Supp. Haas Deel.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,457,676
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Jn 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.
`§
`§
`§
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Zygmont J. Haas, Ph.D.
`Under 37C.F.R§1.68
`
`APPL-1021
`IPR2016-01493 / Page 1 of 10
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,457,676
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Jn 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.
`§
`§
`§
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Zygmont J. Haas, Ph.D.
`Under 37C.F.R§1.68
`
`APPL-1021
`IPR2016-01493 / Page 1 of 10
`
`
`
`Supp. Haas Deel.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,457.676
`
`Table of Contents
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
`I.
`Il. CLAIMS 3 AND 21 ARE OBVIOUS .................................................................................. l
`ID. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 8
`
`APPL-1021
`IPR2016-01493 / Page 2 of 10
`
`
`
`Supp. Haas Deel.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,457,676
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My qualifications and experience, the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`and legal standards, are detailed in~~ 7-21 in my previous declaration submitted
`
`as exhibit APPL-1006 ("Haas Deel.") in this IP~ i.e., IPR2016-01493.
`
`2.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have studied the Declaration of
`
`Dr. Jay P. Kesan, Ex. 2007 ("Kesan Deel."), and the exhibits cited in Dr. Kesan's
`
`declaration where necessary, including the Bark reference (APPL-1005) and
`
`including Dr. Kesan's newly submitted Exs. 2001-2006.
`
`3.
`
`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.
`
`4.
`
`I have been asked by Petitioner to respond to some particular points
`
`raised by Patent Owner, which are addressed in my analysis below.
`
`II. CLAIMS 3 AND 21 ARE OBVIOUS
`
`5.
`
`Claim 3 of the '676 patent includes an "absolute difference" and is
`
`recited below for reference.
`
`3. The method of claim 1, wherein the set of at least one triggering criterion
`comprises a triggering criterion such that an absolute difference between
`current and most recent path loss measurements has reached a threshold of
`difference.
`
`1
`
`APPL-1021
`IPR2016-01493 / Page 3 of 10
`
`
`
`Supp. Haas Deel.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,457,676
`
`APPL-1001, 6:44-47. Claim 21
`
`is similar. Further, I previously construed
`
`"absolute difference" to be "absolute value of a difference," APPL-1006, ~ 46, and
`
`my understanding is that this is uncontested.
`
`6.
`
`As shown below, I previously explained that Bark teaches "a
`
`threshold value for the measured change" of a parameter is provided to the mobile
`
`station, and the "measured parameter value can be path loss":
`
`bird. Bark teaches that one of its trigger events is defined
`y how quickly a measured parameter value changes (i.e ..
`mv large is the absolute difference bet\veen tv.:o
`"'onsecutive measurements of the parameter value-as
`· dic.ated by the slope of a plot of the measured paran1eter
`·alue). A threshold value for the measured paran1eter
`~hange is provided to the mobile station:
`
`·· .. Another example event is now described in
`conjunction with FIG. 12. Here rite eJ'ent is
`defi11ed based 011 how q11ickfr the measured
`parameter w1l11e {or a cltmmel clla11ges . .. . _
`Tlte titres/told i·a/11e for tlte parameter cllange or
`slope is prol·ided 10 tile mobile statfo11 iu tile
`meas11reme111 co11trol message.·' Id .. 11 :1 1-20.
`
`APPL-1006, p. 56.
`
`2
`
`APPL-1021
`IPR2016-01493 / Page 4 of 10
`
`
`
`Supp. Haas Deel.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,457,676
`
`Fourth. Bark teaches that its measured para111eter
`Yalue can be path loss:
`
`'·QuaUtatfre 011d1or q1u111ritatfre parameiers ma.r
`be specified a11tl 111eas11red. !Yo11-limiri11g
`example parameters include n1easured signal
`strength. signal power, bit error rate. signal-to(cid:173)
`interference ratio. patll loss. traffic volume.
`timing"synchronization offsets. etc.·· APPL-1005.
`7:59-63.
`
`7.
`
`In reference to Figure 12 of Bark, I previously explained that "it
`
`would have been well known to a POSITA that the way signals were typically
`
`measured is in discrete time, not continuous time." APPL-1006, p. 55. I also
`
`explained that samples of path
`
`loss would have been uniformly spaced
`
`(corresponding to periodic sampling). Id. at 56. Thus, POSITA would have
`
`understood that parameters, such as path loss, would have been periodically
`
`measured, resulting in uniformly spaced samples. I previously cropped and
`
`annotated Fig. 12 from Bark with "x" marks used to represent such "uniformly
`
`spaced samples." APPL- I 006, pp. 56-57. Below is one such an example.
`
`3
`
`APPL-1021
`IPR2016-01493 / Page 5 of 10
`
`
`
`Supp. Haas Deel.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,457,676
`
`Fig.12
`
`Reporting
`event 1
`
`Re~
`ev
`
`Dr. Kesan did not contest these facts. Thus, the change, or difference, in time
`
`between any two consecutive samples of path loss is constant, and this is not
`
`contested.
`
`8.
`
`This is one reason why Bark is interested in the "parameter change or
`
`slope." APPL-1005, 11:18-20 (emphasis added). That is, since slope is understood
`
`to be change in measured parameter over some time period (i.e., value divided by
`
`change of time), and since the change in time (the sampling period) is constant
`
`when path loss is periodically measured, the only quantity of interest is the change
`
`in the measured parameter value (path loss in this instance). Stated mathematically,
`
`if the slope of path loss (i.e., the change in path loss divided by change in time) is
`
`computed over constant time interval and compared against a threshold, this is the
`
`same as computing the change in path loss and comparing the change against
`
`another threshold.
`
`9.
`
`Further, how rapidly a quantity changes is the same thing as how
`
`4
`
`APPL-1021
`IPR2016-01493 / Page 6 of 10
`
`
`
`Supp. Haas Deel.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,457,676
`
`much a quantity changes when considered over a given time period (i.e., the
`
`change in time is constant). And Bark teaches triggering on rapid changes in a
`
`"positive fashion" and "negative fashion" compared to the same threshold. APPL-
`
`1005, 11:14-16. This means that the difference between consecutive path loss
`
`measurements is of interest, but not the sign of the difference (i.e., whether the
`
`difference is positive or negative), which is exactly the claimed "absolute
`
`difference."
`
`10. Stated mathematically, let y 2 represent the claimed "current" path loss
`
`measurement at time t2 and let y 1 represent the claimed "most recent" path loss
`
`measurement at time t 1• The slope is calculated as (y2 - Yi)/(t2 -
`
`ti). Bark says
`
`that if (y2 - Yi)/ ( t 2 - ti) exceeds a "threshold value for the parameter change or
`
`slope", represented here as r (a rapid change in a "positive direction") or is less
`
`than - r (a rapid change in a "negative direction"), a parameter is reported. See
`
`APPL-1005, 11: 11- 19. Said differently, the parameter is reported if:
`
`either (y2 - y1)/(t2 -
`
`t 1 ) > T or that (y2 - y1 )/(t2 -
`
`t 1 ) < -r.
`
`These two inequalities are the same as:
`
`where I ( ) I, denotes absolute value. And since t 2 > ti, the last inequality
`
`corresponds to:
`
`l(Y2 - Y1)l/(t2 - ti)> r.
`
`5
`
`APPL-1021
`IPR2016-01493 / Page 7 of 10
`
`
`
`Supp. Haas Deel.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,457,676
`
`But t2 - ti is constant, because of periodic sampling, so the last inequality is the
`
`same as:
`
`ICY2 - Yi)I > T. Ct2 - ti)
`
`In other words, calculating an absolute value of a slope and comparing it with
`
`some threshold (r, in our example) corresponds (in the case of periodic sampling)
`
`to calculating the absolute value of a difference
`
`IY2 - y 1 I (or "absolute
`
`difference") and comparing it to another threshold (r · (t2 - ti),in our example). In
`
`the case of periodic sampling, the two calculations are fundamentally the same.
`
`11.
`
`Dr. Kesan argues that Bark does not disclose triggering a report
`
`based on how
`
`large
`
`is
`
`the "absolute difference" between consecutive
`
`measurements. Kesan Deel.,~~ 121-127. Central to Dr. Kesan's argument is that
`
`"measuring slope" is not the same as "measuring the absolute difference." Kesan
`
`Deel.,~ 124. This proposition is misleading because, as shown above, Bark teaches
`
`that calculating an absolute value of a slope (to capture any "positive" or
`
`"negative" changes) and comparing to a threshold corresponds (in the case of
`
`periodic sampling) to calculating the absolute value of a difference and comparing
`
`to a threshold.
`
`12. Moreoever, the fatal flaw in Dr. Kesan's speed example in ~ 124 is
`
`that the distance traveled would need to be periodically sampled to make the
`
`example analogous to that of Bark. Speed is change in distance over change in time
`
`6
`
`APPL-1021
`IPR2016-01493 / Page 8 of 10
`
`
`
`Supp. Haas Deel.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,457,676
`
`consecutive measurements is constant, the only quantity of interest is change in
`
`distance (D2 - D1 ) between consecutive measurements, because this is the only
`
`quantity that varies.
`
`13. Accordingly, the reasonmg provided in my original declaration
`
`remains correct that claims 3 and 21 are obvious, and Dr. Kesan's arguments do
`
`nothing to change that conclusion.
`
`7
`
`APPL-1021
`IPR2016-01493 / Page 9 of 10
`
`
`
`Supp. Haas Deel.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,457,676
`
`ill. CONCLUSION
`
`14. This declaration and my opinions herein are made to the best of my
`
`knowledge and understanding, and based on the material available to me, at the
`
`time of signing this declaration. I declare that all statements made herein on my
`
`own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are
`
`believed to be true, and further, that these statements were made with the
`
`knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine
`
`or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 or Title 18 of the United States
`
`Code.
`
`8
`
`APPL-1021
`IPR2016-01493 / Page 10 of 10
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
