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.: To Be Assigned
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ROBERT AKL, D.Sc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 74
`
`LG Electronics Exhibit 1002
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`Table of Contents
`
`II.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................................... 2
`
`III.
`
`SCOPE OF ASSIGNMENT ............................................................................................... 7
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES USED IN ANALYSIS................................................................... 7
`
`V.
`
`LTE OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................... 9
`
`VI.
`
`RANDOM ACCESS PROCEDURE ................................................................................ 12
`
`VII. U.S. PATENT NO. 8,385,966 (“‘966 patent”) ................................................................. 14
`
`VIII. U.S. PATENT NO. 5,599,706 (“Qualcomm”) ................................................................. 20
`
`IX.
`
`3GPP TS 36.213 v8.2.0 (“TS 36.213”) ............................................................................. 22
`
`X.
`
`3GPP TS 36.300 v8.4.0 (“TS 36.300”) ............................................................................. 22
`
`XI.
`
`U.S. PATENT PUBLICATION NO. 2010/0093386 (“’386 publication”) ...................... 22
`
`XII. CLAIMS OF THE ‘966 PATENT .................................................................................... 23
`A.
`Claims 1, 9, and 10 of the ‘966 Patent .................................................................. 23
`B.
`Claims 3 and 12 of the ‘966 Patent ....................................................................... 31
`C.
`Claims 4 and 13 of the ‘966 Patent ....................................................................... 31
`Claims 2 and 11 of the ‘966 Patent ....................................................................... 32
`D.
`E.
`Claims 5 and 14 of the ‘966 Patent ....................................................................... 36
`F.
`Claims 6 and 15 of the ‘966 Patent ....................................................................... 42
`G.
`Claims 7 and 16 of the ‘966 Patent ....................................................................... 43
`Claims 8 and 17 of the ‘966 Patent ....................................................................... 44
`H.
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 74
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Robert Akl, D.Sc.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`I.
`
`1. My name is Robert Akl, and I have been retained by counsel for LG
`
`Electronics, Inc. as an expert witness in the above-captioned proceeding.
`
`2. My opinions are based on my years of education, research and
`
`experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials. The
`
`materials that I studied for this declaration include all exhibits of the petition.
`
`3.
`
`I may rely upon these materials, my knowledge and experience,
`
`and/or additional materials to rebut arguments raised by the patent owner. Further,
`
`I may also consider additional documents and information in forming any
`
`necessary opinions, including documents that may not yet have been provided to
`
`me.
`
`4. My analysis of the materials produced in this investigation is ongoing
`
`and I will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This declaration
`
`represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise,
`
`supplement, and/or amend my opinions stated herein based on new information
`
`and on my continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`1
`
`
`Page 3 of 74
`
`

`
`5.
`
`I am being compensated on a per hour basis for my time spent
`
`working on issues in this case. My compensation does not depend upon the
`
`outcome of this matter or the opinions I express.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`6.
`
`I have summarized in this section my educational background, work
`
`experience, and other relevant qualifications. A true and accurate copy of my
`
`curriculum vitae is attached as Appendix A to my declaration.
`
`7.
`
`I earned my Bachelor of Science degrees in Electrical Engineering
`
`and Computer Science summa cum laude with a grade point average of 4.0/4.0 and
`
`a ranking of first in my undergraduate class from Washington University in Saint
`
`Louis in 1994. In 1996, I earned my Master of Science degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering from Washington University in Saint Louis with a grade point average
`
`of 4.0/4.0. I earned my Doctorate of Science in Electrical Engineering from
`
`Washington University in Saint Louis in 2000, again with a grade point average of
`
`4.0/4.0, with my dissertation on “Cell Design to Maximize Capacity in Cellular
`
`Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) Networks.”
`
`8. While a graduate student, from 1996 through 2000, I worked at
`
`MinMax Corporation in St. Louis, where I designed software packages that
`
`provided tools to flexibly allocate capacity in a CDMA communications network
`
`Page 4 of 74
`
`

`
`and maximize the number of subscribers. As part of this work, I validated the
`
`hardware architecture for an Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) switch capable
`
`of channel group switching, as well as performed logical and timing simulations,
`
`and developed the hardware architecture for the ATM switch. I also worked with
`
`Teleware Corporation in Seoul, South Korea, where I designed and developed
`
`algorithms that were commercially deployed in a software package suite for
`
`analyzing the capacity in a CDMA network implementing the IS-95 standard to
`
`maximize the number of subscribers.
`
`9.
`
`After obtaining my Doctorate of Science degree, I worked as a Senior
`
`Systems Engineer at Comspace Corporation from October of 2000 to December of
`
`2001. In this position, I designed and developed advanced data coding and
`
`modulation methods for improving the reliability and increasing the available data
`
`rates for cellular communications. I coded and simulated different encoding
`
`schemes (including Turbo coding, Viterbi decoding, trellis coded modulation, and
`
`Reed-Muller codes) and modulation techniques using amplitude and phase
`
`characteristics and multi-level star constellations. This work further entailed the
`
`optimization of soft decision parameters and interleavers for additive white
`
`Gaussian and Rayleigh faded channels. In addition, I also extended the control and
`
`Page 5 of 74
`
`

`
`trunking of Logic Trunked Radio (LTR) to include one-to-one and one-to-many
`
`voice and data messaging.
`
`10.
`
`In January of 2002, I joined the faculty of the University of New
`
`Orleans in Louisiana as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Electrical
`
`Engineering. While on this faculty, I designed and taught two new courses called
`
`“Computer Systems Design I and II.” I also developed a Computer Engineering
`
`Curriculum with strong hardware-design emphasis, formed a wireless research
`
`group, and advised graduate and undergraduate students.
`
`11.
`
`In September of 2002, I received an appointment as an Assistant
`
`Professor in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the
`
`University of North Texas (UNT), in Denton, Texas. In May of 2008, I became a
`
`tenured Associate Professor in the Department of Computer Science and
`
`Engineering. As a faculty member, I taught courses and directed research in
`
`wireless communications, including 2G, 3G, 4G, CDMA/WCDMA, GSM, UMTS,
`
`LTE, wireless sensors, Bluetooth, VoIP, multi-cell network optimization, call
`
`admission control, channel coding, ad-hoc networks, and computer architecture. I
`
`was the director of the Wireless Sensor Lab (“WiSL”). Several of my research
`
`projects were funded by industry. In January of 2015, I became the Associate Chair
`
`of Graduate Studies.
`
`Page 6 of 74
`
`

`
`12.
`
`In addition to advising and mentoring students at UNT, I was asked to
`
`join the faculty of the University of Arkansas in Little Rock as an Adjunct
`
`Assistant Professor from 2004 to 2008 in order to supervise the research of two
`
`Ph.D. graduate students who were doing research in wireless communications.
`
`13.
`
`In addition to my academic work, I have remained active in the
`
`communication industry through my consulting work. In 2002, I consulted for
`
`Input/Output Inc. and designed and implemented algorithms for optimizing the
`
`frequency selection process used by sonar for scanning the bottom of the ocean. In
`
`2004, I worked with Allegiant Integrated Solutions in Ft. Worth, Texas to design
`
`and develop an integrated set of tools for fast deployment of wireless networks.
`
`Among other features, these tools optimize the placement of Access Points and
`
`determine their respective channel allocations to minimize interference and
`
`maximize capacity. I also assisted the Collin County Sheriff’s Office (Texas) in a
`
`double homicide investigation, analyzing cellular record data to determine user
`
`location.
`
`14.
`
`I have authored and co-authored approximately 65 journal
`
`publications, conference proceedings, technical articles, technical papers, book
`
`chapters, and technical presentations, in a broad array of communications-related
`
`technology, including networking and wireless communication. I have also
`
`Page 7 of 74
`
`

`
`developed and taught over 100 courses related to communications and computer
`
`system designs, including a number of courses on wireless communication,
`
`communications systems, computer systems design, and computer architecture.
`
`These courses have included introductory courses on communication networks and
`
`signals and systems, as well as more advanced courses on wireless
`
`communications. A complete list of my publications and the courses I have
`
`developed and/or taught is also contained in my curriculum vitae.
`
`15. My professional affiliations include services in various professional
`
`organizations and serving as a reviewer for a number of technical publications,
`
`journals, and conferences. I have also received a number of awards and
`
`recognitions, including the IEEE Professionalism Award (2008), UNT College of
`
`Engineering Outstanding Teacher Award (2008), and Tech Titan of the Future
`
`(2010) among others, which are listed in my curriculum vitae.
`
`16. A complete list of cases in which I have testified at trial, hearing, or
`
`by deposition within the preceding four years is provided in my curriculum vitae,
`
`which is attached as Appendix A. In the listed cases, I have been retained by both
`
`patent owners as well as petitioners.
`
`Page 8 of 74
`
`

`
`III. SCOPE OF ASSIGNMENT
`
`17.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether claims 1-
`
`17 of the ‘966 Patent would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art at the
`
`time of the alleged invention in view Qualcomm, TS 36.213, TS 36.300, and the
`
`‘386 publication.
`
`18. This declaration, including the exhibits hereto, sets forth my opinion
`
`on this topic.
`
`IV. LEGAL PRINCIPLES USED IN ANALYSIS
`
`19.
`
`In rendering the opinions set forth in this declaration, I was asked to
`
`consider the patent claims through the eyes of “one of ordinary skill in the art.” I
`
`was told by petitioner’s counsel to consider factors such as the educational level
`
`and years of experience of those working in the pertinent art; the types of problems
`
`encountered in the art; the teachings of the prior art; patents and publications of
`
`other persons or companies; and the sophistication of the technology. I understand
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art is not a specific real individual, but rather a
`
`hypothetical individual having the qualities reflected by the factors discussed
`
`above.
`
`20. Taking these factors into consideration, it is my opinion that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date of the ‘966 Patent would have had
`
`Page 9 of 74
`
`

`
`a B.S. degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or
`
`a related field, and around 2 years of experience in the design or development of
`
`wireless communication systems, or the equivalent.
`
`21.
`
`It is my understanding that there are two ways in which prior art may
`
`render a patent claim unpatentable. First, the prior art can be shown to “anticipate”
`
`the claim. Second, the prior art can be shown to have made the claim “obvious” to
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`22.
`
`It is my understanding that a patent claim is unpatentable as being
`
`obvious in view of prior art 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 alleged invention was made to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. I further understand
`
`that an obviousness analysis takes into consideration factual inquiries such as the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art, the scope and content of the prior art, and the
`
`differences between the prior art and the patent claim.
`
`23. Counsel has explained to me that the U.S. Supreme Court has
`
`recognized several rationales for combining references and for modifying a
`
`reference as part of an obviousness analysis. These rationales include combining
`
`prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple
`
`Page 10 of 74
`
`

`
`substitution of a known element for another to obtain predictable results, a
`
`predictable use of prior art elements in accordance with their established functions,
`
`applying a known technique to improve a known device (or process) and yield
`
`predictable results, and choosing from a finite number of known predictable
`
`solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. It is further my understanding
`
`that an obviousness analysis takes into consideration whether the prior art provides
`
`a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine teachings of multiple prior art
`
`references to arrive at the patent claim.
`
`24.
`
`I also understand that the earliest possible priority date for the ‘966
`
`patent is May 5, 2008. I have therefore analyzed obviousness as of that day or
`
`somewhat before.
`
`V. LTE OVERVIEW
`
`25. Conceptually, all cellular radio systems can be described at a high
`
`level in terms of user equipment devices, air interface standards, base station
`
`systems, core networks and linkages to external networks. A modern historical
`
`view of air interface standards groups them according to successive “generations”
`
`of technology where today “4th generation” (or “4G”) standards are becoming
`
`prevalent especially for cellular data networking.
`
`Page 11 of 74
`
`

`
`26. By the late 2000s timeframe as the 3G systems became pervasive in
`
`coverage and smartphones and tablets were becoming commonplace as “always-
`
`on” Internet-connected mobile devices, engineers were developing and especially
`
`in the USA starting trial deployments of 4G cellular radio systems. The
`
`fundamental subscriber benefit of 4G is much more robust packet data networking
`
`support at even higher data rates, of 100 Mb/s or more as the network
`
`infrastructure is successively upgraded over the next several years, that would
`
`enable mobile connected devices such as laptop computers to run Internet based
`
`applications with a user experience similar to the now much faster wired
`
`broadband services available compared to 10 years earlier. To achieve this goal
`
`again required fundamental changes to the core network and very different
`
`physical (PHY) layers for forward and reverse links between mobile stations and
`
`base stations.
`
`27. Three competing 4G standards efforts emerged. One of these
`
`standards efforts was started by 3GPP2 as an evolution of CDMA2000 into a 4G
`
`standard called “Ultra Mobile Broadband” (or “UMB”). However, no cellular
`
`operators have deployed UMB and efforts on it are now largely abandoned. A
`
`second standards effort for 4G was led by the IEEE 802.16 committee and several
`
`cellular operators in the USA and elsewhere have deployed IEEE 802.16e (also
`
`Page 12 of 74
`
`

`
`known as “WiMax”) mobile networks that use the IP based core network of all
`
`IEEE 802 standards and PHY layers based on “Orthogonal Frequency Division
`
`Multiplexing” (or “OFDM”). The third major 4G standards effort is led by 3GPP
`
`and is called “Long Term Evolution” (or “LTE”). Every major US based cellular
`
`operator has made a commitment to LTE and much of the USA already has LTE
`
`service. LTE has an “Evolved Packet Core” (or “EPC”) that is mostly IP-based but
`
`with excellent interoperability to 3G UMTS core networks. And LTE uses PHY
`
`layers based on OFDM with many aspects in common with the PHY layers of
`
`IEEE 802.16e. It is expected that over the next several years that in the USA 4G
`
`LTE service will almost completely replace existing 3G UMTS or CDMA2000
`
`service and in many cases the 3G networks will be discontinued so that the 3G
`
`spectrum can be reallocated to 4G LTE usage.
`
`28. The 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) working group
`
`publishes working specifications on its website, www.3gpp.org. These
`
`specifications are freely provided to the public without access controls such as
`
`login/passwords. (See, Ex. 1009). For example, all of the specifications for TS
`
`36.213 can be found here http://www.3gpp.org/dynareport/36213.htm.
`
`29. As 3GPP is the organization that was managing the LTE specification
`
`process, one of skill in the art would look to the 3GPP website and the various
`
`Page 13 of 74
`
`

`
`specifications available on the 3GPP website for LTE information. As an example,
`
`one of skill in the art wanting to learn about random access procedures or the
`
`transmit power used in the random access procedures would look to the relevant
`
`specifications found on the 3GPP website.
`
`30.
`
`In my experience, these specifications can also be found through
`
`popular search engines such as www.google.com.
`
`31. V8.2.0 of 3GPP TS 36.213 was available to the public no later than
`
`April 19, 2008. (Ex. 1010).
`
`32. V8.4.0 of 3GPP TS 36.300 was available to the public no later than
`
`April 19, 2008. (Ex. 1011).
`
`VI. RANDOM ACCESS PROCEDURE
`
`33.
`
`In LTE, user equipment, e.g., a terminal, can request a connection
`
`setup with an evolved Node B (eNB) (4G LTE / LTE-Advanced for Mobile
`
`Broadband, 14.3, p. 358). Figure 14.8 shows a contention based random-access
`
`procedure that is consistent with TS 36.213 and Figure 1B of the ‘966 patent.
`
`34. Contention-based random access procedure includes four messages: a
`
`random-access preamble; a random-access response; Radio Resource Control
`
`(RRC) signaling from the terminal; and RRC signaling from the eNB. (TS 36.300,
`
`Page 14 of 74
`
`

`
`10.1.5.1, p. 48; 4G LTE / LTE-Advanced for Mobile Broadband, 14.3, p. 359).
`
`The ‘966 patent uses TS 36.300 in describing the LTE random access procedure in
`
`Figures 1B and 1C. (‘966 patent, 4:1-4).
`
`35. The random access preamble is transmitted on a physical random
`
`access channel (PRACH). (TS 36.213, 6.1, p. 12). This message is referred to as
`
`Message 1 in Figure 10.1.5.1-1. (TS 36.300, 10.1.5.1, p. 48). In regard to the
`
`claims of the ‘966 patent, the claimed “first message” corresponds to a random
`
`access preamble with regard to LTE. (See, ‘966 patent, Claim 2). The transmit
`
`power of the preamble is set to a preamble transmission value. (TS 36.213, 6.1, p.
`
`12). Open loop power control is used in determining the transmit power of the
`
`random access preamble due to the inclusion of the PL (path loss) variable. (TS
`
`36.213, 5.1.1.1, p. 8).
`
`36. When an eNB receives a random access preamble, the eNB responds
`
`with a Random Access Response. (TS 36.3600, 10.1.5.1, p. 48). This is indicated
`
`as Message 2 in Figure 10.1.5.1-1. (TS 36.300, 10.1.5.1, p. 48). In regard to the
`
`claims of the ‘966 patent, the claimed “second message” corresponds to a random
`
`access response with regard to LTE.
`
`37.
`
`If the user equipment transmits a random access preamble but does
`
`not receive a random access response within a prescribed period of time, the user
`
`Page 15 of 74
`
`

`
`equipment retransmits the random access preamble. The transmit power for a
`
`retransmission, however, is increased by a rampup amount. This increase in
`
`transmit power helps ensure that the user equipment’s random access preamble
`
`will be successfully received by the eNB. (See, Qualcomm, 9:42-53).
`
`38. After receiving the random access response, the user equipment can
`
`respond with a first scheduled transmission on the uplink shared channel. (TS
`
`36.300, 10.1.5.1, p.49). This message can be referred to as Message 3, as in the TS
`
`36.300 specification and the ‘966 patent. (TS 36.300, 10.1.5.1, p. 48). In the
`
`Qualcomm reference, this message is referred to as the “first uplink message sent
`
`after successful transmission of the random access preamble…” (Qualcomm,
`
`10:1-3). The transmit power of Message 3 is referred to as “the initial transmit
`
`power” in the ‘966 patent. (See ‘966 patent, Claim 1).
`
`39. A fourth message can be sent from the eNB to the user equipment on
`
`the shared channel regarding contention resolution. (TS 36.300, 10.1.5.1, p. 49).
`
`This message is not discussed in depth in the ‘966 patent.
`
`VII. U.S. PATENT NO. 8,385,966 (“‘966 patent”)
`
`40. The ‘966 patent discloses a way to calculate the transmission power of
`
`Message 3 that specifies how power control formulas are initialized. (‘966 patent,
`
`4:25-27). For all subsequent messages sent on the uplink shared channel from the
`
`Page 16 of 74
`
`

`
`user equipment after Message 3, the ‘966 patent discloses using the power function
`
`that was well known as it was published in the relevant specification. (TS 36.213,
`
`5.1.1.1, p. 8). Accordingly, the claims of the ‘966 patent discuss how the transmit
`
`power of Message 3 is determined. The transmit power of Message 3 is referred to
`
`as the claimed “initial transmit power.” The “initial” description refers to initial
`
`message that is sent after a successful transmission of the random access preamble.
`
`41. All messages sent after Message 3 are transmitted with a power based
`
`upon a specification that was publicly available prior to the earliest priority date of
`
`the ‘966 patent.
`
`42. The ‘966 patent provides two power control formulas, [4a] and [4b],
`
`that are used in calculating transmit power on an uplink shared channel and an
`
`uplink control channel, respectively. (‘966 patent, 6:58-67).
`
`43. Formula [4a] is expressly claimed in Claims 1, 9, and 10. Formula
`
`[4a] is “P0_UE_PUSCH + f(0) =ΔPPC +ΔPrampup.” (‘966 patent, 6:65). The general
`
`formula f(i) is determined based upon previous values of f(i). (‘966 patent, 5:1-3).
`
`Formula [4a] of the ‘966 patent describes how f(0) could be calculated.
`
`44. Because the variable i is used to represent a subframe, formulas based
`
`upon i have initialized values when i=0. (See ‘966 patent, 4:37-39). In other
`
`Page 17 of 74
`
`

`
`words, to initialize a formula based upon i means to calculate an initial value/state
`
`at i=0. This is consistent with the claims of the ‘966 patent that describe
`
`initializing the formulas f(i) and g(i) as calculating f(0) and g(0).
`
`45. The ‘966 patent both discloses and claims that P0_UE_PUSCH can have an
`
`initial value of zero. (‘966 patent, 7:16-21). Accordingly, the claims of the ‘966
`
`patent are broad enough to cover the case where P0_UE_PUSCH can be zero when i=0.
`
`When this is the case, formula [4a] can be rewritten as f(0) =ΔPPC +ΔPrampup.
`
`46. The formula f(0) =ΔPPC +ΔPrampup depends upon an open loop power
`
`control error. The ‘966 patent is explicit in noting that equations [4a] and [4b]
`
`represent an open loop power control error. (‘966 patent, 7:1-7). Specifically, the
`
`open loop power control error is embodied in the ΔPPC variable. As described by
`
`the ‘966 patent, the open loop power control error is “the sum of the UE specific
`
`power control constants (P0_UE_PUSCH or P0_UE_PUCCH) and the power control initial
`
`states (f(0) and g(0)) … taking into account the preamble power ramp-up.” (‘966
`
`patent, 7:1-5). Accordingly, rewriting formula [4a] to be consistent with this
`
`portion of the ‘966 patent, ΔPPC = f(0) - ΔPrampup. Thus, ΔPPC represents the open
`
`loop power control error. The ‘966 patent also teaches that in some embodiments,
`
`ΔPPC may be “the difference between the target preamble power and the power that
`
`eNB actually observes.” (‘966 patent, 7:5-7). This is consistent with how the term
`
`Page 18 of 74
`
`

`
`“open loop” power control is used by those of skill in the art. (Wireless
`
`Communications and Networks, p. 277.)
`
`47. The ‘966 patent claims an initial transmit power that is computed
`
`using “full path loss compensation.” (See ‘966 patent, Claim 1). Path loss is a
`
`term of art that means the difference in transmit power of a message and the
`
`receive power of that message. (See ‘966 patent, 6:24). User equipment are able
`
`to calculate a path loss of various received signals since these signals are
`
`transmitted from an eNB at known power levels. For example, a pilot signal can
`
`be transmitted at a predetermined power, such that user equipment can determine
`
`the path loss as the difference between the predetermined power of the pilot signal
`
`and the actual received power of the pilot signal. (Wireless Communications and
`
`Networks, p. 277.)
`
`48.
`
`In LTE, calculating the transmit power for the uplink shared channel
`
`takes into account the path loss between eNB and the user equipment. (TS 36.213,
`
`5.1.1.1, p. 8). The full path loss or a fraction of the path loss can be used to
`
`calculate the transmit power. The amount of path loss to use is determined based
`
`upon the alpha (𝛼) variable. (TS 36.213, 5.1.1.1, p. 8). When alpha is set to one,
`
`the entire path loss is used in calculating the transmit power (full path loss
`
`compensation). (‘966 patent, 8:21-25). When alpha is less than one, the calculated
`
`Page 19 of 74
`
`

`
`power uses a fractional path loss compensation rather than the full path loss
`
`compensation. The ‘966 patent also refers to using fractional path loss
`
`compensation as fractional power control. (‘966 patent, 4:31-33).
`
`49. The claims of the ‘966 patent also use the term g(0) and provide that
`
`g(0) can be initialized to “P0_UE_PUCCH + g(0) =ΔPPC +ΔPrampup [4b].” (‘966 patent,
`
`6:66 and Claim 3). Similar to P0_UE_PUSCH, the variable P0_UE_PUCCH can be
`
`initialized to zero. (‘966 patent, Claim 4). When P0_UE_PUCCH is equal to 0, f(0) and
`
`g(0) are calculated using the same formula: ΔPPC +ΔPrampup. (‘966 patent, 7:16-21).
`
`In this instance, one of skill in the art would recognize that initializing f(0) also
`
`initializes g(0) as there is no need to calculate the same formula twice.
`
`50. The claimed initial transmit power depends on a power control
`
`command. (‘966 patent, Claim 1, 9, and 10). The power control command is
`
`indicated by the eNB to the user equipment via the second random access message.
`
`(Id.) The power control command indicates if the user equipment should increase
`
`or decrease its transmit power. The claimed “power control command” is used to
`
`calculate the initial transmit power for Message 3. The power control command
`
`for Message 3 is also referred to specifically as ΔPC_Msg3. (‘966 patent, 8:32-34).
`
`ΔPC_Msg3 is included in the preamble response (Message 2). (‘966 patent, 8:32-34).
`
`Page 20 of 74
`
`

`
`The value ΔPC_Msg3 is used for the transmission of Message 3. (‘966 patent, 8:36-
`
`40).
`
`51. The initial transmit power in the independent claims references ΔPPC.
`
`In dependent claims 5 and 14, the value ΔPC_Msg3 is referenced. Because both the
`
`independent claims and dependent claims 5 and 14 use these variables for
`
`calculating an initial transmit power of Message 3, ΔPPC is equal to ΔPC_Msg3.
`
`52. The formulas in dependent claims 5 and 14 also reference to
`
`additional variables that are not expressly claimed in the independent claims. Both
`
`of these variables are defined in the 3GPP specification. ΔTFTF(i) is a value that is
`
`calculated from received signaling that can be zero. (TS 36.213, 5.1.1.1 at 8).
`
`Accordingly, this term effectively drops out of the disclosed equations when the
`
`value is zero. MPUSCH(i) is an adjustment to uplink transmit power that depends on
`
`an uplink resource allocation. (TS 36.213, 5.1.1.1 at 8). The eNB determines the
`
`user equipment’s uplink resource allocation and can send the uplink resource
`
`allocation to the user equipment in message 2. (‘966 patent, Claims 5 and 14).
`
`53. The ‘966 patent is directed toward initializing power control formulas
`
`for PUSCH that is used during and after the random access procedure. The
`
`random access procedure was known prior to the filing of the ‘966 patent. (See TS
`
`36.213 and TS 36.300). The general power calculation used to send messages on
`
`Page 21 of 74
`
`

`
`an uplink shared channel was also known prior to the ‘966 patent. (See TS 36.213,
`
`5.1.1.1, p. 8; and ‘966 patent, 28-34). The TS 36.213 specification also notes that
`
`f(0) = 0. (TS 36.213, 5.1.1.1, p. 9). The ‘966 patent discloses an alternative to
`
`initializing f(0). As described above, the claims are broad enough such that f(0)
`
`can be initialized to ΔPPC +ΔPrampup. In addition, g(0) can also be initialized using
`
`the exact same formula.
`
`54. As discussed below, the Qualcomm reference teaches all of the
`
`claimed features of the independent claims, including calculating a transmit power
`
`of Message 3 that depends on ΔPPC +ΔPrampup.
`
`VIII. U.S. PATENT NO. 5,599,706 (“Qualcomm”)
`
`55. Qualcomm is directed to techniques “for transmitting random access
`
`signaling…” (Qualcomm, Abstract). The disclosed techniques were designed to
`
`be used in LTE systems. (Qualcomm, 2:55-3:14). Qualcomm is also directed to
`
`determining the transmit power of Message 3 that is part of LTE’s random access
`
`procedure. (Qualcomm, 10:1-19). Qualcomm does not discuss the transmission
`
`power of messages sent after Message 3.
`
`56. The random access preamble discussed in Qualcomm is the same as
`
`the “random access request” message claimed in the ‘966 patent and the random
`
`access preamble in Figure 1B. Specifically, they are both messages that are sent
`
`Page 22 of 74
`
`

`
`by the user equipment to initiate a random access procedure. (Qualcomm, 8:37-
`
`40). In response to sending the random access request, the user equipment expects
`
`to receive a random access response. (Qualcomm, Abstract). Both messages,
`
`therefore, are consistent with the random access procedure described in the 3GPP
`
`LTE specifications.
`
`57. Layer 3 signaling and data messages described in Qualcomm are
`
`messages sent after Message 3. Qualcomm does not expressly describe the power
`
`used to transmit these messages. One of skill in the art would recognize that TS
`
`36.213 provides a formula that is used to calculate the transmit power for messages
`
`on the shared uplink channel. As Qualcomm is directed to calculating the transmit
`
`power of Message 3 only, one of skill in the art would turn to the LTE
`
`specifications on how to determine the transmit power for subsequent messages
`
`sent on the uplink shared channel. TS 36.213 is the relevant specification to
`
`determine transmit power for messages sent by the user equipment on various
`
`channels, such as the shared channel. Specifically for LTE systems, one of skill in
`
`the art would look to the TS 36.213 specification to calculate the transmit power
`
`for subsequent messages.
`
`Page 23 of 74
`
`

`
`IX. 3GPP TS 36.213 v8.2.0 (“TS 36.213”)
`
`58. TS 36.213 is part of the LTE specification that describes the physical
`
`layer procedures. 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. One of skill of skill in the art would
`
`turn to TS 36.213 if they wanted to understand the details of the physical layer
`
`procedures of LTE.
`
`X.
`
`3GPP TS 36.300 v8.4.0 (“TS 36.300”)
`
`59. TS 36.300 is part of the LTE specification that describes LTE radio
`
`interface protocol architecture. This specification provides the details of the
`
`random access procedure