`Joanna M. Fuller (SBN 266406)
`jfuller@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`12390 El Camino Real
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Phone: (858) 678-5070 / Fax: (858) 678-5099
`
`Michael McKeon (DC Bar No. 459780; admitted pro hac vice)
`mckeon@fr.com
`Christian Chu (SBN 218336)
`chu@fr.com
`Stephen A. Marshall (DC Bar No. 1012870; admitted pro hac vice)
`smarshall@fr.com
`R. Andrew Schwentker (DC Bar No. 991792; admitted pro hac vice)
`schwentker@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1000 Maine Avenue SW
`Washington, D.C. 20024
`Phone: (202) 783-5070 / Fax: (202) 783-2331
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants LG ELECTRONICS INC.,
`LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., and
`LG ELECTRONICS MOBILE RESEARCH U.S.A., LLC
`
`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS INC., LG
`ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., and LG
`ELECTRONICS MOBILE
`RESEARCH U.S.A., LLC,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-02864-CAB-BLM
`
`DEFENDANTS LG
`ELECTRONICS INC., LG
`ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., AND
`LG ELECTRONICS MOBILE
`RESEARCH U.S.A., LLC’S
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`AND PRODUCTION OF
`DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO
`PATENT LOCAL RULES 3.3 AND
`3.4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2014, Page 1 of 22
`
`

`

`
`
`Pursuant to S.D. Cal. Patent Local Rules 3.3 and 3.4, and the Rules and Orders
`
`of this Court, Defendants LG Electronics Inc. (“LGE”), LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
`
`(“LGEUS”), and LG Electronics Mobile Research U.S.A., LLC (“LGMR”)
`
`(collectively, “Defendants” or “LG”) hereby serve their Invalidity Contentions
`
`(“Invalidity Contentions”) on Plaintiff Bell Northern Research, LLC (“Plaintiff” or
`
`“BNR”) in support of LG’s allegations of invalidity of United States Patent Nos.
`
`7,945,285 (“the ’285 Patent”); 6,549,792 (“the ’792 Patent”); 7,990,842 (“the ’842
`
`Patent”); 8,416,862 (“the ’862 Patent”); 7,957,450 (“the ’450 Patent”); 6,941,156 (“the
`
`’156 Patent”); 8,792,432 (“the ’432 Patent”); and 7,039,435 (“the ’435 Patent”)
`
`(collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
`
`These Invalidity Contentions are based on information currently available to
`
`Defendants. Defendants’ investigation and analysis of prior art is ongoing, and they
`
`reserve the right to supplement or modify these Invalidity Contentions in a manner
`
`consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s rules.
`
`Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions do not constitute an admission that any
`
`current, past, or future version of the accused products infringe the Asserted Patents
`
`either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Unless otherwise stated,
`
`Defendants have relied on the broad claim constructions of the Asserted Claims that
`
`Plaintiff has implicitly adopted in its Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement
`
`Contentions (“Infringement Contentions”) and amendments or supplements thereto, to
`
`the extent any construction can be inferred from Plaintiff’s Infringement Contentions.
`
`Such reliance should not be taken to mean that Defendants understand, or are adopting
`
`or agreeing with, Plaintiff’s apparent constructions. Defendants expressly do not do so
`
`and reserve their right to contest them.
`
`Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions are made in addition to and/or in the
`
`alternative to Defendants’ non-infringement positions, and should not be interpreted to
`
`rely upon, or in any way affect, the non-infringement arguments Defendants intend to
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`2
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2014, Page 2 of 22
`
`

`

`
`
`feature for inter-frequency
`measurements,” 3GPP TSG-
`RAN WG2 Meeting #70,
`R2-102895, Montreal,
`Canada, May 10-14, 2010
`ZTE, “Considerations of
`Inter-frequency Detected Set
`measurements,” 3GPP TSG
`RAN WG2 Meeting #71 bis,
`R2-105423, Xian, China,
`October 11-15, 2010
`ZTE, “Specification Impact
`Analysis of Inter-frequency
`Detected Set
`Measurements,” 3GPP TSG
`RAN WG2 Meeting #71 bis,
`R2-105424, Xian, China,
`October 11-15, 2010
`Nokia Corp., Nokia Siemens
`Networks, “RACH signaling
`optimisation,” 3GPP TSG-
`RAN WG2 Meeting #72,
`R2-106482, Jacksonville,
`USA, November 15-19,
`2010
`
`
`
`October 11-15, 2010
`
`ZTE
`
`October 11-15, 2010
`
`ZTE
`
`November 15-19, 2010
`
`Nokia
`
`
`
`Prior Art References for the ’435 Patent
`
`Pursuant to Patent L.R. 3.3, the tables below identify the prior art items that
`
`Defendants presently assert anticipate and/or render obvious the Asserted Claims of
`
`the ’435 Patent. Where applicable, this includes information about any alleged
`
`knowledge of use of the invention in this country prior to the date of invention of the
`
`’435 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2014, Page 3 of 22
`
`

`

`Patent or Patent
`Application No.
`International Application
`Publication No. WO
`02/05443 A2 (“Irvin”)
` European Patent
`Application Publication No.
`EP 1 091 498 A1 (“Baiker”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,018,646
`(“Myllymaki”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,456,856
`(“Werling”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,390,338
`(“Bodin”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,373
`(“Ichikawa”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,095,820
`(“Luxon”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,729,557
`(“Gardner”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,995,041
`(“Bradley”)
`Admitted Prior Art of the
`’435 Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`Country of Origin
`
`WIPO
`
`Europe
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`Date of Issue
`(if Issued Patent)
`
`
`
`
`January 25, 2000
`
`September 24, 2002
`
`February 14, 1995
`
`May 2, 2006
`
`August 1, 2000
`
`March 17, 1998
`
`November 30, 1999
`
`May 2, 2006
`
`In addition to the above prior art references, Defendants identify the following
`
`patents, printed publications, product literature, and other materials that are pertinent to
`
`invalidity of the Asserted Claims. Defendants may rely on these references as
`
`invalidating prior art, evidence of the knowledge of those skilled in the art, and/or
`
`evidence to support a motivation to combine or modify other prior art. Defendants
`
`reserve all rights to supplement or modify these invalidity contentions and to rely on
`
`these references to prove invalidity of the Asserted Claims in a manner consistent with
`
`the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of this Court.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`29
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2014, Page 4 of 22
`
`

`

`
`
`Additional Patent or
`Patent Application
`U.S. Patent No. 6,002,943
`(“Irvin II”)
`International Application
`Publication No. WO
`95/03549 (“Carter”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,815,820
`(“Kiem”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,541,609
`U.S. Patent No. 6,195,562
`U.S. Patent No. 5,956,626
`International Application
`Publication No. WO
`98/49784
`U.S. Patent No. 6,154,665
`U.S. Patent No. 6,026,288
`GB2340691
`International Application
`Publication No. WO
`98/29968 A2
`U.S. Patent No. 5,805,067
`U.S. Patent No. 5,949,369
`
`
`
`Country of Origin
`
`U.S.
`
`WIPO
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`WIPO
`
`Date of Issue
`(if Issued Patent)
`December 14, 1999
`
`
`
`September 29, 1998
`
`July 30, 1996
`February 27, 2001
`September 21, 1999
`
`
`U.S.
`U.S.
`Great Britain
`WIPO
`
`November 28, 2000
`February 15, 2000
`February 23, 2000
`
`
`U.S.
`U.S.
`
`September 8, 1998
`September 7, 1999
`
`III. PATENT LOCAL RULES 3.3(B) & (C) – INVALIDITY UNDER
`§§ 102 & 103
`
`As explained below, and in the referenced claim charts, the Asserted Claims of
`
`the ’285 Patent, ’792 Patent, ’842 Patent, ’862 Patent, ’450 Patent, ’156 Patent, ’432
`
`Patent, and ’435 Patent are invalid for anticipation and/or obviousness. In some
`
`instances, Defendants may have treated certain prior art as anticipatory where certain
`
`elements are expressly, implicitly, or inherently present based on Plaintiff’s apparent
`
`claim construction in Plaintiff’s infringement contentions. Defendants reserve the
`
`right to contend that each of the anticipatory references renders the claims obvious in
`
`view of the reference, either alone or in combination with other references. The
`
`identification of any patent or patent application should be deemed an identification of
`
`
`
`30
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2014, Page 5 of 22
`
`

`

`
`
`can send new messages and/or omit parts of the message.”). Given the problem posed
`
`in R2-110304, a POSITA would have turned to Tamura, which teaches prioritization
`
`rules under which measurements of one of two different carrier frequency cells are
`
`prioritized. See, e.g., Tamura at 24:20-25:15.
`
`
`
`Invalidity Claim Charts for the ’435 Patent
`
`The table below correlates exhibit numbers to the prior art items that Defendants
`
`presently assert anticipate and/or render obvious the Asserted Claims of the ’435
`
`Patent.
`
`Exhibit No.
`H1
`H2
`H3
`H4
`H5
`H6
`H7
`H8
`
`Base Prior Art Reference / Prior Art System
`
`Irvin
`Myllymaki
`Baiker
`Werling
`Luxon
`Bodin
`Gardner
`Bradley
`
`Defendants assert that the items of prior art identified above in connection with
`
`Exhibits H1 to H5, H7, and H8 anticipate one or more of the Asserted Claims of the
`
`’435 Patent under at least Plaintiff’s apparent interpretation of the claims that Plaintiff
`
`appears to rely upon for its infringement contentions:
`
`1. Irvin (H1) anticipates claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8.
`
`2. Myllymaki (H2) anticipates claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8.
`
`3. Baiker (H3) anticipates claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8.
`
`4. Werling (H4) anticipates claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8.
`
`5. Luxon (H5) anticipates claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8.
`
`6. Gardner (H7) anticipates claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8.
`
`7. Bradley (H8) anticipates claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8.
`
`
`
`
`
`102
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2014, Page 6 of 22
`
`

`

`
`
`Defendants further assert that the items of prior art identified above in
`
`connection with Exhibits H1 to H5, H7, and H8 render obvious one or more of the
`
`Asserted Claims of the ’435 Patent in view of their own disclosures and the
`
`knowledge, skill, and experience of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Defendants
`
`assert that at least the combinations of prior art identified below render obvious one or
`
`more of the Asserted Claims of the ’435 Patent. The identification of combinations
`
`below should not be taken to mean that the combinations are necessarily required to
`
`prove invalidity. To the contrary, certain claims may be anticipated under one claim
`
`interpretation and obvious under another. Further, if any element should be found to
`
`be missing from a particular item of prior art, Defendants assert that that item of prior
`
`art could be combined with other items of prior art that disclose that element.
`
`1. Irvin (H1) renders obvious claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8, either alone or in
`combination with:
`
`a. Myllymaki (H2); or
`
`b. Bodin.
`
`2. Myllymaki (H2) renders obvious claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8, either alone
`or in combination with:
`
`a. Irvin (H1); or
`
`b. Baiker (H3).
`
`3. Baiker (H3) renders obvious claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8, either alone or in
`combination with:
`
`a. Irvin (H1);
`
`b. Myllymaki (H2); or
`
`c. Werling (H4).
`
`4. Werling (H4) renders obvious claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8, either alone or
`in combination with:
`
`a. Baiker (H3); or
`
`
`
`103
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2014, Page 7 of 22
`
`

`

`
`
`b. Ichikawa.
`
`5. Luxon (H5) renders obvious claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8, either alone or in
`combination with:
`
`a. Irvin (H1).
`
`6. Bodin (H6) renders obvious claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8 in combination
`with:
`
`a. Irvin (H1); or
`
`b. Irvin (H1) and Myllymaki (H2).
`
`7. Gardner (H7) renders obvious claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8, either alone or
`in combination with:
`
`a. Irvin (H1)
`
`8. Bradley renders obvious claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8, either alone or in
`combination with:
`
`a. Werling (H4)
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the
`
`above-referenced combinations. Each of the references cited in an above-identified
`
`combination relates to aspects of making, using, and/or enabling the control and/or
`
`operation of, mobile telecommunications devices or portable cell phone devices that
`
`provide adjusted power functionality (including, for example, a network adjusted
`
`transmit power level) and proximity regulation functionality (including, for example, a
`
`proximity adjusted transmit power level) to a mobile telecommunication or portable
`
`cell phone device. Some of the references disclose a complete system for providing
`
`both provide adjusted power functionality and proximity regulation functionality in a
`
`mobile telecommunications devices or portable cell phone device, while others focus on
`
`selected aspects of such a system, e.g., proximity regulation functionality or a proximity
`
`adjusted transmit power level. The combined teachings of these references, the
`
`teachings of FCC rules and regulations, the AMPS, GSM, cdmaOne, UMTS, and GPRS
`
`standards, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the
`
`
`
`104
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2014, Page 8 of 22
`
`

`

`
`
`problem to be solved as a whole, would have suggested the claimed invention to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, as well as a reasonable likelihood of success in making the
`
`above-referenced combinations. The combinations would constitute, at least,
`
`combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, a
`
`simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, the
`
`use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, the application
`
`of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable
`
`result, and obvious to try.
`
`Specifically, at the time of the alleged invention of the ’432 Patent, providing
`
`network-adjusted transmit power was an inherent or well-known functionality in
`
`portable cell phones operating in a wireless telecommunications network, which serves
`
`to avoid interference with other cell devices and/or maintain a constant connection with
`
`the network. See, e.g., Irvin at 1 (“Cellular communication systems include control
`
`systems for limiting power. Typically, the base station instructs the mobile terminal to
`
`use the least power to avoid interference with other mobile terminals. The base station
`
`does so by measuring signal strength and returning instructions to the mobile terminal
`
`to modify transmitter power output.”); Myllymaki at 1:9-17 (“In the most common
`
`mobile communication means systems, the base station controls the transmitted power
`
`of the mobile communication means on the basis of the received signal level. The
`
`transmitted power of a mobile communication means close to the base station is small,
`
`whereas at the limits of the coverage area the transmitted power is at its maximum. The
`
`current consumption of a mobile communication means is thus highly dependent upon
`
`the place in which the device is used.”); Ichikawa at 1:15-2:5 (“Conventionally,
`
`transmission power control techniques are known in such a mobile communication
`
`system with employment of a portable telephone and the like. That is, in this mobile
`
`communication system, while information is transferred, transmission power of the own
`
`mobile station is controlled in response to a distance between a base station and the
`
`mobile station so as to maintain constant electric power of a signal reached to the base
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`105
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2014, Page 9 of 22
`
`

`

`
`
`station. Thus, the transmission power control techniques are capable of reducing
`
`interference occurred between communication channels and are capable of improving
`
`frequency utilization efficiencies.”); Baiker at [0009] (“Preferably, the device controls
`
`its transmission power in accordance with the requirements of the connection to the
`
`base station. The transmission power may, for example, be reduced, when the signals
`
`from the base station (to which the connection has been made) are strong. In this case, it
`
`can be assumed that the radio connection is good in itself and that it is not necessary to
`
`transmit with the maximum power.”); Carter at 2:34-3:2 (“In portable communication
`
`devices, transmitter power is increased and decreased to maintain a quality
`
`communication link. In a fading environment or in the situation in which the
`
`transmission path is obstructed, the portable communication device increases
`
`transmission power to maintain link quality. The level of transmission energy and the
`
`changes thereto should be monitored. Therefore proper control processes and circuitry
`
`are needed to limit the RF exposure level.”). Similarly, the ’435 Patent suggests the
`
`need for a minimum amount of transmit power to maintain the quality of connection
`
`between a cell phone and a base station. See, e.g.,’432 Patent at 1:51-56 (teaching
`
`away from a permanent reduction of transmit power because that “reduces the quality
`
`of service of the cell phone.”).
`
`As the ’435 Patent admits, there were health concerns relating to high levels of
`
`radio frequency energy when cell phones was used close to the body of a user at the
`
`time of the alleged invention. See, e.g.,’435 Patent at 1:36-50. To address these
`
`concerns, it was well-known to regulate the transmit power of a cell phone using a
`
`proximity detector so as to avoid excessive exposure to the body of a user. See, e.g.,
`
`Irvin at Abstract (“A detector (38) detects if the housing is proximate a human body. A
`
`control (22) is operatively connected to the transmitter power control loop and to the
`
`detector, the control limiting transmitter power if the detector detects that the housing is
`
`proximate a human body.”); Werling at Abstract (“A proximity detection device
`
`measures at least one proximity parameter and feeds the control element with a
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`106
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2014, Page 10 of 22
`
`

`

`
`
`proximity indication for controlling the power regulation device to reduce the radiation
`
`pattern in the direction of the radio communication apparatus user”); Baiker at [0021]
`
`(“According to the invention, the RF power is regulated so that it is in the shaded range,
`
`which is delimited by a curve K. This range is defined as follows: Under a specified
`
`minimum distance d1, the RF power is always below a specified, constant level P1,
`
`which is defined as harmless. The hand-held radio telephone is then typically on or
`
`directly next to the ear of the user. If said minimum distance d1 is exceeded, the
`
`maximum RF power may be increased. Preferably, a distance-dependent curve K is
`
`chosen (e.g. a linear or square curve). In the transition area between dl and d2, the
`
`distance typically ranges from a few centimeters to approximately 20-30 centimeters. If
`
`a defined second distance d2 is exceeded, the hand-held mobile telephone can radiate
`
`the maximum possible power P2.”); Myllymaki at 4:24-33 (“For monitoring of the
`
`quantity of radio-frequency radiation directed at the body, the system may also
`
`incorporate a proximity sensor to measure the distance between the mobile
`
`communication means antenna and the body of the user. In a favourable embodiment of
`
`the invention the system may automatically reduce the outgoing power or interrupt
`
`transmission, if the quantity of reflected power exceeds a desired limit value, in which
`
`case the user does not need to monitor the system's indications.”).
`
`As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware at the time
`
`of alleged invention that the network-adjusted power level and the proximity-regulated
`
`power level are two important factors, both of which must be considered in determining
`
`the actual transmit power level. In fact, it was commonly known or practiced to
`
`determine the actual transmit power level based on both the network-adjusted power
`
`level and the proximity-regulated power level. See, e.g., Irvin at 6-7 (“For example, in
`
`an AMPS mobile terminal, mobile attenuation codes 000, 001, 010 and 011 could be
`
`reset to 100 if the antenna 12 is near the user. This establishes a 100-milliwatt power
`
`cap on the power amplifier 46. The other mobile attenuation codes, i.e., 100, 101, 110
`
`and 111, would be processed unaltered, regardless of proximity to the user, as the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`107
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2014, Page 11 of 22
`
`

`

`
`
`power output amounts generated from these codes are less than the cap.”); Baiker at
`
`[0011]-[0012] (“The internal control of the device may be such that when a specified
`
`distance to the user’s body is not maintained, the transmission power is limited to a
`
`maximum value allowed. As a result, the transmission power is not increased to an
`
`undesired range even when the connection quality is poor. If the user desires a better
`
`connection quality, he must, in this case, remove the hand-held mobile telephone from
`
`the ear (e.g. by a few centimeters). To avoid an undesired loss of the connection, a
`
`higher transmission power may temporarily be permitted, but the duration of the
`
`increased power is measured. If a certain period of time is exceeded, the user may first,
`
`for example, be made aware of this fact (e.g. with an acoustic signal) . . . .”);
`
`Myllymaki at 1:9-17 (“In the most common mobile communication means systems, the
`
`base station controls the transmitted power of the mobile communication means on the
`
`basis of the received signal level . . . .”), 4:24-33 (“For monitoring of the quantity of
`
`radio-frequency radiation directed at the body, the system may also incorporate a
`
`proximity sensor to measure the distance between the mobile communication means
`
`antenna and the body of the user . . . the system may automatically reduce the outgoing
`
`power or interrupt transmission, if the quantity of reflected power exceeds a desired
`
`limit value, in which case the user does not need to monitor the system's indications.”);
`
`Carter at 2:34-3:2 (“In portable communication devices, transmitter power is increased
`
`and decreased to maintain a quality communication link. In a fading environment or in
`
`the situation in which the transmission path is obstructed, the portable communication
`
`device increases transmission power to maintain link quality. The level of transmission
`
`energy and the changes thereto should be monitored. Therefore proper control
`
`processes and circuitry are needed to limit the RF exposure level.”); Irvin II at 4:64-5:7
`
`(“For example, when the antenna 30 is down, the control and signaling unit 12 limits
`
`the phone's operation to MAC levels 5, 6 or 7 thereby capping its transmit power at 40
`
`milliwatts maximum. If a mobile attenuation code for levels 0-4 is received, the control
`
`and signaling unit 12 revises the code downward to level 5. The mobile terminal 10
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`108
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2014, Page 12 of 22
`
`

`

`
`
`then adjusts its transmit power level in the normal manner according to the revised
`
`code. If the antenna 30 is extended while a call is in progress, the power cap is removed
`
`and the mobile terminal 10 operates in a normal manner.”); Bradley at 5:55-66 (“When
`
`the proximity detector 406 detects a person within a predetermined distance from the
`
`communication path, the antenna controller 400 may take one of several alternative
`
`actions to avoid harming the person that may be caused by the electromagnetic energy
`
`transmitted by the directional antenna 402. The antenna controller 400 may reduce the
`
`power level transmitted by the directional antenna 402 to avoid harming the person. If
`
`the power level is reduced below a level required for communication with the selected
`
`satellite, the antenna controller 400 alerts the user of the portable satellite phone 102
`
`through the alarm device 408.”); Luxon at 40:65-41:37 (“Typically, the terrestrial cell
`
`site or other remote receiver/transmitter sends a power level signal to the radio signal
`
`transmitting device 602. This power level signal instructs the radio signal transmitting
`
`device 602 as to what transmission signal strength is required for effective
`
`communication with the remote receiver/transmitter . . . Thus, due to concerns of the
`
`potential health related hazards posed by the absorption of the microwave radiation
`
`signal transmitted by a cellular or PCS handset, it is prudent to reduce or prevent
`
`exposure of the user to the emitted radiation . . . . To prevent unwanted exposure of
`
`emitted radiation to the user, the inventive antenna assembly 600 is constructed so that
`
`a relatively lower maximum signal power is available when the antenna unit 604 is in
`
`the stowed position.”); Kiem at 19:9-26 (“[W]hile the radiotelephone is in a call, the
`
`base station is notified of the change in power level of the radiotelephone. This up to
`
`date power information allows the base station to control the adjustment of the transmit
`
`power within the new Class, as required, to improve the radiotelephone's transmit
`
`performance . . . The radiotelephone sets the maximum transmit power at 0.6 W
`
`corresponding to Class 3 at block 1407 when the antenna is retracted and at 1.2 W
`
`corresponding to Class 2 at block 1405 when the antenna is extended.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`109
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2014, Page 13 of 22
`
`

`

`
`
`Given the widely-known problem and the commonly-known solutions to that
`
`problem at the time of the alleged invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`been motivated and readily able to combine the teachings of the following references
`
`and/or his knowledge at the time of the alleged invention so as to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`1. Combination of Irvin and Myllymaki:
`
`Irvin and Myllymaki are both directed to portable cellular devices and solve
`
`similar problems relating to increasing user experience and reducing exposure from
`
`portable cellular devices. See, e.g., Irvin at 1 (“This invention relates to a mobile
`
`terminal used in a wireless communication system and, more particularly, to a mobile
`
`terminal operable to limit transmitter power if proximate a human body.”); Myllymaki
`
`at 4:67 (“With the aid of the system according to the invention the user may also reduce
`
`to a minimum the SAR value and the quantity of radiation directed at his head or
`
`body….”). A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention
`
`would be motivated to combine the disclosures of Irvin and Myllymaki to further the
`
`goal of limiting transmit power and exposure to a user, and doing so would be within
`
`the knowledge and ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`alleged invention.
`
`2. Combination of Irvin and Weling:
`
`Irvin and Werling are both directed to portable cellular devices and solve similar
`
`problems relating to increasing user experience and reducing exposure from portable
`
`cellular devices. See, e.g., Irvin at 1; Werling Abstract (“A proximity detection device
`
`measures at least one proximity parameter and feeds the control element with a
`
`proximity indication for controlling the power regulation device to reduce the radiation
`
`pattern in the direction of the radio communication apparatus user.”). A person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would be motivated to
`
`combine the disclosures of Irvin and Werling to further the goal of limiting transmit
`
`power and exposure to a user, and doing so would be within the knowledge and ability
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`110
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2014, Page 14 of 22
`
`

`

`
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`3. Combination of Baiker and Irvin:
`
`Baiker and Irvin are both directed to portable cellular devices and solve similar
`
`problems relating to increasing user experience and reducing exposure of portable
`
`cellular devices. Baiker at [0006] (“The task of the invention is to configure a hand-
`
`held radio of the type described above in which the damage potential of the
`
`electromagnetic radiation emitted by the device can be efficiently reduced for the
`
`user.”); Irvin at 1 (“This invention relates to a mobile terminal used in a wireless
`
`communication system and, more particularly, to a mobile terminal operable to limit
`
`transmitter power if proximate a human body.”). A person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the alleged invention would be motivated to combine the disclosures of
`
`Baiker and Irvin to further the goal of limiting transmit power and exposure to a user,
`
`and doing so would be within the knowledge and ability of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`4. Combination of Baiker and Myllymaki:
`
`Baiker and Myllymaki are both directed to portable cellular devices and solve
`
`similar problems relating to increasing user experience and reducing exposure of
`
`portable cellular devices. Baiker at [0006] (“The task of the invention is to configure a
`
`hand-held radio of the type described above in which the damage potential of the
`
`electromagnetic radiation emitted by the device can be efficiently reduced for the
`
`user.”); Myllymaki at 4:67 (“With the aid of the system according to the invention the
`
`user may also reduce to a minimum the SAR value and the quantity of radiation
`
`directed at his head or body….”). A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`alleged invention would be motivated to combine the disclosures of Baiker and
`
`Myllymaki to further the goal of limiting transmit power and exposure to a user, and
`
`doing so would be within the knowledge and ability of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`
`
`
`
`111
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2014, Page 15 of 22
`
`

`

`
`
`5. Combination of Baiker and Werling:
`
`Baiker and Werling are both directed to portable cellular devices and solve
`
`similar problems relating to increasing user experience and reducing exposure of
`
`portable cellular devices. Baiker at [0006]; Werling Abstract (“A proximity detection
`
`device measures at least one proximity parameter and feeds the control element with a
`
`proximity indication for controlling the power regulation device to reduce the radiation
`
`pattern in the direction of the radio communication apparatus user”). A person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would be motivated to
`
`combine the disclosures of Baiker and Werling to further the goal of limiting transmit
`
`power and exposure to a user, and doing so would be within the knowledge and ability
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`6. Combination of Werling and Ichikawa:
`
`Werling and Ichikawa are both directed to controlling the transmit power of
`
`portable cellular devices for communications with a base station in a
`
`telecommunication network using the technique of CDMA. See, e.g., Werling at
`
`Abstract, 1:40-49 (“The invention finds many applications in the field of
`
`telecommunication by radio channel, notably radiotelephony. The invention
`
`particularly applies to systems called third generation systems, operating according to
`
`a Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) standard using the technique
`
`of Code-Division Multiple Access (CDMA). Equipment provided for such systems
`
`comprises a plurality of directional antennas suitable for emitting noxious radiation
`
`absorbed by huma