"are you saying the itv 800 investigation doesn't involove power ramp patents?"
Does the ruling not say "Nokia’s
system, that employ discrete power increases during the
ramp-up process"
and the patent covers that?
Agreed, the 800 investigation does in fact involve 2 power ramp patents.
To answer your questions above from your previous post.
Yes, Nokia's system uses a stair step method in the power ramp. And yes IDCC's patents cover that as well as cover a continuous method. The thing is, IDCC did not invent the stair step method or the continuous method. Even IDCC admits that. The power ramp patents primarily concern the use of a short code that is either transmitted via the stair step method or the continuous method. What Nokia was trying to argue at the CAFC was that even if you hang us on the use of short codes, it does not matter because we use the stair step method. The CAFC ruled that it doesn't matter whether you use the stair step method or continuous method, IDCC's patent addresses both methods. You can hear in the oral argument recording at the CAFC, an exchange between Donald Dunnar and the judge basically saying that IDCC's invention is the shortness of the code, not the stair step or continuous method of transmission. And the CAFC agreed with IDCC that IDCC's patents cover transmission of a short code by either the stair step method, or the continuous method.
So now that the patents are back at the ITC, Nokia is now saying. Even if IDCC's patents cover short codes via either transmission method, Nokia derives their short codes from scrambling codes which are not transmitted, not spreading codes. IDCC says that nowhere in the patent does it say that the codes (from which you derive a short code) need to be transmitted.
| 