bim, from my understanding, IDCC did not actually invent the continuous or intermittent (stair step) power ramp procedures. In fact, the act of transmitting code starting at a low power level, and increasing at a continuous or intermittent rate is addressed in a prior patent by Ericsson, which Nokia cites as prior art.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=5430760.PN.&OS=PN/5430760&RS=PN/5430760
From my understanding, the primary difference in IDCC's patents vs. the Ericsson patent is the use of short codes, which allow the process to go faster and limits power overshoot.
Basically, what Nokia argued was that while IDCC's patents may cover short codes, the patents only describe the continuous mode of power ramp-up. Nokia also argued that IDCC's patents describe obtaining the short code from an actual regular length spreading code. Nokia argued that Nokia devices use an intermittent "stair-step" approach, and the transmitted short codes are not derived from a known spreading code, but from more than one (non-transmitted) scrambling codes as a result of an "XOR operation". This is why Nokia wanted IDCC's short codes to be defined as spreading codes, so that Nokia could argue that Nokia gets their short codes from another source. Since the CAFC now gave the definition of IDCC's term "code" its plain meaning, and decided that the IDCC patents cover both intermittent and continuous power ramp procedures, Nokia is in a tough spot. My interpretation from the results of the CAFC decision are that "Interdigital invented the use of short codes in a power ramp-up procedure. I don't care where you get your short codes, or whether you want to transmit them in a continuous fashion or in a stair-step fashion, but if you want to use short codes, you are practicing IDCC's patent".
Nokia will probably still argue that Nokia's short codes are obtained from a different source than what is described in IDCC's patents. However, I think CAFC decision supports the fact that the source of the short codes in IDCC's patents do not have to be limited to "spreading codes"
Although the CAFC did not rule on Nokia's non-transmitted scrambling code defense, the CAFC decision did provide commentary in support of IDCC's arguments:
From the CAFC decision -
To be sure, the patents contain no express definition
of “spreading code,” and it appears from the evidence
before the administrative judge that the term “spreading
code” is used somewhat loosely by those working in the
field of cellular communications. For example, although
scrambling codes of the sort used in Nokia’s accused
devices do not spread data, the evidence showed that such
codes, which are transmitted at the chip rate, are frequently referred to as spreading codes. It may well be
that it was because of the lack of a precise definition for
the term “spreading code” among those working in the
field that the patentees consistently chose to use the term
“code,” rather than “spreading code” in the claims (except
for dependent claim 5 of the ’966 patent). That consideration adds further force to InterDigital’s argument that the
claim term “code” should have beeen given its ordinary
meaning and that the asserted claims should not have
been limited to devices that use “spreading codes,” particularly if that term is defined restrictively to apply to codes that are used or intended to be used to increase the
bandwidth of another signal.
Moreover, contrary to Nokia’s suggestion, there is no
sharp distinction between a spreading code, as that term
is used in the patents, and a scrambling code. In fact,
Nokia’s scrambling code operates in a manner that is
substantially similar to a spreading code. The administrative law judge found that spreading codes are intended
to spread data because they have a higher chip rate than
the data signals they modulate. As shown in Nokia’s
technical specifications, Nokia’s scrambling code operates
at the faster chip rate and would create a rate differential
if it were applied to the original, pre-spread data signal.
The only reason that rate differential is not seen in
Nokia’s system is because the scrambling code is applied
to a signal that has already been modulated to the chip
rate via a spreading code.
| 