Paper No. 13
`
`
`
`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
`Patent 8,457,676
`____________
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`Patent 8,457,676
`____________
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`I. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1
`II. Patent Owner fails to distinguish Kwak as not "analogous" ................................ 2
`III. Kwak renders claims 1, 19, and 33 obvious ......................................................... 4
`A. Kwak discloses that its TPS period is adjustable ............................................ 5
`B. Kwak discloses that its TPS period is a threshold of k transmission time
`intervals ............................................................................................................ 8
`1. Kwak uses "time intervals" to refer to "transmission time intervals." ....... 8
`2. Kwak's TPS periods are measured in these transmission time intervals.. 13
`3. Kwak's TPS periods are an integer number of time intervals. ................. 19
`C. Kwak discloses adjusting the threshold integer K ......................................... 20
`IV. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 21
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Bigio
`381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..................................................................................................3
`
`In re Wood and Eversole
`599 F.2d 1032 (CCPA 1979) .....................................................................................................3
`
`Rules and Regulations
`
`Code of Federal Regulations
`Title 37, section 42.23 ................................................................................................................1
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23, Petitioners HTC Corporation and HTC America,
`
`Inc. (“Petitioner”) Reply to Patent Owner Cellular Communications Equipment
`
`LLC’s Response (Paper 11) (“Resp.”). With this Reply and its Petition, Petitioner
`
`requests cancellation of claims 1, 19, and 33of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676.
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`Patent Owner's disputes with Petitioner's evidence and the Board's decision
`
`to institute (Paper 7) ("Dec.") are largely centered on three issues. First, Patent
`
`Owner contends that U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2006/0140154 (Kwak) (Ex. 1005) is not
`
`"analogous" art, contrasting Kwak's third generation system with the’676 patent's
`
`purported fourth generation solution. But the patent is not limited to 4G systems
`
`and, to the contrary, expressly states its applicability to other systems like 3G.
`
`Second, Patent Owner contends that Kwak does not disclose TPS periods
`
`that are "adjustable" via signaling, arguing that Kwak's reference to "notifying" a
`
`value via signaling means providing the value only once. But by contrasting a
`
`"fixed" value with a value that is "notified" to the user equipment (UE) via upper
`
`layer signaling, Kwak teaches that the value can be modified.
`
`Finally, Patent Owner contends that Kwak does not disclose a threshold of k
`
`transmission time intervals (TTIs), arguing that Kwak's "time intervals" are not
`
`TTIs and that its TPS periods are not measured in TTIs. But Kwak expressly
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`teaches that its time intervals are TTIs, and one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`understand that Kwak's s TPS period are measured in those time intervals.
`
`II.
`
`Patent Owner fails to distinguish Kwak as not "analogous"
`Patent Owner attempts to distinguish Kwak by characterizing the ’676 patent
`
`as limited to 4G systems and contending that Kwak's 3G system cannot offer an
`
`"analogous" solution. Resp. at 14. Patent contends that Dr. Williams fails to
`
`account for these purported differences, rendering his opinions incomplete and
`
`unreliable. Id. at 14-15. Patent Owner is incorrect.
`
`The ’676 patent is not limited to 4G systems. The patent explains that, at the
`
`time, many features of 3G systems "have already been established, but many other
`
`features have yet to be perfected." Ex. 1001 (’676 patent) at 1:21-24. It explains
`
`that one example of a then-current 3G system was the Universal Mobile
`
`Telecommunications System (UMTS) and its Terrestrial Radio Access Network
`
`(UTRAN), which the patent describes and illustrates. See id. at 1:26-42 & Fig. 1.
`
`The patent also describes that Evolved UTRAN (E-UTRAN) is "meant to take 3G
`
`even farther into the future," and refers to it alternatively as Long Term Evolution
`
`(LTE) and 3.9G. Id. at 1:49-55, 4:28-29. But the purported invention is not limited
`
`to LTE/3.9G systems. Rather, the patent states that its principles are applicable to
`
`other "current" systems, like 3G:
`
`Although the present invention is applicable in the context of the E-
`UTRAN (LTE or 3.9G), its principles are not limited to such an
`
`2
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`environment, and instead may also be applicable to various other
`current
`... wireless
`telecommunications systems and access
`technologies.
`
`Id. at 4:28-32.1 And nothing in the claim language limits the purported invention to
`
`LTE/3.9G systems either. See id. at claims 1, 19, and 33; see also Ex. 2004 at
`
`32:21-24; Ex. 1008 (Declaration of Dr. Tim A. Williams) ¶14. Thus, the ’676
`
`patent itself teaches that it is not limited to 4G systems
`
`Kwak is relevant and analogous art to the ’676 patent. Kwak teaches the
`
`same UMTS and UTRAN system disclosed as a "current" 3G system in the ’676
`
`patent. See Ex. 1005 at [0005]-[0007]. Indeed, Kwak's Figure 1 is nearly identical
`
`to Figure 1 of the ’676 patent. Compare id. at Fig. 1 with Ex. 1001 at Fig. 1. Thus,
`
`by the ’676 patent's own terms, Kwak's teachings are relevant and analogous art.
`
`See Ex. 1001 at 1:21-24, 4:28-32. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325-1326 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004) ("This test for analogous art requires the PTO to determine the appropriate
`
`field of endeavor by reference to explanations of the invention's subject matter in
`
`the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the
`
`claimed invention.); In re Wood and Eversole, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979)
`
`(defining the field of endeavor according to the scope explicitly specified in the
`
`background of the invention).
`
`
`1 All emphases herein are added unless otherwise noted.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Moreover, as Dr. Williams explains, although there are "minor" differences
`
`in power control implementation between a 3G system and an LTE system, "[w]ith
`
`regards to the claims of the ’676 patent, there's no difference between the two." Ex.
`
`2004 at 34:22-35-2; see also id. at 33:15-21, 35:17-36:8. Differences in the specific
`
`channels, modulation processes, message format, and message content are outside
`
`the scope of what the ’676 patent has claimed. Id. at 35:17-36:8. Thus, contrary to
`
`Patent Owner's contention, Dr. Williams did assess the differences between 3G and
`
`LTE systems; he simply concluded that any such differences were irrelevant to
`
`analyzing the challenged claims. And despite engaging its own expert in this
`
`proceeding, Patent Owner has not cited any evidence purporting to rebut that
`
`conclusion. See Resp. at 14-15. Accordingly, Dr. William's testimony is complete
`
`and reliable, and Kwak is relevant and analogous art to the ’676 patent.
`
`III. Kwak renders claims 1, 19, and 33 obvious
`Patent Owner does not dispute that Kwak teaches transmit power status
`
`(TPS) information that is the claimed power control headroom report, that the TPS
`
`is transmitted from a UE to a NodeB, that the UE determines if at least one trigging
`
`criteria is met, and that one example of a triggering criteria is a "TPS period."
`
`Patent Owner also does not dispute that Kwak's UE and NodeB each inherently
`
`includes a processor, memory, and software for performing their respective tasks.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Patent Owner only disputes that Kwak's TPS period is (1) adjustable; and (2)
`
`a threshold of k transmission time intervals. Resp. at 15-25. Relatedly, Patent
`
`Owner also contends that Kwak does not teach adjusting the threshold integer k.
`
`Id. at 25-26. Owner is wrong on each count.
`
`A. Kwak discloses that its TPS period is adjustable
`Patent Owner argues that Kwak does not teach that its TPS period is
`
`adjustable via a signal to the user equipment. Resp. at 16-19. According to Patent
`
`Owner, Kwak's use of the word "notified" indicates that the value of the TPS
`
`period is provided to the UE only once. Id. at 18. Patent Owner is incorrect.
`
`Kwak teaches that the TPS period is adjustable via notification to the UE
`
`and the Node B by upper layer signaling. Ex. 2005 at [0078, 0097, 0109].
`
`Specifically, Kwak states:
`
`The TPS period 910 is a predetermined fixed value or notified to the
`UE and the Node B from the RNC by upper layer signaling using
`Radio Resource Control (RRC) and Node B Application Part (NBAP)
`protocols.
`Id. at [0078]; see also id. at [0097, 0109]. By contrasting a "fixed value" with a
`
`value that is "notified" to the UE by upper layer signaling, one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art understands Kwak to be teaching the ability to adjust that value. Ex. 1008
`
`¶20. Indeed, the very fact that the value can be transmitted to the UE at all
`
`indicates that it is a value that can be modified, i.e., it is adjustable. Id. Whether
`
`5
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`described as being notified, signaled, provided, configured or otherwise, one of
`
`skill in the art would understand Kwak to be describing an adjustable value as an
`
`alternative to a fixed value. Id.
`
`The ’676 patent describes its adjustable values in a similar manner. The
`
`patent's Summary of the Invention section does not use the words "adjust,"
`
`"adjusting," "adjustable," or "adjustment" at all. See Ex. 1001 at 4:28-5:5. Rather,
`
`it states that the values of n, m, k, and p are "parameters that are configured by the
`
`eNode-B," and specifically, those values are "configured via RRC signaling from
`
`the eNode-B to the terminal." Id. at 4:66-5:3. As Dr. Kesan admits, that statement
`
`is a description of adjusting k. Ex. 1009 (Kesan Deposition) at 47:10-16 (referring
`
`to '676 patent, column 4, line 66, through column 5, line 5: "Q Is that a description
`
`of adjusting k? A. Yes."); see also id. at 50:5-23 (stating that "end of column 4 and
`
`the top of column 5" discusses adjusting). Except for the word "configured" rather
`
`than "notified," the ’676 patent's description is nearly identical to Kwak's
`
`description of a TPS period value that can be "notified to the UE and the Node B
`
`from the RNC by upper layer signaling using Radio Resource Control (RRC)."
`
`Ex. 2005 at [0078, 0097, 0109]; see also Ex. 1008 ¶21.
`
`Patent Owner contends that "notified" means that the value "is provided to
`
`the UE only once." Resp. at 18 (citing Dr. Kesan's testimony at Ex. 2005 ¶55). But
`
`as Dr. Kesan admits, the words "notified" and "configured" are similar in this
`
`6
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`context; whether one word or the other is used does not affect the analysis. Ex.
`
`1009 at 129:25-130:13 ("A . . . I mean, you know, 'configured' is typically used
`
`when you say there is some value for a system parameter . . . . Q. So it's similar to
`
`'notified' in that sense? A. Yeah."). And as Dr. Kesan admits, the ’676 patent uses
`
`the word "configured" to describe adjusting parameters like k via RRC signaling.
`
`Id. at 47:10-16, 50:5-23; see also id. at 55:9-15. Thus, much like the use of
`
`"configured" in the context of the ’676 patent, there is nothing about the word
`
`"notified" that restricts Kwak to providing a TPS to the UE "only once," as Patent
`
`Owner contends. Ex. 1008 ¶22.
`
`Moreover, there is no dispute that one skilled in the art would understand
`
`Kwak to teach at least one adjustment of the TPS period value. As Dr. Kesan
`
`admits, before being notified to the UE in Kwak, there "is some predetermined
`
`value that's – that's corresponds to what the TPS period has been." Ex. 1009 at
`
`130:22-131:3. Kwak uses "notified" to indicate that the Node B provides a value to
`
`the UE as opposed to that predetermined value, as Dr. Kesan also admits. See Ex.
`
`2005 ¶55 ("But the term 'notified' indicates . . . that the Node B provides the value
`
`of the TPS period to the UE, as opposed to the value being 'predetermined.'").
`
`Thus, the experts agree that Kwak's TPS period has some initial value, which is
`
`modified at least once when the Node B "notifies" the value to the UE. See Ex.
`
`1008 ¶23.. Because Dr. Kesan also agrees that "there is nothing in the claim about
`
`7
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`how often to, for example, adjust the integer k," Ex. 1009 at 60:22-24, one
`
`adjustment is enough to demonstrate that the value is adjustable. See Ex. 1008 ¶23.
`
`In sum, Kwak teaches that the TPS period can be a fixed value or it can be
`
`"notified" by upper level signaling to the user equipment. That contrast alone
`
`teaches the ability to adjust the value. But Kwak's use of "notified" is also nearly
`
`identical to the ’676 patent's own use of "configured" to describe adjusting the
`
`value of k. Patent Owner's expert admits that "configured" and "notified" have no
`
`meaningful difference, and also admits that Kwak's TPS period has some initial
`
`value before that value is "notified" to the UE. For all these reasons, Kwak teaches
`
`that the value of the TPS period is adjustable via a signal to the user equipment.
`
`B. Kwak discloses that its TPS period is a threshold of k
`transmission time intervals
`Patent Owner contends that Kwak does not disclose a threshold of k
`
`transmission time intervals. Resp. at 19-25. Patent Owner contends that Kwak's
`
`repeated use of "time intervals" are not the claimed "transmission time intervals,"
`
`nothing in Kwak defines its TPS periods according to those time intervals, and it is
`
`"more plausible" that Kwak's TPS periods are defined as a fixed amount of time,
`
`not an integer number of time intervals. Id. Patent Owner is incorrect.
`
`1. Kwak uses "time intervals" to refer to "transmission time
`intervals."
`
`8
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Patent Owner contends that Kwak's "time intervals" do not refer to the
`
`claimed "transmission time intervals." See, e.g., Resp. at 20-22. To the contrary,
`
`Kwak expressly uses "time intervals" interchangeably with "transmission time
`
`intervals" as a shorthand, much like the ’676 patent's use of the abbreviation, TTIs.
`
`The Board determined that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`"transmission time intervals," is "time periods determined by the duration of a
`
`transmission of one or more transport blocks." Dec. at 7. The parties do not dispute
`
`that construction, and as Petitioner's expert testified, that construction does not
`
`change his opinion or the weight of his direct testimony. Ex. 2004 at 48:1-19.
`
`The term "transmission time intervals" was well known and often used in the
`
`context of UMTS systems. As Dr. Kesan admits, the term "transmission time
`
`intervals," abbreviated as TTIs, would have been familiar to one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art and was often used in the context of a UMTS system. Ex. 1009 at 25:5-25;
`
`104:12-19. Indeed, Dr. Kesan admits that, as a general matter, the chances are that
`
`a reference discussing a UMTS system would use the term "transmission time
`
`intervals." Id. at 25:2-10; see also id. at 26:11-28:18. That is because transmission
`
`time intervals are a parameter in UMTS systems. Id. at 43:13-44:10 (testifying that
`
`TTIs are usually a system parameter in UMTS systems); Ex. 1008 ¶27.
`
`Kwak is a UMTS system that also refers to transmission time intervals.
`
`There is no dispute that Kwak is a UMTS system. Ex. 1005 at [0005]; see also Ex.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`1009 at 104:20-23; Ex. 1008 ¶28. And there is no dispute that Kwak teaches "time
`
`intervals" throughout its disclosure in multiple instances, as well as in the figures.
`
`Ex. 1009 at 75:24-76:25; see also Ex. 1008 ¶28. Indeed, the phrase "time intervals"
`
`appears 120 times in the Kwak disclosure. Ex. 1008 ¶28. As established in the
`
`petition and in Dr. Williams's testimony, Kwak teaches that these time intervals are
`
`"transmission time intervals." Pet. at 30-31; Ex. 1005 at Figs. 9, 11-12, [0077-78,
`
`0096, 0098-99, 0107, 0109-110]; Ex. 1003 ¶102 ("[T]hese figures illustrate a
`
`typical system utilizing transmission time intervals (TTIs) as a period of time . . . .
`
`Kwak itself refers to these blocks variously as 'time intervals' and 'transmission
`
`time intervals.'"). Thus, the Board correctly determined that Kwak teaches
`
`transmission time intervals. Dec. at 14 ("[Kwak] teaches that the TPS period is set
`
`as a certain number of transmission time intervals following a previous power
`
`control headroom report.").
`
`Patent Owner's dispute centers on its expert apparent misapprehension of
`
`Kwak's time intervals. Despite agreeing that TTIs were well know, that TTIs are a
`
`parameter in UMTS systems, and that Kwak is a UMTS system, Dr. Kesan
`
`disputes that Kwak's "time intervals" refer to transmission time intervals. Ex. 1009
`
`(Kesan) at 98:10-13. That is because, according to Dr. Kesan, there is "no
`
`discussion of these time intervals corresponding to transmission time intervals." Id.
`
`at 98:24-99:3; see also id. at 98:14-20; id. at 99:21-24. Indeed, Dr. Kesan's
`
`10
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`testimony reveals that he believes Kwak does not mention "transmission time
`
`intervals" at all. See id.at 97:10-11 ("There's no discussion of TTIs in Kwak."); id.
`
`at 100:3-9 ("I don't recall seeing that discussion in Kwak."); see also id. at 98:14-
`
`20, 98:24-99:3, 99:21-24, 100:20-23.
`
`Dr. Kesan is mistaken. Kwak uses "transmission time intervals" throughout
`
`its disclosure. E.g., Ex. 1005 at [0070, 0071, 0079, 0087, 0089, 0097, 0100, 0108,
`
`0112, 0119]. For example, Kwak teaches an embodiment involving both periodic
`
`and event-triggered TPS transmission, as depicted in Figure 11:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005 at [0092] & Fig. 11. Kwak teaches that for event-based triggers, "[t]he
`
`UE 1104 transmits the TPS in a MAC-e header in a transmission time interval
`
`following the event." Ex. 1005 at [0097]. Thus, "when the UE 1104 detects
`
`occurrence of the event in a time interval 112, it transmits a TPS in the following
`
`time interval 1113." Id. at [0098]; see also Fig 11. By stating that a TPS is sent in
`
`11
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`a "transmission time interval" following an event, and then describing and
`
`depicting the event and transmission of a TPS in "the following time interval
`
`1113," as highlighted in yellow above, Kwak makes clear that it uses "time
`
`interval" to refer to "transmission time interval." Ex. 1008 ¶30. Indeed, Kwak
`
`equates the two terms again by stating that a TPS can be transmitted in
`
`transmission time interval 1108, illustrated in green above, "even though the BO
`
`transmission time interval 1108 is neither a time interval in which a TPS
`
`transmission is allowed according to the TPS period 1111 nor a time interval
`
`following occurrence of the event." Ex. 1005 at [0100]; Ex. 1008 ¶30.
`
`These examples demonstrate
`
`that Kwak not only uses
`
`the phrase
`
`"transmission time intervals," but also that Kwak uses the phrase "time intervals"
`
`as a shorthand for transmission time intervals. Ex. 1008 ¶¶25-31. And these are
`
`just a few examples among many. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 at Fig. 12 & [0108, 0110,
`
`0112], Fig. 10 & [0087, 0088, 0089], Fig. 9 & [0079], Fig. 8 & [0070, 0071]. Ex.
`
`1008 ¶31.
`
`Moreover, Kwak teaches that these time intervals, like those described in the
`
`’676 patent, are points in time for a transport block to go from the MAC layer to
`
`the physical layer to be transmitted, i.e., the transmitters' turn or point in time to
`
`transmit this inoformation. Ex. 1008 ¶32. As Kwak explains, the MAC-e Packet
`
`Data Unit (PDU) "is carried in the form of a transport block to the PHY layer." Ex.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`1005 at [0055]; see also id. at Fig. 5; id. at [0059]. The time intervals in each of the
`
`disclosed embodiments are directly related to the transmission of these MAC-e
`
`PDU transport blocks. See, .e.g., id. at [0074-0078] & Fig. 9 (describing time
`
`intervals 906, 907, 908, 909 and others as time intervals for transmission of MAC-
`
`e PDU); Ex. 1008 ¶32. That is consistent with how transmission time intervals are
`
`referenced in the ’676 patent. Ex. 1001 at 2:24-29 ("During a period of time called
`
`the transmission time interval (TTI), several transport blocks and some other
`
`parameters are delivered to the physical layer."); Ex. 1008 ¶32.
`
`Kwak uses "time intervals" to refer to "transmission time intervals," which
`
`Kwak discloses are related to the duration of time for a transport block to go from
`
`the MAC layer to the physical layer. Ex. 1008 ¶¶25-32. As even Dr. Kesan
`
`conceded,
`
`If [Kwak] used the words "TTI" and called it "transmission time
`intervals," you know, to refer to the duration of time for a transport
`block to go from the MAC layer to the physical layer, then it's talking
`about a TTI the way it's understood in these systems.
`Ex. 1009 at 105:13-18; see also id.at 105:23-106:4. Accordingly, Kwak's "time
`
`intervals" are transmission time intervals according to the ’676 patent.
`
`2. Kwak's TPS periods are measured in these transmission
`time intervals.
`The Board correctly determined that "Kwak describes the TPS period as a
`
`threshold that must be reached before a subsequent TPS is sent, and teaches that
`
`13
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`the TPS period is set as a certain number of transmission time intervals
`
`following a previous power control headroom report." Dec. at 14. That conclusion
`
`is fully supported by the petition and corresponding evidence. See, e.g., Petition at
`
`30-31; Ex. 1003 ¶¶102-104; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 77-78, 96, 99, 107, 110-111 & Figs 9,
`
`11-12.
`
`Patent Owner argues that the figures and Dr. Williams's testimony do not
`
`support concluding that Kwak's TPS periods are related to its time intervals. Resp.
`
`at 19-20. Patent Owner is wrong.
`
`As Patent Owner's own expert concedes, Kwak's relevant figures illustrate a
`
`consistent use of time intervals, whether numbered, labeled, or otherwise. Ex. 1008
`
`¶36. Figure 12, for example, is illustrated below:
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Ex. 1001 at Fig. 12. As Dr. Kesan concedes, the boxes numbered 1206, 1207,
`
`1208, 1209, and 1211 are each time intervals. Ex. 1009 at 83:8-11. He also agrees
`
`that unnumbered boxes labeled "data," as well as the intervals in between where no
`
`data is transmitted, each reflect a time interval. Id. at 83:14-84:7. Dr. Kesan agrees
`
`that this same depiction is reflected across Kwak's other figures as well. E.g., id. at
`
`77:7-14, 79:20-22 &80:5-81:8 (regarding Fig. 9); id. at 81:13-83:5 (regarding Fig.
`
`11); id. at 84:8-22 (regarding Fig. 8); id. at 84:23-85:6 (regarding Fig. 10). Thus, as
`
`reflected in alternating yellow and blue highlight above, the figures consistently
`
`reflect a series of time intervals along the horizontal axis. Ex. 1008 ¶36.
`
`Kwak's figures also illustrates that the TPS periods are comprised of these
`
`time intervals. Ex. 1008 ¶37. Figure 9, for example, is reproduced below:
`
`Ex. 1001 at Fig. 9. As Figure 9 reflects, TPS period 910 (highlighted in green), is
`
`comprised of four time intervals. Ex. 1008 ¶37. The next TPS period (highlighted
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`in yellow) is also comprised of four time intervals. Id. Patent Owner and its expert
`
`agree that the start of TPS period 910 corresponds to the start of a time interval,
`
`that the end of that TPS period corresponds with the end of a time interval, and that
`
`four time intervals elapse during that TPS period. Resp. at 20; Ex. 2005 ¶60. Dr.
`
`Kesan also agrees that other TPS periods, whether in Figures 9, 11, or 12, are
`
`depicted in a similar manner. Ex. 1009 at 89:23-91:13. Although Patent Owner
`
`contends that no conclusion can be drawn from Kwak's consistent representation of
`
`TPS periods that are each four time intervals in duration, one of skill in the art
`
`would recognize that these figures—combined with their related descriptions—
`
`illustrate a typical UMTS system utilizing transmission time intervals with a TPS
`
`period of four TTIs. Ex. 1003 ¶102; Ex. 1008 ¶37.
`
`Patent Owner attempts to avoid that conclusion with strawmen and red
`
`herrings. For example Patent Owner contends that Dr. Williams's conclusion
`
`"incorrectly assumes that each of the time intervals . . . are [sic] equal in duration,"
`
`Resp. at 20 (citing Dr. Kesan's testimony), a purported assumption that it repeats
`
`throughout its argument. See id. at 21, 23, 24. Dr. Kesan raises that same
`
`strawman and repeats it throughout much of his analysis. Ex. 2005 ¶49 ("[T]hough
`
`he doesn't state it explicitly, I believe that Dr. William's conclusion assumes that
`
`each of the time intervals . . . are equal in duration."); id. ¶¶50, 51, 61, 62, 64.
`
`Neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Kesan cite to any evidence of that assumption.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Indeed, the only purported connection they attempt to make is a bare contention
`
`that "Dr. Williams' assertion that the TPS period is 'set at' a particular number of
`
`transmission time intervals requires that the time intervals are all equal." Ex. 2005
`
`¶64. Yet Dr. Kesan provides no analysis or explanation regarding why or how the
`
`words "set at" somehow require equal time intervals.
`
`In any event, Patent Owner's strawman is beside the point. There is nothing
`
`in the claims or the construction of transmission time intervals that requires them
`
`to be equal duration. Ex. 1009 at 42:15-43:10. But one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`understands that transmission time intervals are a parameter associated with UMTS
`
`systems. Ex. 1009 at 43:6-45:7. Kwak is a UMTS system, and as discussed above,
`
`its "time intervals" are "transmission time intervals." Based on Kwak's figures and
`
`description, one of skill in the art would recognize a typical UMTS system
`
`utilizing transmission time intervals with a TPS period of four TTIs. Ex. 1003
`
`¶102; Ex. 1008 ¶¶39-41. Whether the TTIs are of equal length or not is irrelevant
`
`to that conclusion. Ex. 1008 ¶¶39-41.
`
`Patent Owner contends that Kwak's time intervals correspond to "varying
`
`amounts of data." Resp. at 21. That does not matter. Kwak's MAC-e PDU is a
`
`transport block—a certain-size "packet" or container with a specific structure for
`
`transmitting information and data. E.g., Ex. 1005 at Fig. 5 & [0055]; Ex. 1008 ¶42.
`
`As Dr. Kesan admits, the ’676 patent likewise teaches a transport block comprised
`
`17
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`of a PDU and MAC header, i.e., a "packet" or container with a specific structure
`
`for transmitting information and data. Ex. 1009 at 31:2-21, 32:13-22, 33:12-34:7.
`
`But even if the amount of data in a packet varies, that does not affect the size of the
`
`packet itself, as Dr. Kesan concedes. Id. at 36:11-37:8 . That is because the packet
`
`size is defined for a particular system. Id. at 36:22-23. Thus, whether Kwak's
`
`MAC-e PDUs contain more or less data, the size of the packet itself would not
`
`vary. Ex. 1008 ¶42.
`
`Patent Owner truncates a quote from Kwak to contend that the TPS period is
`
`the "opposite" of being defined by time intervals. Resp. at 23. But the entirety of
`
`that quote and its context demonstrate otherwise:
`
`The UE transmits a TPS every predetermined TPS period. In the
`presence of E-DCH data in time intervals defined by the TPS period,
`a TPS is transmitted along with the E-DCH data in a MAC-e PDU. In
`the absence of E-DCH data, the MAC-e PDU contains only the TPS.
`Ex. 1005 at [0074]. As that section demonstrates, Kwak is not stating that time
`
`intervals are somehow "defined" by the TPS period, as Patent Owner contends. Ex.
`
`1008 ¶43. Rather, Kwak teaches that for a TPS transmitted when E-DCH data is
`
`present, i.e., in time intervals during or "defined" by the TPS period, the TPS will
`
`be transmitted together with the data. Id. That is reflected, for example, in time
`
`intervals 907, 908, and 909. Ex. 1005 at Fig. 9 & [0077]; Ex. 1008 ¶43. In
`
`contrast, when data is not present, the MAC-e PDU contains only the TPS. Ex.
`
`18
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`1008 ¶43. Thus, Kwak's statement is not a contradiction, but rather is consistent
`
`with describing a TPS period defined by time intervals. Ex. 1008 ¶43.
`
`Finally, Patent Owner argues that a more "plausible" understanding of
`
`Kwak's TPS period is that it is defined as a fixed amount of time "such as 50ms,"
`
`rather than a number of transmission time intervals. Resp. at 24. That is incorrect.
`
`As Dr. Kesan admits, transmission time intervals were well known in the art and a
`
`parameter of UMTS systems. Ex. 1009 at 25:5-25; 104:12-19, 43:13-44:10. Kwak
`
`is a UMTS system, Ex. 1005 at [0005]; Ex. 1009 at 104:20-23, and as set forth
`
`above Kwak's "time intervals" are transmission time intervals. Indeed, Kwak's
`
`figures and corresponding descriptions consistently reflect the use of time intervals
`
`along the horizontal access, and TPS periods that correspond to four time intervals.
`
`Ex. 1008 ¶44. The phrase "time intervals" appears 120 times in the Kwak
`
`disclosure. Id. In contrast, measures of time—whether seconds, milliseconds, or
`
`otherwise—do not appear in the Kwak disclosure at all. Id. Against that backdrop,
`
`it is not only more "plausible" to understand the TPS periods to be measured in
`
`TTIs, it is the only conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art would reach. Id.
`
`3. Kwak's TPS periods are an integer number of time
`intervals.
`Patent Owner disputes that Kwak teaches that the TPS period is an integer
`
`number of transmission time intervals. Resp. at 22, 24. But that contention rises
`
`and falls with Patent Owner's dispute that the TPS period is not measured in
`
`19
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`transmission time intervals. Those arguments are addressed above. But in short, as
`
`Kwak's Figures 9, 11, and 12 reflect, and Patent Owner largely agrees, Kwak
`
`consistently represents TPS periods as four time intervals in duration. One of skill
`
`in the art would recognize that these figures—combined with their related
`
`descriptions—illustrate a typical UMTS system utilizing transmission time
`
`intervals with a TPS period of four TTIs. Ex. 1003 ¶102; Ex. 1008 ¶45.
`
`Alternatively, it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art to utilize an integer value of transmission time intervals as the value for Kwak's
`
`TPS period, and to adjust TPS period by adjusting that integer value k. Ex. 1003
`
`¶104; Ex .1008 ¶45. As Dr. Kesan admits, transmission time intervals were well
`
`known in the art and a parameter of UMTS systems. Ex. 1009 at 25:5-25; 104:12-
`
`19, 43:13-44:10. Kwak is a UMTS
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
