`
`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