`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`Yeong Hyeon Kwon, et al.
`In re Patent of:
`8,218,481 Attorney Docket No.: 00035-0010IP1
`U.S. Patent No.:
`July 10, 2012
`
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 12/303,947
`
`Filing Date:
`July 7, 2010
`
`Title:
`Method of Transmitting Data in a Mobile Communication
`System
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JONATHAN WELLS, PH.D.
`
`PETITIONERS 1052-0001
`IPR2016-00758
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4 
`
`Qualifications ................................................................................................... 4 
`
`III.  Materials Considered ....................................................................................... 7 
`
`IV.  Applicable Legal Standards ............................................................................. 9 
`
`A.  My Understanding of Anticipation ....................................................... 9 
`
`B.  My Understanding of Obviousness ..................................................... 10 
`
`C.  My Understanding of Claim Construction .......................................... 14 
`
`V. 
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................. 15 
`
`VI.  Overview of the Technology ......................................................................... 16 
`
`A. 
`
`Random Access Overview .................................................................. 16 
`
`1. 
`
`Introduction ............................................................................... 16 
`
`2.  When is Random Access Used? ............................................... 19 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`Types of Random Access Procedures ....................................... 20 
`
`The Random Access Preamble ................................................. 21 
`
`B. 
`
`Preamble Code Sequences .................................................................. 23 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Hadamard Code Sequences ....................................................... 25 
`
`CAZAC Sequences ................................................................... 26 
`
`Zadoff–Chu Sequences ................................................... 27 
`a) 
`GCL Sequences .............................................................. 28 
`b) 
`3.  Manipulation of Code Sequences ............................................. 28 
`
`VII.  Brief Overview of the ‘481 Patent ................................................................. 31 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS 1052-0002
`IPR2016-00758
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`VIII.  Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 34 
`
`IX.  Application of IEEE802.16-2004 to the Challenged Claims of the ‘481
`Patent ............................................................................................................. 45 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`Preamble structure (Claims 1 and 8) ................................................... 46 
`
`Transmitting/transmitter configured to transmit, on a random access
`channel, said preamble sequence (Claims 1 and 8) ............................ 49 
`
`An N-th sequence (Claims 15 and 16) ................................................ 52 
`
`CP is identical to a rear part of said N-th sequence (Claims 15 and 16)
` ............................................................................................................. 52 
`
`X.  Application of IEEE802.16-2004 and Chou to the Challenged Claims of the
`‘481 Patent ..................................................................................................... 55 
`
`A. 
`
`Preamble generation unit (Claim 8) .................................................... 55 
`
`XI.  Application of IEEE802.16-2004 and Tan to the Challenged Claims of the
`‘481 Patent ..................................................................................................... 61 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`CAZAC sequence (Claims 2 and 9) .................................................... 61 
`
`Cyclic shift (Claims 3 and 10) ............................................................. 65 
`
`Value of cyclic shift being an integer multiple of a predetermined
`circular shift unit (Claims 4 and 11) ................................................... 70 
`
`D.  Applying said cyclic shift comprises multiplying said specific se-
`quence by an exponential sequence (Claims 6 and 13) ...................... 72 
`
`XII.  Application of IEEE802.16e-2004, Chou and Tan to the Challenged Claims
`of the ‘481 Patent ........................................................................................... 74 
`
`XIII.  Application of IEEE802.16e-2005 and IEEE802.16-2004 to the Challenged
`Claims of the ‘481 Patent .............................................................................. 75 
`
`XIV.  Application of IEEE802.16e-2005, IEEE802.16-2004 and Chou to the
`Challenged Claims of the ‘481 Patent ........................................................... 80 
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`PETITIONERS 1052-0003
`IPR2016-00758
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`XV.  Application of IEEE802.16e-2005, IEEE802.16-2004 and Tan to the
`Challenged Claims of the ‘481 Patent ........................................................... 81 
`
`XVI.  Application of IEEE802.16e-2005, IEEE802.16-2004, Chou and Tan to the
`Challenged Claims of the ‘481 Patent ........................................................... 82 
`
`XVII. Conclusions .................................................................................................... 83 
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS 1052-0004
`IPR2016-00758
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`Introduction
`
`I, Dr. Jonathan Wells, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Petitioner (Apple Inc., Microsoft
`
`Corporation, Microsoft Mobile Oy, and Microsoft Mobile Inc. (f/k/a Nokia Inc.) to
`
`provide expert opinions in connection with this inter partes review. Specifically, I
`
`have been asked to provide my opinion relating to an inquiry into the patentability
`
`of claims of the U.S. Patent No. 8,218,481 (the “‘481 patent”).
`
`II. Qualifications
`
`2.
`
`I have over 25 years of academic and industry experience in wireless
`
`networks (e.g., 2G, 3G and 4G networks, comprising GSM, EDGE, WCDMA,
`
`HSDPA and LTE technologies), cellular infrastructure equipment (base stations,
`
`backhaul and handsets), and wireless standards, rules and regulations (e.g., 3GPP,
`
`FCC, ETSI and CEPT). Over my career, I have worked with companies to develop
`
`and deploy radio frequency (RF) hardware for telecommunication infrastructure
`
`equipment for worldwide export, to implement marketing and product develop-
`
`ment strategies for cellular wireless products, and to participate in Federal Com-
`
`munications Commission (“FCC”), European Conference of Postal and Telecom-
`
`munications Administrations (“CEPT”), European Telecommunications Standards
`
`Institute (“ETSI”) and other technical body meetings.
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`PETITIONERS 1052-0005
`IPR2016-00758
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`In 1987, I received my Bachelor of Science degree in Physics with
`
`Physical Electronics (with 1st Class Honours) from the University of Bath, Bath,
`
`United Kingdom. In 1991, I received the Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree in
`
`Physics from the University of Bath. In 1998, I received a Master of Business Ad-
`
`ministration (with distinction) from Massey University, New Zealand.
`
`4.
`
`After completing my Ph.D., I began working at the University of Bath
`
`as a Postdoctoral Research Officer. I continued to work at the University of Bath
`
`until 1992. During this time, I built novel electronic devices, and developed soft-
`
`ware models to predict their performance in wireless communication systems.
`
`5.
`
` For more than 20 years I worked in private industry designing, devel-
`
`oping and implementing various wireless communication products throughout the
`
`world.
`
`6.
`
`Specifically, from 1993 to 1994, I was a Senior Design Engineer at
`
`Matra Marconi Space, where I developed space-qualified electronic components
`
`and sub-systems for two satellite systems.
`
`7.
`
`From 1994 to 1995, I was a Senior RF Design Engineer, and from
`
`1995-1998, I was RF Group Manager, at MAS Technology (now Aviat Networks),
`
`where I, among other things, led the development of three families of innovative
`
`wireless products, oversaw the company’s European regulatory approvals, and per-
`
`sonally designed a wide range of RF devices.
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`PETITIONERS 1052-0006
`IPR2016-00758
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`8.
`
`From 1998 to 1999, I was an Engineering Group Leader, and from
`
`1999-2000 I was the Director of Wideband Products, at Adaptive Broadband (now
`
`GE Digital Energy), where I oversaw the Terrestrial Infrastructure Group, and led
`
`the development of a family of digital radio products.
`
`9.
`
`From 2000 to 2004, I was the Director of Product Development at
`
`Stratex Networks (now Aviat Networks), where I was responsible for the global
`
`product development of the company’s Outdoor Unit (ODU) portfolio of high-end
`
`digital microwave radios, which were primarily directed towards cellular applica-
`
`tions.
`
`10. From 2005 to 2007, I was the Director of Product Management and
`
`Global Regulatory Affairs at GigaBeam Corporation, where I developed the over-
`
`all product strategy for a wideband communication system for future cellular ap-
`
`plications. During this time I had responsibility for establishing a global regulatory
`
`framework for this new product, which included developing FCC (Federal Com-
`
`munications Commission) and ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards In-
`
`stitute) standards to cover the specification and regulation of the system.
`
`11. Since 2007, I have been the Managing Partner of AJIS Consulting––
`
`an independent consulting firm specializing in wireless communications and
`
`emerging wireless fields. Specifically, I analyze cellular and wireless technologies,
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`PETITIONERS 1052-0007
`IPR2016-00758
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`as well as conduct technical workshops on various wireless technologies; including
`
`cellular networks, mm-wave radios, security sensors and short range radios.
`
`12.
`
`I have given guest lectures on various aspects of technology at UC
`
`Berkeley and Carnegie Mellon University. I have authored or co-authored more
`
`than 40 scientific and industry publications relating to wireless networks, cellular
`
`infrastructure equipment, and wireless standards, rules and regulations. I also pub-
`
`lished a book titled “Multi-Gigabit Microwave and Millimeter-Wave Wireless
`
`Communications” in 2010. I have presented numerous tutorials, workshops, and
`
`lectures to industry and academic audiences on these topics. I am listed as the lead
`
`inventor on multiple patents that relate to these topics as well. I was elected a Sen-
`
`ior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) in 1999.
`
`13. My Curriculum Vitae is attached as Exhibit APPL-1004, which con-
`
`tains further details on my education, experience, publications, and other qualifica-
`
`tions to render an expert option. My work on this case is being billed at an hourly
`
`rate, with reimbursement for actual expenses. My compensation is not contingent
`
`upon the outcome of this inter partes review.
`
`III. Materials Considered
`
`14.
`
`In forming my opinions expressed in this declaration, I have consid-
`
`ered and relied upon my education, background, and experience. I reviewed U.S.
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`PETITIONERS 1052-0008
`IPR2016-00758
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,218,481 (the “‘481 patent”, Exhibit APPL-1001) and its patent file
`
`history (Exhibit APPL-1002).
`
`15. Additionally, I have reviewed and relied upon the following list of
`
`materials in preparation of this declaration:
`
`
`
`IEEE 802.16-2004 Standard, entitled “IEEE Standard for Local and Met-
`
`ropolitan Area Networks Part 16: Air Interface for Fixed Broadband Wireless
`
`Access Systems” (“IEEE802.16-2004,” Exhibit APPL-1005)
`
`
`
`IEEE 802.16e-2005 Standard, entitled “802.16e-2005 and IEEE Std
`
`802.16-2004/Cor1-2005 - IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
`
`Networks Part 16: Air Interface for Fixed and Mobile Broadband Wireless Ac-
`
`cess Systems Amendment 2: Physical and Medium Access Control Layers for
`
`Combined Fixed and Mobile Operation in Licensed Bands and Corrigendum 1”
`
`(“IEEE802.16e-2005,” Exhibit APPL-1008)
`
`
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/759,697 of U.S. Patent No. 8,000,305 to
`
`Tan et al. (“Tan,” Exhibit APPL-1007)
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. US 8,977,258 to Chou (“Chou,” Exhibit APPL-1010);
`
`U.S. Patent No. US 7,417,970 to Shaheen (“Shaheen,” Exhibit APPL-
`
`1011);
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. US 6,944,453 to Faerber et al. (“Faerber,” Exhibit
`
`APPL-1012);
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`PETITIONERS 1052-0009
`IPR2016-00758
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. US 7,599,327 to Zhuang et al. (“Zhuang,” Exhibit
`
`APPL-1013);
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2006/0274843 to Koo et al.
`
`(“Koo,” Exhibit APPL-1014)
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. US 6,374,080 to Uchida (“Uchida,” Exhibit APPL-
`
`1015);
`
`
`
`PCT Application Publication Number WO2001041471 A1 to Bailey
`
`(“Bailey,” Exhibit APPL-1016)
`
`16.
`
`I have also considered all other materials cited herein.
`
`IV. Applicable Legal Standards
`
`A. My Understanding of Anticipation
`
`A1.
`I understand that documents and materials that qualify as prior art can
`
`be used to invalidate a patent claim as anticipated or as obvious.
`
`
`
`A2.
`
`I understand that, once the claims of a patent have been properly con-
`
`strued, the second step in determining anticipation of a patent claim requires a
`
`comparison of the properly construed claim language to the prior art on a limita-
`
`tion-by-limitation basis.
`
`
`
`A3.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference “anticipates” an asserted claim,
`
`and thus renders the claim invalid, if all elements of the claim are disclosed in that
`
`prior art reference, either explicitly or inherently (i.e., necessarily present).
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`PETITIONERS 1052-0010
`IPR2016-00758
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`A4.
`
`I understand that anticipation in an inter partes review must be shown
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`B. My Understanding of Obviousness
`
`17.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention
`
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field at the time of the
`
`claimed invention. This means that even if all of the requirements of the claim
`
`cannot be found in a single prior art reference that would anticipate the claim, the
`
`claim can still be invalid.
`
`18. As part of this inquiry, I have been asked to consider the level of ordi-
`
`nary skill in the field that someone would have had at the time the claimed inven-
`
`tion was made. In deciding the level of ordinary skill, I considered the following:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the levels of education and experience of persons working in the field;
`
`the types of problems encountered in the field; and
`
`the sophistication of the technology.
`
`19. To obtain a patent, a claimed invention must have, as of the priority
`
`date, been nonobvious in view of the prior art in the field. I understand that an in-
`
`vention is obvious when the differences between the subject matter sought to be
`
`patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have
`
`been obvious at the time of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art.
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`PETITIONERS 1052-0011
`IPR2016-00758
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`20.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art provides a refer-
`
`ence point from which the prior art and claimed invention should be viewed. This
`
`reference point prevents one from using his or her own insight or hindsight in de-
`
`ciding whether a claim is obvious.
`
`21.
`
`I also understand that an obviousness determination includes the con-
`
`sideration of various factors such as (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2)
`
`the differences between the prior art and the asserted claims, (3) the level of ordi-
`
`nary skill in the pertinent art, and (4) the existence of secondary considerations
`
`such as commercial success, long-felt but unresolved needs, failure of others, etc.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that an obviousness evaluation can be based on a combi-
`
`nation of multiple prior art references. I understand that the prior art references
`
`themselves may provide a suggestion, motivation, or reason to combine, but other
`
`times the nexus linking two or more prior art references is simple common sense. I
`
`further understand that obviousness analysis recognizes that market demand, rather
`
`than scientific literature, often drives innovation, and that a motivation to combine
`
`references may be supplied by the direction of the marketplace.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that if a technique has been used to improve one device,
`
`and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve sim-
`
`ilar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual appli-
`
`cation is beyond his or her skill.
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`PETITIONERS 1052-0012
`IPR2016-00758
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`24.
`
`I also understand that practical and common sense considerations
`
`should guide a proper obviousness analysis, because familiar items may have ob-
`
`vious uses beyond their primary purposes. I further understand that a person of or-
`
`dinary skill in the art looking to overcome a problem will often be able to fit to-
`
`gether the teachings of multiple publications. I understand that obviousness analy-
`
`sis therefore takes into account the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would employ under the circumstances.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that a particular combination may be proven obvious by
`
`showing, among other things, that it was obvious to try the combination. For ex-
`
`ample, when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there
`
`are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill
`
`has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp be-
`
`cause the result is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and
`
`common sense.
`
`26. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
`
`likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. When a
`
`work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forc-
`
`es can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a per-
`
`son of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, the patent claim is like-
`
`ly obvious.
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`PETITIONERS 1052-0013
`IPR2016-00758
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`27.
`
`It is further my understanding that a proper obviousness analysis fo-
`
`cuses on what was known or obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, not
`
`just the patentee. Accordingly, I understand that any need or problem known in
`
`the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can pro-
`
`vide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that a claim can be obvious in light of a single reference,
`
`without the need to combine references, if the elements of the claim that are not
`
`found explicitly or inherently in the reference can be supplied by the common
`
`sense of one of skill in the art.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that secondary indicia of non-obviousness may include
`
`(1) a long felt but unmet need in the prior art that was satisfied by the invention of
`
`the patent; (2) commercial success of processes covered by the patent; (3) unex-
`
`pected results achieved by the invention; (4) praise of the invention by others
`
`skilled in the art; (5) taking of licenses under the patent by others; (6) deliberate
`
`copying of the invention; (7) failure of others to find a solution to the long felt
`
`need; and (8) skepticism by experts. I understand that evidence of secondary indi-
`
`cia of non-obviousness, if available, should be considered as part of the obvious-
`
`ness analysis.
`
`30.
`
`I also understand that there must be a relationship between any such
`
`secondary considerations and the invention. I further understand that contempora-
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`PETITIONERS 1052-0014
`IPR2016-00758
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`neous and independent invention by others is a secondary consideration supporting
`
`an obviousness determination.
`
`31.
`
`In sum, my understanding is that prior art teachings are properly com-
`
`bined where a person of ordinary skill in the art having the understanding and
`
`knowledge reflected in the prior art and motivated by the general problem facing
`
`the inventor, would have been led to make the combination of elements recited in
`
`the claims. Under this analysis, the prior art references themselves, or any need or
`
`problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of the invention, can provide a
`
`reason for combining the elements of multiple prior art references in the claimed
`
`manner.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that obviousness in an inter partes review must be shown
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`C. My Understanding of Claim Construction
`
`33.
`
`I understand that, during an inter partes review, claims are to be given
`
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as would be read
`
`by a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of invention. For the
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`PETITIONERS 1052-0015
`IPR2016-00758
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`purpose of this proceeding, as discussed in greater detail below, I have used June 9,
`
`2006 as the approximate time of the invention.1
`
`V. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`34. A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at or before the time of
`
`the invention of the ‘481 patent2 would have had a Master’s of Science Degree in
`
`an academic area emphasizing Electrical Engineering, Physics, Computer Engi-
`
`neering, or an equivalent field (or a similar technical Master’s Degree, or higher
`
`degree) with a concentration in wireless communication and networking systems.
`
`Alternatively, a POSA would have had a Bachelor’s degree (or higher) in an aca-
`
`demic area emphasizing Electrical Engineering, Physics, Computer Engineering, or
`
`an equivalent field as well as at least 2 years of academic or industry experience in
`
`wireless communications and networking systems. A POSA would also have had
`
`1 The ‘481 patent claims priority to two Korean applications, the earliest of
`
`which was filed on June 9, 2006. I have been asked to use this as the invention
`
`date without acquiescence as to whether or not the ‘481 patent is actually entitled
`
`to this priority date.
`
`2 Unless noted otherwise, references herein to what would have been known
`
`or understood by a POSA refers to the knowledge of a POSA at or before the time
`
`of the purported invention of the ‘481 patent.
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`PETITIONERS 1052-0016
`IPR2016-00758
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`experience with the wireless Standard Setting Organizations such as ETSI, IEEE,
`
`and 3GPP, and would have been familiar with relevant standards and draft stand-
`
`ards directed to wireless communications. Additional education in a relevant field,
`
`such as electrical engineering or physics, or industry experience may compensate
`
`for a deficit in one of the other aspects of the requirements stated above. I am fa-
`
`miliar with the knowledge and capabilities of one of ordinary skill in these areas
`
`based on my experience working with industry, with undergraduate and post-
`
`graduate students, with colleagues from academia, and with engineers practicing in
`
`industry.
`
`VI. Overview of the Technology
`
`A. Random Access Overview
`1.
`Introduction
`35. A mobile wireless communication system is a wireless system that
`
`supports communications with mobile subscribers (e.g., mobile handsets). Sub-
`
`scribers of such a system, which may include both fixed and mobile subscribers,
`
`communicate via a central controller (e.g., a base station) within a communication
`
`network. When individual subscribers have traffic to transmit (for example, mak-
`
`ing a phone call or sending an email), the centralized controller coordinates the ac-
`
`tivity.
`
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`PETITIONERS 1052-0017
`IPR2016-00758
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`36.
`
`In a cellular system, there can be many subscribers who have data to
`
`transmit, and need access to the shared communication channel (the time-
`
`bandwidth resources available to users in that area). Such transmissions are not
`
`regular, and often multiple users wish to send data simultaneously. A given proto-
`
`col might make use of a centralized controller (such as a teacher in a classroom) to
`
`coordinate the transmissions of different users (such as students asking questions
`
`or giving answers). Such a system might be simple or complex, depending on the
`
`nature of the communication, the number of users potentially wishing to access the
`
`shared communications channel at the same time, and the amount of resources that
`
`are available for allocation by the central controller. In a cellular system, such a
`
`process is sometimes referred to as “random access.”
`
`37. One of the first random access systems was a protocol called ALO-
`
`HA, developed by the University of Hawaii around 1970.3 Here a satellite system
`
`was used to connect remote campuses on different islands with a central campus
`
`near Honolulu containing a shared, central computer. When a user at a remote
`
`campus wanted to access the central computer, a radio device at the remote campus
`
`
`3 N. Abramson, "THE ALOHA SYSTEM—Another alternative for comput-
`
`er communications," Proceedings of the Fall Joint Computer Conference, pp. 281-
`
`5, Nov. 1970. (Exhibit APPL-1017).
`
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`PETITIONERS 1052-0018
`IPR2016-00758
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`would transmit a message to the satellite, which would relay the signal onto a radio
`
`device located at the central campus. If (and only if) the message was properly re-
`
`ceived, the central campus would transmit an acknowledgement message. The
`
`remote station would wait a given time for this acknowledgment. If none was re-
`
`ceived, the initial access would be considered unsuccessful, and the remote termi-
`
`nal would continue to retransmit the initial message until an acknowledgment was
`
`successfully received.
`
`38. The main reason why an acknowledgement may not be received is
`
`that, in a system with many users, more than one user may be trying to access the
`
`communication channel at the same time. In such a case, the multiple messages
`
`may interfere, and a garbled message may be received at the central terminal,
`
`which could not then issue an acknowledgement signal. To stop the retransmitted
`
`messages from the multiple users from continuing to interfere with each other, the
`
`retransmission protocol needs to ensure that the retransmission times from the mul-
`
`tiple users are different. Thus, in the ALOHA system, retransmissions occurred
`
`after a random period of time.
`
`39. This is depicted in the figure below. Here user 1 communicates suc-
`
`cessfully, but transmissions from users 2 and k overlap. However the retransmis-
`
`sions from these two users, now at different times, do not interfere and thus both
`
`successfully access the communication channel.
`
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`PETITIONERS 1052-0019
`IPR2016-00758
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`[Source: Fn. 1.]
`
`
`
`40. Such a system works well in the case of a few users, where messages
`
`need to be sent relatively infrequently. The basic ALOHA protocol has been ex-
`
`tensively modified over the years to support more users, more efficiently, over dif-
`
`ferent communications channels. Even today’s cellular systems retain some as-
`
`pects of the early ALOHA systems.
`
`2. When is Random Access Used?
`41. Random access is used in a cellular system whenever a user device
`
`has a desire to connect to a channel in order to transmit data. Two examples of
`
`when random access is required include the following:
`
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`PETITIONERS 1052-0020
`IPR2016-00758
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`42.
`
`Initial access: When not in active use, a mobile device will go into a
`
`low power state to conserve battery power. This is often known as an “idle” mode.
`
`When data arrives to be transmitted (e.g., a user wants to make a call or send a
`
`message), a phone waking up from idle mode will need to perform random access
`
`to connect and resynchronize with the network. Similarly, when a mobile device is
`
`first powered on, it needs to connect to and synchronize with the network, and will
`
`perform random access to accomplish this.
`
`43. Handover: When an active user is mobile, and travels from the cover-
`
`age area of one base station to the coverage area of another, a random access pro-
`
`cedure may be required to connect and synchronize to the new base station.
`
`3.
`
`Types of Random Access Procedures
`44. There are many different types of random access protocols and proce-
`
`dures. However each of these can be categorized into two distinct forms:
`
`45. Contention-based random access: In a contention-based random ac-
`
`cess procedure, there is an expectation that multiple subscribers will be requesting
`
`access to the communication channel at the same time, and thus collisions may oc-
`
`cur. For example, during normal cellular operation, there may be many users in
`
`the same area (i.e., the same cell) sending the same request to access the channel at
`
`the same time, all of which may be colliding. As such, the random access proce-
`
`dure will need to properly determine which of many users sent which of many re-
`
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`PETITIONERS 1052-0021
`IPR2016-00758
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`quests, in order to properly allocate resources amongst the many competing users.
`
`Further, the random access procedure will need to recognize when such a collision
`
`has occurred, and resolve the contention in a predictable way.
`
`46. Non-contention based random access (or contention-free random ac-
`
`cess): In this type of procedure, the possibility of collision for a particular user ac-
`
`cessing a resource is effectively eliminated, such as by ensuring that no other user
`
`will access the resource at the same time in a way that will cause such a collision.
`
`An example of such a scenario may be during handover where a known user’s
`
`connection is being handed over from one base station to another base station. In
`
`such a controlled event, the network can inform the user of some unique identity to
`
`prevent its request from colliding with requests from other users.
`
`4.
`
`The Random Access Preamble
`47. The random access procedure in modern cellular systems is handled
`
`not by retransmission after a random delay such as in the early ALOHA systems,
`
`but with an initial transmission in a known format, known as a preamble.
`
`48.
`
`In a practical random access procedure, a user terminal may select and
`
`transmit one of a limited number of patterns or signatures called a preamble, where
`
`the preamble value differentiates requests coming from different users. If two us-
`
`ers happen to use the same preamble at same time then a collision occurs. Sup-
`
`pose, for example, that there are 16 such patterns or signatures available for the us-
`
`
`
`
`- 21 -
`
`PETITIONERS 1052-0022
`IPR2016-00758
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`er to choose for the very first message of a connection procedure. If all users are
`
`required to select one of the 16 preambles at random, there is only a 1/16 chance
`
`that a second user will pick the same preamble. Thus the chances of the two users’
`
`access requests colliding are relatively small. However if there are 16 users re-
`
`questing access at the same time, there is a much higher risk of a collision because
`
`there is a large amount of contention for the resource. Thus the selection of the
`
`number of preambles from which user terminals can choose is a trade-off between
`
`the designed capabilities of the network and implementation complexities.
`
`49.
`
`In a practical connection procedure, the user terminal selects one of
`
`the preambles randomly. This results in the possibility of collision if the same pre-
`
`amble is being used by another user terminal at the same time. Thus a contention-
`
`based random access procedure is required for allocating access and resources to
`
`the individual users. However, in the case of the user terminal already being con-
`
`nected to the network, the network can inform the user terminal about which pre-
`
`amble it should use, and thus a non-contention based proc