`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Paper No. 14
`
`
`
`__________
`
`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
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`__________
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`CCE's declaration should be given no weight ................................................. 2
`II.
`III. The asserted grounds disclose using full path loss ............................................... 5
`IV. The asserted grounds disclose the power control adjustment state limitations . 14
`V. Dr. Akl's testimony is credible ...................................................................... 21
`VI. CCE's claim construction does not affect the analysis .................................. 22
`VII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23, Petitioners HTC Corp., HTC America, Inc., ZTE
`
`Corp., and ZTE (USA), Inc. Reply to Patent Owner Cellular Communications
`
`Equipment LLC’s Response (Paper 11). With this Reply and their Petition,
`
`Petitioners requests cancellation of claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966.
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`Petitioners' expert testimony in this proceeding is effectively unrebutted.
`
`CCE filed a declaration, but—in contravention of the Patent Office's Rules, Trial
`
`Practice Guide, and a Board decision—CCE does not cite to, explain, or otherwise
`
`rely on that declaration at any point in its Response. Thus, that declaration is not at
`
`issue here, and the Board should exclude or give no weight to that exhibit.
`
`The dispute between the parties is therefore limited to two issues supported
`
`only by CCE's attorney argument. First, CCE contends the asserted grounds do not
`
`disclose computing initial transmit power using full pathloss because Qualcomm
`
`purportedly does not disclose that δ equals one. But Petitioners demonstrated that
`
`Qualcomm's Equation 4 uses full pathloss because it depends on a preamble power
`
`that the ’966 patent concedes requires using full pathloss, regardless of δ's value.
`
`Moreover, nothing in CCE's cited evidence—Qualcomm, Exhibit 2004, or Dr.
`
`Akl's testimony—demonstrates that δ's role is to modify pathloss. Thus, δ is not
`
`required to equal one for Qualcomm to disclose full pathloss.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Second, CCE contends the asserted grounds do not disclose the power
`
`control adjustment state limitations primarily because TS 36.213 requires setting
`
`f(0)=0, which one must recognize as deficient to be motivated to look to
`
`Qualcomm for a solution, and because Qualcomm cannot disclose initializing
`
`power control adjustment states without disclosing them expressly and the claimed
`
`initialization cannot be derived from admitted prior art. But TS 36.213 does not
`
`require f(0)=0, it only provides that as an example, and Petitioners' asserted
`
`combination starts with Qualcomm and shows why one would be motivated to
`
`combine that teaching with TS 36.213 for efficiency and compliance with
`
`standards. The claimed initialization of the power control adjustment states can be
`
`shown either in Qualcomm (despite not expressly using those terms) or based on
`
`what an ordinarily skilled artisan would derive from known values in the admitted
`
`prior art equations. Thus, one would make the asserted combination, and that
`
`combination teaches the power control adjustment state limitations.
`
`For these reasons and those below, CCE fails to distinguish the claims of
`
`the ’966 patent over the instituted grounds. Accordingly, claims 1-17 of the
`
`’966 patent should be cancelled as obvious in view of the instituted grounds.
`
`II. CCE's declaration should be given no weight
`The Board should give no weight to CCE's declaration. CCE filed a
`
`declaration of Dr. Jabbari as Exhibit 2013. But other than to identify it in the
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`updated list of exhibits, see Paper 11 at vii, CCE does not cite to, explain, or
`
`otherwise rely on that declaration at any point in its Response, see generally id. at
`
`11. Thus, that declaration is not at issue in the proceeding.
`
`Moreover, the Rules and the Office Patent Trial Guide prohibit offering
`
`evidence without explanation or citation. "A patent owner response is filed as an
`
`opposition," 37 C.F.R. § 42.120, and "[o]ppositions and replies must comply with
`
`the content requirements of motions," 37 C.F.R. § 42.23. The content requirements
`
`of motions (and thus, of a Patent Owner Response) require that each be filed "as a
`
`separate paper and must include: . . . A full statement of the reasons for the relief
`
`requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence
`
`including material facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent." 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.22(a)(1).1 The Office Patent Trial Practice Guide similarly provides that “[t]he
`
`[Patent Owner] response … should include any affidavits or additional factual
`
`evidence sought to be relied upon and explain the relevance of such evidence.”
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`With respect to Exhibit 2013, CCE did not meet these requirements. Thus,
`
`consistent with these requirements, the Board should exclude or give no weight to
`
`that Exhibit. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(5) (“The Board may exclude or give no
`
`
`1 All emphases herein are added unless otherwise noted.
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`weight to the evidence where a party has failed to state its relevance or to identify
`
`specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge.”).
`
`The Board reached that very conclusion in American Megatrends, Inc. et al.
`
`v. Kinglite Holdings Inc., IPR2015-01141, Paper 37 (Nov. 8, 2016). In that case,
`
`Patent Owner filed the Declaration of Dr. Shahin Nazarian and identified it in an
`
`exhibit list. Id. at 9. But Patent Owner in that case, like CCE in this case, did not
`
`cite to or otherwise expressly rely on that declaration in its Response. The Board
`
`analyzed the Rules and the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and concluded that
`
`no weight should be given to the uncited declaration:
`
`“The Board may exclude or give no weight to the evidence where a
`
`party has failed to state its relevance or to identify specific portions of
`
`the evidence that support the challenge.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(5);
`
`see also 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.23, 42.120 (“Oppositions and replies must
`
`comply with the content requirements of motions” and “[a] patent
`
`owner response is filed as an opposition.”). The Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide provides “[t]he [Patent Owner] response . . . should
`
`include any affidavits or additional factual evidence sought to be
`
`relied upon and explain the relevance of such evidence.” Office Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012)
`
`(emphasis added). Because Patent Owner did not cite to or otherwise
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`expressly rely on Dr. Nazarian’s Declaration in the Patent Owner
`
`Response (see generally PO Resp.), we give no weight to Dr.
`
`Nazarian’s Declaration (Ex. 2008).
`
`Id. at 9-10. Thus, American Megatrends confirms that the Board should exclude or
`
`give no weight to CCE's Exhibit 2013.
`
`III. The asserted grounds disclose using full pathloss
`CCE argues that the asserted grounds do not disclose computing the
`
`claimed initial transmit power using full pathloss compensation because there
`
`is no showing in Qualcomm that its δ parameter is equal to one. Paper 11 at
`
`23-29. Specifically, CCE contends that Petitioners rely only on a modification
`
`of Qualcomm's Equation 2 to show full pathloss, that the specific functions of
`
`δ is to modify pathloss, and that Petitioners' expert agrees that δ must equal
`
`one for full pathloss to be used in Qualcomm's equations. Id. CCE is wrong.
`
`First, Petitioners and their expert rely on more than just a modification
`
`to Qualcomm's Equation 2 to show using full pathloss. As Dr. Akl explained,
`
`the admitted prior art of the ’966 patent concedes that "the prior art 3GPP
`
`specifications require RACH preambles to be transmitted using full pathloss
`
`compensation." Ex. 1002 ¶52 (citing Ex. 1001 2:39-40); see also id. ¶39
`
`(RACH preamble transmit power determined using open loop power control
`
`and AAPA teaches such RACH preamble transmitted using full path-loss
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`compensation); id. ¶¶73-75 & 82 (R1-080879 discloses that the RACH
`
`preamble power transmission is based on open loop power control using a full
`
`pathloss compensation). Subsequent uplink transmissions on the PUSCH (i.e.,
`
`Message 3 and those that follow), in contrast, may use fractional path-loss
`
`compensation power control formula as reflected in the ’966 patent's prior art
`
`Equations [1] and [2], which come from TS 36.213. See id. ¶¶44, 52, 77; Ex.
`
`1004 at 8; Ex. 1001 2:39-49, 4:38-33.
`
`That understanding informs Petitioners' first basis for concluding that the
`
`asserted combination teaches using full pathloss compensation for the initial
`
`transmit power. Qualcomm teaches that initial transmit power (PUSCH_power)
`
`depends in part on the preamble power of a first message sent on a random access
`
`channel (RACH_power) as reflected by, among other things, Qualcomm's
`
`Equation 4. E.g., Paper 1 at 15-17; Ex. 1002 ¶¶96-101. As Dr. Akl explained, the
`
`first reason that Qualcomm's Equation 4 uses full pathloss compensation is that it
`
`depends on a preamble power calculated using an open loop method, which the
`
`’966 patent's admitted prior art concedes is calculated using full pathloss
`
`compensation:
`
`The initial transmit power (PUSCH_power) in Equation (4) of
`
`Qualcomm also uses full pathloss compensation because it uses the
`
`entire value of “PL” in the power control formula. The preamble
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`power described in Qualcomm is based on the entire path loss. First,
`
`the preamble power is calculated using an open loop method.
`
`(Qualcomm, 8:37-39). The ‘966 patent admits that preamble power
`
`is calculated using full path loss compensation in an open loop
`
`method. (‘966 patent, 2:39-40; 6:60-62; 7:3-4). In contrast, a closed
`
`loop method implies that the power is determined based on a feedback
`
`parameter; e.g., a power correction value. (Supra at ¶¶ 57).
`
`Ex. 1002 ¶127; see also Paper 1 at 21-22. Because the transmit power of Message
`
`3 (Qualcomm's Equation 4) uses the preamble power, and because those skilled in
`
`the art understand (and the ’966 patent admits) that the prior art 3GPP
`
`specifications require full pathloss compensation for RACH preamble power, the
`
`transmit power of Message 3 is also calculated using full pathloss compensation.
`
`Ex. 1002 ¶¶52, 127, 129. That alone demonstrates it would have been obvious to
`
`use full pathloss compensation without need to consider Petitioners' and their
`
`expert's additional basis that modifies Qualcomm's Equation 2.
`
`Second, CCE is wrong to contend that the specific function of the δ is to
`
`modify pathloss. Qualcomm states that δ is "a correction factor." Ex. 1003 8:62.
`
`Although δ multiplies Qualcomm's Equation 1 parameters—as do many other
`
`parameters—Qualcomm does not state that δ functions to modify pathloss. To the
`
`contrary, Qualcomm teaches that the factor can be used to absorb other parameters,
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`such as transmit power of the eNB reference signal ((cid:1842)(cid:3021)(cid:3025)(cid:3032)(cid:3015)(cid:3003)), RACH slot
`interference level ((cid:1840)(cid:2868)+(cid:1835)(cid:3042)(cid:3030)(cid:3032)(cid:3015)(cid:3003)), signal-to-other-cell-interference-plus-noise ratio
`(cid:3010)(cid:3290)(cid:3293)(cid:3015)(cid:3116)(cid:2878)(cid:3010)(cid:3290)(cid:3278)(cid:3270)(cid:3254)), or other parameters:
`For example, default values may be used for (cid:1842)(cid:3021)(cid:3025)(cid:3032)(cid:3015)(cid:3003), (cid:1840)(cid:2868)+(cid:1835)(cid:3042)(cid:3030)(cid:3032)(cid:3015)(cid:3003),
`(cid:3010)(cid:3290)(cid:3293)(cid:3015)(cid:3116)(cid:2878)(cid:3010)(cid:3290)(cid:3278)(cid:3270)(cid:3254),
`
`(
`
`and/or other parameters. Alternatively, these parameters may be
`
`absorbed in the correction factor δ.
`
`Id. 8:59-67; see also id. 8:40-9:8. Qualcomm's only other description about δ
`
`simply states that it "may be used to bias the open loop algorithm." Id. 9:8-9. Thus,
`
`nothing in Qualcomm supports CCE's contention that δ's specific function is to
`
`modify pathloss.
`
`CCE supports its contention by pointing to an unrelated reference, US Patent
`
`No. 7,813,753 (Ex. 2004). Paper 11 at 27-28. But nothing about that reference
`
`supports CCE's argument. Other than listing the same assignee on their face, there
`
`is no connection between these references—there is no overlap in priority claim,
`
`no overlap in inventors, no internal citations to each other. Compare Ex.1003 with
`
`Ex. 2004. And CCE does not cite any other factual evidence to support concluding
`
`that one of skill in the art would look to Ex. 2004 to better understand Qualcomm's
`
`δ parameter. See Paper 11 at 27-28. Moreover, Ex. 2004 does not even refer to the
`
`δ, it refers instead to correction factor Pcorr,, which may correct for many things,
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`such as "size of the access probe" or "actual Rise-over-Thermal." See Ex. 2004
`
`7:43-67; see also id. 8:47-50, ("A correction factor can be determined, 420, based
`
`on at least one of a Rise-over-Thermal at the access point 440, a message size 450,
`
`a target message error rate (MER) 460 and the number of access points detected,
`
`470."). Thus, Ex. 2004 does not support CCE's contention that the specific function
`
`of Qualcomm's δ is to modify pathloss.
`
`CCE also argues that δ in Qualcomm's Equation 1 is equivalent to α in the
`
`’966 patent's prior art Equation 1 and takes a statement by Dr. Akl out of context to
`
`suggest he agrees. Paper 11 at 27. CCE is incorrect. The ’966 patent's Equation 1,
`
`provides a power control formula for the physical uplink shared channel
`
`(PUSCH). Ex. 1001 4:28-33. That corresponds with Qualcomm's Equation 4,
`
`which also provides PUSCH transmit power. Ex. 1003 10:1-15. Qualcomm's
`
`Equation 1, in contrast, provides the transmit power formula for the random access
`
`preamble ((cid:1842)(cid:3021)(cid:3025)(cid:3022)(cid:3006)), i.e., the RACH preamble power transmission, id. 8:37-45, which
`
`Qualcomm also calls TX_power (in Equation 2) or RACH_power (in Equation 4),
`
`see id. 9:17-21, 10:6:13. That corresponds with the ’966 patent's Equation 3, which
`
`likewise provides preamble power control. Ex. 1001 6:19-26. The table below
`
`illustrates these distinctions:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RACH Preamble Power
`’966 patent:
`
`
`PUSCH Power Control
`’966 patent:
`
`
`Qualcomm:
`
`
`
`
`Qualcomm:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Thus, Qualcomm's Equation 1 and the ’966 patent's Equation 1 solve for different
`
`things, and CCE does not point to evidence in either reference to demonstrate that
`
`δ in the former is equivalent to α in the latter.
`
`Read in context, Dr. Akl's testimony does not demonstrate that he equates
`
`Qualcomm's δ to the ’966 patent's α, as CCE suggests. Dr. Akl was first asked to
`
`explain what he meant by a "fractional portion." Ex. 2001 27:1-12. Dr. Akl
`
`explained it is very difficult to generalize and that a variable's context and
`
`meaning determine if it is a fractional portion:
`
`You have to look at the context. It's very difficult to generalize. . . . If
`
`the only thing in the equation that really has a meaning which in that
`
`case, in your hypothetical, B, B is some quantity or something that has
`
`a meaning and A is a scaler used to multiply B, in that sense you can
`
`think of A as providing a fractional portion or contributing a
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`fractional portion of B. So again, it’s very difficult to generalize
`
`without looking at specific instances and what the meaning that's
`
`given to the variables are and then, based on that meaning, you can
`
`make a better determination of what constitutes a fractional portion.
`
`Id. 28:14-29:12. Dr. Akl also explained that for there to be a fractional pathloss
`
`quantity in Modified Equation 2, it would require the pathloss quantity to be
`
`"multiplied by a variable whose role is to further scale or modify that quantity."
`
`Id. 30:10-31:4.
`
`Counsel then posed Dr. Akl a hypothetical that notably had no context or
`
`meaning associated with δ other than as a variable less than one that is multiplied
`
`by the pathloss terms in Equation 1. Id. 38:8-39:9 ("If delta is less than one, would
`
`full pathloss compensation be used in Equation 1 because delta is multiplying what
`
`you've identified as pathloss?"). As Dr. Akl explained, "[i]n [that] specific
`
`example, if delta is less than one and it's multiplying the pathloss[,] then you
`
`don't have full pathloss." Id. 39:3-6. But even under that hypothetical, Dr. Akl
`
`explained that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the role of δ
`
`could also be equal to one, which would indicate full pathloss. Id. 39:14-19. Dr.
`
`Akl used α in the ’966 patent's prior art Equation 1 as example of such a
`
`teaching—a variable that can be less than one or equal to one—and the context
`
`indicates that he was not equating Qualcomm's δ to that variable. Id. 39:3-19.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Thus, Dr. Akl's testimony does not demonstrate that Qualcomm's δ is equivalent to
`
`the ’966 patent's α, as CCE suggests.
`
`Finally, contrary to CCE's contention, Dr. Akl does not agree that δ must
`
`equal one for full pathloss to be used in Qualcomm's equations. As discussed
`
`above, Dr. Akl explains that "the prior art 3GPP specifications require RACH
`
`preambles to be transmitted using full path loss compensation." Ex. 1002 ¶52
`
`(citing Ex. 1001 2:39-40); see also id. ¶39; id. ¶¶73-75 & 82. Dr. Akl's first reason
`
`that Qualcomm's Equation 4 uses full pathloss compensation is based on that
`
`understanding. That is, because the transmit power of Message 3 (Qualcomm's
`
`Equation 4) uses the preamble power, and because those skilled in the art
`
`understand (and the ’966 patent admits) that the prior art 3GPP specifications
`
`require full pathloss compensation for RACH preamble power, the transmit power
`
`of Message 3 is also calculated using full pathloss compensation. Ex. 1002 ¶¶52,
`
`127, 129. Thus, under Dr. Akl's first reason, Qualcomm teaches using full pathloss
`
`whether δ equals one or not.
`
`Even under Dr. Akl's second reason, Qualcomm teaches using full pathloss.
`
`As Dr. Akl explained, a variable's context and meaning determine if it is a
`
`fractional portion. Ex. 2001 28:14-29:12. For there to be a fractional pathloss
`
`quantity in Modified Equation 2, it would require the pathloss quantity to be
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`"multiplied by a variable whose role is to further scale or modify that quantity."
`
`Id. 30:10-31:4.
`
`But there is no basis to conclude that δ plays that role. Qualcomm states only
`
`that that δ is "a correction factor." Ex. 1003 8:62. Although δ multiplies
`
`Qualcomm's Equation 1 parameters—as do many other parameters—Qualcomm
`
`does not state that δ functions to modify pathloss. To the contrary, Qualcomm
`
`teaches that δ can be used to absorb other parameters, such as transmit power of
`
`the eNB reference signal ((cid:1842)(cid:3021)(cid:3025)(cid:3032)(cid:3015)(cid:3003)), RACH slot interference level ((cid:1840)(cid:2868)+(cid:1835)(cid:3042)(cid:3030)(cid:3032)(cid:3015)(cid:3003)), signal-
`(cid:3010)(cid:3290)(cid:3293)(cid:3015)(cid:3116)(cid:2878)(cid:3010)(cid:3290)(cid:3278)(cid:3270)(cid:3254)), or other parameters. Id. 8:59-
`
`to-other-cell-interference-plus-noise ratio (
`
`67; see also id. 8:40-9:8. Qualcomm's only other description about δ simply states
`
`that it "may be used to bias the open loop algorithm." Id. 9:8-9. Thus, nothing in
`
`Qualcomm supports CCE's contention that the specific function of δ is to modify
`
`pathloss. Moreover, as explained above, nothing in CCE's Exhibit 2004 or Dr.
`
`Akl's testimony supports that contention either. Because Dr. Akl explained that δ
`
`would only indicate a fractional pathloss if its specific role was to scale or modify
`
`the pathloss quantity, and because no evidence supports that δ has that role,
`
`Qualcomm teaches full pathloss regardless of whether δ equals one in Qualcomm's
`
`equations. Accordingly, Dr. Akl does not agree that δ must equal one for full
`
`pathloss to be used in Qualcomm's equations.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. The asserted grounds disclose the power control adjustment state
`limitations
`CCE contends that the asserted grounds do not disclose the power control
`
`adjustment state limitations, which it argues requires both existence of the states
`
`(i.e., f(i) and g(i)), and initializing such states. Paper 11 at 29-41. CCE first
`
`contends Petitioners improperly conflate these two distinct claim elements by
`
`presenting them out of order. Paper 11 at 29-30. CCE is incorrect. The claims
`
`require initializing two power control adjustment states, g(i) and f(i) for i=0. Ex.
`
`1001 12:60-64, 14:24-28, 14:53-56. The claims also identify the specific equation
`
`for initializing the second power control adjustment state, i.e., f(0). Id. 13:6-19,
`
`14:36-47, 14:64-15:8. But because the claims also require computing an initial
`
`transmit power that depends on f(0), id. at 12:67-13:3, 14:32-33, 14:60-61,
`
`Petitioners necessarily discuss f(0) in the context of that limitation. Paper 1 at 17-
`
`21. Petitioners also separately discuss initializing power control adjustment states
`
`g(i) and f(i), noting that both are disclosed in admitted prior art and TS 36.213, that
`
`g(0)=f(0)=∆(cid:1842)(cid:3017)(cid:3004)(cid:3397)(cid:1842)(cid:3045)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3043)(cid:3048)(cid:3043), and that the asserted combination teaches the entire
`
`limitation. Paper 1 at 24-26. Thus, Petitioners did not improperly conflate two
`
`distinct claim elements.
`
`CCE then argues against the asserted combination by contending the
`
`ordinarily skilled artisan would not be motivated to improve on the standard, Paper
`
`11 at 30-34, arguing that Qualcomm and TS 36.213 fail to disclose power control
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`adjustment states, id. at 34-39, and contending that neither Qualcomm nor TS
`
`36.213 disclose initializing the power control adjustment state as claimed, id. at 38-
`
`41. CCE is wrong on each count.
`
`CCE contends the ordinarily skilled artisan would not be motivated to
`
`improve on TS 36.213 because it requires that artisan to recognize that setting f(0)
`
`to 0 was "problematic" or "deficient" and to look for obvious solutions. Paper 11 at
`
`30-34. CCE is wrong. First, the underlying premise to CCE's obviousness
`
`analysis—that one starts with TS 36.213 and must recognize deficiencies to be
`
`motivated to find solutions—is incorrect. As the Institution Decision correctly
`
`recognized, the instituted grounds start with Qualcomm and then look to TS
`
`36.213 or other applicant admitted prior art for efficiencies, for compliance with
`
`standards or to utilize known parameters. Paper 7 at 26; id. at 19-20; see also Paper
`
`1 at 20-21, 25. Second, CCE incorrectly characterizes TS 36.213 as requiring that
`
`f(0)=0. It does not. As Dr. Akl explained, TS 36.213 only provides f(0)=0 as an
`
`example, not a requirement, and that "one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that the standard also discloses different examples where [f(0)] can be
`
`different from zero and would be equal to what's disclosed in the ’966 patent." Ex.
`
`2001 50:18-51:8; see also id. 63:19-64:12, 70:18-71:19, 74:17-75:18, 80:3-81:20,
`
`82:3-83:25, 93:14-94:18. That is because the power control adjustment state "is
`
`iterative in the sense that its value is going to change as a function of an index,"
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and TS.213 provides f(0)=0 merely as an example "so you can proceed and use a
`
`value and build on [f(i)]." Id. 80:3-81:1. Finally, combining Qualcomm with TS
`
`36.213 does not require the ordinarily skilled artisan to recognize f(0)=0 as
`
`"problematic," as CCE contends. It only requires the artisan to recognize f(0)=0 as
`
`an example of a starting value in an iterative process, and that other starting values
`
`may be better. As Dr. Akl explained, one of skill would indeed have that
`
`understanding and be motivated to make that combination. E.g,. id. 50:18-51:8,
`
`63:19-64:12, 70:18-71:19, 74:17-75:18, 80:3-81:20, 82:3-83:25, 84:18-85:16,
`
`85:24-87:17; 93:14-94:18; see also Ex. 1002 ¶¶107-118, 131-132.
`
`CCE argues that Qualcomm and TS 36.213 fail to disclose power control
`
`adjustment states because Qualcomm alone does not disclose power adjustment
`
`states, because TS 36.213 requires f(0)=0, which precludes combining with
`
`Qualcomm, because both f(0) and g(0) are not disclosed, and because Dr. Akl's
`
`testimony is not sufficient justification for making the combination. Paper 11 at 36-
`
`38. CCE is incorrect. First, CCE's argument that Qualcomm fails to expressly
`
`disclose g(i) and f(i) ignores that Petitioners have asserted the combination of
`
`Qualcomm and TS 36.213, and there can be no dispute that TS 36.213 expressly
`
`discloses those parameters. E.g., Paper 1 at 24-25; Ex. 1002 ¶131, Ex. 1004
`
`§5.1.1.1, §5.1.2.1; Paper 7 at 25. Second, TS 36.213 does not "inform a POSA that
`
`f(0)=0" and one of ordinary skill in the art would not "have to specifically ignore"
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that teaching, as CCE contends. As explained above, one of ordinary skill would
`
`understand that TS 36.213 only provides an example of how to initialize f(i) and
`
`recognize that other starting values may be better. Third, as Petitioners explained,
`
`because f(0) and g(0) can be the exact same formula, and because both were
`
`disclosed in TS 36.213, calculating f(0) also calculates g(0). See Paper 1 at 24-25.
`
`Although CCE contends that is incorrect, it provides no explanation for its
`
`disagreement. Paper 11 at 37.
`
`Last, as Dr. Akl explained, the skilled artisan would combine Qualcomm
`
`with TS 36.213 because the combination creates an efficient random access
`
`signaling that is also compliant with the LTE specification. Ex. 2001 85:24-87:17,
`
`90:1-17, 92:10-93:13, 114:2-116:9. The combination is compliant with LTE
`
`specification, he explained, because the standard does not require that f(0)=0, but
`
`rather provides that as an example starting point. E.g,. id.114:2-115:24; 116:20-
`
`117:21; see also id. 50:18-51:8, 63:19-64:12, 70:18-71:19, 74:17-75:18, 80:3-
`
`81:20, 82:3-83:25, 84:18-85:16, 85:24-87:17; 93:14-94:18. Moreover, that
`
`analysis—whether the combination of Qualcomm and TS 36.213 is compliant—is
`
`different from the question posed by CCE's counsel and quoted at page 38 of its
`
`Response, which asked whether the equation in claim 5 of the ’966 patent is
`
`compliant with the LTE specification. See id. 122:21-123:2. Accordingly, there is
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`motivation to make the asserted combination, that combination discloses the
`
`claimed power control adjust states, and CCE has failed to demonstrate otherwise.
`
`CCE argues that Petitioners fail to demonstrate initializing the power control
`
`adjustment state because Qualcomm cannot disclose initialization without
`
`disclosing a power control adjustment state in general and because there is no
`
`rational basis for deriving the claimed limitation from TS 36.213. Paper 11 at 38-
`
`41. CCE is wrong. Regarding Qualcomm, although it does not recite the phrase
`
`"power adjustment state" or use the f(0) or g(0) notation, Petitioners and their
`
`expert fully explained how Qualcomm teaches initializing the second power
`
`control adjustment state (i.e., f(0)) according to the claimed equation. See Paper 1
`
`at 17-20, 24-26; see also Ex. 1002 ¶¶98-99,102-106, 130-132. The claims require
`
`computing "an initial transmit power for the uplink shared channel … wherein
`
`the initial transmit power depends on [1] a preamble power of a first message sent
`
`on an access channel and [2] the second power control adjustment state f(0)." Ex.
`
`1001 12:65-13:3, 14:29-33, 14:58-61. The claims further require that f(i) for i=0 is
`
`initialized as (cid:1842)(cid:2868)_(cid:3022)(cid:3006)_(cid:3022)(cid:3020)(cid:3004)(cid:3009)(cid:3397)(cid:1858)(cid:4666)0(cid:4667)(cid:3404) ∆(cid:1842)(cid:3017)(cid:3004)(cid:3397)∆(cid:1842)(cid:3045)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3043)(cid:3048)(cid:3043), but as Petitioners
`explained—and CCE does not dispute—that equation can be rewritten as (cid:1858)(cid:4666)0(cid:4667)(cid:3404)
`∆(cid:1842)(cid:3017)(cid:3004)(cid:3397)∆(cid:1842)(cid:3045)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3043)(cid:3048)(cid:3043). See Paper 1 at 18; Paper 11 at 38; see also Ex. 1002 ¶81. Thus,
`depends on [1] a preamble power of a first message sent on and [2] ∆(cid:1842)(cid:3017)(cid:3004)(cid:3397)
`
`by demonstrating that an initial transmit power for the uplink shared channel
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`∆(cid:1842)(cid:3045)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3043)(cid:3048)(cid:3043), one necessarily also demonstrates the claimed f(0) because it is equal to
`that second element (∆(cid:1842)(cid:3017)(cid:3004)(cid:3397)∆(cid:1842)(cid:3045)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3043)(cid:3048)(cid:3043)).
`
`Petitioners and their expert demonstrated that Qualcomm's initial transmit
`
`power for the uplink shared channel depends on those very same parameters.
`
`Qualcomm teaches that its PUSCH_power is the transmit power of the first uplink
`
`message sent after successful transmission of the random access preamble. Ex.
`
`1003 10:1-19; Paper 1 at 16; Ex. 1002 ¶¶98-99. Thus, PUSCH_power is the
`
`claimed initial transmit power for the uplink shared channel. Petitioners and their
`
`expert demonstrated that Qualcomm's Equation 4 depends on RACH_power,
`
`which meets the limitation's requirement that initial transmit power depend on the
`
`preamble power of a first message sent on a random access channel. See Paper 1 at
`
`17; Ex. 1002 ¶¶100-101; Ex. 1003 10:12-13. Petitioners and their expert then
`
`demonstrated that applying mathematical relationships to Qualcomm's Equation
`
`4—math that CCE does not dispute—results in Modified Equation 4 below:
`
`PUSCH_power = power_ramp_up + PC_correction – RX_power +
`
`interference _ offset_power + added_correction +
`
`PUSCH_RACH_power_offset.
`
`Paper 1 at 18-20; Ex. 1002 ¶¶102-106. Because Qualcomm's power_ramp_up and
`
`PC_correction variables are equivalent to the ’966 patent's ∆(cid:1842)(cid:3017)(cid:3004) and ∆(cid:1842)(cid:3045)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3043)(cid:3048)(cid:3043)
`
`variables, teaching power_ramp_up + PC_correction is the same as teaching
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`∆(cid:1842)(cid:3017)(cid:3004)(cid:3397)∆(cid:1842)(cid:3045)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3043)(cid:3048)(cid:3043), which is the same as teaching the claimed f(0). Ex. 1003 8:63-
`
`64, 9:35, 9:42-49, 10:16-17, 10:20-21; Paper 1 at 18-19; Ex. 1002 ¶¶102-106, 119-
`
`124; see also Ex. 2001 143:1-145:9. Thus, Qualcomm does disclose the
`
`"initialization state" limitation.
`
`Regarding TS 36.213, contrary to CCE's contention, Petitioners and their
`
`expert also demonstrated a "rational basis" for alternatively deriving the claimed
`
`initialization equation from applicant admitted prior art alone. Paper 1 at 20-21;
`
`Ex. 1002 ¶¶107-118. In brief, Petitioners and their expert explained that except for
`
`UE specific parameters (cid:1842)(cid:2868)_(cid:3022)(cid:3006)_(cid:3017)(cid:3022)(cid:3020)(cid:3004)(cid:3009) and (cid:1858)(cid:4666)0(cid:4667), all of the other parameters of the
`
`’966 patent's prior art Equation 1 are known. Id. One of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have been motivated to use known parameters in place of those two
`
`unknown parameters to initialize Equation 1. Id. Because the UE receives
`
`information for ∆(cid:1842)(cid:3017)(cid:3004) and ∆(cid:1842)(cid:3045)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3043)(cid:3048)(cid:3043) prior to sending Message 3 (i.e., before an
`unknown parameters (cid:1842)(cid:2868)_(cid:3022)(cid:3006)_(cid:3017)(cid:3022)(cid:3020)(cid:3004)(cid:3009) and (cid:1858)(cid:4666)0(cid:4667). Id. Indeed, Dr. Akl explains in detail
`
`initial transmission power for the uplink shared channel), it would have been
`
`obvious to the skilled artisan to use those know
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
