`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`
`
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-868
`
`RX-3141
`
`TSG-RAN Working Group 1 #21
`Torino, Italy, Aug. 27-31 2001
`
`R1-01-0972
`
`Source:
`
`|nterDigital Comm. Corp.
`
`Title:
`
`Simplified Illustration of the performance benefit of UE dependent CRC
`
`Document for: Discussion
`
`Introduction
`
`Several companies have proposed or supported the use of the UE dependent CRC for
`HSDPA downlink signaling, in which the CRC is combined with the UE ID, and only the UE-
`dependent ID is transmitted over the air. Some members of the Working Group have been
`concerned that the technique has only imagined benefits.
`
`This paper provides a quantitative illustration of the benefits of implict UE ID. Since the
`purpose is to be illustrative the analysis uses simplified assumptions.
`
`The analysis will show that, for a given allocation of bits for the combined functions of UE ID
`and CRC, the UE dependent CRC provides better detection of errors for the case where the
`erroneous block is intended for the receiving UE.
`
`Assumptions
`To facilitate the discussion assume three alternative concepts, each using the same number
`of bits, e.g. 16,
`to support the combined UE ID and CRC.
`
`1) UE ID length = CRC length: 16 bits; UE dependent CRC
`2) UE ID length = CRC length = 8 bits; both are transmitted
`3) UE ID length =16 bits; no CRC
`
`Note that concepts (1) and (3) support more UE IDs than concept (2).
`
`Assume that the probability of bit error, given that the block is in error, = p, independent from
`bit to bit.
`
`Note that 0.5 2 p 2 0
`
`Erroneous Cases
`There are two cases of interest:
`
`a) The transmission is not intended for the UE
`b) The transmission is intended for the UE
`
`Analysis of the cases
`Case (a), the transmission is not intended for the UE
`
`NK868|TCO15906877
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1032-00001
`
`
`
`(2), and (3), the probability of false acceptance of the CRC (given that the
`For concepts (1) ,
`burst is in error)= 1/216
`
`Each bit received has equal probability (i.e. 1/2) of matching the expected value.
`
`Case (b), the transmission is intended for the UE
`Given that the block is received in error,
`
`For concept (1), the probability of acceptance = 1/216
`For concept (2),
`the probability of acceptance = (1-p)8/28
`For concept (3), the probability of acceptance = (1—p)16
`
`The performance of the three options is shown in figure 1. If the bit error probability = 0.5 for
`each of the bits of a failed block, then all concepts are equal in performance. As long as an
`incorrectly processed block has more correct bits than incorrect bits, then the UE dependent
`CRC has better error detection performance.
`
`Concept 3
`no CRC
`16 bit UEID
`
`ncept2
`' UEI D+8bit
`(‘pr
`
`concept 1
`UE specific CRC
`
`0.4
`0.3
`0.2
`Probability of bit error (given block error)
`
`Wox:
`5o.C’uu
`
`<'
`
`6E
`
`‘
`EN.o
`Ea.
`
`Figure 1 Probability of false acceptance versus conditional bit error probability for an
`erroneous block intended for the receiving UE
`
`N K868|TCO15906878
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1032-00002
`
`
`
`Conclusion
`
`Assuming the same number of bits is allocated for the combined functions of UE ID and
`CRC:
`
`o The benefit of the UE specific CRC is in its improved protection in rejecting errors in
`blocks addressed to the receiving UE.
`
`o
`
`In regard to protection against accepting blocks intended for other UEs, all of the
`approaches are equivilent.
`
`N K868|TCO15906879
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1032-00003
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
