doc.: IEEE /1023r0 Submission September 2008 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 1 +1 (321) Marvell Lane, Santa Clara, CA, Name Company Address Phone Bruce Kraemer Marvell LB134 IP Comment Date: Authors: Abstract: Summary opinion of how to progress while awaiting LOAs

doc.: IEEE /1023r0 Submission September 2008 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 2 CID 9302 Comment The resolution of LB129 comment is unacceptable, as the slide deck cited refers to another relevant reference--- 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 once the PAR is approved by the IEEE-SA Standards Board. This assurance shall be provided prior to the Standards Board's approval of the standard. This assurance shall be provided prior to a reaffirmation / stabilization if the IEEE receives notice of a potential Essential Patent Claim after the standard's approval or a prior reaffirmation / stabilization. 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. I believe this implies that the process stops until the Patent Committee can assure "clear right-to-use" under the terms of the required LOA Proposed Change Obtain documentation of patent committee written assurance to proceed. Absent this, implementers of the standard may face problems with release of devices and network operators with economic life of new installs.

doc.: IEEE /1023r0 Submission September 2008 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 3 Resolution Comment #1 The following is the personal opinion of the PatCom chair, Don Wright, and not necessarily that of the full Patent Committee, the Standards Board or the Standards Association. Don offered it as a path forward until an official PatCom position can be developed. “The proposed change identified below is not a technical solution, is not a technical change to the draft which will cause the commenter to change his/her vote to "YES" and is not in the purview of the working group or even the sponsor. The only "road block" to the progression of the draft to approval for lack of an LOA is at the Standards Board and not before. An appropriate technical solution which should have been proposed with the comment would be to have proposed removal of the technology that is potentially infringing on a patent claim and offer an alternative solution for which an LOA is not needed or for which an LOA can be obtained. If the working group does not believe it can develop and use an alternative technology it can: 1) Continue working delivering the best solution it can through sponsor ballot. It then becomes the responsibility of the Standards Board to decide what to do about the situation. Of course, there is risk with this path that once the draft reaches the Standards Board, it may decide to not approve it as a standard and any work done is basically lost. 2) Ask for the PAR to be withdrawn and abandon the work on the project. 3) Sit on its hands and do nothing until the PAR expires. Of course, if path 1 is followed, the chair should continue to attempt to get the holder of the potentially essential patent claim to complete and submit the LOA form. I would recommend the sponsor actively participate in making a determination of the desired path forward.”

doc.: IEEE /1023r0 Submission September 2008 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 4 Proposed Comment Resolution Text Counter: WG11 has requested a formal response from PatCom but it has not yet been received. TGn believes it and the WG have faithfully followed the procedures provided by PatCom concerning the soliciting of the existence of potentially essential patents and associated LOAs as specified in: TGn is restricted from any additional action beyond these procedures. TGn has passed this comment on to PatCom for review. TGn and WG11 will continue to follow the IEEE IP procedures. Further discussion on this topic can be found in document r0.