Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: September 11, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2018-00637
`Patent 8,897,192 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before JAMES B. ARPIN, GARTH D. BAER, and AARON W. MOORE,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: September 11, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2018-00637
`Patent 8,897,192 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before JAMES B. ARPIN, GARTH D. BAER, and AARON W. MOORE,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00637
`Patent 8,897,192 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`
`Nokia of America Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to
`institute inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 5–9, 12–16, and 19–21 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,897,192 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’192 patent”). Paper 2
`(“Pet.”). BlackBerry, Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response.
`Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`Having considered the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the
`evidence of record, and applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a), which requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we
`grant Petitioner’s request and institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 2,
`5–9, 12–16, and 19–21 of the ’192 patent on the asserted ground.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`The ’192 patent is the subject of the following litigation: BlackBerry
`Ltd. v. Nokia Corp., Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy, Nokia Solutions and
`Networks Holdings USA, Inc. and Nokia Solutions and Networks US LLC,
`Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00155-RGA (D. Del.), and Patent Owner served
`Petitioner with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’192 patent on
`February 14, 2017. Pet. 1 (citing Ex. 1006); Paper 6, 2. Patent Owner
`indicates that BlackBerry, Ltd., is a real party-in-interest (Paper 6, 2); and
`Petitioner indicates that Nokia Corp., Nokia Finance International B.V.,
`Nokia Technologies Oy, Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy, Nokia Solutions
`and Networks B.V., and Nokia USA Inc. are real parties-in-interest (Pet. 1).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00637
`Patent 8,897,192 B2
`
`
`C. The ’192 Patent
`The ’192 patent is entitled “Systems and Methods for Discontinuous
`Reception Control Start Time” and is directed to methods, base stations, and
`computer programs that configure a mobile device “to operate in a
`discontinuous reception (DRX) mode.” Ex. 1001, (54), (57), 16:6–7; see
`Ex. 2001 ¶ 19. The ’192 patent claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent
`Application No. 60/972,583, which has a filing date of September 14, 2007.1
`Ex. 1001, (60). Mobile devices, such as mobile phones, i.e., User
`Equipment (“UE”)), include a radio through which the device receives data.
`Ex. 1001, 1:15–46; see Ex. 2001 ¶ 20. Nevertheless, a UE does not need to
`receive data constantly, so battery power may be conserved by turning the
`radio off when the radio is not needed, i.e., putting the receiver “to sleep.”
`As the ’192 patent explains, “[t]his simply means that the receive capability
`of the mobile device’s radio is basically turned off while the mobile device
`is in sleep mode.” Ex. 1001, 3:58–61. When the radio is turned back on, so
`that its receive capabilities are “awake,” it can once again receive data. Id.
`at 5:17–25.
`The method of alternating a radio receiver’s sleep and awake periods
`is referred to as “discontinuous reception,” or “DRX,” and the DRX mode of
`operation “includes DRX sleep periods and DRX awake periods.” Ex. 1001,
`3:58, 16:7–8; see Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 43–45; Ex. 2001 ¶ 20. As noted above, a UE
`receives data from a network using radio frequencies, which are a limited
`resource and must be shared by a plurality of UEs. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 21.
`Thus, these frequencies must be allocated and scheduled by the network. Id.
`
`1 On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we treat this date as the
`earliest effective filing date of the ’192 patent.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00637
`Patent 8,897,192 B2
`
`“Dynamic scheduling involves allocating a resource each time a packet is to
`be transmitted, and the resource can differ for each allocation.” Ex. 1001,
`3:20–22; see Ex. 2001 ¶ 21. In the Long Term Evolution (“LTE”) cellular
`communication standard, this allocation information is transmitted in the
`form of layer 1 Control Channel Elements (“CCEs”). Ex. 1001, 3:26–31,
`3:43–47; see Ex. 2001 ¶ 22.
`In a specific example, a mobile device supporting VoIP
`with dynamic scheduling monitors layer 1 CCEs (Control
`Channel Elements) continuously for dynamic scheduling grants
`even though the mobile device might be only involved in a VoIP
`session. LTE (Long Term Evolution) refers to CCEs, but the
`term has more general application to mean simply control
`information.
`As indicated above, a mobile device may support VoIP
`with dynamic scheduling by monitoring
`layer 1 CCEs
`continuously for dynamic scheduling grants. Unfortunately, this
`might waste battery power for the mobile device, particularly
`when there are very few or even no dynamic scheduling grants
`for the mobile device.
`Ex. 1001, 3:26–38; see id. at 4:3–4.
`To avoid this problem, “[t]he signaling for dynamic scheduling is
`performed during the awake periods,” because the mobile device monitors
`layer 1 CCEs for dynamic scheduling only during its awake period. Id. at
`6:44–45. In other words, “the mobile device monitors . . . a plurality of
`downlink layer 1 control channel elements (CCE’s)” for a “dynamically-
`allocated resource” only during DRX awake periods. Id. at 16:10–13; see
`Ex. 2001 ¶ 24. Thus, to initiate DRX according to the ’192 patent, the
`mobile device and network coordinate, so that the network transmits control
`information only when the mobile device is awake.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00637
`Patent 8,897,192 B2
`
`
`The ’192 patent achieves this coordination through the transmission
`“by the network” to the UE of “a DRX control parameter that indicates a
`first . . . DRX awake period[]” for the UE. Ex. 1001, 16:14–16. This
`ensures that both the UE and the network know when the UE will be awake
`and ready to receive signals from the network. Id. at 16:15–18; see Ex. 2001
`¶ 24.
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Ex. 1001, 16:5–16 (claim 1),
`16:39–50 (claim 8), 17:13–27 (claim 15). Claim 1 is directed to a method of
`operating a mobile device in a DRX mode, claim 8 is directed to a base
`station comprising a processor configured to operate a mobile device in a
`DRX mode, and claim 15 is directed to a computer program product
`encoded on a non-transitory medium which causes a processor to operate a
`mobile device in a DRX mode. Each of claims 2 and 5–7 depends directly
`or indirectly from claim 1; each of claims 9 and 12–14 depends directly or
`indirectly from claim 8; and each of claims 16 and 19–21 depends directly or
`indirectly from claim 15. Consequently, claim 1 is illustrative and is
`reproduced below.
`1. A method comprising:
`configuring a mobile device to operate in a discontinuous
`reception (DRX) mode, wherein the DRX mode includes DRX sleep
`periods and DRX awake periods, wherein during each DRX awake
`period the mobile device monitors, for a dynamically-allocated
`resource, a plurality of downlink layer 1 control channel elements
`(CCE's) in each of a plurality of consecutive sub-frames of that DRX
`awake period; and
`transmitting, by a network, signaling comprising a DRX control
`parameter that indicates a first of said DRX awake periods.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00637
`Patent 8,897,192 B2
`
`Ex. 1001, 16:5–16.
`E. Applied References and Declaration
`Petitioner relies on the following references and declaration in support
`of its asserted grounds of unpatentability.
`Exhibit Declaration or Reference
`1003
`Document R2-071285: “DRX parameters in LTE,” 3GPP TSG-
`RAN WG2 Meeting #57bis, St. Julian’s, Malta, 26–30 March
`2007 (“R2-071285”)
`3GPP TS 36.300 v8.1.0 (2007–6) Technical Specification, 3rd
`Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group
`Radio Access Network; Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio
`Access (E-UTRA) and Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio
`Access Network (E-UTRAN); Overall Description; Stage 2
`(Release 8) (“3GPP”)
`Declaration of Balazs Bertenyi
`Declaration of Alastair Brydon, Ph.D.
`
`1004
`
`1010
`1011
`Pet. viii.
`
`F. Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner argues that claims 1, 2, 5–9, 12–16, and 19–21 of the ’192
`patent are unpatentable on the following ground:
`References
`Ground
`R2-071285 and 3GPP
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Claims
`1, 2, 5–9, 12–16, and
`19–21
`
`Pet. 11.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner argues that:
`“[A] person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention of the ’192 Patent would have had at least a bachelor’s
`degree in wireless communications, electrical engineering, or a
`similar degree, and at least three to five years of experience
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00637
`Patent 8,897,192 B2
`
`
`working in the field.” That person’s experience would have
`included experience with telecommunications and networking,
`radio-access networking, and/or service provisioning in 3G and
`4G networks.
`Id. at 16–17 (quoting Ex. 1011 ¶ 36). Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Brydon,
`asserts that he would have met or exceeded this assessment in September
`2007. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 36–37; see id. ¶¶ 6–17. Patent Owner’s declarant,
`Dr. Michael Kotzin, asserts that he too would have met or exceeded it.
`Ex. 2001 ¶ 16. For purposes of this Decision, and to the extent necessary,
`we adopt Petitioner’s assessment.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In determining the
`broadest reasonable construction, we presume that claim terms carry their
`ordinary and customary meaning. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d
`1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This presumption may be rebutted when a
`patentee, acting as a lexicographer, sets forth an alternate definition of a
`term in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`Petitioner argues that “[n]o specific constructions are necessary for
`the resolution of this proceeding” and that “[a]ll claim terms should be given
`their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and file
`history of the ’192 Patent.” Pet. 17; see Ex. 1011 ¶ 32. Thus, neither
`Petitioner nor its declarant identifies expressly the construction for any claim
`term. Patent Owner also proposes no express constructions for any claim
`term.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00637
`Patent 8,897,192 B2
`
`
`Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only
`to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See, e.g., Nidec Motor
`Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed.
`Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and
`only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid
`Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).
`For purposes of this Decision, no claim terms require express construction.
`
`C. Asserted Grounds
`
`1. Overview
`
`Petitioner argues that claims 1, 2, 5–9, 12–16, and 19–21 of the ’192
`patent are rendered obvious by the combined teachings of R2-071285 and
`3GPP, and relies upon the Declarations of Mr. Bertenyi (Ex. 1010) and
`Dr. Brydon (Ex. 1011) to support its arguments. Pet. 4–11, 17–51. For the
`reasons set forth below, we grant institution of inter partes review of all of
`the challenged claims on this ground.
`
`2. Legal Principles
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if “the
`differences between the claimed subject matter [] and the prior art are such
`that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00637
`Patent 8,897,192 B2
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art;2 and (4) when in evidence, objective
`evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations.3 Graham v.
`John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`3. Obviousness over R2-071285 and 3GPP
`
`a. Overview
`
`Petitioner argues that both R2-071285 and 3GPP are printed
`publications. Pet. 4–11. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner fails to
`demonstrate that R2-071285 is a printed publication, but, at this time, does
`not contend that 3GPP is not a printed publication. Prelim. Resp. 10–24.
`We begin our evaluation of Petitioner’s obviousness challenge by
`considering whether, on this record, Petitioner has demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that R2-071285 is a printed
`publication. Because we determine that Petitioner has made a threshold
`showing that R2-071285 is a printed publication, we continue our evaluation
`of Petitioner’s obviousness challenge with an overview of R2-071285 and
`3GPP.
`
`b. R2-071285 as a Printed Publication
`
`“Whether a reference constitutes a printed publication under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is a legal conclusion based on underlying factual
`determinations.” GoPro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding LLC, 898 F.3d 1170,
`
`
`2 See supra Section II.A.
`3 Patent Owner does not present arguments or evidence of such secondary
`considerations in the Preliminary Response. But see Pet. 49.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00637
`Patent 8,897,192 B2
`
`1173–74 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir.
`2009)). The Federal Circuit has explained that
`
`“[a]ccessibility goes to the issue of whether interested members
`of the relevant public could obtain the information if they wanted
`to” and “[i]f accessibility is proved, there is no requirement to
`show that particular members of the public actually received the
`information.” Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc.,
`848 F.2d 1560, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Accordingly, “[a]
`reference will be considered publicly accessible if it was
`‘disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that
`persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or
`art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.’” Blue
`Calypso[, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.], 815 F.3d [1331,] 1348 [(Fed.
`Cir. 2016)] (quoting Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade
`Comm’n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
`Gopro, 898 F.3d at 1174. In determining whether Petitioner has made a
`threshold showing that R2-071285 is a printed publication sufficient to
`warrant institution of inter partes review, we “take into account a patent
`owner preliminary response where such a response is filed, including any
`testimonial evidence, but a genuine issue of material fact created by such
`testimonial evidence will be viewed in the light most favorable to the
`petitioner solely for purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes
`review.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
`
`Petitioner argues that:
`R2-071285 is a written proposal submitted by Nokia to the
`3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #57bis, in St. Julian’s, Malta,
`held from the 26th through the 30th of March 2007. As
`established by the Declaration of Balazs Bertenyi, R2-071285
`became a prior art printed publication no later than March 22,
`2007, before the earliest possible priority date of the challenged
`claims.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00637
`Patent 8,897,192 B2
`
`Pet. 4. In support of this argument, Petitioner relies on testimony from
`Mr. Bertenyi, who served for 15 years as a delegate, the head of a
`delegation, the chairman of working groups, and the chair of technical
`specification groups within 3rd Generation Partnership Project, about the
`practices of the 3rd Generation Partnership Project regarding the treatment
`of submitted documents. See Ex. 1010. In particular, Mr. Bertenyi testifies
`that all contributions of proposed technical specifications, such as R2-71285,
`and other documents related to the development of cellular tele-
`communications standards were uploaded to the 3rd Generation Partnership
`Project’s publicly accessible, File Transfer Protocol (“FTP”) server,
`http://www.3gpp.org/ftp. Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 23–25). Mr. Bertenyi
`further testifies that “[a]ny member of the public could download
`contributions to technical specifications without restriction from the 3rd
`Generation Partnership Project’s FTP server.” Id. at 5 (citing Ex. 1010
`¶¶ 23–25). According to Mr. Bertenyi, “[i]n March 2007, it was widely
`known in the telecommunications industry that 3GPP’s FTP server provided
`information to the public about telecommunications standards.” Id. (citing
`Ex. 1010 ¶ 27).
`
`In particular, Mr. Bertenyi testifies that, when a technical specification
`or other document was uploaded to the 3rd Generation Partnership Project’s
`FTP server, it was standard practice for the 3rd Generation Partnership
`Project to notify members by e-mail that the specification or other document
`had been uploaded to the server. Id. (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 26, 31). Further,
`Mr. Bertenyi testifies that the notified members would have included
`companies interested in and operating in accordance with cellular
`telecommunications standards. Id. In addition, Mr. Bertenyi testifies that
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00637
`Patent 8,897,192 B2
`
`uploaded technical specifications and other documents were indexed (id. at
`5–6 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 8, 21, 22, 32)) and date-stamped (id. at 6 (citing
`Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 28, 32)). Finally, Mr. Bertenyi testifies that, “based on his
`personal knowledge and his review of the 3rd Generation Partnership
`Project’s business records,” “R2-071285 was published and freely available
`on [3rd Generation Partnership Project’s] public FTP server as of March 22,
`2007.” Id. (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 33–36).
`
`Patent Owner disagrees and contends that Petitioner’s arguments and
`evidence are insufficient to demonstrate that R2-071285 was publicly
`accessible prior to the earliest effective filing date of the ’192 patent.
`Prelim. Resp. 13–24. In particular, Patent Owner contends that Petitioner
`improperly seeks to extend the 3rd Generation Partnership Project’s general
`practices regarding uploading, notification, and indexing, to a specific
`document, R2-071285. Id. at 15–20. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner
`fails to provide evidence specifically linking these practices to R2-071285.
`See id. at 17 (uploading), 18 (notification), 19 (indexing). Nevertheless, we
`have Mr. Bertenyi’s testimony on each of these points, and, at present, this
`testimony is unrebutted and untested.
`
`Patent Owner also asserts that its declarant, Dr. Kotzin, was
`unsuccessful in his recent attempt to search for R2-071285 on the Internet.
`Specifically, Patent Owner states that:
`While Dr. Kotzin’s unsuccessful search in 2018 does not
`necessarily prove that the same search would not have worked in
`2007, it is strong evidence that R2-071285 was not searchable at
`that time, unless one believes that internet search capabilities
`regressed from 2007 to 2018. While we cannot go back in time
`to determine what would have happened in 2007 if one had
`actually run that search then, it is not BlackBerry’s obligation to
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00637
`Patent 8,897,192 B2
`
`
`do so. Petitioner has the burden of proof, 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37
`C.F.R. § 42.20(c), and Nokia and Mr. Bertenyi offer no evidence
`for the contention that R2-071285 was “fully searchable and
`available to users via conventional search engines like, for
`example, the Google search engine, in March 2007.” (Ex. 1010
`at ¶ 32.)
`Prelim. Resp. 21–22; see Ex. 2001 ¶ 29 (“I understand that Mr. Bertenyi
`contends that R2-071285 was searchable ‘using conventional internet search
`engines (such as Google) in March 2007.’ (Pet. at 6; [Ex. 1010] ¶ 32.) I do
`not believe that this is correct.”; emphasis added). Dr. Kotzin’s inability to
`locate R2-071285 in 2018 does not contradict Mr. Bertenyi’s testimony that
`R2-071285 could have been located by a person interested and skilled in the
`relevant art in 2007. Ex. 1010 ¶ 32; but see Ex. 2001 ¶ 29.
`
`On this record, and for purposes of this Decision, we are persuaded
`that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that R2-071285 was a printed
`publication as of the effective filing date of the ’192 patent.
`
`c. R2-071285 (Ex. 1003)
`
`R2-071285, entitled “DRX parameters in LTE,” is a proposal to use
`“concepts for discontinuous reception and transmission, DRX and DTX,”
`which will “save UE terminal power consumption while being ‘always on.’”
`Ex. 1003, 1. In particular, R2-071285 proposes to use a DRX Cycle,
`controlled by three parameters: UE_DRX_cycle, UE_DRX_Offset, and
`UE_DRX_on_duration. Id.; see Ex. 2001 ¶ 30. According to Dr. Kotzin,
`
`The “UE_DRX_cycle” parameter denotes the “time difference
`between two consecutive DRX periods.” ([Ex. 1003,] 1.) The
`“UE_DRX_Offset”
`parameter
`provides
`an
`“indication
`of when
`[a]
`‘first’ DRX
`period
`starts.”
`(Id.)
`The “UE_DRX_on_duration” parameter denotes “how long the
`UE remains awake when it wakes up . . . .” (Id. at 2.) R2-071285
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00637
`Patent 8,897,192 B2
`
`
`discloses that a “DRX period” is the combination of both the
`DRX sleep and DRX awake periods in one cycle. (Id.)
`Ex. 2001 ¶ 30; see Ex. 1010 ¶ 48. Figure 1 of the R2-071285 is reproduced
`below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates each of these three parameters. Ex. 1003, 1.
`As an extension of its proposal, R2-071285 also discloses a fourth
`“inactivity” parameter labeled Inactivity_Threshold_for_UE_DRX_cycle,
`which “denotes the number of subframes the UE has to continuously
`monitor the downlink allocation information after the subframe when it was
`last addressed.” Ex. 1003, 3; see Ex. 2001 ¶ 31. The
`“Inactivity_Threshold_for_UE_DRX_Offset” parameter proposed in
`R2-071285 [] extends an already existing ‘awake’ period.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 32.
`Thus, “the inactivity timer [] operates only when a first ‘DRX awake
`period[]’ is already set.” Id. Even when the inactivity timer expires, the UE
`will awake again at “the next regular DRX awake period.” Id.; see Ex. 1011
`¶ 50. R2-071285 proposed inclusion of both the UE_ DRX_on_duration and
`Inactivity_Threshold_for_UE_DRX_cycle parameters in an LTE version of
`DRX. Ex. 1003, 4.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00637
`Patent 8,897,192 B2
`
`
`d. 3GPP (Ex. 1004)
`
`3GPP describes the “Physical Layer for E-UTRA,” including the
`“generic frame structure” for control and data transmissions. Ex. 1004, 16.
`According to 3GPP, each “10 ms radio frame” is subdivided into “ten
`equally sized subframes,” each of which can be assigned for “either
`downlink or uplink transmission.” Id. 3GPP also describes the various
`“channels” over which uplink and downlink transmissions may be
`conducted. One of those channels is the “Physical downlink control
`channel” or PDCCH. Id. at 18 (Section 5.1.3.). The PDCCH conveys
`“downlink control signalling” which consists, in part, of “[t]ransport format”
`and “resource allocation.” Id. Control channels generally are “formed by
`aggregation of control channel elements, each control channel element
`consisting of a set of resource elements.” Id.
`In order to utilize data resources effectively, 3GPP utilizes “dynamic
`resource schedulers” for downlink and uplink transmission. Id. at 56
`(Section 11.1.1.). For example, in both the downlink and the uplink,
`E-UTRAN can “dynamically allocate resources [Physical Resource Blocks
`(“PRBs”)] and [Modulation and Coding Scheme (“MCS”)] to UEs” on
`“L1/L2 control channel(s).” Id. A UE monitors “L1/L2 control channel(s)
`in order to find possible allocation when its downlink reception is enabled
`(activity governed by DRX).” Id. It also monitors “L1/L2 control
`channel(s) in order to find possible allocation for uplink transmission when
`its downlink reception is enabled (activity governed by DRX).” Id. At the
`3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #63, Jeju, South Korea (18–22 August
`2008), Petitioner and others proposed a revision to R2-071285, in light of
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00637
`Patent 8,897,192 B2
`
`discussions at an earlier meeting in Warsaw, to “clarify” that L1/L2
`structure parameters include PDCCH. Ex. 2002, 1.
`
`e. Mapping of Claim 1 onto R2-071285 and 3GPP
`
`Petitioner provides a mapping of the limitations of independent
`claim 1 onto the combined teachings of R2-071285 and 3GPP. Pet. 21–30;
`see Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 65–78. Petitioner argues that R2-071285 alone teaches or
`suggests all of the limitations of independent claim 1, except that
`R2-071285 does not expressly describe that the mobile device monitors “for
`a dynamically-allocated resource, a plurality of downlink layer 1 control
`channel elements (CCE’s) in each of a plurality of consecutive sub-frames of
`that DRX awake period.” Pet. 24. Petitioner argues, however, that
`R2-071285’s teachings in combination with those of 3GPP teach or suggest
`this limitation (id. at 24–27) and that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have had reason to combine the teachings of R2-071285 and 3GPP to
`achieve the method, as recited in claim 1 (id. at 17–21).
`Petitioner argues that R2-071285 teaches the step of “configuring a
`mobile device to operate in a discontinuous reception (DRX) mode, wherein
`the DRX mode includes DRX sleep periods and DRX awake periods.” Id. at
`21–23 (citing Ex. 1003, 1–2, Fig. 1); see Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 65–67. Referring to
`R2-071285’s Figure 1, Petitioner argues that R2-071285 teaches “use of a
`DRX configuration permitting a UE to operate in ‘DRX cycles’ comprising
`an ‘on’ period—when the UE is ‘ready to receive/transmit data and decode[]
`the allocation information’—and ‘off’ periods—when the UE is ‘sleeping,’
`and is not ready to receive/transmit data or decode allocation information.”
`Pet. 22; see Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 66–67.
`In addition, Petitioner argues that R2-071285 in combination with
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00637
`Patent 8,897,192 B2
`
`3GPP teaches that “during each DRX awake period the mobile device
`monitors, for a dynamically-allocated resource, a plurality of downlink layer
`1 control channel elements (CCE’s) in each of a plurality of consecutive
`sub-frames of that DRX awake period.” Pet. 22–27; see Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 70–75.
`R2-071285 describes an LTE “DRX cycle” comprising “on,” or “awake,”
`periods and “off,” or “sleeping,” periods. Ex. 1003, 2, Fig. 1; Ex. 1011 ¶ 70.
`The “DRX cycle” constitutes a “pattern by which the UE must listen to the
`allocation information in downlink” during “on” periods. Ex. 1003, 1;
`Ex. 1011 ¶ 70.
`As noted above, the duration of a DRX “on” or “awake” period is
`measured “in terms of subframes.” Ex. 1003, 1; Ex. 1011 ¶ 70.
`Nevertheless, Petitioner acknowledges that “R2-071285 does not expressly
`describe that the mobile device monitors ‘for a dynamically-allocated
`resource, a plurality of downlink layer 1 control channel elements (CCE’s)
`in each of a plurality of consecutive sub-frames of that DRX awake period.’”
`Pet. 24. Petitioner argues, however, that 3GPP teaches a mobile device that
`supplies this limitation.
`In particular, 3GPP explains that “[e]ach sub-frame consists of two
`equally sized slots.” Ex. 1004, 16. Petitioner argues that 3GPP describes
`that resource allocation information is present in each sub-frame and that
`resource allocation information includes “control channel elements” sent via
`downlink to the UE on L1 control channels, which are always monitored by
`the UE when downlink reception is enabled (i.e., during each DRX “awake”
`period). Pet. 26. Each subframe further includes resource allocation
`information, which resource allocation information is included in up to three
`Orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (“OFDM”) symbols at the
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00637
`Patent 8,897,192 B2
`
`beginning of each sub-frame. Id. at 18 (Section 5.1.3); see Ex. 1011 ¶ 71.
`Further, with respect to downlink scheduling, 3GPP describes use of
`“dynamic resource schedulers,” which “allocate physical layer resources”
`including “physical resource blocks (PRB) and MCS.” Ex. 1004, 56
`(Section 11.1.); see Ex. 1011 ¶ 73. These schedulers can be used in
`downlink or uplink, such that the LTE network can “dynamically allocate
`resources (PRBs and MCS)” to UEs on “L1/L2 control channel(s).”
`Ex. 1004, 56; see Ex. 1011 ¶ 73.
`L1 control channels appear to be layer 1 control channels and include
`an “aggregation of control channel elements, each control channel element
`consisting of a set of resource elements.” Ex. 1004, 18; see Ex. 1011 ¶ 74.
`3GPP states that a “UE always monitors the L1/L2 control channel(s) in
`order to find possible allocation . . . when its downlink reception is enabled
`(activity governed by DRX).” Ex. 1004, 56; see Ex. 1011 ¶ 74. Thus,
`Petitioner argues that the physical layer resources, including PRBs and
`MCS, teach “dynamically-allocated resources” as recited in claim 1.
`
`Finally, Petitioner argues that R2-071285 teaches the step of
`“transmitting, by a network, signaling comprising a DRX control parameter
`that indicates a first of said DRX awake periods.” Pet. 28–30. Specifically,
`Petitioner argues that “R2-071285 discloses transmitting, by a network,
`signaling comprising a DRX control parameter—a ‘UE_DRX_Offset’
`parameter or an ‘Inactivity_Threshold_for_UE_DRX_cycle’ parameter—
`that indicates a first of said DRX awake periods.” Id. at 28 (emphasis
`added).
`As noted above, R2-071285 describes several “DRX control
`parameters” used by an eNodeB (“eNB”) to configure a UE to perform
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00637
`Patent 8,897,192 B2
`
`DRX, including a “UE_DRX_Offset” parameter and an
`“Inactivity_Threshold_for_UE_DRX_cycle” parameter. See supra
`Section II.C.3.c.; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 77–78. The DRX period may be defined by
`an “on” period followed by an “off” period. See Ex. 1003, Fig. 1. The
`“UE_DRX_Offset” parameter indicates when the “‘first’ DRX period
`starts,” which equals “a DRX starting time,” offset from a default cycle
`timing. Ex. 1003, 1; see Ex. 1011 ¶ 77. The “UE_DRX_Offset” parameter
`may be transmitted to the UE from the eNB via “higher layer signaling (e.g.
`RRC).” Ex. 1003, 1; see Ex. 1011 ¶ 77. Thus, the “UE_DRX_Offset”
`parameter teaches “a DRX control parameter” that indicates a first of the
`DRX awake periods, as recited in claim 1, which, Petitioner argues, may
`include signaling which “identifies the start time of the first on period for the
`DRX control.” Ex. 1011 ¶ 77; see Ex. 1001, 12:30–36.
`
`Petitioner further argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have had at least three reasons to combine the teachings of
`R2-071285 and 3GPP to achieve the method, as recited in claim 1. Pet. 17–
`21. First, R2-071285 teaches that DRX may be used in an LTE network to
`save UE terminal power consumption while being “on.” Id. at 18.
`However, R2-071285 does not teach “the mechanisms for the underlying
`operation of the physical layer, including the operation of ‘sub-frames,’ or
`the mechanisms for obtaining the necessary ‘allocation information in
`downlink.’” Id. at 18–19. Petitioner argues that R2-071285’s goal of
`reduced power consumption would be furthered by modifying R2-071285 to
`include 3GPP’s teaching of “the operation of the underlying physical layer,
`including the operation of sub-frames, and the mechanisms for obtaining the
`allocation information.” Id. at 19; see Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 55–56. Specifically,
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00637
`Patent 8,897,192 B2
`
`Petitioner argues that “[c]ombining the methods disclosed in R2-071285 and
`3GPP . . . would reduce the amount of time the user equipment would need
`to keep its reception capability on, accomplishing R2-071285’s goal of
`saving power consumption and avoiding a need for re-establishing
`connections with the eNB.” Id. at 19; see Ex. 1011 ¶ 57.
`
`Second, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have had reason to combine the teachings of R2-071285 and 3GPP
`because such a combination already had been suggested.
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
