Haas Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,457,676
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re patent of Michel, et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676
`
`Issued: June 4, 2013
`
`Title: Power Headroom Reporting
`Method
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 52959.20
`
`Customer No.:
`
`27683
`
`Real Party in Interest:
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`Declaration of Zygmunt J. Haas, Ph.D.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`Apple Inc. v. Cellular Communications Equipment LLC
`APPL-1006 / Page 1 of 67
`
`

`
`Haas Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,457,676
`
`Table of Contents
`Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1
`
`I.
`
`II. Qualifications and Professional Experience ....................................................................... 3
`
`III. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................................................... 6
`
`IV. Relevant Legal Standards ................................................................................................. 7
`
`A.
`
`Anticipation..................................................................................................................... 8
`
`V. The ’676 Patent ..................................................................................................................... 9
`
`A. Overview ......................................................................................................................... 9
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’676 Patent ....................................................................... 12
`
`VI. Claim Construction .......................................................................................................... 12
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“power control headroom report” .............................................................................. 13
`
`“absolute difference”.................................................................................................... 19
`
`C.
`“memory including software . . . configured, with the at least one processor, to
`cause the apparatus to at least: determine that a set of at least one triggering criterion is
`met” (claim 19) ........................................................................................................................ 20
`
`VII.
`
`Identification of How the Claims are Unpatentable ..................................................... 20
`
`A.
`Challenge #1: Claims 1 and 19 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fong
`in view of Ericsson Contribution ........................................................................................... 20
`
`i. Summary of Fong ......................................................................................................... 20
`
`ii.
`
`Summary of Ericsson Contribution ........................................................................ 22
`
`iii. Reasons to Combine Fong and Ericsson Contribution ......................................... 23
`
`iv. Claim Charts and Detailed Analysis for Challenge #1 .......................................... 26
`
`B. Challenge #2: Claims 3 and 21 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fong
`in view of Ericsson Contribution and further in view of Bark ........................................... 47
`
`i. Summary of Bark ......................................................................................................... 47
`
`ii.
`
`Reasons to Combine Fong/Ericsson Contribution and Bark ............................... 48
`
`iii. Claim Charts and Detailed Analysis for Challenge #2 .......................................... 52
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 65
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1006 / Page 2 of 67
`
`

`
`Haas Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,457,676
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`3.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Apple Inc. in the matter
`
`of the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676 (“the ’676 Patent”) to
`
`Michel, et al.
`
`4.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at the rate of
`
`$450/hour. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary expenses
`
`associated with my work and testimony in this investigation. My compensation is
`
`not contingent on the outcome of this matter or the specifics of my testimony.
`
`5.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have studied:
`
`(1) The ’676 Patent, Exhibit 1001;
`
`(2) The prosecution history of the ’676 Patent, Exhibit 1002;
`
`(3) U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0223455 to Fong, et al. (“Fong”),
`
`Exhibit 1003;
`
`(4) TSG-RAN WG2 #49, R2-052744, “Filtering for UE Power Headroom
`
`Measurement,” Seoul, Korea, Nov. 7-11, 2005 (“Ericsson
`
`Contribution”), Exhibit 1004;
`
`(5) U.S. Patent No. 6,445,917 to Bark, et al., (“Bark”), Exhibit 1005;
`
`(6) H. Holma and A. Toskala, WCDMA for UMTS: Radio Access for
`
`Third Generation Mobile Communications, Revised Ed., John Wiley
`
`
`
`1
`
`APPL-1006 / Page 3 of 67
`
`

`
`Haas Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,457,676
`
`and Sons, Ltd. (2001) (selected pages) ( “WCDMA_UMTS”), Exhibit
`
`1007;
`
`(7) R. Graf, Modern Dictionary of Electronics, Seventh Edition, Revised
`
`and Updated, Reed Elsevier (2001) (selected pages) (“Graf”), Exhibit
`
`1009; and
`
`(8) H. Newton, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, CMP Books (2004)
`
`(selected pages) (referred to herein as “Newton”), Exhibit 1010;
`
`(9)
`
`Page at
`
`http://web.archive.org/web/20070911195001/http://mathworld.wolfra
`
`m.com/AbsoluteDifference.html, downloaded June 29, 2016, Exhibit
`
`1011;
`
`(10) U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2007/0173260 to Love, et al. (“Love”), Exhibit
`
`1013;
`
`(11) U.S. Patent Pub. No 2003/0144021 to Cao et al. (“Cao”), Exhibit
`
`1014;
`
`(12) B. Sklar, Digital Communications, Fundamentals and Applications,
`
`Prentice-Hall, Inc. (1988) (Selected Pages) (“Sklar”), Exhibit 1015;
`
`(13) ETSI TS 36.300 v 8.0.0 (Release 8), “Universal Mobile
`
`Telecommunications System (UMTS); Evolved Universal Terrestrial
`
`
`
`2
`
`APPL-1006 / Page 4 of 67
`
`

`
`Haas Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,457,676
`
`Radio Access (E-UTRA) and Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio
`
`Access (E-UTRAN); Overall description; Stage 2,” March 2007,
`
`Exhibit 1016; and
`
`(14) 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #50 Meeting, R1-073676, Athens, Greece,
`
`August 20-24, 2007, Source: Nokia Siemens Networks, Nokia, Title:
`
`Power control headroom reports for EUTRAN uplink, Exhibit 1017.
`
`6.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered:
`
`(1) The documents listed above, and
`
`(2) My own knowledge and experience based upon my work in the field
`
`of wireless communications, as described below.
`
`II. Qualifications and Professional Experience
`
`7. My complete qualifications and professional experience are described
`
`in my Curriculum Vitae, a copy of which can be found in Exhibit 1008. The
`
`following is a brief summary of my relevant qualifications and professional
`
`experience.
`
`8.
`
`I am a Professor and Distinguished Chair in Computer Science at the
`
`University of Texas at Dallas. I am also Professor Emeritus at the School of
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering at Cornell University. In addition, I provided
`
`technical consulting services in intellectual property matters, as part of which I
`
`have written expert reports and provided deposition and trial testimony involving
`
`
`
`3
`
`APPL-1006 / Page 5 of 67
`
`

`
`Haas Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,457,676
`
`wireless communication technologies.
`
`9. My academic credentials include a Bachelor of Science Degree
`
`in Electrical Engineering, summa cum laude, from Technion (IIT), Israel, in
`
`1979 and a Master of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering , summa cum
`
`laude, from Tel-Aviv University, Israel, in 1985. I subsequently authored
`
`the thesis titled “Packet Switching in Fiber-Optic Networks” as part of
`
`earning my Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University in
`
`1988.
`
`10.
`
`I have worked or consulted for about 35 years in the field of Electrical
`
`and Computer Engineering. My primary focus has been on communication and
`
`networking systems, with an emphasis on wireless communication networks. I
`
`have authored and co-authored numerous technical papers and book chapters
`
`related to wireless communication networks. I am an inventor or co-inventor on
`
`eighteen patents in the fields of high-speed networking, wireless networks, and
`
`optical switching.
`
`11. My employment history following my graduation from Stanford
`
`University began at the Network Research Department of AT&T Bell
`
`Laboratories in 1988. At AT&T Bell Laboratories, I pursued research on
`
`wireless communications, mobility management, fast protocols, optical
`
`networks, and optical switching. During my tenure at AT&T, I also worked
`
`
`
`4
`
`APPL-1006 / Page 6 of 67
`
`

`
`Haas Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,457,676
`
`for the AT&T Wireless Center of Excellence, where I investigated various
`
`aspects of wireless and mobile networks.
`
`12.
`
`In 1995, I joined the faculty of the School of Electrical &
`
`Computer Engineering at Cornell University as a Professor. At Cornell, I
`
`headed the Wireless Networks Lab, which was an internationally recognized
`
`research group with extensive contributions in
`
`the area of wireless
`
`communication systems and networks. In 2013, I retired from Cornell with
`
`the title of Emeritus Professor and I joined the Computer Science
`
`Department at the University of Texas at Dallas with the title of Professor
`
`and Distinguished Chair in Computer Science. At Cornell University and at
`
`the University of Texas, I have taught dozens of courses relat ed to computer
`
`networking and wireless communications. I have also served on various
`
`committees for the benefit of the scientific community.
`
`13.
`
`I am a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
`
`(IEEE) and the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). In 2007, I was
`
`elevated to an IEEE Fellow. I have been responsible for organizing several
`
`workshops, and delivering numerous tutorials at major IEEE and ACM
`
`conferences. I have served as editor of several publications including the IEEE
`
`Transactions on Networking, the IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications,
`
`the IEEE Communications Magazine, the Springer “Wireless Networks” journal,
`
`
`
`5
`
`APPL-1006 / Page 7 of 67
`
`

`
`Haas Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,457,676
`
`the Elsevier “Ad Hoc Networks” journal, the “Journal of High Speed Networks,”
`
`and the Wiley “Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing” journal. I have
`
`also been a guest editor of IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications
`
`issues on “Gigabit Networks,” “Mobile Computing Networks,” and “Ad-Hoc
`
`Networks.” Finally, I have served as the Chair of the IEEE Technical Committee
`
`on Personal Communications (TCPC).
`
`14.
`
`I have
`
`received multiple awards
`
`in
`
`the
`
`field of wireless
`
`communications and networks. In 2012, I received the IEEE ComSoc WTC
`
`Recognition Award, which recognizes individuals for outstanding technical
`
`contributions in the field for their service to the scientific and engineering
`
`communities.” Also in 2012, I received the “Best Paper Award for co-authoring
`
`“Collaborating with Correlation for Energy Efficient WSN” directed at Wireless
`
`Sensor Networking. I previously received the “Best Paper Award” for co-
`
`authoring “Optimal Resource Allocation for UWB Wireless Ad Hoc Networks”
`
`directed at personal indoor and mobile radio communications. Finally, in 2003, I
`
`received the “Highly Commended Paper Award” for co-authoring “Performance
`
`Evaluation of the Modified IEEE 802.11 MAC for Multi-Channel Multi-Hop Ad
`
`Hoc Network,” directed at advanced information networking and applications.
`
`III. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`15.
`
`I am familiar with the wireless communications art. I am also aware
`
`
`
`6
`
`APPL-1006 / Page 8 of 67
`
`

`
`Haas Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,457,676
`
`of the state of the art at the time the application resulting in the ’676 patent was
`
`filed. I have been informed by Apple’s counsel that the earliest alleged priority
`
`date for the ’676 patent is June 20, 2007. Based on the technologies disclosed in
`
`the ’676 patent, I believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art would include
`
`someone who had, at the priority date of the ’676 patent, a B.S. degree in
`
`Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or equivalent
`
`training, as well as at least three years of technical experience in the field of
`
`wireless cellular communication systems and networks. Unless otherwise
`
`stated, when I provide my understanding and analysis below, it is consistent
`
`with the level of a person of ordinary skill in these technologies prior to the
`
`priority date of the ’676 patent.
`
`IV. Relevant Legal Standards
`
`16.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether claims 1,
`
`3, 19 and 21 of the ’676 Patent are anticipated or would have been obvious to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention, in light
`
`of the prior art.
`
`17.
`
`I am not an attorney. In preparing and expressing my opinions and
`
`considering the subject matter of the ’676 Patent, I am relying on certain basic
`
`legal principles that counsel have explained to me. These principles are discussed
`
`below.
`
`
`
`7
`
`APPL-1006 / Page 9 of 67
`
`

`
`Haas Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,457,676
`
`18.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid if it is anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102 or obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`A. Anticipation
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that a patent claim is invalid as
`
`anticipated if each element of that claim is present either explicitly or inherently in
`
`a single prior art reference. I have also been informed that, to be an inherent
`
`disclosure, the prior art reference must necessarily disclose the limitation, and the
`
`fact that the reference might possibly practice or contain a claimed limitation is
`
`insufficient to establish that the reference inherently teaches the limitation.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`20.
`
`I have been informed that a claimed invention is unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the invention 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 having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject
`
`matter pertains. I have also been informed by counsel that the obviousness analysis
`
`takes into account factual inquiries including the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, and the differences between the prior art and
`
`the claimed subject matter.
`
`21.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that the Supreme Court has
`
`recognized several rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to
`
`
`
`8
`
`APPL-1006 / Page 10 of 67
`
`

`
`Haas Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,457,676
`
`show obviousness of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include the
`
`following: (a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results; (b) simple substitution of one known element for another to
`
`obtain predictable results; (c) use of a known technique to improve a similar device
`
`(method, or product) in the same way; (d) applying a known technique to a known
`
`device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (e)
`
`choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success; and (f) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation
`
`in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art
`
`reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`V. The ’676 Patent
`
`A. Overview
`
`22. The ’676 patent relates to control signaling which is communicated
`
`wirelessly from a mobile station/terminal to a base station in a wireless cellular
`
`communications network. The ’676 patent uses a Universal Mobile
`
`Telecommunications System (UMTS) architecture as context for describing the
`
`purported invention. The ’676 patent uses the terms “mobile terminal” and “user
`
`equipment,” and a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have
`
`understood that a mobile terminal/station is an example of a user equipment (UE).
`
`
`
`9
`
`APPL-1006 / Page 11 of 67
`
`

`
`Haas Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,457,676
`
`See APPL-1014, para. [0004].
`
`23. According to the ’676 patent, “[t]he current invention solves problems
`
`that occur with uplink power control and associated signalling from the [mobile]
`
`terminal to the base station (eNode-B) to facilitate efficient uplink radio resource
`
`management decisions at the eNode-B.” Id., 3:18-22. The term “uplink” refers to
`
`communications from a mobile terminal to a base station (e.g., an eNode-B in
`
`UMTS systems).
`
`24. The base station/eNodeB “should be aware of the power level at
`
`which the terminals are transmitting, or some equivalent information like the
`
`power headroom information.” Id., 3:47-50. Using this information the base
`
`stations make “scheduling and radio resource management decisions,” such as
`
`“selecting the MCS [modulation and coding scheme]” for mobile terminals to use
`
`on the uplink. Id., 3:41-44.
`
`25. Accordingly, the ’676 patent recognizes that “reporting of power
`
`headroom or some equivalent information is needed. However, reporting of the
`
`power control headroom is a trade-off between uplink signalling overhead versus
`
`performance improvements that result from having this information readily
`
`available at the eNode-B.” Id., 3:61-65. In other words, for resource management
`
`purposes, it is useful for a base station to know information about the transmit
`
`power of mobile terminals as often as possible so that its information is up-to-date,
`
`
`
`10
`
`APPL-1006 / Page 12 of 67
`
`

`
`Haas Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,457,676
`
`but communicating this information to a base station too often can result in
`
`unnecessary signaling overhead.
`
`26. The prior art recognizes the same problem; i.e., the trade-off between
`
`overhead versus performance improvement. For example, U.S. Patent Pub.
`
`2004/0223455 to Fong, et al. (APPL-1003) (hereinafter “Fong”) uses a trigger
`
`parameter to prevent a mobile station from transmitting uplink control signals “too
`
`frequently.” See APPL-1003, para. [0045]. As another example, U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,445,917 to G. Bark, et al. (APPL-1005) (hereinafter “Bark”), also recognizes that
`
`it is disadvantageous to transmit too much control signaling from a mobile
`
`terminal, and therefore it is a goal to reduce or minimize “unnecessary
`
`measurement signaling between mobile and base station.” See APPL-1005, 3:3-
`
`29.
`
`27. Returning to the ’676 patent, the ’676 patent points out that it is
`
`“problematic” for a mobile terminal to “periodically report the power control
`
`headroom at a frequency higher than” it adjusts transmit power. See id., 3:66-4:2.
`
`Instead of periodic reporting, the ’676 patent focuses on “triggering criteria” for
`
`triggering the sending of a power control headroom report, which provides “an
`
`attractive trade-off between signalling overhead versus overall uplink
`
`performance.” Id., 4:32-38. Two of the triggers presented in the ’676 patent are as
`
`follows:
`
`
`
`11
`
`APPL-1006 / Page 13 of 67
`
`

`
`Haas Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,457,676
`
`(1) “the terminal shall only send a new power control headroom
`
`report if the time since the last reporting exceeds ‘k’ TTIs
`
`[transmission time intervals];” and
`
`(2) “terminal shall only send a new power control headroom report if
`
`the absolute difference between the current and the latest path-loss
`
`measurement is higher than a given threshold ‘p’.”
`
`Id., 4:56-65. The ’676 patent discloses that the triggering criteria can be combined
`
`using a logical “OR” operation (see id., 5:3-5) or a logical “AND” operation (see
`
`id., 5:28-34).
`
`B. Prosecution History of the ’676 Patent
`
`28. The ’676 Patent issued on June 4, 2013 from U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 12/665,427 by Juergen Michel, et al. I have been informed by counsel that the
`
`earliest alleged priority date for the ’676 patent is June 20, 2007.
`
`29.
`
`I have reviewed the prosecution history of the ’676 patent and it is my
`
`understanding that none of the references cited in this declaration were considered
`
`by the United States Patent Office during prosecution.
`
`VI. Claim Construction
`
`30.
`
`It is my understanding that in order to properly evaluate the ’676
`
`Patent, the terms of the claims must first be interpreted. It is my understanding that
`
`for the purposes of this inter partes review, the claims are to be given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. It is my further
`
`
`
`12
`
`APPL-1006 / Page 14 of 67
`
`

`
`Haas Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,457,676
`
`understanding that claim terms are given their ordinary and accustomed meaning
`
`as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, unless the inventor has
`
`set forth a special meaning for a term. As such, any claim term not construed
`
`below should be given its ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood
`
`by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`31.
`
`In order to construe the following claim terms, I have reviewed the
`
`entirety of the ’676 Patent, as well as its prosecution history.
`
`A. “power control headroom report”
`
`32. The ’676 patent uses the term “power control headroom report” in the
`
`claims and in the detailed description. The ’676 specification, however, uses the
`
`terms “power headroom” and “power control headroom” interchangeably. For
`
`example, the ’676 patent suggests that “power headroom” is needed, and refers to
`
`it as reporting power control headroom: “Consequently, reporting of power
`
`headroom or some equivalent information is needed. However, reporting of the
`
`power control headroom is a trade-off between uplink signalling overhead versus
`
`performance improvements that result from having this information readily
`
`available at the eNode-B.” Id., 3:60-65 (emphasis added).
`
`33. Further, the technical details described in the ’676 specification also
`
`reveal the intent to use the terms “power control headroom report” and “power
`
`headroom report” interchangeably. In the background section, referring to LTE
`
`
`
`13
`
`APPL-1006 / Page 15 of 67
`
`

`
`Haas Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,457,676
`
`systems, the ’676 patent states: “It therefore has been discussed in 3GPP that
`
`terminals should be able to provide power control headroom reports to the eNode-
`
`B. The power control headroom report basically provides a measure of how
`
`close the terminal’s power spectral density (PSD) is to the maximum PSD limit.”
`
`APPL-1001, 3:29-34 (emphasis added). Power spectral density, or PSD, was
`
`known to be a measure of power per unit frequency in the spectral bandwidth, or
`
`frequency range, occupied by a signal. See, e.g., APPL-1009, p. 583; see also
`
`APPL-1010, p. 652. Although the above disclosure in the ’676 patent is not a
`
`definition of “power control headroom report” per se, the disclosure illuminates to
`
`a POSITA how the Applicant understood the term. However, this understanding is
`
`based on yet another term that is not a term of art – “maximum PSD limit.”
`
`34. Regarding “maximum PSD limit,” the ’676 patent further states:
`
`“The maximum PSD might be derived from the maximum UE transmit power
`
`(typically assumed to be on the order of 24 dBm) and the minimum bandwidth
`
`(typically 1 PRB).” Id., 3:34-37 (emphasis added). “PRB” was well-known to
`
`refer to “physical resource block,” which is a fundamental unit of bandwidth in
`
`LTE systems. In LTE, UEs or mobile stations are assigned a number of resource
`
`blocks, or units of spectral bandwidth, to transmit or receive. See, e.g., APPL-
`
`1016, p. 18.
`
`35. The use of the qualifier “might be” in the term “maximum PSD limit”
`
`
`
`14
`
`APPL-1006 / Page 16 of 67
`
`

`
`Haas Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,457,676
`
`(“[t]he maximum PSD might be derived …”) indicates that this understanding of
`
`“maximum PSD” is merely one possibility. A POSITA would have understood
`
`that another possibility is that “maximum PSD limit” is the maximum UE transmit
`
`power divided by the number of resource blocks, denoted here as N, assigned to
`
`the UE.
`
`36. A measure of how close the terminal’s PSD is to the maximum PSD
`
`limit could be a difference between the maximum PSD limit and the terminal’s
`
`PSD. As discussed above, one possible way to express the maximum PSD limit is
`
`the maximum UE transmit power, denoted here as 𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥, divided by N. Following
`
`the same approach, the terminal’s PSD is the measured power, denoted here as
`
`𝑃𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑, divided by the same number of assigned resource blocks N. Another
`
`way to define the maximum PSD limit is as the maximum UE transmit power
`
`divided by 1 PRB, with the corresponding terminal PSD defined using the same
`
`number of resource blocks; i.e., 1 PRB. The discussion that follows computes
`
`“power control headroom report” for the more general case of N PRBs, with the
`
`understanding that N=1 PRB is a special case. As can be seen from the following
`
`discussion, the value of the power control headroom depends only on the values
`
`𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 and 𝑃𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 and is independent on the number of assigned resource blocks
`
`N.
`
`
`
`37. The measurements are typically performed in the log scale, so that
`
`15
`
`APPL-1006 / Page 17 of 67
`
`

`
`Haas Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,457,676
`
`power control headroom would have been measured in decibels (dB). Thus, power
`
`control headroom may be given by the following formula and should be included
`
`under the broadest reasonable construction of “power control headroom report”:
`
`10 log10
`
`𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥
`𝑁⁄ − 10 log10
`
`𝑃𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑
`𝑁⁄
`
`
`
`
`
`(1)
`
`38. Using the well-known mathematical formula that log 𝑎
`𝑏⁄ = log 𝑎 −
`
`log 𝑏, the power control headroom as expressed in equation (1) can be also
`
`expressed as follows:
`
`10 log10
`
`𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥
`𝑁⁄ − 10 log10
`
`𝑃𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑
`𝑁⁄
`
`= 10 log10
`
`𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥
`𝑁⁄
`𝑃𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑
`𝑁⁄
`
`= 10 log10
`
`𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥
`𝑃𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑
`
`= 10 log10 𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 10 log10 𝑃𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑
`
`= 𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥[𝑑𝐵𝑚] − 𝑃𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑[𝑑𝐵𝑚]1
`
`
`
`(2)
`
`39. The quantity expressed in the last line of equation (2) was well known
`
`
`1 When presented on a logarithmic scale, power in units of milliwatts is expressed
`
`in units of dBm. For example, a power of one milliwatt (i.e., 1 mW) is equal to be
`
`0 dBm on a log scale. A difference of two powers, each on a log scale (in units of
`
`dBm), corresponds to the ratio of the powers in units of milliwatts, and is
`
`expressed in units of dB.
`
`
`
`16
`
`APPL-1006 / Page 18 of 67
`
`

`
`Haas Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,457,676
`
`to refer to “power headroom,” as the term “power headroom” generally refers to a
`
`measure of the difference between the mobile terminal’s maximum transmit power
`
`and the transmit power used by the mobile station. See, e.g., APPL-1013, ¶ 28.
`
`40. Thus, measuring how close a terminal’s PSD is to a maximum limit,
`
`as described in the specification, is describing what POSITAs would have
`
`understood to be “power headroom,” because “power headroom” is understood to
`
`generally refer to a measure of the difference between the difference between the
`
`mobile terminal’s maximum transmit power and the transmit power used by the
`
`mobile station.
`
`41. As another example supporting the equivalence between the terms
`
`“power headroom” and “power control headroom,” the ’676 patent does not
`
`attempt to distinguish its invention from prior art HSUPA systems based on the
`
`fact that HSUPA refers to “power headroom,” rather than of “power control
`
`headroom.” Rather, the ’676 patent distinguishes itself on the basis of triggers for
`
`sending “power control headroom”: “In HSUPA, the UE Power Headroom (UPH)
`
`is part of the Scheduling Information (SI), which is transmitted by the UE as part
`
`of the MAC-e header. If the UE is not allocated resources for the transmission of
`
`scheduled-data, then Scheduling Information can be transmitted periodically and/or
`
`based on specific triggers (i.e. when data arrives in the buffer). Otherwise, only
`
`periodic reporting is supported.” Id., 4:18-24. Indeed, there is no attempt to
`
`
`
`17
`
`APPL-1006 / Page 19 of 67
`
`

`
`Haas Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,457,676
`
`characterize the contents of a “power control headroom report” as novel or non-
`
`obvious. Rather, the focus of the ’676 patent is on triggering criteria for sending a
`
`“power control headroom report.”
`
`42.
`
`I have been informed by Apple counsel that claim terms need to be
`
`construed only to the extent necessary to resolve a controversy. For my analysis of
`
`the prior art of record and in the context of the ’676 patent, because the
`
`specification treats “power control headroom report” and “power headroom report”
`
`interchangeably and describes it as reporting of power headroom or some
`
`equivalent information, it is only necessary to construe “power control headroom
`
`report” to mean a report containing power headroom or some equivalent
`
`information.
`
`43. As additional supporting evidence that “power headroom” and “power
`
`control headroom” are meant to be interchangeable in the ’676 patent, the original
`
`Assignee of the ’676 patent, Nokia Siemens Networks, in a 3GPP LTE document
`
`dated August 2007, i.e., between the provisional filing date and the non-provisional
`
`filing date of the ’676 patent, used the term “power control headroom” in the same
`
`way as was typically understood to be “power headroom”:
`
`“2.1 Definition of ‘Power Control Headroom’
`
`In HSUPA the power control headroom is defined as the difference
`
`between the ‘nominal’ maximum transmission power and the power
`
`measured at the UE. We propose to use the same measure in E-
`
`
`
`18
`
`APPL-1006 / Page 20 of 67
`
`

`
`Haas Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,457,676
`
`UTRAN uplink:
`
`Power Control Headroom = 10log10 (PMAX) - 10log10 (PMEASURED),
`
`where PMAX is the maximum eUE Tx power, and PMEASURED is the
`
`measured eUE Tx power.”
`
`APPL-1017, p. 1 (emphasis added). Thus, there is no mention of PSD (or the
`
`number of resource blocks or the bandwidth needed to compute PSD) in the
`
`definition of “power control headroom,” and the definition is the same as “power
`
`headroom” was understood to be, which is a measure of the difference between the
`
`mobile terminal’s maximum transmit power and the transmit power used by the
`
`mobile station, with the powers typically expressed in units of decibels (i.e.,
`
`expressed on a logarithmic scale).
`
`B. “absolute difference”
`
`
`
`44. The ’676 patent uses the term “absolute difference” in the claims and
`
`the detailed description. The ’676 patent does not set forth a special meaning of
`
`this term.
`
`45. The term “absolute difference” is well known in mathematics to refer
`
`to an absolute value of a difference. For example, for two numbers 𝑥1 and 𝑥2, the
`
`absolute difference between the numbers is |𝑥1 − 𝑥2|, and is the same as |𝑥2 − 𝑥1|;
`
`i.e., |𝑥1 − 𝑥2| = max (𝑥1 − 𝑥2, 𝑥2 − 𝑥1). The absolute difference provides a
`
`measure of the degree of difference between two numbers. My understanding of
`
`the term “absolute difference” is supported by a Web page from shortly after the
`
`
`
`19
`
`APPL-1006 / Page 21 of 67
`
`

`
`Haas Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,457,676
`
`earliest priority date of the patent. See APPL-1011.
`
`46. Thus, the term “absolute difference” is understood and construed to
`
`mean “absolute value of a difference.”
`
`C. “memory including software . . . configured, with the at least one
`processor, to cause the apparatus to at least: determine that a set of
`at least one triggering criterion is met” (claim 19)
`
`“memory including software . . . configured, with the at least one
`processor, to cause the apparatus to at least . . . provide a power
`control headroom report on an uplink from user equipment, in
`response to the set having been met” (claim 19)
`
`
`
`47. For the purposes of my invalidity analysis in this declaration, it is my
`
`opinion that the plain and ordinary meaning (under the broadest reasonable
`
`construction) of these limitations includes a “memory including softwar