UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`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
`
`________________
`
`Case IPR2017-01508
`Patent Number: 8,385,966
`________________
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. BIJAN JABBARI IN SUPPORT OF
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HTC CORPORATION, ET AL. v. CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LLC
`CCE EX2013 (Dr. Jabbari Dec.) – 001
`IPR2017-01508
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`QUALIFICATIONS ......................................................................................... 2
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL .................................................................. 2
`
`III. OBVIOUSNESS ............................................................................................... 2
`
`IV. BROADEST REASONABLY INTERPRETATION ..................................... 5
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘966 PATENT ............................................................. 6
`
`VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE NOT OBVIOUS OVER THE CITED
`
`REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 6
`
`A. Qualcomm does not Show Using Full Path Loss Compensation ........ 6
`
`B. Qualcomm and TS 36.213 do not Show or Suggest Power Control
`Adjustment States as described in the Challenged Claims ................ 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`HTC CORPORATION, ET AL. v. CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LLC
`CCE EX2013 (Dr. Jabbari Dec.) – 002
`IPR2017-01508
`
`

`

`I, Dr. Bijan Jabbari, declare as follows:
`
`1. My name is Dr. Bijan Jabbari, and I have been retained as an expert witness
`for Inter Partes Review of IPR2017-01508.
`2. This report contains statements of my opinions formed to date and the bases
`and reasons for those opinions. I may offer additional opinions based on further
`review of materials in this case, including opinions and/or testimony of other expert
`witnesses.
`I understand that this Declaration is being submitted along with Patent
`3.
`Owner’s Response.
`4. Capitalized terms found in this Declaration that are not defined herein have
`the meaning given them in Patent Owner’s Response.
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed the Petition, the declaration
`5.
`that accompanies the Petition (hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner’s Declaration”),
`the exhibits that have been submitted with the aforementioned filings, Petitioner’s
`Expert’s deposition transcript, and Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response.
`6. This Declaration is a statement of my opinions on issues related to the
`validity of the Challenged Claims of the ’966 Patent.
`I am of the opinion that the Challenged Claims of the ’966 Patent are
`7.
`patentable for the reasons discussed below.
`
`HTC CORPORATION, ET AL. v. CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LLC
`CCE EX2013 (Dr. Jabbari Dec.) – 003
`IPR2017-01508
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bijan Jabbari
`Case IPR2017-01508
`
`
`I. QUALIFICATIONS
`8. My full curriculum vitae is attached as Appendix A to this declaration and
`summarizes my career history, education, publications, and other relevant
`qualifications.
`II.
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL
`9. For the purposes of this Declaration, I agree with the qualifications of a
`POSA as set for the in the Petition.
`III.
`OBVIOUSNESS
`10. Although I am not an attorney and do not intend to testify about legal issues,
`my opinions are also informed by my understanding of the relevant law. I
`understand that the Patent Office will find a patent claim invalid in an inter partes
`review if it concludes that it is more likely than not that the claim is invalid.
`11. I have also been advised of the legal standards that apply to invalidity for
`obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. I understand that a patent claim may be invalid
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the
`prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
`time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the
`subject matter pertains. I understand that obviousness is a question of law and that
`the following factors must be evaluated to determine whether a party challenging a
`patent claim’s validity has met its burden of proof that the claimed invention is
`obvious: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the
`
`
`
`2
`
`HTC CORPORATION, ET AL. v. CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LLC
`CCE EX2013 (Dr. Jabbari Dec.) – 004
`IPR2017-01508
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bijan Jabbari
`Case IPR2017-01508
`
`claims and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective
`indicia of non-obviousness.
`12. I understand that to reach a proper determination under 35 U.S.C. § 103, one
`must step backward in time and into the shoes worn by the hypothetical “person of
`ordinary skill in the art” (“POSA”) when the invention was unknown and just before
`it was made. In view of all factual information, one must then make a determination
`whether the claimed invention “as a whole” would have been obvious at that time to
`that person of ordinary skill in the art. Knowledge of the applicants’ disclosure must
`be put aside in reaching this determination, yet kept in mind in order to determine
`the differences between the claimed subject matter as a whole and the content of the
`prior art.
`13. If a single element of the claim is absent from the prior art, alone, or in
`combination, the claims cannot be considered obvious.
`14. Because obviousness is determined from the perspective of a person of
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, I have been informed to consider
`any distortion caused by hindsight bias, to guard against slipping into the use of
`hindsight, to be cautious of opinions that rely upon after-the-fact reasoning, and to
`avoid the temptation to read into the prior art the teachings of the invention at issue.
`The determination of obviousness is not whether a person could, with full knowledge
`of the patented device, reproduce it from prior art or known principles. The question
`is whether it would have been obvious, without knowledge of the patentee’s
`
`
`
`3
`
`HTC CORPORATION, ET AL. v. CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LLC
`CCE EX2013 (Dr. Jabbari Dec.) – 005
`IPR2017-01508
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bijan Jabbari
`Case IPR2017-01508
`
`achievement, to produce the same thing that the patentee produced. This judgment
`must be made without the benefit of hindsight.
`15. I understand that a claim is not proven obvious merely by demonstrating that
`each of the claim elements was independently known in the prior art. I understand
`that most, if not all, inventions rely on building blocks long since uncovered and
`claimed discoveries, and, almost of necessity, will likely be combinations of
`elements that were already known. A party challenging validity must show that a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the teachings
`of the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and would have had a reasonable
`expectation of success in doing so.
`16. I have also been informed that an inference that a claimed combination
`would not have been obvious is especially strong where the prior art’s teachings
`undermine the very reason being proffered as to why a person of ordinary skill would
`have combined the known elements. A reference may be said to “teach away” when
`a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from
`following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent
`from the path that was taken by the applicant. Where a proposed modification or
`combination for the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art
`being modified or render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose then
`the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims at issue obvious.
`17. I have been informed that a party challenging the claims of a patent must
`present evidence sufficient to establish some articulated, rational reason to select and
`
`
`
`4
`
`HTC CORPORATION, ET AL. v. CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LLC
`CCE EX2013 (Dr. Jabbari Dec.) – 006
`IPR2017-01508
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bijan Jabbari
`Case IPR2017-01508
`
`combine the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention with a
`reasonable expectation of success, which is sometimes referred to as a prima facie
`conclusion, or case, of obviousness.
`IV.
`BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
`18. The Board interprets claims in an unexpired patent using the broadest
`reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) in light of the specification of the patent in which
`they appear. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be
`given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification
`and prosecution history. Under this standard, claims should always be read in light
`of the specification and teachings in the underlying patent claim. A construction
`under BRI cannot be divorced from the specification and the record evidence, and
`must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach. The
`construction must be reasonable in light of the totality of the written description and
`the claims. I have also been informed that the prosecution history may be an
`important component of intrinsic evidence in construing claims, even when a
`broadest reasonable construction standard applies.
`19. I understand that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim term
`cannot be so broad as to include a configuration expressly disclaimed or disavowed
`in the specification. Claim terms are given their plain meaning unless the
`specification or prosecution history evidences that the patentee acted as his own
`lexicographer or disavowed claim scope.
`
`
`
`5
`
`HTC CORPORATION, ET AL. v. CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LLC
`CCE EX2013 (Dr. Jabbari Dec.) – 007
`IPR2017-01508
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bijan Jabbari
`Case IPR2017-01508
`
`
`20. In conducting my analysis as presented herein, I have used the broadest
`reasonable construction of the Challenged Claims, including Petitioner’s proposed
`constructions, and Patent Owner’s proposed constructions.
`21. With respect to Patent Owner’s proposed construction, I believe they are the
`broadest reasonable construction of the terms as would be understood by a POSA at
`the time of the invention, in light of the ’966 Patent.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’966 PATENT
`
`22. I have read Section III of the Patent Owner Response titled “Overview of the
`’966 Patent” and agree with it.
`
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE NOT OBVIOUS
`
`VI.
`OVER THE CITED REFERENCES
`
` A. Qualcomm does not Show Using Full Path Loss Compensation
`23. Petitioner fails to show that Qualcomm discloses using full path loss as
`required by all of the Challenged Claims. Patent Owner made this same argument
`in its Preliminary Response (Paper No. 6), but it was rejected in the Institution
`Decision. Institution Decision at 26. I note that Petitioner’s expert confirmed Patent
`Owner’s argument that was rejected by the Board – namely, if the “correction factor”
`
`in Qualcomm, noted as parameter 𝛿𝛿, is not equal to 1, full path loss compensation is
`
`not used in Qualcomm.
`24. All of the Challenged Claims of the ’966 Patent require computing “initial
`transmit power for the uplink shared channel using full path loss compensation . . .
`.” See, e.g., ’966 Patent, Claim 1. The Challenged Claims require the value that
`
`
`
`6
`
`HTC CORPORATION, ET AL. v. CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LLC
`CCE EX2013 (Dr. Jabbari Dec.) – 008
`IPR2017-01508
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bijan Jabbari
`Case IPR2017-01508
`
`
`multiplies the path loss value, (cid:2009), to be equal to 1 for full path loss compensation to
`be used (i.e., if (cid:2009) was equal to 0.9, then only 90% of the path loss would be used).
`
`Petition (“Pet.”) at 11.
`25. In one embodiment contemplated by the Challenged Claims, path loss is
`introduced into the “initial transmit power for the uplink shared channel” by
`including it in the initial transmit power of the random access preamble transmitted
`on the Random Access Channel (RACH) (also referred to in the ’966 Patent as the
`
`First Message). This formula is set forth as Eq. 3 in the ’966 Patent as (cid:1842)(cid:3043)(cid:3045)(cid:3032)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3029)(cid:3039)(cid:3032)(cid:3404)
` (cid:2009)(cid:3400)(cid:1842)(cid:1838)(cid:3400)(cid:1842)(cid:3047)(cid:3028)(cid:3045)(cid:3034)(cid:3032)(cid:3047)(cid:3400)∆(cid:1842)(cid:3045)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3043)(cid:3048)(cid:3043) (adding in (cid:2009) which is omitted from Eq. 3 because it
`
`is equal to 1, (indicating full path loss compensation is to be used)). See Akl Dec.,
`¶126 and ’966 Patent, 8:18-25.
`26. The only reference asserted by Petitioner to allegedly show full path
`compensation loss being used is Qualcomm. See Pet. at 23 and Akl Dec., ¶58.
`Petitioner points to its modified version of Eq. 2 from Qualcomm in support of this
`statement:
`
`(cid:1846)(cid:1850)(cid:3043)(cid:3042)(cid:3050)(cid:3032)(cid:3045)(cid:3404)(cid:4670)10(cid:1864)(cid:1867)(cid:1859)(cid:2869)(cid:2868)(cid:4666)(cid:1842)(cid:3021)(cid:3025) (cid:3032)(cid:3015)(cid:3003)(cid:4667)(cid:3398)10(cid:1864)(cid:1867)(cid:1859)(cid:2869)(cid:2868)(cid:4666)(cid:1842)(cid:3019)(cid:3025) (cid:3022)(cid:3006)(cid:4667)(cid:4671)(cid:3397)
`(cid:1861)(cid:1866)(cid:1872)(cid:1857)(cid:1870)(cid:1858)(cid:1857)(cid:1870)(cid:1857)(cid:1866)(cid:1855)(cid:1857)_(cid:1855)(cid:1867)(cid:1870)(cid:1870)(cid:1857)(cid:1855)(cid:1872)(cid:1861)(cid:1867)(cid:1866)(cid:3397)10(cid:1864)(cid:1867)(cid:1859)(cid:2869)(cid:2868)(cid:4666)(cid:1845)(cid:1840)(cid:1844)(cid:3047)(cid:3028)(cid:3045)(cid:3034)(cid:3032)(cid:3047)(cid:4667)(cid:3397)10(cid:1864)(cid:1867)(cid:1859)(cid:2869)(cid:2868)(cid:4666)(cid:1840)(cid:2868)(cid:3397)(cid:1835)(cid:2868) (cid:3032)(cid:3015)(cid:3003)(cid:4667)(cid:3397)
`(cid:1853)(cid:1856)(cid:1856)(cid:1857)(cid:1856)_(cid:1855)(cid:1867)(cid:1870)(cid:1870)(cid:1857)(cid:1855)(cid:1872)(cid:1861)(cid:1867)(cid:1866)(cid:3397)(cid:1868)(cid:1867)(cid:1875)(cid:1857)(cid:1870)_(cid:1870)(cid:1853)(cid:1865)(cid:1868)_(cid:1873)(cid:1868). Id. Petitioner then goes on to state that,
`
`“[t]he entire estimated path loss is used (α = 1) because there is no fractional portion
`in the equation, so the preamble power uses full path loss.”
`27. I disagree with Petitioner’s categorical statement that there is “no fractional
`portion” of Qualcomm’s Eq. 2. Qualcomm’s Eq. 2 is the same as Qualcomm’s Eq.
`1, rewritten in logarithmic form. Qualcomm, 9:17-18 (“Equation (1) may be
`
`
`
`7
`
`HTC CORPORATION, ET AL. v. CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LLC
`CCE EX2013 (Dr. Jabbari Dec.) – 009
`IPR2017-01508
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bijan Jabbari
`Case IPR2017-01508
`
`rewritten in logarithm domain using units of decibel (dB), as follows: [Equation 2]”).
`Qualcomm’s Eq. 1, with its terms reordered is as follows:
`
`(cid:4673)(cid:3400)(cid:4666)(cid:1840)(cid:2868)(cid:3397)
`28. (cid:1842)(cid:3021)(cid:3025)(cid:3022)(cid:3006)(cid:4666)(cid:1865)(cid:4667)(cid:3404)(cid:2012)(cid:3400)(cid:3017)(cid:3269)(cid:3273)(cid:3280)(cid:3263)(cid:3251)(cid:3017)(cid:3267)(cid:3273)(cid:3270)(cid:3254)(cid:3400)(cid:1845)(cid:1840)(cid:1844)(cid:3047)(cid:3028)(cid:3045)(cid:3034)(cid:3032)(cid:3047)(cid:3400)(cid:1837)(cid:3045)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3043)(cid:4666)(cid:1865)(cid:4667)(cid:3400)(cid:4672)(cid:2869)(cid:2878)(cid:3015)(cid:3116)(cid:2878)(cid:3010)(cid:3264)(cid:3252)(cid:3270)(cid:3254)
`(cid:3010)(cid:3264)(cid:3252)
`(cid:1835)(cid:3016)(cid:3004)(cid:3032)(cid:3015)(cid:3003)(cid:4667). The parameter (cid:3017)(cid:3269)(cid:3273)(cid:3280)(cid:3263)(cid:3251)(cid:3017)(cid:3267)(cid:3273)(cid:3270)(cid:3254) is identified by Petitioner as representing the path loss
`representing path loss in Qualcomm Eq. 1 is multiplied by a parameter (cid:2012), which is
`identified in Qualcomm as a “correction factor.” If the value of (cid:2012) is not 1, full path
`29. Given Petitioner’s position that (cid:2012) must be equal to 1 for Qualcomm to
`Petitioner makes no showing that (cid:2012) is equal to 1 and Qualcomm is silent on what
`values (cid:2012) may have. Since Petitioner makes no claim that (cid:2012) is ever equal to 1,
`
`parameter in Eq. 1. Pet. at 22-23. The parameter identified by Petitioner as
`
`loss is not used.
`
`disclose that full path loss compensation is being used, the Petition fails because
`
`Petitioner has not met its burden in showing that Qualcomm discloses using full path
`
`loss compensation as is specifically required by all of the Challenged Claims.
`
`(cid:2012), found in Qualcomm’s Eq. 1 and described as a “correction factor”, multiplies the
`is not shown to be used because the value of (cid:2012) is unknown. Preliminary Response
`
`30. In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner argued that because the parameter
`
`parameters identified by Petitioner in Eq. 1 as representing path loss, full path loss
`
`at 16-20.
`
`
`
`8
`
`HTC CORPORATION, ET AL. v. CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LLC
`CCE EX2013 (Dr. Jabbari Dec.) – 010
`IPR2017-01508
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bijan Jabbari
`Case IPR2017-01508
`
`
`31. In its Institution Decision, and in response to Patent Owner’s arguments in
`the Preliminary Response, the Board stated that:
`The second disputed limitation is “full path loss compensation.” Patent
`Owner argues Petitioner must show the term δ must be 1 in order to teach “full
`path loss compensation.” We disagree.
`Institution Decision, p. 26.
`32. I reviewed the deposition transcript of Petitioner’s expert from 38:23-39:6.
`33. I believe that Petitioner’s expert agrees with Patent Owner’s statement in the
`Preliminary Response where Patent Owner argues that δ needs to equal 1 in order
`for Qualcomm’s Eqs. 1 and 2 (which are the same, with Eq. 2 being written in
`logarithmic form, see Qualcomm, 9:17-18) to show full path loss. In addition, I
`believe that Petitioner’s expert disagrees with the Board with respect to the Board’s
`finding that that δ did not need to equal 1 in order for Qualcomm’s Eqs. 1 and 2 to
`show full path loss.
`34. Petitioner’s Modified Eq. 2, found on p. 23 of its Petition, is the logarithmic
`version of Qualcomm’s Eq. 1, in logarithmic form, with certain parameters
`rearranged.1 Qualcomm’s Eq. 1 is:
`
`
`1 I use Eq. 1 instead of Eq. 2 because 1) it is not in logarithmic form (i.e., it is in a
`form more familiar to most people), and 2) it specifically lists the parameters that
`make up the equation, unlike Eq. 2, where various parameters are lumped together
`(see, e.g., the parameter “effective_power” (Qualcomm, 9:30) which contains a
`variety of different parameters explicitly shown in Eq. 1).
`9
`
`
`
`HTC CORPORATION, ET AL. v. CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LLC
`CCE EX2013 (Dr. Jabbari Dec.) – 011
`IPR2017-01508
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bijan Jabbari
`Case IPR2017-01508
`
`
`(cid:4679)(cid:3400)(cid:1842)(cid:3021)(cid:3025)(cid:3032)(cid:3015)(cid:3003)(cid:3400)(cid:4666)(cid:1840)(cid:2868) (cid:3397)(cid:1835)(cid:3016)(cid:3004)(cid:3032)(cid:3015)(cid:3003)(cid:4667)(cid:3400)(cid:2012)
`
`Qualcomm, 8:40-47. Rearranging the order of the multiplicands results in the
`transmit power of the random access preamble described in Eq. 1 expressed as:
`
`(cid:1842)(cid:3021)(cid:3025)(cid:3022)(cid:3006)(cid:4666)(cid:1865)(cid:4667)(cid:3404) 1(cid:1842)(cid:3019)(cid:3025)(cid:3022)(cid:3006)(cid:3400)(cid:1845)(cid:1840)(cid:1844)(cid:3047)(cid:3028)(cid:3045)(cid:3034)(cid:3032)(cid:3047)(cid:3400)(cid:4678)1(cid:3397) (cid:1840)(cid:2868) (cid:3397) (cid:1835)(cid:3016)(cid:3004)(cid:3022)(cid:3006)
`(cid:1835)(cid:3016)(cid:3004)
`(cid:3400)(cid:1837)(cid:3045)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3043)(cid:4666)(cid:1865)(cid:4667)
` (cid:1842)(cid:3021)(cid:3025)(cid:3022)(cid:3006)(cid:4666)(cid:1865)(cid:4667)(cid:3404)(cid:2012)(cid:3400)(cid:1842)(cid:3021)(cid:3025)(cid:3032)(cid:3015)(cid:3003)(cid:1842)(cid:3019)(cid:3025)(cid:3022)(cid:3006)(cid:3400)(cid:1845)(cid:1840)(cid:1844)(cid:3047)(cid:3028)(cid:3045)(cid:3034)(cid:3032)(cid:3047)(cid:3400)(cid:1837)(cid:3045)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3043)(cid:4666)(cid:1865)(cid:4667)(cid:3400)(cid:4678)1(cid:3397)(cid:1840)(cid:2868)(cid:3397)(cid:1835)(cid:3016)(cid:3004)(cid:3022)(cid:3006)
`(cid:4679)
`(cid:1835)(cid:3016)(cid:3004)
`(cid:3400)(cid:4666)(cid:1840)(cid:2868)(cid:3397)(cid:1835)(cid:3016)(cid:3004)(cid:3032)(cid:3015)(cid:3003)(cid:4667)
`Making one substitution, the term (cid:3017)(cid:3269)(cid:3273)(cid:3280)(cid:3263)(cid:3251)(cid:3017)(cid:3267)(cid:3273)(cid:3270)(cid:3254) is converted to the term Path Loss. This term
`22-23. (cid:1842)(cid:3021)(cid:3025)(cid:3022)(cid:3006)(cid:4666)(cid:1865)(cid:4667)(cid:3404)(cid:2012)(cid:3400)(cid:1842)(cid:1853)(cid:1872)(cid:1860) (cid:1838)(cid:1867)(cid:1871)(cid:1871)(cid:3400)(cid:1845)(cid:1840)(cid:1844)(cid:3047)(cid:3028)(cid:3045)(cid:3034)(cid:3032)(cid:3047)(cid:3400)(cid:1837)(cid:3045)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3043)(cid:4666)(cid:1865)(cid:4667)(cid:3400)(cid:4678)1(cid:3397)(cid:1840)(cid:2868)(cid:3397)(cid:1835)(cid:3016)(cid:3004)(cid:3022)(cid:3006)
`(cid:4679)
`(cid:1835)(cid:3016)(cid:3004)
`(cid:3400)(cid:4666)(cid:1840)(cid:2868)(cid:3397)(cid:1835)(cid:3016)(cid:3004)(cid:3032)(cid:3015)(cid:3003)(cid:4667)
`Thus, (cid:2012) multiplies the parameter Petitioner identified as representing Path Loss in
`expert’s transcript. First, Petitioner’s expert states that (cid:2012) multiplies the values
`
`is noted by Petitioner as representing Path Loss in Qualcomm’s Eqs. 1 and 2. Pet.
`
`Qualcomm’s Eqs. 1 and 2.
`35. I reviewed the deposition transcript of Petitioner’s expert from 37:25-39:19.
`36. There are several noteworthy statements in this portion of Petitioner’s
`
`identified as Path Loss in Qualcomm.
`
`
`
`10
`
`HTC CORPORATION, ET AL. v. CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LLC
`CCE EX2013 (Dr. Jabbari Dec.) – 012
`IPR2017-01508
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bijan Jabbari
`Case IPR2017-01508
`
`
`37. Further, Petitioner’s expert affirmatively states that (cid:2012) corresponds to the
`parameter (cid:2009) in the ’966 Patent. U.S. Patent No. 7,813,753 (Ex. 2004) (assigned to
`such as (cid:2012) is to modify the path loss parameter:
`
`Qualcomm and filed February 27, 2006, approximately 7 months before the
`Qualcomm ’706 patent was filed) confirms that one purpose of a correction factor
`
`Existing open-loop power control algorithms often determine a transmit
`power that is lower because of: inaccuracies in estimating the path-loss
`between the access terminal and the access point/base transceiver station
`(BTS), crude estimation of the Rise-over-Thermal (RoT) at the BTS, and
`failure to take the size of the access message into account.
`Accordingly, embodiments of the invention can provide correction factors to
`improve the initial (open-loop) transmit power determination . . . .
`
`. . .
`
`For example, the correction factor/term may include compensation for the size
`of the access probe. The correction term may also be used to correct the
`
`estimated path-loss.
`Patent No. 7,813,753, 7:36-45 and 63-65 (emphasis added).
`
`38. Thus, a POSA would find that (cid:2012) is not some arbitrary factor in Qualcomm’s
`39. Finally, Petitioner’s expert states that if (cid:2012) is less than 1, full path loss is not
`
`Eq. 1 that is unrelated to path loss. Instead, a POSA would understand that one of
`its specific functions is to modify path loss.
`
`used in Qualcomm Eqs. 1 and 2, and, instead, fractional path loss is utilized.
`
`
`
`11
`
`HTC CORPORATION, ET AL. v. CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LLC
`CCE EX2013 (Dr. Jabbari Dec.) – 013
`IPR2017-01508
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bijan Jabbari
`Case IPR2017-01508
`
`
`comparable to α in the ’966 Patent, must equal 1 in order for full path loss
`compensation to be used.
`
`40. Thus, in terms of Qualcomm, (cid:2012), which Petitioner’s expert noted as being
`41. Qualcomm gives no hint at what values (cid:2012) may take. It is silent. Further, the
`Petition is silent on why (cid:2012) would inherently equal 1, or why a POSA would
`understand (cid:2012) to equal 1. In addition, a POSA would not find it obvious to set (cid:2012) to 1
`because there is no direction given in Qualcomm as to why to set it to 1, and if (cid:2012)
`
`were intended to be set to 1, it would not be included in Eq. 1, as it would not add
`meaning to the equation.
` B. Qualcomm and TS 36.213 do not Show or Suggest Power Control
`Adjustment States as described in the Challenged Claims
`42. Petitioner fails to articulate why a POSA would have recognized that
`Qualcomm was deficient in not describing a power control adjustment state, or why
`the power control adjustment state in TS 36.213 is deficient in computing a power
`adjustment for the first subframe (i=0). Thus, as an initial matter, Petitioner does
`not point to any teaching that would have informed a POSA that the problem solved
`by the ’966 Patent exists.
`43. The 3GPP standards such as TS 36.213 are developed over years by experts
`in the cellular communication industry. At the time of the invention, as well as
`before and after, participants in the cellular industry knew these standards would
`govern the behavior of hundreds of millions/billions of handsets and base stations
`
`
`
`12
`
`HTC CORPORATION, ET AL. v. CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LLC
`CCE EX2013 (Dr. Jabbari Dec.) – 014
`IPR2017-01508
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bijan Jabbari
`Case IPR2017-01508
`
`throughout the world. Thus, getting the technical solutions set forth in the standards
`“right” was of paramount importance.
`44. Petitioner posits that a young man or woman, two years out of college with
`a bachelor engineering degree, would be able to look at TS 36.213 and, using only
`their skill and experience, determine there was a problem with initialing the power
`control adjustment states f(i) and g(i) to 0 when i=0, as described in TS 36.213. See
`Pet. at 10 (setting forth Petitioner’s views on the qualifications of what it terms a
`“POSITA”). Petitioner relies on no evidence besides its expert and the insights
`provided by the ’966 Patent itself to suggest that a POSA would be able to realize
`that a problem existed.
`45. Even assuming that such a problem was recognized, Petitioner, only with the
`
`why those two parameters were selected from the others. Petitioner’s obviousness
`
`benefit of the teachings of the ’966 Patent, then arbitrarily selects the values of ∆(cid:1842)(cid:3017)(cid:3004)
`and ∆(cid:1842)(cid:3045)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3043)(cid:3048)(cid:3043) from among several other parameters, without any articulation as to
`case rest upon the claim that it would be “obvious to [] use the known ∆(cid:1842)(cid:3017)(cid:3004) and
`∆(cid:1842)(cid:3045)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3043)(cid:3048)(cid:3043) parameters in place of the unknown UE specific parameters, ((cid:1842)(cid:2868)_(cid:3022)(cid:3006)_(cid:3017)(cid:3022)(cid:3020)(cid:3004)(cid:3009)
`or (cid:1842)(cid:2868)_(cid:3022)(cid:3006)_(cid:3017)(cid:3022)(cid:3004)(cid:3004)(cid:3009)) and (f(0) or g(0)), to calculate the transmission powers of
`(cid:1842)(cid:2868)_(cid:3022)(cid:3006)_(cid:3017)(cid:3022)(cid:3020)(cid:3004)(cid:3009)(cid:4666)0(cid:4667) and (cid:1842)(cid:2868)_(cid:3022)(cid:3006)_(cid:3017)(cid:3022)(cid:3004)(cid:3004)(cid:3009)(cid:4666)0(cid:4667).” Pet. at 21 (emphasis added). Even at the
`compute f(i) in “absolute” mode, f(0)=(cid:2012)(cid:3017)(cid:3022)(cid:3020)(cid:3004)(cid:3009)(cid:3400)(cid:1837)(cid:3017)(cid:3022)(cid:3020)(cid:3004)(cid:3009), where (cid:1837)(cid:3017)(cid:3022)(cid:3020)(cid:3004)(cid:3009) is a constant
`
`highest levels, this assertion doesn’t make sense.
`46. First, with respect to f(i), it is defined in TS 36.213 in two “modes”:
`accumulation and absolute. See ’966 Patent, 5:1-35. If the UE is programmed to
`
`
`
`13
`
`HTC CORPORATION, ET AL. v. CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LLC
`CCE EX2013 (Dr. Jabbari Dec.) – 015
`IPR2017-01508
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bijan Jabbari
`Case IPR2017-01508
`
`
`UE at the time it transmits Message 3 on the PUSCH, as it was communicated to the
`UE in Message 2. Akl Dec., ¶83. So, for absolute mode, there are no unknown
`values used in computing f(0).
`
`and equal to 4. ’966 Patent, 5:25-29. The parameter (cid:2012)(cid:3017)(cid:3022)(cid:3020)(cid:3004)(cid:3009) is also known to the
`47. In accumulating mode, f(i) makes use of the same two parameters, (cid:2012)(cid:3017)(cid:3022)(cid:3020)(cid:3004)(cid:3009)
`and (cid:1837)(cid:3017)(cid:3022)(cid:3020)(cid:3004)(cid:3009). In addition, in accumulation mode, f(i) depends on previous
`calculations of f(i). For example, f(3)= f(2)+ (cid:2012)(cid:3017)(cid:3022)(cid:3020)(cid:3004)(cid:3009)(cid:3400)(cid:4666)3(cid:3398)(cid:1837)(cid:3017)(cid:3022)(cid:3020)(cid:3004)(cid:3009)(cid:4667).
`modes (accumulating and absolute), f(i) is always a function of (cid:2012)(cid:3017)(cid:3022)(cid:3020)(cid:3004)(cid:3009) and (cid:1837)(cid:3017)(cid:3022)(cid:3020)(cid:3004)(cid:3009),
`initialize it as a function of ∆(cid:1842)(cid:3045)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3043)(cid:3048)(cid:3043), other than to state that “a POSITA would have
`
`48.
`
`The point of discussing how f(i) is calculated is to illustrate that in both
`
`both of which are always known to the UE. It is only for f(0) in accumulating mode
`that f is set to the default value of 0. Petitioner fails to explain why a POSA, who
`recognized the problem of setting f(0) to 0 in one of its two modes, would choose to
`
`been motivated to use other parameters relevant to the Random Access Procedure in
`place of the unknown UE specific parameters.”
`49. But, there are many other known parameters that are “relevant to the Random
`Access Procedure” as claimed by Petitioner. Qualcomm, for example, discloses the
`following equation that is used to compute the power at which a random access
`preamble is transmitted:
`
`(cid:4673)(cid:3400)(cid:1842)(cid:3021)(cid:3025)(cid:3032)(cid:3015)(cid:3003)(cid:3400)(cid:4666)(cid:1840)(cid:2868) (cid:3397)(cid:1835)(cid:3016)(cid:3004)(cid:3032)(cid:3015)(cid:3003)(cid:4667)(cid:3400)(cid:2012)(cid:3400)(cid:1837)(cid:3045)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3043)(cid:4666)(cid:1865)(cid:4667),
`
`(cid:1842)(cid:3021)(cid:3025)(cid:3022)(cid:3006)(cid:4666)(cid:1865)(cid:4667)(cid:3404) (cid:2869)(cid:3017)(cid:3267)(cid:3273)(cid:3270)(cid:3254)(cid:3400)(cid:1845)(cid:1840)(cid:1844)(cid:3047)(cid:3028)(cid:3045)(cid:3034)(cid:3032)(cid:3047)(cid:3400)(cid:4672)(cid:2869)(cid:2878) (cid:3015)(cid:3116) (cid:2878) (cid:3010)(cid:3264)(cid:3252)(cid:3270)(cid:3254)
`(cid:3010)(cid:3264)(cid:3252)
`
`where
`
`
`
`14
`
`HTC CORPORATION, ET AL. v. CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LLC
`CCE EX2013 (Dr. Jabbari Dec.) – 016
`IPR2017-01508
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bijan Jabbari
`Case IPR2017-01508
`
`
`reference signal ( e.g., a pilot signal) from the recipient eNB;
`
`(cid:1842)(cid:3019)(cid:3025)(cid:3022)(cid:3006) is the received power at the UE for time-frequency slots used for a
`(cid:1845)(cid:1840)(cid:1844)(cid:3047)(cid:3028)(cid:3045)(cid:3034)(cid:3032)(cid:3047) is a target SNR for the random access preamble;
`(cid:1840)(cid:2868) is Gaussian noise at the UE;
`(cid:1835)(cid:3016)(cid:3004)(cid:3022)(cid:3006) is interference from other eNBs at the UE;
`(cid:1835)(cid:3016)(cid:3004) is the received power for the recipient eNB at the UE;
`(cid:1842)(cid:3021)(cid:3025)(cid:3032)(cid:3015)(cid:3003) is the transmit power of the reference signal from the recipient eNB;
`(cid:1840)(cid:2868) (cid:3397)(cid:1835)(cid:3016)(cid:3004)(cid:3032)(cid:3015)(cid:3003) is the RACH slot interference level at the recipient eNB;
`(cid:2012) is a correction factor, and
`(cid:1837)(cid:3045)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3043)(cid:4666)(cid:1865)(cid:4667) is the amount of increase in transmit power for the m-th
`
`transmission.
`Qualcomm, Eq. 1, 8:43-65. Furthermore, TS 36.321 describes using a
`PREAMBLE_INITIAL_POWER parameter when computing the power at which
`to transmit a random access preamble. 3GPP TS 36.321 v8.0.0 (Ex. 1006,
`referred to herein as “TS 36.321”), § 5.1.1.
`50. All of these terms are what Petitioner refers to as “other parameters relevant
`to the Random Access Procedure” that a POSA could u