UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`________________
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,385,966
`Case IPR No.: IPR2016-00178
`
`________________
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS
`EQUIPMENT LLC’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`________________
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,385,966
`Case IPR No.: IPR2016-00178
`
`________________
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS
`EQUIPMENT LLC’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND AND INVENTORS’ SOLUTION ........ 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`TS 36.213 v8.2.0 .................................................................................. 1
`
`The ‘966 Patent .................................................................................... 2
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 4
`
`IV. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ......................................................... 4
`
`V.
`
`A.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Standard for Review ............................................................................. 4
`
`B. Obviousness .......................................................................................... 5
`
`PETITIONER CANNOT SHOW THAT THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................... 7
`
`Summary of Argument ......................................................................... 7
`
`Independent Claims 1, 9, and 10 Are Not Obvious In View of
`Qualcomm and TS 36.213 .................................................................... 9
`
`Qualcomm and TS 36.213 do not disclose initializing a second
`power control adjustment so that
`“P0_UE_PUSCH+f(0)=ΔPPC+ΔPrampup” .......................................... 10
`
`Petitioner’s argument that Qualcomm discloses the claimed
`initialization is meritless .......................................................... 11
`
`Petitioner’s arguments fail because Qualcomm does not
`disclose the use of a power control adjustment state .... 11
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`a.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`
`
`b.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner’s arguments fail because Qualcomm does not
`disclose initializing a power control adjustment state so
`that P0_UE_PUSCH+f(0)=ΔPPC+ΔPrampup ............................ 12
`
`Qualcomm and TS 36.213 do not disclose computing “an initial
`transmit power for the uplink shared channel using full path
`loss compensation” .................................................................. 15
`
`A person of skill in the art would not have had a reason to
`combine Qualcomm and TS 36.213 ........................................ 16
`
`C. Dependent Claims 2-8 and 11-17 Are Not Obvious In View of the
`Alleged Combinations ........................................................................ 19
`
`Claims 3 and 12 were not obvious in view of Qualcomm and
`TS 36.213 ................................................................................. 19
`
`Claims 4 and 13 were not obvious in view of Qualcomm and
`TS 36.213 ................................................................................. 21
`
`Claims 2 and 11 were not obvious in view of Qualcomm, TS
`36.213, and TS 36.300 ............................................................. 23
`
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 25
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`CFMT, Inc. v. YieldUp Int’l Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .............................................................................. 6
`
`
`Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Patent of Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC,
`IPR2012-00001, Paper 15 (PTAB Jan. 9, 2013) .................................................... 6
`
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................... 6
`
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs.,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ......................................................................... 24
`
`In re Gardner,
`449 Fed. Appx. 914 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................... 7
`
`In re Ratti,
`270 F.2d 810 (CCPA 1959) ................................................................................. 7
`
`In re Rijckaert,
`9 F.3d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ............................................................................... 6
`
`In re Royka,
`490 F.2d 981 (C.C.P.A. 1974) ............................................................................. 6
`
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................................................... 24
`
`
`Norman Int’l, Inc. v. Toti Testamentary Trust,
`IPR2014-00283, Paper 9 (PTAB June 20, 2014) .............................................. 18
`
`Par Pharm., Inc. v. TWi Pharms., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`
`Plas-Pak Indus., Inc. v. Sulzer Mixpac AG,
`600 Fed. Appx. 755 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................... 7
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................. 5-7, 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 313 ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .............................................................................................. 4, 25
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ............................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ....................................................................... 11, 12, 20, 22
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 .................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b)(2) ......................................................................................... 25
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ................................................................................................ 4
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ............... 5
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R § 42.107, Patent Owner Cellular
`
`Communications Equipment LLC (“CCE”) respectfully submits this preliminary
`
`response to LG Electronics, Inc.’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(“Petition”). As explained below, a trial should not be instituted in this matter
`
`because Petitioner cannot demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood that at
`
`least one of the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966 (the “’966 patent”)
`
`is unpatentable.
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND AND INVENTORS’ SOLUTION
`
`A. TS 36.213 v8.2.0
`3GPP TS 36.213 v8.2.0 (hereinafter “TS 36.213”) specifies physical layer
`
`procedures for evolved universal terrestrial radio access (E-UTRA), the air
`
`interface for 3GPP Long Term Evolution (“LTE”). Among other things, TS
`
`36.213 specifies how uplink power should be set for a physical uplink shared
`
`channel and a physical uplink control channel. TS 36.213 specifies, for example,
`
`that “[t]he setting of the UE Transmit power PPUSCH for the physical uplink shared
`
`channel (PUSCH) transmission in subframe i is defined by PPUSCH(i) = min{PMAX,
`
`10log10(MPUSCH(i)) + PO_PUSCH(j) + α · PL + ΔTF(TF(i)) + f(i)} ….” TS 36.213 (Ex.
`
`1004 to PET.) at § 5.1.1.1). A similar (but not identical) power control formula is
`
`specified for the physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) transmissions having
`
`transmit power PPUCCH(i). Id. at § 5.1.2.1.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`B.
`The ’966 Patent
`The ’966 patent incorporates by reference and quotes portions of TS 36.213
`
`and discloses improvements to power control for a physical uplink shared channel
`
`(PUSCH) and physical uplink control channel (PUCCH). According to the ’966
`
`patent, “the problem solved [by the disclosed] embodiments is how the power
`
`control formulas for PUSCH and PUCCH are taken in use during or after the
`
`Random Access procedure.” ’966 patent (Ex. 1001 to PET.) at 4:16-19. More
`
`specifically, the inventors recognized that “[w]hen the UE first sends data on the
`
`PUSCH, there is no previous subframe and so i=0, which is addressed in 3GPP TS
`
`36.213 v8.2.0 as zeroing out the entire term so that f(0)=0.” ’966 patent (Ex. 1001
`
`to PET.) at 6:33-35; see also TS 36.213 (Ex. 1004 to PET.) at § 5.1.1.1. Likewise
`
`for the PUCCH power control initial condition g(0), the inventors recognized that
`
`the TS 36.213 approach was to “zero[] out the entire term so that g(0)=0.” ’966
`
`patent (Ex. 1001 to PET.) at 6:46-49; see also TS 36.213 (Ex. 1004 to PET.) at §
`
`5.1.2.1.
`
`To address perceived shortcomings with “how the UE specific parameters of
`
`the PUSCH and PUCCH power control formulas are initialized” (’966 patent (Ex.
`
`1001 to PET.) at 4:25-27), the inventors proposed new systems and methods for
`
`initializing f(i) and g(i) (the power control adjustment state functions for PPUSCH
`
`and PPUCCH). More specifically, the inventors disclosed an embodiment where “the
`
`UE receives a power control command (e.g. ΔPPC) in the preamble response from
`
`the eNB” and then initializes the f(i) and g(i) power control functions for i=0 so
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`
`that P0_UE_PUSCH + f(0) = ΔPPC + ΔPrampup and P0_UE_PUCCH + g(0) = ΔPPC + ΔPrampup.
`
`’966 patent (Ex. 1001 to PET.) at 6:59-67. In this aspect, the inventors’ solution
`
`provides improved power control by taking advantage of specific information from
`
`the preamble power control process (e.g., ΔPPC and ΔPrampup) to initialize specific
`
`power control adjustment states (f(i) and g(i)).
`
`These aspects of the invention, which are not disclosed by any of the
`
`references cited in the Petition, are reflected in each of the challenged claims. For
`
`example, claim 1 of the ’966 patent recites initializing a power control adjustment
`
`state f(i) so that P0_UE_PUSCH+f(0)=ΔPPC+ΔPrampup:
`
`A method comprising:
`
`using a processor to initialize for i=0 a first power control adjustment
`state g(i) for an uplink control channel and a second power control
`adjustment state f(i) for an uplink shared channel to each reflect an
`open loop power control error;
`
`using the processor to compute an initial transmit power for the uplink
`shared channel using full path loss compensation, wherein the initial
`transmit power depends on a preamble power of a first message sent
`on an access channel and the second power control adjustment state
`f(0); and
`
`sending from a transmitter a third message on the uplink shared
`channel at the initial transmit power;
`
`wherein the second power control adjustment state f(i) for i=0 is
`initialized as:
`
`P0_UE_PUSCH+f(0)=ΔPPC+ΔPrampup;
`
`in which:
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`P0_UE_PUSCH is a power control constant for the uplink shared channel
`that is specific for a user equipment executing the method;
`
`ΔPrampup is a ramp-up power for preamble transmissions; and
`
`ΔPPC is a power control command indicated in a second message that
`is received in response to sending the first message.
`’966 patent (Ex. 1001 to PET.) at claim 1) (emphasis added).
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`According to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), a claim in an inter partes review is to
`
`be given its “broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which it appears.” Petitioners have construed the meanings of various
`
`claim terms in the Petition. CCE disputes that Petitioner’s proposed constructions
`
`are consistent with the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification” and, consequently, CCE does not acquiesce to Petitioners’
`
`definitions. However, CCE does not believe construction of any claim term or
`
`phrase is necessary to deny the Petition. CCE reserves its rights to set forth
`
`competing claim constructions in a Response (and with the support of its own
`
`expert) if an inter partes review is instituted.
`
`IV. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A.
`Standard for Review
`The Board may only grant a petition for inter partes review where “the
`
`information presented in the petition … shows that there is a reasonable likelihood
`
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged
`
`in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Petitioner bears the
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`
`burden of showing that this statutory threshold has been met. See Office Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“The Board … may
`
`institute a trial where the petitioner establishes that the standards for instituting the
`
`requested trial are met ….”).
`
`B. Obviousness
`Petitioner contends that the claims of the ’966 patent are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103. PET. at 2-3. Notably, no anticipation argument is asserted.
`
`Specifically, the Petition alleges:
` Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, and 13 are unpatentable in view of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,599,706 (“Qualcomm”) and TS 36.213 under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103;
` Claims 2 and 11 are unpatentable in view of Qualcomm, TS 36.213,
`
`and 3GPP TS 36.300 v8.4.0 (“TS 36.300”) under 35 U.S.C. § 103;
`
`and
` Claims 5-8 and 14-17 are unpatentable in view of Qualcomm, TS
`
`36.213, TS 36.300, and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0093386
`
`(the “’386 publication”) under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`Id.
`
`Section 103 of the Patent Act provides that “[a] patent may not be obtained
`
`… if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior
`
`art are such that the 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 to which said
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`
`subject matter pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The obviousness analysis requires a
`
`number of threshold inquiries. The level of ordinary skill in the art must be
`
`established, the scope and content of the prior art must be determined, and any
`
`differences between the prior art and the claims at issue must be ascertained.
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
`
`If a single element of the claim is absent from the prior art, the claims cannot
`
`be considered obvious. See CFMT, Inc. v. YieldUp Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333,
`
`1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Obviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a
`
`claim.”) (citing In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (C.C.P.A. 1974)); In re Rijckaert, 9
`
`F.3d 1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (reversing obviousness rejection where prior art
`
`did not teach or suggest all claim limitations); Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Patent of
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, Case No. IPR2012-00001, Paper 15 at 15 (PTAB Jan.
`
`9, 2013) (refusing to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 103 where
`
`prior art did not disclose all claim limitations). As explained below, Petitioner has
`
`not established a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims of
`the ’966 patent is unpatentable for at least the reason that the alleged prior art,
`even taken in combination, plainly does not disclose each limitation of the
`challenged claims.
`
`While CCE believes the above points of law sufficient to warrant denial of
`
`the Petition under the facts presented, CCE notes (for completeness) that
`
`“[o]bviousness is a question of law based on several underlying factual findings,
`
`including what a references teaches, and whether proposed modifications would
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`
`change a reference’s ‘principle of operation ….” See Plas-Pak Indus., Inc. v.
`
`Sulzer Mixpac AG, 600 Fed. Appx. 755, 757 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citations omitted).
`
`“A party asserting that a patent is obvious ‘must demonstrate … that a skilled
`
`artisan would have had reason to combine the teaching of the prior art references to
`
`achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a
`
`reasonable expectation of success from doing so.’” Par Pharm., Inc. v. TWi
`
`Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Where “a proposed
`
`modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of
`
`operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the
`
`references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious.” In re
`
`Gardner, 449 Fed. Appx. 914, 916 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing In re Ratti, 270 F.2d
`
`810 (CCPA 1959)).
`
`V.
`PETITIONER CANNOT SHOW THAT THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`A.
`Summary of Argument
`As discussed above, the plain language of independent claims 1, 9, and 10
`
`requires initializing a power control adjustment state by reciting the second power
`
`control adjustment state “f(i) for i=0 is initialized as: P0_UE_PUSCH + f(0) = ΔPPC +
`
`ΔPrampup.” ’966 patent (Ex. 1001 to PET.) at claims 1, 9, 10. Close scrutiny of
`
`Qualcomm, TS 36.213, and the other asserted references reveals that they do not
`
`disclose “the second power control adjustment state f(i) for i=0 is initialized as:
`
`P0_UE_PUSCH + f(0) = ΔPPC + ΔPrampup.”
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`The independent claims also require “a second power control adjustment
`state f(i) for an uplink shared channel” and “comput[ing] an initial transmit power
`for the uplink shared channel using full path loss compensation… [that] depends
`on … the second power control adjustment state f(0)” (or similar limitations). Id.
`
`(emphasis added). As plainly set forth by the claims, the “power control
`
`adjustment state f(i)” is a function of “i” and capable of being “initialized” for
`
`“i=0.” Petitioner relies on Qualcomm as satisfying these limitations (see PET. at
`
`23-25), yet Qualcomm does not disclose computing an initial transmit power using
`
`“full path loss compensation” that depends on a “power control adjustment state” –
`
`whether f(i) or any other. Qualcomm merely discloses setting “the transmit power
`
`of the first uplink message sent after successful transmission of the random access
`
`preamble … as follows: PUSCH_power = RACH_power + PC_correction +
`
`PUSCH_RACH_power_offset.” Qualcomm (Ex. 1003 to PET.) at 10:1-8.
`
`Qualcomm’s “PUSCH_power” equation does not use any type of path loss
`
`compensation (full or partial), and it neither identifies nor depends on any “power
`
`control adjustment state.” For that matter, Qualcomm does not disclose the use of
`
`any “power control adjustment state.”
`
`Moreover, Petitioner fails to articulate why a person of skill in the art would
`
`modify Qualcomm in view of (or attempt to combine it with) some other reference
`
`to achieve the claimed invention(s). Indeed, the purported reason that Petitioner
`
`provides – “[s]uch a combination … would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art in creating a more efficient random access signaling that is compliant with
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`
`the LTE specifications (see PET. at 23) – is contradictory and flies in the face of the
`
`disparate formulas presented in the references. Petitioner proposes a combination
`
`that uses Qualcomm’s “PUSCH_power” formula to “compute an initial transmit
`
`power for the uplink shared channel” (see PET. at 24-25); yet the relevant LTE
`
`standard at the time of the invention (TS 36.213 v8.2.0) required setting the
`
`transmit power for the physical uplink shared channel in an entirely different
`
`manner, as follows: PPUSCH(i) = min{PMAX, 10 log10 (MPUSCH(i)) + P0_PUSCH(j) + α ·
`
`PL +·ΔTF(TF(i)) + f(i)} (see TS 36.213 (Ex. 1004 to PET.) § 5.1.1.1).
`
`Consequently, Petitioner’s proposed combinations with Qualcomm clearly would
`
`not result in “signaling that is compliant with the LTE specifications.”
`
`Tellingly, Petitioner’s expert does not provide a claim chart for
`
`combinations of Qualcomm and TS 36.213 proposed by Petitioner, or even provide
`
`an opinion that all of the limitations of the independent claims are disclosed or
`
`taught by the alleged Qualcomm-TS 36.213 combination. See Akl Dec. (Ex. 1002
`
`to PET.) at ¶¶ 62-85.
`
`B.
`Independent Claims 1, 9, and 10 Are Not Obvious In View of
`Qualcomm and TS 36.213
`Petitioner has not satisfied, and cannot satisfy, its burden of showing that
`
`independent claims 1, 9, and 10 are likely obvious under § 103 in view of
`
`Qualcomm and TS 36.213. Indeed, the combination of Qualcomm and TS 36.213
`
`does not even disclose every limitation of the claims.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`1.
`Qualcomm and TS 36.213 do not disclose initializing a second
`power control adjustment so that “P0_UE_PUSCH+f(0)=ΔPPC+ΔPrampup.”
`Claim 1 recites “wherein the second power control adjustment state f(i) for
`
`i=0 is initialized as: P0_UE_PUSCH+f(0)=ΔPPC+ΔPrampup ….” Similarly, claim 9
`
`recites “wherein the second accumulation power control adjustment state f(i) for
`
`i=0 is initialized as: P0_UE_PUSCH+f(0)=ΔPPC+ΔPrampup,” and claim 10 recites
`
`“wherein the second power control adjustment state f(i) for i=0 is initialized as:
`
`P0_UE_PUSCH+f(0)=ΔPPC+ΔPrampup.” Neither Qualcomm nor TS 36.213 disclose
`
`these limitations.
`
`Petitioner (for good reason) does not rely on TS 36.213 as disclosing the
`
`claimed initialization of the power control adjustment state for an uplink shared
`
`channel (f(i)). See PET. at 26-27. As discussed above, TS 36.213 merely discloses
`
`initializing f(0) to zero. See TS 36.213 (Ex. 1004 to PET.) § 5.1.1.1 (“where f(0) =
`
`0”).
`
`Qualcomm also fails to disclose the claimed initialization of a power control
`
`adjustment state for an uplink shared channel. As discussed above, Qualcomm
`
`does not even disclose the use of a power control adjustment state. It merely
`
`discloses setting “the transmit power of the first uplink message sent after
`
`successful
`
`transmission of
`
`the random access preamble … as follows:
`
`PUSCH_power
`
`=
`
`RACH_power
`
`+
`
`PC_correction
`
`+
`
`PUSCH_RACH_power_offset.” Qualcomm (Ex. 1003 to PET.) at 10:1-8.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`2.
`Petitioner’s argument that Qualcomm discloses the claimed
`initialization is meritless.
`Despite the fact that neither Qualcomm nor TS 36.213 disclose initializing a
`
`power control adjustment state so
`
`that “f(i) for
`
`i=0
`
`is
`
`initialized as:
`
`P0_UE_PUSCH+f(0)=ΔPPC+ΔPrampup …[,]” Petitioner attempts to argue (through
`
`various mathematical transformations, none of which actually identify any power
`
`control adjustment state f(i))
`
`that Qualcomm satisfies
`
`these
`
`limitations.
`
`Petitioner’s argument fails for many reasons.
`
`a. Petitioner’s arguments fail because Qualcomm does not
`disclose the use of a power control adjustment state.
`As noted above, claims 1, 9, and 10 require initializing a power control
`
`adjustment state f(i). Claims 1, 9, and 10 also require “wherein the initial transmit
`
`power depends on … the second power control adjustment state f(0).” The
`
`Petition relies on Qualcomm as satisfying these limitations. See PET. at 25-26.
`
`Tellingly, Petitioner does not identify what from Qualcomm that Petitioner
`
`contends satisfies the claimed “power control adjustment state.” Petitioner’s
`
`inability to clearly identify what it contends satisfies the claimed “power control
`
`adjustment state f(i)” is a direct consequence of its contrived attempt to read claims
`
`1, 9, and 10 onto Qualcomm and, by itself, is an independent basis for denying
`
`institution. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (“The petition must specify where each
`
`element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied
`
`upon”).
`
`Qualcomm’s failure to disclose the use of a power control adjustment state
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`
`to calculate an uplink power completely undermines Petitioner’s arguments. As a
`
`result of its reliance on Qualcomm, Petitioner’s proposed combination of
`
`Qualcomm with TS 36.213 does not satisfy the portions of the challenged claims
`
`that require the use of and/or initialization of a power control adjustment state
`
`(e.g., “using a processor to initialize for i=0 … a second power control adjustment
`
`state f(i) for an uplink shared channel,” “wherein the initial transmit power
`
`depends on … the second power control adjustment state f(0)”).
`
`b. Petitioner’s arguments fail because Qualcomm does not
`disclose initializing a power control adjustment state so
`that P0_UE_PUSCH+f(0)=ΔPPC+ΔPrampup.
`Despite the fact that Qualcomm does not disclose the use of a power control
`
`adjustment state, Petitioner insists that Qualcomm somehow discloses initializing a
`
`power control adjustment state so that “P0_UE_PUSCH+f(0)=ΔPPC+ΔPrampup ….”
`
`As an initial matter, Petitioner offers no evidence or analysis for what, if
`
`anything, from the combination of Qualcomm with TS 36.213 it contends satisfies
`
`the claimed P0_UE_PUSCH; in fact, Petitioner’s claim chart points to disclosure from
`
`the challenged ’966 patent rather than disclosure from Qualcomm or TS 36.213.
`
`PET. at 26. This, by itself, is an independent basis for denying institution. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim
`
`is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon”). Indeed, as
`discussed above, Qualcomm and TS 36.213 do not disclose initializing f(i) so that
`
`P0_UE_PUSCH+f(0)=ΔPPC+ΔPrampup. Qualcomm does not disclose initializing a power
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`
`control adjustment state at all. And TS 36.213 merely discloses initializing a power
`
`control adjustment state to zero. See TS 36.213 (Ex. 1004 to PET.) § 5.1.1.1
`
`(“where f(0) = 0”).
`
`Notwithstanding Petitioner’s failure to specify where P0_UE_PUSCH is found in
`
`Qualcomm and/or TS 36.213, a careful review of the Petition confirms that
`
`Petitioner does not even attempt to argue that Qualcomm or TS 36.213 disclose the
`
`portion of claim 1 that requires “wherein the second power control adjustment state
`
`f(i) for i=0 is initialized as: P0_UE_PUSCH+f(0)=ΔPPC+ΔPrampup …” (or related
`
`limitations from claims 9 and 10). Instead, the Petition merely states that “by
`
`calculating the sum of the PC_correction and the power_ramp_up value as part of
`
`calculating RACH power, Qualcomm teaches initializing f(0).’” PET. at 20.
`
`Petitioner arrives at this conclusion through various mathematical transformations,
`
`none of which actually identify any power control adjustment state f(i), nor address
`
`the limitations “wherein the second power control adjustment state f(i) for i=0 is
`
`initialized as: P0_UE_PUSCH+f(0)=ΔPPC+ΔPrampup ….”
`
`To arrive at its conclusion that “by calculating the sum of the PC_correction
`
`and the power_ramp_up value as part of calculating RACH power, Qualcomm
`
`teaches initializing f(0),” Petitioner first suggests that P0_UE_PUSCH can be ignored
`
`because it can equal zero and, in this case, f(0) is equivalent to ΔPPC+ΔPrampup. See
`
`PET. at 18. Next, Petitioner expands Qualcomm Equation (4)
`
`to read
`
`PUSCH_power = -RX_power +
`
`interference_correction + offset_power +
`
`added_correction
`
`+
`
`
`
`power_ramp_up
`13
`
`+
`
`PC_correction
`
`+
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`
`PUSCH_RACH_power_offset. See PET. at 18-19. Petitioner then equates
`
`Qualcomm’s PC_correction value to “ΔPPC” and Qualcomm’s power_ramp_up
`
`value to “ΔPrampup” and argues that Qualcomm, therefore, discloses initializing
`
`PUSCH_power (which Petitioner equates to the claimed “initial transmit power”)
`
`using “f(0)” because Qualcomm’s PUSCH_power is allegedly calculated by
`
`“calculating the sum of the PC_correction and the power_ramp_up value.” PET. at
`
`18-20. Finally, Petitioner argues that “by calculating the sum of the PC_correction
`
`and the power_ramp_up value as part of calculating RACH power, Qualcomm
`
`teaches initializing f(0).” PET. at 20.
`
`There are numerous issues with Petitioner’s analysis. First, Petitioner’s
`
`argument disregards the claim language. Claims 1, 9, and 10 call for a specific
`
`relationship between the four parameters P0_UE_PUSCH, f(0), ΔPPC, and ΔPrampup,
`
`where P0_UE_PUSCH+f(0) is equal to ΔPPC+ΔPrampup. Petitioner’s expansion of
`
`Qualcomm’s PUSCH_power equation completely fails to disclose this relationship.
`
`Petitioner has (at most) merely shown that Qualcomm’s PUSCH_power is
`
`dependent upon PC_correction and indirectly dependent on power_ramp_up.
`
`These values (either individually or when taken together) are not a “power control
`
`adjustment state” “for an uplink shared channel,” as required by the claims. Nor
`
`do they represent a value that is “initialized” for i=0 in any adjustment state f(i), as
`
`also required.
`
`Moreover, and contrary to Petitioner’s argument, Qualcomm does not
`
`actually disclose initializing any value as PC_correction + power_ramp_up.
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`
`Petitioner’s expansion of Qualcomm Equation (4) from its original form –
`
`“PUSCH_power=RACH_power+PC_correction+PUSCH_RACH_power_offset” –
`
`into a form summing seven terms misleadingly merges distinct calculations into
`
`one, and then seeks to extract something that is still not there: a power adjustment
`
`state
`
`f(i).
`
` Qualcomm Equation
`
`(2), which Petitioner substitutes
`
`for
`
`“RACH_power” in Equation (4), is an equation for determining “transmit power
`
`for the m-th transmission of the random access preamble.” Qualcomm (Ex. 1003 to
`
`PET.) at 8:38-9:35. Equation (4) refers to “the transmit power of the first uplink
`message sent after the successful transmission of the random access preamble.”
`
`Qualcomm (Ex. 1003 to PET.) at 10:1-3 (emphasis added). Thus, contrary to
`
`Petitioner’s suggestion, Qualcomm does not disclose “calculat[ing] the sum of the
`
`PC_correction and the power_ramp_up value” (PET. at 20), nor calculating such a
`
`sum and equating it to anything else (such as a power control adjustment state f(i));
`
`instead, the two values are used (along with five other terms) to determine separate
`
`values at separate times for different purposes.
`
`3.
`Qualcomm and TS 36.213 do not disclose computing “an initial
`transmit power for the uplink shared channel using full path loss
`compensation.”
`Claim 1 requires “using the processor to compute an initial transmit power
`
`for the uplink shared channel using full path loss compensation, wherein the initial
`
`transmit power depends on … the second power control adjustment state f(0).”
`
`Claims 9 and 10 include similar limitations. These limitations are not disclosed by
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`
`Qualcomm or TS 36.213. Acknowledging that TS 36.213 does not teach these
`
`limitations, Petitioner instead attempts to rely on Qualcomm.
`
`Petitioner points to Qualcomm’s PUSCH_power equation as satisfying the
`
`portion of claims that requires computing “an initial transmit power for the uplink
`
`shared channel using full path loss compensation, wherein the initial transmit
`
`power depends on … the second power control adjustment state f(0).” PET. at 17,
`
`24-25. Yet Qualcomm does not disclose using any type of path loss (full or
`
`partial) as part of setting a PUSCH_power that depends on a power control
`
`adjustment state. Qualcomm merely discloses “PUSCH_power = RACH_power +
`
`PC_correction + PUSCH_RACH_power_offset.” Qualcomm (Ex. 1003 to PET.) at
`
`10:1-8.
`
`4.
`A person of skill in the art would not have had a reason to
`combine Qualcomm and TS 36.213.
`As noted above, the combination of Qualcomm and TS 36.213 does not even
`
`satisfy every limitation of the cl
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
