throbber
1
`
`Filed on behalf of Cellular Communications Equipment LLC
`By: Terry A. Saad (tsaad@bcpc-law.com)
`
`Jeffrey R. Bragalone (jbragalone@bcpc-law.com)
` Daniel F. Olejko (dolejko@bcpc-law.com)
` Nicholas C. Kliewer (nkliewer@bcpc-law.com)
`Bragalone Conroy PC
`2200 Ross Ave.
`Suite 4500 – West
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Tel: 214.785.6670
`Fax: 214.786.6680
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`HTC CORPORATION and HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01501
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2005: DECLARATION OF DR. JAY P. KESAN
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`CCE_EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jay P. Kesan
`
`
`
`I, Jay Kesan, do hereby declare and state, that all statements made herein of
`
`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 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`Executed May 22, 2017, in Champaign, IL.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_________________________
`
`Dr. Jay P. Kesan
`
`2
`
`Page 2
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 5
`
`A.Engagement ................................................................................................ 5
`
`B. Background and Qualifications ................................................................... 5
`
`C. Compensation and Prior Expert Witness Experience ................................. 7
`
`D.Information Considered .............................................................................. 7
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................. 9
`
`THE ’676 PATENT ......................................................................................13
`
`A.Background of the Technology ................................................................. 13
`
`B. Overview of the ’676 Patent ..................................................................... 20
`
`C. Claim Construction ................................................................................... 22
`
`D.Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................. 23
`
`IV. ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................24
`
`A.U.S. Patent Application No. 2006/0140154 (“Kwak”) ............................. 24
`
`B. Petitioner Fails to Demonstrate Unpatentability by A Preponderance of
`
`The Evidence Under the Instituted Ground .............................................. 25
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 3
`
`

`

`3. Kwak does not disclose the limitation “wherein said at least one
`
`threshold adjustable via the signal comprises adjusting the threshold
`
`integer k.” ............................................................................................... . .35
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................36
`CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... ..36
`
`
`
`V.
`V.
`
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`4
`4
`
`Page 4
`
`

`

`I.
`
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The facts set forth below are known to me personally and I have
`
`firsthand knowledge of them. I am a U.S. citizen over eighteen years of age. I am
`
`fully competent to testify as to the matters addressed in this Declaration. I understand
`
`that this Declaration is being submitted along with Patent Owner’s response to the
`
`Decision on Institution of Inter Partes Review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(“PTAB”) for US Patent No. 8,457,676 (hereinafter, “the ’676 Patent”) in IPR2016-
`
`01501.
`
`A. Engagement
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained as a technical expert by Patent Owner to study and
`
`provide my opinions on the technology claimed in, and the patentability or
`
`nonpatentability of Claims 1, 19, and 33 of the ’676 patent.
`
`B. Background and Qualifications
`
`3.
`
`I have summarized in this section my educational background, work
`
`experience, and other relevant qualifications. A true and accurate copy of my
`
`curriculum vitae is attached as Appendix A.
`
`4.
`
`I am a Professor and H. Ross & Helen Workman Research Scholar at
`
`the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, where I am appointed in the College
`
`of Law, the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, the Coordinated
`
`Science Laboratory, and the Information Trust Institute. I have a Ph.D. in Electrical
`
`and Computer Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin and a J.D., summa
`
`5
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`

`

`cum laude from Georgetown University. I have also worked as a research scientist
`
`at the IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, and I am a named inventor on several
`
`United States patents. I have also served as a technical expert and legal expert in
`
`patent infringement lawsuits. I have been appointed to serve as a Special Master in
`
`patent disputes. Additionally, I have been appointed and served as a Thomas Edison
`
`Distinguished Scholar at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
`
`5.
`
`From 1984 to 1989, while working on my Master’s and Ph.D. degrees
`
`in electrical and computer engineering at the University of Texas at Austin, I was a
`
`graduate research assistant and I researched and developed RF (radio frequency)
`
`technologies, specifically microwave and millimeter wave devices and circuits.
`
`From 1989 to 1993, I worked as a research scientist at the IBM T.J. Watson Research
`
`Center, and I researched various exploratory high-speed technologies for analog and
`
`wireless communication applications. From 2000 to the present, I have also been
`
`working on radio-frequency identification (RFID) technologies and systems, and I
`
`am an inventor on numerous U.S. patents directed at RFID and related technologies.
`
`In the past few years, I have also been working on security issues and risk assessment
`
`in wired and wireless communication technologies. From 1998 to the present, I have
`
`worked as a consulting expert in the field of wired, wireless and cellular
`
`communication
`
`technologies and
`
`intellectual property protection for such
`
`technologies. From 1998 to the present, I have been involved as a technical expert
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 6
`
`

`

`with numerous patent
`
`lawsuits
`
`involving wired, wireless and cellular
`
`communication technologies.
`
`C. Compensation and Prior Expert Witness Experience
`
`6.
`
`I am being compensated for the time I spend on this case at my normal
`
`consulting rate of $550 an 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 upon the outcome of this matter or the substance
`
`of my testimony.
`
`7.
`
`A complete list of cases in which I have testified at trial, hearing, or by
`
`deposition within the preceding four years is provided in my curriculum vitae, which
`
`is attached as Appendix A.
`
`D. Information Considered
`
`8.
`
`My opinions are based on my years of education, research and
`
`experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials. In forming
`
`my opinions, I have considered the materials that I identify in this report, including
`
`those listed below:
`
` Exhibit 1001 – U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
` Exhibit 1002 – File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
` Exhibit 1003 – Declaration of Tim Williams and Attachments
`
` Exhibit 1005 – U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2006/0140154 A1
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 7
`
`

`

` Paper 6 – Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
` Paper 7 – PTAB Institution Decision
`
` Exhibit 2001 – Excerpts from LTE - The UMTS Long Term Evolution:
`
`From Theory to Practice, Stefania Sesia, Issam Toufik, Matthew Baker,
`
`John Wiley & Sons, 2011
`
` Exhibit 2002 – Excerpts from UMTS Networks: Architecture, Mobility and
`
`Services, Heikki Kaaranen, John Wiley & Sons, 2005
`
` Exhibit 2003 - Fundamentals of LTE, Arunabha Ghosh, Jun Zhang, Jeffrey
`
`G. Andrews, Rias Muhamed, Prentice Hall, 2010
`
` Exhibit 2004 – Williams Deposition Transcript
`
`9.
`
`I may rely upon these materials and/or additional materials to respond
`
`to arguments raised by the Petitioner. I may also consider additional documents and
`
`information in forming any necessary opinions – including documents that may not
`
`yet have been provided to me.
`
`10.
`
`My analysis of the materials produced in this investigation is ongoing
`
`and I will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This declaration
`
`represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise,
`
`supplement, and/or amend my opinions stated herein based on new information and
`
`on my continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 8
`
`

`

`II. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`11.
`
`In expressing my opinions and considering the subject matter of the
`
`claims of the ’676 patent, I am relying upon certain basic legal principles that counsel
`
`has explained to me.
`
`12.
`
`First, I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be found
`
`patentable, it must be, among other things, new and not obvious from what was
`
`known before the invention was made.
`
`13.
`
`I understand the information that is used to evaluate whether an
`
`invention is new and not obvious is generally referred to as “prior art” and generally
`
`includes patents and printed publications (e.g., books, journal publications, articles
`
`on websites, product manuals, etc.).
`
`14.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding Petitioner has the burden of proving
`
`that the claims of the ’676 patent are obvious in view of the prior art by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence. I understand that “a preponderance of the evidence”
`
`is evidence sufficient to show that a fact is more likely true than it is not.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the claims must be given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. The claims after
`
`being construed in this manner are then to be compared to the information in the
`
`prior art.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 9
`
`

`

`16.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the information that may be
`
`evaluated is limited to patents and printed publications. My analysis below compares
`
`the claims to patents and printed publications that are prior art to the claims.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that there are two ways in which prior art may render a
`
`patent claim unpatentable. First, the prior art can be shown to “anticipate” the claim.
`
`Second, the prior art can be shown to have made the claim “obvious” to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. I understand that the only grounds instituted in this IPR are
`
`on obvious grounds. I set forth my understanding of the obviousness standard as
`
`follows:
`
`18.
`
`I understand that a claimed invention is not patentable if a prior art
`
`reference discloses every element of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
`
`inherently and that those elements must be arranged or combined in the same way
`
`as the claim. I further understand that being arranged or combined in the same way
`
`does not require an identity of terminology.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that “prior art” includes patents and printed publications
`
`that existed before the earliest filing date (the “effective filing date”) of the claim in
`
`the patent. I also understand that a patent will be prior art if it was filed before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention, while a printed publication will be
`
`prior art if it was publicly available before that date. I also understand that a reference
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 10
`
`

`

`qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination under § 103 only when it is
`
`analogous to the claimed invention.
`
`20.
`
`It is my further understanding that a claimed invention is unpatentable
`
`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.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that the ultimate conclusion of whether a claim is (non)
`
`obvious should be based upon a determination of several factual considerations:
`
` The scope and content of the prior art;
`
` The differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
` The knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
`
` Whatever objective factors indicating obviousness or non-obviousness may
`
`be present in any particular case.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that the existence of each and every element of the claimed
`
`invention in the prior art does not necessarily prove obviousness and that most, if
`
`not all, inventions rely on building blocks of prior art. In considering whether a
`
`claimed invention is obvious, I understand that one may find obviousness if at the
`
`time of the claimed invention there was a reason that would have prompted a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the field to combine the known elements in a way the
`
`claimed invention does, taking into account such factors as (1) whether the claimed
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 11
`
`

`

`invention was merely the predictable result of using prior art elements according to
`
`their known function(s); (2) whether the claimed invention provides an obvious
`
`solution to a known problem in the relevant field; (3) whether the prior art teaches
`
`or suggests the desirability of combining elements claimed in the invention; (4)
`
`whether the prior art teaches away from combining elements in the claimed
`
`invention; (5) whether it would have been obvious to try the combinations of
`
`elements, such as when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem
`
`and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions; and (6) whether the
`
`change resulted more from design incentives or other market forces. I understand
`
`that to find it rendered the invention obvious, one must find that the prior art
`
`provided a reasonable expectation of success and that each claim must be considered
`
`separately.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that one should not use hindsight when considering
`
`obviousness. I also understand that in assessing obviousness, that one should take
`
`into account any objective evidence (sometimes called “secondary considerations”)
`
`that may have existed at the time of the invention and afterwards that may shed light
`
`on the obviousness or not of the claimed invention, such as: (a) Whether the
`
`invention was commercially successful as a result of the merits of the claimed
`
`invention (rather than the result of design needs or market-pressure advertising or
`
`similar activities); (b) Whether the invention satisfied a long-felt need; (c) Whether
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 12
`
`

`

`others had tried and failed to make the invention; (d) Whether others invented the
`
`invention at roughly the same time; (e) Whether others copied the invention; (f)
`
`Whether
`
`there were changes or related
`
`technologies or market needs
`
`contemporaneous with the invention; (g) Whether the invention achieved
`
`unexpected results; (h) Whether others in the field praised the invention; (i) Whether
`
`persons having ordinary skill in the art of the invention expressed surprise or
`
`disbelief regarding the invention; (j) Whether others sought or obtained rights to the
`
`patent from the patent holder; and (k) Whether the inventor proceeded contrary to
`
`accepted wisdom in the field.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that the presence of a dependent claim that adds a
`
`particular limitation raises a presumption that the limitation in question is not found
`
`in the independent claim. Also, I understand that the principle of claim
`
`differentiation stems from the common sense notion that different words or phrases
`
`used in separate claims are presumed to indicate that the claims have different
`
`meanings and scope.
`
`III. THE ’676 PATENT
`
`A. Background of the Technology
`
` Power Control
`
`25.
`
`Power control in a mobile communication system serves to balance the
`
`need for sufficient transmitted energy per bit to maintain the link quality
`
`corresponding to the required Quality-of-Service (QoS) against the needs to
`
`13
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`

`

`minimize interference to other users of the system and to maximize battery life of
`
`the user equipment. LTE - The UMTS Long Term Evolution: From Theory to
`
`Practice, Stefania Sesia, Issam Toufik, Matthew Baker, John Wiley & Sons, 2011,
`
`p. 411 (“LTE – The UMTS Long Term Evolution”) (Exhibit 2001). The power control
`
`scheme implemented in such a system must account for various characteristics of
`
`the radio propagation channel, including path-loss, shadowing and fast fading.
`
`Additionally, the power control must consider interference from other users, both
`
`from within the same cell (intra-cell interference) and in neighboring cells (inter-cell
`
`interference).
`
`26.
`
`Interference management is much different in 4G LTE systems than it
`
`was in 3G WCDMA systems. In WCDMA, the uplink transmissions from multiple
`
`UEs are generally non-orthogonal and the primary source of interference is intra-cell
`
`interference between users within the same cell. LTE – The UMTS Long Term
`
`Evolution at 411. Further, in WCDMA, uplink users share the same time-frequency
`
`resources. LTE – The UMTS Long Term Evolution at 411. Because the total
`
`bandwidth is shared among users simultaneously, each user’s transmission serves as
`
`interference for other users in the same cell and degrades the signal-to-noise ratio
`
`(SNR) at the receiver. UMTS Networks: Architecture, Mobility and Services, Heikki
`
`Kaaranen, John Wiley & Sons, 2005, p. 123 (“UMTS Networks”) (Exhibit 2002).
`
`This leads to the “near-far” effect: wherein two transmitters—one close to the Node
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 14
`
`

`

`B and another far from the Node B—are transmitting at equal power, the near
`
`transmitter will be received with a high SNR and the far receiver will be received
`
`with a low SNR. UMTS Networks at 123. Accordingly, the focus of power control
`
`in WCDMA is to adjust the transmit power of the various mobile stations with the
`
`purpose of maintaining roughly the same signal-to-noise ratio at the Node B receiver
`
`for all users. UMTS Networks at 123. This is accomplished by a tightly-controlled
`
`closed loop power control scheme, consisting of power control commands sent
`
`periodically every 0.67 ms, with a normal power step of +/- 1 dB. LTE – The UMTS
`
`Long Term Evolution at 412.
`
`27.
`
` By contrast, in LTE, the uplink transmissions from the various users of
`
`the same cell are orthogonal. And, accordingly, management of intra-cell
`
`interference is much less critical than in WCDMA. LTE – The UMTS Long Term
`
`Evolution at 412. Whereas in WCDMA power control is fast, periodic, and in small
`
`steps, in LTE, where the interference management is not as critical, the power
`
`control commands from the eNode B can be non-periodic, in larger steps, and with
`
`a minimum loop delay of 5 ms. LTE – The UMTS Long Term Evolution at 412.
`
`28.
`
`The power control scheme in LTE is primarily open loop control, with
`
`an optional closed loop power control component. This usually involves the UE
`
`setting a coarse operating point for the transmission Power Spectral Density (PSD)
`
`by open-loop means, based on a path loss estimation performed at the UE. LTE –
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 15
`
`

`

`The UMTS Long Term Evolution at 412. In LTE, the PSD is set as a power per
`
`physical resource block (PRB), where the PSD is the same for all PRBs allocated for
`
`a particular subframe. LTE – The UMTS Long Term Evolution at 412. Adaptation of
`
`the PSD can then be applied by closed-loop power control. LTE – The UMTS Long
`
`Term Evolution at 412. Essentially, the closed-loop feedback is only needed to
`
`compensate for cases when the UE’s own estimate of the required power setting is
`
`not satisfactory. LTE – The UMTS Long Term Evolution at 412. However, due to the
`
`orthogonal nature of the LTE uplink, the LTE closed-loop power control does not
`
`need to be performed as fast, and as regularly, as in WCDMA.
`
` Scheduling / Allocation of Resources
`
`29.
`
`In a cellular network, the base station distributes its available resources
`
`to connected mobile devices. Because the base station has a limited amount of
`
`resources, it is important for the base station to optimize the distribution of the
`
`system resources. There are two primary limitations constraining the resources for
`
`uplink transmission—bandwidth and transmit power. The frequency spectrum
`
`available to a base station exists in a limited quantity, and, accordingly, a UE’s
`
`uplink transmission cannot exceed the available bandwidth. Also, the UE is
`
`constrained by a maximum transmission power. These bandwidth and power
`
`restrictions generally limit the UE’s uplink transmission capabilities.
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 16
`
`

`

`30.
`
`Traditionally, such as in WCDMA, network bandwidth was the
`
`overriding limiting factor for uplink transmissions. The relatively narrow bandwidth
`
`of WCDMA (5 MHz) placed restraints on uplink transmissions. Specifically,
`
`because the transmission power of any given UE is limited by the near-far effect (not
`
`its maximum transmission power), the scheduling algorithm and power control
`
`scheme of WCDMA suffers from low spectral efficiency. Fundamentals of LTE,
`
`Arunabha Ghosh, Jun Zhang, Jeffrey G. Andrews, Rias Muhamed, Prentice Hall,
`
`2010, pp. 350-351 (“Fundamentals of LTE”) (Exhibit 2003). In particular, the
`
`common SNR that the Node B receives is limited by the cell-edge UEs.
`
`Fundamentals of LTE at 350-351.
`
`31.
`
`The introduction of broadband cellular networks, such as the LTE
`
`network, alleviated the bandwidth limitations. In contrast to the 5 MHz bandwidth
`
`of a WCDMA carrier, carriers in LTE have a bandwidth of 20 MHz. Additionally,
`
`the near-far problem is eliminated in LTE by the orthogonal modulation. However,
`
`the additional bandwidth provided by such networks introduced a new problem – the
`
`possibility that the bandwidth allocated to the UE by the base station would require
`
`transmission at a power level exceeding the UE’s maximum transmit power. Thus,
`
`whereas WCDMA scheduling of resources is primarily limited by available
`
`bandwidth, LTE scheduling is ultimately limited by the power constraints of the UE.
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 17
`
`

`

`32.
`
`In WCDMA, the uplink load of a cell is expressed in terms of the
`
`measured wideband interference divided by the thermal noise power floor. This
`
`quantity is known as the Rise-over-Thermal (RoT). LTE – The UMTS Long Term
`
`Evolution at 411-412. The objective of the scheduler in a WCDMA Node B is to
`
`schedule as much traffic as possible, while at the same time keeping the RoT below
`
`a threshold that maintains stability and desired cell coverage. The primary
`
`mechanism for increasing the uplink data rate for a given user in WCDMA is to
`
`reduce the spreading factor and increase the transmission power accordingly,
`
`consuming a larger portion of the total available RoT in the cell. LTE – The UMTS
`
`Long Term Evolution at 412.
`
`33.
`
`Whereas the power control and scheduling in WCDMA was designed
`
`for the continuous transmission of circuit-switched services, LTE was designed for
`
`packet-switched services. Consequently, LTE allows for fast scheduling of different
`
`UEs applied at 1 ms intervals. LTE – The UMTS Long Term Evolution at 412. The
`
`primary mechanisms for varying the uplink data rate in LTE are adjusting the
`
`allocation of bandwidth (in the form of physical resource blocks, or PRBs) and
`
`adjusting the Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS) of a particular UE. LTE – The
`
`UMTS Long Term Evolution at 412. This is accomplished via uplink scheduling
`
`grants sent by the eNode B. LTE – The UMTS Long Term Evolution at 412. The
`
`uplink scheduling grant provides the allocation of PRBs and sets the MCS for the
`
`
`
`18
`
`Page 18
`
`

`

`uplink transmission, based on information currently available to the eNode B. The
`
`Power Spectral Density transmitted on the uplink could typically remain
`
`approximately constant for a given MCS. LTE – The UMTS Long Term Evolution at
`
`412.
`
` Power Headroom Reporting
`
`34.
`
`In WCDMA the Node B generally has regularly-updated and accurate
`
`knowledge of the UE’s transmit power because the UE’s transmit power is set based
`
`on the closed loop power commands sent by the Node B. However, in LTE, the
`
`primarily open loop power control means that the UE sets its transmission power
`
`based primarily on path loss estimations performed at the UE, and the eNode B is
`
`not aware of the UE’s transmit power unless it is reported by the UE. Because the
`
`allocation of resources to a UE for transmission in the uplink is limited, in part, by
`
`the transmit power of the UE, the eNode B needs to know the transmit power, or
`
`preferably the power headroom, of the UE to enable optimal scheduling decisions.
`
`Thus, reporting of power headroom is crucial to efficient scheduling of resources in
`
`an LTE system.
`
`35.
`
`The same is not true in WCDMA. While transmit power information
`
`may be sent from the UE to the Node B in some aspects of WCDMA, the same
`
`necessity that exists in LTE for reporting power headroom does not exist in
`
`
`
`19
`
`Page 19
`
`

`

`WCDMA because the Node B already knows the tightly controlled transmission
`
`power of the UE and the scheduling of resources is not power-limited.
`
`B. Overview of the ’676 Patent
`
`36.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676 (“the ’676 patent”) is titled “Power
`
`Headroom Reporting Method.” The ’676 patent was filed on June 23, 2008, issued
`
`on June 4, 2013, and claims priority to Provisional Application No. 60/936,649, filed
`
`on June 20, 2007.
`
`37.
`
`At the time of invention of the ’676 patent, “[t]he telecommunications
`
`industry [was] in the process of developing a new generation of flexible and
`
`affordable communications that includes high-speed access while also supporting
`
`broadband services . . . . The Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) has been
`
`pivotal in these developments.” ’676 patent at 1:18-25. The ’676 patent specifically
`
`offered a solution to a problem facing the industry regarding power headroom
`
`reporting. The ’676 patent explains that the power headroom information “is
`
`important for the eNode-B, because this knowledge is needed for optimal radio
`
`resource management decisions such as allocating MCS (modulation and coding
`
`scheme) and transmission bandwidth for the different terminals.” ’676 patent at
`
`3:23-29. “Consequently, reporting of power headroom or some equivalent
`
`information is needed.” ’676 patent at 3:60-61.
`
`
`
`20
`
`Page 20
`
`

`

`38.
`
`The ’676 patent recognizes that “reporting of the power control
`
`headroom is a trade-off between uplink signaling overhead versus performance
`
`improvements that result from having this information readily available at the
`
`eNode-B.” ’676 patent at 3:61-65. And, “[u]nfortunately, 3GPP has not yet been able
`
`to find satisfactory criteria for sending a power control headroom report from the
`
`user terminal to the eNode-B.” ’676 patent at 3:38-40. The problem faced by the
`
`industry is explained by ’676 patent as follows:
`
`It is problematic to have the terminal periodically report the power
`
`control headroom at a frequency higher than the adjustments of the
`
`actual terminal power spectral density (PSD). Further, the aim of these
`
`power adjustments at the terminal is basically to (partly or fully)
`
`compensate
`
`the pathloss
`
`(including antenna-pattern, distance
`
`dependent path-loss and shadowing) between the eNode-B and the
`
`terminal, and the measurement of path-loss is done based on the DL
`
`(e.g. DL pilot channel). Even if the frequency of potential power
`
`adjustments at the terminal is high but the measured path-loss is not
`
`changing, UL signalling would be a waste of resources; the only issue
`
`then for reporting would be if closed loop power control commands
`
`would come from the eNodeB and some of those commands would be
`
`misinterpreted at the UE. Then, the problem occurs that the eNodeB
`
`does not know the used transmission power.
`
`’676 patent at 3:66-4:14.
`
`39.
`
`Accordingly, the ’676 patent teaches “specific reporting criteria that are
`
`an attractive
`
`trade-off between signaling overhead versus overall uplink
`
`21
`
`
`
`Page 21
`
`

`

`performance for LTE.” ’676 patent at 4:32-35. The criteria disclosed by the ’676
`
`patent include the criteria recited in claims 1, 19, and 33: “at least one threshold
`
`having been reached, wherein said at least one threshold is adjustable via a signal to
`
`the user equipment, wherein the set of at least one triggering criterion comprises a
`
`criterion being met based on reaching a threshold of the at least one threshold of k
`
`transmission time intervals following a previous power control headroom report,
`
`wherein k is an integer and wherein said at least one threshold adjustable via the
`
`signal comprises adjusting the threshold integer k.” ’676 patent at 6:31-40. Another
`
`criterion developed by the inventors was “a triggering criterion such that an absolute
`
`difference between current and most recent pathloss measurements has reached a
`
`threshold of difference,” as recited by claims 3, 21, and 34. ’676 patent at 6:44-47.
`
`These claimed criteria are taught by the ’676 patent “to be very efficient for sending
`
`a power control headroom report in the uplink, while optimizing uplink
`
`performance, and while minimizing signaling overhead.” ’676 patent at 4:35-38.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`40.
`
`For purposes of this Declaration, I apply the PTAB’s finding that the
`
`broadest
`
`reasonable
`
`interpretation, consistent with
`
`the specification, of
`
`“transmission time intervals” is “time periods determined by the duration of a
`
`transmission of one or more transport blocks.” See Institution Decision at 5-7.
`
`
`
`22
`
`Page 22
`
`

`

`41.
`
`I further understand that the scope of claims is not determined solely on
`
`the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. Additionally, I understand that the words of the claim must be given
`
`their plain meaning, unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification.
`
`I understand that the plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary
`
`meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention. I understand that the ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be
`
`evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the
`
`specification, drawings, and prior art.
`
`D. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`42.
`
`I understand that the broadest reasonable construction is also deter-
`
`mined based on how the challenged patent would be read by a person of “ordinary
`
`skill in the art.” It is my understanding that the factors such as the education level of
`
`those working in the field, the sophistication of the technology, the types of problems
`
`encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, and the speed at
`
`which innovations are made may help establish the level of skill in the art.
`
`43.
`
`I am familiar with, and am a practitioner of, the technology at issue and
`
`the state of the art at the time the application leading to the ʼ676 patent was filed.
`
`Based on the overall disclosures and claims of the ’676 patent, I understand the scope
`
`
`
`23
`
`Page 23
`
`

`

`of the inventions to generally relate to wireless data communication networks and
`
`related protocols and techniques (including standardized protocols and techniques
`
`applicable to LTE networks).
`
`44.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art as relevant to the
`
`’676 patent would have completed an undergraduate program in electrical
`
`engineering or computer science and would have at least 5 years of professional
`
`experience in the field of wireless communications. Alternatively, that person would
`
`have completed a graduate program in electrical engineering or computer science
`
`and would have at least 2 years of professional experience in t

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket