Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,860,044
`
`Case IPR2021-TBD
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest ............................................................................ 1
`B.
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 1
`C.
`Counsel and Service Information .......................................................... 2
`D.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4): Service Information ........................................ 3
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ....................................... 3
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................. 3
`V. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................... 4
`A.
`Prior Art References .............................................................................. 4
`B.
`Relief Requested .................................................................................... 5
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY ......................................................... 5
`VII. THE ’044 PATENT ......................................................................................... 9
`A.
`Claims .................................................................................................... 9
`B.
`Summary of the Specification ............................................................... 9
`C.
`Summary of the Prosecution History ..................................................12
`D.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .....................................................13
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................14
`IX. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART .............................................................14
`A. Overview of Motorola .........................................................................14
`B. Overview of LTE Release 8 Standards (TS36.211, TS36.213) ..........16
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`
`X.
`
`SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ......................................................21
`A. Ground I: The Combination of Motorola and LTE Release 8
`TS36.211 and TS36.213 Renders Obvious All Challenged
`Claims ..................................................................................................21
`1.
`Reasons To Combine Motorola with LTE Release 8
`TS36.211 and TS36.213 Standards ...........................................21
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................................24
`2.
`Dependent Claim 2....................................................................40
`3.
`Dependent Claim 3....................................................................42
`4.
`Dependent Claim 4....................................................................45
`5.
`Dependent Claim 5....................................................................46
`6.
`Dependent Claim 6....................................................................48
`7.
`Dependent Claim 7....................................................................48
`8.
`Dependent Claim 8....................................................................51
`9.
`10. Dependent Claim 9....................................................................52
`11. Dependent Claim 10 .................................................................54
`12. Dependent Claim 11 .................................................................57
`13. Dependent Claim 15 .................................................................59
`14. Dependent Claim 16 .................................................................59
`15.
`Independent Claim 17 ...............................................................60
`16.
`Independent Claim 18 ...............................................................61
`17. Dependent Claim 19 .................................................................64
`18. Dependent Claim 20 .................................................................64
`19. Dependent Claim 21 .................................................................64
`20. Dependent Claim 22 .................................................................64
`21. Dependent Claim 23 .................................................................64
`22. Dependent Claim 24 .................................................................64
`23. Dependent Claim 25 .................................................................65
`24. Dependent Claim 26 .................................................................65
`25. Dependent Claim 27 .................................................................65
`26.
`Independent Claim 33 ...............................................................65
`27. Dependent Claim 34 .................................................................67
`28. Dependent Claim 35 .................................................................67
`29. Dependent Claim 36 .................................................................67
`30. Dependent Claim 37 .................................................................68
`31. Dependent Claim 38 .................................................................68
`32. Dependent Claim 39 .................................................................68
`33. Dependent Claim 40 .................................................................68
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`
`34. Dependent Claim 41 .................................................................68
`XI. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ...........................................................69
`XII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................69
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc.,
`463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 69
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 14
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 69
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ................................................................................................. 4, 5
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................... 13
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................ 13
`35 U.S.C. § 282(b) ................................................................................................... 14
`35 U.S.C. §315(e)(1) .................................................................................................. 3
`Rules
`Rule 42.104(a) ............................................................................................................ 3
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42 ............................................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)(1) .............................................................................................. 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)(3) .............................................................................................. 3
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 14
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044 (“the ’044 Patent”)
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`
`Declaration of Dr. Apostolos K. Kakaes, Ph.D. in Support of Petition
`for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Apostolos K. Kakaes
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,497,004
`
`3GPP R1-082999 (“Panasonic”)
`
`3GPP R1-090792 (“Motorola”)
`
`3GPP R1-083679 (“Docomo”)
`
`3GPP TS 36.211 v8.5.0 (“TS36.211”)
`
`3GPP TS 36.212 v8.5.0 (“TS36.212”)
`
`3GPP TS 36.213 v8.5.0 (“TS36.213”)
`
`3GPP TS 36.331 v8.5.0 (“TS36.331”)
`
`LTE - The UMTS Long Term Evolution (“Sesia 2011”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0098012 (“Bala”)
`
`LTE for UMTS - OFDMA and SC-FDMA Based Radio Access
`(“Holma”)
`Rodermund Declaration Regarding Public Availability of 3GPP
`Standards and 3GPP Tdocs
`LTE - The UMTS Long Term Evolution: From Theory to Practice
`(1st Ed.) (“Sesia 2009”)
`Declaration of Rachel Watter in Support of Public Availability for
`LTE for UMTS - OFDMA and SC-FDMA Based Radio Access,
`Holma, H. and Toskala, A. (2009)
`
`vi
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`
`Petitioner Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung” or “Petitioner”)
`
`requests inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1-11, 15-27 and 33-41 (the
`
`“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044 (Ex. 1001, “the ’044 Patent”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The ’044 Patent is directed to Physical Uplink Control CHannel (PUCCH)
`
`resource allocation for carrier aggregation in LTE-Advanced. The alleged point of
`
`novelty of the ’044 Patent is an allocation of PUCCH resources that would support
`
`asymmetric carrier aggregation, and that reserves different sets of radio resources of
`
`the same uplink component carrier for user equipment such as cell phones (UEs) to
`
`transmit control information depending on whether they operate in carrier
`
`aggregation mode or single carrier mode. This Petition demonstrates that such an
`
`allocation of PUCCH resources in support of asymmetric carrier aggregation was
`
`well known in the art at the time of the alleged invention. The Challenged Claims
`
`should therefore be canceled as obvious and unpatentable.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and
`
`Samsung Research America are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`Petitioner is not aware of any related matters that may affect, or may be
`
`affected by, decisions in this proceeding.
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`
`Todd M. Friedman, P.C. (No. 42,559)
`todd.friedman@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`Telephone: (212) 446-4800
`Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
`
`James E. Marina (No. 41,969)
`james.marina@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`Telephone: (212) 446-4800
`Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
`Bao Nguyen (No. 46,062)
`bao.nguyen@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street, 27th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: (415) 439-1400
`Facsimile: (415) 439-1500
`
`Kevin Bendix (No. 67,164)
`kevin.bendix@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 South Flower Street, Suite 3700
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (213) 680-8400
`Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
`
`Jon R. Carter (No. 75,145)
`jon.carter@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`Telephone: (212) 446-4800
`Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4): Service Information
`D.
`Samsung concurrently submits a Power of Attorney, 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b),
`
`and consents to electronic service directed to the following email address:
`
`Samsung_Ericsson_IPR@kirkland.com.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.15(a)(1) for this Petition to Deposit Account No. 506092. Review of thirty
`
`three (33) claims is requested, and the undersigned authorizes the Office to charge
`
`the fee for 13 excess claims, as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)(3), to the above-
`
`referenced deposit account. The undersigned further authorizes payment for any
`
`additional fees that may be due in connection with this Petition to be charged to the
`
`above-referenced deposit account.
`
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the ’044 Patent is available
`
`for IPR and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR of the
`
`Challenged Claims on the grounds identified in this Petition. Petitioner certifies: (1)
`
`Petitioner is not the owner of the ’044 Patent; (2) Petitioner (or any real party-in-
`
`interest) has not filed a civil action challenging the validity of any claim of the ’044
`
`Patent; (3) Petitioner has not been served with a complaint asserting infringement of
`
`the ’044 Patent; (4) estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. §315(e)(1) do not prohibit this
`
`IPR; and (5) this Petition is filed after the ’044 Patent was granted.
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of the Challenged Claims of the ’044
`
`Patent and requests that they be canceled.
`
`Prior Art References
`A.
`Petitioner’s challenge is based on the following prior art references:
`
`• R1-090792, “Control Signalling Design for Supporting Carrier Aggregation,”
`
`3GPP TSG RAN1 Meeting #56, submitted by Motorola to 3GPP for discussion
`
`on February 9-13, 2009 (hereinafter “Motorola”, Ex. 1007). Motorola was
`
`publicly available no later than February 3, 2009 based on 3GPP records and is
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).1 Ex. 1016 (Rodermund Decl.), ¶¶21, 51-56.
`
`• “Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA) Physical Channels and
`
`Modulation,” 3GPP TS 36.211, Version 8.5.0 (Release 8), published December
`
`2008 (hereinafter “TS36.211”, Ex. 1009). TS36.211 was publicly available no
`
`later than December 18, 2008 based on 3GPP records and is prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(a). Ex. 1016 (Rodermund Decl.), ¶¶22, 57-59.
`
`• “Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA) Physical layer
`
`procedures,” 3GPP TS 36.213, Version 8.5.0 (Release 8), published December
`
`
`1 Based on the claimed October 5, 2009 priority date of the ’044 Patent, Pre-AIA
`
`versions of § 102(a) and § 103 apply.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`
`2008 (hereinafter “TS36.213”, Ex. 1011). TS36.213 was publicly available no
`
`later than December 22, 2008 based on 3GPP records and is prior art under under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a). Ex. 1016 (Rodermund Decl.), ¶¶23, 60-62.
`
`B. Relief Requested
`Petitioner requests cancellation of the Challenged Claims as unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The specific grounds of the challenge are set forth below,
`
`and are supported by the Declaration of Dr. Apostolos (Paul) Kakaes (Ex. 1003).
`
`Ground
`I
`
`Basis
`§ 103
`
`Challenged Claims
`1-11, 15-27, 33-41
`
`References
`Motorola, TS36.211,
`TS36.213
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`In a wireless communication network such as an LTE (4G) network, a base
`
`station and a UE communicate via signals transmitted wirelessly over the air. Ex.
`
`1003, ¶34. Transmission from the base station to the UE is referred to as downlink
`
`(DL) transmission, and transmission from the UE to the base station is referred to as
`
`uplink (UL) transmission. Id. The transmission bandwidth, or chunk of spectrum,
`
`available for UL or DL transmission is a key parameter for determining the peak
`
`data rate that a UE can operate at. Id., ¶35. For example, a data rate in the order of
`
`1 Gbps (gigabit per second) requires a transmission bandwidth of at least 40 MHz.
`
`Ex. 1013 (Sesia 2011), 618. In legacy 4G LTE (LTE Release 8) systems that were
`
`already deployed in and around 2008, peak data rates were limited by the fact that
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`
`the largest chunk of spectrum, also called a component carrier, available for a base
`
`station to communicate with a UE was 20 MHz, i.e., the largest component carrier
`
`that was defined was 20 MHz. Ex. 1003, ¶35; Ex. 1013 (Sesia 2011), 618.
`
`By 2009, the industry and the 3GPP standards body had already started work
`
`on further advancement of LTE beyond LTE Release 8, called LTE-Advanced. Ex.
`
`1003, ¶36; Ex. 1001, 1:23-30; Ex. 1013, 616-617. A key target of LTE-Advanced
`
`was to support increased transmission bandwidths of up to 100 MHz with
`
`corresponding increase in peak data rates. Ex. 1003, ¶36; Ex. 1001, 1:23-30; Ex.
`
`1013, 616-617. This higher transmission bandwidth is achieved through carrier
`
`aggregation, whereby multiple chunks of spectrum (component carriers) are
`
`aggregated and jointly used for transmission to/from a user terminal (UE). Ex. 1003,
`
`¶37; Ex. 1013, 623-624; Ex. 1001, 1:30-40. Carrier aggregation enables more
`
`capable later-model UEs (“LTE-A UEs”) to exploit carrier aggregation to operate at
`
`a much higher bandwidth (up to 100 MHz) and correspondingly higher peak data
`
`rate, while maintaining backward compatibility because legacy UEs (i.e., LTE Rel-
`
`8 UEs) can still operate at bandwidths up to 20 MHz using a single component
`
`carrier. Ex. 1006 (Panasonic), 1 (“Support of wider bandwidth is one of [the]
`
`important enhancements for LTE Advanced. Carrier aggregation has been proposed
`
`in order to support backward compatibility to LTE UEs and higher peak throughput
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`
`to LTE-A UEs simultaneously.”); Ex. 1007 (Motorola), 5; Ex. 1008 (Docomo), 6;
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶38.
`
`In carrier aggregation, the number of aggregated component carriers may be
`
`different for DL and UL. Ex. 1003, ¶39. This configuration is called asymmetric
`
`carrier aggregation and is illustrated in the Docomo figure below. Id.; Ex. 1008, 4.
`
`As shown, a DL communication is transmitted over four aggregated downlink
`
`component carriers (color coded in blue, yellow, magenta and green respectively),
`
`which can be of different bandwidths. Ex. 1003, ¶39; Ex. 1008, 4. If each
`
`component carrier illustrated in the Docomo figure is at the 20 MHz maximum
`
`bandwidth, the aggregated DL transmission bandwidth is 80 MHz. Ex. 1003, ¶39;
`
`Ex. 1008, 4.
`
`Ex. 1008, 4. In this asymmetric carrier aggregation scenario, a UL communication
`
`is transmitted using two uplink component carriers (instead of 4 component carriers
`
`as in DL), annotated as UL1 and UL2 (purple). Ex. 1003, ¶40; Ex. 1008, 4. As
`
`shown, the two leftmost blue and yellow DL component carriers are jointly paired
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`
`with one UL component carrier (UL1), while the two rightmost magenta and green
`
`DL component carriers are jointly paired with the other UL component carrier
`
`(UL2). Ex. 1008, 7 (“DL/UL linkage”); Ex. 1003, ¶40.
`
`This pairing affects in particular the transmission of UL control signals from
`
`the UE to the base station. Ex. 1003, ¶41. Independent of (and prior to) carrier
`
`aggregation, a UE transmits various types of control information in the UL. Id. In
`
`particular, it transmits positive or negative acknowledgment (ACK/NACK)
`
`messages to the base station to inform the base station that it has correctly received
`
`information sent to it by the base station (ACK) or that the information is corrupted
`
`and not correctly received (NACK). Id.; Ex. 1007, 7; Ex. 1008, 13-14. The
`
`ACK/NACK and other UL control signals are transmitted to the base station on the
`
`PUCCH (Physical Uplink Control CHannel). Ex. 1003, ¶42; Ex. 1009 (TS36.211),
`
`16 (“The physical uplink control channel, PUCCH, carries uplink control
`
`information.”). In the asymmetric carrier aggregation illustrated in the Docomo
`
`figure above, upon receiving information over the blue and/or the yellow downlink
`
`component carriers, the UE will send UL control signals (PUCCH) to the base
`
`station using the UL1 uplink component carrier. Ex. 1003, ¶42; Ex. 1008, 6 (“In
`
`LTE-Advanced, PUCCH carries feedback signaling (CQI/PMI and ACK/NACK)
`
`for multiple assigned DL component carriers.”). UE will send UL control signals to
`
`the base station using the other UL component carrier (UL2) when it receives
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`
`information transmitted over the magenta and/or green DL component carriers. Ex.
`
`1003, ¶42; Ex. 1008, 6.
`
`VII. THE ’044 PATENT
`The ’044 Patent issued on January 2, 2018 from Application No. 15/350,360
`
`(the ’360 Application) filed on November 14, 2016 and claiming priority to
`
`Provisional Application No. 61/248,661 filed on October 5, 2009. The patent is
`
`directed to carrier aggregation in a mobile communication system such as LTE-
`
`Advanced and, more specifically, to the allocation of resources for the physical
`
`uplink control channel (PUCCH) for carrier aggregation. Ex. 1001, 1:16-19; Ex.
`
`1003, ¶43.
`
`A. Claims
`The ’044 Patent has 41 claims, including 4 independent claims which are
`
`claims 1, 17, 18 and 33. Claims 1-11, 15-27, 33-41 are the Challenged Claims. Ex.
`
`1003, ¶44.
`
`Summary of the Specification
`B.
`The specification of the ’044 Patent admits that LTE Release 8 is prior art and
`
`that, at the time of the alleged invention, work was already underway on the next
`
`generation of LTE known as LTE-Advanced. Ex. 1001, 1:23-40. The specification
`
`further admits that one of the features that was under consideration for
`
`standardization in LTE-Advanced is carrier aggregation, including asymmetric
`
`carrier aggregation, in which the number of DL component carriers is different from
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`
`the number of UL component carriers. Id., 1:33-47; Ex. 1003, ¶45. One important
`
`aspect of carrier aggregation is how to transmit UL control information, such as the
`
`acknowledgments (ACK/NACK) of DL transmissions, from the UE to the base
`
`station (referred to as eNodeB). Ex. 1001, 1:55-57. One solution is to transmit the
`
`UL control information on multiple UL component carriers associated with different
`
`DL component carriers. Id., 1:63-65. According to the specification, this approach
`
`is inefficient and complex. Id., 1:65-2:3; Ex. 1003, ¶46.
`
`As an alternative to transmitting UL control information using multiple UL
`
`component carriers, the ’044 Patent proposes and claims transmitting UL control
`
`information associated with DL transmissions on a single UL component carrier.
`
`Ex. 1001, 2:7-14; Ex. 1003, ¶47. In this architecture, the UE transmits UL control
`
`information over the single UL component carrier regardless whether it receives
`
`transmissions over multiple DL component carriers (carrier aggregation) or over a
`
`single component carrier (no carrier aggregation). Ex. 1001, 2:7-14; Ex. 1003, ¶47.
`
`This purportedly novel uplink transmission approach is illustrated in Figure 10 of
`
`the ’044 Patent, reproduced below. As shown, if the UE receives transmissions over
`
`a single DL component carrier (no carrier aggregation, left branch), the UE transmits
`
`uplink control information on a first set of PUCCH radio resources of a single UL
`
`component carrier, referred to as the “uplink primary component carrier” (blue). Ex.
`
`1001, 11:34-43; Ex. 1003, ¶48. On the other hand, if the UE receives transmissions
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`
`over multiple DL component carriers (carrier aggregation, right branch), the UE
`
`transmits UL control information on a second set of PUCCH radio resources of the
`
`same UL primary component carrier (blue). Ex. 1003, ¶49.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 10 (highlighted/annotated).
`
`The ’044 Patent further describes that the first set of PUCCH radio resources
`
`may be part of a pool of PUCCH radio resources reserved for UEs scheduled to
`
`receive transmissions over a single DL component carrier (no carrier aggregation),
`
`and that the second set of PUCCH radio resources may be part of another pool of
`
`PUCCH radio resources reserved for UEs scheduled to receive transmissions over
`
`multiple DL component carrier (carrier aggregation). Ex. 1001, 9:31-66. However,
`
`the two pools of PUCCH radio resources need not be distinct and “could overlap or
`
`be interleaved.” Id., 9:66-7:1; Ex. 1003, ¶50.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`C.
`The ’044 Patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 9,497,004 (the “’004
`
`Patent”). During prosecution of the application that issued as the ’004 Patent, the
`
`Examiner rejected all claims as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No.
`
`2010/0098012 (“Bala”, Ex. 1014). Ex. 1005, 86-107. Then-pending claim 1 was
`
`directed to a “method implemented by a base station of receiving control information
`
`from a user terminal,” including “scheduling downlink transmissions to said user
`
`terminal on one or more downlink component carriers.” Ex. 1005, 28. The method
`
`further included “receiving control information associated with the downlink
`
`transmissions to the user terminal on a first set of radio resources on a uplink primary
`
`component carrier associated with said first downlink component carrier” and
`
`“receiving control information associated with the downlink transmissions to the
`
`user terminal on a second set of radio resources.” Id.; Ex. 1003, ¶51.
`
`To overcome the Examiner’s rejection, Patent Owner amended claim 1 to
`
`recite “reserved” radio resources for use by the UE, including reserved radio
`
`resources for UEs that do not perform carrier aggregation and for those that do. Ex.
`
`1005, 131 (“The claims have been amended to clarify that the first set of radio
`
`resources is reserved for user terminals scheduled to receive downlink transmissions
`
`on the first downlink component carrier, and that the second set of radio resources
`
`is reserved for user terminals scheduled to receive downlink transmissions on the
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`
`second downlink component carrier and/or multiple component carriers.”). Patent
`
`Owner distinguished Bala by arguing that “Bala does not state …that different sets
`
`of radio resources are reserved for multi-carrier and single-carrier user terminals.”
`
`Id.; Ex. 1003, ¶52.
`
`Following several more rounds of rejections pursuant to §§ 103(a) and 112
`
`and Patent Owner amendments, the Examiner allowed the application that issued as
`
`the ’004 Patent. Ex. 1005, 599; Ex. 1003, ¶53.
`
`During prosecution of the application that issued as the ’044 Patent, there were
`
`no prior art rejections. After Patent Owner filed a terminal disclaimer to overcome
`
`an obviousness type double patenting rejection over the ’004 Patent, the Examiner
`
`allowed the application. Ex. 1002, 250; Ex. 1003, ¶54.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`D.
`For the reasons described in the Declaration of Dr. Kakaes, a POSITA at the
`
`time of the ’044 Patent would have had a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering,
`
`Applied Mathematics, Computer Science, Physics or equivalent and three to five
`
`years of experience working with wireless digital communication systems including
`
`the physical layer of such systems. Additional education might compensate for less
`
`experience, and vice-versa. Ex. 1003, ¶¶55-60.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Claim terms “shall be construed using the same claim construction standard
`
`that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b).”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2018); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(en banc). Petitioner submits that the Board does not need to construe any claim
`
`term for purposes of resolving the issues presented by this Petition.
`
`IX. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART
`A. Overview of Motorola
`Motorola teaches the alleged point of novelty of the ’044 Patent. Motorola is
`
`directed to control signaling, including PUCCH uplink control signaling, for
`
`supporting carrier aggregation in LTE-Advanced. Ex. 1007, Title (“Control
`
`Signalling Design for Supporting Carrier Aggregation”), 5 (“PUCCH under
`
`Asymmetric Aggregation”), 6 (“PUCCH Design”). Motorola explains that there are
`
`a number of reasons for asymmetric carrier aggregation, such as due to spectrum
`
`availability or spectrum reconfiguration, that are system-wide in that it affects all
`
`UEs in the system. Id., 5; Ex. 1003, ¶61.
`
`In light of that, Motorola proposes that the PUCCH transmission scheme of
`
`LTE-Advanced “should be designed to handle both asymmetric and symmetric
`
`bandwidth allocation for UL [uplink].” Ex. 1007, 6. In particular, “when the number
`
`of carriers to be aggregated in UL is lower than that of DL, the UL PUCCH
`
`transmitted on one [uplink] component carrier will carry information for multiple
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`
`downlink component carriers as shown in Figure 4” reproduced below. Id.
`
`(emphasis added); Ex. 1003, ¶62.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1007, FIG. 4.
`
`Motorola Figure 4 illustrates a UE that receives two DL transmissions (yellow
`
`and fuchsia) over two DL component carriers (labeled “DL Carrier 1” and “DL
`
`Carrier 2”). Ex. 1003, ¶63. The UE sends PUCCH UL control information
`
`associated with the two received DL transmissions (illustrated as “A/N” in Figure 4,
`
`which refers to the well-known ACK/NACK acknowledgment messages) over a
`
`single UL component carrier labeled “UL Carrier 1.” Id. In this illustrative example,
`
`the first ACK/NACK associated with the first DL transmission on DL Carrier 1
`
`occupies the radio resources labeled PUCCH 1 (grey) of the single UL carrier (UL
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`
`Carrier 1), and the second ACK/NACK associated with the second DL transmission
`
`on DL Carrier 2 occupies separate radio resources labeled PUCCH 2 (green) of the
`
`same UL Carrier 1. Id., ¶64.
`
`Significantly, Motorola explains that the “logical choice” to implement this
`
`PUCCH scheme in support of asymmetric carrier aggregation “is to utilize the same
`
`PUCCH structure as in [the legacy] LTE Release 8.” Ex. 1007, 6 (emphasis added);
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶65. Motorola specifically discusses the acknowledgement messages
`
`(ACK/NACK) and channel quality feedback messages (CQI/PMI) that are the two
`
`core types of uplink control information associated with downlink transmissions.
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶65. With regard to ACK/NACK, Motorola explains that “[t]he A/N
`
`[ACK/NACK] transmission scheme structure should be backward compatible with
`
`Rel-8 PUCCH structure.” Ex. 1007, 7 (emphasis added); Ex. 1003, ¶66. With regard
`
`to the CQI/PMI channel quality information, Motorola states that “[o]ne
`
`straightforward method” for the uplink transmission of CQI/PMI “is to keep the
`
`Rel-8 structure ….” Ex. 1007, 7 (emphasis added).
`
`B. Overview of LTE Release 8 Standards (TS36.211, TS36.213)
`TS36.211 and TS36.213 are LTE Release 8 standard specific