`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`TESLA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`———————
`
`IPR2025-00217
`U.S. Patent No. 10,952,153
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2024-00217 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 10,952,153
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibit List ............................................................................................. 4
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 6
`
`Grounds for standing ....................................................................................... 6
`
`III. Note .................................................................................................................. 7
`
`IV. The ’153 patent ................................................................................................ 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Technological Background .................................................................. 7
`
`Overview .............................................................................................. 7
`
`V.
`
`Prosecution history ........................................................................................10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution history of the ’153 patent ............................................... 10
`
`Prosecution and IPR history of the ancestor ’828 patent ................... 11
`
`VI. Priority date of the ’153 patent ......................................................................14
`
`VII. Level of ordinary skill in the art ....................................................................15
`
`VIII. Claim construction .........................................................................................15
`
`IX. Relief requested and the reasons for the requested relief ..............................16
`
`X.
`
`Identification of how the claims are unpatentable .........................................16
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Challenged claims .............................................................................. 16
`
`Statutory grounds for challenges ........................................................ 16
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 4-5, 11-12, and 14-15 are obvious over
`Andersson in view of Baker and Khan .............................................. 17
`
`D. Ground 2: Claims 3 and 13 are obvious over Andersson in view of
`Baker, Khan, and Dick ....................................................................... 44
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`IPR2024-00217 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 10,952,153
`
`Ground 3: Claims 1-2, 4-5, 10-12, 14-15, and 20 are obvious over
`Zeira in view of Baker, Khan and Tong ............................................. 47
`
`Ground 4: Claims 3 and 13 are obvious over Zeira in view of
`Baker, Khan, Tong, and Dick ............................................................. 72
`
`XI. Discretionary denial is inappropriate .............................................................74
`
`A. No basis for §325(d) denial ................................................................ 74
`
`B.
`
`No basis for Fintiv denial ................................................................... 76
`
`XII. Conclusion .....................................................................................................79
`
`XIII. Mandatory notices .........................................................................................80
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Real party-in-interest .......................................................................... 80
`
`Related matters ................................................................................... 80
`
`Lead and back-up counsel and service information ........................... 80
`
`Certificate of Word Count .......................................................................................82
`
`Certificate of Service ...............................................................................................83
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex.1001
`
`Ex.1002
`
`Ex.1003
`Ex.1004
`
`Ex.1005
`
`Ex.1006
`Ex.1007
`
`Ex.1008
`
`Ex.1009
`
`Ex.1010
`
`Ex.1011
`
`Ex.1012
`
`Ex.1013
`
`Ex.1014
`Ex.1015
`
`Ex.1016
`
`IPR2024-00217 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 10,952,153
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,952,153 to Anderson (“’153 Patent”)
`
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/410,614
`(“’614 Application”) issued as the ’153 Patent
`
`Declaration of Michael Kotzin under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`U.S. Patent No. 6,600,772 to Zeira et al. (“Zeira”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0190485 by Khan
`(“Khan”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,493,133 to Krishnan et al. (“Krishnan”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,529,741 to Tong et al. (“Tong”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0077370 by Dick et
`al. (“Dick”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,334,047 to Andersson et al. (“Andersson”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0036238 by Baker et
`al. (“Baker”)
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/917,968
`(“’968 Application”) issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,897,828 to
`Anderson (“’828 Patent”)
`Harri Holma & Antti Toskala, WCDMA for UMTS: Radio Access
`for Third Generation Mobile Communications (2d ed. 2002)
`
`Reserved
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Michael Kotzin
`IV’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions, Intellectual Ventures
`II, LLC v. Tesla, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-188-ADA (WDTX)
`Shin & Zeira et al., “Pathloss-Aided Closed Loop Transmit Power
`Control for 3G UTRA TDD,” IEEE (2003)
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00217 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 10,952,153
`
`IV’s Complaint, Intellectual Ventures II, LLC v. Tesla, Inc., No.
`6:24-cv-188-ADA (WDTX)
`Proposed Scheduling Order, Intellectual Ventures II, LLC v. Tesla,
`Inc., No. 6:24-cv-188-ADA (WDTX)
`Statistics on District Court Timing
`Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Parallel
`District Court Litigation, June 21, 2022
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/727,153
`issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,055,586 to Anderson
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent Application No. 14/713,719
`issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,414,326 to Anderson
`
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent Application No. 15/229,906
`issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,706,500 to Anderson
`
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent Application No. 15/645,523
`issued as U.S. Patent No. 10,292,113 to Anderson
`
`Andrew S. Tanenbaum, “Computer Networks,” 4th ed. (2002)
`United States Copyright Office Catalog Record for Andrew S.
`Tanenbaum, Computer Networks, 4th ed. (Ex.1025)
`Behrouz A. Forouzan, “Data Communications and Networking,”
`(3rd ed. 2003)
`
`Copyright registration record for Forouzan (Ex.1027)
`
`Prabhakar Chitrapu, et al., “Wideband TDD: WCDMA for the
`Unpaired Spectrum,” (2004)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,519,390 (the “’390 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,351,460 (the “’460 patent”)
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1017
`
`Ex.1018
`
`Ex.1019
`Ex.1020
`
`Ex.1021
`
`Ex.1022
`
`Ex.1023
`
`Ex.1024
`
`Ex.1025
`Ex.1026
`
`Ex.1027
`
`Ex.1028
`
`Ex.1029
`
`Ex. 1030
`
`Ex. 1031
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2024-00217 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 10,952,153
`
`Issued almost 17 years after its first family member was filed, U.S. Patent
`
`No. 10,952,153 (the “’153 patent,” Ex.1001) contains claims no longer directed to
`
`the allegedly novel technique described in the specification. The specification
`
`describes combined open and closed loop power control in a wireless
`
`communication system. The claims, however, recite a collection of known power
`
`control techniques mentioned only briefly (or not at all) in the specification. For
`
`example, the recited transmit power control (TPC) command was a well-known
`
`way to control transmit power. Similarly, the recited “indication” of TPC
`
`command accumulation—while not described in the specification—was well
`
`described in the art. Indeed, the Board agreed these recited features were likely
`
`unpatentable when instituting three previous IPRs challenging an ancestor of the
`
`’153 patent.
`
`Accordingly, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§311, 314(a), and 37 C.F.R. §42.100,
`
`Tesla, Inc. (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests that the Board review and find
`
`unpatentable claims 1-5, 10-15, and 20 (the “Challenged Claims”) of the ’153
`
`patent.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’153 patent is eligible for IPR and that Petitioner
`
`is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the patent claims. 37
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00217 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 10,952,153
`
`
`C.F.R. §42.104(a).
`
`III. NOTE
`
`Petitioner cites to exhibits’ original page numbers, unless noted otherwise.
`
`Emphasis in quoted material has been added. Claim terms are presented in italics.
`
`IV. THE ’153 PATENT
`A. Technological Background
`
`The ’153 patent relates to power control techniques that were well-known as
`
`of the earliest claimed priority date. Dr. Kotzin’s declaration describes the relevant
`
`background technology predating the ’153 patent, which is cited as appropriate
`
`below. See Ex.1003, ¶¶37-45: Exs.1025, 1027, 1029.
`
`B. Overview
`
`The ’153 patent is directed to uplink power control in a wireless
`
`communication system. Ex.1001, Abstract, 1:28-31. A wireless communication
`
`system generally involves a mobile radio (abbreviated as “UE” or user equipment)
`
`and a base station. Id., 1:58-67. The ’153 patent background acknowledges the two
`
`well-known power control modes, “open loop” and “closed loop.” Id., 1:58-60.
`
`“Open loop” power control involves a UE measuring a received signal
`
`strength to set its transmission power based on “path loss.” Id., 2:24-35. Path loss
`
`is the “difference between the actual transmit power level and the received signal
`
`power level.” Id., 5:9-13. “Closed loop” power control involves the base station
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`issuing transmit power control (TPC) commands to the UE to increase or decrease
`
`IPR2024-00217 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 10,952,153
`
`the UE’s current transmit power—where the UE’s current transmit power was
`
`previously adjusted by the previously-received TPC command. Id., 2:36-44. The
`
`process of iteratively adjusting the UE’s transmit power with each received TPC
`
`command is called “accumulation” of TPC commands. Id., 10:9-30; Ex.1003, ¶47.
`
`In some cases, “[b]inary signalling may be used, such that the TPC command
`
`indicates a change in transmission power by a fixed amount either up or down.”
`
`Ex.1001, 9:15-17. The ’153 patent notes, without further explanation, that
`
`“[a]lternately, a multi-level TPC command may be used.” 1 Id., 9:17-18.
`
`The ’153 patent’s purported novelty lies in a power control method in which
`
`“aspects of both an open loop scheme and a closed loop scheme are strategically
`
`combined to form a power control method.” Ex.1001, 8:24-26. This purported
`
`novelty is illustrated by, for example, Fig. 4 below, with open loop aspects
`
`highlighted in red and closed loop aspects highlighted in green. Ex.1001, 9:43-45.
`
`
`1 During prosecution of a family member application, Applicant stated “a multi-
`
`level TPC command may have either at least two amounts/levels up or two
`
`amounts/levels down.” Ex.1023, 49.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2024-00217 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 10,952,153
`
`Ex.1001, Fig. 4 (annotated); Ex.1003, ¶48.
`
`
`
`As seen above in Fig. 4, the “network generates and transmits 414 a TPC
`
`command” and “downlink signal 416 carries the TPC command 418 over the radio
`
`link.” Id., Fig. 4, 10:10-14. The UE uses both a 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., Fig. 4,
`
`10:14-17, 10:31-35.
`
`The ’153 patent explains that in its system “a new physical channel on the
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`downlink may be used to carry fast allocation and scheduling information to a user,
`
`IPR2024-00217 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 10,952,153
`
`thereby informing the UE of the uplink resources that it may use.” Ex.1001, 12:66-
`
`13:2. This new physical channel may also “carry TPC commands.” Id., 13:4-6.
`
`Despite the specification describing the above combined open loop and
`
`closed loop power control scheme, the claims of the ’153 patent do not. The claims
`
`instead recite a collection of well-known and conventional UE power control
`
`elements: (i) receiving an indication that TPC accumulation is enabled; (ii)
`
`receiving scheduling information and a multi-level TPC command on a single
`
`physical channel; and (iii) transmitting an uplink signal based on (ii).
`
`V.
`
`PROSECUTION HISTORY
`
`A.
`
`Prosecution history of the ’153 patent
`
`The ’153 patent issued on March 16, 2021, from an application filed on May
`
`13, 2019. The ’153 patent claims priority through a line of continuations to
`
`Application No. 10/917,968 (the “’968 application” filed on Aug. 12, 2004, issuing
`
`as U.S. Patent No. 8,897,828 (the “’828 patent”)).
`
`The prosecution history of the ’153 patent includes only two office actions,
`
`with no prior art-based rejections. In the first Office Action, the Examiner rejected
`
`as-filed claims 1-8 for double patenting over the immediate parent patent (U.S.
`
`10,292,113). Ex.1002, 155-158. In response, the Applicant canceled all claims and
`
`added 20 new claims. In the second Office Action, the Examiner rejected the new
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`claims for double patenting over the immediate parent patent or another family
`
`IPR2024-00217 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 10,952,153
`
`member (U.S. 9,414,326). Ex.1002, 72-81. The Applicant filed a terminal
`
`disclaimer to overcome the rejection, after which the pending claims were allowed.
`
`Ex.1002, 54-55, 36.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution and IPR history of the ancestor ’828 patent
`
`The first application filed in the ’153 patent family was the ’968 application
`
`that led to the ’828 patent. Its prosecution history is addressed here only to the
`
`extent relevant to the grounds asserted in this Petition.
`
`The prosecution of the ’968 application was lengthy and included a failed
`
`appeal. See generally Ex.1011 (including 5 office actions and an appeal). The
`
`Examiner showed that the basic concept of hybrid open and closed loop power
`
`control was anticipated or rendered obvious by the WO version of the Zeira
`
`reference cited herein2, in combination with other references. Ex.1011, 394-399.
`
`After the Board affirmed the Examiner’s rejections on appeal, the Applicant
`
`canceled all claims and added new claims including limitations requiring receiving
`
`“an indication of whether accumulation of transmit power control (TPC)
`
`
`2The Examiner relied on the WO version of Zeira (WO 00/57574), which is
`
`substantially identical to its U.S. counterpart (Ex.1004).
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`commands is enabled”—a limitation also present in the independent claim 1 of the
`
`IPR2024-00217 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 10,952,153
`
`’153 patent. Ex.1011, 197, 162-172.
`
`The Examiner rejected the new claims under §112 as lacking written
`
`description. Ex.1011, 145-147. The Applicant responded to the §112 rejection by
`
`identifying a portion of the specification describing a “new parameter” that
`
`instructs the UE to enable closed loop power control (via TPC commands), open
`
`loop power control (via path loss estimation), or a combined scheme:
`
`…a Node-B or RNC may be implemented with a new
`parameter, either included in a signaling command or a
`broadcast 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.
`
`Ex.1011, 121-122; see also id. at 688-689. Although the Applicant did not explain
`
`why this parameter provides §112 support, Dr. Kotzin notes that TPC command
`
`accumulation is enabled when closed loop power control is enabled in the system
`
`of the ’153 patent. Ex.1003, ¶47 (citing Ex.1001, 7:37-47, 10:4-17)
`
`Consistent with this identification of §112 support, the Zeira grounds in this
`
`Petition challenge the “indication of…accumulation” limitation with prior art
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`teaching a parameter that determines whether the UE is to enable closed loop
`
`IPR2024-00217 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 10,952,153
`
`power control (and TPC command accumulation). See Ex.1004 (Zeira), 6:1-20,
`
`7:16-22.
`
`After issuance, the ’828 patent was challenged in three different IPR
`
`proceedings brought by petitioners unrelated to the current petitioner: IPR2018-
`
`01641, IPR2018-01694, IPR2018-01773. Each IPR was instituted but then
`
`terminated due to settlement. In the institution decisions, the Board determined that
`
`Zeira in combination with various references illustrated that there was a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the ’828 claims were unpatentable. IPR2018-01641, Paper 7 at 14-
`
`15 (Mar. 20, 2019); IPR2018-01649, Paper 7 at 15-17 (Mar. 20, 2019); IPR2018-
`
`01773, Paper 9 at 15-16 (Apr. 22, 2019).
`
`Importantly, the ’828 claims the Board found to be likely unpatentable are
`
`narrower than the Challenged Claims of the ’153 patent. That is, the ’828 claims
`
`include limitations corresponding to those of the ’153 patent claims plus additional
`
`limitations, as shown below.
`
`’153 Patent, claim 11
`11. A method performed by a
`user equipment (UE) having a
`transmitter and a receiver, the method
`comprising:
`receiving, by the UE, an
`indication from a network device that
`transmit power control (TPC)
`command accumulation is enabled;
`
`’828 patent, claim 1
`1. A method performed by user
`equipment (UE), the method
`comprising:
`receiving, by the UE, an
`indication of whether accumulation of
`transmit power control (TPC)
`commands is enabled;
`determining, by the UE, a path
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`receiving, by the UE on a single
`physical channel from the network
`device, scheduling information and
`power control information that includes
`a multi-level TPC command; and
`transmitting, by the UE to the
`network device, an uplink signal based
`on the received scheduling information
`and the multi-level TPC command.
`
`IPR2024-00217 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 10,952,153
`
`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 accumulation is
`not enabled, an allocation of a
`scheduled uplink resource to transmit
`data at a power level calculated by the
`UE based on the path loss.
`
`Accordingly, the Challenged Claims were obvious prior to the claimed
`
`priority dated, including, in view of the Zeira grounds (Grounds 3 and 4) that are
`
`similar to the Zeira grounds the Board found reasonably likely to render obvious
`
`the ’828 patent.
`
`VI. PRIORITY DATE OF THE ’153 PATENT
`
`The earliest possible priority date of the ’153 patent is August 12, 2004.
`
`Determining whether the ’153 patent is entitled to this date is unnecessary in this
`
`proceeding as all the relied-upon prior art predates August 12, 2004. Petitioner
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`does not waive any right or opportunity to dispute the priority date of the ’153
`
`IPR2024-00217 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 10,952,153
`
`patent in this or another forum where the issue is relevant.
`
`VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in August 2004 would have
`
`been someone knowledgeable and familiar with the wireless communications
`
`systems that are pertinent to the ’153 patent. That person would have a bachelor’s
`
`degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or
`
`equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working in the
`
`field of wireless communication systems or design of similar communication
`
`systems. Lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and
`
`vice versa. Ex.1003, ¶31.
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Claim terms in IPR are construed according to their “ordinary and customary
`
`meaning” to those of skill in the art. 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b). Petitioner submits that,
`
`for the purposes of this proceeding and the grounds presented herein, no claim
`
`term requires express construction. 3 Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad
`
`Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`
`3 Petitioner does not concede that any term in the Challenged Claims meets the
`
`statutory requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112.
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`IX. RELIEF REQUESTED AND THE REASONS FOR THE
`REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`IPR2024-00217 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 10,952,153
`
`Petitioner asks that the Board institute IPR and cancel the Challenged
`
`Claims in view of the analysis below.
`
`X.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`A. Challenged claims
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1-5, 10-15, and 20.
`
`B.
`
`Statutory grounds for challenges
`
`Grounds
`#1
`
`#2
`
`#3
`
`#4
`
`Claims
`1-2, 4-5, 11-12,
`14-15
`3, 13
`
`1-2, 4-5, 10-12,
`14-15, 20
`3, 13
`
`Basis (pre-AIA)
`35 U.S.C. §103 over Andersson in view of Baker
`and Khan
`§103 over Andersson in view of Baker, Khan, and
`Dick
`§103 over Zeira in view of Baker, Khan, and
`Tong
`§103 over Zeira in view of Baker, Khan, Tong,
`and Dick
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 6,334,047 to Andersson et al. issued on December 25, 2001,
`
`and is prior art at least under §102(a), (b), and (e).
`
`U.S. Publication 2001/0036238 to Baker et al. was filed on March 21, 2001,
`
`published on November 1, 2001, and is prior art at least under §102(a), (b), and (e).
`
`U.S. Publication 2004/0190485 to Khan was filed on March 24, 2003,
`
`published on September 30, 2004, and is prior art at least under §102(e).
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00217 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 10,952,153
`
`U.S. Publication 2004/0077370 to Dick et al. was filed on October 16, 2003,
`
`
`
`published on April 22, 2004, and is prior art at least under §102(a) and (e).
`
`U.S. Patent 6,600,772 to Zeira et al. issued on July 29, 2003, and is prior art
`
`at least under §102(a), (b), and (e).
`
`U.S. Patent 6,529,741 to Tong et al. issued on March 4, 2003, and is prior
`
`art at least under §102(a), (b), and (e).
`
`C. Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 4-5, 11-12, and 14-15 are obvious over
`Andersson in view of Baker and Khan
`
`1.
`
`Andersson
`
`Like the ’153 patent, Andersson generally relates to the field of “radio
`
`transmission power control” in a CDMA radio communications system. Ex.1009,
`
`1:6-8. Also like the ’153 patent, Andersson recognizes that UE transmit power may
`
`be controlled using “open loop power control in combination with a closed loop
`
`power control.” Ex.1009, 3:65-67. Andersson improves upon such combined
`
`systems with more efficient power control signaling, including the indication of
`
`which power control scheme a UE should employ (where a known scheme is TPC
`
`command accumulation). Ex.1009, Abstract. Andersson further teaches a UE
`
`receiving multi-level TPC commands and controlling uplink transmission power
`
`based on such commands. Ex.1009, 9:33-50, 11:26-28.
`
`For example, Andersson teaches using TPC commands with different “bit
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`patterns” to signal different power control adjustment “step sizes”—where the
`
`IPR2024-00217 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 10,952,153
`
`“first step size might be a typical step size change such as plus or minus 1 dB” and
`
`the “second step size might correspond to a larger amount, e.g., 8 dB.” Ex.1009,
`
`9:33-50. Andersson also teaches transmitting to the UE “power control indicator”
`
`flag bits along with the TPC command that “indicat[e] which type of power control
`
`adjustment should be used by the radio transceiver.” Ex.1009, 5:50-54, 6:21-27.
`
`Andersson’s power control message format is illustrated in Fig. 5, below:
`
`Ex.1009, Fig. 5 (annotated); Ex.1003, ¶58
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Baker
`
`Like Andersson (and the ’153 patent), Baker describes a CDMA
`
`communication system in which the base station indicates to a UE which power
`
`control scheme to utilize via signaling. Ex.1010, Baker, [0002], [0006].
`
`Specifically, a power control algorithm (PCA) bit received by the UE indicates
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`whether TPC command accumulation is enabled—i.e., the UE’s transmit power is
`
`IPR2024-00217 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 10,952,153
`
`updated with each received TPC command. Ex.1010, [0021]-[0023]. Ex.1010,
`
`[0021]-[0023]. If accumulation is not enabled, the UE will instead analyze the last
`
`five TPC commands, and if all five are “1”, transmission power is increased by 1
`
`dB and if all five a “0”, power is decreased by 1. Ex.1010, [0022]-[0023].
`
`3.
`
`Reasons to combine Andersson and Baker
`
`For the reasons set forth below, a POSITA would have been motivated to
`
`combine the teachings of Andersson with Baker. Ex.1003, ¶¶60-69. In particular,
`
`before the priority date of the ’153 patent, it would have been obvious, beneficial,
`
`and predictable to utilize in Andersson’s system the technique of Baker of
`
`indicting to the UE whether TPC accumulation is enabled. Ex.1003, ¶60.
`
`Andersson’s system already contemplates receiving a power control scheme
`
`selection flag in addition to a TPC command, and Baker provides a specific
`
`implementation of that flag. Ex.1003, ¶60.
`
`a)
`
`Analogous art
`
`A POSITA when considering the teachings of Andersson would have
`
`naturally considered the teachings of Baker, as Baker is analogous prior art
`
`pertaining to the same field of endeavor as both the ’153 patent and Andersson,
`
`namely, “mobile radio systems or wireless communication systems.” Ex.1001,
`
`1:28-31; Ex.1009, 1:6-8; Ex.1010, [0001]; Ex.1003, ¶61. Both Andersson and
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`Baker, like the ’153 patent, describe power control of user equipment by a base
`
`IPR2024-00217 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 10,952,153
`
`station in a radio communications system. Ex.1001, Fig.4; Ex.1009, 7:16-18;
`
`Ex.1010, [0008]-[0013]. Andersson and Baker are also pertinent to a particular
`
`problem of the ’153 patent, such as “reducing errors in a received signal while also
`
`reducing interference imposed on signals received at other receivers.” Ex.1001,
`
`2:52-57; Ex.1009, 5:35-38; Ex.1010, [0003].
`
`b) Motivation to combine Andersson with Baker
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Baker’s teachings
`
`regarding a specific power control algorithm into Andersson’s system due to the
`
`compatibility and similarity of their teachings. Ex.1003, ¶¶63-66. Specifically,
`
`Baker implements the general framework of Andersson that contemplates the UE
`
`receiving a power control flag in addition to the TPC command that selects which
`
`power control scheme the UE should utilize. Ex.1003, ¶63. A POSITA would have
`
`applied the known technique of Baker to the general system of Andersson to yield
`
`predictable results. Ex.1003, ¶63. Also, the technique of Baker is the simple
`
`substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
`
`Ex.1003, ¶63.
`
`As discussed above, Andersson describes a general framework for
`
`communicating power control adjustments to a UE through a TPC command and a
`
`“power control indicator.” Ex.1009, 5:50-54, 9:33-50, Fig. 5. Andersson, however,
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`describes this power control indicator as a generic indicator that may be utilized to
`
`IPR2024-00217 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 10,952,153
`
`indicate “whether a first type or a second type of power control adjustment should
`
`be used.” Ex.1009, 9:9-11. To that end, Baker provides a specific implementation,
`
`or alternatively, a simple substitution, for Andersson’s power control indicator—a
`
`power control algorithm (PCA) bit received by the UE that indicates whether TPC
`
`command accumulation is enabled or disabled. Ex.1010, [0021]-[0023]. Baker’s
`
`PCA indicator indicates whether the UE is to (i) iteratively adjust the current
`
`transmission power by the most recently received TPC command (i.e., TPC
`
`command accumulation) or (ii) analyze the last five TPC commands, and if all five
`
`are “1,” increase transmission power by 1 dB, and if all five a “0,” decrease power
`
`by 1. Ex.1010, [0022]-[0023]. Baker explains that this second power control
`
`scheme effectively emulates the use of a power control step size of approximately
`
`0.2 dB, thereby providing the UE with an alternative and beneficial smaller power
`
`adjustment option. Ex.1010, [0023]; Ex.1003, ¶65.
`
`In particular, Baker explains that a step size of less than 1 dB is desirable
`
`“[w]hen the channel changes very slowly…, since such values are sufficient to
`
`track changes in the channel while giving minimal tracking error.” Ex.1010,
`
`[0005]. Andersson similarly explains that “it may be better to use small size power
`
`steps” in the case of a “fast moving mobile user.” Ex.1009, 5:10-14. “In that case,
`
`a 1 dB power step size may be too large or will only serve to increase power
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`fluctuations.” Ex.1009, 5:10-14. Thus, a POSITA would have been motivated to
`
`IPR2024-00217 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 10,952,153
`
`incorporate Baker’s non-accumulation scheme that provides a smaller, beneficial
`
`power adjustment option into Andersson’s system to improve Andersson “in the
`
`same way.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (finding
`
`obviousness when a known technique “would improve similar devices in the same
`
`way”); Ex.1003, ¶¶64-66.
`
`c)
`
`Reasonable expectation of success
`
`Not only would utilizing Baker’s Power Control Algorithm (PCA) parameter
`
`in Andersson’s system have been advantageous, but a POSITA also would have
`
`found the combination predictable and would have had a reasonable expectation of
`
`success for several reasons. Ex.1003, ¶¶67-69. First, as discussed above, Baker
`
`provides a specific implementation for Andersson’s generic “power control
`
`indicator” that “indicat[es] which type of power control adjustment should be used
`
`by the radio transceiver.” Ex.1009, 5:50-54. Indeed, Baker is explicit that its
`
`technique “is suited for use in a range of other systems” and, in particular, “can be
`
`used in any system in which there is a variable power control step size,” such as
`
`Andersson’s system. Ex.1010, [0043]; Ex.1003, ¶67. Similarly, Andersson is
`
`designed to accommodate different implementations, such as Baker’s. Ex.1009,
`
`5:54-57 (“Depending on a number of indicator bits employed, many different
`
`power control adjustments may be employed.”); Ex.1003, ¶67. Thus, the
`
`22
`
`

`

`
`combination is nothing more than “the predictable use of prior art elements
`
`IPR2024-00217 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 10,952,153
`
`according to their established functions.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
`
`Second, Andersson itself contemplates collecting TPC commands over a
`
`period of time, like Baker, for reliability purposes. Andersson explains that “to
`
`further increase the reliability, TPC bits may be collected over a number of
`
`consecutive slots.” Ex.1009, 11:2-4. In the proposed Andersson-Baker
`
`combination, when Andersson’s power control indicator (corresponding to Baker’s
`
`PCA), indicates that typical TPC command accumulation is not enabled,
`
`Andersson will instead collect and compare TPC commands over five time slots
`
`rather than adjust the current transmit power by each received TPC command
`
`value, just as contemplated by Andersson. Ex.1003, ¶68 (citing Ex.1010, [0023]).
`
`
`
`Accordingly, a POSITA would have been motivated and found it predictable
`
`to combine Andersson with Baker in the manner proposed. Ex.1003, ¶¶60-69.
`
`4. Khan
`
`Khan discloses, in the context of a CDMA system, a single physical channel
`
`over which an allocation of a scheduled uplink resource (i.e., a scheduling grant)
`
`and a TPC command are transmitted from a base station to a wireless device. See
`
`Ex.1005, Khan, [0003], [0005], [0043], Fig. 5. Thus, Khan improves on power
`
`control and scheduling of UE transmissions by teaching a UE that receives
`
`scheduling information and TPC commands on a single physical channel.
`
`23
`
`

`

`IPR2024-00217 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 10,952,153
`
`Specifically, Khan teaches a method of “transmitting control information for
`
`
`
`reverse link packet access transmission,” which determines how users (e.g., UEs)
`
`use uplink resources. Ex.1005, [0012]; Ex.1003, ¶71. The control information
`
`transmitted on the forward