IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-662-JRG
`
`LEAD CASE
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-661-JRG
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`DEFENDANTS’ INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P,
`§
`NEXTEL OPERATIONS, INC.,
`§
`ERICSSON INC.,
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON, §
`and ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC.
`§
`§
`§
`Defendants.
`______________________________________ §
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`T-MOBILE USA, INC., T-MOBILE US, INC., §
`ERICSSON INC., and
`§
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON §
`§
`§
`
`v.
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC
`Exhibit 2012
`Ericsson v. IV II
`IPR2018-01689
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................. 5
`
`III. ASSERTED PATENT AND CLAIMS ................................................................................ 6
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`PRIORITY ............................................................................................................................ 7
`
`STATE OF THE ART .......................................................................................................... 7
`
`INVALIDITY BASED ON THE PRIOR ART ................................................................. 23
`
`VII.
`
`INVALIDITY UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112 ......................................................................... 194
`
`VIII. ADDITIONAL INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS ............................................................ 221
`
`i
`
`

`

`EXHIBITS AND APPENDICES
`
`Appendices A1-A17
`Appendices B1-B17
`Appendices C1-C15
`Appendices D1-D12
`Appendices E1-E19
`Appendices F1-F19
`
`Invalidity claim charts for USP 9,532,330
`Invalidity claim charts for USP 8,682,357
`Invalidity claim charts for USP 8,897,828
`Invalidity claim charts for USP 8,953,641
`Invalidity claim charts for USP 9,320,018
`Invalidity claim charts for USP 9,681,466
`
`Appendix G
`Appendix H
`Appendix I
`Appendix J
`Appendix K
`Appendix L
`
`Obviousness references for USP 9,532,330
`Obviousness references for USP 8,682,357
`Obviousness references for USP 8,897,828
`Obviousness references for USP 8,953,641
`Obviousness references for USP 9,320,018
`Obviousness references for USP 9,681,466
`
`ii
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Docket Control Order in the above-captioned cases (Dkt. 99)1,
`
`Defendants2 serve these Initial Invalidity Contentions on Plaintiff Intellectual Ventures II LLC
`
`(“Plaintiff” or “IV”) for U.S. Patent No. 9,532,330 (the “’330 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,682,357
`
`(the “’357 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,897,828 (the “’828 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,953,641 (the
`
`“’641 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 9,320,018 (the “’018 Patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 9,681,466 (the
`
`“’466 Patent”) (collectively the “Asserted Patents”). These Invalidity Contentions are based on
`
`Defendants’ current knowledge of the Asserted Patents and prior art, along with their
`
`understanding of Plaintiff’s infringement allegations set forth in its January 19, 2018 Disclosure
`
`of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions (“Infringement Contentions”). Defendants’
`
`investigation of the prior art is ongoing, and Defendants expressly reserve the right to supplement
`
`these Invalidity Contentions as the case proceeds.
`
`Nothing in these Invalidity Contentions is intended, nor should be construed, as a waiver
`
`of any claim construction argument or non-infringement position. Defendants’ statements herein
`
`(including the accompanying claim charts) reflect Defendants’ present understanding of the
`
`purported potential scope of the claims that IV appears to be advocating by way of its Infringement
`
`Contentions. They are not to be seen as any acquiescence to Plaintiff’s interpretation of any claims.
`
`Defendants disagree that any such claim scope is proper. Defendants reserve the right to
`
`supplement these contentions to address any supplemental infringement contentions. For purposes
`
`1 Unless indicated otherwise, docket citations throughout these Invalidity Contentions refer to Civil
`Action No. 2:17-cv-662-JRG (E.D. Tex.).
`2 “Defendants” refers to the defendants in the above-captioned cases, including: T-Mobile USA,
`Inc., T-Mobile US, Inc., Sprint Spectrum L.P., Nextel Operations, Inc., Nokia of America
`Corporation (successor-in-interest to Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc., hereinafter “Nokia”), Ericsson
`Inc., and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson.
`
`04029-00011/9992098.1
`
`

`

`of these Invalidity Contentions, Defendants identify prior art references and provide element-by-
`
`element claim charts based on the apparent constructions of the Asserted Claims advanced by IV
`
`in its Infringement Contentions (which, for at least some limitations, contradict the plain language
`
`of the claim).
`
`Nothing herein shall be interpreted as an admission that: (1) the Asserted Claims are
`
`infringed by any of Defendants’ instrumentalities, (2) any particular feature or aspect of any of the
`
`accused instrumentalities practices any limitation of the Asserted Claims, (3) there is 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112 support for any limitation of the Asserted Claims, or (4) any of IV’s proposed or implied
`
`constructions are supportable or proper.
`
`Consistent with the local Patent Rules (including P.R. 3-6) and the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure, Defendants reserve the right to amend these Invalidity Contentions. The information
`
`and documents that Defendants produce are provisional and subject to further revision as follows.
`
`Defendants expressly reserve the right to amend their disclosures and document production
`
`referenced herein should IV provide any information that it failed to provide in its P.R. 3-1 and 3-
`
`2 disclosures or should IV amend its P.R. 3-1 or 3-2 disclosures in any way, whether explicitly or
`
`implicitly. Further, because discovery has only recently begun and because Defendants have not
`
`yet completed their search for and analysis of relevant prior art, Defendants reserve the right to
`
`amend the information provided herein. Such amendments include, for example, identifying and
`
`relying on additional references, should Defendants’ further search and analysis yield additional
`
`information or references, consistent with the Patent Rules or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`Defendants reserve the right to supplement these contentions in light of any additional prior art of
`
`which Plaintiff is aware, and did not disclose to Defendants in discovery. Also, one or more
`
`Defendants anticipate issuing subpoenas to third parties believed to have knowledge,
`
`2
`
`

`

`documentation and/or corroborating evidence concerning some of the prior art listed herein and/or
`
`additional prior art. These third parties include, but are not limited to, the authors, employers of
`
`authors, inventors, assignees, or former or current employee of assignees, of the references
`
`identified or the Asserted Patents. Defendants reserve the right to supplement these contentions
`
`in light of any newly discovered information produced by these or other companies from which
`
`Defendants may seek discovery.
`
`Moreover, Defendants reserve the right to revise their ultimate contentions concerning the
`
`invalidity of the claims of the Asserted Patents based upon the Court’s construction of the claims
`
`of the Asserted Patents, any findings as to the priority dates of the Asserted Claims, and/or
`
`positions that IV’s, Defendants, or any expert witness may take concerning claim interpretation,
`
`infringement, and/or invalidity issues.
`
`Prior art not included in this disclosure, whether known or not known to Defendants, may
`
`become relevant. In particular, Defendants are currently unaware of the extent, if any, to which
`
`IV will contend that limitations of the Asserted Claims are not disclosed in the prior art identified
`
`by Defendants. To the extent that such an issue arises, Defendants reserve the right to identify
`
`other references that would have made the addition of the allegedly missing limitation to the
`
`disclosed device or method obvious or show that the allegedly missing limitation would have been
`
`known or readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention in
`
`light of the disclosure of the prior art at issue.
`
`Defendants’ claim charts in Appendices A-H cite to or reference particular teachings and
`
`disclosures of the prior art as applied to features of the Asserted Claims, but persons having
`
`ordinary skill in the art generally may view an item of prior art in the context of other publications,
`
`literature, products, and understanding. As such, the cited portions are only examples, and
`
`3
`
`

`

`Defendants reserve the right to rely on uncited portions of the prior-art references and on other
`
`publications and expert testimony as aids in understanding and interpreting the cited portions, as
`
`providing context thereto, and as additional evidence that the prior art discloses a claim limitation.
`
`Defendants further reserve the right to rely on uncited portions of the prior-art references, other
`
`publications, and testimony to establish reasons for combining certain cited references that render
`
`the Asserted Claims obvious.
`
`The references discussed in the claim charts in Exhibits A-L may disclose the elements of
`
`the Asserted Claims explicitly and/or inherently, and/or they may be relied upon to show the state
`
`of the art in the relevant time frame. The suggested obviousness combinations are provided in the
`
`alternative to Defendants’ anticipation contentions and are not to be construed to suggest that any
`
`reference included in the combinations is not by itself anticipatory.
`
`Depending on the Court’s construction of the claims of the Asserted Patent, and/or
`
`positions that IV, Defendants, or any expert witness may take concerning claim interpretation,
`
`infringement, and/or invalidity issues, one or more of the charted prior-art references may be of
`
`greater or lesser relevance and different combinations of these references may be implicated.
`
`Given this uncertainty, the charts may reflect alternative applications of the prior art against the
`
`Asserted Claims.
`
`Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions are based at least in part on certain priority dates that
`
`IV alleges the Asserted Patent are entitled to. Defendants reserve the right to challenge any
`
`different priority date that IV later alleges is appropriate.
`
`Defendants reserve the right to assert invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102(c), (d), or (f)
`
`to the extent that discovery or further investigation yield information forming the basis for such
`
`claims. Defendants reserve the right to assert that the Asserted Patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`
`4
`
`

`

`§ 102(f) in the event Defendants obtain evidence that the named inventors of the Asserted Patents
`
`did not invent the subject matter claimed in the Asserted Patent. Should Defendants obtain such
`
`evidence, they will provide the name of the person(s) from whom and the circumstances under
`
`which the invention or any part of it was derived.
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 3-3 and 3-4, Defendants have provided disclosures and related documents
`
`pertaining only to the Asserted Claims as identified by IV in its Infringement Contentions.
`
`Defendants reserve the right to modify, amend, or supplement these Invalidity Contentions to show
`
`the invalidity of any additional claims that the Court may allow IV to later assert. Defendants
`
`further reserve the right to supplement their P.R. 3-4 document production should they later find
`
`additional, responsive documents.
`
`II.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`To the extent that these Invalidity Contentions rely on or otherwise embody particular
`
`constructions of terms or phrases in the Asserted Claims, Defendants are not proposing any such
`
`constructions as proper constructions of those terms or phrases at this time. The Court established
`
`separate deadlines for the parties’ proposed claim constructions, and Defendants will disclose their
`
`proposed constructions accordingly. For purposes of these Invalidity Contentions, Defendants
`
`may adopt alternative claim construction positions. In particular, portions of these Invalidity
`
`Contentions, including the claim charts attached as Exhibits, may be based on the underlying claim
`
`constructions and/or interpretations as understood from Plaintiff’s Infringement Contentions
`
`and/or Plaintiff’s proposed claim constructions. Defendants, however, do not concede that
`
`Plaintiff’s apparent constructions are proper, and expressly reserve the right to contest any such
`
`constructions. In addition, to the extent that these Invalidity Contentions rely on or otherwise
`
`embody a particular order in which the steps of method claims are performed, Defendants do not
`
`necessarily propose that the method claims must be limited to such order, although Defendants
`
`5
`
`

`

`reserve the right to propose such an order. Moreover, nothing disclosed herein is an admission or
`
`acknowledgement that any Accused Instrumentality, or any of Defendants’ other products or
`
`services, infringes any of the Asserted Claims. Defendants reserve the right to supplement,
`
`modify, or otherwise amend these Invalidity Contentions, including based on the Court’s claim
`
`construction ruling and/or arguments or positions taken during the claim construction process.
`
`Throughout the attached Appendices, Defendants provide examples of where references
`
`disclose subject matter recited in preambles, without regard to whether the preambles are properly
`
`considered to be limitations of the Asserted Claims. Defendants reserve the right to argue, at the
`
`appropriate stage of this case, that the preambles are or are not limitations. Moreover, Defendants
`
`reserve the right to argue that certain claim elements of the Asserted Claims do not in fact limit
`
`the scope of the Asserted Claims.
`
`III.
`
`ASSERTED PATENT AND CLAIMS
`
`Plaintiff asserted the following patents and claims in its Infringement Contentions against
`
`Defendants (with independent claims identified in bold)3:
`
`No.
`
`Asserted Patents
`
`Asserted Claims
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`USP 9,532,330
`
`USP 8,682,357
`
`USP 8,897,828
`
`USP 8,953,641
`
`USP 9,320,018
`
`Claims 1-3, 7-8, 9-10, 14, 17,18-20, 24-25, 26-27,
`31, and 34
`Claims 11-14, 19, 30-33, 38, 47-50, and 54
`
`Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, 12-13, 15-16, 19-20, 22-23,
`26-27, 29-30, 33-34, 36-37, and 40-41
`Claims 1-5, 6-9, 11, 13, 14, 18, 22-24, 25, 27, 28,
`32, and 36-38
`Claims 12-14, 16-18, 20-22, and 24-25
`
`3 The asserted patents and claims are collectively referenced throughout these contentions as the
`“Asserted Patents” and the “Asserted Claims.”
`
`6
`
`

`

`6.
`
`USP 9,681,466
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-7, and 9
`
`For the purposes of these contentions, Defendants only address those claims specifically
`
`asserted by Plaintiff. Defendants reserve the right to amend or supplement this disclosure as
`
`necessary in light of any changes or amendments made, for any reason, to Plaintiff’s infringement
`
`theories, Infringement Contentions, or asserted claims.
`
`IV.
`
`PRIORITY
`
`The filing dates and priority claims for the Asserted Patents differ for each patent. As
`
`discussed below, the Asserted Patents cannot be afforded priority dates earlier than the filing date
`
`of each patent.4 To the extent Plaintiff alleges that any prior art relied on in these Invalidity
`
`Contentions does not actually qualify as prior art to an Asserted Patent, Defendants reserve the
`
`right to rebut those allegations (e.g., by demonstrating an earlier critical date for the challenged
`
`prior art and/or a later priority date for the Asserted Patent and/or Asserted Claim).
`
`V.
`
`STATE OF THE ART
`
`Defendants set forth a summary of their current understanding of the state of the art for
`
`general subject matter of the Asserted Patents. Defendants expressly reserve the right to rely on
`
`each of the prior art references discussed in Section VI below with respect to each of the Asserted
`
`Claims. Defendants also reserve the right to rely on the discussions of the state of the art and prior
`
`art for the Asserted Patents and their file histories in explaining the state of the art and the
`
`4 IV asserts the ’641 patent is entitled to a priority date of March 9, 2004 the filing date of U.S.
`Provisional Application No. 60/551,589. See IV’s Response to Defendants Common Intergatory
`No. 2, April 13, 2018. The ’641 Patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 7,787,431 (“’431
`Patent”), filed on April 29, 2005, more than a year after the filing of U.S. Provisional Application
`No. 60/551,589. See ’431 Patent. Further, the ’431 Patent does not claim priority to, or otherwise
`identify, U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/551,589. Therefore the ’641 Patent is not entitled
`to the priority date of March 9, 2004.
`
`7
`
`

`

`references’ correspondence with the claims of the Asserted Patent. Defendants further expressly
`
`reserve the right to supplement their summary of the state of the art, including for example, by
`
`information from any of the authors or named inventors on any of the prior art references, by
`
`personnel familiar with systems based on any of the prior art, or by technical experts retained on
`
`behalf of any party.
`
`A.
`
`State of the Art for U.S. Patents 9,532,330 and 8,682,357
`
`The ’330 and ’357 Patents generally describe facilitating a fast connection to a cellular
`
`communications network by a mobile terminal after receiving a page. See, e.g.,’330 Patent at 2:63-
`
`3:2. It was well known at the time of the alleged inventions that paging is used to inform the
`
`mobile terminal of “a network-initiated connection,” for example, when traffic needs to be
`
`transmitted from the network to the UE. See, e.g., id. at 1:25-36. The patent specifications of the
`
`’330 and ’357 patents recognize in the Background of Invention that such paging can be used to
`
`wake up a mobile terminal when it is in sleep mode with the goal of reducing power consumption.
`
`See, e.g., id. 2:14-21. A network can employ a paging procedure to inform a mobile terminal to
`
`terminate sleep mode and connect to a radio acess network of base stations as understood in the
`
`3GPP protocol. See, e.g., id. 1:25-28.
`
`As the specifications admit in the Background of the Invention, paging is a conventional
`
`technology and involves waking up the mobile terminal from the sleep state. After waking up, the
`
`mobile terminal reads the paging message(s) transmitted in a downlink paging channel(s) after
`
`which the mobile terminal either connects to the network or performs the task instructed by the
`
`network via the paging message(s). Id. at 1:37-43. The patent specifications also recognize that
`
`it was known that a network-initiated connection is understood to mean that the network may
`
`request the mobile terminal to make a connection to the network and the procedure for waking up
`
`the mobile terminal from the sleep mode in a network-initiated connection employs paging. Id.
`
`8
`
`

`

`1:30-36; see also 2:22-29 (describing in the Background of the Invention, a core network sending
`
`the first paging signal at the time when the mobile terminal will monitor the paging channel).
`
`Further, the patent specifications invoke paging terminology from prior art UMTS in explaining
`
`known aspects of paging. Id. at 1:56-61. In addition, the patent specifications explain that
`
`conventional paging procedures involved sending two signals to convey the page message (i.e.,
`
`two-stage paging). Id. at 2:5-11; see also R2-060994 (describing details of splitting the paging
`
`procedure into two: paging indicator and page message). The first paging signal was used to
`
`indicate whether the paging message is being transmitted to a particular UE or a group of UEs,
`
`while the second signal carried the paging messages for the particular UE or group of UEs. Id.
`
`See 3GPP TSG-RAN WG1 LTE Ad Hoc, Qualcomm Europe, “DL PHY channels: Overall
`
`structure,” R2-060170 (January 2006) (hereinafter “R1-060170”) (describing a common control
`
`channel for providing supporring for paging UEs through indications in a way similar to PICH in
`
`UTRA).
`
`The discussion of paging in the Background of the Invention is consistent with paging
`
`procedures in UMTS existing prior to the priority date of the ’330 and ’357 Patents. For example,
`
`in describing the “typical paging process” in UMTS, U.S. Patent Publication 2004/0227618 to
`
`Hwang et al. (Nov. 18, 2004) explains that “The paging process is a whole process of the network's
`
`paging the UE. To minimize the power consumption of the UE, the network pages the UE by DRX.
`
`The DRX scheme refers to reception of a paging message only at a time preset between the UE
`
`and the network, in which the UE turns on the receiver for paging message reception. Thus, the
`
`UE turns on its receiver only at the preset time according to the DRX scheme and turns off the
`
`receiver at the other times. More specifically, the UE receives the PICH [paging indicator channel]
`
`signal at a paging occasion (PO) and receives a paging message on a PCH, if a PI for the UE is 1
`
`9
`
`

`

`in the PICH signal.” Hwang, [0033]; see also 3GPP TS 25.211 V6.4.0 (describing paging indicator
`
`channel, paging channel, secondary common control physical channel, and relationship
`
`therebetween). The location of the paging message on the PCH can be determined using a fixed
`
`offset from the paging indicator signal. See ’330 Patent at 2:11-13. Alternatively, that decision
`
`can be made adaptively. Hwang, [0034]. Yet another way is for a system broadcast to indicate
`
`the location of time-frequency resource for a paging message or implicitly identify that information
`
`through the location of common paging identity in a control message, which can have the
`
`advantages of scaling resources for paging based on need and not having up front assignment of
`
`resources for paging. 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 #53, R2-060942, Motorola, “Paging/Broadcast
`
`Control” (March 2006) (hereinafter “R2-060942”) at p. 7. Still another way to communicate the
`
`location of the resources for a paging message is through scheduling control information which
`
`identifies such an allocation on the data part of the downlink transmission. See, e.g., R2-060092
`
`(stating that the UE detects scheduling control information, through the presence of its own identity
`
`or a common paging group identity, and the data part of the downlink transmission is received and
`
`further processed by higher layers).
`
`It was also well known prior to the priority dates of the ’330 and ’357 Patents that no
`
`explicit paging channel was necessary because the paging control information can be sent on a
`
`shared or common control channel and the paging message can be transmitted over a shared
`
`channel such as the DL-SCH. See, e.g., Appendices A and G at claim 1[b] and 18[b]; see also R2-
`
`060092 (stating that no paging indicator channel is necessary and that the shared control channel
`
`serves the purpose of a paging indicator); 3GPP TSG RAN WG2 #48bis, Siemens, “On LTE
`
`Channel Structure,” R2-052501 (October 2005) (hereinafter R2-052501) (describing common
`
`control channel); 3GPP TSG RAN WG2#49, Panasonic, “E-UTRA Transport and Logical
`
`10
`
`

`

`Channels,” R2-052860 (November 2005) and NTT DoCoMo, “Channel structure for LTE,” R2-
`
`052890 (November 2005) (supporting transmission of paging over a shared channel); 3GPP TSG
`
`RAN WG2#50, Panasonic, “E-UTRA Transport Channels,” R2-060007 (January 2006)
`
`(concluding that PCH is not needed as the paging may be transmitted over the DL-SCH); 3GPP
`
`TSG-RAN2 #50, Samsung, “Need for separate LTE PCH transport channel,” R2-060043 (January
`
`2006) (proposing as a working assumption that no separate PCH transport channel needs to exist
`
`in LTE, but instead paging will be using the DL-SCH transport channel).
`
`The state of the art also appreciated that various temporary identifiers may also be used for
`
`paging in a radio network, including a paging indicator or specific types of radio network
`
`temporary identifiers. See, e.g., Appendices A and G at claim 1[c] and 18[c]; see also e.g., 3GPP
`
`TS 25.211 V6.4.0 (describing paging indicator channel (PICH) for carrying paging indicators);
`
`R2-060092 (stating that the UE detects scheduling control information, through the presence of its
`
`own identity or a common paging group identity, and the data part of the downlink transmission
`
`is received and further processed by higher layers); 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #52, R2-
`
`060897, NTT DoCoMo, Inc., “User Identities in LTE” (March 2006) (hereinafter “R2-060897”)
`
`(describing a U-RNTI for identifying the UE within the E-UTRAN and may be used for E-UTRAN
`
`originated paging messages and associated responses); see also 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 #53, R2-
`
`060942, Motorola, “Paging/Broadcast Control” (March 2006) (hereinafter “R2-060942”) p. 5
`
`(describing including of UE identity in paging channel message indicating UE being paged as well
`
`as the paging indicator triggering the reading of paging channel message); see also R2-060942 p.
`
`6 (describing common paging identity being used to signify paging indication and presence of
`
`common paging identity signaling need to read paging message sent in associated time-frequency
`
`resource for includsion of UE identity).
`
`11
`
`

`

`It was also understood in the art that a paging message can include an international mobile
`
`subscriber identity (IMSI) or temporary mobile sbucriber identity (TMSI). See, e.g., Appendix A
`
`and G at Claim 2. For example, it was well recognized that a paging record in prior UMTS systems
`
`included an IMSI or TMSI. See, e.g., 3GPP TS 25.331 v6.5.0 published March 29, 2005
`
`(hereinafter “TS 25.331”) p. 500-501 (disclosing paging record with IMSI and TMSI fields); see
`
`also U.S. Patent 6,999,753 to Beckmann et al. (hereinafter, “Beckmann”) at Fig. 9A (disclosing
`
`paging record with IMSI and TMSI fieds). Indeed, even with respect to early discussions in 3GPP
`
`regarding the way forward for LTE, IMSI or TMSI was still considered a part of a paging message.
`
`3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 #52, R2-060918, Siemens, “LTE – Radio Identities” (February 2006)
`
`(hereinafter “R2-060918”) (describing both the IMSI and TMSI and explaining that in E-UTRAN
`
`the use of these identifiers should follow the same principles as in UTRA, for example using TMSI
`
`for paging); R2-061014 (describing paging procedure for Idle mode where an IMSI or TMSI is
`
`used as a long identity to signal the UE identity for the page message, stating for example “a paging
`
`message will carry a longer UE id e.g., IMSI and TMSI”).
`
`All of these prior art solutions were widely known, understood, and implemented by those
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged inventions in the Asserted Patents. Thus, the
`
`state of the art at the time of the filing of the Asserted Patents included all of the concepts disclosed
`
`in the Asserted Patents.
`
`B.
`
`State of the Art for U.S. Patent 8,897,828
`
`At the time of the alleged invention of the ’828 Patent, techniques for power control of the
`
`UE were widely known and understood by those of skill in the art. Examples of power control
`
`techniques well before the ’828 Patent include open loop power control and closed loop power
`
`control. The ’828 Patent admits that open loop power control and closed loop power control were
`
`widely known in the art. As the ’828 Patent recognizes, “[a] wireless communication system often
`
`12
`
`

`

`employ [sic] one of either an open loop scheme or a closed loop scheme to control uplink transmit
`
`power of a mobile radio.” ’828 Patent at 1:41-43. The ’828 Patent describes the operation of
`
`known open loop power control and closed loop power control. Id. at 2:5-32.
`
`In open loop power control, it was known that the UE can determine transmit power based
`
`on a calculated path loss, which it may calculate by subtracting the received power from the
`
`transmitted power of signals on the downlink channel. See, e.g., Zeira at 1:55-67 (explaining how
`
`in open loop power control, the UE “subtract[s] the received power level from the transmission
`
`power level” to determine “a path loss”); Zhang at 4:16-33 (explaining how the UE “determines
`
`path loss in the physical path between the remote unit and base station” and “adjusts the transmit
`
`power level of the remote station to compensate for the path loss”).
`
`In closed loop power control, it was known that the base station sends transmit power
`
`(TPC) commands to the UE. See, e.g., Zeira at 2:1-10 (explaining that “[a]nother approach to
`
`control transmission power level is closed loop power control,” which includes the base station
`
`“transmit[ting] a power command, bTPC” which causes the UE to “increase[] or decrease[] its
`
`transmission power level based on the received power command.”); Lin at 8:19-9:16 (explaining
`
`that transmittion power control data “as Transmit Power Control (TPC) bits in the downlink
`
`communication is well known in the art” and that the TPC bits can signal an increase or decrease
`
`in transmit power). It was also known that those TPC commands could signal an increase or
`
`decrease in transmit power, including by multiple levels or even by varying the level. See, e.g.,
`
`id.; see also, e.g., Andersson at 10:40-61 (explaining that the power control schemes may vary the
`
`power control adjustment, providing examples of adjustments of 1dB, 2 dB, 4 dB, and 8 dB);
`
`Sendonaris a 6:50-55 (explaining “[t]he specific sensitivity of up or down power adjustment
`
`commands, however, can be varied or defined as desired”). It was also known that the TPC
`
`13
`
`

`

`command could signal the actual transmission power level. See, e.g., Krishnan at 8:29-32
`
`(explaining that “the power feedback signal is the transmission power level,” or “the power
`
`feedback signal is a change in the transmission power level”).
`
`The combination of open and closed loop techniques for power control of mobile phones
`
`was also known and understood by those of skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of
`
`the ’828 Patent. See, e.g., Andersson at 3:65-4:6 (explaining power control schemes may “employ
`
`an open loop power control in combination with a closed loop power control”); Zeira at 2:57-3:8
`
`(explaining “[c]ombined closed loop/open loop power control”). Use of an indication to switch
`
`between power control modes was also known and understood by those of skill in the art at the
`
`time of the alleged invention of the ’828 Patent. See, e.g., Andersson at 9:25-44 (explaining use
`
`of a “power control indicator” to “efficiently and effectively communicate the type of power
`
`control adjustment scheme to the radio transceiver without significantly increasing signalling
`
`overhead”); Vembu at 6:4-17 (explaiing how “selection of the power control mode” can be “done,
`
`for example, in a command portion of the transmitted signal”); Krishnan 7:36-8:4 (explaining how
`
`the receiving station can “send[] a feedback signal indicating the status of closed-loop power
`
`control, such as an enable/disable bit”).
`
`Sending a power command and an allocation of a scheduling uplink resource was also
`
`known and understood by those of skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’828
`
`Patent. See, e.g., Khan ¶ 27 (explaining that “control information transmitted for the reverse link
`
`may include at least one scheduling grant(s) and/or transmit power control (TPC) information”);
`
`Lott at 16:46-55 (explaining a scheduler sending grant messages to the terminal); Andersson at
`
`9:37-43 (explaining that “[d]ifferent power control adjustment type messages may also be
`
`14
`
`

`

`conveyed along with other, non-power related control signalling messages that are tyhpically
`
`frequently exchanged between the base and mobile radio stations”).
`
`Each of the power control techniques discussed above, as well as many others, were widely
`
`known at the time of filing.
`
`C.
`
`State of the Art for U.S. Patent 8,953,641
`
`The Li Patent is directed to multi-user, multi-carrier communications systems, in particular
`
`those
`
`that employ OFDM
`
`(Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing).
`
` OFDM
`
`communications were well known long before the priority date of the L