Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 129-1 Filed 10/12/15 Page 1 of 4 PagelD #: 959
`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 129-1 Filed 10/12/15 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 959
`
`Exhibit “A”
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 129-1 Filed 10/12/15 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 960
`
`
`
`
`
`Edward R. Nelson, III
`direct 817.377.3489
`ed@nelbum.com
`
`October 12, 2015
`
`The Honorable K. Nicole Mitchell
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`
`
`Re:
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al.
`C.A. 6:14-cv-982-JRG-KNM (Lead Case)
`
`
`Dear Judge Mitchell:
`
`
`This letter responds to Defendants’ letter seeking permission to file a motion for
`summary judgment of indefiniteness regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 8,868,060 (“’060 Patent”),
`8,848,556 (“’556 Patent”), and 8,385,966 (“’966 Patent”). Dkt 123-1. As explained below,
`Defendants’ alleged indefiniteness issues fail to consider the perspective of one skilled in the art,
`and thus lack merit. CCE respectfully asks the Court to deny their requests.
`
`I.
`
`
`’060 Patent: “accurate receipt” (Claim 15)
`
`Claim 15 recites a terminal configured to “switch to a broadcast mode for receiving
`broadcast content on a broadcast channel … without waiting to confirm accurate receipt of an
`emergency warning message.” Defendants allege that “accurate receipt” is indefinite, despite the
`fact that “accurate” has a well-known ordinary meaning in this context: “free from error,” or
`“correct.” Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Ed. (1999). Defendants disregard this
`definition to portray “accurate” as an allegedly ambiguous “term of degree.”
`
`They also ignore the requisite technical understanding of a skilled artisan. One skilled in
`the art of 3GPP cellular networks would readily understand what it means to confirm “accurate
`receipt” of a message in accordance with accepted norms in that field. Cellular network
`technologies encompass known, accepted processes for verifying and ensuring that messages are
`received correctly. In light of that knowledge, the claim language undoubtedly conveys
`“reasonable certainty.”
`
`Further, Defendants disregard the context of the claim language to fabricate ambiguity.
`Specifically, they allege it is unclear whether “accurate receipt” refers to (1) a terminal receiving
`an emergency warning message sent by network equipment (e.g., a base station), or (2) a
`processor within the terminal receiving the message from the antenna within the terminal.
`
`Claim 15 plainly contemplates a terminal receiving a paging message from a base station
`and, in response, switching to a broadcast channel to receive broadcast content (e.g., emergency
`content). Thus, the plane of communication is between the terminal and the base station, not
`between subcomponents within the terminal. In other words, the invention is focused on more
`efficiently communicating information from the network to the terminal, and one skilled in the
`art would not interpret “accurate receipt” of an emergency warning message to invoke an entirely
`different, intra-terminal context.
`
`
`3131 West 7th . Suite 300 . Fort Worth TX 76107 . nelbum.com
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 129-1 Filed 10/12/15 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 961
`
`’556 Patent: “Type 1” and “Type 2” Power Headroom Reports (Claims 15 and 23)
`
`Honorable K. Nicole Mitchell
`Page 2
`
`II.
`
`Claims 15 and 23 of the ’556 Patent broadly claim a first type (“type 1”) and second type
`
`(“type 2”) of power headroom reports. It is undisputed that those types are different, i.e., type 1
`reports are different than type 2 reports. Because the inventors are not required to specify how
`each type is calculated, further construction is unnecessary.
`
`Nonetheless, Defendants allege that Claims 15 and 23 are indefinite, not on their own
`
`right, but because they are broader than other dependent claims directed to particular
`embodiments. According to Defendants, claims 15 and 23 must be limited to the formulas
`disclosed in claims 16 and 24 — which reflect embodiments disclosed in the specification — and
`any additional breadth renders them indefinite.
`
`
`This is an improper attempt to limit the claims to disclosed embodiments guised as an
`indefiniteness issue. It fails as a matter of law. Claims 15 and 23 are not limited to the disclosed
`embodiments, Hill-Rom Services v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014), nor is
`breadth commensurate with indefiniteness. Moreover, the specification itself undermines
`Defendants’ attempt to confine the claims to the disclosure. See, e.g., ’556 Patent at 5:36-41
`(“Type 1 and Type 2 power headroom reports may employ the following definition…”)
`(emphasis added). Defendants’ distaste for the broad language of Claim 15 and 23 does not
`substantiate an indefiniteness position, and the Court should deny their request for summary
`judgment on these terms.
`
`III.
`
`
`’966 Patent: Alleged ambiguity / inconsistency (Claims 5-7 and 14-17)
`
`The ’966 Patent describes techniques for power control in a cellular environment. The
`subject matter is dense, though not as complicated as it may appear at first blush.
`
`At bottom, Defendants allege that Claims 5 and 14 are indefinite because the equations
`they recite do not reference f(0). Dkt 123-1 at 5. The terminal flaw of this argument is that
`Defendants neglect a basic mathematical principle: substitution. Those skilled in the art (and
`some who are not) will recall this technique which, at a basic level, involves simplifying a first
`equation to solve for a particular variable (e.g., y = 2x + 3), then substituting for that variable (y)
`in a second equation in order to solve for another variable (e.g., 2x + y = 10 becomes 2x + (2x +
`3) = 10).
`
`Indeed, Defendant Kyocera applies a substitution technique in its petition for inter partes
`review when it asserts that, although Claim 5 “does not initially appear to be consistent with
`Claim 1[,]:
`
`[T]he equation in Claim 5 can be rewritten with the Ppreamble variable expanded
`per Equation 3 from the ’966 patent. When this is done, Claim 5 recites a
`formula for calculating a transmit power that depends on both Ppreamble and
`f(0) = ΔPPC + ΔPrampup.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 129-1 Filed 10/12/15 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 962
`
`Honorable K. Nicole Mitchell
`Page 3
`IPR2015-01559, Paper No. 1 at 20 (emphasis added); Ex. 1002 at ¶ 75 (“Rewriting the equation
`from claims 5 and 14, by expanding the Ppreamble term shows that the initial transmit power does
`depend on f(0) where f(0) = ΔPrampup + ΔPPC”).
`
`
`Thus it is Defendants — not the claims — which contradict themselves. Their flimsy
`analysis does not justify summary judgment briefing on these terms, and their letter brief request
`should be denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sincerely,
`
`Edward R. Nelson, III
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`