`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 27
`
`
`
` Date: March 25, 2020
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`and ZTE (USA) INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`INVT SPE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before THU A. DANG, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
`BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`
`In this inter partes review instituted pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314,
`Apple Inc., HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., and ZTE (USA), Inc.
`(collectively, “Petitioner”) challenge certain claims of U.S. Patent No.
`6,611,676 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’676 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”); Paper 10
`(“Dec. on Inst.”). During the trial, INVT SPE LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`Response (Paper 12, “PO Resp.”), to which Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper
`21, “Reply”). In turn, Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply. Paper 25 (“Sur-
`Reply”). An oral hearing was held with the parties on January 8, 2020. A
`transcript of the hearing has been entered into the record. Paper 26 (“Tr.”).
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Decision is a Final
`Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of claims
`1–3, 5–9, and 11 (the “challenged claims”), on which we instituted trial.1
`Based on the record before us, Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance
`of the evidence, that claims 1–3, 5–9, and 11 of the ’676 patent are
`unpatentable.
`
`
`
`
`1 After the Petition was filed, Patent Owner disclaimed claims 4 and 10
`of the ’676 patent. PO Resp. 1–2; Ex. 2005. Accordingly, this
`Decision does not address the patentability of claims 4 and 10. See,
`e.g., Gunn v. Kopf, 96 F.3d 1419, 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“A statutory
`disclaimer . . . has the effect of canceling the claims . . . and the patent
`is viewed as though the disclaimed claims had never existed in the
`patent.”); Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech. LLC, IPR2018-01040, Paper 36 at
`2–3, 15–17 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2020); LG Elecs., Inc. v. Wi-LAN Inc.,
`IPR2018-00673, Paper 48 at 3 (PTAB Sept. 5, 2019).
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`I.
`A. The ’676 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’676 patent, titled “Radio Communication Apparatus and
`Transmission Rate Control Method,” issued on August 26, 2003, from an
`application filed February 27, 2002, which, in turn, is a continuation of an
`international application filed on April 19, 1997 in Japan. Ex. 1001, codes
`(54), (45), (22), (63). According to the ’676 patent, a communication
`terminal apparatus measures reception quality, and a base station apparatus
`switches the transmission rate based on the reported result of the reception
`quality. Id. at Abstract. Thus, the transmission rate is switched starting at
`the point in time at which the reception quality of the communication
`terminal apparatus deteriorates, so that the amount of interference with
`others is within the allowable range. Id.
`Figure 2 is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 2 depicts a block diagram showing a configuration of a
`communication terminal apparatus that carries out a radio communication
`with the base station apparatus. Id. at 3:61–65.
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`
`As shown in Figure 2, a signal received from antenna 201 is sent to
`reception RF circuit 203 via duplexer 202 to use a same antenna for both
`transmission and reception, where it is amplified and converted to an
`intermediate frequency or a baseband frequency. Id. at 3:66–4:2. The
`frequency-converted signal is demodulated by demodulator 204, while the
`output signal of the reception RF circuit is sent to reception quality
`measurement circuit 205, where the reception quality is measured. Id. at
`4:3–6. The reception quality includes, for example, signal to interference
`ratio (“SIR”), or Signal-to-Interference plus Noise Ratio (“SINR”). Id. at
`4:7–14.
`The ’676 patent acknowledges that, in the prior art, measurement of
`SIR indicating the reception quality is known in transmission power control,
`wherein if the measured SIR is greater than the target SIR, a command to
`reduce transmission power is sent to the base station; if the measured value
`is smaller than the target SIR, a command to increase transmission power is
`sent to the base station; and the base station increments or decrements
`transmission power according to this command. Id. at 1:23–32. However,
`the ’676 patent notes that the prior art has a problem, namely, “the target
`SIR increases depending on the environment[,] and [the] transmission rate of
`the mobile station and the reception SIR sometimes decreases due to fading,
`etc.” Id. at 1:47–50. In such case, the mobile station instructs the base
`station to increase transmission power, which considerably increases
`transmission power of the base station to the mobile station and is likely to
`increase interference with other mobile stations to an intolerable degree. Id.
`at 1:50–56.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`
`The operation of a transmission rate switching method in the base
`station apparatus according to an embodiment (id. at 2:45–47) is explained
`in detail with respect to Figure 13, reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 13 depicts a flow chart of the transmission rate switching
`control circuit. Id. at 6:60–61. As shown in Figure 13, the base station
`apparatus compares the reception quality measurement result reported from
`the communication terminal apparatus with threshold 1 (ST21). Id. at 7:9–
`12. Threshold 1 is set according to the transmission rate, but in a Code-
`Division Multiple Access (“CDMA”) communication system, it is set
`according to the spreading factor or the number of multiplexing codes. Id. at
`6:67–7:3. If SIR is greater than threshold 1, the same transmission rate is
`used, but if SIR is smaller than threshold 1, the transmission rate is switched
`to such a transmission rate that SIR is greater than threshold 1 (ST22). Id. at
`7:12–15. Thus, by switching the transmission rate, SIR exceeds threshold 1
`and more accurate control can be performed on varying reception quality.
`Id. at 7:16–18. “This makes it possible to improve the reception quality of
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`the other end of communication even if the condition of the communication
`path with the other end of communication deteriorates drastically,” and
`furthermore, to “reduce the amount of interference with others because the
`target reception quality is reduced and transmission power is reduced.” Id.
`at 7:19–23.
`B. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 6, and 7 are independent.
`Claims 2, 3, 5 and 8 depend from claim 1, and claims 9 and 11 depend
`from claim 7.
`Claim 1 is illustrative:
`1. A radio communication apparatus having
`radio transmitting means and radio receiving means, said
`apparatus comprising:
`
`transmission power control means for increasing or
`decreasing transmission power of said transmitting means
`according to transmission power control information received by
`said receiving means;
`
`transmission power calculating means for
`average
`calculating an average value of the transmission power of said
`transmitting means;
`
`allowable transmission power holding means for holding
`a predetermined allowable transmission power value; comparing
`means for comparing the average value with the allowable
`transmission power value; and
`
`
`
`rate changing means for changing a transmission rate
`according to the comparison result in said comparing
`means.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`Ex. 1001, 15:31–47.
`
`C. Evidence of Record
` Petitioner relies upon the references listed below (Pet. 6):
`
`Reference
`
`Exhibit
`
`Keskitalo
`et al.
`
`WO 95/10145, published April 13, 1995
`(“Keskitalo”)
`
`Lindell et
`al.
`
`US 5,524,275, issued June 4, 1996
`(“Lindell”)
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`
`
`Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Andrew C. Singer,
`Ph.D. Ex. 1003. Patent Owner relies on the Declarations of Branimir
`Vojcic, Ph.D. Exs. 2002, 2006. Dr. Vojcic was cross-examined by
`Petitioner, and a transcript of his deposition was entered into the
`record. Ex. 1012.
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`We instituted inter partes review of the challenged claims on the
`following ground of unpatentability (Pet. 6; Dec. on Inst. 35):
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`
`1–3, 5–9, 11
`
`1032
`
`Keskitalo, Lindell
`
`
`2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), which amended 35
`U.S.C. § 103, was signed into law in 2011. Changes to § 103 apply to
`applications filed on or after March 16, 2013. Because the ’676
`patent’s filing date is prior to March 16, 2013, we refer to the pre-AIA
`version of § 103.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`Claim Construction
`A.
`Petitioner contends that claim terms of an “unexpired” patent should
`be given their “broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification.” Pet. 6. In the Decision to Institute, we gave the claim terms
`of the ’676 patent their ordinary and customary meaning under the broadest
`reasonable construction, as would have been understood by one of ordinary
`skill in the art at the time of the invention. Dec. on Inst. 7–8.
`However, as Patent Owner points out, the ’676 patent expired on
`April 19, 2017, before the filing date of the Petition. PO Resp. 12. For an
`“expired” patent, we apply the claim construction standard outlined in
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313–17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc),
`which is applied in Article III courts, and accord claim terms their ordinary
`and customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Wasica Finance
`GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. AIP Acquisition, LLC, IPR2014-00247, Paper 20 at 2
`(PTAB July 10, 2014) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313–17). In doing so,
`“we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim
`language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in
`evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d
`1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–1317).
`Nevertheless, applying the Phillips standard, we reach the same
`constructions for the terms construed below as we did applying the broadest
`reasonable construction standard in the Decision to Institute .
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`
`Excepting the means-plus-function terms, Petitioner applies “the plain
`and ordinary meaning of all other claim terms,” which Petitioner contends is
`consistent with both the broadest reasonable construction standard and the
`Phillips standard. Pet. 6–7. Petitioner contends that Petitioner “does not
`believe any of these remaining claim terms require express construction to
`resolve the proposed grounds of rejection” presented in the Petition. Id.
`Although Patent Owner contends that the Board should apply the plain and
`ordinary meaning of any claim terms for the ’676 patent, Patent Owner does
`not contest any of Petitioner’s claim constructions set forth in the Petition,
`but instead contends that “it is not necessary for the Board to construe any
`terms in this proceeding because . . . construction is not necessary to resolve
`the controversy.” PO Resp. 13.
`Petitioner contends that “[c]laim 1 includes limitations in
`means-plus[-]function format, which creates a rebuttable presumption that
`the [Applicant] intended to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.”3 Pet. 7; see also
`Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In the
`Decision on Institution, we addressed Petitioner’s proposed constructions of
`the means-plus-function terms (Pet. 10–12), and we determined that
`Petitioner has set forth proposed structures that support these limitations.
`Dec. on Inst. 8–12; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) (2018).
`As we noted in the Decision on Institution, Petitioner’s constructions
`presume that the meaning of specific functions, such as “calculating” an
`
`
`3 Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. was the Applicant for the
`’676 patent.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`average value of transmission power, for example, are generally known.
`Dec. on Inst. 9. Patent Owner has not disputed this presumption.
`Petitioner’s proposed corresponding structures for the MPF terms and cited
`supporting portions of the Specification (Pet. 7–10) are as follows:
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`Corresponding Structure
`
`“means for increasing or decreasing
`transmission power of said transmitting
`means according to transmission power
`control information received by said
`receiving means” (claim 1)
`
`“means for calculating an average value
`of the transmission power of said
`transmission means” (claim 1)
`
`“a circuit programmed or designed to
`increase or decrease transmission power
`based on a transmission power control
`signal.”
`As set forth in the Specification:
`“Transmission RF circuit 109 controls
`increase/decrease of the transmission power
`based on the transmission power control
`signal.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:40–42,
`12:53–55, Figs. 1, 16).
`
`“a processor or other circuitry programmed
`or designed to calculate an average value of
`transmission power.”
`As set forth in the Specification: “During a
`communication, in ST 131, at least one
`frame of average transmission power (Pave)
`is monitored in layer 1. The transmission
`rate is controlled according to this channel
`condition.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1001, 13:59–
`62, Fig. 29).
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`
`“means for holding a predetermined
`allowable transmission power value”
`(claim 1)
`
`“means for comparing the average value
`with the allowable transmission power
`value” (claim 1)
`
`“a processor or other circuitry programmed
`or designed to hold a predetermined
`allowable transmission power value.”
`As set forth in the Specification:
`“[A]llowable transmission power (Pallow)
`set in a radio resource control (RRC) layer of
`layer 3 is sent to layer 1 (physical layer).”
`Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1001, 13:32–34, Figs.
`28, 29).
`“a processor or other circuitry programmed
`or designed to compare the average
`transmission power value with the
`predetermined allowable transmission power
`value.”
`As set forth in the Specification: “In layer 1,
`average transmission power is compared
`with allowable transmission power
`(Pallow),” and “First, this average
`transmission power (Pave) is compared with
`allowable transmission power (Pallow) and
`the difference between these two (D=Pallow-
`Pave) is obtained.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1001,
`13:34–36, 13:63–14:5, Fig. 29).
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`
`“means for changing a transmission rate
`according to the comparison result in
`said comparing means” (claim 1)
`
`“a processor or other circuitry programmed
`or designed to change a transmission rate
`according to a comparison between the
`average transmission power value and the
`predetermined allowable transmission power
`value.”
`As set forth in the Specification: “According
`to this message, the transmission rate is
`lowered in medium access control layer
`(layer 2),” and “Then, according to this
`message, medium access control layer
`(layer 2) increases the transmission rate.”
`Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1001, 14:6–7, 14:23–
`25).
`
`
`Petitioner contends that each of these proposed constructions would
`be the same under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard and the
`Phillips standard. Pet. 6–7.
`As Petitioner points out in its Reply, “[Patent Owner] does not dispute
`any aspect of Petitioner’s proposed means-plus function constructions,
`which are made under the broadest reasonable interpretation applicable to
`this proceeding.” Reply 15–17. Instead, according to Petitioner, “[Patent
`Owner’s] expert opined that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation
`applicable to this proceeding, the language of the means-plus-function
`limitations would have been understood by a [person with ordinary skill in
`the art (‘POSITA’)] at the time of the ’676 Patent.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex.
`1012, 6:25–15:14).
`
`As set forth in our Decision on Institution, we found Petitioner’s
`analysis to be sufficient under the broadest reasonable construction. Dec. on
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`Inst. 9. Because, on the record before us, we are persuaded that the structure
`and function of these terms, as would have been understood by a POSITA,
`are the same under the broadest reasonable construction standard and the
`Phillips standard, we do not alter these initial constructions in this Final
`Written Decision.
`
`As for the other claim limitations of independent claims 1, 6, and 7,
`and claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 11 depending therefrom, neither party has
`proposed a construction of any other term. See Pet. 6–7; PO Resp. 12–13.
`We determine that we need not further construe expressly any other claim
`terms to resolve the arguments before us. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci.
`& Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (explaining that only
`claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed and only to the
`extent necessary to resolve the controversy); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`(applying Vivid Techs. to an inter partes review).
`B. Principles of Law
`To prevail in challenging Patent Owner’s claims, Petitioner must
`demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims are
`unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2012); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) (2018). “In an
`[inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show
`with particularity why the patent it challenges is 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”)); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) (requiring a petition for inter
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`partes review to identify how the challenged claim is to be construed and
`where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed
`publications relied on). Petitioner, ultimately, has the “burden of persuasion
`. . . to prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,’” and this
`burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l
`Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting 35 U.S.C.
`§ 316(e); 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 cannot satisfy its burden of proving
`obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum
`Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is 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 prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`nonobviousness.4 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`
`4 Neither party presents arguments regarding objective evidence of
`nonobviousness in the instant proceeding.
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors
`may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art;
`prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are
`made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active
`workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`(citation omitted). In that regard, Petitioner’s expert, Andrew C. Singer,
`Ph.D., testifies that a POSITA at the time of the invention
`would have been a person having a Bachelor’s degree in
`electrical engineering or the equivalent plus three years of
`experience working with digital communication systems or in
`network engineering or a Master’s degree
`in electrical
`engineering with an emphasis on communication systems or the
`equivalent plus one year of experience working with digital
`communication systems or in network engineering.
`Pet. 4–5; Ex. 1003 ¶ 35.
`Patent Owner does not dispute Dr. Singer’s assessment of the level of
`ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We adopt and apply Dr.
`Singer’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is
`consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected by the prior art of record.
`Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding
`that absent evidence to the contrary, “the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an
`appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art).
`D. Obviousness over Keskitalo and Lindell
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–3, 5–9, and 11 are unpatentable
`under § 103 as obvious over Keskitalo in view of Lindell. Pet. 10–42.
`Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s contentions. PO Resp. 13–41.
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`
`For the reasons provided below, we determine that Petitioner has not
`demonstrated that claims 1–3, 5–9, and 11 would have been obvious over
`Keskitalo and Lindell. We provide a brief description of Keskitalo and
`Lindell before turning to the parties’ contentions.
`
`1. Keskitalo
`
`Keskitalo, titled “Method of Increasing Signal Quality by Adjusting
`the Spreading Ratio in a CDMA Cellular Radio System,” is an international
`application published under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”) on April
`13, 1995, with a filing date of October 3, 1994. Ex. 1004, codes (54), (43),
`(22). Keskitalo discloses improving the quality of a connection between a
`mobile station and a base station by adjusting the spreading ratio of the
`connection between the base station and the mobile station during the
`connection on the basis of signal quality. Id. at Abstract.
`Keskitalo recognizes that the effect of multiple access interference
`increases with the number of system users, which degrades the signal-to-
`noise ratio of connections. Id. at 3:6–9. Thus, for this purpose, a CDMA
`system utilizes power control, wherein the transmit power used by the
`mobile stations is controlled according to each situation. Id. at 3:12–15. For
`example, when a mobile station moves further away from the base station, it
`increases its transmit power so that the level of the signal received at the
`base station does not deteriorate. Id. at 3:15–18.
`However, Keskitalo also recognizes that there may be situations in the
`CDMA system where the deterioration of signal quality cannot be
`compensated for by power control, such as, for example, if the mobile
`station is already transmitting with its highest power, and thus, “it is not
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`possible to increase the power any[]more.” Id. at 3:19–25. Accordingly, the
`purpose of the invention in Keskitalo “is to realize a cellular radio system,
`where it is possible to improve the quality of the connection between a
`mobile station and a base station without power control and interference
`elimination methods.” Id. at 4:13–17.
`To achieve such improvement in quality, in Keskitalo, the spreading
`ratio of the connection between a base station and a mobile station is
`adjusted during the connection on the basis of signal quality. Id. at 4:18–23.
`“The higher the spreading ratio of the CDMA system is, the better the
`system tolerates interference signals.” Id. at 4:30–32. The spreading ratio
`can be altered either by decreasing the data rate of the user or by increasing
`the data rate of the spreading code, wherein, to increase the data rate of the
`spreading code, the frequency band of the modulated signal will also be
`increased. Id. at 5:3–7. In an embodiment, if the quality of the connection
`from the mobile station to the base station is not adequate with the signal-to-
`noise ratio, the mobile station can alter the spreading ratio to improve the
`interference tolerance of the connection by “decreasing the bit rate of the
`data signal of the user,” for example. Id. at 7:23–33.
`2. Lindell
`Lindell, titled “Averaged RF Exposure Control,” issued on June 4,
`1996, from an application filed on December 17, 1993. Ex. 1005, codes
`(54), (45), (22). Lindell discloses a radio transmitter output power controller
`that automatically restricts the maximum transmitting time during an
`averaging time so that the average power remains below an acceptable level.
`Id. at Abstract.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`Lindell involves an average power determining circuit for determining
`
`an average power by which a radio transmitter has transmitted during a
`preceding time period. Id. at 4:5–9. Lindell’s apparatus also includes a
`comparator for comparing average power Pave to first, predetermined
`threshold Pmax, wherein the first threshold may correspond to maximum
`allowed average power Pmax for given averaging time Tave, which can be set
`by a first threshold setting circuit. Id. at 4:17–21. The output of the
`comparator activates a transmitter disable circuit, which disables the radio
`transmitter when the comparator determines that threshold Pmax has been
`exceeded. Id. at 4:21–25.
`
`Additionally or alternatively, the maximum transmitter output power
`may be automatically reduced to a lower level if and when a predetermined
`average power level is approached. Id. at Abstract.
`3. Independent Claims 1, 6, and 7
`
`a. “transmission power control means for increasing or
`decreasing transmission power of said transmitting
`means according to transmission power control
`information received by said receiving means,” “average
`transmission power calculating means for calculating an
`average value of the transmission power of said
`transmitting means” (claim 1, similarly recited in claims
`6 and 7)
`
`Petitioner contends that Keskitalo discloses a radio communication
`apparatus including a base station and a mobile station, both having an
`antenna, a transmitter, and a receiver. Pet 13–16, 36 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:23–
`34, 6:22–30, 7:3–16, Figs. 1–3). Petitioner contends that Keskitalo further
`discloses a “circuit (a transmission power controller) programmed or
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`designed to increase or decrease transmission power of a transmitter
`(transmitting means) based on a transmission power control signal.” Id. at
`16. According to Petitioner, in Keskitalo:
`Figure 1 shows a part of a cellular network, where a base station
`BTS communicates with mobile stations MSI, MS2 in its
`area. . . . The mobile stations are located at different distances
`from the base station, and to minimize multiple access
`interference in the receiver of the base station[,] the mobile
`stations adjust their transmit power according to control
`signals supplied by the base station. Mobile station MSI
`located nearer to the base station uses, over the connection 11, a
`transmit power which is on average lower than the one mobile
`station MS2 further away is using over the connection 12.
`However, local variations may temporarily cause strong
`variations in signal powers.
`
`Id. at 16–17 (quoting Ex. 1004, 5:23–6:4) (emphasis included in Petition).
`Petitioner contends that Keskitalo’s transmission power of a mobile
`station varies based on distance to the base station, and that the transmission
`power must be monitored and adjusted to minimize interference. Pet. 17.
`According to Petitioner, Keskitalo also recognizes that in order to minimize
`interference, there must be limits on transmit power permitted for a given
`handset. Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:19–29).
`Furthermore, Petitioner contends that Lindell teaches an “integrator
`and an average power determining circuit that calculates an average
`transmission power at a mobile station.” Pet. 18. According to Petitioner, in
`Lindell,
`A radio transmitter output power controller . . . automatically
`restricts the maximum transmitting time during an averaging
`time so that the average power remains below an acceptable
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`
`level. Additionally or alternatively, the maximum transmitter
`output power may be automatically reduced to a lower level
`if and when a predetermined average power level is
`approached.
`
`
`Pet. 18–19 (quoting Ex. 1005, Abstract) (emphasis included in Petition).
`Further, Petitioner provides the following excerpt from Lindell:
`With reference to FIG. 1, an apparatus in accordance with this
`aspect of the present invention involves an average power
`determining circuit 11 for determining an average power by
`which a radio transmitter has transmitted during a
`preceding time period. This might take the form of an
`integrating circuit. The preceding time period may be the
`maximum averaging time Tave or a portion thereof. The
`average power determining circuit may determine, as a measure
`of average power Pave, a maximum continuous transmission time
`based on past transmission time within an averaging time period
`Tave when the transmission power Pinst is at a fixed level.
`
`Pet. 19 (quoting Ex. 1005, 4:5–15) (emphasis included in Petition).
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis of these
`limitations. Based on at least the disclosures of Keskitalo and Lindell
`discussed above, Petitioner has demonstrated persuasively that the
`combination of Keskitalo and Lindell teaches “transmission power control
`means for increasing or decreasing transmission power of said transmitting
`means according to transmission power control information received by said
`receiving means,” and “average transmission power calculating means for
`calculating an average value of the transmission power of said transmitting
`means,” as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 6 and 7. Pet.
`17–23.
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Patent 6,611,676 B2
`
`
`b. “allowable transmission power holding means for
`holding a predetermined allowable transmission power
`value,” “comparing means for comparing the average
`value with the allowable transmission power value”
`(claim 1, similarly recited in claims 6 and 7)
`
`Petitioner contends that Keskitalo discloses a “predetermined
`allowable transmission power value” and that Lindell discloses a threshold
`setting circuit 13 that holds a predetermined threshold transmission power
`Pmax for a given averaging time Tave. Pet. 23–24. In particular, according to
`Petitioner, in Lindell,
`The apparatus also includes a comparator 12 for comparing the
`average power Pave to a first, predetermined threshold Pmax.
`The first threshold may correspond to a maximum allowed
`average power Pmax for a given averaging time Tave, which can
`be set by a first threshold setting circuit 13. The output of the
`comparator 12 activates a transmitter disable circuit 14 which
`disables the radio transmitter when the comparator 12 determines
`that the first threshold Pmax has been exceeded.
`
`Pet. 24 (quoting Ex. 1005, 4:17–25) (emphasis included in Petition).
`According to Petitioner, “[a] POSITA would understand that the threshold
`setting circuit in Lindell is a processor or other circuitry programmed or
`designed to hold a predetermined allowable transmission power value as
`required by this limitation.” Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 44).
`
`Petitioner also contends that Keskitalo discloses a “control pro
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
