PUBLIC VERSION
`
`13-22; CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q367-377, 518; CX-1525.IC (Prucnal RWS Errata) at 3.
`
`The remainder of this element, "such that the power control bits are included on only one of the I
`
`-· pre-spread channel or the Q pre-spread channel," is disputed and is disclosed as explained above.
`
`The '775 Provisional discloses "wherein a second radio frequency signal output by the code
`
`division multiple access subscriber unit is derived at least in part.from the I and Q pre-spread
`
`channels." JX-0026 ('7~~;provisional) at 42, 43, 131, NK800IDC07356894; CX-1525C
`
`(Prucnal RWS) at Q 378-380.
`
`xi.
`
`'332 Patent - Claim 9
`
`Claim 9 of the '332 patent depends from claim 8, which is disclosed as stated above.
`
`CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q381-383. The '775 Provisional discloses "wherein the circuit is
`
`further configured to combine the I and Q pre-spread channels with a complex sequence."
`
`JX-0026 ('775 Provisional) at 42-43, 81-82, 131, NK800IDC07356894, NK800IDC07357590;
`
`CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q384-390.
`
`xii.
`
`'332 Patent - Claim 10
`
`Claim 10 of the '332 patent.depends from claim 9, which is disclosed as stated
`
`previously. CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q391-393. The '775 Provisional discloses "wherein
`
`the combinin~ is by multiplication." JX-0026 ('775 Provisional) at 81-82, NK800IDC07356894,
`
`NK800IDC07357590; CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q394-400.
`
`xiii.
`
`'332 Patent - Claim 11
`
`Claim 11 of the '332 patent depends from claim 9, which is disclosed as shown above.
`
`CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q401-403. The '775 Provisional discloses "wherein the complex
`
`sequence comprises at least two pseudo noise sequences." JX-0026 ('775 Provisional) at 44, 46,
`
`NK800IDC07356897; CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q404-410.
`
`188
`
`Exhibit 1011-00200
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`xiv.
`
`'332 Patent - Claim 14
`
`Claim 14 of the '332 patent depends from claim 8, which is disclosed as shown above.
`
`CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q41 r415. The '775 Pr~visional di·~'~ioses "wherein pilot bits are
`
`included on at least one of the I and the Q pre-spread channels." JX-0026 ('775 Provisional) at
`
`42-43, 131, NK800IDC07356894; C~-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q414-420.
`
`'332 Patent - Claim 22
`
`The '775 Provisional discloses claim 22 of the '332 patent. CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at
`
`Q421-445. The '775 Provisional discloses "[a] code division multiple access subscriber unit."
`
`JX-0026 ('775 Provisional) at 6, 16, NK800ITC07356861-862; CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at
`
`Q422-423, Q283-287. The '775 Provisional discloses "circuitry configured tq receive a first
`
`radio frequency signal and generate power control bits in response to the first radio frequency
`
`signal." JX-0026 ('775 Provisional) at 43, 131, NK800IDC07356895; CX-1525C (Prucnal
`
`RWS) at Q424-436. The '775 Provisional discloses "wherein the circuit is further confi$ured to
`
`establish an in-phase (I) channel and a quadrature (Q) channel." JX-0026 ('775 Provisional) at
`
`42-43, 131, NK800IDC07356895; JX-0002 ('332 patent) at col. 45, Ins. 13-22; CX-1525C
`
`(Prucnal RWS) at Q437-438, Q367-377. The remainder of this element, "wherein one of the I or
`
`the Q channel includes the power control bits" is disputed and is disclosed by the '775
`
`Provisional as explained above. The '775 Provisional discloses "wherein the circuitry is further
`
`configured to produce a second radio frequency signal including an I component and a Q
`
`componefl:t derived from the I channel and the Q channel." JX~0026 ('775 Provis~onal) at 42, 43,
`
`131, NK800IDC07356894; CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q439-440, Q378-380. The '775
`
`Provisional discloses "wherein the circuitry is further configured to transmit the second radio
`
`frequency signal." JX-0026 ('775 Provisional) at 42-43, 131, NK800IDC07356894; CX-1525C
`
`189
`
`Exhibit 1011-00201
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`(Prucnal RWS) at Q305-307. The '775 Provisional discloses "wherein the circuitry is further
`
`configured to combine the I and Q channels with a complex sequence." JX-0026 ('775
`
`Provisional) at 42-43, 81-82, 131, NK800IDC07356894, NK800IDC07357590; CX-1525C
`
`(Prucnal RWS) at Q446-447, Q3 l l-3 l 7.
`
`xvi.
`
`'332 Patent - Claim 23
`
`Claim.·23 of the '332 patent depends from claim 22, disclosed as stated above.
`'ti.;r
`CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q448-450. The '775 Provisional discloses "wherein the
`
`combining is perfonned by multiplication." JX-0026 ('775 Provisional) at 80-81,
`
`NK800IDC07356894, NK800IDC07357590; CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q451-452,
`
`Q321-327.
`
`xvii.
`
`'332 Patent..:_ Claim 24
`
`Claim 24 of the '332 patent depends from claim 22, disclosed as shown above.
`
`CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q453-455. The '775 Provisional discloses "wherein the complex
`
`sequence comprises at least two pseudo noise sequences." JX-0026 ('775 Provisional) at 44, 46,
`
`NK800IDC07356897; CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q456-4S7, Q331-337.
`
`xviii.
`
`'332 Patent - Claim 27
`
`Claim 27 of the '332 patent depends from claim 21, disclosed above. CX-1525C
`
`(Prucnal RWS) at Q458-460. The '775 Provisional discloses "wherein the circuitry is further
`
`configured to generate pilot bits; wherein the second radio frequency signal is derived at least in
`
`part from the pilot bits." JX-0026 ('775 Provisional) at 42-43, 131, NK800IDC07356894;
`
`CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q461-462, Q341-347; CX-1525.IC (Prucnal RWS Errata) at 2.
`
`190
`
`Exhibit 1011-00202
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`2.
`
`Anticipation and Obviousness
`
`Respondents argue that the asserted claims of the '406 patent are invalid based on three
`primary references (Andermo-Brismark,34 Andermo-Ewerbnng,35 a:nd Tiedemani136) al~ne or
`
`each in combination with a Dent37 or Salmasi38 reference. See GR12 Filing at 7, 8. Respondents
`
`have failed to show clearly and convincingly that the asserted claims are invalid because, at a
`
`minimum, none of these~~ferences discloses or renders obvious the limitations (i) "the reverse
`.
`·t~.i'
`conti:ol channel carries at least one power command" or (ii) "separately adjusting the
`
`transmission power level of the traffic channel and the reverse control channel." As an initial
`
`matter, all of these references were disclosed during prosecution of the '406 patent, and the
`
`Tiedemann reference was cited by the examiner in an office action rejecting claims.39 JX-0008
`
`('406 file history) at IDC-ITC-016382231. Respondents do not contend that the primary
`
`34 RX-0717 ("Andermo-Brismark") is titled, "CODIT, a Testbed Project Evaluating DS-CDMA
`for UMTS/FPLMTS," was written by PG Andermo and Gustav Brismark, and was available in
`1994 through IEEE. See RX-3529C (Williams WS) at Q1486-1488. Since the article was
`publicly available in 1994, the Andermo-Brismark reference ·qualifies as prior art under at least
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`35 RX-0721 ("Andermo-Ewerbring") is titled, "A CDMA-Based Radio Access Design for
`UMTS," was written by PG Andermo and Lars-Magnus Ewerbring, and was available in the
`February 1995 issue of IEEE Personal Communications. RX-3529C (Williams WS) at Q1605-
`1607. The Andermo-Ewerbring reference is therefore prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`36 U.S. Patent No. 5,604,730 to Tiedmann (RX-0731) ("the Tiedemann '730 patent" or
`"Tiedemann") was filed July 25, 1994.
`
`37 U.S. Patent No. 5,377,183 (RX-0730) ("Dent" or "Dent 183") is titled, "Calling Channel in
`CDMA Communications Systems," and was filed by Paul Dent on April 11, 1994.
`
`38 RX-0718 (''Salmasi") is an article written by Allen Salmasi and Klein Gilhousen titled, "On
`the System Design Aspects of Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) Applied to Digital
`Cellular And Personal Communication Networks," and was published in 1991.
`
`39 The clear and convincing burden "is especially difficult when the prior art was before the PTO
`examiner during prosecution of the application." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc.,
`909 F.2d 1464, 1467 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
`
`191
`
`Exhibit 1011-00203
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`references disclose the first of these two limitations, relying instead on Dent or Salmasi to fill in
`
`the missing piece. Williams Tr. 1232.
`
`Respondents also argue that the asserted claims of the-'332 patent are invalid bas.ed on
`
`two primary references (Lucas40 and Walton41) alone or in combination with each other or
`
`Salmasi. Respondents have failed to show clearly and convincingly that the asserted claims are
`
`invalid because none o[t~se references discloses or renders obvious the following limitations:
`
`(i) including power control bits on only one of an uplink in-phase (I) or quadrature (Q) channel,
`
`(ii) including power control bits on only one of a pre-spread in-phase (I) or quadrature (Q)
`
`channel, or (iii) combining these channels with a complex sequence. As an initial matter, Walton
`
`and Salmasi were disclosed during prosecution of the '332 patent. Walton in particular was
`
`made ofrecord in the examiner's first rejection and mentioned explicitly in the examiner's first
`
`statement of reasons for allowance in April 2009, which the examiner cross-referenced in every
`
`subsequent Notice of Allowability. JX-0009 ('332 file history) at IDC-ITC-016399573,
`
`IDC-ITC-016400782, IDC-ITC-016401480. Furthermore, Respondents rely on Lucas for
`
`allegedly disclosing the limitation of combining the I and Q [pre-spread] channels with a
`
`complex sequence, even though Lucas teaches away from this limitation by advocating replacing
`
`complex sequences with real ones. For these reasons, the asserted '332 patent claims are not
`
`invalid.
`
`Responden~s further argue that asserted claims of both the '406 and '332 patents are
`
`invalid based on two Odenwalder patent references that were filed almost a year after the '77 5
`
`40 U.S. Patent 5,544,167 (RX-0696) to Lucas ("Lucas") was filed on August 12, 1994, and is
`therefore prior art to the '332 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`41 U.S. Patent 5,621,723 (RX-0694) to Walton ("Walton") was filed on June 5, 1995, and is
`therefore prior art to the '332 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`192
`
`Exhibit 1011-00204
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Provisional was filed on June 30, 1995. Odenwalder '230 was ~led on May 28, 1996, and
`
`Odenwalder '500 was filed on June 7, 1996. See RX-0695 (Odenwalder '230); RX-0729
`
`(Odenwalder '500). As determined above, the asserted claims are entitled to an effective filing
`
`date of June 30, 1995 based on priority to the '775 Provisional. Therefore, the Odenwalder
`
`references are not prior art to the '406 and '332 patents ap.d do not invalidate the asserted claims.
`
`The following di'~ussion first explains why claims 6, 13, 20, and 26 of the '406 patent
`. '-"'·'
`are not invalid over the prior art, inasmuch as the asserted references do not disclose or render
`
`obvious the claim limitation "the reverse control channel carries at lea_st one power command."
`
`The discussion then turns to Respondents' obviousness combinations for the asserted claims of
`
`the '406 and '332 patents, and explores secondary considerations ofnonobviousness.
`
`a.
`
`The "reverse control channel carries at least one power
`command" ('406 Patent) Limitation
`
`Experts for the parties testified that Andermo-Brismark, Andermo-Ewerbring, and
`
`Tiedemann do not disclose the limitation "the reverse control channel carries at least one power
`
`command" as required by claims 6, 13, 20, and 26 of the '40? patent. See, e.g., Williams Tr.
`
`1232; CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q627-646, Q655-666, Q720-727; RX-3529C (Williams WS)
`
`at Q1525, Ql643, Q1825. Respondents argue that this limitation would have been obvious
`
`based on each of these primary references in combination with Dent or Salmasi. See Resps. Br.
`
`at 234-51. As Dr. Prucnal explained, however, Dent and Salmasi do not disclose this limitation,
`
`and this limitation would not have been obvious at the time of the '406 invention based on Dent
`
`or Salmasi in combination with Andermo-Brismark, Andermo-Ewerbring, or Tiedemann. See,
`
`e.g., CX-1525C (Prucnal WS) at Q627-639, Q655-666, Q681-687.
`
`193
`
`Exhibit 1011-00205
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Respondents argue that this limitation would have been obvious based on U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,377,183 to Dent (RX-0730) ("Dent' 183") because Dent incorporates by reference an
`
`application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 5,345,598 (RX-1680) ("Dent '598'J) that allegedly ·
`
`teaches a different "dynamic power control system .. " See RX-3529C (Williams WS) at
`
`Ql 105-1107, Q1525; RX-3529.IC (Williams WS Errata) at 2. As an initial matter, Dent '183
`
`discloses only an open l~i' (or duplex) power control system in which power is adjusted based
`
`on received signal strength rather than a closed loop power control system. See, e.g., CX-1525C
`
`(Prucnal RWS) at Q573, Q675, Q692; CX-1525.l C (Prucnal RWS Errata) at 3; RX-0730 (Dent
`
`'183) at ~ol. 4, ln. 63 - col. 5, ln. 5. Respondents' argument that Dent '183 incorporates the
`
`dynamic power control system of Dent '598 is misguided, inasmuch as Dent '183 states the
`
`following: .
`
`A duplex power control system is disclosed in "Duplex Power Control'',
`U.S. patent application Ser. No. 07/866,554, filed Apr. 10, 1992, and is
`incorporated herein by reference.
`
`See RX-0730 (Dent '183) at col. 5, Ins. 2-5; RX-3529C (Williams WS) at Ql 107.
`
`The statement of incorporation set forth in Dent '183 'shows that only the "duplex power
`
`control system" from Dent '598 is incorporated, and not a "dynamic power control system." See,
`
`e.g., CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q573; CX-1525.IC (Prucnal RWS Errata) at 3; see also Adv.
`
`Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("[T]he host
`
`document must identify with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates and
`
`clearly indicate where that material is found in the various documents.").
`
`Moreover, Dent '598 does not disclose the claim limitation "the reverse control channel
`
`carries at least one power command," and instead teaches away from a dynamic power control
`
`system; Dent '598, in discussing dynamic power control, discloses sending "a message to the
`
`194
`
`Exhibit 1011-00206
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`base station including a measurement of signal strength" rather than a power command, even
`
`though Dent '598 describes sending a command on the forward link. See RX-1680 (Dent '598)
`
`at col. 2, l~s~-22-41-; CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q694, Q724, Q760. Dent ~598 also does not
`
`disclose sending this message on a reverse control channel. RX-1680 (Dent '598) at col. 2, lns.
`
`22-41. Furthermore, Dent '598 discourages the use of closed loop power control bidirectional
`
`messages:
`
`The Dynamic Power Control technique has the disadvantage that it is slow
`to react because of the cumbersome, bi-directional messages needed
`between the base station and the mobile. The bi-directional signaling also
`reduces the capacity or quality of the traffic channel.
`
`RX-1680 (Dent '598) at col. 2, Ins. 35-41.
`
`Dent '598 then states that "it would be desirable" to control power "without the need for
`
`bidirectional power control messages between the base station and mobiles." See RX-1680
`
`(Dent ' 598) at col. 2, Ins. 45-51; Williams Tr. 1233. The remainder of Dent '598 discloses an
`
`alternative system that uses only open loop power control, where power commands and power
`
`control bits are not sent in either direction. See, e.g., CX-15~5C (Prucnal RWS) at Q695.
`
`Accordingly, Dent '598 teaches away from a reverse control channel that carries at least one
`
`power command, and there would have been no motivation to combine Dent, and specifically the
`
`dynamic power control system, with any of the primary references, and any such combination
`
`would not render the claim limitation obvious. See, e.g. , id. at Q573, Q695-696, Q631, Q659,
`
`Q727; CX-1525.lC (PrucnalRWS Errata) at 3.
`
`Respondents also argue that this limitation would have been obvious based on an article
`
`authored by Allen Salmasi. RX-0718 (Salmasi); see, e.g., RX-3529C (Williams WS) at Q1108.
`
`Salmasi, however, does not disclose a power command or sending a power command on a
`
`195
`
`Exhibit 1011-00207
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`reverse control channel. See, e.g., CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q577, Q632-639. Salmasi, for
`
`example, expressly distinguishes between a command and a request by describing a power
`
`· ,.
`
`adjustment command on the forward link, but only a power adjustment request on the reverse
`
`link. See RX-0718 (Salmasi) at 58, 60. In addition, Figure 1 of Salmasi shows forward Traffic
`
`Channels comprised of Traffic Data and a Mobile Power Control Subchannel, whereas Figure 2
`
`shows only Reverse Traffic Channels without any mention of power control, a reverse control
`. ·.::;j/I
`.
`
`channel, a reverse power control channel, or a Mobile Power Control Subchannel. See id at 58.
`
`In other words, the presence of the Mobile Power Control Subchannel in Figure 1 and its absence
`
`in Figure 2 shows that Salmasi never recognized the value of putting its power control requests
`
`onto a reverse control channel. See, e.g., CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q577, Q634. Salmasi
`
`teaches that, inasmuch as the power adjustment requests are transmitted only "once per vocoder
`
`frame" on a reverse traffic channel, there is no need for a reverse control channel. See id.
`
`Lastly, as detailed below in the context of each primary reference, even if Salmasi transmitted
`
`power adjustment requests on a reverse control channel, Salmasi would not meet the other claim
`
`limitations because (i) Salmasi describes power control information on a subchannel of the
`
`,•
`
`downlink traffic channel and (ii) even if the power control requests were transmitted on a
`
`subchannel of the reverse traffic channel, the transmission power level of the reverse traffic and
`
`control channels would not be different. See, e.g., id at Q578, Q635.
`
`In addition, many of the primary references expressly limited power control commands to
`
`the downlink:. See, e.g., CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q565. Drs. Williams and Prucnal testified
`
`that it is desirable for base stations to adjust their transmission power level to adapt to
`
`environmental changes, such as for mobile stations to send a power command, and that is why
`
`the accused products implement the claimed functionality. See RX-3529C (Williams WS) at
`
`196
`
`Exhibit 1011-00208
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Ql 100; CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q566. Dr. Williams concluded that it therefore "would be
`
`obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of [Dent and Salmasi] in the
`
`CODIT system as described by ~y.'afthe CODIT references," i.e., Andermo-Brismark and
`
`Andermo-Ewerbring. See RX-3529C (Williams WS) at Ql 100. This conclusion is unfounded,
`
`however, because the fact that these COD IT references expressly limited their systems to
`
`sending power control it~rmation on the downlink despite the advantages of including power
`. ~/ ..
`
`control information on the uplink supports Dr. Prucnal's position that the claim limitation would
`
`not have been obvious. See, e.g., CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q566.
`
`b.
`
`('406 Patent) Andermo-Brismark Alone or in Combination
`with Dent or Salmasi
`
`The asserted claims of the '406 patent are not invalid based on Andermo-Brismark alone
`
`or in combination with Dent or Salmasi at least for the reasons explained by Dr. Prucnal in his
`
`Rebuttal Witness Statement. See CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q621-648.
`
`As summarized above, Andermo-Brismark, Salmasi, and Dent are all missing at least one
`
`limitation from each asserted claim of the '406 patent. It is U?disputed that Andermo-Brismark
`
`does not disclose that "the reverse control channel carries at least one power command" as
`
`required by claims 6, 13, 20, and 26. Williams Tr. 1232; CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at
`
`Q627-639. Andermo-Brismark expressly includes power commands only on the
`
`forward/downlink despite acknowledging that "[i]n both the up- and down link, the radiated
`
`power per user should be minimised, to minimise interference to others while maintaining an
`
`acceptable link quality." CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q628 (quoting RX-0717 (Andermo-
`
`Brismark) at 23-24). Base station transmission power level, by contrast, "uses quality
`
`measurements of the MSs" instead of power commands. RX-0717 (Andermo-Brismark) at 24.
`
`197
`
`Exhibit 1011-00209
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Thus this limitation would not have been obvious based on Andermo-Brismark alone or, as
`
`explained above, in combination with Dent or Salmasi.
`
`Andermo-Brismark also does not disclose orrender·obvious "separately adjusting the
`
`transmission power level of the traffic channel and the reverse control channel." CX-1525C
`
`(I'rucnal RWS) at Q644-648. Respondents argue that Andermo-Brismark discloses this
`
`limitation because a traflk·channel and control channel can have varying bit rates or spreading
`·~
`'
`factors. See RX-3529C (Williams WS) at Q1599-1602. As Dr. Prucnal explained, however, the
`
`fact that two channels have different spreading factors and bit rates does not mean that their
`
`transmission power levels are separately adjusted. CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q645 .
`
`Moreover, the control channel in Andermo-Brismark, called PCCH, has a fixed spreading factor
`
`and data rate (2kb/s) and thus cannot be separately adjusted, even under Dr. Williams's own
`
`reasoning. Id. at if 646 (citing RX-0717 (Andei:-mo-Bris~ark) at 23).
`
`Lastly, Andermo-Brismark also does not disclose or render obvious a "power control bit"
`
`under the adopted construction. See CX-l525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q640-643.
`
`c.
`
`"
`('406 Patent) Andermo-Ewerbring Alone or in Combination
`with Dent or Salmasi
`
`The asserted claims 6f the '406 patent are not invalid based on Andermo-Ewer bring
`
`alone or in combination with Dent or Salmasi at least for the reasons explained by Dr. Prucnal in
`
`his Rebuttal Witness Statement. See CX-1525 C (Prucnal R WS) at Q649-73. As an initial
`
`matter, Andermo-Ewerbring is very similar to Andermo-Brismark.
`
`As sllinmarized above, Andermo-Ewerbring, Salmasi, and Dent are all missing at least
`
`one limitation from each asserted claim of the '' 406 patent. It is undisputed that Andermo-
`
`Ewerbring does not disclose the claim limitation "the reverse control channel carries at least one
`
`198
`
`Exhibit 1011-00210
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`power command" as required by claims 6, 13, 20, and 26. Williams Tr. 1232; CX-1525C
`
`(Prucnal RWS) at Q655-666. Andermo-Ewerbring expressly includes power commands only on
`
`the forward/downlink despite acknowledging that "[i]n both.fue.~p~,-and do~~link, the radiated
`
`power per user should be minimized, to minimize interference to others while maintaining an
`
`acceptable link quality." CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q656 (quoting RX-0721 (Andermo-
`. ( .. ).~
`Ewerbring) at 52). Thusj'!Jhis limitation would not have been obvious based on Andermo(cid:173)
`Ewerbring alone or, as explained above, in combination with Dent or Salmasi.
`
`Andermo-Ewerbring also does not disclose or render obvious the claim limitation
`
`"separately adjusting the transmission power level of the traffic channel and the reverse control
`
`channel." CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q669-673. Respondents argue that Andermo-
`
`Ewerbring discloses this limitation because a traffic channel and control channel can have
`
`varying bit rates or spreading factors. See RX-3529C (Williams WS) at Ql 714-1722. As Dr.
`
`Prucnal explained, however, the fact that two channels have different spreading factors and bit
`
`rates does not mean that their transmission power levels are separately adjusted. CX-1525C
`
`(Prucnal RWS) at Q670. Moreover, the Andermo-Ewerbring control channel, called PCCH, has
`
`a fixed spreading factor and bit rate and thus cannot be separately adjusted even under Dr.
`
`Williams's own reasoning. Id. at Q671 (citing RX-0721 (Andermo-Ewerbring) at 52).
`
`Lastly, Andermo-Ewerbring also does not disclose or render obvious a "power control
`
`bit" under the adopted construction. See CX-1525~ (Prucnal RWS) at Q667-668.
`
`d.
`
`('406 Patent) Tiedemann Alone or in Combination with Dent
`or Salmasi
`
`The asserted claims of the '406 patent are not invalid based on Tiedemann alone or in
`
`combination with Dent or Salmasi at least for the reasons explained by Dr. Prucnal in his
`
`199
`
`Exhibit 1011-00211
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Rebuttal Witness Statement. See CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q712-743; CX-1525.lC (Prucnal
`.
`.
`RWS Errata) at 3.
`
`As arr ifiitial matter, each asserted claim of the '406 patent requires <!. subscriber unit ,-, ··
`
`transmitting or configured to transmit a plurality of channels including a traffic channel and a
`
`reverse control channel. The evidence does not show that the access channel taught by
`
`Tiedemann is.the claimed.''control channel," or that Tiedemann transmits the access channel at
`. "';_'lfl'
`
`the same time as a traffic channel (or a packet channel). See CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at
`
`Q730-734; CX-1525.lC (Prucnal RWS Errata) at 3. Rather, Tiedemann sends an access channel
`
`on the reverse link to initiate a call, followed by transmission of a traffic channel. CX-l 525C
`
`(Prucnal RWS) at Q732-734. Thus Tiedemann does not disclose this limitation, or that the
`
`transmission power level of the traffic channel and the reverse control channel are different. See
`
`id. at Q740-742.
`
`As summarized above, Tiedemann, Dent, and Salmasi are all missing at least one
`
`limitation from each asserted claim of the '406 patent. It is undisputed that Tiedemann does not
`.·
`disclose the claim limitation "the reverse control channel carries at least one power command" as
`
`required by claims 6, 13, 20, and 26 of the '406 patent. See Williams Tr. 1232; CX-1525C
`
`(Prucnal R WS) at Q720-727; CX-1525 .1 C (Prucnal R WS Errata) at 3. The evidence shows that
`
`this limitation would not have been obvious based on Tiedemann alone or in combination with
`
`Dent or Salmasi. Ea6h of these references ignores, for example, "the value of placing a power
`
`control command on a reverse control channel because it allowed the subscriber unit to transmit
`
`power control informatio~ at a lower power than the reverse traffic channel." CX-J525C
`
`(Prucnal RWS) at Q576.
`
`200 '
`
`Exhibit 1011-00212
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Tiedemann also does not disclose or render obvious the claim limitation "separately
`
`adjusting the transmission power level of the traffic channel and the reverse control channel."
`
`:-.:,:
`
`' ~
`
`- ~· :1'-;"t':··
`
`-~ .-:-:
`
`""'~ ..
`
`CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q735-739. Tiedemann does not disclose transmission of a traffic
`
`and reverse control channel at all. · See, e.g., id. at Q730-734; CX-1525.lC (Prucnal RWS Errata)
`
`at 2. Dr. Prucnal further explained that Tiedemann "does not disclose adjustment of power" or
`
`that "this bit rate is chari&e:d independent of other channels." See, e.g., CX-1525C (Prucnal
`. ·dl''
`
`RWS) at Q738.
`
`Moreover, Tidedemann does not invalidate the '406 patent claims because it does not
`
`disclose or render obvious a "power control bit" under the adopted construction. See CX-1525C
`
`(Prucnal RWS) at Q728-729.
`
`e.
`
`('332 Patent) Lucas Alone or in Combination with Salmasi
`
`The asserted claims of the '332 patent are not invalid based on Lucas (RX-0696) alone or
`
`in combination with Salmasi at least for the reasons explained by Dr. Prucnal in his Rebuttal
`
`Witness Statement. See CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q797-817. As an initial matter, "Lucas
`
`has very limited disclosure of power· control" and "does not even disclose the use of power
`
`control bits to control any transmission power level." Id. at Q802, Q809.
`
`Lucas does not disc~ose or render obvious a CDMA subscriber unit comprising a circuit
`
`configured to generate power control bits. CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q801-807. Lucas's
`
`disclosure of power control is limited to controlling subscriber unit transmission power, and does
`
`not te;;ch S.UlJSGriber upits geil~ra!iµg power control information to control base station
`
`transmission power, which is a requirement of the asserted '332 claims. Id. at Q802.
`
`Lucas also does not disclose "power control bits" as that term is used in each asserted
`
`claim of the '332 patent. CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q808-809. Lucas describes power
`
`201
`
`Exhibit 1011-00213
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`·control as follows: "As usual in CDMA systems the amplifier 207 [in the mobile station] has an
`
`adjustable gain, to allow for controlling the power of the signal transmitted by the mobile
`
`station." See RX.:0696 (Lucas) at col. 10, Ins. 35-38; CX·1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q809. Lucas
`
`neither discloses how the amplifier controls the mobile station's transmission power, nor
`
`discloses using power control bits to control any transmission power level. According to
`
`Respondents' expert Dr.~Jilliams, Lucas discloses a logical service channel DS(t) that would
`
`inherently include power control commands because "power control commands" are a "critical
`
`aspect of CDMA systems." See RX-3529C (Williams WS) at Q450. This argument, however, is
`
`based on hindsight. Although the closed loop power control functionality claimed in the '332
`
`patent, including generation of power control bits by a subscriber unit, is key to modem CDMA
`
`systems, that fact does not mean the functionality was inherent before or at the time of the '332
`
`invention. See CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q810. Moreover, Dr. Williams's inherency
`
`validity arguinent contradicts his opinion that the accused CDMA products do not generate
`
`power control bits. See id.; RX-3994C (Williams RWS) at Q51.
`
`Asserted claims 2-4 and 22-24 of the '332 patent require that "the circuit is further
`
`configured to combine the I and Q channels with a complex sequence," and claims 9-11 require
`
`that "the circuit is further configured to combine the I and Q pre-spread channels with a complex
`
`sequence." Respondents have not shown that this limitation is disclosed by Lucas or would have
`
`been obvious based on Lucas alone or in combination with Salmasi. See CX-1525C (Prucnal
`
`RWS) at Q815-816. Lucas teaches away from combining the I and Q channels with a complex
`•:: .. -
`~ -. -- .- ·~-~
`.
`. , ;:.. ,. .
`sequence, inasmuch as using real sequences instead of complex sequences is the main point of
`
`Lucas. See id. at Q816; RX-0696 (Lucas) at col. 2, Ins. 64-65; col. 3, Ins. 4-8; col. 3, In. 66- col.
`
`4, In. l; col. 4, Ins. 35-38; col. 9, Ins. 33-35. Respondents' expert Dr. Williams has argued that
`
`202
`
`Exhibit 1011-00214
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`these statements nevertheless disclose using complex sequences even if they are less preferred
`
`options, but merely mentioning the phrase "complex sequence" does not support use of complex
`• ' .·.
`sequences as required by the asserted claims of the '332 patent. See RX-3529C (Williams WS) at
`
`Q512. This is particularly true where Lucas actively discourages using complex sequences.
`
`CX-l 525C (Prucnal WS) at Q8 l 6. Fo_r at least this reason, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would not have combineJ~Lucas with any reference that teaches combining the I and Q channels
`
`. ·.,jf,"
`
`with a complex sequence to arrive at this limitation of '332 patent claims 2-4, 9-11, and 22-24.
`
`Id.
`
`In addition to teaching away from combining the I and Q channels with a complex
`
`sequence, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Lucas
`
`with the references identified by Respondents as discussing power control. CX-1525C (Prucnal
`
`WS) at Q817. Lucas focuses not on power control, but on combining and modulating signals.
`
`Id.; see, e.g., RX-0696 (Lucas) at col. 3, In. 66 - col. 4, ln.1 (object of the invention is to "allow
`
`for the use of real spreading sequences"). Therefore, there would not have been any motivation
`
`to combine Lucas with the other references. CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q817.
`
`Accordingly, the asserted claims of the '332 patent are not invalid based on Lucas alone
`
`or in combination with Salmasi. See CX-l 525C (Prucnal R WS) Q797-817.
`
`f.
`
`('332 Patent) Walton Alone or in Combination with Lucas or
`Salmasi
`
`The asserted claims of the '332 patent are not invalid based on Walton (RX-0694) alone
`.
`- ' · ~
`or in combination with tucas or Salmasi at least for the reasons explained by Dr. Prucnal in his
`
`Rebuttal Witness Statement. See, e.g., CX-1525C (Prucnal RWS) at Q818-844. As an initial
`
`matter, th