Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 160 Filed 11/18/15 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 1824
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-982-JRG
`LEAD CASE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS
`EQUIPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., ET AL.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S REPLY BRIEF
`ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sony Exhibit 1010, pg. 1
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 160 Filed 11/18/15 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 1825
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Docket Control Order and Order Granting Motion to Extend Page
`
`Limits (Dkt 144), CCE submits this reply brief addressing claim construction and alleged
`
`indefiniteness issues concerning the ’966 Patent, the ’060 Patent, and the ’556 Patent.
`I.
`
`DISPUTED TERMS AND PHRASES
`A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,868,060
`1.
`“storing … a group of specific identifiers” / “store a group of specific
`identifiers” (cl. 1, 7, 15)
`Curiously, Defendants spend two pages arguing that the claimed “checking” must occur
`
`after the group of specific identifiers is stored and the paging message is received. This misses
`
`the issue; it is undisputed that “checking” happens after storing the group of specific identifiers
`
`and receiving the paging message.
`
`The dispute before the Court concerns Defendants’ actual proposal, which dictates not
`the timing of checking, but the order of storing and receiving. As explained in CCE’s Opening
`
`Brief, neither the claim language nor the specification requires that “storing” must happen “prior
`
`to receipt of the paging message.” CCE’s point, which Defendants completely overlook, is that
`
`the paging message could be received at any time before “checking” occurs — even before the
`
`terminal stores the group of specific identifiers.
`2.
`Defendants take false comfort in CCE’s initial focus on the second portion of
`
`“paging message” (cl. 1, 7, 15)
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction – “unique identifiers” – rather than on the first portion (“sent
`
`by a base station on a shared channel”). To be sure, no part of their proposal is necessary or
`
`proper. The claim says that the paging message is “received from the base station.” Defining a
`
`“paging message” to be “sent by a base station” is thus entirely unnecessary. Nor is it
`
`appropriate to specify that a paging message is sent on a “shared channel.” A paging message is
`
`a message, not the medium over which it is sent.
`
`Finally, Defendants wrongly claim that the intrinsic record “confirms” their “unique
`
`identifiers” requirement. While the patent speaks of “specific” identifiers, nothing in the cited
`
`
`
`1
`
`Sony Exhibit 1010, pg. 2
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 160 Filed 11/18/15 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 1826
`
`record describes the identifiers as “unique.” “Specific” and “unique” are not the same thing, and
`
`Defendants’ attempted equivocation of those terms has no merit.
`
`3.
`
`“establishing at least one of a physical channel and a logical channel”
`(cl. 1, 7, 15)
`There is no reason to revise the claim language. The subject term, as written, does not
`
`require “elaboration.” Nor does Defendants’ proposal elaborate on it; rather, it collapses
`
`“physical or logical channel” into a “communication channel,” and leaves one to wonder how
`
`that revision alters the claim scope.
`
`4.
`“temporary mobile subscriber identity” (cl. 1, 7, 15)
`“Identities” need not be unique. In fact, the disputed claim language makes clear that the
`
`identity at issue is temporary. This impermanence indicates not only that a mobile subscriber
`
`might have a different identity at different times, but that the identity temporarily associated with
`
`a mobile subscriber at one time might subsequently be associated with a different subscriber.
`
`The claim language thus does not support Defendants’ proposal.
`
`Nor does any other intrinsic evidence. Defendants rely on a single passage describing an
`
`embodiment, but embodiments are not to be read into the claim. Moreover, although the
`
`specification discusses 3GPP standards, it does not “incorporate” them. Ex. A at 4:25-27.1 At
`
`bottom, Defendants cite nothing that defines the disputed claim term, nor do the inventors
`
`evidence an “intent” to narrow its meaning. Thus, they cannot meet the “exacting” standards for
`
`lexicography. Hill-Rom Svcs. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`1.
`“∆PPC” (cl. 1, 9, 10)
`Defendants wrongly argue that the express definition of ∆PPC in the claims can be
`ignored because the specification describes an embodiment where “ΔPPC is here assumed to be
`
`the difference between the target preamble power and the power that the eNB actually observes.”
`
`
`1 Exhibits A-I were submitted with CCE’s Opening Brief (Dkt 139).
`2
`
`
`
`Sony Exhibit 1010, pg. 3
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 160 Filed 11/18/15 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 1827
`
`Resp. Br. at 15. This does not meet the exacting standards for lexicography.
`
`To act as his own lexicographer, the patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the
`
`disputed claim term,” and “clearly express an intent to define the term,” GE Lighting Solutions v.
`
`AgiLight, 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014), with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`
`precision.” Abbot Labs v. Syntron Bioresearch, 334 F.3d 1343, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The
`
`language on which Defendants rely is not clear, deliberate, and precise lexicography. Rather, the
`
`phrase “here assumed” evidences that, in other embodiments, ΔPPC may be something different.
`
`The only clear, deliberate, and precise lexicography is provided in the claims themselves which
`clearly explain what the term “is” when stating that “ΔPPC is a power control command indicated
`
`in a second message that is received in response to sending the first message.”
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction also conflicts with their petitions for inter partes
`
`review (IPR). In those petitions, Kyocera and LG submitted an expert declaration stating that
`“ΔPPC” is equal to “f(0) – ΔPrampup,” not “the difference between a target preamble power and a
`
`power actually observed at a base station” as they argue here. Ex. K at ¶ 46; Ex. M at ¶ 46.
`Indeed, Defendants’ expert testifies that “[t]he ‘966 patent also teaches that in some
`embodiments, ΔPPC may be ‘the difference between the target preamble power and the power
`
`that the eNB actually observes.’” Id. (emphasis added). Thus, Defendants — and their own
`
`expert — acknowledge that the specification language they cite as lexicography in fact describes
`
`an option. Further, in their petitions, LG and Kyocera equate ΔPPC to a PC_correction value
`
`found in the “Qualcomm” reference they cite, which defines as “the PC correction received in
`
`the random access response” to indicate “the amount of increase or decrease in transmit power
`
`….” Ex. J at 19, 26; Ex. L at 19, 26; Ex. N at 10:16-28. This likewise contradicts the narrower
`
`proposal they advocate to this Court.
`
`2.
`
`“wherein the initial transmit power depends on a preamble power…”
`(cl. 1, 9, 10) / “preamble power” (cl. 1, 2, 5, 9-11)
`Preamble Power. The term “preamble power” is entitled to the full scope of its plain
`
`meaning in the context of the claims, as there is no applicable disavowal or lexicography to be
`3
`
`
`
`Sony Exhibit 1010, pg. 4
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 160 Filed 11/18/15 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 1828
`
`found in the intrinsic record. Defendants attempt to construe “preamble power” not by defining
`
`what the term is, but rather by where it is measured (e.g., at transmission) to fabricate a non-
`
`infringement position. The patentee unquestionably knew how to claim a “transmit power,” but
`
`did not — the claims recite the term “transmit power” more than twenty times in other
`
`limitations. See, e.g., Ex. F at claim 1 (“compute an initial transmit power”; “sending … at the
`
`initial transmit power”).
`
`Defendants thus cannot justify appending “transmit” to the “preamble power” component
`
`of the claims. See, e.g., Bayer v. Biovail, 279 F.3d 1340, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“While a court
`
`may look to the specification and prosecution history to interpret what a patentee meant by a
`
`word or phrase in a claim, extraneous limitations cannot be read into the claims from the
`
`specification or prosecution history.”) (citations omitted). They argue that their construction is
`
`“supported by the patent specification, which repeatedly references ‘preamble power of a first
`
`message sent on an access channel.’” Resp. Br. at 11. This simply mirrors the claim language
`
`and does not support their proposal.
`
`“Depends on.” Defendants wish to construe “depends on” as “takes into account,”
`
`apparently with the further implication that “takes into account” means “together and without
`
`substitutions that break them into subparts for partial combination.” Resp. Br. at 13. As an
`
`initial matter, that proposal departs from the ordinary meaning of “depend.”2 Further, to the
`
`extent their construction excludes mathematical substitutions, it cannot be correct. The
`
`specification expressly describes substituting equations for values in power control equations.
`
`For example, it explains that “the second power is given by equation [1] with substitutions using
`
`the equality of equation
`[4a]”
`so
`that equation
`log10(MPUSCH(i)+PO_PUSCH(j)+α·PL+ΔTF(TF(i)+f(i)})
`PPUSCH(i)=min{PMAX,
`becomes
`10
`log10(MPUSCH(i)+PO_PUSCH(j)+ α·PL+ΔTF(TF(i)+ΔPPC+ΔPrampup}. Ex. F at 10:1-57 (emphasis
`
`(PPUSCH(i)=min{PMAX, 10
`
`[1]
`
`
`2 Ex. O at 501 (“to be determined, conditioned, or contingent”). See also Ex. J at 10 (“The phrase ‘depends’ as used
`in the claims of the ‘966 patent should be interpreted to mean to be based on.”); Ex. L at 10 (same).
`4
`
`
`
`Sony Exhibit 1010, pg. 5
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 160 Filed 11/18/15 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 1829
`
`added); see also id. at 10:66-67 (explaining that the third power can be “given by equation [2]
`
`with substitutions using the equality of equation [4b]”).
`
`Finally, Defendant’s proposal seemingly contradicts the IPR petitions Kyocera and LG
`
`recently filed, which substitute variables in particular equations of the reference they cite to
`
`substantiate their invalidity arguments. See Ex. J at 16-21, 24-26 (arguing that “Qualcomm”
`
`satisfies the claim language by substituting PC_correction + power_ramp_up for the claimed
`
`f(0)”); Ex. L at 16-21, 24-26 (same).
`
`3.
`
`“wherein the first power control adjustment state g(i) for i=0 is
`initialized as: PO_UE_PUCCH + g(0) = ∆PPC + ∆Prampup” (cl. 3, 12) /
`“wherein the second [accumulation] power control adjustment state
`f(i) for i=0 is initialized as: PO_UE_PUSCH + f(0) = ∆PPC + ∆Prampup” (cl. 1,
`9, 10)
`The ’966 Patent discloses improvements for initializing a power control adjustment state
`
`when calculating uplink power. For example, it describes improved methods for initializing
`
`power control adjustment state f(i) in the following formula for determining transmit power for
`an uplink shared channel: PPUSCH(i) = min{PMAX, 10 log10 (MPUSCH(i) + PO_PUSCH(j) + α·PL +
`ΔTF(TF(i) + f(i)} [Equation 1]. The patent further explains that, in the prior art, f(i) was
`
`initialized to zero, but according to the invention the function f(i) is initialized — that is, set for
`
`i=0 — such that P0_UE_PUSCH+f(0)=ΔPPC+ΔPrampup [Equation 4a].
`
`Significantly, the specification further details situations where P0_UE_PUSCH is zero, and in
`
`fact dependent claims 4 and 13 specifically recite that P0_UE_PUSCH can be set to zero consistent
`
`with the f(0) initialization condition of the independent claims.3 The specification explains that
`
`in such scenarios equation [4a] results in the initialization f(0) = ΔPPC + ΔPrampup. Ex. J at 7:16-
`21. Consequently, Equation [1] becomes PPUSCH(i) = min{PMAX, 10log10(MPUSCH(i) + PO_PUSCH(j)
`+ α·PL+ΔTF(TF(i) + ΔPPC + ΔPrampup} “with substitutions using the equality of equation [4a].”
`
`
`3 Surprisingly, Defendants try to turn the implication of dependent claims 4 and 13 on its head by pointing to the
`term “comput[ing]” in these claims. Resp. Br. at 7. Nothing in these claims remotely suggests that “computing” an
`initialization value must be limited to the specific sequence of summing and equating as Defendants’ proposal seems
`to require. Claims 4 and 13 indicate just the opposite.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Sony Exhibit 1010, pg. 6
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 160 Filed 11/18/15 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 1830
`
`Id. at 10:2-25, 10:49-57. Thus, the specification expressly discloses that P0_UE_PUSCH+f(0) =
`
`ΔPPC+ΔPrampup results in an initialization such that f(0) = ΔPPC+ΔPrampup in cases where
`
`P0_UE_PUSCH = 0.
`
`CCE’s proposal accounts for these teachings, as well as the practicalities of mathematics
`
`employed in computer science and engineering. Defendants, on the other hand, disregard the
`
`intrinsic record and narrow the claim by requiring that a specific mathematical calculation be
`
`performed in a particular manner. Such is misguided. The disclosed invention is not focused on
`
`how mathematical operations should be performed to initialize a power control adjustment state
`
`(e.g., f(i)); rather, it discloses a technique for initializing (i.e., setting) a power control adjustment
`
`state taking into account other power control variables (e.g., P0_UE_PUSCH, ΔPPC, ΔPrampup).
`a.
`A “patentee is free to choose a broad term and expect to obtain the full scope of its plain
`
`The claim language supports CCE’s construction.
`
`and ordinary meaning unless the patentee explicitly redefines the term or disavows its full
`
`scope.” Thorner v. Sony, 669 F.3d 1362, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012). CCE’s proposal accounts for
`
`the broad claim language, giving the term “initialized” the full scope of its plain and ordinary
`
`meaning.4 Defendants
`
`incorrectly suggest
`
`that requiring f(0)
`
`to be “set such
`
`that”
`
`P0_UE_PUSCH+f(0)=ΔPPC+ΔPrampup somehow erases this initialization condition from the claims.
`
`To the contrary, CCE’s proposal accounts for how a skilled artisan would understand the
`
`application of mathematics in computer science and engineering. One skilled in the art would
`
`recognize that initializing f(i) for i=0 may be achieved through different algorithms that still
`
`satisfy the condition P0_UE_PUSCH + f(0) = ΔPPC + ΔPrampup — as acknowledged by the inventor.
`
`See Ex. F at 12:21-29 (“[C]ertain of the computations described may be performed in other
`
`ways.”); Ex. Q at ¶ 56. For example, the initialization may be achieved by executing instructions
`
`to solve the following equation: f(0) = ΔPPC + ΔPrampup - P0_UE_PUSCH. Alternatively, in situations
`
`
`4 See, e.g., Ex. P at 1078 (“initialize [COMPUT SCI] 1. To set counters, switches, and addresses to zero or other
`starting values at the beginning of, or at prescribed points in, a computer routine. 2. To begin an operation, and more
`specifically, to adjust the environment to the required starting configuration.”).
`6
`
`
`
`Sony Exhibit 1010, pg. 7
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 160 Filed 11/18/15 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 1831
`
`where P0_UE_PUSCH = 0, then f(0) may be set by first checking to see if P0_UE_PUSCH = 0 and, if so,
`
`executing instructions to solve f(0) = ΔPPC+ΔPrampup. See Ex. F at 7:19-21.
`b.
`The specification confirms that CCE’s proposed construction is correct, describing the
`
`Defendants disregard the specification and dependent claims.
`
`disputed claim language in the following context:
`
`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]
`
`
`
`P0_UE_PUCCH+g(0)=ΔPPC+ΔPrampup
`
`
`
`[4b]
`
`These equations say that the sum of the UE specific power control constants
`(P0_UE_PUSCH and P0_UE_PUCCH) and the power control initial states (f(0) or g(0)) is
`equal to the open loop power control error, taking into account the preamble
`power ramp-up ….
`There are several options for dividing the correction between the UE specific
`constants and the power control states. For example, in a first option the UE
`specific power control terms P0_UE_PUSCH and P0_UE_PUCCH could be initialized to
`zero and the whole correction is covered by f(0) or g(0). In this case then
`equations 4[a] and 4[b] would read f(0)=g(0)=ΔPC+ΔPrampup …
`
`Ex. F at 6:61-7:20 (emphasis added).)
`
`In this passage, the inventors expressly state that when P0_UE_PUSCH is zero, equation [4a]
`
`(the equation at issue) results in an initialization such that f(0) = ΔPPC + ΔPrampup. Dependent
`
`claims 4 and 13 claim precisely this (although, as noted above, Defendants seek to sidestep this
`
`fact). Defendant’s proposed construction disregards and potentially even excludes such
`
`embodiments. This cannot be correct. See Kaneka v. Xiamen Kingdomway Group, 790 F.3d
`
`1298, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“A claim construction that excludes a preferred embodiment is
`
`rarely, if ever, correct.”) (internal quotation omitted).
`
`Moreover, in describing how uplink power is initialized in preferred embodiments, the
`
`inventors state that “[t]he end result for initializing equation [1] with the summed terms ΔPPC +
`
`ΔPrampup would then be: PPUSCH(0)=min {PMAX, 10 log10 (MPUSCH(0) + PO_PUSCH(j) +
`
`P0_NOMINAL_PUSCH(j) + α·PL + ΔTF(TF(0) + ΔPPC + ΔPrampup}.” Ex. F at 10:20-25. Notably, they
`7
`
`
`
`Sony Exhibit 1010, pg. 8
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 160 Filed 11/18/15 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 1832
`
`then explain that “the second power is given by equation [1] with substitutions using the
`equality of equation [4a].” Id. at 10:55-57. This confirms that f(i) for i=0 may be initialized by
`
`calculating f(0) = ΔPPC + ΔPrampup in accordance with the equation at issue here.
`
`Such is further confirmed in Defendants’ recently-filed IPR petitions, in which Kyocera
`
`and LG have argued to the PTO, and rely on expert testimony explaining that:
`
`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.
`
`Ex. K at ¶ 45; Ex. M at ¶ 45; see also Ex. J at 21; Ex. L at 21. Thus, it seems that Defendants are
`
`seeking a construction that excludes the very claim scope they advanced before the PTO.
`C.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,848,556
`1.
`“bitmap” (cl. 13, 14, 21, 22) / “a bitmap indicating which power
`headroom reports are being reported” (cl. 13, 21)
`The phrase “bitmap” inherently denotes structure and organization, yet Defendants
`
`
`
`advocate a construction that reduces it to any “collection of bits.” While it is true the claim
`
`language specifies what the claimed bitmap “indicates,” that is no reason to adopt a construction
`
`of “bitmap” that vacates its recognized meaning. Defendants’ definition is unsupported.
`
`2.
`“secondary cells” (cl. 13, 21)
`CCE does not dispute that “cells,” in the context of the ’556 Patent, are carriers. But
`
`
`
`construing that term as “serving cells/component carriers configured for a UE” injects needless
`
`verbiage and opens the door to confusion and new disputes (regarding, for instance, the meaning
`
`of the “/” in Defendants’ proposal, and what it means to be “configured for a UE”). Claim
`
`construction "is not an obligatory exercise in redundancy,” and Defendants’ unwarranted
`
`changes to straightforward claim language are improper. U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`
`103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
`
`
`8
`
`Sony Exhibit 1010, pg. 9
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 160 Filed 11/18/15 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 1833
`
`3.
`
`“bits for power headroom reports for a plurality of secondary cells”
`(’556 Patent cl. 13) / “bits for power headroom reports for a plurality
`of the secondary cells” (cl. 21)
`Disavowing statements must be both clear and unmistakable. Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic
`
`AVE, Inc., 511 F.3d 1157, 1177 (Fed Cir. 2008); see also Hill-Rom Servs., 755 F.3d 1367 at
`
`1373; Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1367. The claim amendment Defendants cite is neither.
`
`First, as Defendants admit, the asserted claims (claims 13 and 21) were never rejected
`
`under Zhang, nor were they amended to distinguish — much less disclaim —that reference. Ex.
`
`R at 4; Ex. S at 12-13. To be clear, the claims rejected under Zhang are different from those at
`
`issue here — they are not directed to user equipment, but network equipment, and recite different
`
`limitations. Hence, the examiner treated them differently during prosecution, applying different
`
`alleged prior art. Ex. R at 2-4. Defendants’ attempt to treat all the claims identically is
`
`unfounded.
`
`Further, when the applicants amended claims to incorporate the limitations of claim 16,
`
`they did so because the Examiner said that subject matter was allowable. Ex. R at 6; Ex. S at 12-
`
`13. The alleged “disclaimer” was thus simply an acknowledgement that the Examiner’s
`
`“Allowable Subject Matter” was being accepted. The applicants articulated no substantive
`
`analysis of Zhang (or its figures5). As the Federal Circuit has recognized, “[p]rosecution history
`
`... cannot be used to limit the scope of a claim unless the applicant took a position before the
`
`PTO.” 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 350 F.3d 1365, 1373 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2003) (emphasis added).
`
`Finally, Defendants’ interpretation of the subject amendment is purely imaginative.
`
`Nothing in the intrinsic record purports to disclaim a bitmap that includes a one-to-one
`
`relationship between bits and carriers; to the contrary, such is plainly encompassed by the plain
`
`language of the disputed limitation (“bits for power headroom reports for a plurality of secondary
`
`cells”). Further, Defendants’ proposal (which seemingly requires that each individual bit in the
`
`
`5 Although the Defendants focus on Figure 23 of Zhang, nothing in the file history refers to or disclaims the
`substance of that figure.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Sony Exhibit 1010, pg. 10
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 160 Filed 11/18/15 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 1834
`
`bitmap corresponds to multiple cells) not only excludes the preferred embodiment, but all
`
`disclosed embodiments of the ’566 Patent; the patent uniformly explains that each individual bit
`
`in the bitmap is linked to a particular cell. See, e.g., Ex. H at 3:65-4:2; 5:6-10; 5:24-35; 6:45-52;
`
`7:9-16. Defendants implicitly acknowledge this problem and fail to identify intrinsic support for
`
`their proposal. Indeed, they flee from the language they proposed, inviting the Court to come up
`
`with its own characterization of their phantom disclaimer. See Resp. Br. at n.14. Defendants’
`
`allegations are based on speculation and must fail.
`II.
`
`Issues to be Decided
`
`OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`A.
`1.
`
`Whether one skilled in the art applicable to the ’966 Patent would understand the
`
`relationship between variables in the claims of that patent with at least “reasonable certainty.”
`2.
`
`Whether one skilled in the art applicable to the ’060 Patent would understand the
`
`meaning of “accurate receipt” of a message with at least “reasonable certainty.”
`3.
`
`Whether one skilled in the art of the ’556 Patent would understand the meaning of
`
`“type 1” and “type 2” power headroom reports with at least “reasonable certainty.”
`B.
`Response to Defendants’ Statement of Allegedly Undisputed Facts
`1-5. Undisputed.
`
`6.
`
`Disputed. The meaning of “wireless communication system,” “perfect fidelity,”
`
`and “technically feasible” is unclear. “Perfect fidelity” in transmission is not necessary in
`
`wireless communications, and such is not required for “accurate receipt.” Ex. Q at ¶ 41.
`
`7-12. Disputed. The meaning of “error detection systems and techniques…for use in
`
`connection with digital communications” and “a given error detection system or technique in a
`
`wireless communication system” is unclear. In the context of the ’060 Patent, a skilled artisan
`
`would understand that “accurate receipt” of messages means that terminals and base stations
`
`correctly apprehend the information exchanged between them with a degree of confidence
`
`established by applicable (and well-known) cellular network protocols and mechanisms that
`
`
`
`10
`
`Sony Exhibit 1010, pg. 11
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 160 Filed 11/18/15 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 1835
`
`utilize error correction, redundancy, error-detection, and/or other techniques to verify that
`
`information is exchanged effectively. Ex. Q at ¶¶ 41-42.
`
`13. Disputed. In the context of the ’556 Patent, a skilled artisan would recognize that
`
`“type 1” and “type 2” power headroom reports refer to different types of power headroom
`
`reports, distinguishable according to whether or not PUCCH transmission power is taken into
`
`account. Ex. Q at ¶¶ 49-51.
`
`14. Disputed. One skilled in the art would draw on his or her own experience and
`
`knowledge, the file history, and extrinsic evidence (including public 3GPP materials) to
`
`understand the meaning of claim terms. Ex. Q at ¶¶ 49-51.
`C.
`1.
`
`CCE’s Statement of Undisputed Facts
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art applicable to the ’966 Patent would have
`
`knowledge of algebraic substitution, and would understand how variables set forth in one or
`
`more algebraic equations relate to one another. Ex. Q at ¶ 58.
`2.
`
`One ordinary skill in the art applicable to the ’966 Patent would understand the
`
`relationship between variables set forth in Equations [1] through [5] of that patent. Ex. Q at ¶¶
`
`58-59.
`
`3.
`
`According to Equation [3] of the ’966 Patent, the  Ppreamble variable recited in
`Claims 5 and 14 may be expressed as Ptarget + PL + ΔPrampup. Ex. Q at ¶ 59.
`4.
`
`The equation set forth in Claims 1 and 10 of the ’966 Patent states that
`
`P0_UE_PUSCH + f(0) = ΔPPC + ΔPrampup, which, as the patent explains, may be expressed as f(0) =
`
`ΔPPC + ΔPrampup, when P0_UE_PUSCH = 0. Ex. Q at ¶ 59.
`5.
`
`The ordinary meaning of “accurate” in the context of the ‘060 Patent is “correct.”
`
`Ex. Q at 36; Ex. T at 8.
`6.
`
`The ’060 Patent relates to paging messages and emergency warning messages
`
`communicated from a base station to a terminal. Ex. Q at ¶ 39.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Sony Exhibit 1010, pg. 12
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 160 Filed 11/18/15 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 1836
`
`7.
`
`The ’060 Patent specification does not discuss how messages are communicated
`
`between sub-components (e.g., baseband processor, memory, antenna) within a mobile terminal.
`
`Ex. Q at ¶ 39.
`8.
`
`Known cellular network protocols (defined in, for example, 3GPP technical
`
`standards) provide that a terminal may confirm that a message was or was not correctly received
`
`by sending a responsive acknowledge (ACK) or negative-acknowledge (NACK) message to the
`
`base station. Ex. Q at ¶¶ 41-42.
`D.
`Patents are presumed valid, and Defendants must establish invalidity by clear and
`
`Applicable Law
`
`convincing evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 282; Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 131 S. Ct. 2238, 2243
`
`(2011). The claims of a patent are not indefinite so long as they inform those skilled in the art
`
`about the scope of the invention with “reasonable certainty,” viewed in light of the specification
`
`and prosecution history and having regard to the relevant subject-matter. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig
`
`Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014). Absolute precision is “unattainable,” and close
`
`questions of indefiniteness are properly resolved in favor of the patentee. Id.; Invensys Systems,
`
`Inc. v. Emerson Electric Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107928 at *11 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2014
`
`(citing, inter alia, Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1348 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005). Because one skilled in the art would understand the scope of the claimed inventions with
`
`at least reasonable certainty, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment must fail.
`E.
`Defendants’ alleged “inconsistency” is illusory — they allege that claims 5 and 14 (and
`
`’966 Patent — Alleged Inconsistency In Claims 5 and 14
`
`the claims which depend from them) are indefinite because the equation they contain does not
`
`expressly identify f(0). That superficial analysis does not reflect the understanding of one skilled
`
`in the art, who would fully understand the equations set forth in the claims and specification, as
`
`well as the relationships they describe. Indeed, the allegedly “missing” f(0) in the equation of
`
`
`
`12
`
`Sony Exhibit 1010, pg. 13
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 160 Filed 11/18/15 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 1837
`
`claims 5 and 14 is not missing at all; it is embodied in other parameters in the claim (namely,
`
`Ppreamble and ΔPC_Msg3).6
`
`The ’966 Patent details several equations (numbered [1], [2], [3], [4a], [4b] and [5])
`
`related to the claimed power control techniques. See Ex. F at 4:28-8:62. These equations
`
`describe the relationship between several variables, including those set forth in the asserted
`
`claims. One skilled in the art would have spent years studying mathematical relationships, and
`
`would fully grasp the interplay among the described equations revealed by virtue of substitution
`
`and more advanced concepts as well. Ex. Q at ¶ 58.
`
`Accordingly, one skilled in the art would see no inconsistency between the asserted
`
`claims. The mathematical reasoning is straightforward. First, the Ppreamble variable expressly
`
`recited in Claims 5 and 14 (Equation 5 in the specification) may be represented as shown in
`
`Equation 3 of the specification:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. F at 6:18-26. That is, Ppreamble = Ptarget + PL + ΔPrampup. Substituting this equation into claim
`5 (recited in Claims 5 and 14) results in the following: PMsg3 = min{Pmax, Ptarget+PL+ΔPrampup+
`Δ0,preamble_Msg3+ ΔPC_Msg3 + 10 log10(MPUSCH(i) + ΔTF(TF(i))}. The claimed formula, thus, depends
`on f(0), where f(0) = ΔPrampup + ΔPC_Msg3. See Ex. F at 8:32-42; Ex. Q at ¶ 59.
`
`This insight would be apparent to one skilled in the art, who would undoubtedly apply
`
`reasoning (including algebraic substitution) to understand the mathematical relationship between
`
`claim elements. Ex. Q at ¶¶ 58-60. Indeed, the ’966 Patent itself invites such reasoning by
`
`setting forth the subject equations in the specification and discussing how the variables within
`
`6 Indeed, the superficiality of Defendants’ analysis of claims 5 and 14 reinforces that their proposed construction of
`“f(i) for i=0 is initialized as …” in the independent claims (discussed above) is artificially constrained and incorrect.
`13
`
`
`
`Sony Exhibit 1010, pg. 14
`
`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 160 Filed 11/18/15 Page 15 of 18 PageID #: 1838
`
`them relate. See, e.g., Ex. F at 8:13-62 (explaining, inter alia, how variables of Equation [5]
`
`relate to variables of Equations [1], [4a], and [4b]); Ex. Q at ¶ 61. And, this is exactly the
`
`approach that Kyocera, LG and their technical expert rely on in petitions for inter partes review,
`
`which explain that although “Claim 5 does not initially appear to be consistent with Claim 1,”
`
`when it is read in context, it “recites a formula for calculating a transmit power that depends on
`
`both Ppreamble and f(0) = ΔPPC + ΔPrampup.” Ex. J at 19-20; Ex. K at ¶¶ 74-76; Ex. L at 19-20; Ex.
`
`M at ¶¶ 74-76.
`
`Defendants now backpedal from this forthright rationale by mischaracterizing it as
`
`“rewriting” the claim. But CCE does not seek to rewrite the claims. The critical point is that,
`
`employing on the reasoning sketched above, one skilled in the art would see and understand the
`
`relationship between Claim 5 and f(0), and thus would know that the challenged claims are not
`
`indefinite. That is, one skilled in the art would employ straightforward reasoning to understand
`
`the scope of the claims with “reasonable certainty.”
`
`Finally, Defendants seek cover in an objection lodged by the EPO to a related application
`
`pending abroad. But the EPO’s initial impression of the claims is immaterial. The fact is that
`
`the U