Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-12 Filed 11/09/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1490
`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-12 Filed 11/09/15 Page 1of9PagelD#: 1490
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 12
`EXHIBIT 12
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-12 Filed 11/09/15 Page 2 of 9 PagelD #: 1491
`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-12 Filed 11/09/15 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 1491
`PATENT COOPERATION TREATY
`
`PCT
`
`INTERNATIONAL PRELIMINARY REPORT ON PATENTABILITY
`(Chapter I of the Patent Cooperation Treaty)
`
`(PCT Rule 44bis)
`
`Applicant’s or agent’s file reference
`2008P01291WO
`
`FOR FURTHER ACTION
`
`See item 4 below
`
`International filing date (day/month/vear)
`International application No.
`05 May 2009 (05.05.2009)
`PCT/EP2009/055430
`International Patent Classification (8th edition unless older edition indicated)
`See relevant information in Form PCT/ISA/237
`
`Priority date (day/month/year)
`05 May 2008 (05.05.2008)
`
`Applicant
`NOKIA SIEMENS NETWORKS OY
`
`This international preliminary report on patentability (Chapter I) is issued by the International Bureau on behalf of the
`International Searching Authority under Rule 44 bis.1(a).
`
`This REPORTconsists of a total of 8 sheets, including this cover sheet.
`
`In the attached sheets, any reference to the written opinion of the International Searching Authority should be read as a
`reference to the international preliminary report on patentability (Chapter I) instead.
`
`This report contains indicationsrelating to the following items:
`
`Basis of the report
`
`Priority
`
`Non-establishment of opinion with regard to novelty, inventive step and industrial
`applicability
`
`Lack of unity of invention
`
`Reasoned statement under Article 35(2) with regard to novelty, inventive step or
`industrial applicability; citations and explanations supporting such statement
`
`Certain documents cited
`
`Certain defects in the international application
`
`Certain observations on the international application
`
`KXLIXL)ULI
`
`the priority date (Rule 44bis .2).
`
`
`
`Box No. I
`
`Box No. II
`
`Box No. II
`
`Box No.
`
`Box No.
`
`Box No.
`
`Box No.
`
`Box No.
`
`
`
`The International Bureau will communicate this report to designated Offices in accordance with Rules 44bis.3(c) and 93bis.1
`but not, except where the applicant makes an express request under Article 23(2), before the expiration of 30 months from
`
`
`
`Date of issuance of this report
`09 November 2010 (09.11.2010)
`Authorized officer
`
`:
`Yolaine Cussac
`e-mail: pt05.pet@wipo.int
`
`The International Bureau of WIPO
`34, chemin des Colombettes
`1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland
`Facsimile No. +41 22 338 82 70
`Form PCT/IB/373 (January 2004)
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-12 Filed 11/09/15 Page 3 of 9 PagelD#: 1492
`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-12 Filed 11/09/15 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 1492
`PATENT COOPERATION TREATY
`
`oe?
`
`From the
`INTERNATIONAL SEARCHING AUTHORITY
`
`
`Te
`
`see form PCTASA?220
`
`
`
`PCT
`
`WRITTEN OPINION OF THE
`INTERNATIONAL SEARCHING AUTHORITY
`
`(PCT Rule 43bis.1)
`
`
`Date of mailing
`(day/monthyear)
`
`see form PCTASA/210 (second sheet)
`
`
`
`Applicant's or agent's file reference
`see form PCTASA220
`
`FOR FURTHER ACTION
`See paragraph 2 below
`
`Priority date (day/month/year)
`Internationalfiling date (day‘month/ear)
`International application No.
`05.05.2008
`05.05.2009
`PCT/EP2009/55430
`
`International Patent Classification (IPC) or both national classification and IPC
`INV. HO4W5200
`
`Applicant
`NOKIA SIEMENS NETWORKS OY
`
`
`Basis of the opinion
`Box No. |
`Priority
`Box No. Il
`Box No. Ill©Non-establishment of opinion with regard to novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability
`Box No. IV
`Lack of unity of invention
`Box No. V
`Reasoned statement under Rule 43dis.1(a)(i) with regard to novelty, inventive step or industrial
`applicability; citations and explanations supporting such statement
`Certain documents cited
`
`
`
`Box No. VI
`
`Box No. VII Certain defects in the international application
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`This opinion contains indications relating to the following items:
`
`RHRWOWOCOR Box No. VIil Certain observations on the international application
`
`2.
`
`FURTHER ACTION
`
`If a demandfor international preliminary examination is made, this opinion will usually be considered to be a
`written opinion of the International Preliminary Examining Authority ("IPEA”) except that this does not apply where
`the applicant chooses an Authority other than this one to be the IPEA and the chosen IPEA hasnotifed the
`International Bureau under Rule 66.1 bis(b) that written opinions of this International Searching Authority
`will not be so considered.
`
`If this opinion is, as provided above, considered to be a written opinion of the IPEA, the applicantis invited to
`submit to the IPEA a written reply together, where appropriate, with amendments, before the expiration of 3 months
`from the date of mailing of Form PCTASA/220 or before the expiration of 22 months from thepriority date,
`whichever expireslater.
`
`For further options, see Form PCTASA220.
`
`3.
`
`For further details, see notes to Form PCTASA220.
`
`))
`9d
`
`European PatentOffice
`D-80208Munich
`
`Tel. +49 89 2399 - 0
`Fax: +49 89 2399 - 4465
`
`see form
`PCTASAP10
`
`;
`.
`Cabafias Prieto, Ana
`
`Telephone No. +49 89 2399-7992
`
`:
`i 0
`
`) %
`
`“amsayo-*™
`
`L
`
`Name and mailing address of the ISA:
`Date of completion of
`Authorized Officer
`;
`this opinion
`we era,
`
`Form PCTASA/237 (Cover Sheet) (April 2005)
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-12 Filed 11/09/15 Page 4 of 9 PagelD#: 1493
`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-12 Filed 11/09/15 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 1493
`
`WRITTEN OPINION OF THE
`INTERNATIONAL SEARCHING AUTHORITY
`
`International application No.
`PCT/EP2009/055430
`
`Box No.!| Basis of the opinion
`1. With regard to the language,this opinion has been established on the basis of:
`
`XJ
`
`the international application in the language in whichit wasfiled
`
`O atranslation ofthe international application into , whichis the languageofa translation furnished for the
`purposesofinternational search (Rules 12.3(a) and 23.1 (b)).
`
`2. 0 This opinion has been established taking into accountthe rectification of an obvious mistake authorized
`by or notified to this Authority under Rule 91 (Rule 43bis.1(a))
`
`3. With regard to any nucleotide and/or amino acid sequencedisclosed in the international application and
`necessaryto the claimed invention, this opinion has been established on the basis of:
`
`a. type of material:
`
`(1
`
`a sequencelisting
`
`1 table(s) related to the sequencelisting
`
`b. format of material:
`
`[J]
`
`on paper
`
`in electronic form
`
`c. time offilingfurnishing:
`
`OQ
`
`QO
`
`containedin the international application asfiled.
`
`filed together with the international application in electronic form.
`
`‘0 furnished subsequently to this Authority for the purposes of search.
`
`4. 1 In addition, in the case that more than one version or copy of a sequencelisting and/ortable relating thereto
`has beenfiled or furnished, the required statements that the information in the subsequent or additional
`copiesis identical to that in the application asfiled or does not go beyondthe application asfiled, as
`appropriate, were furnished.
`
`5: Additional comments:
`
`Form PCTASA/ 237 (April 2007)
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-12 Filed 11/09/15 Page 5 of9 PagelD#: 1494
`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-12 Filed 11/09/15 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 1494
`
`International application No.
`WRITTEN OPINION OF THE
`PCT/EP2009/(055430
`INTERNATIONAL SEARCHING AUTHORITY
`
`
`Box No.V_ Reasoned statement under Rule 43bis.1(a)(i) with regard to novelty, inventive step or
`industrial applicability; citations and explanations supporting such statement
`
`Yes: Claims
`No:
`Claims
`
`1-20
`
`3-9,11,14-20
`1-2,10,12-13,
`
`' I
`
`=
`
`sOo
`
`Yes: Claims
`No: Claims
`
`Yes: Claims
`No:
`Claims
`
`1. Statement
`
`Novelty (N)
`
`inventive step (IS)
`
`Industrial applicability (1A)
`
`2. Citations and explanations
`
`see separate sheet
`
`Box No. Vil Certain defects in the international application
`
`The following defects in the form or contents of the international application have been noted:
`
`see separate sheet
`
`Box No.Vill Certain observations on the international application
`
`The following observations ontheclarity of the claims, description, and drawings or on the question whether the
`claims are fully supported by the description, are made:
`
`see separate sheet
`
`Form PCTASA/237 (April 2007)
`
`

`

`
`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-12 Filed 11/09/15 Page 6 of 9 PagelD #: 1495
`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-12 Filed 11/09/15 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 1495
`
`WRITTEN OPINION OF THE
`INTERNATIONAL SEARCHING
`AUTHORITY (SEPARATE SHEET)
`
`International application No.
`
`PCT/EP2009/055430
`
`Referenceis madeto the following documents:
`
`D1: EDITOR (MOTOROLA): 3GPP DRAFT; R1-081056 - 36213-810-CR, 3RD
`GENERATION PARTNERSHIP PROJECT (3GPP), MOBILE
`COMPETENCE CENTRE ; 650, ROUTE DES LUCIOLES; F-06921
`SOPHIA-ANTIPOLIS CEDEX ; FRANCE,vol. RAN WG1, no. Sorrento, Italy;
`20080215, 15 February 2008 (2008-02-15), XP050109512
`D2: NTT DOCOMOETAL: "Transmission PowerControl in E-UTRA Uplink"
`3GPP DRAFT; R1-070870 TRANSMISSION POWER CONTROL IN E-
`UTRA UPLINK, 3RD GENERATION PARTNERSHIP PROJECT (8GPP),
`MOBILE COMPETENCE CENTRE ; 650, ROUTE DES LUCIOLES; F-
`06921 SOPHIA-ANTIPOLIS CEDEX ; FRANCE, vol. RAN WG1, no. St.
`Louis, USA; 20070206, 6 February 2007 (2007-02-06), XP050104882
`D3: QUALCOMM EUROPE: "RACH sequencesand planning" 3GPP DRAFT;
`R1-062690, 3RD GENERATION PARTNERSHIP PROJECT (3GPP),
`MOBILE COMPETENCE CENTRE ; 650, ROUTE DES LUCIOLES; F-
`06921 SOPHIA-ANTIPOLIS CEDEX ; FRANCE, vol. RAN WG1, no. Seoul,
`Korea; 20061004, 4 October 2006 (2006-10-04), XP050103179
`IPWIRELESS: "Initial Access Procedure and Uplink Synchronisation” 3GPP
`DRAFT; R1-060637, 3RD GENERATION PARTNERSHIP PROJECT
`(3GPP), MOBILE COMPETENCE CENTRE ; 650, ROUTE DES LUCIOLES;
`F-06921 SOPHIA-ANTIPOLIS CEDEX ; FRANCE, vol. RAN WG1, no.
`Denver, USA; 20060209, 9 February 2006 (2006-02-09), XP050101560
`
`D4:
`
`Re Item V.
`
`1.
`
`|The document D1, which is consideredto bethe closest prior art, discloses an
`uplink power control procedure for the physical uplink shared and control channels
`comprising the following features set out in claim 1:
`
`- using a processor toinitialize for i=O a first power control adjustment state g(i) for
`an uplink control channel and a second powercontrol adjustmentstate f(i) for an
`uplink shared channel to each reflect an open loop powercontrol error and
`_ wherein the transmit powerfor.the uplink shared channelis initialized with the
`second powercontrol adjustment state f(0) (see item 5.1.1: “Physical. uplink
`shared channel": Pryscu(i); f(i); (0) and item 5.1.2: "Physical uplink control
`
`Form PCT/ISA/237 (Separate Sheet) (Sheet 1) (EPO-April 2005)
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-12 Filed 11/09/15 Page 7 of 9 PagelD #: 1496
`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-12 Filed 11/09/15 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 1496
`
`WRITTEN OPINION OF THE
`INTERNATIONAL SEARCHING
`AUTHORITY (SEPARATE SHEET)
`
`channel": Ppuccui(i); gli), 9(0)).
`
`Claim 1 further defines:
`
`International application No.
`
`PCT/EP2009/055430
`
`- using the processor to computeaninitial transmit power for the uplink shared
`channel using full pathloss compensation, wherein theinitial transmit power
`dependson a preamble powerof a first message sent on an access channel and
`sending from a transmitter a third message on the uplink shared channel at the
`initial transmit power
`
`Document D1 discloses in general the uplink powercontrol for the physical uplink
`shared channel (PUSCH) and the physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) in E-
`UTRA communication system wherein mathematical formulas for calculating the
`UE transmit power Pryscy ANd Ppyuccy for a subframe i are provided. However, D1
`doesnotprovide details about how to calculate theinitial transmission powerof
`the PUSCH apart from giving an indication that the power control adjustment
`' states for both channels take the value 0 for i=0.
`Therefore, the subject-matter of claim 1 differs from D1 in that the calculation of
`the initial transmit power for the uplink shared channelis provided.
`The solution proposedin claim 1 for calculating theinitial transmit powerfor the
`uplink shared channel based on a preamble powerofa first message sent on an
`access channel is however already disclosed in documents D2 (see Pg.1, item
`2.1: "Non-synchronized Random Access Channel (RACH): L2/L3 messagepart")
`or D3 (see Pg.1 to Pg.3, item 2.1: "Transmit power and Response to ACK/NAK"),
`whichare also dealing with transmission power control (TPC) schemesfor uplink
`physical channels in E-UTRA uplink, and can not therefore be considered
`inventive becauseit will be obvious for a person skilled in the art of powercontrol
`to modify what is described in D1 according to D2 arriving to the subject-matter of
`~ Claim 1.
`
`Thus, the present application does not meet the requirements of Article 33(3) PCT
`because the subject-matter of claim 1 does not involve an inventive step.
`
`2.
`
`The following dependentclaims do not appear to contain any additional features
`which, in combination with the features of claim 1
`to which they refer, could form
`subject matter which meets the requirements in respect of novelty (Article 33(2)
`
`Form PCT/ISA/237 (Separate Sheet) (Sheet 2) (EPO-April 2005)
`
`

`

` Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-12 Filed 11/09/15 Page 8 of 9 PagelD #: 1497
`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-12 Filed 11/09/15 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 1497
`
`WRITTEN OPINION OF THE
`INTERNATIONAL SEARCHING
`AUTHORITY (SEPARATE SHEET)
`
`International application No.
`
`PCT/EP2009/055430
`
`PCT) or inventive step (Article 33(3) PCT), the reasons being asfollows:
`
`Claim 2: the additional features are already known from D4 (see Pg.1 to Pg.4),
`which is documentdealing with the RACH procedure in E-UTRA.
`
`3.
`
`|The combination of the features of dependentclaims 3-9 is neither known from,
`nor rendered obviousby, the available prior art.
`
`4. What has been said above with reference to method claims 1-9 also concerns
`product claims 10-11 and 12-20 mutatis mutandis.
`
`Re Item VII.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Independent claimsare not in the two-part form in accordance with Rule 6.3(b)
`PCT.
`
`The features of the claims are not provided with reference signs placedin
`parentheses (Rule 6.2(b) PCT).
`
`Contrary to the requirements of Rule 5.1(a)(ii) PCT, the relevant backgroundart
`disclosed in documents D1 to D2 is not mentioned in the description, nor are
`these documentsidentified therein.
`
`If amended claimsare filed under PCT ChapterIl, the description should be
`adapted accordingly.
`In orderto facilitate the examination of the conformity of the amended application
`with the requirements of Article 34(2)(b) PCT, the applicant'is requested to clearly
`identify the amendmentscarried out, no matter whether they concern
`amendmentsby addition, replacement or deletion, and to indicate the passagesof
`the application as filed on which these amendments are based (see also Rule
`66.8(a) PCT).
`
`Re Item VIII.
`
`Thefollowing claims do not meet the requirements of Article 6 PCT in that the matter
`for which protection is soughtis not clearly defined, the reasons being as follows:
`
`Form PCT/ISA/237 (Separate Sheet) (Sheet 3) (EPO-April 2005)
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-12 Filed 11/09/15 Page 9 of 9 PagelD #: 1498
`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-12 Filed 11/09/15 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 1498
`
`WRITTEN OPINION OF THE
`INTERNATIONAL SEARCHING
`AUTHORITY (SEPARATE SHEET)
`
`International application No.
`
`PCT/EP2009/055430
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Claims 1 and 12: the meaning of the sentence "to compute aninitial transmit
`powerfor the uplink shared channel..., wherein the initial transmit power
`depends on ..., andis initialized with ..." is not clear because the sentence
`initializing the computedinitial transmit power seems to be to be redundant.
`Therefore a more precise formulation should be used instead.
`Furthermore, it seemsthat there is a contradiction between the wording of claim 1
`for describing theinitial transmit power of the uplink shared channel and the
`mathematical formula disclosed in claim 6 regarding theinitial transmit powerof
`the third messagefor i=0, becausein said formula there is no mention to the
`second powercontrol adjustmentstate (0).
`Additionally, the same objection applies to claims 10 and 12.
`
`Claim 3: the meaning of the sentence "wherein the second powercontrol
`adjustmentstate f(i) for i=O is initialized as" is not clear. Thus, for the purpose of
`examination, in order to be consistent with the information stated in the
`description, it is assumed that this expression should actually read for e.g. wherein
`the second powercontrol adjustmentstatef(i) is initialized for i=0 as...
`Additionally, the same objection applies to claim 11.
`
`Claim 4: the meaning of the sentence "wherein the first power control adjustment
`state g(i) for i=O is initialized as" is not clear. Thus, for the purpose of examination,
`in order to be consistent with the information stated in the description, it is
`assumedthat this expression should actually read for e.g. wherein the first power
`control adjustmentstate g(i) is initialized for i=O as...
`Additionally, the same objection applies to claim 15.
`
`Claims 1 and 4: the terms "full pathloss compensation" and "fractional power
`control" have a not well recognized and defined meaningin the prior art in the
`sense thatit is not completely clear for a skill person what to do or which technical
`features it implies. Therefore a more precise formulation should be usedinstead,
`see for example the wording of claim 8.
`
`Although claims 10 and 12 have been drafted as separate independentclaims,
`they appearto relate effectively to the same subject-matter and to differ from each
`other only in respect of the terminology used for the features of that subject-
`matter. The aforementioned claims therefore lack conciseness (Rule 6.1(a) PCT).
`
`Form PCT/ISA/237 (Separate Sheet) (Sheet 4) (EPO-April 2005)
`
`