UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON AND ERICSSON INC.
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01484
`Patent Number: 9,025,590
`________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT
`LLC’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`

`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Case IPR2016-001484
`Patent 9,025,590
`
`
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`3GPP standard setting for LTE and LTE-Advanced ............................ 5
`
`Carrier aggregation and LTE terminology ............................................ 7
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Summary of Preliminary Response ................................................................. 2
`
`III.  Technical Background ..................................................................................... 4
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Response to the Petition’s Description of the Technical
`Background. ........................................................................................ 13
`
`
`IV.  The ‘590 Patent and related patents ............................................................... 16
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 21
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`
`Technical problem and disclosed solutions ......................................... 16
`
`’590 Patent Claims .............................................................................. 17
`
`Related patents and previous IPRs ...................................................... 19
`
`Legal standards for claim construction. .............................................. 21
`
`’590 Patent claim terms ....................................................................... 23
`
`1. 
`
`“cell” (claims 1, 5, 9) and “serving cells” (claims 3, 7, 11) ..... 23
`
`2. 
`
`“processing the received power headroom report control
`element based on the configuration of the user equipment”
`(claims 1, 5 and 9) ..................................................................... 26
`
`ii
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-001484
`Patent 9,025,590
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`
`
`3. 
`
`Other claim terms proposed by Petitioner – “bitmap” terms and
`“‘type 1’/‘type 2’ power headroom report”. ............................. 27
`
`
`VI.  The Petition should be denied because Petitioner has not met its burden to
`show a reasonable probability of prevailing on one or more grounds of
`unpatentability as to any of the challenged claims. ....................................... 28
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Legal Standards for the Board’s Institution Decision. ........................ 28
`
`Petitioner has not shown that Mr. Lanning is a qualified expert. ....... 32
`
`Petitioner has not met its burden to prove that the prior art discloses
`all elements of any challenged claim. ................................................. 34
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Grounds 1 and 2 should be denied because Petitioner has not
`shown that Heo discloses “processing the received power
`headroom report control element based on the configuration of
`the user equipment . . . .” .......................................................... 35
`
`Grounds 3 and 4 should be denied because Petitioner has not
`shown that Zhang discloses “processing the received power
`headroom report control element based on the configuration of
`the user equipment . . . .” .......................................................... 37
`
`
`VII.  The asserted grounds are redundant. ............................................................. 39
`
`VIII.  Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 40 
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Case IPR2016-001484
`Patent 9,025,590
`
`
`
`Cases:
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture, LLC,
`Case No. IPR2016-00924, Paper 10 (PTAB Aug. 23, 2016) ....................... 39-40
`
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18225 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 7, 2016) (en banc) .................... 29
`
`
`Bourjaily v. United States,
`483 U.S. 171 (1987) ........................................................................................... 34
`
`
`CFMT, Inc. v. YieldUp Int’l Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ......................................................................... 29
`
`
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ......................................................................... 29
`
`
`Fontaine Engineered Products, Inc. v. Raildecks, Inc.,
`Case No. IPR2013-00360, Paper 9 (PTAB Dec. 13, 2013) .............................. 31
`
`
`Goldberg v. Kelly,
`397 U.S. 254 (1970) ........................................................................................... 30
`
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .......................................................................................... 28-29
`
`
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................................................................... 39
`
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ...................................................................... 29-30
`
`
`KSR In’tl co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 28-30
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`Case IPR2016-001484
`Patent 9,025,590
`
`
`
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Cellular Communications Equipment LLC,
`Case No. IPR2016-00197, Paper 7 (PTAB April 29, 2016) ............................. 20
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ......................................................................... 21
`
`
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns. RF, LLC,
`815 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................... 22
`
`
`SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC,
`825 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................................................................... 22
`
`
`Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. v. Cellular Communications
`Equipment LLC,
`Case No. IPR2015-01716, Paper 11 (PTAB Feb. 4, 2016) ......................... 19-20
`
`
`Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. v. Cellular Communications
`Equipment LLC,
`Case No. IPR2015-01716, Paper 15 (PTAB March 28, 2016) ......................... 20
`
`
`Sundance, Inc. v. Demonte Fabricating, Ltd.,
`550 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ......................................................................... 34
`
`
`Tietex International, Ltd. v. Precision Fabrics Group, Inc.,
`Case No. IPR2014-01248, Paper No. 39 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2016) ....................... 29
`
`
`TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................................................................... 22
`
`
`Unified Patents v. Custom Media,
`Case No. IPR2015-00516, Paper 9 (PTAB June 15, 2015) ............................... 31
`
`
`
`Rules and Statutes:
`
`5 U.S.C. §554(b) ................................................................................................ 30-31
`
`5 U.S.C. §556(d) ................................................................................................ 30-31
`v
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`Case IPR2016-001484
`Patent 9,025,590
`
`
`
`5 U.S.C. §556(e) ................................................................................................ 30-31
`
`35 U.S.C. §103 ................................................................................................... 28-30
`
`35 U.S.C. §313 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. §314(a) .............................................................................................. 28-30
`
`35 U.S.C. §316(a)(8) ................................................................................................. 2
`
`35 U.S.C. §316(e) ................................................................................................... 29
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.1(b) .................................................................................................. 40
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.22(a)(2) ............................................................................................ 30
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.62(a) ............................................................................................ 33-34
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.65(a) ...................................................................................... 31, 37-38
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ............................................................................................. 21
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(4) .......................................................................................... 30
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.108(a) ............................................................................................... 39
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.108(c) ........................................................................................... 2, 28
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.120 ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. §107(a) ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702 ............................................................................................... 33-34
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Title
`Declaration of Donald Puckett in Support of Unopposed Motion
`for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`Proposal for Candidate Radio Interface Technologies for IMT-
`Advanced Based on LTE Release 10 and Beyond (LTE-
`Advanced), available for download at:
`http://www.3gpp.org/IMG/pdf/2009_10_3gpp_IMT.pdf
`LTE-Advanced (3GPP Release 10 and beyond), available for
`download at: ftp://www.3gpp.org/workshop/2009-12-17_ITU-
`R_IMT-Adv_eval/docs/pdf/REV-090006.pdf
`3GPP Website: Releases
`(http://www.3gpp.org/specifications/releases)
`3GPP Website: LTE-Advanced
`(http://www.3gpp.org/technologies/keywords-acronyms/97-lte-
`advanced)
`3GPP Website: Carrier Aggregation explained
`(http://www.3gpp.org/technologies/keywords-acronyms/101-
`carrier-aggregation-explained)
`3GPP Website: RAN WG2 (http://www.3gpp.org/specifications-
`groups/ran-plenary/ran2-radio-layer-2-and-radio-layer-3-rr/home;
`http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/TSG-WG--R2--
`officialsHistory.htm)
`3GPP Technical Report: 3GPP TR 21.905 v8.8.0 (2009-03)
`3GPP Technical Report: 3GPP TR 21.905 v9.4.0 (2009-12)
`3GPP Technical Report: 3GPP TR 21.905 v10.3.0 (2011-03)
`3GPP Technical Specification: 3GPP TS 36.101 v8.7.0 (2009-09)
`3GPP Technical Specification: 3GPP TS 36.101 v9.4.0 (2010-06)
`3GPP Technical Specification: 3GPP TS 36.101 v10.3.0 (2011-06)
`3GPP Technical Specification: 3GPP TS 36.104 v8.8.0 (2009-12)
`3GPP Technical Specification: 3GPP TS 36.104 v9.4.0 (2010-06)
`3GPP Technical Specification: 3GPP TS 36.104 v10.3.0 (2011-06)
`3GPP Technical Specification: 3GPP TS 36.321 v9.4.0 (2011-09)
`3GPP Technical Specification: 3GPP TS 36.321 v10.3.0 (2011-09)
`3GPP Technical Specification: 3GPP TS 36.331 v8.8.0 (2009-12)
`3GPP Technical Specification: 3GPP TS 36.331 v9.4.0 (2010-09)
`
`vii
`
`Exhibit No.
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`2009
`2010
`2011
`2012
`2013
`2014
`2015
`2016
`2017
`2018
`2019
`2020
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-001484
`Patent 9,025,590
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-001484
`Patent 9,025,590
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`2021
`2022
`2023
`2024
`2025
`
`2026
`
`2027
`
`2028
`
`2029
`
`3GPP Technical Specification: 3GPP TS 36.331 v10.3.0 (2011-09)
`3GPP Technical Report: 3GPP TR 36.814 v9.0.0 (2010-03)
`3GPP Technical Report: 3GPP TR 36.815 v9.0.0 (2010-03)
`3GPP Technical Report: 3GPP TR 36.912 v9.1.0 (2009-12)
`Memorandum re: Carrier aggregation: Scenarios and terminology
`issues (R2-093814)
`Memorandum re: Basic Definitions for Carrier Aggregation (R2-
`094219)
`Memorandum re: Definition of cell in the carrier aggregation (R2-
`094875)
`Memorandum re: Email discussion on terminologies of carrier
`aggregation (67#35) (R2-095876)
`3GPP Website: LTE
`(http://www.3gpp.org/technologies/keywords-acronyms/98-lte)
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`Case IPR2016-001484
`Patent 9,025,590
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Patent Owner Cellular Communications Equipment LLC (“CCE” or “Patent
`
`Owner”) files this Patent Owner Preliminary Response pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §313
`
`and 37 C.F.R. §107(a). This Preliminary Response raises threshold issues only (i.e.
`
`issues that CCE contends can be resolved by the Board without the need to
`
`consider additional testimonial evidence or to resolve any contested issues of fact).
`
`Patent Owner contends that these threshold issues present sufficient reasons for the
`
`Board to deny the Petition in its entirety without the need for a trial.
`
`In the event the Board institutes this case for trial, Patent Owner reserves its
`
`right to present additional evidence (including, but not limited to, testimonial
`
`evidence in the form of a declaration) and to raise additional factual and legal
`
`arguments in addition to the arguments presented in this Preliminary Response.1
`
`Patent Owner’s decision at this time to forgo contesting or rebutting any factual or
`
`legal contention or argument made in the Petition is not an indication of Patent
`
`
`1 Patent Owner specifically reserves its right to contest the applicable priority dates
`of the prior art references relied upon by Petitioner; to offer evidence establishing a
`priority date for the ’590 Patent earlier than June 21, 2010; to offer evidence and
`argument disputing whether Petitioner has met its burden of proof as to the
`motivation to modify or combine the prior art references; that any alleged
`modification or combination of prior art does not disclose claim elements in
`addition to those discussed herein; to designate additional claim terms for
`construction; and to present additional evidence and argument as appropriate.
`1
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`Case IPR2016-001484
`Patent 9,025,590
`
`
`
`Owner’s agreement with the contention or argument, or an admission by Patent
`
`Owner as to the truth or accuracy of such contention or argument. Patent Owner
`
`reserves all rights to provide a full response to the Petition in a Patent Owner
`
`Response, in accordance with the applicable federal statutes and rules of the Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board. See 35 U.S.C. §316(a)(8) and 37 C.F.R. §42.120.
`
`II.
`
`Summary of Preliminary Response
`
`The Board should deny the Petition and decline to institute a trial because
`
`the Petition does not “demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least
`
`one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable” as required by 37
`
`C.F.R. §42.108(c). Specifically, the Petition is defective because it affords no
`
`meaning whatsoever to the claim term “processing the received power headroom
`
`report control element based on the configuration of the user equipment . . . .”
`
`Instead, the petition assumes that merely processing the received power headroom
`
`control element at all (or merely using the information contained within the power
`
`headroom report itself) is enough to satisfy this claim limitation. Petitioner makes
`
`no attempt to show that the prior art discloses processing the received control
`
`element “based on the configuration of the user equipment.”
`
`This claim term (“processing . . . based on the configuration of the user
`
`equipment”) appears in each of the challenged independent claims (Claims 1, 5 and
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`Case IPR2016-001484
`Patent 9,025,590
`
`
`
`9), and thus is also an element for each of the challenged dependent claims (Claims
`
`2, 3, 6, 7, 10 and 11). Accordingly, the Petition failed to map the prior art to a
`
`required claim element of each challenged claim. For this reason alone, the Petition
`
`should be denied in its entirety.
`
`The Board previously instituted an IPR for trial on a related patent that
`
`shares a common specification with the ’590 Patent. See IPR2015-01716, Paper 11
`
`(instituting IPR trial for CCE’s U.S. Patent No. 8,848,556). The challenged claims
`
`in that IPR, however, were claims directed to the user equipment (e.g. handset or
`
`other portable device), as compared to the claims of the ’590 Patent – all of which
`
`are directed to a wireless base station. None of the challenged claims in the -01716
`
`IPR contain the claim element “processing the received power headroom report
`
`control element based on the configuration of the user equipment,” or anything
`
`similar – as Petitioner acknowledges. See Petition at 25 (“the claims of the ’590
`
`patent also contain a limitation for processing the power headroom report control
`
`element”). Thus, the Board’s previous institution decision in the -01716 IPR does
`
`not compel institution in this case, because the challenged claims are meaningfully
`
`distinct.
`
`Given Petitioner’s recognition that the “processing” limitation is a primary
`
`distinction between the ’556 Patent claims and the claims challenged here, one
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`Case IPR2016-001484
`Patent 9,025,590
`
`
`
`would expect Petitioner to put forth its best proof on this claim element. But
`
`instead, Petitioner’s proof on this claim element is entirely conclusory – consisting
`
`of just a sentence or two at most, and giving no meaning to the claim language that
`
`requires processing “based on the configuration of the user equipment.” The
`
`Petition and supporting proof are fundamentally deficient in this way. As a result,
`
`the Petition should be denied and no trial should be instituted.
`
`III.
`
`Technical Background
`
`The Petition’s description of the technical background for Long Term
`
`Evolution (“LTE”) and LTE-Advanced uses important terminology in a manner
`
`that glosses over the way these terms evolved from LTE (3GPP Rel-8 and Rel-9)
`
`to LTE-Advanced (3GPP Rel-10).2 In particular, the Petition glosses over
`
`distinctions between “‘carriers’ or ‘component carriers’ or ‘cells’ or ‘serving
`
`cells.’” See Petition at pp. 15-17. See also Petition at 28-29. Given that the
`
`inventors of the ’590 Patent were themselves part of the standard setting process,
`
`
`2 Petitioner submits various technical documents from the 3GPP as evidence. See
`Exhibits 2002-2029. All such documents are made publicly available by the 3GPP
`for download over the internet. All 3GPP documents submitted by Patent Owner at
`this time are true and correct versions of the documents that are currently made
`publicly available by the 3GPP at the following internet addresses:
`(1) archived versions of technical specs: http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/Archive/;
`(2) TSG working papers and materials: http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/;
`(3) Work Items, Study Items, etc.:
`http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Information/WI_Sheet/.
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`Case IPR2016-001484
`Patent 9,025,590
`
`
`
`and filed the provisional application that would lead to the’590 Patent while 3GPP
`
`was in the process of developing Rel-10, it is extremely important to be cognizant
`
`of the way these terms evolved from Rel-8/9 to Rel-10. Against that backdrop, the
`
`Board can fully understand the way in which these same key terms are used in the
`
`’590 Patent and in the asserted prior art references.
`
`A.
`
`3GPP standard setting for LTE and LTE-Advanced
`
`The Petition is correct that the ’590 Patent arises out of a standard setting
`
`process conducted by the Third Generation Partnership Project (“3GPP”) for
`
`wireless communication networks commonly referred to as “Long Term
`
`Evolution” or “LTE”. See Petition at 15. Release 8 (abbreviated “Rel-8”) of the
`
`3GPP specifications were the first completed set of LTE specs. Rel-9 introduced
`
`minor technical fixes and improvements. Rel-10 implemented advanced features
`
`aimed at significantly improving overall system performance. Rel-10 and
`
`subsequent releases of the 3GPP specifications are commonly referred to as LTE-
`
`Advanced.
`
`Below is the brief chronology for the 3GPP’s activities with respect to the
`
`various releases of LTE and LTE-Advanced specifications:
`
` 2004 (Q4) – Study Item that would lead to LTE Rel-8 approved.
`
` 2005 (Q2) – Requirements approved for LTE Rel-8.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`Case IPR2016-001484
`Patent 9,025,590
`
`
`
` 2006 (Q2) – Work Item approved for LTE Rel-8.
`
` 2007 (Q3 & Q4) – Core specs approved for LTE Rel-8.
`
` 2008 (Q2) – Requirements approved for LTE Rel-10.
`
` 2008 (Q4) – LTE Rel-8 approved.
`
` 2009 (Q4) – LTE Rel-9 approved.
`
` 2011 (Q1) – LTE-Advanced (Rel-10) approved.
`
`See Ex. 2002 at 9, 12, 20; Ex. 2004.
`
`The effective filing date of the ’590 Patent (based on the provisional
`
`application to which it claims priority) is June 21, 2010.3 This filing date falls after
`
`full approval of LTE Rel-8 and Rel-9, and after approval of the core requirements
`
`for LTE-Advanced (Rel-10), but prior to 3GPP’s full approval of Rel-10. In other
`
`words, the provisional application that led to the ’590 Patent was filed during
`
`3GPP’s standard setting process for Rel-10.
`
`One of the inventors for the ’590 Patent, Benoist Pierre Sebire, was an
`
`important participant in 3GPP standard setting during this time. He was a 3GPP
`
`delegate on behalf of Nokia Seimens Network (NSN), and when the ’590 Patent
`
`
`3 Petitioner has not disputed that the ‘590 Patent is entitled to this effective filing
`date based upon the filing of the provisional application. See Petition at 6.
`Similarly, Patent Owner has elected not to contest the alleged priority dates of the
`asserted prior art references at this time, but reserves the right to do so in the future
`if necessary.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`Case IPR2016-001484
`Patent 9,025,590
`
`
`
`provisional application was filed he served as Vice Chairman of the 3GPP RAN
`
`WG2 (Radio Access Network Working Group 2) – the TSG responsible for Radio
`
`Interface architecture and protocols, specifications for Radio Resource Control
`
`protocol, Radio Resource Management strategies, and the services provided by the
`
`physical layer to the upper layers. See Ex. 2007. The ’590 Patent results from
`
`engineering work Mr. Sebire and co-inventor Chunli Wu did in connection with
`
`3GPP’s standard setting for LTE-Advanced (Rel-10).
`
`B. Carrier aggregation and LTE terminology
`
`“Carrier aggregation” or “CA” was one of the primary new features
`
`implemented for the first time in LTE-Advanced (Rel-10). See Ex. 2005 at 1-2. See
`
`also Ex. 2002 at 34-35; Ex. 2003 at 8-9. As explained by the 3GPP, with carrier
`
`aggregation the “LTE-Advanced UE can be allocated DL and UL resources on the
`
`aggregated resource consisting of two or more Component Carriers (CC), the
`
`R8/R9 UEs can be allocated resources on any ONE of the CCs. The CCs can be of
`
`different bandwidths.” See Ex. 2006 at 1.
`
`It is important to note, however that the terms “component carrier” and
`
`“serving cell” were new terms introduced in Rel-10. As discussed below, Rel- 8
`
`and Rel-9 used and defined the terms “carrier” and “cell.” The 3GPP engaged in a
`
`robust debate as to whether the definition of these terms should be modified for
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`Case IPR2016-001484
`Patent 9,025,590
`
`
`
`Rel-10, and what additional terms (such as “component carrier,” “serving cell,”
`
`and others) would be coined as needed to implement carrier aggregation in Rel-10.
`
`See, e.g. Exs. 1019 and 1020. See also Exs. 2025, 2026, 2027, and 2028.
`
`Rel-8 and Rel-9 each provided an express definition of “carrier.” “Carrier” is
`
`“the modulated waveform conveying the E-UTRA or UTRA physical channels.”
`
`See Exs. 2014 (Rel-8) and 2015 (Rel-9), TS36.104 §3.1. Rel-8 and Rel-9 also
`
`provided an illustration of a single “carrier,” depicting its “Channel Bandwidth”
`
`and “Transmission Bandwidth Configuration”:
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`Case IPR2016-001484
`Patent 9,025,590
`
`
`
`Exs. 2011(Rel-8) and 2012 (Rel-9), TS36.101 at §5.6. See also Exs. 2014 (Rel-8)
`
`and 2015 (Rel-9), TS36.104 at §3.1 (defining “Channel Bandwidth” as “The RF
`
`bandwidth supporting a single E-UTRA RF carrier with the transmission
`
`bandwidth configured in the uplink or downlink of a cell. . . .”); id. (defining
`
`“Transmission Bandwidth” as “Bandwidth of an instantaneous transmission from a
`
`UE or BS, measured in Resource Block units.”). Prior to LTE-Advanced Rel-10,
`
`this was the commonly understood meaning of a “carrier” within LTE. See, e.g.
`
`Ex. 2003 at 4. See also, e.g. Ex. 2025 at 1.
`
`
`
`Rel-8 and Rel-9 also provided an express definition of a “cell.” A “cell” was
`
`defined as a “Radio network object that can be uniquely identified by a User
`
`Equipment from a (cell) identification that is broadcasted over a geographical area
`
`from one UTRAN Access Point.” Exs. 2008 at p. 8 (Rel-8) and 2009 at p. 9 (Rel-
`
`9), TR21.905. See also, e.g. Ex. 2025 at 1.
`
`
`
`As can be seen, in the LTE standards a “carrier” and a “cell” are not the
`
`same thing. A carrier is the modulated waveform itself, whereas a cell is a radio
`
`object built on the carrier that can be identified by the user equipment (UE) based
`
`on identification information that has been sent from the base station to a UE. As
`
`Ericsson itself stated in a submission to 3GPP during development of Rel-10, in
`
`Rel-8/9: “a ‘carrier’ is a well-defined portion of the spectrum and cells are built on
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`Case IPR2016-001484
`Patent 9,025,590
`
`
`
`such carriers.” Ex. 2025 at 1. But this terminology was insufficient for
`
`implementation of carrier aggregation in Rel-10. See id. (“At the #66 meeting in
`
`San Francisco, RAN2 discussed the feasibility of carrier aggregation . . . it came
`
`[sic] apparent that some of the terminology used (such as ‘Cell’ & ‘Carrier’) is a
`
`bit blurred and sometimes also used inconsistently.”) The working groups engaged
`
`in a robust debate over the best terminology to use for Rel-10. See, e.g. Exs. 1019,
`
`1020, 2025, 2026, 2027 and 2028.
`
`
`
`LTE Rel-8/9 did not use the terms “component carrier” or “serving cell” at
`
`all. In Rel-8/9, each UE was assigned one single carrier for both uplink and
`
`downlink transmissions, and this single carrier corresponded to one identifiable UE
`
`“cell.” Since each UE was assigned a single “carrier” there was no such thing as a
`
`“component carrier;” and because each carrier corresponded to one “cell” there
`
`was no such thing as a “primary cell,” “secondary cell” or “serving cell.”
`
`
`
`The concept of a “component carrier” was first introduced in LTE-Advanced
`
`(Rel-10). Beginning with Rel-10, a single LTE-Advanced UE “can be allocated DL
`
`and UL resources on the aggregated resource consisting of two or more
`
`Component Carriers (CC) . . . . Each aggregated carrier is referred to as a
`
`component carrier, CC.” See Ex. 2006 at 1. See also Ex. 2025, TR36.814 at §5
`
`(discussing how LTE-Advanced will achieve support of wider bandwidth through
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`Case IPR2016-001484
`Patent 9,025,590
`
`
`
`aggregation of “component carriers”); Ex. 2026, TR36.815 at §5.2.2 (discussing
`
`various aspects of “component carrier” aggregation); Ex. 2024, TS36.912 at
`
`§11.2.1 (discussing bandwidth configuration and carrier spacing of “component
`
`carriers” for carrier aggregation in Rel-10); Ex. 2025 at 2 (discussing the new term
`
`“component carriers” contained within a draft of TR36.814).
`
`
`
`In Rel-10, one “component carrier” or “CC” has the same meaning as a
`
`single “carrier” in Rel-8/9. See Ex. 2006 at 1 (“Since it is important to keep
`
`backward compatibility with R8 and R9 UEs the aggregation is based on R8/R9
`
`carriers”); id. at 1 (“R8/R9 UEs can be allocated resources on any ONE of the
`
`CCs.”). See also Ex. 2022, TR36.814 at §5 and §9A.2.1; Ex. 2023, TR36.815 at
`
`§5.2.2.2 and §5.2.2.3; Ex. 2024, TS36.912 at §5.1.
`
`
`
`As previously discussed, in Rel-8/9, each uniquely identifiable “cell”
`
`corresponded to one “carrier.” It was unclear whether this would or should remain
`
`true for Rel-10, and the TSGs engaged in a robust debate as to whether the
`
`definition of “cell” should be revised. See, e.g. Ex. 2025 at 2 (Ericsson submission
`
`describing two possible scenarios: one scenario in which each “component carrier”
`
`would fulfill the definition of a “cell,” and a second scenario where each CC would
`
`not necessarily fulfill the definition of a “cell”). See also Exs. 1019, 1020, 2026,
`
`2027, and 2028.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-001484
`Patent 9,025,590
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`In the end, it was decided that the definition of “cell” should remain
`
`
`
`
`
`unchanged. See Ex. 2010, TR21.905 at 9 (Rel-10). Instead, Rel-10 coined new
`
`terms to account for the fact that a single UE could be assigned more than one Rel-
`
`10 component carrier (CC) at a time, and thus would be able to identify more than
`
`one “cell” at a time. The following new definitions were introduced in Rel-10:
`
` Primary Cell: the cell, operating on the primary frequency, in which the UE
`
`either performs the initial connection establishment procedure or initiates the
`
`connection re-establishment procedure, or the cell indicated as the primary
`
`cell in the handover procedure.
`
` Secondary Cell: a cell, operating on a secondary frequency, which may be
`
`configured once an RRC connection is established and which may be used to
`
`provide additional radio resources.
`
` Serving Cell: For a UE in RRC_CONNECTED not configured with CA
`
`there is only one serving cell comprising the primary cell. For a UE in
`
`RRC_CONNECTED configured with CA, the term “serving cells” is used to
`
`denote the set of one or more cells comprising of the primary cell and all
`
`secondary cells.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`Case IPR2016-001484
`Patent 9,025,590
`
`
`
`See Ex. 2021, TS36.331 at §3.1 (Rel-10). The 3GPP provides the following
`
`illustration to depict these concepts within carrier aggregation as implemented in
`
`LTE-Advanced Rel-10:
`
`
`
`
`
`See Ex. 2006 at 4.
`
`C. Response to the Petition’s Description of the Technical
`Background.
`
`The Petition describes the technical background related to Carrier
`
`Aggregation, LTE-Advanced, and other concepts largely by providing citations to
`
`the specification of the ’590 Patent. See, e.g. Petition at 15-17. But, as previously
`
`noted, the provisional application for the ’590 Patent was filed on June 21, 2010,
`
`prior to the finalization of Rel-10. At this time, Rel-10 was still a work in progress
`
`– including evolving definitions of key terms.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`Case IPR2016-001484
`Patent 9,025,590
`
`
`
`According to the Petition, “[c]arrier aggregation permits a UE to transmit or
`
`receive information over multiple frequency bands (or ‘carriers’ or ‘component
`
`carriers’ or ‘cells’ or ‘serving cells’ . . . .” Petition at p. 15. This statement is
`
`imprecise and confusing because these are terms of art within LTE that are not
`
`equivalent. Each term carries more meaning than simply a “frequency band.”
`
`“Carriers” and “cells” are related, but not equivalent. As discussed above, a carrier
`
`is a defined portion of the spectrum whereas a cell is built on a carrier, and is a
`
`network object that can be identified by the UE. Petitioner’s description of the
`
`technical background obscures these nuances, and ignores the fluidity of these
`
`terms while Rel-10 was being developed (at the very time the ’590 Patent
`
`provisional application was filed). All of these terms cannot be generalized or
`
`made equivalent under the rubric of “frequency band.”
`
`According to the Petition, carrier aggregation requires power headroom
`
`reporting for multiple carriers. See Petition at 16. This is too imprecise. Carrier
`
`aggregation in Rel-10 allowed aggregation of multiple “component carriers,” and
`
`enabled power headroom reporting for multiple component carriers (as discussed
`
`above). The existing vocabulary of LTE Rel-8/9 was insufficient to implement
`
`carrier aggregation, and the very nature of the feature itself required 3GPP to
`
`evolve a more nuanced vocabulary. The Petition glosses over these nuances.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`Case IPR2016-001484
`Patent 9,025,590
`
`
`
`The Petition inaccurately states that the ’590 Patent describes a technique
`
`“which allo