Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`Paper 47
`Entered: December 4, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01475
`Patent 8,996,003 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, and
`JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`Paper 47
`Entered: December 4, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01475
`Patent 8,996,003 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, and
`JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01475
`Patent 8,996,003 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2,
`
`“Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,996,003 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’003 patent”). We instituted an inter partes
`
`review of all the challenged claims because Petitioner demonstrated a
`
`“reasonable likelihood” of prevailing on “at least 1 of the claims challenged
`
`in the petition.” Paper 12 (“Inst. Dec.”); see 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`After institution of trial, Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. (“Patent
`
`Owner”) filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 24, “PO Resp.”), and
`
`Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 30, “Pet. Reply”). With our authorization,
`
`Patent Owner subsequently filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 38, “PO Sur-Reply”).
`
`Patent Owner also filed a Motion to Exclude (Paper 35), which we address
`
`below. On September 27, 2018, we conducted an oral hearing. A copy of
`
`the transcript (Paper 45, “Tr.”) is included in the record.
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the reasons that
`
`follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence that claims 1–20 of the ’003 patent are unpatentable. This final
`
`written decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
`
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`The parties identify one related district court case: Huawei
`
`Technologies Co. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Case No. 3:16-cv-02787 (N.D.
`
`Cal.). Pet. 2; Paper 5, 1. The parties also identify two related requests for
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01475
`Patent 8,996,003 B2
`
`inter partes reviews: IPR2017-01471 and IPR2017-01474.1 Paper 5, 1;
`
`Paper 11, 2.
`
`
`
`B. The ’003 Patent
`
`The ’003 patent is titled “Method, Terminal, and System for Cell
`
`Reselection.” Ex. 1001, at [54]. According to the ’003 patent,
`
`developments in the mobile communication field have spurred the
`
`emergence of various mobile communication systems, which can be
`
`characterized as either LTE systems or non-LTE systems. Id. at 1:30–43.
`
`Thus, when a terminal (or mobile device) performs cell reselection while in
`
`motion, there may be different frequencies within a single system available
`
`for selection, as well as different cells throughout different systems available
`
`for selection. Id. at 1:43–47.
`
`According to one embodiment of the ’003 patent, a terminal camps on
`
`a cell of an LTE system, where the terminal obtains a dedicated priority list
`
`as well as a public priority list, and stores the lists. Id. at 4:7–8, 28–31.
`
`Between LTE, UMTS, and GERAN systems, where the latter two systems
`
`are non-LTE systems, the dedicated priority list may indicate the priority as
`
`GERAN>UMTS>LTE. Id. at 4:22–24. The public priority list may indicate
`
`the priority as LTE>UMTS>GERAN. Id. at 4:19–20.
`
`The terminal performs cell reselection according to the dedicated
`
`priority list, which, in the embodiment described above, means the terminal
`
`camped on the cell of the LTE system reselects and camps on a cell of a
`
`
`1 Patent Owner specifically identifies Cases IPR2015-01471 and IPR2015-
`01474; however, the correct designations for these cases are IPR2017-01471
`and IPR2017-01474.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01475
`Patent 8,996,003 B2
`
`GERAN system. Id. at 4:32–39. If the signal quality of the cell of the
`
`GERAN system does not meet the signal quality criterion, the terminal
`
`performs cell reselection according to the dedicated priority list again, this
`
`time reselecting and camping on a cell of a UMTS system. Id. at 4:40–44.
`
`Assuming the terminal is currently camped on the cell of a GERAN
`
`system, the terminal next obtains a public priority list from the GERAN
`
`system and stores that list. Id. at 4:45–47. The GERAN system then
`
`provides the terminal with an indication as to whether the public priority list
`
`from the GERAN system is usable. Id. at 4:48–54. If the public priority list
`
`from the GERAN system is usable, the terminal either deletes the public
`
`priority list from the LTE system or labels it “unusable.” Id. at 4:62–5:2.
`
`The terminal, now camped on the GERAN system, performs cell
`
`reselection according to the dedicated priority list from the LTE system as
`
`long as the list is valid. Id. at 5:3–7. The dedicated priority list is valid until
`
`the expiration of a timer, which is set to start when the terminal obtains the
`
`dedicated priority list. Id. at 5:9–11. Before the timer expires, the terminal
`
`camps on a cell with the highest priority according to the dedicated priority
`
`list. Id. at 5:20–22. While camped on such a cell, the terminal decides
`
`whether to perform cell reselection according to the signal quality of the cell.
`
`Id. at 5:22–24. When the signal quality decreases to below a preset
`
`threshold, the terminal may perform cell reselection. Id. at 5:24–26.
`
`Once the dedicated priority list becomes invalid, the terminal stops
`
`using that list and deletes it. Id. at 5:27–29. The terminal then starts to use
`
`the public priority list for cell reselection. Id. at 5:29–30. In this case, that
`
`means the terminal reselects a cell of the LTE system based on the priorities
`
`specified in the public priority list. Id. at 5:30–32. Once camped on the
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01475
`Patent 8,996,003 B2
`
`LTE system, the terminal obtains a new dedicated priority list and a valid
`
`time of that new list from the LTE system. Id. at 5:30–36.
`
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–20 of the ’003 patent. Claims 1 and 15
`
`are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims under challenge:
`
`1. A non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising:
`
`a computer program code including executable instructions,
`which, when executed by a terminal device, cause the
`terminal device to perform a method for cell reselection as
`follows:
`
`receiving, when in a cell of a Long Term Evolution (LTE)
`system, a message including a dedicated priority list from
`the LTE system; and
`
`performing, when camping on a cell of a non-LTE system, the
`cell reselection in accordance with the received dedicated
`priority list before a valid time of the dedicated priority list
`expires.
`
`
`
`D. The Instituted Grounds
`
`Petitioner asserts in its Petition two grounds based on obviousness
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Pet. 4, 23–63. We instituted inter partes review on
`
`all the challenged claims and on both asserted grounds. Inst. Dec. 18. The
`
`instituted grounds are as follows.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01475
`Patent 8,996,003 B2
`
`References
`R2-0751612 and R2-0803383
`R2-075161, R2-080338, and Eerolainen4
`
`Basis
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`Claims Challenged
`1–20
`1–20
`
`In support of the instituted grounds, Petitioner relies on the declarations of
`
`Dr. Tim Williams, Ph.D. (Exhibits 1003 and 1024) and Dr. Raziq Yaqub,
`
`Ph.D. (Exhibit 1012). With its Response, Patent Owner submits the
`
`declaration of Dr. Robert Akl, D.SC. (Exhibit 2005). Transcripts of the
`
`depositions of Dr. Williams are entered in the record as Exhibits 2009 and
`
`2017, and a transcript of the deposition of Dr. Akl is entered in the record as
`
`Exhibit 1023.
`
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Patent Owner moves to exclude portions of R2-075161 (Petitioner’s
`
`Exhibit 1005) and R2-080338 (Petitioner’s Exhibit 1007). Paper 35, 1–2
`
`(“PO Mot.”). Patent Owner also moves to exclude certain declaration
`
`testimony of Petitioner’s expert Dr. Yaqub, namely, paragraphs 54 through
`
`59 of Exhibit 1012. Id. at 2. Petitioner opposes Patent Owner’s motion to
`
`exclude. Paper 39 (“Pet. Opp.”). In response, Patent Owner filed a reply to
`
`
`2 NTT DoCoMo, Inc., Inter-frequency/RAT idle mode mobility control,
`3GPP TSG RAN WG2 #60, Tdoc-R2-075161 (Nov. 2007) (Ex. 1005, “R2-
`075161”).
`3 Nokia Corp. & Nokia Siemens Networks, Reselection scenarios for multi-
`RAT terminals in Rel-8, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #60bis, R2-080338
`(Jan. 2008) (Ex. 1007, “R2-080338”).
`4 Eerolainen, U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0176565, published July 24, 2008
`(Ex. 1006).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01475
`Patent 8,996,003 B2
`
`Petitioner’s opposition to the motion to exclude. Paper 42. For the reasons
`
`explained below, Patent Owner’s motion to exclude is denied.
`
`
`
`1. Declaration of Dr. Yaqub (Exhibit 1012)
`
`In paragraphs 54 through 59 of his declaration, Dr. Yaqub opines on
`
`the authenticity, public availability, and publication dates of R2-075161 and
`
`R2-080338. See Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 54–59. Dr. Yaqub bases his opinion, in part,
`
`on his ability to find these documents on the 3GPP ftp (file transfer protocol)
`
`server and listserv server, and the time stamps associated with these
`
`documents on those servers. Id. His testimony includes screenshots of
`
`portions of the 3GPP ftp server webpage listing R2-075161 and R2-080338,
`
`and URLs (universal resource locators) pointing to R2-075161 and R2-
`
`080338 on the 3GPP ftp server. Id.
`
`On December 19, 2017, Patent Owner objected to Dr. Yaqub’s
`
`declaration to the extent that it “rel[ies] on web pages that were not filed as
`
`exhibits in this proceeding,” and asserted that “[t]hose web pages lack
`
`authentication and contain hearsay.” Paper 17, 1–2. On January 4, 2018,
`
`Petitioner provided the webpages to Patent Owner in the form of
`
`supplemental evidence. See Paper 18, 1; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2).
`
`On January 11, 2018, Patent Owner objected to the webpages “as lacking
`
`authentication and containing hearsay.” Paper 18, 1.
`
`Patent Owner moves to exclude paragraphs 54 through 59 of Dr.
`
`Yaqub’s declaration “because they rely on unauthenticated webpages for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted in those webpages.” PO Mot. 2–3. Patent
`
`Owner argues that the webpages lack authentication and contain
`
`inadmissible hearsay on which Dr. Yaqub relied in determining when R2-
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01475
`Patent 8,996,003 B2
`
`075161 (Exhibit 1005) and R2-080338 (Exhibit 1007) were publicly
`
`accessible on the 3GPP ftp server. Id. at 3–4. Petitioner argues that the
`
`webpages to which Patent Owner objects are self-authenticating and that
`
`they have been authenticated by Dr. Yaqub’s testimony regarding their
`
`distinctive characteristics. Pet. Opp. 3–4. Petitioner further argues that the
`
`webpages “are exempt from the rule against hearsay under Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence 803(6) and 807.” Id. at 5. Patent Owner responds that Dr. Yaqub
`
`is not qualified to certify the authenticity of the webpages as regularly kept
`
`business records because “[h]is declaration is silent as to his role in the
`
`[3GPP] group’s recordkeeping or his role, if any, in maintaining the
`
`accuracy of the 3GPP webpages.” Paper 42, 2.
`
`Under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6), records of a regularly
`
`conducted activity are not hearsay, provided the opposing party has not
`
`established that the source of information or the method or circumstances of
`
`their preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness, and the party offering the
`
`records establishes through the testimony of a qualified witness that the
`
`records are (a) made at or near the time from information transmitted by
`
`someone with knowledge, (b) kept in the course of a regularly conducted
`
`business activity, and (c) made as a regular practice of that activity. Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 803(6). Under Federal Rule of Evidence 902(11), such records are
`
`self-authenticating, provided (a) they are originals or copies that meet the
`
`requirements of Rule 803(6)(a)–(c) as shown by certification of a qualified
`
`person, (b) notice of intent to offer the records is given to the opposing party
`
`before a hearing, and (c) the records and certifications are made available to
`
`the opposing party so that the opposing party has a fair opportunity to
`
`challenge them. Id. at 902(11).
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01475
`Patent 8,996,003 B2
`
`
`We note that, “[b]ecause of the general trustworthiness of regularly
`
`kept records and the need for such evidence in many cases, the business
`
`records exception [to the hearsay rule] has been construed generously in
`
`favor of admissibility.” Conoco Inc. v. Dept. of Energy, 99 F.3d 387, 391
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1996). Moreover, “the ‘custodian or other qualified witness’ who
`
`must authenticate business records need not be the person who prepared or
`
`maintained the records, or even an employee of the record-keeping entity, as
`
`long as the witness understands the system used to prepare the records.” Id.
`
`Lastly, “documents that are standard records of the type regularly
`
`maintained by firms in a particular industry may require less by way of
`
`foundation testimony than less conventional documents proffered for
`
`admission as business records.” Id.; see also Gjokaj v. U.S. Steel Corp., 700
`
`F. App’x 494, 502 (6th Cir. 2017) (finding a business record certified by a
`
`qualified witness is self-authenticating under Federal Rule of Evidence
`
`902(11)).
`
`We are persuaded by Dr. Yaqub’s testimony and find that the 3GPP
`
`webpages on which he relied in his declaration are authentic, and that their
`
`contents, including the publication dates of R2-075161 and R2-080338, are
`
`not hearsay. Dr. Yaqub is a qualifying witness for the purposes of Rules
`
`806(b) and 902(11). See Conoco, 99 F.3d at 391; see also Gjokaj, 700 F.
`
`App’x at 502. From 1998 until 2010, Dr. Yaqub worked for various entities
`
`having an interest in developing or understanding 3GPP technologies.
`
`Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 7–12. During that time, he both participated in and contributed
`
`to 3GPP standards setting organizations, was an active member in various
`
`3GPP plenary level and working group level meetings, and served as a
`
`rapporteur of Technical Feasibility Report TR 33.817. Id. ¶¶ 8, 11.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01475
`Patent 8,996,003 B2
`
`
`Dr. Yaqub testifies that 3GPP “produce[s] reports and specifications
`
`that define technologies covering cellular telecommunications networks.”
`
`Id. ¶ 19. The specifications are “contribution-driven by 3GPP member
`
`companies,” and produced via regular and quarterly plenary meetings
`
`“where member companies’ contributions, draft specification[s], and other
`
`discussion documents are presented for approval.” Id. ¶ 20. Dr. Yaqub
`
`further testifies that 3GPP follows “[a] well-established process . . . for
`
`capturing accepted proposals and changes in Technical Specifications (TS)
`
`and Technical Reports (TR).” Id. ¶ 24. This process includes a file naming
`
`convention so that “changes that are brought into the standard, from the past,
`
`present, and in the future, are well documented and controlled.” Id. ¶ 28
`
`(quoting Ex. 1016, 5). 3GPP documents are stored on 3GPP’s ftp server in
`
`zip-compressed format, where the filename of the zip file is the same as the
`
`name of the source document. Id. ¶ 29 (citing Ex. 1016 § 5A). Member-
`
`contributed documents (“TDocs”) are assigned unique document numbers,
`
`and “members upload these documents to 3GPP’s public FTP server before,
`
`during, and after Working Group meetings.” Id. ¶ 30. The documents are
`
`uploaded “[s]oon after the end of the meeting—the same day, or at worst
`
`within a few days.” Id. ¶ 37. The “TDocs[] are publicly-available and
`
`unrestricted on the online FTP server,” and are “openly published and no
`
`password is needed to access any information on the 3GPP website.” Id.
`
`¶ 30; see also Ex. 1016 § 7.6. Documents uploaded to the 3GPP ftp server
`
`“receive a date and time stamp.” Ex. 1012 ¶ 33. The documents are
`
`“retained on the public 3GPP server indefinitely, and the date and time
`
`stamp can be relied upon to indicate when the upload occurred.” Id. ¶¶ 33,
`
`37.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01475
`Patent 8,996,003 B2
`
`
`Based on the foregoing testimony, we find that Dr. Yaqub
`
`“understands the system used to prepare [3GPP] records,” and is a “qualified
`
`witness” or “qualified person” as those terms are used in Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence 803(6) and 902(11). See Conoco, 99 F.3d at 391; see also Gjokaj,
`
`700 F. App’x at 502.
`
`For the particular documents relevant to this proceeding, namely, R2-
`
`075161 and R2-080338, Dr. Yaqub testifies that he “navigated to the
`
`relevant file” on the 3GPP ftp server and “confirm[ed] that it had been
`
`correctly uploaded.” Ex. 1012 ¶ 51. Dr. Yaqub provides the URLs that he
`
`used to navigate to the documents and testifies that he recognizes the
`
`documents located by those URLs as “true and correct” copies. Id. ¶¶ 54,
`
`57. Dr. Yaqub also provides screenshots of the 3GPP ftp server directories
`
`that include the identically named zip files containing R2-075161 and R2-
`
`080338. Id. As discussed above, when Patent Owner objected to these
`
`screenshots, Petitioner served complete printouts of the 3GPP ftp server
`
`directories from which Dr. Yaqub took the screenshots. Paper 17, 1–2; Pet.
`
`Opp. 4–5; Exs. 1025–1028; see also Paper 18, 1.
`
`Patent Owner provides no evidence that the 3GPP ftp server, the
`
`webpages disclosing the contents of the ftp server directories relied on, or
`
`the methods or circumstances by which those webpages or the contents
`
`disclosed in those webpages were prepared lack trustworthiness. See PO
`
`Mot. 2–4; Paper 42, 1–4. Dr. Yaqub, by contrast, testifies that the contents
`
`of the 3GPP ftp server directories (webpages) on which he relied were made
`
`and kept in the course of 3GPP’s regularly conducted business activity, and
`
`were made at or near the times indicated by their upload date and time
`
`stamps from information transmitted by 3GPP contributing members. See
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01475
`Patent 8,996,003 B2
`
`Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 24, 28–30, 33, 37, 54, 57. Dr. Yaqub’s declaration and the
`
`webpages (3GPP ftp server directory printouts) on which he relied were
`
`served on Patent Owner with notice of intent to use them, and Patent Owner
`
`was provided with the opportunity to challenge the webpages, their content,
`
`and Dr. Yaqub’s testimony regarding how that content and the webpages
`
`disclosing that content were created. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(ii).
`
`Based on the evidence presented, as summarized above, we find that
`
`Dr. Yaqub’s testimony sufficiently authenticates the 3GPP ftp server
`
`directories (webpages) as well as their contents such that they are admissible
`
`under Federal Rule of Evidence 902(11) and are not hearsay under Federal
`
`Rule of Evidence 803(6). We, therefore, deny Patent Owner’s motion to
`
`exclude paragraphs 54 through 59 of Dr. Yaqub’s declaration (Exhibit
`
`1012).
`
`As noted above, Petitioner also argues that the 3GPP ftp server
`
`directories (webpages) on which Dr. Yaqub relies can be authenticated under
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(4), and that their contents are not hearsay
`
`under Federal Rules of Evidence 807. Pet. Opp. 3–5, 7–9. Patent Owner
`
`argues to the contrary. Paper 42, 1–4. Because we find that Petitioner has
`
`shown that the webpages are self-authenticating business records and that
`
`their contents are not hearsay, we need not address these issues. See Beloit
`
`Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an
`
`administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on a single
`
`dispositive issue “not only [to] save the parties, the [agency], and [the
`
`reviewing] court unnecessary cost and effort,” but also to “greatly ease the
`
`burden on [an agency] faced with a . . . proceeding involving numerous
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01475
`Patent 8,996,003 B2
`
`complex issues and required by statute to reach its conclusion within rigid
`
`time limits”).
`
`
`
`2. R2-075161 (Exhibit 1005) and R2-080338 (Exhibit 1007)
`
`Patent Owner moves to exclude as hearsay portions of R2-075161
`
`(Exhibit 1005) and R2-080338 (Exhibit 1007) “[t]o the extent Petitioner
`
`relies on the dates within Exhibit 1005 [and Exhibit 1007] for the purported
`
`truth of the matter asserted to show the date of public accessibility of Exhibit
`
`1005 [and Exhibit 1007].” PO Mot. 1–2. Petitioner argues that the contents
`
`of R2-075161 and R2-080338 are “exempt from the rule against hearsay
`
`under Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6) and 807.” Pet. Opp. 9; see also id.
`
`at 9–12. Patent Owner argues that “Dr. Yaqub’s role as a ‘participant in
`
`3GPP’ is insufficient to render him a qualified individual to support
`
`admission under FRE 806(b),” and that “FRE 807 is an ‘exceptional’
`
`remedy that Petitioner has not justified in this case.” Paper 42, 4–5.
`
`For the reasons discussed above with respect to Exhibit 1012, we find
`
`that Dr. Yaqub is a qualified witness who has authenticated R2-075161 and
`
`R2-080338, and established their trustworthiness, so that they are not
`
`hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 803(6). Patent Owner relies on Kolmes v.
`
`World Fibers Corp., 107 F.3d 1534, 1542–43 (Fed. Cir. 1997), to argue that
`
`Dr. Yaqub is not a qualified witness. Paper 42, 4. We disagree. In Kolmes,
`
`a witness who “testified that he had seen [certain] documents while
`
`attending a meeting,” but failed to “testify concerning the record-keeping
`
`process related to them” was found not to be a “qualified witness” under
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6). Kolmes, 107 F.3d at 1542–43. In the
`
`instant case, however, Dr. Yaqub has provided extensive testimony
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01475
`Patent 8,996,003 B2
`
`regarding 3GPP’s record-development and record-keeping process,
`
`including the fact that member-contributed documents that are uploaded to
`
`the 3GPP ftp server are indefinitely maintained on that server as of their
`
`upload dates. See Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 24, 28–30, 33, 37, 54, 57. Dr. Yaqub is,
`
`therefore, a qualifying witness. See Conoco, 99 F.3d at 391. Moreover,
`
`regarding R2-075161 and R2-080338 in particular, Dr. Yaqub testifies that
`
`these documents are “true and correct” copies of the documents uploaded to
`
`the 3GPP ftp server as of their upload dates, and provides specific URLs to
`
`the 3GPP ftp server by which they are downloadable. Id. ¶¶ 54, 57.
`
`Accordingly, for the reasons given, we find that R2-075161 (Exhibit
`
`1005) and R2-080338 (Exhibit 1007) are admissible business records under
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 902(11), and that their contents are not hearsay
`
`under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6). We, therefore, deny Patent Owner’s
`
`motion to exclude any portions of Exhibits 1005 and 1007. Moreover,
`
`because we find Exhibits 1005 and 1007 are admissible and not hearsay
`
`under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6), we need not address the parties’
`
`additional arguments (see Pet. Opp. 10–12; Paper 42, 5) regarding whether
`
`these documents are admissible and not hearsay under Federal Rule of
`
`Evidence 807. See Beloit, 742 F.2d at 1423.
`
`
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`The claim construction standard applicable to this inter partes review
`
`proceeding is the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the patent
`
`specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2016); Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC
`
`v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01475
`Patent 8,996,003 B2
`
`reasonable interpretation standard).5 Under this standard, claim terms
`
`generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`
`disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007).
`
`Petitioner provides a proposed interpretation of “camps/camping.”
`
`Pet. 14. Patent Owner responds that “[t]his term does not require express
`
`interpretation to resolve any controversy in this proceeding, so there is no
`
`need for the Board to provide a construction.” PO Resp. 8–9. In light of the
`
`parties’ arguments, we agree with Patent Owner and determine that no term
`
`requires express interpretation to resolve any controversy in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`C. Obviousness over R2-075161 and R2-080338
`
`Petitioner argues that claims 1–20 of the ’003 patent would have been
`
`obvious over R2-075161 and R2-080338. Pet. 23–52. For the reasons
`
`explained below, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–20 would have been obvious
`
`over R2-075161 and R2-080338.
`
`
`
`
`5 The revised claim construction standard for interpreting claims in inter
`partes review proceedings as set forth in the final rule published October 11,
`2018, does not apply to this proceeding, because the new “rule is effective
`on November 13, 2018 and applies to all IPR, PGR and CBM petitions filed
`on or after the effective date.” Changes to the Claim Construction Standard
`for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and
`Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51340 (Nov. 13, 2018) (to be codified at 37
`C.F.R. pt. 42).
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01475
`Patent 8,996,003 B2
`
`
`1. R2-075161
`
`R2-075161 is a Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) paper
`
`that relates to cell reselection. See Ex. 1005, 1 (“inter-frequency/RAT[6]
`
`mobility control in idle mode”). According to R2-075161, “[t]he UE
`
`specific inter-frequency control should be based on absolute priorities.” Id.
`
`at 2. R2-075161 states that UE specific control information may be created
`
`by the eNB. Id. Such information “would include a list of frequency
`
`layers/RATs that the UE should handle with specific priorities.” Id. R2-
`
`075161 also states that, “since the load conditions may [] be temporal, it
`
`should be possible to set an expiry timer for the UE specific control
`
`information.” Id. Upon expiration of that timer, the UE discards the UE
`
`specific control information and proceeds with some other cell reselection
`
`process. Id.
`
`
`
`2. R2-080338
`
`R2-080338 is also a 3GPP paper, which discusses reselection
`
`scenarios for multi-RAT terminals. Ex. 1007, 1. R2-080338 explains that
`
`“a UE located in an area where an E-UTRAN, a UTRAN and a GERAN
`
`network coexist will use the priorities algorithm to determine which RAT it
`
`should be camping on.” Id. According to one scenario, neither the UTRAN
`
`network nor the GERAN network provides the mobile (i.e., terminal or UE)
`
`with the necessary parameters (i.e., priorities and thresholds) for the
`
`priorities algorithm. Id. at 3. R2-080338 proposes that one option is to have
`
`
`6 RAT stands for Radio Access Technology. See, e.g., Pet. v; Ex. 1003 ¶ 52.
`Petitioner explains that a RAT refers to a cellular system, such as LTE,
`UMTS, and GSM. Pet. 28.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01475
`Patent 8,996,003 B2
`
`the E-UTRAN network instead provide the parameters, which the mobile in
`
`turn stores and uses for the priority algorithm. Id. (discussing “Option 3”).
`
`
`
`3. Independent Claims 1 and 15
`
`Claim 1 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium.
`
`Claim 1 recites that the computer readable medium comprises a computer
`
`program code with executable instructions, and that a terminal device
`
`performs a method for cell reselection when the terminal device executes
`
`those instructions. For these limitations, Petitioner identifies the UE in R2-
`
`080338 as a “terminal device.” See Pet. 27–28. Petitioner directs us to the
`
`title of R2-080338 (i.e., “Reselection scenarios for multi-RAT terminals in
`
`Rel-8”), and submits that “R2-080338 [] teaches a method for inter-system
`
`cell reselection.” Pet. 28;7 Ex. 1007, 1. Petitioner explains that “[a] ‘multi-
`
`RAT’ terminal is a UE that can operate on more than one RAT, or, a
`
`terminal that can operate on, for example, LTE, UMTS, and GSM.” Pet. 28.
`
`Petitioner further explains that “[a]ll UEs include a non-transitory computer
`
`readable medium, such as a memory,” which, in the case of R2-080338,
`
`“necessarily include[s] instructions that are executed on the processor to
`
`perform inter-system cell reselection.”8 Id. at 27. As support, Petitioner
`
`relies on the declaration testimony of Dr. Williams. Id. at 27–28 (citing
`
`
`7 Throughout the parties’ briefing, references to the prior art are underlined
`or italicized. In this Decision, we omit any such emphasis when quoting
`either party’s references to the prior art.
`8 Although Petitioner proffers this explanation in the context of R2-075161,
`(see Pet. 27), we find that the explanation also is applicable in the context of
`R2-080338. Moreover, we note that the supporting declaration testimony of
`Dr. Williams refers to both R2-075161 and R2-080338. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 134,
`154.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01475
`Patent 8,996,003 B2
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 153–154 (cross-referencing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 94, 134)). Based on
`
`the full record developed after trial, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
`
`sufficiently shown that R2-080338 teaches the recited limitations.
`
`With respect to the recited method for cell reselection, claim 1 recites
`
`two steps. The first step is “receiving, when in a cell of a Long Term
`
`Evolution (LTE) system, a message including a dedicated priority list from
`
`the LTE system.” For this step, Petitioner directs us to where R2-080338
`
`teaches that “[t]he mobile stores the parameters received from the E-
`
`UTRAN network . . . and uses these parameters for the priority algorithm,”
`
`and that “the UE would remember the thresholds and priorities received
`
`whilst in E-UTRAN.” Pet. 31; Ex. 1007, 3. Petitioner explains that “E-
`
`UTRAN specifically refers to an LTE network.” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1003
`
`¶ 155 (cross-referencing Ex. 1003 ¶ 100)). We note that the parameters for
`
`the priority algorithm in R2-080338 include “priorities and thresholds.”
`
`Ex. 1007, 3 (“necessary parameters for the algorithm (i.e., priorities and
`
`thresholds)”). Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that
`
`Petitioner has sufficiently shown that R2-080338 teaches the recited
`
`“receiving” step.
`
`The second step is “performing, when camping on a cell of a non-LTE
`
`system, the cell reselection in accordance with the received dedicated
`
`priority list before a valid time of the dedicated priority list expires.” For
`
`this step, Petitioner argues that R2-080338 “teaches performing cell
`
`reselection in accordance with cell reselection priorities received from the
`
`LTE network when camping on a cell of a non-LTE system.”9 Pet. 33. As
`
`
`9 We note that Petitioner argues that each of R2-075161 and R2-080338
`separately teaches performing cell reselection while camping on a cell of a
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01475
`Patent 8,996,003 B2
`
`support, Petitioner directs us again to where R2-080338 teaches that, in the
`
`context of Scenarios 7 and 8, “[t]he mobile stores the parameters received
`
`from the E-UTRAN network . . . and uses these parameters for the priority
`
`algorithm,” and that “the UE would remember the thresholds and priorities
`
`received whilst in E-UTRAN.” Pet. 34 (quoting Ex. 1007, 3) (emphases
`
`omitted). Petitioner explains that, “when the terminal is in an area where
`
`there is no LTE network (for example, an area where there is only UMTS or
`
`GSM networks), the terminal should use the priorities from the LTE network
`
`to perform cell reselection.” Id. Petitioner relies on the declaration
`
`testimony of Dr. Williams. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 156 (cross-referencing
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 104)).
`
`Petitioner does not argue that R2-080338 teaches performing cell
`
`reselection according to the dedicated priority list “before a valid time of the
`
`dedicated priority list expires.” For this aspect of the “performing” step,
`
`Petitioner relies on R2-075161, directing us to where the reference teaches
`
`that “UE specific control information is created by the eNB” and “would
`
`include a list of frequency layers/RATs that the UE should handle with
`
`specific priorities.” Pet. 29–30 (quoting Ex. 1005, 2) (emphases omitted).
`
`Petitioner also directs us to where the reference teaches that “[a]n expiry
`
`timer can be signaled as part of the UE specific control information,” and
`
`tha
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
