Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 160-8 Filed 11/18/15 Page 1 of 24 PageID #: 1974
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit “Q”
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 160-8 Filed 11/18/15 Page 2 of 24 PageID #: 1975
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS
`EQUIPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., ET AL.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-982-JRG
`LEAD CASE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF CLAUDE ROYER
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 160-8 Filed 11/18/15 Page 3 of 24 PageID #: 1976
`
`I, Claude Royer hereby declare:
`
`1.
`
`I have been engaged by Plaintiff Cellular Communications Equipment
`
`LLC (“CCE”) in connection with the above-captioned lawsuit to provide my analyses
`
`and opinions on certain technical aspects of this dispute. I understand this Declaration
`
`is intended as support for a submission by CCE regarding claim construction. The
`
`general purpose of this Declaration is to provide my views as to what a person of skill
`
`in the art of the Patents would understand from the disclosures about certain technical
`
`issues that relate to the parties’ disputes over claim construction.
`
`2.
`
`I am competent to testify to the matters stated in this declaration, have
`
`personal knowledge of the facts and statements herein, and each of the statements is
`
`true and correct.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that defendants in this case may produce an expert
`
`declaration supporting their constructions and/or indefiniteness positions, and I reserve
`
`the right to supplement or amend my opinions here upon reviewing the same and/or to
`
`produce a rebuttal statement, if necessary.
`
`4.
`
`I am being compensated at the rate of $265 per hour for my work in
`
`connection with these cases. My compensation is not dependent in any way on the
`
`contents of this declaration, the substance of any further opinions or testimony that I
`
`may provide, or the outcome of these cases.
`
`I.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`5.
`
`I have been actively engaged as a Wireless telecommunications engineer
`
`since 1988. I am the Founder and President of Claude Royer Consultant Inc., a
`
`professional practice of technical consulting services. The focus of the practice is
`
`Wireless patent portfolio evaluation, verification of intellectual property infringement
`
`and Wireless system design.
`
`6.
`
`From 2009 to 2011, I was Director of Wireless Access Research at Research
`
`In Motion LTD
`
`(RIM),
`
`the manufacturer of BlackBerry handsets and a
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 160-8 Filed 11/18/15 Page 4 of 24 PageID #: 1977
`
`telecommunications service provider, giving technical direction in the creation of new
`
`protocols applicable to LTE Advanced and next generation Wireless systems. From
`
`2007 to 2008, I was Director of Carrier Network Technology at Nortel Networks Ltd., a
`
`telecommunications equipment vendor, where I led a team that created and
`
`implemented new context-aware data and voice services for Wireless operators. From
`
`1997 to 2006, I directed the Wireless Access Systems team at Nortel, which researched
`
`and presented to standards bodies new protocols and technologies for second, third and
`
`fourth generation Wireless systems, including GSM/EDGE, 1xEvDO, UMTS/HSPA,
`
`WiMax and LTE. I was also leading a team which implemented these technologies into
`
`base station and terminal prototypes. Prior to that, from 1994 to 1996, I managed the
`
`development team in the Nortel Wireless Networks division that introduced the
`
`world’s first software defined cellular packet data radio system. From 1988 to 1994, I
`
`worked as a signal processing engineer, designing and implementing first and second
`
`generation cellular base stations, within the team that created the world’s first software-
`
`defined radio for analog and digital cellular voice service. At the University of Toronto,
`
`where I was a Research Assistant from 1985 to 1987, I designed and developed
`
`prototypes for a real-time signal processing system for analysis of Doppler signals
`
`embedded in radio frequency signals.
`
`7.
`
`I received a Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering Physics, in 1985 from
`
`Université Laval in Quebec City, and a MASc. in Electrical Engineering in 1987 from the
`
`University of Toronto.
`
`8.
`
`I am a Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
`
`Engineers (IEEE) and a registered Professional Engineer in the Province of Quebec.
`
`9.
`
`I am a named inventor on more than 23 issued patents and have provided
`
`numerous technical presentations to RIM and Nortel customers about new Wireless
`
`products and technologies.
`
`10.
`
`I have received numerous honors in connection with my work in wireless
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 160-8 Filed 11/18/15 Page 5 of 24 PageID #: 1978
`
`engineering, including Nortel Networks Platinum Talent Award, Nortel Networks
`
`Inventor Awards and a Nortel Telecom Award for customer service.
`
`11. A complete list of my qualifications is set forth in my curriculum vitae, a
`
`current copy of which is attached hereto at the end of my Declaration.
`
`12.
`
`In connection with preparation of this Declaration, I have reviewed:
`
`a)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,868,060 (“the ‘060 Patent”), entitled “Method,
`
`Network, and Device for Information Provision by Using Paging
`
`and Cell Broadcast Services,” and its prosecution history.
`
`b)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,966 (“the ‘966 Patent”), entitled “Method,
`
`Apparatus and Computer Program for Power Control Related to
`
`Random Access Procedures,” and its prosecution history.
`
`c)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,848,556 (“the ‘556 Patent”), entitled “Carrier
`
`Aggregation with Power Headroom Report,” and its prosecution
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`history.
`
`The P.R. 4-3 disclosures exchanged in this case.
`
`The
`
`letter brief defendants
`
`submitted
`
`regarding alleged
`
`indefiniteness of certain claim terms, as well as Defendants’ claim
`
`construction brief.
`
`The ’060 Patent, ’966 Patent, and ’556 Patent are collectively referred to as “the
`
`Patents”).
`
`13.
`
`I am also familiar with contentions of the parties as to the meaning of
`
`terms of the claims.
`
`II.
`
`THE PATENTS AND LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`14.
`
`I understand that the proper construction of the patent claims should be
`
`based on the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”), and that
`
`the characterization of that person is based on the following non-exclusive factors: (1)
`
`the type of problems encountered in the art; (2) the prior art solutions to those
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 160-8 Filed 11/18/15 Page 6 of 24 PageID #: 1979
`
`problems; (3) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (4) the sophistication of the
`
`technology; and (5) the educational level of active workers in the field. I have
`
`considered these factors. I understand that the relevant time frame for resolving the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art is the time of the invention.
`
`15.
`
`Based on the overall disclosures and claims of the Patents, I understand
`
`the scope of the inventions to generally relate to wireless data communication networks
`
`and related protocols and techniques (including standardized protocols and techniques
`
`applicable to LTE networks).
`
`16.
`
`The ‘060 Patent was filed April 2, 2008, and claims priority to a foreign
`
`application filed April 2, 2007. The Abstract states as follows:
`
`Informing a number of users about an emergency or other situation of
`public interest is accomplished using a broadcast service. A specific
`identifier is used in a paging message for activating broadcast service in
`terminals. A terminal checks a received paging message with regard to the
`presence of the specific identifier and when detecting the specific
`identifier, switches to a broadcast mode for receiving broadcast content.
`The received broadcast emergency content is notified and/or displayed to
`the users of the terminals.
`
`17.
`
`In my opinion, a POSA of the ’060 Patent would have completed an
`
`undergraduate program in electrical engineering or computer science and would have
`
`at
`
`least 5 years of professional experience
`
`in the field of mobile wireless
`
`communications.
`
` Alternatively,
`
`that person would have
`
`completed
`
`a
`
`graduate program in electrical engineering or computer science and would have at least
`
`2 years of professional experience in the field of mobile wireless communications. The
`
`POSA would understand the structure and functions of wireless communication
`
`networks, including wireless networks that were in use and under development at the
`
`time of the Patent.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 160-8 Filed 11/18/15 Page 7 of 24 PageID #: 1980
`
`18.
`
`The ‘996 Patent was filed May 5, 2009, and claims priority to a provisional
`
`application filed May 5, 2008. The Abstract states as follows:
`
`A first power control adjustment state g(i) and a second power control
`adjustment state f(i) are initialized for i=0 to each reflect an open loop
`power control error. An initial transmit power for a shared uplink channel
`is computed using full pathloss compensation. The computed initial
`transmit power depends on a preamble power of a first message sent on
`an access channel, and the initial transmit power is initialized with the
`second power control adjustment state f(0). A third message is sent from a
`transmitter on an uplink shared channel at the initial transmit power. In
`various implementations, the power for i=0 on the uplink control channel
`is also initialized similar to the initial transmit power for the third
`message and using full pathloss compensation, and after the third
`message (and retransmissions of it), subsequent messages sent on the
`uplink shared channel are sent at a power that is computed using
`fractional pathloss compensation.
`
`19.
`
`In my opinion, a POSA of the ’966 Patent would have completed an
`
`undergraduate program in electrical engineering or computer science and would have
`
`at
`
`least 5 years of professional experience
`
`in the field of mobile wireless
`
`communications.
`
` Alternatively,
`
`that person would have
`
`completed
`
`a
`
`graduate program in electrical engineering or computer science and would have at least
`
`2 years of professional experience in the field of mobile wireless communications. The
`
`POSA would understand the structure and functions of wireless communication
`
`networks, including wireless networks that were in use and under development at the
`
`time of the Patent.
`
`20.
`
`The ‘556 Patent was filed June 20, 2011, and claims priority to a
`
`provisional application filed June 21, 2010. The Abstract states as follows:
`
`Methods, apparatuses, and software can be used for providing power
`headroom reporting in a telecommunication system. A method can
`include configuring a user equipment to send a power headroom report
`control element in uplink, wherein the power headroom report control
`element includes a bitmap indicating which power headroom reports are
`being reported. The method can further include receiving the power
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 160-8 Filed 11/18/15 Page 8 of 24 PageID #: 1981
`
`headroom report control element from the user equipment. The method
`additionally can include processing the received power headroom report
`control element based on the configuration of the user equipment.
`
`21.
`
`In my opinion, a POSA of the ’556 Patent would have completed an
`
`undergraduate program in electrical engineering or computer science and would have
`
`at
`
`least 5 years of professional experience
`
`in the field of mobile wireless
`
`communications.
`
` Alternatively,
`
`that person would have
`
`completed
`
`a
`
`graduate program in electrical engineering or computer science and would have at least
`
`2 years of professional experience in the field of mobile wireless communications. The
`
`POSA would understand the structure and functions of wireless communication
`
`networks, including wireless networks that were in use and under development at the
`
`time of the Patent.
`
`22.
`
`I possess at least the ordinary skill in the art applicable to each Patent, and
`
`I have applied those standards throughout my analysis. The statements and opinions
`
`expressed in this Declaration are based on my knowledge and experience as one of at
`
`least ordinary skill in the art for each Patent at the time of the invention (which I
`
`understand to be the earliest priority date of each application).
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`23.
`
`I understand that the words of a claim are generally given the ordinary
`
`and customary meaning that the term would have to the POSA at the time of the
`
`invention.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that, in construing terms, Courts look first to the intrinsic
`
`evidence of record, which includes the patent itself (including the claims and
`
`specification) and the prosecution history. I also understand that Courts may consider
`
`extrinsic evidence, such as expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned
`
`treatises.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 160-8 Filed 11/18/15 Page 9 of 24 PageID #: 1982
`
`25.
`
`I understand that particular embodiments appearing in the written
`
`description will not be used to limit claim language that has broader effect. And, even
`
`where a patent describes only a single embodiment, claims are not to be read
`
`restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim
`
`scope using words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read
`
`the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which it appears, but
`
`also in the context of the entire patent, including the specification and prosecution
`
`history.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that while claim terms are understood in light of the
`
`specification, the scope of the claims is not necessarily limited to inventions that look
`
`like the ones shown in the figures and described in the specification. I realize that
`
`limiting claims from the specification is generally not permitted absent a clear
`
`disclosure that the patentee intended the claims to be limited as shown.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that differences among claims can also be a useful guide in
`
`understanding the meaning of particular claim terms. For example, I am familiar with
`
`the doctrine of “claim differentiation” where the presence of a dependent claim that
`
`adds a particular limitation to an independent claim gives rise to a presumption that the
`
`limitation in question is not present in the independent claim.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that the standard for indefiniteness is whether a POSA
`
`would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification
`
`and prosecution history. A claim is indefinite if, viewed in light of the specification and
`
`prosecution history, it fails to inform one skilled in the art about the scope of the
`
`invention with “reasonable certainty.” The definiteness requirement must take into
`
`account the inherent limitations of language. Reasonable certainty in light of the subject
`
`matter, not absolute precision, is required. Indefiniteness is an invalidity defense and,
`
`as such, must be demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 160-8 Filed 11/18/15 Page 10 of 24 PageID #: 1983
`
`IV. DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
`
`A.
`
`’060 Patent – “accurate receipt” (Claim 15)
`
`30.
`
`I understand the parties have proposed the following constructions of the
`
`term “accurate receipt” found in Claim 15:
`
`CCE’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`Indefinite.
`
`
`
`31.
`
`The ’060 Patent relates to dissemination of emergency warning messages
`
`in a cellular network. See, e.g., ’060 Patent at 1:46-2:3. In the event of an emergency,
`
`network equipment (e.g., a base station) can broadcast emergency content to mobile
`
`devices in the cell using a broadcast service. Id. at 2:29-44, 2:59-64. The ’060 Patent
`
`explains that constantly listening for such broadcast services “has harsh consequences
`
`on [] battery drain and [] stand-by time of a [mobile device].” Id. at 1:56-63. In light of
`
`this, the patent describes improved techniques for determining when a mobile device
`
`should listen for broadcast information. In particular, it discloses using paging
`
`messages to alert mobile devices within a cell to switch to a broadcast mode for
`
`receiving emergency content. Id. at 2:45-55, 2:64-66. Upon receiving a paging message,
`
`a device checks whether an identifier included in the message corresponds to one of a
`
`group of specific identifiers for different types of emergencies or a terminal identifier.
`
`Id. at 3:33-41. In the case of the former, the mobile device switches to a broadcast mode
`
`to receive emergency content, without any confirmation of the paging message
`
`reception. Id. at 3:46-52, 3:53-55. In the case of the latter, the device establishes a
`
`physical or logical channel for ordinary communications. Id. at 3:41-46.
`
`32.
`
`Claim 15 of the ’060 Patent states:
`
`15. A terminal operating in a cellular wireless communication
`system having a plurality of terminals, the terminal comprising:
`a memory unit configured to store a group of specific identifiers
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 160-8 Filed 11/18/15 Page 11 of 24 PageID #: 1984
`
`common to the plurality of the terminals supporting an
`emergency warning, at least two specific identifiers in the
`group of the specific identifiers being for different types of
`emergencies, the cellular wireless communication system
`being a bi-directional cellular wireless communication
`system between a base station and the plurality of terminals;
`and
`at least one programmed processor configured to:
`check whether a paging message received from the base
`station includes at least one specific identifier of the
`group of the specific identifiers;
`switch to a broadcast mode for receiving broadcast content
`on a broadcast channel only if the paging message
`received from the base station includes the at least one
`specific identifier of the group of the specific identifiers,
`without waiting to confirm accurate receipt of an
`emergency warning message; and
`establish at least one of a physical channel and a logical
`channel only if the received paging message includes a
`temporary mobile subscriber identity allocated to the
`terminal.
`
`33.
`
`The disputed language in Claim 15, “accurate receipt,” is underlined
`
`above.
`
`34.
`
`I reviewed the claims, specification, and file history of the ’060 Patent, and
`
`found no special definition provided for this term.
`
`35.
`
`The context of Claim 15 is informative. In particular, Claim 15 describes a
`
`“terminal operating in a cellular wireless communication system having a plurality of
`
`terminals.” The claimed terminal includes “at least one processor” configured to
`
`“switch to a broadcast mode for receiving broadcast content…without waiting to
`
`confirm accurate receipt of an emergency warning message.” Based on this language, a
`
`POSA would understand that the claimed terminal is to take action (i.e., “switch to a
`
`broadcast mode”) without waiting to confirm to the base station that it accurately
`
`received an emergency warning message. In other words, the claim contemplates that
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 160-8 Filed 11/18/15 Page 12 of 24 PageID #: 1985
`
`the terminal will switch to broadcast mode without regard to whether or not it can
`
`confirm an emergency warning message (sent from the network to the terminal) was
`
`“accurately received.”
`
`36.
`
`In light of this context, it is my opinion that a POSA would understand
`
`that the term “accurate” in Claim 15 is used in accordance with its ordinary meaning,
`
`which is, simply put, “correct.” See Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Ed.
`
`(1999). Accordingly, the phrase “accurate receipt” in Claim 15 refers to “correct” receipt
`
`of an emergency warning message, and Claim 15 states that the terminal will switch to
`
`broadcast mode without waiting to confirm an emergency warning message was
`
`received correctly.
`
`37.
`
` Notably, this claim element sets forth something that does not happen.
`
`The terminal is not waiting to send a confirmation (which takes time and radio
`
`resources) related to “accurate receipt” before switching to a broadcast mode.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that Defendants allege a POSA would not be able to
`
`discern if this term refers to “whether the terminal received the message that was
`
`actually transmitted by the base station (i.e., there was no error in transmission[,]” or
`
`“whether the message received by the terminal’s processor is the same as the message
`
`received at the terminal’s antenna (i.e., there was no error introduced by the terminal
`
`during processing the receipt of the message).” Dkt 123-1 at 2. I disagree.
`
`39.
`
`A POSA would understand that “accurate receipt,” as that phrase
`
`appears in Claim 15, refers to accurate (i.e., correct) receipt, by the claimed terminal, of
`
`an emergency warning message transmitted by a base station. Throughout the ’060
`
`Patent, the relevant communications occur between a base station and a terminal, not
`
`between subcomponents within a terminal. Claim 15 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). Additionally, the ’060 Patent
`
`repeatedly discusses communications between a base station and a terminal. See, e.g.,
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 160-8 Filed 11/18/15 Page 13 of 24 PageID #: 1986
`
`’060 Patent at Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Fig. 5, 2:41-48,2:62-66, 3:9-15, 3:56-60. On the other
`
`hand, discussion of intra-terminal communication of messages is notably absent from
`
`the patent. Accordingly, a POSA would not interpret “accurate receipt” as a reference
`
`to intra-terminal communication (i.e., communication between components in the
`
`terminal, such as an antenna, baseband processor, applications processor, etc.). To do
`
`so would ignore the context of the ’060 patent.
`
`40.
`
`I understand that Defendants also contend that “accurate receipt,” as
`
`that phrase is recited in Claim 15, is indefinite because it is supposedly a “term of
`
`degree” without “objective boundaries” allowing a POSA to determine what constitutes
`
`“accurate receipt.” Again, I disagree.
`
`41.
`
`One skilled in the art would know that a message sent from a base
`
`station to a terminal is accurately (i.e., “correctly) received when the terminal obtains
`
`the communicated data. “Perfect fidelity” in transmission is not necessary, and a POSA
`
`would not believe such is required for “accurate receipt.” Rather, a POSA would
`
`understand that “accurate receipt” of messages means that terminals and base stations
`
`correctly apprehend the information exchanged between them with a degree of
`
`confidence established by applicable (and well-known) cellular network protocols and
`
`mechanisms that utilize error correction, redundancy, error-detection, and/or other
`
`techniques to verify that information is exchanged sufficiently. A POSA would not
`
`wonder “how accurate” a receipt must be to satisfy the claim because the appropriate
`
`degree of confidence that a transmission was received correctly is defined in known
`
`cellular network protocols (e.g., 3GPP technical standards).
`
`42.
`
`A POSA would know that many messages sent by a cellular base
`
`station require confirmation of accurate reception by the terminal to the base station.
`
`Such confirmation is typically achieved by sending a response to the base station (e.g.,
`
`an acknowledgement (ACK) or negative acknowledgement (NACK). The fact that
`
`cellular networks perform ACK/NACK procedures confirms the presence of cellular
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 160-8 Filed 11/18/15 Page 14 of 24 PageID #: 1987
`
`network protocols and mechanisms that verify that information is exchanged
`
`sufficiently. It bears noting that receiving this confirmation consumes network
`
`resources (e.g., base station resources). One objective of the ’060 Patent is to conserve
`
`such resources by, for example, avoiding overload at the base station. See ’060 Patent at
`
`5:2-12. Claim 15 aligns with this purpose by switching to a broadcast mode “without
`
`waiting to confirm “accurate receipt” of a message via, for example, an ACK/NACK or
`
`a page response message.
`
`43.
`
`Thus, in my opinion, the term “accurate receipt” means “correct receipt,”
`
`and a POSA would understand the meaning of that phrase with at least “reasonable
`
`certainty.”
`
`B.
`
`’556 Patent – “Type 1” and “Type 2” Power Headroom Reports (Claims
`15, 23)
`
`44.
`
`I understand the parties have proposed the following constructions of the
`
`term “type 1 power headroom” and “type 1 power headroom” found in Claims 15 and
`
`23:
`
`CCE’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`No construction necessary, other than to
`clarify that a Type 1 power headroom
`report is different than a Type 2 power
`headroom report
`
`Indefinite.
`
`If not indefinite:
`
`“type 1 power headroom report” should
`be construed as “a power headroom
`report computed as: P_cmax,c minus
`PUSCH power”
`
`“type 2 power headroom report” should
`be construed as “a power headroom
`report computed as: P_cmax,c minus
`PUCCH power minus PUSCH power”
`
`
`
`45.
`
`The ’556 Patent describes a technique to control the timing, and the
`
`content, of “power headroom” reports to be made from a mobile device to a base
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 160-8 Filed 11/18/15 Page 15 of 24 PageID #: 1988
`
`station. ’556 Patent at Abstract. Certain LTE Advanced networks support a feature
`
`called “carrier aggregation” that allows a mobile device to use multiple “component
`
`carriers” having different frequency bandwidths for transmissions to a base station,
`
`thereby increasing throughput. Id. at 1:14-25. These “component carriers” would
`
`include a primary carrier provided on the “primary serving cell,” and up to four more
`
`secondary carriers provided on “secondary serving cells.” Id. at 4:23-53. The ’556
`
`Patent discloses an improvement related to the timing and generation of power
`
`headroom reports in the context of multiple component carriers. Rather than sending
`
`multiple, separate power headroom reports for each component carrier, the ’556 Patent
`
`employs a control element and bitmap to facilitate streamlined reporting. See id. at 3:61-
`
`4:6; 5:4-12.
`
`46.
`
`Claim 15 of the ’060 Patent depends from Claim 13, which together state:
`
`13. A non-transitory computer readable medium encoded with
`a computer program that, when executed in hardware, causes the
`hardware to perform a process, the process comprising:
`preparing a power headroom report control element, based on a
`trigger configured by a base station, the trigger determining
`when the power headroom report control element is to be
`sent in an uplink, the preparing of the power headroom
`report control element includes incorporating a bitmap
`indicating which power headroom reports are being
`reported, the preparing of the power headroom report
`control element further includes preparing the bitmap to
`include bits for power headroom reports for a plurality of
`secondary cells; and sending the prepared power headroom
`report control element to the base station.
`
`
`15. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 13,
`wherein the power headroom report control element includes at
`least one of:
`a type 1 power headroom report for a primary serving cell and a
`type 2 power headroom report for the primary serving cell.
`
`
`The disputed language in Claim 15 is underlined above.
`
`47.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 160-8 Filed 11/18/15 Page 16 of 24 PageID #: 1989
`
`48.
`
`I reviewed the claims, specification, and file history of the ’556 Patent, and
`
`found no special definition provided for “type 1” and “type 2” power headroom
`
`reports. Although column 5, lines 36-41 state that “Type 1 and Type 2 power headroom
`
`reports may employ the following definition,” I interpret the “may” in that sentence to
`
`expressing possibility, not obligation, in accordance with its ordinary meaning.
`
`49.
`
`In my opinion, a POSA at the time of the disclosure would understand
`
`that the claimed “type 1” and “type 2” power headroom reports refer to different types
`
`of power headroom reports.
`
`50. A POSA would further recognize that type 1 and type 2 power headroom
`
`reports are distinguishable according to whether or not PUCCH transmission power is
`
`taken into account. This understanding is informed by the specification, which
`
`describes an embodiment in which type 1 power headroom reports are computed using
`
`PUSCH power, and type 2 power headroom reports are computed using PUCCH
`
`power and PUSCH power. ’556 Patent at 5:36-41. It is also consistent with dependent
`
`Claims 16 and 24, which narrow claims 15 and 23 by reciting a specific formula for
`
`calculating each type using PUCCH and/or PUSCH power, as appropriate.
`
`51. Accordingly, the fact that two different types of power headroom reports
`
`are specified does not render the scope of Claim 15 uncertain, when read in context of
`
`the specification and knowledge of one skilled in the art.
`
`52. My analysis and conclusions with respect to Claim 23 (which depends
`
`from Claim 21) is the same, as Claim 23 is analogous to Claim 15.
`
`C.
`
`’966 Patent – Alleged “Inconsistency” (Claims 5, 14)
`
`53.
`
`I understand the parties have submitted the following constructions
`
`pertaining to Claims 5-7 and 14-17 of the ’966 Patent:
`
`CCE’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`Indefinite.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 160-8 Filed 11/18/15 Page 17 of 24 PageID #: 1990
`
`
`
`54.
`
`The ’966 Patent describes improvements for power control for an uplink
`
`shared channel (PUSCH) and a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) in a cellular
`
`network. ’966 Patent at Abstract. According to the patent, “the problem solved [by the
`
`disclosed] embodiments is how the power control formulas for PUSCH and PUCCH are
`
`taken in use during or after the Random Access procedure[,]” during which a mobile
`
`device searches for a network. Id. at 4:16-19. More specifically, the inventors
`
`recognized that “[w]hen the UE first sends data on the PUSCH, there is no previous
`
`subframe and so i=0, which is addressed in 3GPP TS 36.213 v8.2.0 as zeroing out the
`
`entire term so that f(0)=0.” Id. at 6:33-35. Likewise for the PUCCH power control initial
`
`condition g(0), the inventors recognized that the conventional approach was to “zero[]
`
`out the entire term so that g(0)=0.” Id. at 6:46-49.
`
`55.
`
`To address shortcomings with “how the UE specific parameters of the
`
`PUSCH and PUCCH power control formulas are initialized[,]” id. at 4:25-27, the
`
`inventors proposed new systems and methods for initializing f(i) and g(i) (the power
`
`control adjustment state functions for PPUSCH and PPUCCH).
`
`56. More specifically, the inventors disclosed an embodiment where “the UE
`
`receives a power control command (e.g., ΔPPC) in the preamble response from the eNB”
`
`and then initializes the f(i) and g(i) power control functions for i=0 so that:
`
`P0_UE_PUSCH + f(0) = ΔPPC + ΔPrampup
`
`P0_UE_PUCCH + g(0) = ΔPPC + ΔPrampup
`
`Id. at 6:59-67. This solution provides improved power control by taking advantage of
`
`specific information from the preamble power control process (e.g., ΔPPC and ΔPrampup) to
`
`initialize specific power control adjustment states (f(i) and g(i)). A person of skill in the
`
`art would understand based on the patent’s disclosure that f(i) could be initialized for
`
`i=0 by performing different algorithms to satisfy the condition P0_UE_PUSCH + f(0) = ΔPPC +
`
`ΔPrampup. For example, the specification discloses that if P0_UE_PUSCH= P0_UE_PUCCH=0 then
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 160-8 Filed 11/18/15 Page 18 of 24 PageID #: 1991
`
`f(0)=g(0)= ΔPPC + ΔPrampup. Id. at 7:14-21.
`
`57.
`
`Claims 5 depends from Claim 1, which together state:
`
`1. A method comprising:
`preparing a power headroom report control element, based on a
`using a processor to initialize for i=0 a first power control
`adjustment st