January 2006
`
`doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0037r0
`
`IEEE P802.11
`Wireless LANs
`
`[Minutes of High Throughput Task Group .11n Session]
`
`Date: 2006-1-16
`
`Author(s):
`Name
`Garth
`Hillman
`
`Company
`Advanced
`Micro Devices
`
`Address
`5204 East Ben White
`Austin TX 78741
`MS: 625
`
`Phone
`(512) 602-
`7869
`
`email
`Garth.hillman
`@amd.com
`
`Abstract
`Cumulative minutes of the High Throughput Task Group meetings held during
`the IEEE 802.11 Interim session in Hawaii from January 16 through 20, 2006.
`The session was chaired by TGn chair Bruce Kraemer from Conexant.
`
`Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE 802.11. It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the
`contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after
`further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein.
`
`Release: The contributor grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution,
`and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE
`Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit
`others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and
`accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE 802.11.
`
`Patent Policy and Procedures: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE 802 Patent Policy and Procedures <http://
`ieee802.org/guides/bylaws/sb-bylaws.pdf>, including the statement "IEEE standards may include the known use of patent(s),
`including patent applications, provided the IEEE receives assurance from the patent holder or applicant with respect to patents
`essential for compliance with both mandatory and optional portions of the standard." Early disclosure to the Working Group of
`patent information that might be relevant to the standard is essential to reduce the possibility for delays in the development
`process and increase the likelihood that the draft publication will be approved for publication. Please notify the Chair
`<stuart.kerry@philips.com> as early as possible, in written or electronic form, if patented technology (or technology under
`patent application) might be incorporated into a draft standard being developed within the IEEE 802.11 Working Group. If you
`have questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at <patcom@ieee.org>.
`
`Submission
`
`page 1 Garth Hillman, Advanced Micro Devices
`
`Exhibit 1009
`Panasonic v. UNM
`IPR2024-00364
`Page 1 of 10
`
`

`

`January 2006
`
`doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0037r0
`
`Executive Summary (also see Chairs’ meeting doc 11-05-1249r5 and closing report doc. 11-
`06-0222r0):
`
`1. TGn Joint Proposal team presented their complete proposal to the IEEE 802.11TGn
`body as contained in documents:
`11-05-1095r5 [MAC]
`
`11-05-1102r4 [PHY]
`
`2. The JP proposal overview was presented to the body in documents:
`11-06-0045r0 - Overview
`
`11-05-1161r2 – Phy Details
`
`11-05-1165r5 – MAC Details
`
`3. Ample time was made available for Q&A
`4. Confirmation vote on adopting the JP as the TGn baseline document was held and the
`body approved it unanimously (184,0,4)
`5. A Technical Editor Election was held and Adrian Stephens from Intel was elected by
`acclamation.
`6. An ad hoc committee was formed to develop a PICS and MIB in time for the March
`meeting; Adrian Stephens volunteered to chair this committee; first conference call set
`for Feb 20 at 11 AM EST
`7. An ad hoc committee was formed to develop a Coexistence Assurance document;
`Sheung Li volunteered to chair this committee; first conference call set for Feb 20 at 4
`PM EST
`8. Plans for March meeting were discussed and included:
` Presentation of draft & discussion
` Presentation of CA; discussion; joint meeting with .19; vote?
` Presentation of MIB & PICS; discussion; vote to incorporate in draft?
` Review timeline
` Set logistics for TGn peer review of draft before going to first LB
`
`Note: Relative to presentations, these minutes are intended to offer a brief summary
`(including document number) of each of the presentations to facilitate review and recall
`without having to read each of the presentations. Most of the ‘presentation related’ minutes
`are built directly from selected slides and therefore are not subjective. An effort was made
`to note obscure acronyms. As always Q&A is somewhat subjective/interpretive on my part
`and therefore subject to question.
`
`******************************************************************************
`
`Detailed cumulative minutes follow:
`
`Monday; January 16, 2006; 10:30 AM – 3:30 PM [~ 175 attendees; 9 new]
`
`1. Meeting was called to order by Task Group chair at 10:30PM
`2. Chairs’ Meeting Doc 11-05-1249rx
`
`Submission
`
`page 2 Garth Hillman, Advanced Micro Devices
`
`Exhibit 1009
`Panasonic v. UNM
`IPR2024-00364
`Page 2 of 10
`
`

`

`January 2006
`
`doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0037r0
`
`3. Chair read IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patent Policy and additional Pat Com
`Guidance; chair noted change to 2006 version!
`4. Chair reviewed topics NOT to be discussed during the meeting including – licensing, pricing,
`litigation, market share
`5. Letters of Assurance (LOA) can be sent to Pat Com but details should not be discussed here
`6. Attendance reminder – for this meeting attendance will be manual (IEEE registration desk)
`and on an honour system
`7. Now is the time to confirm your voting status especially in view of the likely confirmation
`vote later this week – see Harry if you are unsure
`8. Reminders:
`8.1. Make sure your badges are visible especially when voting
`8.2. No company logos on presentations
`9. Chair reviewed history of .11n in order to provide the background to set the agenda for this
`meeting:
`9.1. HTSG formed in 9-11-02
`9.2. TGn formed 9-15-03
`9.3. Mar 05 1st confirm vote which failed
`9.4. July 05 formed JP
`9.5. Jan 06 JP proposal made to .11n
`9.6. Goal remains a ratified standard in April 2007
`10. Nov proposal for January’s Agenda reviewed and noted that it was based on JP proposal put
`on server by Jan 9, 2006
`11. Exec Summary from Nov minutes 11-05-1148r0 presented
`12. Motion by Amer Hassan to approve Nov minutes, 11-05-1148r0, was seconded by Jon
`Rosdahl and approved unanimously
`13. Chair listed doc numbers posted by JP prior to this meeting as:
`13.1.
`11-05-1095-04-000n Joint Proposal MAC Specification
`13.2.
`11-05-1102-04-000n Joint Proposal PHY Specification
`13.3.
`11-05-1268-01-000n TGn Joint Proposal MAC1 Results
`13.4.
`11-05-1267-01-000n TGn Joint Proposal MAC Simulation Methodology
`13.5.
`11-05-1266-01-000n TGn Joint Proposal MAC Results
`14. Chair listed doc numbers of JP supporting documents
`14.1.
`11-05-1269-00-000n TGn Joint Proposal MAC2 Results
`14.2.
`11-05-1270-00-000n TGn Joint Proposal MAC3 Results
`14.3.
`11-06-0046-00-000n TGn Joint Proposal FRCC Compliance
`14.4.
`11-06-0067-00-000n TGn Joint Proposal PHY Results
`14.5.
`11-06-0045-00-000n Joint Proposal Opening Report
`15. Changes to Chair’s list?
`15.1.
` 11-05-0067r0 to r1
`15.2.
`add new doc from Institute for Infocom Research, 11-06-0084r0
`15.3.
`add 11-05-1165r5, Joint Proposal MAC Detail which will be posted before lunch
`16. Chair proposed an agenda for this meeting (granted 16 hours total) which was modified; the
`modified agenda is shown in the following table which is followed by a description of how
`the acceptance of the modifications were achieved:
`
`Submission
`
`page 3 Garth Hillman, Advanced Micro Devices
`
`Exhibit 1009
`Panasonic v. UNM
`IPR2024-00364
`Page 3 of 10
`
`

`

`January 2006
`
`doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0037r0
`
`Time
`8:00-10:00
`
`10:30-12:30
`
`13:30-15:30
`
`16:00-18:00
`
`19:30-21:30
`
`Jan 16
`Monday
`
`Opening
`JP Overview
`
`PHY Rationale
`and
`Q & A
`
`
`
`
`Jan 17
`Tuesday
`
`
`
`
`
`MAC Rationale
`and
`Q&A
`Q & A
`
`Jan 18
`Wednesday
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jan 19
`Thursday
`First
`Confirmation
`vote at 9:00 AM
`Comment
`Resolution
`Second
`Confirmation
`vote
`Technical editor
`Coexistence
`Plans for March
`
`
`Friday
`
`17. Agenda overview
`17.1.
`Monday – AM2 admin and JP presentation, PM1 Q&A
`17.2.
`Tuesday 4 hours for Q&A
`17.3.
`Wednesday – no time allocated
`17.4.
`Thursday – AM1 Q&A, AM2 confirmation vote special order, PM1 Technical
`editor election (Sean Coffey has withdrawn his candidacy leaving only Adrian Stephens
`but nominations are still open), PM2 plans for Mar
`18. Recommended change – Monday PM1 devoted to PHY presentation and MAC presentation
`Tuesday PM2 and evening was accepted
`19. Other presentations? A – none
`20. Other agenda items? A – none
`21. Suggested 9 AM confirmation vote as special order on Thursday with a 2nd confirm vote if
`needed for Thursday PM1 was accepted
`22. Confirmation vote procedure alternatives
`22.1.
`Show of hands
`22.2.
`Verbal but recorded
`22.3.
`Paper process
`23. Discussion – our process calls for a roll call vote
`24. OK - verbal or paper?
`25. No objection to a verbal roll call vote
`26. Note that the agenda can be changed with 2/3 majority; e.g., not use 2nd roll call vote
`
`Submission
`
`page 4 Garth Hillman, Advanced Micro Devices
`
`Exhibit 1009
`Panasonic v. UNM
`IPR2024-00364
`Page 4 of 10
`
`

`

`January 2006
`
`doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0037r0
`
`27. Need to change dates on columns of agenda from 9-12 to 16-20
`28. Motion to approve agenda on slide 22 with amendments by John Barr and seconded by
`Jim Petranovich was accepted without objection
`29. Presentation “JP Opening Report” 11-06-0045r0 Introduction by Jon Rosdahl
`29.1.
`JP has completed and is READY
`29.2.
`300 meeting hours by JP since July
`29.3.
`JP team is united in its support of this proposal
`30. Phy summary by Aon Mujtaba
`30.1.
`High Level changes since Nov
`30.1.1. Mandatory ~150 Mbps -> ~600 Mbps with Optional features (slide 17)
`30.1.2. Number of encoders: 1 below 300 Mbps and 2 above (added 5/6 coding)
`30.1.3. Parser – Group wise
`30.1.4. Antenna mapper – TX Beam Forming (BF) option
`30.1.5. GI – 400 ns optional
`30.1.6. Short MIMO preamble – Green Field optional
`30.1.7. HT-SIG modulation – 2 symbol 90 degree rotated Q-BPSK
`30.1.8. Scrambler initialization – Service Field in MAC Header
`30.1.9. MCS set – asymmetric MCS sets (for STBC and TxBF)
`30.1.10.
`Advanced Coding - LDPC
`30.1.11.
`Sounding packet Format – staggered preamble & zero-length Frame (both
`optional)
`STBC – 3x1 and 4x1 added as optional
`30.1.12.
`31. MAC summary by Adrian Stephens
`31.1.
`High Level Changes since Nov
`31.1.1. Added new features
`31.1.1.1. PCO 20/40 MHz operation
`31.1.1.2. Greenfield & RIFS operation
`31.1.1.3. MIMO power saving
`31.1.2. A-MPDU – about 2.5 x Data/ACK (aggregation at bottom of MAC)
`31.1.3. A-MSDU - ~20% on top of A-MPDU (aggregation at top of MAC)
`31.1.4. Reverse Direction - ~25% benefit
`31.1.5. Enhanced Block ACK - ~5-10% benefit
`31.1.6. PSMP/MTBA – VoIP call density increase of up to 2x non-PSMP (power save
`multi-poll)
`32. Final Thoughts by Jon Rosdahl
`32.1.
`complete
`32.2.
`Recommend body approve 11-05-1095r4 and 11-05-1102r4 as baseline in
`confirmation vote
`33. Bruce presented changed agenda (see above) and noted we have 45 min remaining this AM;
`how to use this time?
`34. Phy team preferred to wait until PM1 session at 1:30 PM before starting PHY details
`35. Questions/Comments on Opening presentations
`35.1.
`really a home coming week for .11n
`35.2.
`proposal looks very good
`36. Session was recessed at 11:45 AM until 1`:30 PM today
`
`37. Session was reconvened at 1:32 PM by the Chair
`
`Submission
`
`page 5 Garth Hillman, Advanced Micro Devices
`
`Exhibit 1009
`Panasonic v. UNM
`IPR2024-00364
`Page 5 of 10
`
`

`

`January 2006
`
`doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0037r0
`
`38. JP PHY Overview, 11-05-1161r2 by Jim Petranovich and Aon Mujtaba
`38.1.
`What’s New, Basic – Jim Petranovich
`38.1.1. Spatial Division Multiplexing through MIMO (most basic is # SS= # TX
`antennas)
`38.1.2. Bandwidth Expansion
`38.1.3. New MCS Sets
`38.1.3.1. Note – symmetrical indicates each spatial stream uses the same MCS
`38.1.4. Higher Rate Binary Convolutional Code
`38.1.5. New Frame Formats
`38.1.6. RIFS (Reduced Inter-frame Spacing)
`38.2.
`What’s New, Advanced by Aon Mujtaba (Motivation was increased robustness
`and performance)
`38.2.1. Short GI option
`38.2.2. Spatial Expansion (all are linear transformations unlike SDM)
`38.2.3. Space-Time Block Codes (good for single stream devices)
`38.2.4. Channel Sounding (antenna to antenna sounding)
`38.2.5. Transmit Beam Forming (complex - affects virtually everything in PHY spec; due
`to loss of reciprocity over time use reciprocity with care)
`38.2.6. Low Density Parity Check Code (systematic =>input data + redundancy is
`transmitted)
`38.2.7. Synopsis – took Shannon’s law and used every trick known to get as close as
`possible to it
`Conclusion
`38.3.
`38.3.1. JP PHY submission is a good basis for the 802.11n PHY specification
`38.3.1.1. Standardizes use of SDM and bandwidth expansion
`38.3.1.2. Provides for data rates up to 600 Mbps
`38.3.1.2.1. Includes state-of-the-art techniques to enhance throughput, including
`TxBF, STBC, and LDPC
`38.3.1.3. Extensible architecture meets the needs of many segments of the industry
`38.3.1.3.1. One spatial stream in clients and STBC support for hand-held segment
`38.3.1.3.2. Multiple spatial streams, TxBF, and channel sounding for CE segment
`39. Chair asked for Questions from the floor
`39.1.
`PAR specs at least a 100 Mbps mode? A - yes but <100 Mbps modes are
`permitted and AP always supports >100 Mbps since 2 SS supported
`39.2.
`Options typically are not implemented? A – disagree in this case since options are
`NOT redundant and will be essential for some features
`39.3.
`The confluence of many markets drove this spec and precipitated the wide range
`of options and performance levels
`40. If no more Qs now remember that email Qs can be submitted this week
`41. Recall that we need a CA doc to go to LB; tomorrow 1:30 PM .19 TAG will review
`methodologies to analyze co-existence
`42. We have 45 minutes remaining, should we start MAC? A – will require more than 1 hour so
`would rather not
`43. Motion to recess until Tuesday at 4:00 PM by Jon Rosdahl and seconded by Jim
`Petranovich passed unanimously
`44. Chair recessed the session at 2:38 PM until 4 PM tomorrow
`
`Submission
`
`page 6 Garth Hillman, Advanced Micro Devices
`
`Exhibit 1009
`Panasonic v. UNM
`IPR2024-00364
`Page 6 of 10
`
`

`

`January 2006
`
`doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0037r0
`
`Tuesday January 17, 2006; 4:00 – 9:30 PM
`
`1. Chair called session to order at 4:01 PM
`2. Adrian Stephens presented doc 11-05-1165r5, Joint Proposal MAC Detail; Part A up to
`slide 33
`a. Primary function of the MAC is aggregation
`i. A-MPDU (bottom of MAC)
`ii. A-MSDU (top of MAC)
`iii. Little benefit for fragmentation within Aggregation
`iv. Power Save Multi-poll (PSMP)/Multi-TID Block Ack (MTBA)
`v. Reverse Direction (RD)
`vi. High Throughput Control Bit
`vii. MIMO Power Save
`viii. Link Management
`ix.
`Implicit Channel Feedback
`x. Explicit Channel Feedback
`3. Matt Fischer presented Part B of doc 11-05-1165r5; slide 33 to end
`a. Zero Length Frame
`b. Transmit Antenna Selection
`c. Coexistence Mechanisms
`i. PCO= Phased Coexistence Operation
`d. RIFs ~ 2 usec
`e. MAC Capabilities
`f. PHY Capabilities
`g. Summary of Value of Features
`4. Questions
`a. MCS Request Feedback, is it in the HT control field? A – MCS is only a
`recommendation; end point will monitor carefully; no calibration testing
`b. Length information included? A – no
`c. MIMO Power Save; what does it mean? A – allows Rx to shut down all but one
`receiver until multiple Rx needed
`d. How much power saving? A – difficult to simulate; a mechanism to ensure not
`disadvantaged wrt SISO device
`e. A-MSDU mandatory? A – yes
`f. Will you always have QOS control field? A – no
`g. Slide 52; differences between 2nd and 3rd rows? A – simulation scenarios
`h. Non-QOS? A – QOS references VoIP and video, non-QOS does not
`i. Ratio? A – BW delivered vs. BW offered; QOS and non-QOS flows are
`simultaneously offered and load sized to be impossible to meet; measures how
`close a system can come
`j. Slide 20; is TID set a bit map? A – yes, EDCA only has 8 bits
`k. Slide 71; AS criteria time durations for sounding frames? A – 16 usec between
`frames and updating of selection info is implementation specific
`l. Slide 56; who should I talk to? A – Adrian re: Table 43 in spec
`m. Similar to clause in 7.2.2 in current standard; question use of BSS ID in address
`fields? A – sub frame header contains src and des; multiple src addresses are
`possible now so we choose BSSID; refer to Figure 28
`n. Text not clear? A – may need to clarify
`o. Note: A-MSDU is always a single hop frame and not forwarded
`
`Submission
`
`page 7 Garth Hillman, Advanced Micro Devices
`
`Exhibit 1009
`Panasonic v. UNM
`IPR2024-00364
`Page 7 of 10
`
`

`

`January 2006
`
`doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0037r0
`
`5. Are there enough questions (MAC or PHY) to justify using the evening session? No
`response
`6. Comments from Floor
`a. Use reflector or directly email authors
`b. Also we have the Thursday 8:00 AM hour
`7. Chair reviewed agenda for the rest of the week, namely:
`a. Confirmation Special Order at 9 AM on Thursday
`b. Technical Editor Election on Thursday
`c. Planning for March on Thursday
`8. Chair noted that there still was only one nominee for editor, Adrian Stephens, and there is
`still time for additional nominations; sooner the better!!!
`9. Motion to recess until Thursday morning at 8:00AM by Jim Petranovich and
`seconded by Assaf Kasher passed unanimously
`10. Chair recessed session at 5:42 PM
`
`Thursday January 19, 2006; 8:00 AM – 6:00 PM
`
`1. Chair called the session to order at 8:04 AM
`2. Chair reviewed plan for the day:
`a. 8-9AM – Q&A
`b. PHY doc now at rev 2 as two new companies have contributed to the sim results
`c. 9 AM – special order verbal roll call vote
`d. Comments or questions?
`e. Could we bring forward other topics to be addressed today? A - yes
`3. Jon Rosdahl – spoke to encourage the membership to confirm the JP proposal as the
`baseline for TGn and noted that this does not mean it is accepted but rather that it is just
`the start of the amendment development process
`4. Motion by Jon Rosdahl and seconded by Adrian Stephens to “Conduct a
`confirmation vote on the existing proposal of record, the Joint Proposal, in 802.11-
`05/1095r5 and 802.11-05/1102r4 pursuant to the selection process step 17 (802.11-
`03/0665r9)” passed without objection
`5. Sheung Li gave TGn an update on the .19 as follows:
`a. PAR & 5C was created in .19 on Tuesday to form a coexistence recommended
`practice Task Group
`b. Need volunteers from .11n to join the task group when it is approved
`c. Coexistence with cordless phones and BT for example
`d. Pending confirmation of the JP Sheung will make a formal motion to form a .11n
`ad hoc group to develop a coexistence analysis which will comply with the
`recommended practice
`e. Document will be a PHY level analysis – e.g., if within x meters of a y radio you
`can expect z degradation
`6. Only one nomination for Tech Editor has been received but floor is still open
`7. Again chair asked for Questions? A – none
`8. No objection to terminating Q&A
`9. Chair recessed the session at 8:22 AM until 9 AM
`
`10. Chair reconvened the session at 8:58 AM
`11. The verbal roll call confirmation vote was held and counted by WG executive
`
`Submission
`
`page 8 Garth Hillman, Advanced Micro Devices
`
`Exhibit 1009
`Panasonic v. UNM
`IPR2024-00364
`Page 8 of 10
`
`

`

`January 2006
`
`doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0037r0
`
`12. Confirmation vote results were (184,0,4); a 100% confirmation result which
`certainly exceeds the required 75% threshold!!!!!!!
`13. At 9:45 a motion was made by Jim Petranovich and seconded by Adrian Stephens to
`recess until 10:30 AM passed unanimously
`
`14. Chair reconvened the session at 10:34
`15. Technical Editor Election
`a. No new nominations
`b. Adrian Stephens accepted the nomination and made a presentation 11-05-0287r2
`(his candidacy speech updated from last year)
`c. Still plans on forming a team of editors at 1 PM
`d. Goal - Initial Draft by March 2006
`e. What needs to be done before March?
`i. Planning meeting today in Kings 1 room
`f. Adrian Stephens was unanimously confirmed as Technical Editor
`16. There will therefore be an editor planning meeting at 1 PM
`17. Motion by Jim Petranovich and seconded by Dave Andrus for TGn to instruct the
`TGn technical editor to include the text from
`a. 11-05-1095-05-000n Joint Proposal MAC Specification
`b. 11-05-1102-04-000n Joint Proposal PHY Specification
`c. and prepare draft 0.01.
`18. JP Specs have been on the server for 4 hours
`19. Motion passed unanimously
`20. Note that existing docs do not contain a MIB and PICS
`21. Chair proposed that an ad hoc committee be formed to create the MIB and PICS and
`would meet between now and the March meeting
`22. The earliest possible date given the 3 week notification period would be Feb 20
`23. Would someone be willing to volunteer as chair of the ad hoc group?
`24. Adrian Stephens volunteered, no one else volunteered
`25. Motion by Jim Petranovich and seconded by Eric Tokubo to Form an ad-hoc
`committee to create MIB and PICS documents for review during the March 2006
`TGn meeting. Telecons to be held Feb 20 & 27 at 11:00 am EST passed
`unanimously
`26. Adrian Stephens was confirmed as the chair of the PICS/MIB ad hoc committee
`27. Coexistence Committee ad hoc formation topic was introduced by the chair
`28. Sheung Li volunteered to chair this ad hoc group should the members approve
`29. Motion by Tom Siep and seconded by Joe Levy to Form an ad-hoc committee to
`create a CA document for review during the March 2006 TGn meeting. Telecons to
`be held Feb 20 & 27 at 4pm EST.(Call coordinates to be distributed via WG
`reflector) passed unanimously
`30. Sheung was confirmed as CA ad hoc task group chair
`31. Floor – add joint session with .19 to the March agenda? Chair agreed to do that.
`32. Chair suggested the comments on existing technical docs be emailed to the TGn reflector
`between now and the March meeting
`33. Chair reviewed a proposed agenda for the March meeting as follows:
`a. Between now and March
`i. Prepare specification for letter ballot
`ii. Prepare MIB , PICS & CA
`iii. Post by 1 week prior to meeting (Feb 27)
`
`Submission
`
`page 9 Garth Hillman, Advanced Micro Devices
`
`Exhibit 1009
`Panasonic v. UNM
`IPR2024-00364
`Page 9 of 10
`
`

`

`January 2006
`
`doc.: IEEE 802.11-05/0037r0
`
`b. March Meeting Plan (3 hours ad hoc + 16 hours)
`i. Presentation of draft & discussion
`ii. Presentation of CA discussion, vote?
`iii. Presentation of MIB & PICS; discussion, vote to incorporate in draft?
`iv. Review timeline
`v. Ready to release draft to letter ballot or steps remaining
`34. Alternative suggestions?
`a. How have other groups proceeded, what is history
`35. Editor is aware of next steps
`36. CA never been done before
`37. The TGr History was recounted
`a. 2 meetings to tune up initial draft
`b.
`Internal comment period
`c. CR on internal review
`d. 1st LB then submitted
`e. Note that TG must generate a voting pool
`f. 1st LB is 40 days
`g. Most comments came in the last 2 days
`h. So, 4 months between 1st and 2nd LB is likely
`38. So let’s consider an internal comment period after first draft prepared in March and have
`a LB release planned for May at the earliest?
`39. Straw Poll to have an internal TG peer review before going to LB? (Y=32, N=1)
`40. Floor comments
`a. draft needs much work and will likely take more than 2 months to complete a peer
`review
`b. may have draft before March meeting
`c. Editor job is to simply restructure document and not introduce any new tech
`content
`d. With draft will come a list of incomplete items as determined by editorial team
`e. Draft will not likely be available much before the March meeting; Adrian trying
`to control expectations
`41. Chair stated he has enough guidance to create a March agenda proposal
`42. Should we formally review time line now? A- no, chair should do it informally and
`address it formally in March
`43. Motion to adjourn by Jon Rosdahl and seconded by Jim Petranovich was passed
`unanimously
`44. Chair adjourned the meeting at 11:21 AM
`
`Submission
`
`page 10 Garth Hillman, Advanced Micro Devices
`
`Exhibit 1009
`Panasonic v. UNM
`IPR2024-00364
`Page 10 of 10
`
`