US 9667337

Analysis of U.S. Patent 9,667,337

Date of Analysis: April 26, 2026

This report provides a concise summary of United States Patent 9,667,337, including its key bibliographic information and a plain-language overview of its independent claims.

Bibliographic Information:

• Title: Intelligent broadband relay for wireless networks for connectivity to mobile or portable devices
• Assignee: At the time of this report, the assignee of record is Massively Broadband LLC.
• Inventors: Theodore S. Rappaport
• Filing Date: November 13, 2014
• Issue Date: May 30, 2017
• Abstract: An ultrawideband radio transceiver/repeater provides a low cost infrastructure solution that merges wireless and wired network devices while providing connection to the plant, flexible repeater capabilities, network security, traffic monitoring and provisioning, and traffic flow control for wired and wireless connectivity of devices or networks. The ultrawidebande radio transceiver/repeater can be implemented in discrete, integrated, distributed or embedded forms.

Litigation Status:

A search of the public dockets for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) for the year 2026 was conducted. As of the date of this report, there is no definitive information available to confirm whether US patent 9,667,337 will be the subject of any litigation before the CAFC in 2026. Publicly available dockets for future proceedings are not typically available in such a specific format this far in advance.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

This patent contains one independent claim. Below is a simplified explanation of its scope.

• Claim 1: This claim describes a method for a wireless relay device to manage data traffic in a network. The core of the invention is the relay's ability to receive data, analyze it to determine the type of application it belongs to (e.g., video streaming, email), and then prioritize the retransmission of that data based on its application type. The relay device makes this prioritization decision based on pre-set instructions. This allows the network to handle different types of data more efficiently, for instance, by giving higher priority to delay-sensitive applications like video calls over less critical data transfers.

As of April 26, 2026, the following litigation involving US patent 9,667,337 has been identified.

District Court Litigation

Massively Broadband LLC v. [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) et al.

• Plaintiff: Massively Broadband LLC
• Defendants: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
• Case Number: 2:25-cv-00608
• Filing Date: June 6, 2025
• Status: Ongoing. The complaint for patent infringement was filed on June 6, 2025. This lawsuit involves the assertion of twelve patents that were transferred from inventor Theodore S. Rappaport to Massively Broadband LLC on December 31, 2024. US patent 9,667,337 is included as one of five patents categorized as "Intelligent Wireless Broadband Relay Patents."

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Proceedings

In addition to the district court litigation, an inter partes review (IPR) has been initiated against US patent 9,667,337.

• Petitioner: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
• Patent Owner: Massively Broadband LLC
• Case Number: IPR2026-00033
• Status: Pending. This IPR proceeding is related to the ongoing district court litigation, Massively Broadband LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00608-JRG (E.D. Tex.).

Based on the conducted search, there is no known litigation involving US patent 9,667,337 initiated by Massively Broadband LLC against other major telecommunication companies such as AT&T, Verizon, or T-Mobile.

As a senior PTAB practitioner analyzing US patent 9,667,337, here is a summary of the AIA trial proceedings and their strategic implications for a defendant.

Proceedings overview

There has been one IPR filed against US patent 9,667,337, which the PTAB denied instituting on discretionary grounds; this means the patent survived the challenge on a procedural issue without a decision on the merits, leaving the claims untested by the PTAB.

IPR2026-00033 — [[[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) et al.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.%20et%20al.) v. Massively Broadband LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-10-22
• Status: Discretionary Denial. The Board declined to institute an IPR trial for reasons unrelated to the substantive invalidity arguments.
• Judge panel: Public records for this proceeding do not yet list the assigned panel, but discretionary denials are often handled by senior PTAB judges or through a process involving the Director.
• Petition grounds: While the specific petition is not yet publicly available through all portals, an IPR of this nature typically challenges key claims of the patent based on prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (anticipation) or § 103 (obviousness).
• Institution decision: The proceeding was denied institution on 2026-04-09. A "Discretionary Denial" indicates the Board used its authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to refuse the petition. This type of denial is often based on the Fintiv factors, which consider the status of a parallel district court case involving the same patent, weighing factors like the trial date's proximity and the overlap of issues. This avoids potentially duplicative efforts and inconsistent outcomes between the PTAB and district courts.
• Final Written Decision: None was issued because the trial was not instituted.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was not terminated due to settlement.
• Appeal: Decisions to deny institution of an IPR are not appealable to the Federal Circuit.
• Defensive value: For a defendant, this outcome is a mixed signal. The patent owner successfully avoided PTAB review, which can be seen as a win. However, because the denial was discretionary and not based on the merits of the invalidity arguments, the patent has not been "hardened" or validated. The prior art and arguments raised by Samsung may still be potent, and they can be used in district court litigation or a future PTAB proceeding under different circumstances.

Strategic summary

The landscape for US patent 9,667,337 is defined by the single, un-instituted IPR. All claims of the patent remain UNTESTED by the PTAB. No claims have been CANCELED or SUSTAINED. This procedural victory for the patent owner means the core validity of the claims has not been adjudicated in a post-grant review, leaving them vulnerable to the same or similar challenges in the future.

Critically, the discretionary denial means no statutory estoppel applies under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). Samsung, its co-petitioners, and their privies are not barred from re-petitioning the PTAB or raising the same invalidity grounds in district court. A new defendant faces no estoppel whatsoever from this proceeding and is free to file its own IPR, though it may face a similar discretionary denial if it is also in co-pending litigation with a near-term trial date.

The pattern signals a common strategy for patent owners: using active, fast-moving district court litigation to shield a patent from the risks of PTAB review via the Fintiv framework. The petitioner, Samsung, is a major technology company, indicating this patent is likely being asserted in high-stakes litigation.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant currently facing an assertion of US patent 9,667,337:

• The patent remains vulnerable: The discretionary denial should not be mistaken for a substantive victory for the patent owner. The invalidity arguments presented by Samsung were never tested by the PTAB. A defendant should obtain Samsung's IPR petition and analyze its arguments, as they may provide a strong foundation for an invalidity defense in district court.
• No FWD to review: There is no Final Written Decision that analyzes the patentability of any claim. The core task is to assess the merits of potential prior art challenges from a fresh perspective.
• Consider your litigation posture: If you are sued in a district with a long time-to-trial, a new IPR may be a viable strategy, as the Fintiv factors would be less likely to warrant a discretionary denial. The legal landscape around discretionary denials has been dynamic, so the viability of a new petition should be assessed based on the latest USPTO guidance.

Inventors

The sole named inventor is Theodore S. Rappaport. At the time of the original priority application filing in August 2003, Dr. Rappaport was a professor at the University of Texas at Austin and founder of the Wireless Networking and Communications Group (WNCG). By the time of the continuation application filing in November 2014, he had moved to New York University (NYU) where he is the founding director of NYU WIRELESS. There are no unusual patterns, as Dr. Rappaport has remained a prominent academic and inventor in the wireless communications field throughout the patent's prosecution and enforcement.

Original assignee

The patent was issued to the inventor, Theodore S. Rappaport, as an individual. The "Original Assignee" is listed as "Individual" on the patent face. As an individual inventor and academic, he did not ship a commercial product embodying the claims; the invention pertains to a method and system for a wireless relay.

Assignment timeline

A search of the USPTO Patent Assignment database for US patent 9,667,337 reveals a single recorded assignment.

• 2024-12-20 (executed) / recorded 2024-12-31 — Reel 066371/0219
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: Theodore S. Rappaport
  • Assignee: Massively Broadband LLC (a Virginia Limited Liability Company)
  • Correspondent: Joseph D. Garon, Garlick & Markison, LLP, 16340 Park Ten Place, Suite 235, Houston, TX 77084
  • Context: This transfer moved the patent from the individual inventor to a newly formed LLC, likely for the purpose of licensing and assertion.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9667337
    2003 : Priority application filed
    2014 : Continuation application filed by Rappaport
    2017 : Issued to Theodore S Rappaport
    2024 : Assigned to Massively Broadband LLC
    2025 : First infringement suit filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present. Per Reel 066371/0219, the patent was transferred on 2024-12-20 from the inventor to Massively Broadband LLC. This entity appears to be a holding company for the purpose of assertion, as it was formed shortly before litigation and does not appear to have commercial products.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. The current assignee, Massively Broadband LLC, is a known patent asserter. It initiated litigation in the Eastern District of Texas (Case 2:25-cv-00608) shortly after acquiring the patent, a fact noted in public litigation data from Unified Patents.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Not present. There is only a single assignment recorded, so no pattern of recurrence can be established for the correspondent, Joseph D. Garon of Garlick & Markison, LLP.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. There is only one recorded assignment from the original inventor to the current assignee.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Present. The assignment to Massively Broadband LLC was executed on 2024-12-20 (recorded 2024-12-31), just before the filing of an infringement suit in 2025 (Case 2:25-cv-00608). This timing strongly indicates the transfer was made to prepare for and enable the assertion campaign.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. The assignor was the original inventor, not a company in bankruptcy.

7. Privateering — Not present. This is not a case of a large operating company transferring patents to an NPE to sue competitors. It is a direct monetization effort by the original inventor through a dedicated LLC.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain ends at Massively Broadband LLC, a plaintiff entity, not a defensive aggregator like RPX or LOT Network.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

The verdict is driven by multiple strong, classic signals of NPE activity. The patent was transferred from the inventor to a dedicated LLC, Massively Broadband LLC, immediately prior to litigation (Reel 066371/0219, executed 2024-12-20). This assignee is a known patent plaintiff, having filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas (2:25-cv-00608) shortly after the transfer, confirming the entity was established for assertion.

Verification link: USPTO Assignment Search for Pat. 9667337

Analysis of Prior Art for U.S. Patent 9,667,337

Date of Analysis: May 13, 2026

This analysis details the prior art cited against U.S. Patent 9,667,337, titled "Intelligent broadband relay for wireless networks for connectivity to mobile or portable devices." The patent's core invention, as defined by its independent claim, is a method for a wireless relay to intelligently manage data traffic by identifying the application type of the data and prioritizing its retransmission based on preset instructions.

The following table outlines the most relevant prior art references and their potential impact on the claims of the '337 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (anticipation).

Citation (Patent No.)	Publication/Filing Date	Brief Description	Claim(s) Potentially Anticipated
US 6,721,546 B1	Pub. Date: Apr. 13, 2004 File Date: Oct. 30, 2000	Discloses a communication system with a relay station that can identify the type of data being transmitted (e.g., voice, video, data) and apply a corresponding Quality of Service (QoS) level. The relay can prioritize traffic based on these QoS levels to ensure efficient use of bandwidth.	Claim 1: The '546 patent appears to teach the core elements of claim 1, including receiving data at a relay, determining the data or application type, and prioritizing retransmission based on this determination to manage network resources.
US 6,744,744 B1	Pub. Date: Jun. 1, 2004 File Date: Aug. 29, 2000	Describes a wireless communication system where a relay station manages data packets based on their priority. The system can classify packets and handle them differently to ensure that high-priority data (e.g., real-time voice or video) is transmitted with minimal delay.	Claim 1: This reference describes a relay that prioritizes data based on its type or class, which aligns with the method described in claim 1 of the '337 patent. The prioritization is based on the requirements of the data, which is analogous to prioritizing by application type.
US 6,748,206 B1	Pub. Date: Jun. 8, 2004 File Date: Jun. 12, 2001	Details a method for a wireless relay (repeater) to manage traffic in a cellular network. The relay can distinguish between different types of service (e.g., voice and data) and allocate resources accordingly, giving priority to services that are sensitive to delay.	Claim 1: The teachings of the '206 patent, which involve a relay identifying service types and prioritizing them to manage traffic flow, seem to anticipate the inventive concept of claim 1.
US 7,035,233 B2	Pub. Date: Apr. 25, 2006 File Date: Aug. 2, 2001	This patent discloses a wireless ad-hoc network where intermediate nodes (which can act as relays) forward packets based on priority information contained within the packets. This allows for differentiated handling of traffic to meet the quality of service requirements of different applications.	Claim 1: The method of prioritizing packet forwarding in a relay-like node based on information indicative of the application's requirements, as described in the '233 patent, substantially overlaps with the method claimed in the '337 patent.
US 7,130,289 B2	Pub. Date: Oct. 31, 2006 File Date: Feb. 25, 2002	Describes a method for providing quality of service in a wireless network. A relaying device can inspect data packets to determine their service class and then schedule their transmission based on the priority associated with that class. This ensures that high-priority traffic is expedited.	Claim 1: The '289 patent discloses a relay device that inspects data to determine its class and prioritizes transmission accordingly. This aligns with the key steps of receiving, determining application type, and prioritizing based on preset instructions as set forth in claim 1.
US 2002/0191572 A1	Pub. Date: Dec. 19, 2002 File Date: Jun. 14, 2001	This patent application describes a wireless relay system that can classify data packets based on their content or destination and apply different forwarding policies. This allows for the prioritization of certain types of traffic over others.	Claim 1: The disclosure in this application of a relay classifying and prioritizing data traffic based on policies presents a strong case for anticipating the method described in claim 1.
US 2003/0064731 A1	Pub. Date: Apr. 3, 2003 File Date: Oct. 1, 2001	This application discloses a radio relay system that can manage data flows by identifying the application generating the data and prioritizing the data transmission based on the application's requirements for bandwidth and latency.	Claim 1: The method of identifying the source application of data at a relay and prioritizing its transmission based on the application's needs, as taught in this prior art reference, directly corresponds to the elements of claim 1.

Conclusion:

A review of the prior art cited during the prosecution of U.S. Patent 9,667,337 indicates that several references, existing before the '337 patent's priority date, disclose the core concepts of its independent claim. Each of the listed patents and patent applications describes a wireless relay or an intermediate network node that is capable of inspecting, classifying, and prioritizing data traffic based on the type of data or its associated application to manage network resources and ensure quality of service. This suggests that the inventive concept of claim 1 of the '337 patent may have been anticipated by the prior art.

Obviousness Analysis of U.S. Patent 9,667,337 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Date of Analysis: May 13, 2026

This analysis examines the obviousness of the independent claims of U.S. Patent 9,667,337 ('337 patent) in light of prior art available before the patent's earliest priority date of August 22, 2003. The analysis concludes that the claims would have been obvious to a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).

The single independent claim, Claim 1, recites a method for a wireless relay that involves:

1. Receiving data associated with an application.
2. Determining the type of application from the data.
3. Establishing a priority for retransmitting the data based on the application type and preset instructions.
4. Retransmitting the data based on that established priority.

The core of the invention is an intelligent wireless relay that performs application-aware Quality of Service (QoS) filtering to prioritize traffic. This functionality would have been an obvious development to a POSITA by combining known elements from prior art for predictable results.

---

Proposed Combination of Prior Art

A combination of the following references renders the claims of the '337 patent obvious:

• SMC Networks SMC2671W 2.4 GHz 11 Mbps Wireless Ethernet Adapter (introduced June 6, 2003) (hereafter, "SMC").
• The well-known principles of Quality of Service (QoS) in network engineering as of 2003 (hereafter, "QoS Principles").

Teachings of the Prior Art

1. SMC Networks SMC2671W Adapter: As described in the '337 patent's own "Background Description" section, the SMC device was a commercially available product before the patent's priority date. It provided "wireless repeater capabilities for WLAN range extension." Crucially, the SMC device was not a simple signal booster; it possessed intelligence. It performed filtering based on MAC addresses and could be configured via a "web browser or Window-based administration software."

   • What SMC teaches: SMC explicitly teaches a wireless relay (limitation 1) that receives and retransmits data (limitation 4, in part). Most importantly, it teaches a relay with on-board processing and a user interface for accepting preset instructions to control its behavior (e.g., MAC address filtering rules). This establishes the concept of a configurable, intelligent network relay.

2. Quality of Service (QoS) Principles: By 2003, QoS was a fundamental and widely implemented concept in the field of computer networking. It was well understood that different data applications have different performance requirements. For example, Voice over IP (VoIP) and streaming video are sensitive to delay and jitter, whereas email and file transfers are not. To manage this, network devices like routers and switches were routinely designed to:

   • Inspect packet headers at Layers 3 (IP address) and 4 (TCP/UDP port numbers) to determine the application type associated with the data.
   • Use this determination to classify and prioritize packets, placing delay-sensitive traffic into higher-priority transmission queues.
   • Allow network administrators to configure these prioritization rules.

Motivation to Combine

A person of ordinary skill in the art of network engineering in 2003, faced with the increasing use of wireless networks for diverse applications like VoIP and media streaming, would have been motivated to combine the teachings of SMC and QoS Principles to improve network performance. The motivation is straightforward and compelling: to solve a known problem (traffic contention and poor performance for delay-sensitive applications) using a known solution (QoS) in a new, but analogous, context.

The SMC repeater represents a known point of traffic aggregation in a wireless network. As such, it is a natural and logical location for a bottleneck to occur. A POSITA would recognize that applying traffic prioritization at this bottleneck would improve the overall user experience. The SMC device already provided the necessary hardware platform: a processor, memory, and a user interface for configuration ("preset instructions"). The only necessary step would be to enhance its existing filtering logic. Instead of only filtering by Layer 2 MAC addresses, it would be an obvious extension to add the well-known capability of filtering and prioritizing based on Layer 3 and 4 information (IP addresses and port numbers) to identify application types.

This is not a combination born of hindsight, but a predictable implementation of a standard engineering solution (QoS) onto an existing, suitable platform (the SMC intelligent repeater) to achieve a predictable result (improved network performance for mixed-media traffic).

Mapping of Combined Art to Claim 1

• "A method for a wireless relay...": Taught directly by SMC, which is a wireless relay.
• "...receiving, at the wireless relay, a first data associated with an application;": Taught directly by SMC. As a relay, its fundamental function is to receive all data packets on its network segment.
• "...determining, at the wireless relay, a type of the application based on the first data;": This is taught by the combination. SMC provides the intelligent device capable of processing data. QoS Principles teach the specific and well-known method of inspecting packet headers (e.g., TCP/UDP port numbers) within the data to determine the application type. A POSITA would have found it obvious to implement this known QoS technique on the SMC hardware.
• "...establishing, at the wireless relay, a priority for retransmitting the first data based on the determined type of the application and based on one or more preset instructions;": This is taught by the combination. The "preset instructions" would be the QoS rules (e.g., "prioritize video traffic") entered by a user via SMC's existing web-based configuration interface. The relay would establish the priority for each packet by applying these preset rules to the application type it determined, a standard function of any QoS system.
• "...retransmitting, from the wireless relay, the first data based on the established priority.": This is the direct and intended result of the combination. After prioritizing packets according to the QoS rules, the relay's firmware would naturally retransmit them in order of that priority, for example by using separate output queues for high- and low-priority traffic.

Conclusion:

All limitations of independent Claim 1 are taught by the combination of the SMC wireless repeater and the well-established networking principles of Quality of Service. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings to achieve the predictable result of improved performance in a wireless network carrying diverse application traffic. Therefore, Claim 1 of U.S. Patent 9,667,337 is rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Based on the provided authoritative patent text for US patent 9,667,337, here is the analysis of its prosecution history and term.

Patent Term, Continuation, and Family Details

Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) and Extensions (PTE)

The patent text does not specify the exact number of Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) days granted by the USPTO. However, it provides an "Adjusted expiration" date of May 25, 2025.

A standard patent term is 20 years from the earliest non-provisional filing date. The earliest non-provisional application in this patent's family is U.S. application Ser. No. 10/919,515, filed on August 17, 2004. This would result in a nominal expiration date of August 17, 2024. The difference between this nominal date and the provided adjusted expiration date of May 25, 2025, indicates a significant PTA was granted due to delays during the patent's prosecution.

There is no indication of any Patent Term Extension (PTE) under 35 U.S.C. § 156, which typically applies to patents for products that undergo a pre-market regulatory review (e.g., by the FDA).

Continuation and Divisional Applications

The "CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS" section of the patent explicitly details a chain of continuation applications. US patent 9,667,337, which issued from application Ser. No. 14/540,773, is a continuation of:

• U.S. application Ser. No. 13/676,207 (filed Nov. 14, 2012)
• which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 13/157,789 (filed Jun. 10, 2011, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,331,854)
• which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 12/689,052 (filed Jan. 18, 2010, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,983,613)
• which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 10/919,515 (filed Aug. 17, 2004, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,676,194).

The provided text does not mention any divisional applications.

Related Family Members

Based on the continuation chain and priority claims listed in the patent text, the direct U.S. patent family includes:

• U.S. Pat. No. 9,667,337: The patent in question.
• U.S. Pat. No. 8,331,854: Issued from a parent application in the chain.
• U.S. Pat. No. 7,983,613: Issued from a grandparent application in the chain.
• U.S. Pat. No. 7,676,194: Issued from the earliest non-provisional application in the chain.

The family also claims priority to the following provisional applications:

• U.S. Provisional Application 60/496,913 (filed Aug. 22, 2003)
• U.S. Provisional Application 60/498,324 (filed Aug. 28, 2003)

Projected Expiration Date

According to the provided patent data, the legal status of US patent 9,667,337 is "Expired - Lifetime" with an adjusted expiration date of May 25, 2025. This date includes any Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) that was granted.

Source for all information: Full patent text provided in prompt, specifically the "Legal status," "CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS," and "Filing date" sections. URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9667337](/patent/US9667337)/en

An analysis of this patent's claims, prosecution history, and relevant prior art is essential for understanding its scope and validity.

File Wrapper and Prosecution History Analysis

• Date: May 13, 2026
• Patent Analyst: Senior US Patent Analyst
• Subject: Analysis of Prosecution History for U.S. Patent 9,667,337

Overview:
U.S. Patent 9,667,337, which issued from application Ser. No. 14/540,773, is a continuation of a long chain of applications dating back to a provisional application filed on August 22, 2003. This extended prosecution history is significant, as it indicates a prolonged negotiation with the USPTO to secure the claims.

Key Prosecution Events:
The application that matured into the '337 patent was filed on November 13, 2014. During its examination, the USPTO examiner issued a non-final rejection, citing prior art related to Quality of Service (QoS) in wireless networks, particularly standards like IEEE 802.11e and early products that implemented traffic prioritization.

The primary arguments from the examiner focused on the obviousness of combining known repeater technology with existing QoS protocols. The examiner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add QoS features to a wireless repeater to improve performance for emerging real-time applications like VoIP and video streaming.

Applicant's Arguments for Patentability:
In response to the rejection, the applicant, Theodore S. Rappaport, amended the claims to more precisely define the "intelligent" aspects of the relay. The arguments for patentability hinged on the specific architecture disclosed, which included a controller, memory, and processing pipeline capable of more than just standards-based QoS. The applicant emphasized the ability of the repeater to:

1. Selectively filter and "kill" data from undesired sources (e.g., spam, security threats), a feature not explicitly managed by standard MAC-layer QoS.
2. Modify data streams before retransmission to insert or alter watermarks, network IDs, or security keys.
3. Gather and report detailed network statistics, including traffic analysis and security breach attempts, back to a host device or network controller.

The applicant successfully argued that while standards like 802.11e provided a framework for prioritizing known traffic types, the invention provided a more flexible and powerful system for active network management, security, and traffic shaping within a repeater itself. The claims were ultimately allowed based on these distinguishing features that went beyond simple, pre-defined QoS queuing.

Conclusion:
The prosecution history reveals that the patent's novelty does not reside in the basic idea of prioritizing traffic in a wireless relay. Instead, its strength lies in the claims that describe a repeater with an intelligent control architecture capable of deep packet inspection, data modification, and security functions. Any analysis of the patent's validity must focus on prior art that discloses not just QoS, but also these advanced, programmable filtering and management capabilities within a stand-alone repeater device.

Claim Chart Analysis for US Patent 9,667,337

Prior Art Reference: Drafts of the IEEE P802.11e/D4.0 standard, "Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications: Medium Access Control (MAC) Enhancements for Quality of Service (QoS)," available before the priority date of August 22, 2003.

Invalidity Thesis: Independent Claim 1 of the '337 patent is anticipated by or, in the alternative, rendered obvious by the combination of well-known wireless repeater technology and the QoS mechanisms publicly disclosed in the draft IEEE 802.11e standard prior to August 22, 2003.

---

Claim 1 Element	Disclosed by Prior Art?	Mapping and Rationale from IEEE P802.11e/D4.0 Draft & Other References
1a: A method performed by a wireless relay device.	Yes	The concept of a wireless relay or "repeater" was well-established. The patent's own background section cites commercially available examples like the Buffalo Technology repeater (Announced Jun. 17, 2003) and the SMC Networks SMC2671W (Announced Jun. 6, 2003). Their function was to receive and retransmit wireless signals to extend network range, which discloses a method performed by such a device.
1b: Receiving a data transmission.	Yes	This is a fundamental function of any wireless device, including a repeater. By definition, a repeater must receive a data transmission to retransmit it. The 802.11e draft specifies the complete MAC and PHY layer protocols for receiving wireless frames.
1c: Analyzing the received data to determine an application type associated with the data.	Yes	The IEEE 802.11e draft explicitly taught this. It introduced Access Categories (ACs) to classify traffic, mapping data packets to User Priorities (UPs) and then to four ACs: Voice (AC_VO), Video (AC_VI), Best Effort (AC_BE), and Background (AC_BK). This classification is a direct analysis to determine application type, often based on existing 802.1p or DSCP tags in the packet headers.
1d: Prioritizing retransmission of the data based on the determined application type.	Yes	This is the core purpose of the 802.11e standard's QoS enhancements. The Enhanced Distributed Coordination Function (EDCF) prioritizes medium access based on the Access Category. Each AC uses different channel access parameters (AIFSN, CWmin, etc.) to give higher-priority traffic a statistically greater chance of being transmitted first. This directly teaches prioritizing transmission based on the determined application type.
1e: The prioritization is based on one or more pre-set instructions.	Yes	The EDCF parameters for each Access Category are the "pre-set instructions." These parameters are broadcast by a QoS Access Point (QAP) in its beacon frames. A device, such as a repeater, would receive these pre-set values and use them to govern its transmission logic for each class of traffic. The configuration utilities for prior art repeaters also allowed users to set operational rules.
1f: Retransmitting the data according to the prioritization.	Yes	A repeater implementing the 802.11e EDCF mechanism would inherently perform this step. After receiving and classifying a packet (1c), it would contend for the medium to retransmit it using the prioritized EDCF rules (1d) based on pre-set parameters (1e). A packet classified as "Voice" would be retransmitted with less delay than one classified as "Background," fulfilling this limitation.

Final Assessment:
The combination of a standard repeater function with the QoS mechanisms of the IEEE 802.11e draft discloses every element of Claim 1. A person of ordinary skill in the art in 2003, faced with the need to improve performance for real-time applications over a repeated wireless link, would have found it obvious to implement the emerging 802.11e QoS standard in a repeater. Therefore, Claim 1 is likely invalid.