IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`OPTIS WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`OPTIS CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`UNWIRED PLANET, LLC, UNWIRED
`PLANET INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, AND
`PANOPTIS PATENT MANAGEMENT, LLC.,
`
`Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00066-JRG
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
` JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S P.R. 3-3 INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2009-p. 1
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`I. 
`II. 
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 
`RESERVATIONS................................................................................................................2 
`GENERAL COMMENTS APPLICABLE TO ALL PATENTS-IN-SUIT.........................6 
`A. 
`Standards in the Wireless Communications Industry ............................................. 6 
`B. 
`Evolution of Mobile Telecommunications Standards and Products ....................... 6 
`C. 
`General Reasons to Modify, Extend, or Combine Prior Art References ................ 7 
`1. 
`Portions of a Cellular Standard May Be Treated as a Single Reference .....8 
`2. 
`It Was Known and Obvious to Support Standards in Actual Devices .........9 
`IDENTIFICATION OF PRIOR ART PURSUANT TO P.R. 3-3(A) ...............................10 
`A. 
`The ’154 Patent ..................................................................................................... 10 
`1. 
`Prior Art Patent References .......................................................................10 
`2. 
`Prior Art Publications ................................................................................10 
`3. 
`Other References ........................................................................................12 
`4. 
`Prior Art Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) ...........................................................12 
`The ’332 Patent ..................................................................................................... 13 
`1. 
`Prior Art Patent References .......................................................................13 
`2. 
`Prior Art Publications ................................................................................14 
`3. 
`Other References ........................................................................................15 
`4. 
`Prior Art Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) ...........................................................15 
`The ’833 Patent ..................................................................................................... 18 
`1. 
`Prior Art Patent References .......................................................................18 
`2. 
`Prior Art Publications ................................................................................18 
`3. 
`Other References ........................................................................................23 
`4. 
`Prior Art Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) ...........................................................24 
`The ’284 Patent ..................................................................................................... 28 
`1. 
`Prior Art Patent References .......................................................................28 
`2. 
`Prior Art Publications ................................................................................28 
`3. 
`Other References ........................................................................................30 
`The ’557 Patent ..................................................................................................... 30 
`1. 
`Prior Art Patent References .......................................................................30 
`2. 
`Prior Art Publications ................................................................................31 
`3. 
`Other References ........................................................................................32 
`4. 
`Prior Art Under 35 U.S.C. §102(g) ............................................................32 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2009-p. 2
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`The ʼ154 Patent ..................................................................................................... 39 
`1. 
`Obviousness Combinations ........................................................................39 
`2. 
`Reasons to Modify, Extend, or Combine ...................................................40 
`The ʼ332 Patent ..................................................................................................... 67 
`1. 
`Obviousness Combinations ........................................................................68 
`2. 
`Reasons to Modify, Extend, or Combine ...................................................69 
`The ʼ833 Patent ..................................................................................................... 75 
`1. 
`Obviousness Combinations ........................................................................75 
`2. 
`Reasons to Modify, Extend, or Combine ...................................................77 
`The ʼ284 Patent ..................................................................................................... 93 
`1. 
`Obviousness Combinations ........................................................................94 
`2. 
`Reasons to Modify, Extend, or Combine ...................................................97 
`The ʼ557 Patent ................................................................................................... 114 
`1. 
`Obviousness Combinations ......................................................................115 
`2. 
`Reasons to Modify, Extend, or Combine .................................................116 
`The ʼ290 Patent ................................................................................................... 141 
`1. 
`Obviousness Combinations ......................................................................141 
`2. 
`Reasons to Modify, Extend, or Combine .................................................142 
`The ʼ774 Patent ................................................................................................... 175 
`1. 
`Obviousness Combinations ......................................................................176 
`2. 
`Reasons to Modify, Extend, or Combine .................................................177 
`VIII.  CONTENTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112 PURSUANT TO P.R. 3-3(D) ....................217 
`A. 
`The ’154 Patent ................................................................................................... 218 
`B. 
`The ’332 Patent ................................................................................................... 219 
`C. 
`The ’833 Patent ................................................................................................... 220 
`D. 
`The ’284 Patent ................................................................................................... 221 
`E. 
`The ’557 Patent ................................................................................................... 222 
`F. 
`The ’290 Patent ................................................................................................... 223 
`G. 
`The ’774 Patent ................................................................................................... 223 
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2009-p. 3
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to Rule 3-3 of the Rules of Practice for Patent Cases before the United States
`
`District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“P.R.”) and the Court’s July 18, 2019 Docket
`
`Control Order, Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) hereby serves Invalidity Contentions with
`
`respect to the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,005,154 (“’154 patent”), U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,019,332 (“’332 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,102,833 (“’833 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,385,284
`
`(“’284 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,411,557 (“’557 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,989,290 (“’290
`
`patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 9,001,774 (“’774 patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit” or
`
`“asserted patents”) identified by Plaintiffs Optis Wireless Technology, LLC, Optis Cellular
`
`Technology, LLC, and PanOptis Patent Management, LLC, Unwired Planet, LLC, Unwired
`
`Planet International Limited, and PanOptis Patent Management, LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”
`
`or “PanOptis”) in Plaintiffs’ Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement
`
`Contentions Under Patent Rule 3-1 and 3-2 (“Plaintiffs’ Infringement Contentions”) served on
`
`June 17, 2019.
`
`Plaintiffs have asserted the following claims against Apple:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’154 patent: Claims 33-34, 37-38
`
`’332 patent: Claims 1-10
`
`’833 patent: Claims 1-14
`
`’284 patent: Claims 1-5, 8, 10-12, 14-18, 21, 23-25, 27-29
`
`’557 patent: Claims 1-6, 9-10
`
`’290 patent: Claims 10-13
`
`’774 patent: Claims 6-10
`
`With respect to each asserted claim and based on its investigation to date, Apple hereby:
`
`
`
`1
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2009-p. 4
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`(a) identifies each prior art reference that anticipates each asserted claims or renders it obvious
`
`according to P-R 3-3(a); (b) specifies whether each such prior art reference anticipates each
`
`asserted claim or renders it obvious, and, if it renders it obvious, identifies any combinations of
`
`prior art showing obviousness and explains the motivation to combine the prior art that renders
`
`the asserted claim obvious and; (c) submits a chart identifying where specifically in each prior
`
`art reference each element of each asserted claim is found, including, for each element that is
`
`governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), the identity of the structure(s), act(s), or material(s) in each
`
`prior art reference that performs the claimed function; (d) identifies the grounds of invalidity
`
`based indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112(2) or enablement or written description under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112(1) of any of the asserted claims.
`
`In addition, pursuant to P.R. 3-4(a), Apple has made available for inspection on source
`
`code computers certain source code in its possession for the Qualcomm baseband chips
`
`incorporated in certain accused products. Apple also has available on the source code computers
`
`certain source code in its possession for the Intel baseband chips incorporated in certain accused
`
`products; Apple is awaiting Intel’s consent and Intel’s approval of plaintiffs’ disclosed source
`
`code reviewers and will immediately make the source code available upon receiving Intel’s
`
`consent and approval. Pursuant to P.R. 3-4(b), Apple has produced each item of prior art
`
`identified pursuant to P.R. 3-3(a), which does not appear in the file history of the patents-in-suit.
`
`II.
`
`RESERVATIONS
`
`Consistent with P.R. 3-6, Apple reserves the right to amend these Invalidity Contentions.
`
`The information and documents that Apple produces are provisional and subject to further
`
`revision. Apple expressly reserves the right to amend these disclosures and the accompanying
`
`document production should Plaintiffs amend their P.R. 3-1 or 3-2 disclosures in any way.
`
`Further, as discovery is only beginning, Apple reserves the right to revise, amend, and/or
`
`
`
`2
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2009-p. 5
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`supplement the information provided herein, including identifying and relying on additional
`
`references, should Apple’s further search and analysis yield additional information or references,
`
`consistent with the Patent Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover,
`
`Apple reserves the right to revise its ultimate contentions concerning the invalidity of the
`
`asserted claims, which may change depending upon the Court’s construction of the asserted
`
`claims, any findings as to the priority or invention date of the asserted claims, and/or positions
`
`that Plaintiffs or their expert witness(es) may take concerning claim construction, infringement,
`
`and/or invalidity issues.
`
`Prior art not included in this disclosure, whether known or unknown to Apple, may
`
`become relevant. In particular, Apple is currently unaware of the extent, if any, to which
`
`Plaintiffs will contend that limitations of the asserted claims are not disclosed in the prior art
`
`identified by Apple, or will contend that any of the identified references does not qualify as prior
`
`art. The identification of any patent or patent publication shall be deemed to include any
`
`counterpart patent or application filed, published, or issued anywhere in the world. The citation
`
`to cellular specifications, such as 3GPP specifications, shall be deemed to include any product
`
`that supports such specifications and that would qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102, e.g.,
`
`under Section 102(a), 102(b), or 102(g). To the extent that such issues arise, Apple reserves the
`
`right to identify additional teachings in the same references or in other references that anticipate
`
`or would have made the addition of the allegedly missing limitation to the device or method
`
`obvious. In providing these contentions, Apple has relied on the contents of the infringement
`
`contentions that Plaintiffs served on June 17, 2019.
`
`Apple’s claim charts in Exhibits A-1 through G-6 cite to particular teachings and
`
`disclosures of the prior art as applied to features of the asserted claims. However, persons
`
`
`
`3
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2009-p. 6
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`having ordinary skill in the art may view an item of prior art generally in the context of other
`
`publications, literature, products, and understanding of those skilled in the art. Accordingly, the
`
`cited portions are only examples, and Apple reserves the right to rely on uncited portions of the
`
`prior art references and on other publications and expert testimony as aids in understanding and
`
`interpreting the cited portions, as providing context thereto, and as additional evidence that a
`
`claim limitation is known or disclosed. Citations to figures are inclusive of all discussion of
`
`those figures. Apple further reserves the right to rely on uncited portions of the prior art
`
`references, other publications, documents explicitly or implicitly incorporated by reference, and
`
`testimony, to establish bases for combinations of certain cited references that render the asserted
`
`claims obvious. Further, for any combination, Apple reserves the right to rely additionally on
`
`information generally known to those skilled in the art and/or common sense.
`
`The references discussed herein and in the claim charts in Exhibits A-1 through G-6, or
`
`elsewhere identified, may disclose the elements of the asserted claims explicitly and/or
`
`inherently, and/or they may be relied upon to show the state of the art in the relevant timeframe.
`
`The suggested obviousness combinations are provided in the alternative to Apple’s anticipation
`
`contentions and are not to be construed to suggest that any reference included in the
`
`combinations is not itself anticipatory. Nor should any suggested obviousness combination be
`
`construed as suggesting that a particular claim limitation from an asserted patent is missing from
`
`one or more of the prior art references.
`
`Furthermore, nothing stated herein shall be treated as an admission or suggestion that
`
`Apple agrees with Plaintiffs regarding either the scope of any asserted claim or the claim
`
`constructions Plaintiffs advance in their Infringement Contentions or anywhere else. To the
`
`extent that Apple’s Invalidity Contentions reflect or suggest constructions of claim limitations
`
`
`
`4
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2009-p. 7
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`consistent with or suggested by Plaintiffs’ Infringement Contentions, no inference is intended
`
`nor should any be drawn that Apple agrees with Plaintiffs’ claim constructions or Plaintiffs’
`
`views concerning the scope of the claims. To be clear, the charts below do not necessarily
`
`indicate all instances where claim elements are discussed based on Plaintiffs’ apparent
`
`interpretation of the claims as evidenced by Plaintiffs’ Infringement Contentions. However, the
`
`omission or addition of indications based on Plaintiffs’ apparent interpretation is not to be
`
`construed as an admission as to the proper construction or scope of the claims. Apple reserves
`
`the right to challenge Plaintiffs’ current, future, apparent, implicit, or explicit construction of all
`
`claim terms. Further, the suggested reasons to combine prior art references set forth herein,
`
`including with known features to a person of ordinary skill in the art, shall not be treated as an
`
`admission or suggestion that Apple agrees with Plaintiffs regarding the scope of any asserted
`
`claim, the claim constructions Plaintiffs advance in their Infringement Contentions or anywhere
`
`else, or that Apple’s accused technology meets any limitation of any asserted claim.
`
`In addition, nothing in these Invalidity Contentions shall be treated as an admission that
`
`Apple’s accused technology meets any limitation of any asserted claim. Apple denies that it
`
`infringes any claim of the Patents-In-Suit. To the extent that any prior art reference identified by
`
`Apple contains a claim element that is the same as or similar to an element in an accused
`
`product, based on a claim construction inferred from Plaintiffs’ Infringement Contentions,
`
`inclusion of that reference in Apple’s Invalidity Contentions shall not be deemed a waiver by
`
`Apple of any claim construction or noninfringement position. Apple expressly reserves the right
`
`to contest any claim constructions asserted by Plaintiffs and expressly reserve all
`
`noninfringement arguments.
`
`Depending on the Court’s construction of the asserted claims of the Patents-In-Suit,
`
`
`
`5
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2009-p. 8
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`and/or positions that Plaintiffs or their expert witness(es) may take concerning claim
`
`interpretation, infringement, and/or invalidity issues, different ones of the charted prior art
`
`references in Exhibits A-1 through G-6, or otherwise identified herein, may be of greater or
`
`lesser relevance and different combinations of these references may be implicated. Given this
`
`uncertainty, the charts may reflect alternative applications of the prior art against the asserted
`
`claims. Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an admission or a waiver of any particular
`
`construction of any claim term. Apple also reserves all its rights to challenge any claim term
`
`herein under 35 U.S.C. § 112, including by arguing that they are indefinite, not supported by the
`
`written description, and/or not enabled. Accordingly, nothing stated herein shall be construed as
`
`a waiver of any argument available under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Apple also reserves the right to
`
`challenge the patentability of any of the asserted claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`III. GENERAL COMMENTS APPLICABLE TO ALL PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`Plaintiffs contend that the Patents-in-Suit all relate to standards for cellular
`
`telecommunications. Apple makes the following general comments that are applicable to all the
`
`Patents-in-Suit.
`
`A.
`
`Standards in the Wireless Communications Industry
`
`To facilitate interoperability among the cellular infrastructure and the mobile devices that
`
`use this infrastructure, a number of participants collaborate to develop technical “standards” for
`
`certain cellular features and functionality. Among others, the participants include cellular
`
`carriers, infrastructure suppliers, handset suppliers, and suppliers of semiconductor chips
`
`including baseband processors. By agreeing to common specifications for these features and
`
`functionality, companies can offer products that compete with each other yet still interoperate.
`
`B.
`
`Evolution of Mobile Telecommunications Standards and Products
`
`Mass marketing of cell phones began in the 1980s with phones that operated on analog
`
`
`
`6
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2009-p. 9
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`networks. The second generation of mobile wireless technology, commonly referred to as “2G,”
`
`began the transition to digital technology. The 2G networks utilized standards that included the
`
`Global System for Mobile Communications (“GSM”) standard developed by ETSI. Later, ETSI
`
`developed “2.5G” standards, including GSM Packet Radio Service (“GPRS”) and Enhanced
`
`Data Rates for GSM Evolution (“EDGE”). ETSI proceeded to collaborate with other standards-
`
`setting organizations to create the “3G” Universal Mobile Telecommunication System
`
`(“UMTS”) standard, and later ETSI, in collaboration with other standards-setting organizations,
`
`developed the “4G” Long Term Evolution (“LTE”) standard.
`
`C.
`
`General Reasons to Modify, Extend, or Combine Prior Art References
`
`The Supreme Court has held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to
`
`known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). “When a work is available in one field
`
`of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the
`
`same field or a different one.” Id. at 417. As the Supreme Court made clear, “[f]or the same
`
`reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique
`
`is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” Id.
`
`In order to determine whether there is an apparent reason to combine the known elements
`
`in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue, a court can “look to interrelated teachings of
`
`multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the
`
`marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art.” Id. at 418. For example, obviousness can be demonstrated by showing “there existed at the
`
`time of invention a known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the
`
`patent’s claims.” Id. at 420. “[A]ny need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time
`
`
`
`7
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2009-p. 10
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the
`
`manner claimed.” Id. Common sense also 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.” Id.
`
`Thus, the motivation to combine the teachings of the prior art references disclosed herein
`
`is found in the references themselves and/or: (1) the nature of the problem being solved; (2) the
`
`express, implied, and inherent teachings of the prior art; (3) the knowledge of persons of
`
`ordinary skill in the art; (4) the fact that the prior art is generally directed towards the same or
`
`similar problems; and/or (5) the predictable results obtained in combining the different elements
`
`of the prior art.
`
`In light of these principles and the factual context of the cellular industry, several general
`
`observations can be made:
`
`1.
`
`Portions of a Cellular Standard May Be Treated as a Single Reference
`
`As noted above, a person of ordinary skill in the cellular industry would know (or at least
`
`find it obvious) to read multiple portions of a cellular standard, as well as any technical
`
`contributions or proposals made by companies to change or modify that standard, alongside each
`
`other and in the context in which they were made. Moreover, such a person would know of
`
`earlier versions of the same standards and would consider such earlier versions in designing
`
`improved technology for later generations. Herein, the citation of a particular version of a
`
`standard provision should be deemed to include all earlier versions.
`
`Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would know that the portions of the
`
`same or similar version of a standard (cellular or otherwise) should be read together, and would
`
`also know that all other portions of a standard that cite to or from a given portion of a standard
`
`should be read together. Similarly, all documents cited and/or cross-referenced within a portion
`
`
`
`8
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2009-p. 11
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`of a standard should be read together with that standard document. Consequently, all documents
`
`cited herein that reflect some or all of a draft or final standard (including, but not limited to,
`
`standards developed by ETSI, 3GPP, IEEE, ITU, etc.) should be read to include all other
`
`documents of the same or similar release date reflecting other aspects of the same standard.
`
`Similarly, all standard documents cited herein include all documents cited or cross-referenced
`
`from the standard document as well as all other portions of the standard that cross-reference the
`
`standard document cited herein.
`
`2.
`
`It Was Known and Obvious to Support Standards in Actual Devices
`
`Cellular standards are designed to cover the interaction of mobile stations, base stations,
`
`and core network elements—and it thus would be known or obvious to support functionality set
`
`forth in a particular standard on a mobile phone. To be clear, just because a product is capable of
`
`operating on a standardized network, the product does not necessarily use each and every
`
`provision of the relevant standard(s), even if the network supports some features of that standard.
`
`For example, some provisions are optional. And, technical implementation details among
`
`products can vary without compromising their ability to operate in compliance with standards.
`
`But the existence of a standard specification makes the use of its provisions in network elements
`
`a known or obvious design choice among the menu of design options. In addition, it would be
`
`known or obvious to use well-known structures or components of mobile stations, such as
`
`receivers, transmitters, controllers, processors, demodulators, and decoders, to perform functions
`
`set forth in a standard specification.
`
`It would likewise be known or obvious to read different portions of a standard
`
`specification alongside each other, and to combine their functionalities. Moreover, it was known
`
`or obvious to use these functionalities in base stations and other network elements.
`
`
`
`* * * * *
`
`9
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2009-p. 12
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`C.
`
`The ’833 Patent
`
`As will be described in Apple’s forthcoming Response to Interrogatory No. 14, Apple
`
`disputes the November 13, 2007 priority date claimed by plaintiffs.
`
`1.
`
`Prior Art Patent References
`
`The following prior art patent references, including those patent references listed in
`
`Exhibits C-1 through C-7, anticipate and/or render obvious the asserted claims of the ’833 patent.
`
`Patent No. / Application No.
`
`Country of Origin
`
`Prior Art Date (Publication Date)
`
`8,467,367 (“Malladi 367”)
`
`United States
`
`August 6, 2007 (March 19, 2009)
`
`8,374,161 (“Malladi 161”)
`
`United States
`
`July 7, 2006 (April 17, 2008)
`
`Pub. No. 2006/0262871
`(“Cho”)
`
`
`
`United States
`
`November 23, 2006
`
`7,885,176 (“Pi”)
`
`United States
`
`June 1, 2007 (December 4, 2008)
`
`8,102,896 (“Pajukoski”)
`
`United States
`
`October 4, 2006 (October 2, 2008)
`
`8,363,606 (“Montojo”)
`
`8,619,889 (“Ghosh”)
`
`Pub. No. 2007/0121742
`(“Tamaki”)
`
`Pub. No. 2007/0211656
`(“Kwak”)
`
`Pub. No. 2006/0107171
`(“Skraparlis”)
`
`United States
`
`United States
`
`United States
`
`September 5, 2006 (April 24, 2008)
`
`January 10, 2007 (July 19, 2012)
`
`May 31, 2007
`
`United States
`
`September 13, 2007
`
`United States
`
`May 18, 2006
`
`2.
`
`Prior Art Publications
`
`The following prior art publications, including those publications listed in Exhibits C-1
`
`
`
`18
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2009-p. 13
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`through C-7, anticipate and/or render obvious the asserted claims of the ’833 patent.
`
`Title
`
`Date of Publication
`
`Author or Publisher
`
`R1-075037, 3GPP TSG RAN
`WG1 #51, “Update of 36.212”
`
`R1-073388, 3GPP TSG RAN
`WG1 #50, “UL L1/L2 Control
`Signals with Data:
`Multiplexing Detail”
`
`R1-073269, 3GPP TSG RAN
`WG1 #50, “Rate matching
`details for control and data
`multiplexing”
`
`November 6, 2007
`
`Qualcomm Europe
`
`August 15, 2007
`
`Motorola
`
`August 15, 2007
`
`Qualcomm Europe
`
`3GPP TS 36.212 V2.0.0
`
`September 24, 2007
`
`3rd Generation Partnership Project
`
`3GPP TS 36.212 V8.0.0
`
`September 27, 2007
`
`3rd Generation Partnership Project
`
`3GPP TS 36.201 V2.0.0
`
`September 24, 2007
`
`3rd Generation Partnership Project
`
`3GPP TS 36.201 V8.0.0
`
`September 27, 2007
`
`3rd Generation Partnership Project
`
`3GPP TS 36.211 V2.0.0
`
`September 24, 2007
`
`3rd Generation Partnership Project
`
`3GPP TS 36.211 V8.0.0
`
`September 27, 2007
`
`3rd Generation Partnership Project
`
`3GPP TS 36.213 V2.1.0
`
`September 24, 2007
`
`3rd Generation Partnership Project
`
`3GPP TS 36.213 V8.0.0
`
`September 27, 2007
`
`3rd Generation Partnership Project
`
`3GPP TS 36.300 V8.1.0
`
`July 17, 2007
`
`3rd Generation Partnership Project
`
`3GPP TS 36.300 V8.2.0
`
`October 5, 2007
`
`3rd Generation Partnership Project
`
`R1-073361, “Uplink Channel
`Interleaving”
`
`R1-073926, 3GPP TSG RAN
`WG1 #50bis, “Details of
`control and data multiplexing
`in PUSCH”
`
`R1-062740, 3GPP TSG RAN
`WG1 #46bis, “Single-Carrier
`
`August 15, 2007
`
`Motorola
`
`October 2, 207
`
`Qualcomm Europe
`
`October 4, 2006
`
`NTT DoCoMo, et al.
`
`
`
`19
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2009-p. 14
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`Title
`Based Multiplexing of Uplink
`L1/L2 Control Channel”
`
`R1-073094, 3GPP TSG RAN
`WG1 #49bis, “Control
`Signaling Location in Presence
`of Data in E-UTRA UL”
`
`R1-073572, 3GPP TSG RAN
`WG1 #50, “Control Signaling
`Location in Presence of Data
`in E-UTRA UL”
`
`R1-070205, 3GPP TSG RAN
`WG1 #47bis, “Uplink non-
`data-associated control
`signaling”
`
`R1-071308, 3GPP TSG RAN
`WG1 #48bis, “Uplink control
`signaling, ACK/NACK
`multiplexing”
`
`R1-070330, 3GPP TSG RAN
`WG1 #47bis, “Uplink control
`channel multiplexing”
`
`R1-073529, 3GPP TSG RAN
`WG1 #50, “PUCCH channel
`structure for TDD with FS2”
`
`R1-051039, 3GPP TSG RAN
`WG1 #42bis, “Data and
`Control Multiplexing in DFT-
`S-OFDM”
`
`R1-073842, 3GPP TSG RAN
`WG1 #50, “Notes from uplink
`control signaling discussions”
`
`R1-071000, 3GPP TSG RAN
`WG1 #48, “Data-non-
`associated control signal
`transmission with UL data”
`
`Date of Publication
`
`Author or Publisher
`
`June 20, 2007
`
`Samsung
`
`August 15, 2007
`
`Samsung
`
`January 20, 2007
`
`ZTE
`
`April 3, 2007
`
`ZTE
`
`January 10, 2007
`
`Samsung
`
`August 15, 2007
`
`CATT, et al.
`
`October 4, 2005
`
`Samsung
`
`August 29, 2007
`
`3GPP TSG RAN WG1
`
`February 6, 2007
`
`Nokia
`
`
`
`20
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2009-p. 15
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`Title
`
`Date of Publication
`
`Author or Publisher
`
`May 7, 2006
`
`Ericsson
`
`November 1, 2005
`
`Panasonic
`
`October 4, 2006
`
`Nokia
`
`March 21, 2006
`
`LG Electronics
`
`June 20, 2007
`
`Motorola
`
`November 4, 2007
`
`Ericsson
`
`October 31, 2007
`
`Panasonic
`
`May 2, 2006
`
`Samsung
`
`October 30, 2007
`
`Samsung
`
`R1-061366, 3GPP TSG RAN
`WG1 #45, “E-UTRA Uplink
`Control Signaling – Open
`Issues”
`
`R1-051395, 3GPP TSG RAN
`WG1 #43, “Mapping position
`of control channel for Uplink
`SC-FDMA”
`
`R1-062840, 3GPP TSG RAN
`WG1 #46bis, “TDM based
`Multiplexing Schemes
`between L1/L2 Control and
`UL Data”
`
`R1-060921, 3GPP TSG RAN
`WG1 #44bis, “Multiplexing of
`data and control in E-UTRA
`Uplink”
`
`R1-072671, 3GPP TSG RAN
`WG1 #49bis, “Uplink channel
`interleaving”
`
`R1-074832, 3GPP TSG RAN
`WG1 #51, “Update of 36.211”
`
`R1-074916, 3GPP TSG RAN
`WG1 #51, “Mapping position
`of control channel for Uplink
`Shared Channel”
`
`R1-061314, 3GPP TSG RAN
`WG1 #45, “Uplink
`ACK/NACK Performance:
`FDM vs TDM”
`
`R1-074783, 3GPP TSG RAN
`WG1 #51, “PUSCH-to-RE
`mapping for joint transmission
`of data and control on
`PUSCH”
`
`
`
`21
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2009-p. 16
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`Title
`
`Date of Publication
`
`Author or Publisher
`
`R1-074593, 3GPP TSG RAN
`WG1 #51, “UL ACK/NACK
`Resource Provisioning”
`
`R1-071429, 3GPP TSG RAN
`WG1 #48bis, “L1/L2 control
`signals with data: Multiplexing
`Detail”
`
`R1-074014, 3GPP TSG RAN
`WG1 #50bis, “Multiplexing of
`ACK/NACK and Data for
`U/L”
`
`R1-07