UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ERICSSON INC. AND
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case No. Unassigned
`Patent 8,897,828
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF CLAIMS 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, 12-13,
`15-16, 19-20, 22-23, 26-27, 29-30, 33-34, 36-37, 40-41 OF U.S. PATENT NO.
`8,897,828
`
`
`
`
`

`

`I. 
`
`III. 
`
`V. 
`
`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 8,897,828
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`Summary of Unpatentability Grounds .................................................. 1 
` 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES, STANDING, AND FEES .................................. 1 
`  Mandatory Notices ................................................................................ 1 
`Certification of Grounds for Standing ................................................... 2 
` 
`Fees ........................................................................................................ 3 
` 
`’828 PATENT OVERVIEW ........................................................................... 3 
`’828 Patent Subject Matter .................................................................... 3 
`’828 Patent Prosecution History ............................................................ 7 
`Priority Date of the ’828 Patent........................................................... 10 
` 
`IV.  SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART ....................................................................... 11 
`Combined Open/Closed Loop Power Control (Zeira) ........................ 12 
`Switching Between Power Control Modes at the Network Level
`(Cheng) ................................................................................................ 14 
`Power Control Commands and Allocations on the Same Channel
`(Chen) .................................................................................................. 15 
`  Multilevel TPC commands (Tong) ..................................................... 16 
`Setting Transmit Power Based on Selected Transport Format (Shiu) 16 
` 
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 17 
`“accumulation of transmit power control (TPC) commands” ............ 17 
`“multilevel TPC command” ................................................................ 19 
` 
`VI.  THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .......................... 20 
`  Ground 1: The Combination of Zeira, Chen, and Cheng Renders
`Obvious Claims 15, 19, 22, 26, 29, 33, 36, and 40, as well as Claims
`1, 5, 8, and 12. ..................................................................................... 20 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

` 
`
`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 8,897,828
`
`Ground 2: The Combination of Zeira, Chen, Cheng, and Tong
`Renders Obvious Claims 16, 23, 30, and 37, as well as Claims 2 and
`9. .......................................................................................................... 64 
`Ground 3: The Combination of Zeira, Chen, Cheng, and Shiu Renders
`Obvious Claims 20, 27, 34, and 41, as well as Claims 6 and 13. ....... 69 
`VII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 74 
`
` 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 8,897,828
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`U.S. Pat. 8,897,828 to Anderson (“the ’828 Patent”)
`
`CV of Dr. Wayne Stark
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Wayne Stark
`
`U.S. Pat. 6,728,292 (“Zeira”)
`
`U.S. Pat. 6,411,817 (“Cheng”)
`
`U.S. Pat. 7,532,572 (“Chen”)
`
`Harri Holma & Antti Toskala, WCDMA for UMTS: Radio Access for
`Third Generation Mobile Communications (2d ed. 2002)
`
`U.S. Pat. 6,983,166 (“Shiu”)
`
`U.S. Pat. 6,529,741 (“Tong”)
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Ser. No. 10/917,968 (application leading
`to the ’828 Patent)1
`
`WO 00/57574 (“Zeira”)
`
`U.S. Pat. Pub. 2005/0025056 (“Chen”)
`
`U.S. Pat. Pub. 2001/0036823 (“Van Lieshout”)
`
`Shin & Zeira et al., “Pathloss-Aided Closed Loop Transmit Power
`Control for 3G UTRA TDD,” IEEE (2003).
`
`
`1 For convenience to the Board, all references to Exhibit 1010 are to the page
`
`number endorsed by Ericsson. All other exhibit citations are to the native numbers
`
`within the document.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 8,897,828
`
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`Prabhakar Chitrapu, Wideband TDD: WCDMA for the Unpaired
`Spectrum (2004)
`
`Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (18th ed. 2002)
`
`IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms (4th ed.
`1988)
`
`Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (1993)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Sylvia Hall-Ellis, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 8,897,828
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Ericsson
`
`Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`
`(collectively,
`
`“Petitioners”) request inter partes review (“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq. of Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, 12-13, 15-16, 19-20, 22-23, 26-
`
`27, 29-30, 33-34, 36-37, 40-41 of U.S. Patent 8,897,828 (“the ’828 Patent”).
`
`Petitioners assert that there is a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims are
`
`unpatentable and request review and cancellation of the challenged claims under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`2
`
` Summary of Unpatentability Grounds
`Ground
`Summary
`1
`The Combination of Zeira, Chen, and Cheng Renders Obvious
`Claims 1, 5, 8, and 12, 15, 19, 22, 26, 29, 33, 36, and 40.
`The Combination of Zeira, Chen, Cheng, and Tong Renders
`Obvious Claims 2, 9, 16, 23, 30, and 37.
`The Combination of Zeira, Chen, Cheng, and Shiu Renders
`Obvious Claims 6, 13, 20, 27, 34, and 41.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES, STANDING, AND FEES
` Mandatory Notices
`Real Party in Interest: The real parties in interest are Ericsson Inc. and
`
`3
`
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson.
`
`Related Matters: The ’828 Patent is subject to pending lawsuits entitled
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-
`
`00661-JRG (E.D. Tex.) and Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P.,
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 8,897,828
`
`Case No. 2:17-cv-662-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (the “Litigation”) in which Petitioners
`
`Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson are defendants. In addition,
`
`Petitioners have filed petitions for IPR against other patents held by Patent Owner,
`
`including IPR2018-00727 against U.S. Patent No. 6,628,629; IPR2018-00758
`
`against U.S. Patent No. RE46,206; IPR2018-00782 against U.S. Patent No.
`
`RE46,206; IPR2018-01058 against U.S. Patent No. 7,359,971; IPR2018-01007
`
`against U.S Patent No. 7,412,517; IPR2018-01121 against U.S. Patent No.
`
`RE46,206; IPR2018-1185 against U.S. Patent 9,320,018; IPR2018-01289 against
`
`U.S. Patent 9,681,466; IPR2018-01256 against U.S. Patent No. RE46,206;
`
`IPR2018-01318 against U.S. Patent No. RE46,206; IPR2018-01380 against U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,682,357; and IPR2018-01666 against U.S. Patent No. 9,532,330.
`
`Lead Counsel: Lead Counsel is Chad C. Walters, Reg. No. 48,022 of Baker
`
`Botts L.L.P., and Back-up Counsel includes Harrison G. Rich, Reg. No. 65,132.
`
`Service Information: Baker Botts L.L.P., 2001 Ross Ave., Suite 700, Dallas,
`
`Texas 75201; Tel. (214) 953-6500; Fax (214) 953-6503. Petitioners consent to
`
`service by electronic mail at Ericsson_828IPR@bakerbotts.com. A Power of
`
`Attorney is filed concurrently herewith under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
` Certification of Grounds for Standing
`Petitioners certify that the ’828 Patent is available for IPR. Petitioners are
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 8,897,828
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting IPR of the ’828 Patent.
`
` Fees
`The Office is authorized to charge any fees that become due in connection
`
`with this Petition to Deposit Account No. 02-0384, Ref. No. 017997.1393, as well
`
`as any additional fees that might be due in connection with this Petition.
`
`III.
`
`’828 PATENT OVERVIEW
` ’828 Patent Subject Matter
`The ’828 Patent is directed to uplink power control. Ex. 1001, Abstract
`
`(referring to calculating “transmit power for an uplink communication”). The ’828
`
`Patent Background acknowledges that two well-known power control modes
`
`include “open loop” and “closed loop.” Id. at 2:1-5.
`
`“Open loop” power control involves the UE measuring received signal
`
`strength to set its transmission power based on “path loss.” Id. at 2:6-16. Path loss
`
`is the “difference between the actual transmit power level and the received signal
`
`power level.” Id. at 4:53-56. “Closed loop” power control involves the base
`
`station issuing transmit power control (TPC) commands to the UE to increase or
`
`decrease the UE’s transmit power, where the transmit power is also based on one
`
`or more previous TPC commands (which is also referred to as “accumulation” of
`
`TPC commands). Id. at 2:17-25.
`
`The ’828 Patent’s purported novelty lies in a power control method in which
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 8,897,828
`
`“aspects of both an open loop scheme and a closed loop scheme are strategically
`
`combined to form a power control method.” Id. at 7:64-66. This purported
`
`novelty is illustrated by, for example, Figure 4, which is reproduced as annotated
`
`below:
`
`Id. at 9:22-25 (“FIG. 4 illustrates a wireless communication system using elements
`
`of both open loop and closed loop schemes, in accordance with the present
`
`invention.”). As seen above, the “UE saves 432 the signaled power level,
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 8,897,828
`
`measures the received power level and, if available, saves 434 the interference
`
`measurements for later processing.” Id. at 9:44-46. The difference between the
`
`signaled power level 432 and the measured power level is calculated to determine a
`
`path loss. Id. at 9:63-65. Additionally, the “network generates and transmits 414 a
`
`TPC command” and “downlink signal 416 carries the TPC command 418 over the
`
`radio link.” Id. at 9:55-58. The UE uses the path loss calculation and
`
`“accumulates 420 the TPC commands and uses the accumulated TPC commands . .
`
`. to set 436 the transmit power for future uplink transmissions 400.” Id. at 9:58-61,
`
`10:9-13.
`
`
`
`The ’828 Patent continues that in “a system using the combined power
`
`control scheme, a new physical channel on the downlink may be used to carry fast
`
`allocation and scheduling information to a user, thereby informing the UE of the
`
`uplink resources that it may use.” Id. at 12:44-47. “This new physical channel
`
`could also be used as the feedback channel for the combined power control
`
`scheme” that may “carry TPC commands.” Id. at 12:47-51. The ’828 Patent also
`
`describes an allegedly “new parameter” that tells the UE whether to use
`
`conventional open loop power control, conventional closed loop power control, or
`
`the allegedly novel combined scheme:
`
`For example, a Node-B or RNC may be implemented with a new
`parameter, either included in a signaling command or a broadcast
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 8,897,828
`
`message, where the new parameter instructs a UE to enable or disable
`the setting of uplink transmit power level based on both the path loss
`estimation and the TPC commands. A parameter may indicate
`whether a UE is to use open loop power control, closed loop power
`control or a combined scheme.
`
`Id. at 12:57-65.
`
`
`
`Claim 15 is representative and is reproduced below as emphasized:
`
`A method performed by a wireless network, the
`method comprising:
`sending, by the wireless network, an indication of
`whether accumulation of transmit power control (TPC)
`commands is enabled;
`determining, by a user equipment (UE), a path loss
`of a downlink channel;
`receiving, on a single physical channel by the UE
`if accumulation is enabled, an allocation of a scheduled
`uplink resource and a TPC command, wherein the TPC
`command is accumulated with other received TPC
`commands;
`calculating, by the UE if accumulation is enabled,
`transmit power
`in association with an uplink
`communication based on both the path loss and the
`accumulated TPC commands; and
`receiving, on the single physical channel by the UE if
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 8,897,828
`
`
`is not enabled, an allocation of a
`accumulation
`scheduled uplink resource to transmit data to the
`wireless network at a power level calculated by the UE
`based on the path loss.
`
`
`
`Contrary to the patentee’s original belief in the novelty of a combined open
`
`loop/closed loop power control scheme, this functionality was already well-known
`
`by the filing date of the application that led to the ’828 Patent. Ex. 1003, ¶ 38. As
`
`explained below, the obviousness of these concepts was established during
`
`prosecution. Id.; Ericsson Exhibit 1010, pp. 127, 129-130, Patent Board Decision.
`
`After losing an appeal to the Board, the patentee added the requirement for the UE
`
`to switch between well-known power control schemes using an “indicator.”
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1010, p. 96, 4/30/14 Amendment. As shown by prior art not
`
`before the Examiner during prosecution and explained in detail in the grounds
`
`below, this narrow concept was also a known technique. Ex. 1003, ¶ 38.
`
`
`
`The dependent claims add no novel concepts to the independent claims.
`
`Multilevel TPC commands (Claims 16); the calculation of path loss (Claim 19);
`
`and the calculation of transmit power based on a selected transport format (Claim
`
`20) were all well-known and conventional power control techniques. Id. ¶ 39.
`
` ’828 Patent Prosecution History
`During prosecution of the’828 Patent, the patentee faced fierce resistance to
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 8,897,828
`
`its originally filed amended claims, because the alleged novelty (i.e., the
`
`combination of open and closed loop power control) was already known in the
`
`prior art. Ericsson Exhibit 1010, pp. 745-746, 7/2/2007 OA (relying on WO
`
`version of Zeira).2 The Examiner showed that this basic combination was
`
`anticipated by Zeira. Id.
`
`In response, the applicant amended its claims to pursue a fallback position of
`
`receiving on a downlink channel an allocation of a scheduled uplink transmission
`
`resource and TPC commands. Ericsson Exhibit 1010, p. 667, 12/28/07
`
`Amendment. The Examiner, however, found that these limitations were nothing
`
`more than Zeira’s teachings combined with other, well-known concepts taught by
`
`Chen (relying on U.S. Publication of Chen).3
`
`After the applicant further amended its claims to specify that the downlink
`
`channel was a “shared physical channel,” the Examiner again found these concepts
`
`obvious over Zeira, Chen and another reference, Van Lieshout (U.S. Pub.
`
`2 The Examiner relied on the WO version of Zeira (Ex. 1011), which is
`
`substantially identical to its U.S. counterpart (Ex. 1004).
`
`3 The Examiner relied on the published patent application of Chen (Ex. 1012),
`
`which is substantially identical to the patented version of Chen (Ex. 1006).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 8,897,828
`
`2001/0036823). Ericsson Exhibit 1010, pp. 508-511, 1/8/2010 Final OA. On
`
`appeal of these rejections, the Board upheld the Examiner’s findings that these
`
`concepts were obvious over the prior art. Ericsson Exhibit 1010, pp. 127, 129-130,
`
`Patent Board Decision.
`
`In response to the Board upholding the Examiner’s rejections, the patentee
`
`removed from the claims the concept of a “shared physical channel” and instead
`
`added yet another fallback concept directed to the UE receiving “an indication of
`
`whether accumulation of transmit power control (TPC) commands is enabled,” and
`
`operating according to the combined open/closed loop power control scheme if
`
`accumulation is enabled (e.g., using the prior art combined scheme anticipated by
`
`Zeira) or operating according to the admitted prior art open loop power control
`
`scheme if accumulation is not enabled. Ericsson Exhibit 1010, p. 96, 4/30/14
`
`Amendment.
`
`As shown by the analysis herein, however, using an indication to inform the
`
`UE of what power control scheme to use was a well-known concept. Ex. 1003,
`
`¶ 44. Other prior art, Cheng, discloses the well-known ability of a base station
`
`compatible with two power control modes to send a “physical layer control
`
`message” to the UE to control whether the UE operates according to a “basic” or
`
`“enhanced” power control mode. Ex. 1005, at 11:11-15 (“Whenever the base
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 8,897,828
`
`station 116 seeks to change the dynamic power control mode between the basic
`
`dynamic power control mode and the enhanced dynamic power control modes, the
`
`base station 116 preferably sends a physical layer control message to the mobile
`
`stations (23, 25)”). Moreover, Zeira itself acknowledges that as an alternative to
`
`its combined scheme, an operator may, depending on certain conditions, “desire to
`
`use solely open loop or solely closed loop power control.” Ex. 1004, at 7:23-25.
`
`Zeira further discloses that the operator may change which power control mode is
`
`to be used by changing the weighting factors used in the power control calculation.
`
`Id. at 7:21-27 (“[T]he weighting may be applied to the closed loop factor or both
`
`the open and closed loop factors . . . For example, the operator may use solely
`
`closed loop power control by setting α to zero.”). It would have been obvious to a
`
`POSITA to use the mode-switching control message taught by Cheng to control
`
`the UEs of Zeira to operate according to the combined open/closed loop scheme or
`
`to use solely open loop, depending on the desire of the operator. Ex. 1003, ¶ 46
`
`(citing Ex. 1015, at 116-117). For example, it would have been obvious in view of
`
`Cheng to include one or more weighting factors in a physical layer control message
`
`to set the weights applied to the open-loop factor and closed-loop factor as taught
`
`by Zeira. Id.
`
` Priority Date of the ’828 Patent
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 8,897,828
`
`The application leading to the ’828 Patent was filed on August 12, 2004.
`
`Based on this presumed priority date, the references presented in this petition are
`
`prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or (e).
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART
`
`As evidenced by the prior art and explained by Dr. Stark in the attached
`
`expert declaration (Ex. 1003), the claimed ability to switch between two
`
`conventional power control modes was well known before the ’828 Patent’s
`
`claimed priority date. Ex. 1003, ¶ 48. In addition to the extensive background
`
`knowledge that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)4 would have
`
`brought to bear on the subject matter discussed in the ’828 Patent, the following
`
`prior art demonstrates that the challenged claims would have been obvious.
`
`
`4 Id. ¶ 28 (defining a POSITA as “a person… [with] a B.S. degree in electrical
`
`engineering, computer engineering, or equivalent training, with at least three to
`
`four years of experience in wireless communication technology, or a Master’s
`
`degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or other equivalent degree”
`
`and also recognizing that “someone with less or different technical education but
`
`more relevant practical experience, or more relevant education but less practical
`
`experience, could also be considered a person of ordinary skill in the art”).
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 8,897,828
`
` Combined Open/Closed Loop Power Control (Zeira5)
`Zeira discloses a power control scheme that may be performed on the uplink,
`
`downlink, or both in a wireless communication network. Ex. 1004, at 1:19-25,
`
`3:29-43, Fig. 1. Zeira acknowledges two well-known uplink power control
`
`schemes: open loop and closed loop. Id. at 1:55-2:10 (describing conventional
`
`open loop and closed loop power control).
`
`
`
`Zeira discloses a combined open-loop and closed-loop power control
`
`scheme. Id. at Abstract (“A transmission power level . . . [for] the user equipment
`
`is set based on in part the pathloss estimate weighted by a quality factor adjusted
`
`by the power command.”); see also id. at 2:57-3:8, 5:67-6:3. For example, Figure
`
`4 (annotated below) illustrates a transmitting station (UE) using a combined
`
`scheme:
`
`
`5 U.S. Patent No. 6,728,292 (“Zeira”) was filed on June 11, 2003, and is prior art
`
`under § 102(a).
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 8,897,828
`
`
`bTPC
`
`
`
`Id. at 3:17-19 (“Fig. 4 is a diagram of components of two communication stations
`
`using combined closed loop/open loop power control.”); 4:5-12 (the receiving
`
`station (e.g., base station) includes a “closed loop power command generator 88”
`
`to generate the bTPC [the TPC command]”); 5:16-18 (“As illustrated in FIG. 4, the
`
`combined closed loop/open loop power controller 108 comprises the power
`
`measurement device 110, pathloss estimation device 112, quality measurement
`
`device 114, and transmit power calculation device 116.”). “Using the closed loop
`
`power command, bTPC [the TPC command], and the weighted path loss, the
`
`transmit power calculation device 116 sets the transmit power level of the
`
`receiving station 50 . . . .” Id. at 5:67-6:3.
`
`Zeira further discloses that the operator may control whether the UE uses
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 8,897,828
`
`pure open loop, pure closed loop, or the combined scheme discussed above by, for
`
`example, applying weighting factors to the open loop and closed loop portions of
`
`the calculation:
`
`[T]he weighting [factor] may be applied to the closed loop factor or
`both the open and closed loop factors. Under certain conditions, the
`network operator may desire to use solely open loop or solely closed
`loop power control. For example, the operator may use solely closed
`loop power control by setting α to zero.
`
`Id. at 7:21-27.
`
` Switching Between Power Control Modes at the Network Level
`(Cheng6)
`Cheng discloses a base station that is compatible with both “a basic dynamic
`
`power control mode for basic mobile stations 21 and an enhanced dynamic power
`
`control mode for enhanced mobile stations (23, 25).” Ex. 1005, at 11:1-3. The
`
`base station can command a switch between the basic and enhanced dynamic
`
`power control modes by sending a “physical layer control message” to the UE:
`
`“Whenever the base station 116 seeks to change the dynamic power control mode
`
`
`6 U.S. Patent No. 6,411,817 (“Cheng”) was filed on January 21, 2000, and is prior
`
`art under § 102(b).
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 8,897,828
`
`between the basic dynamic power control mode and the enhanced dynamic power
`
`control modes, the base station 116 preferably sends a physical layer control
`
`message to the mobile stations (23, 25).” Id. at 11:12-16.
`
` Power Control Commands and Allocations on the Same Channel
`(Chen7)
`Chen relates to a scheduling method for performing packet communications
`
`between a mobile station and a base station. Ex. 1006, at Abstract, 1:15-17, 1:59-
`
`65. Chen’s scheduling method includes a base station with a resource allocating
`
`unit 14 and a transmitting unit 15. Id. at 3:5-8. According to Chen, “[t]he resource
`
`allocating unit 14 is configured to allocate a radio resource which is used in uplink
`
`packet communications with the mobile station.” Id. at 4:29-31. “The transmitting
`
`unit 15 is configured to notify the radio resources allocated by the resource
`
`allocating unit 14 to the mobile station via a downlink dedicated control channel
`
`(DCCH).” Id. at 4:38-41.
`
`
`7 U.S. Patent No. 7,532,572 (“Chen”) was filed May 14, 2004, and is prior art
`
`under § 102(e).
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 8,897,828
`
` Multilevel TPC commands (Tong8)
`Tong is directed to uplink power control of a UE in a wireless
`
`communication system. Ex. 1009, Abstract. As shown in the Table reproduced
`
`from Tong below, Tong discloses using more than one power control bit in the
`
`TPC command allows for additional step sizes (i.e., multilevel TPC commands):
`
`
`
`Id. at 4:54-56, 5:15-25.
`
` Setting Transmit Power Based on Selected Transport Format
`(Shiu9)
`Shiu is directed to “[t]echniques to more efficiently control the transmit
`
`power for a data transmission that uses a number of formats (e.g., rates, transport
`
`formats)” in wireless communication networks. Ex. 1008, Abstract. Shiu confirms
`
`8 U.S. Patent No. 6,529,741 (“Tong”) was filed on March 4, 2003, and is prior art
`
`under § 102(b).
`
`9 U.S. Patent 6,983,166 (“Shiu”) was filed on August 20, 2001, and is prior art
`
`under § 102(a).
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 8,897,828
`
`that the target SNIR is typically chosen based on the chosen transport format,
`
`which is relevant to particular of the challenged dependent claims. Id. at 3:21-26.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`An unexpired claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification . . . .” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo
`
`Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2136 (2016). The terms from
`
`challenged Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, 12-13, 15-16, 19-20, 22-23, 26-27, 29-30, 33-34,
`
`36-37, 40-41 that would benefit from claim construction by the Board are
`
`identified below.10
`
` “accumulation of transmit power control (TPC) commands”
`Independent Claims 1, 8, 15, 22, 29, 36 each recite the term “accumulation
`
`of transmit power control (TPC) commands.” For example, the claims generally
`
`recite that a UE receives “an indication of whether accumulation of transmit power
`
`commands is enabled.” The UE then performs certain steps if accumulation is
`
`enabled and performs certain other steps if accumulation is not enabled.
`
`The Board should construe “accumulation of TPC commands” to mean
`
`
`10 In light of the PTO’s proposed rulemaking change, Petitioner contends that its
`
`proposed constructions are also appropriate under the Phillips standard.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 8,897,828
`
`“increasing or decreasing transmit power based on a TPC command where the
`
`transmit power is also based on one or more previous TPC commands.” This
`
`construction is consistent with the specification’s use of the term “accumulation.”
`
`For example, the specification recognizes that TPC commands increase or decrease
`
`the UE’s current transmit power by a step amount. Ex. 1001, at 6:36-38 (“the
`
`network signals a TPC command instructing the UE to increase its current
`
`transmitter power by the step db value”); 6:57-61 (describing that the TPC
`
`command is “feedback [that] indicates either power up or power down” and an
`
`“integrator in the UE is used within the inner loop to update the UE transmit power
`
`by a step amount +/- dB”).
`
`Further, “accumulate” refers to the UE using TPC commands along with a
`
`previously received TPC command to set the transmit power. Id. at 7:16-19 (the
`
`“UE accumulates 320 the TPC commands and uses the accumulated TPC
`
`commands to set 322 a transmit power for future uplink transmissions 300”). This
`
`is explained in more detail below:
`
`TPCi is −1 for a down TPC command, +1 for an up TPC command
`and 0 if no TPC command is received; and step is the magnitude of
`the amount added to an accumulator upon receipt of each TPC
`command.
`
`Id. at 8:66-9:11. Accumulation of TPC commands is specifically described as a
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 8,897,828
`
`summation (∑) of the new TPC command with the previously received commands:
`
`Accumulated TPC commands
`
`
`
`
`The “accumulation of TPC commands” thus refers to the increasing or
`
`decreasing of transmit power based on a TPC command along with other previous
`
`TPC commands. This is also consistent with how a POSITA would have viewed
`
`the ordinary meaning of the term. Ex. 1003, ¶ 61 (citing Ex. 1018).
`
` “multilevel TPC command”
`Challenged dependent claims 2, 9, 16, 23, 30, and 37 recite that “the TPC
`
`command is a multilevel TPC command.” The Board should construe a “multilevel
`
`TPC command to mean a “TPC command that can represent one of more than two
`
`possible transmit power adjustments.” The specification only mentions the term
`
`“multi-level TPC command” once and does so in contrast to a TPC command that
`
`uses binary signaling “such that the TPC command indicates a change in
`
`transmission power by a fixed amount either up or down.” Ex. 1001, at 8:52-56.
`
`“Alternatively, a multi-level TPC command may be used.” Id. at 8:56. The
`
`ordinary meaning of multilevel indicates that the term refers to TPC commands
`
`that have multiple possible levels, while the specification contrasts the multilevel
`19
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 8,897,828
`
`TPC command with a TPC command that has one fixed amount (i.e., step size) and
`
`only two possible levels (up or down by one fixed amount). Therefore, a POSITA
`
`would understand that a multilevel TPC command refers to a TPC command that
`
`has more than two possible levels (or, equivalently, a TPC command that may refer
`
`to more than one fixed amount). Ex. 1003, ¶ 65.
`
`VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
` Ground 1: The Combination of Zeira, Chen, and Cheng Renders
`Obvious Claims 15, 19, 22, 26, 29, 33, 36, and 40, as well as Claims 1,
`5, 8, and 12.
`Petitioners first address reasons why a POSITA would have combined the
`
`cited references. Petitioners next address Claims 15, 19, 22, 26, 29, 33, 36, and 40
`
`and then address Claims 1, 5, 8, and 12.
`
` A POSITA would have been motivated to combine
`Zeira, Chen, and Cheng with a reasonable expectation
`of success.
`
`Zeira discloses at least three uplink power control schemes: open-loop
`
`power control, closed-loop power control, and a combined open/closed loop
`
`scheme. Ex. 1004, at 1:55-67 (describing open-loop power control); 2:1-10
`
`(describing closed-loop power control); 3:29-43 (describing combined open
`
`/closed loop power control). When operating in closed loop or in the combined
`
`scheme, Zeira discloses that a TPC command “is typically sent in a dedicated
`
`channel,” which is “dedicated to the communication between the receiving station
`20
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 8,897,828
`
`50 and the transmitting station 52, step 40.” Id. at 4:31-34. Step 40 of Figure 3
`
`states to “[t]ransmit a communication and the power command from the receiving
`
`station.” See id. Fig. 3, element 40.
`
`While Zeira does not explicitly describe that the “communication” sent with
`
`the power command on the dedicated channel can include an allocation of a
`
`scheduled uplink resource, the Board affirmed that the combination of Zeira and
`
`Chen discloses “on a [shared] physical channel used to carry allocation and
`
`scheduling information from the base station to the remote receiver, receiving an
`
`allocation of a scheduled uplink transmission resource and a transmit power
`
`control (TPC) command,” “except for a ‘shared’ physical channel.” Ericsson
`
`Exhibit 1010, pp. 127, 129-130, Patent Board Decision (affirming Examiner’s
`
`rejection over Zeira, Chen, and finding Van Lieshout discloses the “shared
`
`physical channel” missing from Zeira and Chen).11
`
`Chen discloses a base station that notifies the UE of allocated uplink
`
`resources on a dedicated control channel. Ex. 1006, at 4:30-41. Consistent with
`
`
`11 As noted above in Section III.B, the applicant subsequently filed an amendment
`
`with new claims that removed the requirement that the physical channel be
`
`“shared.” Ericsson Exhibit 1010, p. 96, 4/30/2014 Amendment.
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 8,897,828
`
`the Board’s findings, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to send the
`
`allocated uplink resources on the same dedicated channel between the base station
`
`and the receiving station. Ex. 1003, ¶ 73 (explaining that Zeira and Chen are both
`
`directed to 3GPP UTRA embodiments, in which the dedicated control channel
`
`between a UE and a base station is a logical channel that is mapped to the same
`
`physical channel).
`
`As the Board held, a POSITA would have had am