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
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Table of Contents
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1
`
`A. Grounds in the Petition ......................................................................... 2
`
`B.
`
`Introduction to the Technology of the ’676 Patent ............................... 3
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 13
`
`A. “power control headroom report” (Claims 1, 19, 33) ......................... 14
`
`B. “transmission time interval” (Claims 1, 19, 33) ................................. 16
`
`C. “path loss” (Claim 3, 21, 34) .............................................................. 17
`
`III. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 19
`
`A. Grounds 1 & 3 - Fong Does not Teach 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” as Recited in the Independent Claims. .................. 19
`
`B. Petitioners Fail to Show that the combination of Otten and Zeira
`Discloses “triggering criterion such that an absolute difference
`between current and most recent path-loss measurements has
`reached a threshold of difference” and fails to demonstrate a
`motivation to combine these references. ............................................ 25
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 31
`
`
`
`I
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01501
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner Cellular Communications Equipment LLC (“CCE” or “Patent
`
`Owner”) hereby files this preliminary response (“Preliminary Response”) to the
`
`Petition (Paper 1) (the “Petition”) for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,457,676 (Ex. 1001) (the “’676 Patent”) in IPR2016-01501 filed by HTC
`
`Corporation and HTC America, Inc. (collectively “HTC” or “Petitioners”).
`
`The Petitioners’ challenge to the ’676 Patent claims should be rejected
`
`because (1) the two references asserted against the independent claims, U.S. Patent
`
`Pub. No. 2004/0223455 (Ex. 1003) (“Fong”) and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`
`2006/0140154 A1 (“Kwak”), each fail to teach or suggest one or more material
`
`limitations of each independent claim; and (2) the combination of WIPO Int’l Pub.
`
`No. WO1996/031009 (“Otten”) does not disclose the limitation for which it is
`
`offered and Petitioners have additionally failed to show a motivation to combine
`
`Otten and Kwak with Fong or Zeir —the combination of references that form the
`
`basis of Petitioners’ obviousness claims asserted against dependent claims 3, 21, and
`
`34 of the ’676 Patent.
`
`This Response is timely under 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(b), as
`
`it is filed within three months of the August 16, 2016 mailing date of the Notice of
`
`Filing Date Accorded to Petition and Time for Filing Patent Owner Preliminary
`
`Response (Paper 3). For purposes of this Preliminary Response, Patent Owner has
`
`1
`
`

`
`IPR20l6-01501
`
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`limited its identification of deficiencies in the Petition and does not intend to waive
`
`any arguments not addressed in this Preliminary Response.
`
`A. Grounds in the Petition
`
`The Petition includes four grounds of alleged invalidity; Grounds 1 and 2 rely
`
`on Fong and Kwak, respectively, for allegedly rendering obvious independent claims
`
`1, 19, and 33 of the ’676 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Grounds 3 and 4 address
`
`only dependent claims 3, 21, and 34 and rely upon adding the combination of Otten
`
`and Zeira to Grounds 1 and 2.
`
`Ground References Combined
`
`Kwak, Otten, and Zeira - 3, 21, 34
`
`Independent
`Dependent
`Claims
`Claims
`1, 19, 33 —
`1, 19, 33 1
`Fong, Often, and Zeira 1 3, 21, 34
`
`Pet. at 5.
`
`As discussed in detail below, Petitioners fail to show that either Fong or Kwak
`
`disclose all limitations in the independent claims, including, for example, “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.” Additionally, Petitioners fail
`
`to show that Otten and Zeira, either separately or in combination, disclose the
`
`dependent
`
`limitation “the set of at least one triggering criterion comprises a
`
`triggering criterion such that an absolute difference between current and most recent
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01501
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`path-loss measurements has reached a threshold of difference” as claimed. Further,
`
`Petitioners fail to demonstrate a motivation to combine these references. Thus, the
`
`Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that any of the proposed
`
`grounds of unpatentability will succeed for any claim of the ’676 patent.
`
`B. Introduction to the Technology of the ’676 Patent
`
`The following provides an introduction to the network technologies related to
`
`the ’676 Patent.
`
`Cellular networks are built on the principle of “cells.” They provide coverage
`
`over large areas by implementing an array of smaller cells that house equipment,
`
`known as base stations, supporting a relatively smaller service area. A large number
`
`of these “cells” are aggregated to provide coverage across a wide area. Base stations
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01501
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`enable mobile devices such as cell phones to communicate with them wirelessly
`
`using certain electromagnetic radio frequencies known as the wireless spectrum.
`
`Companies in this industry invest heavily in the design and optimization of cellular
`
`networks in order to make the most efficient use of the wireless spectrum and to
`
`ensure cellular technologies are implemented in a standardized and uniform manner.
`
`To this end, industry leaders participate in non-profit organizations, such as the
`
`Third-Generation Partnership Project (known as “3GPP”) and the European
`
`Telecommunications Standards Institute (known as “ETSI”), to share responsibility
`
`for developing and publishing cellular technology standards. An example of specific
`
`cellular standards relevant to the ’676 Patent are the LTE and LTE-Advanced
`
`standards. LTE is a fourth generation, or 4G network technology and provides
`
`advancements over the earlier second and third generation cellular technologies
`
`known as GSM, 2G, and UMTS, 3G. LTE supports data communication via packet-
`
`switched services such as web browsing, electronic mail, text chat sessions, file
`
`transfers, interactive game sessions, voice-over-IP (Internet Protocol) sessions, and
`
`so forth.
`
`In a multiuser environment, a number of users share the same radio resources.
`
`A consequence of the limited availability of radio channels in the network is that the
`
`same channel has to be assigned to many users. Thus, a signal intended for a certain
`
`user will reach other users, possibly introducing interference to their connection and
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01501
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`degrading system quality. A mobile device with a very good quality connection may
`
`use lower power and still have acceptable quality. The advantage is that it will
`
`disturb other users less, thereby improving the quality of their connection. Power
`
`control provides this power management in a controlled manner.
`
`In particular, the ’676 Patent describes techniques for sending power
`
`headroom reports to the base station if one or more conditions, known as triggers,
`
`are met. In an LTE system, multiple mobile devices in a single cell transmit
`
`simultaneously to the base station. One important consideration for these
`
`transmissions is power. All mobile device transmissions require power, and different
`
`circumstances may require higher or lower power transmissions.
`
`Managing power constraints presents several challenges. For example, in
`
`favorable conditions a low power level may suffice. However, a mobile device
`
`moving away from a cell may need to increase its power to maintain a set data
`
`transmission rate. Typically, for various reasons, mobile devices are subject to a
`
`maximum power level for their transmissions.
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01501
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`Additionally, a mobile device transmitting on a single code at a specified
`
`power may also need to concurrently transmit using a second code. This increases
`
`the total power output of the device, but again this cannot exceed the device’s
`
`
`
`maximum power level.
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01501
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`
`
`To avoid exceeding the maximum transmission power, mobile devices keep a
`
`power headroom, which represents the difference between the maximum power and
`
`the current transmission power. Before increasing the transmission power, the
`
`mobile device ensures that the increase does not exceed the existing power
`
`headroom.
`
`The Problem to be Solved
`In an LTE system, the base station, known as an e-Node B, must allocate
`
`resources such as bandwidth across numerous mobile devices known also as “User
`
`Equipment” or “UE.” Cellular phones represent one type of UE. As the ’676 Patent
`
`explains, in order for the base station to properly make these allocations, it needs to
`
`be aware of the power levels at which the UEs are transmitting. For instance, before
`
`allocating additional resource to a UE, it would be helpful for the base station to
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01501
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`know how much additional resource that UE can handle.
`
`
`
`To this end, the UEs send Power Headroom Reports to the base station. But
`
`there is a trade-off between the value of this information and the overhead of sending
`
`it to the base station. As such, any report from the UE to the base station comes at a
`
`cost to the overall throughput capacity (system uplink capacity) for the system. Thus,
`
`the inventors sought a way to eliminate unnecessary cost by implementing power
`
`headroom reporting on a limited, controlled basis.
`
`The Inventive Solution Provided by the ’676 Patent
`The solution, in one embodiment illustrated particularly in Figure 3 of the
`
`‘676 Patent, was to implement certain threshold parameters at the UE, which can be
`
`adjusted by the base station.
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01501
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`
`
`The ’676 Patent, titled “Power Headroom Reporting Method” was filed on
`
`June 23, 2008 and claims priority to its provisional application filed on June 20,
`
`2007 and was disclosed as potentially essential to the LTE standard. The ’676 Patent
`
`is directed to an apparatus and method that “provides specific reporting criteria that
`
`are an attractive trade-off between signaling overhead versus overall uplink
`
`performance for LTE.” ’676 Patent at 4:32-35.
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01501
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`
`
`When the UE determines that a threshold from a set of one or more criterion
`
`has been reached, it triggers sending a Power Headroom Report to the base station.
`
`The inventors discovered the following triggering criteria “are found 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. Further, the triggering criterion “includes a threshold having been
`
`reached, and the threshold is adjustable via a signal to the user equipment from a
`
`base station.” Id. at Abstract.
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01501
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`
`
`After receiving the Power Headroom Report, the base station can provide a
`
`power control correction command to the UE, which adjusts its signals accordingly.
`
`By providing Power Headroom Reports on a specifically controlled basis, the ’676
`
`Patent allows the base station to make optimal radio resource management decisions,
`
`while minimizing the impact the power headroom reporting has on the throughput
`
`capacity for the system.
`
`One important goal of the ’676 Patent is “to (partly or fully) compensate the
`
`path-loss (including antenna-pattern, distance dependent path-loss and shadowing)
`
`between the eNode-B and the terminal.” ’676 Patent at 4:3-5. To this end, the
`
`inventors found that measurement of path-loss “based on the DL [downlink] (e.g.
`
`DL pilot channel)” was an effective parameter to analyze for optimizing the trade-
`
`offs. Id. at 4:2-7. The inventors found that “[e]ven if the frequency of potential power
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01501
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`adjustments at the terminal is high but the measured path-loss is not changing, [then]
`
`UL signaling would be a waste of resources.” Id. at 4:7-14. The issue for reporting
`
`then becomes the potential misinterpretation of closed loop power control
`
`commands from the base station by the UE. Id. This would potentially be a problem
`
`where “relative closed loop power control commands are used (which is also the
`
`working assumption in 3GPP).” Id. at 4:14-17.
`
`To solve the above problems, the inventors came up with a method of
`
`triggering power headroom reports only under specific conditions as recited, for
`
`example, in claim 1 of the ’676 Patent:
`
`[1.] A method comprising:
`
`[1a] determining that a set of at least one triggering criterion is met; and
`
`[1b] providing a power control headroom report on an uplink from user
`
`equipment, in response to determining that the set is met,
`
`[1c-d] wherein said at least one triggering criterion include at least one
`
`threshold having been reached, wherein said at least one threshold is
`
`adjustable via a signal to the user equipment,
`
`[1e] 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 6:26-40. Claim 19 is a counterpart apparatus claim. Although claim
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01501
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`19’s language differs from claim 1, the analysis provided herein applies to both
`
`claims.
`
`Additionally, the inventors found that adjusting for the path-loss by using a
`
`triggering criterion “such that an absolute difference between current and most
`
`recent path-loss measurements has reached a threshold of difference” for sending
`
`the power control headroom reports was a particularly beneficial parameter. See ’676
`
`Patent at 6:45-47 (claims 3 and 21). In this case a path loss change (e.g., entering or
`
`leaving a building causing a significant change in path loss) whether the path loss
`
`increases by a certain amount, or decreases by a certain amount, a power headroom
`
`report is triggered.
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The claim terms in the ’676 Patent are given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in the instant proceeding, as the ’676 Patent is an unexpired patent.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Although claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, claims are not interpreted in a vacuum but are part of and read in light
`
`of the specification. Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc., 810 F.2d 1113, 1116
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1987). Additionally, “claims mean precisely what they say.” Cent.
`
`Admixture Pharmacy Servs., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiac Sols., P.C., 482 F.3d 1347,
`
`1355 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“We look to the words of the claims themselves ... to define
`
`the scope of the patented invention.”) (emphasis added). The words of the claim are
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01501
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the specification. In re Trans logic Tech.,
`
`Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The construction that stays true to the
`
`claim language and most naturally aligns with the inventor’s description is likely the
`
`correct interpretation. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243,
`
`1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998). A claim term is presumed to be given its ordinary and
`
`customary meaning absent the patent clearly setting forth a different definition of
`
`the term in the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
`However, the broadest reasonable interpretation must not be “unreasonably broad in
`
`light of the language of the claims and specification.” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn,
`
`Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (reversing the PTAB’s final decision for
`
`applying an overbroad claim construction). “A construction that is ‘unreasonably
`
`broad’ and which does not ‘reasonably reflect the plain language and disclosure’ will
`
`not pass muster.” Id. at 1298 (quoting In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255,
`
`1260).
`
`The Petition asks the Board to construe three claim terms:
`
`A. “power control headroom report” (Claims 1, 19, 33)
`
`Petitioners suggest that this term be construed as “a report that provides a
`
`measure of how close the terminal’s transmission power is relative to its maximum
`
`transmission power.” (emphasis added). Pet. at 9. Petitioners’ assertion is bereft of
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01501
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`any analysis or argument whatsoever other than citing broadly to two paragraphs of
`
`the ’676 Patent and referencing a paragraph in Petitioners’ expert declaration. Id.
`
`But the two cited paragraphs do nothing to support Petitioners’ construction and
`
`furthermore, the Petitioners’ construction is not even consistent with the cited
`
`expert’s declaration. See Ex. 1003 at ¶ 45 (“Indeed, power control headroom is
`
`generally understood by those of ordinary skill in the art to refer to any report
`
`regarding the transmission power conditions that may be relevant to determining
`
`power control instructions.”) Moreover, Petitioner’s expert provides no support or
`
`reasoning for this conclusory assertion. Such conclusory testimony, without any
`
`underlying reasoning, facts, or data, should be given no evidentiary weight. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (stating opinion testimony that does not disclose underlying facts
`
`or data “is entitled to little or no weight”). Furthermore, even if the declaration
`
`provided evidence supporting Petitioners’ construction, it would not save the
`
`Petition because the arguments must be in the Petition itself. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3)
`
`(“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference ....”).
`
`Patent Owner, in keeping with the presumption that the term receive its “plain
`
`and ordinary meaning” suggests that the claim term “power control headroom
`
`report” can be construed simply as “a report containing power headroom
`
`information.”
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01501
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`B. “transmission time interval” (Claims 1, 19, 33)
`
`Petitioners suggest this term should be construed as “any specified period of
`
`time.” Pet. at 9. This construction is unreasonably broad, is inconsistent with the
`
`specification, and ignores the plain an ordinary meaning of the claim language. First,
`
`Petitioners’ proposed construction of “transmission time interval” misstates the term
`
`as used in the challenged claims. The challenged claims use the term “transmission
`
`time intervals” (plural). Petitioners’ definition attempts to read the plural nature of
`
`the claim term out of its meaning. Additionally, Petitioners’ construction ignores the
`
`“words of the terms themselves.” The claim term “transmission” modifies “time
`
`intervals” indicating that the time interval is relative with respect to a transmission.
`
`To combat transmission errors on mobile digital telecommunications radio
`
`links, data is divided at the transmitter into Transport Blocks and then the bits within
`
`a block are encoded and interleaved. For a particular channel, the period of time
`
`within which the Transport Blocks need to be transmitted (i.e., exchanged between
`
`medium access control (MAC) and the physical layers) is known as the Transmission
`
`Time Interval (TTI). See ’676 Patent at 2:19-29.
`
`This is consistent with the specification:
`
`The basic data unit exchanged between MAC and physical layer is
`
`called the Transport Block (TB). It is composed of an RLC PDU and a
`
`MAC header. During a period of time called the transmission time
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01501
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`interval (TTI), several transport blocks and some other parameters are
`
`delivered to the physical layer.
`
`Id.
`
`Thus, a Transmission Time Interval is a period of time during which transport
`
`blocks are transmitted. And the claim term “transmission time intervals” should be
`
`construed as “time periods determined by the duration of a transmission of one or
`
`more transport blocks.”
`
`C. “path loss” (Claim 3, 21, 34)
`
`Petitioners suggest that this term be construed as “any wireless signal loss”
`
`(emphasis added). Pet. at 10. Petitioners’ construction is bereft of any analysis or
`
`argument whatsoever other than the citations to the ’676 Patent specification (none
`
`of which support this unreasonably broad construction) and a paragraph in
`
`Petitioners’ expert declaration. Id. This is insufficient. The regulations require that a
`
`petition for inter partes review must include “a detailed explanation of the
`
`significance of the evidence,” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2). Moreover, Petitioners’
`
`construction is not even consistent with the cited expert’s declaration: “those skilled
`
`in the art would have understood that term to mean degradation or loss in the quality
`
`of a wireless signal, such as through distance, shadowing, or other factors known
`
`well by those skilled in the art.” Ex. 1003 at ¶ 47. Petitioner’s expert however,
`
`discounts the specification and provides no support or reasoning for his conclusory
`
`assertion. Id. Such conclusory testimony, without any underlying reasoning, facts,
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01501
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`or data, should be given no evidentiary weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).
`
`Furthermore, even if the declaration provided credible evidence supporting
`
`Petitioners’ construction, it should not be allowed because the arguments must be in
`
`the Petition itself. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (emphasis added) (“Arguments must not
`
`be incorporated by reference....”); McClinton Energy Grp., LLC v. Magnum Oil Int’l,
`
`LTD, IPR2013-00231, Paper 31 at 17 (PTAB 2014).
`
`Additionally, Petitioner ignores the “words of the claims themselves” and
`
`seeks to read out of the claim language the term “path.” The specification discusses
`
`path loss in the following quote: “Further, the aim of these power adjustments at the
`
`terminal is basically to (partly or fully) compensate the path-loss (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).” Thus, “any wireless signal loss” is inconsistent with the specification as
`
`“path loss” provides that it is a wireless signal loss associated with the signal’s path
`
`(including antenna-pattern, distance dependent path-loss and shadowing) measured
`
`based on the downlink.
`
`Notwithstanding Petitioners’ erroneous construction, for purposes of this
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response, Patent Owner contends that construction of this
`
`term is not necessary to determine that institution should be denied on all grounds.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner does not offer a construction of this term at this time,
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01501
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`but reserves the right to propose constructions, either affirmatively or in rebuttal, if
`
`trial is instituted on any ground.
`
`With respect to the remaining claim terms, because it is not necessary for the
`
`Board to construe these terms in order to make a determination that the present
`
`Petition should be denied, Patent Owner does not take a position as to claim
`
`construction in this Preliminary Response. Notwithstanding, Patent Owner reserves
`
`the right to do so in the event trial is instituted in this case.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Grounds 1 & 3 - Fong Does not Teach 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”
`as Recited in the Independent Claims.
`
`Independent claims 1, 19, and 33 of the ’676 Patent require, among other
`
`things: “. . . 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. . .” ’676 Patent at 6:34-38 (emphasis added).
`
`Petitioners rely on Fong as teaching this limitation for Ground 1. Pet. at 15-16
`
`(citing Fong paragraphs [0045], [0052]). Fong discusses “three triggers for sending
`
`a reverse request message.” Fong at [0052]. In particular, Petitioners cite the “buffer
`
`update trigger” (first trigger) which uses the MIN_DURATION trigger field. Id.
`
`Fong expressly discloses that the MIN_DURATION field is provided in terms of
`
`19
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01501
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`“system time” measured in mobile station clocks. Id. (“whether a current system
`
`time (the time provided by the clock of the mobile station) exceeds a time at which
`
`a reverse request message was last transmitted for the service instance i by the
`
`predetermined time duration” MIN_DURATION. Id. Fong provides this so that
`
`regardless how quickly its buffer state changes, there is a minimum specified time
`
`duration between reverse request messages sent to the base station to update the
`
`buffer’s status. Pet. at 16; Fong at [0052]. But the “time duration” specified here is
`
`not a number of “transmission time intervals” as claimed. In fact, Fong does not
`
`disclose using transmission time intervals at all, much less using them as a threshold
`
`measure “of k transmission time intervals following a previous power control
`
`headroom report.”
`
`As explained above with regard to claim construction of “transmission time
`
`intervals” in Section II.B supra, a “transmission time interval” is a function of the
`
`size of the blocks transmitted. Thus counting transmission time intervals is not the
`
`same as counting “system time” in mobile station clocks. Here, Petitioners’
`
`obviousness argument falls apart since it relies on an unreasonable claim
`
`construction equating the claimed “transmission time intervals” with “any specified
`
`period of time” (see pages 15-17 above regarding Petitioners’ flawed claim
`
`construction).
`
`Petitioner provides essentially identical arguments for this limitation under
`
`20
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01501
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`claims 1, 19, and 33. Because this element is missing from all three claims,
`
`Petitioners’ obviousness argument fails for all three. Claims cannot be found obvious
`
`if an element of the claim is absent from the prior art. See CFMT Inc. v. YieldUp
`
`Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Obviousness requires a
`
`suggestion of all limitations in a claim.”) (citing In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985
`
`(C.C.P.A. 1974)); In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (reversing
`
`obviousness rejection where prior art did not teach or suggest all claim limitations);
`
`Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Patent of Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, Case No. IPR2012-00001,
`
`Paper 15 at 15 (PTAB 2013) (refusing to institute an inter partes review under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 where prior art did not disclose all claim limitations). Because
`
`Petitioners fail to show the claim element “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,” Petitioners have failed to meet their burden and the
`
`Board should deny institution of independent claims 1, 19, and 33 accordingly. As
`
`explained above, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that at least
`
`one of the challenged claims of the ’676 Patent under Grounds 1 and 3 is
`
`unpatentable.
`
`In an apparent acknowledgement that Fong fails to disclose the claimed
`
`limitation, Petitioners argue in a conclusory fashion that one of ordinary skill “would
`
`21
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01501
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`have understood” Fong to teach the limitation. Pet. at 16-17. This is because,
`
`according to Petitioners, “Fong teaches that its disclosed embodiments can be
`
`utilized in many types of wireless protocols” and that a POSITA “would have
`
`understood that transmission time interval is a parameter [in these systems].”
`
`For reference, the entirety of Petitioner’s argument and reasoning is
`
`reproduced below:
`
`Fong teaches that its disclosed embodiments can be utilized in many
`
`types of wireless protocols, including CDMA, TDMA, and UMTS
`
`(Universal Mobile Telecommunications) protocols. Id. at [0018]. One
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that transmission time
`
`interval is a parameter in UMTS and other digital telecommunication
`
`networks. Ex. 1003 at ¶80. Indeed, the ’676 patent admits that UMTS
`
`radio networks were prior art to the ’676 patent, and that such a protocol
`
`includes a period of time called the transmission time interval (TTI).
`
`Ex. 1001 at 1:26-30, 2:19-29. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`reading Fong’s disclosure of a threshold value MIN_DURATION
`
`would have understood that disclosure in the context of a UMTS system
`
`to teach that the specified time duration for MIN_DURATION is a value
`
`for k transmission time intervals, where k is an integer. Ex. 1003 at
`
`¶ 79-80.
`
`Pet. at 16-17.
`
`Petitioners have not demonstrated that “a skilled artisan would have been
`
`motivated to combine the teachings of the[se] prior art references to achieve the
`
`22
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01501
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`claimed invention” or “that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable
`
`expectation of success in doing so.” InTouch Techs., 751 F.3d at 1347–49 (reversing
`
`judgment of obviousness where the evidence did “not explain what reason or
`
`motivation one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have
`
`had to place the pieces [of the prior art] together” to reach the claimed invention).
`
`For example, Petitioners do not explain how one of ordinary skill in the art “would
`
`have understood” Fong “in the context of a UMTS system to teach that the specified
`
`time duration for MIN_DURATION is a value for k transmission time intervals” or
`
`why a person of ordinary skill in the art would see the need to modify Fong such that
`
`the MIN_DURATION would be measured in “transmission time intervals.” Id. This
`
`amounts to unsupported attorney argument.
`
`In support of these conclusions, Petitioners cite to paragraphs 79-80 of their
`
`expert declaration. Pet. at 16-17. But the cited paragraphs of the declaration merely
`
`parrot (substantially verbatim) Petitioner’s conclusory attorney argument without
`
`any further explanation or evidence, as discussed above. Compare e.g., Pet. 16-17
`
`with Ex. 1003 ¶ 80 (showing expert testimony essentially identical to conclusory
`
`attorney argument). Indeed, the declaration does not provide the missing evidence
`
`identified above, such as how or why the cited document teaches what he alleges is
`
`taught or how it shows that the invention is obvious or why a person or ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have been motivated to make the proposed combination of elements.
`
`23
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01501
`Patent 8,457,676
`
`Moreover, the declaration does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have concluded that counting transmission time intervals is the same as
`
`counting “system time” in mobile station clocks found in Fong. The alleged support
`
`in the declaration, therefore, should be given no weight.
`
`In

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