`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
`Patent Owner
`_________________
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. IPR2022-00457
`U.S. Patent No. 9,509,440
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,509,440
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1
`I.
`SUMMARY OF THE ’440 PATENT ........................................................ 1
`II.
`A. THE ’440 PATENT’S ALLEGED INVENTION ...................................................... 1
`B. SUMMARY OF THE PROSECUTION HISTORY ..................................................... 2
`C. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ....................................................... 3
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ....................... 4
`A. STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A) ....................................................... 4
`B. CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) AND RELIEF REQUESTED .............. 4
`C. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................. 5
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY ................................................... 5
`A. WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS ........................................................................ 5
`B. MODULATION ................................................................................................ 6
`C. CODING ......................................................................................................... 7
`D. MODULATION AND CODING SCHEMES ............................................................ 7
`E. CHANNEL QUALITY ....................................................................................... 8
`V.
`SHOWING OF ANALOGOUS PRIOR ART ......................................... 10
`A. CLAIMED PRIORITY DATE OF THE ’440 PATENT ............................................ 10
`B. LAHETKANGAS (EX. 1011) ........................................................................... 10
`C. WANG (EX. 1006) ........................................................................................ 15
`D. TS 36.213 (EX. 1009) .................................................................................. 16
`E. § 325(D) DISCRETION ................................................................................... 17
`VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .................... 19
`A. GROUNDS 1-2: CLAIMS 1-7, 9, 11-17, 19, 21, 23, 25, AND 27 ARE
`RENDERED OBVIOUS BY LAHETKANGAS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE
`LAHETKANGAS IN VIEW OF LTE TS 36.213 .................................................. 19
`1. Claim 1 ....................................................................................................... 20
`2. Claim 2 ....................................................................................................... 38
`3. Claim 3 ....................................................................................................... 40
`4. Claim 4 ....................................................................................................... 40
`5. Claim 5 ....................................................................................................... 42
`6. Claim 6 ....................................................................................................... 43
`7. Claim 7 ....................................................................................................... 44
`8. Claim 9 ....................................................................................................... 45
`9. Claim 11 ..................................................................................................... 48
`
`i
`
`

`

`10. Claim 12............................................................................................... 52
`11. Claim 13............................................................................................... 52
`12. Claim 14............................................................................................... 52
`13. Claim 15............................................................................................... 52
`14. Claim 16............................................................................................... 53
`15. Claim 17............................................................................................... 53
`16. Claim 19............................................................................................... 53
`17. Claim 21............................................................................................... 53
`18. Claim 23............................................................................................... 56
`19. Claim 25............................................................................................... 60
`20. Claim 27............................................................................................... 62
`B. GROUNDS 3-4: CLAIMS 8 AND 18 ARE RENDERED OBVIOUS BY
`LAHETKANGAS AND WANG, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, LAHETKANGAS IN
`VIEW OF WANG AND LTE TS 36.213 ............................................................ 65
`1. Claim 8 ....................................................................................................... 65
`2. Claim 18 ..................................................................................................... 70
`VII. THE GENERAL PLASTIC FACTORS FAVOR INSTITUTION .......... 70
`VIII. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 71
`IX. MANDATORY NOTICES ....................................................................... 72
`A. REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST ........................................................................... 72
`B. RELATED MATTERS ..................................................................................... 72
`C. COUNSEL AND SERVICE INFORMATION ......................................................... 72
`D. 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)(4): SERVICE INFORMATION ........................................... 73
`X.
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................. 73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Adobe Inc. v. RAH Color Technologies, IPR2019-00628, Paper 37
`(PTAB Aug. 20, 2019) ...................................................................................... 18
`Becton, Dickinson, and Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-
`01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) ........................................................ 18, 19
`Boundary Sols., Inc. v. CoreLogic, Inc., 711 F. App’x 627 (Fed. Cir.
`2017) ................................................................................................................. 60
`Group III International, Inc. v. Targus Group International, Inc.,
`IPR2021-00371, Paper No. 21 (PTAB Jul. 9, 2021) .................................... 18, 19
`Intel Corporation v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., IPR2021-00370, Paper
`No. 10 (PTAB Jul. 6, 2021) ............................................................................... 18
`Intex Recr. Corp. v. Team Worldwide Corp., IPR2018-00871, Paper
`14 (PTAB Sept. 14, 2018) ................................................................................. 18
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................... 5
`Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .............................. 22
`TQ Delta, LLC v. DISH Network LLC, 929 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................ 26
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ..................... 5
`WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 889 F.3d 1308 (Fed.
`Cir. 2018) .......................................................................................................... 60
`
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .......................................................................................... 2, 11, 15
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................ 4, 61
`35 U.S.C. § 122 ....................................................................................................11
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ..................................................................................................... 4
`35 U.S.C. § 374 ....................................................................................................11
`
`Regulations:
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ........................................................................................... 73
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) ............................................................................................. 73
`
`iii
`
`

`

`37 C.F.R. §42.15(a)(1) .......................................................................................... 73
`37 CLF.R. §42.15(a)(L) ccccceccccesccseccssescseccssessseecsucessveessvecsusessecssaveraceravessusersaserseeesere 73
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 .................................................................................................. 83
`37 CER. § 42.24 ..cceccccesscssescssucssseesesevcssusessucsessusersuseesusessussssusersuserseesesseressererseseee 83
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ............................................................................................. 5
`37 CLE.R. § 42.100(b) vce ecccecccsscccsececsuesesusecsucersuccsssecessuscesuceesueesucessueessueeeravserseserseds 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................................................................ 73
`37 CUE.R. § 42.103 .ceccccescssecscsseccsseceesucessveesecsessvecessvsessseessucessvessuceesusessutenseceeseeeeee 73
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a).............................................................................................. 4
`37 CER. § 42.104(a)..ccccccecccssesccsececsuesesusessecersucesssesersusessuseesusessusessnsessuesesseserseterseds 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ............................................................................................. 4
`37 CLER. § 42.104(b) coc ccccecccsseccesucecsuecesececsuccrsucesssecessuceesucessucecsucessusersnsesssnserseeenseds 4
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`iv
`
`

`

`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,509,440
`Certified File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,509,440 (“the ’904
`Application”)
`Declaration of Dr. Apostolos Kakaes for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 9,509,440
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Apostolos Kakaes
`Intentionally Left Blank
`U.S. Patent No. 9,648,601 (“Wang”)
`Arunabha Ghosh, et al., Fundamentals of LTE (Pub. 2011)
`(“Ghosh”)
`Stefania Sesia, et al., LTE - The UMTS Long Term Evolution: From
`Theory to Practice (2nd ed., 2011) (“Sesia”)
`3GPP TS 36.213, Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access
`(EULTRA), Physical Layer Procedures, Version 10.3 (Release 10)
`Declaration of James Mullins in Support of the Public Availability
`of Fundamentals of LTE, Arunabha Ghosh, et. al., (Pub. 2011); LTE
`-The UMTS Long Term Evolution: From Theory to Practice,
`Stefania Sesia, et al., (2nd ed., 2011); and LTE for UMTS, Evolution
`to LTEAdvanced, Harri Holma & Antti Toskala (2nd ed., 2011)
`International Publication Number WO 2013/123961 A1
`Lahetkangas et al. (“Lahetkangas”)
`International Publication Number WO 2014/029108 A1
`Holma, Harri & Toskala, Antti, LTE for UMTS: Evolution to LTE-
`Advanced, Second Edition, (Pub. 2011) (“Holma”)
`Declaration of Jacob Robert Munford on Authentication of
`Publication
`Erik Dahlman et al., 4G LTE / LTE-Advanced for Mobile
`Broadband (Pub. 2011) (“Dahlman”)
`Declaration of Friedhelm Rodermund in Support of the Public
`Availability of 3GPP TS 36.213 V10.3
`
`to
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Petitioner”) requests inter partes review of
`
`Claims 1-9, 11-19, 21, 23, 25, and 27 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,509,440 (“’440 Patent”) (Ex. 1001). The ’440 Patent is directed towards a method
`
`for enabling the use of high order modulation in radio communication between a
`
`radio node (such as a base station) and a user equipment (such as a cellphone) in a
`
`wireless network. High order modulation is typically an order greater than four and
`
`refers to the well-known technique whereby features of a carrier wave are changed
`
`to carry a message. In the ’440 Patent, the alleged point of novelty is that the radio
`
`node instructs the user equipment to switch from a first configuration of Modulation
`
`and Coding Scheme (MCS) and Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) tables to a second
`
`configuration of MCS and CQI tables that support a higher modulation, while being
`
`able to revert back to the lower modulation as a fallback. This Petition demonstrates
`
`the claimed method was well known in the art prior to the time of the alleged
`
`invention, rendering the Challenged Claims unpatentable.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’440 PATENT
`A. The ’440 Patent’s Alleged Invention
`The alleged invention relates to modulation in radio communications. The
`
`’440 Patent purports to solve an alleged problem that “the control signaling schemes,
`
`methods, formats or protocols of today do not support any modulation with higher
`
`order than six bits per symbol, as in 64QAM” and “that additional control signaling
`
`1
`
`

`

`would be required between the UE and the serving radio node if higher data rate is
`
`to be achieved by using higher-order modulation.” Ex. 1001, 2:17-23. The ’440
`
`specification describes that in its alleged solution, “the MCS and CQI index tables
`
`used for such signaling can be modified such that the current maximum modulation
`
`order can be increased without requiring any extra signaling bits.” Id., 4:42-45. The
`
`alleged advantage of this solution is “flexibility to adopt appropriate MCS/CQI
`
`tables based on channel conditions[,]” where one MCS/CQI table configuration is
`
`applied to “allow for higher-order modulation” when there is “high signal quality”
`
`and another MCS/CQI table configuration is applied “to achieve link robustness”
`
`when there is “relatively low” signal quality. Id., 6:8-25. As discussed below,
`
`however, the ’440 Patent’s solution is rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`
`B.
`The filed claims were originally rejected under § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by
`
`U.S. PGPub 2015/0358111 A1 (“Marinier”). Ex. 1002, 55-66. In response, the
`
`Patent Owner admitted the prior art “discloses methods for implementing higher
`
`order modulation techniques in wireless communication by providing multiple
`
`modulation and coding scheme (MCS) tables and channel quality index (CQI) tables,
`
`each of which may be utilized under different conditions[.]” Id., 45-46. The Patent
`
`Owner further admitted the prior art “discloses that a UE or base station determines
`
`whether to use a first table governing lower-order modulation techniques or a second
`
`2
`
`

`

`table governing higher-order modulation techniques[.]” Id. The Patent Owner also
`
`admitted the prior art “teaches that the second table can contain one or more entries
`
`related to the lower-order modulation techniques in addition to entries related to the
`
`higher-order modulation techniques[.]” Id., 46. The Patent Owner then amended
`
`independent claims 27, 38, and 49-521 to each include the same additional element
`
`“that an entry for the lowest modulation order in the first modulation and coding
`
`scheme (MCS) table is maintained in the second MCS table as the fallback, and an
`
`entry for the lowest coding rate of the lowest modulation order in the first channel
`
`quality index (CQI) table is maintained in the second CQI table as the fallback.” Id.,
`
`45. This additional element corresponds with challenged claim elements 1.6-1.7,
`
`11.4-11.5, 21.5-21.7, 23.4-23.6, 25.4-25.6, and 27.6-27.8, which would have been
`
`obvious to a POSITA at the time of alleged invention as described in Section VI.
`
`Based on these amendments, the Examiner issued the allowance. Id., 19-21, 46.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`C.
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged
`
`invention would have had a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Applied
`
`Mathematics, Computer Science, Physics, or equivalent and three to five years of
`
`
`1 These six amended claims correspond to issued claims 1, 11, 21, 23, 25, and 27,
`
`i.e., the challenged independent claims. Id., 31 (Index of Claims).
`
`3
`
`

`

`experience working with wireless digital communication systems. Ex. 1003, ¶70.
`
`Additional education might compensate for less experience, and vice-versa. Id.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`A.
`Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Apple certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the ’440 Patent is available for
`
`IPR and that Apple is not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR of the
`
`Challenged Claims on the grounds identified in this Petition. Apple certifies: (1)
`
`Apple is not the owner of the ’440 Patent; (2) Apple (or any real party-in-interest)
`
`has not filed a civil action challenging the validity of any claim of the ’440 Patent;
`
`(3) Apple has not been served with a complaint asserting infringement of the ’440
`
`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 ’440 Patent was granted.
`
`B. Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested
`Apple 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). A list of
`
`exhibits is provided at the beginning of this Petition. The relevance of this evidence
`
`and the specific portions supporting the challenge are provided in Section VI.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ground
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`Claims
`1-7, 9, 11-17, 19,
`21, 23, 25, and 27
`1-7, 9, 11-17, 19,
`21, 23, 25, and 27
`8 and 18
`
`8 and 18
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejection
`Obvious under § 103 over Lahetkangas
`
`Obvious under § 103 over Lahetkangas in view of
`LTE TS 36.213
`Obvious under § 103 over Lahetkangas in view of
`Wang
`Obvious under § 103 over Lahetkangas in view of
`LTE TS 36.213 and further in view of Wang
`
`C. Claim Construction
`“[W]ords of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing
`
`date of the patent application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576,
`
`1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner submits the Board does
`
`not need to construe any terms to resolve the arguments presented herein.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`A. Wireless Communications
`
`Wireless communication networks typically comprise one or more UEs (User
`
`Equipment) and a base station (BS). UEs typically include common devices such as
`
`cell phones. Ex. 1003, ¶33. These components send radio waves that carry the
`
`content of wireless communications. Id., ¶36. The implementation of wireless
`
`communications like those described in this section are governed by technical
`
`5
`
`

`

`standards, including those promulgated by the 3GPP for 4G-LTE and 5G systems.
`
`Id. These technical standards contain detailed descriptions that artisans use in the
`
`design and development of wireless products. Id. Among other functionalities, these
`
`technical standards govern the implementation of techniques relating to modulation,
`
`coding, modulation coding schemes, and channel quality, as described in the
`
`following sections. Id.
`
`B. Modulation
`To transmit information on a radio wave, the bits of information are converted
`
`into a wireless message by a process called modulation. Ex. 1003, ¶42. With
`
`modulation, certain features of a standard radio wave—referred to as a carrier—are
`
`modified, or modulated, using symbols to indicate the content of the information
`
`being transmitted. Id., ¶42. Wireless systems make use of modulation schemes, also
`
`referred to as modulation orders, which allow for a certain numbers of bits per
`
`symbol to be transmitted on a wave. Id., ¶¶42-43. For example, the modulation order
`
`QPSK allows for two bits per symbol (Qm=2); the modulation order 16QAM allows
`
`for 4 bits per symbol (Qm=4); 64QAM and 256QAM allow 6 bits per symbol (Qm=6)
`
`and 8 bits per symbol (Qm=8), respectively. Id. Typically, one of the considerations
`
`in determining which modulation order to use is the channel quality, as a poor
`
`channel quality can prevent effective transmission of a larger number of bits per
`
`symbol. Id., ¶43.
`
`6
`
`

`

`C. Coding
`In addition to modulation, a radio wave is also encoded, for example to
`
`preserve the reliability of the message. Id., ¶41. Coding information typically
`
`involves converting the bits of information into a larger number of code bits. Id.
`
`Typically, a known coding pattern (i.e., a “coding rate”) will be applied to the
`
`information to perform this conversion. Id. Coding introduces a certain amount of
`
`redundancy into the wireless signal so that in the event portions of the message are
`
`lost or compromised (e.g., due to interference/noise), the content of the message will
`
`remain intact. Id. As with modulation order, the determination of coding rate to be
`
`used can depend on channel quality. Id. A poor channel quality typically correlates
`
`with a lower coding rate (i.e., more redundancy to preserve the integrity of the
`
`message). Id.
`
`D. Modulation and Coding Schemes
`In the LTE standard, it is well-known that a BS may instruct a UE to use a
`
`particular modulation and coding scheme, or MCS, for messages sent to and from
`
`that BS. Id., ¶45. A particular MCS has a Qm and coding rate associated with it. Id.
`
`The information to be transmitted is modulated and encoded accordingly before
`
`being sent. Id. When received, the message is demodulated and decoded using that
`
`MCS to derive the original message. Id. The MCS chosen by the BS will determine
`
`the number of bits that are sent in a unit of time, which is a value represented as a
`
`7
`
`

`

`“transport block size” or “TBS”. Id. The below table from LTE TS 36.213, v10.3
`
`shows a well-known correlation of MCS (using an MCS index value, IMCS) with
`
`Qm, and the TBS, (using a TBS index value, ITBS). Id.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1009, Table 7.1.7.1-1. ITBS correlates to entries in a TBS table in the LTE
`
`standard (TS 36.213, Table 7.1.7.2.1-1) that, together with a known number of
`
`physical resource blocks, inform the UE of the appropriate transport block size to
`
`use. Ex. 1003, ¶45. One of the factors that a BS may consider in determining the
`
`MCS to apply is an indication of channel quality. Ex. 1003, ¶46.
`
`E. Channel Quality
`Channel quality is an important consideration for wireless communications
`
`because better channel quality allows for more data to be transmitted (and received)
`
`8
`
`

`

`per unit of time. Ex. 1003, ¶47. The channel conditions between a BS and UE are
`
`constantly changing. Id. It is well-known that a system may adapt the MCS used for
`
`transmission to best suit the channel conditions at that time. Id., ¶48. One such
`
`known technique which is used in LTE TS 36.213 is based on a channel quality
`
`indicator (“CQI”) index reported by a UE to a BS. Id. The CQI index value is
`
`representative of channel conditions at a given time. Id. Wireless systems, such as
`
`those that conform to 4G or 5G, may use a CQI table (an example of which is below)
`
`to indicate a suggested MCS at a given time. Id. The MCS values in the exemplary
`
`table below, taken from LTE TS 36.213, are the maximum modulation and coding
`
`rate that the UE can handle for each reported CQI index.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Id.; Ex. 1001, Fig. 3 (quoting LTE Technical Specification (TS) 36.213, v.10.3.0,
`
`Table 7.2.3-1).
`
`V.
`
`SHOWING OF ANALOGOUS PRIOR ART
`A. Claimed Priority Date of the ’440 Patent
`The ’440 Patent issued on November 29, 2016, from U.S. Application No.
`
`14/390,904 (Ex. 1002, 262-440) filed on October 6, 2014, claiming priority to
`
`PCT/SE2014/050803 filed on June 26, 2014. The ’440 Patent purports to claim
`
`priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/863,935, filed on August 9, 2013.
`
`Ex. 1002, 392. For purposes of this IPR only, Petitioner applies the August 9, 2013,
`
`date as the priority date of the ’440 Patent.
`
`Lahetkangas (Ex. 1011)
`
`B.
`International Publication No. WO 2013/123961 (International Application
`
`No. PCT/EP2012/052828) to Lahetkangas, filed February 20, 2012, and designating
`
`the United States (Code 81), is prior art under at least § 102(a)(2). See Ex. 1011. Per
`
`35 U.S.C. § 374, a PCT application is an application published under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 122(b). Per 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2), applications published under § 122(b), naming
`
`another inventor, and having an effective filing date prior to the subject patent’s
`
`earliest effective filing date is prior art. Because Lahetkangas (Ex. 1011) was filed
`
`February 20, 2012, as a PCT application designating the United States, Lahetkangas
`
`is prior art to the ’440 Patent, which claims an effective filing date of August 9, 2013.
`
`See also MPEP 2151.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Lahetkangas teaches the alleged point of novelty of the ’440 Patent, namely
`
`the first entry for the lowest-order modulation and lowest coding rate in a first table
`
`is contained in a second table for fallback purposes. See Section II.B. Lahetkangas
`
`teaches a technique for controlling a modulation and coding scheme for a
`
`transmission between a base station and user equipment. Ex. 1011, Abstract; Ex.
`
`1003, ¶72. Lahetkangas explains that the base station can be any kind of network
`
`device, including for example NodeB or eNB. Ex. 1011, 3:28-34.
`
`Lahetkangas teaches two modulation and coding scheme tables. Lahetkangas
`
`expressly refers to the left-hand table shown below and provided in Ex. 1009 (i.e.,
`
`TS 36.213), stating the “second tables for the MCS and CQI index tables may be
`
`generated corresponding to 36.213 table 7.1.7-1 but with extension to 256QAM
`
`(Qm=8).” Ex. 1011, 14:11-15. Thus, Lahetkangas expressly teaches that its MCS and
`
`CQI tables are generated corresponding to Table 7.1.7.1-1 of TS 36.213. Ex. 1009
`
`(LTE TS 36.213, v10.3), Table 7.1.7.1-1 (cited by Lahetkangas, Ex. 1011, 14:11-
`
`15).
`
`Lahetkangas also expressly teaches the right-hand table shown below as an
`
`example MCS index table. Ex. 1011, Table 1, p. 16.
`
`Thus, the left-hand table refers to LTE TS 36.213, Table 7.1.7-1 (Ex. 1009,
`
`referenced by Lahetkangas at 14:11-15), and the right-hand table refers to Table 1
`
`11
`
`

`

`(Ex. 1011, p. 16) with a 256QAM extension and retention of lower order legacy
`
`entries for fallback in degraded channel conditions.
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1009, p. 33, Table 7.1.7.1-1. Lahetkangas (Ex. 1011), Table 1, p. 16
`
`Lahetkangas teaches extending modulation schemes to include 256QAM
`
`(Qm=8) by adding a second MCS table with entries for higher order modulation
`
`(Qm=8) if channel conditions are good and entries for lower order modulation (Qm
`
`of 2, 4, and 6) to support fallback if channel conditions deteriorate. Ex. 1003, ¶72.
`
`Lahetkangas also teaches a first and second channel quality indicator (CQI) table,
`
`12
`
`

`

`which may correspond to the first and second MCS tables, respectively. Ex. 1011,
`
`7:5-9; Ex. 1003, ¶72.
`
`Notably, Lahetkangas teaches a second MCS table that includes the lowest
`
`modulation order of the first table (referring to LTE TS 36.213 table 7.1.7-1), i.e., as
`
`a “fallback.” Ex. 1011, Table 1, p. 16, 14:11-15. An example of the disclosed second
`
`MCS table (“MCS Index table”) is shown below in Table 1, with MCS entries 1-4,
`
`6-9, and 11 supporting 256QAM (Qm=8) and entries retained from the first MCS
`
`table for fallback, depicted in yellow and gray, respectively.
`
`Id., Table 1, 15:29-32.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Lahetkangas teaches the ability to extend MCS to higher modulation orders
`
`such as 256QAM to enable higher data rate capability in good channel conditions
`
`while supporting backward compatibility (i.e., the claimed “fallback”) by retaining
`
`use of entries from a first (legacy) MCS table that supports up to 64QAM (Qm=6)
`
`and adding a second MCS table that supports up to 256QAM (Qm=8). Ex. 1003, ¶73;
`
`Ex. 1011, 2:32-36 (“[T]he invention is based on the idea to extend the modulation
`
`and coding scheme table to a higher order modulation while remaining backward
`
`compatible.”). Lahetkangas teaches that fallback can be performed either by using
`
`the lower modulation orders maintained in the second table or reverting to use of the
`
`first table. Ex. 1003, ¶73; Ex. 1011, 12:1-7, 14:22-15:3 (“Additionally, there may be
`
`a few common low modulation/TB sizes in the common MCS index area for such
`
`situations where extended 256QAM table is in use and channel conditions drop
`
`quickly.”), 15:29-32 (referring to “continuous common MCS index area”).
`
`Because both the ’440 Patent and Lahetkangas are directed to systems and
`
`methods for controlling a modulation and coding scheme in an LTE network,
`
`Lahetkangas is in the same field of endeavor and is pertinent to a problem to be
`
`solved by the claimed invention of the ’440 Patent. Ex. 1003, ¶¶72-73. Therefore,
`
`Lahetkangas is analogous art.
`
`14
`
`

`

`C. Wang (Ex. 1006)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,648,601 to Wang issued May 9, 2017, from Application No.
`
`14/416,174, filed January 21, 2015, and claiming priority to PCT/CN2012/080560,
`
`filed August 24, 2012. Wang is prior art under at least § 102(a)(2) based on the PCT
`
`filing date. Wang was not before the Patent Office during prosecution of the ’440
`
`Patent.
`
`Wang teaches a communication method for a wireless communication system
`
`including a base station and user equipment. Ex. 1006, Abstract; Ex. 1003, ¶74.
`
`Wang teaches configuring a parameter table, such as the CQI table or MCS table.
`
`Ex. 1006, 2:7-9; Ex. 1003, ¶74. In one example, Wang teaches a method of defining
`
`parameter tables that include a legacy table (1:55-62, referring to “legacy table”) for
`
`supporting lower modulation order communication and an aggressive table for
`
`supporting higher modulation order communication. Ex. 1006, 2:29-34; Ex. 1003,
`
`¶74. These table configurations are defined at both the BS and the UE. Ex. 1006,
`
`2:26-39; Ex. 1003, ¶74. Wang teaches an extended CQI table that supports higher
`
`order modulation such as 256QAM in which each entry represents a CQI value that
`
`corresponds to a modulation order and coding rate. Ex. 1006, 6:53-56; Ex. 1003,
`
`¶74. The extended CQI table includes all of the legacy entries represented by indices
`
`0-15 plus extended entries that support higher modulation orders such as 256QAM
`
`represented by indices 16-26. Id. Thus, these extended CQI tables contain more table
`
`15
`
`

`

`entries than the legacy CQI table. Ex. 1006, 6:60-65. Wang also teaches similar
`
`extended MCS tables that support both legacy MCS indices and extended,
`
`aggressive MCS indices to support higher modulation orders such as 256QAM. Ex.
`
`1006, 9:43-52, Figs. 10a-10b; Ex. 1003, ¶75.
`
`Wang also teaches that depending on the signal-to-noise ratio (SINR)
`
`conditions, the UE may require different CQI tables. Ex. 1006, 7:4-8 (“For example,
`
`for UE at the edge of the cell…, it experiences a low SINR condition, and requires
`
`a CQI table with relatively conservative CQI values, i.e. relatively lower effective
`
`coding rates and/or relatively lower modulation orders.”), 7:21-24, 7:31-35; Ex.
`
`1003, ¶76. According to one embodiment, Wang teaches configuring a sub-table
`
`comprised of a subset of entries selected from within the extended CQI table, which
`
`are configured for a particular SINR condition. Ex. 1006, 7:21-31.
`
`Because both the ’440 Patent and Wang are directed to systems and methods
`
`for controlling a modulation and coding scheme in an LTE network, Wang is in the
`
`same field of endeavor and is pertinent to a problem to be solved by the claimed
`
`invention of the ’440 Patent. Ex. 1003, ¶¶74-76. Therefore, Wang is analogous art.
`
`D. TS 36.213 (Ex. 1009)
`
`Exhibit 1009 is LTE TS 36.213, Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access
`
`(EUTRA); Physical Layer Procedures (3GPP TS 36.213 version 10.3.0 Release 10),
`
`16
`
`

`

`published at least by September 25, 201