doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 1 TGT July 2007 San Francisco Meeting Slides Date: Authors:

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 2 Welcome to TGT Evaluation of Wireless Performance

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 3 Highlights of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards –Participants have a duty to tell the IEEE if they know (based on personal awareness) of potentially Essential Patent Claims they or their employer own –Participants are encouraged to tell the IEEE if they know of potentially Essential Patent Claims owned by others This encouragement is particularly strong as the third party may not be a participant in the standards process –Working Group required to request assurance –Early assurance is encouraged –Terms of assurance shall be either: Reasonable and nondiscriminatory, with or without monetary compensation; or, A statement of non-assertion of patent rights –Assurances Shall be provided on the IEEE-SA Standards Board approved LOA form May optionally include not-to-exceed rates, terms, and conditions Shall not be circumvented through sale or transfer of patents Shall be brought to the attention of any future assignees or transferees Shall apply to Affiliates unless explicitly excluded Are irrevocable once submitted and accepted Shall be supplemented if Submitter becomes aware of other potential Essential Patent Claims –A “Blanket Letter of Assurance” may be provided at the option of the patent holder –A patent holder has no duty to perform a patent search –Full policy available at

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide Policy IEEE standards may be drafted in terms that include the use of Essential Patent Claims. If the IEEE receives notice that a [Proposed] IEEE Standard may require the use of a potential Essential Patent Claim, the IEEE shall request licensing assurance, on the IEEE Standards Board approved Letter of Assurance form, from the patent holder or patent applicant. The IEEE shall request this assurance without coercion. The Submitter of the Letter of Assurance may, after Reasonable and Good Faith Inquiry, indicate it is not aware of any Patent Claims that the Submitter may own, control, or have the ability to license that might be or become Essential Patent Claims. If the patent holder or patent applicant provides an assurance, it should do so as soon as reasonably feasible in the standards development process. This assurance shall be provided prior to the Standards Board’s approval of the standard. This assurance shall be provided prior to a reaffirmation if the IEEE receives notice of a potential Essential Patent Claim after the standard’s approval or a prior reaffirmation. An asserted potential Essential Patent Claim for which an assurance cannot be obtained (e.g., a Letter of Assurance is not provided or the Letter of Assurance indicates that assurance is not being provided) shall be referred to the Patent Committee. A Letter of Assurance shall be either: a) A general disclaimer to the effect that the Submitter without conditions will not enforce any present or future Essential Patent Claims against any person or entity making, using, selling, offering to sell, importing, distributing, or implementing a compliant implementation of the standard; or b) A statement that a license for a compliant implementation of the standard will be made available to an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide basis without compensation or under reasonable rates, with reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination. At its sole option, the Submitter may provide with its assurance any of the following: (i) a not-to-exceed license fee or rate commitment, (ii) a sample license agreement, or (iii) one or more material licensing terms. IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 5 Copies of an Accepted LOA may be provided to the working group, but shall not be discussed, at any standards working group meeting. The Submitter and all Affiliates (other than those Affiliates excluded in a Letter of Assurance) shall not assign or otherwise transfer any rights in any Essential Patent Claims that are the subject of such Letter of Assurance that they hold, control, or have the ability to license with the intent of circumventing or negating any of the representations and commitments made in such Letter of Assurance. The Submitter of a Letter of Assurance shall agree (a) to provide notice of a Letter of Assurance either through a Statement of Encumbrance or by binding any assignee or transferee to the terms of such Letter of Assurance; and (b) to require its assignee or transferee to (i) agree to similarly provide such notice and (ii) to bind its assignees or transferees to agree to provide such notice as described in (a) and (b). This assurance shall apply to the Submitter and its Affiliates except those Affiliates the Submitter specifically excludes on the relevant Letter of Assurance. If, after providing a Letter of Assurance to the IEEE, the Submitter becomes aware of additional Patent Claim(s) not already covered by an existing Letter of Assurance that are owned, controlled, or licensable by the Submitter that may be or become Essential Patent Claim(s) for the same IEEE Standard but are not the subject of an existing Letter of Assurance, then such Submitter shall submit a Letter of Assurance stating its position regarding enforcement or licensing of such Patent Claims. For the purposes of this commitment, the Submitter is deemed to be aware if any of the following individuals who are from, employed by, or otherwise represent the Submitter have personal knowledge of additional potential Essential Patent Claims, owned or controlled by the Submitter, related to a [Proposed] IEEE Standard and not already the subject of a previously submitted Letter of Assurance: (a) past or present participants in the development of the [Proposed] IEEE Standard, or (b) the individual executing the previously submitted Letter of Assurance. IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 6 The assurance is irrevocable once submitted and accepted and shall apply, at a minimum, from the date of the standard's approval to the date of the standard's withdrawal. The IEEE is not responsible for identifying Essential Patent Claims for which a license may be required, for conducting inquiries into the legal validity or scope of those Patent Claims, or for determining whether any licensing terms or conditions are reasonable or non-discriminatory. Nothing in this policy shall be interpreted as giving rise to a duty to conduct a patent search. No license is implied by the submission of a Letter of Assurance. In order for IEEE’s patent policy to function efficiently, individuals participating in the standards development process: (a) shall inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed) of the holder of any potential Essential Patent Claims of which they are personally aware and that are not already the subject of an existing Letter of Assurance, owned or controlled by the participant or the entity the participant is from, employed by, or otherwise represents; and (b) should inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed) of any other holders of such potential Essential Patent Claims that are not already the subject of an existing Letter of Assurance. IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents in Standards

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 7 CALL FOR ESSENTIAL PATENTS BY CHAIR Are there any patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) and/or the holder of patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) that the participant believes may be essential for the use of that standard?

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 8 Other Guidelines for IEEE WG Meetings All IEEE-SA standards meetings shall be conducted in compliance with all applicable laws, including antitrust and competition laws. Don ’ t discuss the interpretation, validity, or essentiality of patents/patent claims. Don ’ t discuss specific license rates, terms, or conditions. –Relative costs, including licensing costs of essential patent claims, of different technical approaches may be discussed in standards development meetings. Technical considerations remain primary focus Don ’ t discuss fixing product prices, allocation of customers, or dividing sales markets. Don ’ t discuss the status or substance of ongoing or threatened litigation. Don ’ t be silent if inappropriate topics are discussed … do formally object If you have questions, contact the IEEE-SA Standards Board Patent Committee Administrator at or visit See IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, clause and “Promoting Competition and Innovation: What You Need to Know about the IEEE Standards Association's Antitrust and Competition Policy” for more details. This slide set is available at

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 9 IEEE 802 and Policies and Procedures IEEE CODE OF ETHICS IEEE-STANDARDS ASSOCIATION (IEEE-SA) AFFILATION FAQ IEEE-SA ANTITRUST AND COMPETITION POLICY IEEE-SA LETTER OF ASSURANCE (LOA) FORM IEEE-SA STANDARDS BOARD PATENT COMMITTEE (PATCOM) INFORMATION IEEE-SA PATENT POLICY IEEE-SA PATENT FAQ IEEE 802 LAN/MAN STANDARDS COMMITTEE POLICIES & PROCEDURES IEEE WORKING GROUP POLICIES & PROCEDURES

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 10 Proposed Agenda for San Francisco Meeting 1.Call to Order 2.Appoint secretary 3.Policies and procedures –CALL FOR ESSENTIAL PATENTS BY CHAIR 4.Approve Agenda 5.Approve minutes –May 2007 Montreal Meeting – t –May 31, 2007 Teleconference – t –June 14, 2007 Teleconference – t –June 28, 2007 Teleconference – t –July 12, 2007 Teleconference – t 6.Chair’s comments – Welcome, Status, Review Objectives 7.Call for presentations resolving comments 1.“Annex B Comment resolution,” Dennis W., 11-07/2188r1 (45min, Tues AM2) 2.“LB 101 Comment Resolution Proposal Section 4” Fadh P., 11-07/2205r0 (1hour, Wed AM1) 3.“Proposal for resolving comments on LB 101,” Neeraj S., 11-07/2120r1 (1hour, Tue PM2) 4.“Section 3 (Definitions) LB 101 Comment Resolution” Marc E., 11-07/2216r0 (45min, Wed AM1) 5.“Comment resolution for CID 419,” Marc E., 11-07/2234r0 (10min, Thurs AM1) 6.“Comment resolution addressing LOS definition,” Marc E., 11-07/2230r0 (10min, Thurs AM1) 7.“LB 101 Proposal for comment resolution Section 4,” Mark K. /Dalton V., 11-07/2226r0 (30min, Thurs AM1) 8.“LB 101 comment resolution proposal for Clause 4,” Uriel L., 11-07/2253r0 (30 min, Thurs AM1) 8.Editor’s report 9.Motion to accept proposed resolutions in comment spreadsheet t-LB101-Comment-Resolution.xls 10.Comment resolution 11.New Business Telecons Ad-hoc meeting TGT Standards Process Milestones

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 11 Attendance Reminder Attendance recording: – –Must register before logging attendance –Must log attendance during each 2 hour session

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 12 Be Aware… The conference center is accessible to the public Do not leave your laptop or personal items unattended in meeting rooms You must be wearing your badge while attending the meetings

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 13 Public Document Server You can access the Server via your Browser at: Instructions can be found in document: the-new-ieee document-system.ppt

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 14 Meeting Schedule for week MondayTuesdayWednesdayThursday 8:00 – 10:00 TGT BREAK 10:30 – 12:30 TGT LUNCH 1:30 – 3:30 TGT BREAK 4:00 – 6:00 TGT DINNER 7:30 – 9:30 TGT Ad Hoc 8:00 – 11:00

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 15 July Meeting Objectives Comment resolution Hear presentations

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 16 Progress Since Montreal Meeting Four telecons held –Resolved 22 technical comments Latest comment resolution spreadsheet: 11-07/0659r9 –Includes the comments resolved during the July 12th, 2007 telecon

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 17 Process for Resolving Comments Follow the same process we have used in telecons –Discuss the comment (limit the discussion to 10 minutes) –If there is consensus, we will mark the CID as “Accept, Decline, or Counter (provide resolution text).” Otherwise defer the comment –Before the end of the session, we will affirm the resolutions

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 18 Comment Resolution Process 1 (from Montreal meeting)

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 19 Comment Resolution Process 2 (from Montreal meeting)

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 20 Motion # 1 Move to re-confirm (Motions # 1 & 2, Doc: 0658r2) decisions made at the May 2007 TGT meeting in Montreal, Quebec, Canada Moved/Seconded: Marc E./Dennis W. Y/N/A: 4/0/3 Motion: Passes

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 21 Motion # 2 Move to accept the proposal in r1-000t as resolution to CIDs 1670, 1692, 1597, 1099, 1354, 967, 29, 1355, and Moved/Seconded: Dennis Ward/Joe Repice Y/N/A: 9/0/1 Motion: Passes

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 22 Motion # 3 Move to accept the proposed comment resolutions in t for CIDs: 1133, 1657, 1658, 1667, 1668, 92, 1659, 286, 93, 1207, 94, 419, 1132, 1136, 95, 97, 1662, 420, 1133, 1137, 96, 1139, 110, 111, 116, 1140, 1143, 1141, 1144, 1147, 104, 1146, and 51. Moved/Seconded: Mark E./Larry Green Y/N/A: 7/0/1 Motion: Passes

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 23 Straw Poll # 1 Would you like to revert the proposed resolution for CID 1145 in r0-000t. –Yes (as is) –No (delete the last sentence) Yes/No = 5/2

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 24 Straw Poll # 2 Those is in favor of the following definition of NLOS channel as a comment resolution to CID 419 in doc /2234r0: –Version 1: Y/N = 10/0 –Version 2: Y/N = 4/0 –Version 3: Y/N = 0/7

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 25 Straw Poll # 3 Is Clause 4 an acceptable place to include the discussion on Precision and Accuracy? –Y/N = 12/0

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 26 Motion # 4 Move to accept the proposed comment resolutions in t-LB101-Comment-Resolution.xls for CIDs: 1400, 1149, 31, 197, 198, 491, 1687, 1152, 1025, 299, 311, 131, 468, 1409, 423, 1402, 424, 1403, 134, 141, 1678, and Moved/Seconded: Marc E./Dalton V. Y/N/A: 8/0/2 Motion: Passes

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 27 Motion # 5 Move to accept the proposed comment resolutions in t (Proposal for resolving comments on LB 101) for CIDs: 133, 1683, 943, 1174, 494, 944, 344, 326, 1169, 327, and Moved/Seconded: Marc Emmelmann/Craig Warren Y/N/A: 6/0/6 Motion: Passes

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 28 Motion # 6 Move to accept the proposed comment resolutions in t (LB 101 resolution of comments addressing LOS channel definition) for CIDs: 1145, 103, and Moved/Seconded: Marc Emmelmann/Dennis Ward Y/N/A: 7/0/3 Motion: Passes

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 29 Motion # 7 Move to accept the proposed comment resolutions in t (LB 101 comment resolution NLOS channel definition) for CID: 419. Moved/Seconded: Marc Emmelmann/Craig Warren Y/N/A: 6/0/2 Motion: Passes

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 30 Straw Poll # 4 Who is in favor of: –Weekly 1 hour Teleconferences: count = 4 –Biweekly 1.5 hours Teleconferences: count = 1 –Biweekly 1 hour Teleconferences: count = 8 Teleconferences on Thursday’s 12:00 pm – 1:00 pm ET Result: Bi-weekly 1 hour supported

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 31 Motion # 8 Move to empower TGT to have bi-weekly teleconferences starting 8/2/2007 at 12pm ET for 1 hour till September meeting Moved/Seconded: Dalton V./Marc E. Y/N/A: 7/0/0 Motion: Passes

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 32 TGT Telecons between now and September Telecons opportunities: bi-weekly Dates: bi-weekly: 8/2/07, 8/16/07, 8/30/07, and 9/13/07 Time: –Scheduled for 1 hour – Thursday’s 12:00 pm – 1:00 pm USA ET First telecon: 8/2/07 Purpose: Resolving comments from LB 101 and hearing comment resolution proposals

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 33 Straw Poll # 5 Are you in favor of holding a IEEE TGT ad-hoc meeting between the July 2007 session and September 2007 session? Yes/No = 1/5

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 34 TGT Standards Process Milestones Next major milestone – 1 st Recirculation st LB 1 st Recirc REVCOM approval WG/SEC approval 1 st SB SB Recirc We are here Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun nd Recirc Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 3 rd Recirc

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 35 Backup Information

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 36 A Brief TGT History Study Group formed – 1 st meeting January 2004 (Vancouver) PAR approved August 2004 Task Group formed – 1 st meeting September 2004 (Berlin) Guidelines for proposals agreed – March 2005 (Atlanta) First accepted proposal – May 2005 (Cairns) Many accepted proposals have followed Started Issues List – September 2005 (Garden Grove) Internal Review conducted June-July 2006 First LB started after March 2007 meeting (Orlando) Passed first LB (75.81%) and received 1885 comments. Comment resolution started in May 2007 meeting (Montreal)

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 37 TGT Approved Document List 11-04/1553r2, “Guidelines for TGT Formal Metric and Methodology Proposals” 11-05/912r3, “TGT Process Document” 11-06/872r25, “Compiled Comments from Internal Review” (latest version of comment resolution spreadsheet) 11-07/0659r8, “LB101 Comment Resolution”

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 38 Reflector reflectors: Requires membership to send to it Getting on the reflectors – rules require all TG communication to be through reflector

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 39 References for Newcomers (1 of 2) Web site: – You can access the Document Server via your Browser at: – Instructions can be found in document: – the-new-ieee document-system.ppt the-new-ieee document-system.ppt

doc.: IEEE /2082r2 Submission July 2007 Neeraj K. Sharma, Intel CorporationSlide 40 References for Newcomers (2 of 2) Document numbering scheme –WG-YY-NNNN-RR-gggg-English-document-title.ext WG = 802 working group number, e.g. “11” as in YY = two digits of year NNNN = document number RR = document revision number gggg = group to which the document pertains –Example: t-jan-2006-waikoloa-meeting-slides.ppt