IN THE
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Paper No. 1
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, Inc.
`ZTE CORPORATION, and ZTE (USA), Inc., Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`Issued: June 4, 2013
`Inventor(s): Juergen Michel et al.
`Title: POWER HEADROOM REPORTING METHOD
`
`Inter Partes Review No.
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,457,676 B2 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319
`AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80, 42.100-.123
`_____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676
`
`Table of Contents
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ....................................................................................................... 2
`A. Real Party-in-Interest .......................................................................................................... 2
`B. Related Matters ................................................................................................................... 2
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................... 3
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ................................................................................................. 4
`IV. RELIEF REQUESTED ............................................................................................................. 4
`V. THE REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF ............................................................... 4
`A. The ‘676 Patent ................................................................................................................... 5
`1. Overview ....................................................................................................................... 5
`2. Prosecution History ....................................................................................................... 7
`B. Identification of Challenges ................................................................................................ 8
`1. Challenged Claims ........................................................................................................ 8
`2. Statutory Ground for Challenges .................................................................................. 8
`3. Claim Construction ..................................................................................................... 10
`i. “power control headroom report” ......................................................................... 10
`ii. “absolute difference” ............................................................................................ 12
`iii. “memory including software . . . configured, with the at least one processor, to
`cause the apparatus to at least: determine that a set of at least one triggering
`criterion is met” (claim 19) ................................................................................... 12
`4. Identification of How the Claims Are Unpatentable .................................................. 14
`i. Challenge #1: Claims 1 and 19 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fong in
`view of Ericsson Contribution .............................................................................. 14
`(a) Summary of Fong ........................................................................................... 14
`(b) Summary of Ericsson Contribution ................................................................ 16
`(c) Reasons to Combine Fong and Ericsson Contribution ................................... 17
`(d) Detailed Analysis ............................................................................................ 21
`Reasons to Combine Fong and Ericsson Contribution ........................................................... 35
`ii. Challenge #2: Claims 3 and 21 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fong in
`view of Ericsson Contribution and further in view of Bark .................................. 44
`(a) Summary of Bark ............................................................................................ 44
`(b) Reasons to Combine Fong/Ericsson Contribution and Bark .......................... 46
`(c) Detailed Analysis ............................................................................................ 51
`Reasons to Combine Fong/Ericsson Contribution and Bark .................................................. 60
`VI. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 64
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676 (“the ‘676 Patent,” HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1001)
`
`generally relates to the manner in which a mobile station in a wireless
`
`communication system reports its transmission power to a base station. The ‘676
`
`Patent, in particular, is concerned with how often a mobile station transmits a
`
`“power headroom” report (also called a “power control headroom” report). Noting
`
`that it can be problematic when these reports are sent too frequently, the’676
`
`Patent proposes the use of triggers to limit how often a mobile station transmits a
`
`report. The alleged novelty recited in claims 1 and 19-a triggering criterion that is
`
`met upon reaching a threshold of elapsed time since the previous report-however,
`
`was well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest alleged
`
`priority date of the ‘676 Patent.
`
`For example, U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0223455 (HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1003,
`
`“Fong”) limits the transmission of power headroom reports by a mobile station
`
`through the use of a trigger that is met when a threshold amount of time has passed
`
`since the previous power headroom report. A standards-related document
`
`(HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1004, “Ericsson Contribution”) additionally teaches that the
`
`threshold amount of time between reports may be measured in transmission time
`
`intervals (TTIs).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676
`
`Claims 3 and 21 of the ‘676 Patent depend from claims 1 and 19,
`
`respectively, and add a triggering criterion based on changes in path loss (i.e., the
`
`degradation of the wireless signal between the mobile and base station).
`
`Controlling the frequency of power headroom reports based on changes in signal
`
`strength including path loss, however, was well-known before the ‘676 Patent, as
`
`disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 6,445,917 (HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1005, “Bark”).
`
`The evidence in this petition demonstrates that claims 1, 3, 19, and 21 of the
`
`‘676 Patent are unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, HTC
`
`Corporation, HTC America, Inc., ZTE Corporation, and ZTE (USA), Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner”) respectfully requests that claims 1, 3, 19, and 21 of the ‘676 Patent
`
`be held invalid and cancelled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`The real parties-in-interest are HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., ZTE
`
`Corporation, and ZTE (USA), Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters
`The’676 patent is the subject of the following patent infringement lawsuits
`
`brought by Patent Owner in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
`
`Texas (Marshall Division): Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. AT&T
`
`Inc., et al. Case No. 2:15-cv-00576; Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v.
`
`Sprint Corp., et al. Case No. 2:15-cv-00579; Cellular Communications Equipment
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676
`
`LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., et al. Case No. 2:15-cv-00580; and Cellular
`
`Communications Equipment LLC v. Verizon Comm. Inc., et al. Case No. 2:15-cv-
`
`00581.
`
`This petition presents the same prior art references, and the same grounds
`
`applying those references, in Apple Inc.’s petition upon which inter partes review
`
`was instituted in Case IPR2016-01493 (PTAB February 13, 2017). The ’676
`
`patent is also involved in Case IPR2016-01501 (instituted) (PTAB February 13,
`
`2017).
`
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel:
`Steven A. Moore (Reg. No. 55,462)
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW
`PITTMAN LLP
`Postal and Hand Delivery Address
`501 W. Broadway, Suite 1100
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Telephone: 619.544.3112
`Facsimile: 619.236.1995
`Email: steve.moore@pillsburylaw.com
`
`Back-Up Counsel:
`Rene Mai (Reg. No. 72,281)
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW
`PITTMAN LLP
`Postal and Hand Delivery Address
`Two Houston Center
`909 Fannin, Suite 2000
`Houston, TX 77010
`Telephone: 713.276.7628
`
`
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Brian Nash (Reg. No. 58,105)
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW
`PITTMAN LLP
`Postal and Hand Delivery Address
`401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700
`Austin, TX 78701
`Telephone: 512.580.9629
`Facsimile: 512.580.9601
`Email: brian.nash@pillsburylaw.com
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676
`
`Facsimile: 713.276.7673
`Email: rene.mai@pillsburylaw.com
`
`Please address all correspondence to lead and back-up counsel. Petitioner
`
`consents to electronic service via email.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that the ’676 patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review
`
`challenging the validity of the above-referenced claims on the grounds identified in
`
`the Petition. This Petition is filed in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.106(a). Filed
`
`herewith are a Power of Attorney and an Exhibit List pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`42.10(b) and 42.63(e).
`
`IV. RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioner asks that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) review
`
`the accompanying prior art and analysis, institute a trial for inter partes review of
`
`claims 1, 3, 19, and 21 of the ‘676 Patent, and cancel those claims as invalid.
`
`V. THE REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF
`As explained below and in the declaration of a technical expert, Dr.
`
`Zygmunt Haas, the concepts described and claimed in the ‘676 Patent were not
`
`patentable. This petition explains where each element of claims 1, 3, 19, and 21 is
`
`found in the prior art and why the claims would have been obvious to a person of
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676
`
`ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) before the earliest claimed priority date of the
`
`‘676 Patent. The full statement of the reasons for the relief requested is as follows.
`
`A. The ‘676 Patent
`1. Overview
`The ‘676 Patent relates to control signals that are communicated from a
`
`mobile terminal to a base station in a wireless cellular communications network.
`
`According to the ‘676 Patent, “[t]he current invention solves problems that occur
`
`with uplink power control and associated signalling from the [mobile] terminal to
`
`the base station (eNode-B) to facilitate efficient uplink radio resource management
`
`decisions at the eNode-B.” HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1001, 3:18-22.
`
`The base station/eNodeB “should be aware of the power level at which the
`
`terminals are transmitting, or some equivalent information like the power
`
`headroom information.” Id., 3:47-50. Using this information, the base station
`
`makes “scheduling and radio resource management decisions,” such as “selecting
`
`the MCS [modulation and coding scheme]” for mobile terminals to use on the
`
`uplink. Id., 3:41-44; see HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1006, ¶ 24.
`
`Accordingly, the ‘676 Patent recognizes that “reporting of power headroom
`
`or some equivalent information is needed. However, reporting of the power
`
`control headroom is a trade-off between uplink signaling overhead versus
`
`performance improvements that result from having this information readily
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676
`
`available at the eNode-B.” Id., 3:61-65. In other words, for resource management
`
`purposes, it is useful for a base station to know information about transmit power
`
`of mobile terminals as often as possible so that its information is up-to-date, but
`
`communicating this information to a base station too often can result in
`
`unnecessary signaling overhead. See HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1006, ¶ 25.
`
`This problem was well-known before the ‘676 Patent. See id, ¶ 26. For
`
`example, U.S. Patent Pub. 2004/0223455 to Fong, et al. (HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1003)
`
`(hereinafter “Fong”) uses a trigger parameter to prevent a mobile station from
`
`transmitting uplink control signals “too frequently.” See HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1003,
`
`para. [0045]. As another example, U.S. Patent No. 6,445,917 to G. Bark, et al.
`
`(HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1005) (hereinafter “Bark”), also recognizes that it is
`
`disadvantageous to transmit “unnecessary measurement signaling between mobile
`
`and base station.” See HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1005, 3:3-29.
`
`Returning to the ‘676 Patent, the specification points out that it is
`
`“problematic” for a mobile terminal to “periodically report the power control
`
`headroom at a frequency higher than” it adjusts transmit power. See id., 3:66-4:2.
`
`Instead of periodic reporting, the ‘676 Patent focuses on “triggering criteria” for
`
`triggering the sending of a power control headroom report, which provides “an
`
`attractive trade-off between signaling overhead versus overall uplink
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676
`
`performance.” Id., 4:32-38. Two of the triggers presented in the ‘676 Patent are as
`
`follows:
`
`(1) “the terminal shall only send a new power control headroom report if the
`
`time since the last reporting exceeds ‘k’ TTIs [transmission time intervals];” and
`
`(2) “terminal shall only send a new power control headroom report if the
`
`absolute difference between the current and the latest path-loss measurement is
`
`higher than a given threshold ‘p’“
`
`Id, 4:56-65. The ‘676 Patent discloses that the triggering criteria can be combined
`
`using a logical “OR” operation (see id., 5:3-5) or a logical “AND” operation (see
`
`id., 5:28-34). See HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1006, ¶ 27.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`2.
`The ‘676 Patent issued on June 4, 2013 from U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`12/665,427 which is a national stage entry originating from PCT Application No.
`
`PCT/FI2008/050384, filed June 23, 2008. The PCT Application purports to claim
`
`priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/936,649, filed June 20, 2007.
`
`Accordingly, the earliest possible priority date for the ‘676 Patent is June 20, 2007.
`
`Juergen Michel, Klaus Ingemann Pedersen, and Claudio Rosa are listed as co-
`
`inventors.
`
`During prosecution, the Applicant amended the claims to overcome cited
`
`prior art. According to the Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance, “the
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676
`
`prior art of record fails to teach 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.” See
`
`HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1002, pp. 318-319.
`
`Notably, it appears that none of the prior art references used for the grounds
`
`presented in this IPR (i.e., Fong, Bark, or Ericsson Contribution) were cited in the
`
`file history of the ‘676 Patent.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenges
`1.
`Claims 1, 3, 19, and 21 of the ‘676 Patent are challenged in this petition.
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`2.
`Statutory Ground for Challenges
`Challenge #1: Claims 1 and 19 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0223455 to Fong, et al. (HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1003,
`
`“Fong”) in view of “Filtering for UE Power Headroom Measurement,” R2-052744
`
`(HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1004, “Ericsson Contribution”).
`
`Fong published on November 11, 2004 and is thus prior art at least under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`The Ericsson Contribution is a 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)
`
`written contribution numbered “R2-052744” and entitled “Filtering for UE Power
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676
`
`Headroom Measurement.” HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1004, p. 1. It was submitted by
`
`“Ericsson” for discussion during meeting #49 of the 3GPP Radio Access Network
`
`(RAN) Working Group 2 (WG2) held in “Seoul, Korea” from “07-11 Nov 2005.”
`
`Id. This meeting was publically advertised on the 3GPP website at least by August
`
`19, 2005. HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1012, ¶ 19, 20. Further, it was the established
`
`practice of the 3GPP in the 2000s (and still is) to make written contributions, such
`
`as the Ericsson Contribution, publically available free of charge on the 3GPP
`
`website (http://www.3gpp.org) before or shortly after the publicized meeting at
`
`which they were presented. Id. at ¶¶ 17, 18, 21-23. 3GPP’s purpose in publishing
`
`standards-related documents such as written contributions on the 3GPP website
`
`was to make POSITAs working in the wireless industry aware of 3GPP’s standards
`
`setting efforts. Id. at ¶ 22. To that end, written contributions posted on the 3GPP
`
`website are organized by technical working group and meeting number. Id. at ¶
`
`18. According to 3GPP records for this meeting, the Ericsson Contribution was
`
`publically available on the 3GPP website on November 2, 2005. Id. at ¶ 23-33.
`
`The Ericsson Contribution is therefore prior art under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b) as to earliest possible priority date of the ‘676 Patent.
`
`Challenge #2: Claims 3 and 21 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`Fong in view of Ericsson Contribution and in further view of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,445,917 to G. Bark, et al. (HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1005, “Bark”). Bark published on
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676
`
`the date of issue, September 3, 2002, and is thus prior art under (pre-AIA) 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b) as to earliest possible priority date of the ‘676 Patent.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`3.
`This petition presents claim analysis in a manner that is consistent with the
`
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification. See 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(b). Under the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are given their
`
`ordinary and accustomed meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Also, because the claim constructions
`
`proposed herein are based on the broadest reasonable construction, they do not
`
`necessarily apply to other proceedings that use different claim construction
`
`standards. See Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Virginia Innovation Sci., Inc., IPR2013-
`
`00569, Paper 9 at 2 (PTAB 2013). For terms not addressed below, Petitioner
`
`submits that no specific construction is necessary for this proceeding.1
`
`“power control headroom report”
`
`i.
`The ‘676 Patent recites the term “power control headroom report” in the
`
`claims and the specification. The ‘676 specification, however, uses the terms
`
`“power headroom” and “power control headroom” interchangeably. See
`
`HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1006, | 32. For example, the ‘676 Patent suggests reporting
`
`1 Petitioners do not concede that any term not construed herein meets the statutory requirements of 35 U.S.C. §
`112, or that the challenged claims recite patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676
`
`“power headroom” is needed, and refers to it as reporting power control headroom:
`
`“Consequently, reporting of power headroom or some equivalent information is
`
`needed. However, 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.” Id., 3:60-65 (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`Further, the technical details described in the ‘676 specification also reveal
`
`the intent to use the terms “power control headroom report” and “power headroom
`
`report” interchangeably. See HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1006, ¶ 33. In the background
`
`section, the ‘676 Patent states:
`
`It therefore has been discussed in 3GPP that terminals should be able
`to provide power control headroom reports to the eNode-B. The
`power control headroom report basically provides a measure of how
`close the terminal’s power spectral density (PSD) is to the maximum
`PSD limit.
`
`HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1001, 3:29-34 (emphasis added). Measuring how close a
`
`terminal’s PSD is to a maximum limit, as described in the specification, is
`
`describing what POSITAs understood to be “power headroom,” because “power
`
`headroom” is understood to generally refer to a measure of the difference between
`
`the transmit power used by a mobile station and the mobile station’s maximum
`
`transmit power. See HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1006, ¶¶ 33-41.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676
`
`According to Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng., Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803
`
`(Fed.Cir. 1999), claim terms need to be construed “only to the extent necessary to
`
`resolve the controversy.” In this Petition for Inter Partes Review, because the
`
`specification treats “power control headroom report” and “power headroom report”
`
`interchangeably, and describes it as reporting of power headroom or some
`
`equivalent information, it is only necessary to construe “power control headroom
`
`report” to mean “a report containing power headroom or some equivalent
`
`information.” See HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1006, ¶ 42.
`
`“absolute difference”
`
`ii.
`The ‘676 Patent uses the term “absolute difference” in the claims and the
`
`detailed description. The ‘676 Patent does not set forth a special meaning of this
`
`term. HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1006, ¶ 44.
`
`The term “absolute difference” is well known in mathematics to refer to an
`
`absolute value of a difference. Id., ¶ 45. For example, for two numbers x1 and x2,
`
`the absolute difference between the numbers is |x1 - x2|, which is the same as |x2 -
`
`x1|. Id. The absolute difference provides a measure of the degree of difference
`
`between two numbers. Id. Thus, the term “absolute difference” is understood and
`
`construed under the broadest reasonable construction to mean “absolute value of a
`
`difference.” See id., ¶ 46.
`
`iii.
`
`“memory including software . . . configured, with the at
`least one processor, to cause the apparatus to at least:
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676
`
`determine that a set of at least one triggering criterion is
`met” (claim 19)
`
`“memory including software . . . configured, with the at least
`one processor, to cause the apparatus to at least . . . provide a
`power control headroom report on an uplink from user
`equipment, in response to the set having been met” (claim 19)
`
`Patent Owner contends in district court litigation that these claim terms are
`
`not governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. See HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1018, p. 8. Patent
`
`Owner further contends that, to the extent these limitations are governed by § 112 ¶
`
`6, the corresponding structure is a “memory including software and at least one
`
`processor.” Id. The district court found that these limitations are not governed by
`
`§ 112 ¶ 6, and that they should be accorded their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Exhibit 3001 at 40.
`
`Petitioner recognizes that inter partes review proceedings cannot be used to
`
`challenge definiteness under § 112. See 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). However, for
`
`purposes of this proceeding, the broadest reasonable interpretation of these claim
`
`terms encompasses a memory including software and at least one processor for
`
`performing the recited functions. See HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1006, ¶ 47. The ‘676
`
`Patent discloses such a memory including software and at least one processor. See
`
`HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1001, 5:53-6:3.
`
`In addition, regardless of whether the recited “processor” is a general-
`
`purpose processor requiring the disclosure of an algorithm, the Board may still find
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676
`
`that claim 19 is obvious in view of the memory including software and at least one
`
`processor disclosed in the prior art cited in this petition. See, e.g., Vibrant Media,
`
`Inc. v. Gen’l Elec. Co., IPR2013-00172, Paper 50 at 10-11 (PTAB Jul. 28, 2014)
`
`(“an indefiniteness determination in this proceeding would not have prevented us
`
`from deciding whether the claims would have been obvious over the cited prior
`
`art.”); Microsoft Corp. v. Enfish, IPR2013-00560, Paper 14 at 9-10 (PTAB Mar. 4,
`
`2014) (instituting review and directing patent owner to identify structure in its
`
`Patent Owner Response). As detailed herein, the prior art teaches a memory
`
`including software and at least one processor performing the claimed functions.
`
`The Board should therefore find these claims obvious.
`
`4.
`
`Identification of How the Claims Are Unpatentable
`i.
`
`Challenge #1: Claims 1 and 19 are invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 over Fong in view of Ericsson Contribution
`
`Summary of Fong
`(a)
`Fong addresses the same problem as identified in the ‘676 Patent⎯excessive
`
`transmission of power headroom information by a mobile station in a wireless
`
`communications network. See HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1006, ¶ 48 (citing HTC/ZTE
`
`Exhibit 1003, para. [0045]). Specifically, Fong teaches a technique “to prevent the
`
`mobile station from transmitting reverse request messages too frequently,” where a
`
`reverse request message may contain “power-related information” “in the form of
`
`power headroom.” See id, paras. [0040]-[0041], [0045]. Notably, Fong’s
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676
`
`techniques limit power headroom reporting in the same way as claimed by the ‘676
`
`Patent⎯by using a threshold (called a “trigger parameter”) to “indicate a minimum
`
`duration at which a mobile station should send a reverse request message to the
`
`base station.” Id., para. [0045]. The value of Fong’s trigger parameter is set by the
`
`base station. Id. at [0043]. See also HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1006, ¶ 48.
`
`In more detail, to prevent sending power headroom reports too frequently,
`
`Fong teaches that a mobile station detects whether a trigger has occurred before
`
`sending a reverse request message to the base station: “the mobile station detects
`
`(at 106) whether a trigger has occurred to send a reverse request message.” Id.,
`
`para. [0050]. And, if the trigger occurred, the mobile station sends the reverse
`
`request (which contains the power headroom report): “If a trigger has occurred,
`
`based on the trigger parameters sent by the base station to the mobile station, the
`
`mobile station sends (at 108) a reverse request message on R-REQCH.” Id., para.
`
`[0050]. See also HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1006, ¶ 49.
`
`Fong teaches that at least one of its triggers has multiple triggering criteria,
`
`including a triggering criteria based on a threshold called MIN_DURATION that
`
`defines the minimum amount time that must elapse between subsequent reverse
`
`request messages. HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1003, para. [0045]. If the mobile station
`
`detects that the time elapsed since the previous reverse request message is equal to
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676
`
`or greater than the threshold MIN_DURATION, then the mobile station sends a
`
`reverse request message including power headroom:
`
`A first trigger is a buffer update trigger. This trigger involves
`determining whether
`the
`state
`of
`the
`parameter
`field
`REV_PDCH_REQCH_TRIGGERs[i].USE_BUFFER_REPORTS
`is
`true, and 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
`specified
`by
`REV_PDCH_REQCH_TRIGGERs[i].MIN_DURATION.
`
`HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1003, para. [0052]. See also HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1006, ¶ 50.
`
`(b)
`
`Summary of Ericsson Contribution
`
`To the extent Fong does not explicitly disclose that its time threshold
`
`(MIN_DURATION) between subsequent power headroom reports is measured in
`
`units of fixed transmission time periods (i.e., transmission time intervals or TTIs),
`
`it was well-known in the wireless communications art to utilize transmission time
`
`intervals to specify time periods between sending power headroom reports.
`
`HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1006, ¶ 51. For example, the standards proposal Ericsson
`
`Contribution teaches measuring the time between successive transmissions of
`
`power headroom information in an integer number of TTIs:
`
`The UPH [UE power headroom] information bits are sent in the
`Scheduling Information, SI, appended at the end of the MAC-e PDU.
`The periodicity of the Scheduling Information sent to node B is
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676
`
`defined in the order of TTI [transmission time interval] with 1 TTI
`as the shortest report period and is configurable through RRC [radio
`resource control] signaling. Note that apart from the configurable
`periodicity, the inclusion of SI can be made arbitrarily, if for instance
`padding allows it or if triggered by higher priority data entering the
`UE buffer.
`
`HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1004, p. 2 (emphasis and brackets added). Accordingly,
`
`Ericsson Contribution teaches specifying a time duration between subsequent
`
`power headroom reports in units of TTIs. HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1006, ¶ 51.
`
`(c) Reasons to Combine Fong and Ericsson Contribution
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Fong
`
`and the Ericsson Contribution for the reasons set forth below. In particular, a
`
`POSITA would have found it obvious to specify Fong’s MIN_DURATION time
`
`threshold between successive transmissions of power headroom information using
`
`transmission time intervals (TTIs), as taught by Ericsson Contribution. Such a
`
`combination would have yielded a predictably beneficial result. See HTC/ZTE
`
`Exhibit 1006, ¶ 52.
`
`First, a POSITA implementing Fong’s system would have looked to, among
`
`other things, written contributions submitted to the 3GPP standards setting
`
`organization. See HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1006, ¶ 53. Written contributions to 3GPP
`
`contain solutions to known problems in wireless communications and are collected
`
`in a common forum to facilitate discussion. See HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1012, ¶¶ 9, 10,
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676
`
`14. In other words, written contributions represent a publically-available body of
`
`knowledge about wireless communications from which a POSITA can draw when
`
`implementing wireless systems, such as Fong’s. As an aspect of this POSITAs
`
`often look to concepts from across generations of wireless standards when such
`
`concepts are globally applicable. See HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1006, ¶ 53 (citing
`
`HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1003, paras. [0008]-[0009]).
`
`Second, as discussed above, Fong’s MIN_DURATION threshold specifies a
`
`minimum amount of time between successive power headroom reports. Fong,
`
`however, does not reference the particular unit of time in which MIN_DURATION
`
`is specified. See HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1006, ¶ 53. As such, a POSITA would have
`
`looked to other documentation in the wireless communication arts directed to
`
`power headroom reporting. Id. In particular, a POSITA would have looked for
`
`how others in the field had defined the minimum amount of time between
`
`successive power headroom reports. Id.
`
`The Ericsson Contribution is one such document a POSITA would have
`
`considered. Like Fong, Ericsson Contribution relates to reporting of power
`
`headroom in a wireless communication system. See HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1006, ¶ 53.
`
`And, more specifically, the Ericsson Contribution teaches a POSITA how to define
`
`an amount of time between successive power headroom reports. See HTC/ZTE
`
`Exhibit 1006, ¶ 53 (citing HTC/ZTE Exhibit 1004, p. 1). Looking to the Ericsson
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676
`
`Contribution would have taught a POSITA to specify MIN_DURATION in u