throbber
Paper No. 9
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Filed: March 28, 2016
`
`571.272.7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`LG Electronics, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–19 to institute an inter partes review of claims
`1–17 of U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966 B2 (“the ’966 patent”), filed
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966 B2
`
`May 5, 2009.1 The Petition is supported by the Declaration of Dr. Robert
`Akl (“Akl Declaration,” Ex. 1002). Cellular Communications Equipment
`LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (“Prelim. Resp.,” Paper
`8). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires
`demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least one challenged claim, we institute an inter partes review
`of claims 1–17. Trial is not instituted on any other ground of
`unpatentability. The Board has not made a final determination of the
`patentability of any claim.
`A. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner advises that Patent Owner has asserted the ’966 patent in
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al.,
`Civil Action Nos. 6:15-cv-00049, 6:14-cv-00982, and 6:14-cv-00983 (E.D.
`Texas). Pet. 1, Paper 7, 2–3. Another petition challenging this patent was
`previously filed in Kyocera Communications, Inc. v. Cellular
`Communications Equipment LLC, No. IPR2015-01559 (PTAB) (“’1559
`IPR”).2
`B. Technology Background and the ’966 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’966 patent discloses improvements to power control for a
`physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) and physical uplink control
`channel (PUCCH). Prelim. Resp. 2. It incorporates by reference and quotes
`portions of TS 36.213 (Ex. 1004), which is a specification related to Long
`
`
`1 On the present record, we cannot determine whether or not the ’966 patent
`is entitled to the May 5, 2008, filing date of a provisional application. Ex.
`1001 (60). Petitioner alleges all the references are prior art. Pet. 13–15.
`Patent Owner does not contest presently that the references are prior art.
`2 The ’1559 IPR was terminated January 7, 2016. See ’1559 IPR, Paper 13.
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966 B2
`
`Term Evolution (LTE), one of the competing standards for 4th generation
`(4G) cellular radio systems. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 25, 27–28.
`In LTE, the user equipment (UE) can request a connection setup with
`an evolved Node B (eNB). Ex. 1002 ¶ 33 (citing 4G LTE / LTE-Advanced
`for Mobile Broadband, Ex. 1007, 14.3, 358, Fig. 14.8; see Ex. 1001, Fig.
`1B). TS 36.213 specifies details of that setup, 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)}.”
`Prelim. Resp. 1 (citing Ex. 1004 § 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. (citing Ex.
`1004 § 5.1.2.1).
`The ’966 patent also discloses technology which is from the TS
`36.300 (Ex. 1008), a technical specification of the 3rd Generation Partnership
`Project (3GPP). Ex. 1001, 1:61–66, 4:1–4, Figs. 1B and 1C. Figures 1B
`and 1C of the ’966 patent are from the TS 36.300 specification. Ex. 1001,
`4:1–4. Figure 1B is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966 B2
`
`Figure 1B, reproduced above, depicts the prior art contention based random
`access procedure, which UEs use to request a connection setup with an eNB.
`Furthermore, as shown in Figure 1B, the contention based random access
`procedure includes four messages: a random-access preamble; a random-
`access response; scheduled transmission or Radio Resource Control (RRC)
`signaling from the terminal; and contention resolution or RRC signaling
`from the eNB. See Ex. 1001, Fig. 1B; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 34–39 (citing Ex. 1008,
`10.1.5.1, Ex. 1007, 14.3, 359).
` Figure 3 of the ’966 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 3 (reproduced above, best available copy) is a process flow diagram
`of a power control algorithm of the ’966 patent. Ex. 1001, 10:28–30.
`Significant steps in the algorithm are summarized as follows:
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966 B2
`
`
`step 302, path loss for communication with eNB;
`step 304, UE computes first power control value;
`step 306, UE sends a first message to the eNB;
`step 308, eNB replies to the UE with a second message;
`step 310, the UE receives the second message and computes a
`second power control value (see equation 4a below);
`step 312, the UE sends data on the PUSCH using the second
`power control value computed in step 310; and
`step 314, a third power control value may be computed sending
`control information on the PUCCH (see equation 4b below).
`
`
`Id. at 10:31–67.
`The problem the ’966 patent purports to solve is “how the power
`control formulas for PUSCH and PUCCH are taken in use during or after the
`Random Access procedure.” Ex. 1001, 4:16–19. “[A]ccording to 3GPP TS
`36.213 v.8.2.0 . . . Message 3 (see FIG. 1B) is transmitted using the PUSCH
`PC formula taking into account the PC command received from the eNB in
`Message 2 (see FIGS. 1B and 1C).” Id. at 4:20–25.
`The ’966 patent describes “how the UE specific parameters of the
`PUSCH and PUCCH power control formulas are initialized.” Id. at 4:26–
`27. The power control adjustment state for the uplink shared channel
`(PUSCH) is f(i) and the power control adjustment state for the uplink control
`channel (PUCCH) is g(i). Id. at 12:60–64. Specifically, “the UE receives a
`power control command (e.g., ΔPPC) in the preamble response from the
`eNB.” Ex. 1001, 6:58–60. The f(i) and g(i) power control functions are
`initialized for i=0 as follows:
`PO_UE_PUSCH + f(0) = ΔPPC + ΔPrampup [4a]
`P0_UE_PUCCH + g(0) = ΔPPC + ΔPrampup [4b]
`Ex. 1001, 6:60–67, claims 1, 3. Equation 4a appears in claim 1 as
`reproduced below.
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966 B2
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 9, and 10 are independent. Claims
`2–8 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. Claims 11–17 depend
`directly or indirectly from claim 10. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
`1. 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:
`
`
`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.
`
`Ex. 1001, 12:59–13:19.
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966 B2
`
`
`
`Claims Challenged
`1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, and 13
`2 and 11
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–17 of the ’966 patent as unpatentable
`on the following grounds. Pet. 16–56.
`References
`Basis
`Qualcomm3 and TS 36.2134 § 103
`Qualcomm, TS 36.213, and
`§ 103
`TS 36.3005
`Qualcomm, TS 36.213, TS
`36.300, and ’386
`publication6
`
`
`§ 103
`
`5–8 and 14–17
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In inter partes review, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
`interpretation in light of the specification in which they appear. See
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). We presume that claim terms have their ordinary and
`customary meaning. See Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 105
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the
`
`
`3 US 8,599,706 B2, to Damnjanovic, filed Oct. 3, 2007, (“Qualcomm,” Ex.
`1003).
`4 3GPP TS 36.213, 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical
`Specification Group Radio Access Network; Evolved Universal Terrestrial
`Radio Access (E-UTRA); Physical layer procedures (Release 8), 1–30
`(2008) (“TS 36.213,” Ex. 1004).
`5 3GPP TS 136 300, Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA)
`and Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRAN); Overall
`description; Stage 2, 1–130 (2008) (Version 8.4.0 Release 8) (“TS 36.300,”
`Ex. 1008).
`6 US 2010/0093386 A1, to Damnjanovic, published April 15, 2010 (“’386
`publication,” Ex. 1005).
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966 B2
`
`claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent
`with the specification and prosecution history”) (internal citation omitted);
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any
`special definition for a claim term must be set forth in the specification with
`reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a special definition or
`other consideration, “limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
`specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`Petitioner identifies 17 terms for construction. Pet. 7–13. Patent
`Owner does not believe construction of any claim term or phrase is
`necessary at this point in the proceedings. Prelim. Resp. 4.
`For purposes of this Decision and on this record, only the following
`terms require explicit construction. Although not so identified by Petitioner,
`for the sake of completeness, we include “second message” as a term
`requiring construction.
`1. “initialize” or “initializing” (claims 1, 9, and 10)
`Petitioner proposes that “initialize” as used in the claims of the ’966
`patent should be interpreted to mean calculate an initial state, i.e., a state at
`time=0. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 44).
`For purposes of this Decision, we agree with the proposed
`construction, which is supported by the claim language and the specification.
`For example, claim 1 recites “using a processor to initialize… a first power
`control adjustment state.” The term “initialize” or “initializing” in the ’966
`patent describes how the “UE then initiates” the PC formula for PUSCH and
`PUCCH refers to calculating initial states. Ex. 1001, 6:60–67. We
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966 B2
`
`specifically note that the specification and claims describe initializing power
`control states according to provided equations:
`P0_UE_PUSCH + f(0) =ΔPPC +ΔPrampup [4a]
`P0_UE_PUCCH + g(0) =ΔPPC +ΔPrampup [4b]
`Ex. 1001, 6:60–67, 13:9, 13:39.
`2. “open loop power control error” (claims 1, 9, and 10)
`Petitioner proposes that “open loop power control error” should be
`interpreted to mean a power control error that is the difference between a
`target power and an observed power. Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 46).
`The specification defines the phrase “open loop power control error”
`as the “sum of the UE specific power control constants (P0_UE_PUSCH or
`P0_UE_PUCCH) and the power control initial states (f(0) or g(0)) . . . , taking into
`account the preamble power ramp-up.” Ex. 1001, 7:1–5. The cited portion
`of the specification specifically refers to equations 4[a] and 4[b]. Id. at
`6:65–7:5. Rewriting equation [4a] results in the “open loop power control
`error” being ΔPPC = P0_UE_PUSCH +f(0) - ΔPrampup. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 46. Further,
`the specification states that “ΔPPC is here assumed to be the difference
`between the target preamble power and the power that eNB actually
`observes.” Ex. 1001, 7:5–7.
`For purposes of this Decision, we, therefore, preliminarily construe
`“open loop power control error” to mean the difference between the target
`preamble power and the power that eNB actually observes.
`3. “full path loss compensation” (claims 1, 9, and 10)
`Petitioner proposes that “full path loss compensation” should be
`interpreted to mean using the entire estimate path loss. Pet. 9 (citing Ex.
`1002 ¶¶ 47–48).
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966 B2
`
`
`“Path loss is a term of art that means the difference in transmit power
`of a message and the receive power of that message.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 47 (citing
`Ex. 1001, 6:24). The ’966 patent describes “full path loss compensation” as
`“the Message 3 power relative to preamble power.” Ex. 1001, 8:9–11. The
`specification also explains that “α=1 full path loss compensation” is used to
`achieve improved performance when “the UE performs contention based
`random access and when preamble collisions are assumed to be frequent” in
`the calculation for what the UE receives. Id. at 8:7–25. By contrast, the
`specification also describes fractional path loss “where two UEs transmit the
`same preamble sequence” to compensate for Message 3. Id. at 7:54–57.
`For purposes of this Decision, we, therefore, preliminarily construe
`“full loss path loss” to mean “full path loss and not fractional path loss.”
`4. “preamble power” (claims 1, 2, 5, 9–11, and 14)
`Petitioner proposes that “preamble power” be interpreted as the
`transmit power of a preamble that depends upon ΔPrampup. Pet. 9–10 (citing
`Ex. 1001, 6:18–26; 9:65–10:25; 10:49–60, claim 5).
`The specification includes a formula for the preamble power control
`(“PC”) for the UE’s transmission on the random access channel (“RACH”).
`Ex. 1001, 6:18–26. In the contention based random access procedure,
`transmission occurs between the UE and the eNB. See Ex. 1001, Fig. 1B.
`Further, the specification explains “the initial transmit power depends on a
`preamble power of a first message sent on an access channel” (Ex. 1001,
`3:22–24).
`Thus, for purposes of this Decision, we preliminarily construe
`“preamble power” to be the power for transmission of the first message in a
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966 B2
`
`contention based random access procedure from the user equipment (UE)
`transmission to the evolved Node B (eNB).
`5. “third message” (claims 1, 2, 5, 9–11, and 14)
`Petitioner proposes that “third message” be interpreted to mean a
`message transmitted by the user equipment after a successful transmission of
`a random access preamble. See Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 38).
`Claim 1 recites, in part, “sending from a transmitter a third message
`on the uplink shared channel.” Ex. 1001, 13:4–5. “Message 3”7 or
`“scheduled transmission” is shown in Figure 1B in the context of TS 36.300.
`The specification states:
`[A]nother embodiment of the invention defines the Message 3
`power relative to preamble power, i.e.[,] full path loss
`compensation used. The objective is that transmit TX power of
`Message 3 would not be unnecessary [sic] high.
`
`Ex. 1001, 8:7–17. We determine that Messages 2 and 3 of the TS 36.300
`specification are equivalent to the respectively claimed “second message”
`and “third message.” See Ex. 1001, 4:21–25.
`For purposes of this Decision, we preliminarily construe “third
`message” to mean “a message transmitted by the user equipment to the
`evolved Node B after a random access preamble transmission to, and
`successful random access response from, evolved Node B.”
`6. “initial transmit power” (claims 1, 5, 8–10, 14, and 17)
`Petitioner proposes that “initial transmit power” should be interpreted
`to mean the transmit power of a message that depends upon “preamble
`power of a first message sent on an access channel and the second power
`
`
`7 Shown in Figure 1B as a “3” within a circle.
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966 B2
`
`control adjustment state f(0).” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1001, claims 1, 9, and 10,
`6:18–26; 9:65–10:25; 10:49–60).
`We base our construction on the claim language of claim 1. Claim 1
`recites “comput[ing] an initial transmit power for the uplink shared channel”
`and “sending from a transmitter a third message on the uplink shared
`channel at the initial transmit power.” For purposes of this Decision, we
`preliminarily construe “initial transmit power” to mean “the power at which
`the third message is sent from the user equipment on the uplink channel to
`the evolved Node B.” Ex. 1001, 12:65–67, 13:4–5.
`7. “ramp-up power” (claims 1, 9, and 10)
`Petitioner proposes that the phrase “ramp-up power” should be
`interpreted to mean “a ramp-up power level for preamble retransmissions.”
`Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:25–26, Ex. 1002 ¶ 37).
`The specification describes the term as “the power ramp-up applied
`for preamble retransmissions” and, for purposes of this Decision, we
`preliminarily adopt that meaning. See Ex. 1001, 6:25–26.
`8. “power control command” (claims 1, 9, and 10)
`Petitioner proposes that “power control command” should be
`interpreted to mean “a signal, contained in a message, used to establish or
`determine the power used to transmit a subsequent message.” Pet. 11 (citing
`Ex. 1001, 2:65–3:6). The precise language from the cited portion of the
`specification is “Message 2 contains a power control command for
`transmission of Message 3.” Ex. 1001, 2:65– 67. Petitioner notes that the
`’966 patent uses the term ΔPC_Msg3 to denote “power control command” for
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966 B2
`
`“the preamble response (e.g., Message [2]).”8 Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001,
`8:32–34).
`The specification also explains that “the UE receives the second
`message and computes a second power control value (P PUSCH(0)).” Ex.
`1001, 10:49–50. Thus, for purposes of this Decision we preliminarily
`construe “power control command” to be “control information contained in
`the second message (Message 2) used to transmit the third message
`(Message 3).”
`9. “P0_UE_PUSCH” (claims 1, 4, 9, 10, and 13)
`Petitioner proposes that “P0_UE_PUSCH” should be interpreted to mean “a
`power control constant for the uplink shared channel that is specific for a
`user equipment” that can be initialized to zero, e.g., at i=0. Pet. 11 (citing
`Ex. 1001, 7:16–21, claims 4 and 13).
`Claim 1 states “P0_UE_PUSCH is a power control constant for the uplink
`shared channel that is specific for a user equipment executing the method.”
`Ex. 1001, 13:12–14. For purposes of this Decision, we preliminarily adopt
`the language from the claim as our construction of P0_UE_PUSCH.
`10. “fractional power control” (claims 2, 6, 11 and 15)
`Petitioner proposes that “fractional power control” should be
`interpreted to mean “power control that uses a fraction of the estimated path
`loss. Alpha in Equation [1] and Claims 6 and 15 represents a fraction of the
`estimated path loss in controlling the transmit power for messages sent after
`Message 3.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:31–33; Ex. 1002 ¶ 48).
`The specification describes “fractional PC” (power control, Ex. 1001,
`
`
`8 Petitioner references Message 3 but the cited portion of the ’966 patent
`refers to message 2.
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966 B2
`
`1:36) in the context of path loss compensation for Message 3. See Ex. 1001,
`7:60–63 (“fractional PC could result in Message 3 of the UE with the
`smaller PL being received at the eNB with a stronger signal strength than the
`Message 3 of the UE With the larger PL”). As discussed above, “path loss”
`is the “difference in transmit power of a message and the receive power of
`that message.” See Ex. 1002 ¶ 47 (citing Ex. 1001 6:24). We construe
`“fractional power control” to be proportional variation of power control
`based on path loss.”
`11. “P0_UE_PUCCH” (claims 3, 4, 12, and 13)
`Petitioner proposes that “P0_UE_PUCCH” should be interpreted to mean
`“‘a power control constant for the uplink control channel that is specific for
`a user equipment’ that can be initialized to zero, e.g., at i=0.” Pet. 12 (citing
`Ex. 1001, 7:16–21, claims 4 and 13; Ex. 1002 ¶ 44).
`Claim 3 states “P0_UE_PUCCH is a power control constant for the uplink
`control channel power that is specific for a user equipment executing the
`method.” Ex. 1001, 13:40–42. For purposes of this Decision, we
`preliminarly adopt the language from the claim as our construction of
`P0_UE_PUCCH.
`12. “random access request message” (claims 2 and 11)
`Petitioner proposes that “random access request message” should be
`interpreted to mean “a message communicated on a random access channel
`to request communication with a network node, such as a random access
`preamble.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 91).
`Other than the claims, e.g., claim 2, the ’966 patent has no mention of
`“random access request message.” For purposes of this Decision, we
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966 B2
`
`preliminarily adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction as based on how the
`term would be understood by the person of ordinary skill in the art.
`13. “ΔTFTF(i)” (claims 5 and 14)
`Petitioner proposes that “ΔTFTF(i)” should be interpreted to mean a
`value “calculated from received signaling” that can be zero. Pet. 12 (citing
`Ex. 1001, claims 5 and 14, 4:54–61; Ex. 1004, 5.1.1.1, 8; Ex. 1002 ¶ 52).
`The specification describes TF(i) as “the PUSCH transport format
`valid for subframe [(i)].” Ex. 1001, 4:56–57. Thus, for purposes of this
`Decision, we preliminarily construe “ΔTFTF(i)” to mean “a value calculated
`from the received signal relating to the PUSCH transport format valid for
`subframe (i).”
`14. “ΔPC_Msg3” (claims 5 and 14)
`Petitioner proposes that “ΔPC_Msg3” should be interpreted to mean
`“indicated by a power control command received at the receiver.” Pet. 12–
`13 (citing Ex. 1001, claims 5 and 14). This construction is consistent with
`what is recited in claim 5. Ex. 1001, 13:60–61. For purposes of this
`Decision, we preliminarily adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction.
`15. “MPUSCH(i)” (claims 5, 6, 14, and 15)
`Petitioner proposes that “MPUSCH(i)” should be interpreted to mean “an
`adjustment of uplink power determined from an uplink resource allocation.”
`Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1001, claims 5 and 14; Ex. 1002 ¶ 109). Petitioner further
`contends “[t]he uplink resource allocation is determined by an eNB and sent
`by the eNB in a second message in response to receiving a first message.”
`Id. (citing Ex. 1001, claims 5 and 14; Ex. 1002 ¶ 110).
`Claim 5 states that “MPUSCH(i) is determined from an uplink resource
`allocation of a second message received in response to sending the first
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966 B2
`
`message.” Ex. 1001, 13:56–58. The specification states “MPUSCH(i) is the
`size of the PUSCH resource assignment expressed in number of resource
`blocks valid for subframe i.” Id. at 4:37–39. For purposes of this Decision,
`we preliminarily construe “MPUSCH(i)” to mean “the size of the uplink
`(PUSCH) resource assignment allocation of a second message from the eNB
`received in response to sending the first message to the eNB.”
`16. “fractional path loss computation” (claims 7 and 16)
`Petitioner proposes that “fractional path loss computation” should be
`interpreted to mean “a path loss computation based upon a fraction of the
`estimated path loss.” Pet. 13. Petitioner cites to α in Equation [1] and
`claims 6 and 15 as representing the fractional component. Id. (citing Ex.
`1001, Fig. 4, 410, 4:31–33; 11:39–44; Ex. 1002 ¶ 48).
`The term “fractional path loss compensation” does not appear in the
`specification and appears only in the claims. Petitioner’s proposal is
`consistent with the path loss discussions above, for example in our
`construction of “fractional power control.” We also credit the Akl
`Declaration, as being consistent with the specification. For purposes of this
`Decision, we therefore preliminarily adopt Petitioner’s proposed
`construction of “fractional path loss compensation.”
`17. “second message” (claims 1, 2, 5, 9–11, and 14)
`Petitioner does not include “second message” as a term for
`interpretation. However, inasmuch as we have construed “third message,”
`the sequence in the random access procedure includes the previous
`communication between the user equipment and eNB, i.e., the “second
`message.” See Fig. 1B above.
`
`16
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966 B2
`
`
`Claim 1 recites, in part, “ΔPPC is a power control command indicated
`in a second message that is received in response to sending the first
`message.” Ex. 1001, 13:17–19. We determined above that Messages 2 and
`3 of the TS 36.300 specification are the same as respectively the claimed
`“second message” and “third message.” See Ex. 1001, 4:21–25.
`For purposes of this Decision, we preliminarily construe “second
`message” to mean “a random access response from evolved Node B which
`includes a power control command.”
`B. Obviousness Over Qualcomm and TS 36.213
`Petitioner alleges claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, and 13 would have been
`obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art over Qualcomm and TS
`36.213.9 Pet. 2, 16–32. Petitioner cites the Akl Declaration in support of its
`positions. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 40–89.
`1. Qualcomm
`Qualcomm discloses techniques “for transmitting random access
`signaling for system access . . . .” Ex. 1003, Abstract. Qualcomm is
`intended for use in various wireless communication systems, including
`3GPP LTE systems. Id. at 2:55–3:14. Qualcomm discloses determining
`“the transmit power of the first uplink message sent after successful
`transmission of the random access preamble.” Id. at 10:1–3. Qualcomm
`discloses messages are sent by the user equipment to initiate a random
`access procedure. See id. at 8:37–39. The formula Qualcomm discloses to
`calculate the transmit power for the first uplink message is as follows:
`PUSCH_power=
`
`
`9 Petitioner inadvertently includes TS 36.300 in this ground at page 16 of the
`Petition.
`
`17
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966 B2
`
`
`RACH[10]_power + PC_correction +
`PUSCH_RACH_power_offset
`
`Where
`RACH_power is the transmit power of the
`successful transmission of the random access preamble
`on the RACH,
`PUSCH_power is the transmit power of the
`message sent on the PUSCH,
`PC_correction is the PC correction received in the
`random access response, and
`PUSCH_RACH_power_offset is a power offset
`between the PUSCH and RACH.
`
`
`Id. at 10:6–19 (“Eq (4)”).
`2. TS 36.213
`TS 36.213 is part of the LTE specification that describes the physical
`layer procedures, including physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH). Ex.
`1004, 5.1.1, 8.11 As part of these procedures, the formulas used to calculate
`transmit power for messages sent on the physical uplink shared channel and
`physical uplink control channel are described. Id. at 5.1.1.1, 9.
`3. Claims 1, 9, and 10
`
`Pages 16 through 28 of the Petition provide the grounds for the
`assertion that independent claims 1, 9, and 10 are unpatentable over
`Qualcomm and TS 36.213. Our analysis focuses on method claim 1 (Ex.
`1001, 12:59) in the first instance. Claim 9 is substantially the same but
`written as a “computer readable memory” (Ex. 1001, 14:21). Claim 10 is
`also very similar, claiming an “apparatus” (Ex. 1001, 14:48). Based on our
`
`
`10 Random access channel. Ex. 1001, 1:44.
`11 For ease of reference, we cite specific passages from Exhibit 1004 as
`“[section number], [page number].
`
`18
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966 B2
`
`review of the evidence and argument Petitioner has presented in connection
`with claim 1, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood
`that either Qualcomm alone or in combination with TS 36.213 disclose the
`claimed steps of claim 1 as well as the limitations of claims 9 and 10.
`Petitioner alleges Qualcomm teaches the claimed “initial transmit
`power” as the transmit power that is used to transmit Message 3. Pet. 16
`(citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 65). Furthermore, Petitioner contends Qualcomm teaches
`calculating a transmit power of Message 3 that includes initializing power
`control adjustment states by disclosing a formula used to calculate the initial
`transmit power of Message 3. Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 10:1–19).
`The primary dispute raised by the parties at this stage of the
`proceeding is whether Qualcomm discloses the initial transmit power for the
`second power control adjustment state, specifically the formula for
`initialization of the transmit power, f(i) for i=0. Petitioner contends
`Qualcomm’s formula for calculating the transmit power for the first uplink
`message is the equation claimed. As referenced above, Qualcomm’s
`disclosed formula is:
`PUSCH_power=
`RACH_power + PC_correction +
`PUSCH_RACH_power_offset
`
`Where
`RACH_power is the transmit power of the
`successful transmission of the random access preamble
`on the RACH,
`PUSCH_power is the transmit power of the
`message sent on the PUSCH,
`PC_correction is the PC correction received in the
`random access response, and
`
`19
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966 B2
`
`
`PUSCH_RACH_power_offset is a power offset
`between the PUSCH and RACH.
`Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1003, 10:6–19 (“Eq (4)”).
`Patent Owner responds that the Qualcomm formula above “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.’” Prelim. Resp. 10 (also citing Ex. 1003,
`10:1–8). Patent Owner contends the Qualcomm formula does not disclose
`the claimed formula, P0_UE_PUSCH+f(0)=ΔPPC+ΔPrampup. Id. at 12–15.
`Petitioner’s argument that the Qualcomm formula meets the limitation
`is premised on first letting P0_UE_PUSCH equal 0. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1001,
`7:16–18, Ex. 1002 ¶ 72). As a result, Petitioner argues f(0) is calculated as
`equal to ΔPPC +ΔPrampup. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 7:19–20, Ex. 1002 ¶ 72).
`Thus, according to Petitioner, the initial transmit power or f(0) depends on
`ΔPPC +ΔPrampup. Id.
`Patent Owner argues that setting P0_UE_PUSCH to 0 relies on “disclosure
`from the challenged ’966 patent rather than disclosure from Qualcomm or
`TS 36.213.” Prelim. Resp. 12. Although we agree that using the disclosure
`of the ’966 patent to show a claimed limitation would be improper use of
`hindsight, we do not agree that is what Petitioner is doing.
`We determine it is appropriate to analyze claim 1 and its initialization
`formula with P0_UE_PUSCH set to 0. Both the specification cited above, as well
`as claim 4 of the ’966 patent, disclose the initial transmit power formula
`includes times when P0_UE_PUSCH is set to 0. As such, even though the
`Qualcomm formula may not disclose the formula of claim 1 under all
`conditions, if it does so when the term is 0, the limitation is met. See
`
`20
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00178
`Patent 8,385,966 B2
`
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Mustek Sys., Inc., 340 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir.
`2003) (“a prior art product that sometimes, but not always, embodies a
`claimed method nonetheless teaches that aspect of the invention”).
`Once P0_UE_PUSCH is set to 0, Petitioner argues the claimed initial
`transmit power formula is reduced to f(0)=ΔPPC+ΔPrampup. Pet. 18.
`Petitioner contends the calculation of PUSCH_Power, the transmit power for
`the uplink message, i.e., Message 3, in Qualcomm includes summing a
`power control correction with a preamble rampup value, just as claimed. Id.
`(citing Ex. 1003, 10:5–13, Ex. 1002 ¶ 70). Qualcomm discloses “Eq (1),” as
`cited by Petitioner, for calculating the “transmit power for the m-th
`transmission of the random

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket