U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4145 April 2010

Washington, DC 20436

In the Matter of

Investigation No. 337-TA-613 

Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and 

Components Thereof
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

Shara L. Aranoff, Chairman 

Daniel R. Pearson, Vice Chairman 

Deanna Tanner Okun 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Irving A. Williamson 

Dean A. Pinkert 

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4145 April 2010

In the Matter of

Investigation No. 337-TA-613 

Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and 

Components Thereof


'004 patent"); 7,190,966 ("the '966 patent"); and 7,286,847 ("the '847 patent") ("the Power 

Ramp-Up Patents); and 6,693,579 ("the '579 patent). The notice of investigation named Nokia 

Corporation of Finland and Nokia Inc. ofIrving, Texas (collectively, "Nokia") as respondents. 

On August 14,2009, the ALJ issued his final ID, finding no violation of Section 337. In 

particular, he found that the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are not infringed and that they 

are not invalid. The ALl further found that a domestic industry exists with respect to the patentsin-suit. Additionally, the ALl found that there is no prosecution laches relating to the '004, '966, 

and '847 patents and that the '579 patent is enforceable. The ALl further found that there is no 

waiver and patent misuse with respect to the patents-in-suit. The ALl also issued a 

Recommended Determination on remedy and bonding, recommending that, in the event a 

violation of Section 337 is found, the appropriate remedy is a limited exclusion order barring 

entry of infringing 3G mobile handsets and components thereof and that it would also be 

appropriate to issue various cease and desist orders. The ALl also recommended that there is no 

evidence to support the issuance of a bond during the period of Presidential review. 

On August 31, 2009, InterDigital filed a petition for review, challenging certain aspects of 

the final ID, and Nokia filed a contingent petition for review, challenging other aspects of the final 

ID. On September 8, 2009, Nokia filed a response to InterDigital's petition for review, and 

InterDigital filed a response to Nokia's contingent petition for review. The Commission 

investigative attorney filed ajoint response to both InterDigital's and Nokia's petitions on 

September 8, 2009. 

Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALl's final ID, the 

petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has determined to review the 

subject ID in part. Specifically, the Commission has determined to review the ALl's claim 

construction of the terms "synchronize," found in claims 5, 6, 9, and 11 of the '847 patent, and 

"access signal," found in claim 59 of the '004 patent and claims 6, 9, and 11 of the '847 patent. 

The Commission has also determined to review the ALl's validity determinations with respect to 

the four asserted patents. On review, we affirm the ALl's determination of no violation, but take 

no position with regard to the term "synchronize" and validity. 

In addition, the Commission modifies the ALl's construction of "access signal" to clarify 

that his construction does not read out the situation where the "access signal" may continue to be 

transmitted after the power ramp-up procedure ends. The ID limits the transmission of the 

"access signal" to the power ramp-up procedure, finding the transmission does not continue 

during the remainder of the call setup process. The Commission agrees that the "access signal" is 

transmitted during the power ramp-up procedure and that the "access signal" is a separate 

transmission from any other call set up messages that a subscriber unit pursuant to the Power 

Ramp-Up Patents transmits to a base station during a communication event. The Commission 

finds, however, that the '004 and '847 patents do not require that the transmission ofthe "access 

signal" ends when the power ramp-up procedure ends. 

The Commission has determined not to review the remaining issues decided in the ID. 

2 
The authority for the Commission's detennination is contained in section 337 ofthe Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337), and in section 210.42 of the Commission's Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. § 210.42). 

By order of the Commission. .. 

Marilyn R. Abbott 

Secretary to the Commission 

Issued: October 16, 2009 

3 
Certificate of Service Page 1 

CERTAIN 3G MOBILE HANDSETS AND COMPONENTS 

THEREOF 

337-TA-613 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Marilyn R. Abbott, hereby certify that the attached NOTICE OF COMMISSION 

DETERMINATION TO REVIEW IN PART A FINAL DETERMINATION 

FINDING NO VIOLATION OF SECTION 337 AND ON REVIEW TO AFFIRM 

THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S DETERMINATION OF NO 

VIOLATION; TERMINATION OF INVESTIGATION has been served by hand 

upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Benjamin Levi Esq., and the following 

parties as indicated, on Oc tober 19, 2009. 

arilyn R Abbott, Secretary 

U.S. International Trade Commission 

500 E Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20436 

On Behalf of Complainants Interdigital 

Communications LLC and Interdigital 

Technology Corporation: 

Smith R. Brittingham IV, Esq. 

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, 

GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP 

901 New York Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20001 

On Behalf of Respondents Nokia Corporation and Nokia 

Incorporated: 

Paul F. Brinkman, Esq. 

ALSTON & BIRD LLP 

950 F Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

( ) Via Hand Delivery 

( )/Via Overnight Mail 

(v, Via First Class Mail 

( ) Other: ____ _ 

( ) Via Hand Delivery 

( ) Yia Overnight Mail 

(~Via First Class Mail 

( ) Other: ___ _ 

APPEARANCES 

For Complainant InterDigital Communications LLC; 

InterDigital Technology Corporation: 

Smith R. Brittingham IV, Esq. 

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow 

901 New York Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20001 

Respondents Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc.: 

Paul F. Brinkman, Esq. 

Alston & Bird, LLP 

950 F Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

ITC Staff: 

Benjamin Levi, Esq. 

Office of Unfair Import Investigation 

U.S. International Trade Commission 

500 E Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20436 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE 

OPINION ................................................................... 1 

I. Procedural History ....................................................... 1 

II. Jurisdiction Including Parties And Importation ................................. 4 

III. The Products In Issue .......................................... ~_ ... 4 

IV. The Power Ramp-Up Patents ('004, '966 And '847 Patents) ...................... 5 

A. Undisputed Facts .................................................. 7 

B. Experts .......................................................... 8 

C. Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ................................... 9 

D. Claims In Issue ...................................... , ............. 9 

E. Claim Construction ............................................... 14 

1. Whether U.S. Patent No. 5,799,010 Should Be 

Incorporated By Reference Into The Power 

Ramp-Up Patents ........................................... 23 

2. The claimed phrases "code," "code of a first type," "first code," 

"code signal(s)" and "different codes." .......................... 29 

3. The claimed phrase "access signal" ............................. 40 

4. The claimed phrases "associated with," "generated using a same code" 

and "function of a same code" ................................. 46 

a. The claimed phrase "associated with" ..................... 47 

b. The claimed phrase "generated using a same code" .......... 54 

c. The claimed phrase "function of a same code" .............. 55 

5. The claimed phrases "carry no data" and "does not include data" ..... 58 

11 
6. The claimed phrase "initial power level" ......................... 61 

7. The claimed phrases "transmitting ... at increasing power levels," 

"transmit ... at increasing power levels," "repeating (a) at increasing 

power levels," "transmission ... at an increased power level" and 

"transmitted at an increased power level" ........................ 65 

8. The claimed phrases "repeatedly transmit," "successively transmits" 

and "repeats the transmitting" ................................. 72 

9. The claimed phrases "synchronize to the pilot signal," 

"synchronize to a pilot signal," "synchronizing to 

the pilot signal," "synchronizing to a pilot signal" 

and "re-synchronize to the pilot signal" .......................... 73 

F. Infringement ..................................................... 81 

1. Accused Products ........................................... 83 

2. The '004 Patent ............................................ 83 

3. The '966 Patent ........................................... 100 

4. The '847 Patent ........................................... 102 

G. Validity ........................................................ 113 

1. Priority Date For RACH Power Ramp-Up Patents ................ 119 

2. Lucas Reference ........................................... 131 

3. The IS-95 References ....................................... 145 

4. The CODIT Final Review Reference ........................... 152 

H. Prosecution Laches .............................................. 156 

V. The '579 Patent ....................................................... 169 

A. Undisputed Facts ................................................ 169 

B. Experts ........................................................ 171 

III 
C. Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ................................. 171 

D. Claims In Issue ................................................. 172 

E. Claim Construction .............................................. 172 

1. The claimed phrase "apparatus" .............................. 172 

2. The claimed phrase "a code used for scrambling a 

high speed shared control channel (HS-SCCH)" .................. 174 

3. The claimed phrase" a 48 bit code for use in descrambling 

a high speed shared anchor/channel (HS-SCCH) ................. 185 

4. The claimed phrase "Yz rate convolution encorder" ................ 193 

F. Infringement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 

1. Accused Products .......................................... 197 

2. { } based handsets ............................... 197 

3. { } based handsets .............................. 208 

G. Validity ........................................................ 215 

H. Enforceability ................................................... 223 

VI. Waiver And Patent Misuse .............................................. 229 

VII. Domestic Industry ..................................................... 235 

VIII. Remedy ............................................................. 235 

IX. Bond ................................................................ 240 

X. Additional Findings Of Fact ............................................. 241 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW .................................................... 243 

ORDER ................................................................... 245 

IV 
ALJ-Ex. 

CBr 

CDX 

CFF 

CORFF 

COSFF 

CRBr 

CRRFF 

CX 

JX 

RBr 

RDX 

RX 

RFF 

ROCFF 

RRBr 

RRCFF 

SBr 

SOCFF 

SRBr 

SRCFF 

SX 

SPFF 

ABBREVIATIONS 

Admininstrative Law Judge's Exhibit 

Complainants' Post-hearing Brief 

Complainants' Demonstrative Exhibit 

Complainants' Proposed Finding 

Complainants' Objection To Respondents' Proposed Finding 

Complainants' Objection To Staffs Proposed Finding 

Complainants' Post-hearing Reply Brief 

Complainants' Proposed Rebuttal Finding to RFF 

Complainants' Exhibit 

Joint Exhibit 

Respcadents' Post-hearing Brief 

Respondents' Demonstrative Exhibit 

Respondents' Exhibit 

Respondents' Proposed Finding 

Respondents' Objection To Complainants' Proposed Finding 

Respondents' Post-hearing Reply Brief 

Respondents' Proposed Rebuttal Finding To CFF 

Staffs Post-hearing Brief 

Staffs Objection To Complainants' Proposed Finding 

Staffs Post-hearing Reply Brief 

Staffs Proposed Rebuttal Finding To CFF 

Staff s Exhibit 

Staff s Proposed Finding 

v 
Tr. Transcript Of Pre-hearing Conference and Hearing 

VI 
OPINION 

1. Procedural History 

Complainants InterDigital Communications, LLC and InterDigital Technology 

Corporation (InterDigital) filed a complaint against respondents Nokia Corporation and Nokia 

Inc. (Nokia) on August 7, 2008, and said investigation was instituted on September 11,2007, 

with the scope of investigation limited to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,117,004 ('004 patent) and 7,190,966 

('966 patent). See Notice ofInvestigation, Inv. No. 337-TA-613, 72 Fed. Reg. 51838. Order No. 

3 (unreviewed) which issued on October 11,2007 added U.S. Patent No. 6,973,579 (the '579 

patent). In Order No.4, which issued on October 11,2007, the administrative law judge set a 

fifteen month target date of December 11, 2008, which meant that any final initial determination 

should be filed by September 11,2008. 

On October 5, 2007, the Nokia respondents moved to consolidate Inv. No. 337-TA-601 1 

and this investigation (Inv. No. 337-T A -613) based on alleged efficiencies that would result from 

consolidation and the "prejudice" Nokia would suffer ifInv. No. 337-TA-601 were to proceed 

without Nokia's ability to participate. The Samsung respondents in Inv. No. 337-TA-601 filed a 

similar motion several days later. After lengthy arguments at a preliminary conference in the 613 

investigation, the administrative law judge consolidated the two investigations. See Order Nos. 5 

(Inv. No. 337-TA-613) and 11 (Inv. No. 337-TA-601) (both issued on October 24,2007). 

On November 9, 2007, Order No.9 (unreviewed), which added u.S. Patent No. 

7,286,847 ('847 patent), issued. 

1 Complainants had filed an initial complaint in Inv. No. 337-TA-601 against Samsung 

Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, and Samsung 

Electronics Co., Ltd. (Samsung), on March 23, 2007, and this investigation was instituted on 

April 27, 2007. See Notice ofInvestigation, Inv. No. 337-TA-601, 72 Fed. Reg. 21049. Order 

No. 29, which issued on February 6, 2009 in the 601 investigation granted a joint motion to 

terminate Inv. No. 337-TA-601 in its entirety based on a settlement agreement (non-review on 

February 24,2009.) 
On December 4,2007, approximately six weeks after the administrative law judge 

consolidated Inv. No. 337-TA-601 and Inv. No. 337-TA-613, Nokia moved to terminate or stay 

the consolidated investigation as to Nokia, based on an alleged right to arbitrate a license 

defense. The administrative law judge thereafter denied said motion of Nokia. Nokia then filed 

a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and simultaneously 

sought a preliminary injunction to prevent InterDigital from proceeding against Nokia at the 

Commission based on the same alleged arbitration right previously rejected by the administrative 

law judge. District Court Judge Deborah Batts thereafter granted Nokia's requested preliminary 

injunction and issued an order requiring InterDigital to file a motion to stay the consolidated 

investigation against Nokia by April 11, 2008, and thereafter requiring InterDigital to take no 

action against Nokia with respect to InterDigital's infringement allegations in the consolidation 

investigation. In compliance with Judge Batts' order, InterDigital filed Motion No. 613-60 to 

stay the consolidated investigation as to Nokia on April 11. 

Order No. 31, which issued on April 14, 2008, suspended an April 21, 2008 date for 

commencement of the evidentiary hearing in the consolidated investigation. Order No. 33, which 

issued on May 16,2008 granted complainants' Motion No. 613-62 to separate previously 

consolidated Inv. No. 337-TA-601 and 337-TA-613 and further granted complainants' Motion 

No. 613-60 to stay the portion ofthe consolidated investigation relating to Nokia, viz. 337-TA613. 

Order No. 36 which issued on September 25,2008, lifted the stay of complainants in 337-

TA-613 imposed by Order No. 33. Order No. 37, which issued on October 7,2008, set hearing 

dates of May 26, 27, 28 and 29, 2009. Order No. 38, which issued on October 10,2008, set a 

target date of December 14, 2009 which meant that any final initial determination on violation 

2 
should be filed no later than August 14, 2009. 

Order No. 42 which issued on March 10,2009, granted complainants' Motion No. 601-71 

that complainants' licensing activities in the United States satisfied the domestic industry 

requirement of 19 U.S.C. § 1737(a)(3)(c). The Commission on April 9, 2009, determined not to 

review said order. 

At the prehearing conference, the administrative law judge denied complainants' Motion 

No. 613-82 to compel Nokia to produce certain licenses. (Tr. at 38.) He also denied in part 

Nokia's Motion In Limine No. 613-82 regarding a Lucas reference and reserved a ruling as to 

admissibility of evidence as it relates to said motion and complainants' Motion In Limine No. 

613-78. (Tr. at 39-42.) 

An evidentiary hearing in this investigation was held on May 26,27,28,29 and June 2. 

Inissue, inter alia were alleged infringement of claims 1,2, 31 and 59 ofthe '004 patent, claims 

1,3,8,9 and 11 of the '966 patent and claims 5, 6, 9 and 11 of the '847 patent as well as alleged 

infringement of claims 1, 3 and 4 of the' 579 patent. 

The matter is now ready for a final decision. 

The Final Initial and Recommended Determinations are based on the record compiled at 

the hearing and the exhibits admitted into evidence. The administrative law judge has also taken 

into account his observation of the witnesses who appeared before him during the hearing. 

Proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties not herein adopted, in the form submitted or in 

substance, are rejected as either not supported by the evidence or as involving immaterial matters 

and/or as irrelevant. Certain findings of fact included herein have references to supporting 

evidence in the record. Such references are intended to serve as guides to the testimony and 

exhibits supporting the finding of fact. They do not necessarily represent complete summaries of 

3 
the evidence supporting said findings. 

II. Jurisdiction Including Parties And Importation 

The private parties in this investigation are identified in the findings. See FF -1-8 in 

Section X, infra. Nokia acknowledges that the respondents have "imported various models of the 

accused products into the United States and that InterDigital has alleged infringement of its 

patents by these products." (SPFF ILl (undisputed).) Nokia and InterDigital have also stipulated 

that: 

1. Nokia employees have used the N-75, N-95, 6555, 

6750 and 6350 handsets, which are manufactured by 

Nokia, to initiate phone calls in a 30 WCDMA 

network within the United States, since October 23, 

2007, the date InterDigital moved in this matter to 

file its Second Amended Complaint. 

2. Nokia has imported into the United States the N-75, 

N-95, 6555, 6750 and 6350 handsets. 

3. Nokia has imported additional handsets into the 

United States, which handsets have the capability of 

operating in a 30 WCDMA network. These 

handsets include N-95-80B, E66, E71, N78, 6650, 

6690, 3555, N83, N79 and 6263. 

(SX-2.) Moreover Nokia acknowledges that "the Commission has subject matter jurisdiction 

[over] this investigation. (SPFF 11.3 (undisputed).) In addition, the Commission has personal 

jurisdiction over said respondents in this investigation because said respondents have participated 

fully in said investigation, including participation in discovery and motion practice. See Certain 

Audible Alarm Devices For Divers, Inv. No. 337-TA-365, Initial Determination, 1995 ITC 

LEXIS 66 at *3 (Feb. 2, 1995). 

III. The Products In Issue 

The accused Nokia handset models that InterDigital accuses of infringement of the power 

4 
ramp-up patents include the Nokia model numbers identified in Section II supra. 

With specific regard to the' 579 patent, InterDigital accuses Nokia handsets that utilize 

the { } (SPFF 1.9, CFF 3.9 (all (undisputed).) 

IV. The Power Ramp-Up Patents ('004, '966 And '847 Patents) 

The '004 patent in issue is titled "Method and Subscriber Unit for Performing an Access 

Procedure." (CX-l at ITC-COMP00005644.) The '004 patent issued on October 3, 2006. (CX-l 

at ITC-COMP00005644.) The inventors of the '004 patent are Gary Lomp and Fatih Ozluturk. 

(CX-l at ITC-COMP00005644.) The '004 patent is based on Patent Application Serial No. 

10/866,851 filed on June 14,2004. (CX-l at ITC-COMP00005644.) The '004 patent claims 

priority to Application No. 08/670,162, which was filed on June 27, 1996, and matured into U.S. 

Patent No. 5,841,768. (CX-l at ITC-COMP00005644.) The '004 patent has 18 independent 

claims and 48 dependent claims. (CX-l at ITC-COMP00005661 - ITC-COMP00005665.) 

InterDigital is the owner by assignment ofthe entire right, title, and interest in and to the '004 

patent. (CX-6.) 

The '966 patent in issue is titled "Method and Apparatus for Performing an Access 

Procedure." (CX-2 at ITC-COMPOOOI6933.) The '966 patent issued on March 13,2007. (CX-2 

at ITC-COMPOOOI6933.) The named inventors on the '966 patent are Gary Lomp and Fatih 

Ozluturk. (CX-2 at ITC-COMPOOOI6933.) The '966 patent is based on Patent Application Serial 

No. 111169,490 filed on June 29, 2005. (CX-2 at ITC-COMPOOOI6933.) The '966 patent claims 

priority to Application No. 08/670,162, which was filed on June 27, 1996, and matured into U.S. 

Patent No. 5,841,768. (CX-2 at ITC-COMP00016933.) The '966 patent resulted from a 

continuation of the application that led to the asserted '004 patent. (CX-2 at 

5 
ITC-COMPOOOI6933.) The '966 patent has 1 independent claim and 11 dependent claims. 

(CX-2 at ITC-COMPOOOI6950 - ITC-COMPOOOI6951.) InterDigital is the owner by assignment 

of the entire right, title, and interest in and to the '966 patent. (CX-6.) 

The '847 patent is titled "Method and Apparatus for Performing an Access Procedure." 

(CX-3 at ITC-COMP00021139.) The '847 patent issued on October 23,2007. (CX-3 at 

ITC-COMP00021139.) The named inventors on the '847 patent are Fatih Ozluturk and Gary 

Lomp. (CX-3 at ITC-COMP00021139.) The '847 patent is based on Patent Application Serial 

No. 111169,425 filed on June 29,2005. (CX-3 at ITC-COMP00021139.) The '847 patent claims 

priority to Application No. 08/670,162, which was filed on June 27, 1996, and matured into U.S. 

Patent No. 5,841,768. (CX-3 at ITC-COMP00021139.) The '847 patent resulted from a 

continuation of the application that led to the asserted '004 patent. (CX-3 at 

ITC.:COMP00021139.) The '847 patent has 11 independent claims and 0 dependent claims. 

(CX-3at ITC-COMP00021157 - ITC-COMP00021160.) InterDigital is the owner by assignment 

of the entire right, title, and interest in and to the '847 patent. (CX-6.) 

Each of the power ramp-up patents, viz., the '004 patent (CX-l), the '966 patent (CX-2), 

and the '847 patent (CX-3), share a common specification, and said common specification 

discloses an initial access procedure for a CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) system. (CFF 

2.84,2.85 (undisputed).)2 Thus, each of the applications for the '966 and '847 patents, viz. 

2 The administrative law judge will cite to only the '004 patent, CX-l, when referencing 

the common specification. Moreover the administrative law judge will refer to the '004, '966 

and '847 patent as the power ramp-up patents. Complainants refer to said patents as the power 

ramp-up patents. (~, CBr at 18.) Neither the respondents nor the staffhave objected to that 

designation. Also respondents' expert Lanning has referred to said three patents as the power 

ramp-up patents. (Tr. at 1606-07.) 

6 
Application Ser. Nos. 111169,490 and 111169,425, are continuations of the application for the 

'004 patent, application Ser. No. 10/866,851. (CX-2 at ITC-COMP00016933; CX-3 at ITCCOMP00021139.) Each of the three power ramp-up patents list InterDigital Technology 

Corporation, Wilmington, DE (US) as the Assignee. (CX-1 at ITC-COMP00005644; CX-2 at 

. ITC-COMP00016933; CX-3 at ITC-COMP00021139.) For the purpose of claim construction, 

the parties have treated the power ramp-up patents collectively. (See, generally, CBr at 30-56; 

RBr at Sec. II, p. 2 to Sec. II, p. 20; SBr at 7-35.) The administrative law judge in his "Claim 

Construction" infra has done the same. 

A. Undisputed Facts 

Pursuant to a joint stipulation of the private parties, the following has been stipulated to 

as an overview of the technology involved in this investigation as the technology relates to the 

power ramp-up patents, viz. the '004, '966 and '847 patents in issue. 

1. A typical cellular system (network) architecture consists of many 

separate transmission and reception areas referred to as cells. Each 

cell has a base station (BS) that is capable of communicating with 

many mobiles in its radio coverage area. A mobile is sometimes 

referred to as a mobile phone, user equipment (UE), cell phone, 

handset, or subscriber unit (SU). 

2. A cellular system uses predefined radio frequency bands that are 

shared by all base stations and mobiles. There are a number of 

technical methods that are used to provide simultaneous access by 

all the base stations and the mobiles in each allocated frequency 

band. These methods are known as multiple access. The multiple 

access (MA) method used in the '004 Patent Family is Code 

Division Multiple Access (CDMA) which means that different 

codes are used by the base stations and mobiles to define the 

different system channels to be used for control and 

communication. See 1:24-25; 151-58; 1:66-67 and 2:11-16. 

3. Mobile phones commonly move to different locations in a 

7 
cellular system and must be able to communicate with any BS in a 

cellular system. Therefore, cellular systems have a number of basic 

procedures that are used by a mobile to synchronize with a local 

base station, notify it of its existence and to receive and originate 

calls. The applicable procedures include synchronization, random 

access, and channel assignment. 

4. After being powered up, a mobile must synchronize to a 

reference signal transmitted from a BS in order to receive signals 

from the BS and allow the BS to receive the signals sent by the 

mobile. See 5:13-15; 5:57-59. A mobile synchronizes to a specific 

BS by aligning its receiver with at least one reference signal that is 

transmitted by the BS. See 5:54-59; 5:13-15: 7:54-57; Fig. 6A (step 

150). 

5. Mobiles wishing to originate or receive a call must first be 

detected by the BS. Mobiles are detected by a specific BS when the 

mobile performs a random access procedure. 

6. The transmission power of the mobile causes interference to 

other mobiles and base stations. See 2: 17 -18; 2:21-26. Greater 

transmission power is required the further the mobile is from the 

base station. Id. Also, greater transmission power may be required 

to overcome interference fiom other users, noise, or other channel 

characteristics. 2:39-42. 

7. Power control is important lor a CDMA system because all 

transmissions use the same frequency band such that each 

transmission is interference (noise) to the other transmissions. 

2:15-18; 5:62-63. A power level that is too high causes excess 

interference with other users and may disrupt communications. 

2:44-48; 5:63-65. A power level that is too low will not be detected 

by the base station. 2:48-50; 5:65-67. 

8. Power overshoot occurs when the tnmsmit power of a mobile 

exceeds the power level necessary for detection by the BS. 

7:26-34; Figs. 5 and 7 (showing overshoot above detection level). 

(SX-4 at 1-2 (emphasis added).) 

B. Experts 

Branimir Vojcic was qualified as complainants' expert in the field of wireless 

8 
communications and CDMA. (Tr. at 286-87.) 

Mark Lanning was qualified as respondents' expert in cellular network architecture, 

handset operation and architecture and mobile telephony. (Tr. at 1567-68.) 

Steve Kinney was qualified as respondents' expert in the field of mobile telephony and 

mobile cellular communications. (Tr. at 1741.) 

C. Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art 

Vojcic testified that the level of ordinary skill in the field of CDMA and wireless 

communications during the time period from 1996 to the present would be a Bachelor's of 

Science degree in electrical engineering with four to five years of experience. (Tr. at 287-8.) 

Lanning and Kenney testified that the person of ordinary skill in the art is a person with a 

Bachelor's or Master's level degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or mathematics 

with four years of experience in telecommunications, with two years of that experience being in 

the field ofCDMA communications. (Tr. at 1715-1716, 1770.) Kenney also testified that the 

person of ordinary skill in the art could also be a person with a Ph.D. in electrical engineering or 

a relate field one year of experience in CDMA communications. (Tr. at 1770.) 

Based on the record from the evidentiary hearing including the testimony of the experts 

the administrative law judge finds that the person of ordinary skill in the art for the power rampup patents at the time of their filing would have at least a Bachelor's degree in electrical 

engineering, computer science or mathematics with some working experience in CDMA 

communications, the amount of said experience dependent on the degree said person has. 

D. Claims In Issue 

Asserted claims 1,2,31 and 59 of the '004 patent read: 

9 
1. A method for performing power control in a wireless code 

division multiple access communication system, the method 

comprising: transmitting dynamically selected code signals at 

increasing power levels until an acknowledgement is received 

indicating that one of said dynamically selected code signals was 

detected, wherein the transmitted dynamically selected code signals 

carry no data; and in response to detecting the acknowledgment, 

transmitting an access signal wherein the access signal is 

associated with the dynamically selected code signals and each of 

the dynamically selected code signals are shorter than the access 

signal. 

2. A wireless code division multiple access subscriber unit, the 

subscriber unit comprising: a transmitter configured such that a 

first code is transmitted at an initial power level wherein the first 

code is of a first code type and the transmitter further configured to 

repeatedly transmit dynamically selected codes of said first code 

type at increasing power levels wherein the transmitted codes of 

said first code type carry no data; a receiver configured such that an 

acknowledgement is detected indicating a code of said first type 

was received; and the transmitter configured such that in response 

to detecting the acknowledgement, a signal having a second code is 

transmitted to access a communication channel wherein the second 

code is associated with the first code. 

31. The method of claim 303 wherein said code of a first type is a 

3 Unasserted claim 30, from which asserted claim 31 depends, reads: 

A method performed by a code division multiple access 

subscriber unit for establishing communications between the 

subscriber unit and a base station, the method comprising: 

(a) transmitting a code ofa first type, wherein the code of the first 

type does not include data of the subscriber unit; 

(b) determining if the subscriber unit has received an 

acknowledgement signal from the base station, the 

acknowledgement signal being an indication to the subscriber unit 

that the base station has received a code of the first type; 

(c) repeating (a) at increasing power levels until the subscriber unit 

has received the acknowledgement signal; and 

(d) transmitting a code of a second type after it is determined that 

the subscriber unit has received the acknowledgement signal. 

10 
dynamically selected code associated with said code of a second 

type. 

59. A subscriber unit for performing an access procedure for 

establishing communications between said subscriber unit and a 

base station, said subscriber unit comprising: a processor 

configured to control a transmitter such that the transmitter 

transmits a first one of a plurality of different codes by said 

subscriber unit to said base station; a receiver configured to receive 

an acknowledgement wherein if said acknowledgement is not 

received, the processor configured to control the transmitter such 

that the transmitter transmits another one of the plurality of 

different codes by said subscriber unit to said base station; the 

processor configured to control said transmitter such that said 

transmitter repeats the transmitting of another one of the plurality 

of different codes until said acknowledgement is received by said 

subscriber unit from said base station, said acknowledgement 

indicating to said subscriber unit that said base station has received 

at least one of said different codes; and said processor configured 

to control the transmitter such that the transmitter transmits, in 

response to receipt of said acknowledgement, an access signal to 

facilitate communication initialization between said subscriber, 

unit and said base station, said access signal as transmitted by said 

subscriber unit and said different codes as transmitted by said 

subscriber unit each being a function of a same code. 

(CX-l at 10:62-11:24,14:27-29,16:65-17:25.) 

Asserted claims 1,3,8,9 and 11 of the '966 patent read: 

1. A wireless code division multiple access (CDMA) subscriber 

unit comprising: a transmitter configured such that, when the 

subscriber unit is first accessing a CDMA network and wants to 

establish communications with a base station associated with the 

network over a communication channel to be indicated by the base 

station, the transmitter successively transmits signals until the 

subscriber unit receives from the base station an indication that a 

transmitted one of the signals has been detected by the base station, 

wherein each transmission of one of the signals by the transmitter 

is at an increased power level with respect to a prior transmission 

of one of the signals; the transmitter further configured such that 

(CX-l at 14:8-26.) 

11 
the transmitter transmits to the base station a message indicating to 

the base station that the subscriber unit wants to establish the 

communications with the base station over the communication 

channel to be indicated by the base station, the message being 

transmitted only subsequent to the subscriber unit receiving the 

indication, wherein each of the successively transmitted signals and 

the message are generated using a same code; and wherein each of 

the successively transmitted signals is shorter than the message. 

3. The subscriber unit of claim 1 wherein some of the transmitted 

signals are different. 

8. The subscriber unit of claim 1 wherein the transmitter is further 

configured to transmit the signals such that there is a uniform 

decibel power level increase between the successively transmitted 

signals. 

9. The subscriber unit of claim 1 wherein the communication 

channel is indicated by the base station in response to the message. 

11. The subscriber unit of claim 1 wherein the transmitter is further 

configured such that, subsequent to the: subscriber unit receiving 

the indication, the transmitter transmits a message uniquely 

identifying the subscriber unit to the base station. 

(CX-2 at 10:62-11:19,11:22-23,12:8-14,12:17-21.) 

Asserted claims 5, 6, 9 and 11 of the '847 patent read: 

5. A wireless code division multiple access (CDMA) subscriber 

unit comprising: a circuit configured to receive and down convert 

radio frequency signals to produce baseband signals, the baseband 

signals including a pilot signal and a paging message, the paging 

message being associated with the subscriber unit, wherein the 

circuit is further configured to synchronize to the pilot signal and 

demodulate the paging message; and a transmitter configured such 

that, when the subscriber unit is first accessing a CDMA network 

and wants to establish communications with a base station 

associated with the network over a communication channel to be 

indicated by the base station, the transmitter successively transmits 

signals until the subscriber unit receives from the base station an 

indication that a transmitted one of the signals has been detected by 

the base station, wherein each transmission of one of the signals by 

the transmitter, other than a transmission of a first one of the 

12 
signals, is at an increased power level with respect to a prior 

transmission of another one of the signals; the transmitter further 

configured such that the transmitter transmits to the base station a 

message indicating to the base station that the subscriber unit 

wants to establish the communications with the base station over 

the communication channel to be indicated by the base station, the 

message being transmitted only subsequent to the subscriber unit 

receiving the indication, wherein the successively transmitted 

signals and the message are generated using a same code. 

6. A method for use in a code division multiple access subscriber 

unit for establishing communications between said subscriber unit 

and a base station, said method comprising: synchronizing to a 

pilot signal transmitted by said base station; after said 

synchronizing to the pilot signal, transmitting a plurality of 

different codes by said subscriber unit to said base station wherein 

each one of the plurality of different codes, other than a first one of 

the plurality of different codes, is transmitted at an increased power 

level with respect to a prior transmission of another one of the 

plurality of different codes; receiving an acknowledgement by said 

subscriber unit from said base station and ceasing transmitting the 

plurality of different codes, said acknowledgement indicating to 

said subscriber unit that said base station has received at least one 

of said plurality of different codes; and transmitting, in response to 

receipt of said acknowledgement, an access signal to facilitate 

communication initialization between said subscriber unit and said 

base station, said access signal as transmitted by said subscriber 

unit, and said plurality of different codes, as transmitted by said 

subscriber unit, being a function of a same code. 

9. A method for use in a code division multiple access subscriber 

unit for establishing communications between said subscriber unit 

and a base station, said method comprising: (a) receiving radio 

frequency signals; (b) down converting the received radio 

frequency signals to produce baseband signals, the baseband 

signals include a pilot signal and a paging message, the paging 

message being associated with the subscriber unit; (c) 

synchronizing to the pilot signal; (d) demodulating the paging 

message; (e) after said demodulating the paging message and said 

synchronizing to the pilot signal, transmitting a first one of a 

plurality of different codes by said subscriber unit to said base 

station; (f) if an acknowledgement is not received, transmitting 

another one of the plurality of different codes by said subscriber 

13 
unit to said base station; (g) repeating step (f) until an 

acknowledgement is received by said subscriber unit from said 

base station, said acknowledgement indicating to said subscriber 

unit that said base station has received at least one of said different 

codes; and (h) transmitting, in response to receipt of said 

acknowledgement, an access signal to facilitate communication 

initialization between said subscriber unit and said base station, 

said access signal, as transmitted by said subscriber unit, and said 

different codes, as transmitted by said subscriber unit, being a 

function of a same code. 

11. A subscriber unit for performing an access procedure for 

establishing communications between said subscriber unit and a 

base station, said subscriber unit comprising: a circuit configured 

to synchronize to a pilot signal transmitted by the base station 

wherein, the circuit is further configured to re-synchronize to the 

pilot signal if the subscriber unit becomes unsynchronized to the 

pilot signal during an idle period; a processor configured to control 

a transmitter such that the transmitter transmits a first one of a 

plurality of different codes by said subscriber unit to said base 

station; a receiver configured to receive an acknowledgement 

wherein if said acknowledgement is not received, the processor is 

configured to control the transmitter such that -the transmitter 

transmits another one of the plurality of different codes by said 

subscriber unit to said base station; the processor configured to 

control said transmitter such that said transmitter repeats the 

transmitting of another one of the plurality of different codes until 

said acknowledgement is received by said subscriber unit from said 

base station, said acknowkdgement [sic] indicating to said 

subscriber unit that said base station has received at least one of 

said different codes; and said processor further configured to 

control the transmitter such that the transmitter transmits, in 

response to receipt of said acknowledgement, an access signal to 

facilitate communication initialization between said subscriber unit 

and said base station, said access signal as transmitted by said 

subscriber unit, and said plurality of different codes, as transmitted 

by said subscriber unit, being a function of a same code. 

(CX-3 at 12:31-13:23, 14:7-36, 14:65-16:14.) 

E. Claim Construction 

Claim construction is a question oflaw. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 

14 
967,979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996) (Markman); see Cybor Corp. v. 

FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1455 (Fed. Cir. 1998). In construing claims, a court should 

look to intrinsic evidence consisting of the language of the claims, the specification and the 

prosecution history as it "is the most significant source of the legally operative meaning of 

disputed claim language." Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 

1996) (Vitronics); see Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc'n. Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 

1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Claim construction is a matter of resolution of disputed meanings 

and technical scope, to clarify and, when necessary, to explain what the patentee covered by the 

claims" See U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 

The claims themselves "provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular 

claim terms." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (Phillips), citing 

Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582. It is essential to consider a claim as a whole when construing each 

term, because the context in which a term is used in a claim "can be highly instructi';e." Id. In 

construing claims, the administrative law judge should first look "to the words of the claims 

themselves ... to define the scope of the patented invention." Vitronics., 90 F.3d at 1582; see 

generally Phillips, 415 F .3d at 1312-13. Claim terms "are generally given their ordinary and 

accustomed meaning." Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582. Moreover, each term of a claim should be 

given its own meaning. See Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharm., USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. 

Cir. 2005), cert. denied 546 U.S. 972 (2005). (Merck & Co.) ("A claim construction that gives 

meaning to all the terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so."). 

In Pause Technology, Inc. v. T.V., Inc., 419 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005) the Court stated: 

... in clarifying the meaning of claim terms, courts are free to use 

15 
words that do not appear in the claim so long as "the resulting 

claim interpretation ... accord [ s] with the words chosen by the 

patentee to stake out the boundary of the claimed property." Cf. 

Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 

1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (noting that "[w]ithout any claim term 

susceptible to clarification ... there is no legitimate way to narrow 

the property right"). 

rd. at 1333. Also, claim terms are presumed to be used consistently throughout the patent, such 

that the usage of the term in one claim can often illuminate the meaning of the same term in other 

claims. Research Plastics, Inc. v. Federal Packaging Corp., 421 F.3d 1290, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 

(Research Plastics). 

The ordinary meaning of a claim term may be determined by reviewing a variety of 

sources, which may include the claims themselves, dictionaries and treatises, the written 

description, the drawings and the prosecution history. Ferguson Beauregard/Logic Controls v. 

Mega Sys., LLC, 350 F.3d 1327, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2003). "Dictionaries ... are often useful to assist 

in understanding the commonly understood meaning of words and have been used both by our 

court and the Supreme Court in claim interpretation." Phillips, 415 F .3d at 1322. The use of a 

dictionary, however, may extend patent protection beyond what should properly be afforded by a 

patent. Also, there is no guarantee that a term is used in the same way in a treatise as it would be 

by a patentee. Id. Moreover, the presumption of ordinary meaning will be "rebutted if the 

inventor has disavowed or disclaimed scope of coverage, by using words or expressions of 

manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear disavowal of claim scope." ACTV, Inc. v. 

Walt Disney Co., 346 F.3d 1082, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

The presence of a specific limitation in a dependent claim raises a presumption that the 

limitation is not present in the independent claim. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. This presumption 

16 
is especially strong when the only difference between the independent and dependent claims is 

the limitation in dispute. SunRace Roots Enter. Co., Ltd. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 1303 

(Fed. Cir. 2003). Moreover, "claim differentiation takes on relevance in the context of a claim 

construction that would render additional, or different, language in another independent claim 

superfluous." AllVoice Computing PLC v. Nuance Commc'ns, Inc., 504 F.3d 1236,2007 U.S. 

App. LEXIS 23949, at *23 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In addition, a claim construction that gives meaning 

to all the terms of a claim is preferred over one that does not do so. See Merck & Co. 395 F.3d at 

1372; Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs. Inc., 391 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Alza) (affirming 

the district court's rejection of both parties' claim construction where those constructions meant 

that "the inclusion of the word 'base' in the claims would be redundant"). Differences between 

the claims are helpful in understanding the meaning of claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.;3d at,1314. 

The preamble of a claim may be significant in interpreting a claim. Thus, "a claim 

preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests for it." Bell Commc'ns Research, Inc. 

v. Vitalink Commc'ns Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620, 34 U.S.P.Q.2d 1816, 1820 (Fed. Cir. 1995). If 

said preamble, when read in the context of an entire claim, recites limitations of the claim, or if 

the claim preamble is "necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality" to the claim, then the claim 

preamble should be construed as ifin the balance of the claim. Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 

152 (CCPA 1951) (Kropa); see also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Rowe); 

Coming Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 

(Coming Glass). Indeed, when discussing the "claim" in such a circumstance, there is no 

meaningful distinction to be drawn between the claim preamble and the rest of the claim, for only 

together do they comprise the "claim." If, however, the body of the claim fully and intrinsically 

17 
sets forth the complete invention, including all of its limitations, and the preamble offers no 

distinct definition of any of the claimed invention's limitations, but rather merely states, for 

example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, then the preamble may have no 

significance to claim construction because it cannot be said to constitute or explain a claim 

limitation. See Rowe, 112 F.3d at 478; Coming Glass, 868 F.2d at 1257; Kropa, 187 F.2d at 152. 

In Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 

(Pitney Bowes), the preamble statement that the patent claimed a method of or apparatus for 

"producing on a photoreceptor an image of generated shapes made up of spots" was not merely a 

statement describing the invention's intended field of use. Instead, the Court found that said 

statement was intimately meshed with the ensuing language in the claim; and that, for example, 

both independent claims concluded with the clause "whereby the appearance of smoothed~dges 

are given to the generated shapes." Id. Because this was the first appearance in the claim\body of 

the tenn "generated shapes," the Court found that the term could only be understood in the 

context of the preamble statement "producing on a photoreceptor an image of generated shapes 

made up of spots." Id. Similarly, the Court found that the term "spots" was initially used in the 

preamble to refer to the elements that made up the image of generated shapes that were produced 

on the photoreceptor; that the term "spots" then appeared twice in each of the independent 

claims; and that the claim term "spots" referred to the components that together made up the 

images of generated shapes on the photoreceptor and was only discernible from the claim 

preamble. Id. The Court concluded that in such a case, it was essential that the preamble and the 

remainder of the claim be construed as one unified and internally consistent recitation of the 

claimed invention. Id. 

18 
The specification of a patent "acts as a dictionary" both "when it expressly defines terms 

used in the claims" and "when it defines terms by implication." Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582. For 

example, the specification "may define claim terms by implication such that the meaning may be 

found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 quoting 

Iredto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

Importantly, a person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the 

context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire 

patent, including the specification. Phillips, 415 F .3d at 1314. Whatever ambiguity may exist 

with respect to the claim language may be resolved by an examination of the specification. 

Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("The specification 

may assist in resolving ambiguity where the ordinary and accustomed meaning of the words used 

in the claims lack sufficient clarity to permit the scope of the claim to be ascertained from the 

words alone.") 

A patentee may deviate from the conventional meaning of a particular claim term by 

making the intended meaning of a particular claim term clear (1) in the specification or (2) during 

the patent's prosecution history. Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881,889 (Fed. 

Cir. 1984). If using a definition that is contrary to the definition given by those of ordinary skill 

in the art, however, the patentee's specification must communicate a deliberate and clear 

preference for the alternate definition. Kumar v. Ovonic Battery Co., Inc., 351 F.3d 1364, 1368 

(Fed. Cir. 2003), citing Apple Computers, Inc. v. Articulate Sys., Inc., 234 F.3d 14,21 n.5 (Fed. 

Cir. 2000). In ascribing to an alternative definition rather than the ordinary meaning, the intrinsic 

evidence must "clearly set forth" or "clearly redefine" a claim term so as to put one reasonably 

19 
skilled in the art on notice that the patentee intended to so redefine the claim term. Bell Atl. 

Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Communs. Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 

The prosecution history, including "the prior art cited," is "part of the 'intrinsic 

evidence. '" Phillips, 415 F .3d at 1317. The prosecution history "provides evidence of how the 

inventor and the PTO understood the patent." Id. Thus, the prosecution history can often inform 

the meaning of the claim language by demonstrating how an inventor understood the invention 

and whether the inventor limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim 

scope narrower than it would be otherwise. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582-83; see also Chimie v. 

PPG Indus., Inc., 402 F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("The purpose of consulting the 

prosecution history in construing a claim is to exclude any interpretation that was disclaimed 

during prosecution" quoting ZMI Corp. v. Cardiac Resuscitator Corp., 844 F.2d 1576, 1580 (Fed. 

Cir. 1988»; Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., F.3d 1570, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1995); see also 

Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2007), citing 

Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("We have held 

that a statement made by the patentee during prosecution history of a patent in the same family as 

the patent-in-suit can operate as a disclaimer.") The Federal Circuit in Texas 

Instruments Inc. v. U.S.LT.C., 988 F.2d 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1993), the stated: 

As a general proposition, prosecution history estoppel is based 

upon a showing that an applicant amended a claim to avoid a cited 

prior art reference. '" Amendment of a claim in light of a prior art 

reference, however, is not the sine qua non to establish prosecution 

history estoppel. Unmistakable assertions made by the applicant to 

the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) in support of patentability, 

whether or not required to secure allowance of the claim, also may 

operate to preclude the patentee from asserting equivalency 

between a limitation of the claim and a substituted structure or 

20 
process step. 

(emphasis added) Id. at 1174 (internal citations omitted); see also Forest Labs, Inc. v Abbott 

Labs, 239 F.3d 1305, 1313-14 (stating that "arguments made during prosecution lead to the 

conclusion that the claims should be limited to their literal scope"); Bayer AG v. Elan Pharm. 

Corp., 212 F.3d 1241, 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Wang Lab., Inc. v. Mitsubishi Elecs., Inc., 103 F.3d 

1571, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The prosecution history includes any reexamination of the patent. 

Intermatic Inc. v. Lamson & Sessions Co., 273 F.3d 1355, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 

In addition to the intrinsic evidence, the administrative law judge may consider extrinsic 

evidence when interpreting the claims. Extrinsic evidence consists of all evidence external to the 

patent and the prosecution history, including inventor testimony and expert testimony. This 

extrinsic evidence may be helpful in explaining scientific principles, the meaning of technical 

terms, and terms of art. SeeYitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583; Markman, 52 F.3d at 980. However, 

"[e]xtrinsic evidence is to be used for the court's understanding ofthe patent, not for the purpose 

of varying or contradicting the terms of the claims."'Markman, 52 F.3d at 981. Also, the Federal 

Circuit has viewed extrinsic evidence in general as less reliable than the patent and its 

prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318. In 

addition, while extrinsic evidence may be useful, it is unlikely to result in a reliable interpretation 

of patent claim scope unless considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence. Phillips, 415 

F.3d at 1319. 

In Nystrom v. Trex Company, 424 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the Court stated: 

... as explained in Phillips, Nystrom is not entitled to a claim 

construction divorced from the context of the written description 

and prosecution history. The written description and prosecution 

21 

. (' 
history consistently use the term "board" to refer to wood decking 

materials cut from a log. Nystrom argues repeatedly that there is 

no disavowal of scope of the written description or prosecution 

history. Nystrom's argument is misplaced. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 

1321 ("The problem is that ifthe district court starts with the broad 

dictionary definition in every case and fails to fully appreciate how 

the specification implicitly limits that definition, the error will 

systematically cause the construction of the claim to be unduly 

expansive."). What Phillips now counsels is that in the absence of 

something in the written description and/or prosecution history to 

provide explicit or implicit notice to the public- i.e., those of 

ordinary skill in the art- that the inventor intended a disputed term 

to cover more than the ordinary and customary meaning revealed 

by the context of the intrinsic record, it is improper to read the term 

to encompass a broader definition simply because it may be found 

in a dictionary, treatise, or other extrinsic source. Id. 

Id. at 1144-45. In Free Motion Fitness Inc. v. Cybex Inel Inc., 423 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2005), 

the Court concluded that: 

under Phillips, the rule that "a court will give a claim term the full 

range of its ordinary meaning", Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 

274 F.3d 1336, 1342 (Fed.Cir. 2001), does not mean that the term 

will presumptively receive its broadest dictionary definition or the 

aggregate of multiple dictionary definitions. Phillips, 415 F .3d at 

1320-1322 . Rather, in those circumstances, where references to 

dictionaries is appropriate, the task is to scrutinize the intrinsic 

evidence in order to determine the most appropriate definition. 

Id. at 1348-49. In Network Commerce, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 422 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2005), 

the Court concluded: 

As we recently reaffirmed in Phillips, "conclusory, unsupported 

assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not 

useful to a court." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318. Here [expert] 

Coombs does not support his conclusion [the "download 

component" need not contain the boot program] with any 

references to industry publications or other independent sources. 

Moreover, expert testimony at odds with the intrinsic evidence 

must be disregarded. Id. ("[A] court should discount any expert 

testimony that is clearly at odds with the claim construction 

22 
Id. at 1361. 

mandated by ... the written record of the patent." (internal 

quotations and citation omitted). That is the case here. 

Patent claims should be construed so as to maintain their validity. However, that maxim 

is limited to cases in which a court concludes, after applying all the available tools of claim 

construction, that the claim is still ambiguous. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1327. If the only reasonable 

interpretation renders the claim invalid, then the claim should be found invalid. See, ~, Rhine 

v. Casio, Inc., 183 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 

1. Whether U.S. Patent No. 5,799,010 Should Be Incorporated By Reference Into The 

Power Ramp-Up Patents 

A preliminary issue is whether U.S. Patent No. 5,799,010 (the '010 patent or CX-52) 

should be incorporated by reference into the power ramp-up patents. 

Complainants have argued that the '0 1 ° patent should be incorporated by reference into 

the common specification of the power ramp-up patents. Specifically, complainants argued that 

the '0 1 ° patent is directly referenced twice in the common specification and indirectly referenced 

in the common specification via incorporation of the priority '768 patent.4 (CBr at 22.) 

Complainants further argued that the original application for the '768 patent was amended to 

identify the application which issued as the '01 ° patent by serial number. (CBr at 23, 28-29.) 

4 The application of the '004 patent is a continuation of application Ser. No. 10/400,343, 

filed Mar. 26, 2003 now U.S. Pat. No. 6,839,567 which patent is a continuation of Ser. No. 

101086,320, filed Mar. 1,2002, which issued on May 27,2003 as U.S. Pat. No. 6,571,105, which 

patent is a continuation of application Ser. No. 091721,034, filed Nov. 22,2000, which issued on 

Dec. 10,2002 as U.S. Pat. No. 6,493,563, which patent is a continuation of application Ser. No. 

09/003,104, filed Jan. 6, 1998, which issued on Jan. 30,2001 as U.S. Pat. No. 6,181,949, which 

patent is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/670,162, filed on Jun. 27, 1996, which issued 

on Nov. 24, 1998 as U.S. Pat. No. 5,841,768 (the '768 patent, or CX-4). (CX-l at ITCCOMP00005644. ) 

23 
Complainants also argued that: 

The first and second incorporation statements identify the 

incorporated application not only by title and filing date, but also 

by subject matter. This information uniquely identifies the '010 

patent without reference to the application serial number given in 

the '768 patent. 

(CBr at 25.) Finally, complainants argued that, even if the '010 patent is not incorporated by 

reference, the' 0 1 0 patent is "nonetheless intrinsic evidence because it is cited as art of record in 

the '966 and '847 patents, as reflected on the cover pages of these patents." (CBr at 29-30.) 

Respondents argued that the '010 patent was not incorporated by reference, as the 

incorporation statement in the common specification does not identify the referenced document 

by application number, patent number, assignee, or inventors. (RBr at Sec. II, p. 15.) Also, 

respondents argued that the title in the common specification did not accurately identify the 

application leading to the '010 patent. (RBr at Sec. II, p. 14.) 

The staff argued that the '010 patent is not incorporated by reference into the '768 patent 

because while "[t]he serial number is that of the '010 patent '" the title is not." (SBr at 11) and 

that "the reference in the specification of the '768 patent to two different applications, neither of 

which correctly sets forth the title of the '010 patent, increases the ambiguity that one of ordinary 

skill in the art would readily see." (SBr at 12.) Thus, the staff also argued that the common 

specification does not identify the '010 patent by title. (SBr at 8.) Further, the staff argued that: 

The confusion may have been somewhat ameliorated had 

InterDigital identified the referenced application by serial number 

or some other identifying information, such as inventor or assignee. 

Indeed, it would have been an easy matter for InterDigital to have 

made such an amendment during the eight years between the 

issuance of the '010 patent and the issuance ofthe first of the short 

code ramp-up patents. But InterDigital failed to amend the 

24 
(SBr at 9.) 

common specification to refer to any of these things. SPFF III.l4; 

see also MPEP § 608.01(p); and 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.57(b)(2) and (g). 

Regarding whether the '010 patent is incorporated by reference in the common 

specification, the two "incorporation statements" relied on by complainants read as follows: 

[I]t is extremely important in wireless CDMA communication 

systems to control the transmission power of all subscriber units. 

This is best accomplished by using a closed loop power control 

algorithm once a communication link is established. A detailed 

explanation of such a closed loop algorithm is disclosed in U.S. 

patent application entitled Code Division Multiple Access 

(CDMA) System and Method filed concurrently herewith, which is 

incorporated by reference as if fully set forth. 

* * * 

Periodic updating of the short code averages the interference 

created by the short code over the entire spectrum. A detailed 

description of the selection and .updating of the short codes is 

outside the scope of this invention. However, such a detailed 

description is disclosed in the related application U.S. patent 

application entitled Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) 

System and Method. 

(CX-l at 2:31-35,9:30-35 (emphasis added).) These two "incorporation statements" are also 

found in '768 patent, which is incorporated by reference into and is the priority application for 

each of the power ramp-up patents. (CFF 1.24, CFF 1.32, CFF 1.41 (undisputed); CX-4 at 2:18-

26,9:18-24.) Thus, the '768 patent was filed before the power ramp-up patents, on June 27, 

1996.5 (CX-4.) The '768 patent lists InterDigital Technology Corporation Wilmington, Del. as 

the assignee. Both of said incorporation statements refer to an application titled Code Division 

5 The '004 patent was filed on June 14,2004, the '966 patent was filed on June 29, 2005, 

and the '847 patent was filed on June 29, 2005. (See CX-l at ITC-COMP00005644; CX-2 at 

ITC-COMP00016933; CX-3 at ITC-COMP00021139.) 

25 
Multiple Access (CDMA) System and Method.6 Neither passage explicitly identifies the 

referenced patent application by serial number, patent number, inventors, or assignee. The 

administrative law judge finds it significant that the statement "filed concurrently herewith" in 

said incorporation statements, supra, discloses both the filing date and the assignee as being the 

same as that ofthe '768 patent, which was the priority patent of the power ramp-up patents. 

While the title referred to in said incorporation statements, supra, does not accurately reflect the 

title of the '010 patent, the difference as between the title in the common specification, viz. 

"Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) System and Method," and the title of the '010 patent, 

viz. "Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) Communication System," is merely that the 

former contains the words "System and Method" while the latter reads "Communication 

System." (Compare CX-1 at 2:32-34,9:34-35 with CX-52 at Title Page.) Nine ofthe patents that 

issued from other applications filed by the assignee concurre11!iy with the '768 patent, i.e., on 

June 27, 1996, are U.S. Patent Nos. 5,796,776; 5,991,329; 5,912,919; 5,799,010; 5,748,687; 

6,487,190; 5,953,346; 5,940,382; and 5,754,803. (CPre at 45-47.) The administrative law judge 

finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the issuance of the '004 patent on 

October 3,2006, could ascertain what applications for patents were filed by a particular assignee 

on a particular date (in this situation, 27, 1996) by, inter alia, reviewing the electronic databases 

of the U.S. Patent Office. The titles of the applications filed by the assignee on the same day as 

the application (viz., June 27, 1996) which led to the '768 patent follows, with the application for 

the '010 patent listed first, are as follows: 

6 The Joint Stipulation Regarding Technology At Issue defines CDMA as a method. (SX4 at 1 ("The multiple access (MA) method used in the '004 Patent Family is Code Division 

Multiple Access (CDMA) ... ").) 

26 
Application No. Patent No. Title 

08/669,775 5,799,010 Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) Communication 

(CX-52) System 

08/669,769 5,796,776 Code Sequence Generator in a CDMA Modem 

08/669,770 5,991,329 Automatic Power Control System for a Code Division 

Multiple Access (CDMA) Communications System 

08/669,771 5,912,919 Efficient Multipath Centroid Tracking Circuit for a Code 

Division Multiple Access (CDMA) System 

08/669,776 5,748,687 Spreading Code Sequence Acquisition System and Method 

That Allows Fast Acquisition in Code Division Multiple 

Access (CDMA) Systems 

08/670,160 6,487,190 Efficient Multichannel Filtering for CDMA Modems 

08/671,067 5,953,346 CDMA Communication System Which Selectively 

Suppresses Data Transmissions During Establishment of a 

Communication Channel 

08/671,068 5,940,382 Virtual Locating of a Fixed Subscriber Unit to Reduce ReAcquisition Time .. ' 

08/671,221 5,754,803 Parallel Packetized Intermodule Arbitrated High Speed 

Control and Data Bus 

(See CPre at 46; RPre at Sec. II, p. 76Y As found, supra, the date of filing, viz., June 27, 1996 

and the assignee, viz. InterDigital Technology Corporation, is known. The '768 patent states, in 

the "Background ofthe Invention" section, that "[t]he present invention relates generally to 

CDMA communication systems." (CX-I at 24-25; CX-4 at 1 :14-16.) The administrative law 

judge rejects the argument that, given that an application with the precise title "Code Division 

Multiple Access (CDMA) System and Method" is not found, a person of ordinary skill in the art 

7 The administrative has taken judicial notice of said eight patents, which are public 

documents and have been unambiguously identified in the record as relevant to this investigation, 

and has included said patents as ALJ exhibits ALJ- Ex. 1 to ALJ-Ex. 8. 

27 
would not find and review the patent application titled "Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) 

Communication System" filed on June 27, 1996, as indicated, supra. Given the short list of 

applications filed on June 27, 1996, supra, and the fact that no other application has a title similar 

to that listed in the incorporation statements, such an argument "presumes stupidity rather than 

skill" on the part ofthe person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743. 

Finally, the Background section of the '010 patent reads: 

The present invention generally pertains to Code Division Multiple 

Access (CDMA) communications, also known as spread-spectrum 

communications. More particularly, the present invention pertains 

to a system and method for providing a high capacity, CDMA 

communications system which provides for one or more 

simultaneous user bearer channels over a given radio frequency, 

allowing dynamic allocation of bearer channel rate while rejecting 

multipath interference. 

(CX-52 2.t 1 :8-17 (emphasis added).) Thus, the '010 patent is consistent Witll what is stated'ln 

\' the joint stipulation. See SX-4. 

Further, the subject matter of the '010 patent application which the common specification 

purports to incorporate by reference is described distinctly as having both a detailed explanation 

of a closed loop algorithm and a detailed description of the selection and updating of short codes. 

The administrative law judge finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that 

the specification of the '010 patent meets the subject matter description as set forth in the 

"incorporation statements" in the common specification. (See, generally, CX-52.) In contrast, 

the administrative law judge has reviewed each of the patents that issued from each of the other 

applications concurrently filed by the assignee on June 27, 1996, as represented by the 

application list, supra, and finds that no other ofthese applications matches the subject matter 

28 
detailed in the incorporation statements. Therefore, the administrative law judge finds that the 

'010 patent is identified with sufficient particularity, viz., title, filing date, assignee, and subject 

matter, to be incorporated by reference. Further, the administrative law judge notes that although 

respondents and the staff have argued that the incorrect title is confusing, neither respondents nor 

staff have argued that any particular patent application filed concurrently with the '768 patent 

covered subject matter that was similar to the '010 patent. Based on the foregoing, the 

administrative law judge finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the 

'010 patent is incorporated by reference into the power ramp-up patents. 

2. The claimed phrases "code," "code of a first type," "first code," "code signal(s)" and 

"different codes" 

The claimed term "code" appears in asserted claims 1,2,31, and 59 of the '004 patent, 

:asserted claim] iofthe '966 patent, and asserted claims 5, 6, 9, and 11 of the '847 patent. 8 A 

cellular system, such as the one described in the power ramp-up patents, uses certc:in radio 

frequency bands that are shared by base stations and subscriber units. (SX-4 at 1.) While there 

are a number of technical methods that are used to provide simultaneous access by all the base 

stations and the subscriber units in each frequency band, the method used in the power ramp-up 

patents is CDMA. (SX-4 at 1.) In CDMA, different codes are used by the base stations and 

subscriber units to define the different system channels to be used for control and 

communication. (SX-4 at 1-2.) 

Complainants argued that the claim term "code" should be construed as "a sequence of 

8 Although the remaining asserted claims, viz. claims 3, 8, 9, and 11 of the '966 patent, 

do not contain the claim term "code," each depend from claim 1 of the '966 patent which does 

and thus, said claim term is relevant to each of the asserted claims of the power ramp-up patents. 

29 
chips," and that various modifiers of said term code, such as access, pilot, spreading, and short, 

cannot be imported into claims where the more general term "code" is used. (CBr at 31.) 

Complainants further argued that: 

By applying the commonly understood meaning of "code," [which 

complainants interpreted as "a sequence of chips"] the various 

different claim clauses using this term can be readily understood. 

For example, "a first code" would be a "first sequence of chips"; 

"second code" would be a "second sequence of chips"; "plurality 

of different codes" would be "multiple different sequences of 

chips"; and "codes of a first/second type" would be "a sequence of 

chips that share a common characteristic or are members of the 

same group." 

(CBr at 32.) Complainants also argued that the term "signal" is generic, and thus that the 

claimed phrase "code signal" is a "sequence of chips that is broadcast or transmitted as a signal." 

(CBr at 34, ll. 8.) 

Respondents argued that the claimed phrases "code signal," "first code," "code of althe 

first type," "codes" and "signal" in the claims all correspond to the "short codes" in the common 

specification and argued: 

When considered in the context of the Common Specification of 

the Short Code Ramp-Up Patents, the terms "code signals," "first 

code," "code of althe first type," "codes," and "signals" each 

correspond to the disclosed "short codes" because only those codes 

are described as having the characteristics recited in the claims. 

(RBr at Sec. II, p. 21.) 

The staff argued: 

The common specification of the short code ramp-up patents never 

describes a code that is not a spreading code, and never describes a 

code to be something other than a spreading code. SPFF III.23. For 

at least this reason, the Staff submits that "code," "first code," 

"code of a first type," "different codes," and "code signals" mean 

30 
"a spreading code or a portion of a spreading code." 

(SBr at 19.) 

Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that there is a dispute over the 

claim terms "code" and "signal," while there is no substantive disagreement as to the meaning of 

the claim terms "first" "second" "type" and "different" Thus he finds that "first" "second" " " ., " 

"type," and "different" modify the claim term "code" as per their plain and ordinary meaning. 

Claim 1 of the '004 patent, as recited supra but with certain emphasis reads: 

A method for performing power control in a wireless code division 

multiple access communication system, the method comprising: 

transmitting dynamically selected code signals at increasing power 

levels until an acknowledgement is received indicating that one of 

said dynamically selected code signals was detected, wherein the 

transmitted dynamically selected code signals carry no data; and in 

response to detecting the acknowledgment, transmitting an access 

signal wherei1-:, the access signal is associated with the dynamically 

. selected code signals and each of the dynamically selected code 

signals are shorter than the access signal. 

(CX-1 at 10:62-11 :7 (emphasis added).) Thus, the access signal and the dynamically selected 

code signals are both transmitted, pursuant to the plain language of the claims. 

Claim 1 of the '966 patent, as recited supra but with certain emphasis, reads: 

A wireless code division multiple access (CDMA) subscriber unit 

comprising: a transmitter configured such that, when the subscriber 

unit is first accessing a CDMA network and wants to establish 

communications with a base station associated with the network 

over a communication channel to be indicated by the base station, 

the transmitter successively transmits signals until the subscriber 

unit receives from the base station an indication that a transmitted 

one of the signals has been detected by the base station, wherein 

each transmission of one of the signals by the transmitter is at an 

increased power level with respect to a prior transmission of one of 

the signals; the transmitter further configured such that the 

transmitter transmits to the base station a message indicating to the 

31 
base station that the subscriber unit wants to establish the 

communications with the base station over the communication 

channel to be indicated by the base station, the message being 

transmitted only subsequent to the subscriber unit receiving the 

indication, wherein each of the successively transmitted signals and 

the message are generated using a same code; and wherein each of 

the successively transmitted signals is shorter than the message. 

(CX-2 at 10:62-11:19 (emphasis added).) Further, claim 11 of the '847 patent reads in part: 

an access signal to facilitate communication initialization between 

said subscriber unit and said base station, said access signal as 

transmitted by said subscriber unit, and said plurality of different 

codes, as transmitted by said subscriber unit, being a function of a 

same code. 

(CX-3 at 16:7-14 (emphasis added).)9 Thus, according to the language ofthe claims of the '004 

patent, '966 patent, and the' 847 patent, the administrative law judge finds that a person of 

ordinary skill in the art would conclude that there is a relationship between the "access signal,"lo 

the "dynamically selected code signals," and the "plurality of different codes." 

Each of the independent asserted claims, as stated in their preambles, relate to CDMA. 

(See,~, Claim 1 of the '966 patent (CX-2 at 10:62-63 ("A wireless code division multiple 

access (CDMA) subscriber unit...")); Claim 5 of the '847 patent (CX-3 at 12:32-33 ("A wireless 

code division multiple access (CDMA) subscriber unit...")); Claim 1 of the '004 patent (CX-l at 

10:62-63 ("in a wireless code division multiple access communication system ... ")).) The 

common specification discloses, in the Background of the Invention section: 

In a CDMA [Code Division Multiple Access] system, the same 

9 The full text of claim 11 of the' 847 patent is reproduced supra. 

10 The asserted claims disclose that a code signal and an access signal are transmitted, 

and claim 1 of the '966 patent discloses that a "signal" is transmitted, the administrative law 

judge finds that the claimed term "signal" may be used interchangeably with "code signal." 

32 
portion of the frequency spectrum is used for communication by all 

subscriber units. Each subscriber unit's baseband data signal is 

multiplied by a code sequence, called the "spreading code", which 

has a much higher rate than the data. The ratio of the spreading 

code rate to the data symbol rate is called the "spreading factor" or 

the "processing gain". This coding results in a much wider 

transmission spectrum than the spectrum of the baseband data 

signal, hence the technique is called "spread spectrum". Subscriber 

units and their communications can be discriminated by assigning 

a unique spreading code to each communication link which is 

called a CDMA channel. 

(CX-l at 1:66-2:10 (emphasis added).) Hence, the common specification discloses that 

spreading codes are an essential component of a CD MA system. Moreover, the '010 patent, 

which the administrative law judge has found to be incorporated by reference into the common 

specification, states, in its Description of the Relevant Art: 

Spread spectrum modulation refers to modulating a information 

signal with a spreading code signal; the spreading code signal 

being generated by a code generator where the period Tc of the 

spreading code is substantially less than the period of the 

information data bit or symbol signal. The code may modulate the 

carrier frequency upon which the information has been sent, called 

frequency-hopped spreading, or may directly modulate the signal 

by multiplying the spreading code with the information data signal, 

called direct-sequence spreading (DS). Spread-spectrum 

modulation produces a signal with bandwidth substantially greater 

than that required to transmit the information signal. Synchronous 

reception and despreading of the signal at the receiver recovers the 

original information. A synchronous demodulator in the receiver 

uses a reference signal to synchronize the despreading circuits to 

the input spread-spectrum modulated signal to recover the carrier 

and information signals. 

* * * 

One area in which spread-spectrum techniques are used is in the 

field of mobile cellular communications to provide personal 

communication services (PCS). Such systems desirably support 

large numbers of users, control Doppler shift and fade, and provide 

33 
high speed digital data signals with low bit error rates. These 

systems employ a family of orthogonal or quasi-orthogonal 

spreading codes, with a pilot spreading code sequence 

synchronized to the family of codes. Each user is assigned one of 

the spreading codes as a spreading function. Related problems of 

such a system are: supporting a large number of users with the 

orthogonal codes, handling reduced power available to remote 

units, and handling multipath fading effects. Solutions to such 

problems include using phased-array antennas to generate multiple 

steerable beams, using very long orthogonal or quasi-orthogonal 

code sequences. These sequences may be reused by cyclic shifting 

of the code synchronized to a central reference, and diversity 

combining of multipath signals. 

(CX-52 at 1 :36-53,2:9-27 (emphasis added).) Thus, spread-spectrum modulation, viz. 

modulating a information signal with a spreading code signal, produces a signal with bandwidth 

substantially greater than that required to transmit the information signal. In a further 

explanation of spreading codes, the '010 patent specification discloses: 

The Spreading Codes 

The CDMA code generators used to encode the logical channels of 

the present invention employ Linear Shift Registers (LSRs) with 

feedback logic which is a method well known in the art. The code 

generators of the present embodiment of the invention generate 64 

synchronous unique sequences. Each RF communication channel 

uses a pair of these sequences for complex spreading (in-phase and 

quadrature) of the logical channels, so the generator gives 32 

complex spreading sequences. The sequences are generated by a 

single seed which is initially loaded into a shift register circuit. 

(CX-52 at 17:16-26 (emphasis added).) The '010 patent specification also discloses: 

The spreading code is a sequence of symbols, called chips or chip 

values. 

(CX-52 at 17:46-47.) Therefore, the administrative law judge finds that the spreading code is a 

sequence of chips. 

34 
The common specification further discloses: 

The access code in the preferred embodiment, as previously 

described herein, is approximately 30 million chips in length. 

However, the short code is much smaller. The short code can be 

chosen to be any length that is sufficiently short to permit quick 

detection. There is an advantage in choosing a short code length 

such that it divides the access code period evenly. For the access 

code described herein, the short code is preferably chosen to be lb. 

64 or 128 chips in length. Alternatively, the short code may be as 

short as one symbol length, as will be described in detail 

hereinafter. 

* * * 

Referring to FIG. 8, the period of the short code is equal to one 

symbol length and the start of each period is aligned with a symbol 

boundary. The short codes are generated from a regular length 

spreading code. A symbol length portion from the beginning of the 

spreading code is stored and used as the short code for the next 3 

milliseconds. Every 3 milliseconds, a new symbol length portion of 

the spreading code replaces the old short code. Since the spreading 

code period is an integer multiple of 3 milliseconds, the same short 

codes are repeated once every period of the spreading code. 

* * * 

The transmitter section 74 comprises a spreading code 

generator 86 which generates and outputs spreading codes to a 

data transmitter 88 and a short code and access code transmitter 90. 

(CX-1 at 8:5-14, 9:18-28, 10:10-13 (emphasis added).) Hence, the codes referred to in the 

specification are a various number of chips in lengths, which is consistent with being "a sequence 

of chips," and the specification discloses that short codes and access codes are generated by a 

"spreading code generator." 

The phrase "short code," although not a claimed phrase, is frequently referred to in the 

common specification. For example, claim 1 of the '004 patent recites "each ofthe dynamically 

35 
selected code signals are shorter than the access signal." (CX-l at 11 :6-7 (emphasis added).) 

Claim 1 of the '966 patent further recites "wherein each of the successively transmitted signals is. 

shorter than the message." (CX-2 at 11: 18-19 (emphasis added).) Referring to extrinsic 

evidence, complainants' expert Vojcic testified: 

Q. Yes. Dr. Vojcic, you indicated spreading codes do 

not necessarily increase the bandwidth of an 

information signal. 

Are there codes in the '004 patent which are 

spreading codes but do not increase the bandwidth 

of information signals? 

A. Yes, there are. Like pilot code, short code, and 

access code. 

Q. Is that shown in figure 10 of the '004 patent? 

A. That's correct. 

(Tr. at 430-31 (emphasis added).) Thus, complainants' expert testified that short codes in the 

specification were spreading codes. Complainants' expert further stated: 

Q. Now, you would agree with me that in the context of the '004 

patent, a short code is just part of a spreading code? 

A. Yes, I do agree with that. 

(Tr. at 609.) Consistent with the testimony of complainants' expert, respondents' expert Lanning 

testified: 

Q. Let me tum to RDX-1167 and ask you ifthis excerpt from the 

specification of the short code ramp-up patents informs your 

opinion as to the proper construction? 

A. Yes, the highlighted portions specifically states that the spreading 

code transmitted by the subscriber unit is much shorter than the 

rest of the spreading codes. Hence, the term short code. 

36 
(Tr. at 1633 (emphasis added).)l1 

In view of the foregoing, the claim language, the common specification, the specification 

of the '010 patent, and extrinsic evidence, the administrative law judge finds the claim term 

"code" to be synonymous with "spreading code," and to be construed as "a sequence of chips." 

11 Even Ozluturk, an inventor of the power ramp-up patents, at the hearing agreed with 

experts Vojcic and Lanning. Ozluturk testified: 

Q. You have introduced this term short code in your description of the 

solution to the interference problem for the access procedure 

technology. What is a short code in that context? 

A. Well, in this context, the short code is a spreading code, just like 

all the other codes we use in broadband CDMA. As a spreading 

code, it is a sequence of chips, chip values. 

But I need to give you a little bit more explanation to 

clarifY. Now, we use many, many codes in broadband CDMA. 

And I call them all spreading codes. They come out of the same 

spreading code generator. 

But some of these codes are reference codes. They provide 

reference, timing reference, channel information, but they don't 

spread anything. 

We use the term spreading code for all of them, in referring 

to all of them, but some of these codes, such as the short codes and 

the access code that I mentioned previously, are the examples of 

codes that do not spread anything. And they are there for timing 

reference and as indicators. And then there are other codes that 

actually do spread, say, user data signals or call setup messages, for 

example. 

And so in that context short codes are spreading codes. As 

I mentioned, they are the types of spreading codes that do not 

spread anything. And since all the other codes we generated were 

very long, to get a short code, we would take a portion of the long 

code and use it as a short code. 

(Tr. at 126-27 (emphasis added).) 

37 
Accordingly, the claimed phrase, "first code" is construed as "first sequence of chips;" the 

claimed phrase "code of a [or the] first type" is construed as "sequence of chips of althe first 

type;" and the claimed phrase "different codes" is construed as "different sequences of chips." 

Regarding the term "signal" in the claimed phrase "code signal(s)" the specification and 

the language of the claims, cited supra, specifY that a signal is transmitted. Therefore, the 

administrative law judge finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the claim 

phrase "code signal" as "a sequence of chips that is transmitted." Further, the administrative law 

judge has found, supra, that the claimed phrase "signal" in the context of claim 1 of the '966 

patent is interchangeable with the claimed phrase "code signal." Thus said phrase "signal" in 

said claim is construed as "a sequence of chips that is transmitted." Also, the administrative law 

judge finds that each ofthe claimed terms "codes," "code signal," "first code," "code of a first 

type," "code of the first type," "different codes" and "signals" is a spreading code or a portion of 

a spreading code, in view of the common specification, the '010 specification, and testimony of 

experts and an inventor. See supra. 

Complainants argued that dependent claim 61 ofthe '004 patent and dependent claim 5 of 

the '966 patent defines the word "code" of their respective independent claims as a "spreading 

code," and therefore, the asserted claims cannot be limited to including only spreading codes. 

(CBr at 33-34.) As stated, supra, the presence of a specific limitation in a dependent claim raises 

a presumption that the limitation is not present in the independent claim, and said presumption is 

especially strong when the only difference between the independent and dependent claims is the 

limitation in dispute. Claim differentiation may create a presumption that the various codes 

mentioned in the asserted independent claims are not spreading codes, because there are 

38 
dependent claims that purport to contain a limitation that the codes are spreading codes. This 

presumption, however, is rebuttableY See Dow Chern. Co. v. United States, 226 F.3d 1334, 

1341 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("The doctrine of claim differentiation can support a broader construction 

of step (c) of claim 1 because the doctrine creates a rebuttable presumption that each claim in a 

patent has a different scope."); Comark Communs. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. 

Cir. 1998) ("we recognize that the doctrine of claim differentiation is not a hard and fast rule of 

construction ... "); Karlin Tech., Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc., 177 F.3d 968,972 (Fed. Cir. 

1999) ("the canon of claim differentiation is not a rigid rule"); see also Kraft Foods, Inc. v. 

International Trading Co., 203 F.3d 1362, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("claim differentiation only 

creates a presumption that each claim in a patent has a different scope"). Significantly, both 

intrinsic and extrinsic, evidence can rebut any presumption created by claim differentiation. 

(Tandon Corp. v. U.S. International Trade Com., 831 F.2d 1017, 1024 (Fed. Cir. 1987) 

("Whether or not claims differ from each other, one can not interpret a claim to be broader than 

what is contained in the specification and claims as filed."); 0.1. Corp. v. Tekmar Co., 115 F.3d 

1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("Although the doctrine of claim differentiation may at times be 

controlling, construction of claims is not based solely upon the language of other claims; the 

doctrine cannot alter a definition that is otherwise clear from the claim language, description, and 

prosecution history."); Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1480 (Fed. 

Cir. 1998) ("the doctrine of claim differentiation can not broaden claims beyond their correct 

scope, determined in light of the specification and the prosecution history and any relevant 

extrinsic evidence."); see also Andersen Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC, 474 F.3d 1361 (Fed. 

12 See, generally, 60 Am Jur 2d Patents § 284. 

39 
Cir. 2007).) Finally, "the doctrine of claim differentiation cannot overcome proper claim scope 

as determined in view ofthe intrinsic evidence." See Inv. No. 337-TA-631, Commission Opinion 

at 9-10 (July 14, 2009). The administrative law judge has found, supra, that the asserted claims 

each relate to a CDMA system, and that the specification discloses that CDMA systems use 

spreading codes. As found, supra, complainants have pointed to no evidence in the intrinsic 

evidence that any codes disclosed in the specification are not spreading codes or portions of 

spreading codes. Complainants' expert testified, as found, supra, that short codes are spreading 

codes in the context of the common specification. Based on the foregoing, the administrative 

law judge finds that the presumption created by claim differentiation is rebutted, and that the 

codes referenced in the specification and the claims are all spreading codes. 

3. The claimed phrase "access signal" 

The claimed phrase "access signal" appears in asserted claims 1 a11(t 59 of the '004 

patent, and asserted claims 6, 9, and 11 of the '847 patent. 

Complainants argued that the term "access signal," in the context of the claims and the 

common specification, should be construed as "a signal for gaining access to a communication 

channel." (CBr at 39 citing CFF 2.226.) Complainants further argued that "[o]ne of ordinary 

skill in the art at the time of the invention would readily understand that the various call setup 

messages used to gain access to a communication channel are 'access signals.'" (CBr 40 citing 

CFF 2.219.) 

Respondents argued that the "access signal" can only be the "access code" that is 

explicitly defined in the specification as "a known spreading code." (RBr at Sec. II, p. 37.) 

The staff argued that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the claim 

40 
term "access signal" to mean an access code as described in the context of the common 

specification; and that the common specification defined an access code as a "known spreading 

code." (SBr at 25.) 

Claim 1 of the '004 patent reads, in relevant part: 

transmitting an access signal wherein the access signal is 

associated with the dynamically selected code signals and each of 

the dynamically selected code signals are shorter than the access 

signal. 

(CX-l at 11:4-7.) Hence, the claim language establishes a connection between the code signals 

and the access signal, and compares the relative length. Further, claim 59 ofthe '004 patent, 

even more explicitly, states: 

said processor configured to control the transmitter such that the 

transmitter transmits, in response to receipt of said 

acknowledgement, an access signal to facilitate communication . 

initialization between said subscriber, unit and said base station, 

said access signal as transmitted by said subscriber unit and said 

different codes as transmitted by said subscriber unit each being a 

function of a same code. 

(CX-l at 17:18-25.) Thus, the access signal is described as being a function of the same code as 

the "said different codes." Further, while the common specification does not contain the claim 

phrase "access signal," the common specification does disclose: 

The access code 42 is a known spreading code transmitted from a 

subscriber unit 16 to the base station 14 during initiation of 

communications and power ramp-up. 

* * * 

The transmitter section 74 comprises a spreading code generator 86 

which generates and outputs spreading codes to a data transmitter 

88 and a short code and access code transmitter 90. 

41 
(CX-1 at 6:20-23, 10:10-13 (emphasis added).) Accordingly, the common specification discloses 

that an access code is transmitted. Given the administrative law judge's construction of the 

claimed phrase "signal," supra, and based on the claim language and common specification, 

supra, the administrative law judge finds that the claimed phrase "access signal" is the same as 

the access code that is transmitted, as disclosed in the common specification. The common 

specification further discloses: 

As the base station 14 transmits the pilot code 40 (step 100), the 

base station 14 searches (step 101) for an "access code' 42 

transmitted by a subscriber unit 16. The access code 42 is a known 

spreading code transmitted from a subscriber unit 16 to the base 

station 14 during initiation of communications and power ramp-up. 

The base station 14 must search through all possible phases (time 

shifts) ofthe access code 42 transmitted from the subscriber unit 

16 in order to find the correct phase. This is called the 

"acquisition" or the "detection" process (step 101). 

(CX-l at 6:18-27 (emphasis added).) Thus, the access code is transmitted during initiation of 

communications. Further, the common specification discloses that transmitting the access code 

is only a part of the initiation: 

Upon detection of the correct phase of the access code by the base 

station 14, the base station 14 sends an acknowledgment to the 

subscriber unit 16 (step 216). Reception of the acknowledgment by 

the subscriber unit 16 concludes the ramp-up process. A closed 

loop power control is established, and the subscriber unit 16 

continues the call setup process by sending related call setup 

messages (step 218 ). 

(CX-1 at 10:46-53 (emphasis added).) Also, Fig. 6B, in box 178, shows that the ~teps of "cease 

increasing transmission power" and "stop transmitting access code" are simultaneous, and Fig. 7 

shows the access code ceasing before "the rest of call setup and closed loop power control." (CX1, Fig. 6B, Fig. 7.) In addition, in reference to Figs. IIA and B, the common specification 

42 
discloses: 

An overview of the ramp-up procedure in accordance with the 

preferred current invention is summarized in FIGS. llA and lIB. 

The base station 14 transmits a pilot code while searching for the 

short code (step 200). The subscriber unit 16 acquires the pilot 

code transmitted from the base station 14 (step 202), starts 

transmitting a short code starting at a minimum power level Po 

which is guaranteed to be less than the required power, and quickly 

increases transmission power (step 204). Once the received power 

level at the base station 14 reaches the minimum level needed for 

detection of the short code (step 206) the base station 14 acquires 

the correct phase of the short code, transmits an indication of this 

detection, and begins searching for the access code (step 208). 

Upon receiving the detection indication, the subscriber unit 16 

ceases transmitting the short code and starts transmitting an access 

code. The subscriber unit 16 initiates a slow ramp-up of transmit 

power while sending the access code (step 210). The base station 

14 searches for the correct phase of the access code by searching 

only one phase out of each short code length portion of the access 

code (step 212). If the base station 14 searches the phases of the 

access code up to the maximum round trip delay and has not 

detected the correct phase, the search is repeated by searching 

every phase (step 214). Upon detection of the correct phase of the 

access code by the base station 14, the base station 14 sends an 

acknowledgment to the subscriber unit 16 (step 216). Reception of 

the acknowledgment by the subscriber unit 16 concludes the 

ramp-up process. A closed loop power control is established, and 

the subscriber unit 16 continues the call setup process by sending 

related call setup messages (step 218). 

(CX-l at 10:23-53 (emphasis added); see also CX-l, Figs. l1A, lIB.) Thus, the access code 

does not continue for the entire call setup process. Based on the foregoing, the administrative 

law judge finds that an "access signal" is a known sequence of chips that is transmitted during 

power ramp-up to facilitate the initiation of communications. 

Complainants have argued that the claimed "access signal" contains more than just a 

known spreading code, as the access signal and the spread call setup message are both 

43 
components of the transmitted RF signal, based on a disclosure in the '010 patent that the long 

access pilot code and the call setup message are transmitted together, citing to CX-52 at 58:6, 

58:20,69:35-45. (CBr at 40.) The specification of the '010 patent however discloses: 

The SU modem monitors, at step 2406, the FBCH AXCH 

traffic light. When the AXCH traffic light is set to red, the SU 

assumes the RCS modem has acquired the SAXPT and begins 

transmitting LAXPT. The SU modem continues to ramp-up power 

of the LAXPT at a slower rate until Sync-Ind messages are 

received on the corresponding CTCH. If the SU is mistaken 

because the traffic light was actually set in response to another SU 

acquiring the AXCH, the SU modem times out because no 

Sync-Ind messages are received. The SU randomly waits a period 

of time, picks a new AXCH channel, and steps 2404 and 2405 are 

repeated until the SU modem receives Sync-Ind messages. Details 

of the power ramp up method used in the exemplary embodiment 

of this invention may be found in the U.S. patent application 

entitled METHOD OF CONTROLLING INITIAL POWER 

RAMP-UP IN CDMA SYSTEMS BY USING SHORT CODES 

filed on even date krewith, which is hereby incorporated by 

reference. 

Next, at step 2407, the RCS modem acquires the LAXPT of 

the SU and begins sending Sync-Ind messages on the 

corresponding CTCH. The modem waits 10 msec for the Pilot and 

AUX Vector correlator filters and Phase locked loop to settle, but 

continues to send Synch-Ind messages on the CTCH. The modem 

then begins looking for a request message for access to a bearer 

channel (MAC ACC REQ), from the SU modem. 

The SU modem, at step 2408, receives the Sync-Ind 

message and freezes the LAXPT transmit power level. The SU 

modem then begins sending repeated request messages for access 

to a bearer traffic channel (MAC ACC REQ) at fixed power 

levels, and listens for a request confirmation message 

(MAC_BEARER _ CFM) from the RCS modem. 

Next, at step 2409, the RCS modem receives a 

MAC_ACC_REQ message; the modem then starts measuring the 

AXCH power level, and starts the APC channel. The RCS modem 

then sends the MAC_BEARER_CFM message to the SU and 

44 
begins listening for the acknowledgment 

MAC BEARER CFM ACK of the MAC BEARER CFM - - - --

message. 

At step 2410, the SU modem receives the 

MAC_BEARER_CFM message and begins obeying the APC 

power control messages. The SU stops sending the 

MAC_ACC_REQ message and sends the RCS modem the 

MAC_BEARER_CFM_ACK message. The SU begins sending the 

null data on the AXCH. The SU waits 10 msec for the uplink 

transmit power level to settle. 

(CX-52 at 57:44-58:23 (emphasis added); see also Fig. 24.) Respondents dispute complainants' 

contentions regarding LAXPT. (See, inter alia, RRCFF 2.222B, 2.222C, 2.223B.) The 

administrative law judge assumes arguendo, that LAXPT and MAC_ACC_REQ are as 

represented by complainants, viz., that the LAXPT referred to supra corresponds to the access 

signal of the asserted patents and that the MAC_ACC_REQ also referred to supra corresponds to 

;'. 

the call setup message. Thus, the '010 patent discloses that LAXPT is acquired in step 2407 by 

the base station, and, in step 2408, the LAXPT power level is frozen, and the MAC_ACC_REQ 

is sent. The common specification discloses that: 

Upon detection of the correct phase of the access code by the base 

station 14, the base station 14 sends an acknowledgment to the 

subscriber unit 16 (step 216 ). Reception of the acknowledgment 

by the subscriber unit 16 concludes the ramp-up process. A closed 

loop power control is established, and the subscriber unit 16 

continues the call setup process by sending related call setup 

messages (step 218). 

(CX-1 at 10:46-53; FIG. lIB; see also FIGS. 5, 7 (showing that the power ramp-up is complete 

when access code power level is frozen); see also Tr. at 670 (complainants' expert testified that 

"Q. But you would agree with me that reading this, at least, the ramp-up process is concluded 

at the time the access code is acquired? A. Yes, I agree. I agree.").) Therefore, LAXPT and 

45 
MAC_ACC_REQ cannot be portions of the same signal. Hence, the administrative law judge 

rejects complainants' argument that the claimed "access" contains more than just a known 

spreading code. 

Respondents and the staff argued that "access signal" should be construed as "a known 

spreading code." As found with respect to the claim term "code," supra, such a construction is 

incomplete, as said construction does not adequately explain an access signal with respect to the 

claims or the specification. 

4. The claimed phrases "associated with," "generated using a same code" and "function of a 

same code" 

Asserted claims 1, 2, and 31 ofthe '004 patent in issue contain the claimed phrase 

"associated with." Asserted claim 1 of the '966 patent and asserted claim 5 of the '847 patent 

use the claimed phrase, "generated using a same code." Asserted claim 59 of the '004 patent in 

issue and asserted claims 6,9, and 11 of the '847 patent in issue use the claimed phrase, 

"function of a same code." 

Complainants argued that the term "associated with" means "that one code or signal is 

related to another code or signal," (CBr at 41) that "generated using a same code" means "are 

produced from a common base code," (CBr at 42) and that "function of a same code" means 

"that the access signal depends on and varies with a code, and each of the different codes 

depends on and varies with the same code." (CBr at 42.) 

Respondents argued that "associated with" should be construed to mean that the first code 

is a portion of the second code (RBr at Sec. II, p. 46); that "function of a same code" should be 

construed to require that the "different codes" be a portion of the "access signal" (RBr at Sec. II, 

46 
p. 47); and that "generated using a same code" should be construed as meaning that the "short 

code" is a portion of the "message". (RBr at Sec. II, p. 48.) 

The staff argued that "the proper construction for the terms' associated with,' 'generated 

using,' and 'function of is 'related to.'" (SBr at 27.) 

a. The claimed phrase "associated with" 

Asserted claim 1 ofthe '004 patent reads in pertinent part: 

transmitting an access signal wherein the access signal is 

associated with the dynamically selected code signals and each of 

the dynamically selected code signals are shorter than the access 

signal. 

(CX-l at 11 :3-7 (emphasis added).) The administrative law judge has found, supra, that an 

access signal is "a known sequence of chips that is transmitted during power ramp-up to facilitate 

the initiation of communications," and that access signal ,is the same as the transmitted access 

code in the specification. Asserted claim 2 ofthe '004 patent reads in pertinent part: 

the transmitter configured such that in response to detecting 

the acknowledgement, a signal having a second code is transmitted 

to access a communication channel wherein the second code is 

associated with the first code. 

(CX-l at 11 :20-25 (emphasis added).) Asserted claim 31 of the '004 patent reads: 

The method of claim 30 wherein said code of a first type is a 

dynamically selected code associated with said code of a second 

~. 

(CX-l at 14:27-29 (emphasis added).) Thus, based on the plain language of the claims, the 

administrative law judge finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that 

"associated with" would mean related to. The common specification, however, as argued by 

respondents, further explains the nature of related to: 

47 
The access code 42 is a known spreading code transmitted from a 

subscriber unit 16 to the base station 14 during initiation of 

communications and power ramp-up. The base station 14 must 

search through all possible phases (time shifts) of the access code 

42 transmitted from the subscriber unit 16 in order to find the 

correct phase. 

* * * 

The preferred embodiment of the present invention utilizes "short 

codes" and a two-stage communication link establishment 

procedure to achieve fast power ramp-up without large power 

overshoots. The spreading code transmitted by the subscriber unit 

16 is much shorter than the rest of the spreading codes (hence the 

term short code), so that the number of phases is limited and the 

base station 14 can quickly search through the code. The short 

code used for this purpose carries no data. 

The tasks performed by the base station 14 and the subscriber unit 

16 to establish a communication channel using short codes in 

accordance with the preferred embodiment of the present invention 

are shown in FIGS. 6A and 6B. During idle periods, the base 

station 14 periodically and continuously transmits the pilot code to 

all subscriber units 16 located within the operating range of the 

base station 14 (step 150). The base station 14 also continuously 

searches for a short code transmitted by the subscriber unit 16 (step 

152). The subscriber unit 16 acquires the pilot code and 

synchronizes its transmit spreading code generator to the pilot code 

(step 154 ). The subscriber unit 16 also periodically checks to 

ensure it is synchronized. If synchronization is lost, the subscriber 

unit 16 reacquires the pilot signal transmitted by the base station 

(step 156 ). 

When a communication link is desired, the subscriber unit 16 

starts transmitting a short code at the minimum power level P 0 

(step 158) and continuously increases the transmission power level 

while retransmitting the short code (step 160) until it receives an 

acknowledgment from the base station 14 that the short code has 

been detected by the base station 14 . 

The access code in the preferred embodiment, as previously 

described herein, is approximately 30 million chips in length. 

However, the short code is much smaller. The short code can be 

48 
chosen to be any length that is sufficiently short to permit quick 

detection. There is an advantage in choosing a short code length 

such that it divides the access code period evenly. For the access 

code described herein, the short code is preferably chosen to be 32, 

64 or 128 chips in length. Alternatively, the short code may be as 

short as one symbol length, as will be described in detail 

hereinafter. 

Since the start of the short code and the start of the access code are 

synchronized, once the base station 14 acquires the short code, the 

base station 14 knows that the corresponding phase of the access 

code is an integer multiple ofN chips from the phase of the short 

code where N is the length of the short code. Accordingly, the base 

station 14 does not have to search all possible phases 

corresponding to the maximum round trip propagation delay. 

(CX-1 at 6:15-26, 7:41-8:14 (emphasis added).) As seen from the foregoing, the "short code" (of 

length N) is shorter than the access code, the short code is synchronized to the beginning of the 

access code, and the algorithm described in the specification assumes that the access code only 

need be searched in portions of length N. Hence, the administrative law judge finds that the short 

code must be identical to a portion of the access code. This finding is further supported by the 

'010 patent specification: 

Rapid acquisition of the correct code phase by a 

spread-spectrum receiver is improved by designing spreading 

codes which are faster to detect. The present embodiment of the 

invention includes a new method of generating code sequences that 

have rapid acquisition properties by using one or more of the 

following methods. First, a long code may be constructed from two 

or more short codes. The new implementation uses many code 

sequences, one or more of which are rapid acquisition sequences of 

length L that have average acquisition phase searches r=log 2L. 

Sequences with such properties are well known to those practiced 

in the art. The average number of acquisition test phases of the 

resulting long sequence is a multiple of r=log 2L rather than half of 

the number of phases of the long sequence. 

Second, a method of transmitting complex valued 

49 
spreading code sequences (In-phase (I) and Quadrature (Q) 

sequences) in a pilot spreading code signal may be used rather than 

transmitting real valued sequences. Two or more separate code 

sequences may be transmitted over the complex channels. If the 

sequences have different phases, an acquisition may be done by 

acquisition circuits in parallel over the different code sequences 

when the relative phase shift between the two or more code 

channels is known. For example, for two sequences, one can be 

sent on an In phase (I) channel and one on the Quadrature (Q) 

channel. To search the code sequences, the acquisition detection 

means searches the two channels, but begins the (Q) channel with 

an offset equal to one-half of the spreading code sequence length. 

With code sequence length ofN, the acquisition means starts the 

search at N/2 on the (Q) channel. The average number oftests to 

find acquisition is N/2 for a single code search, but searching the 

(I) and phase delayed (Q) channel in parallel reduces the average 

number of tests to N/4. The codes sent on each channel could be 

the same code, the same code with one channel's code phase 

delayed, or different code sequences. 

(CX-52 at 19:26-62 (emphasis added).) Accordingly, the '010 patent discloses not only that the 

short code is identical to a portion of a longer spreading code, but that said longer code may be 

created from two or more short codes in the first place. Moreover, the specification ofthe '004 

palent discloses: 

The short codes are generated from a regular length spreading 

code. A symbol length portion from the beginning of the spreading 

code is stored and used as the short code for the next 3 

milliseconds. Every 3 milliseconds, a new symbol length portion of 

the spreading code replaces the old short code. Since the spreading 

code period is an integer multiple of 3 milliseconds, the same short 

codes are repeated once every period of the spreading code. 

(CX-1 at 9:20-28 (emphasis added).) Hence, the common specification discloses that a short 

code may be generated from a spreading code and is a portion of said spreading code. The 

specification of the '010 patent also discloses: 

Short codes are used for the initial ramp-up process when an SU 

50 
accesses an RCS. The period of the short codes is equal to the 

symbol duration and the start of each period is aligned with a 

symbol boundary. Both SU and RCS derive the real and imaginary 

parts of the short codes from the last eight feed-forward sections of 

the sequence generator producing the global codes for that cell. 

(CX-52 at 22:11-15 (emphasis added).) Accordingly, the '010 patent discloses that the short 

code may be derived directly from the sequence generator. Therefore, the administrative law 

judge finds that the short code may be generated in several ways, viz. generated from a portion of 

the spreading code or derived from a sequence generator. 

Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that the claimed phrase 

"associated with" means that the shorter of the related codes is a portion of the longer related 

code. Thus, in claim 1 ofthe '004 patent, the claimed phrase "the access signal is associated 

with the dynamically selected code signals" is construed as "each of the dynamically selected 

code signals is a portion ofthe access signal." In claim 2 of the '004 patent, the claimed phrase 

"the second code is associated with the first code" is construed as "the first code is a portion of 

the second code." Finally, in claim 31, the claimed phrase "code of a first type is a dynamically 

selected code associated with said code of a second type" is construed as "code of a first type is a 

dynamically selected code which is a portion of a second type." 

Complainants argued against a finding that "associated with," means that the shorter of 

the related codes is a portion of the longer related code stating that: 

The incorporated '010 patent discloses another embodiment, 

including the relationship between access channel spreading codes 

and Long Access Pilot (LAXPT) codes. (CFF 2.238-2.240, CFF 

2.218) The long access pilot (LAXPT) code is not a portion of the 

corresponding access channel (AXCH) spreading code, or vice 

versa. (CFF 2.217) 

51 
(CBr at 43.) The administrative law judge however finds that portions of the specification of the 

'010 patent cited to by complainants do not support their argument. For example, complainants 

cite to CX-52 at 14:52-54,24:48-51. The first reference, CX-52 at 14:52-54, is a portion of the 

following citation from CX-52 and marked in boldface: 

A 'channel' of the prior art is usually regarded as a 

communications path which is part of an interface and which can 

be distinguished from other paths of that interface without regard 

to its content. However, in the case of CDMA, separate 

communications paths are-distinguished only by their content. The 

term 'logical channel' is used to distinguish the separate data 

streams, which are logically equivalent to channels in the 

conventional sense. All logical channels and sub-channels of the 

present invention are mapped to a common 64 kilo-symbols per 

second (ksymls) QPSK stream. Some channels are synchronized to 

associated pilot codes which are generated from, and perform a 

similar function to the system Global Pilot Code (GPC). The 

system pilot signals are not, however, considered logical channels. 

Several logical communication channels are used 9ver the 

RF communication link between the RCS and SUo Each logical 

communication channel either has a fixed, pre-determined 

§preading code or a dynamically assigned spreading code. For both 

pI e-determined and assigned codes, the code phase is synchronized 

with the Pilot Code. Logical communication channels are divided 

into two groups: the Global Channel (GC) group includes channels 

which are either transmitted from the base station RCS to all 

remote SUs orfrom any SU to the RCS of the base station 

regardless of the SU's identity. The channels in the GC group may 

contain information of a given type for all users including those 

channels used by SUs to gain system access. Channels in the 

Assigned Channels (AC) group are those channels dedicated to 

communication between the RCS and a particular SUo 

The Global Channels (GC) group provides for 1) Broadcast 

Control logical channels, which provide point to multipoint 

services for broadcasting messages to all SUs and paging messages 

to SUs; and 2) Access Control logical channels which provide 

point-to-point services on global channels for SUs to access the 

system and obtain assigned channels. 

52 
The RCS of the present invention has multiple Access 

Control logical channels, and one Broadcast Control group. An SU 

of the present invention has at least one Access Control channel 

and at least one Broadcast Control logical channel. 

The Global logical channels controlled by the RCS are the 

Fast Broadcast Channel (FBCH) which broadcasts fast changing 

information concerning which services and which access channels 

are currently available, and the Slow Broadcast Channel (SBCH) 

which broadcasts slow changing system information and paging 

messages. The Access Channel (AXCH) is used by the SUs to 

access an RCS and gain access to assigned channels. Each AXCH 

is paired with a Control Channel (CTCH). The CTCH is used by 

the RCS to acknowledge and reply to access attempts by SUs. 

The Long Access Pilot (LAXPT) is transmitted synchronously 

with AXCH to provide the ReS with a time and phase 

reference. 

(CX-52 at 13:66-14:54 (emphasis added).) Thus, the '010 patent discloses that the LAXPT is a 

, pilot code that is transmitted synchronously with the AXCH, and that AXCH is a logiCal channel. 

Disclosed later in the specification: 

In addition, there are pilot signals associated with access channels. 

These are_ called the Long Access Channel Pilots (LAXPTs). Short 

access channel pilots (SAXPTs) are also associated with the access 

channels and used for spreading code acquisition and initial power 

ramp-up. 

(CX-52 at 24:42-47 (emphasis added).) However, the administrative law judge finds that the 

claims at issue use "associated with" in the sense of a code associated with another code, £..,.&., a 

short code to an access code as shown in Table 23 (CX-52 at 23:1-36) with reference to the 

relationship between LAXPT and SAXPT, i.e. the long pilot code and the short code and not a 

logical access channel to a pilot code as complainants argued. Based on the foregoing, 

complainants' argument is rejected. 

53 
b. The claimed phrase "generated using a same code" 

Complainants argued that the claimed phrase "generated using a same code" should be 

construed as "are produced from a common base code," based on the widely accepted meaning of 

commonly understood words. (CBr at 42.) 

Respondents argued that this claimed phrase should be construed as meaning that the 

"transmitted signals" are a portion of the "message." (RBr at Sec. II, p. 47.) 

The staff argued that said claimed phrase means "related to." (SBr at 27.) 

Asserted claim 1 of the '966 patent reads in pertinent part: 

each of the successively transmitted signals and the message are 

generated using a same code 

(CX-2 at 11 :16-17.) Asserted claim 5 of the '847 patent reads in pertinent part: 

whereia the successively transmitted signals and the message are 

generated using a same code. 

(C X-3 at 12:62-63.) Thus, the administrative law judge finds that a person of ordinary skill in 

the art would conclude that the plain language of the claims at issue state that the signals and the 

message are produced using the same code. Further, the common specification discloses: 

The short codes are generated from a regular length spreading 

code. A symbol length portion from the beginning of the spreading 

code is stored and used as the short code for the next 3 

milliseconds. Every 3 milliseconds, a new symbol length portion of 

the spreading code replaces the old short code. Since the spreading 

code period is an integer multiple of 3 milliseconds, the same short 

codes are repeated once every period of the spreading code. 

(CX-l at 9:20-28.) Therefore, the common specification discloses that one way of producing a 

code is using a symbol length portion of the original code. Also, the' 010 patent discloses: 

The spreading code length is also a multiple of 64 and of 96 for 

54 
ISDN frame support. The spreading code is a sequence of symbols, 

called chips or chip values. The general methods of generating 

pseudorandom sequences using Galois Field mathematics is known 

to those skilled in the art; however, a unique set, or family, of code 

sequences has been derived for the present invention. First, the 

length of the linear feedback shift register to generate a code 

sequence is chosen, and the initial value of the register is called a 

"seed". Second, the constraint is imposed that no code sequence 

generated by a code seed may be a cyclic shift of another code 

sequence generated by the same code seed. Finally, no code 

sequence generated from one seed may be a cyclic shift of a code 

sequence generated by another seed. 

(CX-52 at 17:45-60 (emphasis added).) Hence, the administrative law judge finds that the '010 

patent discloses that codes may be generated from a "code seed." Thus, the administrative law 

judge finds that the specification does not contradict the plain meaning. Based on the foregoing, 

the administrative law judge finds that the claimed phrase "generated using a same code" is 

construed as "produced from the same code." 

c. The claimed phrase "function of a same code" 

Complainants argued that the claimed phrase "function of a same code" means "that the 

access signal depends on and varies with a code, and each of the different codes depends on and 

varies with the same code." (CBr at 42.) 

Respondents argued that "'function of the same code' should be construed to require that 

the 'different codes' be a portion of the 'access signal.'" (RBr at Sec. II, p. 47.) 

The staff argued that the proper construction for the term "function of' is "related to." 

(SBr at 27.) 

Claim 59 of the '004 patent reads in pertinent part: 

said access signal as transmitted by said subscriber unit and said 

different codes as transmitted by said subscriber unit each being a 

55 
function of a same code. 

(CX-l at 17:24-25.)13 The plain language of the claim would indicate some form of relationship 

between the "access signal" and the "different codes." No party has pointed to any intrinsic 

evidence that discloses how a code is a "function of' another code. Yet, the claimed phrase 

"generated using a same code" discloses a relationship between codes, supported by the 

specification, that is substantially the same as the relationship disclosed by the plain language of 

the claim phrase "function of a same code" in issue. Different language in the claims does not 

require a different meaning. (See Tandon Corp. v. U.S. International Trade Com., 831 F.2d 1017, 

1023 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ("Two claims which read differently can cover the same subject matter.").) 

Further, complainants' expert Vojcic testified: 

supra. 

Q. Let me ask you to look and talk about the associated function of 

genelating using lim;tations. I will ask you to look at and ask you 

whether that corresponds to the opinions you are about to give. 

A. Yes. 

Q. And the limitations refer to an association or function ofthe same 

code generated using the same code. What is the same code that 

you are relying on for purposes of infringement? 

A. The same code that I refer is Clongl as it is referred in 3GPP 

standard. 

Q. Let me ask you to look at CDX-308 and ask you whether 

InterDigital's proposed construction, particularly for "associated 

with" meaning related, comports with the ordinary meaning of the 

term? 

A. Yes, it does. 

13 Asserted claims 6, 9, and 11 ofthe '847 patent in issue use very similar language. See 

56 
Q. Can you explain where and how the short codes and access code 

portion of the access signal are derived in the '004 patent? 

A. There are multiple places. First, at column 8, lines 9 to 11, explain 

that there is an advantage of choosing short code lengths such that 

it divides the access code period evenly and then in lines 20 to 21 

of column 9, it says that short codes are generated from a regular 

length spreading code. 

And the figure 10 shows how first short codes are 

transmitted from spreading code generator 86 to block 90, and after 

the first power ramp-up is completed, or has been completed, then 

access code continues to be transmitted, which is shown 

symbolically at the bottom of this demonstrative where first short 

codes is selected from long spreading code. And then after that 

code is detected, it continues to transmit the access code. 

Q. Now, in the figure you have added to the bottom of CDX-308, 

which shows the short codes and access codes, are those derived 

from the same spreading code? 

A. Yes, they a;e. 

Q. Is that con'5lstent with the disclosure in the power ramp-up patents? 

A. Yes, it is. 

(Tr. at 554-56 (emphasis added).) Thus, Vojcic testified that one code would be a function of 

another, in context of the specification, if both codes were generated by the same code generator. 

Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that the claimed phrase "function of a 

same code" should be construed as "produced from the same code." 

Complainants based their argument regarding the interpretation of the claimed phrase in 

issue on a dictionary definition, viz., "a variable ... that depends on and varies with another." 

(CBr at 42.) Complainants, however, did not explain how that definition fits within the context 

ofthe claims or the specification. Moreover, complainants did not explain why a claim term 

57 
should be construed in a way not supported by the intrinsic evidence or by their expert. 

5. The claimed phrases "carry no data" and "does not include data" 

Asserted claims 1 and 2 of the '004 patent contain the claimed phrase "carry no data." 

Non-asserted independent claim 30 of the '004 patent, from which asserted dependent claim 31 

depends, contains the claimed phrase "(a) transmitting a code of a first type, wherein the code of 

the first type does not include data of the subscriber unit." 

Complainants argued that "carry no data" of asserted claims 1 and 2 should be construed 

as "not modulated by data." Complainants further argued that claim 31 should be construed such 

that the "the code of the first type does not have data particular to the subscriber unit." (CBr at 

45.) 

Respondents argued that the claim term "no data" means "no information." (RBr at Sec. 

II, p. 54.) Respondents further argued that one skilled in the art would understand that a code 

carries no data if it conveys no information. (RBr at Sec. II, p. 54.) 

The staff argued that the claim phrases "carry no data" and "does not include data" should 

be construed as meaning that "no data or information are included." (SBr at 27.) 

The administrative law judge has found, supra, that a "code signal" is "a sequence of 

chips that is transmitted." Claim 1 of the '004 patent reads, in relevant part: 

A method for performing power control in a wireless code division 

multiple access communication system, the method comprising: 

transmitting dynamically selected code signals at increasing power 

levels until an acknowledgement [sic.] is received indicating that 

one of said dynamically selected code signals was detected, 

wherein the transmitted dynamically selected code signals carry no 

data ... 

(CX-l at 10:62-11 :2 (emphasis added).) Thus, the "sequence of chips that is transmitted," i.e. 

58 
the code signal itself, is conceptually separate from any "data" carried, because the plain 

language of the asserted claims 1 and 2 and unasserted claim 3, shows that "data" may be carried, 

or not be carried by the code signal. The common specification provides: 

The pilot code 40 is a spreading code which carries no data bits. 

The pilot code 40 is used for subscriber unit 16 acquisition and 

synchronization, as well as for determining the parameters of the 

adaptive matched filter used in the receiver. 

(CX-l at 5:8-12.) Thus, the co'mmon specification discloses that data can be represented by bits 

which are carried by the code. As relates to data, the specification also discloses: 

When a communication link: is desired, the base station 14 must 

acquire the signal transmitted from the subscriber unit 16 before it 

can demodulate the data. 

(CX-l at 5:57-59.) The pilot code, short code, and access codes discussed in the common 

specification relate to acquiring the signal transmitted from the subscriber unit. (See CX-l, Figs. 

4, 6A, 6B, 7, and lIB.) Hence. the common specification discloses that the data must be 

demodulated after the communication link: is established. For the data to be demodulated, it must 

have first been modulated prior to transmission. The specification of the '010 patent, in the 

Description of the Relevant Art section, discloses: 

Spread spectrum modulation refers to modulating a information 

signal with a spreading code signal; the spreading code signal 

being generated by a code generator where the period Tc of the 

spreading code is substantially less than the period of the 

information data bit or symbol signal. The code may modulate the 

carrier frequency upon which the information has been sent, called 

frequency-hopped spreading, or may directly modulate the signal 

by multiplying the spreading code with the information data signal, 

called direct-sequence spreading CDS). Spread-spectrum 

modulation produces a signal with bandwidth substantially greater 

than that required to transmit the information signal. Synchronous 

reception and de spreading of the signal at the receiver recovers the 

59 
original information. A synchronous demodulator in the receiver 

uses a reference signal to synchronize the despreading circuits to 

the input spread-spectrum modulated signal to recover the carrier 

and information signals. The reference signal can be a spreading 

code which is not modulated by an information signal. 

(CX-52 at 1 :36-54 (emphasis added).) Thus, the administrative law judge finds that the '010 

patent discloses that a spreading code can be modulated with the information data signal, and that 

is how the spreading code carries the data. 

Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that the claimed phrase "carry 

no data" is construed as "not modulated by an information signal." 

As regards the claimed phrase "does not include data" contained in unasserted 

independent claim 30 from which asserted claim 31 ofthe '004 patent depends, said claim reads, 

in pertinent part: 

(a) transmitting a code of a first type, wherein the code of the first 

type does not include data of the subscriber unit; 

(CX-l at 14:12-14.) Based on the plain language of the claim and the portions ofthe 

specification cited, supra, the administrative law judge finds that said claimed phrase is construed 

as "transmitting a code of a first type, wherein the code of the first type is not modulated by an 

information signal including information of the subscriber unit." 

The administrative law judge rejects the respondents' and the staff's arguments that the 

claimed phrases in issue, viz. "carry no data" and "does not include data," should be construed as 

merely "no information," because the administrative law judge finds that the word "information" 

is disclosed in the intrinsic evidence as being carried by a signal. 14 For example, in the 

14 The word "information" does not appear in the text of the common specification or any 

claims of the power ramp-up patents in issue. 

60 
Description of the Relevant Art section of the '010 patent: 

modulating a information signal with a spreading code signal; the 

spreading code signal being generated by a code generator where 

the period Tc of the spreading code is substantially less than the 

period ofthe information data bit or symbol signal. The code may 

modulate the carrier frequency upon which the information has 

been sent, called frequency-hopped spreading, or may directly 

modulate the signal by multiplying the spreading code with the 

information data signal, called direct-sequence spreading (DS). 

(CX-52 at 1 :36-45 (emphasis added).) Moreover, in the Summary of the Invention section ofthe 

'010 patent: 

The present invention is embodied in a multiple access, 

spread-spectrum communication system which processes a 

plurality of information signals received simultaneously over 

telecommunication lines for simultaneous transmission over a 

radio frequency (RF) channel as a code-division-multiplexed 

(CDM) signal. The system includes a radio carrier station (RCS) 

which receives a call request signal that corresponds ~o a 

telecommunication line information 'signal, and a user 

identification signal that identifies a user to which the call request 

and information signal are addressed. The receiving apparatus is 

coupled to a plurality of code division multiple access (CDMA) 

modems, one of which provides a global pilot code signal and a 

plurality of message code signals, and each of the CDMA modems 

combines one of the plurality of information signals with its 

respective message code signal to provide a spread-spectrum 

processed signal. 

(CX-52 at 4:66-5:15 (emphasis added).) Thus, the administrative law judge finds that the term 

"information," alone, is not sufficient to explain the claimed term "data" in light of the common 

specification and the specification of the '010 patent. 

6. The claimed phrase "initial power level" 

Complainants argued that the claimed phrase "initial power level" should be construed as 

"the power level at which the first code is transmitted." (CBr at 47-48.) Complainants further 

61 
argued that said construction follows the "widely accepted meaning of commonly understood 

words." (CBr at 48.) 

Respondents argued that the claimed phrase at issue should be construed as "a power 

level guaranteed to be lower than the minimum power level required for communicating with the 

base station." (RBr at Sec. II, p. 63.) Respondents further argued that "the Common 

Specification even acknowledged other methods of determining the initial power level and then 

specifically and unequivocally disclosed the use of those methods (RFF 11-703)." (RBr at Sec. II, 

p.63.) 

The staff argued that the claim phrase at issue should be construed as "a power level 

guaranteed to be lower than the minimum power level required for communicating with the base 

station." (SBr at 28.) 

The claimed phrase, "initial power level" is in the language of asserted independent claim 

2 ofthe '004 patent. Said claim 2, with emphasis addecl. reads: 

A wireless code division multiple access subscriber unit, the 

subscriber unit comprising: a transmitter configured such that f! 

first code is transmitted at an initial power level wherein the first 

code is of a first code type and the transmitter further configured to 

repeatedly transmit dvnamically selected codes of said first code 

type at increasing power levels wherein the transmitted codes of 

said first code type carry no data; a receiver configured such that an 

acknowledgement is detected indicating a code of said first type 

was received; and the transmitter configured such that in response 

to detecting the acknowledgement, a signal having a second code is 

transmitted to access a communication channel wherein the second 

code is associated with the first code. 

(CX-l at 11:8-24 (emphasis added).) Based on the plain and ordinary meaning ofthe language 

of the claim term at issue, "an initial power level" is the first power level at which the first code 

62 
is transmitted. The claim, however, also discloses that the first code is transmitted at increasing 

power levels until an acknowledgment indicating receipt of said first code is received. Thus, the 

initial power level must be lower than, not equal to or greater than, the power level required for 

detection. 

The common specification, in the Summary of the Invention, discloses: 

The ramp-up starts from a power level that is guaranteed to be 

lower than the required power level for detection by the base 

station. The subscriber unit quickly increases transmission power 

while repeatedly transmitting the short code until the signal is 

detected by the base station. Once the base station detects the short 

code, it sends an indication to the subscriber unit to cease 

increasing transmission power. 

(CX-l at 3:23-30 (emphasis added).) Hence, the summary, which is not tied to any particular 

embodiment, specifically discloses that the starting power level is "guaranteed to be lower than 

the required power level for detection by the base station." Like;jI,ri3e the Abstract discloses: 

The ramp-up starts from a power level that is lower than the 

required power level for detection by the base station. The power 

of the short code is quickly increased until the signal is detected by 

the base station. Once the base station detects the short code, it 

transmits an indication that the short code has been detected. 

(CX-l (emphasis added).) Although the word "guaranteed" is not used in the Abstract, the 

Abstract specifically discloses that the power level is lower than the required power level for 

detection by the base station. The preferred embodiments are described by the common 

specification in such a way that makes it clear that a power lower than that need to detect the 

signal is critical to the invention. For example: 

In a first embodiment of the present invention the subscriber unit 

16 starts transmitting at a power level guaranteed to be lower than 

what is required and increases transmission power output until the 

63 
correct power level is achieved. This avoids sudden introduction of 

a strong interference, hence improving system 10 capacity. 

(CX-I at 6:1-6 (emphasis added).) Thus, the common specification discloses that said low 

transmission power addresses a problem that this invention was designed to solve: strong 

interference. (See CX-I at 2:21-24 ("The stronger the signal from a sub-scriber unit arrives at the 

base station, the more interference the base station experiences when receiving and demodulating 

signals from other subscriber units.").) Further, Fig. 4, which is described in the common 

specification as showing the establishment of a communication channel in accordance with the 

present invention and the tasks performed by the base station (CX-l at 6:7-10), is a flow chart 

which discloses that the subscriber unit, to initiate a call, should, inter alia, "start transmitting 

access code at minimum power" (CX-l, Fig. 4 (step 106) and a base station must, inter illia, to 

"detect access code at the correct phase once sufficient power has been achieved." (CX-l, Fig. 4 

(step 110).) Hence, Fig. 4 discloses that a subscriber unit must begin trarismitting at minimum 

power, and the base station is expecting it to do so. There are other examples in the common 

specification disclosing that a subscriber unit must began transmitting at a minimum power to 

reduce interference. (See,~, CX-l at 6:57-7:2, 7:11-21, 7:65-8:4,8:24-27, 10:26-36, Figs. 6A, 

llA.) The administrative law judge finds no disclosure in the common specification or the '010 

specification that the transmit power from a subscriber unit may be higher than or even equal to 

the minimum required to be detected by the base station. Moreover, complainants' expert has 

testified: 

Q. Sure. In fact, the '004 specification repeatedly states that the initial 

power level should be below that detectable by the base station? 

A. That's the -- that's the intention. And I think that's correct 

64 
interpretation, but doesn't necessarily need to happen that way. 

(Tr. at 678 (emphasis added).) 

Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that "initial power level" is 

construed as "a power level lower than the minimum power level required for communicating 

with the base station.,,15 

Complainants argued that the claimed phrase "initial power level" should be construed by 

taking into account the "widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words," which 

effectively means without taking into account the rest of the claim limitations or the 

specification. However as found, supra, the claimed phrase "initial power level" is extensively 

described in the specification, and even the rest of the claim limitations show that complainants' 

definition of "initial power level" is insufficient. 

7. 

1<: 

The claimed phrases "transmitting ... at increasing power levels," "transmit ... at 

increasing power levels," "repeating (a) at increasing power levels," "trrHsmission ... at 

an increased power level" and "transmitted at an increased power level" 

The claimed phrase "transmitting ... at increasing power levels" appears in asserted 

claim 1 of the '004 patent. (CX-1 at 10:55-56.) The term "transmit ... at increasing power 

levels" appears in asserted claim 2 of the '004 patent. (CX-1 at 13-14.) The term "repeating (a) 

at increasing power levels" appears in unasserted claim 30 of the '004 patent, from which 

asserted claim 31 depends. (CX-1 at 14:21.) The term "transmission ... at an increased power 

level" appears in asserted claim 1 of the '966 patent (CX-2 at 11:5-6) and asserted claim 5 of the 

'847 patent. (CX-3 at 12:50-52.) The term "transmitted at an increased power level" appears in 

15 The administrative law judge finds that the claimed phrase "power level" itself is not 

in dispute and requires no construction, and thus can be used in his construction despite also 

appearing in the claim phrase to be construed. 

65 
asserted claim 6 of the '847 patent. (CX-3 at 13:7.) 

Complainants argued that said phrases in issue should be construed as "the power level 

of a transmission is higher than that of a previous transmission," which is consistent with the 

plain language and basic English grammar. (CBr at 49.) Complainants also argued that: 

The specifications disclose both continuous and continual increases 

of the power level. (CFF 2.285) The common ordinary meaning of 

"continual" in conjunction with the express language of the claims 

("levels") does not permit Respondents to limit the increase to a 

continuous one. A common dictionary definition of "continual" is 

"reoccurring in steady, usually rapid succession." (CFF 2.286) 

Persons skilled in the art would understand that this common, 

ordinary meaning of the term "continual" encompasses increasing 

the transmission power of the subscriber unit, such that a later 

short code is transmitted at a constant and higher power level than 

a previous short code was transmitted. (CFF 2.287) 

(CBr at 50.) 

. - ; Respondents argued that "transmitting ... at increasing power levels" should be construed 

L', 

as "the transmission of short codes is continuous, the power level of the beginning of a short 

code is higher than that of the end of the previous code signal, and the power level of a short 

code increases during transmission." (RBr at Sec. II, p. 58.) 

The staff argued that the claimed phrases should be construed as "the power level of a 

transmission is higher than that of a previous transmission." (SBr at 32.) The staff further argued 

that said construction is "consistent with the plain meaning of those terms and ... the intrinsic 

record discloses no justification to narrow that plain meaning ... " (SBr at 32.) 

As the administrative law judge has found, supra, the claimed phrase "power level" is not 

in dispute. The administrative law judge further finds that the claimed terms "transmission" and 

"transmitting" are also not in dispute. The plain and ordinary language definition of "increasing" 

66 
is getting higher or larger. 

Based on the foregoing and on the plain and ordinary language of each of the claims in 

issue, the administrative law judge finds that the claimed phrases in issue should be interpreted as 

"the power level of a transmission is higher than that of a previous transmission." Therefore, the 

claimed language in issue would allow for either a stepwise increase, i.e. each distinct 

transmission is at a single power level higher than the prior transmission, or a continuous 

increase, i.e. where each transmission starts at a power level higher than the prior transmission 

and then increases in power during transmission. 

Referring to the common specification, step 108 of Fig. 4 reads "continuously increase 

transmission power while transmitting." The common specification, further describing said step 

108, reads: 

.. , When it is desired to initiate a communication link, the 

subscriber unit 16 starts transmitting the access code 42 back to the 

base station 14 (step 106). The subscriber unit 16 continuously 

increases the transmission power while retransmitting the access 

code 42 (step 108) until it receives an acknowledgment from the 

base station 14. The base station 14 detects the access code 42 at 

the correct phase once the minimum power level for reception has 

been achieved (step 110). The base station 14 subsequently 

transmits an access code detection acknowledgment signal (step 

112) to the subscriber unit 16. Upon receiving the 

acknowledgment, the subscriber unit ceases the transmission power 

increase (step 114). With the power ramp-up completed, closed 

loop power control and call setup signaling is performed (step 116) 

to establish the two-way communication link. 

Although this embodiment limits subscriber unit 16 

transmission power, acquisition of the subscriber unit 16 by the 

base station 14 in this manner may lead to unnecessary power 

overshoot from the subscriber unit 16, thereby reducing the 

performance of the system 10. 

67 
The transmission power output profile of the subscriber 

unit 16 is shown in FIG. 5. At to, the subscriber unit 16 starts 

transmitting at the starting transmission power level PO, which is a 

power level guaranteed to be less than the power level required for 

detection by the base station 14. The subscriber unit 16 continually 

increases the transmission power level until it receives the 

detection indication from the base station 14. For the base station 

14 to properly detect the access code 42 from the subscriber unit 16 

the access code 42 must: 1) be received at a sufficient power level; 

and 2) be detected at the proper phase. Accordingly, referring to 

FIG. 5, although the access code 42 is at a sufficient power level 

for detection by the base station 14 at tp , the base station 14 must 

continue searching for the correct phase ofthe access code 42 

which occurs at tAo 

Since the subscriber unit 16 continues to increase the output 

transmission power level until it receives the detection indication 

from the base station 14, the transmission power of the access code 

42 exceeds the power level required for detection by the base 

station 14. This causes unnecessary interference to all other 

suhscriber units 16. Ifthe power overshoot is too large, the 

interference to other subscriber units 16 may be so severe as to 

terminate ongoing communications of other subscriber units 16. 

(CX-1 at 6:57-7:34 (emphasis added).) Thus, according to common specification the 

transmission power increases for each re-submission of the access code, which increase ceases 

after the access code has been detected. As disclosed by the common specification with respect 

to Fig. 5 the transmission power increases during the transmission of an individual access code, 

resulting in an overshoot. The common specification further discloses: 

Referring to FIG. 7, although the starting power level Po is the 

same as in the prior embodiment, the subscriber unit 16 may 

ramp-up the transmission power level at a much higher rate by 

using a short code. The short code is quickly detected after the 

transmission power level surpasses the minimum detection level, 

thus minimizing the amount of transmission power overshoot. 

* * * 

68 
An overview of the ramp-up procedure in accordance with the 

preferred current invention is summarized in FIGS. 11A and lIB. 

The base station 14 transmits a pilot code while searching for the 

short code (step 200). The subscriber unit 16 acquires the pilot 

code transmitted from the base station 14 (step 202), starts 

transmitting a short code starting at a minimum power level Po 

which is guaranteed to be less than the required power, and quickly 

increases transmission power (step 204). Once the received power 

level at the base station 14 reaches the minimum level needed for 

detection of the short code (step 206) the base station 14 acquires 

the correct phase of the short code, transmits an indication of this 

detection, and begins searching for the access code (step 208). 

Upon receiving the detection indication, the subscriber unit 16 

ceases transmitting the short code and starts transmitting an access 

code. The subscriber unit 16 initiates a slow ramp-up of transmit 

power while sending the access code (step 210). The base station 

14 searches for the correct phase of the access code by searching 

only one phase out of each short code length portion of the access 

code (step 212). Ifthe base station 14 searches the phases of the 

access code up to the maximum round trip delay and has not 

detected the correct phase, the search is repeated by searching 

every pha3e (step 214). Upon detection of the correct phase of the 

access code by the base station 14, the base station 14 sends an 

acknowledgment to the subscriber unit 16 (step 216). Reception of 

the acknowledgment by the subscriber unit 16 concludes the 

ramp-up process. 

(CX-1 at 9:7-13, 10:23-50 (emphasis added).) Thus, this FIG. 7 embodiment discusses 

"overshoot," therefore disclosing that the transmission power of the short code is increased 

during transmission,just as in the embodiment cited, supra. Moreover, the '010 patent discloses: 

The SU starts from very low transmit power and increases its 

power level while transmitting the short code SAXPT; once the 

RCS modem detects the short code it turns off the traffic light. 

Upon detecting the changed traffic light, the SU continues 

ramping-up at a slower rate this time sending the LAXPT. Once 

the RCS modem acquires the LAXPT and sends a message on 

CTCH to indicate this, the SU keeps its transmit (TX) power 

constant and sends the MAC-Access-Request message. 

(CX-52 at 58:53-62 (emphasis added).) Hence, the '010 patent discloses increasing the power 

69 
level of the short code transmission during transmission. Moreover, the Field ofthe Invention 

section of the common specification, which is part of the Background of the Invention section, 

reads: 

The present invention relates generally to CDMA communication 

systems. More specifically, the present invention relates to a 

CDMA communication system which utilizes the transmission of 

short codes from subscriber units to a base station to reduce the 

time required for the base station to detect the signal from a 

subscriber unit. The improved detection time allows a faster 

ramp-up of the initial transmit power from the subscriber units 

while reducing the unnecessary power overshoot. 

(CX-l at 1 :24-32 (emphasis added).) As found, supra, the asserted claims ofthe '004, '966 and 

'847 patents show that the invention is a CDMA system. In addition, the common specification 

discloses that one of the stated goals of the invention is to reduce overshoot in CDMA systems 

which, as shown, supra, occurs because the po\rer level of a short code or access code is 

increased during the time in which said code is being transmitted: Therefore, the administrative 

law judge finds that the common specification discloses that the power level of a transmission 

increases during the transmission, and that such an increase is important to the invention. Thus, 

reading the claims in light of the common specification and the specification of the '010 patent, 

which has been found to be incorporated by reference into the common specification, the 

administrative law judge finds that the phrases at issue should be construed as "the power level 

of the beginning of a code signal is higher than that of the end of the previous code signal, and 

the power level of a code signal increases during transmission." 

Complainants have argued that the "common, ordinary meaning of the term 'continual' 

encompasses increasing the transmission power of the subscriber unit, such that a later short code 

70 
is transmitted at a constant and higher power level than a previous short code was transmitted." 

(CBr at 50.) In other words, complainants argued that the language of the claims could 

encompass both increasing the power level of a transmission during the transmission, as well as 

increasing the power level of a transmission in relation to a prior transmission while leaving the 

power level of that transmission at a constant level. The staff has argued that the plain meaning 

ofthe claim phrases at issue should control. (SBr at 32.) Yet, as'found, supra, the language of 

the asserted claims, when read in light of the specification, do not support complainants' or 

staff s arguments. Also, as found, supr,!, the common specification discloses that the fact that 

the power level increases during the transmission is an integral part of the invention. 

Respondents argued that "[t]he Common Specification consistently and exclusively 

describesx the ramp-up procedure as a 'continuous' increase in transmission power, and never 

even mentions a scenario where there is a break or drop in the transmission power (RFF II-657-

660)." (RBr at Sec. II, p. 58.) As found, supra, the plain language of the claims is broad enough 

to encompass both a continuous and a non-continuous transmission of code signals. The 

common specification further discloses, in reference to a preferred embodiment: 

Although the same short code may be reused by the subscriber unit 

16 , in the preferred embodiment of the present invention the short 

codes are dynamically selected and updated in accordance with the 

following procedure. Referring to FIG. 8, the period of the short 

code is equal to one symbol length and the start of each period is 

aligned with a symbol boundary. The short codes are generated 

from a regular length spreading code. A symbol length portion 

from the beginning of the spreading code is stored and used as the 

short code for the next 3 milliseconds. Every 3 milliseconds, a new 

symbol length portion of the spreading code replaces the old short 

code. Since the spreading code period is an integer multiple of 3 

milliseconds, the same short codes are repeated once every period 

of the spreading code. 

71 
(CX-l at 9:14-28 (emphasis added).) Also, Fig. 8 shows no gaps between the short code 

transmissions. (CX-l at Fig. 8.) Complainants have not shown any support in said specification 

for any such gaps. However, unlike the power level increasing during transmission, the 

administrative law judge finds no disclosure in the specification that teaches against said gaps. 

Thus, the plain language of the claims controls and the administrative law judge rejects 

respondents' argument. 

8. The claimed phrases "repeatedly transmit," "successively transmits" and "repeats the 

transmitting" 

Asserted claim 2 of the '004 patent recites in part "repeatedly transmit." Asserted claim 1 

of the '966 patent and claim 5 of the '847 patent contain the limitation "successively transmits." 

Asserted claim 59 of the '004 patent and claim 11 of the '847 patent recite in part "repeats the 

transmitting." Asserted claim 9 ofthe '847 patent recites in part "repeating step (f)." The 

administrative law judge refers to said claimed phrase as the "repeating" terms. 

Complainants argued that "each of the above claim terms means 'to transmit one after the 

other'" and that said construction is consistent with the widely accepted meaning of commonly 

understood words. (CBr at 52.) Complainants also argued that said construction is supported by 

the common specification, because said specification nowhere indicates that continuous, 

uninterrupted transmission of the short codes is the only method that can be used. (CBr at 52.) 

Respondents argued that said claim phrases in issue should be construed as "transmitting 

signals in an uninterrupted sequence." (RBr at Sec. II, p. 65.) The respondents further argued 

that "the only method of transmission disclosed in the Common Specification is continuous -

meaning no gaps ... " (RBr at Sec. II, p. 66.) 

72 
The staff argued that said phrases in issue should be construed as "to transmit one after 

the other." (SBr at 32.) 

The administrative law judge finds, based on the plain meaning of the asserted claims, 

supra that the "repeating" terms should be construed as "to transmit one after the other." Based 

on the same findings, supra made for the claimed term "transmitting ... at increasing power 

levels," supra, the administrative law judge rejects respondents' argument that the signals must 

be transmitted in an uninterrupted sequence. He also finds that "sequence" is substantially the 

same as "one after the other" and that with the exception of said rejected argument of 

respondents, there is no substantive difference between the constructions of the parties. 

9. The claimed phrases "synchronize to the pilot signal," "synchronize to a pilot signal," 

"synchronizing to the pilot signal," "synchronizing to a pilot signal" and "re-synchronize 

to the pilot signal" 

Said claimed phrases in issue appear in asserted claims 5, 6, 9, and 11 ofthe '847 patent. 

(CX-5 at 12:38-40; 13:3, 14:17, 15:1,3-5.) 

Complainants argued that "[t]he process of synchronization is so routine and 

commonplace that InterDigital did not believe a claim construction of this term was necessary." 

(CBr at 53.) Complainants argued that, ifit is necessary to do so, the claimed phrases like 

"synchronizing to a pilot signal transmitted by said base station" should be construed as 

"establishing a timing reference with the pilot signal transmitted by said base station." (CBr at 

53.) Complainants further argued that "re-synchronize to the pilot signal" should be construed as 

re-establishing the timing reference between the subscriber unit's locally generated code and the 

pilot signal received from the base station. (CBr at 55-56.) 

Respondents argued that "synchronize/synchronizing to althe pilot signal" would be 

73 
construed, by one of ordinary skill in the art, to mean "to align the beginning of the subscriber 

unit's receive and transmit spreading codes to the beginning of a pilot code." (RBr at Sec. II, p. 

68.) The respondents further argued that the common specification only discloses one type of 

synchronization. (RBr at Sec. II, pp. 68-69.) Respondents also argued that "re-synchronize to the 

pilot signal" should mean "re-aligning the beginning of the subscriber unit's receive and transmit 

spreading codes to the beginning of a pilot code when the beginning of the receive and transmit 

spreading codes are not in alignment with the beginning of the pilot code or the pilot signal has 

been lost." (RBr at Sec. II, p. 68.) 

The staff argued that said synchronizing claim terms should be construed as "to align the 

beginning of the subscriber unit's receive and transmit spreading codes to the beginning of a pilot 

code." (SBr at 33.) The staff further argued that "re-synchronize to the pilot signal" is "realigning the beginning of the subscriber unit's receive and transmit spreading codes to the 

beginning of the pilot code when the beginning of the receive and transmit spreading codes are 

not in alignment with the beginning of the pilot code or the pilot signal has been lost." (SBr at 

33.) 

Asserted claim 5 of the '847 patent reads in relevant part: 

A wireless code division multiple access (CDMA) subscriber unit 

compnsmg: 

a circuit configured to receive and down convert radio frequency 

signals to produce baseband signals, the baseband signals including 

a pilot signal and a paging message, the paging message being 

associated with the subscriber unit, 

wherein the circuit is further configured to synchronize to the pilot 

signal and demodulate the paging message ... 

74 
(CX-3 at 12:32-41 (emphasis added).) Asserted claim 6 reads in relevant part: 

synchronizing to a pilot signal transmitted by said base station ... 

(CX-3 at 13:1-2.) Asserted claim 9 reads in relevant part: 

(b) down converting the received radio frequency signals to 

produce baseband signals, the baseband signals include a pilot 

signal and a paging message, the paging message being associated 

with the subscriber unit; 

(c) synchronizing to the pilot signal... 

(CX-3 at 14:16 (emphasis added).) Asserted claim 11 reads in relevant part: 

a circuit configured to synchronize to a pilot signal transmitted by 

the base station wherein, the circuit is further configured to 

re-synchronize to the pilot signal if the subscriber unit becomes 

unsynchronized to the pilot signal during an idle period; 

(CX-3 at 15:1-5 (emphasis added).) The administrative law judge finds that the language of the 

claims supra does not explain how to perform said synchronizing, although said language shows 

that the pilot signal must first be received from the base station. The common specification 

discloses, in reference to a prefelTed embodiment: 

RefelTing to FIG. 3, the signaling between a base station 14 and a 

subscriber unit 16 is shown. In accordance with the present 

invention, the base station 14 continuously transmits a pilot code 

40 to all of the subscriber units 16 located within the transmitting 

range of the base station 14. The pilot code 40 is a spreading code 

which carries no data bits. The pilot code 40 is used for subscriber 

unit 16 acquisition and synchronization, as well as for determining 

the parameters ofthe adaptive matched filter used in the receiver. 

The subscriber unit 16 must acquire the pilot code 40 transmitted 

by the base station 14 before it can receive or transmit any data. 

Acquisition is the process whereby the subscriber unit 16 aligns its 

locally generated spreading code with the received pilot code 40. 

The subscriber unit 16 searches through all of the possible phases 

of the received pilot code 40 until it detects the COlTect phase, (the 

75 
beginning of the pilot code 40). 

The subscriber unit 16 then synchronizes its transmit spreading 

code to the received pilot code 40 by aligning the beginning of its 

transmit spreading code to the beginning of the pilot code 40. One 

implication of this receive and transmit synchronization is that the 

subscriber unit 16 introduces no additional delay as far as the phase 

of the spreading codes are concerned. Accordingly, as shown in 

FIG. 3, the relative delay between the pilot code 40 transmitted 

from the base station 14 and the subscriber unit's transmit 

spreading code 42 received at the base station 14 is 2~t, which is 

solely due to the round trip propagation delay. 

In the preferred embodiment, the pilot code is 29,877,120 chips in 

length and takes approximately 2 to 5 seconds to transmit, 

depending on the spreading factor. The length ofthe pilot code 40 

was chosen to be a multiple of the data symbol no matter what kind 

of data rate or bandwidth is used. As is well known by those of 

skill in the art, a longer pilot code 40 has better randomness 

properties and the frequency response of the pilot code 40 is more 

uniform. Additionally, a longer pilot code 40 provides low channel 

cross correlation, thus increasing the capacity of the system 10 to 

support more subscriber units 16 with less interference. The use of 

a long pilot code 40 also supports a greater number of random 

short codes. For synchronization purposes, the pilot code 40 is 

chosen to have the same period as all of the other spreading codes 

used by the system 10. Thus, once a subscriber unit 16 acquires the 

pilot code 40, it is synchronized to all other signals transmitted 

from the base station 14. 

During idle periods, when a call is not in progress or pending, the 

subscriber unit 16 remains synchronized to the base station 14 by 

periodically reacquiring the pilot code 40. This is necessary for the 

subscriber unit 16 to receive and demodulate any downlink 

transmissions, in particular paging messages which indicate 

incoming calls. 

(CX-1 at 5:4-56 (emphasis added).) Thus, the common specification discloses that 

synchronization is aligning the beginning of a receive or transmit spreading code to the beginning 

ofthe pilot code. Further, the specification of the '010 patent discloses: 

76 
Referring to FIGS. 9 and 12, the RF receiver 950 of the present 

embodiment accepts analog input I and Q CDMA channels, which 

are transmitted to the CDMA moderns 1210, 1211, 1212, 1215 

through the MIUs 931, 932, 933 from the VDC 940. These I and Q 

CMDA channel signals are sampled by the CDMA modern receive 

section 1302 (shown in FIG. 13) and converted to I and Q digital 

receive message signal using an Analog to Digital (AID) converter 

1730, shown in FIG. 17. The sampling rate of the AID converter of 

the exemplary embodiment of the present invention is equivalent to 

the de spreading code rate. The I and Q digital receive message 

signals are then despread with correlators using six different 

complex spreading code sequences corresponding to the 

de spreading code sequences of the four channels (TRO, TRl, TR2, 

TR3), APC information and the pilot code. 

Time synchronization of the receiver to the received signal is 

separated into two phases; there is an initial acquisition phase and 

then a tracking phase after the signal timing has been acquired. The 

initial acquisition is done by shifting the phase of the locally 

generated pilot code sequence relative to the received signal and 

comparing the output of the pilot de spreader to a threshold, The 

method used is called sequential search. Two thresholds (watch 

and dismiss) are calculated from the auxiliary despreader~ Once the 

signal is acquired, the search process is stopped arid the tra9king 

process begins. The tracking process maintains the code generator 

1)04 (shown in FIGS. 13 and 17) used by the receiver in 

synchronization with the incoming signal. 

(CX-52 at 44:39-67 (emphasis added).) Hence, the administrative law judge finds that the '010 

patent discloses that synchronization can be accomplished by shifting the phase of the pilot code 

sequence relative to the received signal until they are aligned, or match. Along the same lines, 

the '010 patent specification further discloses: 

The acquisition and tracking algorithms are used by the receiver to 

determine the approximate code phase of a received signal, 

synchronize the local modern receiver de spreaders to the incoming 

pilot signal, and track the phase of the locally generated pilot code 

sequence with the received pilot code sequence. Referring to FIGS. 

13 and 17, the algorithms are performed by the Modern controller 

1303, which provides clock adjust signals to code generator 1304. 

77 
These adjust signals cause the code generator for the despreaders to 

adjust locally generated code sequences in response to measured 

output values of the Pilot Rake 1711 and Quantile values from 

quantile estimators 1723B. Quantile values are noise statistics 

measured from the In-phase and Quadrature channels from the 

output values of the AUX Vector Correlator 1712 (shown in FIG. 

17). Synchronization of the receiver to the received signal is 

separated into two phases; an initial acquisition phase and a 

tracking phase. The initial acquisition phase is accomplished by 

clocking the locally generated pilot spreading code sequence at a 

higher or lower rate than the received signal's spreading code rate, 

sliding the locally generated pilot spreading code sequence and 

performing sequential probability ratio test (SPRT) on the output 

of the Pilot Vector correlator 1711. The tracking phase maintains 

the locally generated spreading code pilot sequence in 

synchronization with the incoming pilot signal. 

(CX-52 at 46:66-47:23 (emphasis added).) The administrative law judge finds that the portions 

of the '010 specification cited, supra, disclose that the receiver is synchronized to the received 

__ signal, and do not mention the transmitter of the subscriber unit. Thus, he finds that the common' 

':; specification discloses that synchronization is to align the beginning of the subsc:;ber unit's 

receive and transmit spreading codes to the beginning of a pilot code. The specification of the 

'010 patent further discloses matching the two codes which, of necessity, would mean that the 

beginning of the pilot code is aligned with the beginning of the spreading code. Moreover, 

respondents' expert Lanning has testified: 

Q. Can we look in RDX -1197. Can you tell us how, if at all, this 

excerpted portion ofthe specification informs your opinion? 

A. Yes. It is almost identical to the construction. It is from CX-001, 

column 5, lines 13 through 31. And it states in the highlighted 

portion, "the subscriber unit 16 then synchronizes its transmit 

spreading code to the received pilot code 40 by aligning the 

beginning of its transmit spreading code to the beginning of the 

pilot code 40." 

78 
Q. Can you tell us whether or not, in your view, there is any difference 

between synchronizing and resynchronizing in the context of this 

patent? 

A. No, there is not. The patent discloses that the resynchronization 

procedure, if the mobile happens to lose synchronization with the 

base station is accomplished using the same procedure. 

(Tr. at 1661 (emphasis added).) 

Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that the 

"synchronize/synchronizing" claimed phrases in issue should be construed as "to align the 

beginning of the subscriber unit's spreading codes to the beginning of a pilot code." Thus it 

follows that "re-synchronize to the pilot signal" should be construed as "re-aligning the 

beginning of the subscriber unit's spreading codes to the beginning of a pilot code when the 

beginning ;)f the spreading codes are not in alignment with the beginning of the pilot code or ~he 

pilot fignal has been lost." 

, : 

Complainants argued that: 

The incorporated '010 patent describes an embodiment in which 

the subscriber unit adjusts the phase of its locally generated pilot 

and spreading codes relative to the received pilot code (Global 

Pilot) to make the subscriber unit appear to the base station to be 

located at a predetermined fixed distance from the base station. 

* * * 

In the synchronization scheme describe in the incorporated '010 

patent, a timing reference between the locally generated codes and 

the received pilot code is established even though the beginning of 

the locally generated transmit code is offset from the beginning of 

the received pilot code by an amount corresponding to the 

predetermined fixed distance. 

(CFF 2.317, 2.318 (emphasis added).) However, the '010 patent discloses, in relevant part: 

79 
However, after the initial acquisition, the SU can calculate the 

delay between the ReS and the SU by measuring the time 

difference between sending a short access message to the Res and 

receiving an acknowledgment message, and using the received 

Global Pilot channel as a timing reference. The SU can also receive 

the delay value by having the Res calculate the round trip delay 

difference from the code phase difference between the Global Pilot 

code generated at the Res and the received assigned pilot 

sequence from the SU, and then sending the SU the value on a 

predetermined control channel. Once the round trip delay is known 

to the SU, the SU may adjust the code phase of the locally 

generated assigned pilot and spreading code sequences by adding 

the delay required to make the SU appear to the Res to be at the 

predetermined fixed distance from the Res. Although the method 

is explained for the largest delay, a delay corresponding to any 

predetermined location in the system can be used. 

(eX-52 at 36:26-43 (emphasis added).) Thus, the '010 patent discloses that, after the initial 

acquisition, an offset may be added to "adjust the code phase" of the locally-generated pilot and 

spreading code sequences tn fool the base station into believing the SU is at a particular distance 

away from tlle base station. Moreover, as seen from the foregoing, the system still us(~s the I, 

Global Pilot channel as a timing reference, and thus the locally generated codes are still being 

synchronized to the pilot code as described in the prior analysis, supra, with the only difference 

being where the "beginning" of the locally-generated codes is changed in such a way to make the 

SU appear to be either further or nearer the base station. Based on the foregoing, the 

administrative law judge rejects complainants' offset argument supra. 

Respondents argued that the construction of the synchronization claim terms at issue 

should include the phrase "receive and transmit spreading codes." Synchronizing to the pilot 

code could refer to either a receive or transmit spreading code, as found, supra. The 

administrative law judge finds that the language of the asserted claims, however, discloses that 

80 
synchronization is referred to only in terms of the receiver, or synchronization between the 

receiver and the received pilot code. Thus, he rejects respondents' argument, as respondents 

appear to be importing language from other elements of the asserted claim into the claimed 

synchronization terms. 

F. Infringement 

The unfair acts covered under Section 337 include "all forms of infringement, including 

direct, contributory, and induced infringement." Certain Home Vacuum Packaging Machines, 

Inv. No. 337-TA-496, Order No. 44, 2004 ITC LEXIS 202 * 2 n.2 (March 3,2004). To establish 

infringement, there must be a preponderance of evidence. See Kao Corp. v. Unilever United 

States, Inc, 441 F.3rd 963 (Fed. Cir. 2006). A determination of patent infringement encompasses 

a two-step analysis. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. v. Scimed Life Systems, Inc., 261 

F.3d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Scimed). First, the court determines the scope and meaning of 

the patent claims asserted, and then properly construed claims are compared to the allegedly 

infringing device. Id. "Literal infringement of a claim exists when each of the claim limitations 

reads on, or in other words is found in, the accused device." Allen Engineering Corp. v. Bartell 

Indus., 299 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 

Under the doctrine of equivalents, "a product or process that does not literally infringe 

upon the express terms of a patent claim may nonetheless be found to infringe if there is 

equivalence between the elements of the accused product or process and the claimed elements of 

the patented invention." Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chern. Co., 520 U.S. 17,21 

(1997). Equivalency may be determined using the "triple identity test" and thus "focusing on the 

function served by a particular claim element, the way that element serves that function, and the 

81 
result ... obtained by that element .... " Id. at 39. Regardless ofthe linguistic framework of the 

test used, the "essentially inquiry" is: "[ d]oes the accused product or process contain elements 

identical or equivalent to each claimed element of the patented invention?" Id. at 40. 

Direct infringement includes the making, using, selling, offering for sale and importing 

into the United States an infringing product, without authority. 35 U.S.c. § 271(a). To prove 

direct infringement, the plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that one or 

more claims of the patent read on the accused device either literally or under the doctrine of 

equivalents. Scimed, 261 F.3d at 1336. 

A person may also infringe a patent claim indirectly. Section 271 (b) of the Patent Act 

provides that "[ w ]hoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an 

infringer." To establish liability for induced infringement, "a patent holder must prove that once 

the defendants knew of the patent, they actively and knowingly aided and abetted another's direct 

infringement." DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2006}(DSU Med. 

Corp.) (citations omitted). However, "[t]he mere~knowledge of possible infringement by others 

does not amount to inducement; specific intent and action to induce infringement must be 

proven." Id. 

Additionally, 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) provides that: 

[w]hoever offers to sell or sells within the United States ... a 

component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination or 

composition ... constituting a material part of the invention, 

knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for 

use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article of 

commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, 

shall be liable as a contributory infringer. 

Thus, "[i]n order to succeed on a claim of contributory infringement, in addition to proving an 

82 
act of direct infringement, plaintiff must show that defendant knew that the combination for 

which its components were especially made was both patented and infringing, and that 

defendant's components have no substantial non-infringing uses." Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. 

Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

Direct infringement is a necessary element of induced and contributory infringement. 

DSU Med. Corp., 471 F.3d at 1303. 

1. Accused Products 

All ofthe accused Nokia handsets, which would include those identified in Section III 

supra, operate in the same manner with respect to the features accused of infringing the asserted 

claims in the power ramp-up patents. (CFF 3.402 (undisputed).) In particular, the random access 

procedure is the same for all accused Nokia handsets. (CFF 3.526 (undisputed).) 

2. The '004 Patent 

In issue are asserted claims 1,2,31 and 59 of the '004 patent. 

Referring to claim 1 of the '004 patent in issue, complainants argued that the accused 

products literally meet the claim limitation "transmitting dynamically selected code signals at 

increasing power levels ... " under both respondents' and complainants' claim construction. (CBr 

at 93, 112.) More specifically, complainants argued that all of the "increased power level" and 

"increasing power levels" and "repeatedly/successively transmit" limitations are met because, as 

shown in the{ 

} (CBr at 94.) Further, complainants argued 

that: 

83 
Nokia's construction for the "repeatedly/successively transmit" 

limitations requires "transmitting signals in an uninterrupted 

sequence." Assuming Nokia's construction is adopted, the accused 

handsets infringe the "increased power level"/"increasing power 

levels" and "repeatedly/successively transmit" limitations under 

the doctrine of equivalents. (CFF 3.061.) 

(CBr at 112.) Complainants also argued that increasing the power level of successive PRACH 

Preambles in discrete, interrupted steps is equivalent to and known to be interchangeable with 

continuously increasing the power level in a linear ramp, as required by Nokia's claim 

construction. (CBr at 112-13.) 

Respondents argued that the claimed phrase "code signals" corresponds to a "short code, 

and construed as meaning a "spreading code or a portion of a spreading code." (RBr at Sec. II, p. 

21.){ 

} 

84 
{ 

} 

(SBr at 46-47.) 

The administrative law judge has found, supra, that the claimed phrase "code signal" 

should be construed as "a sequence of chips that is transmitted," and are a spreading code or a 

portion of a spreading code, as per the specification. Furth,~r, the administrative law judge has 

construed "increasing power level" as " the power level of the beginning of a code signal is 

higher than that of the end of the previous code signal, and the power level of a code signal 

increases during transmission" { 

} 

The WCDMA standard specifies the power control methods that user equipment in 

WCDMA systems must use in performing a random access procedure (RACH procedure). (CFF 

3.513 (undisputed).) As found, supra,{ 

} 

85 
{ 

} According to the WCDMA standard, a handset transmits preambles in 

a RACH procedure. (CFF 3.539 (undisputed).) Thus, the UE in a WCDMA system sends 

PRACH preambles during the random access procedure, or power ramp-up phase, in order to get 

access to the base station. During the random access procedure in WCDMA, a handset first 

transmits PRACH preambles, followed by a PRACH message. (CFF 3.540 (undisputed in 

relevant part).) { 

} The administrative law judge has explicitly 

found, supra, in the context of the power ramp-up patents, that the power level of a transmission 

increases during the transmission. Therefore, the administrative law judge finds that 

complainants have not established, by a preponderance of evidence, that the accused products 

meet the limitation of "increasing power level." 

Regarding whether a PRACH preamble is a spreading code or a portion of a spreading 

code, according to the WCDMA standards, a preamble is a combination of signature and 

scrambling code. (CFF 3.619 (undisputed).) If either portion of the preamble, viz. said 

scrambling code or said signature, is a spreading code or a portion of a spreading code, then this 

limitation may be literally met. 

Regarding whether the PRACH scrambling code is a spreading code or a portion of a 

spreading code, CX-58 is titled "Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS); 

Spreading and modulation (FDD) (3GPP TS 25.213 version 5.6.0 Release 5)." (CX-58, Title 

86 
Page.) CX-58 describes spreading as follows: 

Spreading is applied to the physical channels. It consists of two 

operations. The first is the channelisation operation, which 

transforms every data symbol into a number of chips, thus 

increasing the bandwidth of the signal. The number of chips per 

data symbol is called the Spreading Factor (SF). The second 

operation is the scrambling operation, where a scrambling code is 

applied to the spread signal. 

With the channelisation, data symbols on so-called 1- and Qbranches are independently multiplied with an OVSF[16] code. 

With the scrambling operation, the resultant signals on the 1- and 

Q-branches are further multiplied by [a] complex-valued 

scrambling code, where I and Q denote real and imaginary parts, 

respectively. 

(CX-58 at 7.) CX-58 also refers to the channelisation being performed by "channelisation code 

Ce." (CX-58 at 7.) A channelization code is generally referred to as spreading code, while a 

scrambling code is a separate code, as is shown by the following: 

Figure 2 illustrates the principle of the m?.!eading and scrambling of 

the PRACH message part, consisting of data and control pmts. The 

binary control and data parts to be spread are represented by 

real-valued sequences, i.e. the binary value "0" is mapped to the 

real value + 1, while the binary value" 1 " is mapped to the real 

value -1. The control part is spread to the chip rate by the 

channelisation code cc, while the data part is spread to the chip rate 

by the channelisation code cd. 

16 "OVSF" is an abbreviation of "Orthogonal Variable Spreading Factor." (CX-58 at 7.) 

87 
I3d 

PRACH message 

Sr-msg,n 

data part ----J~ 

PRACH message 

control part ----...t 

Figure 2: Spreading ofPRACH message part 

After channelisation, the real-valued spread signals are weighted 

by gain factors, I3c for the control part and I3d for the data part. At 

every instant in time, at least one of the values c and d has the 

amplitude 1.0. The l3-values are quantized into 4 bit words. The 

quantization steps are given in section 4.2.1. 

s 

After the weighting, the stream of real-valued chips on the 1- and 

Q-branches are treated as a complex-valued stream of chips. This 

complex-valued signal is then scrambled by the complex-valued 

scrambling code Sr-msg,n. The 10 ms scrambling c::ode is applied 

aligned with the 10 ms message part radio frames, i.e. the first 

scrambling chip corresponds to the beginning ora message part 

radio frame. 

(CX-58 at 9-10.) Therefore, the administrative law judge finds that said channelisation code Cc 

is an OVSF code and is a spreading code, and a scrambling code is not a spreading code. 

Therefore, the PRACH preamble scrambling code is not a spreading code or a portion of a 

spreading code. 

{ 

} 

{ 

88 
{ 

} The administrative law 

judge finds that, { 

} the PRACH preamble signature is not a spreading code or a 

portion of a spreading code. 

Moreover, the administrative law judge has found, infra, that the PRACH signature is 

data. Therefore, the PRACH preamble, taken as a whole, cannot be a spreading code. Further, 

complainants have admitted that { 

} (RFF U-450 (undisputed).) Based on the foregoing, the 

administrative law judge finds that the accused products do not literally practice the element 

"transmitting dynamically selected code signals at increasing power levels ... " of asserted claim 1 

of the '004 patent. 

Regarding the doctrine of equivalents, equivalency may be determined by analyzing the 

function served by a particular claim element, the way that element serves that function, and the 

result obtained by that element. The administrative law judge has found, supra, that the codes in 

issue{ 

} Thus, at issue under the doctrine of equivalents, is only whether the 

PRACH preambles of the accused products are equivalent to the "code signals" of the claim, 

which code signal the administrative law judge has construed as "a sequence of chips" that is a 

spreading code. 

89 
The PRACH preamble is a sequence of chips. (CFF 3.730 (undisputed); CX-58 at 15; 

CX-453 at 14.) { 

} The common specification 

discloses that the code signal used is randomly generated from a spreading code, and is a 

; spreading code or a portion of a spreading code. (See, supra; see also CX-l at 5:33-50.) { 

} Based on the foregoing, complainants have not shown by a 

preponderance of the evidence that this claim element is practiced by the accused products under 

the doctrine of equivalents. 

Regarding the claimed phrase "wherein the transmitted dynamically selected code signals 

carry no data," complainants argued that each ofthe accused products literally practices the said 

claim element under Nokia's construction. (CBr at 109.) More specifically, complainants argued 

that the { 

} 

90 
{ 

} (CBr at 110.) 

Respondents argued that the PRACH preambles do not meet this claim limitation 

because, { 

}(RBr at Sec. II, p. 

56.) 

The staff argued that the preponderance of the evidence does not demonstrate that the 

accused Nokia handsets literally infringe any asserted claim of the short code ranlp-up patents. 

(SBr at 47.) 

The administrative law judge has construed the claimed phrase "carry no data" as "not 

modulated by an information signal." { 

} 

91 
As for the PRACH signature, it is undisputed that{ 

} (CX-58 at 15-16.) A scrambling code is a 

code that serves to scramble other codes. (CX-58 at 12-15.) The PRACH preamble scrambling 

code, however, is unique to a particular cell. (CFF 3.567 (undisputed); CX-58 at 15.) As stated, 

supra, { 

} (CFF 3.619 (undisputed).) Therefore, the administrative law judge finds that 

the PRACH preamble is modulated by data, as the signal, as modulated by the scrambling code, 

uniquely identifies the cell. 

Moreover, it is undisputed that{ 

} (CX-565 at 39; CX-564 at 304-305, 

503.) 

{ 

} Based on the 

foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that complainants have not shown by a 

preponderance of the evidence that this element is practiced by the accused products. 

Complainants argued that the accused products literally practice the claimed phase "and 

in response to detecting the acknowledgment, transmitting an access signaL." because each 

92 
{ 

} 

The staff argued that "the preponderance of the evidence does not show that the accused 

Nokia handsets contain, either literally or by equivalents, the 'short code' limitations" of the 

power ramp-up patents in issue. (SBr at 48.) 

The administrative law judge has found, supra, that an "access signal" is a known 

sequence of chips that is transmitted during power ramp-up to facilitate the initiation of 

communications, and must be a spreading code. { 

93 

} 
{ 

} 

The administrative law judge has found, supra, that a scrambling code is not a spreading code, 

either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Based on the foregoing, the administrative 

law judge finds that complainants have not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the 

accused products practice this element. 

Regarding the claimed phrase "'wherein the access signal is associated with the 

dynamically selected code signals ... " the administrative law judge has found, supra, that the 

accused products contain { } Based on the foregoing, the 

administrative law judge finds that complainants have not shown, by a preponderance of the 

evidence, that this element is practiced by the accused products. 

Referring to the claimed phrase "and each of the dynamically selected code signals are 

shorter than the access signal." The administrative law judge has found, supra, that the accused 

products contain { } Based on the foregoing, the 

administrative law judge finds that complainants have not shown, by a preponderance of the 

evidence, that this element is practiced by the accused products. 

94 
Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that complainants have not 

shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that respondents accused products infringe claim 1 

of the '004 patent. 

Referring to claim 2 of the '004 patent and the claimed phrase "a transmitter configured 

such that a first code is transmitted at an initial power level..." the parties treat the claimed phrase 

"first code" ofthis claim identically to the claimed phrase "code signal" from claim 1 of the '004 

patent for the purpose of infringement analysis. (eBr at 86-87; RBr at Sec. II, pp. 21-32; SBr at 

44-48.) The administrative law judge has found, supra, that the claimed phrase "first code" is 

construed as "first sequence of chips" and that a "first code" is a spreading code. The 

administrative law judge finds that the "first code" is analogous to the "code signal" of the first 

claim element of claim 1 of the '004 patent. As the administrative law judge has found that the 

accused products { 

} Based on the foregoing, the administrative law 

judge finds that complainants have not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that this 

limitation is practiced by the accused products. 

Referring to the claimed phrase "wherein the first code is of a first code type ... " the 

administrative law judge has found, supra, that the accused products{ 

} Thus, the administrative law judge finds that complainants have not established, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, that this claim element is practiced by the accused products. 

Referring to the claimed phrase in asserted claim 2 "and the transmitter further configured 

to repeatedly transmit dynamically selected codes of said first code type at increasing power 

levels ... ," the administrative law judge has found, supra, that the accused products { 

95 
} Thus, the administrative law judge finds that complainants have not established, by 

a preponderance of the evidence, this claim element is practiced by the accused products. 

As for the claimed phrase "wherein the transmitted codes of said first code type carry no 

data ... " of asserted claim 2, the administrative law judge has found, supra, that the accused 

products { 

} 

Thus, the administrative law judge finds that complainants have not established, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, that this claimed phrase is practiced by the accused products. 

Referring to the claimed phrase "a receiver configured such that an acknowledgment is 

detected indicating a code of said first type was received ... " the administrative law judge has 

found, supra, that the accused prodl:.cts{ } Thus, the administrative 

law judge finds that this claim element is not practiced by the accused products. 

The parties treat the claimed phrase "signal having a second code" of asserted claim 2 and 

the claimed phrase "and the transmitter configured such that in response to detecting the 

acknowledgment, a signal having a second code is transmitted to access a communication 

channeL." identically to the claimed phrase "access signal" from claim 1 of the '004 patent. 

(CBr at 87-88; RBr at Sec. II, pp. 21-32; SBr at 44-48.) The administrative law judge finds that 

the "signal having a second code" recited in this claim phrase is analogous to the "access signal" 

limitation of claim 1 of the '004 patent. The administrative law judge has found, supra, that the 

accused products{ } Based 

on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that complainants have not established, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, that this claim phrase is practiced by the accused products. 

96 
Regarding the claimed phrase, "wherein the second code is associated with the first 

code," the administrative law judge has found, supra, that the accused products{ 

} Thus, the administrative law judge finds that complainants have 

not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that this claim phrase is practiced by the 

accused products. 

Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that complainants have not 

shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 2 of the '004 patent is infringed by the 

accused products. 

Referring to claim 31 and the claimed phrase "[t]he method of claim 30 wherein said 

code of a first type is a dynamically selected code associated with said code of a second type ... ," 

for the purpose of infringement, the parties have treated the claimed phrase "code signal" of 

claim 1 of the' 004 patent as identical to the claimed phrases "code of a first type" of this 

limitation of claim 310fthe '004 patent. (CBr at 87-88; RBr at Sec. II, pp. 21-32; SBr at 44-48.) 

The administrative law judge finds that the claimed phrase "code of a first type" and 

"dynamically selected code" are analogous to "code signal" of claim 1 of the '004 patent, and 

that "code of a second type" is analogous to "access signal" of claim 1 of the '004 patent. The 

administrative law judge has found, supra, that the accused products{ 

} Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that 

complainants have not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 31 is practiced by 

the accused products. 

97 
With reference to claim 59, for the purpose of infringement, the parties have treated the 

claimed phrase "code signal" of claim 1 ofthe '004 patent as identical to the claimed phrases 

"codes" or "different codes" of the claimed phrase "a processor configured to control a 

transmitter such that the transmitter transmits a first one of a plurality of different codes by said 

subscriber unit to said base station ... " of claim 59 of the '004 patent. (CBr at 86-87; RBr at Sec. 

II, pp. 21-32; SBr at 44-48.) The administrative law judge finds that the claimed term "different 

codes" is analogous to the claimed phrase "code signal." The administrative law judge has 

found, supra, that the accused products{ } Thus, the administrative 

law judge finds that complainants have not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that 

the this claimed element is practiced by the accused products. 

Referring to the claimed phrase of claim 59: 

a receiver configured to rec~ive an acknowledgement wherein if 

said acknowledgem~nt is not received, the processor configured to 

control the transmitter such that the transmitter transmits another 

one of the plurality of different codes by said subscriber unit to 

said base station ... 

for the purpose of infringement, the parties have treated the claimed phrase "code signal" of 

claim 1 of the' 004 patent as identical to the claimed phrases "different codes" of said limitation 

claimed phrase of claim 59 of the '004 patent. (CBr at 86-87; RBr at Sec. II, pp. 21-32; SBr at 

44-48.) The administrative law judge finds that the parties have treated the claimed term 

"different codes" as analogous to the claimed phrase "code signal." (CBr at 86-87; RBr at Sec. II, 

pp. 21-32; SBr at 44-48.) The administrative law judge has found, supr!!, that the accused 

products { } Thus, the administrative law judge finds that 

98 
complainants have not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claimed phrase 

in issue is practiced by accused products. 

For the purpose of infringement, the parties have treated the claimed phrase "code signal" 

of claim 1 of the '004 patent as identical to the claimed phrases "different codes" ofthe claimed 

phrase: 

the processor configured to control said transmitter such that said 

transmitter repeats the transmitting of another one of the plurality of 

different codes until said acknowledgement is received by said subscriber 

unit from said base station, said acknowledgement indicating to said 

subscriber unit that said base station has received at least one of said 

different codes ... 

of claim 59 ofthe '004 patent. (CBr at 86-87; RBr at Sec. II, pp. 21-32; SBr at 44-48.) The 

administrative law judge has found, supra, that the parties treat the claimed phrase "different 

codes" as analogous to the claimed phrase "code signal." (CBr at 8(;-87; RBr at Sec. II, pp. 21-

32; SBr at 44-48.) The administrative law judge hoB found, supra, that the accused pioducts{ 

} Thus, the administrative law judge finds that complainants have not 

established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that said claimed phrase is practiced by the 

accused products. 

For the purpose of infringement, the parties have treated the claimed phrase "code signal" 

of claim 1 of the '004 patent as identical to the claimed phrases "different codes" of the claimed 

phrase: 

and said processor configured to control the transmitter such that the 

transmitter transmits, in response to receipt of said acknowledgement, an 

access signal to facilitate communication initialization between said 

subscriber, unit and said base station, said access signal as transmitted by 

said subscriber unit and said different codes as transmitted by said 

subscriber unit each being a function of a same code. 

99 
of claim 59 of the '004 patent. (CBr at 86-87; RBr at Sec. II, pp. 21-32; SBr at 44-48.) The 

administrative law judge finds that the claimed term "different codes" is analogous to the 

claimed phrase "code signal." The administrative law judge has found, supra, that the accused 

products { 

} Thus, the administrative law judge finds 

that complainants have not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claimed 

phrase in issue element is practiced by the accused products. 

Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that complainants have not 

shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 59 of the '004 patent is infringed by the 

accused products. 

3. The '966 Patent 

In issue are asserted claims 1,3,8,9 and 11 of the '966 patent. 

Referring to claim 1 of the '966 patent and the claimed phrase in said claim 1: 

a transmitter configured such that, when the subscriber unit is first 

accessing a CDMA network and wants to establish 

communications with a base station associated with the network 

over a communication channel to be indicated by the base station, 

the transmitter successively transmits signals until the subscriber 

unit receives from the base station an indication that a transmitted 

one of the signals has been detected by the base station, wherein 

each transmission of one of the signals by the transmitter is at an 

increased power level with respect to a prior transmission of one of 

the signals ... " 

the parties treat the word "signal" in said claimed phrase from the '966 patent identically, for the 

purpose of infringement analysis, as the claimed phrase "code signal" from claim 1 of the' 004 

patent. (CBr at 86-87; RBr at Sec. II, pp. 21-32; SBr at 44-48.) The administrative law judge has 

100 
found, supra, that the accused products{ 

} Based on the foregoing, the 

administrative law judge finds that complainants have not established, by a preponderance ofthe 

evidence, that the claimed phrase in issue of claim 1 of the '966 patent is met by the accused 

products. 

Referring to the claimed phrase of claim 1 of the '966 patent: 

the transmitter further configured such that the transmitter 

transmits to the base station a message indicating to the base 

station that the subscriber unit wants to establish the 

communications with the base station over the communication 

channel to be indicated by the base station, the message being 

transmitted only subsequent to the subscriber unit receiving the 

indication, wherein each of the successively transmitted signals and 

the message are generated using a same code ... 

the administrative law judge has found, supra, that the accused products{ 

Therefore, the administrative law judge finds that complainants have not established, bya 

preponderance of the evidence, that this element of claim 1 of the '966 patent is met by the 

accused products. 

Referring to the claimed phrase in claim 1 of the '966 patent, "and wherein each of the 

successively transmitted signals is shorter than the message" the administrative law judge has 

} 

found, supra, that the accused products { } Therefore, the administrative law 

judge finds that complainants have not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the 

claimed phrase in issue of claim 1 of the '966 patent is met by the accused products. 

101 
Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that complainants have not 

shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 1 of the '966 patent is infringed by the 

accused products. 

With reference to asserted claims 3,8,9, and 11 ofthe '966 patent, each of said claims 

depend from independent asserted claim 1 of the '966 patent. A dependant claim cannot infringe 

ifthe independent claim from which it depends does not infringe. See JenericlPentron, Inc. v. 

Dillon Co., 205 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("dependent claims cannot be found infringed unless 

the claims from which they depend have been found to have been infringed." (JenericlPentron) 

citing Wahpeton Canvas Co., v. Frontier, Inc., 870 F.2d 1546, 1553, 10 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 

(Fed.Cir.l989).) Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that complainants 

have not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that each of asserted dependent claims 3, 8, 

9 and 11 are infringed by the accused products. 

4. The '847 Patent 

In issue are asserted claims 5, 6, 9 and 11 of the '847 patent. 

With reference to claim 5 of the' 847 patent, complainants argued that the accused 

products literally practice the "generated using a same code" limitation under complainants' 

construction. (CBr at 89-91.) Complainants further argued that the accused products literally 

practice the "synchronize to the pilot signal" limitation, as{ 

} Complainants also argued that said claimed phrase is 

102 
met literally or under the doctrine of equivalents under respondents' claim construction. (CBr at 

113-115.) 

Respondents argued that the accused products: 

{ 

} 

(RBr at Sec. II, p. 69.) 

The staff argued that the accused Nokia handsets do not infringe, eithe: literally or under 

the doctrine of equivalents, any of the asserted claims ofthe power ramp-up patents. (SBr at 44-

48.) 

Regarding the claimed phrase of claim 5: 

"a circuit configured to receive and down convert radio frequency 

signals to produce baseband signals, the baseband signals including 

a pilot signal and a paging message, the paging message being 

associated with the subscriber unit, wherein the circuit is further 

configured to synchronize to the pilot signal and demodulate the 

paging message ... " 

the administrative law judge has construed "synchronize to a pilot signal" as "to align the 

beginning of the subscriber unit's spreading codes to the beginning of a pilot code." As defined 

in the WCDMA standard, a base station broadcasts synchronization codes on primary and 

103 
secondary synchronization channels (P-SCH and S-SCH). (CFF 3.457 (undisputed).) The 

accused Nokia handsets{ 

} 

Nokia's accused handsets{ 

} Moreover, the WCDMA standard does not require that the P-CPICH 

be used for synchronization. (CFF 3.456 (undisputed in relevant part) (" the base station 

broadcasts signals to be used in cell search and initial synchronization procedure, including a 

104 
primary synchronization channel (P-SCH), secondary synchronization channel (S-SCH), and/or a 

common pilot channel (CPICH). (CX-0453, §§ 5.3.3.1.1 and 5.3.3.5; CX-0148, Annex C.)" 

(emphasis added)).) Also, neither channel can literally be a pilot signal, as the claims require that 

the pilot signal be a spreading code. Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds 

that complainants have not established, by a preponderance of the evidence that the accused 

products { } and therefore that said products do not practice the claimed 

phrase in issue of claim 5 of the '847 patent. 

Regarding the doctrine of equivalents, complainants do not argue that { 

} Based on 

the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that complainants have not established, by 

preponderance of the evidence, that the accused products have a pilot signal under the doctrine of . 

equivalents. 

The parties treat the claimed phrase "signal" from the' 847 patent and in the claimed 

phrase of claim 5: 

"and a transmitter configured such that, when the subscriber unit is 

first accessing a CDMA network and wants to establish 

communications with a base station associated with the network 

105 
over a communication channel to be indicated by the base station, 

the transmitter successively transmits signals until the subscriber 

unit receives from the base station an indication that a transmitted 

one of the signals has been detected by the base station, wherein 

each transmission of one of the signals by the transmitter, other 

than a transmission of a first one of the signals, is at an increased 

power level with respect to a prior transmission of another one of 

the signals ... " 

identically, for the purpose of infringement analysis, as the claimed phrase "code signal" from 

claim 1 of the '004 patent. (CBr at 86-87; RBr at Sec. II, pp. 21-32; SBr at 44-48.) Thus, the 

administrative law judge finds that, for the purpose of infringement, the claimed phrase "signal" 

at issue in the' 847 patent in claim 5 is analogous to the claimed phrase "code signal" from claim 

1 of the '004 patent. The administrative law judge has found, supra, that the accused products { 

} Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that 

complainants have not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claimed phrase 

in issue of claim 5 of the '847 patent is met by the accused products. 

The administrative law judge has found that the accused products { 

} Thus, the administrative law 

judge finds that complainants have not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the 

claimed phrases of claim 5: 

the transmitter further configured such that the transmitter 

transmits to the base station a message indicating to the base 

station that the subscriber unit wants to establish the 

communications with the base station over the communication 

channel to be indicated by the base station, the message being 

transmitted only subsequent to the subscriber unit receiving the 

indication, wherein the successively transmitted signals and the 

message are generated using a same code. 

106 
which recites signals is practiced by the accused products. 

Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that complainants have not 

established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 5 of the' 847 patent is infringed by 

the accused products. 

Regarding claim 6 of the' 847 patent, the administrative law judge has found, supra, that 

the accused products{ 

} Therefore, the administrative law judge finds that complainants have not 

established, by preponderance of the evidence, that "synchronizing to a pilot signal transmitted 

by said base station ... " of claim 6 of the' 847 patent is practiced by the accused products. 

The parties treat the phrase "different codes" in the claimed phrase of claim 6: 

"after said synchronizing to the pilot signal, transmitting a plurality 

of different codes by said subscriber unit to said base station 

wherei;1 each one of the plurality of different codes, other than a 

. first one of the plurality of different codes, is transmitted at an 

increased power level with respect to a prior transmission of 

another one of the plurality of different codes ... " 

as identical to the claimed phrase "code signal" in claim 1 of the '004 patent for the purpose of 

infringement. (CBr at 86-87; RBr at Sec. II, pp. 21-32; SBr at 44-48.) Thus, the administrative 

law judge finds that said "different codes" are analogous to said "code signal." The 

administrative law judge has found, supra, that the accused products{ 

} Thus, the 

administrative law judge finds that complainants have not established, by a preponderance of the 

evidence, that accused products practice said claimed phrase of claim 6 of the' 847 patent. 

107 

\ . 
Regarding the claimed phrase of claim 6: 

receiving an acknowledgement by said subscriber unit from said 

base station and ceasing transmitting the plurality of different 

codes, said acknowledgement indicating to said subscriber unit that 

said base station has received at least one of said plurality of 

different codes ... 

the administrative law judge has found, supra, that the accused products { 

} Thus, the administrative law judge finds that complainants have not established, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, that the accused products practice said claimed phrase of claim 6 

of the '847 patent. 

Regarding the claimed phrase of claim 6: 

and transmitting, in response to receipt of said acknowledgement, 

an access signal to facilitate communication initialization between 

said subscriber unit and said base station, said access signal as 

transmitted by said subscriber :Jnit, and said plurality of different 

codes, as transmitted by said subscriber unit, being a function of a 

same code. 

the administrative law judge has found, supra, that the accused products { 

Thus, the administrative law judge finds that complainants have not established, by a 

} 

preponderance of the evidence, that the accused products practice said claimed phrase in issue of 

claim 6 of the' 847 patent. 

Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that complainants have not 

shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the accused products infringe claim 6 of the 

'847 patent. 

108 
Regarding claim 9 of the '847 patent and the claimed phrase 

(b) down converting the received radio frequency signals to 

produce baseband signals, the baseband signals include a pilot 

signal and a paging message, the paging message being associated 

with the subscriber unit... 

the administrative law judge has found, supra, that the accused products{ 

} Therefore, the administrative law 

judge finds that complainants have not established, by a preponderance of the evidence that 

element of claim 9 of the' 847 patent is practiced by the accused products. 

Regarding the claimed phrase "(c) synchronizing to the pilot signaL." of claim 9, the 

administrative law judge has found, supra, that the accused products { 

} Therefore, the administrative law judge finds 

that complainants have not established, by a preponderance of evidence that said claimed phrase 

of claim 9 of the' 847 patent is practiced by the accused products. 

Regarding the claimed phrase of claim 9: 

(e) after said demodulating the paging message and said 

synchronizing to the pilot signal, transmitting a first one of a 

plurality of different codes by said subscriber unit to said base 

station ... 

the administrative law judge has found, supra, that the accused products{ 

} Thus, the administrative law judge finds that complainants have not established, 

by a preponderance of the evidence, that the accused products practice said claimed phrase of 

claim 9 of the '847 patent. 

109 
Referring to the claimed phrase "(f) if an acknowledgement is not received, transmitting 

another one of the plurality of different codes by said subscriber unit to said base station ... " of 

claim 9 the administrative law judge has found, supra, that the accused products{ 

} Thus, the administrative law judge finds that complainants have not 

established that the accused products practice this element of claim 9 of the '847 patent. 

Regarding the claimed phrase of claim 9: 

"(g) repeating step (f) until an acknowledgement is received by 

said subscriber unit from said base station, said acknowledgement 

indicating to said subscriber unit that said base station has received 

at least one of said different codes ... " 

the administrative law judge has found, supra, that the accused products{ 

} Thus, the administrative law judge finds that complainants have not established, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, that the accused products practice said claimed phrase of claim 9 

of the' 847 patent. 

Referring to the claimed phrase of claim 9: 

" and (h) transmitting, in response to receipt of said 

acknowledgement, an access signal to facilitate communication 

initialization between said subscriber unit and said base station, 

said access signal, as transmitted by said subscriber unit, and said 

different codes, as transmitted by said subscriber unit, being a 

function of a same code." 

the administrative law judge has found, supra, that the accused products { 

} Thus, the administrative law judge 

finds that complainants have not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the 

accused products practice said claimed phrase of claim 9 of the' 847 patent. 

110 
Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that complainants have not 

established by a preponderance of the evidence that the accused products infringe claim 9. 

With respect to claim 11 of the '847 patent and specifically regarding the claimed phrase 

of claim 11: 

a circuit configured to synchronize to a pilot signal transmitted by 

the base station wherein, the circuit is further configured to 

re-synchronize to the pilot signal if the subscriber unit becomes 

unsynchronized to the pilot signal during an idle period ... 

the administrative law judge has found, supra, that the accused products { 

} Therefore, the administrative law 

judge finds that complainants have not established by a preponderance of the evidence that said 

claimed phrase of claim 11 of the' 847 patent is practiced by the accused products. 

Regarding the claimed phrase of claim 11: 

"a processor configured to control (7 transmitter such that the 

transmitter transmits a first one of a plurality of different codes by 

said subscriber unit to said base station ... " 

the administrative law judge has found, supra, that the accused products{ 

} Thus, the administrative law judge finds that complainants have 

not established, by a preponderance of the evidence that the accused products practice said 

claimed phrase of claim 11 of the' 847 patent. 

Referring to the claimed phrase of claim 11: 

a receiver configured to receive an acknowledgement wherein if 

said acknowledgement is not received, the processor is configured 

to control the transmitter such that the transmitter transmits another 

one of the plurality of different codes by said subscriber unit to 

said base station ... 

111 
the administrative law judge has found, supra, that the accused products { 

} Thus, the administrative law judge finds that 

complainants have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the accused products 

practice said claimed phrase of claim 11 of the '847 patent. 

Referring to the claimed phrase of claim 11: 

the processor configured to control said transmitter such that said 

transmitter repeats the transmitting of another one of the plurality of 

different codes until said acknowledgement is received by said subscriber 

unit from said base station, said acknowkdgement [sic] indicating to said 

subscriber unit that said base station has received at least one of said 

different codes ... 

the administrative law judge has found, supra, that the accused products{ 

} Thus, the administrative law judge finds that complainants have 

not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the accused prod;lcts practice said 

claimed phrase of claim 11 of the '847 patent. 

Referring to the claimed phrase of claim 11: 

and said processor further configured to control the transmitter 

such that the transmitter transmits, in response to receipt of said 

acknowledgement, an access signal to facilitate communication 

initialization between said subscriber unit and said base station, 

said access signal as transmitted by said subscriber unit, and said 

plurality of different codes, as transmitted by said subscriber unit, 

being a function of a same code. 

the administrative law judge has found, supra, that the accused products{ 

} Thus, the administrative law judge finds that complainants have not established, by a 

112 
preponderance of evidence that the accused products practice said claimed phrase of claim 11 of 

the' 847 patent. Hence, the administrative law judge finds that complainants have failed to show, 

by a preponderance of the evidence, that the accused products infringe claim 11 of the' 847 

patent. 

G. Validity 

Although a patent is presumed valid upon issue, see 35 U.S.C. § 282, it is invalid as 

anticipated if it "was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a 

printed publication" before the claimed invention, id. § 1 02( a), or if it was "patented or described 

in a printed publication ... more than one year prior" to the filing date. Id. § 1 02(b). However, 

for anticipation, "all of the elements and limitations of the claim must be shown in a single prior 

reference, arranged as in the claim." Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 

1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (emphasis added). 

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a patent is valid unless "the differences between the subject 

matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would 

have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art 

to which said subject matter pertains." The ultimate question of obviousness is a question of 

law, but "it is well understood that there are factual issues underlying the ultimate obviousness 

decision." Richardson-Vicks Inc. v. The Upjohn Co., 122 F.3d 1476, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1997); 

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1997). To establish 

obviousness, the patent challenger must demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that 

"there is a reason, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would lead one of ordinary skill 

in the art to combine the references, and that would also suggest a reasonable likelihood of 

113 
success." Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 234 F.3d 654, 664-65 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (Ruiz). The Federal 

Circuit has rejected "broad conclusory statements regarding the teaching of multiple references" 

so as to guard against "the subtle but powerful attraction of a hindsight-based obviousness 

analysis." In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999 (Fed. Cir. 1999). It is not proper to use the 

patents in issue as templates from which to piecemeal prior art references. As the Federal Circuit 

has stated: "[t]o draw on hindsight knowledge ofthe patented invention, when the prior art does 

not contain or suggest that knowledge, is to use the invention as a template for its own 

reconstruction--an illogical and inappropriate process by which to determine patentability." 

Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996); (citing (W.L. Gore & 

Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc.,721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). "The invention must be viewed 

not after the blueprint has been drawn by the inventor, but as it would have been perceived in the 

state of the art that existed at the time the invention was made." (Id. citing Interconnect Planning 

Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 1985).) 

After construing the claims, the next "step in an obviousness inquiry is to determine 

whether the claimed invention would have been obvious as a legal matter, based on underlying 

factual inquiries including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the level of ordinary 

skill in the art; (3) the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and (4) 

secondary considerations of non obviousness, also known as 'objective indicia of 

nonobviousness." Ruiz, 234 F.3d at 660; Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). 

Secondary considerations, also part of the Graham factors, include commercial success, long-felt 

but unresolved need, failure of others, copying, and unexpected results. Id. 

114 
With respect to the scope and content of the prior art, as the Federal Circuit stated in State 

Contracting & Engineering Corp. v. Condotte America, Inc., 346 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 

(citing In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656,658 (Fed. Cir.1992»: "A prerequisite to making a finding on 

the scope and content of the prior art is to determine what prior art references are pertinent." 

References within the statutory terms of35 U.S.C. § 102 (anticipation) can qualifY as prior art for 

an obviousness determination only when analogous to the claimed invention. In re Clay, 966 

F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The Federal Circuit restated the test for determining the scope 

and content of the prior art to be considered for obviousness purposes in In re Bigio as follows: 

Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is 

from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if 

the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the 

reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the 

inventor is involved. In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436,442 (Fed. Cir.1986); see also 

In r~ Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979). 

In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (emphasis added); accord S~Slte Contracting, 

346 F.3d at 1069. One of ordinary skill in the art would have known of such art because such a 

person is a hypothetical person who is presumed to be aware of all the pertinent prior art. Custom 

Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Industries, Inc., 807 F.2d 955,962 (Fed. Cir. 1992). 

In KSR Int'! v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007) (KSR), the Supreme Court reaffirmed its 

long-standing obviousness test: 

Under § 103, the scope and content ofthe prior art are to be 

determined; differences between the prior art and the claims 

at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill 

in the pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the 

obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject matter is 

determined. Such secondary considerations as commercial 

success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., 

might be utilized to give light to the circumstances 

115 
surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be 

patented. 

Id. at 1734 (quoting Graham v. 10hnDeere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, (1966)). However, the 

Supreme Court found that the Federal Circuit in the case below had addressed the question of 

obviousness in a manner contrary to 35 U.S.C. § 103 and Supreme Court precedents. Thus it 

stated: 

Seeking to resolve the question of obviousness with more 

uniformity and consistency, the Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit has employed an approach re-ferred to by the parties as the 

"teaching, suggestion, or motivation" test (TSM test), under which 

a patent claim is only proved obvious if "some motivation or 

suggestion to combine the prior art teachings" can be found in the 

prior art, the nature of the problem, or the knowledge of a person 

having ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., AI-Site Corp. v. VSI Int'l, 

Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1323-1324 (CA Fed. 1999). KSR challenges 

that test, or at least its application in this case. See 119 Fed. Appx. 

282,286-290 (CA Fed: 2005). Because the Court of Appeals 

addressed the question of obviousness in a manner contrary to § 

103 and our precedents, we granted certio-rari, 547 U.S. ,126 S. 

Ct. 2965, 165 L. Ed. 2d 949 (2006). We now reverse. 

127 S.Ct. at 1734-35, (emphasis added). 

Title 35 U.S.C. § 112, ~ 1 requires, in relevant part, that the patent specification "set forth 

the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention." The Federal Circuit 

has articulated a "two-prong" inquiry for determining best mode disclosure compliance: 

Our case law explicating the best mode requirement focuses on a 

two-prong inquiry .. " First, the factfinder must determine 

whether, at the time of filing the application, the inventor 

possessed a best mode for practicing the invention .... Second, if 

the inventor possessed a best mode, the factfinder must determine 

whether the written description disclosed the best mode such that 

one reasonably skilled in the art could practice it. . .. The first 

prong involves a subjective inquiry, focusing on the inventor's 

state of mind at the time of filing. . .. The second prong involves 

116 
an objective inquiry, focusing on the scope ofthe claimed 

invention and the level of skill in the art. 

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955,963 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (emphasis added). 

The Federal Circuit has explained the subjective nature of the best mode inquiry: 

Unlike enablement, the existence of a best mode is a purely subjective matter 

depending upon what the inventor actually believed at the time the application 

was filed. Because of the sUbjective nature of the best mode inquiry, the best 

mode disclosure requirement - unlike enablement - cannot be met by mute 

reference to the knowledge of one of skill in the art. 

Bayer AG v. Schein Pharms., Inc., 301 F.3d 1306, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (emphasis added). 

Compliance with the best mode requirement is a question of fact. Northern Telecom Ltd. 

v. Sarnsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 215 F.3d 1281, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Moreover 

"the first task in any best mode analysis is to define the invention at 

hand. The definition of the invention, like the interpretation of the 

patent clal:ns, is a legal exercise, wherein the ordinary principles of 

claim construction apply." 

Id. at 1286-87. A finding of patent invalidity based on best mode "requires clear and convincing 

evidence that the inventor both knew of and concealed a better mode of carrying out the claimed 

invention than that set forth in the specification." Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., 449 

F.3d 1209, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). See also Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg., 

Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1987). 

Title 35 U.S.C. § 112, ~ 2 provides that "[t]he specification shall conclude with one or 

more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the 

applicant regards as his invention." A patentee's failure to do so renders the patent indefinite and 

invalid. See Default Proof Credit Card Sys., Inc. v. Horne Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 

1298 (Fed. Cir. 2005). A determination of claim indefiniteness is a legal conclusion that is 

117 
drawn from the court's performance of its duty as the construer of patent claims. Id., citing Atmel 

Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, 198 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 

A decision on whether a claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ~ 2, requires, inter alia a 

determination of "whether a person experienced in the field of the invention would understand 

the scope of the claim when read in light ofthe specification." Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. 

International Trade Comm'n, 435 F.3d 1366, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006). However, "[c]laim 

definiteness is analyzed 'not in a vacuum, but always in light of the teachings of the prior art and 

of the particular application disclosure as it would be interpreted by one possessing the ordinary 

level of skill in the pertinent art.'" Id., quoting In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 (C.C.P.A. 

1971). Moreover, because a claim is presumed valid, a claim is indefinite only if the "claim is 

insolubly ambiguous, and no narrowing construction can properly be adopted." Exxon Research 

& Eng'g Co. v. lJnited States, 265 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 

Respondents argued that the RACH power ramp-up patents are not entitled to 

complainants' claimed conception date, oecause: 

{ 

} 

(RBr at Sec. II, p. 89.) Respondents further argued that each of the asserted claims is invalidated 

by the Lucas reference (RX-157), the IS-95 references (RX-131, RX-132, RX-133), and the 

CODIT reference (RX-142). (RBr at Sec. II, p. 79 - Sec. II, p. 92.) 

118 
1. Priority Date For RACH Power Ramp-Up Patents 

The effective filing date for each ofthe '004, the '966, and the '847 patents is June 27, 

1996. Complainants argued that they are entitled to an earlier invention date{ 

} (CBr at 163, n. 36; CFF 4.453.) Complainants rely on 

{ 

} 

Respondents argued that the RACH power ramp-up patents are not entitled to 

complainants' claimed conception date, because: 

( 

t 

(RBr at Sec. II, p. 89.) 

} 

The staff does not address whether the power ramp-up patents are entitled to an invention 

date before the effective filing date, but argued that "the evidence establishes that the Lucas 

reference (RX-157) is prior art to the short code ramp-up patents" because the Lucas reference is 

a printed publication. (SBr at 59-60.) 

"Conception exists when a definite and permanent idea of an operative invention, 

including every feature of the subject matter sought to be patented, is known." Sewall v.Walters, 

21. F.3d 41 1,41 5 (Fed. Cir. 1994). However, "[a]n inventor's testimony, standing alone, is 

119 
insufficient to prove conception. Conception requires corroboration of the inventor's testimony." 

Gambro Lundia AB v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 110 F.3d 1573, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (internal 

citations omitted). This corroboration requirement is met "preferably by showing a 

contemporaneous disclosure," Burroughs Well come Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 

1228 (Fed. Cir. 1994), and originated out of a concern that "inventors testifying in patent 

infringement cases would be tempted to remember facts favorable to their case by the lure of 

protecting their patent .... " Mahurkarv. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F.3d 1572, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 

{ } 

See supra. If a relied-upon reference does not disclose "every feature of the subject matter to be 

patented," Sewall, supra, then it cannot support an earlier invention date for the Ramp Up 

patents. The parties treated the ramp up patents in their briefs, findings of fact, and at the 

evidentiary hearing, as a single inventive concept. (See, ~, CBr at 19; RBr at Sec. I, pp. 1-2; 

SBr at 1.) Neither private party has argued for or against an invention date of anyone of the 

ramp-up patents individually. (See, inter alia, CFF 4.453; RRCFF 4.453; RBr at Sec. II, p. 71.) 

Moreover, in response to the respondents' argument that { 

} complainants nowhere argued that said elements were only required for 

anyone of the patents. (See, inter alia, CRBr at 67-85.) Therefore, the findings, infra, treat all 

elements in dispute as required to show conception for all of the power ramp-up patents. 

Regarding { 

} 

120 
{ 

} 

Respondents argued that { 

} (RBr at Sec. II, p. 89.) 

Complainants argued that { 

} (CORFF II-128.) 

The staff did not address { 

} 

121 
The administrative law judge has construed the claimed term "different codes" to mean 

"different sequences of chips." See supra. The claimed term appears several times in the '847 

patent, for example: 

6. A method for use in a code division multiple 

access subscriber unit for establishing 

communications between said subscriber unit and a 

base station, said method comprising: 

... transmitting a plurality of different codes by said 

subscriber unit to said base station wherein each one 

of the plurality of different codes, other than a first 

one of the plurality of different codes, is transmitted 

at an increased power level with respect to a prior 

transmission of another one of the plurality of 

different codes .... 

(CX-5 12:64-13:22 (emphasis added).) Claim 59 ofthe '004 patent similarly recites: 

59. A subscriber unit tor performing an access 

procedure for establishing communications between 

said subscriber unit and a base station, said 

subscriber unit comprising: 

a processor configured to control a transmitter ~uch 

that the transmitter transmits a first one of a 

plurality of different codes by said subscriber unit to 

said base station; 

a receiver configured to receive an 

acknowledgement wherein if said acknowledgement 

is not received, the processor configured to control 

the transmitter such that the transmitter transmits 

another one of the plurality of different codes by 

said subscriber unit to said base station; 

the processor configured to control said transmitter 

such that said transmitter repeats the transmitting of 

another one of the plurality of different codes until 

said acknowledgement is received by said 

subscriber unit from said base station, said 

122 
acknowledgement indicating to said subscriber unit 

that said base station has received at least one of 

said different codes; and 

said processor configured to control the transmitter 

such that the transmitter transmits, in response to 

receipt of said acknowledgement, an access signal 

to facilitate communication initialization between 

said subscriber, unit and said base station, said 

access signal as transmitted by said subscriber unit 

and said different codes as transmitted by said 

subscriber unit each being a function of a same 

code. 

(CX-1 at 17:65-18:25 (emphasis added).) 

The { 

} 

Complainants argued that { 

123 

} 
{ 

} (CX-1578C at IDC-ITC-000850670 

(emphasis added).) 

Asserted claims 1 and 2 ofthe '004 patent also recite that "transmitted dynamically 

selected code signals carry no data" (CX-l at 11: 1-2 (emphasis added)) and "the transmitted 

codes of said first code type carry no data" (CX -1 at 11: 15-16 (emphasis added).) 

The administrative law judge has construed the claimed term "carry no data" as "not 

modulated by an information signal." See supra. { 

} (CX-1578C at IDC-ITC000850670.) Thus, the administrative law judge finds that cvmplainants have not shown by clear 

and convincing evidence that { 

} 

Claim 1 of the '966 patent recites that "each of the successively transmitted signals and 

the message are generated using a same code." (CX-4 at 11: 16-17 (emphasis added).) Claim 59 

of the '004 patent, see supra, recites that "said different codes as transmitted by said subscriber 

unit each being a function of a same code." (CX-5 at 17:23-25 (emphasis added).) Claim 6 of the 

'847 patent recites that "said access signal as transmitted by said subscriber unit, and said 

plurality of different codes, as transmitted by said subscriber unit, being a function of a same 

code." The administrative law judge has construed the claimed terms "generated using a same 

code" and "function of a same code" to have substantially the same meaning, viz. "produced 

from the same code." See supra. Yet,{ 

124 
} 

Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that complainants have not 

show, by clear and convincing evidence, that { 

} 

Referring to the { 

} 

{ 

} 

(CX-1580C at IDC-ITC-000848968.) { 

125 
} (CX-I580C at IDC-ITC-000848970 to 000848971.) 

The claimed term "dynamically selected" appears several times in the Ramp Up patents. 

For example, the claim I of '004 patent recites: 

1. A method for performing power control in a 

wireless code division multiple access 

communication system, the method comprising: 

transmitting dynamically selected code signals at 

increasing power levels until an acknowledgement 

is received indicating that one of said dynamically 

selected code signals was detected, wherein the 

transmitted dynamically selected code signals carry 

no data; and 

in response to detecting the acknowledgment, 

transmitting an access signal wherein the access 

signal is associated with the dynamically selected 

code signals and each of the dynamically selected 

code signals are shorter than the access signal. 

(CX-l at 10:62-11 :7.) Claim 2 ofthe '004 patent recites: 

2. A wireless code division multiple access 

subscriber unit, the subscriber unit comprising: 

a transmitter configured such that a first code is 

transmitted at an initial power level wherein the first 

code is of a first code type and the transmitter 

further configured to repeatedly transmit 

dynamically selected codes of said first code type at 

increasing power levels wherein the transmitted 

codes of said first code type carry no data; 

126 
a receiver configured such that an acknowledgement 

is detected indicating a code of said first type was 

received; and 

the transmitter configured such that in response to 

detecting the acknowledgement, a signal having a 

second code is transmitted to access a 

communication channel wherein the second code is 

associated with the first code. 

(CX-l at 11 :8-24 (emphasis added).) Claim 31 of the '004 patent recites: 

31. The method of claim 30 wherein said code of a 

first type is a dynamically selected code associated 

with said code of a second type. 

(CX-l at 14:27-29 (emphasis added).) As found, supra, "dynamically selected code signals," 

means "sequences of chips that are selected during operation and transmitted." To be selected 

during operation, more than one of such sequences of chips must be available. See supra. 

{ } 

{ 

} 

(CX-lS80C at IDC-ITC-8478S7 (emphasis added).) { 

127 
"[D]ynamically selected code signals," "dynamically selected codes," and "dynamically 

selected code," as recited in the asserted claims of the '004 patent set forth, supra, are taken to 

mean the "short codes" in the specification. See supra. { 

} 

Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that complainants have not 

show, by clear and convincing evidence, that{ 

} 

Regarding the{ 

128 
} 

Respondents argued that { 

} 

Complainants argued that { 

} (CRRFF II-128A.) 

The term "dynamically selected" appears in multiple asserted claims of the ramp-up 

patents, particularly in the term "dynamically selected code" or "dynamically selected code 

signal." See supra. As found, supra, with reference to the Lucas reference, "dynamically selected 

code signals," means "sequences of chips that are selected during operation and transmitted." To 

be selected during operation, more than one of such sequences of chips must be available. See 

supra. { 

} 

{ 

} 

129 
{ 

} 

(CX-1S79C at IDC-ITC-00084942S (emphasis added).) { 

} 

Multiple asserted claims of the ramp-up patents also require an "access signal." For 

example, claim 1 ofthe '004 patent recites: 

1. A method for performing power control in a 

wireless code division multiple access 

communication system, the method comprising: 

... in response to detecting the acknowledgement, 

transmitting an access signal wherein the access 

signal is associated with the dynamically selected 

code signals and each of the dynamically selected 

code signals are [sic] shorter than the access signal. 

(CX-I at 10:62-11:7 (emphasis added).) Claim 6 of the '847 patent recites: 

6. A method for use in a code division multiple 

access subscriber unit for establishing 

communications between said subscriber unit and a 

base station, said method comprising: 

130 
... transmitting, in response to receipt of said 

acknowledgement, an access signal to facilitate 

communication initialization between said 

subscriber unit and said base station, said access 

signal as transmitted by said subscriber unit, and 

said plurality of different codes, as transmitted by 

said subscriber unit, being a function of the same 

code. 

(CX-5 at 12:64-13:22 (emphasis added).) The administrative law judge has construed the 

claimed term "access signal" as a known sequence of chips that is transmitted during power 

ramp-up to facilitate the initiation of communications. See supra. 

{ 

} 

Therefore, the administrative law judge finds that complainants have not show, by clt;ar 

and convincing evidence, that { 

} 

Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that complainants have not 

shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that the RACH power ramp-up patents are entitled to 

an invention date earlier than their effective filing date, viz. June 27, 1996. 

2. Lucas Reference 

Respondents argued that the Lucas reference, which describes the CODIT Testbed, 

teaches all elements of the claimed short code invention (RBr at Sec. II, p. 79) or renders the 

claims obvious. (RBr at Sec. II, p. 82.) Respondents further argued that Lucas was published in 

131 
May 1994, before{ } and hence is 

prior art. (RBr at Sec. II, pp. 75-77.) 

Complainants argued that respondents have not shown that the Lucas reference was 

publicly available prior to the invention. (CBr at 79-84.) Specifically, complainants argued that 

the evidence presented by respondents is insufficient to prove that the Lucas reference was a 

printed publication. (CBr at 79-84.) 

The staff argued that the Lucas reference has been established as prior art based on 

testimony by respondents' witness Malkamaki (SBr at 59-60) and because "RX-2812, a letter 

from a University librarian in Hannover, Germany, undoubtedly establishes that the library made 

Lucas 'available to the public from 21 June 1995.'" (SBr at 60.) 

RX-3270 is a copy of the proceedings of the 1994 Race Mobile Telecommunications 

Workshop in Amsterdam. (RFF II-761 (undisputed in relevant part).) The Lucas reference (RX- " 

157) is contained, in its entirety, in RX-3270. (RFF II-762 (undisputed).) The Lucas reference is 

dated May, 1994. (RX-157 at 1.) A Nokia employee, Malkamaki, attended the 1994 Race 

Mobile Telecommunications Workshop in Amsterdam in May, 1994 (RFF II-760 (undisputed).) 

There were over 140 confirmed registrants at the 1994 Race Mobile Telecommunications 

Workshop. (RFF II-773 (undisputed).) The Lucas reference "provides a description of the 

synchronization aspects in the CaDIT Testbed system." (CFF 4.331 (undisputed).) CaDIT 

stands for "Code Division Testbed" (RFF II-804 (undisputed).) Respondents do not argue that 

the CaDIT testbed, as described in the Lucas reference, was not invented, used, or on sale in the 

United States before Jlme 27, 1995, i.e., one year prior to the earliest effective filing date of the 

'004, '966, and '847 patents. (See, generally, RBr at Sec. II, p. 74 to Sec. II, p. 79.) Thus, to 

132 
qualify as "prior art" under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a), (b), the Lucas reference must be a "printed 

publication" under u.s. law. Whether a reference is a "printed publication" depends on whether 

it was publicly accessible prior to the invention. See, ~, Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 

445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006). A reference is "publicly accessible" if it has been made 

available to the extent that persons of ordinary skill in the art, exercising reasonable diligence, 

can locate it. Id.; SRI Int'l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 

The decision whether a reference is a "printed publication" is determined on a case-by-case basis. 

See,~, SRI Int'l, Inc., 511 F.3d at 1194 (quoting In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 

1989)). In this instance, there is case law analogous to this investigation. In In re Hall, 781 F .2d 

897 (Fed. Cir. 1986), the Federal Circuit affirmed the rejection by the Board of Patent Appeals 

and Interferences of an application based on a prior art doctoral thesis accessible in the Library of 

Freiburg University in (what was the the Federal Republic of) Germany. In holding that the 

doctoral thesis was a "printed publication" accessible to the public before the critical date, the 

Court relied on unrebutted communications from the library director "to establish an approximate 

time when a thesis became accessible." Hall, 781 F.2d at 899. In the current investigation, there 

is more than just an approximate time when Lucas became accessible, as a precise date when 

Lucas was accessible to the public, June 21, 1995, is known. (RX-2812 at 1.) Also, the precise 

shelf marks in the Hannover library, viz. RR 5214 (1994,1) and RR 5214 (1994,2), where Lucas 

could have been accessed were known. (RX-2812 at 1.) Here, as in Hall, the evidence is 

unrebutted that Lucas was accessible at the TIBfUB library prior to the critical date. Thus, the 

administrative law judge finds that respondents have shown that the Lucas reference is prior art 

to the RACH power ramp-up patents. See also Ethicon, Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp., 762 

133 
F. Supp. 480, 501 (D. Conn. 1991) ("Although the court in In re Hall suggested that there is no 

absolute requirement that specific indexing and cataloguing information be available ... there was 

no dispute that the doctoral dissertation was eventually placed in the library -- the only question 

was when it was actually catalogued. In contrast, the defendant in this case has only been able to 

offer evidence suggesting how the system was designed to work."); Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. 

United States, 81 Fed. Cl. 514, 526 (Fed. Cl. 2008) ("The court agrees that 'competent evidence 

of the general library practice' may be used to 'establish an approximate time when a thesis 

became available,'" citing In re Hall, 781 F.2d at 898-99). 

Referring to claim 1 of the '004 patent, regarding the claimed phrase, "dynamically 

selected code signals," respondents argued that Lucas discloses multiple short codes, and thus 

discloses the "dynamic selection" of these codes or the transmission of "different codes." (RBr at 

Sec. II, pp. 79-82.) 

Complainants argued that "dynamically selected code signals" or code signals are not 

disclosed by the Lucas reference. (CBr at 146.) Specifically, complainants argued that the Lucas 

reference "discloses a system that repeatedly transmits a single short code during a power 

ramping phase of a random access procedure." (CBr at 147 (emphasis in original).) 

Complainants further argued that in the Lucas reference's disclosure of access codes, the ellipsis 

following "Random Access" makes it so that one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to 

understand what the reference meant, and that a reference ambiguous as to the presence of an 

element cannot anticipate a claim containing that element. (CBr at 148.) 

134 
The staff argued that "under the proper claim constructions, the evidence does not clearly 

and convincingly demonstrate that the Lucas reference anticipates or renders obvious the asserted 

claims of the short code ramp-up patents." (SBr at 60.) 

The administrative law judge has found, supra, that a "code signal" is "a sequence of 

chips that is transmitted" and that said code signal is also a spreading code. No party has 

disputed the claimed term "dynamically selected." The administrative law judge further finds 

that "dynamically selected," in the context of the specification, means "selected during 

operation." Thus, "dynamically selected code signals" is construed as "sequences of chips that 

are selected during operation and transmitted." Said codes are also spreading codes. To be 

selected during operation, more than one of such sequences of chips must be available. The 

Lucas reference, however, discloses only a single code. For example, a diagram in the Lucas 

reference shows a Short Code oflength 127 as part of the random access channel. (RX-157 at 3.) 

Also, the Lucas reference states: 

Once the code is known for RA [random access], the MS sends a 

Random Access 

* * * 

The RA signal is divided into two parts: an unmodulated part 

followed by RA informations [sic] spread by a Gold sequence of 

length 127 

(RX-157 at 5 (emphasis added).) Finally, the Lucas reference discloses a diagram showing 

"unmodulated sequence Gold code (length 127)" for power ramping phase. (RX-157 at 6 

(emphasis added).) Thus, the Lucas reference discloses a single code sent by the handset during 

random access. Further, the Lucas reference states: 

135 
SYNCHRONISATION CHANNELS 

Common Control Channels sent by the BS : 

Broadcast Channel (BCH) : network information, 

information concerning the BS parameters, access codes for 

Random Access, ... 

* * * 

SYNCHRONISATION IN THE DOWNLINK (3) 

Broadcast Information 

Broadcast chane! [sic] provides several information 

concerning the network (e.g. PICH of neighbouring cells 

for HandOver and Inter Frequency HandOver) and the 

codes used for the Random Access (RA) 

Once the code is known for RA, the MS sends a Random 

Access 

(RX-157 at 2,5 (emphasis added).) Thus, the cited portion's reference to "codes" is with respect 

to "codes" sent over the BCH by the base station, not sent by a handset. Thus, said citation does 

not disclose dynamic selection of a code. 

Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that respondents have not 

shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Lucas reference (RX-157) anticipates or 

renders obvious the concept of "dynamically selected code signals." 

Regarding the claimed phrase "in response to detecting the acknowledgement, 

transmitting an access signaL.," respondents argued that said phrase is disclosed in Lucas 

because the Lucas reference "discloses that the short Gold code is transmitted 'till the BS detects 

it' at which point the mobile transmits a preamble and RA Information bits that are a known 

136 
spreading code (Nokia's construction) under Dr. Vojcic's understanding of the term spreading 

and a signal (plain and ordinary meaning - InterDigital's construction) ... " (RFF II-866.) 

Complainants argued that Lucas fails to disclose "in response to detecting the 

acknowledgement, transmitting an access signal" as recited in claim 1 of the '004 patent because 

"Lucas does not disclose what procedures are subsequently performed in the CODIT system after 

synchronization is achieved." (CBr at 150-51.) 

The staff argued that "under the proper claim constructions, the evidence does not clearly 

and convincingly demonstrate that the Lucas reference anticipates or renders obvious the asserted 

claims of the short code ramp-up patents." (SBr at 60.) 

The administrative law judge has found, supra, that the claimed phrase "access signal" is 

a known sequence of chips that is transmitted during power ramp-up to facilitate the initiation of 

communications. Based on the plain language of the claims, such a signal would need to be sent 

"in response to detecting the acknowledgement," which acknowledgement is sent only after the 

base station has detected the RACH access attempt. Lucas discloses that the RA signal is 

divided into two parts: an unmodulated part followed by RA information spread by a Gold 

sequence oflength 127. (RX-157 at 5; CFF 4.340 (undisputed).) At the beginning ofa RACH 

access attempt, the handset in Lucas transmits the unmodulated Gold code during a power 

ramping phase. (RX-157 at 5; CFF 4.346 (undisputed in relevant part).) Said Gold code is "used 

to obtain chip synchronisation at the BS side and uses a power ramping phase which prevents 

from increasing the interferences during a RA." (RX -157 at 5.) During the power ramping phase, 

the power of the RACH increases until the BS detects the signal or until a timeout is reached. 

(RX-157 at 5.) The next step disclosed by the Lucas reference reads: 

137 
The initial power of the transmitting power on the RA is sent by 

the BS on the BCH, but due to non reciprocity of radio channels 

the MS begins its transmission with a marge of 30dB. The power 

is controlled by the BS in sending power control bits on the PCCH 

of the Access Grant CHannel. 

(RX-157 at 5.) The Lucas reference had previously disclosed that the Access Grant Channel is 

used to send "acknowledgement of the BS of a Random Access." (RX-157 at 2.) Thus, the 

"power control bits" sent by the base station via the access grant channel are an 

acknowledgement sent by the base station that the base station has received the first part of the 

RA signal, which ends the power ramping phase. It is undisputed that, after the power ramping 

phase, the handset sends the RA information bits (spread by the Gold code) to the BS. (CFF 

4.348 (undisputed in relevant part).) Thus, the administrative law judge finds that the Lucas 

reference describes said RA identification bits being sent by the handset in response to an 

acknowledgement sent by the base station. However, as the Lucas:reference discloses that said 

RA identification bits are sent by the subscriber unit after the power ramping phase is completed, 

the RA identification bits cannot be an "access signal" as per claim 1 of the '004 patent, because 

an "access signal" is sent during power ramp up. Based on the foregoing, the administrative law 

judge finds that respondents have not shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Lucas 

reference discloses the limitation of "in response to detecting the acknowledgement, transmitting 

an access signal" as recited in claim 1 of the '004 patent. 

Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that respondents have not 

shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Lucas reference anticipates or renders obvious 

claim 1 of the '004 patent. 

138 
With respect to claims 2,31 and 59 of the '004 patent, respondents argued, with respect 

to claim 2 of the '004 patent, that the claim limitation "dynamically selected code signals" is 

"disclosed by Lucas for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1 of the '004 

Patent." (RFF II-874.) Respondents further argued that the limitation "the transmitter configured 

such that in response to detecting the acknowledgement, a signal having a second code is 

transmitted to access a communication channel" of claim 2 is disclosed by Lucas "for the same 

reasons it discloses the "in response to detecting the acknowledgement, transmitting an access 

signal" limitation of Claim 1 ofthe 004 patent..." (RFF II-878.) The administrative law judge 

has, however, found supra that neither of said limitations from claim 1 of the '004 patent are 

disclosed by the Lucas reference. Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that 

respondents have not-shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that claim 2 of the '004 patent is 

rendered invalid by the Lucas reference. 

With respect to claim 31 of the '004 patent, respondents argued that the Lucas reference 

discloses '" (d) transmitting a code of a second type after it is determined that the subscriber unit 

has received the acknowledgement signal' for the same reasons it discloses transmitting an 

'access signal' in Claim 1 of the 004 patent..." (RFF II-887.) The administrative law judge has 

found, supra, that the Lucas reference does not disclose said claim limitation of claim 1 of the 

'004 patent. Thus, the administrative law judge finds that respondents have not shown, by clear 

and convincing evidence, that the Lucas reference renders claim 31 of the '004 patent invalid. 

Regarding the validity of claim 59 ofthe '004 patent, respondents argued that Lucas 

reference discloses '''a processor configured to control a transmitter such that the transmitter 

transmits a first one of a plurality of different codes by said subscriber unit to said base station' 

139 
for the same reasons it discloses 'dynamically selected code signals' in Claim 1 of the 004 

patent..." (RFF II-892.) The administrative law judge has found, supra, that said "different 

codes" are analogous to the "code signals" in claim 1 of the '004 patent. Respondents further 

argued that the Lucas reference discloses '''said access signal as transmitted by said subscriber 

unit and said different codes as transmitted by said subscriber unit each being a function of a 

same code' because it discloses that the same Gold code is used during the ramping phase and is 

used to spread the RA Information bits, thus the two codes depend on and vary with a common 

Gold code (InterDigital's construction) and the RA Information bits are a part of the spreading 

code transmitted during ramping (Nokia's construction) (Lanning Tr. 1668:13-17; RX0157 at 

-005, -006; RDX-1203; RDX-1209.5; see RFF II-854-859, above)." (RFF II-897.) The 

administrative law judge finds that said argument fails for the same analysis as for claiiTI 1, supra. 

Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that respondents hav~ not shown, by 

clear and convincing evidence, that claim 59 of the '004 patent is anticipated or rendered obvious 

by the Lucas reference. 

With respect to claim 1 of the '966 patent, regarding the limitation "a message indicating 

to the base station that the subscriber unit wants to establish the communications with the base 

station," respondents argued that "none of the asserted claims, the Common Specification, or any 

party's construction of the term 'message' requires that it be 'used to establish a call' (RFF II843)." (RBr at Sec. II, p. 84.) 

Complainants argued that the Lucas reference does not disclose the claimed phrase "a 

message indicating to the base station that the subscriber unit wants to establish the 

communications with the base station" as recited in asserted claim 1 of the '966 patent. (CBr at 

140 
150-53.) Complainants further argued that Lucas's disclosure is limited to only those aspects of 

synchronization that are implemented in the CODIT system and does not disclose what 

procedures are subsequently performed in the CODIT system after synchronization is achieved. 

(CBr at 150.) Thus, complainants argued, Lucas fails to disclose any subsequent transmission of 

a message. (CBr at 150-51.) 

The staff argued that "under the proper claim constructions, the evidence does not clearly 

and convincingly demonstrate that the Lucas reference anticipates or renders obvious the asserted 

claims of the short code ramp-up patents." (SBr at 60.) 

It is undisputed that, as evidenced by its title, Lucas discloses, inter alia, a 

"Synchronisation Procedure in Up & Down Link in the CoDiT Testbed." (CFF 4.330 (undisputed 

in relevant-part).) Further, Lucas discloses an uplink synchronization procedure comprising a 

"Random Access" procedure. (CFF 4.336 (undisputed).) Said Random Access procedure is 

described as for synchronizing a handset and a base station. (RX-157 at 5 ("The unmodulated 

part of the RA is used to obtain chip synchronisation at the BS side ... ").) The Lucas reference 

discloses that said random access procedure "preceeds [sic] also a call initiated by the MS 

[handset]." (RX-157 at 2.) Thus, any message sent by the handset indicating to the base station 

that the subscriber unit wants to establish the communications with the base station would need 

to be sent after the random access procedure is concluded. The last sentence of the section titled 

"INITIAL SYNCHRONISATION PROCEDURE" in the Lucas reference reads "[i]f 

acknowledgement is OK, the MS [handset] is ready to listen the Paging CHannel or to send a 

call, the MS is declared synchronised." (RX-157 at 2.) Thus, again, the Lucas reference discloses 

that after the synchronization is complete, the handset is ready to send a call. The final step of 

141 
the section in Lucas titled "SYNCHRONISATION IN THE UPLINK" reads "[t]hese 

identification bits are sent back to the MS for acknowledgement, if they are correct 

synchronisation is OK." (RX-157 at 5.) Therefore, the final listed step merely completes the 

synchronization, and the exchange of the identification bits, viz. the handset transmitting the 

identification bits to the base station and the base station transmitting the identification bits back 

to the handset, does not disclose that a call is being initiated by the handset, and can not disclose 

call setup messages. Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that respondents 

have not shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Lucas reference discloses the 

limitation of "a message indicating to the base station that the subscriber unit wants to establish 

the communications with the base station" in claim 1 of the '966 patent. 

Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that respondents have not 

shown, by dear and con vincing evidence, that the Lucas reference anticipates or renders obvious 

claim 1 of the '966 patent. 

As for claims 3,8,9 and 11 of the '966 patent, said claims depend from claim 1 of the 

'966 patent. The administrative law judge has found, supra, that claim 1 of the '966 patent is not 

rendered anticipated or obvious by the Lucas reference. Further, with respect to claim 3, 

respondents argued that the Lucas reference "discloses the limitation of Claim 3 of the 966 patent 

that 'some of the transmitted signals are different' for the same reasons it discloses 'dynamically 

selected code signals' in Claim 1 of the 004 patent ... " (RFF 1I-907.) The administrative law 

judge has found, supra, that the Lucas reference does not disclose dynamically selected code 

signals. Thus, none of said dependent claims 3, 8, 9, and 11 are rendered anticipated or obvious 

by Lucas for, inter alia, the same analysis. 

142 
In further reference to claim 9 of the '966 patent, respondents argued that the claimed 

phrase "wherein the communication channel is indicated by the base station in response to the 

message" is disclosed by Lucas because it discloses that the "identification bits are sent back to 

the MS for acknowledgement," which the administrative law judge finds is substantively the 

same reasons as the limitation "in response to detecting the acknowledgement, transmitting an 

access signal" in claim 1 ofthe '004 patent. (RFF II-909.) The administrative law judge has 

found, supra, that said limitation of claim 1 is not disclosed in the Lucas reference. 

Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that respondents have not 

shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that any of claims 3, 8, 9 and 11 are rendered 

anticipated or obvious by the Lucas reference. 

Referring to claim 5 ofthe '847 patent, respondents argued that "[t]he Lucas reference 

discloses 'the tral1smitter further configured such that the transmitter transmits to the base station '': 

a message indicating to the base station that the subscriber unit wants to establish the 

communications with the base station over the communication channel to be indicated by the 

base station' for the same reasons it discloses these claim limitations in Claim 1 of the 966 patent 

(See RFF II-902, above)." (RFF II-918.) 

The administrative law judge has found with respect to claim 1 of the '966 patent, supra, 

that said limitation is not disclosed by the Lucas reference. Based on the foregoing, the 

administrative law judge finds that respondents have failed to show, by clear and convincing 

evidence, that claim 5 of the' 847 patent is anticipated or rendered obvious by the Lucas 

reference. 

143 
As for claim 6 of the' 847 patent, regarding the "plurality of different codes" limitation, 

respondents argued that said limitation is disclosed "for the same reasons it discloses transmitting 

'dynamically selected code signals' in Claim 1 ofthe 004 patent (See RFF II-812-834, 861, 

above)." (RFF II-923.) Regarding the "transmitting, in response to receipt of said 

acknowledgement, an access signal to facilitate communication initialization between said 

subscriber unit and said base station" limitation, respondents argued that said limitation is 

disclosed "for the same reasons it discloses transmitting an 'access signal' in Claim 1 of the 004 

patent (See RFF II-866, above)." (RFF II-926.) The administrative law judge has found, supra, 

that said limitations of claim 1 of the '004 patent are not disclosed by the Lucas reference. 

Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that respondents have not 

shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that claim 6 of the' 847 patent is anticipated or 

rendered obvi0us by theTacas reference. 

Referring to claim 9 of the' 847 patent, respondents argued that the Lucas reference 

"discloses '(e) after said demodulating the paging message and said synchronizing to the pilot 

signal, transmitting a first one of a plurality of different codes by said subscriber unit to said base 

station' for the same reasons it discloses 'dynamically selected code signals' in Claim 1 of the 

004 patent (See RFF II-812-834, 861, above)." (RFF II-934.) Respondents further argued that 

the Lucas reference "discloses '(h) transmitting, in response to receipt of said acknowledgement, 

an access signal to facilitate communication initialization between said subscriber unit and said 

base station' for the same reasons it discloses transmitting an 'access signal' in Claim 1 of the 

004 patent (See RFF II-866, above)." (RFF II-938.) The administrative law judge has found, 

144 
supra, that neither of said claim elements of asserted claim 1 are disclosed by the Lucas 

reference. 

Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that respondents have not 

shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that claim 9 of the '847 patent is anticipated or 

rendered obvious by the Lucas reference. 

Referring to claim 11 of the '847 patent, respondents argued that the Lucas reference 

"discloses 'a processor configured to control a transmitter such that the transmitter transmits a 

first one of a plurality of different codes by said subscriber unit to said base station' for the same 

reasons it discloses 'dynamically selected code signals' in Claim 1 of the 004 patent (See RFF 

II-812-834, 861, above)." (RFF II-943.) Respondents further argued that the Lucas reference 

"discloses 'and said processor furthersonfigured to control the transmitter such that the 

transmitter transmits, in response to receipt of said acknowledgement, an access signal to 

facilitate communication initialization between said subscriber unit and said base station' for the 

same reasons it discloses transmitting an 'access signal' in response to an acknowledgement in 

Claim 1 of the 004 patent (See RFF II-866, above)." (RFF II-947.) The administrative law judge 

has found with respect to asserted claim 1 of the '004 patent, supra, that these limitations are not 

disclosed by the Lucas reference. 

Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that respondents have not 

shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that claim 11 of the '847 patent is rendered anticipated 

or obvious by the Lucas reference. 

3. The IS-95 References 

145 
The Proposed EIAJTIA Interim Standard: Wideband Spread Spectrum Digital Cellular 

System Dual Mode Mobile Station Base Station Compatibility Standard (April 21, 1992) (1992 

Proposed Standard) (RX -131), the TIAIEIA Interim Standard: Mobile Station Base Station 

Compatibility Standard for Dual Mode Wideband Spread Spectrum Cellular System (July 1993) 

(1S-95) (RX-132), and the TIAIEIA Interim Standard: Mobile Station Base Station Compatibility 

Standard for Dual Mode Wideband Spread Spectrum Cellular System (May 1995) (IS-95A) (RX133) (collectively, IS-95 References) have the same disclosure for purposes of this investigation. 

(CFF 4.467 (undisputed).) The IS-95 references are three versions of the IS 95 TIAJEIA 

standards or proposed standards. (CFF 4.463 (undisputed).) The publication date of each of the 

collective IS-95 references are prior to the established priority date ofthe RACH power ramp-up 

patents. (RX-131, ~-X-132, RX-133.) Thus, the administrative law judge finds that the IS-95 

references are prior an to the RACH power ramp-up patents. 

Respondents have argued that the claims are obvious in light ofIS-95 and CODIT. (RBr 

at Sec. II, p. 86.) 

Referring to claim 1 of the '004 Patent, respondents argued that the "IS-95 references 

render the Short Code Ramp-Up Patents obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would 

understand to split the preamble and message components of the access probe into separate 

transmissions (RFF II-962-967)." (RBr at Sec. II, p. 86.) Respondents further argued that: 

If one splits the preamble and message capsule, the preamble in 

IS-95 carries no data under either party's construction (RFF 

II-966). An IS-95 preamble is a series of zeros that is spread by a 

long code mask (RFF II-964, 965). Similarly, one of ordinary skill 

in the art would immediately and unquestionably appreciate that, 

once the preamble and message capsule are split and transmitted 

separately, the base station must transmit an acknowledgement or 

146 
indication that triggers the mobile to transmit the message capsule 

in response (RFF II-968). 

(RBr at Sec. II, p. 87.) 

Complainants argued that the IS-95 references fail to disclose an "acknowledgement" or 

an indication as required by each of the asserted claims ofthe '004,' 966, and '847 patents. (CBr 

at 154-55.) Complainants further argued that the IS-95 references failed to disclose the "carry no 

data" limitation of claims 1 and 2 of the '004 patent and the limitation "does not include data of 

the subscriber unit" of claim 31 of the '004 patent. (CBr at 155.) Complainants further argued 

that "the IS-95 standard repeatedly discloses that the message capsule portion of an access probe 

must be transmitted 'immediately following' its corresponding preamble portion." (CBr at 154.) 

The staff argued that "under the proper claim construction, the evidence does not clearly 

and convincingly demonstrate that the IS-95 rderence anticipates or renders obvious the asserted 

claims of the short code ramp-up patents." (SSr at 61.) 

The IS-95 references define a UE BS compatibility standard in a wideband spread 

spectrum cellular system. (CFF 4.470 (undisputed).) In the IS-95 references, when the UE wants 

to access the BS, the UE transmits signals referred to as "access probes." (CFF 4.471 

(undisputed).) The UE transmits the access probes over an Access Channel. (CFF 4.472 

(undisputed).) The UE transmits the access probes in one or more "access probe sequences." 

(CFF 4.475 (undisputed).) The UE transmits the first access probe in an access probe sequence 

at an initial power level and transmits each subsequent access probe in the access probe sequence 

at a higher power level than the previously transmitted access probe. (CFF 4.476 (undisputed).) 

Each such access probe contains two parts: (1) a preamble; and (2) a message capsule. (CFF 

147 
4.477 (undisputed).) The IS-95 references do not permit the access probe preamble to be sent 

separately from its corresponding access probe message capsule. (CFF 4.478 (undisputed).) 

More specifically, the IS-95 references do not permit the UE to first transmit the access probe 

preamble, then wait for an "acknowledgement" or "indication" from the BS before transmitting 

the access probe message capsule. (RX-131 at 6.7.1.1 ("The mobile station shall transmit an 

Access Channel message capsule immediately following the preamble. "), 6.7.1.2; RX -131 at 6, 

n. 16 (,"Shall' and 'shall not' identifY requirements to be followed strictly to conform to the 

standard and from which no deviation is permitted.").) Therefore, the IS-95 references do not 

disclose that the code signal carries no data as, inter alia, the message capsule contains data. 

Further, as the IS-95 references specifically state that the preamble and message cannot be sent 

separately, the administrative law judge finds that the IS-9) references do not make it obvious 

that the preamble and the message could be sent separately. Therefore, the administrative law 

judge finds that the IS-95 references do not disclose an access signal as required by claim 1 of the 

'004 patent. Moreover, respondents have admitted that an additional acknowiedgement, which 

does not exist in IS-95, would be required in the IS-95 system if the access probe preamble and 

message capsule were separately transmitted. (CFF 4.516 (undisputed).) Based on the foregoing, 

the administrative law judge finds tr..at respondents have not shown, by clear and convincing 

evidence, that these limitations are disclosed by the IS-95 reference. 

Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that respondents have not 

shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that claim 1 of the '004 patent is rendered obvious by 

the IS-95 references. 

148 
With respect to claims 2, 31 and 59 of the '004 patent, regarding the validity of claims 2 

and 31 of the '004 patent, respondents argued that the 1S-95 references disclose '''wherein the 

transmitted codes of said first code type carry no data' for the same reasons it discloses that the 

code signals in Claim 1 of the 004 patent 'carry no data' (See RFF II-980, above)." (RFF II-991.) 

Respondents further argued that the 1S-95 references disclose '" a receiver configured such that an 

acknowledgement is detected indicating a code of said first type was received' for the same 

reasons it discloses the 'until an acknowledgement is received ... ' limitation of Claim 1 of the 

004 patent (See RFF II-979, above)." (RFF II-992.) With respect to claim 31 of the '004 patent, 

respondents argued that the 1S-95 references disclose '''wherein the code of the first type does not 

include data ofthe subscriber unit' for the same reasons it discloses the 'no data' limitation of 

Claim 1 of the 004 patent (See RFF II-980, above)." (RFF II-998,) The respondents also argued 

that the 1S-95 references disclose "'the acknowledgement~ignal being 2n indication to the 

subscriber unit that the base station has received a code ofthe first type' for the same reason it 

discloses an 'acknowledgement' in Claim 1 of the 004 patent (See RFF II-979, above)." (RFF 

II-lOOO.) The administrative law judge has found, supra, that the 1S-95 references do not 

disclose said limitations. Thus, the administrative law judge finds that respondents have not 

shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that the 1S-95 references render claims 2 and 31 of the 

'004 patent obvious. 

With respect to the validity of claim 59 of the '004 patent, respondents argued that the 1S95 references disclose '''a receiver configured to receive an acknowledgement wherein if said 

acknowledgement is not received, the processor configured to control the transmitter such that 

the transmitter transmits another one of the plurality of different codes by said subscriber unit to 

149 
said base station' for the same reasons it discloses 'detecting an acknowledgement' in Claim 1 of 

the 004 patent (See RFF II-979, above)." (RFF II-I008.) The administrative law judge has 

found, supra, that respondents have not shown that said limitation of claim 1 is rendered invalid 

by the IS-95 references. Therefore, the administrative law judge finds that respondents have not 

shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that the claim limitation "the transmitter transmits, in 

response to receipt of said acknowledgement, an access signal to facilitate communication 

initialization between said subscriber, unit and said base station ... " of claim 59 of the '004 patent 

is disclosed by the IS-95 references. 

Therefore, the administrative law judge finds respondents have not shown, by clear and 

convincing evidence, that claim 59 of the '004 patent is rendered obvious by the IS-95 

references. 

Referrign to claim 1 of the '966 patent, respondents argued that the IS-95 references 

disclose '''until the subscriber unit receives from the base station an indication that a transmitted 

one ofllie signals has been detected by the base station' for the same reasons it discloses ' 

'detecting an acknowledgement' in Claim 1 of the 004 patent (See RFF II-979, above)." (RFF 

II-IOI5.) Respondents further argued that the IS-95 references disclo')e "'the message being 

transmitted only subsequent to the subscriber unit receiving the indication' for the same reasons 

it discloses transmitting an access signal 'in response to' an acknowledgement in Claim 1 ofthe 

004 patent (See RFF II-981, above)." (RFF II-lOI8.) The administrative law judge has found, 

supra, that said limitations of claim 1 ofthe '004 patent are not rendered obvious by the IS-95 

references. 

150 
Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that respondents have not 

shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that said limitations of claim 1 of the '966 patent are 

rendered obvious by the IS-95 references. 

As for claims 3,8,9 and 11 of the '966 patent, said claims depend from claim 1 ofthe 

'966 patent. The administrative law judge has found, supra, that claim 1 of the '966 patent is not 

rendered obvious by the IS-95 references. Thus, he finds that none of said dependent claims 3, 8, 

9, and 11 are rendered obvious by IS-95 for, inter alia, the same reasons. 

Referring to claim 5 of the' 847 patent, respondents argued that the IS-95 references 

disclose "'until the subscriber unit receives from the base station an indication that a transmitted 

one of the signals has been detected by the base station' for the same reasons it discloses these 

claim limitations in Claim 1 of the 966 patent (See RFF II-I015, above)." (RFF II-1031.) The 

administrative law judge, however, found supra that respondents have not shown that said 

limitation of claim 1 of the '966 patent is obvious over the IS-95 references. 

Based (jn, inter alia, the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that respondents 

have not shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that claim 5 of the' 847 patent is rendered 

obvious by the IS-95 references. 

As for claims 6,9 and 11 of the '847 patent, respondents argued that the IS-95 references 

disclose '''receiving an acknowledgement by said subscriber unit from said base station and 

ceasing transmitting the plurality of different codes, said acknowledgement indicating to said 

subscriber unit that said base station has received at least one of said plurality of different codes' 

for the same reasons it discloses 'detecting the acknowledgement' in Claim 1 ofthe 004 patent 

(See RFF II-979, above)." (RFF II-1040.) Respondents further argued that the IS-95 references 

151 
disclose "'said acknowledgement indicating to said subscriber unit that said base station has 

received at least one of said different codes' for the same reason it discloses an 

'acknowledgement' in Claim 1 ofthe 004 patent (See RFF II-979, above)." (RFF II-I052.) 

Respondents also argued that the IS-95 references disclose "'a receiver configured to receive an 

acknowledgement' for the same reason it discloses an 'acknowledgement' in Claim 1 of the 004 

patent (See RFF II-979, above)." (RFF II-1059.) The administrative law judge, however, found 

supra that respondents have not shown that said limitations of claim 1 of the '004 patent are 

obvious over the IS-95 references. 

Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that respondents have not 

shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that claims 6, 9, or 11 of the '847 patent are rendered 

obvious by the IS-95 references. 

Ii 4. The CODIT Final Review Reference 

Respondents argued that the asserted claims of the power ramp-up patents are all 

rendered obvious in light of the CODIT Final Report and IS-95, and that it would have been 

obvious to combine the two references. (RBr at Sec. II, p. 89-92.) Respondents also argued that 

the CaDIT Final Review is prior art to the power ramp-up patents, as it was a printed publication 

as of November 21, 1995. (RBr at Sec. II, p.89.) 

Complainants argued that respondents have not shown that the CaDIT Final Review 

Report is prior art to the power ramp-up patents. (CBr at 162.) Complainants also argued that the 

respondents' expert did not analyze the CaDIT Final Review Report under respondents' claim 

construction. (CBr at 157.) Moreover, complainants argued that the CaDIT Final Review does 

not disclose at least three limitations that are recited in each of the power ramp-up patents. (CBr 

152 
at 159-62.) Complainants further argued that the CODIT Final Review fails to disclose several 

limitations that appear in some, but not all, of the power ramp-up patents, including "a plurality 

of different codes," "dynamically selected" codes or code signals, signals that are "different." 

(CBr at 157-59.) 

The staff argued that "the evidence does not clearly and convincingly show that the 

asserted claims of the power ramp-up patents would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in 

the art in light of the CODIT Final Review Report, considered alone or in combination with the 

IS-95 references. (SBr at 61.) 

A reference is considered a printed publication, and thus prior art, "upon a satisfactory 

showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that 

persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable . 

diligence, can locate it and recognize and comprehend therefrom the essentials of the ckjmed 

invention without need of further research or experimentation." In re Wyer, 655 F.2c:! 221, 226 

(C.c.P.A. 1981) (citing LC.E. Corp. v. Armco Steel Corp., 250 F. Supp. 738, 743 (S.D.N.Y. 

1966)). Courts have placed the burden of such a showing on the party alleging that the reference 

is a printed publication: 

The proponent of the publication bar must show that 

prior to the critical date the reference was 

sufficiently accessible, at least to the public 

interested in the art, so that such a one by examining 

the reference could make the claimed invention 

without further research or experimentation. 

In re Hall, supra, at 899; see also Depuy Inc. v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc., 343 F.Supp.2d 675, 682 

153 
(N.D. Ill. 2004) (finding references were not publicly available based only on assumptions by 

proponent's 30(b)(6) witness as to publication and distribution without any personal knowledge 

or knowledge gained from party's records); NESEA Const., Inc. v. Bi1co Co., 2007 WL 1852289 

at *3 (D.N.J. 2007) (finding references not to be printed publications where proponent offered 

only assertions stating that the references were publicly available and "indexed without 

restriction"). 

The CODIT Final Review is dated November 21, 1995. (RX-142 at 1). The CODIT Final 

Review also discloses a "contractual date of delivery" of September 1995. (RX-142 at 1.) 

Respondents argued that these dates establish that the reference was, therefore, published on 

November 21, 1995. (RBr at Sec. II, p. 89.) Respondents offer no other evidence that the 

reference was p'Jblicly available prior to the invention ofthe power ramp-up patents. 

TheCODIT Final Review includes a cover page that indicates a "Deliverable Type'l of 

"Public.;' (RX-142 at 1.) There is no indication in the reference, however, that the CODIT Final 

Review was ever actually made aVailable to the public. (RX-142 at 1-94.) The first page of the 

CODIT Final Review Report shows an "Actual Date of Delivery to the CEC" which is left blank. 

(RX-142 at 1.) Thus, the administrative law judge finds that the cover page does not show that 

"the reference was sufficiently accessible, at least to the public interested in the art .... " See In r~ 

Hall, supra, at 899. Furthermore, assumptions without personal knowledge or examination of 

records "do not provide clear and convincing evidence of date and extent of publication." Depuy, 

supra; see also Aluminum Co. of America v. Reynolds Metal Co., 1989 WL 165064 at *2 (N.D. 

Ill. 1989) (holding that a report distributed to 33 government, corporate, and individual parties 

with only a restriction barring export from the United States was not a printed publication where 

154 
no evidence was offered to show any receiving parties made the document public); but see Ex 

Parte Bersuch, 2006 WL 2700807 at * 11 (B.P.A.I. 2006) (holding that a publication presented to 

forty to fifty conference attendees and made available to any interested party is a printed 

publication). Moreover, though the cover page ofthe CODIT Final Review discloses a 

"Keyword list" (RX-142 at 1), which lists the keywords "UMTS," "CODIT," and "CDMA," 

there is no indication on the cover page, nor any evidence offered by respondents, to show that 

the CODIT Final Review was indexed in such a way that the reference was "sufficiently 

accessible ... to the public interested in the art." See Depuy, supra. 

Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that the CODIT Final Review 

is not a printed publication for purposes of35 U.S.c. § 102(a)-(b), and thus is not prior art to the 

power ramp-up patent~. 

Respondents argued, with respect to the public availability of the CODIT Final Review, -\ " 

that "[ o]nce the CODIT Final Review Report was entered into evidence, InterDigital bore the 

burden of production to show conception and reasonable diligence toward reduction to practice 

from a date just prior to the November 21, 1995 publication date until June 27, 1996 ... " (RBr at 

Sec. II, p. 89.) { 

} the burden to establish whether a reference is publicly available is on the party 

asserting invalidity. See supra. Respondents offer only the bare assertions that the document is 

dated November 21, 1995, and thus was publicly available on that date. The administrative law 

judge finds that respondents have not met their burden of showing public availability of the 

CODIT Final Review Report. 

155 
H. Prosecution Laches 

Nokia argued that InterDigital's impermissible expansion ofthe scope of the power rampup patents, their failure to timely disclose them to ETSI (European Telecommunication Standards 

Institute) and their efforts to seek an injunction based thereon is contrary to public policy and 

constitutes patent misuse. (RBr at IV-16.) Thus Nokia argued that InterDigital delayed for 

nearly a decade before presenting the asserted claims to the Patent Office; that those asserted 

claims were added late in prosecution in an effort to cover intervening developments that 

InterDigital and the inventors never thought of themselves, never disclosed to the public, and 

never considered as their invention; that InterDigitalleamed of those intervening developments 

from others in the industry, including Nokia, as a result ofInterDigital's monitoring of the 

standardization activities relevant to the RACH procedure for WCDMA; and that InterDigital's 

strategy ofprosecutoriddelay and manipulation of the statutory patent system during prosecution 

of the power ramp-up patents claims constitutes prosecution laches sufficient to preclude 

InterDigital from enforcing those patents Nokia. (RBr at Sec. IV, p. 2.) 

Complainants argued that they diligently pursued allowance an issuance of the power 

ramp-up patents; that the time spent prosecuting said patents and the number of continuations are 

reasonable; that no court has ever found prosecution laches under similar facts; and that 

complainants' continuation practice does not prejudice public rights. (CBr at 89-94.) 

The staff argued that the evidence does not support a determination that the power rampup patents are unenforceable due to prosecution laches. (SBr at 69-70.) 

In Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ. & Research Found., LP 277 F.3d 

1367 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Symbol II) the sole issue on appeal was whether, as a matter oflaw, the 

156 
equitable doctrine of laches may be applied to bar enforcement of patent claims that issued after 

an unreasonable and unexplained delay in prosecution even though the applicant complied with 

pertinent statutes and rules, Id. at 1363. On appeal the Federal Circuit, reversing the district 

court's conclusion that the defense of prosecution laches was "unavailable" as a matter oflaw, 

remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Id. at 

1368. The Federal Circuit thereafter in Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ. & 

Research Found., LP, 277 422 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (Symbol)17 found that said district 

court did not abuse its discretion in holding that 76 claims of Lemelson's patent were 

unenforceable under the doctrine of prosecution laches. Id. at 1380. Significantly the following 

language is found in Symbol: 

We agree with Symbol that the court did not abuse its discretion in 

holding that Lemelson's patents fsre unenforceable under the 

doctrine of pf(l3ceution laches. The doctrine of prosecution laches 

is an equitable defense, Symbol II, 277 F.3d at 1366 (quoting P.l. 

Federico, Commentary on the New Patent Act, 75 l. Pat. & 

Trademark Off. Soc'y 161, 215 (1993)), and we review the 

judgment of the district court on that iSSUe for an abuse of 

discretion, BridgestonelFirestone Research v. Auto. Club, 245 F.3d 

1359, 1361 (Fed.Cir.2001). This court has earlier held in this case 

that prosecution laches may render a patent unenforceable when it 

has issued only after an unreasonable and unexplained delay in 

prosecution. Symbol II, 277 F.3d at 1363, 1368. We did not set 

forth any firm guidelines for determining when such laches exists, 

but left this determination to the district court on remand, as the 

defense exists as an equitable doctrine. In so doing, however, we 

discussed precedent such as Woodbridge v. United States, 263 U.S. 

50,44 S.Ct. 45, 68 L.Ed. 159 (1923), and Webster Electric Co. v. 

SplitdorfElectrical Co., 264 U.S. 463, 44 S.Ct. 342,68 L.Ed. 792 

(1924), wherein the Supreme Court applied the doctrine of 

prosecution laches to render patents unenforceable. Although those 

17 The Federal Circuit in Symbol characterized Symbol's declaratory action against 

Lemelson in the district court (301 F.Supp. 2d 1147 (D.Nev. 2004) as Symbol III. 

157 
cases involved a nine-and-a-half-year delay and an eight-year 

delay, respectively, the Court later held that the presumptive 

two-year time limit referred to in Webster was dictum because it 

was not directly applicable to the issue of laches on which the case 

was decided. Thus, there are no strict time limitations for 

determining whether continued refiling of patent applications is a 

legitimate utilization of statutory provisions or an abuse of those 

provisions. The matter is to be decided as a matter of equity, 

subject to the discretion of a district court before which the issue is 

raised. 

There are legitimate grounds for refiling a patent application which 

should not normally be grounds for a holding of laches, and the 

doctrine should be used sparingly lest statutory provisions be 

unjustifiably vitiated. The doctrine should be applied only in 

egregious cases of misuse of the statutory patent system. 

Filing a divisional application in response to a requirement for 

restriction is one such legitimate reason for refiling a patent 

application. Given one's entitlement to claim an invention in 

various ways, and the PTO'spractice of limiting its examination of 

an application to only one of what it considers to be several 

inventions, it cannot, ,without more, be an abuse of the system to 

file divisional applicativns on various aspects that the PTO has 

considered to be separate and distinct from each other. See 35 

U.S.C. § 121 (2000); 37 C.F.R. § 1.142 (2005); §ee also Manual of 

Patent Examining Procedure §§ 803,818 (8th ea., rev. 22004). 

That is so even when one defers the filing of a divisional 

application until just before the issuance of the parent application. 

Such action is expressly allowed by statute. 35 U.S.C. § 121. 

Moreover, one might legitimately refile an application containing 

rejected claims in order to present evidence of unexpected 

advantages of an invention when that evidence may not have 

existed at the time of an original rejection. Commonly, and 

justifiably, one might refile an application to add subject matter in 

order to attempt to support broader claims as the development of 

an invention progresses, although entitlement to an earlier filing 

date for any claimed subject matter may of course be necessary to 

avoid a statutory bar created by intervening events outlined in 35 

U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. One may also refile an application even in 

the absence of any of these reasons, provided that such refiling is 

not unduly successive or repetitive. 

158 
However, refiling an application solely containing 

previously-allowed claims for the business purpose of delaying 

their issuance can be considered an abuse of the patent system. See 

Bogese, 303 F.3d at 1368-69 (discussing Ex parte Hull, 191 USPQ 

157 (Bd. Pat. App. & Interfs.1975)). In particular, multiple 

examples of repetitive refilings that demonstrate a pattern of 

unjustifiably delayed prosecution may be held to constitute laches. 

Taken singly, the delay in the prosecution on anyone particular 

application will surely not appear to merit relief by the courts in 

equity. On the other hand, an examination of the totality of the 

circumstances, including the prosecution history of all of a series of 

related patents and overall delay in issuing claims, may trigger 

laches. 

The district court here heard considerable evidence that that was 

what occurred in this case. The court found that an 18- to 39-year 

time period had elapsed between the filing and issuance of the 

patents in suit. Symbol 111,301 F.Supp.2d at 1155. That period of 

time is not what is contemplated by the patent statute when it 

provides for continuation and continuation-in-part applications. 

Patent applications should normally be permitted to issue when 

they have been allowed and the statutory requirements complied 

with. The court also found that Lemelson had engaged in "culpable 

neglect" during the prosecutior;t of these applications and it 

recognized the adverse effect on businesses that were unable to 

determine what was patented from what was not patented. Id. at 

1156. It noted that the Lemelson patents occupied the "top thirteen 

positions" for the longest prosecutions from 1914 to 2001. Id. The 

court also cited the existence of "intervening private and public 

rights." Id. at 1157. It concluded that "[i]fthe defense of 

prosecution laches does not apply under the totality of 

circumstances here, the Court can envision very few circumstances 

under which it would." Id. at 1156. Under those circumstances, we 

can hardly conclude that the court abused its discretion in holding 

the involved patents unenforceable on this ground. The court 

thoroughly examined the facts and the equities, and it exercised its 

discretion reasonably. We therefore affirm the district court's 

holding of un enforceability as to the 76 asserted claims. 

(422.F.3d at 1384-86) (emphasis added). In Bogese cited by the Federal Circuit in Symbol supra, 

the Federal Circuit found that: 

159 
During the course of adjudicating the patentability of Bogese's 

patent claims and after Bogese had filed eleven file wrapper 

continuation applications over an eight-year period, the examiner 

required Bogese to make a "substantive amendment to advance 

prosecution" or risk losing his right to a patent. Bogese had an 

opportunity to respond to the PTO's requirement after the PTO 

gave that notice, but he did not, and instead filed another file 

wrapper continuation application without making a substantive 

amendment to advance prosecution. 

On appeal, Bogese makes no serious claim that the PTO acted 

unreasonably on the facts of this case in requiring him to make a 

"substantive amendment to advance prosecution" or in finding 

forfeiture .... Rather, Bogese challenges the PTO's authority to 

require applicants to advance prosecution, urging that he was 

entitled to continue his chain of continuation applications. We 

disagree and hold that the PTO has authority to order forfeiture of 

rights for unreasonable delay. There is no basis for finding the 

PTO's action to be arbitrary on the facts of this case, given that 

Bogese filed twelve continuation applications over an eight-year 

period and did not substantively advance prosecution of his 

application when required and givel1_an opportunity tf" do so by the 

PTO. ' 

In re Bogese 303 F.2d 1362, 1369 (Fed. CiT. 2002) (footnote omitted) (emphasis added). 

It is undisputed that the power ramp-up '004 patent (CX-I) was filed on June 14,2004, 

and the applications resulting in the '966 power ramp-up patent (CX-2) and power ramp-up '847 

patents (CX-3) were both filed on June 29, 2005 (CFF 1.23, CFF 1.31, and CFF 1.40) (all 

undisputed)); that both the '966 and '847 patents are continuations ofthe '004 patent (CFF 1.33 

and CFF 1.42 (all undisputed).); and that these patents claim priority to an application that 

resulted in U.S. Patent No. 5,841,768 (the '768 patent), which was filed on June 27, 1006 (CFF 

1.24, CFF 1.32, and 1.41 (all undisputed).) After the claims of the '768 patent were allowed, five 

continuation applications were successively filed, which led to the issuance of the '004 patent as 

shown by the title page of the '004 patent. (CX-I.) The '966 and '847 patents are continuations 

160 
; ) 

from the '004 patent as also shown by the title pages of said patents (CX-2, CX-3) so there are a 

total of six continuation applications that were filed, and which led to the issuance of there two 

power ramp-up patents. All of those continuation applications resulted in eight issued patents 

which the private parties have termed the power ramp-up patents (RFF IV-224 (undisputed in 

relevant part). Thus the six continuation applications starting from the '768 patent and leading to 

the '966 and '847 patents all resulted in issued patents: the '004 patent, '966 patent, '847 patent, 

'768 patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,181,949 (the '949 patent), U.S. Patent No. 6,493,563 (the '563 

patent), U.S. Patent No. 6,571,105 (the '105 patent), and U.S. Patent No. 6,839,567 (the 

'567 patent) (CX-I, CX-2, CX-3, CX-4, CX-16, CX-I5, CX-13, and CX-260.) (CFF 6.3 

(undisputed).) As for any claim of priority for the power ramp-up patents in issue, the claim of 

priority for the '004 patent spans 10 years and just over 3 months; the claim of priority for the 

'966 patent spans 10 years and just over 8 months; the claim of priority for the '847 patent spans 

11 years and close to 4 months. (CFF 6.4-6.6 (all undisputed).) However, it is also undisputed 

t1iat InterDigital substantively responded to all office actions to address rejections in prosecution 

of the power ramp-up patents instead of waiting until the last day of the response period and 

filing a continuation without a substantive response. (CX-8, CX-9, CX-IO, CX-I7, CX-I4, CX11, CX-256, and CX-258.) (CFF 6.7 (undisputed).) In addition during the collective prosecution 

of the applications resulting in the '768, '949, '563 , '105, and '567 patents, there was only one 

instance in which applicants took an extension to respond to an office action and that response 

was filed only three days after the original due date. (CX-14, IDC-007949804 - IDC-ITC007949813 (8111/200 reply and extension oftime in application leading to the '949 patent); see 

also, CX-I7, CX-I4, CX-I1, CX-256, and CX-258.) Moreover during the prosecution ofthe 

161 
'004 patent, the Examiner issued only one office action and the claims were allowed within two 

years of the filing date. (CX-8 at ITC-COMP00007717 - ITC-COMP00007728 (notice of 

allowance regarding the '004 patent)). During the prosecution of the '004 patent, InterDigital 

substantively responded to the office action with an examiner interview, claim amendments, and 

a terminal disclaimer. (CX-8 at ITC-COMP00007242 - ITC-COMP00007278 (summary of 

interview conducted on 2/22/06, Reply, and Terminal Disclaimer dated 2/24/06)). In addition, 

the '966 and '847 patents were prosecuted in parallel. (CX-9 and CX-I0). Moreover, during 

prosecution of both the applications leading to the '966 and '847 patents, InterDigital filed 

preliminary amendments and terminal disclaimers before the issuance of any office action and 

both of these applications were subsequently allowed on the first action. (CX-9 at 

. NITC-COMP00003615 - NITC-COMP00003636 (preliminary amendments dated 1 i/7/06 and 

11/9/06 relating to the '966 patent), NITC-COMP00003641 - NfrC-COMP00003643 [11101/06 

terminal disclaimer relating to the '966 patent], and NITC-COMP00003660-

NITC-COMP00003663 (notice of allowance relating to the '966 patent); CX-I0 at 

IDC-ITC-010498163 - IDC-ITC-010498185 (11/8/06 preliminary amendment relating to the '847 

patent), IDC-ITC-Ol 0498194 - IDC-ITC-010498211 (11/10/06 terminal disclaimer relating to the 

'847 patent), and IDC-ITC-OI0498221 - IDC-ITC-010498249 (notice of allowance relating to the 

'847 patent)). 

Nokia argued that InterDigital took more than 10 years to prosecute the '004 patent 

measured from the priority date of the 768 patent to the issuance of the '004 patent, even though 

{ 

162 
} (RRCFF 6.1A and 6.1B.) Nokia however measures 

the time record from the priority date of the '768 patent, although Nokia cites no precedent for 

starting with the priority date. To the contrary, courts in treating the issue have started with the 

filing of the U.S. application. Thus the Court in Novo Nordisk Pharma., Inc. v. Bio-Technology 

General Corp" 2004 WL 1739720 (D.Del. 2004) in finding that defendants may not rely on the 

doctrine of prosecution laches to render a '352 patent unenforceable stated: 

Even if the court were to consider the merits of this defense, 

defendants fail to prove the defense of prosecution laches by clear 

and convincing evidence. The Federal Circuit held in Symbol 

Tech. v. Lemelson Med., 277 F.3d 1361 (Fed.Cir.2002), that the 

equitable doctrine of laches may be applied to bar enforcement of 

patent claims that issued after an unreasonable and unexplained 

delay in prosecution, even though the applicant complied with 

pertinent statutes and rules. Since neither Congress nor the Federal 

Circuit has provided any further guidance on the legal standard 

applicable to the prosecution laches defense, this court has focused 

the inquiry on two precepts. The initial inquiry is based on the 

"unreasonable and unexplained delay" rule set forth in In re 

Bogese, 303 F.3d 1362, 367 (Fed.Cir.2002), with primary attention 

on the "reasonableness of the delay." Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v. 

Computer Motion, Inc., No. 01-203-SLR, 2002 WL 31833867, *3 

(D.Del. Dec.l0, 2002). Second, in reviewing the record to 

determine whether the delay at issue was unreasonable and 

unexplained, the court must consider the fact that prosecution 

laches is an equitable tool which has been used sparingly in only 

the most egregious of cases. Id. There is no evidence of record to 

suggest that plaintiffs unreasonably delayed in filing claim 1 of the 

'352 patent. To the contrary, plaintiffs appear to have actively 

pursued the invention of claim 1 from the filing of the 1984 U.S. 

application through a series of five continuation applications to the 

application which granted as the '352 patent. The court also does 

not consider a ten year span from the filing of the 1984 U.S. 

application to the filing of the application which became the '352 

patent surprising or even uncommon since the prosecution of a 

single application often requires significant time, on average from 

163 
three to five years. Indeed, at least one other district court has held, 

post-Symbol, that a delay of more than nine years between the 

filing of a parent application and the issuance of a continuation or 

divisional patent is not unreasonable. See Gen-Probe Inc. v. Vysis, 

Inc., No. 99-CV-2668H (S.D.Cal. Aug. 5,2002) (holding that an 

eleven year delay between the filing and the issuance of a patent is 

not unreasonable). Moreover, this court has held that the relevant 

inquiry is not whether the patentee unreasonably delayed in filing 

specific claims in a patent application. Intuitive Surgical, 2002 WL 

31833867 at *5. Rather, it is whether the patentee unreasonably 

delayed in prosecuting those claims once filed. Thus, the court 

concludes that plaintiffs did not obtain claim 1 of the '352 patent 

after an unreasonable and unexplained delay in prosecution. 

Accordingly, defendants may not rely on the doctrine of 

prosecution laches to render the '352 patent unenforceable. 

Id. at 33. (emphasis added). 

With respect to pendency of patent applications in the Patent Office, the administrative 

law judge has taken judicial notice of web sites which show the following: the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office issues a Performance and Accountability Report each fiscal year 

and measures the "Patent Average Total Pendency" (See,~, USPTO, Performance and 

Accountability Report: Fiscal Year 2007, p. 16, which is publicly available at 

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/annual/2007/2007annualreport.pdf); the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office defines "Patent Average Total Pendency" as a measure of "the time 

from filing until the application is issued as a patent or abandoned by the applicant" (USPTO, 

Performance and Accountability Report: Fiscal Year 2007, p. 16, which is publicly available at 

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/annua1l200712007annualreport.pdf) in 2006; the United 

States Patent and Trademark Office measured the "Patent Average Total Pendency" as 31.3 

months (USPTO, Performance and Accountability Report: Fiscal Year 2007, p. 16, which is 

publicly available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/annual/2007/2007annualreport.pdf); 

164 
and in 2007, the United States Patent and Trademark Office measured the "Patent Average Total 

Pendency" as 31.9 months. (USPTO, Performance and Accountability Report: Fiscal Year 

2007, p. 16, which is publicly available at 

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/comJannual/2007/2007annualreport.pdf). In addition from the 

filing date to the issue date, the time of pendency of the '768 patent was only 2 years, 4 months, 

and 29 days. (CX-4 at ITC-COMP0001441 1.) From the filing date to the issue date, the time of 

pendency of the '949 patent was only 3 years and 25 days. (CX-16 at ITC-COMP00008021.) 

From the filing date to the issue date, the time of pendency of the '563 patent was only 2 years 

and 19 days. (CX-15 at RX0009-001.) From the filing date to the issue date, the time of 

pendency of the '105 patent was only 1 year, 2 months, and 27 days. (CX-13 at 

ITC-COMP00001270.) From the filing date to the issue date, the time of pendency ofthe '567 

patent was only 1 year, 9 months, and 10 days. (CX-260 at ITC-COMP00000701.) From the 

filing date to the issue date, the time of pendency of the '004 patent was only 2 years, 3 months, 

and 20 days. (CX-1 at ITC-COMP00005644.) From the filing date to the issue date, the time of 

pendency ofthe '966 patent was only 1 year, 8 months, and 14 days. (CX-2 at 

ITC-COMPOOOI6933.) From the filing date to the issue date, the time of pendency of the '847 

patent was only 2 years, 3 months, and 25 days. (CX-3 at ITC-COMP00021139.) Thus the time 

of pendency for the '004 patent, the '966 patent, the '847 patent and the patents from which the 

'004, '966, and '847 patents claim priority is summarized in the following chart: 

165 
0,571,105 ~arch 1, 2002 May 27, 2003 1 year, 2 months, 27 

days 

0,839,567 March 26, 2003 ~anuary 4,2005 1 year, 9 months, 10 

days 

r,117,004 June 14, 2004 pctober 3, 2006 2 years, 3 months, 20 

days 

7,190,966 June 29, 2005 March 13,2007 1 year, 8 months, 14 

days 

7,286,847 June 29, 2005 pctober 23, 2007 2 years, 3 months, 25 

days 

(CX-4 at ITC-COMPOOOI4411; CX-16 at ITC-COMP00008021; CX-15 at RX0009-001; CX-13 

at ITC-COMPOOOOI270; CX-260 at ITC-COMP00000701; CX-l at ITC-COMP00005644; CX-2 

at ITC-COMPOOOI6933; CX-3 at ITC-COMP00021139.) As seen from said chart, the time of 

pendency for the '004, '966, and '847 patents is less than the "Patent Average Total Pendency" for 

issued or abandoned U.S. patent applications in 2006 and 2007 found supra. Also the time of 

pendency for the patents from which the '004, .'966, and '847 patents claim priority is consistent 

with the 2006 and 2007 measurements of "Patent Average Total Pendency" by the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office found supra even though these patents issued before 2006. 

Regarding Nokia's argument that{ 

166 
} (JX10C at 109-11 0, 123, 130-131.)18 

Nokia relies on{ 

} (JX-9C at 87-88, JX-lOC at 75.) 

Nokia, references{ 

} See 

JX-17C, Boles Dep. Tr. at 187-207; JX-23C, Dowling Dep. Tr. at 118-120, 121-124. 

Nokia relying on{ 

18 While Nokia had the burden to establish an unreasonable and unexceptional delay in 

prosecution, Nokia did not call { } to testify live at the evidentiary hearing. 

167 
} (JX-lOC 

Donch, Dep. Tr. at 70-72.) 

Nokia argued that InterDigital's delays in prosecution prejudiced Nokia and the public. 

The administrative law judge however can finding nothing in the statute or regulations, which 

require that an applicant pursue in the Patent Office all of his or her inventions in parallel. 

Moreover, the facts in this case are nowhere comparable to the almost 30-year period of 

uncertainty between the disclosures first made public by Lemelson in his 1962 and 1963 patents 

and the claims finally granted in 1989 and the early 1990 on those same disclosures. See Symbol 

II, 301 F. Supp.2d at 1155-56. 

Nokia argued that since 1999, Nokia has invested a significant amount of money into 

research, development, and production of 30 WCDMA complaint handsets worldwide. (RFF IV1120.) and that InterDigital's "intentional delays" in prosecution prejudiced Nokia and the public 

(RBr at Sec. IV, p. 8.) The administrative law judge has found supra that any delays were not 

unreasonable. Moreover, Nokia has invested a significant amount of money into its standards 

activities which include: { 

} 

168 
Based on the foregoing the administrative law judge finds that respondents have not 

sustained their burden in establishing that the power ramp-up patents are unenforceable due to 

prosecution laches. 

v. The '579 Patent 

The '579 patent is titled "Generation of User Equipment Identification specific 

Scrambling Code for the High Speed Shared Control Channel" and is issued on December 6, 

2005. (CFF 1.12; 1.13 (both undisputed).) The inventors of the '579 patent are Stephen G. Dick, 

Nader Bolourchi, and Sung-Hyuk Shin. (CFF 1.14 (undisputed).) The '579 patent is based on 

Patent Application Serial No. 101187,640, filed on July 1,2002. (CFF 1.15 (undisputed).) The 

'579 patent has 5 independent claims and 5 dependent claims. (CFF 1.17 (undisputed).) Claims 

1,3, and 4 of the '579 patent are being asserted against Nokia in this investigation. (CFF 1.18 

(undisputed).) 

A. Undisputed Facts 

The parties have stipulated to the following involving undisputed technology relating to 

the '579 patent: 

In wireless cellular systems, a user equipment ("UE") (or as also 

commonly referred to "a cellular phone," "a handset," "a 

subscriber unit," or "a mobile station") is configured to 

communicate with one or more base station. 

When the UE is used to send or receive information, it does so by 

communicating with a base station serving the area in which the 

UE is located. 

The wireless communication link over which information is 

transmitted from the base station to the UE is generally referred to 

as the "downlink" or "forward-link." 

The wireless communication link over which information is 

169 
transmitted from the UE to the base station is generally referred to 

as the "uplink" or "reverse-link." 

In order to allow for increased amounts of information to be 

transmitted from a base station to one or more UEs, a technology 

referred to as High Speed Downlink Packet Access ("HSDP A") is 

used. HSDPA is a wireless communication protocol that provides 

for increased data transmission rates available in the downlink. 

HSDP A uses both data and control channels. High Speed Shared 

Control Channels ("HS-SCCH") carry control information from 

the base station to UEs, and High Speed Physical Downlink Shared 

Channels ("HS-PDSCH") carry data from the base station to UEs. 

To support HSDPA operations, HSDP A also includes an uplink 

channel that allows a UE to send certain types of information to the 

base station. This HSDP A uplink channel is not relevant to any of 

Complainants' and Respondents' disputes regarding the '579 

Patent. 

The base station transmits information to several UEs 

simultaneously over several sets of channels. 

Each set of channels includes an HS-SCCH and one or more HSPDSCHs. Because these are "shared" channels, each UE receives 

each of the channels - and therefore, each UE needs to determine 

whether transmitted information is intended for it (rather than for 

one of the other UEs). 

The HS-SCCHs are transmitted from the base station to the UEs 

two time slots (a time slot is 2/3 of a millisecond) before the HSPDSCHs are transmitted - i.e., the UEs receive the HS-SCCH 

ahead of the HS-PDSCHs. The information on the HS-SCCH can 

be used by a UE to determine whether data intended for that UE 

has been transmitted on one or more Hs-PDSCHs. 

The HS-SCCH is formed of two parts, Part 1 and Part 2. 

The HS-SCCH Part 1 information contains control information that 

a UE needs to read data transmitted on a HS-PDSCH. Specifically, 

the Part 1 information includes information for identifying a set of 

channelization codes and a modulation scheme used on the HSPOSCHs. 

170 
(SX-4 at 2-4.) 

The HS-SCCH part 2 information contains additional control 

information for reading data transmitted on the HS-PDSCHs and 

detecting transmission errors that the control information may have 

been subjected to. 

In order to address a particular UE, the network assigns each UE a 

UE identifier, or "UE ID". The UE ID is used by the base station 

and the UE to generate a user specific scrambling sequence. 

B. Experts 

Complainants' expert Dr. Richard Gitlin was qualified as an expert on 

telecommunications and wireless technology. (Tr. at 942.) 

Respondents' expert Dr. Apostolos Kakaes was qualified as an expert on wireless mobile 

communications. (Tr. at 1283-1284; see RFF III-72 (undisputed.).) 

C. Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art 

Complainants' expert Gitlin opined that for the '579 patent, a person of ordinary skill 

would have a bachelor's or a master's degree in electrical engineering or related fields of physics, 

math, or computer science, with three to five years experience in said fields. (Tr. at 945 at 16-21.) 

Respondents' expert Kakaes opined that for the '579 patent, a person of ordinary skill 

would have a bachelor's or master's degree in electrical engineering, computer science, 

mathematics or a related field, with four years of experience in the area of wireless 

communications, including at least about two years of experience dealing with issues related to 

coding. (Tr. at 1288.) Kakaes opined that, alternatively, one of ordinary skill could have a Ph.D. 

in one of said fields and less experience, including at least one year of experience with coding 

schemes used in communications. (Tr. at 1288.) 

171 
Based on the testimony of the experts and the technology in issue the administrative law 

judge finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a bachelor's degree in 

electrical engineering, computer science, mathematics or a related field, and at least some 

working experience in the area of wireless communications including issues related to coding 

with the exact amount of working experience dependent on the person's degrees. 

D. Claims In Issue 

Asserted claims 1, 3 and 4 are at issue. Asserted independent claim 1 recites: 

1. An apparatus comprising: an input configured to accept a user 

identification comprising L bits; and a 112 rate convolutional encoder for 

processing at least the bits of the user identification by a 112 rate convolutional 

code to produce a code used for scrambling a high speed shared control channel 

(HS-SCCH). 

Asserted independent claim 3 recites: 

3. A user equipment comprising: an input configured to accept a 16 bil user 

identification; and a 112 rate convolutional encoder for processing the 16 bJ user 

identification code with eight appended zero bits to produce a 48 bit code for use 

in descrambling a high speed shared control channel (HS-SCCH). 

Asserted dependent claim 4 recites: 

4. The user equipment of claim 3 further comprising a rate matching block 

for puncturing eight bits after the production of the 48 bit code. 

E. Claim Construction 

The underlying law on claim construction is found in Section IV E supra. 

1. The claimed phrase "apparatus" 

The claimed phrase "apparatus" appears in the preamble of asserted claim 1. Thus said 

preamble recites: "An apparatus comprising: ... " (CX-5 at 3:6.) 

172 
Complainants argued that it is appropriate to consider the preamble limitation "apparatus" 

to give context to the claim term "code used for scrambling." (CRBr at 5.) 

Respondents argued that the phrase "apparatus" requires no construction because said 

term appears in the preamble of claim 1 and is not necessary to understanding the limitations in 

the body of the claim. (RBr at Sec. III, pp. 16-17.) Respondents argued in the alternative, 

however, that if the term "apparatus" is construed, said term must be a base station, not because 

the word "apparatus" is limited to a base station, but because the body of the claim recites the 

functional limitation of "scrambling a high speed shared control channel (HS-SCCH)," which 

can only be performed by a base station. (RBr at Sec. III, pp. 17-18.) 

The staff argued that construction of the phrase "apparatus" in the preamble of claim 1 is 

required because said term gives context to the rest of the claim. (SBr at 35-36.) 

; 1 The administrative law judge finds that a person having ordinary skill in the art would 

find no definition of any of the claimed invention's limitations in the claimed phrase "apparatus." 

In fact, the word "apparatus" does not even state the purpose or intended use of the claimed 

invention. See Rowe, Coming Glass, and Kropa,in Section IV E supra. With the exception of the 

preambles of asserted independent claim 1 and unasserted dependent claim 2,19 the term 

"apparatus" is not recited in the' 579 patent. Thus, the administrative law judge finds that said 

19 Said claim 2 reads: 

2. The apparatus of claim 1 further comprising a rate 

matching block for puncturing bits after the production of 

the 1/2 rate convolutional code. 

(CX-3 at 3:13-15.) 

173 
person would construe "apparatus" pursuant to its dictionary definition20 and look to the language 

of the claims following "comprising" to construe what said "apparatus" relates to. 

2. The claimed phrase "a code used for scrambling a high speed 

shared control channel (RS-SCCR)" 

Complainants argued that the phrase "a code used for scrambling" of claim 1 means "a 

scrambling sequence." (CBr at 7.) It is argued that the same code is used at the user equipment 

(UE) and the base station; that the '579 patent specification uses the terms "scrambling code" and 

"scrambling sequence" interchangeably; that said phrase should not be limited to only the base 

station; that both "scrambling code" and scrambling sequence" are used in the '579 patent 

specification in the context of a descrambling operation at the UE; that the claim language itself 

demonstrates that the claimed phrase "to produce a code used for scrambling a high speed-shared 

control channel" simply melms that the Yz rate convolutional encoder generates a particular type 

of code, namely, a scrambling code for the high-speed control channel and that nothing in the' i 

ordinary meaning of this phrase further limits the claim such that the scrambling code must then 

actually be used in a scrambling process; that claim 1 is not limited to a particular operation that 

is eventually performed using a scrambling code, which the specification teaches is used at the 

base station to scramble and at the UE to descramble; and that respondents' expert Kakaes 

testified that descrambling involves the application of a scrambling sequence. (CBr at 7-10; 

CRBr at 6.) 

20 "Apparatus" is defined in the dictionary as "[t]he totality of means by which a 

designated function is performed or a specific task executed." See Webster's II New Riverside 

University Dictionary at 118 (1984). Alternatively, an "apparatus" is defined as "[a] machine." 

Id. 

174 
Respondents argued that "scrambling a high speed shared control channel (HS-SCCH)" 

means "applying a scrambling sequence to unscrambled data prior to transmission of the data on 

an HS-SCCH" and that said phrase recites the intended use of the code produced by the 

convolutional encoder and constitutes a functional limitation on the scope of claim 1. (RBr at 

Sec. III, p. 20; RRBr at 58.) According to respondents, the only "scrambling" disclosed in the 

specification is the process where a scrambling sequence is applied by the base station to 

unscrambled data prior to transmission of the data on HS-SCCH; that the phrase "scrambling a 

high-speed shared control channel" is a functional limitation and does not require a process step 

any more than the original claim language does; and that complainants' construction of the term 

"a code used for scrambling" as "a scrambling sequence" renders the claim language meaningless 

because it ignores that the produced code must be "used for scrambling the HS-SCCH" as recited 

in claim 1 and it ignores the language of claims 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9, which selectively use either the 

term scrambling (claims 1, 7, and 9) or descrambling (claims 3 and 5) to describe the functional 

limitations placed on the code produced by the Yz rate convolutional coder. (RBr at Sec. III, pp. 

20-23.) Respondents further argued that complainants' expert admitted that complainants' 

construction of "used for scrambling" would rewrite the phrase to include a code "used for 

scrambling or descrambling"; and that complainants' view that claim 1 requires only the 

production of the code with no limitation placed on how that code must be used by the apparatus 

violates fundamental canons of claim construction because it reads out an entire functional 

limitation. (RRBr at 57-58.) 

The staff argued that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the correct 

construction of a "code used for scrambling a high speed shared control channel" is a "code used 

175 
for applying a scrambling sequence to unscrambled data prior to transmission of the data on a 

high speed shared control channel." (SBr at 38.) The staff further argued that it is evident from 

the plain language ofthe passage in column 1, lines 65-67 of the '579 patent cited by 

complainants that "a code" performs scrambling or descrambling, i.e., one or the other, and that 

contrary to complainants' argument, the passage does not state or suggest that the same code 

performs both scrambling and descrambling. (SRBr at 13.) The staff also argued that although 

complainants' expert Gitlin testified that he construes a "code used for scrambling" to mean a 

"scrambling sequence," he acknowledged in his previous testimony from the 601 investigation 

that he interprets a "scrambling sequence" to be a "code used for scrambling or descrambling." 

(SBr at 39.) Thus, the staff argued that Gitlin's construction is inconsistent with the plain 

language of the claims, which recites "a code used for scrambling," not "a code used for 

scrambling or descrambling"; and that to construe a "code used for scrambling" in the way 

suggested by Gitlin would essentially negate the meaning of code, which is error. (SBr at 39-40.) 

Referring to the language of the claims in issue, as found supra, the claimed phrase "a 

code used for scrambling ... [an HS-SCCH]" appears in its entirety only in claim 1 of the '579 

patent. Thus, claim 1 reads in relevant part: 

An apparatus comprising: 

* * * 

a Yz rate convolutional encoder for processing at 

least the bits of the user identification by a Yz rate 

convolutional code to produce a code used for 

scrambling a high speed shared control channel 

(HS-SCCH). 

176 
(CX-3 at 3:9-12 (emphasis added).) A similar phrase "code for use in scrambling ... [an HSSCCH]" appears in unasserted independent claims 7 and 9. However, in both claims 7 and 9, a 

code is produced by a base station for the purpose of scrambling an HS-SCCH for transmissions 

to a user equipment. Thus, claim 7 reads: 

A base station comprising: 

an input configured to accept a 16 bit user 

identification; and 

a 112 rate convolutional encoder for processing the 

16 bit user identification code with eight appended 

zero bits to produce a 48 bit code for use in 

scrambling a high speed shared control channel 

(HS-SCCH) for a user equipment associated with 

the 16 bit user identification. 

(CX-3 at 4:6-14 (emphasis added).) Claim 9 reads: 

A base station comprising: 

an input configured to accept a 16 bit user 

identification; and 

means for 112 rate convolutional encoding the 16 bit 

user identification code with eight appended zero 

bits to produce a 48 bit code for use in scrambling a 

high speed shared control channel (HS-SCCH) for a 

user equipment associated with the 16 bit user 

identification. 

(CX-3 at 4: 18-26 (emphasis added).) The administrative law judge finds nothing in the language 

of the claims of the '579 patent to indicate that the claimed phrase "code used for scrambling ... 

[an HS-SCCH]" in asserted claim 1 has a different meaning than the nearly identical term "code 

for use in scrambling ... [an HS-SCCH]" in unasserted independent claims 7 and 9. In each of 

claims 1, 7 and 9, a code is produced for use in scrambling an HS-SCCH for transmission of 

177 
scrambled data. Moreover, in unasserted independent claims 7 and 9, the plain language of the 

claims, supra, shows that the code is produced by a base station for a user equipment. 

In contrast to the language of claims 1, 7 and 9, in asserted independent claim 3 and 

unasserted independent claim 5 of the' 579 patent a code is produced by a user equipment for the 

purpose of de scrambling an HS-SCCH. Thus, said claim 3 reads in relevant part: 

A user equipment comprising: 

* * * 

a 1/2 rate convolutional encoder for processing the 

16 bit user identification code with eight appended 

zero bits to produce a 48 bit code for use in 

descrambling a high speed shared control channel 

(HS-SCCH). 

(CX-3 at 3:16-23 (emphasis added).) Said claim 5 reads: 

'!. 

A user equipment comprising: 

an input configured to accept a 16 bit user 

identification; and 

means for 112 rate convolutional encoding the 16 bit 

user identification code with eight appended zero 

bits to produce a 48 bit code for use in descrambling 

a high speed shared control channel (HS-SCCH). 

(CX-3 at 3:27-4:2 (emphasis added).) Hence, the administrative law judge finds that a person 

having ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the language of the claims distinguishes 

between codes produced for use in scrambling, as in claims 1, 7 and 9, and codes produced for 

use in de scrambling, as in claims 3 and 5, and that said person would treat "scrambling" and 

"de scrambling" as separate operations. 

178 
Referring to the specification of the' 579 patent and the production of a code used in 

scrambling or de scrambling the HS-SCCH, the specification, under "Background," recites: 

... the present invention relates to user equipment 

specific scrambling sequences for [HS-SCCHs]. 

* * * 

The information for a particular UE is distinguished 

by its UE identification (UE ID) specific scrambling 

sequence. The UE processes each monitored HSSCCH with its UE ID specific scrambling sequence 

to detect the HS-SCCH intended for the UEYI] 

After processing, the UE determines on which 

HHS-SCCH, if any, information was carried using 

its scrambling sequence. The UE de scrambles the 

data carried on Part-l of its HS-SCCH using its 

scrambling sequence. [22] 

Until recently, a 10 bit UE ID was used as the basis 

for the UE ID specific scrambling sequence. In thi8 

case, this UE ID was converted into a 40 bit . --I, scrambling sequence. To tum the 10 bit UE ID into 

the 40 bit UE ID specific scrambling sequence, the 

10 bit UE ID is processed by a Reed-Muller block 

to produce a 32 bit code. The first 8 bits of the 

produced code are repeated and appended onto the 

back of the 32 bit code to produce a 40 bit code. 

* * * 

To reduce the occurrence of false detections, it is 

desirable to have good separation between the 

produced scrambling codes for each UE ID. 

Accordingly, it is desirable to have alternate 

approaches to producing scrambling codes. 

21 It is undisputed that the specification uses the terms "scrambling code" and 

"scrambling sequence" interchangeably. (CFF 2.35 (undisputed).) 

22 It is undisputed that HS-SCCH consists of two parts: Part 1 and Part 2. (RFF III -100 

(undisputed). ) 

179 
(CX-3 at 1:12-15, 32-62 (emphasis added).) The specification, under "Description of the 

preferred embodiments," discloses: 

FIGS. lA and IB are diagrams of a preferred UE ID 

specific scrambling sequence circuit.. .. [N]o 

additional hardware is required to generate the 

convolutionally encoded UE ID specific scrambling 

sequence .... 

FIGS. 2A and 2B are diagrams of preferred UE ID 

specific scrambling sequence circuit [ s] for a 

preferred UE ID codes [sic] oflength 16 .... After 

being processedby the 1/2 rate convolutional 

encoder 14, the output code is 48 bits in length .... 

To reduce the length of the code to a preferred 

length of 40 bits, eight bits are preferably 

punctured.... After the rate matching stage 16, the 

effective length of the scrambling code is 40 bits. 

FIG. 4 is a simplified diagram of a user equipment 

descrambling a HS-SCCH using the UE ID specific 

scrambling code. The UE ID scrambling code is 

mixed, such as by exclusive-or gate 18, with the 

received HS-SCCH for use in recovering the 

encoded HS-SCCH data. 

FIG. 3 is a simplified diagram of a base station 

scrambling encoded data with the UE ID specific 

scrambling code for transfer over the HS-SCCH. 

The encoded data is mixed with the UE ID 

scrambling code, such as by exclusive-or gate 20, 

for a particular user. ... 

180 
(CX-3 at 2:29-31, 42-44, 47-49,53-67,3:1-3 (emphasis added).)23 The language of the 

specification (see reference to Figs. lA, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3 and 4, supra) thus recites the process for 

creating a scrambling sequence,24 which the specification in tum discloses may be used either for 

scrambling (by a base station} or de scrambling (by a user equipment). As described in the 

specification, supra, the scrambling sequence is a string of bits, preferably 40 bits in length, 

which is combined with data to scramble the data for a specific user equipment. 

The administrative law judge finds that the specification's disclosure of "scrambling" is 

consistent with the specification's disclosure of "descrambling." With respect to 

"descrambling," it is undisputed that the "descrambling" operation described in the specification 

is always performed by the user equipment (UE), never by the base station. (RFF III-116 

(undisputed).) In addition to describing the "de scrambling" operation as always performed by 

the UE, the specification discloses that said "de scrambling" pperation is performed by the UE 'on 

scrambled data that are carried on the HS-SCCH. For example, see background section supra. 

Also, see description of the preferred embodiment Fig. 4 supra. Thus, the administrative law 

judge finds that the specification discloses that the "descrambling" operation is performed at the 

23 Similarly, the Abstract of the '579 patent provides that "[a] code is produce[d] for use 

in scrambling or descrambling data associated with ... [an HS-SCCH] for a particular user 

equipment." (CX-3 at ITC-COMP00000002.) Thus, like the specification, the Abstract of the 

'579 patent discloses that a code used in both processes is the same code. The Summary of the 

patent includes identical language. (CX-3 at 1 :65-67.) 

24 As seen from the foregoing portions of the specification, the specification of the patent 

refers to the code interchangeably as a "scrambling sequence," "scrambling code" or "output 

code." In addition, as seen from the language related to FIG. 3, supra the specification discloses 

that the operation of "scrambling" is performed at the transmitter end of the HS-SCCH (M., at 

the base station), using a scrambling code, prior to transferring the scrambled data on the HSSCCH. 

181 
user equipment end of the HS-SCCH on data that is carried on the HS-SCCH. In other words, 

the specification discloses that data is scrambled with the UE ID specific scrambling code or 

sequence prior to transmission on the HS-SCCH, then transmitted on the HS-SCCH and 

subsequently descrambled at the UE using the UE ID specific scrambling code or sequence. He 

further finds based on the specification, supra, that a person having ordinary skill in the art would 

conclude that the terms "scrambling sequence," "scrambling code" and "output code" are 

equivalent as used in the' 579 patent. 

The administrative law judge also finds that the prosecution history of the '579 patent 

application also supports that "scrambling" as recited in claim 1 means applying a scrambling 

code or sequence prior to transmission on the HS-SCCH and that "scrambling" and 

descrambling" are distinct operations. During prosecution ofthe '579 patent application, the .'.: 

Examiner rejected all claims, including independent claim 1, as being anticipated by U.S. Patent , 

No. 6,539,041 to Hi Chan Moon (Moon) which is directed to a system for synchronizing fraome 

rates in a CDMA system. (CX-12 at 81.) In response, the applicants of the '579 patent provided 

the following distinctions between the' 579 patent invention and the prior art Moon reference: 

At least the bits of the user identification [in the claimed 

invention] are processed by a half rate convolutional 

encoder to produce a code used for scrambling or 

descrambling a high speed shared control channel (HSSCCH). 

Moon does not disclose scrambling or descrambling of a 

high speed shared control channel. The portions referred in 

the office action of Moon refer to scrambling and 

potentially descrambling of a paging channel. Accordingly, 

the invention is already distinguished from Moon. 

182 
(CX-12 at 90 (emphasis added).) The Examiner subsequently issued a Notice of Allowability. 

(CX-12 at 140.) Applicants argued in said amendment that Moon related to "scrambling or 

de scrambling of a paging channel," and thus did not disclose "scrambling or descrambling ... [an 

HS-SCCH]." Id. Thus, in the language of the amendment, supra, the applicants distinguished 

between "scrambling" and "de scrambling" as distinct operations. Hence, the prosecution history 

indicates that at least one of the basis for distinguishing claim 1 of the '579 patent from the Moon 

reference is said prior art's disclosure of "scrambling and potentially descrambling a paging 

channel" and not the HS-SCCH. (See RFF III-397.) 

Based on the plain language of the claims, the specification which discloses that a 

scrambling sequence may be used either for scrambling (by a base station) or descrambling (by a 

user equipment) and prosecution history of the '579 patent, the administrative laW judge finds 

that a person having ordinary skill in the art would interpret the phrase "scrambling" in asserted 

claim 1 to mean "to combine unscrambled data with a scrambling sequence to produce scrambled 

data, such that the unscrambled may only be recovered from the scrambled data by using an 

identical scrambling sequence." 

The administrative law judge also finds that the extrinsic evidence supports that 

"scrambling a high speed shared control channel (HS-SCCH)" means applying a scrambling 

sequence to unscrambled data prior to transmission of the data on an HS-SCCH. With respect to 

the '579 specification, respondents' expert Kakaes testified: 

[The passage describing Figure 3] confirms what one would 

understand from reading all of the patents, that what 

scrambling is, is what happens at the base station for a very 

simple reason of the high-speed shared control channel is a 

down link channel only, as I believe has been said 

repeatedly. The scrambling is what happens at transmitter. 

183 
And, therefore, the scrambling process happens at the base 

station, scrambling the high-speed shared control channel 

which is intended to be transferred to an end user. 

(Tr. at 1355:22-1356:7 (emphasis added).) Thus, Kakaes testified that one of ordinary skill 

would understand that HS-SCCH is a downlink channel and that "scrambling" in the' 579 patent 

occurs prior to transmission on the HS-SCCH. 

In addition, complainants' expert Gitlin admitted that HS-SCCH is a downlink-only 

channel, which is never transmitted by a handset, and that scrambling is done at the base station 

and that descrambling is done at the UE. Specifically Gitlin testified: 

Q. Now, handsets, the high-speed shared control channel, that is a 

downlink-only channel, right? 

A. Yes 

Q. It is never transmitted by a handset, right? 

A. The channels we're talking about are downlink direction. 

Q. So the high-speed shared control channel is never transmitted by a 

handset, right? 

A. I would - yes. 

Q. Is the scrambling operation in HS-DPA of the high speed shared control 

channel done only at the base station? 

A. Yes, as I have said this morning in describing the system, scrambling is 

done at the base station. 

Q. And the operation of descrambling, that happens only at the handset, 

right? 

A. Descrambling is done at the UE, the mobile. 

184 
(Tr. at 1108:9-1109:16.) Also see Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary at 1048 

(1984 ) (defining "scramble" as "to distort or garble (a signal) in order to make it unintellible 

without a special receiver"); accord Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online (defining "to scramble" 

as "to disarrange the elements of a transmission (as a telephone or television signal) in order to 

make unintelligible to interception" and "de scramble" as "to restore (scrambled communication) 

to intelligible form"). 

Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that a "code used for 

scrambling a high speed shared control channel" is a "a string of bits used to scramble 

unscrambled data prior to transmission of the data on a high speed shared control channel (HSSCCH)." 

Complainants argued that their construction does not read the word "scrambling" out of 

the claim because the term "for scrambling" modifies the noun "code," thus describing,the type 

of code being generated. (CRBr at 7.) The administrative law judge finds this argument 

inconsistent with testimony by complainants' expert Gitlin, who maintained that "the code used 

for scrambling is a scrambling sequence that could be used for scrambling or descrambling." (Tr. 

at 1109:24-1110:1 (emphasis added); see also Tr. at 1127:10-20.) As pointed out by the staff, to 

construe a "code used for scrambling" as a "code used for scrambling or descrambling" would 

essentially negate its meaning. (SRBr at 15.) 

3. The claimed phrase "a 48 bit code for use in descrambling a high 

speed shared control channel (HS-SCCH)" 

The claimed phrase in issue is found in asserted independent claim 3 in issue. 

Complainants argued that the term "a 48 bit code for use in descrambling a high speed 

shared control channel (HS-SCCH)" as recited in claim 3 means "a sequence of 48 bits that 

185 
(when output from the 12 rate convolutional encoder) is used to generate a scrambling sequence 

that is used for de scrambling the HS-SCCH." (CBr at 10-11.) Complainants further argued that 

their construction of"48 bit code for use in descrambling" in claim 3 is consistent with their 

construction of "code used for scrambling" in claim 1; and that said respective phrases are not 

parallel because the former is used in the specific context of a UE (claim 3) whereas the latter is 

used in the general context of an apparatus (claim 1); that the' 579 patent would not support an 

interpretation of claim 3' s "48 bit code for use in de scrambling" as describing a "de scrambling 

code" because the '579 patent specification makes no reference to a "de scrambling sequence" but 

makes clear that the same "scrambling sequence" is used to scramble and descramble; and that 

there is notable difference in the intended use language ofUE or base station specific claims 3, 5, 

7, and 9 ("for use in scrambling/de scrambling") and generic claim 1 ("code used for 

scrambling'

1). (CBr at 11-12.) 

Complainants also argued that the plain and ordinary meaning for the phrase 

"descrambling" in the claimed term in issue which is recited in asserted claim 3 is "to undo the 

effect of scrambling to recover the original data" and thus "de scrambling a high speed shared 

control channel" means "undoing the scrambling to recover the original Part 1 data from the high 

speed shared control channel." (CBr at 13.) Complainants further argued that "de scrambling" is 

not defined by the '579 patent to have a particular meaning and that consequently said phrase 

should be given its plain and ordinary meaning; and that the plain and ordinary meaning as 

reflected in the dictionary is to "unscramble" data, with "unscramble" being defined to mean "to 

restore (a scrambled message) to intelligible form". (CBr at 13-15.) Complainants also argued 

that respondents cannot credibly ignore the plain meaning of "de scrambling" by relying upon 

186 
Figure 4 of the '579 patent, which is described as a "simplified diagram" from the specification. 

(CRBr at 7-8.) 

Respondents argued that the phrase "de scrambling a high speed shared control channel 

(HS-SCCH)" in the claimed term in issue means "applying a scrambling sequence to the 

scrambled data received on an HS-SCCH to recover the data scrambled prior to transmission." 

(RBr at Sec. III, p. 25.) According to respondents, "descrambling a high speed shared control 

channel (HS-SCCH)" is the inverse operation of "scrambling a high speed shared control channel 

(HS-SCCH)" that is recited in claim 1; that whereas the scrambling phrase of claim 1 requires 

applying a scrambling sequence to unscrambled data in order to scramble (or mask) it prior to 

transmission on HS-SCCH, the de scrambling term of claim 3 requires applying the sequence to 

scrambled data received on the HS-SCCH in order to descramble (or damask) it. (RBr at Sec. III, 

pp.25-28.) Respondents further argued that complainants' proposed construction of 

"descrambling" is deceptive because while it appears on its face to mean recovering the 

information that existed prior to scrambling, it contains the buried distinction that the 

information that is recovered is not the information that was scrambled at the base station. (RRBr 

at 60.) It is argued by respondents that complainants define the "Part 1 data" in their construction 

to be the original eight (8) Part 1 bits that are encoded and rate matched to produce the 40 bit 

sequence that is actually scrambled at the base station and that this slight-of-hand construction 

allows complainants to apply their construction to any process that recovers the original 8 Part 1 

bits, regardless whether or not the bits that are actually scrambled are ever descrambled. (Id.) 

The staff argued that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the correct 

construction of "48 bit code for use in de scrambling" in the claimed phrase in issue which is 

187 

I,'· 
recited in asserted claim 3 is "a sequence of 48 bits that (when output from the Yz rate 

convolutional encoder) is used to generate a scrambling sequence that is used for descrambling 

the HS-SCCH" because it is consistent with the claim context and intrinsic record. (SBr at 40.) 

The staff points out that although its proposed construction of"48 bit code for use in 

descrambling" uses the same words as complainants' construction of"48 bit code for use in 

descrambling," the respective constructions do not have the same meaning because complainants 

and the staff disagree as to the meaning of the term "descrambling." (SBr at 40.) The staff 

argued that a person of ordinary skill would understand that "de scrambling" in the claimed 

phrase in issue which is recited in asserted claim 3 is simply the inverse operation of the 

"scrambling" process. (SBr at 40-41.) 

Independent claim 3 uses only the term "descrambling" and does not use the phrase 

"scrambling." Thus, claim 3 reads in relevant part: 

A user equipment comprising ... a 112 rate convolutional 

encoder for processing the 16 bit user identification code 

with eight appended zero bits to produce a 48 bit code for 

use in descrambling a high speed shared control channel 

(HS-SCCH) 

(CX-5 at 3:16-23 (emphasis added).) The administrative law judge finds that a person of 

ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the plain meaning of "de scrambling" in asserted 

claim 3 is a process to reverse scrambling. Thus, said person would conclude that the plain 

language of the claim describes a code, 48 bits in length, that is used in the processing of 

scrambled data carried on an HS-SCCH to produce the data that was scrambled. 

Referring to the specification ofthe '579 patent, the claimed term "descrambling" ofthe 

claimed phrase in issue appears four times. The Abstract of the' 579 patent merely refers to a 

188 

·1,·: 
code "for use in scrambling or de scrambling data associated with a high speed shared control 

channel" but provides no detail as to implementation of said processes. (CX-3.) Also, 

"scrambling and descrambling" are listed as processes applied to "data associated with [an HSSCCH]" using a code, with no details provided as to how either process should be implemented. 

(CX-3 at 1 :65-67.) The Background section of the specification additionally recites that, as part 

of the process "[t]o obtain its Part-l information," each handset monitors four HS-SCCHs, 

processes each HS-SCCH with its UE ID specific scrambling sequence, and "de scrambles the 

data carried on Part-l of its HS-SCCH." (CX-3 at 1 :31-41.) No additional detail is provided in 

the Background as to what data is produced by this descrambling or whether any additional 

processing required to recover the Part 1 information. Id. However as found supra, it is 

undisputed that the operation of' 'descrambling" described in the specification is always 

performed by the UE, never by the base station. (RFF III-116 (undisputed).) In addition, as found 

supra, the specification also discloses that said "descrambling" operation is performed by the UE 

on scrambled data that are carried on the HS-SCCH. (See CX-5 at 1 :32-42.) In particular, the 

specification of the '579 patent describes the relationship between the operation of 

"descrambling" and the operation of "scrambling" with respect to Figures 3 and 4: 

Fig.3 is a simplified diagram of a base station scrambling encoded 

data with the UE ID specific scrambling code for transfer over the 

HS-SCCH. The encoded data is mixed with the UE ID scrambling 

code, such as by an exclusive-or gate 20, for a particular user. The 

scrambled data is used to produce the HS-SCCH for transfer to the 

particular user. 

Fig. 4 is a simplified diagram of a user equipment descrambling a HSSCCH using the UE ID specific scrambling code. The UE ID scrambling 

189 
code is mixed, such as by exclusive-or gate 18, with the received HSSCCH for use in recovering the encoded HS-SCCH data. 

(CX-5 at 2:61-3:4 (emphasis added). Thus, the specification discloses that data is scrambled 

with the UE ID specific scrambling code or scrambling sequence at one end (Shg. base station) 

prior to transmission on the HS-SCCH, and that said data is subsequently recovered at another 

end (Shg. user equipment) using the UE ID specific scrambling code or scrambling sequence. In 

other words, there is an inverse relationship between the process of scrambling and the process of 

descrambling. 

In addition, the administrative law judge has found supra with reference to the claimed 

phrase "a code used for scrambling a high speed shared control channel (HS-SCCH)" of claim 1 

that the prosecution history supports a finding that "scrambling" and "descrambling" are distinct 

operations. 

The extrinsic evidence also supports that "scrambling" and "descrambling" are distinct 

and inverse operations and that "descrambling a high speed shared control channel (HS-SCCH)" 

means "applying a scrambling sequence to the scrambled data received on an HS-SCCH to 

recover the data scrambled prior to transmission." With respect to the '579 specification, 

respondents' expert Kakaes testified: 

[A] person of ordinary skill in the art by reading all the related documents would 

understand that de scrambling happens at the receiving end and de scrambling 

high-speed shared control channel would mean that one would apply the 

scrambling sequence to the scrambled data that's received with the intent to 

descramble it. Of course when I said received, that would be on the high-speed 

shared control channel. And the intent of the de scrambling process would be to 

recover the data that was previously scrambled as it was prior to being scrambled 

in the transmission. 

(Tr. at 1359-1360.) 

190 
Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that one of ordinary skill in the 

art would understand the process of "descrambling" as the "inverse" of scrambling, and that data 

is scrambled with a scrambling code or sequence at one end of the HS-SCCH (~. base station) 

prior to transmission and that said data is subsequently recovered using the specific scrambling 

sequence at the user end of the HS-SCCH (~. user equipment). Accordingly, the administrative 

law judge finds that the language "de scrambling a high speed shared control channel (HSSCCH)" in the claimed term in issue means "applying a scrambling sequence to process the 

scrambled data received on an HS-SCCH to reproduce (recover) the data scrambled prior to 

transmission." 

With respect to the entire claimed phrase in issue "a 48 bit code for use in descrambling a 

high speed shared control channel (HS-SSCH)," it is undisputed that the '579 patent discloses 

that "the output code [from the Yz rate convolutional encoder] is 48 bits in length" and "[t]o 

reduce the length ofthe code to a preferred length of 50 bits, eight bits are preferably punctured." 

(CFF 2.49 (undisputed).) It is also undisputed that the '579 patent discloses that "[a]fter the rate 

matching stage 16, the effective length of the scrambling code is 40 bits." (CFF 2.50 

(undisputed).) Thus, the specification discloses that the scrambling code or sequence is 

generated from the 48 bit output from the Yz rate convolutional encoder. Accordingly, the 

administrative law judge finds that "a 48 bit code for use in descrambling a high speed shared 

control channel (HS-SSCH)" means "a sequence of 48 bits (output from the Yz rate 

convolutional encoder) used to generate a scrambling sequence that is used to process scrambled 

data transmitted on a high speed shared control channel (HS-SCCH) to reproduce data that was 

scrambled. " 

191 
Complainants argued that the fact the simplified diagram disclosed in the specification 

shows recovery of encoded data does not trump the express teaching from the background 

section of the specification that the descrambling operation at the UE is intended to "[0 ]btain its 

Part-1 information." (CRBr at 8.) Specifically, complainants cite the following passage from the 

background section of the '579 patent: 

To obtain its Part-1 information, each HSDP A UE monitors up to 

four HS-SCCHs for its information. The information for a 

particular UE is distinguished from other UEs by its UE 

identification (UE ID) specific scrambling sequence. The UE 

processes each monitored HS-SCCH with its UE ID specific 

scrambling sequence to detect the HS-SCCH intended for the UE. 

After processing, the UE determines on which HS-SCCH, if any, 

information was carried using its scrambling sequence. The UE 

descrambles the data carried on Part-1 of its HS-SCCH using its 

scrambling sequence. 

(CX-5 at 1 :31-41.) However, the administrative law judge finds that the only occurrence of 

"de scramble" in said section cited by complainants is the last sentence: 

The UE descrambles the data carried on Part-1 of its HS-SCCH 

using its scrambling sequence. 

(CX-5 at 1:39-41.) The administrative law judge finds that this sentence merely describes 

descrambling of data carried on Part-1 of the HS-SCCH and does not describe de scrambling as 

the process of obtaining the original Part 1 information control channel bits itself. Moreover, as 

shown by testimony from complainants' expert Gitlin, there is a distinction between the original 

unencoded Part-1 information, which is only eight (8) bits, and the actual encoded signal of 40 

bits that becomes presented to the scrambling operation. (Tr. at 970:5-16; see also RRCFF 

2.62B-D.) 

192 
Complainants further argued that Figure 4 is described as a "simplified diagram," not a 

preferred embodiment; that a routine decoding step would be used to recover the Part-l bits from 

the encoded HS-SCCH data; and that the fact that the decoding step is not shown in the 

simplified diagram does not exclude this subsequent step. The administrative law judge finds 

that Figure 4, which does not show any decoding step, is a preferred embodiment since it is 

described under the preferred embodiments section of the '579 patent. Moreover, complainants' 

expert Gitlin admitted that the process of descrambling is completed if the intention is to recover 

the encoded high-speed shared control channel data. (Tr. at 1124: 15-18 ("If all you're intention is 

to recover the encoded high-speed shared control channel data, I would say you have done - you 

have completed the descrambling.")) 

4. The claimed phrase "1/2 rate convolution encoder" 

Complainants argued that the phrase "1/2 rate convolution encoder" as recited in claims 1 

and 3 means "a convolutional encoder that effectively doubles an input sequence of bits." (CBr at 

lb.) Complainants further argued that the "1/2 rate convolution encoder" is not limited to any 

particular implementation in hardware or software, but rather can be implemented in many 

different ways, including a shift register approach and a table-driven approach; and that the 

intrinsic evidence does not define "1/2 rate convolution encoder" as requiring a specific ratio of 

input to output bits. (CBr at 16-17.) 

Respondents argued that a "1/2 rate convolution encoder" as recited in claims 1 and 3 is 

"an encoder where the relationship between the output and the input can be described by the 

mathematical operation called convolution and where the ratio of the number of input bits to 

output bits is 1 to 2." (RBr at Sec. III, p. 36.) According to respondents, complainants takes the 

193 
disingenuous position that the intrinsic evidence does not define "112 rate convolution encoder" 

as requiring a specific ratio of input to output bits; and that complainants' argument ignores the 

term "112 rate" which distinguishes the claimed convolutional encoder from other encoder from 

other encoders by specifying that the "rate" of the encoder is "112"; that every witness in the 

hearing agreed that a Yz rate convolutional encoder produces two output bits for every input bit; 

and that complainants' own construction concedes that the claimed encoder "effectively doubles" 

the number of input bits at the output. (RRBr at 64.) Respondents further argued that 

complainants ignored the requirement that a "convolutional" encoder must generate output bits 

from the input bits using the operation of "convolution"; and that complainants' emphasis that 

either a shift register approach or a table-driven approach may be used to implement a 

convolutional encoder misses the point because the mere presence of a table or a shift register ill 

an encoder implementation does not make that encoder a convolutknal encoder. (RRBr at 65.) 

According to respondents, both parties' constructions agree on a cmcial point: a Yz rate 

convolutIOn encoder outputs 2 bits for every input bit, as the name "112 rate" specifies; that the 

parties' respective constructions differ with respect to how a convolutional encoder should be 

defined; and that regardless of the difference in construction, both parties' experts agree that the 

process of convolution requires a series ofXOR sums of the current input bit with certain defined 

previous input bits, which allows the encoder to accept an arbitrary number of input bits. 

The staff argued that it discerned no meaningful distinction between complainants' and 

respondents' proposed construction of"Yz rate convolutional encoder" and that either 

construction would be appropriate. (SBr at 38.) 

194 
The claimed phrase "112 rate convolutional encoder" appears in asserted independent 

claims 1 and 3 ofthe 'S79 patent. (CX-S, col. 3.) Thus, independent claim 1 recites: 

An apparatus comprising: an input configured to accept a 

user identification comprising L bits; and a 112 rate 

convolutional encoder for processing at least the bits of the 

user identification by a 112 rate convolutional code to 

produce a code used for scrambling a high speed shared 

control channel (HS-SCCH). 

(CX-S at 3:6-8 (emphasis added).) In addition, independent claim 3 recites: 

A user equipment comprising: an input configured to accept 

a 16 bit user identification; and a 1/2 rate convolutional 

encoder for processing the 16 bit user identification code 

with eight appended zero bits to produce a 48 bit code for 

use in descrambling a high speed shared control channel 

(HS-SCCH). 

(CX-S at 3:16-23 (emphasis added).) The language of the claims does not, hmvever, define said 

.. t'(' phrase in issue. 

Referring to the specification, the parties agree that the specification of the 'S79 patent 

discloses that the 12 rate convolutional encoder produces an output that is double the length of the 

input (CX-S at 2:49-SS ("The 16 bit UE ID is input into a 12 rate convolutional encoder 14 along 

with eight zero bits appended onto the end of the input string ... After being processed by the 12 

rate convolutional encoder 14, the output is 48 bits in length .... ")). (RFFIII-480 (undisputed).)25 

The specification further discloses that said input is a sequence of bits. (See CX-S at 2:29-34 

("FIGS. lA and IB are diagrams of a preferred UE ID specific scrambling sequence circuit. A 

UE ID, XUE, of length L is input into the circuit. L can be any length, such as 8 bits, 10 bits, 16 

25 The parties also agree that a "Yz rate convolutional encoder" must for each 

input bit produces two output bits. (RFF 1lI-479 (undisputed).) 

19S 
bits, etc. The UE ID, XUE = {XUEI, ... ,XUEL}, is input into a liz rate convolutional encoder 10 

as shown in FIG. lA."). 

As found supra, during prosecution ofthe '579 patent application, the Examiner rejected 

all claims, including independent claims 1 and 3, as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 

6,539,041 to Moon. (CX-12 at 81.) In response, the applicants ofthe '579 patent application 

provided the following distinctions between the '579 patent invention and the prior art Moon 

reference: 

Furthermore, to generate a scrambling sequence for the 

paging channel, Moon discloses using some sort of long 

code mask, which is not described in the specification. 

Then Moon inputs that long code mask into a long code 

generator to produce a long code. Subsequently, the length 

of the code is decimated prior to scrambling the paging 

data. This is an entirely different arrangement than the 

present invention, where first, a user identification is used 

and, second, a half rate convolutional encoder. As well 

known in the art, a half code convolutional encoder 

effectively doubles the rate of an input code. 

(CX-12 at 90-91 (emphasis added).) Thus, the administrative law judge finds that the 

specification as well as the prosecution history of the '579 patent application discloses that a "1/2 

rate convolutional encoder" is a convolutional encoder that effectively doubles the length of an 

input sequence of bits. 

Turning to extrinsic evidence, respondents' expert Kakaes testified: 

Q. And would a half-rate convolutional encoder have been something 

a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been familiar with 

in 2002, early 2002? 

A. Yes. 

Q. What would a person of ordinary skill in the art have understood a halfrate convolutional encoder to be in that time frame? 

196 
A. A half rate convolutional encoder would have been understood to 

be an encoder that for every one bit that comes into it, produces 

two bits of output. Thus, the phrase one-half. The value of those 

two output bits would be generated according to mathematical 

operation called convolution, whereby the input could be 

convolved with characteristic impulse response of the specific rate 

one-half convolutional encoder. 

(Tr. at 1313-1314 (emphasis added).) Thus, the administrative law judge finds that one of 

ordinary skill the art would understand "convolutional encoder" to be an encoder where the 

relationship between the output and the input can be described by the mathematical operation 

called "convolution." 

Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that "112 rate convolutional 

encoder", which was known by a person of ordinary skill in the art in early 2002, is "a 

convolutional encoder that effectively doubles an input sequence of bits," and that the term 

"cornrolutional encoder" means "an encoder where the relationship between the output and the 

input can be described by the mathematical operation called convolution." 

F. Infringement 

The underlying law on infringement is found in Section IV supra. 

1. Accused Products 

The accused HSPDA handsets include the handsets containing{ 

} 

2. { } 

With respect to claim 1 of the '579 patent, complainants argued that infringement of said 

197 
claim by the accused { } based handsets depends solely on whether the 

administrative law judge decides to adopt complainants' construction for the claimed term 

"apparatus" to mean "base station andlor a user equipment," or alternatively to accept 

respondents' narrower construction of the claimed term "apparatus" as being limited to only a 

base station. According to complainants, respondents do not dispute that all elements of claim 1 

are satisfied by the { 

respondents agree that the { 

} based handsets under complainants' constructions; that 

} based handsets are { 

} 

With respect to claim 3 ofthe '579 patent, complainants argued that the accused 

{ } based handsets infringe claim 3 under complainants' claim constructions, literally 

or under the doctrine of equivalents; that respondents do not dispute that the accused 

{ } based handsets are { 

} 

198 
{ 

} 

Complainants also argued that the accused { } based handsets infringe claim 3 

of the' 579 patent under respondents' claim constructions, literally or under the doctrine of 

equivalents; { 

} 

Complainants further argued that the accused { } based handsets infringe 

dependent claim 4 of the '579 patent under either party's proposed claim constructions because 

every accused { 

} 

Respondents argued that the { } 

199 
{ } 

With respect to claim 1, respondents argued that the { 

} 

With respect to claim 3, respondents argued that the{ 

} 

200 
{ } Respondents also argued that the{ 

} 

The staff argued that the preponderance of the evidence did not establish that the{ 

} 

Referring to independent claim 1 of the '579 patent, the administrative law judge found in 

Section V E2 supra that a "code used for scrambling a high speed shared control channel 

(HS-SCCH)" is a "a string of bits used to scramble unscrambled data prior to transmission of the 

data on a high speed shared control channel (HS-SCCH)" and that "scrambling" and 

"descrambling" are separate operations. It is undisputed that each of the accused { } 

201 
{ 

} Accordingly, the administrative law 

judge finds that complainants have not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the 

accused { } based handsets infringe claim 1 of the '579 patent, either literally or 

under the doctrine of equivalents. 

Referring to independent claim 3 of the '579 patent, the administrative law judge found in 

Section V E3 supra that "descrambling a high speed shared control channel (HS-SCCH)" means 

"applying a scrambling sequence to process the scrambled data received on an HS-SCCH to 

reproduce (recover) the data scrambled prior to transmission." With respect to said limitation, 

respondents' expert Kakaes testified: 

{ 

202 
} 

(Tr. at 1451 :7-1452:14 (emphasis added).) Referring to RX-0105C and RDX1903, respondents' 

witness { 

} 

203 
{ 

} 

204 
{ 

} 

205 
{ 

} 

(Tr. at 1174-1179 (emphasis added); RX-0105 and RDX1903.) 

As the testimonies from Kakaes and Mawhinney show, { 

206 

} 
{ 

{ 

} 

} 

207 
{ } 

(Gitlin, Tr. at 1130:3-1131 :5.) 

Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that complainants have not 

established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the{ } based handsets practice 

the limitation "descrambling a high speed shared control channel (RS-SCCR)" as recited in claim 

3 and that complainants have not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the 

{ } based handsets infringe said claim, either literally or under the doctrine of 

equivalents. The administrative law judge further finds that complainants have not shown, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, that the { } based handsets infringe claim 4, either 

literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, due to its dependence on independent claim 3. 

3. 

{ 

{ } 

With respect to claims 1,3 and 4 of the '579 patent, complainants argued lhat the accused 

} based handsets infringe said claims under complainants' proposed claim 

constructions literally or, alternatively, under the doctrine of equivalents. (CBr at 60.) According 

to complainants, { 

} 

208 
{ } 

Respondents argued that the { } based handsets use { 

} (RBr at Sec. III, p. 5.) Respondents further argued that the 

{ 

} Respondents also argued that Nokia's { 

} 

The staff argued that the preponderance of the evidence does not demonstrate that the 

{ } based handsets satisfY the "code used for scrambling a high speed shared control 

channel" limitation of claim 1. (SBr at 53.) It is argued that respondents' expert Kakaes 

personally considered the { 

} 

The staff also argued that the preponderance of the evidence does not demonstrate that 

the { } based handsets satisfY the "48 bit code for use in de scrambling" limitation of 

209 
claim 3. (SBr at 55-56.) According to the staff, respondents' expert Kakaes credibly testified that 

{ 

} 

With lespect to the claimed phrase "1/2 rate convolutional encoder" recited in asserted 

independent claims 1 and 3, the administrative law judge found in Section V E4 supra that the 

phrase "convolutional encoder" means "an encoder where the relationship between the output and 

the input can be described by the mathematical operation called convolution," and that the 

claimed phrase in issue means "a convolutional encoder that effectively doubles an input 

sequence of bits." For the accused{ 

handsets { 

} based handsets, it is undisputed that said 

In addition, respondents' expert Kakaes testified: 

{ 

} 

210 

} 
{ 

} 

(Tr. at 1443:6-22.) Hence, the administrative law judge finds that the{ 

} 

Complainants argued that their expert Gitlin testified that respondents{ 

} 

The administrative law judge however finds that the Yz rate convolutional encoder of the 

preferred embodiment ofthe '579 patent does not{ 

} the '579 patent discloses that the 

"16 bit DE ID ... is input into a Yz rate convolutional encoder 14 along with eight zero bits 

211 
appended onto the end of the input string," that "[a]fter being processed by the Y2 rate 

convolutional encoder 14, the output code is 48 bits in length," and that "to reduce the length of 

the code to a preferred length of 40 bits, eight bits are preferably punctured." (CX-5 at 2:49-55 

(emphasis added).) By contrast, { 

} (Tr. at 1083:6-7.) Moreover, as the following testimony of respondents' expert Kakaes 

shows: 

{ 

} 

(Tr. at 1385:3 -15 (emphasis added).) Hence, the administrative law judge finds that the { 

} Thus the 

212 
administrative law judge finds that the{ 

} Thus, as respondents' expert Kakeas testified: 

{ 

} 

(Tr. at 1385 -1386 (emphasis added); RDX-1919C.) 

Referring to said { 

} 

(CBr at 61-62.) Specifically, complainants cited to the following excerpts from the deposition 

testimony of respondents' witness Pirttiaho: 

213 
{ 

} 

(JX-48C at 179, 199); The administrative law judge finds that the { 

} (See CX-48 at 194-199.) The administrative law judge further finds that the 

said testimony shows only that the { 

} 

{ 

214 
{ 

} (JX-48C 

at 86:14-96:6 and 189:21-198:22; Tr. at 1385:17 -1386:14.) 

Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that the{ 

} The administrative law judge further finds that complainants have not shown, by 

preponderance of the evidence, that the{ } based handsets infringe claim 4, either 

literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, due to its dependence on independent claim 3. 

G. Validity 

The underlying law a validity is found in Section IV G supra. 

Respondents argued that InterDigital does not dispute that each individual element of the 

asserted claims of the '579 patent is disclosed in the 3GPP Document No. R1-02-0463 entitled 

"Way Forward on HS-SCCH" (Motorola Way Forward Proposal; RX-59), 3GPP Document No. 

R1-02-0482 entitled flUE specific masking for HS-SCCH" (Siemens 482 Proposal; RX-60), and 

3GPP Document No. R1-02-061O entitled "Performance of the HS-SCCH" (Motorola 610 

Proposal; RX -1214); that InterDigital cannot dispute that the exact combination of elements 

215 
recited in claims 1, 3 and 4 was known to those skilled in the art, except for the specific 

combination that uses the disclosed 112 rate convolutional encoder to process the 16 bit DE ID in 

addition to the 16-bit Part 1 information for which the 12 convolutional encoder was previously 

used; that the invalidity ofthe '579 patent therefore turns on a single question: would it have 

been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the disclosed 112 rate convolutional channel 

encoder for the Reed Muller channel encoder that was previously used in order to accommodate 

a 16 bit DE ID (as opposed to the previously used 10 bit UE ID); and that the answer to this 

question is undoubtedly yes. (RBr at Sec. III, p. 53.) 

According to respondents, for a 16 bit input, one of ordinary skill in the art would have 

had every reason to at least to try the existing 12 rate convolutional encoder to produce a 40 bit 

scrambling sequence from the 16 bit DE ID because the existing 12 rate convolutional encoder (i) 

was "staring oat one's face" from the front page of the Motorola Way Forward Solution, the 

Siemens 482 proposal, and the Motorola 610 proposal, (ii) would have allowed complete reuse of 

functionality already existing in the 3GPP standard, and (iii) would have been expected to 

function well because the separation (Hamming Distance) properties of the code output by a 12 

rate convolutional encoder do not change based on the nature (as opposed to the length) of the 

input. (RBr at Sec. III, pp. 54-55.) 

Complainants argued that respondents have not met their burden of demonstrating, by 

clear and convincing evidence, that any of claims 1, 3, and 4 of the '579 patent is invalid in view 

of the Way Forward Proposal (RX-59), the Siemens 482 Proposal (RX-60), and the Motorola 

610 Proposal (RX-1214). (CBr at 116.) According to complainants, respondents' expert Kakaes 

acknowledged that an essential element, i.e., "a 12 rate convolutional encoder," in each asserted 

216 
claim is missing from the prior art but instead proposes that this missing element would be 

obvious allegedly because "the rate one-half convolutional encoder could be just replicated, if 

you will, reused in the scrambling sequence generation path [and] the problem would be solved." 

(CBr at 117.) 

Complainants further argued that while the '579 patent may be concise and easy to 

understand in hindsight, it is important that its inventiveness is not overlooked in view of its 

simplicity; that there was an unresolved problem with HSDP A implementation prior to the '579 

patent; that Interdigital one-half rate convolutional encoder solution corresponding to the '579 

patent was immediately selected and incorporated into the 3GPP standard; that at the time of the 

'579 patent, there was a large number of encoders known in the art; that at the time of the '579 

patent no accepted evaluation criteria for selecting HS-SCCH scrambling sequence generators; 

that secondary considerations shown nonobviousness ofthe '579 patent; and that during 

prosecution of a continuation of the '579 patent, the Examiner determined that its pending claims 

were sufficiently overlapping in scope with claims I-lOin the '579 patent to warrant 

double-patenting rejections, which were overcome by a terminal disclaimer to the '579 patent, 

and that after considering Kakaes' October 17, 2007 invalidity expert report and each and every 

asserted reference in this Investigation, nevertheless determined that "the prior art of record fails 

to teach using a high speed shared control channel to combine user equipment identification data 

and Yz rate convolutional encoding to produce a scrambled code." (CBr at 117-137.) 

The staff argued that the evidence does not clearly and convincingly show that claims 1, 

3, and 4 of the '579 patent is invalid as obvious; that to support a finding of obviousness over a 

combination of prior art references, respondents have the burden to show by clear and convincing 

217 
evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had both a reason to use a Yz rate 

convolutional encoder in place of the 10, 32 block encoder to generate a scrambling sequence 

and a reasonable expectation that the Yz rate convolutional encoder would work; that the evidence 

fails to demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reason to use a Yz rate 

convolutional encoder as a scrambling sequence generator at the time of the '579 invention; that 

none of the prior art references discloses or suggests the use of a convolutional encoder as a 

scrambling sequence generator; and that the evidence also does not clearly and convincingly 

demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the '579 invention would have 

had a reasonable expectation of success. (SBr at 62-63.) 

It is undisputed that each of the references at issue with respect to validity, viz. the "Way 

Forward proposal", the "Siemens 482 Proposal", and the document entitled "Motorola 610", are 

prior art to the' 579 patent. The parties however dispute the limitations of claims 1 and 3 that 

involve the 112 rate convolutional encoder. Claim 1 recites "a 112 rate convolutional encoder for 

processing at least the bits of the user identification by aJ/2 rate convolutional code to produce a 

code used for scrambling a high speed shared control channel." (CX-3 at 3:9-12.) The 

administrative law judge has found, in Section V E 2 supra, that "a code used for scrambling a 

high speed shared control channel (HS-SCCH)" means "a string of bits used to scramble 

unscrambled data prior to transmission of the data on a high speed shared control channel 

(HS-SCCH)." Claim 3 recites "a 112 rate convolutional encoder for processing the 16 bit user 

identification code with eight appended zero bits to produce a 48 bit code for use in descrambling 

a high speed shared control channel (HS-SCCH)." (CX-3 at 3:20-24.) 

The Motorola Way Forward Proposal was presented at the 3GPP Radio Access Networks 

218 
Working Group No.1 (RAN WGl) Meeting No. 24. (RX-59 at 1.) It is undisputed that 

complainants' expert Gitlin testified that said reference (RX-59) does not disclose any means of 

scrambling sequence generation and instead discloses that the method for generating the UE-ID 

based scrambling sequence is to be determined. (CFF 4.10 and 4.16 (both undisputed); see also 

RX-59 at 1 ("The post convolutionally encoded Part-l is scrambled by the UE ID as shown in 

Figure 2. The type of scrambler is TBD.") (emphasis added).) It is also undisputed that 

respondents' expert Kakaes admits that in spite of "staring them in the face," Motorola in said 

reference did not propose using a half-rate convolutional encoder to generate the scrambling 

sequence. (CFF 4.6 (undisputed).) 

The Way Forward proposal (RX-59) "outlines a way forward dn designing an HSSCCH." (RX-59 at 1.) Said proposal discloses that data is subjected to "R=1I2 Convolutional 

Coding," followed by "Rate Matching." (RX-59 at Fig. 1.) The output of the "R=1I2 

Convolutional Coder + Rate Matcher" is then "scrambled by the UE ID .... " (RX-59 at 1, Fig. 2.) 

Thus, the 112 mte convolutional encoder disclosed in the Way Forward proposal is used to 

encode data prior to applying a UE ID specific scrambling sequence. (RX-59 at 1.) 

The Siemens 482 Proposal was also presented at the 3GPP RAN WG 1 Meeting No. 24. 

(R.X-60 at 1.) It is undisputed that complainants' expert Gitlin testified that said reference 

(RX-60) does not disclose use of a half-rate convolutional code as a scrambling sequence 

generator and that respondents' expert Kakaes admits Siemens in said reference did not propose 

using a half-rate convolutional encoder to generate a scrambling sequence. (CFF 4.7 and 4.11 

(both undisputed).) Instead, the administrative law judge finds that said reference discloses a 

(32, 10) Reed-Muller block encoder that converts a 10 bit UE ID into a 32 bit output. (RX-60 at 

219 
1; Tr. at 1868.) It is undisputed that the (32, 10) Reed-Muller block encoder was already defined 

in the 3GPP standard for accepting a 10 bit input value and producing a 32 bit output value. (CFF 

4.45 (undisputed).) In order to generate a 40 bit UE ID based scrambling sequence, the Siemens 

482 Proposal discloses repeating the first eight bits of the 32 bit output from the Reed-Muller 

block encoder and appending those repeated bits to said output. (CFF 4.20 and 4.47 (both 

undisputed).) Said proposal notes that "[t]he 'way forward' document leaves [the scrambling] 

function TBD [to be determined]." (RX-60 at 1.) 

The Motorola 610 Proposal was also presented at the 3GPP RAN WG 1 Meeting No. 24. 

(RX 1214 at 1.) Again, it is undisputed that complainants' expert Gitlin testified that said 

reference (RX-1214) does not disclose use of a half-rate convolutional encoder as a scrambling 

sequence generator and that respondents' expert Kakaes admits that Motorola in said ,~eference 

did not propose using a half-rate convolutional encoder to generate a UE ID-spedfic scrambling 

sequence. (CFF 4.8 and 4.12 (both undisputed).) Instead, the administrative law judge finds that 

said reference also discloses a (32, 10) Reed-Muller block encoder that converts a 10 bit UE ID 

into a 32 bit output. (RX-1214 at 1; Tr. at 1868:22-1869:8.) Similar to the Siemens 482 

Proposal, the Motorola 610 Proposal discloses repeating the first eight bits ofthe 32 bit output 

and appending those repeated bits to the output in order to generate a 40 bit UE ID based 

scrambling sequence. (CFF 4.24 (undisputed).) 

The administrative law judge finds that at the next RAN WG 1 Meeting, Meeting No. 25, 

certain RAN WG 1 members pointed out that other 3GPP working groups used a 16 bit identified 

rather than a 10 bit UE ID in their standard specifications, and a discussion took place on the 

issue in general. (RX-62 at 9; Tr. at 1341: 1-4.) The administrative law judge further finds that in 

220 
the following RAN WG 1 Meeting No. 26, representatives from several companies, including 

Interdigital, proposed solutions for generating a user specific scrambling sequence using a 16 bit 

UE ID. (CX-255 at 9-10; Tr. at 774-788.) It is undisputed that InterDigital was the only company 

at that time, among the large number of attendees, to propose a solution that generates the user 

specific scrambling sequence using a one-half rate convolutional encoder, as recited in claims 1, 

3, and 4 ofthe '579 patent. (CFF 4.57 and 4.113 (both undisputed).) Moreover, testimony of 

complainants' expert Gitlin shows that at the time of invention of the '579 patent, there were a 

number of different families of available encoders known in the art; that within each of these 

families there are a large number of parametric variations so that the set of possible encoders 

even larger; that performance as a channel encoder is not an indictor of performance as a 

scrambFng sequence generator; and that work must be done in comparing the performance of 

two. candidate scrambling sequence generators. (Tr. 1867-1869; 1902-1903.) 

Respondents argued that the use of a 'l2 convolutional encoder was the most obvious 

option for generating a scrambling sequence from a 16 bit. (RBr at Sec. III, pp. 54-56.) The 

claimed invention however uses a 112 rate convolutional encoder to generate a scrambling 

sequence from a 16-bit user identification. The cited references disclose only the use of a block 

code to generate a scrambling sequence from a 10-bit user identification. Moreover on February 

13,2004, complainants filed a continuation patent, application no. 101779,431 (the '431 . 

application) (CX-25), which claims priority from the '579 patent. Id., and which issued as u.S. 

Patent No. 7,349,540. (CX-26.) The '431 application shares a common specification with the 

'579 patent. Id. The Examiner in charge of said continuation application determined that its 

pending claims were sufficiently overlapping in scope with claims I-lOin the' 579 patent as to 

221 
warrant double patenting rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101. (CX-0025 at IDC-ITC-010495644 45 

("claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-10 of prior U.S. Patent No. 6,973,579")) To 

obviate these double patenting rejections, InterDigital filed a terminal disclaimer to the '579 

patent. (CX-25, at IDC-ITC-OI0495633.) In the next Office Action, the Examiner allowed all of 

the pending claims in the continuation application. (CX-25, at IDC-ITC-010495597-602.) 

Significantly, the Examiner in charge of the continuation application considered Kakaes's 

October 17,2007, invalidity expert report, as well as each and every one of the references that 

Nokia asserts in this investigation and still determined that the prior art of record fails to teach 

using a high speed shared control channel to combine user equipment identification data and Yz 

rate convolutional encoding to produce a scrambled code. (CX-0025 at IDC-ITC-Ol 0495601.) In 

other words the .. Examiner having considered the prior art, including said asserted references, 

stated in the "examiner's statement of reasons for allowance" ofthe '540 patent application that 

"the prior art of record fails to teach using a high speed shared control channel to combine user 

equipment identification data and is rate convolutional encoding to produce a scrambled code." 

(CX-25 at IDC-ITC-OI0495601 (emphasis added).) Although these asserted references were not 

cited during prosecution of the '579 patent application (Tr. at 852:21-853:15; 854:3-11; CX-5 at 

1), the administrative law judge finds that the Examiner in the '540 patent application determined 

that the pending claims of the '540 patent application were sufficiently overlapping in scope with 

claims 1-10 in the '579 patent as to warrant double patenting rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, in 

response to which a terminal disclaimer was filed for the '579 patent. (CX-25 at 

IDC-ITC-010495633 and IDC-ITC-010495645.) 

Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that respondents have not 

222 
shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that the "Yz rate convolutional encoder" limitation of 

asserted claims 1, 3 and 4 would have been obvious to persons skilled in the art and that 

respondents have not shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that said claims are invalid over 

the asserted references, alone or in combination. 

H. Enforceability 

Respondents argued that while the alleged invention of the' 579 patent directly flowed 

from InterDigital's participation in the 3GPP WGI meetings, and the purported invention was 

merely a trivial update on someone else's idea; that InterDigital failed to cite a single prior art 

publication from 3GPP leading up to the alleged invention of the 579 patent, even though all 

three inventors were unquestionably aware of that art; and that such intentional withholding of 

"material" prior art renders the 579 patent unenforceable. (RBr at Sec. III, pp. 68-69.) 

Specifically, re3pondents argued that the materials not disclosed by InterDigital during 

prosecution ofthe '579 patent are the Motorola Way Forward Proposal (RX-59), the Siemens 482 

Proposal (RX-60), the 3GPP TS 25.212 v5.0.0 standard (RX-38), the Motorola 610 Proposal 

(RX-1214), and TR 25.858 (RX-1211); that the European Patent Office in two different 

application rejected claims that were identical and substantially similar to the '579 patent on the 

Motorola 610 Proposal; that the Japanese Patent Office rejected another foreign counterpart to 

the '579 patent based on 3GPP WG 1 prior ali documents; that the 3GPP prior art documents are 

not cumulative because the only reference cited by the Examiner during prosecution of the '579 

patent application were two patents to Moon which did not disclose the arrangement ofthe '579 

patent; that all three InterDigital inventors were aware of the 3GPP prior art documents because 

they regularly attended the 3GPP WG 1 meetings were the said prior art was discussed; and that 

223 
the most telling evidence of InterDigital's intent is the material that it disclosed in its provisional 

applications but later removed from the utility application that led to the '579 patent. (RBr at Sec. 

III, pp. 69-76.) 

Complainants argued that respondents' inequitable conduct defense fails for at least three 

reasons; that first, none of the asserted references are material because they do not teach or 

suggest the use of a Yz rate convolutional encoder for generating a scrambling sequence; that 

second, the asserted references are cumulative to the admitted prior art before the Examiner of 

the '579 patent application because they disclose earlier implementations of the HS-SCCH that 

are described in the '579 patent; and that third, there is no intent to deceive because there is no 

evidence that any of the inventors or the prosecuting attorney considered these references to be 

material. (CBr at 168.) 

The staff argued (hat no evidence was presented at the hearing that clearly and 

convincingly showed that there was any intent to mislead or deceive the Patent Office and that 

accordingly the evidence did not clearly and convincingly show that the '579 patent is 

unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. (SBr at 68-9.) 

Failing to disclose material information to the Patent Office during prosecution, or 

submitting false material information or statements, coupled with an intent to mislead or deceive 

the Patent Office, constitutes inequitable conduct, which renders a patent unenforceable. See 

Flex-Rest, LLC v. Steelcase, Inc., 455 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2006). "Materiality" and 

"intent" must both be proven by clear and convincing evidence. See Kingsdown Med. 

Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister, Inc., 863 F.2d 867, 872 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (en banc). "Once 

threshold findings of materiality and intent are established, the trial court must weigh them to 

224 
determine whether the equities warrant a conclusion that inequitable conduct occurred." FlexRest, 455 F.3d at 1363 (quoting Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Endo Pharma. Inc., 438 F.3d 1123, 1128 

(Fed. Cir. 2006)). 

Respondents, in support of their allegation, argued that while each of the Way Forward 

Solutions, Siemens 482 Proposal, Motorola 610 Proposal, 3GPP TS 25.212 v5.0.0, and TR 

25.858 v.2.0.0 were never disclosed to the USPTO in the '579 patent application (RRSPFFVI. 

lA), each of those disclose the use of a Y2 rate convolution encoder in the data path ofHS-SCCH 

scrambling (RRSPFF VI.IB); that at the evidentiary hearing respondents' expert Kakaes testified 

that the Way Forward Solution, the Siemens 482 Proposal, and the Motorola 610 Proposal each 

rendered the claims ofthe '579 patent obvious (RRSOFFVI.lD); and that one or more of the 

inventors were aware of each of the Way Forward Solution, Siemens 482 Proposal, Motorola 610 

Proposal, 3GPP TS 25.212 v5.0.0, and TR 25.858 v.2.0.0 (RRSPFF VI.H.) 

While complainants admit that Y2 rate convolutional encoders were known in the art as 

stated in the '579 patent (CBr at 168) and respondents' expert Kakaes admitted that a half-rate 

convolutional encoder would have been something a person of ordinary skill in the art would 

have been familiar with in early 2002, it is undisputed that the Motorola "Way Forward" RI-02-

0463, Siemens RA-02-0482, Motorola RI-02-0610, and TS 25.212 v5.0.0 references all disclose 

the use of a Y2 rate convolutional encoder in the HS-SCCH for the traditional purpose of 

encoding. (CFF 5.26 (undisputed) (emphasis added).) Moreover it is also undisputed that the 

specification of the' 579 patent specifically states that because Y2 rate convolutional encoder are 

already used in existing 3GPP WCDMS systems, no additional hardware is required. (CFF 5.81 

(undisputed).) It is further undisputed that the '579 patent discloses that high speed shared 

225 
control channels are used in HSDP A; that the' 579 patent discloses that a UE identification 

specific scrambling sequence is used in the high speed shared control channels; that the' 579 

patent discloses that a 10 bit UE ID had been used as the basis for the UE ID specific scrambling 

sequence; that the '579 patent discloses that it was proposed to extend the length of the UE ID to 

16 bits; that the '579 patent discloses that Yz convolutional encoders were being used in current 

3GPP WCDMA systems for forward error correction; and that the '579 patent discloses that 

because Yz rate convolutional encoders were being used in current 3GPP WCDMA systems for 

forward error correction, no additional hardware is required to generate the convolutinally 

encoded UE ID specific scrambling sequence. (CFF 5.61-64, 5.66-67 (all undisputed).) The 

administrative law judge finds the admitted prior art in the' 579 patent, supra is cumulative to the 

references relied on by respondents. Significantly, he finds nothing in the references relied on by 

respondents to teach or suggest using a Yz rate convolutional encoder to generate the scrambling 

sequence as claimed in the '579 patent. Thus with respect to the asserted Motorola Way Forward 

Proposal (RX-59), it is undisputed that complainants' expert Gitlin testified that said reference 

does not disclose any means of generating said scrambling sequence and instead discloses that 

the actual method for generating the UE-ID based scrambling sequence is to be determined. (CFF 

4.10 and 4.16 (both undisputed).) The administrative law judge finds that said reference merely 

discloses using a scrambling sequence based on a UE ID (RX-59 at 1; Tr. at 800:18-801:2.) The 

administrative law judge also finds that said reference is cumulative because it is undisputed that 

the '579 patent itself already discloses in its background section that a UE identification specific 

scrambling sequence is used in the high speed shared control channels. (CFF 5.62 (undisputed).) 

Referring to the asserted Siemens 482 Proposal (RX-60), it is undisputed that 

226 
complainants' expert Gitlin testified that said reference does not disclose use of a half-rate 

convolutional code as a scrambling sequence generator and that respondents' expert Kakaes 

admits that Siemens in said reference did not propose using a half-rate convolutional encoder to 

generate a scrambling sequence. (CFF 4.7 and 4.11 (both undisputed).) Similarly, with respect to 

the Motorola 610 Proposal (RX-1214), it is undisputed that complainants' expert Gitlin testified 

that said reference does not disclose use of a half-rate convolutional encoder as a scrambling 

sequence generator and that respondents' expert Kakaes admits that Motorola in said reference 

did not propose using a half-rate convolutional encoder to generate a DE ID-specific scrambling 

sequence. (CFF 4.8 and 4.12 (both undisputed).) As discussed supra, both the Siemens 482 

Proposal and the Motorola 610 Proposal discloses a (32, 10) Reed-Muller block encoder that 

converts a 10 bit DE ID into a 32 bit output:(RX-60 at 1; Tr. at 1868:10-21; RX-1214 at 1; Tr. at 

1868:22-1869:8.) The administrative lawtudge finds that the background section of the '579 

patent already discloses the use of a Reed-Muller block encoder to generate a 40 bit scrambling 

sequence from a 10 bit DE ID for the high-speed shared control channel. (CX-5 at 1 :42-49; Tr. 

796:8-797:16.) 

Withe respect to the 3GPP TS 25.212 v5.0.0 standard (RX-38), it is undisputed that said 

standard incorporates the Siemens 482 Proposal. (CFF 5.12 (undisputed).) 

Referring to TR 25.858 (RX-1211), the administrative law judge finds that said reference 

{ 

} The administrative law judge further finds that the 

background section ofthe '579 patent already discloses that "[u]ntil recently, a 10 bit DE ID was 

227 
used as the basis for the UE ID specific scrambling sequence" and that "[i]n this case, this UE ID 

was converted into a 40 bit scrambling sequence." (CX-5 at 1 :41-43.) 

In addition, the administrative law judge found supra that during prosecution of U.S. 

Patent No. 7,349,540 (CX-26), a continuation of the '579 patent, the Examiner in charge 

indicated that he had considered each of the Motorola Way Forward Proposal, the Siemens 482 

Proposal, and the Motorola 610 Proposal, and thereafter stated in the "examiner's statement of 

reasons for allowance" of the '540 patent application that "the prior art of record fails to teach 

using a high speed shared control channel to combine user equipment identification data and Yz 

rate convolutional encoding to produce a scrambled code." (CX-25 at IDC-ITC-OI0495665 

(Motorola 610 Proposal); CX-25 at DC-ITC010495567 (Motorola Way Forward Proposal and 

Siemens 482 Proposal); CX-25 at IDC-ITC-O 1049560 l.j 

Based on the foregoing, the administrativeclaw judge finds that the references asserted by 

respondents are not material to the '579 patent and 'are cumulative to the description of the state 

of the art already disclosed by the background section of the '579 patent. 

The administrative law judge further finds that respondents have not established any 

intent to deceive the Patent Office by the inventors on the '579 patent or the prosecuting attorney 

of the '579 patent. { 

} 

{ 

} 

228 
{ } 

(JX-24C at 97-980.) { 

} Inventor Dick when asked about the 

3GPP Working Group documents testified, "[i]t was background information. That's all it was." 

(Tr. at 797.) 

Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that respondents have not 

established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the '579 patent is unenforceable. 

VI. Waiver And Patent Misuse 

Nokia argued that the evidence establishes that InterDigital not only deliberately shaped 

its patenting process to read on industry standards, but also intertionally delayed its filing of 

essentiality declarations to ensure that the industry became "locked in" to standards it alleged 

read on its Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), so that it could force those practicing the standards 

to take a license to its patents; and that this intentional and deceptive conduct renders the asserted 

patents unenforceable against Nokia's UMTS products under the related equitable doctrines of 

patent misuse and/or waiver. (RBr at Sec. IV, p. 10.) 

Each of complainants and the staff has argued that respondents have not established the 

defense of patent misuse and/or waiver. 

Respondents, in support of their waiver and patent misuse allegation, argued that based 

on InterDigital's failure to timely disclose IPR as required by the European Telecommunication 

Standards Institute (ETSI), as well as InterDigital's efforts to conceal this IPR and others from 

other ETSI members, InterDigital has waived its ability to enforce the '579 patent against 

229 
HSDPA26 compliant products, citing Qualcomm, Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., 548 F.3d 1004, 1022 

(Fed. Cir. 2008). (RBr at Sec. IV, p. 15.) 

Complainants argued that respondents first presented this "hybrid defense" of 

misuse/waiver a few days before the start of the evidentiary hearing under the guise of a 

"corrected" prehearing statement; that this was not a "correction," but rather was an assertion of a 

new defense theory; and that pursuant to ground rule 9(iv), this new defense theory was waived. 

InterDigital nonetheless did address this "frivolous defense" on the merits, and argued that 

respondents mischaracterize the law in an attempt to excuse their complete lack of proofs and 

further have failed to present any credible evidence to support their defense. (CRBr at 95-9.) 

The staff noted that Nokia filed a revised Pre-hearing Brief on May 15,2009, which was 

after the staff had filed its pre-hearing brief and was a mere five business days before the start of 

the evidentiary hearing, that Nokia's May 15 brief contained substantial revisions to Nokia's 

theory of patent misuse, which revisions were provided too late and that accordingly, pursnant to 

ground rule 9(vi), Nokia's revised theory of patent misuse should be deemed waived. Thus the 

staff in its SBr only treated Nokia's theory of patent misuse as set forth in Nokia's April 13, 

2009, pre-hearing brief and argued that the evidence does not support a finding of patent misuse. 

(SBr at 70-1.) 

In issue is whether respondents' May 15, 2009 pre-hearing brief contained substantial 

revisions and/a new defense theory, as argued by complainants and the staff, and if so whether 

respondents' "revised theory of patent misuse should be deemed waived pursuant to ground rule 

9 (vi). 

26 "HSDP A" stands for - High Speed Downlink Packet Access - -. See RBr at Sec. III, 

p. 2 and RFF III - 94. 

230 
As a preliminary matter, the administrative law judge finds the "Table Of Authorities" in 

Nokia's May 15,2009 brief confusing. For example In re Rambus Inc., Docket No. 9302,2006 

WL 233017 (F.T.C. Aug. 2,2006) (Rambus) is indicated to be on "IV-27". The same in 

indicated for Stamblerv. Diebold, Inc., 11 U.S.P.Q.2d 1709 C.E.D.N.Y 1988) and Potter 

Instrument Co. v. Storage Techn. Corp. 207 U.S.P.Q. 763 (E.D. Va. 1980). However those three 

cases are not found on "IV-27" ofthe May 15,2009 brief. To the contrary while they are not 

cited and thus not relied upon, in section VI B of respondents' May 15,2009 pre-hearing brief 

which is titled "Other Unenforceability Defenses", they are relied upon in respondents' April 13, 

2009 pre-hearing brief. 

The administrative law judge, on comparing respondents' pre-hearing brief of May ] 5, 

2009 with respondents' prehearing brief of April 13, 2009 further finds that s:lid May 15 brief 

does contain mbstantial revisions including a new defense theory. Thus in addition to not relying 

on Rambus, respondents in the introductory paragraph of said section IV.B of the May 15 prehearing brief relies on Oualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp. 548 F.3d 1004, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2008) 

(not cited in the April 13, 2009 pre-hearing brief) stating: 

The evidence at the hearing will show that InterDigital not only 

deliberately shaped its patenting process to read on industry standards such as the 

UMTS standard at issue here, but also intentionally delayed its filing of 

essentiality declarations to ensure that the industry became "locked in" to 

standards it alleged read on its patents, so that it could force those practicing the 

standards to take a license to its patents. When a company is obligated to disclose 

its intellectual-property claims to a standard-setting body, but intentionally fails to 

do so, it constitutes actionable deceptive conduct. See, ~ Qualcomm, Inc. v. 

Broadcom Corp., 548 F.3d 1004, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2008) [Qualcomm] (holding that 

the intentional concealment in face of a duty to speak, of IPR that reasonably 

might be necessary to practice a particular standard, renders that IPR 

unenforceable against those practicing the standard); Broadcom Corp. v. 

Qualcomm, Inc., 501 F .3d 297, 314 (3d Cir. 2007). Under these circumstances, 

the asserted patents are unenforceable under the related equitable doctrines of 

231 
patent misuse and/or waiver. 

In view of the substantial revisions including a new defense theory in respondents' May 

15, 2009 pre-hearing brief, the administrative law judge finds that respondents' revised theory of 

patent misuse has been waived pursuant to ground rule 9(vi). However, should the Commission 

find that there has been no waiver, the administrative law judge is treating the arguments 

addressed in respondents' pre-hearing brief of May 15,2009 and their post-hearing submissions. 

Respondents argued that the Federal Circuit in Oualcomm found that Qualcomm waived 

its ability to enforce its patents against Broadcom and other entities implementing the H.264 

standard because Qualcomm failed to disclose the existence of the patents prior to the adoption 

of the standard, citing Id. at 1022; that the Court noted that because Qualcomm's infringement 

contentions were based on Broadcom's practice of the H.264 standard, the patents cl~arly fell 

,', within the "reasonably might be necessary to practice" standard, and thus, shoul.j have been 

disclosed, citing. Id. at 1018- 19; that further, the Court determined that applying the equitable 

doctrine of waiver was appropriate because Qualcomm intentionally organized a plan of action to 

shield its patents from the standards body, citing Id. at 1020-21; that finally, in response to 

Qualcomm's argument that Broadcom was not harmed by the nondisclosure because Qualcomm 

was willing to license its patents, the Court stated that: 

Even if Qualcomm agreed not to pursue an injunction in this case, 

injunctions are not the only type of harm. Forcing a party to accept 

a license and pay whatever fee the licensor demands, or to undergo 

the uncertainty and cost of litigation (which in this case was 

substantial), are significant burdens. 

citing Id. at 1021; and that based on these facts, the Federal Circuit in Qualcomm held that 

Qualcomm's patents were unenforceable against H.264 compliant products. (RBr IV-II.) 

232 
It is argued that InterDigital cannot dispute that it should have disclosed timely the 579 

invention to ETSI members; that the fact that InterDigital originally based its claim for 

infringement on Nokia's handsets being compliant with the 3GPP TS 25.212 (HSDPA) 

standard (RFF IV-137 (undisputed)), coupled with InterDigital's eventual declaration ofthe '579 

invention as essential in 2004 establish that InterDigital breached a duty to disclose, citing 

Qualcornrn, 548 F.3d at 1018-19. (RBr at Sec. IV, p. 13.) It is also argued that InterDigital's 

impermissible expansion of the scope of the power ramp-up patents, their failure to timely 

disclose them to ETSI, and their efforts to seek an injunction based thereon is contrary to public 

policy and constitutes patent misuse and for that reason, the power ramp-up patents are 

unenforceable. (RBr at Sec. IV, p. 16.) 

At the outset while respondents argued that InterDigital declared U.S. Appl. N0. 

10.187,640 which later issued as the '579 patent essential to ETSI on April 8,2004 (CX-625C at 

IDC-ITC-000069537) (RFF VI-153),{ 

} 

Moreover in Qualcornrn, the standards body at issue (JVT) had a defined IPR policy that required 

its members to use best efforts to declare all relevant patents at the time a proposal was 

submitted. Qualcornrn, 548 F.3d at 1014. JVT had a further policy requiring disclosure of all 

patents relevant to the standard before final approval of the standard. Id. at 1015. The Federal 

Circuit in addition emphasized that JVT had a stated goal of creating a royalty-free baseline for 

the standard, which was the critical factor in determining the importance of JBT's members' 

obligation to disclose patents when making contributions, Id. at 1013-14. Also Qualcornrn 

involved a knowing a non-disclosure of patents to the standards body and a knowing non233 
disclosure of the membership in the standards body during litigation that resulted in sanctions 

against Qualcomm's attorneys. Id. at 1009-10, 1022, 1027. 

In the present investigation the administrative law judge finds that respondents have not 

established that Inter Digital knowingly and intentionally relinquished any rights because, unlike 

Qualcomm, InterDigital declared their patents to ETSI. Thus InterDigital disclosed u.s. Patent 

Application No. 10/187,640, which was filed on July 1,2002 and which issued as the '579 patent 

to ETSI on April 8, 2004 and declared that it was prepared to comply with the ETSI policies 

concerning FRAND licensing. (CX5, RX0248-043.) (CFF 7.52 (undisputed).) InterDigital 

disclosed the '004 patent, which was filed on June 14,2004, to ETSI on March 21,2008 and 

declared that it was prepared to comply with the ETSI policies concerning FRAND licensing. 

(CX1, CX585C at IDC-ITC008437378.) InterDigital disclosed the '966 patent, which was filed 

on June,2Y, 2005, to ETSJ on March 21, 2007 and declared that it was prepared to comply with 

the ETSI policies concerning FRAND licensing (CX2, CX585C at IDC-ITC008437378.) 

InterDigital disclosed u.s. Patent Application No, 11/169,425, which was filed on June 29, 

20054, and which issued as the' 847 patent to ETSI on March 21, 2007 and declared that it was 

prepared to comply with the ETSI policies concerning FRAND licensing. (CX3, CX585C at 

IDC-ITC008437378.) The '004, '966 and '847 patents all claim priority back to u.s. Patent Nos. 

6,181,949 and 5,841,768. InterDigital disclosed u.s. Patent Nos. 6,181,949 and 5,841,768 to 

ETSI on April 10, 2001. (RX0353-006.) In addition the administrative law judge in Section IV 

H supra has found no prosecution laches relating to the power ramp-up patents. 

Also the administrative law judge agrees with complainants that even if Oualcomm were 

applicable respondents have not established, by clear and convincing evidence: (1) that ETSI's 

234 
IPR policy requires the disclosure of essential patents at the time a proposal is made or at least, 

before the standard is finalized; (2) that InterDigital understood when InterDigital was making 

proposals that ETSI's IPR policy required disclosure ofInterDigital's patents at that time; and (3) 

that InterDigital intentionally breached ETSI's policy. See Qualcomm at 1022, 1026. See also 

Oualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., 05-CV-1958-B, 2007 WL 1031373, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 

21,2007) and Jazz Photo Corp. v. lnt'! Trade Comm'n, 264 F.3d 1094, 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

Based on the foregoing, the administrative law judge finds that complainants have not 

waived their ability to enforce the' 579 patent against HSDP A compliant products. 

VII. Domestic Industry 

The domestic industry requirement has been satisfied based on complainants' licensing 

activities, see Order l'Jo. 43 (March 10,200) (unreviewed). 

VIII. Remedy',-

Complainants argued that the evidence demonstrates that the appropriate remedies 

include a limited exclusion order prohibiting the importation of: (1) all of Nokia's infringing 3G 

mobile handsets; and (2) all components of Nokia's infringing 3G mobile handsets; and that the 

appropriate remedy should also include a cease-and-desist order directed to Nokia. It is argued 

that a limited exclusion order directed to Nokia's infringing 3G mobile handsets is necessary to 

prevent continued importation of those products into the United States which remedy is provided 

for under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d); that there is no controversy that such a limited exclusion order is 

appropriate if Nokia has violated Section 337; that a limited exclusion order should be directed to 

the components of Nokia's infringing handsets in order to avoid Nokia circumventing the 

exclusion order by importing the infringing products "in parts" and reassembling them after entry 

235 
in the United States; that entry of a cease-and-desist order against Nokia is appropriate in the 

event the Commission finds a violation of Section 337; that a cease-and-desist order is 

appropriate where the evidence demonstrates the presence of commercially significant inventory 

in the United States, citing Certain Crystalline Cefadroxil Monohydrate, Inv. No. 337-TA-293, 

Commission Opinion on Remedy, the Public Interest and Bonding at 37-42, USITC Pub. 2391 

(June 1991); and that the evidence demonstrates that Nokia's own flagship stores in Chicago and 

New York, or its carrier partners and distributors, AT&T Wireless and T -Mobile, maintain 

commercially significant inventory of infringing devices in the United States. (CBr at 195-6.) 

Respondents argued that because Nokia's accused products do not infringe the claims of 

InterDigital's asserted patents, no remedy should issue; that in the event infringement of valid 

patents were to be found, the Commission would have broad discretion to select the form, scope 

and extent of the remedy, citing Hyundai Elecs. Indus. Co. v. U. S. Int 'I Trade Comm'n, 899 

F.2d 1204, 1208-09 (Fed. Cir. 1990); that although the Commission determines final relief after 

considering the public interest, it is within the Commission's discretion to deny relief, 

irrespective of the public interest, when the facts so dictate, citing Certain Condensers, Parts 

Thereof and Products Containing Same, Including Air Conditioners for Automobiles, Inv. No. 

337-TA-33Ll., Recommended Determination (Dec. 1996); that the facts dictate that result here; 

that a cease and desist order is only appropriate where a complainant can establish the existence 

of commercially significant inventories of post-importation accused products, citing Certain 

Electronic Programmable Read-onl), Memories, Inv. No. 337-TA-395, Comm'n Op. (July 9, 

1998) and Certain Lens-Fitted Film Packages, Inv. No. 337-TA-406, Consolidated Enforcement 

Advisory Opinion Proceedings, Comm'n Op. (June 23,2003); that InterDigital has not shown that 

236 
Nokia maintains a commercially significant inventory ofthe accused handsets in the United 

States; and that accordingly, "such orders" are not appropriate in this investigation. (RBr at Sec. 

V, p. 1, Sec. V, p. 2.) 

In a subsequent filing respondents, as to any cease and desist order, argued that at most, 

InterDigital has alleged that certain third parties such as AT&T Wireless and T-Mobile maintain 

inventories of Nokia's handsets; that although InterDigital has not provided any documents or 

facts to substantiate this allegation, even if it had, such inventories would have no bearing on 

whether a cease and desist order is appropriate, citing,~, Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and 

Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-512, Comm'n Det. at 8 (Apr. 14,2008) (Diodes) 

and that accordingly a cease and desist order is not appropriate in this investigation. (RRBr at 98-

9.) 

The staff, inasmuch as jt does not believe that the preponderance of the evidence 

demonstrated that any asserted claim is infringed, does not believe that any exclusion order or 

cease and desist order should be awarded to InterDigitiil. However if a violation is found, then 

the staff believes that a limited exclusion order against the respondents found to infringe would 

be the appropriate recommendation. To the extent any of the respondents who are found to be in 

violation maintain in the United States a commercially significant inventory of infringing 

products, the staff argued that a cease and desist order also would be an appropriate 

recommendation. (SBr at 71-2.) 

The Commission "has broad discretion in selecting the form, scope, and extent of the 

remedy in Section 337 proceedings." Certain Integrated Circuit Telecommunication Chips, Inv. 

No. 337-TA-337, (Comm'n Op.) at 21 (August 3, 1993). Pursuant to its statutory authority 

237 
found at 19 U.S.c. § 1337 (d), the Commission may exclude from importation goods and 

products that form the basis for a finding of a violation of Section 337 which includes products 

that have been found to infringe the patents-in-issue directly, contributorily or by inducement 

after importation has occurred. Certain Flash Memory Circuits, Inv. No. 337-TA-382, (Comm'n 

Opn.) at 26 (June 26, 1997) ("The Commission has the authority to enter an exclusion order, a 

cease and desist order, or both."). Indeed, absent special circumstances, the statute requires such 

exclusion: 

If the Commission determines ... that there is a violation of this 

section, it shall direct that the articles concerned ... be excluded 

from entry into the United States, unless, after considering the 

public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United 

States economy, the production of like or directly competitive 

articles in the United States, and United States consumers, it finds 

that such articles should not be excluded from entry. 

19 U.S.C. § 1337(d) (emphasis addt~d). Hence, a remedy excluding Samsung's infringing 

products from entry is mandatory if a violation of section 337 is found, unless the Commission 

finds that public interest factors militate against such remedy .. 

In addition, the scope of an investigation is defined by the notice of investigation. Certain 

Chemiluminescent Compositions, Inv. No. 337-TA-285, Commission Order (Jan. 13, 1989) 

(scope of investigation is defined by the notice of investigation). Thus any exclusion order may 

cover all products within that scope, i.e., "the articles concerned." 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(I). 

Moreover, Commission remedial orders have covered all products that infringe and are not 

limited to specified models or products. Certain Optical Disk Controller Chips and Chip sets and 

Products Containing Same, Including DVD Players and PC Optical Storage Devices, Inv. No. 

337-TA-506, Commission Opinion at 56 (August 7,2006) (public version)). 

238 
The Commission also has the authority to issue cease and desist orders where a 

respondent has a sufficient inventory of infringing goods in the United States," Certain NAND 

Flash Memory Circuits, Inv. No. 337-TA-526, Initial Determ. at 255 (Oct. 19,2005) (citing 

Certain Plastic Encapsulated Integrated Circuits, Inv. No. 337-TA-315, U.S.I.T.C. Pub. No. 

2574, Comm'n Op. at 37 (November 1992).); Certain Crystalline Cefadroxil Monohydrate, Inv. 

No. 337-TA-293, Comm. Op. at 6 (Jan. 19, 1990). 

In the event a violation is found, the administrative law judge recommends the issuance 

of a limited exclusion order prohibiting the importation into the United States of infringing 

articles, regardless of brand name, "that are manufactured abroad or imported by or on behalf of 

[the respondents], or any of their affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, or other related 

business entities, or their successors or assigns." See Certain Laser Bar Code Scanners and Scan 

Engines, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-551, Limited 

Exclusion Order, ~ 1 (May 30, 2007). Moreover, he recommends that said order should not be 

limited to specifically-identified products, but rather extend to all infringing products. See ~, 

Certain Integrated Repeaters, Switches, Transceivers and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 

337-TA-435, Commission Opinion at 23, USITC Pub. 3547 (Oct. 2002). 

With respect to issuance of any cease and desist order, the Commission in Diodes 

Comm'n Det, at 8 supra did state: 

we have declined to issue a cease and desist order because, 

although qsram points to evidence suggesting that there are 

commercially significant domestic inventories of infringing 

Dominant LEDs, see~, CX-133%, CX-1337, CX-1338C, we 

agree with the ALl that Osram has not shown that Dominant 

maintains those inventories. Instead, it is clear that the inventories 

identified by Osram are owned by third parties. 

239 
However complainants' CFF 146 reads: 

Respondents Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. have manufactured 

abroad, imported into the United States, and sold in the United 

States after importation N-75, N-95, 6555, 6750, and 6350 

handsets. (SX-2C; see Nokia's Flagship Stores in New York and 

Chicago, http://www.nokiausa.com/vi sitastore/fagshipstores: 

Nokia's products available for sale online, 

http://www.nokiausa.com/buv-onlinel Nokia's products available 

for sale in the United States, http://vvww.nokiausa.comltindproducts: Nokia's products available for sale through its carrier 

partner AT&T, http://www.wireless.att.com!cell-phoneservice/cell-phones/nokia.jsp; Nokia's products available for sale 

through its carrier partner T-Mobile, http://www-tmo bile. corn! shop/phones.) 

Nokia has objected to said proposed finding on the ground that it improperly cites to evidence 

not admitted into record. However, the administrative law judge has taken notice of the websites 

for Nokia's Flagship Stores in New York and Chicago. Based on those websites, the 

administrative law judge recommends appropriatocease and desist orders should a violation be 

found. 

IX. Bond 

{ 

} Accordingly, the imposition of a bond 

in this investigation is not recommended. 

240 
X. Additional Findings of Fact 

1. Complainant InterDigital Communications, LLC is a Pennsylvania limited 

liability company with its principal place of business at 781 Third Avenue, King of Prussia, 

Pennsylvania 19406-1409. (CX-142 at ~ 6.) 

2. InterDigital Communications, LLC was previously known as InterDigital 

Communications Corporation, but in connection with an internal corporate reorganization, 

effective July 3,2007, InterDigital Communications Corporation (a Pennsylvania corporation) 

became InterDigital Communications, LLC (a Pennsylvania limited liability company). (CX-142 

at pg. 2, footnote 5.) 

3. Complainant InterDigital Technology Corporation is a Delaware corporation with 

its principal place of business at Hagley Building, Suite 105,3411 Silverside Road, Concord 

Plaza, Wilmington, Delaware 19810-4812. (CX-142 at ~ 6.) 

4. InterDigital Communications, LLC and InterDigital Technology Corporation are 

subsidiaries of InterDigital, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation. (CX-142 at ~ 6.) 

5. Respondent Nokia Corporation is a Finnish corporation with its principal place of 

business at Keilalahdentie 2-4, P.O. Box 226, FIN-00045 Nokia Group, Finland. (CX-142 at ~ 

10; CX-1589C at ~ 10.) 

6. Respondent Nokia Corporation is involved in the design, development, and 

manufacture of3G mobile handsets through its Mobile Phones Business Group. (CX-I42 at ~ 

10; CX-1589C at ~ 10.) 

7. Respondent Nokia Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of 

business at 6000 Connection Drive, Irving, Texas 75039. (CX-I42 at ~ 11; CX-I589C at ~ 11.) 

241 
8. Respondent Nokia Inc. (d/b/a Nokia Mobile Phones) distributes Nokia-branded 

handsets in the United States. (CX-142 at 1 11; CX-1589C at 111.) 

242 
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. The Commission has in personam and in rem jurisdiction. 

2. There has been an importation of accused 3G mobile handsets into 

the United States which are the subject ofthe unfair trade 

allegations. 

3. The asserted claims of '004 the patent are not infringed. 

4. The asserted claims of the '966 patent are not infringed. 

5. The asserted claims of the '847 patent are not infringed. 

6. The asserted claims of the '579 patent are not infringed. 

7. A domestic industry exists with respect to the patents in issue. 

8. 

9. 

The asserted claims of the '004 patent are not invalid. 

The asserted claims of the '966 patent are not invalid. 

10. The asserted claims of the '847 patent are not invalid. 

11. The asserted claims of the' 579 patent are not invalid. 

12. There is no prosecution laches relating to the '004, '966 and '847 

patents. 

13. The '574 patent is enforceable. 

14. There is no waiver and patent misuse with respect to the patents in 

issue. 

15. The evidence establishes that there is no violation of section 337. 

16. In the event a violation of section 337 is found, the evidence shows 

that the appropriate remedy barring entry of infringing 3G mobile 

243 
handsets and components thereof are a limited exclusion order, and 

cease and desist orders. 

17. There is no evidence to support the issuance of a bond in the 

Presidential Review period. 

ORDER 

Based on the foregoing, and the record as a whole, it is the administrative law judge's 

Final Initial Determination that there is no violation of section 337 in the importation into the 

United States, sale for importation, and sale within the United States after importation of 3G 

mobile handsets and components thereof. It is also the administrative law judge's 

recommendation, should a violation be found, that a limited exclusion order issue barring entry 

into the United States of infringing 3G mobile handsets and components thereof and that 

appropriate cease and desist orders should issue. 

The administrative law judge hereby CERTIFIES to the Commission his Final Initial and 

Recommended Determinations. Also ALJ exhibits ALJ-Ex. 1 to ALJ-Ex. 8 have been submitted 

to the Secretary for addition to the official record in this investigation. The briefs of the parties, 

filed with the Secretary, are not certified, since they are already in the Commission's possession 

in accordance with Commission rules. 

Further it is ORDERED that: 

1. In accordance with Commission rule 210.39, all material heretofore marked in 

camera because of business, financial and marketing data found by the administrative law judge 

to be cognizable as confidential business information under Commission rule 201.6(a), is to be 

given in camera treatment continuing after the date this investigation is terminated. 

244 
2. Counsel for the parties shall have in the hands of the administrative taw judge 

those portions of the final initial and recommended determinations which contain bracketed 

confidential business information to be deleted from any public version of said determinations, 

no later than August 25,2009. Any such bracketed version shall not be served via facsimile on 

the administrative law judge. If no such bracketed version is received from a party, it will mean 

that the party has no objection to removing the confidential status, in its entirety, from these 

initial and recommended determinations. 

3. The initial determination portion of the Final Initial and Recommended 

., 

Determinations, issued pursuant to Commission rules 21 0.42 (a) and 210.42-46, shall become the 

determination of the Commission, unless the Commission, within that period, shall have ordered 

its review of certain issues therein or by order has changed the effective date of the initial 

determination portion. The recommended determination portion, issued pursuant to Commission 

rule 210.42(a)(1)(ii), will be considered by the Commission in reaching a determination on 

remedy pursuant to Commission rule 210.50(a). 

Issued: August 14, 2009 

245 

~t4J2f)J /J 

PaulJ. 

Chief Administrative 

Luckern ~ Law Judge 
CERTAIN 3G MOBILE HANDSETS 

AND COMPONENTS 

Investigation No. 337-TA-613 

PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Marilyn R. Abbott, hereby certify that the attached Public Version Final Initial and 

Recommended Determinations was served by hand upon Commission Investigative Attorney, 

Benjamin Levi, Esq. and upon the following parties as indicated, on September 18, 2009. 

arilyn R. bbott, Secretary 

U.S. International Trade Commission 

500 E Street, SW - Room 112 

Washington, DC 20436 

For Complainant InterDigital Communications LLC; 

InterDigital Technology Corporation: 

Smith R. Brittingham IV, Esq. 

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow 

901 New York Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20001 

Respondents Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc.: 

Paul F. Brinkman, Esq. 

Alston & Bird, LLP 

950 F Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

( ) Via Hand Delivery 

(x) Via Overnight Mail 

( ) Via First Class Mail 

( ) Other: ___ _ 

( ) Via Hand Delivery 

(X) Via Overnight Mail 

( ) Via First Class Mail 

( ) Other: ___ _ 
CERTAIN 3G MOBILE HANDSETS 

AND COMPONENTS 

Investigation No. 337-TA-613 

PUBLIC MAILING LIST 

Heather Hall 

LEXIS - NEXIS 

9443 Springboro Pike 

Miamisburg, OH 45342 

Kenneth Clair 

Thomson West 

1100 Thirteen Street, NW, Suite 200 

Washington, DC 20005 

( ) Via Hand Delivery 

()q Via Overnight Mail 

( ) Via First Class Mail 

( ) Other: ___ _ 

( ) Via Hand Delivery 

(>() Via Overnight Mail 

( ) Via First Class Mail 

( ) Other: __ _ 

(PARTIES NEED NOT SERVE COPIES ON LEXIS OR WEST PUBLISHING)