Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`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
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVI EW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,385,966
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-19 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`
`
`By:
`
`Filed on behalf of Petitioners
`
`Rajeev Gupta, Reg. No. 55,873
`Joshua L. Goldberg, Reg. No. 59,369
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`901 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001-4413
`Telephone: 202-408-4000
`Facsimile: 202-408-4400
`
`
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`EXHIBIT LIST .................................................................................................................. iv 
`NOTICE OF LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL ...............................................................1 
`NOTICE OF EACH REAL-PARTY-IN-INTEREST .........................................................1 
`NOTICE OF RELATED MATTERS ..................................................................................1 
`NOTICE OF SERVICE INFORMATION ..........................................................................1 
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING ............................................................................................1 
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS.............................................................................2 
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ........................................................2 
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ....................................3 
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED .............................................3 
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`Introduction to the Technology of the ‘966 patent ..............................................................3 
`
`Independent Claim 1 of the ’966 Patent ..............................................................................6 
`
`Construction of the Claims ..................................................................................................7 
`i. 
`“Initialize” or “initializing” ..........................................................................8 
`ii. 
`“Open loop power control error” (Claims 1, 9, and 10) ..............................8 
`iii. 
`“Full path loss compensation” (Claims 1, 9, and 10) ..................................9 
`iv. 
`“Preamble power” (Claims 1, 2, 5, 9-11, and 14) ........................................9 
`v. 
`“third message” (Claims 1, 2, 5, 9-11, and 14) ..........................................10 
`vi. 
`“Initial transmit power” (Claims 1, 5, 8-10, 14, and 17) ...........................10 
`vii. 
`“depends” (Claims 1, 9, and 10) ................................................................10 
`viii.  Ramp-up power” (Claims 1, 9, and 10) .....................................................10 
`ix. 
`“Power control command” (Claims 1, 9, and 10) ......................................11 
`x. 
`“P0_UE_PUSCH” (Claims 1, 4, 9, 10, and 13) ................................................11 
`xi. 
`“Fractional power control” (Claims 2, 6, 11 and 15) .................................11 
`xii. 
`“P0_UE_PUCCH” (Claims 3, 4, 12, and 13) ....................................................12 
`xiii. 
`“Random access request message” (Claims 2 and 11) ..............................12 
`“ΔTFTF(i)” (Claims 5 and 14) ....................................................................12 
`xiv. 
`xv. 
`“ΔPC_Msg3” (Claims 5 and 14) .....................................................................12 
`“MPUSCH(i)” (Claims 5, 6, 14, and 15) .......................................................13 
`xvi. 
`xvii. 
`“Fractional path loss computation” (Claims 7 and 16) ..............................13 
`
`Prior Art .............................................................................................................................13 
`A. 
`U.S. Patent 8,599,706 (Qualcomm) .......................................................................13 
`B. 
`3GPP TS 36.213 v8.2.0 (TS 36.213) .....................................................................14 
`C. 
`3GPP TS 36.300 v8.4.0 (TS 36.300) .....................................................................15 
`D. 
`U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0093386 (‘386 publication) ....................................15 
`
`Claim-By-Claim Explanation of Grounds for Unpatentability ..........................................16 
`Qualcomm and TS 36.213 renders Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, and 13
`Ground 1. 
`unpatentable. ..............................................................................................16 
`
`
`4836-7459-5105.3
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`i. 
`ii. 
`iii. 
`Ground 2. 
`
`i. 
`Ground 3. 
`
`i. 
`ii. 
`iii. 
`iv. 
`
`
`
`
`Claims 1, 9, and 10 ....................................................................................16 
`Claims 3 and 12 .........................................................................................28 
`Claims 4 and 13 .........................................................................................31 
`Qualcomm, TS 36.213, and TS 36.300 render dependent Claims 2 and 11
`unpatentable. ..............................................................................................32 
`Claims 2 and 11 .........................................................................................32 
`Qualcomm, TS 36.213, TS 36.300, and the ‘386 Publication render
`dependent Claims 5-8 and 14-17 unpatentable. .........................................40 
`Claims 5 and 14 .........................................................................................40 
`Claims 6 and 15 .........................................................................................50 
`Claims 7 and 16 .........................................................................................52 
`Claims 8 and 17 .........................................................................................54 
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................57 
`
`
`
`
`4836-7459-5105.3
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966 (“the ’966 patent”)
`Ex. 1002 Declaration of Dr. Robert Akl
`Ex. 1003 U.S. Patent No. 8,599,706 (“Qualcomm”)
`Ex. 1004 3GPP TS 36.213 V8.2.0 (2008-03-20) (“TS 36.213”)
`Ex. 1005 U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0093386 (“‘386 publication”)
`Ex. 1006 3GPP TS 36.213 Report, http://www.3gpp.org/dynareport/36213.htm
`(accessed 201-06-24)
`Ex. 1007 4G LTE / LTE-Advanced for Mobile Broadband
`Ex. 1008 3GPP TS 36.300 V8.4.80 (2008-03-20) (“TS 36.300”)
`Ex. 1009 3GPP Specifications Home,
`http://www.3gpp.org/specifications/specifications (accessed 2015-06-
`30)
`Ex. 1010 3GPP TS 36.213, April 19, 2008,
`http://web.archive.org/web/20080419052111/http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/S
`pecs/html-info/36213.htm
`Ex. 1011 3GPP TS 36.300, April 19, 2008,
`http://web.archive.org/web/20080419052121/http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/S
`pecs/html-info/36300.htm
`Ex. 1012 William Stallings, Wireless Communications and Networks, (Second
`Edition, Pearson Prentice Hall 2005)
`Ex. 1013 PCT/EP2009/055430 International Preliminary Report on Patentability
`Ex. 1014 WO2009135848
`Ex. 1015 Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 604 (1993)
`Ex. 1016 Complete Table of Contents for Ex. 1002
`
`iv
`
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`NOTICE OF LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL
`
`Lead Counsel: Rajeev Gupta (Reg. No. 55,873)
`
`Tel: 202.408.4352
`
`Backup Counsel: Joshua L. Goldberg (Reg. No. 59,369) Tel: 202.408.6092
`
`Address: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`
`901 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001-4413
`
`NOTICE OF EACH REAL-PARTY-IN-INTEREST
`
`The real-parties-in-interest are LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A.,
`
`Inc., and LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. (“LGE”).
`
`NOTICE OF RELATED MATTERS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966 (“the ’966 patent”) is asserted in Civil Action
`
`Nos. 6:15-cv-00049 (E.D. Tex.), 6:14-cv-00982 (E.D. Tex.), and 6:14-cv-00983
`
`(E.D. Tex.). Kyocera Commn’s, Inc. v. Cellular Commn’s Equip. LLC, IPR2015-
`
`01559 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 9, 2015) challenges claims 1-17 of the ’966 patent.
`
`NOTICE OF SERVICE INFORMATION
`
`Please address all correspondence to the lead counsel at the address above.
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service at: LGE-CCE_IPR@finnegan.com.
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies that the patent for which review is sought is available for
`
`inter partes review and the Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an
`
`inter partes review challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified.
`1
`
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`The earliest potential effective filing date of the claims of the ‘966 patent is
`
`May 5, 2008. (See Ex. 1001). U.S. Patent No. 8,599,706 (“’706,” Ex. 1003) has a
`
`priority date of at least October 3, 2006 and is at least § 102(e) prior art to the
`
`claims of the ‘966 patent. The technical specification 3GPP TS 36.213 V8.2.0
`
`(2008-03) (“TS 36.213” Ex. 1004) is prior art admitted by the ‘966 patent. U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 12/443,783 was filed on July 2, 2009, as a National Stage
`
`Application to PCT/US07/83239, filed October 31, 2007, and published as U.S.
`
`Patent Publication 2010/0093386 (“’386 publication,” Ex. 1005). The ‘386
`
`publication is at least § 102(e) prior art to the claims of the ‘966 patent.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`The Petitioner respectfully requests the Board initiate an inter partes review and
`
`cancel Claims 1-17 of the ‘966 patent as unpatentable pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 311(b) based on the following three grounds of unpatentability that are discussed
`
`in detail herein (including relevant claim constructions). These grounds are:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, and 13 are unpatentable in view of
`
`Qualcomm and TS 36.213 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 2 and 11 are unpatentable in view of Qualcomm,
`
`TS 36.213, and TS 36.300 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`
`4836-7459-5105.3
`
`2
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`
`
`
`Ground 3: Claims 5-8 and 14-17 are unpatenable in view of Qualcomm, TS
`
`36.213, TS 36.300, and the ‘386 publication under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103.
`
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`A petition for inter partes review must demonstrate “a reasonable likelihood
`
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
`
`challenged in the petition.” (35 U.S.C. § 314(a)). The Petition meets this
`
`threshold. The prior art teaches each of the elements of Claims 1-17 of the ‘966
`
`patent as explained below in the proposed grounds of unpatentability. Also, the
`
`Petition establishes reasons and motivations to combine prior art for each ground
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`I.
`
`Introduction to the Technology of the ‘966 patent
`
`The ‘966 patent describes “techniques for power control on different uplink
`
`messages sent from a communication device.” (1:19-20; Ex. 1002, ¶[0040]).
`
`Specifically, the ‘966 patent indicates “the problem solved by those
`
`embodiments is how the power control formulas for PUSCH [physical uplink
`
`shared channel] and PUCCH [physical uplink control channel] are taken in use
`
`during or after the Random Access procedure.” (4:16-19, emphasis added). A
`
`
`4836-7459-5105.3
`
`3
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`brief overview of the Random Access procedure is provided by Dr. Robert Akl.
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1002, ¶¶ [0033]-[0039]).
`
`Figures 1B and 1C of the ‘966 patent—labeled “Prior Art”—show random
`
`access procedures and include sending various messages between user equipment
`
`and an evolved Node B (eNB). (Ex. 1002, ¶[0034]). The contention-based
`
`random access procedure includes four messages. The user equipment
`
`communicates the first message, a “random access preamble,” to the base station.
`
`(Ex. 1002, ¶[0034]). Figure 1B represents this message as “Message 1”. (Id.).
`
`The user equipment uses open loop power control to determine the amount of
`
`power to use to transmit the preamble. (See ‘966 patent, equation [3], 6:20-24; Ex.
`
`1002, ¶[0035]). If the user equipment does not receive a response to its transmitted
`
`preamble, the user equipment can retransmit the preamble with increased power.
`
`The ‘966 patent refers to the increased power as a “rampup” value. (6:25-26; Ex.
`
`1002, ¶[0037]).
`
`The base station responds with a random access response once it receives the
`
`preamble. (Ex. 1002, ¶[0036]). This response is Message 2 in Figure 1B. (Id.).
`
`After receiving the random access response, the user equipment can make
`
`transmissions, the first of which the ‘966 patent calls “Message 3.” (Ex. 1002
`
`¶[0038]). Message 3 serves as the first message sent after the successful
`
`
`4836-7459-5105.3
`
`4
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`transmission of the random access preamble. (Id.). The ‘966 patent refers to the
`
`
`
`transmit power of Message 3 as an “initial transmit power.” (Ex. ¶[0040]).
`
`The ‘966 patent points to the LTE technical specification 3GPP TS
`
`36.213v.8.2.0 as dictating the transmission of “Message 3” in the LTE
`
`communication system using the PUSCH PC formula, taking into account the PC
`
`command received from the eNB in Message 2. (‘966 patent, 4:21-25).
`
`Importantly, the ‘966 patent states: “However, this [technical specification] does
`
`not specify how the UE specific parameters of the PUSCH and PUCCH power
`
`control formulas are initialized.” (‘966 patent, 4:25-27, emphasis added). Thus,
`
`the ‘966 patent attempts to teach the “initialization” of power control formulas for
`
`PUSCH and PUCCH. (Ex. 1002, ¶[0040]). To teach how the formulas are
`
`“initialized,” the ‘966 patent purports:
`
`According to an embodiment of the invention, the UE [user
`equipment] receives a power control command (e.g., ΔPPC) in the
`preamble response from the eNB [evolved Node B], which is
`Message 2. The UE then initiates the PC formula for PUSCH and
`PUCCH, or compensates open loop error, according to the following
`equations:
`P0_UE_PUSCH + f(0) =ΔPPC +ΔPrampup
`[4a]
`[4b]
`P0_UE_PUCCH + g(0) =ΔPPC +ΔPrampup
`(‘966 patent, 6:58-67). ΔPPC is a “power control command” that is included in
`
`Message 2. (‘966 patent, Claim 1; see also 7:5-13). ΔPrampup is “the power ramp-
`5
`
`
`4836-7459-5105.3
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`up applied for preamble retransmissions.” (‘966 patent, 6:25-26). The ‘966
`
`
`
`patents teaches that the values P0_UE_PUSCH and P0_UE_PUCCH can be set to zero. (‘966
`
`patent, 7:16-19). Thus, the purported invention of the ‘966 patent teaches that the
`
`power control formulas, claimed as power control adjustment states, can both be
`
`initialized to ΔPPC +ΔPrampup. (‘966 patent, 7:19-21).
`
`II.
`Independent Claim 1 of the ’966 Patent
`The method of Claim 1 includes an initialization step:
`
`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;
`a computation step:
`
`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 a sending step:
`
`sending from a transmitter a third message on the uplink shared channel
`at the initial transmit power;
`
`In an Amendment filed August 21, 2012, the Applicant amended the
`
`independent claims to incorporate elements of a dependent claim to further define
`
`
`4836-7459-5105.3
`
`6
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`the initialization of “second power control adjustment state.” This added language
`
`
`
`(shown below) resulted in allowance of the claims.
`
`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.
`While the claims recite two power control adjustment states, i.e., f(i) and g(i),
`
`both of these states can be initialized in the exact same way. (‘966 patent, 7:14-
`
`21). Further, the first power control adjustment state is initialized, but is never
`
`used in any claim. (See ‘966 patent, Claims 1, 3, 9, 10, and 12).
`
`III. Construction of the Claims
`A claim in inter partes review receives the “broadest reasonable construction in
`
`light of the specification.” (See, 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)). For the purposes of this
`
`proceeding, claim terms are presumed to take on their broadest reasonable ordinary
`
`meaning. As stated in the case In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc. at 496 F.3d
`
`1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007): “the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable
`
`construction consistent with the specification. Therefore, we look to the
`
`
`4836-7459-5105.3
`
`7
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a
`
`
`
`broad interpretation.” In addition to this presumption, Petitioner provides a more
`
`detailed explanation of the broadest reasonable meaning of certain claim terms.
`
`i.
`
`“Initialize” or “initializing”
`
`The ‘966 patent recites “using a processor to initialize… a first power control
`
`adjustment state” (Claim 1), “initializing … a first power control adjustment state”
`
`(Claim 9) and “initialize… a first power control adjustment state” (Claim 10). The
`
`term “initialize” or “initializing” in the ‘966 patent refers to calculating initial
`
`states (See 6:60-67). In particular, the ‘966 patent describes initializing power
`
`control states according to provided equations:
`
`The UE then initiates the PC formula for PUSCH and PUCCH, or
`compensates open loop error, according to the following equations:
`
`[4a]
`P0_UE_PUSCH + f(0) =ΔPPC +ΔPrampup
`P0_UE_PUCCH + g(0) =ΔPPC +ΔPrampup
`
`[4b]
`(6:60-67, emphasis added).
`
`Thus, “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. (Ex. 1002, ¶[0044]).
`
`ii.
`
`“Open loop power control error” (Claims 1, 9, and 10)
`
`The ‘966 patent defines the phrase “open loop power control error” at 7:1-5 as
`
`being 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
`
`
`4836-7459-5105.3
`
`8
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`account the preamble power ramp-up.” (‘966 patent, 7:1-5). The ‘966 patent
`
`
`
`asserts that Equations [4a] and [4b] represent open loop power control error. (‘966
`
`patent, 6:65-7:5). Specifically, the open loop power control error is represented by
`
`rewriting equation [4a] as ΔPPC = P0_UE_PUSCH +f(0) - ΔPrampup. In this equation,
`
`ΔPPC represents open loop power control error as ΔPPC is the sum of the UE
`
`specific power control constant (P0_UE_PUSCH) and f(0) taking into account ΔPrampup.
`
`(Ex. 1002, ¶[0046]). “ΔPPC is here assumed to be the difference between the target
`
`preamble power and the power that eNB actually observes.” (‘966 patent, 7:5-7)
`
`Thus, “open loop power control error” as used in the claims of the ‘966 patent
`
`should be interpreted to mean a power control error that is the difference between a
`
`target power and an observed power. (Ex. 1002, ¶[0046]).
`
`iii.
`
`“Full path loss compensation” (Claims 1, 9, and 10)
`
`The phrase “full path loss compensation” refers to using an entire estimated
`
`path loss, which is in contrast to fractional path loss compensation that uses only a
`
`portion of the estimated path loss. (‘966 patent, 8:7-17 and 11:25-31). The power
`
`formulas of the ‘966 patent indicate full path loss compensation by setting alpha
`
`((cid:2009)(cid:4667) equal to 1 (‘966 patent, 8:21-25). Thus, “full path loss compensation” as used
`
`in the claims of the ‘966 patent should be interpreted to mean using the entire
`
`estimate path loss. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶[0047]-[0048]).
`
`iv.
`
`“Preamble power” (Claims 1, 2, 5, 9-11, and 14)
`9
`
`
`4836-7459-5105.3
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`
`
`
`The phrase “preamble power” as used in the claims of the ‘966 patent should be
`
`interpreted to mean the transmit power of a preamble that depends upon ΔPrampup.
`
`(‘966 patent, 6:18-26; 9:65-10:25; 10:49-60, Claim 5).
`
`v.
`
`“third message” (Claims 1, 2, 5, 9-11, and 14)
`
`The phrase “third message” as used in the claims of the ‘966 patent should be
`
`interpreted to mean a message transmitted by the user equipment after a successful
`
`transmission of a random access preamble. (Ex. 1002, ¶[0038]). “Message 3,”
`
`shown in Figure 1B, is an example of a third message. (‘966 patent, 8:7-17).
`
`Figure 1B depicts the contention based random access procedure from TS 36.300.
`
`(‘966 patent, 4:1-4; See TS 36.300, 10.1.5.1, p. 48).
`
`vi.
`
`“Initial transmit power” (Claims 1, 5, 8-10, 14, and 17)
`
`The phrase “initial transmit power” as used in the claims of the ‘966 patent
`
`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 control adjustment state f(0).” (‘966 patent, Claims 1, 9, and 10; See also
`
`6:18-26; 9:65-10:25; 10:49-60).
`
`vii.
`
`“depends” (Claims 1, 9, and 10)
`
`The phrase “depends” as used in the claims of the ‘966 patent should be
`
`interpreted to mean to be based on. (Ex. 1015; Ex. 1002, ¶¶[0073]-[0076]).
`
`viii. Ramp-up power” (Claims 1, 9, and 10)
`
`
`4836-7459-5105.3
`
`10
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`
`
`
`The phrase “ramp-up power” as used in the claims of the ‘966 patent should be
`
`interpreted to mean a ramp-up power level for preamble retransmissions. (‘966
`
`patent, 6:25-26, Ex. 1002, ¶[[0037]).
`
`ix.
`
`“Power control command” (Claims 1, 9, and 10)
`
`The phrase “power control command” as used in the claims of the ‘966 patent
`
`should be interpreted to mean a signal, contained in a message, used to establish or
`
`determine the power used to transmit a subsequent message. (‘966 patent, 2:65-
`
`3:6). The ‘966 patent uses the term ΔPC_Msg3 to denote “power control command”
`
`for Message 3. (‘966 patent, 8:32-34).
`
`x.
`
`“P0_UE_PUSCH” (Claims 1, 4, 9, 10, and 13)
`The phrase “P0_UE_PUSCH” as used in the claims of the ‘966 patent 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. (‘966
`
`patent, 7:16 – 21; Claims 4 and 13).
`
`xi.
`
`“Fractional power control” (Claims 2, 6, 11 and 15)
`
`The phrase “fractional power control” as used in the claims of the ‘966 patent
`
`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. (See ‘966 patent, 4:31-33; Ex. 1002, ¶[0048]).
`
`
`4836-7459-5105.3
`
`11
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`
`
`xii.
`
`
` “P0_UE_PUCCH” (Claims 3, 4, 12, and 13)
`The phrase “P0_UE_PUCCH” as used in the claims of the ‘966 patent 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. (‘966
`
`patent, 7:16 – 21; Claims 4 and 13; Ex. 1002, ¶[0044]).
`
`xiii. “Random access request message” (Claims 2 and 11)
`
`The phrase “random access request message” as used in the claims of the ‘966
`
`patent 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. (Ex. 1002, ¶[0091]).
`
`“ΔTFTF(i)” (Claims 5 and 14)
`xiv.
`The phrase “ΔTFTF(i)” as used in the claims of the ‘966 patent should be
`
`interpreted to mean a value “calculated from received signaling” that can be zero.
`
`(‘966 patent, Claims 5 and 14; 4:54-61; Ex. TS 36.213, 5.1.1.1 at 8; Ex. 1002,
`
`¶[0052]).
`
`xv.
`
` “ΔPC_Msg3” (Claims 5 and 14)
`The phrase “ΔPC_Msg3” as used in the claims of the ‘966 patent should be
`
`interpreted to mean “indicated by a power control command received at the
`
`receiver.” (‘966 patent, Claims 5 and 14). In regard to calculating the initial
`
`transmit power of the third message, this term corresponds with the power control
`
`
`4836-7459-5105.3
`
`12
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`command received in the second message. (8:32-36). Accordingly, ΔPC_Msg3 has
`
`
`
`the same value as ΔPPC when calculating the initial transmit power value of the
`
`third message. The difference in nomenclature results from an embodiment where
`
`subsequent messages to Message 3 could have a different power control value used
`
`to calculate its transmit power. (‘966 patent, 8:36-42; Ex. 1002, ¶¶[0050]-[0051]).
`
`“MPUSCH(i)” (Claims 5, 6, 14, and 15)
`xvi.
`The phrase “MPUSCH(i)” as used in the claims of the ‘966 patent should be
`
`interpreted to mean an adjustment of uplink power determined from an uplink
`
`resource allocation. (‘966 patent, Claims 5 and 14; Ex. 1002, ¶[0109]). The uplink
`
`resource allocation is determined by an eNB and sent by the eNB in a second
`
`message in response to receiving a first message. ((‘966 patent, Claims 5 and 14;
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶[0110]).
`
`xvii. “Fractional path loss computation” (Claims 7 and 16)
`
`The phrase “fractional path loss computation” as used in the claims of the ‘966
`
`patent should be interpreted to mean a path loss computation based upon a fraction
`
`of the estimated path loss. Alpha in Equation [1] and Claims 6 and 15 represents
`
`the fractional component. (‘966 patent, Fig. 4, 410; 4:31-33; and 11:39-44; Ex.
`
`1002, ¶[0048]).
`
`IV. Prior Art
`A. U.S. Patent 8,599,706 (Qualcomm)
`
`
`4836-7459-5105.3
`
`13
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,599,706 was filed on June 5, 2009, as a National Stage
`
`Application to PCT/US2007/080319, filed October 3, 2007. The PCT application
`
`claimed the benefit of Provisional Application No. 60/828,058, filed on October 3,
`
`2006. Accordingly, Qualcomm qualifies as a printed publication and prior art to
`
`the ‘966 patent. In addition, PCT/US2007/080319 published as WO2008/042967
`
`on April 10, 2008, has substantially the same disclosure as Qualcomm.
`
`B.
`3GPP TS 36.213 v8.2.0 (TS 36.213)
`The 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) website made 3GPP TS 36.213
`
`v8.2.0 (Ex. 1004, TS 36.213) available on March 20, 2008. (Ex. 1006). TS 36.213
`
`was available from the 3GPP website no later than April 19, 2008. (Ex. 1010).
`
`The 3GPP brings together partners to produce specifications on 3GPP technologies,
`
`such as LTE. (Ex. 1002, ¶[0029]). Accordingly, one of skill in the art interested in
`
`LTE would turn to the resources and/or specifications that are available on the
`
`3GPP website. (Id.). TS 36.213, therefore, was both publicly available and also
`
`sufficiently accessible to the public that are interested in LTE prior to the priority
`
`date of the ‘966 patent.
`
`The ‘966 patent acknowledges that TS 36.213 was available prior to the earliest
`
`priority date of the ‘966 patent. (‘966 patent, 4:20-30). Portions of TS 36.213
`
`were attached as an exhibit to the ‘966 patent’s provisional application. (Id). The
`
`‘966 patent states that Equation 1 and its description are from section 5.1.1.1 of TS
`14
`
`
`4836-7459-5105.3
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`36.213. (‘966 patent, 4:20-30). Accordingly, TS 36.213 qualifies as a printed
`
`
`
`publication and prior art to the ‘966 patent.
`
`3GPP TS 36.300 v8.4.0 (TS 36.300)
`
`C.
`3GPP TS 36.300 v8.4.0 (Ex. 1008, TS 36.300) was published on March 20,
`
`2008. (Ex. 1008). This specification was available via the 3GPP website no later
`
`than April 19, 2008. (Ex. 1011). TS 36.300, therefore, was both publicly available
`
`and also sufficiently accessible to the public that are interested in LTE prior to the
`
`priority date of the ‘966 patent.
`
`The ‘966 patent acknowledges that TS 36.300 was available prior to the earliest
`
`priority date of the ‘966 patent. (‘966 patent, 2:18-26). Portions of TS 36.300
`
`were attached as an exhibit to the ‘966 patent’s provisional application. (Id).
`
`Accordingly, TS 36.300 qualifies as a printed publication and prior art to the ‘966
`
`patent.
`
`D. U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0093386 (‘386 publication)
`U.S. Patent Application No. 12/443,783 was filed on July 2, 2009, as a National
`
`Stage Application to PCT/US07/83239, filed October 31, 2007. The PCT
`
`application claimed the benefit of Provisional Application No. 60/855,903, filed on
`
`October 31, 2006. U.S. Patent Application No. 12/443,783 published as U.S.
`
`Patent Publication 2010/0093386 (Ex. 1005, ‘386 publication). Accordingly, the
`
`‘386 publication qualifies as a printed publication and prior art to the ‘966 patent.
`
`
`4836-7459-5105.3
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`V. Claim-By-Claim Explanation of Grounds for Unpatentability
`Ground 1.
`Qualcomm and TS 36.213 render Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12,
`and 13 unpatentable.
`
`Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, and 13 of the ‘966 patent are unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Qualcomm and 3GPP TS 36.213 v8.2.0 (TS 36.213), and
`
`3GPP TS 36.300 v8.4.0 (TS 36.300).
`
`i.
`
`Claims 1, 9, and 10
`
`Qualcomm and TS 36.213 disclose, suggest, or teach each of the claimed
`
`elements from independent Claims 1, 9, and 10: [i] initializing a “power control
`
`adjustment” state for a control channel and “power control adjustment” state for an
`
`uplink shared channel (e.g., 10:1-19, 9:20-49), [ii] computing an initial transmit
`
`power for the uplink shared channel (e.g., 10:1-19, 8:38-46), and [iii] outputting or
`
`sending a message at the initial transmit power (e.g., 10:14-15).
`
`Qualcomm teaches a relationship between the “power control adjustment state”
`
`and “initial transmit power.” The claimed “initial transmit power” refers to the
`
`transmit power that is used to transmit Message 3. (Ex. 1002, ¶[0065]). Qualcomm
`
`teaches calculating a transmit power of Message 3 that includes initializing power
`
`control adjustment states. Equation 4 of Qualcomm represents a formula used to
`
`calculate the initial transmit power of Message 3. Qualcomm, col. 10, lines 1-19,
`
`state, with emphasis added:
`
`
`4836-7459-5105.3
`
`16
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`
`
`
`…the transmit power of the first uplink message sent after successful
`transmission of the random access preamble may be determined as follows:
`
`Eq(4)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUSCH_power =
`