UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`TESLA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`Case No. IPR2025-00217
`U.S. Patent No. 10,952,153
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`II. ‘153 PATENT SPECIFICATION ................................................................... 4
`A. Background ............................................................................................ 5
`1. Power Control in Wireless Networks .................................................. 5
`2. Tradeoffs Between Open-loop Power Control and Closed-loop
`Power Control ..................................................................................... 5
`3. Problem Addressed By The ‘153 Patent ............................................. 6
`B. Detailed Description ............................................................................... 6
`1. Node-B Sends a Parameter to the UE, Instructing it to Enable
`Accumulation ...................................................................................... 7
`2. Accumulation of TPC Commands ...................................................... 7
`a) Accumulation in Closed-loop Only Scheme .................................. 7
`b) Accumulation in Combined Open and Closed-loop Scheme ......... 7
`3. Multi-Level TPC Command ............................................................... 9
`4. Node-B Transmits a Single Physical Channel That Carries Both Fast
`Allocation/Scheduling Information and TPC Commands ................10
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................10
`A. “TPC COMMAND ACCUMULATION” ...........................................11
`1. Claim Language ................................................................................12
`2. Intrinsic Support ................................................................................13
`3. Prosecution History ...........................................................................15
`4. Extrinsic Evidence .............................................................................15
`5. Conclusion .........................................................................................17
`B. “On a Single Physical Channel” ..........................................................18
`IV. REFERENCES/EVIDENCE RELIED ON IN THE PETITION ..................19
`A. Andersson .............................................................................................19
`1. Power Control Routine ......................................................................20
`2. Power Control Indicator ....................................................................21
`3. Dedicated Physical Control Channel (DPCCH) ...............................21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`B. Baker ....................................................................................................22
`C. Khan .....................................................................................................23
`1. Orthogonal Walsh Covers .................................................................25
`2. Time Multiplexed Channel Structure ................................................26
`D. Zeira .....................................................................................................27
`1. Implementation of Closed/Open-loop Power Control ......................28
`2. Zeira Notes an Operator May Use Solely Open Loop or Solely
`Closed Loop ......................................................................................29
`E. Declaration of Michael D. Kotzin, PH.D .............................................29
`V. THE PETITION FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS .......................................31
`A. Ground 1 – Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 12, 14 and 15 Are Not Obvious Over
`Andersson, Baker and Khan Pursuant To 35 U.S.C. § 103 .................31
`1. Andersson and Baker, Alone or in Combination, Do Not Disclose or
`Suggest “The Processor is Configured to Cause: The Receiver to
`Receive, From a Network Device, an Indication that Transmit Power
`Control Command (TPC) Accumulation is Enabled,” As Required
`By Claim 1.........................................................................................32
`2. Andersson and Khan, Alone or in Combination, Do Not Disclose or
`Suggest “Receiv[ing], From the Network Device, on a Single
`Channel, Scheduling Information and Power Control Information...,”
`As Required By Claim 1 ...................................................................38
`a) Motivation to Combine .................................................................38
`1) In Andersson, and Its Base Technology, the UE’s Dedicated
`Uplink Transport Channel Was Semi-Statically Configured
`Using RRC Signaling .........................................................40
`2) The RRC Signaling Used to Configure the UE’s Dedicated
`Uplink Transport Channel Was an RNC Function .............41
`3) Andersson and Khan Use Fundamentally Incompatible
`Channel Multiplexing Structures ........................................43
`b) Alleged Benefits of Petitioner’s Proposed Combination ..............46
`1) Larger Number of Active Wireless Units ............................47
`2) Reduced Complexity ...........................................................48
`3) Reduced Latency .................................................................48
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`4) A POSITA Would Understand that Scheduling Information
`is Control Information that Naturally Belongs Within a
`Control Channel ..................................................................49
`3. Ground 1 - Conclusion ......................................................................49
`B. Ground 2 – Claims 3 and 13 are Not Obvious Over Andersson, Baker,
`Khan and Dick Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................49
`C. Ground 3 – Claims 1, 2,4, 5, 10-12, 14, 15 and 20 Are Not Obvious
`Over Zeira, Baker, Khan and Tong Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103 ........50
`1. Zeira and Baker, Alone or in Combination, Do Not Disclose or
`Suggest “The Processor is Configured to Cause: The Receiver to
`Receive, From a Network Device, an Indication that Transmit Power
`Control Command (TPC) Accumulation is Enabled,” As Required
`By Claim 1.........................................................................................50
`2. Zeira and Khan, Alone or in Combination, Do Not Disclose or
`Suggest “a Single Physical Channel That Carries “Scheduling
`Information and Power Control Information” ..................................54
`a) Motivation to Combine .................................................................55
`1) In Zeira, and Its Base Technology, the UE’s Dedicated
`Uplink Transport Channel Was Semi-Statically Configured
`Using RRC Signaling .........................................................57
`2) The RRC Signaling Used to Configure the UE’s Dedicated
`Uplink Transport Channel Was an RNC Function .............58
`3) Zeira’s Disclosure of Resource Grants Would Not Imply to
`a POSITA a Scheduling Function Beyond What the
`Underlying Technology Was Already Using .....................59
`4) Zeira and Khan Use Fundamentally Incompatible Channel
`Multiplexing Structures ......................................................60
`b) Alleged Benefits of Petitioner’s Proposed Combination Fail for
`the Same Reasons as Ground 1 ...........................................62
`1) Larger Number of Active Wireless Units ............................63
`2) Reduced Complexity ...........................................................63
`3) Reduced Latency .................................................................64
`4) A POSITA Would Understand that Scheduling Information
`is Control Information that Naturally Belongs Within a
`Control Channel ..................................................................64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`3. Ground 3 - Conclusion ......................................................................65
`4. Ground 4 – Claims 3 and 13 Are Not Obvious Over Zeira, Baker,
`Khan, Tong and Dick Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103 ..........................65
`VI. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................65
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`EX2001 Petitioner’s Answer to Complaint and Counterclaim, dated June
`20, 2024, in Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Tesla, Inc., C.A. 1:24-
`cv-00884-ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`EX2002 Docket from District Court Litigation, Intellectual Ventures II
`LLC v. Tesla, Inc., C.A. 1:24-cv-00884-ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`EX2003 Scheduling Order from District Court Litigation, Intellectual
`Ventures II LLC v. Tesla, Inc ., C.A. 1:24-cv-00884-ADA (W.D.
`Tex.)
`EX2004 Defendant’s Second Supplemental Preliminary Invalidity
`Contentions, dated January 9, 2025, in District Court Litigation,
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Tesla, Inc ., C.A. 1:24-cv-00884-
`ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`EX2005 Declaration of Gary Lomp
`EX2006 Resume of Gary Lomp
`EX2007 Notice of Allowance in U.S. Patent Appln. Serial No. 10/917,968
`EX2008 IPR2018-01773 DECISION Instituting Inter Partes Review
`EX2009 IPR2018-01773 ORDER Granting Joint Motion to Terminate
`EX2010 de Jager, F. (February 1952). ”Delta modulation, a method of
`PCM transmission using the 1-unit code” (PDF) Philips Research
`Reports. 7: 442–466. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2024-
`05-18.
`EX2011 Data Sheet Motorola part MC3417
`EX2012 Data Sheet Motorola Part MC3418
`EX2013 3GPP TS 25.224 V5.9.0 (2005-12)
`EX2014 3GPP TS 25.211 V3.10.0 (2002-03)
`EX2015 3GPP TS 25.331 V3.10.0 (2002-03)
`EX2016 Declaration of Gary Lomp
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner challenges Claims 1-5, 10-15 and 20 (“Challenged Claims”) of
`US10,952,153 (“‘153 Patent”) on four grounds. The ‘153 Patent has 20 total Claims,
`with 1 and 11 being independent. In Ground 1, Petitioner challenges independent
`claims 1 and 11, and certain dependent claims, as allegedly obvious over
`US6,334,047 (“Andersson”), US2001/0036238 (“Baker”) and US2004/0190485
`(“Khan”). In Ground 3, Petitioner challenges independent claims 1 and 11, and
`certain dependent claims, as allegedly obvious over US6,600,772 (“Zeira”), Baker,
`Khan and US6,529,741 (“Tong”). The remainder of the grounds address dependent
`claims only. Dependent Claims 6-9 and 16-19 are not challenged.
`An overarching theme in the Petition is that this patent has a legacy. Petition,
`6:2-9. This family has been pending since August 2004 and includes ten issued
`patents. The Petition imparts a negative meaning to this legacy, stating that the
`“claims [are] no longer directed to the allegedly novel technique described in the
`specification.” Id.. This is simply not true. The first Office Action ever issued in this
`family rejected the Claims over the same primary reference (“Zeira”) the Petition
`relies on in Grounds 3 and 4. EX1011, p. 811. The applicant filed a Reply, Zeira was
`distinguished, and the application was allowed. The Notice of Allowance gave
`reasons for allowability, stating:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`[A]s a whole, none of the prior art cited alone or in combination
`provides the motivation to teach 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 . . .
`EX2007, 3:1-5 (emphasis added) (different font colors show the relationship
`between the allowable subject matter of the earlier Patent and the ‘153 Patent
`language). As can be seen, the allowable subject matter of the earlier patent was very
`similar to the Claim language of the ‘153 Patent. For example, Claim 1 of the ‘153
`Patent recites in relevant part:
`the processor is configured to cause:
`the receiver to receive, from a network device, an indication that
`transmit power control (TPC) command accumulation is enabled,
`the receiver to receive, from the network device, on a single physical
`control channel , scheduling information and power control
`information....
`Zeira was in fact cited during prosecution of two related applications in the
`‘153 Patent family, each of which granted as a patent. The Claims of the ‘153 Patent
`therefore reflect the USPTO’s careful consideration of Zeira and other prior art. Far
`from being “devoid of invention,” the claims were deliberately refined during a
`lengthy prosecution history to capture the true inventive features while
`distinguishing over the closest art. That history underscores, not undermines, the
`validity of the ‘153 Patent. Indeed, the very arguments Petitioner now rehashes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`against the “single channel” limitation of Claim 1 were already considered and
`rejected by the USPTO multiple times.
`Petitioner overstates the significance of prior IPRs in this family. Its
`suggestion that earlier institutions show the Board ‘agreed these features were likely
`unpatentable’ is misleading. Petition, 6. In the IPR against the ‘828 Patent, the Board
`did not adopt Petitioner’s reading of Zeira; it merely noted that Patent Owner’s prior
`arguments lacked detail, focusing on a ‘shared channel’ instead of the broader
`‘single channel.’ EX2008, 12:14–20. The Board never held that Zeira disclosed the
`claimed limitation. In IPR2018-01773, the Board never reached the merits at all, as
`the case was terminated by agreement. EX2009, 3:7–8. This Response directly
`addresses Zeira’s failure to disclose the ‘single channel’ limitation and Petitioner’s
`lack of a rational motivation to combine it with Khan. Prior institutions provide no
`basis for institution here.
`Petitioner also attempts to bolster its Zeira-based case by adding three more
`references in Grounds 3 and 4 and substituting Andersson in Grounds 1 and 2. These
`additions do not cure the defects. The references in Grounds 3 and 4 cannot be
`properly combined with Zeira, and Andersson suffers from the same deficiencies.
`Khan, cited in all grounds, was already considered during prosecution of a related
`family member, and the claims were allowed. Khan adds nothing and cannot be
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`meaningfully combined with Zeira or Andersson. The complete record confirms
`Petitioner’s case rests on combinations that fail both legally and technically.
`Petitioner’s arguments regarding a UE receiving an indication that
`accumulation is enabled also fail. Andersson and Baker do not teach TPC command
`accumulation at all—let alone an indication that accumulation is enabled, as required
`under the plain meaning directed by the Board. ID, 8:15–16, 23–24. Nor does Zeira,
`even when combined with Baker, disclose such an indication from Node-B to the
`UE.
`Accordingly, the claims of the ‘153 Patent remain patentable over both Zeira
`and Andersson, alone or in combination with Baker, Khan, Tong, or Dick. The
`prosecution history confirms this, and Petitioner’s combinations fare no better here.
`The Petition should be denied because it offers nothing new, and nothing sufficient,
`to call into question the validity of the ‘153 Patent.
`II. ‘153 PATENT SPECIFICATION
`The ‘153 Patent addresses combining open- and closed-loop power control
`for UE uplink transmissions, implemented at the UE and/or BS. EX1001, 8:24-31.
`It discloses sending a parameter to the UE to enable accumulation, applying closed-
`loop control, and using a single physical channel for both TPC commands and
`dynamic uplink allocations. See EX1001, Claims 1, 11.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`A. Background
`In its Background section, the ‘153 Patent generally describes power control
`in wireless networks, including open and closed-loop power control mechanisms,
`and the tradeoffs between using open versus closed-loop power control in practice.
`1. Power Control in Wireless Networks
`The ‘153 Patent’s Background explains that in wireless networks, UE uplink
`transmit power affects both user performance and that of other UEs on the same link.
`EX1001, 1:35-41. Excessive power may yield higher speeds or lower error rates but
`also interferes with other signals. EX1001, 1:47-57. To maintain a target error rate,
`systems employ power control schemes, conventionally using closed-loop or open-
`loop methods. EX1001, 1:38-60.
`2. Tradeoffs Between Open-loop Power Control and Closed-
`loop Power Control
`Using closed-loop power control, the network determines and sends each UE
`a target signal-to-noise-plus-interference ratio (SNIR). EX1001, 2:24-26. The UE
`uses this information, along with received signal strength, to set its transmit power.
`EX1001, 2:28-31. In contrast, open-loop methods address fast channel fading by
`measuring path loss on a per-frame basis and adjusting transmit power. EX1001,
`2:31-33. Fading may result from user position or obstructions. EX1001, 4:43-53.
`But open-loop is slow to react to interference from other UEs. EX1001, 2:33-35,
`7:59-63; 4:54-57.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`In closed-loop control, the network measures SNIR from UE signals and
`issues transmit power control (TPC) commands to raise or lower transmit power by
`fixed dB steps. EX1001, 2:36-44. However, closed-loop cannot fully compensate
`for fast fading, since large power changes require many TPC iterations and delays
`beyond the step size. EX1001, 2:44-51.
`3. Problem Addressed By The ‘153 Patent
`Because there are drawbacks to both open-loop and closed-loop uplink power
`control methods conventionally used by wireless networks, a mechanism was
`needed “that better balances the conflicting goals of reducing errors in a received
`signal,” reduces “interference imposed on signals received at other receivers,” and
`reduces “the overall residual SNIR fluctuations experienced by each user[‘]s signal
`at a receiver.” EX1001, 2:52-59.
`B. Detailed Description
`The Detailed Description of the ‘153 Patent specification describes a
`combined closed-loop and open-loop power control scheme for UE uplink power
`control. “Some embodiments of the present invention advantageously combine
`elements of both open-loop and closed-loop schemes to control power levels,
`thereby avoiding one or more of the disadvantages associated with either of the
`separately used schemes.” EX1001, 8:24-31.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`1. Node-B Sends a Parameter to the UE, Instructing it to Enable
`Accumulation
`The ‘153 Patent describes a parameter, configurable at a Node-B or RNC, that
`instructs a UE whether to set uplink power using path loss, TPC commands, or both.
`EX1001, 13:12-20. The parameter, sent via signaling or broadcast, may specify
`open-loop, closed-loop, or combined control. Id. Accumulation can be disabled
`under conditions such as when a UE exceeds a speed threshold. EX1001, 13:60-64.
`2. Accumulation of TPC Commands
`When closed-loop power control is enabled, alone or with open-loop, the UE
`receives TPC commands from the network. EX1001, 6:59-65, 9:13-18; EX2016.
`These commands are added to an integrator (or accumulator) at set intervals to adjust
`transmit power. EX1001, 7:15-22, 9:28-42. With open-loop only, no TPC
`commands are used and accumulation does not occur. EX2016, ¶¶35-45.
`a) Accumulation in Closed-loop Only Scheme
`If only the closed-loop power control scheme is enabled, TPC commands are
`accumulated “[e]very time a TPC command is received.” “[A]n integrator in the UE
`is used within the inner loop to update the UE transmit power by a step amount ± Δ
`dB.” EX1001, 7:15-22.
`b) Accumulation in Combined Open and Closed-loop
`Scheme
`In a combined open and closed-loop UE uplink power control scheme, TPCs
`will be accumulated using the equation:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`∑ 𝑇𝑃𝐶𝑖𝑘
`𝑘−𝐾 (Equation 1)
`where k is the current frame, K is the first frame after accumulation is reset (or the
`first frame), and i is the current time slot. EX1001, 9:28-30, 10:23-33.
`The entire transmit power equation, which includes the TPC calculation
`(Equation 1 – in red font below for ease of reference) for a combined open and
`closed-loop scheme is as follows:
`𝑃𝑇𝑥(𝑘) = 𝑃𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑛(𝑘) + 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑝 . ∑ 𝑇𝑃𝐶𝑖𝑘
`𝑘−𝐾 + 𝑦𝑆𝐹 + 𝛽𝑇𝐹𝐶 (Equation 2)
`EX1001, 10:42. The transmit power, 𝑃𝑇𝑥(𝑘) , is updated “every frame period,”
`“each time a new TPC command is received” (i.e., every slot, i), or “only when either
`a TPC command or a new power level is received from the network.” EX1001, 9:34-
`39. In other words, when a combined scheme is indicated by the parameter (see sub-
`heading II.B.I infra), the TPC commands received in each slot are accumulated
`either once per slot or over one or more frames. Id.
`The UE accumulates TPC commands and uses them to set transmit power for
`future uplink transmissions. EX1001, 10:14-17. The resulting power level
`PTx(k)P_{Tx}(k)PTx(k) is applied to uplink user data. EX1001, 10:33-35. This
`process is shown in FIG. 4 of the ‘153 Patent, with relevant boxes highlighted below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`3. Multi-Level TPC Command
`Conventionally, TPC commands were only fixed amounts, typically +1dB or
`-1dB. EX1001, 6:58-62, 8:6-11, 9:15-17, 11:1-6. The ‘153 Patent adds the option of
`“a multi-level TPC command.” EX1001, 9:17-18. Referring to Equation 2 above:
`[F]or the current frame k, the UE may calculate the transmit power
`𝑃𝑇𝑥(𝑘) as shown [in Equation 2] where K is the initial frame number
`determined when the power control process begins; TPCi is -1 for a
`down TPC command and +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.
`EX1001, 9:28-34. (Emphasis added).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`4. Node-B Transmits a Single Physical Channel That Carries
`Both Fast Allocation/Scheduling Information and TPC
`Commands
`The ‘153 Patent introduces “a new physical channel on the downlink [that]
`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.” EX1001, 12:66-13:2. This
`new physical channel can “also be used as the feedback channel for the combined
`power control scheme,” carrying TPC commands in addition to the scheduling
`information. EX1001, 13:3-6.
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`PO maintains that the Challenged Claims should have their plain and ordinary
`meaning. However, a determination that a claim term “needs no construction” or has
`the “plain and ordinary meaning” may be inadequate when a term has more than one
`“ordinary” meaning or when reliance on a term’s “ordinary” meaning does not
`resolve the parties’ dispute.” O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Institution Decision (“ID”), 6:5-8,
`8:13-24. Instead, “[t]he terms used in the claims bear a presumption that they mean
`what they say and have the ordinary meaning that would be attributed to those words
`by persons skilled in the relevant art.” Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITC, 341 F.3d 1332,
`1338 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, “Properly viewed, the ‘ordinary meaning’ of a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`claim term is its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent.”
`Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 856 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`A. “TPC COMMAND ACCUMULATION”
`While not expressly construed in the Petition, the Board found that “the parties’
`dispute on [the issue of whether TPC command accumulation would have been
`obvious over the asserted combination of Andersson and Baker] turns on claim
`construction.” ID,8:13. Having found that Petitioner and PO rely on different plain
`meaning interpretations of “TPC command accumulation,” it asked that the Parties
`address the proper construction for this term in the instituted trial. ID, 8.
`Regarding the manner in which Petitioner used “TPC command accumulation”
`in the Petition, the Board stated: “Petitioner’s approach requires we read
`‘accumulation’ as updating transmission power for each received TPC command.”
`ID, 8:14-15. Regarding the manner in which PO used “TPC command accumulation”
`in PO’s Preliminary Response, the Board stated: “PO’s approach requires only that
`TPC commands cumulatively affect transmission power.” ID, 8:19-21. The Board
`found that, while Petitioner’s interpretation was consistent “with some aspects of the
`‘153 patent’s description,” “it appears that the Specification supports PO’s broader
`construction.” ID, 8:15-16, 23-24.
`Claims in an inter partes review are construed under the Phillips standard (37
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b)). Under that standard, words of a claim are given their ordinary
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`and customary meaning as understood by a POSITA at the time of the invention, in
`view of the specification and prosecution history ( Phillips v. AWH, 415 F.3d 1303,
`1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)).
`1. Claim Language
`The claim language itself requires only that “transmit power control (TPC)
`command accumulation” is enabled. EX1001, Claim 1 (“. . . the processor is
`configured to cause . . . the receiver to receive, from a network device, an indication
`that transmit power control (TPC) command accumulation is enabled).
`The claim language itself does not impart any specialized meaning to the term
`“accumulation.” It simply requires that “TPC command accumulation” be enabled.
`This language is broad on its face. Nothing in the claim text imposes temporal
`restrictions, such as requiring that each and every received TPC command
`immediately trigger a transmit power update.
`Petitioner nonetheless asserts that “accumulation” means “iteratively
`adjusting the UE’s transmit power with each received TPC command.” Petition, 8,
`21. That reading improperly narrows the claim by importing a method and frequency
`requirement that the claims do not recite. The ordinary meaning of “accumulate” is
`to collect or gather together so that the accumulated items have a combined effect.
`Applied here, the plain language requires only that TPC commands cumulatively
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`affect transmit power, such as by being added into an accumulator—even if the
`effect is applied once per frame or otherwise less frequently.
`Petitioner’s construction, by contrast, rewrites the claim to cover only a single
`arithmetic procedure. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly cautioned against such
`narrowing by embodiment. Absent clear lexicography or disavowal, claim terms are
`given their full breadth of ordinary meaning. See Thorner v. Sony , 669 F.3d 1362,
`1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Because there is no disclaimer or redefinition here,
`“accumulation” should be afforded its full breadth. Nothing in the claim text limits
`“accumulation” to a step-by-step, iterative update applied upon receipt of every
`individual TPC command as Petitioner suggested.
`2. Intrinsic Support
`The ‘153 Patent specification consistently uses “accumulation” in its plain and
`ordinary sense, gathering TPC commands so that they collectively affect transmit
`power, without requiring that every individual command be immediately applied to
`update transmit power, as Petitioner suggests.
`For example, Figure 3 illustrates a closed-loop scheme in which the UE
`“accumulates 320 the TPC commands and uses the accumulated TPC commands to
`set 322 a transmit power for future uplink transmissions 300.” EX1001, 7:42-46.
`This disclosure emphasizes that accumulation is performed in the UE using an
`integrator to collect step instructions, which can then be used to adjust the transmit
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`power level. Nowhere does the patent mandate that transmit power must be updated
`upon receipt of each command. Instead, it allows that commands may be
`“accumulated” and applied together.
`Similarly, Figure 4 shows a combined open/closed-loop system where “the
`UE accumulates 420 the TPC commands and uses the accumulated TPC commands
`in part to set 436 the transmit power level for future uplink transmissions.” EX1001,
`10:13-17. Again, the operative concept is that multiple commands are collected over
`time and considered in setting transmit power. The specification expressly provides
`that “[t]he transmit power PTX(k) may be updated for every frame period … [or] each
`time a new TPC command is received … [or] only when either a TPC command or
`a new power level is received from the network.” EX1001, 9:34-40. This text
`confirms that accumulation encompasses a variety of timing implementations, per-
`frame, per-command, or conditional, not just the iterative update process that
`Petitioner advances.
`Taken together, the specification makes clear that “accumulation” means
`storing or integrating multiple TPC commands so they have a combined effect on
`transmit power. There is no limitation that requires accumulation to occur at specific
`time intervals (i.e., each time a TPC command is received), as the Petitioner suggest.
`Petitioner’s attempt to narrow the term to iterative, per-command updating is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`contradicted by the express disclosure that accumulation may be applied in different
`ways, including only once per frame.
`3. Prosecution History
`The prosecution history of the ‘153 Patent provides no basis for narrowing the
`term “TPC command accumulation.” The only rejections entered were double
`patenting rejections, and no substantive prior art rejections were ever raised. EX1002,
`70-82, 153-159. After the first double patenting rejection, the applicant canceled
`claims 1–8 and added claims 9–28 without commentary. EX1002, 108-113.
`Following the second rejection, the applicant made only minor informalities type
`corrections. EX1002, 61, 64-68.
`Because the applicant never distinguished prior art on the meaning of
`“accumulation” or otherwise made any limiting statements, there is no disclaimer or
`redefinition in the intrinsic record. Thus, the prosecution history confirms that
`“accumulation” must be given its full breadth of ordinary meaning as supported by
`the claim language and specification, not the narrower construction Petitioner
`advances.
`4. Extrinsic Evidence
`Extrinsic evidence further confirms that “accumulation” should be understood
`in its ordinary, broad sense, not the narrow definition Petitioner proposes.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`As explained by PO’s expert, Dr. Lomp, the concept of “accumulation” in
`closed-loop power control is directly analogous to Delta Modulation (“DM”), a
`foundational technique developed in the 1950s for analog-to-digital conversion.
`EX2016, ¶¶35-42; EX2010. In DM, an integrator keeps a running tally of
`incremental “up,” “down,” or “no change” instructions, which collectively track the
`target input signal. This process is not confined to instantaneous updates; rather, it
`involves maintaining a history of incremental instructions that are summed over time
`to determine the net adjustment. EX2010, 450–51.
`The analogy to power control is straightforward: in a wireless system, the
`“input voice signal” in DM corresponds to the uplink SNIR target, while the
`incremental “up” and “down” commands correspond to TPC commands. Just as in
`DM, where the integrator matches the input by accumulating small increments, the
`UE in closed-loop power control maintains an accumulator that sums the TPC
`commands and uses the result to set transmit power. EX1001, 3:39–43, 7:15–29,
`9:27–42; EX2016, ¶¶35-42. This is precisely what the ‘153 patent describes: the UE
`accumulates . . . the TPC commands and applies the accumulated value to determine
`transmit power.
`Dr. Lomp further explains that accumulation is particularly valuable because
`it enables the UE to calculate the net adjustment required over time, rather than
`reacting to each individual TPC command in isolation. This avoids oscillations in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`transmit power, smooths the adjustment process, and provides robustness against
`transient SNIR fluctuations. EX2006, ¶¶35-42. This evidence strongly supports
`PO’s broader construction: “accumulation” refers to the process of collecting and
`summing TPC commands so that they cumulatively affect transmit power,
`regardless of whether the update occurs once per command, once per frame, or at
`another interval.
`Finally, adaptive extensions of DM, such as Continuously Variable Slope
`Delta-Modulation (CVSD), confirm that those skilled in the art understood
`“accumulation” to cover a variety of aggregation methods, including dynamic step
`sizes and leaky integrators. Id. These teachings reinforce that a POSITA in the
`relevant time frame would not equate “accumulation” with a single arithmetic
`procedure but would instead recognize it as a general aggregation process.
`For these reasons, the extrinsic evidence corroborates the intrinsic record in
`showing that “accumulati