\ Rotten oveny
`
`USING. GOV
`ey
`57]-272-7822
`
`Paper 6
`Entered: September 13, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLEINC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-00343
`Patent 9,300,432 B2
`
`Before SHARON FENICK, STEVEN M. AMUNDSON,
`and STEPHENE. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. $314, 37 CER. § 42.4
`
`
`
`USING. GOV
`ey
`57]-272-7822
`
`Paper 6
`Entered: September 13, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLEINC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-00343
`Patent 9,300,432 B2
`
`Before SHARON FENICK, STEVEN M. AMUNDSON,
`and STEPHENE. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. $314, 37 CER. § 42.4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00343
`Patent 9,300,432 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background and Summary
`
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner’’) filed a petition for inter partes review
`
`challenging claims 1—18 (“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent 9,300,432 B2
`
`(Ex. 1001 (*’432 patent”)). Paper 2 (“Pet.” or “Petition”).
`
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (“Patent Owner’) did notfile a
`
`preliminary response.
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review isset forth in
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which providesas follows:
`
`(a) THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter partes
`review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and
`any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challengedin the petition.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018).
`
`Based on our review of the record, we concludethat Petitioner is
`
`reasonably likely to prevail in demonstrating that at least one of the
`
`challenged claimsis not patentable.
`
`Our findings of fact and conclusions discussed below are based on the
`
`evidentiary record developed thus far. This Decisionto institute trial is not a
`
`final decision as to the patentability of any challenged claim. Anyfinal
`
`decision will be based on the full record developed duringtrial.
`
`B. Real Parties in Interest
`
`Patent Ownerstates that Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and
`
`Ericsson Inc. are real parties in interest. Paper 3 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory
`
`Notices), 2.
`
`Petitioner identifies only itself as a real party in interest. Pet. 99-100.
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00343
`Patent 9,300,432 B2
`
`C. Related Matters
`
`Patent OwnerandPetitioner indicate the ’432 patent was challenged
`
`previously in a petition filed in IPR2021-00645, now terminated. Pet. 100;
`
`Paper 3, 2. Petitioner notes that the petition was dismissed prior to
`
`institution and before a preliminary response wasfiled. Pet. 100.
`
`D. The ’432 Patent
`
`The °432 patentis titled “Link Quality Estimation and Apparatus in a
`
`Telecommunication System”and relates to information used for link
`
`adaptation of a wireless link between a sending nodeand a receiving node.
`
`Ex. 1001, codes (54), (57), 1:63-2:17. The *432 patent describes the
`
`transmission from the receiving node to the sending node of information
`
`used to enable the sending node to more accurately estimate the link quality
`
`of the wireless link. /d., code (57), 1:15—18, 1:63—2:6, 2:12—16. The
`
`receiving node may measurecertain link parameters and report
`
`recommended link parameters to the sending node.
`
`/d. at 2:12—16. The
`
`report mayalso include estimated channel quality indicators (CQIs) that are
`
`used together with the link parameters to indicate the current state of the
`
`link. /d. at 2:24—27. Quality of a received signal may be measuredin terms
`
`of a Signal to Interference and Noise Ratio (SINR)or signal power.
`
`/d. at
`
`2:18—20, 2:22-27.
`
`The °432 specification describes that specific known reference
`
`symbols (RS) are regularly transmitted over a wireless link according to a
`
`predetermined scheme, whichallowsthe receiving node to detect noise and
`
`interference more easily without having to decodereceived signals.
`
`/d. at
`
`2:35—40, 3:22—26. However,the interference that hits RS signals may be
`
`significantly different from that hitting the data signals, and so a CQIor link
`
`parameter recommendation based on measurementsof the interference/noise
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00343
`Patent 9,300,432 B2
`
`detected on the RS transmission may not be representative of transmissions
`
`of payload data.
`
`/d. at 3:26—39. Control signals (e.g. containing RSsignals)
`
`are often transmitted with greater power than data signals.
`
`/d. at 3:46—58.
`
`A sending node may maintain estimated link quality information that
`
`the node uses for transmission, and may determine, for example by
`
`monitoring acknowledgement messages from the receiving node, whether
`
`current estimates regarding the link state are correct.
`
`/d. at 6:51—60, 7:25-
`
`51, Fig. 1 (steps 100-104). If the sending node decides to obtain updated
`
`link quality information, it determines a power measurementoffset (PMO)
`
`that can be used by a receiving nodeto adjust a measured signal poweror
`
`SINR, and transmits this to the receiving node.
`
`/d. at 5:16—20, 6:62-67,
`
`7:66—8:3, 8:62—67, Fig. 1 (step 108), Fig. 2 (step 202). The receiving node,
`
`using the PMO,determinesa link quality estimation or link parameter
`
`recommendation for the link, whichis transmitted to the sending node.
`
`/d.
`
`at 6:67—7:6, 8:14—25, 9:15, 9:7—10, Fig. 1 (step 110), Fig. 2 (steps 204,
`
`206).
`
`The receiving node determination is made based on measurements of
`
`a signal (such as signal power or SINR) adjusted by the PMO.
`
`/d. at 8:20—
`
`25. The receiving node mayfirst adjust such a measurement based on RS
`
`transmissions by a predetermined poweroffset value, which compensates for
`
`a typically occurring difference in the power between data and RS
`
`transmissions.
`
`/d. at 9:24—29, 9:47—-54, Fig. 3. The PMO value maythus be
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00343
`Patent 9,300,432 B2
`
`a further adjustment to an assumed RS/data offset to obtain a morerealistic
`
`powervalue considering the actual link state.
`
`/d. at 10:38—41, Fig. 3.
`
`FE. Challenged Claims
`
`Challenged claims 1, 6, 11, and 15 are independent. Challenged
`
`claims 2—5, 7-10, 11-14, and 16-18 depend from claims 1, 6, 11, and 15,
`
`respectively.
`
`Challenged claims 1, 5, and 6 are reproduced below, with the addition
`
`of identifiers in brackets corresponding to the limitation identifiers used in
`
`the Petition.
`
`1. A method, in a user equipment, of enabling link quality
`estimation of a radio channel used for transmitting signals from
`a sending nodeto the user equipment, the method comprising:
`
`[la] receiving, from the sending node and by dedicated higher
`layer signaling, a user equipment specific measurement
`adjusting
`parameter
`for
`adjusting
`signal
`power
`measurements;
`
`[1b] measuring properties based on reference symbols of the
`radio channel transmitted by the sending node;
`
`[1c] adjusting the measured properties of the radio channel based
`on the received measurement adjusting parameter; and
`
`[1d] sending, to the sending node, a channel state information
`report based on the adjusted measured properties.
`
`5. [5a] The method of claim 1, further comprising:
`
`receiving payload data and reference symbols from the sending
`node; and
`
`[5b] configuring the channel state information report based on
`signal measurements on the reference symbols;
`
`[5c] wherein the measurementadjusting parameter compensates
`for a difference in received power of measuredsignals and
`data signals.
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00343
`Patent 9,300,432 B2
`
`6. A user equipment, comprising:
`
`a signal receiving circuit adapted to receive, from a sending node
`and by dedicated higher layer signaling, a user equipment
`specific measurement adjusting parameter for adjusting
`signal power measurements;
`
`a signal measuring circuit configured to measure properties
`based on reference symbols of
`the radio channel
`transmitted by the sending node;
`
`a quality estimating circuit configured to adjust the measured
`properties of the radio channel based on the received
`measurement adjusting parameter; and
`
`a reporting circuit configured to send, to the sending node, a
`channel state information report based on the adjusted
`measured properties.
`
`Ex. 1001, 11:1-12:2, 12:16-38.
`
`F. References Relied Upon
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
` 2011 (“Catreux-Erceg’’).
`
`
`
`
`3rd Generation Partnership Project, 3GPP TS 25.331 V7.4.0
`(2007-03) (“TS-25.331”)
`1004
`3rd Generation Partnership Project, Zechnical Specification
`Group Radio Access Network - Physical layer procedures
`(FDD) - (Release 7), 3GPP TS 25.214 V7.4.0 (2007-03)
`“TS-25.214”
`3GPP R1-074426, Rank Feedback in Downlink MIMO,
`3GPP TSG RAN WGI Meeting #50bis.
`(“R1-074426”
`Sampath, et al., US 8,971,461 B2, issued Mar. 3, 2015
`(“Sampath”)
`Wintzell, US 2005/0003782 A1, published Jan. 6, 2005
`“Wintzell”
`Catreux-Erceg,et al., US 7,876,808 B2, issued Jan. 25,
`
`Pet. 5.
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00343
`Patent 9,300,432 B2
`
`Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Dr. R. Michael Buehrer.
`
`(Ex. 1003).
`
`G. Prior Art and Asserted Challenges to Patentability
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1-18 are unpatentable on the following
`
`challenges:
`
`
` TS-25.214, TS-25.331
`
`1, 2, 4-7, 9-12, 14-16, 18
`TS-25.214, TS-25.331,
`
`3, 5-8, 10, 13, 15-18?
`R1-074426, Sampath
`
`
`
`
`Wintzell, Catreux-Erce
`1, 2, 4-7, 9-12, 14-16, 18
`103
`
`Wintzell, Catreux-Erceg,
`3, 5-8, 10, 13, 15-183
`Sampath
`
`
`
`103
`
`
`
`
`
`103
`
`Pet. 5.
`
`The following subsections provide a brief description of the asserted
`
`prior art references.
`
`1. TS-25.331
`
`TS-25.331 is a technical specification produced by the 3rd Generation
`
`Partnership Project (3GPP) to specify the Radio Resource Control (RRC)
`
`protocol for a radio interface for user equipment (UE) and a universal
`
`terrestrial radio access network (UTRAN). Ex. 1004, 30-31, 36. An RRC is
`
`received by UE andprovides proceduresor transactions for the UE to act on,
`
`such as establishment, maintenance, and release of an RRC connection
`
`' The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
`Stat. 284, 287-88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C . § 103 for applicationsfiled on
`or after March 16, 2013. The °432 patent wasfiled before that date. See
`Ex. 1001, code (22); see also id. at code (63), 1:5-11. Accordingly, for the
`purpose ofinstitution, we apply the pre-AIJAversion of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`? Petitionerlists claim 9 as included inthis ground, but does not appearto
`address this claim in the Petition. ComparePet. 5 with id. at 37-55.
`3 Petitioner lists claim 9 as includedin this ground, but does not appearto
`address this claim in the Petition. Compare Pet. 5 with id. at 86-99.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00343
`Patent 9,300,432 B2
`
`between a UE and a UTRAN,andassignment, reconfiguration, and release
`
`of radio resources for the RRC connection.
`
`/d. at 40-41, 45.
`
`TS-25.331 describes reconfiguration procedures, including physical
`
`channel reconfiguration. /d. at 123, 125—26. In orderto initiate a
`
`reconfiguration procedure a UTRANtransmits a physical channel
`
`reconfiguration message on downlink to the UE, and the UE acts upon
`
`received information elements in the message.
`
`/d. at 126, 128.
`
`TS-25.331 specifies a format for the physical channel reconfiguration
`
`message.
`
`/d. at 402, 443-45. This format showsthat, optionally, this
`
`message may include a “Downlink HS-PDSCH[high-speed physical
`
`downlink shared channel] information” element.
`
`/d. at 35, 402, 445. The
`
`“Downlink HS-PDSCHinformation” element further includes an optional
`
`“Measurement Feedback Info” element.
`
`/d. at 402, 445,513,618. This
`
`“Measurement Feedback Info” further includes a “Measurement Power
`
`Offset” described as “[t]he measurement poweroffset, I’ [uppercase
`
`gamma], in dB,” with a citation to reference [29], which is TS-25.214.
`
`/d. at
`
`32, 402, 618.
`
`2. TS-25.214
`
`TS-25.214 is a technical specification produced by the 3rd Generation
`
`Partnership Project (3GPP) to specify the physical layer procedures in
`
`frequency division duplex mode. Ex. 1005, 1, 6-7; Ex. 1004, 34.
`
`TS-25.214 describes that measurement poweroffset is a physical layer
`
`parameter signaled to the UE from higher layers. Ex. 1005, 34.
`
`TS-25.214 also describes UE procedures for constructing and
`
`reporting channel quality indication (CQI) and precoding control indication
`
`(PCI). /d. at 37-38. The computation of the reported CQIis based in part
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00343
`Patent 9,300,432 B2
`
`on the power measured for a CPICH (commonpilot channel).+ /d. When
`
`configured in multiple input-multiple output (MIMO) mode, TS-25.214
`
`describes how the reported CQI is computed, and indicates that “[flor the
`
`purpose of CQI reporting, the UE shall assumea total recetved HS-PDSCH
`
`power of Pusppscu=Pcpicu + T in dB, where .
`
`.
`
`. the measurement power
`
`offset I is signaled by higher layers.” /d. at 39-40; Ex. 1013, 7. TS-25.214
`
`also describes an adjustment to I’ in certain casesto reflect differences
`
`between the power that would be available for HS-PDSCH transmission
`
`relative to measured power of commonpilot channel(s).
`
`/d. at 40.
`
`3. R1-074426
`
`R1-074426 is a documentdescribing the general structure of
`
`precoding related feedback signaling as discussed in a 3GPP meeting.
`
`Ex. 1006, 1. R1-074426 describes a UE transmitting a suggested rank to an
`
`eNodeB separately from, and in advanceof, a CQI and precoding matrix
`
`indicator (PMI) being transmitted. /d. at 1-2. A reason advanced is because
`
`the CQI and PMIare different lengths depending on the rank.
`
`/d. at 1.
`
`4. Sampath
`
`Sampath istitled “CQI and Rank Prediction for List Sphere Decoding
`
`and ML MIMOReceivers,” and relates to calculating CQI and selecting an
`
`optimal rank for a non-linear maximum life (ML) receiver. Ex. 1007, codes
`
`(54), (57). Sampath describes, in a system that includes a base station and a
`
`UE, how rank prediction and CQI computation can be performed.
`
`/d. at
`
`2:43-47, 6:6—22, 6:55-60. Sampath showshowto calculate effective SNR
`
`+ While Ex. 1010 (TR 21.905, “Vocabulary for 3GPP Specifications”) is not
`explicitly referenced in TS-25.214, we note that it describes CPICH as “a
`fixed rate (30 kbps, SF=256) downlink physical channel that carries a pre-
`defined bit sequence.” Ex. 1010, 29-30.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00343
`Patent 9,300,432 B2
`
`(signal to noise ratio) for a variety of submatrices corresponding to different
`
`possible ranks, and selection of the optimal rank based on this calculation.
`
`Id. at 2:56—-63, 3:30-33, 11:27-66, Fig. 7. When an optimal rank has been
`
`selected, a CQI can be calculated, assuming that rank is used.
`
`/d. at 2:61—
`
`64, 3:33-36, 12:1-7, Fig. 7. The selected rank and calculated CQI may then
`
`be returned to the base station via a return channel.
`
`/d. at 2:61—-65, 3:36-38,
`
`12:7-8, Fig. 7.
`
`5. Wintzell
`
`Wintzellis titled “Methods and Apparatus for Channel Quality
`
`Indicator Determination,” and relates to the determination of a CQIthatis
`
`reported to a network. Ex. 1008, codes (54), (57).
`
`Wintzell describes measuring quality values (such as a Signal-to-
`
`Interference Ratio (SIR)) of a pilot channel and the high-speed downlink
`
`shared channel (HS-DSCH).
`
`/d. 995, 18, 31, Fig. 2. The CQI valueis
`
`computed based on these two values, and the determined CQIis reported to
`
`the network.
`
`/d. { 31, Fig. 2.
`
`Wintzell describes an embodiment in which an SIR valueis
`
`determined using the pilot channel signal, adjusted by an offset, and thatis
`
`used to determine a CQI value.
`
`/d. 32. The offset is retrieved from a look-
`
`up table stored in the radio receiver that contains mappings between
`
`measured SIRs and CQIvalues. /d. § 32, Fig. 3A.
`
`6. Catreux-Erceg
`
`Catreux-Erceg describes processing of wireless communication
`
`signals to perform adaptive noise and/or signal filtering in a CQI selection.
`
`Ex. 1009, code (54), 1:18—22. Catreux-Erceg describes a UE computing an
`
`estimated CQIvalue, beginning with the calculation of a SNR value for a
`
`CPICH channel. /d. at 4:5—7, 5:25-33, 6:51-54, Fig. 2A. CPICH SNR is
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00343
`Patent 9,300,432 B2
`
`converted into a HS-DSCH(high-speed downlink shared channel) SNR by
`
`scaling it with a constant I’, which correspondsto the offset between the
`
`CPICH powerallocation and HS-DSCHpowerallocation. /d. at 6:54—60,
`
`Fig. 2A. Catreux-Ercegstates that “[t]he constant [ may be a known
`
`constant and may beperiodically updated and signaled by higher-layers.”
`
`Id. at 6:60-62. The HS-DSCH value maybe converted into a CQI value.
`
`Id. at 6:62-65, Fig. 2A. This estimated CQI value may then be sent back to
`
`the transmitter or base station.
`
`/d. at 5:27—29, 6:37-39, Fig. 1A.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Legal Standards
`
`“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the
`
`onset to show with particularity why the patent it challengesis
`
`unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring [inter partes] review
`
`petitions to identify “with particularity .. . the evidence that supports the
`
`grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden nevershifts to
`
`Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC vy. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800
`
`F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek,
`
`Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326-27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of
`
`proof in inter partes review).
`
`Furthermore, Petitioner must explain with particularity how the prior
`
`art would have rendered the challenged claims unpatentable. 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (“Thepetition must specify where each
`
`element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications
`
`relied upon.”) (2022),
`
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences
`
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00343
`Patent 9,300,432 B2
`
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obviousto a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. See
`
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
`
`obviousness1s resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations,
`
`including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences
`
`between the claimed subject matter and the priorart; (3) the level of skill in
`
`the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness,1.e., secondary
`
`considerations.° See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`The level of skill in the art is a factual determination that provides a
`
`primary guarantee of objectivity in an obviousness analysis. A/-Site Corp.v.
`
`VSI Int’l Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1323-1324 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Graham,
`
`383 U.S. at 17-18; Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1991)).
`
`Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering,
`
`computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and two or more
`
`years of experience related to the design or development of wireless
`
`communication systems, or the equivalent. Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 47 15°
`
`16). Petitioner addsthat “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute
`
`> Neither party presents arguments or evidencerelating to secondary
`considerations. Therefore, secondary considerations do not constitute part of
`our analysis herein.
`° The citation is given is to paragraphs 1-16; as paragraphs 1-14 do not
`relate to this issue, we assume a typographicalerror.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00343
`Patent 9,300,432 B2
`
`for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could
`
`substitute for formal education.” /d.
`
`Theprior art itself can demonstrate the level of ordinary skill in theart
`
`at the time of the invention (see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill
`
`level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level
`
`and a need for testimony is not shown’’) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v.
`
`Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).
`
`Based on the present record, including the disclosure in the
`
`°432 patent, we adopt, for the purposesofinstitution, Petitioner’s
`
`articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with
`
`the ’432 patent and the asserted priorart.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`In interpreting the claims of the 432 patent, we “us[e] the same
`
`claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim[s] in a
`
`civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The
`
`claim-construction standard includes construing claims in accordance with
`
`the ordinary and customary meaning of such claims as would have been
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history
`
`pertaining to the patent. See id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1312-14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`“Importantly, the 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 the
`
`disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the
`
`specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. An inventor may rebut that
`
`presumption by providing a definition of the term in the specification with
`
`reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. /n re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00343
`Patent 9,300,432 B2
`
`1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations
`
`are not to be read from the specification into the claims. /n re Van Geuns,
`
`988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Only those termsthat are in
`
`controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve
`
`the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`
`868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. &
`
`Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`
`Petitioner argues that no formal claim constructions are necessary in
`
`this proceeding. Pet. 5. For the purposesofinstitution, we agree that no
`
`constructions are needed. However, as noted supra in Section II.D.1.b, there
`
`is a possible ambiguity relating to the claim term “radio channel,” and the
`
`parties are encouraged to examinethis issue and determine whetherto
`
`submit evidence and argument regarding this term.
`
`D. Asserted Obviousness over TS-25.331 and TS-25.214
`
`Petitioner contends claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-12, 14-16, and 18 are obvious
`
`over TS-25.331 and TS-25.214. Pet. 6-28.
`
`Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`motivated to combine TS-25.331 and TS-25.214 and would have had a
`
`reasonable expectation of success. /d. 8-9. In support, Petitioner notes that
`
`each of the documents explicitly references the other, including specifically
`
`with respect to MPOT. /d. at 8 (citing Ex. 1004, 32, 637; Ex. 1005, 7).
`
`Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill would have considered the
`
`combination because TS-25.214 provides specific details for parameters
`
`described by TS-25.331, because TS-25.331 specifically identifies
`
`TS-25.214 as having these details, and because each are part of a collective
`
`set of teachings related to implementation of the Universal Mobile
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00343
`Patent 9,300,432 B2
`
`Telecommunications System.
`
`/d. at 8—9 (citing Ex. 1004, 32, 637; Ex. 1003
`
`4] 59-60).
`
`1. Claims 1, 6, 11, and 15
`
`a) Petitioner’s Contentions
`
`Petitioner argues, without indicating whetherit asserts the preamble is
`
`limiting, that the system taught in the combination of TS-25.331 and TS-
`
`25.214 teaches the preamble of claim 1, “[a] method, in a user equipment, of
`
`enabling link quality estimation of a radio channel used for transmitting
`
`signals from a sending node to the user equipment.” /d. at 9-11. Petitioner
`
`argues that TS-25.331 discusses a method for determining a CQI, which
`
`Petitioner argues is a link quality estimation of the HS-DSCH channel.
`
`/d. at
`
`10-11 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1004, 40-41, 125-26, 128, 618, 637; Ex. 1005,
`
`39-40; Ex. 1003 {| 63-68). Petitioner argues that the CQIis a value
`
`enabling link quality estimation of the HS-DSCH channel used for
`
`transmitting signals from a network-side sending node (NodeB in the
`
`combination) to the UE, whichteaches “enabling link quality estimation of a
`
`radio channel used for transmitting signals from sending node to the [UE].”
`
`Id. at 11 (citing Ex. 1003 § 67).
`
`With respect to limitation la, “receiving, from the sending node and
`
`by dedicated higher layer signaling, a user equipment specific measurement
`
`adjusting parameter for adjusting signal power measurements,” Petitioner
`
`arguesthat this is taught or suggested by the combination.
`
`/d. at 12-14.
`
`Firstly, Petitioner argues a UE receives MPO I’ from a NodeB through
`
`higher layer signaling, teaching the receipt of this parameter from the
`
`sending node by dedicated higher layer signaling.
`
`/d. at 12 (citing;
`
`Ex. 1005, 39-40; Ex. 1003 4 70). Petitioner arguesthis is a dedicated
`
`channel, because the DCCH (dedicated control channel), over which the
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00343
`Patent 9,300,432 B2
`
`RRC message1s received, is a dedicated channel.
`
`/d. at 12 (citing Ex. 1004,
`
`443-45; Ex. 1003 4 71).
`
`Petitioner argues that MPOIis used to adjust signal power
`
`measurements — that is, the measurement of CPICH power.
`
`/d. at 12—13
`
`(citing Ex. 1005, 40; Ex. 1003 4] 72-74). Thus, Petitioner argues, MPO I
`
`teaches a measurementadjusting parameter.
`
`/d. This argumentis in accord
`
`with Petitioner’s contention that limitation 1b, “measuring properties based
`
`on reference symbols of the radio channel transmitted by the sending node”
`
`is taught by the measurementof the power of CPICH.
`
`/d. at 13-14 (citing,
`
`inter alia, Ex. 1005, 39; Ex. 1003 4 73-74, 76).
`
`With respect to limitation 1.c, “adjusting the measured properties of
`
`the radio channel based on the received measurementadjusting parameter,”
`
`Petitioner argues that this is taught by the combination, specifically in the
`
`teaching in TS-25.214 that “[flor the purpose of CQI reporting, the UE shall
`
`assume a total HS-PDSCH powerof Pasppscu=Pcpicu + T 1n dB,” which
`
`adjusts the measured properties of the CPICH channel using MPOT. /d. at
`
`12-13 (citing Ex. 1005, 40; Ex. 1003 § 72), 14—15 (citing, inter alia,
`
`Ex. 1004, 37; Ex. 1005, 34-40; Ex. 1003
`
`79).
`
`Lastly, with respect to limitation 1.d, “sending, to the sending node, a
`
`channel state information report based on the adjusted measured properties,”
`
`Petitioner argues that Pusppscu (adjusted Pcricu) 1s used to derive the CQI
`
`value for CQI reporting in a CSI report.
`
`/d. at 16—17 (citing Ex. 1005, 37—
`
`38, 40, 67; Ex. 1003 4¥ 86-87).
`
`The patentability of claim 6 is argued largely with reference to
`
`Petitioner’s showings with respect to claim 1, augmented by an argument
`
`that one of ordinary skill would have knownthat a UE performing the
`
`method steps of claim 1 would have included conventional circuitry to
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00343
`Patent 9,300,432 B2
`
`perform the functionality of these steps. Pet. 21-23 (citing Ex. 1003 49 112-
`
`127).
`
`Claims 11 and 15 are argued largely on the basis of claims 1 and 6,
`
`with Petitioner arguing that “[c]laim 11 recites the network-side operations
`
`for the device-side method set forth in claim 1 and is obviousfor similar
`
`reasonsto those discussed for claim 1.” Pet. 24—27 (citing Ex. 1003 4] 143-
`
`150, 160-167). Each of claims 11 and 15 includes a preamblestating that
`
`the method (claim 11) or sending node (claim 15) is “for enabling link
`
`quality estimation of a radio channel used for transmitting signals from the
`
`sending node to a user equipment,” and in each case Petitioner, without
`
`arguing that the preamble1s limiting, refers to the contentions with respect to
`
`the preamble of claim 1.
`
`/d. at 24-25 (preamble of claim 11), 26-27
`
`(preamble of claim 15).
`
`b) Analysis
`
`Petitioner, in its discussion of the preamble of claim 1, cites the
`oe
`HS-DSCHchannel, which carries payload data, as the preamble’s “a radio
`
`channel” for which a link quality estimation is enabled. However, for
`
`limitation 1b’s “the radio channel,” Petitioner describes the CPICH channel,
`
`which transmits reference symbols. Compare Pet. 11 with id. at 13-14; see
`
`also id. at 18 (“reference symbols and payload data are received over
`
`different channels by the same UE”); Ex. 1003 § 99.
`
`Wenote that the ’432 patent describes that a base station “may
`
`transmit data and control information in a physical downlink channel to a
`
`user terminal,” and that a physical channel “is generally referred to as a
`
`wireless link between a sending node and a receiving node.” Ex. 1001,
`
`1:44-51. We further note that “link quality estimation” (another term from
`
`the preamble of claim 1) is described in the *432 patent specification as
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00343
`Patent 9,300,432 B2
`
`being “of a wireless link between a sending node and a receiving node.”
`
`Ex. 1001, code (57), 4:37—38. In contrast, the °432 patent also describes a
`
`“measured” “logical channel” that contains reference symbols, and that is
`
`distinct from a “logical data channel,” used for payload data. Ex. 1001,
`
`9:17-23, 9:59-10:24. On the present record, there is no evidence or
`
`argument regarding the meaning of “radio channel” in claim 1 — including
`
`whether the “radio channel”of claim 1 relates either to a physical channel
`
`(wireless link) or to a logical data channel. Petitioner does not present an
`
`argument as to whether the preambleis limiting or contains a statement of
`
`intended use. Claims 11 and 15 are subject to similar concerns. As we
`
`institute on other grounds, the parties will have an opportunity to present
`
`argument and evidence regarding the “radio channel” of claims 1, 11, and
`
`15, whether the preambles of these claims are limiting, and the patentability
`
`of the claims.
`
`Claim 6 doesnot include language corresponding to the language of
`
`the preamble of claim 1. The patentability of claim 6 is argued largely with
`
`reference to Petitioner’s showings with respect to claim 1, augmented by an
`
`argument that one of ordinary skill would have knownthat a UE performing
`
`the method steps of claim 1 would have included conventionalcircuitry to
`
`perform the functionality of these steps. Pet. 21-23 (citing Ex. 1003 49 112-
`
`127). We determinethat, for the purposesof institution, Petitioner has
`
`sufficiently shown that TS-25.331 and TS-25.214 teach or suggest a UE
`
`including circuitry adapted to receive a measurement adjusting parameter
`
`MPO I’, measure properties (Pcricu) based on reference symbols of a radio
`
`channel, adjust those measured properties based on the measurement
`
`adjusting parameter (assumed HS-PDSCH power Pusppscx), and send a
`
`channel state information report based on the adjusted measured properties
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00343
`Patent 9,300,432 B2
`
`(assumed HS-PDSCHpowerusedfor the purpose of CQI reporting). Based
`
`on these contentions, and those discussed above with respect to claim 1, on
`
`the current record, and for the purposes ofinstitution, we conclude that
`
`Petitioner has shownthatit is reasonably likely to prevail in demonstrating
`
`that claim 6 is unpatentable over the asserted combination of TS-25.331 and
`
`TS-25.214.
`
`2. Claims 2, 4, 7, 9, 12, and 16
`
`Claims 2, 4, 7,9, 12, and 16 are argued on the basis of the claims
`
`from which they depend, and from certain showings with respect to the
`
`limitations of claim 1. Pet. 17-18, 23-24, 26-27. These showings, with
`
`respect to claims 2, 4, 12, and 16 are subject to the same issues discussed
`
`above. For the same reasons discussed above, on the current record, we
`
`conclude that Petitioner has shownthatit is reasonably likely to prevail in
`
`demonstrating that claims 7 and 9 are unpatentable over the asserted
`
`combination of TS-25.331 and TS-25.214.
`
`3. Claims 5, 10, 14, and 18
`
`Petitioner argues that the additional limitations of claim 5 are taught
`
`or suggested by TS-25.331 and TS-25.214. Pet. 18-21. With respect to the
`
`additional step (limitation 5a) of “receiving payload data and reference
`
`symbols from the sending node,” Petitioner argues that in the asserted
`
`combination, this limitation is taught because payload data is received by the
`
`UE over HS-PDSCH andpilot symbols are received by the UE over CPICH.
`
`Id. at 18-19 (citing Ex. 1003 9] 98-102).
`
`With respect to claim limitation 5b, “configuring the channel state
`
`information report based on signal measurements on the reference symbols,”
`
`Petitioner refers to prior contentionsrelating to claim 1.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00343
`Patent 9,300,432 B2
`
`With respect to claim limitation 5c, “wherein the measurement
`
`adjusting parameter compensatesfor a difference in the received power of
`
`measuredsignals and data signals,” Petitioner cites Dr. Buehrer’s testimony
`
`that it was well knownthat differences existed in the power betweenapilot
`
`channel and a data channel, andthat “[a] POSITA would have foundit
`
`obvious, from the form of the equation disclosed in TS-25.214 and from
`
`conventional knowledge, that the MPO compensatesfor a difference in
`
`received
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
