`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________________
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`InterDigital Technology Corporation
`
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No.: 7,941,151
`Filed: February 23, 2007
`Issued: May 10, 2011
`
`Title: Method and System for Providing Channel Assignment Information
`Used to Support Uplink and Downlink Channels
`
`__________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,941,151
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00275
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,941,151
`Attorney Docket No. 14569-9
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`D. 
`
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8) ............................................................ 4 
`A. 
`Real Party-in-Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1)) ..................................................... 4 
`B. 
`Related Matters (§ 42.8(b)(2)) .............................................................. 4 
`C. 
`Counsel and Service Information (§§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4)) ........................... 4 
`Payment of Fees (§ 42.15(a)) .......................................................................... 5 
`III. 
`IV.  Requirements for Inter Partes Review ............................................................ 5 
`A.  Grounds for Standing (§ 42.104(a)) ...................................................... 5 
`B. 
`Identification of Challenged Claims (§ 42.104(b)(1)) .......................... 5 
`C. 
`Prior Art and Specific Grounds for Challenging Claims (§
`42.104(b)(2)) ......................................................................................... 5 
`Claim Construction (§ 42.104(b)(3)) .................................................... 6 
`1. 
`“same physical downlink control channel” ................................ 7 
`2. 
`“channel assignment information” .............................................. 8 
`3. 
`“shared channel” ......................................................................... 9 
`4. 
`“based on WTRU identity (ID)-masked cyclic redundancy
`check (CRC) parity bits” ............................................................. 9 
`V.  Overview of the Technology ......................................................................... 11 
`A. 
`Prior Art ............................................................................................... 11 
`B. 
`Alleged Invention ................................................................................ 13 
`VI.  There is a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the 151 patent is
`unpatentable. .................................................................................................. 15 
`A.  Ground 1: Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, Siemens 004 anticipates the
`challenged claims. Alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Siemens
`004 renders claims 1-6, 8-9, 16-21, and 23-24 obvious. ..................... 15 
`1. 
`Siemens 004 anticipates all of the challenged claims because its
`disclosure is identical in substance to the 151 patent’s first
`embodiment, which the challenged claims cover. .................... 16 
`Siemens 004 discloses each and every limitation of claim 1. .. 18 
`Siemens 004 discloses each and every limitation of claims 2-6
` ................................................................................................... 27 
`Siemens 004 discloses each and every limitation of claim 8. .. 29 
`
`2. 
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`5. 
`6. 
`7. 
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,941,151
`Attorney Docket No. 14569-9
`Siemens 004 discloses each and every limitation of claim 9. .. 31 
`Siemens 004 discloses each and every limitation of claim 16. 32 
`Siemens 004 discloses each and every limitation of claims 17-
`21 and 23-24. ............................................................................. 33 
`Ground 2: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the combination of Siemens 004
`and the admitted prior art renders claims 1-6 and 16-21 obvious. ...... 33 
`1. 
`The 151 patent admits that “WTRU identity (ID)-masked cyclic
`redundancy check (CRC) parity bits” (claims 1 and 16) and
`“WTRU ID-masked CRC parity bits are derived from a sixteen
`bit CRC” (claims 2 and 17) were known in the prior art. ......... 33 
`The 151 patent admits that the limitations in claims 3-6 and 18-
`21 were known in the prior art. ................................................. 34 
`Ground 3: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the combination of Siemens 004
`and 3GPP TS 25.212 renders claims 1-6 and 16-21 obvious. ............ 35 
`1. 
`3GPP TS 25.212 discloses the “first determining” limitation
`(claim 1) .................................................................................... 36 
`3GPP TS 25.212 discloses the limitations of claims 2-6 and 17-
`21. .............................................................................................. 37 
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated
`to combine the teachings of Siemens 004 and 3GPP TS 25.212.
` ................................................................................................... 38 
`D.  Ground 4: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the combination of Siemens 004
`and InterDigital 810 renders claims 1-2 and 16-17 obvious. .............. 39 
`1. 
`InterDigital 810 discloses the “first determining” limitation
`(claim 1). ................................................................................... 41 
`InterDigital 810 discloses the limitations of claims 2 and 17. .. 42 
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated
`to combine the teachings of Siemens 004 and InterDigital 810.
` ................................................................................................... 43 
`Ground 5: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the combination of Siemens 004
`and Motorola 683 renders claims 8 and 23 obvious. .......................... 44 
`1.  Motorola 683 discloses the limitations of claims 8 and 23. ..... 45 
`2. 
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated
`to combine the teachings of Siemens 004 and Motorola 683. .. 47 
`Ground 6: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the combination of Siemens 004
`and Siemens 010 renders claims 8 and 23 obvious. ............................ 48 
`1. 
`Siemens 010 discloses the limitations of claims 8 and 23. ....... 49 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`2. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`2. 
`3. 
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`2. 
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,941,151
`Attorney Docket No. 14569-9
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated
`to combine the teachings of Siemens 004 and Siemens 010. ... 50 
`VII.  Claim Charts .................................................................................................. 51 
`A. 
`Siemens 004 ........................................................................................ 51 
`B. 
`3GPP TS 25.212 .................................................................................. 55 
`C. 
`InterDigital 810 ................................................................................... 58 
`D.  Motorola 683 ....................................................................................... 59 
`E. 
`Siemens 010 ........................................................................................ 59 
`VIII.  Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 60 
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1002
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,941,151
`Attorney Docket No. 14569-9
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`Description
`Exhibit
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,941,151 B2
`(“151 patent”)
`Declaration of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti in Support of the Petition for
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,941,151
`(“V.M. Decl.”)
`Siemens, “Downlink Control Channel Configuration for Enhanced
`Uplink Dedicated Transport Channel,” Tdoc R1-030004, TSG-RAN
`Working Group 1 #30 (January 7-10, 2003)
`(“Siemens 004”)
`Third Generation Partnership Project, “Technical Specification Group
`Radio Access Network; Multiplexing and channel coding (FDD)
`(Release 5),” 3GPP TS 25.212 V5.2.0 (Sep. 2002)
`(“3GPP TS 25.212”)
`InterDigital, “Implicit UE Identification for HSDPA Downlink
`Signaling,” R1-01-0810, TSG-RAN Working Group 1 #22, Torino,
`Italy, (Aug. 27-31, 2001)
`(“InterDigital 810”)
`Motorola, “Mechanisms for managing uplink interference and
`bandwidth,” Tdoc SMG2 UMTS-L1 683/98, ETSI SMG2 UMTS L1
`Expert Group, Espoo, Finland (Dec. 14-18, 1998)
`(“Motorola 683”)
`Siemens, “Signalling Requirements for HSDPA in TDD Mode,”
`12A010010, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1/2 Joint Meeting on HSDPA,
`Sophia Antipolis, France (Apr. 5-6, 2001).
`(“Siemens 010”)
`October 8, 2013 Amended Joint Claim Construction Chart, InterDigital
`Comm’s., Inc. v. ZTE Corp., C.A. No. 1:13-cv-00009-RGA (D. Del.)
`(“8-8-13 Amended Joint Cl. Const. Chart”)
`Joint Claim Construction Brief, InterDigital Comm’s., Inc. v. ZTE
`Corp., C.A. No. 1:13-cv-00009-RGA (D. Del.)
`1009
`(“Cl. Const. Br.”) 
`1010 U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/523,049
`(“049 provisional”)
`Meeting minutes from Meeting #30 of 3GPP TSG RAN Working
`Group 1
`(“Minutes from WG1 Meeting #30)
`January 2, 2003 e-mail from Michel Juergen to the e-mail reflector for
`Working Group 1
`(“1/2/03 Juergen e-mail”)
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/902,740,
`February 27, 2006 Response to Office Action
`(“740 App., 2/27/06 Response”)
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,941,151
`Attorney Docket No. 14569-9
`Description
`Kolding, “High Speed Downlink Packet Access: WCDMA Evolution,”
`pp. 4-10 (February 2003)
`(“Kolding”)
`Das, “Evolution of UMTS Toward High-Speed Downlink Packet
`Access,” Bell Labs Technical Journal 7(3), pp. 47-68 (2003)
`(“Das”)
`Lucent, “Code limitation and code reuse in HSDPA,” R1-02-1238,
`3GPP TSG-WG1#28, Espoo, Finland (Oct. 2002)
`(“Lucent 1238”)
`Lucent, “Code limitation and code reuse in HSDPA (revision of R1-
`021238),” R1-02-1255, 3GPP TSG-RAN, Espoo, Finland (Oct. 2002)
`(“Lucent 1255”)
`Lucent, R1-02-1371, “Code limitation and code reuse in HSDPA,”
`3GPP TSG-RAN1 #29, Shanghai, China (Nov. 2002)
`(“Lucent 1371”)
`Lucent, “Code reuse in HSDPA,” R1-02-1149, 3GPP TSG-RAN
`WG1#28, Seattle, USA (Aug. 2002)
`(“Lucent 1149”)
`3GPP Meeting Registration - List of Registered Attendees, Meeting
`3GPPRAN1-#28 BIS
`(“Attendees of Meeting #28 BIS”)
`3GPP Meeting Registration - List of Registered Attendees, Meeting
`3GPPRAN1-#29 BIS
`(“Attendees of Meeting #29 BIS”)
`3GPP Meeting Registration - List of Registered Attendees, Meeting
`3GPPRAN1-#30 BIS
`(“Attendees of Meeting #30 BIS”)
`3GPP Meeting Registration - List of Registered Attendees, Meeting
`3GPPRAN1-#31 BIS
`(“Attendees of Meeting #31 BIS”)
`3GPP Meeting Registration - List of Registered Attendees, Meeting
`3GPPRAN1-#32 BIS
`(“Attendees of Meeting #32 BIS”)
`3GPP Meeting Registration - List of Registered Attendees, Meeting
`3GPPRAN1-#33 BIS
`(“Attendees of Meeting #33 BIS”)
`3GPP Meeting Registration - List of Registered Attendees, Meeting
`3GPPRAN1-#34 BIS
`(“Attendees of Meeting #34 BIS”)
`3GPP Meeting Registration - List of Registered Attendees, Meeting
`3GPPRAN1-#35 BIS
`(“Attendees of Meeting #35 BIS”)
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,941,151
`Attorney Docket No. 14569-9
`Description
`Response of ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) to the Complaint of
`InterDigital Communications, LLC Under Section 337 of the Tariff Act
`of 1930, as Amended, and Notice of Investigation
`(“Response to ITC Complaint”)
`Ericsson, “Uplink Enhancements for Dedicated Transport Channels,”
`RP-020658, TSG-RAN Meeting #17, Biarritz, France (Sept. 3-6, 2002)
`(“Ericsson 658”)
`Ghosh, “Shared Channels for Packet Data Transmission in W-CDMA,”
`Motorola Network Solutions Sector, Motorola Labs, pp. 943-47 (1999)
`(“Ghosh”)
`Motorola, “Benefits of the Uplink Shared Channel (USCH),” SMG2
`UMTS 032/99, Helsinki, Finland (January 20-22, 1999)
`(“Motorola 032”)
`InterDigital, “Simplified Illustration of the performance benefit of UE
`dependent CRC,” R1-01-0972, 3GPP TSG RAN WG 1, Torino, Italy
`(Aug. 27-31 2001)
`(“InterDigital 972”)
`Draft minutes of RAN WG1 #21 meeting, R1-01-0990, 3GPP TSG
`RAN WG 1, New York, NY, USA (October 23-26)
`(“Minutes from WG1 Meeting #21”)
`Nokia, “HSDPA DL channel structure,” R1-01-0827, Turin, Italy
`(August 27-31, 2001)
`(“Nokia 827”)
`Ericsson, “HS-DSCH-related downlink signaling,” R1-01-0962, Turin,
`Italy (August 27-31, 2001)
`(“Ericsson 962”)
`Siemens, “UE specific bit scrambling for TDD HS-SCCH,” R1-02-
`0400, Paris, France (February 9-12, 2002)
`(“Siemens 400”)
`
`Exhibit
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,941,151
`Attorney Docket No. 14569-9
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`U.S. Patent No. 7,941,151 (the “151 patent”) purports to claim a feature
`
`related to a 3G cellular standard known as the Universal Mobile
`
`Telecommunications System (“UMTS”). At least two of the three named
`
`inventors participated in the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (“3GPP”), where
`
`the claimed feature was discussed when defining the UMTS standard. The
`
`problem with the 151 patent is that the named inventors were not the first to
`
`disclose the claimed feature. It was first proposed—and publicly disclosed in a
`
`printed publication—by representatives from Siemens, who also participated in the
`
`3GPP discussions. Months later, the named inventors applied for the 151 patent,
`
`claiming the same idea previously disclosed by Siemens. Making matters worse,
`
`the named inventors did not disclose the Siemens reference when they applied for
`
`the 151 patent, so the claims have not been evaluated in view of this crucial prior
`
`art reference. As this petition explains in detail, claims 1-6, 8-9, 16-21, and 23-24
`
`of the 151 patent are invalid in view of the Siemens reference and other prior art.
`
`Cellular standards include many sections covering numerous technical
`
`fields. Each section is developed by a “working group” with expertise in the
`
`relevant technical field. One such working group is TSG-RAN Working Group 1,
`
`which addresses several issues, including how to efficiently assign network
`
`resources to multiple cellular devices, which all need to send and receive data.
`
`InterDigital employees Stephen Dick and Marian Rudolf attended many
`TSG-RAN Working Group 1 meetings in 2002 and 2003.1 In January 2003,
`
`1 See Ex. 1020 - Ex. 1027 (Attendees of Meetings #28-35).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,941,151
`Attorney Docket No. 14569-9
`
`Marian Rudolf attended a TSG-RAN Working Group 1 meeting, in which Siemens
`submitted a proposal addressing the issue of resource assignment in a network.2
`The Siemens proposal disclosed the use of a single “control channel” to transmit
`
`messages to multiple cellular devices and grant individual cellular devices
`
`permission to transmit in the uplink and downlink directions.
`
`More than ten months later, on November 18, 2003, InterDigital filed with
`
`the USPTO a provisional application naming Marian Rudolf, Stephen Dick, and
`
`Phillip Pietraski as inventors. The 151 patent claims priority to that provisional
`
`application.
`
`At the heart of the 151 patent is the same idea that Siemens had disclosed to
`
`TSG-RAN Working Group 1 several months before the 151 patent’s claimed
`
`priority date. The 151 patent, like the Siemens proposal, describes a way to use a
`
`single shared control channel to send transmissions pertaining to both the downlink
`
`and uplink directions. A preferred embodiment of the 151 patent is identical in
`
`substance to the disclosure of the Siemens proposal. Indeed, the Siemens
`
`proposal’s only figure was copied and pasted into the 151 patent’s priority
`
`provisional application, as shown below.
`
`
`2 See Ex. 1022 (Attendees of Meeting #30) at 3.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,941,151
`Attorney Docket No. 14569-9
`
`Siemens Proposal
`
`Provisional Application
`
`
`
`Although InterDigital knew about the Siemens proposal and even used its
`
`content in their application for the 151 patent, and despite the Siemens proposal’s
`
`obvious relevance to the claimed invention, the Siemens proposal was never
`
`submitted to the USPTO during the prosecution of the application that issued as the
`151 patent.3 Without the opportunity to consider the Siemens proposal, the
`USPTO issued the 151 patent, with claims 1-6, 8-9, 16-21, and 23-24 purporting to
`
`cover the embodiment that Siemens had publicly disclosed more than ten months
`
`
`3 The 151 patent is the subject of inequitable conduct defenses in the U.S.
`International Trade Commission and the District of Delaware. (See Ex. 1028
`
`(Response to ITC Complaint) at 92-116.) In particular, ZTE and other parties
`
`allege that individuals involved in the prosecution of the 151 patent deliberately
`
`withheld the Siemens proposal and other publications that demonstrate that the
`
`subject matter of the 151 patent’s claims was invented earlier by other participants
`
`of the organization responsible for developing the cellular standard. (Id.)
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,941,151
`Attorney Docket No. 14569-9
`
`before the 151 patent’s claimed priority date.
`
`InterDigital’s employees did not invent the subject matter of claims 1-6, 8-9,
`
`16-21, and 23-24 of the 151 patent. Thus, those claims should be cancelled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8)
`A. Real Party-in-Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1))
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc. are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters (§ 42.8(b)(2))
`The 151 patent is the subject of the following judicial or administrative
`
`matters, which may affect, or be affected by, a decision in this proceeding:
` Certain Wireless Devices with 3G and/or 4G Capabilities and Components
`
`Thereof, U.S.I.T.C Inv. No. 337-TA-868;
` InterDigital Commc’ns Inc. v. Huawei Techs. Co., Ltd., Case No. 13-cv-
`
`00008-RGA (D. Del.), filed January 2, 2013;
` InterDigital Commc’ns Inc. v. ZTE Corp., Case No. 13-cv-00009-RGA (D.
`
`Del.), filed January 2, 2013;
` InterDigital Commc’ns Inc. v. Nokia Corp., Case No. 13-cv-00010-RGA (D.
`
`Del.), filed January 2, 2013; and
` InterDigital Commc’ns Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co. Ltd., Case No. 13-cv-
`
`00011-RGA (D. Del.), filed January 2, 2013.
`
`ZTE is unaware of any other pending judicial or administrative matter that would
`
`affect, or be affected by, a decision in this proceeding.
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information (§§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4))
`ZTE designates the following counsel:
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,941,151
`Attorney Docket No. 14569-9
`
`Lead Counsel
`Charles M. McMahon
`Reg. No. 44,926
`
`Brinks Gilson & Lione
`NBC Tower, Suite 3600
`455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive
`Chicago, IL 60611-5599
`
`E-mail: cmcmahon@brinksgilson.com
`Telephone: (312) 321-4200
`Fax: (312) 321-4299
`
`Backup Counsel
`Hersh H. Mehta
`Reg. No. 62,336
`
`Brinks Gilson & Lione
`NBC Tower, Suite 3600
`455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive
`Chicago, IL 60611-5599
`
`E-mail: hmehta@brinksgilson.com
`Telephone: (312) 321-4200
`Fax: (312) 321-4299
`
`Service of any document via hand-delivery or mail may be made at the
`
`postal mailing addresses above. Electronic service may be made at the above-
`
`designated e-mail addresses.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES (§ 42.15(A))
`ZTE authorizes the Director to charge the filing fee specified by 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.15(a), as well as any other necessary fee, to Account No. 23-1925.
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`A. Grounds for Standing (§ 42.104(a))
`ZTE certifies that the 151 patent is available for inter partes review and that
`
`ZTE is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging
`
`the claims of the 151 patent on any ground identified in this petition.
`
`B.
`Identification of Challenged Claims (§ 42.104(b)(1))
`ZTE requests inter partes review of claims 1-6, 8-9, 16-21, and 23-24 (“the
`
`challenged claims”).
`
`C.
`
`Prior Art and Specific Grounds for Challenging Claims (§
`42.104(b)(2))
`The 151 patent’s claimed priority date is November 18, 2003, which is the
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,941,151
`Attorney Docket No. 14569-9
`
`filing date of the provisional application to which the 151 patent claims priority.
`
`(See Ex. 1001 (151 patent) at 1.)
`
`ZTE requests inter partes review of the 151 patent in view of the following
`
`prior art references, which were published prior to the 151 patent’s claimed priority
`
`date.
`
`Type of Prior Art
`Dated
`Description
`Exhibit
`§ 102(a)
`January 7-10, 2003
`1003 Siemens 004
`§§ 102(a) and (b)
`September 2002
`1004
`3GPP TS 25.212
`§§ 102(a) and (b)
`August 27-31, 2001
`1005
`InterDigital 810
`§§ 102(a) and (b)
`December 14-18, 1998
`1006 Motorola 683
`§§ 102(a) and (b)
`April 5-6, 2001
`1007 Siemens 010
`ZTE challenges claims 1-6, 8-9, 16-21, and 23-24 based on the following
`
`statutory grounds.
`
`Ground
`
`1
`
`Basis
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, Siemens 004 anticipates the challenged claims.
`Alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Siemens 004 renders claims 1-6,
`8-9, 16-21, and 23-24 obvious.
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the combination of Siemens 004 and the
`admitted prior art renders claims 1-6 and 16-21 obvious.
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the combination of Siemens 004 and 3GPP TS
`25.212 renders claims 1-6 and 16-21 obvious.
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the combination of Siemens 004 and
`InterDigital 810 renders claims 1-2 and 16-17 obvious.
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the combination of Siemens 004 and Motorola
`683 renders claims 8 and 23 obvious.
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the combination of Siemens 004 and Siemens
`010 renders claims 8 and 23 obvious.
`D. Claim Construction (§ 42.104(b)(3))
`A claim subject to inter partes review receives its broadest reasonable
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`construction in light of the patent’s specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). ZTE
`
`offers proposed claim constructions only to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) and
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,941,151
`Attorney Docket No. 14569-9
`
`for the sole purpose of this petition. Therefore, ZTE’s proposed constructions in
`
`this petition do not bind ZTE in the Delaware or ITC litigations, where a different
`
`claim construction standard applies.
`
`In determining the broadest reasonable construction, the Patent Office
`
`should take into account the patentee’s prior statements concerning the scope of
`
`the claims. 77 Fed. Reg. 48698.
`
`1.
`“same physical downlink control channel”
`Claims 1 and 16 recite the term “same physical downlink control channel.”
`
`In the pending district court and ITC proceedings, the parties have proposed
`
`the following constructions of “same physical downlink control channel.”
`
`ZTE
`channel used for transfer of downlink
`control information only that occupies a
`same radio resource defined by a
`channelization code
`(Ex. 1008 (8-8-13 Amended Joint Cl. Const. Chart) at Ex. A, p. 10.) InterDigital’s
`
`InterDigital
`a radio resource used to transmit uplink
`and/or downlink channel assignment
`information
`
`proposed construction is broader than ZTE’s proposed construction. For example,
`
`because InterDigital’s proposed construction includes the phrase “transmit uplink
`
`and/or downlink channel assignment information,” it can be met by the transmission
`
`of uplink channel assignment information only or by the transmission of downlink
`
`channel assignment information only. By contrast, ZTE’s proposed construction
`
`requires “channel used for transfer of downlink control information only.”
`
`ZTE disagrees with InterDigital’s proposed construction. (See Ex. 1009 (Cl.
`
`Const. Br.) at 39-45.) However, because InterDigital has proposed a broad
`
`construction of this term in pending proceedings, and because the broadest
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,941,151
`Attorney Docket No. 14569-9
`
`reasonable construction standard governs this proceeding, InterDigital should be
`
`bound in this proceeding by the broad construction it has proposed in the other
`
`pending proceedings.
`
`Regardless of whether ZTE’s or InterDigital’s proposed construction of
`
`“same physical downlink control channel” applies in this proceeding, the
`
`challenged claims are invalid, as discussed in Part VI, infra at pp. 15-51.
`
`2.
`“channel assignment information”
`Claims 1, 8-9, 16, and 23-24 recite the term “channel assignment
`
`information.”
`
`In the pending district court and ITC proceedings, the parties have proposed
`
`the following constructions of “channel assignment information.”
`
`InterDigital
`ZTE
`information regarding radio resource
`plain and ordinary meaning or
`assignment for the uplink or downlink
`“information identifying a channel
`assigned to the WTRU”
`channel
`(Ex. 1008 (8-8-13 Amended Joint Cl. Const. Chart) at Ex. A, p. 12.) InterDigital’s
`
`proposed construction is broader than ZTE’s proposed construction. For example,
`
`ZTE’s proposed construction requires “information identifying a channel assigned
`
`to the WTRU,” while InterDigital’s proposed construction more broadly requires
`
`“information regarding radio resource assignment.”
`
`ZTE disagrees with InterDigital’s proposed construction. (See Ex. 1009 (Cl.
`
`Const. Br.) at 49-52.) However, because InterDigital has proposed a broad
`
`construction of this term in pending proceedings, and because the broadest
`
`reasonable construction standard governs this proceeding, InterDigital should be
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,941,151
`Attorney Docket No. 14569-9
`
`bound in this proceeding by the broad construction it has proposed in the other
`
`pending proceedings.
`
`Regardless of whether ZTE’s or InterDigital’s proposed construction of
`
`“channel assignment information” applies in this proceeding, the challenged claims
`
`are invalid, as discussed in Part VI, infra at pp. 15-51.
`
`3.
`“shared channel”
`Claims 1, 9, 16, and 24 recite the term “shared channel.”
`
`In the pending district court and ITC proceedings, the parties have proposed
`
`the following constructions of “shared channel.”
`
`ZTE
`channel that can convey information to
`or from a plurality of WTRUs
`
`InterDigital
`a radio resource that can convey
`information to or from a plurality of
`WTRUs
`(Ex. 1008 (8-8-13 Amended Joint Cl. Const. Chart) at Ex. A, p. 14.)
`
`ZTE’s proposed construction should apply in this proceeding. (See Ex. 1009
`
`(Cl. Const. Br.) at 55-57.) InterDigital’s proposed construction is incorrect. Because
`
`the term at issue is “shared channel,” there is no reason to define it as “a radio
`
`resource . . .” as InterDigital has proposed in the pending proceedings. (See id.)
`
`Nevertheless, regardless of whether ZTE’s or InterDigital’s proposed
`
`construction of “shared channel” applies in this proceeding, the challenged claims
`
`are invalid, as discussed in Part VI, infra at pp. 15-51.
`
`4.
`
`“based on WTRU identity (ID)-masked cyclic redundancy
`check (CRC) parity bits”
`Claims 1 and 16 recite the term “based on WTRU identity (ID)-masked
`
`cyclic redundancy check (CRC) parity bits.”
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,941,151
`Attorney Docket No. 14569-9
`
`In the pending district court and ITC proceedings, the parties have proposed
`
`the following constructions of “based on WTRU ID-masked CRC parity bits.”
`
`InterDigital
`
`ZTE
`In both the ITC and the district court:
`
`by comparing the WTRU identity (ID)-
`masked cyclic redundancy check (CRC)
`transmitted along with the downlink
`control information with the WTRU ID-
`masked CRC generated by the WTRU
`using the downlink control information
`
`In the ITC:
`
`based on cyclic redundancy check parity
`bits masked by a masking code unique to
`the WTRU
`
`In the district court:
`
`based on cyclic redundancy check parity
`bits masked by a masking code
`associated with the WTRU
`(Ex. 1008 (8-8-13 Amended Joint Cl. Const. Chart) at Ex. A, p. 14.) Both of
`
`InterDigital’s proposed constructions are broader than ZTE’s proposed
`
`construction. For example, ZTE’s proposed construction requires comparing two
`
`masked CRCs, while InterDigital’s proposed constructions more broadly require
`
`“based on cyclic redundancy check parity bits masked by a masking code unique to
`
`[or associated with] the WTRU.”
`
`ZTE disagrees with InterDigital’s proposed constructions. (See Ex. 1009
`
`(Cl. Const. Br.) at 57-58.) However, because InterDigital has proposed broad
`
`constructions of this term in pending proceedings, and because the broadest
`
`reasonable construction standard governs this proceeding, InterDigital should be
`
`bound in this proceeding by the broad constructions it has proposed in the other
`
`pending proceedings.
`
`Regardless of whether ZTE’s proposed construction or InterDigital’s
`
`proposed constructions of “based on WTRU ID-masked CRC parity bits” applies
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,941,151
`Attorney Docket No. 14569-9
`
`in this proceeding, the challenged claims are invalid, as discussed in Part VI, infra
`
`at pp. 15-51.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`A.
`Prior Art
`The 151 patent relates to wireless communication systems and, more
`
`specifically, to cellular communication systems. (Ex. 1002 (V.M. Decl.) at ¶¶ 43-
`
`45.) In most modern cellular communication systems, a base station can
`
`communicate with multiple handsets, sometimes called user equipment (“UEs”) or
`
`wireless/transmit receive units (“WTRUs”). (Id. at ¶ 46.) A transmission from the
`
`base station to the handset is called a downlink transmission, while a transmission
`
`from the handset to the base station is called an uplink transmission. (Id. at ¶ 47.)
`
`A transmission is provided by one or more channels, which can be dedicated or
`
`shared. (Id.) A dedicated channel is assigned to a single handset and, therefore,
`
`carries information to or from that handset alone. (Id. at ¶ 49.) By contrast, a
`
`shared channel carries information from a base station to multiple handsets. (Id.)
`
`A key issue in cellular communications is how to divide the cellular
`
`system’s physical resources to permit the maximum number of handsets to use the
`
`cellular system at the same time. (Id. at ¶ 51.) To efficiently divide physical
`
`resources, cellular systems use channel access methods. (Id. at ¶ 52.)
`
`A popular channel access method is code division multiple access
`
`(“CDMA”). (Id. at ¶ 56.) In a CDMA system, all handsets share an entire
`
`frequency range, and communications from different handsets are distinguished
`
`from one another with the use of codes called channelization codes. (Id.) In other
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,941,151
`Attorney Docket No. 14569-9
`
`words, each handset has a unique channelization code that allows the handset to
`
`share the frequency range with other handsets simultaneously. (Id.) The base
`
`station knows the channelization codes, so it can separate the handset’s data from
`
`other data in the shared frequency range. (Id.)
`
`Prior to the 151 patent, a CDMA system called High-Speed Downlink
`
`Packet Access (“HSDPA”) was developed to increase throughput for downlink
`
`transmissions. (Id. at ¶ 67.) To that end, HSDPA introduced a new shared data
`
`channel called the High Speed Downlink Shared Channel (“HS-DSCH”). (Id. at ¶
`
`70.) HSDPA also introduced a new shared control channel called the High Speed
`
`Shared Control Channel (“HS-SCCH”). (Id. at ¶ 69.) The HS-SCCH carried
`
`information needed to interpret the information in the new shared data channel.
`
`(Id. at ¶ 72.)
`
`Also prior to the 151 patent, research began on a new Enhanced Uplink data
`
`channel intended to provide uplink transmissions with the same benefits that
`
`HSDPA provided to downlink transmissions. (Id. at ¶ 88.) For a handset to use
`
`the Enhanced Uplink data channel, the handset needed control information from
`
`the base station. (Id. at ¶ 91.) To that end, the prior art identified two options. (Id.
`
`at ¶ 92.) The first option was to create a new control channel that would carry the
`
`control information for the Enhanced Uplink data channel only. (Id.) Because that
`
`option required a