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. IPR2022-00648
`U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,860,044
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00648
`U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`SUMMARY OF THE ’044 PATENT .......................................................... 1
`II.
`The ’044 Patent’s Alleged Invention ........................................................ 1
`A.
`Priority Date of the Challenged Claims .................................................... 6
`B.
`The ’044 Patent’s Prosecution .................................................................. 6
`C.
`Level of Skill of a POSITA ...................................................................... 7
`D.
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................... 7
`III.
`Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A) ..................................................... 7
`A.
`Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) and Relief Requested ................. 8
`B.
`Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3)................................ 8
`C.
`SHOWING OF ANALOGOUS PRIOR ART .............................................. 9
`IV.
`A. Motorola ................................................................................................... 9
`B.
`TS36.211 and TS36.213 ..........................................................................15
`C.
`TR36.912.................................................................................................21
`V.
`GROUNDS FOR PETITION ......................................................................23
`A.
`Grounds 1 and 2: The Combination of Motorola LTE Release 8 TS36.211
`and TS36.213 Renders Obvious All Challenged Claims ....................................23
`1. Differences Between Grounds .................................................................23
`2. Reasons to Combine LTE Release 8 TS36.211 and TS36.213 Standards
`with Motorola.................................................................................................23
`3. Reasons to Combine TR36.912 with Motorola ........................................27
`4.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................................27
`5. Dependent Claim 2 ..................................................................................44
`6. Dependent Claim 3 ..................................................................................46
`7. Dependent Claim 4 ..................................................................................49
`8. Dependent Claim 5 ..................................................................................50
`9. Dependent Claim 6 ..................................................................................52
`10. Dependent Claim 7 ...............................................................................52
`11. Dependent Claim 8 ...............................................................................55
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00648
`U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`12. Dependent Claim 9 ...............................................................................56
`13. Dependent Claim 10 .............................................................................58
`14. Dependent Claim 11 .............................................................................61
`15. Dependent Claim 15 .............................................................................63
`16. Dependent Claim 16 .............................................................................64
`17.
`Independent Claim 17 ..........................................................................64
`18.
`Independent Claim 18 ..........................................................................67
`19. Dependent Claim 19 .............................................................................71
`20. Dependent Claim 20 .............................................................................72
`21. Dependent Claim 21 .............................................................................72
`22. Dependent Claim 22 .............................................................................72
`23. Dependent Claim 23 .............................................................................73
`24. Dependent Claim 24 .............................................................................73
`25. Dependent Claim 25 .............................................................................73
`26. Dependent Claim 26 .............................................................................74
`27. Dependent Claim 27 .............................................................................74
`28.
`Independent Claim 33 ..........................................................................75
`29. Dependent Claim 34 .............................................................................78
`30. Dependent Claim 35 .............................................................................78
`31. Dependent Claim 36 .............................................................................78
`32. Dependent Claim 37 .............................................................................79
`33. Dependent Claim 38 .............................................................................79
`34. Dependent Claim 39 .............................................................................79
`35. Dependent Claim 40 .............................................................................80
`36. Dependent Claim 41 .............................................................................80
`VI. Discretionary Factors ..................................................................................80
`The General Plastic Factors Favor Institution .........................................80
`A.
`VII. CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................81
`VIII. MANDATORY NOTICES......................................................................82
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest ..............................................................................82
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00648
`U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`Related Matters .......................................................................................82
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3): Counsel Information ............................................82
`Service Information .................................................................................83
`
`B.
`C.
`D.
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00648
`U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Adobe Inc. v. RAH Color Technologies, IPR2019-00628, Paper 37 at 20
`(PTAB Aug. 20, 2019). ..................................................................................... 13
`Becton, Dickinson, and Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586,
`Paper 8 at 17-18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) ............................................................ 13
`Gen. Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357,
`Paper 19 at 15-19 (September 6, 2017) .............................................................. 80
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................ 8
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. Certified Measurement, LLC, IPR2018-00548, Paper
`No. 7 at 7-8 (Sep. 5, 2018) ................................................................................. 81
`Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prod., Inc., IPR2019-00062, Paper No. 11 at
`2, 9-10, 12-13 (Apr. 2, 2019) ............................................................................. 81
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .......................................................................................... 9, 15, 20
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ..................................................................................................... 8
`
`v
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00648
`U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. (“Apple” 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 (“the ’044 Patent”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’044 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`The ’044 Patent’s Alleged Invention
`
`The ’044 Patent is directed to methods and apparatuses for implementing
`
`carrier aggregation within a mobile communication system (e.g., a Long Term
`
`Evolution (“LTE”) or LTE-Advanced system). Ex. 1001, Abstract, 1:16-30, 2:8-20.
`
`The ’044 Patent describes efficiently allocating the resources of an uplink channel
`
`within the mobile communication system:
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 1. The mobile communication system comprises a mobile
`
`communication network RN 10 containing multiple geographic cell areas or sectors
`
`(e.g., sector 12). Id. at 4:21-37. Each geographic sector is served by a base station
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00648
`U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`(BS) RN 20 providing communication services to a plurality of user terminals (UE)
`
`RN 100 (e.g., UE1, UE2, and UE3) within the sector. The UEs in a sector “receive
`
`signals from the BS on one or more downlink (DL) channels and transmit signals to
`
`the base station 20 on one or more uplink (UL) channels.” Id. at 4:34-37.
`
`The ’044 Patent discusses that aggregation of carrier components in the UL
`
`and DL channels of a mobile communication network is beneficial as carrier
`
`aggregation “enables the needed bandwidth expansion by allowing UEs to transmit
`
`data over multiple component carriers....” Id. at 1:33-36. Carrier aggregation is not
`
`new to the ’044 Patent, as the ’044 Patent notes that “[c]arrier aggregation is one of
`
`the new features being discussed for the next generation of Long Term Evolution
`
`(LTE) systems, which is being standardized as part of the LTE Release 10 (known
`
`as LTE-Advanced).” Id. at 1:23-27.
`
`The ’044 Patent describes that “[t]he number of aggregated component
`
`carriers…may be different for Uplink (UL) and Downlink (DL).” Id. at 1:41-47
`
`(further discussing that there may be a “symmetric configuration,” where the
`
`number of component carriers in the DL and UL are the same, or an “asymmetric
`
`configuration,” where the number of components carriers in the DL and UL are
`
`different).1 The ’044 Patent also describes that “[o]ne consideration for carrier
`
`aggregation is how to transmit control signaling from the user terminal on the uplink
`
`1 All emphases added unless otherwise stated.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00648
`U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`from the user terminal.” Id. at 1:55-62 (describing uplink control signaling may
`
`include acknowledgement (ACK) signaling, channel state and quality information
`
`(CSI, CQI), and scheduling requests (SRs)). One known method for transmitting
`
`control signaling from the UE to the BS on the UL channel was “to transmit the
`
`uplink control information on multiple uplink component carriers associated with
`
`different downlink component carriers.” Id. at 1:63-65. “However, this option is
`
`likely to result in higher user terminal power consumption and a dependency on
`
`specific user terminal capabilities.” Id. at 1:65-67.
`
`As an alternative to transmitting UL control information using multiple UL
`
`component carriers, the ’044 Patent describes transmitting UL control information
`
`associated with DL transmissions on a single UL component carrier. Id. at 2:7-14.
`
`This purportedly novel uplink transmission approach is illustrated in Figure 10 of
`
`the ’044 Patent:
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00648
`U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`
`Id. at FIG. 10 (annotated). If a UE receives transmissions over a single DL
`
`component carrier (no carrier aggregation, left branch), the UE transmits uplink
`
`control information back to the BS via a UL component carrier (referred to as the
`
`“uplink primary component carrier” (blue)) utilizing a first set of radio resources. Id.
`
`at 11:34-48. If a UE receives transmissions over multiple DL component carriers
`
`(carrier aggregation, right branch), the UE will again transmit UL control
`
`information back to the BS via a UL component carrier (blue) utilizing a second set
`
`of radio resources. Id.
`
`The ’044 Patent describes a UE utilizing this type of signaling mechanism will
`
`transmit UL control information over a single UL component carrier regardless of
`
`whether the UE receives transmissions over multiple DL component carriers (carrier
`
`aggregation) or over a single DL component carrier (no carrier aggregation). Id. at
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00648
`U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`2:7-14. The ’044 Patent also describes this type of signaling mechanism
`
`“provides…for efficient transmission of control information in a communication
`
`system using carrier aggregation.” Id.
`
`The ’044 Patent further describes the first set of radio resources as being 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 the
`
`second set of radio resources as being part of another pool of PUCCH radio resources
`
`reserved for UEs scheduled to receive transmissions over multiple DL component
`
`carriers (carrier aggregation). Id. at 9:31-66. However, the two pools of PUCCH
`
`radio resources need not be distinct and “could overlap or be interleaved.” Id. at
`
`9:66–7:1.
`
`Notably, the ’044 Patent describes LTE Release 8 (LTE Rel-8) as being prior
`
`art. At the time of the alleged invention, work was already underway on the next
`
`generation of LTE known as LTE-Advanced (LTE Rel-10 or LTE-A). Id. at 1:23-
`
`40. The ’044 Patent describes one of the features under consideration for
`
`standardization in LTE-Advanced was carrier aggregation, including asymmetric
`
`carrier aggregation, in which the number of DL component carriers is different from
`
`the number of UL component carriers. Id. at 1:33-47. Further, the ’044 Patent
`
`describes that a known consideration for carrier aggregation was how to transmit UL
`
`control information (e.g., such as the acknowledgments (ACK/NACK) of DL
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00648
`U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`transmissions) from the UE on the UL carrier. Id. at 1:55-57. The ’044 Patent’s
`
`solution was to utilize the signaling mechanism as described above where the UE
`
`would transmit the UL control information using either a first or a second set of UL
`
`radio resources depending on whether the UE received DL transmission via a single
`
`DL carrier or multiple DL carriers (respectively). (Dec. 49-56)2.
`
`B.
`
`Priority Date of the Challenged Claims
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 15/350,360 (“the ’044 Application”), from which
`
`the ’044 Patent issued, was filed on November 14, 2016. The ’044 Application
`
`claims priority to U.S. Application No. 12/896,993 (now U.S. Patent No. 9,497,004)
`
`(“the ’004 Patent”), filed October 4, 2010, and U.S. Provisional Application No.
`
`61/248,661, filed on October 5, 2009. Ex. 1001, (21), (22), (65), (60).
`
`For purposes of this Petition, Apple applies October 5, 2009, as the priority
`
`date for the Challenged Claims. The prior art references relied upon in the proposed
`
`grounds below are either §§ 102(a) or 102(e), assuming this priority date.
`
`C.
`
`The ’044 Patent’s Prosecution
`
`During prosecution of the application that ultimately issued as the ’044 Patent,
`
`there were no prior art rejections, and Patent Owner only faced an obviousness type
`
`2 All citations to “Dec.” are to paragraph numbers in Ex. 1003, Declaration of Dr.
`
`Apostolos (Paul) Kakaes.
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00648
`U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`double patenting rejection over the parent ’004 Patent to which the Patent Owner
`
`filed a terminal disclaimer resulting in allowance of the application. Ex. 1002 (File
`
`History of the ’044 Patent), Non-Final Rejection pp. 83-89; Terminal Disclaimer pp.
`
`154-155.
`
`D.
`
`Level of Skill of a POSITA
`
`A POSITA at the time of the ’044 Patent––which, for the purposes of this
`
`Petition is October 5, 2009––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. (Dec. 61-66).
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`A.
`
`Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A)
`
`Apple certifies the ’044 Patent is available for IPR and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the claims of the ’044 Patent.
`
`Apple is not the owner of the ’044 Patent, has not filed a civil action challenging the
`
`validity of any claim of the ’044 Patent, and this Petition is filed not more than one
`
`year after Apple was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’044
`
`Patent.
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00648
`U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) and Relief Requested
`
`B.
`
`In view of the prior art and evidence presented, claims 1-11, 15-27, and 33-
`
`41 of the ’044 Patent are unpatentable and should be cancelled. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(b)(1). Further, based on the prior art references identified below, IPR of
`
`the Challenged Claims should be granted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2).
`
`Grounds of Unpatentability
`Ground 1: Claims 1-11, 15-27, and 33-41 are obvious under pre-
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Motorola (Ex. 1007) in view of
`TS36.211 (Ex. 1009) in further view of TS36.213 (Ex. 1011)
`Ground 2: Claims 1-11, 15-27, and 33-41 are obvious under pre-
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Motorola in view of TS36.211 and in
`further view of TS36.213 and TR36.912 (Ex. 1021)
`
`Exhibits
`Ex. 1007,
`Ex. 1009,
`Ex. 1011
`Ex. 1007,
`Ex. 1009,
`Ex. 1011,
`Ex. 1021
`
`Section V identifies where each element of the Challenged Claims is found in
`
`the prior art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). The exhibit numbers of the evidence relied
`
`upon to support the challenges are provided above and the relevance of the evidence
`
`to the challenges raised is provided in Section VIII. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5).
`
`Exhibits 1001-1023 are also attached.
`
`C.
`
`Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3)
`
`In this proceeding, claims are interpreted under the same standard applied by
`
`Article III courts (i.e., the Phillips standard). See 37 C.F.R § 42.100(b); see also 83
`
`Fed. Reg. 197 (Oct. 11, 2018); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under this standard, words in a claim are given their plain
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00648
`U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`meaning which is the meaning understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`view of the patent and file history. Phillips, 415 F.3d 1303, 1212–13. Petitioner
`
`submits the Board does not need to construe any terms to resolve the arguments
`
`presented herein.
`
`IV.
`
`SHOWING OF ANALOGOUS PRIOR ART
`
`TS36.211 and TS36.213 were not cited or considered during the prosecution
`
`of the ’044 Patent. Motorola was cited but not considered during prosecution of the
`
`’004 Patent (Parent Patent to the ’044 Patent). Petitioner provides an analysis under
`
`§ 325(d) for Motorola. The earliest claimed priority date for the ’044 Patent is
`
`October 5, 2009.
`
`A. Motorola
`
`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). Ex. 1016 (Rodermund Decl.), ¶¶ 21, 55-60
`
`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, 5 (“PUCCH under
`
`Asymmetric Aggregation”), 6 (“PUCCH Design”). Motorola explains that there are
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00648
`U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`a number of reasons asymmetric carrier aggregation may occur in a network (e.g.,
`
`due to spectrum availability or spectrum reconfiguration) thereby affecting all UEs
`
`in the system. Id. at 5; Dec. 68.
`
`Motorola proposes the PUCCH transmission scheme of LTE-Advanced
`
`“should be designed to handle both asymmetric and symmetric bandwidth allocation
`
`for UL [uplink].” Ex. 1007, 6. Particularly, “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 downlink
`
`component carriers as shown in Figure 4,” reproduced below. (Dec. 69).
`
`Ex. 1007, FIG. 4 (original).
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00648
`U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`Figure 4 above illustrates a UE receiving two DL transmissions (yellow and
`
`magenta) over two DL component carriers (labeled “DL Carrier 1” and “DL Carrier
`
`2”). (Dec. 70). 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 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. (Dec. 71).
`
`Motorola explains that the “logical choice” to implement this PUCCH scheme
`
`for supporting asymmetric carrier aggregation “is to utilize the same PUCCH
`
`structure as in [the legacy] LTE Release 8.” Ex. 1007, 6; (Dec. 72). Motorola
`
`specifically discusses the acknowledgement messages (ACK/NACK) and channel
`
`quality feedback messages (CQI/PMI) are the two core types of uplink control
`
`information associated with downlink transmissions. (Dec. 73). Regarding
`
`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; Dec. 73. And regarding the CQI/PMI channel quality information, Motorola
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00648
`U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`states that “[o]ne straightforward method” for the uplink transmission of CQI/PMI
`
`“is to keep the Rel-8 structure….” Ex. 1007, 7.
`
`Because Motorola, like the ’044 Patent, discloses downlink (DL) control
`
`methods for signaling uplink control information and supporting carrier aggregation
`
`in 3rd Generation Partnership Project (“3GPP”) long term evolution Advanced
`
`(“LTE-A”) network, Motorola is in the same field of endeavor as the ’044 Patent.
`
`Compare Motorola (Ex. 1007), 1 (disclosing how to design a control signaling
`
`mechanism to support DL and UL transmissions in a n LTE-Advanced network), 5
`
`(disclosing during asymmetric aggregation (e.g., two DL carriers and only one UL
`
`carrier), a UE only supports one UL component carrier), 6 (describing a PUCCH
`
`transmitted on one UL component carrier will carry information for multiple
`
`downlink component carriers), with ’044 Patent (Ex. 1001), 2:8-14 (describing a
`
`signaling mechanism for the transmission of UL control information on a single
`
`uplink carrier), 5:12-16 and 5:43-46 (describing UL transmissions from the UE are
`
`sent via a PUCCH to the BS), 8:47-50 (describing a PUCCH on a single UE carrier
`
`is used to support DL transmissions from multiple DL carriers).
`
`Further, because both Motorola and the ’044 Patent disclose that a single UL
`
`carrier should be used for UL transmissions from a UE to a BS when DL
`
`transmissions are received via multiple DL carriers, Motorola is reasonably pertinent
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00648
`U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`to the problem faced by the inventor of the ’044 Patent. (Dec. 74). Therefore,
`
`Motorola is analogous art to the ’044 Patent.
`
`Motorola was cited on the face of the ’044 Patent but not substantially
`
`considered or cited by the Examiner as a basis for rejection during original
`
`examination of the ’044 Patent. (Ex. 1002, 4, 97). Motorola was cited in an IDS (of
`
`two filed IDSs). Id. at 4. Applying the Becton Dickinson factors, the Board should
`
`not exercise its discretion under § 325(d). Becton, Dickinson, and Co. v. B. Braun
`
`Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17-18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017)
`
`(designated precedential). The Board has previously found, in similar cases, that the
`
`fact a cited reference was never the basis of any rejection during examination
`
`“weighs strongly against exercising our discretion to deny institution” under §
`
`325(d). Adobe Inc. v. RAH Color Technologies, IPR2019-00628, Paper 37 at 20
`
`(PTAB Aug. 20, 2019).
`
`Likewise, Motorola was cited but not substantively considered during original
`
`examination of the ’004 Patent (the Parent to the ’044 Patent). (Ex. 1005, File
`
`History for the ’004 Patent, 77, 112). Motorola was again cited in an IDS (of two
`
`filed IDSs). Id. at 77. The ’044 Patent Application was allowed with only a non-
`
`statutory double patenting rejection over the ’004 Patent. (Ex. 1002, 83-90).
`
`Specifically, the Examiner never applied Motorola as the basis for a rejection in
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00648
`U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`either application (i.e., the ’004 or the ’044 Application). In contrast, Motorola is
`
`applied as a ground of unpatentability for claims 1-11, 15-27, and 33-41.
`
`The Examiner did not have the teachings of LTE Rel-8 standard specifications
`
`TS36.211 and TS36.213 when considering the patentability of the claims of the ’044
`
`Patent (or any priority patents). Motorola is being used for limitations directed to
`
`what is generally known as an asymmetric carrier aggregation (e.g., the receiving of
`
`DL transmissions at a UE over multiple DL carriers). See Mappings for Claims 1(a)-
`
`(b), and 1(d).
`
`TS36.211 and TS36.213 are being applied for teaching Claims 1(c)-1(d)
`
`directed to non-carrier aggregation of DL carriers (i.e., receiving DL transmissions
`
`at a UE over a single DL carrier). Because these references were neither cited nor
`
`considered during original examination, the Examiner did not have the benefit of the
`
`combination of TS36.211 and TS36.213.
`
`Becton Dickinson factors (c) and (d) therefore favor the Board not using its
`
`discretion under § 325(d). Factor (e) is not applicable because the Examiner did not
`
`rely on Motorola as a basis for rejection. Regarding factor (f), the proposed grounds
`
`of unpatentability present art that, when viewed in combination, provide additional
`
`evidence and facts warranting reconsideration of any prior art, including Motorola,
`
`previously cited to the Office. Apple thus respectfully requests the Board not
`
`exercise its discretion under § 325(d).
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00648
`U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`
`B.
`
`TS36.211 and TS36.213
`
`“Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA) Physical Channels
`
`and Modulation,” 3GPP TS36.211, 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.), ¶¶23, 67-78.
`
`“Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA) Physical layer
`
`procedures,” 3GPP TS36.213, Version 8.5.0 (Release 8), published December 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 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`Ex. 1016 (Rodermund Decl.), ¶¶24, 79-90.
`
`TS36.211 and TS36.213 are LTE Release 8 standard specifications of the
`
`same version (V8.5.0) published in December 2008. Ex. 1009, 1; Ex. 1011, 1; Ex.
`
`1016 (Rodermund Decl.), ¶¶67-90. These 3GPP standard specifications are closely
`
`related as they are directed to related aspects of the physical layer as used in LTE
`
`Rel-8, i.e., the specifics of how bits of information are processed and eventually
`
`transmitted on each physical channel defined by LTE, including the PUCCH. Ex.
`
`1009 (TS36.211), 16-21 (describing PUCCH); Ex. 1011 (TS36.213), 66-71
`
`(describing PUCCH procedures); Dec. 76. Not only are TS36.211 and TS36.213
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00648
`U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`closely related, but both specifications reference each other in their respective list of
`
`references. Ex. 1009, 7; Ex. 1011, 6; Dec. 75.
`
`Figure 5.4.3.1 of TS36.211 (below, red and blue highlighting added)
`
`illustrates the PUCCH radio resources used by LTE Rel-8 UEs to transmit UL
`
`control information to a BS. Ex. 1009, 21 (“Mapping of modulation symbols for the
`
`physical uplink control channel is illustrated in Figure 5.4.3-1.”). (Dec. 77). As
`
`further detailed below, each UE computes an “m” value based on parameters that
`
`are explicitly or implicitly provided by the BS. This “m” value specifies the radio
`
`resources (specifically, the physical resource blocks or PRBs) of the UE’s PUCCH.
`
`For example, one UE computes m=1 based on parameters provided to the UE by the
`
`BS (the PUCCH of this UE is assigned to the PRBs highlighted in blue). (Dec. 77-
`
`78). A second UE computes m=0 based on parameters provided to the UE by the BS
`
`(the PUCCH of this second UE is assigned to the PRBs highlighted in red). Id.
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00648
`U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`
`Ex. 1009, FIG. 5.4.3-1 (annotated).
`
`TS36.211 provides different ways or “formats” for a UE to calculate its “m”
`
`value based on the UE’s needs. Ex. 1009, 20 (“the variable m depends on the
`
`PUCCH format.”). Format 1 and Format 2 are illustrated below. Id., 20-21; Ex. 1011,
`
`66-67; Dec. 79-81.
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00648
`U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`
`In operation, a UE selects an appropriate format (e.g., PUCCH Format 1 or
`
`Format 2) to calculate the “m” value (red) that determines the radio resources used
`
`by the UE for transmission of its PUCCH. The calculation involves a format-specific
`
`formula (purple) and certain format-specific input variables are explicitly (green)3 or
`
`3 See, e.g., Ex. 1011 (TS36.213), 42 (“n(2)PUCCH is UE specific and configured by
`
`higher layers”); Ex. 1009 (TS.36.211), 16 (N(2)RB, N(1)CS and ΔPUCCH Shift are
`
`configured by higher layers). (Dec. 83).
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00648
`U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`implicitly (yellow)4 provided to the UE by the BS. (Dec. 82). As shown at the bottom
`
`of the figure above, the formulas (purple) used in Format 1 and Format 2 as described
`
`in TS36.211 are different from one another. Id.; Ex. 1009, 20-21. Likewise, the sets
`
`of inputs (green and yellow) for computing “m” are also different in Format 1 and
`
`Format 2. Dec. 83-85; Ex. 1009, 20-21. This highlights the flexible and extensible
`
`PUCCH structure of LTE Rel-8. For example, new “Formats” for computing the
`
`“m” value would have been readily added to support future PUCCH requirements.
`
`(Dec. 82-92).
`
`Moreover, the formulas and input variables of PUCCH Format 1 and Format
`
`2 are completely component carrier-agnostic. (Dec. 92). Indeed, LTE Rel-8 UEs use
`
`PUCCH Format 1 or Format 2 to determine the PUCCH “m” value when operating
`
`in any LTE Rel-8 compatible component carrier. Id., 93. Thus, a POSITA would
`
`have understood that PUCCH Format 1 and Format 2 defined in TS36.211 would
`
`4 As explained in TS36.213, “n(1)PUCCH = nCCE + N(1)PUCCH, where NCCE is the
`
`number of the first CCE used for transmission of the corresponding DCI assignment
`
`and N(1)PUCCH is configured by higher layers.” Ex. 1011, 67. The variable nCCE is
`
`not explicitly provided to the UE by the BS. Rather, the UE determines nCCE based
`
`on detecting the location of the DCI information intended for it in the PDCCH. Id.
`
`Thus, nCCE is implicitly provided to the UE. (Dec. 84).
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00648
`U.S. Patent No. 9,860,044
`also be used to support LTE-Advanced carrier aggregation, especially when
`
`aggregating component carriers that are LTE Rel-8 compatible carriers. Id.
`
`It is for these reasons that Motorola states the “logical choice [for LTE-
`
`Advanced] is to utilize the same PUCCH structure as in LTE Release-8” and that,
`
`indeed, a “straightforward method is to keep the Rel-8 structure …” Ex. 1007, 6-7;
`
`Dec. 94.
`
`Because TS36.211 and TS36.213, like the ’044 Patent, discloses the selection
`
`of UL radio resources used for PUUCH transmissions via a UL carrier, TS36.211
`
`and TS36.213 are both in the same field of e