IN THE
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Paper No. 1
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`ZTE CORPORATION, and ZTE (USA), Inc., Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`Issued: June 4, 2013
`Inventor(s): Juergen Michel et al.
`Title: POWER HEADROOM REPORTING METHOD
`
`Inter Partes Review No.
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,457,676 B2 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319
`AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80, 42.100-.123
`_____________
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1
`II. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................... 1
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .................................... 1
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................ 1
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ............................... 2
`D. Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ......................................... 3
`III. Payment of Fees Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ......................................................... 3
`IV. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ...................................... 3
`V. Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B))............................................ 3
`A. The Effective Filing Date of the ’676 Patent ................................................... 3
`B. The Challenged Claims ................................................................................... 4
`C. The Specific Prior Art and Statutory Grounds ................................................ 4
`VI. Relevant Information Concerning The ’676 Patent ........................................ 5
`A. Technological Background .............................................................................. 5
`B. Applicant Admitted Analogous Art ................................................................. 7
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill .................................................................................... 8
`D. Construction of the Challenged Claims ........................................................... 8
`1. “power control headroom report” ............................................................... 8
`2. “transmission time interval” ....................................................................... 9
`VII. The Challenged Claims Are Unpatenable ....................................................... 9
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 19, and 33, Are Rendered Obvious By U.S. Pat. App.
`Pub. No. 2006/0140154 (Kwak) (Ex. 1005) .................................................... 9
`1. Overview of Kwak ..................................................................................... 9
`2. Kwak Renders Each of Claims 1, 19, and 33 Obvious ............................ 12
`Conclusion ................................................................................................ 25
`
`VIII.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. AT&T Inc., et al.,
`Case No. 2:15-cv-00576 ....................................................................................... 1
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. Sprint Corp., et al.,
`Case No. 2:15-cv-00579 ....................................................................................... 2
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., et al.,
`Case No. 2:15-cv-00580 ....................................................................................... 2
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. Verizon Comm. Inc., et al.,
`Case No. 2:15-cv-00581 ....................................................................................... 2
`
`Cuozzo Speed Tech., LLC v. Lee,
`579 U.S. ___ (2016) .............................................................................................. 8
`
`Sony Corp. v. Yissum Research Dev. Co. of The Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem,
`IPR2013-00219, Paper 16 (Sept. 22, 2014), at 21 ........................................ 27, 31
`
`Statutes and Codes
`
`U.S. Code,
`Title 35, Section 102(b) (Ex. 1006) .............................................................passim
`Title 35, Section 103 ............................................................................................. 5
`Title 35, Section 112 ............................................................................................. 9
`Title 35, Sections 311-319 .................................................................................... 1
`Title 35, Section 318(b) ...................................................................................... 56
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Rules and Regulations
`
`Code of Federal Regulations,
`Title 37, Section 42.1-.80 ...................................................................................... 1
`Title 37, Section 42.8 ............................................................................................ 1
`Title 37, Section 42.8(b)(1)................................................................................... 1
`Title 37, Section 42.8(b)(2)................................................................................... 1
`Title 37, Section 42.8(b)(3)................................................................................... 2
`Title 37, Section 42.8(b)(4)................................................................................... 2
`Title 37, Section 42.15(a) ..................................................................................... 2
`Title 37, Section 42.100-.123 ............................................................................... 1
`Title 37, Section 42.100(b) ................................................................................... 8
`Title 37, Section 42.103 ........................................................................................ 2
`Title 37, Section 42.104(A) .................................................................................. 3
`Title 37, Section 42.104(B)) ........................................................................... 3, 10
`Title 37, Section 42.104(b)(3) .............................................................................. 3
`Title 37, Section 42.104(b)(4)-(5) ........................................................................ 5
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`NO. DESCRIPTION
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`1002 File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`1003 Declaration of Tim Williams with Attachments A through C
`1004 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US20040223455 (“Fong”)
`1005 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2006/0140154 A1 (“Kwak”)
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`In accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80 &
`
`42.100-.123, ZTE Corporation, and ZTE (USA), Inc. (collectively, “Petitioners”)
`
`respectfully request inter partes review of claims 1, 19,and 33 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,457,676 B2 to Juergen Michel et al. (the ’676 patent) (Exhibit 1001), titled
`
`“Power Headroom Reporting Method” and owned by Cellular Communications
`
`Equipment LLC (“CCE” or “Patent Owner”). This petition for inter partes review
`
`(“Petition”) demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners will
`
`prevail on at least one of the claims challenged in the petition based on prior art
`
`references that the Office did not have before it during prosecution. Claims 1, 19,
`
`and 33 of the ’676 patent should therefore be canceled as unpatentable.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA), Inc. are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`The’676 patent is presently the subject of the following patent infringement
`
`lawsuits brought by Patent Owner in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
`
`of Texas (Marshall Division): Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. AT&T
`
`Inc., et al. Case No. 2:15-cv-00576; Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v.
`
`Sprint Corp., et al. Case No. 2:15-cv-00579; Cellular Communications Equipment
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., et al. Case No. 2:15-cv-00580; and Cellular
`
`Communications Equipment LLC v. Verizon Comm. Inc., et al. Case No. 2:15-cv-
`
`00581.
`
`This petition presents the same prior art references, and the same grounds
`
`applying those references, in HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.’s petition
`
`upon which inter partes review was instituted in Case IPR2016-01501 (PTAB
`
`February 13, 2017). The ’676 patent is also involved in Case IPR2016-01493
`
`(instituted) (PTAB February 13, 2017).
`
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel:
`Steven A. Moore (Reg. No. 55,462)
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW
`PITTMAN LLP
`Postal and Hand Delivery Address
`501 W. Broadway, Suite 1100
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Telephone: 619.544.3112
`Facsimile: 619.236.1995
`Email: steve.moore@pillsburylaw.com
`
`Back-Up Counsel:
`Rene Mai (Reg. No. 72,281)
`Email: rene.mai@pillsburylaw.com
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW
`PITTMAN LLP
`Postal and Hand Delivery Address
`Two Houston Center
`909 Fannin, Suite 2000
`Houston, TX 77010
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Brian Nash (Reg. No. 58,105)
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW
`PITTMAN LLP
`Postal and Hand Delivery Address
`401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700
`Austin, TX 78701
`Telephone: 512.580.9629
`Facsimile: 512.580.9601
`Email: brian.nash@pillsburylaw.com
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Telephone: 713.276.7628
`Facsimile: 713.276.7673
`D.
`Service of any documents via hand-delivery may be made at the postal
`
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`mailing address of the lead counsel and back-up counsel designated above with
`
`courtesy copies to the email address: docket_ip@pillsburylaw.com. Petitioner
`
`consents to electronic service.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`The undersigned authorizes the United States Patent and Trade Mark Office
`
`(the “Office”) to charge Deposit Account No. 033975 for the fee set forth in 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.15(a), and for any other applicable or additional fees for or in
`
`connection with this Petition for or this proceeding.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A)
`Petitioner certifies that the ’676 patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review
`
`challenging the validity of the above-referenced claims on the grounds identified in
`
`the Petition. This Petition is filed in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.106(a). Filed
`
`herewith are a Power of Attorney and an Exhibit List pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`42.10(b) and 42.63(e).
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B))
`A. The Effective Filing Date of the ’676 Patent
`
`3
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`The ’676 patent issued from Application No. 12/665,427. It was filed on
`
`June 23, 2008, claiming priority from provisional application number 60/936,649,
`
`which was filed on June 20, 2007. The effective filing date of these claims is no
`
`earlier than June 20, 2007.
`
`The Challenged Claims
`
`B.
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 19, and 33 of the ’676 patent as unpatentable.
`
`Challenged claims 1, 19, and 33 are independent claims. Consistent with 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), Petitioner explains how the challenged claims are to be
`
`construed in Part VI.D, below.
`
`C. The Specific Prior Art and Statutory Grounds
`The challenged claims 1, 19, and 33 of the ’676 patent generally relate to
`
`wireless communication technologies and the reporting of power headroom
`
`information from a mobile unit to a base station. See Ex. 1001. Prior art had
`
`disclosed the subject matter of these claims and rendered them obvious. The
`
`claims are unpatenable in view of the following publications:
`
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0140154 to Yong-Jun Kwak et al.
`
`was filed on October 19, 2005 and published on June 29, 2006 (“Kwak”).
`
`Because Kwak published more than one year prior to the effective filing date of
`
`the ’676 patent, Kwak is prior art to the ’676 patent under § 102(b) (Ex. 1005).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`In Part VII, below, Petitioner explains how the above-cited references, as
`
`supported by the claim charts and the Declaration of Tim A. Williams, Ph.D.
`
`(“Williams Decl.,” Ex. 1003), renders each of the challenged claims obvious under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 on the following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 19, and 33 of the ’676 patent are rendered obvious by
`
`Kwak.
`
`Consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5), in Part VII, below, Petitioner
`
`has specified where each element of each challenged claim is found in the prior art
`
`references, the exhibit number of the supporting evidence relied upon to support
`
`the challenge, and the relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised.
`
`VI. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ’676 PATENT
`A. Technological Background
`The ’676 patent generally relates to wireless communication technologies
`
`and the reporting of power headroom information from a mobile unit to a base
`
`station. There are two general types of power control used in mobile
`
`communications: open-loop (OLPC) and closed-loop (CLPC). ’676 patent at 3:1-
`
`14. The ’676 patent discusses a trend at that time to use uplink power control
`
`techniques that included an OLPC mechanism at the mobile unit and an ability for
`
`the base station to send CLPC correction commands to the mobile unit. Id. at 3:15-
`
`22. The ’676 patent purports to claim both methods and apparatuses for the
`
`5
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`reporting of power headroom information from user equipment based on triggering
`
`criterion. See id. at claims 1, 19. The ’676 patent also purports to claim network
`
`equipment, such as a base station, which receives a power headroom report from
`
`user equipment that was generated based on triggering criterion and provides an
`
`adjustment signal to the user equipment. See id. at claim 33.
`
`Claim 1 is representative of the user equipment claims and is reproduced
`
`below:
`
`1. A method comprising:
`determining that a set of at east [sic] one triggering criterion is met;
`and
`providing a power control headroom report on an uplink from user
`equipment, in response to determining that the set is met, wherein said
`at least one triggering criterion include at least one threshold having
`been reached, wherein said at least one threshold is adjustable via a
`signal to the user equipment, wherein the set of at least one triggering
`criterion comprises a criterion being met based on reaching a
`threshold of the at least one threshold of k transmission time intervals
`following a previous power control headroom report, wherein k is an
`integer and wherein said at least one threshold adjustable via the
`signal comprises adjusting the threshold integer k.
`
`Id. claim 1 at 6:26-40. Claim 33 is representative of the network element claims
`
`and is reproduced below:
`
`33. A network element comprising:
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`at least one processor; and
`at least one memory including software, where the at least one
`memory and the software are configured, with the at least one
`processor, to cause the network element to at least:
`receive a power control headroom report on an uplink from user
`equipment, in response to the user equipment determining that a set of
`at least one triggering criterion is met because at least one threshold
`has been reached, wherein the set of at least one triggering criterion
`comprises a criterion being met based on reaching a threshold of the at
`least one threshold of k transmission time intervals following a
`previous power control headroom report, wherein k is an integer and
`wherein said at least one threshold adjustable via the signal comprises
`adjusting the threshold integer k; and
`provide a threshold adjustment signal to the user equipment in order
`to adjust the at least one threshold.
`Id. claim 33 at 9:12-10:9.
`
`B. Applicant Admitted Analogous Art
`In the specification of the ’676 patent, the applicant described the invention
`
`as generally related to the “field of wireless telecommunications.” Exhibit 1001 at
`
`1:11-13. The applicant further described improvements to the UMTS standard
`
`being developed by the 3GPP art related to the invention. See Exhibit 1001, ‘676
`
`patent at 1:27-36. Thus, the applicant has admitted that descriptions of the UMTS
`
`system and improvements to the UMTS system being worked on by the 3GPP are
`
`analogous art to the invention of the ’676 patent.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill
`A person of ordinary skill in the art of the subject matter of the ’676 patent
`
`would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a similar degree,
`
`with 2-4 years of experience in the design and implementation of such wireless
`
`communication systems, or the equivalent. Ex. 1003 ¶42.
`
`D. Construction of the Challenged Claims
`A claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification.” See 37 C.F.R § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Tech., LLC
`
`v. Lee, 579 U.S. ___ (2016). Petitioner presents a construction for certain terms
`
`present in the challenged claims in the subsections below. The constructions set
`
`forth below are provided only for purposes of this inter partes review. These
`
`constructions are not intended and shall not be viewed as constituting, in whole or
`
`in part, Petitioner’s constructions applicable in any other forum, including U.S.
`
`District Court, where the rules or standards for claim construction differ from those
`
`applicable to inter partes review before the Office. Petitioner likewise reserves all
`
`arguments relating to indefiniteness, enablement, and written description under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112, which cannot be raised in this proceeding.
`
`“power control headroom report”
`
`1.
`A “power control headroom report” appears in claims 1, 19, and 33, as well
`
`as other claims that depend from those claims. The broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of that term refers to a report that provides a measure of how close
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`the terminal’s transmission power is relative to its maximum transmission power.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 3:31-37; see also id. 3:46-65; Ex. 1003 at ¶45.
`
`“transmission time interval”
`
`2.
`A “transmission time interval” appears in claims 1, 19, and 33, as well as
`
`other claims that depend from those claims. The broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`of that term refers to any specified period of time. Ex. 1001 at 2:27-29, 4:39-43;
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶46. That interpretation is demonstrated by the claim language itself,
`
`which indicates that a transmission time interval is a period of time (an “interval”)
`
`that can be measured. Ex. 1003 at ¶46. That definition is further demonstrated by
`
`the specification, which refers to the transmission time interval as “a period of
`
`time.” Ex. 1001 at 2:27-29; see also id. at 4:39-43; Ex. 1003 at ¶46.
`
`VII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENABLE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b), the following section and corresponding
`
`claim charts and evidence demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`challenged claims are unpatentable.
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 19, and 33, Are Rendered Obvious By U.S.
`Pat. App. Pub. No. 2006/0140154 (Kwak) (Ex. 1005)
`1. Overview of Kwak
`The Kwak publication, titled “Method And Apparatus For Signaling User
`
`Equipment Status Information For Uplink Data Transmission In A Mobile
`
`Communication System,” was filed on October 19, 2005 and published on June 29,
`
`9
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`2006. Kwak qualifies as prior art to the ’676 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Kwak was not considered by the examiner during prosecution of the ’676 patent.
`
`Kwak discloses “a method and apparatus for signaling the transmit power
`
`status (TPS), that is, uplink channel status of a User Equipment (UE) for use in
`
`uplink packet transmission scheduling.” Ex. 1005 at [0003]. Kwak teaches a
`
`Universal Mobile Telecommunication Service (UMTS) system for providing
`
`voice, data, multimedia, and wideband information to mobile subscribers or
`
`computer users. Id. at [0005]. Similar to the ’676 patent, the UMTS architecture
`
`disclosed in Kwak consists of User Equipment (UE), the UMTS Terrestrial Radio
`
`Access Network (UTRAN), Radio Network Controllers (RNCs) 16a and 16b, and
`
`Node Bs 18a to 18d, as illustrated in Figure 1, which is reproduced below:
`
`Id. at Fig. 1, [0006-0009]; see also Ex. 1001 at Fig. 1, 1:26-2:18.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Kwak teaches communicating the transit power status (TPS) information
`
`from a UE to a NodeB. Ex. 1005 at [0051]; see also id. at [0028-31]. “The TPS is
`
`expressed as the maximum transmit power of the UE, the maximum data rate
`
`available to the UE, or “the ratio of the maximum transmit power to the transmit
`
`power of the control channel, that is, the power margin of the UE.” Id. at [0051].
`
`Kwak describes the UE using the medium access control (MAC) layer to transmit
`
`the TPS to NodeB. Id. at [0052, 0063].
`
`Kwak describes various criterion for triggering a TPS transmission from the
`
`a UE to a NodeB. For example, Kwak discloses a second exemplary embodiment
`
`in which the UE transmits a TPS every TPS period 910. Id. at [0073-74, 0077].
`
`The TPS period 910 is a value which can be notified to the UE and the Node B
`
`from the RNC by upper layer signaling using Radio Resource Control (RRC) and
`
`Node B Application Part (NBAP) protocols. Id. at [0078]. Kwak also discloses a
`
`third exemplary embodiment in which the UE transmits a TPS every instance when
`
`a particular event is fulfilled. Id. at [0083]. Kwak teaches that an example of a
`
`triggering event is when the difference between a previous TPS and the current
`
`TPS exceeds a predetermined threshold. Id. at [00087]. Kwak teaches that the
`
`threshold can be notified to the UE and the Node B from the RNC by RRC and
`
`NBAP upper signaling. Id. Kwak also teaches that other events that trigger TPS
`
`transmission could be defined. Id.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Kwak also teaches embodiments that utilize more than one triggering
`
`criterion. For example, Kwak discloses fourth and fifth embodiments using both
`
`periodic and event-based criteria for triggering TPS transmission from a UE to a
`
`Node B. Id. at [0092-0093, 0103-0104]; id. at Figs. 11-12. In the fourth
`
`embodiment, a TPS is transmitted every TPS period 1111, as well as any time a
`
`specified event occurs. Id. at [0093, 0096]. In the fifth embodiment, a TPS is
`
`transmitted only if both the criteria are met, i.e., that a specified event has occurred
`
`and the threshold TPS period 1210 has been reached. Id. at [0104, 0107]. For both
`
`embodiments, Kwak teaches using a threshold for the difference between the
`
`current TPS and the previous TPS as an example of an event-based trigger, but
`
`other events that trigger TPS transmission could be defined. Id. at [0097, 0108-
`
`109]. The predetermined TPS period and the predetermined event thresholds in
`
`each embodiment are adjustable via notification to the UE and the Node B from
`
`the RNC by RRC and NBAP upper signaling. Id. at [0097, 0108-109].
`
`Kwak also teaches that the Node B receives the TPS and uses the
`
`information in scheduling. E.g. id. at [0020, 0024-0025, 0091, 0102, 0114.]
`
`2. Kwak Renders Each of Claims 1, 19, and 33 Obvious
`Claims 1, 19, and 33 of the ’676 patent are rendered obvious over Kwak (Ex.
`
`1005) for at least the reasons given below, including the claim charts.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Kwak discloses the method, apparatus, and network element of claims 1, 19,
`
`and 33, which are also included in the other challenged claims by dependence. See
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶¶94-115. For example, Kwak discloses user equipment (UE) that
`
`performs various tasks, including “determining that a set of at [l]east one triggering
`
`criterion is met,” as recited in claims 1 and 19. E.g., Ex. 1005 at Fig. 1, [0073-74,
`
`0077, 0083, 0087, 0092-0093, 0103-0104]; Ex. 1003 at ¶¶96-98. Kwak teaches
`
`that UE is used by mobile subscribers and computer users, and Kwak illustrates
`
`UE using images of mobile telephones. Ex. 1005 at [0007], Figs. 3-4. The
`
`generation of TPS information and transmission of TPS from the UE to the Node B
`
`is performed by the UE. See id. at Figs. 5-6, [0020, 0051-52, 0056-57]. One of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand Kwak’s teaching of UE to each
`
`inherently include at least a processor, memory, and software for performing these
`
`tasks. Ex. 1003 at ¶96. That is, the UE in Kwak must necessarily include and use
`
`a processor, memory, and software to generate TPS information, determine
`
`whether to send it, and transmit the TPS from the UE to the Node B. Id. See Sony
`
`Corp. v. Yissum Research Dev. Co. of The Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem, IPR2013-
`
`00219, Paper 16 (Sept. 22, 2014), at 21. Alternatively, it would have been obvious
`
`to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a processor, memory, and software to
`
`generate TPS information, determine whether to transmit it, and transmit the TPS
`
`information from the UE to the Node B. Ex. 1003 at ¶97. In the context of a typical
`
`13
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`UMTS as described by Kwak, it was well known to those of skill in the art that the
`
`UE in such a system typically involved mobile telephones containing at least one
`
`processor, memory, and software capable of performing these tasks. Id. The skilled
`
`artisan, reading Kwak’s disclosure, would have been motivated to utilize the
`
`components and capabilities of typical UE to perform these tasks. Id. It therefore
`
`would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the UE to include a
`
`processor, memory, and software to perform the tasks described by Kwak. Id.
`
`Kwak teaches that the UE determines if at least one triggering criterion is
`
`met. E.g., Ex. 1005 at [0073-81, 0092-0114]. Kwak describes various examples of
`
`triggering criterion for transmission of TPS information, including a time-based
`
`criterion (a TPS period), an event-based criterion using threshold values, and
`
`embodiments using combinations of both periodic and event-based criterion. E.g.,
`
`id. at [0073-74, 0077, 0083, 0087, 0092-0093, 0103-0104]
`
`Kwak further teaches that the UE “provide a power control headroom report
`
`on an uplink from user equipment, in response to determining that the set is met,”
`
`as recited by claims 1 and 19. Ex. 1003 at ¶99. For example, Kwak discloses fourth
`
`and fifth embodiments using both periodic and event-based criteria for triggering
`
`TPS transmission from a UE to a Node B. Ex. 1005 at [0092-0093, 0103-0104]; id.
`
`at Figs. 11-12. In the fourth embodiment, a TPS is transmitted every TPS period
`
`1111, as well as any time a specified event occurs. Id. at [0093, 0096]. In the fifth
`
`14
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`embodiment, a TPS is transmitted only if both the criteria are met, i.e., that a
`
`specified event has occurred and the threshold TPS period 1210 has been reached.
`
`Id. at [0104, 0107]. Alternatively, Kwak teaches a second embodiment using a set
`
`of one triggering criteria in which the UE transmits a TPS every TPS period 910.
`
`Id. at [0073-74, 0077]. The TPS, or transmit power status, is expressed as the
`
`maximum transmit power of the UE, the maximum data rate available to the UE,
`
`or “the ratio of the maximum transmit power to the transmit power of the control
`
`channel, that is, the power margin of the UE.” Id. at [0051]. Thus, Kwak’s TPS is a
`
`power control headroom report. Ex. 1003 at ¶99.
`
`Kwak also discloses that “said at least one triggering criterion include at
`
`least one threshold having been reached, wherein said at least one triggering
`
`criterion is adjustable via a signal to the user equipment,” as recited by claims 1
`
`and 19. Ex. 1003 at ¶100. Kwak teaches that the “TPS period” is a periodic trigger
`
`that can cause transmission of a TPS from a UE to a Node B after a threshold of
`
`time has passed from the last transmission of TPS. E.g. Ex. 1005 at [0077-78,
`
`0096, 0099, 0107, 0110-111]; see also id. at Figs. 9, 11-12. Kwak teaches that the
`
`TPS period trigger is adjustable through notification to the UE and the Node B
`
`from the RNC by upper layer signaling using RRC and NBAP protocols. Id. at
`
`[0078, 0097, 0109].
`
`15
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Kwak also discloses that “the set of at least one triggering criterion
`
`comprises a criterion being met based on reaching a threshold of the at least one
`
`threshold of k transmission time intervals following a previous power control
`
`headroom report, wherein k is an integer, and wherein said at least one threshold
`
`adjustable via the signal comprises adjusting the threshold k,” as recited as recited
`
`by claims 1 and 19. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶101-105. As discussed above, the TPS period is
`
`a threshold that must be reached before a subsequent TPS is sent. Ex. 1005 at
`
`[0077-78, 0096, 0099, 0107, 0110-111]; see also id. at Figs. 9, 11-12.
`
`Kwak teaches that the TPS period is set as a certain number of transmission
`
`time intervals following a previous power control headroom report. For example,
`
`the TPS period 910 in the second embodiment, the TPS period 1111 in the fourth
`
`embodiment, and the TPS period 1210 are each measured in transmission time
`
`intervals from a previous TPS, as illustrated in Figures 9, 11, and 12. Id. at Figs. 9,
`
`11-12, [0077-78, 0096, 0098-99, 0107, 0109-110]; see also Ex. 1003 at ¶102.
`
`Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art reading Kwak’s disclosure of a TPS period
`
`would have understood that disclosure in the context of a UMTS system to teach
`
`that the period is a value for k transmission time intervals measured from a
`
`previous TPS report, where k is an integer. Ex. 1003 at ¶102. Moreover, because
`
`Kwak teaches that the TPS period is adjustable via notification to the UE and the
`
`Node B by RRC and NBAP upper signaling, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`16
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`have understood that such adjustment would involve changing the value k. Id.
`
`¶103. Alternatively, it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art to utilize k transmission time intervals, where k is an integer, as the value for
`
`TPS period, and to adjust TPS period by adjusting the value k. Id. ¶104. Thus,
`
`Kwak discloses and renders obvious the method and apparatus of claims 1 and 19
`
`of the ’676 patent. Id. ¶¶94-105.
`
`Kwak also discloses the network element of claim 33. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶106-
`
`114. For example, Kwak teaches RNCs and Node Bs that receive TPS information
`
`transmitted by the UE. Ex. 1005 at Figs. 1, 3-4, [0007-08, 0020]. The RNCs
`
`control the underlying Node Bs and allocate or manage radio resources to the Node
`
`Bs. Id. at [0008]. The UEs establish a radio connection with the Node Bs. Id. The
`
`Node Bs and RNCs receive TPS information from the UEs and use the TPS
`
`information for scheduling. Id. at [0020, 0051-52, 0062-64]; see also id. at [0102,
`
`0114]. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand Kwak’s teaching of Node
`
`Bs and RNCs to each inherently include at least a processor, memory, and software
`
`for p