Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 120-2 Filed 09/14/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 777
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC, v. LG et al.,
`Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-982-JRG-KNM (Consolidated Lead Case)
`
`EXHIBIT B – DEFENDANTS’ JOINT PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS AND IDENTIFICATION OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,868,060
`
`Claim Term/Phrase Defendants’ Proposed Construction Supporting Evidence
`Indefinite1
`“accurate receipt:
`Intrinsic evidence:
`(Claim 15)
`
`
`
`‘060 Patent claim 15 (8:18-41).
`
`Extrinsic evidence:
`
`Declaration testimony from Dr. Andrew C. Singer and, if the
`court prefers, live testimony that the specification of the ‘060
`patent does not contain any guidance regarding the term
`“accurate receipt” and as such, “accurate receipt” is
`ambiguous. Such expert testimony will demonstrate that as a
`result of this ambiguity, the claims are invalid as indefinite
`because a person of ordinary skill would not be able to
`determine with reasonable certainty the scope of the claims.
`Intrinsic evidence
`
`’060 Patent claims 1 (6:18-38), 7 (6:56-7:13) and 15 (8:18-41);
`Abstract, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 5 , 2:29-49; 2:64-3:6; 3:23-27;
`3:35-41; 3:46-52; 3:60-4:4; 4:12-15; 4:25-51; 4:56-62; 4:65-
`5:3; 5:14-16; 5:18-67; 6/26/2014 Response; 10/25/2013
`Response.
`
`Intrinsic evidence:
`
`’060 Patent claims 1 (6:18-38), 7 (6:56-7:13) and 15 (8:18-41);
`
`“establishing at least
`one of a physical
`channel and a logical
`
` “establishing at least one
`communication channel between the
`terminal and the base station”
`
`“at least two specific
`identifiers . . . being
`for different types of
`emergencies” (claims
`1, 7, 15)
`
`“at least two specific identifiers each
`uniquely indicating a different type of
`emergency”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`
`1 Defendants incorporate herein by reference their 7.10.2015 Joint P.R. 3-3 Invalidity Contentions.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 120-2 Filed 09/14/15 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 778
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC, v. LG et al.,
`Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-982-JRG-KNM (Consolidated Lead Case)
`
`Claim Term/Phrase Defendants’ Proposed Construction Supporting Evidence
`channel” (Claims 1,
`
`Fig. 5, 3:41-46, 4:25-45, 4:65-5:12, 5:18-25, 5:51-59.
`7, 15)
`
`“paging message”
`Intrinsic evidence:
`(Claims 1, 7, 15)
`
`’060 Patent claims 1 (6:18-38), 7 (6:56-7:13) and 15 (8:18-41),
`Abstract, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 5, 1:18-20; 2:1-3; 2:45-55, 2:64-
`3:8, 3:33-55, 3:60-4:15, 4:56-62, 4:65-5:3; 5:46-59.
`Intrinsic evidence:
`
`’060 Patent claims 1 (6:18-38), 7 (6:56-7:13) and 15 (8:18-41),
`Fig. 4, Fig. 5, 3:23-27, 3:33-55, 4:35-55, 5:51-56, 6:1-8.
`
`
`“a message sent by a base station on a
`shared channel and carrying
`information corresponding to unique
`identifiers”
`
`“store [/storing], at the terminal, a
`plurality of specific identifiers prior to
`receipt of the paging message”
`
`
`
`“storing, at the
`terminal of the
`cellular wireless
`communications
`system, a group of
`specific identifiers”
`(Claim 1)
`
`“store a group of
`specific identifiers”
`(Claims 7, 15)
`
`“temporary mobile
`subscriber identity”
`(Claims 1, 7, 15)
`
`
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“a temporary identifier allocated to the
`terminal to uniquely identify the
`mobile subscriber”
`
`
`Intrinsic evidence:
`
`’060 Patent claims 1 (6:18-38), 7 (6:56-7:13) and 15 (8:18-41),
`Fig. 4, Fig. 5, 3:23-27, 3:33-55, 4:16-19, 4:25-62, 4:65-5:2,
`5:63-67.
`
`Extrinsic evidence:
`
`3GPP TS 23.003 V7.1.0 (September 2006)
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 120-2 Filed 09/14/15 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 779
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC, v. LG et al.,
`Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-982-JRG-KNM (Consolidated Lead Case)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,848,556
`
`Claim Term/Phrase Preliminary Proposed Construction Supporting Evidence
`“a bitmap indicating
`“a collection of bits indicating which
`Intrinsic evidence:
`which power
`power headroom reports are being
`
`headroom reports are
`reported”
`’556 Patent claims 13 (9:23-38) and 21 (10:23-42); Abstract,
`being reported”
`
`Fig. 3. Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, 2:1-3, 2:21-23, 2:34-36, 2:44-46,
`(Claims 13, 21)
`
`2:62-66, 3:6-8, 3:18-20, 3:61-4:6, 5:4-35 , 5:42-44, 5:51-55,
`6:31-7:16.
`“bitmap” (Claim 13,
`“a collection of bits”
`
`14, 21, 22)
`
`Extrinsic evidence:
`
`New Oxford American Dictionary, 3rd Edition, 2010
`(definition of “bitmap”)
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 5th Edition, 2002 (definition
`of “bitmap)
`
`Oxford Dictionary of Computing, 6th Edition, 2008 (definition
`of “bitmap”)
`Intrinsic evidence:
`
`’556 Patent claims 13 (9:23-38) and 21 (10:23-42); Abstract,
`Fig. 3. Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, 2:1-3, 2:21-23, 2:34-36, 2:44-46,
`2:62-66, 3:6-8, 3:18-20, 3:61-4:6, 5:4-35 , 5:42-44, 5:51-55,
`6:31-7:16, Response dated July 15, 2014.
`
`Intrinsic evidence:
`
`’556 Patent claims 13 (9:23-38) and 21 (10:23-42); Fig. 1, Fig.
`6, Fig. 7, 1:14-26, 1:41-62, 3:64-4:2, 4:7-12, 4:16-53, 4:66-
`5:23, 5:30-35, 6:40-62, 7:6-23.
`
`“bits for power
`headroom reports for
`a plurality of [the]
`secondary cells.”
`(Claims 13, 21)
`
`“secondary cells”
`(Claims 13, 21)
`
`
`“bits for power headroom reports for a
`plurality of secondary cells in a
`configuration such that a single bit in
`the bitmap does not correspond to a
`single secondary cell”
`
`
`“serving cells/component carriers
`configured for a UE that are different
`from the primary serving cell”
`
`3
`
`II.
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 120-2 Filed 09/14/15 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 780
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC, v. LG et al.,
`Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-982-JRG-KNM (Consolidated Lead Case)
`
`Claim Term/Phrase Preliminary Proposed Construction Supporting Evidence
`Indefinite2
`“type 1 power
`Intrinsic evidence:
`headroom report” /
`
`
`“type 2 power
`If not indefinite:
`’556 Patent claims 15 (9:43-47) and 23 (10: 47-53); 5:36-41;
`headroom report”
`
`5:51-55, 6:56-62; 7:17-23.
`(Claims 15, 23)
`“type1 power headroom report”
`
`
`should be construed as “a power
`Extrinsic evidence:
`
`headroom report computed as:
`Declaration testimony from Dr. Andrew C. Singer and, if the
`P_cmax,c minus PUSCH power”
`court prefers, live testimony that the specification of the ‘556
`
`patent does not contain any guidance regarding the distinction
`”type 2 power headroom report”
`between the terms “Type1 power headroom report” and
`should be construed as “a power
`“Type2 power headroom report” and, accordingly, it is unclear
`headroom report computed as:
`what distinguishes these two terms from other types of power
`P_cmax,c minus PUCCH power
`headroom reports other than the specific equations recited in
`minus PUSCH power”
`claims 16 and 24 as “further limitations.” Expert testimony
`will support that the terms “type 1 power headroom report” /
`“type 2 power headroom report” are ambiguous. Such expert
`testimony will demonstrate that as a result of this ambiguity,
`the claims are invalid as indefinite because a person of
`ordinary skill would not be able to determine with reasonable
`certainty the scope of the claims.
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Defendants incorporate herein by reference their 7.10.2015 Joint P.R. 3-3 Invalidity Contentions.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 120-2 Filed 09/14/15 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 781
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC, v. LG et al.,
`Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-982-JRG-KNM (Consolidated Lead Case)
`
`III. U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966
`
`
`1
`
`“wherein the first
`power control
`adjustment state g(i)
`for i=0 is initialized
`as: PO_UE_PUCCH + g(0)
`= ΔPPC + ΔPrampup”
`(Claims 3, 12)”
`
`“wherein g(0) is calculated from the
`values of PO_UE_PUCCH, ΔPPC , and
`ΔPrampup by calculating a sum of g(0)
`and PO_UE_PUCCH and a sum of ΔPPC
`and ΔPrampup and equating the two
`calculated sums”
`
`Claim Term/Phrase Preliminary Proposed Construction Supporting Evidence
`“preamble power”
`“a transmit power of a preamble sent
`Intrinsic evidence:
`(Claims 1, 2, 5, 9-11,
`on an access channel”
`
`14)
`
`6:18-26; 9:65-10:25; 10:49-60; 11:25-31; ‘966 Patent Claim 5
`
`
`(13:47-62)
`
`3GPP TS 36.213 V8.2.0 (2008-03-20)
`
`3GPP TS 36.300 V8.4.0 (2008-03-20)
`
`Intrinsic evidence:
`
`‘966 Patent Claims 3 (13:36-42), 4 (13:43-46), 12 (15: 27-32)
`and 13 (15:33-36), FIG. 3, FIG. 4, 3:14-55, 5:47-52, 6:1-3,
`6:46-49, 6:58-7:45, 10:9-25, 10:61-67, 11:21-24, 11:51-55,
`Non-final Rejection of October 3, 2011 at pages 5-7, Non-final
`Rejection of May 18, 2012 at pages 8-9, Amendment of
`August 21, 2012.
`
`
`Extrinsic evidence:
`
`Declaration testimony from Dr. Andrew C. Singer and, if the
`court prefers, live testimony concerning how a person of
`ordinary skill would understand references to an equation, and
`in particular explaining the equation found within this claim
`term and supporting that a person of ordinary skill in the field
`of power control for wireless device technologies would have
`understood the claimed term to mean “wherein g(0) is
`calculated from the values of PO_UE_PUCCH, ΔPPC , and ΔPrampup
`by calculating a sum of f(0) and PO_UE_PUCCH and a sum of ΔPPC
`and ΔPrampup and equating the two calculated sums.”
`
`2
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 120-2 Filed 09/14/15 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 782
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC, v. LG et al.,
`Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-982-JRG-KNM (Consolidated Lead Case)
`
`
`3
`
`4
`
`Claim Term/Phrase Preliminary Proposed Construction Supporting Evidence
`“wherein the initial
`“wherein the initial transmit power
`Intrinsic evidence:
`transmit power
`takes into account both the preamble
`
`depends on a
`power and the second power control
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`preamble power of a
`adjustment state f(0)”
`
`first message sent on
`
`‘966 patent at 6:18-26.
`an access channel and
`
`the second power
`control adjustment
`state f(0)” (Claims 1,
`9, 10)
`“wherein the initial
`transmit power
`PMsg3 of the third
`message for i=0 is
`equal to:
`PMsg3=min{Pmax,Pprea
`mble+Δ0,
`preamble_Msg3+ΔPC_Msg3
`+10
`log10(MPUSCH(i))+
`ΔTF(TF(i))}” (Claims
`5, 14)
`
`Indefinite3
`
`Intrinsic evidence:
`
`‘966 Patent Claims 5 (13:47-62), 14 (15:37-16:10);
`‘966 Patent Claims 1 (12:59-13:20), claim 10 (14:47-15:8);
`FIG. 4, 4:1-4, 6:58-67, 7:46-8:17, 11:1-50, International Search
`Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching
`Authority for PCT/EP2009/055430 submitted March 29, 2010.
`
`3GPP TS 36.213 V8.2.0 (2008-03-20)
`
`3GPP TS 36.300 V8.4.0 (2008-03-20)
`
`Extrinsic evidence:
`Declaration testimony from Dr. Andrew C. Singer and, if the
`court prefers, live testimony that the equations recited in
`claims 5 and 15 defining the power of Message 3 are
`ambiguous for failing to specify any relationship to f(0), which
`is a required term of the equations recited in the independent
`claims. . Such expert testimony will demonstrate that as a
`result of this ambiguity, the claims are invalid as indefinite
`
`
`3 Defendants incorporate herein by reference their 7.10.2015 Joint P.R. 3-3 Invalidity Contentions.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 120-2 Filed 09/14/15 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 783
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC, v. LG et al.,
`Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-982-JRG-KNM (Consolidated Lead Case)
`
`“wherein f(0) is calculated from the
`values of PO_UE_PUSCH, ΔPPC , and
`ΔPrampup by calculating a sum of f(0)
`and PO_UE_PUSCH and a sum of ΔPPC
`and ΔPrampup and equating the two
`calculated sums”
`
`“wherein the second
`power control
`adjustment state f(i)
`for i=0 is initialized
`as: PO_UE_PUSCH + f(0)
`= ΔPPC + ΔPrampup”
`(Claims 1, 10);
`
`“wherein the second
`accumulation power
`control adjustment
`state f(i) for i=0 is
`initialized as:
`PO_UE_PUSCH + f(0) =
`ΔPPC + ΔPrampup”
`(Claim 9)
`
`Claim Term/Phrase Preliminary Proposed Construction Supporting Evidence
`because a person of ordinary skill would not be able to
`determine with reasonable certainty the scope of the claims.
`
`Application No. WO2009135848; International Preliminary
`Report on Patentability issued on Nov. 9, 2010
`Intrinsic evidence:
`
`‘966 Patent Claims 1 (12:59-13:20), 9 (14:21-46), 10 (14:47-
`15:8);
`‘966 Patent Claims 4 (13:43-46), claim 13 (9:23-38), FIG. 3,
`FIG. 4, 3:14-55, 4:40-50, 4:65-5:3, 6:33-35, 6:58-7:45; 10:9-
`25, 10:49-57, 11:21-24, 11:51-55, Non-final Rejection of
`October 3, 2011 at pages 5-7, Non-final Rejection of May 18,
`2012 at pages 8-9, Amendment of August 21, 2012.
`
`Extrinsic evidence:
`
`Declaration testimony from Dr. Andrew C. Singer and, if the
`court prefers, live testimony concerning how a person of
`ordinary skill would understand references to an equation, and
`in particular explaining the equation found within this claim
`term and supporting that a person of ordinary skill in the field
`of power control for wireless device technologies would have
`understood the claimed term to mean “wherein f(0) is
`calculated from the values of PO_UE_PUSCH, ΔPPC , and ΔPrampup
`by calculating a sum of f(0) and PO_UE_PUSCH and a sum of ΔPPC
`and ΔPrampup and equating the two calculated sums”
`Intrinsic evidence:
`
`‘966 Patent Claims 1 (12:59-13:20), 3 (13:36-42), 9 (14:21-
`46), 10 (14:47-15:8), 12 (15: 27-32); ‘966 patent at Abstract, 1-
`3, FIG. 3, FIG. 4, 1:36, 2:65-3:6, 3:15-20, 3:30-35, 3:45-49,
`
`“ΔPPC” (Claims 1, 9,
`10)
`
`“the difference between a target
`preamble power and a power actually
`observed at a base station”
`
`7
`
`
`
`5
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 120-2 Filed 09/14/15 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 784
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC, v. LG et al.,
`Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-982-JRG-KNM (Consolidated Lead Case)
`
`Claim Term/Phrase Preliminary Proposed Construction Supporting Evidence
`6:58-67, 7:1-45, 8:36-42, 8:59-62, 9:62-10:11, 10:20-24,
`10:44-57, 11:10-15, 11:19-24.
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`