throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`PATENT TRIAL & APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Lindholm et al.
`In re Patent of:
`U.S. Patent No.: 8,385,966
`Issue Date:
`February 26, 2013
`Appl. No.:
`
`12/387,661
`Filing Date:
`May 5, 2009
`Title:
`Method, Apparatus and Computer Program for Power Control
`Related to Random Access Procedures
`
`DECLARATION OF PROFESSOR BRUCE McNAIR
`
`I am Professor Bruce McNair. I submit this report on behalf of Sony
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. in connection with its request for inter partes
`
`review of U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966 (“the ‘966 patent”).
`
`I.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`2. My name is Bruce McNair. I am a Distinguished Service Professor of
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering at Stevens Institute of Technology in
`
`Hoboken, NJ. I have studied and practiced in the fields of electrical engineering,
`
`computer engineering, and computer science for over 40 years, and have been a
`
`professor of electrical and computer engineering since 2002.
`
`3.
`
`I received my Masters of Engineering (M.E.) degree in the field of
`
`Electrical Engineering from Stevens Institute of Technology in 1974 and my
`
`Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.) degree in Electrical Engineering in 1971 from
`
`Stevens as well.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Sony Exhibit 1007, pg. 1
`
`

`
`4.
`
`I am the Founder and Chief Technology Officer of Novidesic
`
`Communications, LLC, a technology consulting company. Prior to starting
`
`Novidesic and joining the faculty at Stevens in 2002, I spent 24 years at AT&T
`
`Bell Laboratories. My most recent work there included research into next
`
`generation (4G and beyond) wireless data communications systems, including
`
`modification of the IS-136 North American TDMA standard, high-speed, high
`
`mobility wide area networks as well as range and speed extensions to 802.11(a &
`
`b) wireless LANs. My research required the examination and implementation of
`
`physical layer wireless protocols. Before that, my activities included development
`
`of encryption hardware, secure voice architecture studies, high-speed voice-band
`
`modems, and public data network protocols. In addition, in examining techniques
`
`to prevent fraud in cellular networks, my work included examining and
`
`understanding cellular authentication protocols for roaming cellular subscribers.
`
`5.
`
`Before joining Bell Labs, I spent seven years developing military
`
`communications systems for the US Army Electronics Command and ITT Defense
`
`Communications Division. My responsibilities included cryptographic and ECCM
`
`techniques for portable radio systems, TEMPEST technology, and state-of-the-art
`
`speech compression techniques. As one part of my work at the US Army
`
`Electronics Command in the mid-1970s, I analyzed and simulated multi-user
`
`
`
`2
`
`Sony Exhibit 1007, pg. 2
`
`

`
`wireless communications systems and recognized the need for transmitter power
`
`control similar to that described in the subject patent.
`
`6.
`
`Since becoming a faculty member in 2002 (and even before) I have
`
`published over 20 technical publications in scientific journals or conferences in the
`
`fields of digital communications and security. I have 25 U.S. patents in related
`
`fields, as well as 19 associated international patents. As part of my research as a
`
`professor and previously at Bell Labs, I have developed and implemented many
`
`different wireless communications devices and communications networks similar
`
`to the concepts of U.S. Patent No. 8,838,966 (“the ‘966 patent”) and which I
`
`explain in more detail below. My teaching at Stevens Institute of Technology has
`
`included graduate courses in Physical Design of Wireless Communications
`
`Systems Wireless Systems Security and an undergraduate course in Electronic
`
`Circuits, which include coverage wireless systems and networking techniques.
`
`7.
`
`I have consulted with AT&T Government Systems and US
`
`Government agencies in the operation of cellular networks and means to recover
`
`the true identity of a mobile subscriber through the International Mobile Subscriber
`
`Identity (IMSI) when only a Temporary Mobile Subscriber Identity (TMSI) was
`
`available without the cooperation of the cellular subscriber or cellular carrier.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Sony Exhibit 1007, pg. 3
`
`

`
`8.
`
`I am a Life Senior Member of the IEEE and belong to the
`
`Communications and Signal Processing Societies. I have served as the Secretary of
`
`the IEEE Communications Society Communications Security Committee.
`
`9.
`
`I have also been an amateur radio operator since 1963 and have held
`
`the Extra Class amateur radio license, the highest level of amateur radio license,
`
`since 1970. My research and experimentation as an amateur radio operator are
`
`directly related to the relevant technology of the patent.
`
`10.
`
`I make this declaration based on personal knowledge and I am
`
`competent to testify about the matters set forth herein.
`
`11. A copy of my latest curriculum vitae (CV) is attached to this
`
`declaration as Attachment A.
`
`II.
`
`Basis of My Opinion and Materials Considered
`12.
`
`I have reviewed the ‘966 patent. I have reviewed the prior art and
`
`other documents and materials cited herein and in the accompanying petition. My
`
`opinions are also based in part upon my education, training, research, knowledge,
`
`and experience.
`
`III. Understanding of Legal Standards
`A. Anticipation
`13. A patent claim is “anticipated” if each and every limitation of the
`
`claim is disclosed in a single prior art reference. Section 102 of the Patent Statute
`
`
`
`4
`
`Sony Exhibit 1007, pg. 4
`
`

`
`was amended on March 16, 2013. The earlier version of Section 102 applies to the
`
`patent at issue given its filing date.
`
`14. Each element of a patent claim may be disclosed by a prior art
`
`reference either expressly or inherently. Further, my understanding is that even an
`
`“express” disclosure does not necessarily need to use the same words as the claim.
`
`An element of a patent claim is inherent in a prior art reference if the element must
`
`necessarily be present and such would be recognized by a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art. However, I understand that inherency cannot be established by mere
`
`probabilities or possibilities.
`
`B. Obviousness
`15. A patent claim is invalid if the differences between the patented
`
`subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would
`
`have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art. I am informed that this standard is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`16. When considering the issues of obviousness, I am to do the following:
`
`(i) determine the scope and content of the prior art; (ii) ascertain the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claims at issue; (iii) resolve the level of ordinary skill
`
`in the pertinent art; and (iv) consider objective evidence of non-obviousness. I
`
`appreciate that secondary considerations must be assessed as part of the overall
`
`
`
`5
`
`Sony Exhibit 1007, pg. 5
`
`

`
`obviousness analysis (i.e. as opposed to analyzing the prior art, reaching a tentative
`
`conclusion, and then assessing whether objective indicia alter that conclusion).
`
`17. Put another way, my understanding is that not all innovations are
`
`patentable. Even if a claimed product or method is not disclosed in its entirety in a
`
`single prior art reference, the patent claim is invalid if the invention would have
`
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In
`
`particular, I understand that a patent claim is normally invalid if it would have been
`
`a matter of “ordinary innovation” within the relevant field to create the claimed
`
`product at the time of the invention.
`
`18.
`
`In determining whether the subject matter as a whole would have been
`
`obvious at the time that the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art, I have been informed of several principles regarding the combination of
`
`elements of the prior art:
`
`a. First, a combination of familiar elements according to known
`methods is likely to be obvious when it yields predictable results.
`
`b. Second, if a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a
`“predictable variation” in a prior art device, and would see the
`benefit from doing so, such a variation would be obvious. In
`particular, when there is pressure to solve a problem and there are
`a finite number of identifiable, predictable solutions, it would be
`reasonable for a person of ordinary skill to pursue those options
`that fall within his or her technical grasp. If such a process leads to
`the claimed invention, then the latter is not an innovation, but more
`the result of ordinary skill and common sense.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Sony Exhibit 1007, pg. 6
`
`

`
`19. The “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” test is a useful guide in
`
`establishing a rationale for combining elements of the prior art. This test poses the
`
`question as to whether there is an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the
`
`prior art to combine prior art elements in a way that realizes the claimed invention.
`
`Though useful to the obviousness inquiry, I understand that this test should not be
`
`treated as a rigid rule. It is not necessary to seek out precise teachings; it is
`
`permissible to consider the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (who is considered to have an ordinary level of creativity and is not
`
`an “automaton”) would employ.
`
`IV. Description of the Relevant Field and the Relevant Timeframe
`
`20.
`
`I have carefully reviewed the ‘966 patent. Based on my review, I
`
`believe that the relevant field for the purposes of the ‘966 patent is power control
`
`of stations in cellular systems. I have been informed that the relevant timeframe is
`
`on or before May 5, 2008, based on the provisional application filing date of the
`
`‘966 patent, so the focus of this discussion will be on technologies that existed
`
`prior to the priority date.
`
`21. As described in Section I above and as shown in my CV, I have
`
`extensive experience in electrical engineering, computer science. Based on my
`
`experience, I have a good understanding of the relevant field in the relevant
`
`timeframe.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Sony Exhibit 1007, pg. 7
`
`

`
`V.
`
`The Person of Ordinary Skill in the Relevant Field in the Relevant
`Timeframe
`22.
`
`I have been informed that “a person of ordinary skill in the relevant
`
`field” is a hypothetical person to whom an expert in the relevant field could assign
`
`a routine task with reasonable confidence that the task would be successfully
`
`carried out.
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed that the level of skill in the art is evidenced by
`
`prior art references. The prior art discussed herein demonstrates that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the field, at the time the ‘966 patent was effectively filed, would
`
`have been aware of wireless signaling protocols and cellular terminal
`
`authentication techniques and standards.
`
`24. For the purposes of the subject matter of this declaration, in my
`
`opinion a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a Bachelor of Science or
`
`Bachelor of Engineering degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer
`
`Engineering from an institution accredited by the Accreditation Board for
`
`Engineering and Technology (ABET) or an equivalent accrediting organization
`
`and five years of work experience in wireless systems or signal processing.
`
`Alternatively, in my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a
`
`Master of Science or Master of Engineering degree in Electrical or Computer
`
`Engineering from an equivalently accredited institution and two years of similar
`
`work experience.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Sony Exhibit 1007, pg. 8
`
`

`
`25. Based on my experience, I have an understanding of the capabilities
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field. I have supervised and directed
`
`many such persons over the course of my career in industry, government, and
`
`academia. Further, I had at least those capabilities myself at the time the patent was
`
`effectively filed.
`
`VI. Engineering Principles Underlying the ‘966 patent
`26.
`
`In this section, technical background will be provided on several terms,
`
`technologies and concepts related to the ‘966 patent, including wireless signal path
`
`loss, transmitter power control in wireless systems, and random access procedures on
`
`shared wireless channels. I understand that a provisional application for the ‘966
`
`patent was filed on May 5, 2008, so the focus of this discussion will be on
`
`technologies that existed prior to that date.
`
`A. Wireless Signal Path Loss
`27. Wireless communications systems must operate in the presence of
`
`impairments that limit the ability to communicate and send information at high
`
`speeds. Noise is one impairment that is present in every electronic system and sets
`
`the theoretical limit for communications. Interference from other users is another
`
`impairment that can be controlled to some extent, but generally is another limiting
`
`factor in communications. These impairments set the floor for signal strength a
`
`
`
`9
`
`Sony Exhibit 1007, pg. 9
`
`

`
`receiver can process; the transmitter must generate enough power to overcome
`
`these impairments when the signal arrives at the receiver.
`
`28. As a wireless signal propagates from the transmitter to the receiver,
`
`the power level available to process the signal decreases, making it more difficult
`
`to detect the transmitted information in the presence of noise and interference.
`
`There are several components of this path loss which will be described in more
`
`detail below. These path loss components vary based on the time, frequency, and
`
`location of the communications.
`
`29. The first component of path loss is called free-space path loss. This
`
`refers to the reduction in signal power that would occur if a signal were
`
`propagating through an empty volume of space with no obstacles or other objects.
`
`A simple geometric construction can show that, as the signal moves through space,
`
`the surface area over which the total signal energy must be spread increases as the
`
`square of the distance the signal is traveling. As a result, the signal energy that is
`
`available for detection in any given area decreases as the inverse square of the
`
`distance. Thus, this free-space path loss is sometimes referred to as inverse square
`
`law attenuation.
`
`30.
`
`In a terrestrial environment, that is, near the Earth’s surface, where
`
`most wireless transmitters and receivers are located, as opposed to being in space,
`
`the path loss encountered by propagating signals increases faster than it would in a
`
`
`
`10
`
`Sony Exhibit 1007, pg. 10
`
`

`
`free-space environment. This is due to foliage, buildings, and other objects in the
`
`environment that attenuate signals. Every particular operational area behaves
`
`differently, depending on the objects in the environment and their location, relative
`
`to the transmitter and receiver, but models have been created that allow one to
`
`estimate the expected path loss in typical operating conditions. In contrast to free-
`
`space path loss, where the signal power is reduced by a factor of 1/r2, where r is the
`
`path length, in a terrestrial environment, the received signal power may be reduced
`
`by a factor of 1/r2.5 to 1/r4 or more. Of course, the transmitter and receiver generally
`
`have no means to accurately determine their actual separation and the specifics of
`
`the environment that changes path loss, so these models are just estimates of the
`
`total path loss.
`
`31. Besides the generally predictable path loss caused by distance
`
`between the transmitter and receiver, there is also a random component of path loss
`
`caused by multipath fading. Because objects in the environment cause wireless
`
`signals to reflect and refract, there will be multiple copies of the transmitted signal
`
`arriving at the receiver over different paths. Because each copy of the signal travels
`
`over a different path, the path distance, and therefore the path loss, will be
`
`different. In addition, each copy of the signal arrives at a slightly different time,
`
`resulting in a different carrier phase shift. This creates the potential for some of the
`
`signals to cancel each other, resulting in path loss that varies with time and specific
`
`
`
`11
`
`Sony Exhibit 1007, pg. 11
`
`

`
`location. This type of change in path loss is known as multipath fading and is best
`
`modeled as a random process – it might be theoretically possible to calculate the
`
`actual path loss as a function of time and position, but to do so would require a
`
`great deal of knowledge about the physical environment surrounding the
`
`transmitter and receiver and an enormous amount of calculation. It is far simpler to
`
`model the result as a random process with predictable parameters.
`
`32. Two probability distributions that are frequently used in describing
`
`the path loss due to multipath fading are the Rayleigh distribution and the Rician
`
`distribution. Each is relevant to modeling the wireless channel under different
`
`conditions. When there is an unobstructed direct path from the transmitter to the
`
`receiver in addition to multiple obscured and reflected paths, the Rician probability
`
`distribution best models the communications channel fading characteristics. This
`
`situation is best used with satellite to Earth communications or where a mobile
`
`station is relatively close to an elevated base station. In more typical terrestrial
`
`wireless communications, there is no unobstructed direct path from the transmitter
`
`to the receiver. Rather, all of the propagating signals are from reflected multipath.
`
`In this case, the Rayleigh distribution best models the temporal, spatial, and
`
`spectrally varying path loss.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Sony Exhibit 1007, pg. 12
`
`

`
`B.
`
`Transmitter Power Control in Wireless Systems
`
`33. As indicated above, the designer of a wireless communication system
`
`can expect that the received signal level will constantly vary. If only one
`
`transmitter were communicating with one receiver, a transmit power level could be
`
`set to guarantee that, at all times, with any amount of path loss, the received signal
`
`level would be greater than the background noise and interference at all times.
`
`However, in a real system, there can be multiple transmitters and receivers
`
`attempting to operate in the same spatial, temporal, and spectral region. To
`
`optimize communications, this means that adjustments must be made to eliminate
`
`as much interference as possible. For example, two transmitters may be operating
`
`at the same time in adjacent frequency bands with very different path losses to the
`
`receiver, perhaps because one transmitter is closer or because it is experiencing
`
`less multipath fading, and it has long been recognized in multi-access wireless
`
`systems that transmitter power control is needed to equalize the received signal
`
`levels. This is the well-known “near-far” problem, referring to a transmitter that is
`
`near the receiver with a low path loss competing with a transmitter that is far away,
`
`creating a high path loss. The coordination problem is made worse because of the
`
`well-known “hidden transmitter problem,” where one transmitter is “hidden” from
`
`the other, undetectable by the first, making impossible to guarantee the two will
`
`not transmit at the same time.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Sony Exhibit 1007, pg. 13
`
`

`
`34.
`
`In many respects, transmit power control on a randomly varying
`
`channel is similar to the cruise control on a car – as the car goes up and down a hill
`
`(i.e., channel path loss changes with fading), fuel demands (i.e., transmit power)
`
`change and must be accounted for to maintain a constant speed (i.e., receive signal
`
`level). It is desirable for each car (i.e., transmitter) to maintain a constant speed so
`
`traffic (i.e., other transmitters) flows smoothly (i.e., every transmitter’s received
`
`signal power is the same). The solution to both transmit power control and the
`
`car’s cruise control is the same – a control system that makes adjustments based on
`
`an error signal. The error signal is the difference between the observed state and
`
`the desired state, whether this is vehicle speed or received signal level.
`
`35.
`
`In order to perform transmitter power control, one required action is to
`
`measure received signal power to determine if the current transmitter power is
`
`sufficient for communications, must be increased to improve performance or must
`
`be reduced to mitigate interference. There are several methods to measure the
`
`received signal power. Generally, the receiver will be computing various
`
`characteristics of the received signal so it is a simple matter to compute the average
`
`of the square of the signal samples or some other indicator that corresponds to
`
`receive signal power.
`
`36. After the receiver measures the received signal strength from the
`
`transmitter, the receiver must send a signal to the transmitter telling it to adjust its
`
`
`
`14
`
`Sony Exhibit 1007, pg. 14
`
`

`
`transmit power level. There will generally be a target signal level known to work
`
`well in the wireless system. Differences between the desired signal level and the
`
`current signal level form an error signal that is used to control the system
`
`operation. It is well known in the art of designing control systems that the error
`
`signal can be processed in a variety of ways. The favored way in most control
`
`systems is to use P-I-D control, with an adjustment that is proportional to the error
`
`signal (P), an adjustment that is the integral of the error signal (I), and an
`
`adjustment that is a derivative of the error signal (D). In wireless power control,
`
`the random variation of the channel and the delay in the feedback control path
`
`make traditional P-I-D control problematic, so the simplest proportional control is
`
`frequently used. This means that the designer has the choice of the proportionality
`
`constant. A value of 1.0 (full proportional control) will tend to converge to the
`
`optimum value fastest, but will be susceptible to errors in measurement due to
`
`noise and interference. Partial proportional control, with a proportionality constant
`
`less than 1.0 will converge more slowly, but is less susceptible to noise in the
`
`power estimates.
`
`37. As indicated above, the channel path loss is a constantly varying
`
`random process. As such, it is impossible to accurately determine the proper
`
`transmit power setting in a power control system. All such systems are designed to
`
`
`
`15
`
`Sony Exhibit 1007, pg. 15
`
`

`
`do the best job they can do in determining a reasonable set of operating parameters
`
`to get the best performance feasible, recognizing that the result won’t be perfect.
`
`C. Random Access Procedures on Shared Wireless Channels
`
`38. When a mobile station (known as User Equipment or UE) first
`
`attempts to join a cellular network with which it has not previously or recently
`
`communicated, it must use a protocol element known as a preamble that is
`
`recognized by the network. In Long Term Evolution (LTE) networks, there are 64
`
`possible preamble patterns defined, and since the UE has no previous arrangement
`
`with the network, it will pick one to use randomly. There is a possibility that some
`
`other UE on the network is using this preamble at the same time, but since the
`
`network is operating a contention mode, duplicate use of a preamble by multiple
`
`UEs, known as collisions, are accounted for in the protocol. The UE sends the
`
`preamble, along with a timeslot-based UE identifier to the network and waits for a
`
`response. The UE transmission time is synchronized with the signals received from
`
`the network to ensure interference will be minimized. If the UE does not receive a
`
`response, this may be due to a collision or the UE transmit power level may not be
`
`sufficient to overcome the noise and interference when the path loss and UE
`
`transmit signal power are considered. This is overcome by the UE increasing its
`
`transmit power a fixed amount and retrying. This set of transmissions is identified
`
`in the LTE protocol as “Msg1.”
`
`
`
`16
`
`Sony Exhibit 1007, pg. 16
`
`

`
`39. When the network, specifically the “Evolved Node B,” generally
`
`referred to as eNodeB or eNB, receives the message from the UE, it sends the UE
`
`another identifier to use, a cell radio network temporary identity that will be used
`
`going forward. The eNB also measures the round trip delay from the network to
`
`the terminal and back and sends a timing advance value to ensure that all UE
`
`stations will send signals that arrive at the network at the same time. Finally, the
`
`network assigns the UE a channel resource on the uplink shared channel. This
`
`protocol transmission is identified in the LTE protocol as “Msg2.”
`
`40. Using the uplink shared channel, the UE sends a radio resource
`
`channel connection request message to the eNB to establish a communication
`
`channel. The UE uses the cell radio network temporary identity provided by the
`
`eNB to establish its network identity. The message contains the UE’s Temporary
`
`Mobile Subscriber Identity (TMSI) if the UE has previously established its
`
`presence on the current network and is known by the TMSI to the network. If the
`
`UE has not connected with the network in the past, it uses a random value instead
`
`of the TMSI to allow the UE to be distinguished from other UEs that might be in
`
`the process of connecting on the current channel. Finally, the UE sends a protocol
`
`element that describes the reason the UE needs to connect to the network. This
`
`protocol transmission is identified in the LTE network as “Msg3.”
`
`
`
`17
`
`Sony Exhibit 1007, pg. 17
`
`

`
`41. The final step in the random access procedure is for the eNB to send a
`
`contention resolution message to the UE indicating that Msg3 was successfully
`
`received. This message contains a cell radio network temporary identity that will
`
`be used for further communications with the UE. This protocol transmission is
`
`identified in the LTE network as “Msg4.”
`
`42. Since multiple UEs may attempt to communicate with eNB through
`
`this random access procedure, there is the possibility that there will be collisions
`
`between different terminals. This could happen for several reasons, including, for
`
`example: two UEs using the same preamble for Msg1, two different UEs receiving
`
`the same cellular radio network temporary identity and uplink grant in Msg2, eNB
`
`missing Msg3 due to interference, and a UE not receiving Msg4 and backing-off a
`
`random amount. If a collision occurs, the LTE protocol provides retry timers and
`
`procedures to reattempt or reestablish reliable communications.
`
`VII. The ‘966 patent
`43. The ‘966 patent is titled “Method, Apparatus and Computer Program
`
`for Power Control Related to Random Access Procedures,” and includes claims
`
`generally directed to an equation used in the calculation of transmission power.
`
`Throughout much of its specification, the ‘966 patent properly notes that
`
`techniques for power control on shared and control channels existing between user
`
`
`
`18
`
`Sony Exhibit 1007, pg. 18
`
`

`
`equipment (e.g., UE) and nodes (e.g., eNB) had been discussed and implemented
`
`in at least release 8 of the 3GPP.1
`
`44. The cited technical specifications in release 8 discuss many aspects of
`
`LTE and E-UTRA standards developed by the 3GPP, which the ‘966 patent
`
`purports to improve upon.
`
`45. For example, the ‘966 patent references TS 36.300 to describe known
`
`random access procedures developed by the 3GPP that form the foundation of the
`
`‘966 patent’s alleged invention. TS 36.300 describes, for example, a series of
`
`messages between the UE and eNB used in contention based random access
`
`procedures. In “Message 1,” the UE transmits a random access preamble to the
`
`eNB. In “Message 2,” the eNB responds to the UE on downlink channels with an
`
`allocation of resources, including uplink allocations and power control commands
`
`for a “Message 3” from the UE to the eNB.2
`
`
`1 See Ex. 1001 at 1:55 to 6:57, referencing 3GPP technical specifications 36.300
`v8.4.0, 36.321 v8.0.0, and 36.213 v8.2.0.
`2 Ex. 1001: 2:18-38, 65-67.
`
`19
`
`
`
`Sony Exhibit 1007, pg. 19
`
`

`
`
`
`46. The ‘966 patent further describes that a known PUSCH PC (physical
`
`uplink shared channel power control) formula may be used when transmitting the
`
`Message 3. Known operations according to TS 36.213 include PUSCH and
`
`PUCCH power control formulas, designated as Equations [1] and [2] in the ‘966
`
`patent3:
`
`[1]
`
`[2]
`
`
`3 Ex. 1001: 4:28 to 6:17.
`
`
`
`20
`
`Sony Exhibit 1007, pg. 20
`
`

`
`These equations include respective power control adjustment states f(i) and g(i).
`
`For example, f(i) may be expressed as:
`
`
`The radio resource control (RRC) signals the UE to use one of the above values of
`
`f(i), the right side equation representing an absolute value ((cid:2012)(cid:3017)(cid:3022)(cid:3020)(cid:3004)(cid:3009)((cid:1861)(cid:3398)(cid:1837)(cid:3017)(cid:3022)(cid:3020)(cid:3004)(cid:3009))),
`
` or
`
`
`
`and the left side equation representing an accumulation (further taking into account
`
`the previous values of f(i)). Thus, for a subframe i, the power control adjustment
`
`state f(i) depends on values related to a previous subframe (i.e., “i-1” and “i-
`
`KPUSCH”). The ‘966 patent further states that where such “previous” values are
`
`unavailable, TS 36.213 uses f(0)=g(0)=0.4
`
`47.
`
`In one embodiment, the ‘966 patent suggests to initialize f(i) and g(i)
`
`for i=0 using the equations:
`
`[Eq. 4a]
`
`[Eq. 4b]
`
`with Δ(cid:1842)(cid:3017)(cid:3004)+Δ(cid:1842)(cid:3045)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3043)(cid:3048)(cid:3043) representing an open loop power control error taking into
`account the preamble power ramp-up; where Δ(cid:1842)(cid:3017)(cid:3004) can be assumed to represent a
`eNB; Δ(cid:1842)(cid:3045)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3043)(cid:3048)(cid:3043) representing a preamble rampup; and (cid:1842)(cid:3016)_(cid:3022)(cid:3006)_(cid:3017)(cid:3022)(cid:3020)(cid:3004)(cid:3009) and
`
`difference between a target preamble power and a preamble power observed by an
`
`
`4 Ex. 1001: 6:27-49.
`
`
`
`21
`
`Sony Exhibit 1007, pg. 21
`
`

`
`(cid:1842)(cid:3016)_(cid:3022)(cid:3006)_(cid:3017)(cid:3022)(cid:3004)(cid:3004)(cid:3009) representing UE specific power control constants.5 The ‘966 patent
`
`suggests that, in this way, the preamble response of Message 2 provides open loop
`
`error information to the UE for use in its Message 3 transmission power
`
`calculation.
`
`48. The ‘966 patent also describes that, in an alternative embodiment, a
`
`different formula is used for the Message 3 power:
`
`[Eq. 5]
`
`with (cid:1842)(cid:3043)(cid:3045)(cid:3032)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3029)(cid:3039)(cid:3032) representing a preamble power of the UE’s transmission on the
`RACH; Δ(cid:2868),(cid:3043)(cid:3045)(cid:3032)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3029)(cid:3039)(cid:3032)_(cid:3014)(cid:3046)(cid:3034)(cid:2871) representing a typical power offset between a Message 3
`and a preamble whose power corresponds to a detection threshold; and Δ(cid:3017)(cid:3004)_(cid:3014)(cid:3046)(cid:3034)(cid:2871)
`(similar to, but not the same as, “Δ(cid:3017)(cid:3004)” (i.e., ΔP(cid:3017)(cid:3004))).6 Eq. 5 does not explicitly
`
`representing a power control command included in a Message 2 preamble response
`
`identify any “power control adjustment states” or the variables f(i) and g(i) that
`
`were present in Equation [1] of the ‘966 patent.
`
`49. After the Message 3 is sent from the UE, subsequent messages of i>0
`
`may be transmitted with a power level determined by Eqs. [1] and [2] shown
`
`above, moving back to “normal” power control. The ‘966 patent states that, within
`
`Message 3, the UE can report a power offset between the power used in Message 3
`
`5 Ex. 1001: 6:58 to 7:45.
`6 Ex. 1001: 8:7-62.
`
`22
`
`
`
`Sony Exhibit 1007, pg. 22
`
`

`
`and a power calculated using Eq. [1] so that the eNB can initialize UE specific
`
`constants.7 Furthermore, Equations 4a and 4b (describing the initialization of f(0)
`
`and g(0)) may be applied after transmitting Message 3 using Equation 5.8
`
`50. The technology and concepts underlying the ‘966 patent (random
`
`access procedures and transmit power control) as well as the alleged invention of
`
`the ‘966 patent (using information from the random access procedures to calculate
`
`the transmit power control) were

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