,
`
`$9123
`
`'
`
`‘
`
`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
`Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.
`PROVISIONAL APPLICATION FOR PATENT COVER SHEET
`This is a request for filing a PROVISIONAL APPLICATION FOR PATENT under 37 CFR l.53(c).
`
`Express Mail Label No. EV 518897851 US
`
`gen Name (first and middle [ifany])
`-
`
`Family Name or Surname
`
`Residence
`and either State or Forei_ Coun
`
`Ci
`
`Additional inventors are being named an the
`
`separately numbered sheets attached hereto
`TITLE OF THE INVENTION 500 characters max
`
`'
`
`COLLABORATIVE MOBILE BROAD BAND (CMBB) SERVICE
`
`(0' 1'
`=-
`
`Direct all correspondence to:
`
`CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS
`
`The address corresponding to Customer Number:
`
`021971
`
`I
`
`E
`0R
`
`E] Firm or
`Individual Name
`Address
`
`C] Yes, the name of the US. Gov ment agency and the Government contract number(s) are: SIGNATURE
`
`Telephone
`
`Fax
`
`ENCLOSED APPLICATION PARTS (check all that apply)
`
`.
`
`E] Application Data Sheet. See 37 CFR 1.76
`X Specification Number ofPages
`20
`E Drawing(s) Number ofSheets
`7
`
`E] CD(s), Number
`IX Other (specify)
`
`Appendix -. 13 pages
`
`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)(l)(G) and 37 CFR l.16(s).
`
`Applicant claims small entity status. See 37 CFR 1.27.
`
`'
`
`TOTAL FEE AMOUNT (S)
`
`A check or money order is enclosed to cover the filing fee and application size fee (if applicable).
`Payment by credit card. Form PTO-2038 is attached.
`
`100.00
`
`The Director is hereby authorized to charge filing fee and applicable size fee (if applicable) or credit any overpayment to Deposit
`Account Number:
`23—2415 . A du-licative co of this form is enclosed for fee rocessin_.
`
`The invention was made by an agency of the United States Government or under a contract with an agency of the United States Government.
`
`E No.
`
`'
`
`Date:
`
`June 3 2005
`
`TYPED or PRINTED NAME U.P. Peter En 1
`
`TELEPHONE
`
`650-493-9300
`
`REGISTRATION NO.
`(tfappropriale)
`Docket Number:
`
`39 666
`
`32354-701.101 -
`
`USE ONLYFOR FILINGA PROVISIONAL APPLICATION FOR PA TENT
`This collection of infonnation is required by 37 CFR 1.51. The information is required to obtain or retain a benefit by the public which is 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. Time will vary depending upon the individual case. Any comments
`on the amount of time you require to complete this form and/or suggestions for reducing this burden, should be sent to the Chief Information Officer, US. Patent
`and Trademark OITIce, US. Department of Commerce, PO. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. DO NOT SEND FEES 0R COMPLETED FORMS TO THIS
`ADDRESS. SEND TO: Commissioner for Patents, PO. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
`
`Ifyou need assirmnce in completing thejam, call l-800-PT0-9199 and select option 2.
`
`C:\NrPonbl\PALIBl\LCV\2667862_l.DOC
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1008
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1008
`
`

`

`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 8L Rosati
`PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
`
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`
`' (650) 493-9300
`(650) 493-6811
`
`Express Mail Label N0. EV 518897851 US
`
`C:\NrPortbl\PALlBl\LCV\2665994__l .DOC
`
`WSGR Docket No. 352354-701 .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. Numerous variations, 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 employed in practicing
`
`-
`
`the invention. It is intended that the following claims define the scope of the invention and that
`
`methods and structures 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 implies that 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 PCS provides like Sprint, Verizon, Singular etc.). While voice service _
`
`moves about 10Kbits/sec and just recently has managed to reach acceptable coverage, broadband
`
`service will require two orders of magnitude more bits/sec!
`
`In addition, the frequency range
`
`allocated to the newer technologies (3 G, WiMax etc.) is generally higher than current the range
`
`used by current cellular services, filrther exasperating the path loss challenge. The traditional
`
`solution is increase of infrastructure density (number of base stations) by similar order; not very
`
`realistic.
`
`Commonly suggested solutions
`
`[0003] Multiple approaches to solve this problem have been suggested:
`
`0 Much higher infrastructure density infrastructure deployment as mentioned above.
`
`This approach can solve the problem (“brut-force approach”) but may very well be
`
`cost prohibitive: Adding many more base stations or fixed repeaters will be very
`
`C:\NrPortbl\PALlBl\LCV\2665994_l .DOC
`
`-2-
`
`3
`
`WSGR Docket No. 32354-70! .l01
`
`3
`
`

`

`costly (site cost, access rights, service (“truck roll”) and management), which may put
`
`in question the whole business preposition of mobile broadband wireless service.
`
`0 Mesh networks. One approach providing for acceptable link budget is through relays
`and mesh networks routing. While significantly reducing the cost of base stations
`
`backhaul, site cost, access rights, service (“truck roll”) and management is similar to
`
`“high density” solution above.
`
`It became obvious that the cost of the hardware
`
`involved with relays is almost insignificant relative to the maintenance cost, 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 of relays may not be optimal
`
`for the unpredictable locations of the subscribers, so relays density must be very high.
`
`0
`
`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 3ODB).
`
`Proposed solution
`
`[0004] It becomes clear that traditional methods to improve link budget will not suffice. The
`
`mobile broadband wireless service is in need for a new, out-of—box solution. We propose a
`cross-disciplinary solution that crosses the boundaries of technology to exploit social behavior.
`[0005] Instead of fixed, high density deployment of wireless network (cellular, mesh) we
`0
`
`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 more cars in the
`
`neighborhood, the higher the probability of wireless service demand. Although in some
`
`populations car owners may not be the majority, but the above correlation can still be
`
`substantiated. By installing a broadband wireless relays 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 always revert 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 most of this
`
`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:\NrPonbl\PALlBl\LCV\2665994_1.DOC
`
`-3-
`
`4
`
`WSGR Docket No. 32354-701.101
`
`4
`
`

`

`networks connections are normally established between a base station and plurality of clients
`
`(subscriber stations). While each individual connection via a car can provide an average
`improvement in 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)
`
`some of these connections can dramatically improve upon individual, 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 subscriber can easily
`
`communicate with its close peers) could “join forces” to aggregate their transmission power in
`
`order to overcome the notorious uplink challenge.
`
`[0007] This approach may work well since technically: only small fraction of subscribers is
`
`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 broadband service, thereby increasing the number of possible
`
`connectionsand further improving the expected network performance. It is likely that a
`subscriber of one cellular service provider will carry traffic generated by a subscriber of another
`
`cellular service provider: files can be moved as attachments or data stream can be tunneled such
`
`'that service operator cannot distinguish between his own subscriber traffic to “foreign”
`
`subscriber traffic. The actual implementation of this idea will be discussed below. Figure 1
`
`provides conceptual system architecture.
`
`[0009] Collaboration can be achieved if there is a compelling purpose. The Internet world has
`
`already been introducing collaborative behavior (file sharing, data routing, social networks etc.).
`
`A well known example is 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 by hosting 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, movie clips etc. The proposed solution is an integrated package of
`
`technical and social methods to achieve the desired services and performance. We discuss the
`
`social aspects in section 5.
`
`C:\NrPonbl\PALIBl\LCV\2665994_l .DOC
`
`'
`
`WSGR Docket No. 32354-701.101
`
`5
`
`

`

`COLLABORATIVE MOBILE BROAD BAND SOLUTION
`
`
`General
`
`[0010] We propose a Collaborative Wireless networking (CWN) method for using multiple radio
`
`links (ex. car to cell site connections) to support multiple subscribers: at each instance subscriber
`
`can be served by either one out of many or few out of radio links. Similar to file sharing where
`
`the traded commodity is data, here we are trading with network bandwidth; bandwidth sharing.
`
`This way we use plurality of connections to serve each subscriber.
`
`[0011] The plurality of connections can be exploited by combining (“connection combining”) or
`selecting the best connection out of a given set (“connection selection”). Connection combining
`
`can be done by splitting the data stream through multiple radios with more data running through
`
`the higher quality connections and less data running through the ‘lower quality connections.
`
`Connection selection will run data only through the best connection. Connection combining is
`
`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 systems are natural for this approach; for example OFDMA.
`With OFDMA multiple radios can share the link by utilizing orthogonal sets of sub-carriers.
`Other systems like CDMA can share orthogonal codes.
`[0012] To facilitate CWN we need to establish “neighborhood radio node groups” (NRG); one
`
`possibility to increase the probability of existence of NRG we could use cars as radio
`
`nodes/relays. In a preferred embodiment each 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 deployed in cars, houses etc. The underline
`
`principle is this bridges is that the bridge is owned by the subscriber (unlike traditional repeaters)
`
`and not by the 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
`
`number of relays and consequently good selection.
`
`[0013] Facilitating this approach requires collaboration between subscribers. Assuming the
`
`BBRs are to be deployed within the service subscribers’ cars, each subscriber must be willing to
`
`allow service to other subscribers go through the BER deployed in his car.
`
`C:\NrPonbl\PALIBl\LCV\2665994_1.DOC
`
`WSGR Docket No. 32354-701101
`
`6
`
`

`

`6
`
`‘Connection combining” implementation
`
`[0014] As mentioned above, connection combining provides for similar benefits as provided by
`
`maximum ratio combining method used to enhance receiving performance in. cellular
`
`applications.
`
`[0015] Each BBR is periodically publishing its 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
`
`and interference contributed by neighboring cells may vary considerable. Selection based on
`
`C/N+1 can be much more powerful than based on received signal strength (RS SI) only.
`
`[0016] Subscriber unit can simultaneously be connected to multiple BBRs of choice (set of
`
`BBRs with best CCQ). The subscriber unit than split its traffic through the selected BBRs in
`proportion to their reported CCQ. The network follows the subscriber unit traffic splitting and
`
`uses the same splitting ratio.
`
`[0017] Obviously, this approach will require significant changes in WiFi client behavior,
`
`including association and authentication. To enable use of an existing base of WiFi clients,
`
`multiple BBRs can be programmed to imitate a single WiFi access point. A' subscriber unit
`
`associates with one primary BBR. Neighboring BBRs that overhear this‘subscriber (and also
`
`hear the primary BBR) report to the primary BBR their subscriber reception quality (could be
`
`RSSI or ratio between RSSI and interference or similar metric). The primary BBR than may
`assign the reporting (secondary) BBRs a portion of the traffic to be communicated to the cellular
`network. The assignment can be based on IP frame number or similar approach.‘ In this case
`each secondary BBR uses promiscuous WiFi mode to receive traffic 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 [P data up—stream and split the IP traffic down-
`
`stream accordingly.
`S
`
`‘Connection selection” implementation
`
`[0018] Although the connection combining is the preferred approach, “connection selection”
`
`may not be far inferior when large variation of CCQ is expected (typical for urban, downtown
`
`environment). Connection selection is simpler to implement since no traffic proxy is needed:
`
`each subscriber unit selects the best path by choosing the BER that publishes the best CCQ in its
`
`neighborhood (Figure 3).
`
`C:\NrPortbl\PALlBl\LCV\2665994_l .DOC
`
`WSGR Docket No. 32354-70Ll0l
`
`7
`
`

`

`[0019] BBRs are spread at the coverage area. At each time BBRs with best CCQ are selected as
`
`active servers. The selection process is executed in a distributed method as discussed below.
`
`Subscriber units are looking for the serving BBRs and associate with them (association process
`
`following 802.11 methods including 802.1x for security management).
`[0020] Each active BBR publishes its CCQ value (can be done through beacon). A BBR that
`
`has lower CCQ value by pre-defined margin relative to neighbor BBR will switch into secondary
`
`BBR mode and associate with the stronger CCQ BBR (become a WDS unit, relay and will not
`
`converse directly with the cellular network). When more than one BBR is found in the
`
`neighborhood with higher CCQ, the BER will associate with the higher CCQ-BBR (unless
`
`association is rejected, and than will associate with the next higher CCQ BBR). When a BBR
`
`does not identify a higher CCQ BBR in its neighborhood, it set itself to be a primary BER and
`
`' connect directly to cellular network.
`
`‘
`
`[0021] This approach assumes CCQ has large variance as a result of shadowing and Raleigh
`
`fading (relative to simple geometric loss). Figure 4 describes connections topology that is
`created based on the above rule: the red units represent BBRs with high CCQ, the orange -
`medium CCQ and the yellow - low CCQ. Since shadowing path loss is by far the dominant loss
`
`(log-normal with 8dB standard deviation) and path loss correlation length is typically far smaller
`
`than distance from BBR to cellular base station, we expect many primary BBRs (each selected
`
`by local maxima of CCQ).
`
`[0022] The primary BBR margin can be calculated by comparing the bandwidth achievable by
`
`connecting directly to cellular network or through the selected BBR.
`
`[0023] When a subscriber terminal is activated, it will follow 802.11 procedures of association
`
`and authentication. Hence, subscriber terminal may be associated with the lowest path loss
`
`(indicated by beacon’s RSSI) BBR in its 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 better performance). When implemented
`
`as a scheduled radio the primary BBR can provide transmission schedule to its associated BBRs
`
`and therefore reduce back—oflefi’ects. Scheduled BBRs arrangement will befarther discussed
`later.
`
`C:\NrPonbl\PALIBl\LCV\2665994_I .DOC
`
`WSGR Docket No. 32354-70110]
`
`8
`
`

`

`Comment: The rationalfor equal number ofsubscribers and BBRs is as follows: the
`
`number ofclients that cellular operator will 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 since in this scheme he is getting better service. Yhefirst
`
`subscriber will have already better service since in substantial percentage ofthe time he is not
`farfrom his car (BBR). This service'will keep improving as more BBRs are added.
`
`Networking
`
`[0024] The proposed network spans over multiple service provides (operators), as seen in Figure
`
`5. Subscribers may select any cellular service provider that provides IP connectivity (most
`
`currently do, over 2G, 3G and future WiMax). BBRs are expected to be deployed in subscribers’
`
`cars (as hand-free devices). Subscriber may connect to his own car or a car that incorporates a
`
`BBR (BBR can be installed in houses as well); BBRs can connect directly to base station (BTS)
`or other BBRS in their neighborhood (recognized to have superior connection quality).
`
`[0025] Whenever a subscriber is associating, its association is processed by the network’s
`
`admission control server (using RADIUS for‘example) that handles:
`
`0
`
`Subscriber’s BBR status (active, turned off etc.).
`
`- 0 Billing
`
`o Authentication
`
`o Mobility (handover) support
`
`0 Encryption keys distribution
`
`0 Traffic load balancing
`
`o Etc.
`
`0
`
`Software updates
`
`0 Maintenance
`
`0 Etc.
`
`[0026] The idea is to make sure that number of subscribers is approximately equal number of
`
`BBRs.
`
`[0027) Increasing the number of BBRs can be accomplished by giving discount or service
`
`preferences to subscribers who are willing to install BBR in their cars. These subscribers will
`
`C:\NrPortbl\PALlB l \LCV\2665994_| .DOC
`
`WSGR Docket No. 32354-70] . 1 0|
`
`9
`
`

`

`make sure “their BBRs” are operational since the BER operation is used to authenticate them
`
`with the network.
`
`[0028] A subscriber unit can also connect directly to cellular network if possible.
`
`PERFORMANCE DISCUSSION
`
`
`General
`
`[0029] The service quality will generally be determined by the ratio between the number of
`
`BBRs and the number of subscribers: since each subscriber activity duty cycle is expected to be
`
`less than 10% (typically 5%) each subscriber can enjoy the full bandwidth of primary BBR
`
`connection, provided the BER to Subscriber ratio is approximately one. If this ratio is reduced
`
`(not every subscriber owns a BBR) the service quality will be reduced accordingly.
`
`[0030] The above service quality is assumed when BBRs and subscribers are relatively isolated;
`
`when BBRs and subscribers density increases, we start 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 BBRs are not going to share same
`
`channel.
`
`[0031] Proposed system performance is best evaluated relative to existing wireless network
`
`solutions. We assume connection quality between base station and any BBR is based on the
`
`typical wide area network implementation, including smart modulation type (CDMA, TDMA,
`OFDMA etc.), antenna arrangements (receive diversity, transmit diversity, MIMO etc.),
`
`transmission power etc. The proposed solution is improving on top of any those exiting
`
`technologies.
`[0032] To evaluate the proposed solution performance we remember that 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 and diversity gain (adding
`multiple radios powers with proper weighting) while in the downlink we expect only diversity
`
`gain (best base station’s connection to BBR is selected).
`
`Comment: since coherent transmission combining may be very hard (although should be
`
`considered), power weighting is achieved by shaping the trafficfrom subscriber terminal to base
`
`station such that more traflic is handled by the BBRs that have better connection quality. In
`
`C:\NrPortbl\PALlB1\LCV\2665994_1.DOC
`
`1 0
`
`WSGR Docket No. 32354-70l.10l
`
`10
`
`

`

`extreme case, the weight can be “I "for the best BER and “0”for all the others such that the
`
`MRC is reduced to selection ofbets path é 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) allows for great increase of number of
`
`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, hence less battery usagefor each individual BBR ’5 car.
`
`Calculations
`
`[0035] The scenario is that of a car based wireless relay 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 hence not being taken in account in relative advantage calculations).
`
`Mobile vs. Car-based Unit
`
`[0036] Having a car-based unit has several advantages over a mobile subscriber (MS)
`
`Higher transmit power: MS 24 dBm, Bridge 36 dBm
`
`Better antenna: MS: 0 dBi, car mount relay: 6 dBi
`
`[0037] Assuming the car is stationary and the MS may be moving, the bridge will require a
`
`smaller fade margin than the MS. Assume a 3dB difference.
`
`[0038] This provides a total link budget advantage of 12 + 6 + 3 = 21 dB for the car-based relay.
`
`Multiple vs. Single Car-Based Units
`
`[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 assume that 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 assume that there is no Raleigh fading.
`
`C:\NrPortbl\PALlBl\LCV\2665994_l .DOC
`
`- 1 0-
`1 1
`
`WSGR Docket No. 32354—70l .101
`
`11
`
`

`

`Consider a strategy of “connection selection” (always picking the bridge which has the largest
`
`SNR).
`
`[0041] Figure 6 shows the 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 we see that having 2 wireless relays give an 6 dB advantage
`
`over a single relay, having 3 relays give an 9 dB advantage, and having 4 relays give an 11 dB
`
`advantage.
`
`BBR STRUCTURE
`
`‘
`
`[0042] The BBR is a “smart bridge” between cellular service and WiFi. The preferred
`
`embodiment incorporates a “hand-free” kit that includes external mount antenna. The simple
`
`, antenna can be replaced by antenna array (diversity, beam—forming etc.) to further improve
`system performance. The cell-phone cradle contains the WiFi access point hardware (dual
`
`radio)_. Other BBR packaging solutions are possible such as home charging cradle, the cell-
`
`phone itself (WiFi is being integrated with cell-phones now) and others.
`
`[0043] Figure 7 provides a car mount BBR block 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/LNA booster for cellular handset (transmission power amplifier and
`low noise receiving amplifier and asSociated circuitry).
`. 4. An Optional antenna array adaptor to provide for better diversity for cellular radio
`
`and WiFi radios. This adaptor can be further enhanced to provide other “smart
`antenna” solutions, exploiting the ability to mount larger antenna array as part of the
`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. When battery level
`deteriorates (as a result of over-usage, for example) the power supply/adaptor may
`
`cutoff the BBR operation.
`
`' 6. Multi-band antenna array will serve bother WiFi and cellular units. WiFi service
`
`requires 2.4GHZ and 5.8GHz range. Cellular need to cover 800MHz, 900MHz,
`
`C:\NrPortbl\PALlBl\LCV\2665994_1.DOC
`
`-11-
`
`12
`
`WSGR Docket No. 32354.70] .10]
`
`12
`
`

`

`1900MHz, 2.1GHz for existing cellular networks. WiMax will require 2.5GHz,
`
`5.8GHz, and 3.5GHz. One array “fits all” may be very challenging hence antenna
`
`elements may be interchangeable. In a minimal configuration, the cellular handset
`
`could use its integral antenna.
`
`[0044] The advantages of car based implementation:
`
`0 Large power source allows higher TX power than subscriber unit
`
`0 Large surfaces allows antenna array plays
`
`0 Large number of alternatives
`
`0 Deploying the BBRs on cars solves one of the biggest cost issues mentioned above;
`
`BBRs can be driven to repair shop, thereby avoiding truck-rolls and access. BBR will
`
`. be served similar to regular cell-phone.
`
`0 BER can be combined with other devices commonly installed in cars:
`
`0 “Hand-free” cell phone cradle.
`
`0 Navigation system
`
`0 Car phones
`
`0 Radar detectors
`
`0 Collision avoidance warning device
`
`BUSINESS MODEL
`
`
`General
`
`[0045] Although even a single BBR will bring a substantial value to its user (as any radio
`
`repeater), increasing the BER population is fundamental to a very robust wireless broadband
`
`service. To quickly expedite the deployment of BBRs we need a “grassroots” process. Social
`
`networkng may be a good mean to achieve this. Successful social networking proliferation
`
`requires an undisputable payback to the participants; in this case, there must be some “killer”
`
`application(s) that is enabled once you “join the party”. In this section we examine collaboration
`
`examples that lead to fast technology/service proliferation and possible “added values” or
`
`applications that may trigger collaboration in our case.
`
`C:\NrPonb|\PALIBl\LCV\2665994.l .DOC
`
`-12-
`13
`
`I
`
`WSGR Docket 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 accompanied by the proliferation of Virtual communities. The nature of those communities
`
`and communications is rather diverse, and the benefits are not necessarily realized, or pursued,
`
`by many. At the same time, it is rather commonplace to see anecdotes of someone in need of
`
`special help or in search of a community benefiting from the use of the Internet.
`
`[0047] Since the late 19905 this original idea of topic-specific information exchange has evolved
`
`again leading to professional networks of all kinds. Nowadays online portals specifically
`designed for a certain industry or profession serve again as topic related exchange platforms.
`Such specific B2B platforms range from more general networks for the creation of personal
`
`networks [[1] (http://www.0penbc.com)] (for general B2B Topics), various IT-related
`
`communities such as experts-exchange.com (http://www.experts—exchange.c0m/), [php-
`
`classes.org (http://www.php-classes.0rg)], to highly specified professional communities for
`
`medicals or such for linguists (e. g. [2] (http:/www. babelport. com) babelport,
`
`[3] (http://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 gave rise to the famous phrase six degrees of separation after a 1967 small world
`
`experiment by psychologist Stanley Milgram which found that two random US citizens were
`
`connected by an average of six acquaintances. However, after more than thirty years its status as
`
`a description of heterogeneous social networks (such as the aforementioned "everyone in the
`
`world") still remains an open question. Remarkably little research has been done in this area
`
`since the publication of the original paper.
`[0049] Afier the discovery of Watts and Strogatz, Albert-Laszlo' Barabasi from the Physics
`Department at the University of Notre Dame was able to 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 found in real—world networks such as the Internet: these networks are scale-free.
`
`.
`
`C:\NrPonbl\PALlBl\LCV\2665994.l.DOC
`
`-13-
`
`14
`
`WSGR Docket No. 32354-701.101
`
`14
`
`

`

`In simple terms, this means that they contain relatively few highly interconnected super nodes or
`
`. hubs: the vast majority of nodes are weakly connected, and the connectedness ratio 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 model is strikingly simple, elegant, and intuitive. To produce an
`
`artificial scale-fr