`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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