soa
`=“ -
`
`p9le7e
`
`PTO/SB/16 (12-04)
`Approved for use through 07/31/2006. OMB 0651-0032
`US. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`Underthe Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection ofinformation unless it displays a valid OMB control number.
`PROVISIONAL APPLICATION FOR PATENT COVER SHEET
`This is a request for filing a PROVISIONAL APPLICATION FOR PATENTunder 37 CFR 1.53(c).
`Express Mail Label No. EV 518897851 US
`
`SOC090
`
`
`
`hen Name(first and middle [ifany])|Family Name or Sumame Residence
`
`
`
`~
`City
`andeither State or Foreign Coun!
`
`
`me
`a
`Additional inventors are being named on the
`separately numbered sheets attached hereto
`0 =H
`TITLE OF THE INVENTION(500 characters max
`ne
`
`
`COLLABORATIVE MOBILE BROAD BAND (CMBB) SERVICE
`
`Ny
`
`i]
`===
`
`0
`
` :
`
`CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS
`Directall correspondenceto:
`XX
`The address corresponding to Customer Number:
`021971
`OR
`
`—
`
`Individual Name
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[ZipsdZip
`
`
`Telephone
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`& Applicant claims smallentity status. See 37 CFR 1.27.
`LL] Acheck or moneyorder is enclosed to cover the filing fee and application size fee (if applicable).
`
`
`LJ Paymentbycredit card. Form PTO-2038 is attached.
`XX] The Director is hereby authorized to chargefiling fee and applicable size fee (if applicable) or credit any overpaymentto Deposit
`
`
`
`
`Account Number:
`_23-2415 . A duplicative copy of this form is enclosed for fee processing.
`
`
`The invention was madeby an agency ofthe United States Governmentor under a contract with an agency ofthe United States Government.
`X] No.
`
`
`ment agency and the Government contract number(s) are:
`O Yes, the nameofthe U.S. Govg
`
`
` SIGNATURE
`
`Date:_June 3, 2005
`
`
`
`REGISTRATION NO.__39,666
`TYPED or PRINTED NAME
`__U.P.Peter Eng
`(ifappropriate)
`
`TELEPHONE_650-493-9300 Docket Number:__32354-701.101 -
`
`ENCLOSED APPLICATION PARTS(check all that app
`C) Application Data Sheet. See 37 CFR 1.76
`(] CD(s), Number
`&] Specification Number ofPages
`_20
`[X} Other (specify)
`&] Drawing(s) NumberofSheets
`7
`Application Size Fee:If the specification and drawings exceed 100 sheets of paper, the application size fee due is $250 ($125 for
`small entity) for each additional 50 sheets or fraction thereof. See 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(1)(G) and 37 CFR 1.16(s).
`
`_Appendix - 13 pages
`
`ly)
`
`.
`
`METHOD OF PAYMENTOF FILING FEES AND APPLICATION SIZE FEE FOR THIS PROVISIONAL APPLICATION FOR PATENT
`
`TOTAL FEE AMOUNT(8)
`100.00
`
`USE ONLY FOR FILING A PROVISIONAL APPLICATION FOR PATENT
`This collection of information is required by 37 CFR 1.51. The informationis required to obtain or retain a benefit by the public whichis to file (and by the USPTO
`to process) an application. Confidentiality is governed by 35 U.S.C. 122 and 37 CFR 1.14. This collection is estimated to take 8 hours to complete,
`including gathering, preparing, and submitting the completed application form to the USPTO. Timewill vary depending uponthe individual case. Any comments
`on the amountoftime you require to complete this form and/or suggestions for reducing this burden, should be sent to the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Patent
`and Trademark Office, U.S. Department of Commerce, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. DO NOT SEND FEES OR COMPLETED FORMSTO THIS
`ADDRESS. SEND TO: Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
`
`Jfyou need assistance in completing theform, call 1-800-PTO-9199 andselect option 2.
`
`C:\NrPortbI\PALIB NLCW\2667862_1.DOC
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1006
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1006
`
`

`

`WSGR 32354-701.101
`
`U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT APPLICATION
`
`COLLABORATIVE MOBILE BROAD BAND (CMBB) SERVICE
`
`Inventor(s):
`
`Shimon SCHERZER,
`Citizen of the United States, Residing at
`23185 Old Santa Cruz Hwy
`Los Gatos, CA 95033
`
`Entity:
`
`small business concern
`
`Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
`PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
`
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`(650) 493-9300
`(650) 493-6811
`
`Express Mail Label No. EV 518897851 US
`
`CANrPortb\PALIB1\LCV\2665994_1.DOC
`
`WSGRDocket No. 32354-701.101
`
`2
`
`

`

`COLLABORATIVE MOBILE BROAD BAND (CMBB) SERVICE
`
`DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
`
`[0001] While preferred embodiments of the present invention have been shown and described
`
`herein, it will be obvious to those skilled in the art that such embodiments are provided by way
`of example only. Numerousvariations, changes, and substitutions will now occur to those
`
`skilled in the art without departing from the invention. It should be understood that various
`alternatives to the embodiments of the invention described herein may be employedin practicing
`the invention. It is intended that the following claims define the scope of the invention andthat
`
`-
`
`methods andstructures within the scope of these claims and their equivalents be covered thereby.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Problem
`
`[0002] Future cellular service will be characterized by the ability to deliver broadband wireless
`services anytime, anywhere. This statement impliesthat mobility must be integral part of the
`offered services. The biggest challenge of broad band mobile service is, with no doubt,
`
`insufficient link budget: the ability to deliver enough electromagnetic energy to support the
`desired data rate. The majority of current wide area networks today are focusing on voice
`services (cellular and PCSprovideslike Sprint, Verizon, Singular etc.). While voice service |
`moves about 10Kbits/sec and just recently has managedto reach acceptable coverage, broadband
`service will require two orders of magnitude morebits/sec!
`In addition, the frequency range
`
`allocated to the newer technologies (3G, WiMaxetc.) is generally higher than current the range
`
`used by currentcellular services, further exasperating the path loss challenge. Thetraditional
`solution is increase ofinfrastructure density (numberofbasestations) by similar order; not very
`
`realistic.
`
`Commonly suggested solutions
`[0003] Multiple approaches to solve this problem have been suggested:
`e Much higherinfrastructure density infrastructure deployment as mentioned above.
`
`This approach can solve the problem (“brut-force approach”) but may very well be
`
`cost prohibitive: Adding many morebasestationsorfixed repeaters will be very
`
`CANrPortbI\PALIB1\LCV\2665994_1.DOC
`
`-2-
`
`3
`
`WSGRDocket No. 32354-701.101
`
`3
`
`

`

`costly (site cost, access rights, service (“truck roll”) and management), which mayput
`
`in question the whole business preposition of mobile broadband wirelessservice.
`e Mesh networks. One approach providing for acceptable link budgetis through relays
`and mesh networksrouting. While significantly reducing the cost ofbase stations
`backhaul,site cost, access rights, service (‘truck roll”) and managementis similar to
`
`“high density” solution above.
`
`It became obviousthat the cost of the hardware
`
`involved with relays is almost insignificant relative to the maintenancecost, hence the
`
`cost of a fixed network node (the relay) is not much different from a base station
`(zoning, access, truck-roll etc.). Furthermore, location ofrelays may not be optimal
`for the unpredictable locations of the subscribers, so relays density must be very high.
`
`e
`
`Smart antenna technology. While the smart antenna can add few dB’s to the link
`
`budget,it will not be able to increase the link budget as needed (~20 to 30DB).
`
`Proposed solution
`[0004] It becomesclear that traditional methodsto improve link budget will not suffice. The
`mobile broadbandwireless service is in need for a new, out-of-box solution. Wepropose a
`cross-disciplinary solution that crosses the boundaries of technology to exploit social behavior.
`[0005] Instead offixed, high density deployment of wireless network (cellular, mesh) we
`.
`propose an ad-hoc network that adjusts its deployment density to expected service demand. We
`
`exploit the fact that cars’ presence density is highly correlated to expected service volume.
`
`Studies have shown that a car owner(potential wireless service consumer) is seldom (<10%)
`
`farther than 100 yards from his car. Following this fact one can argue that the morecarsin the
`neighborhood,the higher the probability of wireless service demand. Although in some
`populations car owners maynotbe the majority, but the above correlation can still be
`
`substantiated. Byinstalling a broadband wirelessrelays in cars, cellular broadband coverage can
`
`be dynamically enhanced where mostly needed. The appearance of dual mode handsets on the
`
`market allows the subscriber station to alwaysrevert to traditional cellular service when relay
`
`connectivity is unavailable. Although significant value is gained by allowing each subscriber
`
`connect to the cellular network through a wireless relay in his car, to get the mostofthis
`
`improvement, these wireless relays should be shared between subscribers.
`
`[0006] This approach provides the desired performance for acceptable cost based on a whole
`
`new concept: collaborative wireless networking (CWN). This idea exploits the fact that wireless
`
`C:WNrPortbPALIBI\LCV\2665994_1.DOC
`
`-3-
`
`4
`
`WSGRDocket No. 32354-701.101
`
`4
`
`

`

`networks connections are normally established between a basestation andplurality of clients
`
`(subscriberstations). While each individual connection via a car can provide an average
`improvementin path loss and system gain budget(the car is normally not subjected to building
`penetration loss, minimal battery power, small antenna), aggregating (or selecting the best of)
`someof these connections can dramatically improve uponindividual, pre-selected connection.
`For example: while each subscriber station can generate very little transmission power, multiple
`
`subscriber’s stations with sufficient proximity to each other (and hence one subscribercan easily
`
`communicate with its close peers) could “join forces” to aggregate their transmission powerin
`
`order to overcomethe notorious uplink challenge.
`
`[0007] This approach may work well since technically: only small fraction of subscribersis
`
`being served at each period, hence for each subscriber we can engage multiple radios(that are
`
`free) at a time.
`[0008] The proposed solution can span across multiple service providers; a subscriber can use
`any service provider that offer broadbandservice, thereby increasing the numberofpossible
`
`connections and further improving the expected network performance. It is likely that a
`subscriberof one cellular service provider will carry traffic generated by a subscriber of another
`cellular service provider: files can be movedas attachments or data stream can be tunneled such
`
`‘that service operator cannot distinguish between his own subscribertraffic to “foreign”
`
`subscribertraffic. The actual implementation ofthis idea will be discussed below. Figure 1
`
`provides conceptual system architecture.
`
`[0009] Collaboration can be achievedif there is a compelling purpose. The Internet world has
`already been introducing collaborative behavior(file sharing, data routing, social networksetc.).
`
`A well known exampleis file sharing activity: In order to be able to access other people data
`
`bases, one must share its own. Furthermore,individuals are participating in the process of data
`
`minim byhosting various applications including indexing etc. In this case, collaborative
`
`behavior enables new and improving existing services. For example: high quality video
`
`presentations such as TV, movieclips etc. The proposed solution is an integrated package of
`
`technical and social methodsto achieve the desired services and performance. Wediscuss the
`
`social aspects in section 5.
`
`CANrPortbi\PA LIBINLCV\2665994_1.DOC
`
`WSGRDocket No. 32354-701.101
`
`-4-
`
`5
`
`

`

`COLLABORATIVE MOBILE BROAD BAND SOLUTION
`
`|
`General
`[0010] We propose a Collaborative Wireless networking (CWN) methodfor using multiple radio
`links (ex. car to cell site connections) to support multiple subscribers: at each instance subscriber
`can be served byeither one out ofmany or few outofradio links. Similar to file sharing where
`the traded commodity is data, here we are trading with network bandwidth; bandwidth sharing.
`This way weuseplurality of connections to serve each subscriber.
`
`[0011] The plurality of connections can be exploited by combining (“connection combining”) or
`selecting the best connection out ofa given set (“connection selection”). Connection combining
`can be done bysplitting the data stream through multiple radios with more data running through
`the higher quality connections andless data running through the lower quality connections.
`Connectionselection will run data only through the best connection. Connection combiningis
`superior to connection selection (maximum ratio combining VS. switched diversity) The
`connection selection approach is obviously simpler, and due to the large variance in wireless
`connections quality, good selection is expected to perform not much worse than connection
`combining. Some communication systemsare natural for this approach; for example OFDMA.
`With OFDMAmultiple radios can share the link byutilizing orthogonalsets of sub-carriers.
`Other systems like CDMA can share orthogonal codes.
`[0012] To facilitate CWN weneedto establish “neighborhood radio node groups” (NRG); one
`possibility to increase the probability of existence of NRG wecould usecarsasradio
`nodes/relays. In a preferred embodimenteach relay will communicate with the cellular network
`using any cellular protocol (UMTS, 1XEVDO, WiMax) and use WiFi to connect to mobile
`subscribers: The bridge from cellular to WiFi can be deployedin cars, houses etc. The underline
`principleis this bridgesis that the bridge is owned bythe subscriber (unlike traditional repeaters)
`and not bythe service provider. Even if only small fraction of the subscribers will be equipped
`with these bridges, herein referred to as broadband relay (BBR), we should expect tremendous
`numberofrelays and consequently goodselection.
`
`[0013] Facilitating this approach requires collaboration between subscribers. Assuming the
`BBRsare to be deployed within the service subscribers’ cars, each subscriber must be willing to
`allow service to other subscribers go through the BBR deployedinhis car.
`
`CANrPortbI\PALIBI\LCV\2665994_1.DOC
`
`WSGRDocket No. 32354-701.101
`
`6
`
`

`

`‘
`
`‘Connection combining” implementation
`
`[0014] As mentioned above, connection combining provides for similar benefits as provided by
`
`maximum ratio combining method used to enhancereceiving performance incellular
`applications.
`
`[0015] Each BBRis periodically publishingits cellular connection quality (CCQ) through WiFi
`‘beacons. CCQ is calculated by C/N+I at BBR’s cellular receiver port. This is particularly
`important for interference limited cellular environment: at each location both serving signal level
`
`andinterference contributed by neighboring cells may vary considerable. Selection based on
`
`C/N+I can be much more powerful than based on received signal strength (RSSI) only.
`
`[0016] Subscriber unit can simultaneously be connected to multiple BBRsofchoice(set of
`BBRswith best CCQ). The subscriber unit than split its traffic through the selected BBRsin
`proportionto their reported CCQ. The network follows the subscriberunit traffic splitting and
`uses the samesplitting ratio.
`
`[0017] Obviously, this approach will require significant changes in WiFiclient behavior,
`
`including association and authentication. To enable use of an existing base of WiFiclients,
`
`multiple BBRs can be programmedto imitate a single WiFi access point. Asubscriber unit
`associates with one primary BBR. Neighboring BBRsthat overhear thissubscriber (and also
`hear the primary BBR)report to the primary BBRtheir subscriber reception quality (could be
`
`RSSIor ratio between RSSIandinterference or similar metric). The primary BBR than may
`assign the reporting (secondary) BBRsa portion ofthetraffic to be communicated to the cellular
`network. The assignment can be based on IP frame numberor similar approach.’ In this case
`each secondary BBR uses promiscuous WiFi modeto receivetraffic from the non-associated
`client. This approach will require a “proxy”sever that resides on the IP network behind the
`cellular network (see Figure 2).to recombine the IP data up-stream andsplit the IP traffic down-
`
`stream accordingly.
`ee
`
`Connection selection” implementation
`[0018] Although the connection combining is the preferred approach,“connection selection”
`maynotbe far inferior when large variation of CCQis expected (typical for urban, downtown
`
`environment). Connection selection is simpler to implementsince notraffic proxy is needed:
`
`each subscriber unit selects the best path by choosing the BBRthat publishes the best CCQinits
`
`neighborhood(Figure 3).
`
`CANrPortbI\PALIBI\LCV\2665994_1.DOC
`
`WSGRDocket No. 32354-701.101
`
`7
`
`

`

`[0019] BBRsare spread at the coverage area. At each time BBRswithbest CCQ are selected as
`active servers. The selection processis executed in a distributed method as discussed below.
`Subscriberunits are looking for the serving BBRs and associate with them (association process
`following 802.11 methodsincluding 802.1x for security management).
`[0020] Each active BBR publishes its CCQ value (can be done through beacon). A BBRthat
`has lower CCQ valueby pre-defined marginrelative to neighbor BBR will switch into secondary
`BBR modeandassociate with the stronger CCQ BBR (become a WDSunit, relay and will not
`conversedirectly with the cellular network). When more than one BBRis found in the
`neighborhood with higher CCQ, the BBRwill associate with the higher CCQ-BBR (unless
`association is rejected, and than will associate with the next higher CCQ BBR). When a BBR
`doesnotidentify a higher CCQ BBRinits neighborhood,it set itself to be a primary BBRand
`‘connect directly to cellular network.
`.
`[0021] This approach assumes CCQ haslarge varianceas a result of shadowing and Raleigh
`fading (relative to simple geometric loss). Figure 4 describes connections topologythat is
`created based on the aboverule: the red units represent BBRs with high CCQ, the orange-
`medium CCQandthe yellow - low CCQ. Since shadowingpathlossis by far the dominantloss
`(log-normal with 8dB standard deviation) andpath loss correlation length is typically far smaller
`than distance from BBRto cellular base station, we expect many primary BBRs(eachselected
`by local maxima of CCQ).
`[0022] The primary BBR margin can becalculated by comparing the bandwidth achievable by
`connectingdirectly to cellular network or through the selected BBR.
`[0023] When a subscriber terminalis activated, it will follow 802.11 proceduresof association
`and authentication. Hence, subscriber terminal maybe associated with the lowest path loss
`(indicated by beacon’s RSSI) BBRinits neighborhood(unless rejected, and than associate with
`the next lower path loss BBR).
`
`Comment: BBR can be implemented using 802.11 based nodes, cellular connection
`(GSM, CDMA, and WiMax) or a scheduled radio (for betterperformance). When implemented
`as a scheduled radio the primary BBR can provide transmission schedule to its associated BBRs
`andtherefore reduce back-offeffects. Scheduled BBRs arrangementwill befarther discussed
`later.
`
`CANrPortbI\PALIBI\LCV\2665994_1.DOC
`
`WSGRDocket No. 32354-701.101
`
`8
`
`

`

`Comment: The rationalfor equal numberofsubscribers and BBRs is asfollows: the
`
`numberofclients that cellular operatorwill see will not change as a result ofintroducing the
`BBRs. Operator can deliver more bandwidth (service) as number ofBBRs increases. A
`subscriber is motivated to play sincein this schemeheis getting better service. Thefirst
`
`subscriberwill have already better service since in substantial percentageofthe time he is not
`farfrom his car (BBR). This servicewill keep improving as more BBRsare added.
`
`Networking
`
`[0024] The proposed network spans over multiple service provides (operators), as seen in Figure
`
`5. Subscribers mayselect any cellular service provider that provides IP connectivity (most
`
`currently do, over 2G, 3G and future WiMax). BBRsare expected to be deployed in subscribers’
`cars (as hand-free devices). Subscriber may connect to his own car or a carthat incorporates a
`
`BBR(BBRcan beinstalled in houses as well); BBRs can connectdirectly to base station (BTS)
`or other BBRsin their neighborhood (recognized to have superior connection quality).
`[0025] Whenevera subscriberis associating, its association is processed by the network’s
`
`admission control server (using RADIUS for‘example) that handles:
`
`e
`
`Subscriber’s BBRstatus (active, turnedoff etc.).
`
`-e Billing
`
`e Authentication
`
`e Mobility (handover) support
`
`o Encryption keysdistribution
`
`o Traffic load balancing
`
`o Ete.
`
`e
`
`Software updates
`
`e Maintenance
`
`e Etc.
`
`[0026] The idea is to make sure that numberof subscribers is approximately equal number of
`
`BBRs.
`[0027] Increasing the number ofBBRs can be accomplished by giving discountor service
`preferences to subscribers whoare willing to install BBR in their cars. These subscribers will
`
`CANrPortbi\PALIBI\LCV\2665994_1.DOC
`
`WSGRDocket No. 32354-701.101
`
`-8-
`
`9
`
`

`

`makesure“their BBRs”are operational since the BBR operation is used to authenticate them
`
`with the network.
`
`[0028] A subscriber unit can also connectdirectly to cellular network if possible.
`
`PERFORMANCEDISCUSSION
`
`General
`
`[0029] The service quality will generally be determined bythe ratio between the number of
`
`BBRsand the numberofsubscribers: since each subscriber activity duty cycle is expected to be
`less than 10% (typically 5%) each subscriber can enjoythe full bandwidth of primary BBR
`
`connection, provided the BBR to subscriberratio is approximately one. If this ratio is reduced
`(not every subscriber owns a BBR)the service quality will be reduced accordingly.
`[0030] The aboveservice quality is assumed when BBRsand subscribersare relatively isolated;
`
`when BBRsand subscribers density increases, westart seeing the regular 802.11 limitations on
`
`bandwidth. This issue can be partially mitigated by automatic channel allocation (there are
`different implementation approaches) such that neighboring BBRsare not going to share same
`
`channel.
`
`[0031] Proposed system performanceis best evaluated relative to existing wireless network
`
`solutions. We assume connection quality between base station and any BBRis based on the
`
`typical wide area network implementation, including smart modulation type (CDMA, TDMA,
`OFDMAetc.), antenna arrangements (receive diversity, transmit diversity, MIMOetc.),
`transmission poweretc. The proposed solution is improving on top of anythoseexiting
`
`technologies.
`[0032] To evaluate the proposed solution performance we rememberthat the gain is achieved
`_
`similarly to multi-branch diversity based on maximum ratio combining (MRC)or selection
`diversity. In the uplink the system will enjoy both power combining anddiversity gain (adding
`multiple radios powers with proper weighting) while in the downlink we expect only diversity
`gain (best base station’s connection to BBRisselected).
`
`Comment: since coherent transmission combining may be very hard (although should be
`
`considered), power weighting is achieved by shaping the trafficfrom subscriber terminalto base
`
`station such that more traffic is handled by the BBRs that have better connection quality. In
`
`CANrPortbI\PALIBI\LCV\2665994_1.DOC
`
`-9-
`
`10
`
`WSGRDocket No. 32354-701.101
`
`10
`
`

`

`extreme case, the weight can be “1”for the best BBR and “0”for all the others such that the
`MRCis reducedto selection ofbets path = selection diversity.
`[0033] Connection quality to cellular network should be calculated based on signal to
`interference plus noise ratio. Static relay has a fixed connection; if neighboring cell site becomes
`
`very loaded, the system cannot switch to a different connection.
`
`[0034] Solving the maintenance problem (servicing BBR) allowsfor great increase of numberof
`
`BBRs,thereby increasing the connection choice, thereby improving the network performance.
`
`Comment: Increasing the choice providesfor car battery power saving: the serving time
`
`can be divided between multiple BBRs, henceless battery usagefor each individual BBR’s car.
`
`Calculations
`
`[0035] The scenario is that of a car based wirelessrelay is talking to a mobile subscriber. The
`link between the mobile subscriber and the bridge is assumed to be good with typical penetration
`loss (~25dB), and is not considered here (penetration loss is assumed to be the same as for wide
`
`area network hencenot being taken in accountin relative advantage calculations).
`
`Mobile vs. Car-based Unit
`
`[0036] Having a car-based unit has several advantages over a mobile subscriber (MS)
`
`Highertransmit power: MS 24 dBn,Bridge 36 dBm
`Better antenna:
`MS: 0 dBi, car mountrelay: 6 dBi
`
`[0037] Assumingthecaris stationary and the MS maybe moving,the bridge will require a
`
`smaller fade margin than the MS. Assume a 3dBdifference.
`
`[0038] This providesatotal link budget advantage of 12 + 6 + 3 = 21 dB forthe car-basedrelay.
`
`
`
`Multiplevs.SingleCar-BasedUnits
`
`[0039] While using the wireless relay can provide about 20dB advantage in average, one must
`
`consider the variance:case the car is not located in a location that either provide for good cellular
`
`connectivity or WiFi connectivity to the subscriber. In this case the collaborative mechanism
`
`described above provides for variance reduction and further like budget advantage.
`
`[0040] To see the additional advantage of using multiple cars we assumethat the cars are located
`
`not far from each other so they have the same geometric path loss but independent lognormal
`
`shadowing loss. Because the cars are stationary we assumethatthere is no Raleigh fading.
`
`CANrPortbI\PALIBINLCV\2665994_1.DOC
`
`-10-
`14
`
`WSGRDocket No. 32354-701.101
`
`11
`
`

`

`Considera strategy of“connection selection” (always picking the bridge whichhasthelargest
`SNR).
`|
`
`[0041] Figure 6 showsthe probability that the SNR of the selected wireless relay will exceed the
`
`SNR value on the x-axis for different numbers of wireless relays. If we want, for example,to
`
`have a 99% level of guaranteed SNR wesee that having 2 wireless relays give an 6 dB advantage
`overa single relay, having 3 relays give an 9 dB advantage, and having 4 relays give an 11 dB
`
`advantage.
`
`BBR STRUCTURE
`[0042] The BBRis a “smart bridge” between cellular service and WiFi. The preferred
`embodimentincorporates a “hand-free”kit that includes external mount antenna. The simple
`_ antennacan be replaced by antennaarray(diversity, beam-forming etc.) to further improve
`system performance. The cell-phone cradle contains the WiFi access point hardware (dual
`radio). Other BBR packaging solutionsare possible such as homechargingcradle,the cell-
`phoneitself (WiFi is being integrated with cell-phones now)andothers.
`
`[0043] Figure 7 provides a car mount BBRblock diagram to include:
`
`1. Modified hand-free cradle that can be secured to car dashboard.
`
`2. A dual radio WiFi access point with router (allowing operations at the 2.4GHz and
`
`5.8GHz ranges.
`
`3. An optional PA/LNAboosterfor cellular handset (transmission power amplifier and
`low noise receiving amplifier and associated circuitry).
`_ 4. An Optional antenna array adaptor to providefor better diversity for cellular radio
`and WiFiradios. This adaptor can be further enhanced to provide other “smart
`antenna” solutions, exploiting the ability to mount larger antennaarray aspart ofthe
`
`vehicle.
`
`5. Power supply/adaptor allows the BBR to use car battery. This unit may include
`voltage level gage to provide for low battery indication. Whenbattery level
`deteriorates (as a result ofover-usage, for example) the power supply/adaptor may
`cutoff the BBR operation.
`
`' 6. Multi-band antennaarray will serve bother WiFi and cellular units. WiFi service
`
`requires 2.4GHZ and 5.8GHz range. Cellular need to cover 800MHz, 900MHz,
`
`C:\NrPortb\PALIBI\LCV\2665994_1.DOC
`
`-11-
`12
`
`WSGRDocket No. 32354-701.101
`
`12
`
`

`

`1900MHz, 2.1GHzfor existing cellular networks. WiMax will require 2.5GHz,
`5.8GHZ, and 3.5GHz. Onearray “fits all” may be very challenging hence antenna
`
`elements may be interchangeable. In a minimal configuration, the cellular handset
`
`could useits integral antenna.
`
`.
`
`[0044] The advantages of car based implementation:
`
`e Large power source allows higher TX power than subscriber unit
`e Large surfaces allows antenna array plays
`
`e Large numberofalternatives
`e Deploying the BBRson carssolves oneofthe biggest cost issues mentioned above;
`BBRscan be drivento repair shop, thereby avoiding truck-rolls and access. BBR will
`__ be served similar to regular cell-phone.
`e BBR can be combined with other devices commonly installed in cars:
`
`o “Hand-frée” cell phonecradle.
`
`o Navigation system
`
`o Car phones
`
`o Radar detectors
`
`o Collision avoidance warning device
`
`BUSINESS MODEL
`
`General
`
`[0045] Although even a single BBRwill bring a substantial valueto its user (as any radio
`repeater), increasing the BBR populationis fundamentalto a very robust wireless broadband
`service. To quickly expedite the deployment of BBRs weneeda “grassroots” process. Social
`
`networking maybe a good mean to achieve this. Successful social networkingproliferation
`requires an undisputable paybackto the participants;in this case, there must be some “killer”
`
`application(s) that is enabled once you “join the party”. In this section we examinecollaboration
`
`examplesthat lead to fast technology/service proliferation and possible “added values”or
`
`applications that maytrigger collaboration in our case.
`
`C:ANrPortbI\PALIBI\LCV\2665994_1.DOC
`
`-12-
`13
`
`,
`
`WSGRDocket No. 32354-701.101
`
`13
`
`

`

`Collaboration examples
`
`The Internet
`
`[0046] The explosive diffusion of the Internet into some countries such as the United States was
`
`also accompaniedbytheproliferation of virtual communities. The nature of those communities
`and communicationsis rather diverse, and the benefits are not necessarily realized, or pursued,
`by many. At the sametime, it is rather commonplace to see anecdotes of someonein need of
`
`special help or in search of a community benefiting from the use of the Internet.
`
`[0047] Since the late 1990s this original idea of topic-specific information exchange has evolved
`
`again leading to professional networksof all kinds. Nowadaysonlineportals specifically
`designedfor a certain industry or profession serve again as topic related exchangeplatforms.
`Such specific B2B platforms range from more genera! networksfor the creation of personal
`networks[[1] (http://www.openbc.com)] (for general B2B Topics), various IT-related
`
`communities such as experts-exchange.com (http://www.experts-exchange.com/), [php-
`
`classes.org (http://www.php-classes.org)], to highly specified professional communities for
`
`medicals or such for linguists (e.g. [2] (hitp:/(www.babelport.com) babelport,
`
`[3] (hitp://www.translatorscafe.com), proz.com).
`
`“small world”’
`
`[0048] The small world phenomenon(also known as the small world effect) is the hypothesis
`
`that everyone in the world can be reached through a short chain of social acquaintances. The
`
`concept gaverise to the famous phrase six degrees of separation after a 1967 small world
`
`experiment by psychologist Stanley Milgram which found that two random UScitizens were
`
`connected by an average of six acquaintances. However, after more than thirty years its status as
`
`a description of heterogeneoussocial networks(such as the aforementioned "everyonein the
`
`world") still remains an open question. Remarkablylittle research has been donein this area
`since the publication ofthe original paper.
`[0049] After the discovery ofWatts and Strogatz, Albert-Laszlé Barabasi from the Physics
`Department at the University ofNotre Dame was ableto find a simpler model for the emergence
`of the small world phenomenon. While Watts' model was able to explain the high clustering
`
`coefficient and the short average path length of a small world, it lacked an explanation for
`another property foundin real-world networkssuch as the Internet: these networksare scale-free.
`
`,
`CANrPortbI\PALIBI\LCV\2665994_1.DOC
`
`-13-
`14
`
`WSGRDocket No. 32354-701.101
`
`14
`
`

`

`In simple terms, this meansthat they contain relatively few highly interconnected super nodes or
`
`hubs: the vast majority of nodes are weakly connected, and the connectednessratio of the nodes
`
`remains the same whatever size the network has attained. If a network is scale-free, it is also a
`
`small world.
`[0050] Barabasi's scale-free modelis strikingly simple, elegant, and intuitive. To produce an
`artificial scale-free network possessing the small world properties, two basic rules must be
`
`followed:
`
`e Growth: the network is seeded with a small numberofinitial nodes. In every timestep, a
`
`new nodeis added. This new nodeis connected to m existing nodes.
`
`e Preferential Attachment: the probability of a newly added node connecting to an
`existing node n depends on the degr