Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-1 Filed 11/09/15 Page 1 of 54 PageID #: 1212
`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-1 Filed 11/09/15 Page 1of54 PagelD#: 1212
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-1 Filed 11/09/15 Page 2 of 54 PageID #: 1213
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 6:14-cv-982-KNM
`LEAD CASE
`
`CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS
`EQUIPMENT LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., ET AL.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ANDREW C. SINGER ACCOMPANYING
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT RESPONSIVE MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-1 Filed 11/09/15 Page 3 of 54 PageID #: 1214
`
`
`
`I, Andrew C. Singer, declare:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`My name is Andrew C. Singer. I am the Fox Family Professor in the Department
`
`of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained as a consultant to Defendants, through their attorneys, in this
`
`Civil Action, No. 6:14-cv-982-JRG-KNM, to assist in interpreting U.S. Patent Nos. 8,385,966
`
`(“the ’966 patent”); 8,848,556 (“the ’556 patent”);* and 8,868,060 (“the ’060 patent”)
`
`(collectively, the “Patents in Suit”) with regard to claim construction. I am being compensated at
`
`my usual rate of $500 per hour, plus reimbursement for expenses. No portion of my
`
`compensation is dependent or otherwise contingent upon the results of this matter or the specifics
`
`of my testimony.
`
`3.
`
`My opinions are based on my general knowledge and experience and the
`
`information I considered in connection with the preparation of this Declaration. Those materials
`
`are listed in Section III below.
`
`4.
`
`I submit this Declaration in connection with Defendants’ responsive claim
`
`construction brief. The Patents in Suit relate generally to the field of wireless communication
`
`technology.
`
`5.
`
`Specifically, I address the appropriate interpretation of the terms:
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`“accurate receipt” in claim 15 of the ’060 patent;
`
`“type 1 power headroom report” / “type 2 power headroom report” in
`
`claims 15 and 23 of the ’556 patent;
`
`
`* The ’556 patent has not been asserted against defendant Kyocera Communications, Inc. and,
`accordingly, I have not been retained to consult with Kyocera on that patent.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-1 Filed 11/09/15 Page 4 of 54 PageID #: 1215
`
`
`
`(3)
`
`(4)
`
`(5)
`
`(6)
`
` “wherein the initial transmit power PMsg3 [of the third message] for i=0 is
`
`equal to: PMsg3=min{Pmax,Ppreamble+∆0, preamble_Msg3+∆PC_Msg3+10
`
`log10(MPUSCH(i))+ ∆TF(TF(i))}” in claims 5 and 14 of the ’966 patent;
`
`“wherein the first power control adjustment state g(i) for i=0 is initialized
`
`as: PO_UE_PUCCH + g(0) = ∆PPC + ∆Prampup” in claims 3 and 12 of the ’966
`
`patent;
`
` “wherein the second power control adjustment state f(i) for i=0 is
`
`initialized as: PO_UE_PUSCH + f(0) = ∆PPC + ∆Prampup” in claims 1, 10 of the
`
`’966 patent; and
`
`“wherein the second accumulation power control adjustment state f(i) for
`
`i=0 is initialized as: PO_UE_PUSCH + f(0) = ∆PPC + ∆Prampup” in claim 9 of the
`
`’966 patent.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF MY PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE
`
`6.
`
`I am currently a Professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering, a Professor in the Coordinated Science Laboratory, and the Director of the
`
`Technology Entrepreneur Center at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. I also hold a
`
`Fox Family Endowed Professorship in the College of Engineering at the University of Illinois at
`
`Urbana Champaign. My research focuses in the fields of signal processing and communication
`
`systems, and I have performed research relating to various communication systems and
`
`networks.
`
`7.
`
`I earned a Bachelor of Science degree, Master of Science degree, and Doctor of
`
`Philosophy degree, all in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, from the Massachusetts
`
`Institute of Technology (MIT).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-1 Filed 11/09/15 Page 5 of 54 PageID #: 1216
`
`
`
`8.
`
`I have designed, built, and patented various components of communication and
`
`signal processing systems. These include various radio-frequency, SONAR, LIDAR, air-acoustic
`
`and underwater acoustic signal processing systems as well as wire-line, wireless, optical and
`
`underwater acoustic communication systems.
`
`9.
`
`I was the co-founder and CEO of Intersymbol Communications, Inc., a
`
`communications component manufacturer focused on the development of components used in
`
`communication networks. Intersymbol Communications, Inc. was acquired by Finisar
`
`Corporation, the world's largest supplier of optical communication modules and subsystems.
`
`10.
`
`I was appointed the Director of the Technology Entrepreneur Center (TEC) in the
`
`College of Engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, where I direct a wide
`
`range of entrepreneurship activities. The TEC directs the campus-wide Illinois Innovation Prize,
`
`celebrating our most innovative students on campus, as well as our annual Cozad New Venture
`
`Competition. I am also leading the National Science Foundation’s Innovation Corps Sites
`
`program at the University of Illinois, working with faculty and student startup companies.
`
`11.
`
`I have taught both undergraduate and graduate level courses in signal processing,
`
`communications, and communications systems, which included extensive applicability to
`
`communication systems, networks and components. For example, I have taught (Advanced)
`
`Digital Signal Processing and Embedded DSP Laboratory classes.
`
`12.
`
`I have authored several papers based on my extensive research and commercial
`
`experience. I have authored over 200 papers on digital signal processing and communication
`
`systems, several of which were voted “Best Paper of the Year” by technical committees of the
`
`IEEE. Citing these and other contributions, I was elected Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and
`
`Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-1 Filed 11/09/15 Page 6 of 54 PageID #: 1217
`
`
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`I hold nine granted U.S. patents, all in the field of communications systems.
`
`In summary, I have over 20 years of experience related to communication and
`
`signal processing systems and networks. For more detail on my background, a copy of my
`
`curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit A. Specifically; pages 4-17 of my curriculum vitae list
`
`my publications for at least the past 10 years.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`15.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I considered the following materials:
`
`• The ’060 patent and file history;
`• The ’556 patent and file history;
`• The ’996 patent and file history;
`• Plaintiff’s October 12, 2015 Letter to The Honorable K. Nicole Mitchell, Docket Entry
`129-1 in this civil action;
`• Defendants’ September 25, 2015 Letter to The Honorable K. Nicole Mitchell, Docket
`Entry 123-1 in this civil action;
`• Defendants’ October 22, 2015 Letter to The Honorable K. Nicole Mitchell, Docket Entry
`135-1 in this civil action;
`• Joint Claim Construction And Pre-Hearing Statement, Docket Entry 120 in this civil
`action;
`• Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Ed. (1999);
`• 3GPP TS 36.213 v.8.2.0;
`• 3GPP TS 36.213 v.9.3.0;
`• Plaintiff’s May 15, 2015 Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions
`Pursuant to P.R. 3-1;
`• http://www.3gpp.org/dynareport/36321.htm;
`
`• Plaintiff’s Opening Brief on Claim Construction (Docket Entry 139).
`
`IV.
`
`PRIORITY DATES AND LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`16.
`
`I understand that the ’966 patent claims a priority date of May 5, 2008. I also
`
`understand that the ’060 patent claims a priority date of April 2, 2007. In addition, I understand
`
`that the ’556 patent claims a priority date of June 21, 2010.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-1 Filed 11/09/15 Page 7 of 54 PageID #: 1218
`
`
`
`17.
`
`I have reviewed the Patents in Suit and believe that the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art for the technologies involved is a Bachelor of Science or Bachelor of Engineering degree
`
`in Electrical Engineering or Computer Engineering or an equivalent degree from an institution
`
`accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) or an equivalent
`
`accrediting organization and approximately two to five years of work experience in wireless
`
`systems, data networking, or signal processing. Alternatively, the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art is a Master of Science or Master of Engineering degree in Electrical or Computer Engineering
`
`or an equivalent degree from an equivalently accredited institution and approximately two years
`
`of work experience in wireless systems, data networking, or signal processing.
`
`18.
`
`Given my background, my experience level as of the claimed priority dates of the
`
`Patents in Suit was greater than that of a person of ordinary skill in the art under my
`
`understanding. However, I have based my analysis on the perspective of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art.
`
`V.
`
`“WHEREIN THE SECOND POWER CONTROL ADJUSTMENT STATE f(i)
`FOR i=0 IS INITIALIZED AS: PO_UE_PUSCH + f(0) = ∆PPC + ∆Prampup” (’966
`PATENT CLAIMS 1 AND 10) AND “WHEREIN THE SECOND
`ACCUMULATION POWER CONTROL ADJUSTMENT STATE f(i) FOR i=0 IS
`INITIALIZED AS: PO_UE_PUSCH + f(0) = ∆PPC + ∆Prampup” (’966 PATENT CLAIM
`9).
`
`19.
`
`The ’966 patent is directed to controlling the power used to transmit signals from
`
`a terminal, such as a cell phone, to a base station in connection with a so-called random access
`
`procedure. The random access procedure is a procedure by which the terminal establishes
`
`communication with the base station, for example to place a phone call, and involves the
`
`exchange of multiple signals. Some of the signals are sent on the so-called “Physical Uplink
`
`Shared CHannel” (PUSCH). The first message sent on the PUSCH during the random access
`
`procedure is referred to as “Message 3” in the ’966 patent.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-1 Filed 11/09/15 Page 8 of 54 PageID #: 1219
`
`
`
`20.
`
`I have reviewed Section 5.1.1.1 of the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)
`
`Technical Specification (TS) 36.213v.8.2.0 pre-dating the ‘966 patent. That document provides
`
`a formula for calculating the power PPUSCH(i) used to transmit signals on the PUSCH. The
`
`formula includes a term f(i) referred to as a power control adjustment state, which is defined in
`
`TS 36.213v.8.2.0 as being a sequence depending on the index (i).
`
`21.
`
`The independent claims of the ’966 patent recite:
`
`“wherein the second power control adjustment state f(i) for i=0 is initialized as:
`PO_UE_PUSCH + f(0) = ∆PPC + ∆Prampup” (claims 1, 10)
`
`“wherein the second accumulation power control adjustment state f(i) for i=0 is
`initialized as: PO_UE_PUSCH + f(0) = ∆PPC + ∆Prampup” (claim 9)
`
`22. I understand that the parties have proposed the following constructions for these terms:
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`“wherein f(0) is calculated from the values
`of PO_UE_PUSCH, ∆PPC , and ∆Prampup by
`calculating a sum of f(0) and PO_UE_PUSCH
`and a sum of ∆PPC and ∆Prampup and
`equating the two calculated sums”
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposal
`No construction necessary.
`
`Alternatively, “wherein the second
`[accumulation] power control adjustment
`state f(i) for i=0 is set such that
`PO_UE_PUSCH + f(0) = ∆PPC + ∆Prampup”
`
`23.
`
`I have reviewed Plaintiff’s Opening Brief On Claim Construction (Docket Entry
`
`139). My understanding is that the parties dispute whether the claim language in question
`
`requires a calculation be performed for the value of f(0). A person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand that it does.
`
`24.
`
`The claims require an “initialization” and provide an equation for the
`
`initialization. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that initialization of a
`
`sequence assigns a value to the initial occurrence in the sequence. When initializing a term with
`
`a provided equation, rather than a specific value, the initialization must make use of the equation
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-1 Filed 11/09/15 Page 9 of 54 PageID #: 1220
`
`
`
`to determine the value to assign. When the equation calls for mathematical operations
`
`representing a calculation, such as summations, then a calculation is to be performed.
`
`25.
`
`A simple analogy I would like to introduce here would be for a user getting on a
`
`treadmill and being asked by the treadmill computer to enter their max heart rate in beats per
`
`minute (bpm) by making the following calculation:
`
`Max Heart Rate = 220 - age
`
`The treadmill is requesting the user to “initialize” their max heart rate at the start of their
`
`workout. I will come back to this analogy shortly.
`
`26.
`
`I have considered the claim terms at issue in the context of the surrounding claim
`
`language, and find the surrounding claim language is instructive. The claims specify that a
`
`processor performs the initialization. In particular, they recite:
`
`…a processor…in which the processor is configured with the memory
`and the computer program to cause the apparatus to: initialize for
`i=0…a second accumulation power control adjustment state f(i)…wherein
`the second power control adjustment state f(i) for i=0 is initialized as:
`PO_UE_PUSCH + f(0) = ∆PPC + ∆Prampup (claim 10, emphasis added)
`
` A
`
` computer readable memory storing a computer program that when
`executed by a processor results in actions comprising: initializing for
`i=0…a second accumulation power control adjustment state f(i)…wherein
`the second accumulation power control adjustment state f(i) for i=0 is
`initialized as: PO_UE_PUSCH + f(0) = ∆PPC + ∆Prampup (claim 9, emphasis
`added)
`
` A
`
` method comprising: using a processor to initialize for i=0…a second
`power control adjustment state f(i)…wherein the second power control
`adjustment state f(i) for i=0 is initialized as: PO_UE_PUSCH + f(0) = ∆PPC +
`∆Prampup (claim 1, emphasis added).
`
`
`27.
`
`Considering claim 10, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`
`because the claim calls for a processor to perform the initialization of f(0) and provides an
`
`equation identifying mathematical operations by which the processor is to perform the
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-1 Filed 11/09/15 Page 10 of 54 PageID #: 1221
`
`
`
`initialization, the processor will perform a calculation. Processors operate by executing a set of
`
`operations, sometimes embodied in a computer program. To initialize a value according to a
`
`provided equation, such as the equation recited in the independent claims, the processor must
`
`exhibit operations that make use of the equation. In the case of the equation claimed, the
`
`processor must exhibit operations using the values of PO_UE_PUSCH, ∆PPC , and ∆Prampup, and
`
`combine those values in the manner of the equation.
`
`28.
`
`Similarly, for independent claim 1 a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that because the claim calls for performance of a method using a processor to
`
`initialize f(0) and provides an equation identifying mathematical operations for doing so, the
`
`processor will perform a calculation, as described above for claim 10. The same is true for
`
`independent claim 9, which requires a computer readable memory storing a program that when
`
`executed by a processor results in initializing f(0) as the same equation recited in claims 1 and
`
`10.
`
`29.
`
`I have also considered the language of dependent claims 4 and 13 of the ’966
`
`patent. I understand that claims 4 and 13 are dependent claims and therefore include the
`
`limitations of the independent claims from which they depend. I understand that claim 4 is a
`
`method claim depending from claim 1 and that it states that PO_UE_PUSCH = 0 when computing
`
`initial values at i=0. I understand that claim 13 is an apparatus claim depending from claim 10
`
`and that it states that PO_UE_PUSCH = 0 when the processor computes initial values at i=0. A
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that these claims specify a condition of
`
`PO_UE_PUSCH = 0 to be implemented when making use of the equations of the independent claims.
`
`Stated another way, claims 4 and 13 provide a second equation (PO_UE_PUSCH = 0) to be used in
`
`combination with the first equation found in the independent claims.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-1 Filed 11/09/15 Page 11 of 54 PageID #: 1222
`
`
`
`30.
`
`I understand that claims 4 and 13 also depend from claims 3 and 12, respectively,
`
`and that they state that PO_UE_PUCCH = 0 when computing initial values at i=0 (claim 4) and
`
`PO_UE_PUCCH = 0 when the processor computes initial values at i=0 (claim 13). A person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand that these claims specify a condition of PO_UE_PUCCH = 0
`
`to be implemented when making use of the equations of claims 3 and 12, respectively. Stated
`
`another way, claims 4 and 13 provide one equation (PO_UE_PUSCH = 0) to be used in combination
`
`with the equations found in claims 3 and 12.
`
`31.
`
`For the reasons stated above, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that the claim language in question requires a calculation be performed for the value
`
`of f(0) making use of the values of PO_UE_PUSCH, ∆PPC , and ∆Prampup. Defendants’ construction
`
`captures this requirement through a literal reading of the claim language.
`
`32.
`
`I have considered the Plaintiff’s proposed construction and Plaintiff’s comments
`
`in Plaintiff’s Opening Brief On Claim Construction (Docket Entry 139), and believe that
`
`Plaintiff’s proposed construction is unclear and potentially inconsistent with how a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would interpret the language.
`
`33.
`
`As I explained above, a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the term
`
`“initialize” in combination with a provided equation for the initialization as requiring that the
`
`initialization makes use of the equation to determine the value of the initialized term, f(0).
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiff proposes the language “…set such that…” which is confusing because
`
`the language “such that” is unclear and potentially could suggest that the recited equation need
`
`not be used.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that Plaintiff has stated that “…the claim requires that f(i) is set to a
`
`starting position such that [sic] conforms to that equation.” (Plaintiff’s Opening Markman Brief,
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-1 Filed 11/09/15 Page 12 of 54 PageID #: 1223
`
`
`
`page 16). That statement confirms my understanding that Plaintiff’s proposed construction can
`
`be interpreted to mean that f(0) is set to a value that “conforms” to the recited equation, rather
`
`than that the value of f(0) is determined by making use of the equation. That potential
`
`interpretation is inconsistent with how a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the
`
`claim language in question, and it would lead to technically inappropriate results.
`
`36.
`
`Turning back to the treadmill analogy from above, recall that the treadmill asked
`
`the user to initialize their max heart rate (in beats per minute) via the following equation:
`
`Max Heart Rate = 220 - age
`
`If the user actually subtracted their age from 220 and input that number into the treadmill, they
`
`will have initialized that max rate making use of the given equation. Alternatively, they could
`
`just randomly input a value for their Max Heart Rate as a number that came into their head
`
`without performing the given calculation. It may happen that the random number picked was
`
`the same number that would have been arrived at had they performed the calculation, but in
`
`merely selecting a random number, they have not initialized their heart rate with the given
`
`equation.
`
`37.
`
`Thinking about this in a different way, initializing f(0) according to any of a
`
`number of equations different than that listed in the independent claims of the ’966 patent might
`
`“conform to,” or satisfy, the equation listed in the independent claims. I have prepared the
`
`following table of equations to illustrate the point.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-1 Filed 11/09/15 Page 13 of 54 PageID #: 1224
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Equation #
`
`Equation
`
`Comment
`
`PO_UE_PUSCH + f(0)=∆PPC + ∆Prampup
`
`Equation in independent claims of ‘966
`
`patent
`
`PO_UE_PUSCH + f(0) = ∆PPC
`
`∆Prampup not part of equation for f(0)
`
`PO_UE_PUSCH + f(0) = ∆Prampup
`
`∆PPC not part of equation for f(0)
`
`f(0) = ∆PPC
`
`PO_UE_PUSCH and ∆Prampup not part of
`
`equation for f(0)
`
`f(0) = ∆Prampup
`
`PO_UE_PUSCH and ∆PPC not part of
`
`equation for f(0)
`
`f(0) = 0
`
`PO_UE_PUSCH, ∆PPC and ∆Prampup not part
`
`of equation for f(0) and f(0) equal to
`
`zero
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`
`
`38.
`
`The table above illustrates six different equations, which I have identified by
`
`numbers 1-6. The first equation is the equation appearing in the claims of the ’966 patent. For
`
`the other equations, I have included a comment explaining how they differ from the equation
`
`appearing in the independent claims of the ’966 patent.
`
`39.
`
`Initializing f(0) according to equations 1-6 in the table above is different for each
`
`equation, but they can all produce the same result under certain circumstances. I will first
`
`illustrate the point with equations 1 and 2. Initializing f(0) with equation 1 from the table
`
`involves the use of the parameters PO_UE_PUSCH, ∆PPC , and ∆Prampup. By contrast, initializing f(0)
`
`with equation 2 does not involve the use of ∆Prampup. This means that according to equation 1,
`
`the ramp up power used to ramp up the power of random access preamble transmissions is part
`
`of the initialization of f(0), while under equation 2 it is not. In certain circumstances it may be
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-1 Filed 11/09/15 Page 14 of 54 PageID #: 1225
`
`
`
`that the value of ∆Prampup is zero. This could occur if the random access preamble is transmitted
`
`with the appropriate power level the very first time. Therefore, the value of f(0) obtained from
`
`using equation 1 could be the same as the value obtained from using equation 2 in the
`
`circumstance in which ∆Prampup is zero. Stated another way, setting f(0) with equation 2 does set
`
`f(0) “such that” equation 1 is also met in the circumstance in which ∆Prampup is zero. However, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would consider initializing f(0) with equation 1 different than
`
`initializing f(0) with equation 2 because ∆Prampup is part of equation 1 but not part of equation 2.
`
`40.
`
`Equations 1 and 3 provide another example. Initializing f(0) with equation 1 from
`
`the table involves the use of the parameters PO_UE_PUSCH, ∆PPC , and ∆Prampup. By contrast,
`
`initializing f(0) with equation 3 does not involve the use of ∆PPC. This means that according to
`
`equation 1, the error in the power of the transmitted random access preamble is part of the
`
`initialization of f(0), while under equation 3 it is not. In certain circumstances it may be that the
`
`value of ∆PPC is zero. This could occur if the preamble received by the base station from the
`
`terminal has exactly the target value for that preamble. Therefore, the value of f(0) obtained
`
`from using equation 1 could be the same as the value obtained from using equation 3 in the
`
`circumstance in which ∆PPC is zero. Stated another way, setting f(0) with equation 3 does set
`
`f(0) “such that” equation 1 is also met in the circumstance in which ∆PPC is zero. However, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would consider initializing f(0) with equation 1 different than
`
`initializing f(0) with equation 3 because ∆PPC is part of equation 1 but not part of equation 3.
`
`41.
`
`Equations 1 and 4 provide another example. Initializing f(0) with equation 1 from
`
`the table involves the use of the parameters PO_UE_PUSCH, ∆PPC , and ∆Prampup. By contrast,
`
`initializing f(0) with equation 4 does not involve the use of PO_UE_PUSCH or ∆Prampup. This means
`
`that according to equation 1, the UE specific component PO_UE_PUSCH and the ramp up power used
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-1 Filed 11/09/15 Page 15 of 54 PageID #: 1226
`
`
`
`to ramp up the power of random access preamble transmissions are part of the initialization of
`
`f(0), while under equation 4 they are not. According to TS 36.213 v.8.2.0 §5.1.1.1 predating the
`
`’966 patent, and according to the ’966 patent itself, the value of PO_UE_PUSCH is configured by a
`
`so-called Radio Resource Control (RRC). (See ‘966 patent at 4:44-46). In certain
`
`circumstances it may be that the values of PO_UE_PUSCH and ∆Prampup are both zero, or that they are
`
`equal to each other. This could occur if RRC sets the value of PO_UE_PUSCH at zero and the
`
`random access preamble is transmitted with the appropriate power level the very first time.
`
`Therefore, the value of f(0) obtained from using equation 1 could be the same as the value
`
`obtained from using equation 4 in the circumstance in which PO_UE_PUSCH and ∆Prampup are both
`
`zero, or if they are equal to each other. Stated another way, setting f(0) with equation 4 does set
`
`f(0) “such that” equation 1 is also met in the circumstance in which PO_UE_PUSCH and ∆Prampup are
`
`both zero, or if they are equal to each other. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`consider initializing f(0) with equation 1 different than initializing f(0) with equation 4 because
`
`PO_UE_PUSCH and ∆Prampup are part of equation 1 but not part of equation 4.
`
`42.
`
`Equations 1 and 5 provide another example. Initializing f(0) with equation 1 from
`
`the table involves the use of the parameters PO_UE_PUSCH, ∆PPC , and ∆Prampup. By contrast,
`
`initializing f(0) with equation 5 does not involve the use of PO_UE_PUSCH or ∆PPC. This means that
`
`according to equation 1, the UE specific component PO_UE_PUSCH and the error in the power of the
`
`transmitted random access preamble are part of the initialization of f(0), while under equation 5
`
`they are not. According to TS 36.213 v.8.2.0 §5.1.1.1, which predates the ’966 patent, and
`
`according to the ’966 patent itself, the value of PO_UE_PUSCH is configured by a so-called Radio
`
`Resource Control (RRC). (See ’966 patent at 4:44-46). In certain circumstances it may be that
`
`the values of PO_UE_PUSCH and ∆PPC are both zero, or that they are equal to each other. This could
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-1 Filed 11/09/15 Page 16 of 54 PageID #: 1227
`
`
`
`occur if RRC sets the value of PO_UE_PUSCH at zero and if the preamble received by the base
`
`station from the terminal has exactly the target value for that preamble. Therefore, the value of
`
`f(0) obtained from using equation 1 could be the same as the value obtained from using equation
`
`5 in the circumstance in which PO_UE_PUSCH and ∆PPC are both zero, or if they are equal to each
`
`other. Stated another way, setting f(0) with equation 5 does set f(0) “such that” equation 1 is also
`
`met in the circumstance in which PO_UE_PUSCH and ∆PPC are both zero, or if they are equal to each
`
`other. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider initializing f(0) with
`
`equation 1 different than initializing f(0) with equation 5 because PO_UE_PUSCH and ∆PPC are part
`
`of equation 1 but not part of equation 5.
`
`43.
`
`Equations 1 and 6 provide another example. Initializing f(0) with equation 1 from
`
`the table involves the use of the parameters PO_UE_PUSCH, ∆PPC, and ∆Prampup. By contrast,
`
`initializing f(0) with equation 6 does not involve the use of those three terms. Rather, f(0) is
`
`made equal to zero without consideration of any value of PO_UE_PUSCH, ∆PPC , and ∆Prampup. I
`
`understand that the approach of making f(0) = 0 is prior art to the ’966 patent, found in TS
`
`36.213 v.8.2.0 § 5.1.1.1. In certain circumstances, it may be that the values of PO_UE_PUSCH,
`
`∆PPC, and ∆Prampup each equal zero or more generally that the sum of ∆PPC and ∆Prampup equals
`
`PO_UE_PUSCH. As a hypothetical example ∆PPC and ∆Prampup may each equal 1, and PO_UE_PUSCH
`
`may equal 2. Therefore, the value of f(0) obtained from using equation 1 would be the same as
`
`the value obtained from using equation 6 in the circumstances in which PO_UE_PUSCH, ∆PPC, and
`
`∆Prampup each equal zero or the sum of ∆PPC and ∆Prampup equals PO_UE_PUSCH. Stated another
`
`way, setting f(0) with equation 6 does set f(0) “such that” equation 1 is also met in the
`
`circumstance in which PO_UE_PUSCH, ∆PPC, and ∆Prampup each equal zero or the sum of ∆PPC and
`
`∆Prampup equals PO_UE_PUSCH. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-1 Filed 11/09/15 Page 17 of 54 PageID #: 1228
`
`
`
`initializing f(0) with equation 1 different than initializing f(0) with equation 6. The ’966 patent
`
`also considers these different as it acknowledges that initializing f(0) according to equation 6 is
`
`prior art.
`
`44.
`
`The Plaintiff’s proposed construction also allows for f(0) to be initialized without
`
`any equation. Hypothetically, one could initialize f(0) by randomly setting a value for f(0). It
`
`may be that whatever value is randomly set is “such that” it conforms with the equation in the
`
`independent claims of the ’966 patent. This is the same as the analogy I described earlier with
`
`setting a max heart rate for a treadmill workout. It is inconsistent with how a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would interpret the claim language in question to conclude that f(0) could be
`
`initialized by randomly selecting a value.
`
`VI.
`
`“WHEREIN THE FIRST POWER CONTROL ADJUSTMENT STATE g(i) FOR
`i=0 IS INITIALIZED AS: PO_UE_PUCCH + g(0) = ∆PPC + ∆Prampup” (’966 PATENT
`CLAIMS 3 AND 12)
`
`45.
`
`I understand that the parties have offered the following proposed constructions:
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`“wherein g(0) is calculated from the values of
`PO_UE_PUCCH, ∆PPC , and ∆Prampup by calculating
`a sum of g(0) and PO_UE_PUCCH and a sum of
`∆PPC and ∆Prampup and equating the two
`calculated sums”
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposal
`No construction necessary.
`
`Alternatively, “wherein the first power
`control adjustment state g(i) for i=0 is set
`such that PO_UE_PUCCH + g(0) = ∆PPC +
`∆Prampup”
`
`
`
`46.
`
`The claim language in question is substantially the same as the claim language of
`
`independent claims 1 and 10 discussed above in Section V of this Declaration. There are two
`
`differences.
`
`47.
`
`First, claims 3 and 12 refer to PO_UE_PUCCH instead of PO_UE_PUSCH. PO_UE_PUSCH is a
`
`UE-specific component for communications on the PUSCH. PO_UE_PUCCH is the analogous UE-
`
`specific component for communications on the Physical Uplink Control CHannel (PUCCH).
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-1 Filed 11/09/15 Page 18 of 54 PageID #: 1229
`
`
`
`48.
`
`Second, claims 3 and 12 refer to g(0) instead of f(0). f(0) is a power control
`
`adjustment state for the PUSCH. g(0) is the analogous power control adjustment state for the
`
`PUCCH.
`
`49.
`
`The language in question from claims 3 and 12 is analogous to the language
`
`discussed in Section V for claims 1 and 10. The same reasoning discussed in Section V applies
`
`here for claims 3 and 12. I therefore conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that the claim language in question requires a calculation be performed for the value
`
`of g(0) making use of the values of PO_UE_PUCCH, ∆PPC , and ∆Prampup. Defendants’ construction
`
`captures this requirement through a literal reading of the claim language of claims 3 and 12.
`
`50.
`
`Plaintiff’s proposed construction is unclear and potentially inconsistent with how
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the language of claim 3 and 12, based on the
`
`same reasoning I explained in Section V of this Declaration for claims 1 and 10.
`
`VII. “WHEREIN THE INITIAL TRANSMIT POWER PMSG3 OF THE THIRD
`MESSAGE FOR i=0 IS EQUAL TO: PMsg3=min{Pmax,Ppreamble+∆0,
`preamble_Msg3+∆PC_Msg3+10 log10(MPUSCH(i))+ ∆TF(TF(i))} (’966 PATENT CLAIM 4)
`
`51.
`
`Claim 5 recites: The method according to claim 1,
`
`wherein the initial transmit power PMsg3 of the third message for i=0 is equal to:
`PM