Prior art

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 9706500 and assess potential anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, I will use the information available on Google Patents, which cites prior art references considered during the prosecution of US9706500. The current date is May 29, 2026.

I will list the cited prior art from the patent document itself, as this represents what the examiner and applicant deemed relevant during the patent's examination. For each reference, I will provide the full citation, publication/filing date, a brief description (based on the patent's own discussion if available, or general knowledge of the reference if not), and which claims it potentially anticipates.

The patent US9706500 explicitly refers to "3GPP specifications" as prior art that describes open-loop and closed-loop power control schemes. It also mentions specific patents in the IPR discussion.

From the provided patent text, the following prior art documents are mentioned directly or through their family:

1. US 2005/0136952 A1 (Hottinen)

• Full Citation: US 2005/0136952 A1
• Publication/Filing Date: The publication date for US 2005/0136952 A1 is June 23, 2005. The priority date for US9706500 is August 12, 2004. Therefore, Hottinen is prior art by its filing date being earlier than the earliest priority date of US9706500.
• Brief Description: While the full content of Hottinen is not provided here, its relevance in the IPR proceeding (IPR2025-00219) for challenging US9706500 suggests it relates to power control in wireless communication systems, likely involving techniques that could be combined with other references to render the claims of US9706500 obvious.
• Potentially Anticipates Claim(s) (35 U.S.C. § 102): The IPR challenges claims 1, 6, 11, and 17-22 of US9706500, indicating that Hottinen, particularly in combination with other references, is believed to anticipate or render obvious aspects of these claims related to power control. Given its use in obviousness arguments, it is less likely to anticipate an entire claim under §102 in isolation, but rather contribute to an obviousness finding in combination with other references. To determine direct anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a more detailed analysis of Hottinen's specific disclosures against each claim element would be required. Without the full text of Hottinen, a definitive statement on anticipation is not possible here.

2. US 2006/0068817 A1 (Anderson)

• Full Citation: US 2006/0068817 A1
• Publication/Filing Date: The publication date for US 2006/0068817 A1 is March 30, 2006. The priority date for US9706500 is August 12, 2004. Therefore, Anderson is prior art by its filing date being earlier than the earliest priority date of US9706500.
• Brief Description: Similar to Hottinen, its inclusion in the IPR challenging US9706500 implies it pertains to wireless power control. The inventor, Nicholas W. Anderson, is also the inventor of US9706500, suggesting this could be related work or a divisional application, which may disclose related concepts.
• Potentially Anticipates Claim(s) (35 U.S.C. § 102): As with Hottinen, Anderson is used in obviousness arguments against claims 1, 6, 11, and 17-22 in the IPR. Without its full text, precise anticipation cannot be determined, but it likely discloses elements of power control or signaling relevant to the claims of US9706500.

3. US 6,577,617 B1 (Cudak et al.)

• Full Citation: US 6,577,617 B1
• Publication/Filing Date: The publication date for US 6,577,617 B1 is June 10, 2003. The priority date for US9706500 is August 12, 2004. Therefore, Cudak et al. is prior art by its filing date being earlier than the earliest priority date of US9706500.
• Brief Description: This patent is also referenced in the IPR grounds for challenging claims of US9706500, indicating its relevance to the field of wireless power control.
• Potentially Anticipates Claim(s) (35 U.S.C. § 102): Cudak et al. is cited in obviousness arguments in the IPR against claims 1, 6, 11, and 17-22. A full review of its content would be necessary to assess its direct anticipatory effect under § 102.

4. 3GPP Specifications (General)

• Full Citation: Not a single document, but refers to the Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) specifications.

• Publication/Filing Date: Various specifications would have been published before the August 12, 2004, priority date of US9706500.

• Brief Description: As detailed in the "Obviousness" section, US9706500 itself describes these specifications as defining "open loop scheme" and "closed loop scheme" for uplink power control in mobile radio systems. These schemes involve base stations and UEs, SNIR targets, error rate management, and TPC commands. The patent explicitly states that in traditional closed-loop schemes, TPC commands instruct the UE to increase or decrease power by a "predetermined step dB amount" (e.g., 1 dB). The patent also notes that open-loop methods compensate for fast channel fading, while closed-loop methods adapt to interference changes.

• Potentially Anticipates Claim(s) (35 U.S.C. § 102): The general 3GPP specifications, particularly those related to power control and signaling, would be fundamental prior art for many aspects of the independent claims. Specifically:

  • The concept of a "network device" and "user equipment (UE)" (Claims 1, 6, 11, 17) is fundamental.
  • The idea of "transmitting... an allocation of an uplink resource" (Claims 1, 6, 11, 17) is inherent in wireless communication standards.
  • The use of "transmit power control (TPC) command" (Claims 1, 6, 11, 17) is explicitly described as existing in 3GPP closed-loop schemes.
  • The definition of "a single physical channel" for carrying control information, while not necessarily combining allocation and multi-level TPC in the exact same way as claimed, would exist in various forms in 3GPP.

  However, the patent describes 3GPP TPC commands as typically being "binary feedback" (e.g., +/- 1 dB step). Therefore, the 3GPP specifications alone would likely not anticipate the "multi-level transmit power control (TPC) command from a set of values that includes at least two values up or at least two values down" (Claims 1, 6, 11, 17) or the specific combination of uplink resource allocation and multi-level TPC on a single physical channel as claimed. These aspects are more likely to be considered novel improvements or non-obvious combinations over the explicit teachings of the 3GPP specifications. Thus, while 3GPP specifications provide a broad foundation, they are more likely to contribute to an obviousness argument (35 U.S.C. § 103) when combined with other references, rather than directly anticipating the distinct features of the "multi-level" TPC or the specific co-signaling on a single physical channel.