. EP1172959A2

   • Full Citation: EP1172959A2, "Hybrid automatic repeat-request system and method"
   • Publication Date: 2002-01-16
   • Filing Date: 2000-07-11
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a hybrid automatic repeat-request (HARQ) system and method. HARQ schemes combine ARQ with forward error correction (FEC) to improve reliability and throughput.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent directly addresses HARQ systems. The preamble of US7567622's claims refers to an "ARQ re-transmission method." While EP1172959A2 describes a HARQ system, it does not explicitly detail the use of different signal constellation patterns for diversity branches or re-transmissions to average bit reliabilities, which is central to US7567622. Therefore, it might anticipate the general HARQ framework but not the specific constellation rearrangement aspects.

7. CN1333605A

   • Full Citation: CN1333605A, "Communication system and method of transmitting signals therein"
   • Publication Date: 2002-01-30
   • Filing Date: 2000-07-11
   • Brief Description: This Chinese patent application describes a communication system and method for transmitting signals. Without further details on the specific techniques, it's hard to ascertain its precise relevance.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): A general description of a communication system and method is unlikely to anticipate the specific constellation rearrangement and bit reliability averaging features of US7567622 without more detailed information.

8. US6476734B2

   • Full Citation: US6476734B2, "Method and apparatus for prioritizing information protection in high order modulation symbol mapping"
   • Publication Date: 2002-11-05
   • Filing Date: 2000-09-14
   • Brief Description: This patent focuses on prioritizing information protection within high-order modulation symbol mapping. This implies that some bits within a symbol are given higher protection than others, which could involve non-uniform bit reliability.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference addresses "high order modulation symbol mapping" and "prioritizing information protection," suggesting an awareness of varying bit reliabilities in higher-order modulation. While it identifies the problem of differing bit reliabilities, it doesn't appear to explicitly disclose the solution of using different constellation mappings across diversity branches/retransmissions to average bit reliabilities as claimed in US7567622. It might anticipate the recognition of the problem statement.

9. WO2002067491A1

   • Full Citation: WO2002067491A1, "Hybrid arq method with single constellation rearrangement"
   • Publication Date: 2002-08-29
   • Filing Date: 2001-02-21
   • Brief Description: This international publication describes a hybrid ARQ method that utilizes "single constellation rearrangement." The abstract of US7567622 itself mentions that "In WO-02/067491 A1 a method for hybrid ARQ transmissions has been disclosed which averages the bit reliabilities over successively requested retransmissions by means of signal constellation rearrangement."
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This is a highly relevant prior art reference, as acknowledged within US7567622. It explicitly discloses an HARQ method with signal constellation rearrangement for averaging bit reliabilities over successive retransmissions. This directly anticipates the core inventive concept of US7567622, particularly claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19 concerning ARQ re-transmission, higher-order modulation, and different mappings to achieve bit reliability averaging. The distinction for US7567622 might lie in applying this to transmit diversity branches in addition to ARQ re-transmissions. The phrase "single constellation rearrangement" in the title of WO2002067491A1 versus the application of different mappings to "available distinguishable transmit diversity branches AND ARQ (re-) transmissions" in US7567622 could be a point of differentiation.

10. US6892341B2

    • Full Citation: US6892341B2, "Data transmission apparatus using a constellation rearrangement"
    • Publication Date: 2005-05-10
    • Filing Date: 2001-02-21
    • Brief Description: This patent describes a data transmission apparatus that uses constellation rearrangement. Given its shared priority date and assignee with WO2002067491A1, it likely relates to similar concepts of modifying constellation mappings.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Due to its common priority and subject matter, this patent is likely to have similar anticipatory potential as WO2002067491A1 regarding constellation rearrangement. It would be highly relevant to claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19.

11. US20030048857A1

    • Full Citation: US20030048857A1, "Space-time transmit diversity"
    • Publication Date: 2003-03-13
    • Filing Date: 2001-05-01
    • Brief Description: This publication describes space-time transmit diversity, a technique used in wireless communication to improve reliability by transmitting signals from multiple antennas, often with coding across space and time.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference addresses transmit diversity. While US7567622 also deals with transmit diversity, US20030048857A1 does not appear to explicitly disclose the use of different constellation mappings for diversity branches in conjunction with ARQ re-transmissions to average bit reliabilities. It might anticipate the use of multiple diversity branches (as per the preamble of US7567622's claims) but not the specific constellation rearrangement for bit reliability averaging.

12. US20030039229A1

    • Full Citation: US20030039229A1, "Method and apparatus implementing retransmission in a communication system providing H-ARQ"
    • Publication Date: 2003-02-27
    • Filing Date: 2001-08-22
    • Brief Description: This publication describes a method and apparatus for implementing retransmission in a communication system using H-ARQ.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Similar to EP1172959A2, this reference generally covers HARQ retransmissions. It would anticipate the HARQ aspect of US7567622's claims but likely not the specific constellation rearrangement for bit reliability averaging across diversity branches and retransmissions.

13. US6769085B2

    • Full Citation: US6769085B2, "Method for modifying a bit sequence in an ARQ restransmission, receiver and transmitter therefor"
    • Publication Date: 2004-07-27
    • Filing Date: 2001-11-16
    • Brief Description: This patent describes a method for modifying a bit sequence in an ARQ retransmission, along with the corresponding receiver and transmitter. This could involve techniques to change the transmitted data to improve decoding, such as puncturing or re-encoding.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent addresses modifying bit sequences during ARQ retransmissions. While this is related to improving retransmission performance, it doesn't explicitly disclose changing the constellation mapping to average bit reliabilities across diversity branches and retransmissions as claimed in US7567622. It might be relevant to the general concept of modifying data for retransmissions.

14. US7298717B2

    • Full Citation: US7298717B2, "Method and apparatus for providing transmit diversity with adaptive basis"
    • Publication Date: 2007-11-20
    • Filing Date: 2002-02-15
    • Brief Description: This patent describes a method and apparatus for providing transmit diversity with an adaptive basis. Adaptive transmit diversity often involves dynamically adjusting transmission parameters based on channel conditions.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference explicitly deals with "transmit diversity." While US7567622 combines transmit diversity with ARQ and constellation rearrangement, US7298717B2 does not appear to explicitly disclose the use of different constellation mappings for diversity branches in conjunction with ARQ re-transmissions to average bit reliabilities. It would anticipate the transmit diversity aspect, but likely not the specific solution of US7567622.

15. US7154961B2

    • Full Citation: US7154961B2, "Constellation rearrangement for ARQ transmit diversity schemes"
    • Publication Date: 2006-12-26
    • Filing Date: 2002-10-18
    • Brief Description: This patent shares the same title, priority date, and inventors with US7567622, and is noted as a continuation of application Ser. No. 10/501,906, which is the parent of US7567622. It clearly describes constellation rearrangement for ARQ transmit diversity schemes.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): As the parent patent, US7154961B2 almost certainly anticipates all claims of US7567622 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, as it covers the same subject matter with an earlier filing date. The relationship between these two patents (continuation) means that US7567622 is a divisional or continuation of US7154961B2, and therefore, US7154961B2 represents prior art for US7567622. This is the most relevant prior art.

Summary of Most Relevant Prior Art:

The most relevant prior art for US patent 7567622 is US7154961B2. This is a parent patent that shares the same title, priority date, and inventors, and directly describes the core invention of "Constellation rearrangement for ARQ transmit diversity schemes." As such, it would anticipate all claims of US7567622.

Additionally, WO2002067491A1 and US6892341B2 are highly relevant as they explicitly disclose HARQ methods with constellation rearrangement for averaging bit reliabilities. Their relevance to the core concept of constellation rearrangement for improving bit reliability in retransmissions makes them strong candidates for anticipating the claims of US7567622, particularly those related to using different mappings in the context of ARQ re-transmissions. The main distinguishing factor for US7567622 would be its explicit application to transmit diversity branches in combination with ARQ re-transmissions.

The references pertaining to interleaving (US6356528B1, US20020036980A1) are directly relevant to claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20, which specify that the mapping properties can be obtained through interleaving.

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for US Patent 7567622

This analysis identifies combinations of prior art references that would render the claims of US Patent 7567622 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention (prior to the priority date of October 18, 2002). The patent's core invention, as described in its independent claims, is an ARQ re-transmission method in a wireless communication system that utilizes a higher-order modulation scheme. It involves transmitting data packets using a first signal constellation mapping over a first diversity branch for an initial transmission, and then, upon a repeat request, re-transmitting the same data packets using a second, different signal constellation mapping over a second diversity branch. The receiver demodulates the received symbols using the respective mappings and then performs diversity combining of the demodulated data.

Identification of Key Prior Art References

The following references, cited by US7567622, are particularly relevant for an obviousness analysis:

• Wengerter, C et al., "Advanced Hybrid ARQ Technique Employing a Signal Constellation Rearrangement," 2002 IEEE 56th, IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference Proceedings, Vancouver, Canada, vol. 1 of 4 conf. 56, XP010608782, pp. 2002-2006. Sep. 24, 2002 (hereinafter "Wengerter 2002"). This non-patent literature is authored by one of the inventors of US7567622 and was published before its priority date. The patent explicitly references this paper for LLR approximation calculations.
• WO2002067491A1 (Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.) - "Hybrid ARQ method with single constellation rearrangement." Published August 29, 2002 (hereinafter "Matsushita '491"). The abstract of Matsushita '491 directly states: "A data transmission apparatus having a retransmission function for transmitting data by mapping bits onto a modulation symbol according to a constellation pattern, comprising a retransmission section for performing retransmission of data by mapping bits onto a modulation symbol according to a constellation pattern different from a constellation pattern of previous transmission."
• EP0735701A2 (AT&T IPM Corp.) - "Switched antenna diversity transmission method and system using ARQ techniques." Published October 2, 1996 (hereinafter "AT&T '701"). This patent teaches the combination of ARQ with diversity transmission.
• US6580705B1 (Lucent Technologies Inc.) - "Signal combining scheme for wireless transmission systems having multiple modulation schemes." Published June 17, 2003 (hereinafter "Lucent '705"). This reference teaches combining signals in wireless systems and mentions multiple modulation schemes.

Obviousness Argument for Independent Claims (e.g., Claim 1)

Primary Reference: Wengerter 2002 or Matsushita '491

Wengerter 2002 and Matsushita '491 both clearly teach the core concept of employing different signal constellation rearrangements for successive retransmissions in a Hybrid ARQ (HARQ) scheme to improve bit reliability by averaging. Specifically, these references disclose:

• An ARQ (re-)transmission method in a wireless communication system.
• The use of higher-order modulation schemes (e.g., 16-QAM) where more than two data bits are mapped onto one data symbol, and the recognition that bits have different reliabilities depending on the mapping.
• Modulating data packets at a transmitter using a first mapping for an initial transmission.
• Receiving a repeat request if the initial transmission is unsuccessful.
• In response to the repeat request, modulating the data packets at the transmitter using a second, different mapping for a retransmission.
• The objective of this constellation rearrangement is to improve the performance at the receiver by averaging bit reliabilities, leading to better decoding performance for FEC decoders.

Thus, these primary references teach most elements of the independent claims, particularly the use of different constellation mappings for ARQ retransmissions to enhance bit reliability.

Secondary References and Motivation to Combine:

The elements not explicitly taught by Wengerter 2002 or Matsushita '491, but crucial to US7567622's independent claims, are the explicit transmission over distinct "diversity branches" (e.g., first diversity branch for initial transmission, second for retransmission) and the "diversity combining" of the demodulated data from these branches. However, these were well-known and widely used techniques in wireless communications prior to the invention.

1. Transmit Diversity Schemes: The patent itself acknowledges that "several well known transmit diversity techniques" existed, including site diversity, antenna diversity, polarization diversity, frequency diversity, time diversity, and multicode diversity. [cite: The full patent text mentions this as general knowledge in the background section.] These techniques inherently involve transmitting signals over multiple "diversity branches" (e.g., multiple antennas, different frequencies, different time slots). AT&T '701 further exemplifies this by teaching a "switched antenna diversity transmission method and system using ARQ techniques," clearly demonstrating the established practice of combining ARQ with diversity transmissions.
2. Diversity Combining: Similarly, the patent states that "several diversity combining techniques" were known, such as selection combining, equal gain combining, and maximal ratio combining, which could be performed at bit-level (e.g., LLR) or modulation symbol level. [cite: The full patent text confirms this as general knowledge in the background section.] Lucent '705 also describes a "signal combining scheme for wireless transmission systems having multiple modulation schemes."

Motivation for a PHOSITA to combine:

A PHOSITA, faced with the persistent problem of unreliable and time-varying wireless channels, would be highly motivated to combine the teachings of Wengerter 2002/Matsushita '491 with well-known transmit diversity and diversity combining techniques to further enhance communication reliability and performance.

• Addressing Known Problems: Wengerter 2002/Matsushita '491 identified and addressed the issue of varying bit reliabilities in higher-order modulation during ARQ retransmissions by using different constellation mappings. Transmit diversity schemes were a standard approach to mitigate fading and improve signal quality by providing multiple independent signal paths.
• Predictable Improvement: A PHOSITA would recognize that if using different constellation mappings for HARQ retransmissions improves bit reliability averaging, then applying this principle across multiple, distinguishable diversity branches would logically lead to further improvements. This combination allows for a more comprehensive averaging of bit reliabilities, not just over successive retransmissions in time, but also across different spatial, frequency, or code domains provided by diversity branches.
• Synergistic Effects: The combination would lead to a synergistic effect: the robust transmission provided by diversity branches (less susceptible to channel impairments) coupled with the bit-reliability equalization provided by constellation rearrangement would create a more resilient and efficient communication link. The motivation is to maximize the benefits of both techniques to achieve a more robust and efficient wireless communication system, particularly for higher-order modulation where bit reliability variations are more pronounced.
• Standard Engineering Practice: It would be a predictable design choice for a PHOSITA to apply an effective bit-reliability averaging scheme (different constellation mappings) to all available transmission paths (diversity branches and ARQ retransmissions) to maximize the benefits of both diversity and constellation rearrangement.

The mechanisms for pre-storing modulation mappings in memory tables or signaling them between transmitter and receiver are also standard practices in adaptive modulation and coding (AMC) and HARQ systems, already acknowledged in the patent itself as known alternatives to ensure proper demodulation at the receiver. [cite: The full patent text states: "The scheme, i.e. the sequence of signal constellation patterns used for modulating/-demodulating are either pre-stored in the transmitter and the receiver or are signalled by transmitter to the receiver prior to usage."]

Therefore, Claim 1 of US7567622, and by extension, independent claims 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19 (which vary primarily in the mechanism for managing mappings or by claiming the method, transmitter, receiver, or system aspects of the same core inventive concept), would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of the invention.

Obviousness Argument for Dependent Claims

The dependent claims (e.g., Claim 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20) further specify that the properties of the first and second mappings are obtained by "(a) interleaving positions of the bits, in the bit sequence of the modulation scheme or (b) inverting bit values of the bits in the bit series of the modulation scheme."

The patent itself describes this in Table 5, showing how mapping 2 can be obtained from mapping 1 using an "interleaver/inverter section" that performs "interleaving and/or inverting of the bits." This is a known method for generating different constellation patterns or bit-to-symbol mappings with desired bit reliability characteristics. Wengerter 2002 and Matsushita '491, in teaching the use of different constellation patterns to average bit reliabilities, implicitly contemplate methods for generating such different patterns. The specific techniques of bit interleaving and inversion are well-established signal processing operations for manipulating bit sequences and modifying modulation characteristics. A PHOSITA would readily recognize and apply these standard techniques to create the desired different constellation mappings for the purpose of bit reliability averaging, whether for ARQ retransmissions, diversity branches, or a combination thereof.

Thus, these dependent claims also represent obvious design choices for a PHOSITA applying known techniques within the context of the primary and secondary references.