`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`HTC Corporation and
`HTC America, Inc.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`INVT SPE LLC,
`Patent Owner
`__________
`
`IPR Case No. IPR2018-01556
`U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`__________
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF PAUL S. MIN. PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 311 ET SEQ. AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`(CLAIMS 1 THROUGH 4 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,206,587)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1017, Page 1
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ..................................... 2
`
`II. BACKGROUND/QUALIFICATIONS .......................................................... 3
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ 8
`
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW .............................................................. 8
`
`V. DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS CONSIDERED ...................... ERROR!
`BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’587 PATENT .........................................................15
`
`VII. CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ’587 PATENT ..................................23
`
`VIII. ........ EFFECTIVE FILING DATE AND PROSECUTION HISTORY OF
`THE ’587 PATENT ................................................................................................24
`
`IX. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (“POSITA”) ...............24
`
`X. GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE (§ 42.104 (B)(2)).... ERROR! BOOKMARK
`NOT DEFINED.
`
`XI. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ..............................................................25
`
`A. OVERVIEW OF THE ’587 PATENT ............. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
`1. The Purported Improvements of the ’587 Patent .... Error! Bookmark not
`defined.
`
`XII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION—37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (B)(3) ............................49
`
`A. “CODE WORD MINIMUM DISTANCE” (CLAIM 1) ..............................................50
`B. “IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE DEGREE OF MEASURED DOWNLINK CHANNEL
`QUALITY” (CLAIM 1) .............................................................................................51
`
`XIII. BASIS FOR INVALIDITY ........................................................................53
`
`A. PADOVANI IN VIEW OF GILS INVALIDATES CLAIMS 1, 2, 3, AND 4. ...............53
`1. Overview of Padovani ..............................................................................53
`2. Overview of Gils ......................................................................................56
`3. Motivation to Combine ............................................................................61
`4. Padovani in View of Gils Renders Claim 4 Obvious. ..............................68
`5. Padovani in View of Gils Renders Claim 1 Obvious. ..............................77
`6. Padovani in View of Gils Renders Claim 2 Obvious. ..............................92
`7. Padovani in View of Gils Renders Claim 3 Obvious. ............................103
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1017, Page 2
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`1. My name is Paul S. Min, Ph.D. I have been retained as a technical
`
`expert and submit this declaration on behalf of HTC Corporation and HTC
`
`America, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioners” or “HTC”), which I understand are
`
`challenging the validity of claims 1-4 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,206,587 (“the ʼ587 patent”) in a petition for inter partes review.
`
`2.
`
`I have no financial interest in or affiliation with the Petitioners or the
`
`Patent Owner, which I understand is INVT SPE LLC. My compensation does not
`
`depend upon the outcome of, or my testimony in, this inter partes review
`
`proceeding or any litigation proceedings.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to provide an opinion on the validity of the
`
`challenged claims. In my opinion, for the reasons in the following sections, the
`
`challenged claims are invalid on the following ground:
`
`(1) Claims 1, 2, 3 and 4 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by
`
`Padovani (PCT Application No. PCT/US98/23428) in view of
`
`Gils (W. van Gils, “Design of error-control coding schemes for
`
`three problems of noisy information transmission, storage and
`
`processing,” Ph.D. dissertation, Eindhoven Univ. of
`
`Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands, 1988).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1017, Page 3
`
`

`

`
`
`4.
`
`I have been informed, and agree after reviewing Exhibits 1024-1052,
`
`that W. van Gils, “Design of error-control coding schemes for three problems of
`
`noisy information transmission, storage and processing,” Ph.D. dissertation,
`
`Eindhoven Univ. of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands, 1988 (“Gils”) was
`
`available to members of the general public, including interested members of the
`
`public, without restriction as of January 6, 1988, was catalogued by no later than
`
`March 1998, and widely disseminated to other libraries by at least 1993.
`
`II. BACKGROUND/QUALIFICATIONS
`
`5.
`
`Appendix A to this declaration is my curriculum vitae, which sets
`
`forth my qualifications.
`
`6.
`
`I received a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering in 1982, an M.S.
`
`degree in Electrical Engineering in 1984, and a Ph.D. degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering in 1987 from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. I received
`
`several academic honors, including my B.S. degree with honors, a best graduate
`
`student award and a best teaching assistant award during my M.S. study, and a best
`
`paper award from a major international conference for reporting results from my
`
`Ph.D. thesis.
`
`7.
`
`After receiving my Ph.D., I worked at Bellcore in New Jersey from
`
`August 1987 until August 1990. At Bellcore, I was responsible for evolving the
`
`public switched telephone network (POTS) into a multi-services voice and data
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1017, Page 4
`
`

`

`
`
`network that incorporated packet switches, optical technologies, and wireless
`
`technologies.
`
`8.
`
`In September 1990, I joined the faculty at Washington University in
`
`St. Louis. In July 1996, I was promoted to an Associate Professor of Electrical
`
`Engineering with tenure. I am currently a Senior Professor at Washington
`
`University of the Electrical and Systems Engineering. I have also served as the
`
`Chair of the Graduate Curriculum (2000-2002) and the Chair of the Undergraduate
`
`Curriculum (2011-2014) for the Electrical and Systems Engineering department.
`
`9.
`
`At Washington University,
`
`I have conducted
`
`research
`
`in
`
`communication, computing, and related electronic hardware and software. My
`
`research group has pioneered a new paradigm for designing electronic circuits that
`
`can alleviate the speed and performance mismatch against optical technology. I
`
`have received several grants from the U.S. Federal Agencies, including the
`
`National Science Foundation, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, the
`
`Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, and numerous contracts from
`
`companies and organizations around the world. Specifically related to the
`
`technology matters in this Investigation, I have researched a variety of wireless
`
`communication technologies, including CDMA, WCDMA, OFDM, FDD, SC-
`
`FDMA, and TDD. I have an extensive background and experience in each of these
`
`technologies.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1017, Page 5
`
`

`

`
`
`10. As a faculty member at Washington University, I have taught a
`
`number of courses in electronics, communication, and computing at both the
`
`undergraduate and graduate levels. For example, I have taught communication
`
`theory (Washington University ESE 471),
`
`transmission and multiplexing
`
`(Washington University ESE 571), and signaling and control of communication
`
`networks (Washington University ESE 572).
`
`11.
`
`I have supervised nearly 100 graduate students, 12 of whom received
`
`a doctoral degree under my guidance. A number of doctoral theses that I have
`
`supervised relate specifically to wireless cellular communication involving base
`
`station and mobile terminals such as smart phones operating under the WCDMA
`
`and LTE standards. In particular, my students and I have published a number of
`
`peer-reviewed articles on resource allocation, scheduling, modulation, mobility
`
`management, power control, and multiplexing. Several of these articles received
`
`accolades in the field. For example, in 2011, we received a best paper award in 3G
`
`WCDMA-related mobility and resource management at the prestigious Mobility
`
`2011 international conference.
`
`12.
`
`In addition to my responsibilities as a university faculty member, I
`
`have founded two companies. In May 1997, I founded MinMax Technologies, Inc.,
`
`a fabless semiconductor company that developed switch fabric integrated circuit
`
`chips for the Internet. In March 1999, I founded Erlang Technology, Inc., a fabless
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1017, Page 6
`
`

`

`
`
`semiconductor company that focused on the design and development of integrated
`
`circuit chips and software for the Internet. One of Erlang’s products received a best
`
`product of the year award in 2004 from a major trade journal for the electronics
`
`industry.
`
`13. Outside my own start-up companies, I have also served in various
`
`technology and business advisor roles for other companies and organizations
`
`around the world. I was the main technical author for one of two winning proposals
`
`to the Korean government for CDMA wireless service licenses (1996). I was
`
`responsible for designing a commercial scale IS-95 CDMA cellular network,
`
`which I understand to be one of the earliest such networks deployed in the world. I
`
`worked with numerous engineers and scientists around the world to implement this
`
`commercial-scale cellular network before IS-95 CDMA was widely accepted. This
`
`provided me with extensive insight into various components of CDMA technology,
`
`which by and large are used in WCDMA network. I have also been involved in a
`
`semiconductor company that specializes in semiconductor memories such as flash
`
`EEPROMs as a board member and as a technical advisor (2007-2011).
`
`14.
`
`I am a named inventor on nine U.S. patents, many of which are
`
`directly related to resource allocation, packet processing, and network designing. I
`
`have extensively published technical papers in international conferences and
`
`journals, technical memoranda and reports, and given a number of seminars and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1017, Page 7
`
`

`

`
`
`invited talks. Many of these papers are specifically within the context of the 3GPP
`
`standard, which
`
`is
`
`the preeminent governing standard for
`
`the cellular
`
`communication around
`
`the world. I have organized several
`
`international
`
`conferences and served as an international journal editor.
`
`15.
`
`I am a member of and have been actively involved in a number of
`
`professional organizations. For example, I have served as the Chair of the Saint
`
`Louis Section of the IEEE with more than 3,000 members (2014), and a member of
`
`the Eta Kappa Nu Honor Society for electrical engineers. I have also been an
`
`Ambassador of the McDonnell International Scholars Academy (2007-2013).
`
`16.
`
`In my 30+ years of experience with telecommunications technology, I
`
`have acquired significant knowledge about telecommunications systems industry
`
`standards, standard setting organizations such as 3GPP, and the rules and
`
`document policies that those organizations have in place to develop industry
`
`standards.
`
`17. Further experience and a complete list of my publications are
`
`presented in my curriculum vitae, which is being submitted with this declaration as
`
`Appendix A.
`
`18. Based on my above-described 3 decades of experience
`
`in
`
`communications technologies, and the acceptance of my publications and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1017, Page 8
`
`

`

`
`
`professional recognition by societies in my field, I believe that I am qualified to be
`
`an expert in wireless and mobile communications.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`19. Appendix B to this declaration lists materials that I have considered in
`
`rendering the opinions that I express in this declaration. In forming my opinions, I
`
`have also relied on my experience and education.
`
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
`
`20.
`
`I am not an attorney. I offer no opinions on the law. But counsel has
`
`informed me of legal standards that apply to the issue of patent validity. I have
`
`applied these standards in arriving at my conclusions.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that in an inter partes review the petitioner has the
`
`burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence. I understand this standard is different from the standard that applies in a
`
`district court, where I understand a challenger bears the burden of proving
`
`invalidity by clear and convincing evidence.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid based on anticipation if a
`
`single prior art reference discloses all of the features of that claim, and does so in a
`
`way that enables one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1017, Page 9
`
`

`

`
`
`23. Each of the claim features may be expressly or inherently present in
`
`the prior art reference. I understand that if the prior art necessarily functions in
`
`accordance with, or includes a claim’s feature, then that prior art inherently
`
`discloses that feature. I have relied on this understanding in expressing the
`
`opinions set forth below.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference describes the claimed invention
`
`if it either expressly or inherently describes each and every feature set forth in the
`
`claim; i.e., in determining whether a single item of prior art anticipates a patent
`
`claim, one should take into consideration not only what is expressly disclosed in
`
`that item, but also what is inherently present as a natural result of the practice of
`
`the system or method disclosed in that item.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that to establish inherency, the evidence must make clear
`
`that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the item of prior art and
`
`hat it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill in the art. I also
`
`understand that prior art use of the claimed patented invention that was accidental,
`
`unrecognized, or unappreciated at the time of filing can still be an invalidating
`
`anticipation.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that although multiple prior art references may not be
`
`combined to show anticipation, additional references may be used to interpret the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1017, Page 10
`
`

`

`
`
`allegedly anticipating reference and shed light on what it would have meant to
`
`those skilled in the art at the time of the invention. These additional references
`
`must make it clear that the missing descriptive matter in the patent claim is
`
`necessarily present in the allegedly anticipating reference, and that it would be so
`
`recognized by persons of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that a patent may not be valid even though the invention
`
`is not identically disclosed or described in the prior art 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 to a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art in the relevant subject matter at the time the invention was made.
`
`28. To determine if a claim is obvious, the following factors should be
`
`considered: (1) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
`
`made; (2) the scope and content of the prior art; (3) the differences between the
`
`claimed invention and the prior art; and (4) secondary considerations, including
`
`evidence of commercial success, long-felt but unsolved need, unsuccessful
`
`attempts by others, copying of the claimed invention, unexpected and superior
`
`results, acceptance and praise by others, independent invention by others, and the
`
`like.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1017, Page 11
`
`

`

`
`
`29. For example, I understand that the combination of familiar elements
`
`according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than
`
`yield predictable results. I also understand that an obviousness analysis need not
`
`seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
`
`claim because a court can take account of the inferences and/or creative steps that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that the obviousness determination of an invention turns
`
`on whether a hypothetical person with ordinary skill and full knowledge of all the
`
`pertinent prior art, when faced with the problem to which the claimed invention is
`
`addressed, would be led naturally to the solution adopted in the claimed invention
`
`or would naturally view that solution as an available alternative. Facts to be
`
`evaluated in this analysis include:
`
`• The scope and contents of the prior art;
`
`• Differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
`• The level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
`
`• Evidence of objective factors suggesting or negating obviousness.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that the following rationales may be used to determine
`
`whether a piece of prior art can be combined with other prior art or with other
`
`information within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1017, Page 12
`
`

`

`
`
`• Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`• Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
`
`results;
`
`• Use of known techniques to improve similar devices (methods, or products)
`
`in the same way;
`
`• Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready
`
`for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`• “Obvious to try” - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable
`
`solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`
`• Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in
`
`either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other
`
`market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art; or
`
`• Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led
`
`one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art
`
`reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that when a work is available in one field of endeavor,
`
`design incentives and/or other market forces, for example, can prompt variations of
`
`it, either in the same field or a different one. Moreover, if a person of ordinary skill
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1017, Page 13
`
`

`

`
`
`can implement a predictable variation, I understand that that likely bars its
`
`patentability.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that obviousness must be tested as of the time the
`
`invention was made. I understand that the test for obviousness is what the
`
`combined teachings of the prior art references would have suggested, disclosed, or
`
`taught to one of ordinary skill in the art. In particular, it is my understanding that a
`
`patent claim is invalid based upon obviousness if it does nothing more than
`
`combine familiar elements from one or more prior art references or products
`
`according to known methods to yield predictable results. For example, I understand
`
`that where a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it would improve similar
`
`devices in the same way, using that technique is obvious. I understand that
`
`obviousness can be proved by showing that a combination of elements was
`
`obvious to try, i.e.: that it does no more than yield predictable results; implements a
`
`predictable variation; is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements
`
`according to their established functions; or when there is design need or market
`
`pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable
`
`solutions. I have been further informed that when a patent claim simply arranges
`
`old elements with each element performing the same function it had been known to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1017, Page 14
`
`

`

`
`
`perform and yields results no more than one would expect from such an
`
`arrangement, the combination is obvious.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that another factor to be considered is common sense.
`
`For example, I understand that common sense teaches that familiar items may have
`
`obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and, in many cases, a person of
`
`ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like
`
`pieces of a puzzle.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that the Supreme Court articulated additional guidance
`
`for obviousness in its KSR decision. My understanding is that the Supreme Court
`
`said that technical people of ordinary skill look for guidance in other solutions to
`
`problems of a similar nature, and that the obviousness inquiry must track reality,
`
`and not legal fictions. I have relied on these understandings in expressing the
`
`opinions set forth below.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that a new use of an old product or material cannot be
`
`claimed as a new product; the apparatus or system itself is old and cannot be
`
`patented. I further understand that, in general, merely discovering and claiming a
`
`new benefit to an old process cannot render the process newly patentable.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1017, Page 15
`
`

`

`
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’587 PATENT
`
`A. The Purported Improvements of the '587 Patent
`
`37. The ’587 Patent describes High Data Rate (HDR) communications as
`
`a method utilized in cellular communication systems whereby a base station (BS)
`
`uses time division to schedule the allocation of communication resources to
`
`communication terminals. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:15-27. Additionally, a BS may
`
`set a transmission rate for each communication terminal in accordance with an
`
`estimated downlink channel quality relative to a particular communication
`
`terminal. Id.
`
`38.
`
`In particular, the ’587 Patent describes that a BS may transmit a pilot
`
`signal to each communication terminal with which the BS is communicating. Id.,
`
`1:30-31. Each communication terminal, in turn, estimates the downlink channel
`
`quality between it and the BS “using a CIR (desired carrier to interference ratio)
`
`based on the pilot signal, etc.” and finds a transmission rate at which
`
`communications are possible. Id., 1:31-35. Based on the identified transmission
`
`rate, “each communication terminal selects a communication mode,” described by
`
`the ’587 Patent as “a combination of packet length, coding method, and
`
`modulation method.” Id., 1:35-41. Each communication terminal informs the BS
`
`of its respective, selected communication mode by transmitting a data rate control
`
`(DRC) signal to the BS. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1017, Page 16
`
`

`

`
`
`39. The ’587 Patent indicates that DRC signals are generally “represented
`
`by numbers 1 to N, with a higher number indicating a proportionally better
`
`downlink channel quality.” Id., 1:53-56. Based on each communication terminal’s
`
`indicated DRC, the BS sets a transmission rate for each communication terminal,
`
`and transmits a signal to each communication terminal indicating communication
`
`resource allocation to each communication terminal. Id., 1:57-62.
`
`40. The ’587 Patent identifies problems with HDR communications, and
`
`purports solving those problems by transmitting information indicative of a
`
`communication terminal’s communication mode in a manner that is less
`
`susceptible to transmission error. See, e.g., id., 2:7-52.
`
`41.
`
`In particular, the ’587 Patent suggests that if the communication mode
`
`(determined by a communication terminal) is erroneously received by the BS due
`
`to, e.g., deterioration of uplink channel conditions, the communication terminal
`
`would be unable to demodulate/decode data transmitted to the communication
`
`terminal. Id., 2:14-22. Additionally, the ’587 Patent describes a scenario in which
`
`a BS transmits data to a particular communication terminal over some allocated
`
`time period (recalling that time division is used to schedule communication
`
`resource allocation). Id., 2:23-33. If there is a mismatch in communication modes,
`
`the allocated communication resources go unused, resulting in reduced downlink
`
`throughput. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1017, Page 17
`
`

`

`
`
`42.
`
`In accordance with various embodiments (e.g., Embodiments 2 and
`
`5), the ’587 Patent describes converting the DRC signal to a code word whose code
`
`word minimum distance with respect to other DRC signal code words varies in
`
`accordance with downlink channel quality between a communication terminal and
`
`BS (indicated by the DRC signal). Id. at 10:20-24, 18:21-26.
`
`43. Claim 1, which requires that “the notification signal, prior to its
`
`transmission, is converted to a code word whose code word minimum distance is
`
`proportional to the degree of measured downlink channel quality,” appears to be
`
`directed to these embodiments. Id., 25:23-26. That is, as downlink channel quality
`
`gets better, the code word minimum distance of a code word into which the DRC
`
`signal is converted correspondingly gets larger. Id. The ’587 Patent defines the
`
`term “code word distance” as “the number of bits that differ between code words,”
`
`and the term “code word minimum distance” as “the minimum number of bits by
`
`which a particular code word differs with respect to all other code words.” Ex.
`
`1001, 10:62-65. See also id., 10:65-11:6 and FIG. 7 (reproduced below).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1017, Page 18
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`44. The ’587 Patent suggests that the larger the code word minimum
`
`distance, the less likely the code word will be mistaken for another code word. Id.,
`
`11:7-11. As previously noted, code word minimum distance is a function of the
`
`DRC number, and DRC numbers are indicative of downlink channel quality. Id.,
`
`10:20-25, 10:62-11:6.
`
` Accordingly, a DRC signal corresponding
`
`to a
`
`communication mode that can be supported on a good quality downlink channel
`
`can be better protected by being converted to a code word with a greater code word
`
`minimum distance. Id., 11:24-33.
`
`45.
`
`In accordance with another embodiment (e.g., Embodiment 3), the
`
`rate at which DRC signals are excluded when communication resources are
`
`allocated by a BS can be used as a premise for adjusting communication terminal
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1017, Page 19
`
`

`

`
`
`transmission power and/or code words into which DRC signals are converted. Id.,
`
`11:54-62, 13:42-46. According to the ’587 Patent, the rate at which DRC signals
`
`are excluded is a function of a deteriorating communication environment. Id.,
`
`13:42-58. That is, if the amount of DRC signals that are excluded when allocating
`
`communication resources meets or exceeds some predetermined threshold value,
`
`then the transmission power of each DRC signal is increased, or the code word
`
`minimum distance (of the code word representing each DRC signal) is also
`
`increased. Id.
`
`46. Claim 3, which requires,
`
`in part, “a
`
`table
`
`that
`
`indicates a
`
`correspondence between the notification signal and a code word, and a rewriting
`
`device that rewrites contents of said table in accordance with a control signal from
`
`the base station…,” appears to be directed to this embodiment. Id., 26:1-5. That
`
`is, and in accordance with Embodiment 3, the ’587 Patent stores transmission
`
`powers of each DRC signal in a transmission power table and/or code words
`
`representing each DRC signal in a code word table. Id. at FIGS. 3 and 6, 11:54-62.
`
`If, as noted above, a determination is made to increase transmission power, the
`
`’587 Patent contemplates rewriting the contents of the transmission power table to
`
`reflect the increase. Id., 13:3-15. If, as noted above, a determination is made to
`
`increase code word minimum distance, the ’587 Patent contemplates rewriting the
`
`contents of the code word table with code words whose code word minimum
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1017, Page 20
`
`

`

`
`
`distances are larger than those presently stored in the code word table. Id., 13:23-
`
`41.
`
`47. The
`
`’587 Patent describes still another embodiment
`
`(e.g.,
`
`Embodiment 6), in which a communication terminal may transmit with less
`
`susceptibility to errors in the propagation path in proportion to information for
`
`which the amount of change regarding CIR information is large. Id., 19:30-38.
`
`Claims 3 and 4 appear to be directed to this embodiment. For example, Claim 3, in
`
`part, requires that “each of a plurality of digits representing the information of the
`
`notification signal is converted… to a code word whose code length is proportional
`
`to the digit’s degree of significance.” Id., 26:15-28. For example, Claim 4, in part,
`
`requires that “a plurality of bits… indicate the measured reception quality,” and
`
`that “the coding device encode the information such that that most significant bit of
`
`the plurality of bits is less susceptible to errors….” Id., 26:20-30.
`
`48.
`
`In particular, the ’587 Patent defines “information for which the
`
`amount of change is large” with an example. Id., 19:39-42. The example
`
`described in the ’587 Patent is a CIR value with a decimal integer and a decimal
`
`fraction, e.g., 8.7 dB. Id., 19:41-48. The phrase “information for which the
`
`amount of change is large,” in the given example, refers to the decimal integer “8.”
`
`That is, the amount of change in the decimal integer part of the CIR value can be
`
`1dB. A change of 1dB is greater than the amount of change, i.e., 0.1dB per the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-20-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1017, Page 21
`
`

`

`
`
`decimal fraction portion of the CIR value (0.7dB). Id. In other words, if the
`
`decimal integer portion of the CIR value is received erroneously by a BS, then the
`
`degree of error is large compared to a case where the decimal fraction portion of
`
`the CIR value is received erroneously. Id., 19:48-54.
`
`49. Accordingly, the ’587 Patent describes converting a CIR value to a
`
`code word, where the code length of the code word is proportional to the value of
`
`the “upper” digit (in the above example, decimal integer portion “8”) making up
`
`the CIR value. Id., 20:4-22. For example, the value of the upper digit (upon
`
`measuring) can be output to a 6-bit coding section, while the value of the lower
`
`digit (in the above example, decimal portion “0.7”) can be output to a 4-bit coding
`
`section. Id., 20:29-41. The result is that the upper digit of the CIR value is
`
`converted into a 6-bit code word, and the lower digit of the CIR value is converted
`
`into a 4-bit code word, the total number of bits being used to indicate the complete
`
`CIR value being 10 bits. Id., 20:42-50, 21:3-6. Because the number of different
`
`code words that can be represented with 6 bits is 26 and the number of different
`
`code words that can be represented with 4 bits is 24, the code word minimum
`
`distance between code words can be made larger for those represented with 6 bits.
`
`Id., 21:7-15. The ’587 Patent alleges that the 6-bit code word (compared to the 4-
`
`bit code word) is less susceptible to errors. Id., 21:11-29.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-21-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1017, Page 22
`
`

`

`
`
`50. The ’587 Patent concludes with four independent claims directed to
`
`the following UEP coding schemes applied to a message indicative of a result of
`
`channel estimation: (1) converting the message (“the information of the
`
`notification signal”), prior to its transmission, to a code word whose code word
`
`minimum distance is proportional to the degree of measured downlink channel
`
`quality (claim 1); (2) converting the message, prior to its transmission, to a code
`
`word based on rewritten contents of a table that indicates a correspondence
`
`between the message and a code word (claim 2); (3) converting each of multiple
`
`bits representing the message (“the information of the notification signal”), prior to
`
`its transmission, to a code word whose code length is proportional to the digit’s
`
`degree of significance (claim 3); and encoding the message (“the information”)
`
`represente