|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales High Court (Patents Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Patents Court) Decisions >> Optis Cellular Technology LLC & Ors v Apple Retail UK Ltd & Ors  EWHC 2746 (Pat) (16 October 2020)
Cite as:  EWHC 2746 (Pat)
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD)
The Rolls Building
7 Rolls Buildings
London EC4A 1NL
B e f o r e :
| (1) OPTIS CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY LLC
(2) OPTIS WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY LLC
(3) UNWIRED PLANET INTERNATIONAL LTD
|- and -
|(1) APPLE RETAIL UK LTD
(2) APPLE DISTRIBUTION INTERNATIONAL LTD
(3) APPLE INC
Guy Burkill QC, and Brian Nicholson QC (instructed by WilmerHale) for the Defendants
Hearing dates: 5th-7th, 12th, 13th October 2020
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Birss:
Summary of what this case is about
[a] A method for conveying measurement information from a terminal in a first communication system to a second communication system, characterised by the steps of:
[b] converting a plurality of downlink measurement values associated with said first communication system to a plurality of down link measurement values for said second communication system;
[c] comparing said converted plurality of downlink measurement values with at least one threshold measurement value; and
[d] if at least one of said converted plurality of downlink measurement values exceeds a predetermined threshold measurement value, sending said at least one of said converted plurality of downlink measurement values on a control channel to a control node in said second communication system.
The person skilled in the art
Common general knowledge
Message design, mappings and formats
The 818 patent
"For example, a typical GSM MS continuously measures and reports (on the [uplink]) signal strength (dBm) and quality (Bit Error Rate or BER) of its own cell, and signal strength of the Broadcast Control Channel (BCCH) carriers of the neighboring cells. On the other hand, instead of measuring signal strength in a UMTS cell, a UMTS MS measures and reports (on the [uplink]) the Code Energy-to-Interference Ratio (Ec/I0) or Received Signal Code Power (RSCP in dBm) of the UMTS cell."
"At step 106, the MS 22 compares the converted UMTS signal strength values (derived from step 104) with the set of stored GSM signal strength values (derived from step 102b). The MS 22 then retrieves a predetermined number (e.g., 6, or the maximum number of neighboring cells included in a GSM measurement report) of the "best" measurement values from step 106 to be reported in a measurement report to the GSM BSC 14. At step 108, for this exemplary embodiment, the MS 22 sends a GSM-type measurement report for receipt at the BSC 14 (via BTS 16) on the GSM SACCH over the radio air interface 23. The GSM-type measurement report can include signal strength information about UMTS neighboring cells."
"Alternatively, at step 106, instead of comparing the converted UMTS measurement values with GSM measurement values, the MS can convert each stored UMTS measurement value to an appropriate GSM signal strength value, and select each converted UMTS measurement value that exceeds a predetermined signal strength threshold value, for reporting to the GSM BSC 14."
"… the UMTS measurement information from the MS 22 can be converted to a GSM measurement format and sent to the GSM BSC 14 on the SACCH for use in making handover decisions. Consequently, since the SACCH does not operate in a stealing mode, the quality of the speech and on-line data being conveyed between the MS 22 and the GSM network 10 will not be diminished due to the use of speech frames for measurement signalling."
i) 3GPP TS 45.008 release 5, version 5.22.0 dated April 2006; and
ii) 3GPP TS 45.008 release 8, version 8.12.0 dated September 2011.
Standard TS 45.008, release 5 version 5.22.0 April 2006 – enhanced measurement reporting
i) Priority level 1: the relevant GSM cells with the highest reported value (RXLEV) are reported. The phone is told how many such cells may be reported, the maximum number is 3.
ii) Priority level 2: the cells to be reported work in the same way as priority level 1 but for cells in other GSM frequency bands.
iii) Priority level 3: the number of best valid cells whose reported values equal or exceed a pre-defined threshold in each supported other RAT, again up to a maximum of 3 per additional RAT. Where the other RAT is UTRAN FDD, then the non-reported value has to be equal or greater than a distinct pre-defined threshold. This second threshold can be disabled by being set to zero. For each RAT the cells with the highest reported values are reported.
iv) Priority level 4: the remaining valid GSM cells and valid cells of other RATs are reported as long as the cells pass the relevant threshold for that RAT. Within this level, the reporting priority for UTRAN FDD cells is based upon RSCP even if Ec/No is reported and the non-reported value has to be equal or greater than the pre-defined threshold.
i) if there are spaces unfilled within each priority level, those spaces are to be left over for the lower-prioritised cells; and
ii) if there is not enough space in the report for all valid cells, then the cells that shall be reported are those with the highest sum of the reported value and the parameter XXX_REPORTING_OFFSET.
Does this fall within the claims?
3GPP TS 45.008 release 8, version 8.12.0 dated September 2011
So far as the features that are in claim 1 are concerned, the claim has two elements:
a) Conversion of measurement values from one system, to measurement values for a second system […]
b) Sending values that exceed a threshold to the network in the second system [in their converted form].
Is claim 1 obvious in the light of Losh?
"This document describes a concept for a packet and circuit switched handover from GSM to UMTS with focus on release 99 of GSM specifications. The basic concepts outlined are downloading of measurement orders, the UE measurements, the UMTS measurement reporting and the Handover execution. The handling of the userplane is seen as a separate issue."
Is claim 1 obvious over Tdoc 1145?