`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 10
`
`
`
` Entered: March 29, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`AND ZTE (USA) INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INVT SPE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before THU A. DANG, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
`BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`
`Apple Inc., HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., and ZTE (USA),
`
`Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter partes
`
`review of claims 1–11 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,611,676 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’676 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). INVT SPE
`
`LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 9 (“Prelim.
`
`Resp.”). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be
`
`instituted unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there
`
`is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at
`
`least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”
`
` For the reasons stated below, we determine that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one
`
`challenged claim. We hereby institute inter partes review of all challenged
`
`claims on all grounds of unpatentability asserted in the Petition.
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`
`According to Petitioner, the ’676 patent is at issue in the following:
`
`INVT SPE LLC v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-03738 (D.N.J.); INVT SPE
`
`LLC v. HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-03740
`
`(D.N.J.); and INVT SPE LLC v. ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc., Case
`
`No. 2:17-cv-06522 (D.N.J.). Pet. 44. Further, Petitioner asserts that the
`
`’676 patent was previously at issue in Inventergy, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., Case
`
`No. 1:17-cv-00196 (D. Del.); and Inventergy, Inc. v. HTC Corporation and
`
`HTC America, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00200 (D. Del.). Id. at 44–45.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`
`C. The ’676 Patent
`
`The ’676 patent, titled “Radio Communication Apparatus and
`
`Transmission Rate Control Method,” issued on August 26, 2003, from an
`
`application filed February 27, 2002, which in turn is a continuation of an
`
`international application filed on April 19, 1997 in Japan. Ex. 1001, [54],
`
`[45], [22], [63]. According to the ’676 patent, “[a] communication terminal
`
`apparatus measures reception quality,” and “a base station apparatus
`
`switches the transmission rate based on the report result of the reception
`
`quality.” Id. at Abstract. Thus, “the transmission rate is switched starting at
`
`the point in time at which the reception quality of the communication
`
`terminal apparatus deteriorates,” so that “the amount of interference with
`
`others is within the allowable range.” Id.
`
`Figure 2 is reproduced below:
`
`Figure 2 depicts “a block diagram showing a configuration of a
`
`communication terminal apparatus that carries out a radio communication
`
`with the base station apparatus.” Id. at 3:61–65.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`
`As shown in Figure 2, “[a] signal received from antenna 201 is sent to
`
`reception RF circuit 203 via duplexer 202 to use a same antenna for both
`
`transmission and reception, where it is amplified and converted to an
`
`intermediate frequency or a baseband frequency.” Id. at 3:66–4:2. “The
`
`frequency-converted signal is demodulated by demodulator 204,” while “the
`
`output signal of the reception RF circuit is sent to reception quality
`
`measurement circuit 205, where the reception quality is measured.” Id. at
`
`4:3–6. The reception quality includes, for example, “signal to interference
`
`ratio (SIR), Signal-to-Interference plus Noise Ratio [‘SINR’]).” Id. at 4:7–
`
`14.
`
`The ’676 acknowledges that, in the prior art, “measurement of SIR
`
`indicating the reception quality” is known in “transmission power control,”
`
`wherein “if the measured SIR is greater than the target SIR[,] a command to
`
`reduce transmission power is sent to the base station,” “if the measured
`
`value is smaller than the target SIR[,] a command to increase transmission
`
`power is sent to the base station,” and “[t]he base station increments or
`
`decrements transmission power according to this command.” Id. at 1:23–32.
`
`However, the ’676 patent notes that the prior art has a problem, namely, “the
`
`target SIR increases depending on the environment,” and the “transmission
`
`rate of the mobile station and the reception SIR sometimes decreases due to
`
`fading, etc.” Id. at 1:47–50. In such case, “the mobile station instructs the
`
`base station to increase transmission power,” which “considerably
`
`increas[es] transmission power of the base station to the mobile station,” and
`
`“is likely to increase interference with other mobile stations to an intolerable
`
`degree.” Id. at 1:50–56.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`
`The operation of “a transmission rate switching method in the base
`
`station apparatus” according to an embodiment (id. at 2:45–47) is explained
`
`in detail with respect to Figure 13 reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 13 depicts “a flow chart of the transmission rate switching
`
`control circuit.” Id. at 6:60–61. As shown in Figure 13, “the base station
`
`apparatus compares the reception quality measurement result reported from
`
`the communication terminal apparatus with threshold 1 (ST21).” Id. at 7:9–
`
`12. Threshold 1 “is set according to the transmission rate, but in a CDMA
`
`communication system, it is set according to the spreading factor or the
`
`number of multiplexing codes.” Id. at 6:67–7:3. “[I]f SIR is greater than
`
`threshold 1, the same transmission rate is used,” but “[i]f SIR is smaller than
`
`threshold 1, the transmission rate is switched to such a transmission rate that
`
`SIR is greater than threshold 1 (ST22).” Id. at 7:12–15. Thus, by switching
`
`the transmission rate, “SIR exceeds threshold 1 and more accurate control
`
`can be performed on varying reception quality.” Id. at 7:16–18. “This
`
`makes it possible to improve the reception quality of the other end of
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`communication even if the condition of the communication path with the
`
`other end of communication deteriorates drastically,” and furthermore,
`
`“reduce the amount of interference with others because the target reception
`
`quality is reduced and transmission power is reduced.” Id. at 7:19–23.
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 6, and 7 are independent.
`
`Claims 2–5 and 8 depend from claim 1, and claims 9–11 depend from
`
`claim 7.
`
`Claim 1 is illustrative:
`
`1. A radio communication apparatus having
`radio transmitting means and radio receiving means, said
`apparatus comprising:
`
`transmission power control means for increasing or
`decreasing transmission power of said transmitting means
`according to transmission power control information received by
`said receiving means;
`
`transmission power calculating means for
`average
`calculating an average value of the transmission power of said
`transmitting means;
`
`allowable transmission power holding means for holding
`a predetermined allowable transmission power value; comparing
`means for comparing the average value with the allowable
`transmission power value; and
`
`rate changing means for changing a transmission rate
`according to the comparison result in said comparing
`means.
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`
`E. Evidence of Record
`
` Petitioner relies upon the references listed below (Pet. 6):
`
`Reference
`
`Exhibit
`
`Keskitalo
`et al.
`
`WO 95/10145, published April 13, 1995
`(“Keskitalo”)
`
`Lindell et
`al.
`
`US 5,524,275, issued June 4, 1996
`(“Lindell”)
`
`Tiedemann
`et al.
`
`US 5,822,318, issued Oct. 13, 1998
`(“Tiedemann”)
`
`
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Andrew C. Singer,
`
`Ph.D. (Ex. 1003).
`
`F. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability
`
`(Pet. 6):
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`1–3, 5–9, and 11
`
`§ 103
`
`Keskitalo and Lindell
`
`4 and 10
`
`§ 103
`
`Keskitalo, Lindell, and Tiedemann
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`The broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) standard applies to the
`
`claim construction in this case, because the Board accorded the Petition a
`
`filing date of August 21, 2018 (Paper 7, 1), prior to the effective date of the
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`rule change that replaces the BRI standard. See Changes to the Claim
`
`Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before
`
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51340 (Oct. 11, 2018)
`
`(“This rule is effective on November 13, 2018 and applies to all IPR, PGR
`
`and CBM petitions filed on or after the effective date.”). Under the BRI
`
`standard, and absent any special definitions, we generally give claim terms
`
`their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech.,
`
`Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definitions for
`
`claim terms must be set forth with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`
`precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`According to Petitioner, “[e]xcepting the means-plus-function terms
`
`expressly discussed,” Petitioner applies “the plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`all other claim terms,” and Petitioner “does not believe any of these
`
`remaining claim terms require express construction to resolve the proposed
`
`grounds of rejection” presented in the Petition. Pet. 6–7. Patent Owner does
`
`not contest any of Petitioner’s claim constructions set forth in the Petition,
`
`but instead contends that “it is not necessary for the Board to construe any
`
`terms in this proceeding because . . . construction is not necessary to resolve
`
`the controversy.” Prelim. Resp. 11.
`
`Petitioner contends that “[c]laim 1 includes limitations in
`
`means-plus[-]function format, which creates a rebuttable presumption that
`
`the Patent Owner intended to invoke § 112, ¶ 6.” Pet. 7; see also Altiris Inc.
`
`v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2003). We have
`
`reviewed Petitioner’s proposed constructions of the means-plus-function
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`(“MPF”) terms (Pet. 7–10), and we determine that Petitioner has set forth
`
`proposed structures that support these limitations, which Patent Owner does
`
`not contest. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) (requiring Petitioner to construe a
`
`MPF limitation by identifying “the specific portions of the specification that
`
`describe the structure, materials, or acts corresponding to each claimed
`
`function”). For example, Petitioner contends that the corresponding
`
`structure for “means for calculating an average value of the transmission
`
`power of said transmission means,” recited by claim 1, “is a processor or
`
`other circuitry programmed or designed to calculate an average value of
`
`transmission power.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1001, 13:59–62, Fig. 29 (“During a
`
`communication, in ST131, at least one frame of average transmission power
`
`(Pave) is monitored in layer 1. The transmission rate is controlled according
`
`to this channel condition.”)).
`
`Petitioner’s constructions presume that the meaning of specific
`
`functions, such as “calculating” an average value of transmission power, for
`
`example, are generally known. However, if a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would not have understood the recited functions at the time of the
`
`invention, the structures provided in the ’676 patent would not be sufficient
`
`to convey such meaning to the artisan. See In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d
`
`1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc) (“[I]f one employs
`
`means-plus-function language in a claim, one must set forth in the
`
`specification an adequate disclosure showing what is meant.”). Only for
`
`purposes of this Decision, we presume that Petitioner’s analysis is sufficient.
`
`Because, for the reasons set forth in Section II.D, we have determined
`
`there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail regarding at least
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`one challenged claim and have determined to institute inter partes review on
`
`the Petition, SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu requires that the trial encompass all
`
`challenged claims, including the MPF claims. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu,
`
`138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). We note that determining if the prior art
`
`renders the claims obvious necessarily requires resolving facts and
`
`determining the scope of and the meaning of the claims. If, however, we are
`
`unable to determine the scope and meaning of the MPF terms, the prior art
`
`grounds of unpatentability must fall, pro forma, because the grounds would
`
`be based on speculative assumption as to the meaning of the claims. See In
`
`re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862–63 (CCPA 1962).
`
`Petitioner’s proposed corresponding structures for the MPF terms
`
`(Pet. 7–10) are as follows:
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`Corresponding Structure
`
`“means for increasing or decreasing
`transmission power of said transmitting
`means according to transmission power
`control information received by said
`receiving means” (claim 1)
`
`“a circuit programmed or designed to
`increase or decrease transmission power
`based on a transmission power control
`signal.”
`As set forth in the Specification:
`“Transmission RF circuit 109 controls
`increase/decrease of the transmission power
`based on the transmission power control
`signal.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:40–42,
`12:53–55, Figs. 1, 16).
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`
`“means for calculating an average value
`of the transmission power of said
`transmission means” (claim 1)
`
`“means for holding a predetermined
`allowable transmission power value”
`(claim 1)
`
`“means for comparing the average value
`with the allowable transmission power
`value” (claim 1)
`
`11
`
`“a processor or other circuitry programmed
`or designed to calculate an average value of
`transmission power.”
`As set forth in the Specification: “During a
`communication, in ST 131, at least one
`frame of average transmission power (Pave)
`is monitored in layer 1. The transmission
`rate is controlled according to this channel
`condition.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1001, 13:59–
`62, Fig. 29).
`
`“a processor or other circuitry programmed
`or designed to hold a predetermined
`allowable transmission power value.”
`As set forth in the Specification:
`“[A]llowable transmission power (Pallow)
`set in a radio resource control (RRC) layer of
`layer 3 is sent to layer 1 (physical layer).”
`Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1001, 13:32–34, Figs.
`28, 29).
`“a processor or other circuitry programmed
`or designed to compare the average
`transmission power value with the
`predetermined allowable transmission power
`value.”
`As set forth in the Specification: “In layer 1,
`average transmission power is compared
`with allowable transmission power
`(Pallow),” and “First, this average
`transmission power (Pave) is compared with
`allowable transmission power (Pallow) and
`the difference between these two (D=Pallow-
`Pave) is obtained.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1001,
`13:34–36, 13:63–14:5, Fig. 29).
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`
`“means for changing a transmission rate
`according to the comparison result in
`said comparing means” (claim 1)
`
`“a processor or other circuitry programmed
`or designed to change a transmission rate
`according to a comparison between the
`average transmission power value and the
`predetermined allowable transmission power
`value.”
`As set forth in the Specification: “According
`to this message, the transmission rate is
`lowered in medium access control layer
`(layer 2),” and “Then, according to this
`message, medium access control layer
`(layer 2) increases the transmission rate.”
`Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1001, 14:6–7, 14:23–
`25).
`
`
`
`B. Principles of Law
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`
`nonobviousness.1 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Neither party presents arguments regarding objective evidence of
`nonobviousness in the instant proceeding at this time.
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors
`
`may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art;
`
`prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are
`
`made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active
`
`workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`
`(citation omitted). In that regard, Petitioner’s declarant, Andrew C. Singer,
`
`Ph.D., testifies that a person with ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the
`
`time of the invention
`
`would have been a person having a Bachelor’s degree in
`electrical engineering or the equivalent plus three years of
`experience working with digital communication systems or in
`network engineering or a Master’s degree
`in electrical
`engineering with an emphasis on communication systems or the
`equivalent plus one year of experience working with digital
`communication systems or in network engineering.
`
`Pet. 4–5; Ex. 1003 ¶ 35.
`
`At this juncture, Patent Owner does not dispute Dr. Singer’s
`
`assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim.
`
`Resp. Based on the current record, we apply Dr. Singer’s assessment for
`
`purposes of this Decision. We also note that the prior art of record currently
`
`in the instant proceeding is consistent with this level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
`
`(holding that absent evidence to the contrary, “the prior art itself [may]
`
`reflect[] an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art).
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`
`D. Obviousness over Keskitalo and Lindell (and Tiedemann)
`
`Petitioner contends (1) that claims 1–3, 5–9, and 11 are unpatentable
`
`under § 103 as obvious over Keskitalo in view of Lindell; and (2) that claims
`
`4, and 10 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over Keskitalo, and
`
`Lindell, in further view of Tiedemann. Pet. 10–42. Patent Owner disputes
`
`Petitioner’s contentions. Prelim. Resp. 16–33.
`
`For the reasons provided below, we determine that Petitioner has
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertions that
`
`claims 1 and 7 would have been obvious over Keskitalo and Lindell. We
`
`provide a brief description of Keskitalo and Lindell before turning to the
`
`parties’ contentions.
`
`
`
`1. Keskitalo
`
`
`
`Keskitalo, titled “Method of Increasing Signal Quality by Adjusting
`
`the Spreading Ratio in a CDMA Cellular Radio System,” is an international
`
`application published under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) on April
`
`13, 1995, with a filing date of October 3, 1994. Ex. 1004, at [54], [43], [22].
`
`Keskitalo discloses “improv[ing] the quality of a connection between a
`
`mobile station and a base station” by adjusting “the spreading ratio of the
`
`connection between the base station . . . and the mobile station . . . during
`
`the connection on the basis of signal quality.” Id. at Abstract.
`
`Keskitalo recognizes that “[t]he effect of multiple access interference
`
`increases with the number of system users, which degrades the signal-to-
`
`noise ratio of connections.” Id. at 3:6–9. Thus, for this purpose, a CDMA
`
`system “utilizes power control,” wherein “[t]he transmit power used by the
`
`mobile stations is controlled according to each situation.” Id. at 3:12–15.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`For example, “when a mobile station moves further away from the base
`
`station, it increases its transmit power so that the level of the signal received
`
`at the base station would not deteriorate.” Id. at 3:15–18.
`
`However, Keskitalo also recognizes that, there may be “situations in
`
`the CDMA system where the deterioration of signal quality cannot be
`
`compensated for by power control,” such as, for example, “if the mobile
`
`station is already transmitting with its highest power,” and thus, “it is not
`
`possible to increase the power any more.” Id. at 3:19–25. Accordingly, the
`
`purpose of the invention in Keskitalo “is to realize a cellular radio system,
`
`where it is possible to improve the quality of the connection between a
`
`mobile station and a base station without power control and interference
`
`elimination methods.” Id. at 4:13–17.
`
`To achieve such improvement in quality, in Keskitalo, “the spreading
`
`ratio of the connection between a base station and a mobile station is
`
`adjusted during the connection on the basis of signal quality.” Id. at 4:18–
`
`23. “The higher the spreading ratio of the CDMA system is, the better the
`
`system tolerates interference signals.” Id. at 4:30–32. “The spreading ratio
`
`can be altered either by decreasing the data rate of the user or by increasing
`
`the data rate of the spreading code,” wherein, to increase the data rate of the
`
`spreading code, “the frequency band of the modulated signal will also be
`
`increased.” Id. at 5:3–7. In an embodiment, if the quality of the connection
`
`from the mobile station to the base station “is not adequate with [the] signal-
`
`to-noise ratio, the mobile station can alter the spreading ratio . . . to improve
`
`the interference tolerance of the connection” by “decreasing the bit rate of
`
`the data signal of the user,” for example. Id. at 7:23–33.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`
`2. Lindell
`
`Lindell, titled “Averaged RF Exposure Control,” issued on June 4,
`
`1996, from an application filed on December 17, 1993. Ex. 1005, at [54],
`
`[45], [22]. Lindell discloses “[a] radio transmitter output power controller
`
`which automatically restricts the maximum transmitting time during an
`
`averaging time so that the average power remains below an acceptable
`
`level,” and further, “the maximum transmitter output power may be
`
`automatically reduced to a lower level if and when a predetermined average
`
`power level is approached.” Id. at Abstract.
`
`
`
`Lindell involves “an average power determining circuit . . . for
`
`determining an average power by which a radio transmitter has transmitted
`
`during a preceding time period.” Id. at 4:5–9. Lindell’s apparatus also
`
`includes a “comparator” for “comparing the average power P ave to a first,
`
`predetermined threshold P max,” wherein “[t]he first threshold may
`
`correspond to a maximum allowed average power P Max for a given averaging
`
`time T ave, which can be set by a first threshold setting circuit.” Id. at 4:17–
`
`21.
`
`3. Independent Claims 1 and 7
`
`In this context of determining whether the information set forth in the
`
`Petition and Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response meets the threshold for
`
`instituting an inter partes review, we first discuss Petitioner’s contentions
`
`and Patent Owner’s preliminary arguments regarding whether the
`
`combination of Keskitalo and Lindell as set forth by Petitioner teaches or
`
`suggests the limitations recited in independent claims 1 and 7. Next, we
`
`address Petitioner’s contentions and Patent Owner’s preliminary arguments
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`regarding whether Petitioner has provided sufficient articulated reasoning
`
`with some rational underpinning regarding reasons one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have combined the references in the manner set forth by
`
`Petitioner.
`
`a. Preamble (claims 1 and 7 )
`
`Petitioner contends that Keskitalo discloses “a radio communication
`
`apparatus including a base station and a mobile station, both having an
`
`antenna, a transmitter (XMTR)(radio transmission circuitry) and a receiver
`
`(RCVR)(radio reception circuitry).” Pet 13–16, 36 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:23–
`
`34, 6:22–30, 7:3–16, Figs. 1–3). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent
`
`Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis of the preamble of claims 1 and
`
`7. We have considered Petitioner’s contentions and supporting evidence,
`
`and, for purposes of instituting an inter partes review, we find that Petitioner
`
`has met its burden to show that the prior art combinations teach or render
`
`obvious these claim elements.
`
`b. “transmission power control means for increasing or
`decreasing transmission power of said transmitting means
`according to transmission power control information received
`by said receiving means” (claim 1, similarly recited in claim 7)
`
`
`Petitioner contends, “Keskitalo discloses a circuit (a transmission
`
`power controller) programmed or designed to increase or decrease
`
`transmission power of a transmitter (transmitting means) based on a
`
`transmission power control signal.” Pet. 16. According to Petitioner, in
`
`Keskitalo:
`
`Figure 1 shows a part of a cellular network, where a base station
`BTS communicates with mobile stations MSI, MS2 in its
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`
`area. . . . . The mobile stations are located at different distances
`from the base station, and to minimize multiple access
`interference in the receiver of the base station[,] the mobile
`stations adjust their transmit power according to control
`signals supplied by the base station. Mobile station MSI
`located nearer to the base station uses, over the connection 11, a
`transmit power which is on average lower than the one mobile
`station MS2 further away is using over the connection 12.
`However, local variations may temporarily cause strong
`variations in signal powers.
`
`Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:23–6:4 (emphasis included in Petition)).
`
`At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute
`
`Petitioner’s analysis of these limitations. We have considered Petitioner’s
`
`contentions and supporting evidence, and, for purposes of instituting an inter
`
`partes review, we determine that Petitioner has provided sufficient support
`
`that Keskitalo, in combination with Lindell, teaches or at least suggests
`
`“transmission power control means for increasing or decreasing transmission
`
`power of said transmitting means according to transmission power control
`
`information received by said receiving means,” as recited in claim 1 and
`
`similarly recited in claim 7.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`
`c. “average transmission power calculating means for
`calculating an average value of the transmission power of said
`transmitting means” (claim 1, similarly recited in claim 7)
`
`Petitioner contends that “Keskitalo teaches that transmission power of
`
`a mobile station varies based on distance to the base station and that
`
`transmission power must be monitored and adjusted to minimize
`
`interference.” Pet. 17. Further, Petitioner contends that “Keskitalo also
`
`recognizes that, in order to minimize interference, there must be limits on
`
`transmit power permitted for a given handset.” Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1004,
`
`3:19–29).
`
`According to Petitioner, “Keskitalo and Lindell together disclose that
`
`the transmission power limits are based on . . . an average power (e.g.,
`
`extended periods of high transmission power are prohibited)” because “it
`
`would have been obvious to modify Keskitalo such that its transmitter would
`
`have included an integrator function for monitoring average transmission
`
`power in accordance with the teachings of Lindell.” Id. at 18.
`
`In particular, Petitioner contends, “Lindell teaches an integrator and
`
`an average power determining circuit that calculates an average transmission
`
`power at a mobile station.” Id. According to Petitioner, in Lindell,
`
`A radio transmitter output power controller which automatically
`restricts the maximum transmitting time during an averaging
`time so that the average power remains below an acceptable
`level. Additionally or alternatively, the maximum transmitter
`output power may be automatically reduced to a lower level
`if and when a predetermined average power level is
`approached.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`Id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 1005, Abstract (emphasis included)). Further,
`
`Petitioner provides the following excerpt in Lindell:
`
`With reference to FIG. 1, an apparatus in accordance with this
`aspect of the present invention involves an average power
`determining circuit 11 for determining an average power by
`which a radio transmitter has transmitted during a
`preceding time period. This might take the form of an
`integrating circuit. The preceding time period may be the
`maximum averaging time Tave or a portion thereof. The
`average power determining circuit may determine, as a measure
`of average power P ave, a maximum continuous transmission time
`based on past transmission time within an averaging time period
`Tave when the transmission power P inst is at a fixed level.
`
`Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1005, 4:5–15 (emphasis included)).
`
`According to Petitioner, “it would have been natural and an
`
`application of nothing more than ordinary skill and common sense to modify
`
`Keskitalo with the technique for calculating an average transmission power
`
`value of a mobile station and utilizing this value to impose a maximum
`
`transmission output taught by Lindell.” Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 43).
`
`
`
`At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute
`
`Petitioner’s analysis of these limitations. We have considered Petitioner’s
`
`contentions and supporting evidence, and, for purposes of this Decision, we
`
`determine that Petitioner has provided sufficient support that Keskitalo, in
`
`combination with Lindell, teaches or at least suggests “average transmission
`
`power calculating means for calculating an average value of the transmission
`
`power of said transmitting means,” as recited in claim 1, and similarly
`
`recited in claim 7.
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`
`d. “allowable transmission power holding means for
`holding a predetermined allowable transmission power value”
`(claim 1, similarly recited in claim 7)
`
`Petitioner contends “Keskitalo discloses a predetermined allowable
`
`transmission power value.” Pet. 23. Further, Petitioner contends that,
`
`“Lindell discloses a threshold setting circuit 13 that holds a predetermined
`
`threshold transmission power P max for a given averaging time T ave.” Id. at 24.
`
`In particular,
`
`The apparatus also includes a comparator 12 for comparing the
`average power Pave to a first, predetermined threshold Pmax.
`The first threshold may correspond to a maximum allowed
`average power Pmax for a given averaging time Tave, which can
`be set by a first threshold setting circuit 13. The output of the
`comparator 12 activates a transmitter disable circuit 14 which
`disables the radio transmitter when the comparator 12 determines
`that the first threshold P max has been exceeded.
`
`Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 4:17–25). According to Petitioner, “A POSITA would
`
`understand that the threshold setting circuit in Lindell is a processor or other
`
`circuitry programmed or designed to hold a predetermined allowable
`
`transmission power value as required by this limitation.” Id. at 25 (citing
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 44).
`
`At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute
`
`Petitioner’s analysis of these limitations. We have considered Petitioner’s
`
`contentions and supporting evidence, and, for purposes of instituting review,
`
`we determine that Petitioner has provided sufficient support that Keskitalo,
`
`in co
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
