IPR2018-01473
`U.S. Patent 6,611,676
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`HTC CORPORATION AND HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`ZTE(USA) INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`INVT SPE LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`
`Case No. 2018-01473
`U.S. Patent No. 6,611,676
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,611,676
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`U.S. Patent No. 6,611,676
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. SUMMARY OF THE ’676 PATENT ........................................................... 1
`A. BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY ............................................................... 1
`B. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALLEGED INVENTION OF THE ’676 PATENT ..................... 2
`C. SUMMARY OF THE PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE ’676 PATENT ..................... 3
`D. LEVEL OF SKILL OF A PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................ 4
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104 .................................................................................................................... 5
`A. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A) ................................. 5
`B. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) AND RELIEF
`REQUESTED ............................................................................................................ 5
`C. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3) ................................ 6
`IV. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ’676 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`10
`A. GROUND 1: KESKITALO IN VIEW OF LINDELL RENDERS CLAIMS 1-3, 5-9, 11
`OBVIOUS ............................................................................................................... 10
`B. GROUND 2: KESKITALO IN VIEW OF LINDELL IN FURTHER VIEW OF TIEDEMANN
`RENDERS CLAIMS 4 AND 10 OBVIOUS .................................................................... 37
`V. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 42
`VI. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ..................... 44
`A. REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST, 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)(1). ...................................... 44
`B. RELATED MATTERS ....................................................................................... 44
`C. LEAD AND BACK-UP COUNSEL ..................................................................... 45
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`U.S. Patent No. 6,611,676
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners Apple Inc., HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc. and ZTE
`
`(USA) Inc. (“Petitioners”) request an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims 1-11
`
`(collectively, the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,611,676 (“the ’676
`
`Patent”). ’676 Patent (Ex. 1001).
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’676 PATENT
`A.
`
`Background of the technology
`
`Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) is a multiple access scheme for
`
`allowing multiple users to communicate at the same time and is commonly used
`
`for cellular communications between a mobile station and a base station. Singer
`
`Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 30. Unlike Frequency Division Multiple Access (FDMA) in
`
`which users communicate on different frequencies or Time Division Multiple
`
`Access (TMDA) in which users communicate serially (i.e., one at a time), CDMA
`
`allows each user to communicate on all frequencies at the same time. Id.
`
`This multiple access in CDMA is accomplished by encoding a user’s data on
`
`the
`
`transmit side with a unique spreading code such
`
`that each user’s
`
`communications can be identified (and distinguished from other users) on the
`
`receiving end by decoding with that user’s unique spreading code (referred to as
`
`despreading). Id. at ¶ 32. In general, the full spreading code (or its inverse) is used
`
`to represent a single bit of information. For example, a spreading code of
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`U.S. Patent No. 6,611,676
`[00110011] would represent a “1” bit of information and the inverse of the
`
`spreading code [11001100] would represent a “0” bit of information. Each bit of a
`
`spreading code is referred to as a “chip,” and the number of chips per second is
`
`referred to as the “chip rate.” Id.
`
`Because the full spreading code represents only a single bit of information,
`
`the chip rate is always higher than the information rate. The relationship between
`
`the chip rate and the information rate and is referred to as a “spreading factor.” Id.
`
`at ¶ 32. As noted above, a longer spreading code results in lower throughput, so
`
`there is an inverse relationship between the spreading factor and the overall
`
`throughput of the system.
`
`Key to the technical issues discussed herein, modifying the spreading factor
`
`is a tradeoff between throughput and robustness. For example, increasing the chip
`
`rate results in a more robust communication that is less prone to error when the
`
`system experiences deteriorated channel quality. Id. at ¶ 32. The downside to this
`
`increased robustness is a decrease in overall system throughput.
`
`B. Description of the alleged invention of the ’676 Patent
`
`The ’676 Patent generally describes a “communication terminal apparatus”
`
`“capable of controlling transmission power” and “switch[ing] the transmission rate
`
`of a transmission signal based on reception quality information.” ’676 Patent (Ex.
`
`1001) at 1:59-2:4, 13:26-28. The ’676 Patent describes methods for measuring
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`U.S. Patent No. 6,611,676
`channel quality, including “received signal strength, desired signal reception
`
`power, signal to interference ratio (SIR), Signal-to-Interference plus Noise Ratio
`
`(hereinafter abbreviated as “SINR”). Id. at 4:7-10; see also, id. at 4:28-42, 4:51-58,
`
`Figs. 3-5.
`
`The ’676 Patent contends that in cases where the reception SIR decreases
`
`due to fading, prior art “mobile station[s] instruct[] the base station to increase
`
`transmission power to make the reception SIR come closer to the target SIR,” but
`
`that this power increase “is likely to increase interference with other mobile
`
`stations to an intolerable degree.” Id. at 1:50-56. To avoid increasing interference,
`
`the ’676 Patent proposes decreasing “the transmission rate of a transmission signal
`
`based on reception quality information,” which the ’676 Patent contends “makes it
`
`possible to improve the reception quality of the other end of communication even
`
`if the condition of the communication path with the other end of communication
`
`deteriorates drastically.” Id. at 1:65-2:4, 7:9-25, Figs. 12-15. The ’676 Patent
`
`teaches that, “in a CDMA communication system,” the proposed rate change is
`
`accomplished by modifying “the spreading factor.” Id. at 7:1-3.
`
`C.
`
`Summary of the prosecution history of the ’676 Patent
`
`The application that resulted in the ’676 Patent was filed on February 27,
`
`2002 as a continuation of a U.S. Patent Application No. 09/424,843, filed on April
`
`19, 1997. ’676 Patent File History (Ex. 1002), at 6. For purposes of this
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`U.S. Patent No. 6,611,676
`proceeding, Petitioners assume the priority date for the Challenged Claims is April
`
`19, 1997.
`
`The primary prior art relied upon by the Examiner during prosecution of the
`
`’676 Patent was U.S. Patent No. 5,528,593 to English et al (“English”). Id. at 119-
`
`122. The Examiner argued that English disclosed both the claimed power
`
`adjustments and rate adjustments. Id. In a Request for Reconsideration, the
`
`Applicant pointed out that the Challenged Claims are directed to two distinct
`
`adjustments – transmission power control and transmission rate control. Further,
`
`the Applicant noted that these adjustments are handled separately; the power
`
`adjustments being responsive to a power control signal received from the base
`
`station and the rate adjustments being responsive to a comparison of average
`
`transmitted power and predetermined allowable
`
`transmitted power value.
`
`Contrasting this two-adjustment system, the Applicant argued that English tied its
`
`transmission power and data rates together into a single decision. Id. at 128-129
`
`(“In English et al., there are different rates associated with different nominal
`
`received powers, with the required power for full rate mode being highest.”).
`
`In apparent reliance on Applicant’s arguments, the Patent Office issued a
`
`notice of allowance on March 25, 2003. Id. at 140.
`
`D.
`
`Level of skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the filing of the ’676
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`U.S. Patent No. 6,611,676
`Patent 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. Singer Declaration (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 35.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104
`A. Grounds for standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioners certify that the ’676 Patent is available for IPR and that each
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the claims of
`
`the ’676 Patent. Specifically, Petitioners state: (1) none of Petitioners is the owner
`
`of the ’676 Patent, (2) each Petitioner has not filed a civil action challenging the
`
`validity of any claim of the ’676 Patent, and (3) this Petition is filed less than one
`
`year after any of the Petitioners was served with a complaint alleging infringement
`
`of the ’676 Patent.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and relief
`requested
`
`In view of the prior art and evidence presented, claims 1-11 of the ’676
`
`Patent are unpatentable and should be cancelled. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1). Further,
`
`based on the prior art references identified below, IPR of the Challenged Claims
`
`should be granted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2).
`5
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`U.S. Patent No. 6,611,676
`Exhibits
`
`Proposed Grounds of Unpatentability
`Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11 are obvious under § 103(a) over
`PCT Patent Publication No. WO 95/10145 to Ilkka Keskitalo, et al.
`(“Keskitalo”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,524,275 to Bo Lindell
`(“Lindell”)
`Ground 2: Claims 4, 10 are obvious under § 103(a) over Keskitalo
`in view of Lindell in further view of U.S. Patent No. 5,822,318 to
`Edward Tiedemann, et al. (“Tiedemann”)
`
`1004, 1005
`
`1004, 1005,
`1006
`
`
`
`Section IV identifies where each element of the Challenged Claims is found
`
`in the prior art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). The exhibit numbers of the supporting
`
`evidence relied upon to support the challenges are provided above and the
`
`relevance of the evidence to the challenges raised are provided in Section IV. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5). Exhibits 1001–1011 are also attached.
`
`C. Claim construction under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`
`In this proceeding, claim terms of an unexpired patent should be given their
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144-46 (2016)
`
`(referred to below as the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation or “BRI”). Petitioners
`
`understand that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) may soon apply the
`
`standard applied by Article III courts (i.e., the Phillips standard). Excepting the
`
`means-plus-function terms expressly discussed below, Petitioners apply the plain
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`U.S. Patent No. 6,611,676
`and ordinary meaning of all other claim terms1 and does not believe any of these
`
`remaining claim terms require express construction to resolve the proposed
`
`grounds of rejection presented herein. Adherence to the rules of construction is not
`
`a waiver of any argument, in any litigation, that claim terms in the ’676 Patent
`
`should not be construed differently or are otherwise invalid (including under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112).
`
`Constructions pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6
`
`1.
`Claim 1 includes limitations in means-plus function format, which creates a
`
`rebuttable presumption that the Patent Owner intended to invoke § 112, ¶ 6.
`
`Corresponding structure for each means-plus-function limitation is identified
`
`below, and Petitioners propose that the claimed functions recited in each of these
`
`limitations be given its ordinary and customary meaning that the term would have
`
`to one of ordinary skill in the art under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
`
`Singer Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 38.
`
` “means for increasing or decreasing transmission power of said transmitting
`means according to transmission power control information received by said
`receiving means” (Claim 1)
`
`The stated function is “increasing or decreasing transmission power of said
`
`transmitting means according to transmission power control information received
`
`1 Petitioners believe the plain and ordinary meanings applied herein are consistent with
`
`both the BRI and Phillips standards.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`U.S. Patent No. 6,611,676
`by said receiving means.” In light of the patent specification, the corresponding
`
`structure is a circuit programmed or designed to increase or decrease transmission
`
`power based on a transmission power control signal. ’676 Patent (Ex. 1001) at
`
`12:40-42 (“Transmission RF circuit 109 controls increase/decrease of the
`
`transmission power based on the transmission power control signal.”); Id. at 12:53-
`
`55 (“Transmission RF circuit 109 controls increase/decrease of the transmission
`
`power based on the transmission power control signal.”); Id. at Figs. 1, 16.
`
` “means for calculating an average value of the transmission power of said
`transmitting means” (Claim 1)
`
`The stated function is “calculating an average value of the transmission
`
`power of said transmitting means.” In light of the patent specification, the
`
`corresponding structure is a processor or other circuitry programmed or designed
`
`to calculate an average value of transmission power. Id. at 13:59-62 (“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.”); Id. at Fig. 29.
`
` “means for holding a predetermined allowable transmission power value”
`(Claim 1)
`
`The stated function is “holding a predetermined allowable transmission
`
`power value.” In light of the patent specification, the corresponding structure is a
`
`processor or other circuitry programmed or designed to hold a predetermined
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`U.S. Patent No. 6,611,676
`allowable transmission power value. Id. at 13:32-34 (“allowable transmission
`
`power (Pallow) set in a radio resource control (RRC) layer of layer 3 is sent to
`
`layer 1 (physical layer).”); Id. at Figs. 28, 29.
`
` “means for comparing the average value with the allowable transmission power
`value” (Claim 1)
`
`The stated function is “comparing the average value with the allowable
`
`transmission power value.” In light of the patent specification, the corresponding
`
`structure is a processor or other circuitry programmed or designed to compare the
`
`average transmission power value with the predetermined allowable transmission
`
`power value. Id. at 13:34-36 (“In layer 1, average transmission power is compared
`
`with allowable transmission power (Pallow).”); Id. at 13:63-14:5 (“First, this
`
`average transmission power (Pave) is compared with allowable transmission power
`
`(Pallow) and the difference between these two (D=Pallow−Pave) is obtained.
`
`Then, in ST132, it is determined whether average transmission power (Pave)
`
`exceeds allowable transmission power (Pallow) or not. If average transmission
`
`power (Pave) exceeds allowable transmission power (Pallow), a message
`
`“Allowable transmission power has been reached” or “Allowable transmission
`
`power has been exceeded” is indicated in ST133.”); Id. at Fig. 29.
`
` “means for changing a transmission rate according to the comparison result in
`said comparing means” (Claim 1)
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`U.S. Patent No. 6,611,676
`The stated function is “changing a transmission rate according to the
`
`comparison result in said comparing means.” In light of the patent specification,
`
`the corresponding structure is 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. Id. at 14:6-7 (“According to this message, the transmission rate is
`
`lowered in medium access control layer (layer 2).”); Id. at 14:23-25 (“Then,
`
`according to this message, medium access control layer (layer 2) increases the
`
`transmission rate.”).
`
`IV. THERE
`IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE
`’676 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE
`A. Ground 1: Keskitalo in view of Lindell renders claims 1-3, 5-9, 11
`obvious
`
`Keskitalo was published on April 13, 1995 and therefore qualifies as prior
`
`art with regard to the ’676 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA). Keskitalo
`
`(Ex. 1004). Keskitalo discloses a CDMA system in which the transmission rate can
`
`be adjusted independently of the transmission power based on changing channel
`
`quality. Specifically, Keskitalo teaches that “the spreading ratio of the connection”
`
`is adjusted to modify the transmission rate and notes that “the quality of the
`
`connection may thus be improved without increasing the transmit power and the
`
`interference to other connections in the cell.” Id. at 4:18-5:2.
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`U.S. Patent No. 6,611,676
`Like the ’676 Patent, Keskitalo explains that lowering the transmission rate
`
`may be necessary if the connection quality has deteriorated and the transmission
`
`power is already at its permitted maximum. Compare id. at 3:19-4:23 (“There
`
`may, however, occur situations in the CDMA system where the deterioration of
`
`signal quality cannot be compensated for by power control. This occurs for
`
`example if the mobile station is already transmitting with its highest power. . .
`
`. [I]t is possible to improve the quality of the connection between a mobile
`
`station and a base station without power control . . . the system being
`
`characterized in that 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.”) with ’676 Patent at 6:30-37 (“[I]f the quality of transmission from the
`
`base station apparatus to the communication terminal apparatus deteriorates, the
`
`communication terminal apparatus requests an increase of transmission power.
`
`If this request is judged to be excessive transmission power taking into account
`
`the amount of interference with others, the base station apparatus performs
`
`transmission rate switching control.”).
`
`Additionally, in both Keskitalo and the ’676 Patent, the transmission rate is
`
`adjusted by modifying the spreading factor/ratio.” Compare Keskitalo (Ex. 1004)
`
`at 7:31-35 (“In one preferred embodiment of the invention, the spreading ratio can
`
`be increased by decreasing the bit rate of the data signal of the user. This can be
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`U.S. Patent No. 6,611,676
`achieved for example by introducing half rate in speech coding.”) with ’676 Patent
`
`(Ex. 1001) at 7:13-16 (“If SIR is smaller than threshold 1, the transmission rate is
`
`switched to such a transmission rate that SIR is greater than threshold 1 (ST22). In
`
`CDMA, the spreading factor is switched.”). Because both Keskitalo and the ’676
`
`Patent teach CDMA systems with independent power and transmission rate
`
`adjustments of the same form (i.e., adjusting spreading factor/ratio) that are
`
`responsive to channel condition measurements, Keskitalo is in the same field of
`
`endeavor and is reasonably pertinent to the claims in the ’676 Patent. Singer Decl.
`
`(Ex. 1003) at ¶ 38. Therefore, Keskitalo is also analogous to the claimed invention
`
`in the ’676 Patent.
`
`Keskitalo was not cited or considering during prosecution of the ’676 Patent
`
`and, as shown in this Petition, raises new invalidity issues of the challenged claims
`
`that have not been before the Patent Office.
`
`The use of an average transmission power as required by the Challenged
`
`Claims in connection with the increase or decrease in the data rate of a mobile
`
`station based on the transmission power level in Keskitalo was well known at the
`
`filing of the ’676 Patent invention by monitoring average transmission power in a
`
`mobile device and comparing that average transmission power value with a
`
`predetermined allowable power value. One example is Lindell, which was
`
`published June 4, 1996 and therefore qualifies as prior art with regard to the ’676
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`U.S. Patent No. 6,611,676
`Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) (pre-AIA). Lindell (Ex. 1005). Lindell describes a
`
`“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 discloses “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.” Id. at 4:7-10. Because Lindell, like the ’676 Patent, discloses a
`
`cellular radio system directed to monitoring transmission power and making
`
`adjustments when transmission power exceeds a threshold, it is in the same field of
`
`endeavor as Keskitalo and is reasonably pertinent to the claims of the ’676 Patent.
`
`Singer Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 39. Therefore, Lindell is also analogous to Keskitalo
`
`and the claimed invention in the ’676 Patent.
`
`Lindell was not cited or considered during prosecution of the ’676 Patent
`
`and, as shown in this petition, raises new invalidity issues of the challenged claims
`
`that have not been before the Patent Office.
`
`i. Claim 1
`
`1. A radio communication apparatus having radio transmitting means and radio
`receiving means, said apparatus comprising:
`
`To the extent the preamble is limiting, 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):
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`U.S. Patent No. 6,611,676
`Figure 1 shows a part of a cellular network, where a base station BTS
`communicates with mobile stations MSI, MS2 in its area. The BTS
`is connected to a base station controller BSC by means of a digital
`transmission link 10, the base station controller being connected to
`other parts of the cellular network and to the fixed network. 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.
`Keskitalo (Ex. 1004) at 5:23-34 (emphasis added).
`
`In the CDMA transmitter, a narrow-band data signal 20 of the user, as
`shown in Figure 4a, is modulated by the spreading code 22 of the
`connection in a multiplier 21. In the example, the bit rate of the
`spreading code is thus hundredfold compared to the data rate of the
`user. After this, the signal is multiplied 23 by a radio-frequency signal
`received from an oscillator 24, and after filtering 25, the wide-band
`signal of Figure 4b is supplied to an antenna 26.
`Id. at 6:22-30.
`
`In the CDMA receiver of Figure 3, an antenna 30 is receiving the
`signal of Figure 4c, comprising the transmitted wide-band signal 42,
`and interference and noise 41 present in the radio path. According to
`the CDMA method, the interference and the noise may be stronger
`than the desired signal. The difference between the interference and
`the desired signal may be for example 15 dB.
`The received signal is supplied through a filter 31 first to a multiplier
`32, where it is multiplied by a radio-frequency signal supplied from an
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`U.S. Patent No. 6,611,676
`oscillator 33. After this, the received signal is multiplied by the
`spreading code 35 of the connection in a multiplier 34.
`Id. at 7:3-16.
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 1.
`
`Id. at Fig. 2 (illustrating CDMA transmitter).
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`U.S. Patent No. 6,611,676
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 3 (illustrating CDMA receiver).
`
`increasing or decreasing
`transmission power control means for
` [1(a)]
`transmission power of said transmitting means according to transmission power
`control information received by said receiving means;
`
`As discussed in Section III.C.1 above, the corresponding structure for the
`
`transmission power control means is a circuit programmed or designed to increase
`
`or decrease transmission power of a transmitter (transmitting means). 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:
`
`Figure 1 shows a part of a cellular network, where a base station BTS
`communicates with mobile stations MSI, MS2 in its area. The BTS
`is connected to a base station controller BSC by means of a digital
`transmission link 10, the base station controller being connected to
`other parts of the cellular network and to the fixed network. The
`mobile stations are located at different distances from the base station,
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`U.S. Patent No. 6,611,676
`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 5:23-4 (emphasis added).
`
` [1(b)] average transmission power calculating means for calculating an average
`value of the transmission power of said transmitting means;
`
`As discussed in Section III.C.1 above, the corresponding structure for the
`
`average transmission power calculating means is a processor or other circuitry
`
`programmed or designed to calculate an average value of transmission power.
`
`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:
`
`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 MS1 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
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`U.S. Patent No. 6,611,676
`connection 12. However, local variations may temporarily cause
`strong variations in signal powers.
`Id. at 5:34-6:4 (emphasis added).
`
`Keskitalo also recognizes that, in order to minimize interference, there must
`
`be limits on transmit power permitted for a given handset. Id. at 3:19-29 (“There
`
`may, however, occur situations in the CDMA system where the deterioration of
`
`signal quality cannot be compensated for by power control. This occurs for
`
`example if the mobile station is already transmitting with its highest power.
`
`When the connection deteriorates, it is not possible to increase the power any
`
`more. Another such situation occurs when the mobile station is located at the
`
`border of the cell. Thus the signal it is transmitting interferes with the neighbouring
`
`cell, and an increase in power is disadvantageous to the entire system.”).
`
`Accordingly, Keskitalo and Lindell together disclose that the transmission
`
`power limits are based on a discrete power level (e.g., a handset may not exceed a
`
`specific transmission power) or 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. Specifically, Lindell teaches an integrator and an average power
`
`determining circuit that calculates an average transmission power at a mobile
`
`station:
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`U.S. Patent No. 6,611,676
`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.
`Lindell (Ex. 1005) at Abstract (emphasis added).
`
`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 Pave, a maximum
`continuous transmission time based on past transmission time within
`an averaging time period Tave when the transmission power Pinst is at a
`fixed level.
`Id. at 4:5-15 (emphasis added).
`
`With reference to the phantom lines of FIG. 1, an apparatus suitable
`for implementing the invention can include the average power
`determining circuit 11 for determining an average power Pave by
`which a radio transmitter has transmitted during a preceding
`time period.
`Id. at 5:57-61 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`U.S. Patent No. 6,611,676
`This embodiment includes an integrator 31 which receives a
`representation of the actual transmitter power Pinst and a parameter
`setting representing the averaging time Tave, The integrator 31
`integrates the actual transmitter output power Pinst over averaging
`Tave to output the average power Pave. The average output Pave is
`input to three comparators 32, 33 and 34. The first comparator 32
`determines if the average power Pave is greater than the decided
`maximum average power Pmax for cutting-off the transmitter.
`Id. at 8:53-61 (emphasis added); see also id. at 9:30-62.
`
`Id. at Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`U.S. Patent No. 6,611,676
`
`Id. at Fig. 3.
`
`
`
`The motivations to modify Keskitalo in light of Lindell are many, including
`
`from the references themselves. As discussed above, Keskitalo teaches that data
`
`rate adjustments may be based on an assessment that the transmission channel is
`
`deteriorated, but that the transmission power is already at its maximum. Among the
`
`reasons to disallow a power increase in such a scenario is to avoid interfering with
`
`communications of other neighboring communications. Keskitalo (Ex. 1004) at
`
`3:19-29. A POSITA would recognize that there are many other reasons to impose a
`
`maximum transmission power limit in a communications system, including to limit
`
`RF exposure to the user of the handset pursuant to FCC regulations limiting the
`
`same. Singer Decl. (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 42. As explained by Lindell, “new guidelines . .
`
`. encompass land-mobile systems, such as cellular radio, pocket and hand-held
`
`radio telephones” and can be exempted “if the radiated power is below a certain
`
`level.” Lindell (Ex. 1005) at 1:22-29. A POSITA would recognize that, in addition
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01473
`U.S. Patent No. 6,611,676
`to saving power and minimizing interference with other users, the system of
`
`Keskitalo would benefit from setting a maximum transmission thres