PTAB

IPR2018-01641

Nokia Of America Corp v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Combined Open and Closed Loop Power Control in a Wireless System
  • Brief Description: The ’828 patent discloses a power control method for user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system. The method combines aspects of open-loop power control (based on path loss estimation) and closed-loop power control (based on accumulated Transmit Power Control (TPC) commands) to dynamically adjust uplink transmission power.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Zeira and Whinnett - Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 12-13, 15, 19-20, 22, 26-27, 29, 33-34, 36, and 40-41 are obvious over Zeira in view of Whinnett.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Zeira (Patent 6,728,292) and Whinnett (Application # 2004/0219919).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Zeira taught the core elements of the claimed invention, including a combined closed-loop/open-loop power control system. Zeira allegedly disclosed a UE determining a downlink channel's path loss and receiving an indication of whether to enable accumulation of TPC commands. When accumulation is enabled, Zeira’s equations show calculating transmit power based on both the path loss and accumulated TPC commands. When accumulation is disabled (e.g., by setting a weighting factor to zero), Zeira taught calculating power based on path loss alone. Petitioner contended the primary element missing from Zeira was receiving an allocation of a scheduled uplink resource on the same single physical channel as the TPC commands. Whinnett allegedly supplied this missing element by disclosing an enhanced uplink system featuring Node-B scheduling, where a scheduling assignment message (SAM) containing the uplink resource allocation is sent on a "downlink dedicated channel," the same type of physical channel that carries TPC commands in 3GPP systems.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Zeira and Whinnett to improve wireless system performance. Both references address the goal of maximizing data throughput while minimizing interference. Zeira provided a known and advantageous combined power control scheme. Whinnett provided a known scheduling technique (Node-B scheduling) for enhanced uplink systems, which was a heavily discussed topic in the 3GPP community at the time. A POSITA would have found it obvious to apply Zeira's sophisticated power control method within the context of Whinnett's modern scheduling framework to achieve more efficient and reliable uplink transmissions.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination involved applying a known power control technique to a known scheduling system. The integration was a predictable arrangement of existing elements, each performing its known function to achieve a more robust overall system.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Zeira, Whinnett, and R1-99151 - Claims 2, 9, 16, 23, 30, and 37 are obvious over Zeira in view of Whinnett and R1-99151.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Zeira (Patent 6,728,292), Whinnett (Application # 2004/0219919), and R1-99151 (3GPP TSG RAN WG1#3 TDoc).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Zeira and Whinnett from Ground 1 to address dependent claims requiring a "multilevel TPC command." Petitioner argued that while Zeira disclosed TPC commands with a typical fixed step size (e.g., 1 dB), the 3GPP technical document R1-99151 explicitly taught a method for adaptive, variable step sizes. R1-99151 described "Adaptive Step Power Control" (ASPC), where the TPC step size is not fixed but is represented by the ratio of amplitudes between the power control data and a pilot symbol. This variable step size, which can represent more than one numerical value, allegedly constituted the claimed "multilevel TPC command."
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that a POSITA, having already combined Zeira and Whinnett, would be motivated to further incorporate the teachings of R1-99151 to improve the system's performance. R1-99151 addressed the known problem that different channel conditions (e.g., fast vs. slow fading) require different power control step sizes for optimal performance. Implementing the ASPC method from R1-99151 into the Zeira/Whinnett system would allow the power control loop to adapt more efficiently to changing conditions without increasing signaling overhead, a clear and well-understood benefit in the field.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in implementing adaptive step sizes in a known power control system. R1-99151 provided the specific mechanism for achieving this, and its integration would predictably result in a more responsive and efficient power control system.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, 12-13, 15-16, 19-20, 22-23, 26-27, 29-30, 33-34, 36-37, and 40-41 of the ’828 patent as unpatentable.