`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.
`AMAZON.COM, INC., DELL INC., HTC CORPORATION, NEC
`CORPORATION OF AMERICA, NEC CASIO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS,
`LTD., PANTECH CO., LTD., PANTECH WIRELESS, INC., ZTE (USA), INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LLC
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case: IPR No. 2014-01318
`
`Patent 6,810,019
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF J. STEVENSON KENNEY
`
`
`
`LGE_0000307
`
`LG Electronics Ex. 1004
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Background And Qualifications ..................................................................... 1
`B.
`Information Considered .................................................................................. 3
`LEGAL STANDARDS .............................................................................................. 3
`A.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................ 4
`B.
`Anticipation ....................................................................................................... 5
`C. Obviousness ....................................................................................................... 6
`D.
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................... 8
`III. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ........................................................................ 9
`A. Measurement Pattern Definitions .................................................................. 9
`B.
`Compressed Mode ..........................................................................................11
`C. Downlink Compressed Mode .......................................................................13
`D. Uplink Compressed Mode .............................................................................18
`E.
`CDMA and WCDMA ....................................................................................18
`IV. The ’019 Patent ...........................................................................................................19
`A.
`The Purported Problem With The Prior Art .............................................19
`B.
`Background of The ’019 Patent ....................................................................20
`C.
`Terminology .....................................................................................................24
`D.
`Prosecution History (Ex. 1002) ....................................................................25
`E.
`Challenged Claims ...........................................................................................26
`F.
`Claim Construction .........................................................................................26
`PRIOR ART ANALYSIS .........................................................................................27
`B.
`Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS); Physical
`layer—Measurements (FDD) (3G TS 25.125 version 3.1.1 Release
`1999) (“TS 25.215 v3.1.1”) ............................................................................27
`1.
`Claims 11-13 Are Anticipated By TS 25.215
`v3.1.1 ..............................................................................28
`i
`
`V.
`
`
`
`LGE_0000308
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS—continued
`
`Page
`
`C.
`
`LS On Changes In Compressed Mode Parameters (“Change
`Request R1-00178”) (Ex. 1009) ....................................................................38
`1.
`Claims 11-13 Are Anticipated By Change
`Request R1-00178 ........................................................40
`D. U.S. Patent No. 6,339,590 (“Kim”)..............................................................51
`1.
`Claims 11-12 Are Anticipated By Kim .....................52
`2.
`Claim 13 Is Obvious Over Kim In View Of
`TS 25.215 v3.1.1 ...........................................................62
`Publication No. WO 1999-049609 (“Yano”) and TS 25.215
`v3.1.1 .................................................................................................................66
`1.
`Claims 11-13 Are Obvious Over Yano In
`View Of TS 25.215 v3.1.1 ..........................................67
`SUPPLEMENTATION ...........................................................................................89
`
`E.
`
`ii
`
`VI.
`
`
`
`LGE_0000309
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is Dr. J. Stevenson Kenney, and I have been retained by the law firm
`
`of Mayer Brown LLP on behalf of LG Electronics, Inc. as an expert in the relevant
`
`art.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions and views on the materials I have
`
`reviewed in this case related to Ex. 1001, U.S. Patent No. 6,810,019 (“the ’019
`
`Patent”) (“the patent-at-issue”), and the scientific and technical knowledge regarding
`
`the same subject matter before and for a period following the date of the first
`
`application for the patent-at-issue was filed.
`
`3.
`
`I am compensated at the rate of $600 per hour for my work, plus
`
`reimbursement for expenses. My compensation has not influenced any of my
`
`opinions in this matter and does not depend on the outcome of this proceeding or
`
`any issue in it.
`
`4. My opinions and underlying reasoning for this opinion are set forth below.
`
`Background And Qualifications
`
`A.
`I obtained a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering with honors in 1985,
`
`5.
`
`a Masters of Science in Electrical Engineering in 1990, and a Ph.D. in electrical
`
`engineering in 1994, all from the Georgia Institute of Technology.
`
`6.
`
`I joined the faculty at the Georgia Institute of Technology in November of
`
`1999, and am currently a Professor in School of Electrical and Computer Engineering.
`
`1
`
`LGE_0000310
`
`

`

`
`
`7.
`
`I teach and conduct research in the areas of wireless communication systems
`
`and technology.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`I also have over 14 years of industrial experience in wireless communications.
`
`I have held engineering and management positions at Electromagnetic
`
`Sciences, Scientific Atlanta, and Pacific Monolithics, and Spectrian.
`
`10. Over the course of my career, I have authored more than 150 peer-reviewed
`
`technical papers in the areas of acoustics, analog/RF IC design, wireless system
`
`design, signal processing, and telecommunications. My curriculum vitae is attached
`
`hereto as Appendix A, and includes a list of all publications I have authored within
`
`the preceding ten years.
`
`11.
`
`I have been an active member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic
`
`Engineers (IEEE) and its Microwave Theory and Techniques Society (MTT-S) for
`
`over 25 years. I have served in a number of administrative positions within the MTT-
`
`S, including serving as its President in 2007. I also serve on the editorial boards of its
`
`major publications. In 2005, I received the IEEE MTT-S Application Award “for the
`
`development of power amplifier
`
`linearization techniques and
`
`insertion
`
`into
`
`cellular/wireless systems.” In 2008, I was elevated to IEEE Fellow “for contributions
`
`to microwave power amplifier design, characterization, and linearization.”
`
`12.
`
`In the preceding ten years, I have testified as an expert witness at trial and/or
`
`by deposition in a number of patent litigation cases, International Trade Commission
`
`(“ITC”) investigations or other court matters including ITC Investigation No. 337-
`2
`
`LGE_0000311
`
`

`

`
`
`TA-578, In the Matter of Certain Mobile Telephone Handsets, Wireless Communication Devices,
`
`and Components Thereof; ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-601, In the Matter of Certain 3G
`
`Mobile Handsets and Components; ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-613, In the Matter of
`
`Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and Components; Delaware Court of Chancery Case No.
`
`2330-N, Nokia Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.; ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-701, In the matter of
`
`Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Portable Music Players, and Computers;
`
`ITC Investigation No. 337-745, In the Matter of Certain Wireless Communication Devices,
`
`Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Components Thereof; U. S. Federal District
`
`Court, Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:11-CV-08540; Motorola Mobility, Inc. v.
`
`Apple; ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-848; Nokia, Inc. v. HTC Corp.; ITC
`
`Investigation No. 377-TA-885, Certain Radio Frequency Integrated Circuits and Devices
`
`Containing Same.
`
`Information Considered
`
`B.
`In addition to my general knowledge gained as a result of my education and
`
`13.
`
`experience in this field, I have reviewed and considered, among other things, the ’019
`
`Patent, the prosecution history of the ’019 Patent, and the prior art of record.
`
`14. The full list of information that I have considered in forming my opinions for
`
`this report is set forth throughout the report and listed in the attached Appendix B.
`
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`3
`
`LGE_0000312
`
`

`

`
`
`15.
`
`In forming my opinions and considering the patentability of the claims of the
`
`’019 Patent, I am relying upon certain legal principles that counsel has explained to
`
`me.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be found patentable, it
`
`must be, among other things, new and not obvious in light of what came before it.
`
`Patents and publications which predated the invention are generally referred to as
`
`“prior art.”
`
`17.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding the burden is on the party asserting
`
`unpatentability to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence. I understand that “a
`
`preponderance of the evidence” is evidence sufficient to show that a fact is more
`
`likely than not.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the claims must be given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. The claims after being
`
`construed in this manner are then to be compared to information that was disclosed
`
`in the prior art.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A.
`I have been informed that the claims of a patent are judged from the
`
`19.
`
`perspective of a hypothetical construct involving “a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art.” The “art” is the field of technology to which the patent is related. I understand
`
`that the purpose of using a person of ordinary skill in the art’s viewpoint is objectivity.
`
`Thus, I understand that the question of validity is viewed from the perspective of a
`
`4
`
`LGE_0000313
`
`

`

`
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art, and not from the perspective of (a) the inventor, (b)
`
`a layperson, or (c) a person of extraordinary skill in the art. I have been informed that
`
`the claims of the patent-at-issue are interpreted as a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have understood them in the relevant time period (i.e., when the patent
`
`application was filed or earliest effective filing date).
`
`20.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’019
`
`Patent would have at least a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and at least 4
`
`years of relevant experience in the wireless communications industry. Alternatively, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’019 patent would have a Master’s
`
`degree in electrical engineering and 2 years of relevant experience in the wireless
`
`communications industry.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that a “person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
`
`creativity, not an automaton” and that would be especially true of anyone developing
`
`technology for cellular communications systems.
`
`Anticipation
`
`B.
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of whether
`
`22.
`
`a patent claim is “anticipated” by the prior art. I have applied these standards in my
`
`analysis of whether claims of the ’019 Patent were anticipated at the time of the
`
`invention.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is “anticipated” by a single prior art reference
`
`if that reference discloses each element of the claim in a single embodiment. A prior
`
`5
`
`LGE_0000314
`
`

`

`
`
`art reference may anticipate a claim inherently if an element is not expressly stated, if
`
`the prior art necessarily includes the claim limitations.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that the test for anticipation is performed in two steps. First, the
`
`claims must be interpreted to determine their meaning. Second, a prior art reference is
`
`analyzed to determine whether every claim element, as interpreted in the first step, is
`
`present in the reference. If all the elements of a patent claim are present in the prior
`
`art reference, then that claim is anticipated and is invalid.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that it is acceptable to examine extrinsic evidence outside the
`
`prior art reference in determining whether a feature, while not expressly discussed in
`
`the reference, is necessarily present within that reference.
`
`C. Obviousness
`I understand that a claim can be invalid in view of prior art if the differences
`
`26.
`
`between the subject matter claimed and the prior art are such that the claimed subject
`
`matter as a whole would have been “obvious” at the time the invention was made to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that the obviousness standard is defined at 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). I
`
`understand that a claim is obvious over a prior art reference if that reference,
`
`combined with the knowledge of one skilled in the art or other prior art references
`
`discloses each and every element of the recited claim.
`
`28.
`
`I also understand that the relevant
`
`inquiry
`
`into obviousness requires
`
`consideration of four factors:
`
`6
`
`LGE_0000315
`
`

`

`
`
`The scope and content of the prior art;
`
`The differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
`The knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
`
`Objective factors indicating obviousness or non-obviousness may be
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`present in any particular case, such factors including commercial success of products
`
`covered by the patent claims; a long-felt need for the invention; failed attempts by
`
`others to make the invention; copying of the invention by others in the field;
`
`unexpected results achieved by the invention; praise of the invention by the infringer
`
`or others in the field; the taking of licenses under the patent by others; expressions of
`
`surprise by experts and those skilled in the art at the making of the invention; and that
`
`the patentee proceeded contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that when combining two or more references, one should
`
`consider whether a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references
`
`exists so as to avoid impermissible hindsight. I have been informed that the
`
`application of the teaching, suggestion or motivation test should not be rigidly
`
`applied, but rather is an expansive and flexible test. For example, I have been
`
`informed that the common sense of a person of ordinary skill in the art can serve as
`
`motivation for combining references.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that the content of a patent or other printed publication should be
`
`interpreted the way a person of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted the
`
`reference as of the effective filing date of the patent application for the ’019 Patent. I
`7
`
`LGE_0000316
`
`

`

`
`
`have assumed that the person of ordinary skill is a hypothetical person who is
`
`presumed to be aware of all the pertinent information that qualifies as prior art. In
`
`addition, the person of ordinary skill in the art makes inferences and creative steps.
`
`He or she is not an automaton, but has ordinary creativity.
`
`31.
`
`I have been informed that the application that issued as the ’019 patent was
`
`filed in 2001. However, the application claims priority to a foreign parent application
`
`that was filed on February 18, 2000. As a result, I will assume the relevant time
`
`period for determining what one of ordinary skill in the art knew is February 18, 2000,
`
`the effective filing date for purposes of this proceeding.
`
`D. Claim Construction
`I have been informed that a claim subject to Inter Partes Review is given its
`
`32.
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`it appears.” I have been informed that this means that the words of the claim are
`
`given their plain meaning from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`unless that meaning is inconsistent with the specification. I understand that the “plain
`
`meaning” of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by
`
`those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and that the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the
`
`words of the claims, the specification, drawings, and prior art.
`
`8
`
`LGE_0000317
`
`

`

`
`
`33.
`
`I understand that in construing claims “[a]ll words in a claim must be
`
`considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art.” (MPEP §
`
`2143.03, citing In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970)).
`
`34.
`
`I understand that extrinsic evidence may be consulted for the meaning of a
`
`claim term as long as it is not used to contradict claim meaning that is unambiguous in
`
`light of the intrinsic evidence. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1324 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005) (citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583-84 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).
`
`I also understand that in construing claim terms, the general meanings gleaned from
`
`reference sources must always be compared against the use of the terms in context,
`
`and the intrinsic record must always be consulted to identify which of the different
`
`possible dictionary meanings is most consistent with the use of the words by the
`
`inventor. See, e.g., Ferguson Beauregard/Logic Controls v. Mega Systems, 350 F.3d 1327,
`
`1338 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d
`
`1294, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
`
`III. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`A. Measurement Pattern Definitions
`35. The ’019 Patent relates to a mobile telephone system in which a mobile station,
`
`e.g., a fixed or portable terminal, communicates with one or more base stations that
`
`provide access to a UMTS terrestrial radio access network (“UTRAN”) using
`
`WCDMA. Ex. 1001, ’019 Patent, 4:4-9. Generally, the base station links the mobile
`
`station to other devices connected to the UTRAN, for example, the public switched
`
`9
`
`LGE_0000318
`
`

`

`
`
`telephone network (“PSTN”). The base station provides radio coverage to several
`
`mobile stations in a limited geographical region known as a cell. Ex. 1005 at 4:36-41.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,883,899 to Dahlman et al. (Ex. 1005) is cited on the face of the ’019
`
`Patent.
`
`36.
`
`In simplest terms (as explained in Dahlman), when a particular mobile station is
`
`located within a cell, it receives information from the servicing base station over a
`
`downlink channel and transmits information to the base station via an uplink channel.
`
`Ex. 1005 at 4:64-5:5. However, when the mobile station moves from one cell to
`
`another cell serviced by a second base station, the mobile station needs to execute a
`
`handover by establishing communication with the second base station and dropping
`
`communication with the first base station. Id. at 10:10-22. Handover provides the
`
`capability for a UE to travel over geographical areas that span multiple cells while
`
`maintaining communication with the UTRAN.
`
`37.
`
`Seamless handover from a first base station requires either the UTRAN or the
`
`UE (or both) to select a second base station that will provide an acceptable level of
`
`communication quality. Ex. 1005 at 2:44-54. For example, while the UE travels within
`
`a first cell, the UE can periodically measure the quality of signals received from other
`
`base stations from neighboring cells. Id. at 2:44-55. When the signals from other
`
`candidate base stations are at different frequencies than the active base station, the
`
`UE must receive signals at those other frequencies. This is referred to as “inter-
`
`frequency” handover. Id. at 2:60-3:6. An inter-frequency handover process entails the
`10
`
`LGE_0000319
`
`

`

`
`
`UE measuring and reporting signal strengths, bit-error rates, and other characteristics
`
`of downlink signals carried over different frequencies from several potential base
`
`station handover candidates. Id. at 2:49-55. The UE measures such signal qualities in
`
`what is referred to as a “measurement gap,” which is a short interruption in the
`
`normal mode of operation of the UE. These measurement gaps always appear on the
`
`UE receiver side and sometimes on the UE transmit side. To accommodate the UE
`
`receiver side measurement period, the base station will cease its transmission to that
`
`particular UE so that it may tune to and measure signal quality at the frequencies of
`
`other base stations. Similarly, the UE receiver will cease its transmission to the first
`
`base station so that it may tune and measure signal quality at the frequencies of other
`
`base stations.
`
`38. Because the UE receiver does not receive data during the measurement gap,
`
`the base station transmitter must transmit in compressed mode in order to transmit
`
`the same amount of data to the UE in the same frame period. Because the base
`
`station transmits at a higher data rate during compressed mode, it must transmit at a
`
`higher power during these periods. A similar situation might also occur during UE
`
`transmission in compressed mode.
`
`B.
`Compressed Mode
`39. Because the receiver must tune to other frequencies to make measurements
`
`from other base stations it does not receive data from the active base station during
`
`compressed mode operation. This situation is shown in Figure 1 below from the
`
`11
`
`LGE_0000320
`
`

`

`
`
`publication Compressed Mode Techniques for Inter-Frequency Measurements in a Wide-band DS-
`
`CDMA System, M. Gustafsson, et al., IEEE 1997 (“Gustafsson”). Ex. 1013,
`
`Gustafsson, at 232.
`
`
`
`40.
`
`In some UEs, the receive and transmit tuners share a common frequency
`
`reference produced by a common frequency synthesizer. In this case, during the
`
`measurement gaps the UE neither receives data from the base station nor transmits
`
`data to the base station. This is shown in the top left hand diagram of Figure 2 below
`
`from Gustafsson. In other handsets, there are different frequency references, or
`
`synthesizers for transmitting and receiving so the UE can continue transmitting data
`
`to the base station during the measurement gap. This downlink-only compressed
`
`mode is shown in the upper right hand diagram of Figure 2 from Gustafsson.
`
`
`
`12
`
`LGE_0000321
`
`

`

`
`
`C. Downlink Compressed Mode
`41. Normally, in a CDMA system, the UTRAN transmits blocks of information to
`
`the UE using fixed time periods or frames of 5-20 ms. Ex. 1005 at 7:19-26. The block
`
`of information transmitted in a given frame is spread over the entire frame so that a
`
`constant power level is maintained during the whole frame. Fig. 3A below illustrates
`
`the full frame transmission also known as “normal mode transmission.” Id.
`
`
`
`42. To provide intervals for measurements, the UTRAN creates a transmission gap
`
`within a frame. In order to transmit the same amount of information within the frame
`
`duration, the UTRAN reallocates the block of information over a portion of the
`
`frame duration rather than the whole frame. Id. at 7:27-36. To achieve the same
`
`information transfer in a shorter amount of time, the UTRAN must compress the
`
`data in some manner (e.g. lower spreading ratio, puncturing, increasing symbol/data
`
`rate, etc.). Id. at 3:13-23 and 7:27-38. Because the data is compressed in some manner,
`
`the signal quality requirements for error-free transmission on the downlink are higher.
`
`The UTRAN increases the transmission power for the intervals over which the
`
`13
`
`LGE_0000322
`
`

`

`
`
`compressed data is sent. Id. 7:39-54. Fig. 3B of Dahlman below shows an example of
`
`“compressed mode transmission.”
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 3B, during the compressed mode transmission, the UTRAN
`
`increases its transmission power to maintain transmission quality. Id. at 10:33-45.
`
`43. The UTRAN controls the usage of compressed mode transmission based on a
`
`variety of factors, such as radio propagation conditions, relative call density and
`
`interference factors. Id. at 9:51-60. For example, the UTRAN can use those factors to
`
`control the timing for switching from normal mode transmission to compressed
`
`mode transmission. Id. at 9:60-64. In addition, the UTRAN can smooth out the
`
`variation in transmitted power level “by staggering (spreading in time) the deployment
`
`of compressed mode over a number of users in a certain time span.” Id. at 10:46-49.
`
`44.
`
`For the UE to effectively use the allocated idle periods, the UTRAN needs to
`
`inform the UE about the timing of the compression mode transmission, for example,
`
`by identifying the particular frames in which the idle periods or gaps are located. Ex.
`
`1001, ’019 Patent, 2:24-26. An international standards organization, the third-
`
`14
`
`LGE_0000323
`
`

`

`
`
`generation partnership project (“3GPP”) has developed several specifications to
`
`normalize how a base station communicates parameters related to compressed mode
`
`transmissions to a UE. Id. at 6:64-67. For example, Technical Report 3G TR 25.922
`
`version 3.0.0 (“Ex. 1006”) provides a framework for the UTRAN to communicate
`
`compressed mode parameters to the UE. Id. at 7:1-3.
`
`45. According to the Technical Report, “A UE can do the measurements by using
`
`idle periods in the downlink transmission, where such idle periods are created by
`
`using the downlink Compressed Mode as defined in WG1 Specification. The
`
`Compressed Mode is under the control of the UTRAN, and the UTRAN should
`
`communicate to the UE which frame is slotted.” Ex. 1006, at 14. Technical Report
`
`3G TR 25.922 expressly relies on 3G TS 25.215 to define the compressed mode
`
`parameters: “compressed mode parameters defined in [3] for the preparation of
`
`handover from UTRA FDD to UTRA FDD,” wherein “[3]” is “[3] 3G TS 25.215:
`
`‘Physical layer – Measurements (FDD).’” Ex. 1006, at 7, 15. The Technical Report
`
`and a companion document 3G TS 25.215 version 3.0.0 (Ex. 1007) provides three
`
`parameters that specify the location of a compression mode transmission, the starting
`
`frame number (“SFN”), the slot number (“SN”), and the transmission gap length
`
`(“TGL”). Id. at 18. These parameters are transmitted, for example, when the UTRAN
`
`and the UE “have some prior knowledge of timing difference” between cells. Id. at
`
`17. Specifically, SFN represents the “system frame number when the transmission
`
`gap starts.” Ex. 1007, at 12. The SN parameter represents the “slot number when the
`15
`
`LGE_0000324
`
`

`

`
`
`transmission gap starts.” Id. The TGL parameter is “the duration of no transmission,
`
`expressed in number of slots.” Id. These parameters make it “possible to have a
`
`flexible position of the transmission gap in the frame.” Id. at 13.
`
`46. The compressed mode parameters defined in the Technical Report and in 3G
`
`TS 25.215 include several patterns that specify a transmission gap period (“TGP”), a
`
`transmission gap distance (“TGD”), and a pattern duration (“PD”). Ex. 1007 at 15.
`
`The TGP parameter is “the period of repetition of a set of consecutive frames
`
`containing up to 2 consecutive transmission gaps.” Ex. 1007 at 13. The TGD
`
`parameter is “the duration of transmission between two consecutive transmission
`
`gaps within a transmission gap period, expressed in number of frames.” Id. The PD
`
`parameter defines the “total time of all TGPs expressed in number of frames.” Id. The
`
`figure below illustrates the relationship between the compressed mode parameters
`
`that define the compressed mode pattern.
`
`PD
`
`TGP
`
`10 ms
`
`TGL
`
`TGD
`
`
`
`Ex. 1007 at 13.
`
`16
`
`LGE_0000325
`
`

`

`
`
`47. The table below shows examples of compressed mode patterns with
`
`corresponding parameters. As shown in the table below, the draft standard set forth
`
`in 3G TR 25.922 and 3G TS 25.215 allows the UTRAN to specify two values “TGP1
`
`and TGP2” for the transmission gap period. Ex. 1007, at 13. In this case, “TGP1 is
`
`used for the 1st and the consecutive odd gap periods and TGP2 is used for the even
`
`ones.” Id. see also Ex. 1001, Fig. 3. The abbreviation “M” indicates that parameter is
`
`mandatory.
`
`
`Pattern1
`Pattern2
`Pattern3
`Pattern4
`Pattern5
`Pattern6
`Pattern7
`
`TGL
`7
`7
`7
`7
`7
`14
`14
`
`PD
`TGP2
`TGP1
`TGD
`M
`20
`4
`24/15
`M
`140
`4
`24/15
`Not Used M
`4
`2
`20
`M
`4
`2
`140
`M
`4
`2
`18
`M
`6
`3
`138
`M
`6
`3
`Ex. 1006, at 15; see also Ex. 1001, Fig. 4A.
`
`48. The UTRAN allocates the compressed mode parameters to each UE in a
`
`manner that provides sufficient time for the UE to complete the measurements. The
`
`UTRAN normally factors in implementation delays for allocating transmission gaps to
`
`a UE. For example, for GSM power measurements, a UE can be allocated a time
`
`window “equal to the transmission gap length reduced by an implementation margin
`
`of [2*500 µs + 200 µs], which includes the maximum allowed delay for a UE’s
`17
`
`LGE_0000326
`
`

`

`
`
`synthesizer to switch from one FDD frequency to one GSM frequency and switch
`
`back to FDD frequency.” Ex. 1006, at 16.
`
`D. Uplink Compressed Mode
`49. As stated in paragraph 37 above, compressed mode may be used in UE uplink
`
`as well. Ex. 1005, Dahlman, 9:36-39. Such a situation occurs when the UE transmit
`
`and receive tuners cannot tune independently, or when the current transmit frequency
`
`is too close to the frequencies to be monitored. In this case the UE uplink needs to
`
`cease transmission during the same periods as the UTRAN downlink notwithstanding
`
`differences in uplink and downlink delays. This is to prevent the UE from
`
`transmitting at the wrong frequencies, or to prevent the UE transmissions from
`
`interfering with the inter-frequency measurements. Therefore, the discussion in
`
`Section C applies here as well.
`
`E. CDMA and WCDMA
`50. Code division multiple access (“CDMA”) is a method whereby a number of
`
`mobile phones can access a network by using different codes. The first standard in
`
`which CDMA was deployed was IS-95. Wideband CDMA (WCDMA) was proposed
`
`as a successor to IS-95 CDMA in the evolution of the 3GPP (third generation
`
`partnership project) for the Universal Mobile Telecommunications Systems (UMTS).
`
`3GPP UMTS uses WCDMA. Both standards were in operation prior to the
`
`application of the ’019 Patent. Likewise, both standards utilized compressed mode
`
`during frames in which measurement gaps were employed.
`
`18
`
`LGE_0000327
`
`

`

`
`
`51. The ’019 patent uses both CDMA and WCDMA to refer to the generic
`
`technologies rather than specific standards. For instance, the patent acknowledges
`
`that WCDMA technology is used in 3G systems, including but not limited to the
`
`UMTS: “Third-generation mobile telephone systems called UMTS (Universal Mobile
`
`Telephone System) . . . will use wideband code division multiple access technology,
`
`i.e. WCDMA technology, on the radio path.” Ex. 1001, ’019 Patent, 1:13-17.
`
`52. Claim 13 of the challenged claims requires a WCDMA system.
`
`IV. THE ’019 PATENT
`A.
`The Purported Problem With The Prior Art
`53. The prior art taught that parameters, transmission gap length (“TGL”) and
`
`transmission gap pattern length (“TGPL”), are used to calculate gaps in which the
`
`user equipment (“UE”) will measure the quality of the signal link to another base
`
`station.
`
`54. The problem was that if the start and end points of the gaps between the UEs
`
`in a cell are the same, the interference to other UEs increases due to the boosted
`
`transmission power of just before the start point and just after the end points.
`
`55.
`
`Specifically, a problem with the prior art identified in the ’019 Patent was that
`
`the wideband code division multiple access technology (“WCDMA”) system “does
`
`not define where in a time division frame compressed mode is used” that is, “where in
`
`the frame a gap is generated for measuring parameters,” meaning the gaps for each
`
`19
`
`LGE_0000328
`
`

`

`
`
`UE could randomly fall anywhere in the frame, including on top of one another. Id.
`
`at 2:23-27.
`
`56. This results in the “total interference in the system then increases and the
`
`average transmission power of the mobile station must be increase