`
`
`
`
` 
`
`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
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`________________
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01508
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
` 
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND AND INVENTORS’ SOLUTION ......... 2
` 
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`A. TS 36.213 v8.2.0............................................................................................... 2
`
` 
`
` 
`
`B. The Qualcomm Reference ................................................................................ 2
`
`C. The ’966 Patent ................................................................................................. 3
`
`A. Standard for Review ......................................................................................... 5
`
` 
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................. 4
` 
`IV. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ........................................................... 5
` 
`
` 
`V. PETITIONER CANNOT SHOW THAT THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................... 7
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`B. Obviousness ...................................................................................................... 5
`
`A. Summary of Argument ..................................................................................... 7
`
`(cid:1842)(cid:1841)_(cid:1847)(cid:1831)_(cid:1842)(cid:1847)(cid:1829)(cid:1829)(cid:1834)(cid:3397)(cid:1858)0(cid:3404)∆(cid:1842)(cid:1842)(cid:1829)(cid:3397)∆(cid:1842)(cid:1870)(cid:1853)(cid:1865)(cid:1868)(cid:1873)(cid:1868) ..................................................... 8
`
`B. The Prior Art Fails to Disclose the Power Control Adjustment State of
`
`a. The Qualcomm Reference and TS 36.213 ....................................................... 8
`
`b. Response to IPR2016-00178 Institution Decision ......................................... 15
`
`C. The Qualcomm Reference Does Not Disclose Using Full Path Loss ............ 16
`
` 
`VI. CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ....................................................................... 20
` 
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 22
` 
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01508
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases:
`
`CFMT, Inc. v. YieldUp Int’l Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................................................................ 5-6
`
`Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Patent of Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC,
`Case No. IPR2012-00001, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 2013) .............................. 6
`
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................. 5
`
`
`In re Gardner,
`449 Fed. Appx. 914 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................... 7
`
`
`In re Lockwood,
`50 F.3d 966 (Fed. Cir. 1995), vacated, 515 U.S. 1182 (1995) .......................... 22
`
`
`In re Ratti,
`270 F.2d 810 (CCPA 1959) ................................................................................. 7
`
`
`In re Rijckaert,
`9 F.3d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ............................................................................... 6
`
`
`In re Royka,
`490 F.2d 981 (C.C.P.A. 1974) ............................................................................. 6
`
`
`In re Tech. Licensing Corp.,
`423 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ......................................................................... 22
`
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Cellular Communications Equipment LLC,
`IPR2016-00178, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. March 28, 2016) ....................................... 15
`
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`517 U.S. 370 (1996) ........................................................................................... 22
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01508
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. C. Aultman & Co.,
`169 U.S. 606 (1898) ........................................................................................... 21
`
`
`MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`812 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ......................................................................... 21
`
`
`Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC,
`No. 16-712 ......................................................................................................... 21
`
`
`Par Pharm., Inc. v. TWi Pharms., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................... 6
`
`
`Plas-Pak Indus., Inc. v. Sulzer Mixpac AG,
`600 Fed. Appx. 755 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................... 6
`
`
`Riggin v. Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices,
`61 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ........................................................................... 21
`
`
`Square, Inc. Unwired Planet LLC,
`IPR2014-01165, Paper 25 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2015) ......................................... 21
`
`Stern v. Marshall,
`131 S.Ct. 2594 (2011) ........................................................................................ 21
`
`Rules and Statutes:
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................................................................... 6-7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 313 ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .............................................................................................. 5, 22
`
`37 C.F.R § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 4
`
`37 C.F.R § 42.107 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
` 
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01508
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b)(2) ......................................................................................... 22
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ................................................................................................ 5
`
`Other Authorities:
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ............... 5
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01508
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R § 42.107, Patent Owner Cellular
`Communications Equipment LLC (“CCE”) respectfully submits this preliminary
`response (the “Response”) to HTC Corp., HTC America, Inc., ZTE Corp., and ZTE
`(USA), Inc.’s (collectively, “Petitioner”) Petition for Inter Partes Review
`(“Petition”). As explained below, a trial should not be instituted in this matter
`because Petitioner cannot demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood that at
`least one of the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966 (the “’966 Patent”)
`is unpatentable.
`Petitioner argues that Claims 1-17 of the ’966 Patent (the “Challenged
`Claims”) are obvious over U.S. Patent No. 8,599,706 (Ex. 1003, the “Qualcomm
`Reference”), U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0093386 (Ex. 1007), 3GPP TS 36.213
`(Ex. 1004), 3GPP TS 36.300 (Ex. 1005), and 3GPP TS 36.321 v8.2.0 (Ex. 1006). In
`particular, Petitioner asserts under Ground A of its Petition that all of the
`Independent Challenged Claims (Claims 1, 9, and 10) are obvious in light of the
`Qualcomm Reference and TS 36.213. This is the only Ground under which the
`Independent Challenged Claims are challenged. This will be the Ground discussed
`below in this Response.1 Also contained in this Response will be Patent Owner’s
`
`                                                            
`1 For the reasons set forth herein, Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of the challenged independent claims
`and therefore necessarily fails with respect to the challenged dependent claims.
`1
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01508
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`responses to a previous Institution Decision involving the ’966 Patent. See IPR2016-
`00178, Paper No. 9 (the “-178 Institution Decision”).
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND AND INVENTORS’ SOLUTION
`
`A. TS 36.213 v8.2.0
`3GPP TS 36.213 v8.2.0 (Ex. 1004) (hereinafter “TS 36.213”) specifies
`physical layer procedures for evolved universal terrestrial radio access (E-UTRA),
`the air interface for 3GPP Long Term Evolution (“LTE”). Among other things, TS
`36.213 specifies how uplink power should be set for a physical uplink shared channel
`and a physical uplink control channel. TS 36.213 specifies, for example, that “[t]he
`setting of the UE Transmit power PPUSCH for the physical uplink shared channel
`(PUSCH) transmission in subframe i is defined by PPUSCH(i) = min{PMAX,
`10log10(MPUSCH(i)) + PO_PUSCH(j) + α · PL + ΔTF(TF(i)) + f(i)} ….” TS 36.213 at 8.
`A similar (but not identical) power control formula is specified for the physical
`uplink control channel (PUCCH) transmissions having transmit power PPUCCH(i). Id.
`at 9. f(i) and g(i) are functions that describe power control adjustment states, where
`i specifies a particular subframe. Id. TS 36.213 discloses that for subframe 0 (i.e.,
`i=0), f(0)=g(0)=0. Id. at 9 and 10.
`
`B. The Qualcomm Reference
`The Qualcomm Reference (Ex. 1003) purports to disclose improvements to
`the random access process in an LTE system. It discloses several equations (i.e.,
`Equations 1 and 4) that describe the power at which a random access preamble and
`
` 
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01508
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`a subsequent message are to be transmitted. These equations involve a number of
`different parameters/variables that are described in the Reference. The Qualcomm
`Reference never mentions power control adjustment states, f(i), or g(i).
`
`C. The ’966 Patent
`The ’966 Patent incorporates by reference and quotes portions of TS 36.213
`and discloses improvements to power control for a physical uplink shared channel
`(PUSCH) and physical uplink control channel (PUCCH). According to the ’966
`Patent, “the problem solved [by the disclosed] embodiments is how the power
`control formulas for PUSCH and PUCCH are taken in use during or after the
`Random Access procedure.” Ex. 1001, ’966 Patent at 4:16-19. More specifically,
`the inventors recognized that “[w]hen the UE first sends data on the PUSCH, there
`is no previous subframe and so i=0, which is addressed in 3GPP TS 36.213 v8.2.0
`as zeroing out the entire term so that f(0)=0.” ’966 Patent at 6:33-35; see also
`TS 36.213 at 9. Likewise for the PUCCH power control initial condition g(0), the
`inventors recognized that the TS 36.213 approach was to “zero[] out the entire term
`so that g(0)=0.” ’966 Patent at 6:46-49; see also TS 36.213 at 10.
`To address perceived shortcomings with “how the UE specific parameters of
`the PUSCH and PUCCH power control formulas are initialized” (’966 Patent at
`4:25-27), the inventors proposed new systems and methods for initializing f(i) and
`g(i) (the power control adjustment state functions for PPUSCH and PPUCCH). More
`specifically, the inventors disclosed an embodiment where “the UE receives a power
`control command (e.g., ΔPPC) in the preamble response from the eNB” and then
`
` 
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01508
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`initializes the f(i) and g(i) power control functions for i=0 so that P0_UE_PUSCH + f(0)
`= ΔPPC + ΔPrampup and P0_UE_PUCCH + g(0) = ΔPPC + ΔPrampup. ’966 Patent at 6:59-67.
`In this aspect, the inventors’ solution provides improved power control by taking
`advantage of specific information from the preamble power control process (e.g.,
`ΔPPC and ΔPrampup) to initialize specific power control adjustment states (f(i) and
`g(i)).
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`According to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), a claim in an inter partes review is to be
`given its “broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent
`in which it appears.” Petitioner has construed the meanings of various claim terms
`in the Petition. CCE disputes that Petitioner’s proposed constructions are consistent
`with the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification” and,
`consequently, CCE does not acquiesce to Petitioner’s definitions. CCE does not
`believe construction of any particular claim term or phrase is necessary to deny the
`Petition.
`CCE reserves its rights to set forth competing claim constructions in a future
`response (and with the support of its own expert), if an inter partes review is
`instituted.
`
` 
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01508
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`IV. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A. Standard for Review
`The Board may only grant a petition for inter partes review where “the
`information presented in the petition … shows that there is a reasonable likelihood
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged
`in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Petitioner bears the
`burden of showing that this statutory threshold has been met. See Office Patent Trial
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“The Board … may institute
`a trial where the petitioner establishes that the standards for instituting the requested
`trial are met ….”).
`
`B. Obviousness
`Section 103 of the Patent Act provides that “[a] patent may not be obtained
`… if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented 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 said
`subject matter pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The obviousness analysis requires a
`number of threshold inquiries. The level of ordinary skill in the art must be
`established, the scope and content of the prior art must be determined, and any
`differences between the prior art and the claims at issue must be ascertained.
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
`If a single element of the claim is absent from the prior art, the claims cannot
`be considered obvious. See CFMT, Inc. v. YieldUp Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342
`
` 
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01508
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Obviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim.”)
`(citing In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (C.C.P.A. 1974)); In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d
`1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (reversing obviousness rejection where prior art did not
`teach or suggest all claim limitations); Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Patent of Cuozzo Speed
`Techs. LLC, Case No. IPR2012-00001, Paper 15 at 15 (PTAB Jan. 9, 2013) (refusing
`to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 103 where prior art did not
`disclose all claim limitations). As explained below, Petitioner has not established a
`reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’966 Patent is
`unpatentable for at least the reason that the alleged prior art, even taken in
`combination, plainly does not disclose each limitation of the challenged claims.
`While CCE believes the above points of law sufficient to warrant denial of the
`Petition under the facts presented, CCE notes (for completeness) that “[o]bviousness
`is a question of law based on several underlying factual findings, including what a
`references teaches, and whether proposed modifications would change a reference’s
`‘principle of operation ….” See Plas-Pak Indus., Inc. v. Sulzer Mixpac AG, 600 Fed.
`Appx. 755, 757 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citations omitted). “A party asserting that a patent
`is obvious ‘must demonstrate … that a skilled artisan would have had reason to
`combine the teaching of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention,
`and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success from
`doing so.’” Par Pharm., Inc. v. TWi Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1193 (Fed. Cir.
`2014). Where “a proposed modification or combination of the prior art would
`change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the
`
` 
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01508
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie
`obvious.” In re Gardner, 449 Fed. Appx. 914, 916 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing In re
`Ratti, 270 F.2d 810 (CCPA 1959)).
`
`V.
`
`PETITIONER CANNOT SHOW THAT THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`A. Summary of Argument
` Although there are several reasons as to why the Qualcomm Reference and
`TS 36.213 (collectively referred to as the “Prior Art”) do not suggest the Challenged
`Claims, only two will be specifically discussed in this Response. First, Petitioner
`fails to show that any of the Prior Art discloses the step of “a power control
`adjustment state . . .” as required by the Challenged Claims. The Challenged Claims
`
`require (cid:1842)(cid:3016)_(cid:3022)(cid:3006)_(cid:3017)(cid:3022)(cid:3004)(cid:3004)(cid:3009)(cid:3397)(cid:1858)(cid:4666)0(cid:4667)(cid:3404)∆(cid:1842)(cid:1842)(cid:1829)(cid:3397)∆(cid:1842)(cid:3045)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3043)(cid:3048)(cid:3043), where f(0) is the power control
`
`adjustment state. The Qualcomm Reference is entirely silent on the issue of a power
`control adjustment state, despite Petitioner’s claims to the contrary. TS 36.213, on
`the other hand, is very specific about the power control adjustment state. It says that
`f(0)=0. As such, a POSA, reviewing these prior art references could only come away
`with the knowledge that f(0)=g(0)=0, as described in TS 36.213. Accordingly, the
`combination of the Qualcomm Reference with TS 36.213 does not suggest
`
`initializing f(0) as (cid:1842)(cid:3016)_(cid:3022)(cid:3006)_(cid:3017)(cid:3022)(cid:3004)(cid:3004)(cid:3009)(cid:3397)(cid:1858)(cid:4666)0(cid:4667)(cid:3404)∆(cid:1842)(cid:1842)(cid:1829)(cid:3397)∆(cid:1842)(cid:3045)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3043)(cid:3048)(cid:3043).
`
`Second, Petitioner fails to show that the Qualcomm Reference computes the
`initial transmit power using full path loss compensation. The Challenged Claims all
`require that “the initial transmit power for the uplink shared channel [use] full path
`
` 
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01508
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`loss compensation.” As explained by Petitioner, “full path loss compensation”
`means “using the entire estimate[d] path loss.” The term “path loss” is not used in
`the Qualcomm Reference nor is the symbol α (a value used in the ’966 Patent to
`adjust the path loss value). But, the Qualcomm Reference multiplies the value
`
`identified by Petitioner as corresponding to path loss – (cid:1842)(cid:1846)(cid:1850)(cid:1857)(cid:1840)(cid:1828)/(cid:1842)(cid:1844)(cid:1850)(cid:1847)(cid:1831), by δ, identified in
`
`the Qualcomm Reference as a “correction factor.” For the Qualcomm Reference to
`disclose “full path loss compensation”, this “correction factor” would need to be set
`to 1, just as Petitioner requires α to be set to 1. See Petition at 11 (stating that “the
`power formulas of the ’966 Patent indicate full path loss compensation by setting α
`to 1.”). However, the value of δ is never disclosed in the Qualcomm Reference as
`being 1 or anything else. As such, Petitioner has failed to show that “full path loss
`compensation” is disclosed in the Qualcomm Reference.
`
`B. The Prior Art Fails to Disclose the Power Control Adjustment State
`
`of (cid:2172)(cid:2171)_(cid:2177)(cid:2161)_(cid:2172)(cid:2177)(cid:2159)(cid:2159)(cid:2164)(cid:3397)(cid:2188)(cid:4666)(cid:2777)(cid:4667)(cid:3404)∆(cid:2172)(cid:2172)(cid:2159)(cid:3397)∆(cid:2172)(cid:2200)(cid:2183)(cid:2195)(cid:2198)(cid:2203)(cid:2198)
`
`
`
`a. The Qualcomm Reference and TS 36.213
`Independent Challenged Claim 1 requires:
`
`using a processor to initialize for i=0 a first power control
`adjustment state g(i) for an uplink control channel and a
`second power control adjustment state f(i) for an uplink
`shared channel to each reflect an open loop power control
`error;
`
`. . .
`
`the second power control adjustment state f(i) for i=0 is
`initialized as:
`
`
` 
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01508
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`
`(cid:1842)(cid:3016)_(cid:3022)(cid:3006)_(cid:3017)(cid:3022)(cid:3004)(cid:3004)(cid:3009)(cid:3397)(cid:1858)(cid:4666)0(cid:4667)(cid:3404)∆(cid:1842)(cid:1842)(cid:1829)(cid:3397)∆(cid:1842)(cid:3045)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3043)(cid:3048)(cid:3043) . . . .
`
`
`
`’966 Patent, Claim 1. The other Independent Challenged Claims (Claims 9 and 10)
`contain similar limitations. Accordingly, in the interest of brevity, only Challenged
`Claim 1 will be analyzed in this discussion, even though such an analysis applies
`equally to Challenged Claims 9 and 10 (this is the same approach taken by Petitioner
`– see Petition at 15). Thus, the Challenged Claims contain separate steps directed to
`initializing first and second power control adjustment states for f(0) and g(0) and
`computing an initial transmit power that depends on the power control adjustment
`states.
`The Qualcomm Reference is deficient with respect to disclosing any
`initialization of the power control adjustment states g(i) and f(i) because, even
`assuming arguendo that Qualcomm discloses computing an initial transmit power in
`a manner comparable to the Challenged Claims, there is no disclosure of an
`“initialization” step or of any power control adjustment states. The Challenged
`Claims require both a computation of an initial transmit power and the initialization
`of a power control adjustment state. These are two separate limitations. Qualcomm,
`at most, speaks to the computation of an initial transmit power using some (but not
`all) of the values relevant to the power control adjustment state recited in the
`Challenged Claims. The Qualcomm Reference is completely silent, however, as to
`power control adjustment states in general.
`
` 
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01508
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s substantive analysis of the “initializing” limitation starts as
`follows:
`
`
`The parameters f(i) and g(i) are disclosed in the
`AAPA and TS 36.213 as “power control adjustment state.”
`(Ex. 1001, 4:65-5:35, 6:1-17; TS 36.213, §5.1.1.1,
`§5.1.2.1). The parameter f(i) is the power control
`adjustment state relevant to messages sent on the uplink
`shared channel; the parameter g(i) is the power control
`adjustment state relevant to messages sent on the uplink
`control channel. (Ex. 1002, ¶131). As described above,
`when calculating the transmit power of Message 3, the
`value f(0) is calculated. Because f(0) and g(0) can be the
`exact same formula and were both disclosed in TS 36.213,
`calculating f(0) also calculates g(0).
` Accordingly,
`Qualcomm discloses initializing for i = 0 a first power
`control adjustment state g(i) and a second power control
`
`adjustment state f(i) as f(0) = g(0) = ∆(cid:1842)(cid:1842)(cid:1829)(cid:3397)∆(cid:1842)(cid:3045)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3043)(cid:3048)(cid:3043).
`
`(Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 102-118; 137-150).
`
`
`Petition at 24. The logic of this paragraph is hopelessly flawed. Up until the last
`sentence, Petitioner discusses what is disclosed in the AAPA and TS 36.213.
`Petitioner then concludes with, “[a]ccordingly, Qualcomm discloses . . . .”
`(emphasis added). This is nonsensical. Qualcomm does not disclose a power
`adjustment state at all. It doesn’t use the term nor does it use the notation f(i) or g(i)
`as does the AAPA and TS 36.213. Petitioner’s next sentence confirms this - “[t]he
`Qualcomm Reference does not expressly show these power control adjustment states
`using the same terminology.” Petition at 25. In sum, the Qualcomm Reference is
`
` 
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01508
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`completely silent with regard to a “power control adjustment states” and Petitioner’s
`statement that “Qualcomm discloses initializing for i=0 a first power control
`adjustment state g(i) . . . .” is incorrect.
`Petitioner appears to argue that because it can (improperly) reduce f(0) =
`
`∆(cid:1842)(cid:1842)(cid:1829)(cid:3397)∆(cid:1842)(cid:3045)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3043)(cid:3048)(cid:3043) (with (cid:1842)(cid:3016)_(cid:3022)(cid:3006)_(cid:3017)(cid:3022)(cid:3004)(cid:3004)(cid:3009) equal to zero in certain circumstances), and
`because the Qualcomm Reference discloses using ∆(cid:1842)(cid:1842)(cid:1829)(cid:3397)∆(cid:1842)(cid:3045)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3043)(cid:3048)(cid:3043) in computing
`
`the power at which a random access preamble is transmitted, it discloses a power
`control adjustment state. This is wrong. The Qualcomm Reference cannot be said
`to disclose a power control adjustment state merely because it uses some of the same
`values in computing the power at which a random access preamble is transmitted.
`See Qualcomm Reference, Equation 1, 8:40-47. Stated differently, it is only with
`
`the benefit of the disclosure in the ’966 Patent that a POSA would realize that ∆(cid:1842)(cid:1842)(cid:1829)
`and ∆(cid:1842)(cid:3045)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3043)(cid:3048)(cid:3043) could be used in computing a power control adjustment state. In the
`transmit powers and a POSA would not recognize that ∆(cid:1842)(cid:1842)(cid:1829) and ∆(cid:1842)(cid:3045)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3043)(cid:3048)(cid:3043) might
`
`Qualcomm Reference, these are but two of many terms used in computing various
`
`be part of a power control adjustment state because such a state is not contemplated
`by the Qualcomm Reference.
`Petitioner goes on to dig its own grave in the next paragraph. In this
`paragraph, Petitioner states that a POSA would refer to TS 36.213 for information
`about power control adjustment states, but neglects to mention that TS 36.213
`discloses power control adjustment states that the ’966 Patent specifically criticizes
`then improves upon:
`
` 
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01508
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`
`
`
`The Qualcomm reference does not expressly show these
`power control adjustment states using
`the same
`terminology. A POSITA, however, would understand that
`Qualcomm teaches these states and/or would look at least
`to TS 36.213 regarding the two claimed power control
`adjustment states. (Ex.1002, ¶131). As the claims only
`require that g(0) is initialized and that f(0) can be equal to
`g(0), Qualcomm teaches initializing both f(0) and g(0).
`(Id.) TS 36.213 makes explicit what a POSITA would
`have known, i.e., that f(i) exists for use in calculating
`power for a shared channel and that g(i) exists for use in
`calculating power for a control channel. (TS 36.213,
`§5.1.1.1, §5.1.2.1; Ex. 1002, ¶131).
`
`Petition at 25 (emphasis added). What Petitioner fails to state, however, that TS
`36.213 discloses that g(0)=0 and f(0)=0, unlike all of the Challenged Claims that
`
`require (cid:1842)(cid:3016)_(cid:3022)(cid:3006)_(cid:3017)(cid:3022)(cid:3004)(cid:3004)(cid:3009)(cid:3397)(cid:1858)(cid:4666)0(cid:4667)(cid:3404)∆(cid:1842)(cid:1842)(cid:1829)(cid:3397)∆(cid:1842)(cid:3045)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3043)(cid:3048)(cid:3043). TS 36.213 at 9 and 10. As
`
`repeatedly pointed out in the ’966 Patent, one of the main purposes of the invention
`was the development of an improved power control adjustment state over that
`described in the prior art where f(0)=g(0)=0.
`A POSA that took Petitioner’s advice to review TS 36.213 to determine the
`proper power control adjustment state would certainly rely on the specific teachings
`of this reference that g(0)=0 and f(0)=0. There is simply no other conclusion one
`could come to after a review of this reference.
`Petitioner seems to “want its cake and eat it too” by relying on TS 36.213 for
`the proposition that power control adjustment states exist, and on the Qualcomm
`Reference to disclose the particular mathematical relationship of such a relationship
`12
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01508
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`
`(i.e., (cid:1842)(cid:3016)_(cid:3022)(cid:3006)_(cid:3017)(cid:3022)(cid:3004)(cid:3004)(cid:3009)(cid:3397)(cid:1858)(cid:4666)0(cid:4667)(cid:3404)∆(cid:1842)(cid:1842)(cid:1829)(cid:3397)∆(cid:1842)(cid:3045)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3043)(cid:3048)(cid:3043)). Petition at 25-26. Among many
`
`questions left unanswered by Petitioner’s flawed analysis:
`- Why would a POSA disregard the teachings of TS 36.312 that actually
`speaks to the value of g(0) and f(0) in favor of cherry-picking certain, arbitrary
`values from the Qualcomm Reference?
`
`- Why would a POSA select only ∆(cid:1842)(cid:1842)(cid:1829) and ∆(cid:1842)(cid:3045)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3043)(cid:3048)(cid:3043) in coming up with a
`
`power control adjustment state? Why not some of the other values in the
`Qualcomm Reference’s Equation 1?
`- How would a POSA reconcile the inapposite teachings of TS 36.312 and the
`Qualcomm Reference regarding the values of g(0) and f(0)?
`Petitioner doesn’t address these difficult questions nor can it. TS 36.213 and the
`Qualcomm Reference (as interpreted by Petitioner) cannot be reconciled when it
`comes to the values of f(0) and g(0).
`After digging its grave, Petitioner proceeds to throw dirt on top of it by
`concluding:
`
`
`The teachings of Qualcomm combined with the teachings
`of TS 36.213 allow UE to “efficiently transmit the random
`access preamble and signaling for system access,” while
`maintaining compatibility with the LTE standards such as
`TS 36.213. (Ex. 1003, 1:45-47). Such a combination,
`therefore, would be obvious to a POSITA in creating a
`more efficient random access signaling that is compliant
`with the LTE specifications. (Ex. 1002, ¶131).
`
`
` 
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01508
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`Petition at 25 (emphasis added). To be clear, TS 36.213 was the current LTE
`specification at the time the ’966 Patent was filed. To be compliant with this portion
`of the LTE specification, a POSA would have to set f(0)=g(0)=0, not
`
`f(0)=g(0)= ∆(cid:1842)(cid:1842)(cid:1829)(cid:3397)∆(cid:1842)(cid:3045)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3043)(cid:3048)(cid:3043) as Petitioner claims the Qualcomm Reference
`
`teaches. Thus, if a POSA wanted to combine the Qualcomm Reference and
`TS 36.312 in a manner compatible with the LTE specification, they would go with
`the solution presented in TS 36.213 instead of what is allegedly disclosed in the
`Qualcomm Reference and that presented in the Challenged Claims.
`To the extent that the portion of the Petition reproduced above can be read to
`
`say that the f(0)=g(0)= ∆(cid:1842)(cid:1842)(cid:1829)(cid:3397)∆(cid:1842)(cid:3045)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3043)(cid:3048)(cid:3043) leads to “a more efficient random access
`arguendo that f(0)=g(0)= ∆(cid:1842)(cid:1842)(cid:1829)(cid:3397)∆(cid:1842)(cid:3045)(cid:3028)(cid:3040)(cid:3043)(cid:3048)(cid:3043) is disclosed in the Qualcomm
`
`signaling” than f(0)=g(0)=0 (as disclosed in TS 36.213), there is simply no evidence
`in the Qualcomm Reference to support such a claim. Again, even assuming
`
`Reference, Petitioner points to nothing in this Reference that would explain why a
`POSA would prefer this formula over f(0)=g(0)=0. On the other hand, as discussed
`above, in order to be compliant with the then current LTE specification, a POSA
`would most definitely choose f(0)=g(0)=0, as described in TS 36.213 – an actual
`LTE specification.
`In sum, any combination of the Qualcomm Reference and TS 36.312 points
`to a POSA choosing f(0)=g(0)=0 over anything allegedly disclosed in the Qualcomm
`Reference itself because 1) the Qualcomm Reference doesn’t disclose power control
`adjustment states (e.g., f(i) and g(i)), and 2) choosing anything other than
`
` 
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01508
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`f(0)=g(0)=0 would not be compliant with the then current LTE specification. Given
`this preference, the portion of the Independent Challenged Claims that requires a
`
`power control adjustment state be established for f(0) as (cid:1842)(cid:3016)_(cid:3022)(cid:3006)_(cid:3017)(cid:3022)(cid:3004)(cid:3004)(cid:3009)(cid:3397)(cid:1858)(cid:4666)0(cid:4667)(cid:3404)
`∆(c