throbber
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
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATION OF CROSS-EXAMINATION OF
`TIM A. WILLIAMS, PH.D.
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01501
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`Patent Owner Cellular Communications Equipment LLC (“CCE”) hereby
`
`files this motion for observation of the testimony of Dr. Tim A. Williams obtained
`
`on September 19, 2017, during the cross-examination of his Second Declaration
`
`(Exhibit 1008). This motion includes one exhibit—the transcript of the testimony
`
`of Dr. Williams during his cross-examination on September 19, 2017 (Exhibit 2006).
`
`Observation No. 1
`
`In Exhibit 2006, on page 20, line 11 through page 22, line 21, the witness
`
`testified that the inventors of the ’676 patent described the problem they sought to
`
`solve using a reference to an “eNode-B” which the witness testified is specific
`
`nomenclature used in an LTE system. That testimony is relevant to Patent Owner’s
`
`argument on pages 14-15 of the Patent Owner Response (Paper 11). The testimony
`
`is relevant because Patent Owner has argued that the problem that the inventors
`
`sought to solve impacts the perspective of a person of skill in the art.
`
`Observation No. 2
`
`In Exhibit 2006, on page 24, line 9 through page 25, line 15, the witness
`
`testified that the inventors of the ’676 patent identified one of the problems they
`
`sought to solve as related to 3GPP’s inability to find satisfactory criteria for sending
`
`power control headroom reports to an eNode-B from a user terminal and that
`
`statement refers to the ongoing efforts for developing the LTE standard at the time
`
`of the invention. That testimony is relevant to Patent Owner’s argument on pages
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01501
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`14-15 of the Patent Owner Response (Paper 11). The testimony is relevant because
`
`Patent Owner has argued that the problem that the inventors sought to solve impacts
`
`the perspective of a person of skill in the art.
`
`Observation No. 3
`
`In Exhibit 2006, on page 30, lines 2-12, the witness testified that 3rd
`
`Generation WCDMA systems are derived from CDMA technology, whereas 4th
`
`Generation LTE Systems are not derived from CDMA technology. That testimony
`
`is relevant to Patent Owner’s argument that WCDMA systems did not reflect the
`
`same needs for power headroom reporting as LTE systems on pages 14-15 of the
`
`Patent Owner Response (Paper 11). The testimony is relevant because the parties’
`
`positions differ as to the significance of the differences between the systems of the
`
`’676 patent and the Kwak reference.
`
`Observation No. 4
`
`In Exhibit 2006, on page 33, line 25 through page 34, line 18, the witness
`
`testified that there are differences in the power control implementations of 3G
`
`WCDMA systems and 4G LTE systems, but he did not consider them relevant to his
`
`analysis. That testimony is relevant to Patent Owner’s argument that Kwak does not
`
`offer a solution analogous to the power headroom reporting criteria that hold specific
`
`benefit to an LTE implementation on pages 14-15 of the Patent Owner Response
`
`(Paper 11). The testimony is relevant because the witness holds an opinion that
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01501
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`differs from the opinion of Dr. Kesan regarding the significance of such differences
`
`in power control between WCDMA and LTE and the influence those differences
`
`would have had on a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`Observation No. 5
`
`In Exhibit 2006, on page 41, line 1-15, the witness testified the portion of the
`
`’676 patent that refers to the parameter “k” being “configured via RRC signaling”
`
`would, in his opinion, be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to imply the
`
`ability to adjust parameters at the UE. That testimony is relevant to Dr. Kesan’s
`
`testimony that the same portion of the patent describing the parameters to be
`
`“configured” does not indicate that the parameters are adjustable, but instead
`
`indicates that the parameters are merely set, at Exhibit 1009, at page 133, line 21
`
`through page 134, line 18. That testimony is also relevant to Patent Owner’s
`
`argument that Kwak’s disclosure of a parameter “notified to the UE” does not
`
`disclose or render obvious that the parameter (TPS Period) is adjustable at pages 16-
`
`19 of Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 11). The testimony is relevant because the
`
`witness holds an opinion that differs from the opinion of Dr. Kesan regarding
`
`whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand “configuring a
`
`parameter by RRC” to imply “adjusting” the parameter.
`
`Observation No. 5
`
`In Exhibit 2006, on page 54, lines 1-12, the witness testified that, as used by
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01501
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`Kwak to describe the TPS period as a “predetermined fixed value,” he understands
`
`the term “predetermined” to mean “determined before the UE ever gets into the field
`
`or is ever provisioned on the network.” That testimony is relevant to Patent Owner’s
`
`argument that Kwak’s disclosure of a parameter “notified to the UE” does not
`
`disclose or render obvious that the parameter (TPS Period) is adjustable at pages 16-
`
`19 of Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 11). The testimony is relevant because
`
`Petitioner identifies the TPS Period as an adjustable threshold based on Kwak’s
`
`disclosure of the TPS Period as either a “predetermined fixed value” or “notified to
`
`the UE.”
`
`Observation No. 6
`
`In Exhibit 2006, on page 54, lines 16-19, the witness testified that, as used by
`
`Kwak to describe the TPS period as a “predetermined fixed value,” he understands
`
`the term “fixed” to mean “that the value cannot be changed.” That testimony is
`
`relevant to Patent Owner’s argument that the TPS Period of Kwak is not disclosed
`
`to be adjustable at pages 16-19 of Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 11). The
`
`testimony is relevant because Petitioner identifies the TPS Period as an adjustable
`
`threshold based on Kwak’s disclosure of the TPS Period as either a “predetermined
`
`fixed value” or “notified to the UE.”
`
`Observation No. 7
`
`In Exhibit 2006, on page 54, line 20 through page 55, line 2, the witness
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01501
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`testified that, as used by Kwak to describe the TPS period as alternatively “notified
`
`to the UE,” he understands the term “notified” to mean “that the TPS period value
`
`can be configured, adjusted [in] the UE.” That testimony is relevant to Patent
`
`Owner’s argument that the TPS Period of Kwak is not disclosed to be adjustable at
`
`pages 16-19 of Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 11). The testimony is relevant
`
`because Kwak’s use of the term “notified” is the basis for Petitioner’s position that
`
`the TPS Period is adjustable.
`
`Observation No. 8
`
`In Exhibit 2006, on page 55, lines 3-19, the witness testified that, the
`
`definition he has applied to Kwak’s use of the phrase “notified to the UE” is not the
`
`plain meaning, but instead includes his expansion of the meaning to include
`
`“adjusting” because it involves the “use of precious over-the-air resources.” That
`
`testimony is relevant to Patent Owner’s argument that the TPS Period of Kwak is
`
`not disclosed to be adjustable at pages 16-19 of Patent Owner’s Response (Paper
`
`11). The testimony is relevant because Kwak’s use of the term “notified” is the basis
`
`for Petitioner’s position that the TPS Period is adjustable.
`
`Observation No. 9
`
`In Exhibit 2006, on page 60, line 15 through page 62, line 9, the witness
`
`testified that whether or not the TPS Period parameter is predetermined is immaterial
`
`to his opinion that Kwak’s contrast of a “predetermined fixed value” to a value
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01501
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`“notified to the UE” supports his opinion that “notified” implies adjustability. That
`
`testimony is relevant to Patent Owner’s argument that the term “notified” indicates
`
`merely that the Node B provides the value of the TPS period to the UE, as opposed
`
`to the value being “predetermined” at pages 18 of Patent Owner’s Response (Paper
`
`11). The testimony is relevant to the meaning of Kwak’s use of “notified” because
`
`the witness has provided the opinion that the contrast that Kwak offers is between
`
`the value being “fixed” or “notified,” whereas Patent Owner holds the position that
`
`Kwak’s contrast is between the value being “predetermined” or “notified.”
`
`Observation No. 10
`
`In Exhibit 2006, on page 63, lines 4-13, the witness testified that in the context
`
`that Kwak uses the term “notified to the UE,” it is his opinion that the sending of
`
`any parameter over-the-air to the UE would make that parameter adjustable. That
`
`testimony is relevant to Patent Owner’s argument that the TPS Period of Kwak is
`
`not disclosed to be adjustable at pages 16-19 of Patent Owner’s Response (Paper
`
`11). The testimony is relevant because Kwak’s use of the term “notified” is the basis
`
`for Petitioner’s position that the TPS Period is adjustable.
`
`Observation No. 10
`
`In Exhibit 2006, on page 63, line 19 through page 64, line 2, the witness
`
`testified that Kwak does not disclose that the TPS Period has a value at the UE before
`
`it is notified of the value. That testimony is relevant to Patent Owner’s argument that
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01501
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`the TPS Period of Kwak is not disclosed to be adjustable at pages 16-19 of Patent
`
`Owner’s Response (Paper 11). The testimony is relevant because Kwak’s use of the
`
`term “notified” is the basis for Petitioner’s position that the TPS Period is adjustable.
`
`Observation No. 11
`
`In Exhibit 2006, on page 66, line 22 through page 64, line 14, and on page 70,
`
`line 25 through page 71, line 6, the witness testified that it is his opinion that there
`
`is no difference between his use of the phrase “as opposed to that predetermined
`
`value” and Dr. Kesan’s quoted testimony of “as opposed to the value being
`
`predetermined.” That testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s argument that Dr. Kesan
`
`has admitted that “Kwak uses ‘notified’ to indicate that the Node B provides a value
`
`to the UE as opposed to that predetermined value,” at pages 7 of Petitioner’s Reply
`
`(Paper 13). The testimony is relevant because Petitioner relies on Dr. Williams’
`
`interpretation of Dr. Kesan’s testimony as support for this “apparent admission” of
`
`Dr. Kesan.
`
`Observation No. 12
`
`In Exhibit 2006, on page 72, line 16 through page 74, line 4, the witness
`
`testified that the opinion he has provided in this matter is not that Kwak explicitly
`
`discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 19 that recite “at least one threshold that is
`
`adjustable via a signal to the user equipment” and “adjusting the threshold integer
`
`k;” but rather, he has provided the opinion that these limitations are rendered obvious
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01501
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`when combined with the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. That
`
`testimony is relevant to Patent Owner’s argument that the TPS Period of Kwak is
`
`not disclosed to be adjustable at pages 16-19 of Patent Owner’s Response (Paper
`
`11). The testimony is relevant because Dr. Williams had previously testified (at
`
`Exhibit 2004, page 58, lines 11-19 and page 61, line 5 through page 64, line 8) that
`
`it was his opinion that those limitations of claim 1 are explicitly disclosed by Kwak.
`
`Observation No. 13
`
`In Exhibit 2006, on page 83, line 12 through page 84, line 14, the witness
`
`testified that his opinion that Kwak discloses the TPS Period to be 4 TTIs is based
`
`solely on his interpretation of the how it is illustrated in Figures 9, 11, and 12, noting
`
`that Kwak doesn’t state the TPS Period to be 4 TTIs explicitly in the text. That
`
`testimony is relevant to Patent Owner’s argument that the Kwak does not disclose
`
`the TPS Period to be a “threshold of k transmission time intervals following a
`
`previous power control headroom report, wherein k is an integer” at page 19-25 of
`
`Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 11). The testimony is relevant because Petitioner
`
`argues that Kwak explicitly discloses the TPS Period to be set as 4 TTIs, and thereby
`
`meets the limitations of claims 1 and 19 stated above.
`
`Observation No. 14
`
`In Exhibit 2006, on page 92, line 21 through page 94, line 6, and page 95,
`
`lines 9-17, the witness testified that his opinion that Kwak discloses the TPS Period
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01501
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`to be 4 TTIs is also based on inherency from “the facts of the case,” which is an
`
`opinion that he did not express in his declarations. That testimony is relevant to
`
`Patent Owner’s argument that the Kwak does not disclose the TPS Period to be a
`
`“threshold of k transmission time intervals following a previous power control
`
`headroom report, wherein k is an integer” at page 19-25 of Patent Owner’s Response
`
`(Paper 11). The testimony is relevant because Petitioner has not previously presented
`
`an argument that the TPS Period is inherently measured as a certain number of TTIs
`
`based on the “facts of the case.”
`
`Observation No. 15
`
`In Exhibit 2006, on page 96, lines 15-23, the witness testified that the TPS
`
`Period of Kwak could be defined in terms of milliseconds at the physical layer, but
`
`in his opinion, when used at the MAC layer, it could be translated into a number of
`
`TTIs. That testimony is relevant to Patent Owner’s argument that the TPS Period of
`
`Kwak is more likely to be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art as a
`
`measure of time in seconds or milliseconds at page 24 of Patent Owner’s Response
`
`(Paper 11). That testimony is also relevant to Petitioner’s argument that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art could only reach the conclusion that the TPS periods of Kwak
`
`are measured in TTIs. The testimony is relevant because the parties disagree as to
`
`how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the TPS Period to be
`
`defined.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01501
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`Observation No. 16
`
`In Exhibit 2006, on page 97, line 22 through page 99, line 4, the witness
`
`testified that Kwak only provides a specific example of the TPS Period being 4 TTIs
`
`in the figures, but does not disclose any other exemplary values of TPS Period, nor
`
`does Kwak ever discuss changing the value of TPS Period to a value other than 4
`
`TTIs. That testimony is relevant to Patent Owner’s argument that the TPS Period of
`
`Kwak is more likely to be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art as a
`
`measure of time in seconds or milliseconds at page 24 of Patent Owner’s Response
`
`(Paper 11). That testimony is relevant to Patent Owner’s argument that the TPS
`
`Period of Kwak is not disclosed to be adjustable at pages 16-19 of Patent Owner’s
`
`Response (Paper 11). That testimony is also relevant to Patent Owner’s argument
`
`that Kwak does not disclose the limitation “adjusting the threshold integer k” at
`
`pages 25-26 of Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 11). The testimony is relevant
`
`because Petitioner relies on Dr. Williams’ testimony to argue that Kwak discloses
`
`the TPS Period to be adjustable and that Kwak discloses “adjusting the threshold
`
`integer k,” as recited in claims 1 and 19.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01501
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`Dated: October 4, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Terry A. Saad (Reg. No. 62,492)
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Bragalone Conroy PC
`2200 Ross Ave.
`Suite 4500 – West
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that document was served via electronic mail
`
`on October 4, 2017, to Petitioners via counsel, steve.moore@pillsburylaw.com,
`
`brian.nash@pillsburylaw.com,
`
`rene.mai@pillsburylaw.com,
`
`and
`
`docket_ip@pillsburylaw.com pursuant to Petitioners’ consent in its Petition at
`
`page 3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Terry A. Saad (Reg. No. 62,492)
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Bragalone Conroy PC
`2200 Ross Ave.
`Suite 4500 – West
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`12
`
`

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