`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., et al.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TQ DELTA LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`________
`
`Case IPR2016-01006 (Patent 7,835,430)
`Case IPR2016-01007 (Patent 8,432,956)
`Case IRP2016-01008 (Patent 8,238,412)
`Case IPR2016-01009 (Patent 8,238,412)
`________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: August 3, 2017
`________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01006 (Patent 7,835,430)
`Case IPR2016-01007 (Patent 8,432,956)
`Case IRP2016-01008 (Patent 8,238,412)
`Case IPR2016-01009 (Patent 8,238,412)
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
` ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`David L. McCombs, Esquire
`
`
`Theodore M. Foster, Esquire
`
`
`Gregory P. Huh, Esquire
`
`
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`
`
`2523 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
`
`
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`
` ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`Peter J. McAndrews, Esquire
`
`
`Christopher M. Scharff, Esquire
`
`
`Rajendra A. Chiplunkar, Esquire
`
`
`McAndrews Held & Malloy, Ltd.
`
`
`500 West Madison Street, 34th Floor
`
`
`Chicago, Illinois 60661
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on
`Thursday, August 3, 2017, commencing at 1:01 p.m., at the U.S.
`Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01006 (Patent 7,835,430)
`Case IPR2016-01007 (Patent 8,432,956)
`Case IRP2016-01008 (Patent 8,238,412)
`Case IPR2016-01009 (Patent 8,238,412)
`
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Good afternoon. This is
` the hearing for IPR 2016-01006, 1007, 1008, and
` 1009, Cisco Systems, et al. versus TQ Delta.
` Each side has 60 minutes to argue for
` the presentation. Petitioner, you will proceed
` first to present your case with respect to the
` challenged claims and grounds for which the board
` instituted trial. Thereafter, patent owner,
` you will respond to their presentation, and you
` petitioner may reserve rebuttal time.
` At this time we would like the parties
` to please introduce themselves, beginning with
` petitioner.
` MR. MCCOMBS: Good morning, Your Honors.
` I'm David McCombs with Haynes and Boone. And with
` me is Dina Blikshteyn, Theo Foster, and Gregory Huh.
` Gregory will be making the presentation today.
` I'd also like to mention we have with us
` on behalf of Dish Networks with the Cooley, LLP
` firm Stephen McBride and Jennifer Volk are here.
` And also from the Comcast entities, we have with
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01006 (Patent 7,835,430)
`Case IPR2016-01007 (Patent 8,432,956)
`Case IRP2016-01008 (Patent 8,238,412)
`Case IPR2016-01009 (Patent 8,238,412)
`
`
` us Cory Manley from Duane Morris.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you.
` And for patent owner?
` MR. MCANDREWS: Good afternoon, Your
` Honor, I'm Peter McAndrews from McAndrews Held
` Malloy on behalf of TQ Delta. I have with me Chris
` Scharff and Raj Chiplunkar. Chris Scharff will be
` presenting on the first four matters. When we flip
` to the other two, I'll take a spot and I'll be
` presenting on that matter.
` We also have with us one of our summer
` associates, Ben Mann. He's in the back there.
` And then for TQ Delta, we have Mark Roach and Nada
` Roget.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you.
` MR. MCANDREWS: And this is Marcos Tzannes,
`one of the inventors on some of these
` patents, although not the ones involved in this
` proceeding.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Thank you very much.
` So August 1st, 2017, patent owner filed
` a paper styled Patent Owner's Objections to the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01006 (Patent 7,835,430)
`Case IPR2016-01007 (Patent 8,432,956)
`Case IRP2016-01008 (Patent 8,238,412)
`Case IPR2016-01009 (Patent 8,238,412)
`
`
` Petitioner's Demonstratives.
` MR. MCANDREWS: Yes, Your Honors.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Does that still stand? Did
` you happen to have a chance to talk to them about
` all the objections?
` MR. MCANDREWS: We did. That was after
` the objections, and we didn't feel that their
` revisions to the demonstratives addressed our
` objections to the demonstratives.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: So the objections that you
` have currently are still the same?
` MR. MCANDREWS: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: But you did meet with them
` first, so that's good.
` We had a chance to look at the
` objections and we feel like your objections were
` improper or are improper, because the patent owner
` did not -- you didn't demonstrate sufficiently
` that the contents of the objected to slides
` raised new issues or evidence. Rather, he objected-to slides contain
` references to arguments and evidence of record.
` MR. MCANDREWS: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: We understand that you
` may believe that they, you know, the reply was
` outside the scope of what they should have argued.
`5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01006 (Patent 7,835,430)
`Case IPR2016-01007 (Patent 8,432,956)
`Case IRP2016-01008 (Patent 8,238,412)
`Case IPR2016-01009 (Patent 8,238,412)
`
`
` Those arguments are in the papers, so whatever they
` referenced was, you know, documented in the record.
` MR. MCANDREWS: Sure. And what about,
` Your Honor, we had some objections based on the St.
` Jude case that you cited in the order on some slides
` being mischaracterizations of the record.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: We don't feel like they
` are. So -- and we also want to reiterate that
` demonstratives are just demonstratives. They are
` not evidence for us. We don't consider them as
` evidence. We
` look at the written record when we consider, you
` know, our final written decision.
` So to the extent that there's
` mischaracterization, we're not going to rely on
` that in our decision. And it's not even clear to
` the three of us that we'll even upload these
` demonstratives into the record.
` MR. MCANDREWS: All right.
` MR. MCCOMBS: Thank you, Your Honor.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: So having addressed that,
` and for the record we've dismissed patent owner's
` objections to petitioner's demonstratives.
` Petitioner you can go ahead.
` MR. MCCOMBS: Your Honor, would you like
`6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01006 (Patent 7,835,430)
`Case IPR2016-01007 (Patent 8,432,956)
`Case IRP2016-01008 (Patent 8,238,412)
`Case IPR2016-01009 (Patent 8,238,412)
`
`
` hard copies of our slides?
` JUDGE MEDLEY: No. We don't need them.
` We have them.
` Would you like to reserve rebuttal time?
` MR. HUH: Yes, I would. 20 minutes,
` please.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. So I'll just keep it
` with 60, and we'll keep an eye on how much time
` you've got left.
` MR. MCCOMBS: Thank you, Your Honor.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Go when you want to go.
` MR. HUH: Thank you. Good afternoon, your
` Honors. On the record, this is Gregory Huh on
` behalf of the petitioner CISCO in the above noted
` IPR proceedings. These proceedings pertain to three
` patents. They have been generally referred to as the
` diagnostic patents, and they all share a common
` specification.
` Slide one. I have outlined five issues
` for discussion today. Time permitting, I'll go
` through each one. I want to start first with the
` Claim Construction of Subchannel.
` Turning to Slide 3, just to provide some
` context, I have provided Claim 1, the '956 patent,
` and generally these patents, all three of them,
`7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01006 (Patent 7,835,430)
`Case IPR2016-01007 (Patent 8,432,956)
`Case IRP2016-01008 (Patent 8,238,412)
`Case IPR2016-01009 (Patent 8,238,412)
`
`
` pertain to identifying system issues using
` diagnostic or test information -- for diagnostic
` or test information. And on Slide 3 we have claim
` 1, and in this context the diagnostic information
` is power level per subchannel information
` specifically.
` This limitation also is refuted in '412
` patent owners.
` Other exemplary diagnostic effect
` information includes signal-to-noise ratio for
` subchannel during Showtime. That's also in the
` '956 patent, also in the '412 patent, the '430
` patent. Other information would include idle
` channel noise information, but that was not
` included in the term "subchannel."
` So I want to focus right now on the term
` subchannel in this claim.
` First, I want to note that in the
` petition we applied the prior art without
` construing the term subchannel, but the prior art
` was ADSL prior art, and we explain how that meant
` subchannel in the claim. And the board in its
` insitution decision did not adopt a construction
` for this term. Nonetheless, it gave the term
` (undiscernible) with prior art (indiscernible)
`8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01006 (Patent 7,835,430)
`Case IPR2016-01007 (Patent 8,432,956)
`Case IRP2016-01008 (Patent 8,238,412)
`Case IPR2016-01009 (Patent 8,238,412)
`
`
` assumption.
` Showing us Slide 4, the patent owner's
` response did not provide a construction for the
` term subchannel, which is a carrier of a
` multicarrier communication channel.
` It's our position that's, at best, an
` improper construction, that the broadest
` reasonable construction, as Dr. Kiaei explains in
` his declaration shown on Slide 4, our position is
` that a subchannel is a portion of a frequency
` spectrum used for communication.
` What's important to note is that if our
` construction is adopted. There's no disputes that
` the prior art, and specifically Milbrandt, does in
` fact teach a subchannel. So I want to focus today
` on demonstrating that in fact even another patent
` owner's construction of prior art does teach a
` subchannel.
` Again, our petition utilized ADSL prior
` art. And we explain how specifically Milbrandt's
` subfrequency is a subcarrier in the ANSI standard
` and that in fact doesn't (undiscernable) subchannel
` for the claim. That meets even patent owner's
` construction as proposed.
` So what I'd like to do now is turn to
`
`
`
`9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01006 (Patent 7,835,430)
`Case IPR2016-01007 (Patent 8,432,956)
`Case IRP2016-01008 (Patent 8,238,412)
`Case IPR2016-01009 (Patent 8,238,412)
`
`
` Slide 7 and explain how in fact Milbrandt does teach
` power level subchannel.
` With respect to claim '956 patent shown on
` Slide 8, patent owner does not dispute the other
` limitations in the claim. The only limitation at
` issue is power level subchannel information. And
` also, the other limitations were admitted by their
` expert as being well known in the art.
` JUDGE CLEMENTS: May have I ask a
` question? Does this dispute about power level per
` subchannel really depend on which party's
` construction we adopt for subchannel? Because in
` the case of the challenged patent and the prior art,
` they are all DSL it seems to me, and in every case
` we are talking about that 1.1 megahertz channel
` that's divided into 256 bands of 4 kilohertz and
` Stopler's in the DSL con -- or was it Shively in the
` DSL context -- Stopler in the DSL context -- it
` seems like in every case we are dealing with
` these four kilohertz subchannels.
` So does it really matter about power level
` per subchannel or which construction we
` adopt?
` MR. HUH: The answer is no. Short answer
` is no. The prior art -- the ADSL prior art is a
`10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01006 (Patent 7,835,430)
`Case IPR2016-01007 (Patent 8,432,956)
`Case IRP2016-01008 (Patent 8,238,412)
`Case IPR2016-01009 (Patent 8,238,412)
`
`
` subchannel even under patent owner's construction.
` My only point in noting a difference in
` constructions is that were the board to adopt
` petitioner's proposed construction, then there's no
` dispute that in fact the prior art does teach a
` subchannel. And what I want to do today is actually
` focus and explain how Milbrandt does teach a
` subchannel, which would be a four kilohertz
` subfrequency or a channel or a carrier in this
` context.
` Does that answer your question, Your
` Honor.
` JUDGE CLEMENTS: Yes, it does. Thank you.
` MR. HUH: Very good. Thank you.
` So regarding the term subchannel, patent
` owner makes one argument which is allegedly that
` Milbrandt's subfrequency would be the whole
` upstream or the whole downstream frequency
` spectrum. That's simply incorrect. And the baord
` already considered that argument in its
` institution decision and found it was not
` sufficient.
` Turning to Slide 10, provided is a portion
` of Milbrandt cited in the petition and describes how
` the ADSL modem devised the bandwidth into many's
`11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01006 (Patent 7,835,430)
`Case IPR2016-01007 (Patent 8,432,956)
`Case IRP2016-01008 (Patent 8,238,412)
`Case IPR2016-01009 (Patent 8,238,412)
`
`
` channels. This is many channels that devise the
` bandwidth. It further explains that each channel
` uses Quadrature amplitude modulation to transmit the
` data simultaneously.
` Now, this is significant because QAM only
` operates at the toner carrier level. QAM does not
` operate in the ADSL context on the whole upstream or
` the whole downstream. And what that means is that
` Milbrandt's channel corresponds to the carrier which
` therefore would meet a subchannel under patent
` owner's construction. In fact, both experts agree
` to this, that QAM only operates on the tone or the
` carrier level.
` As shown on Slide 9, we have Dr. Kiaei
` explaining that QAM operates on a tone or channel
` level, and during deposition Dr. Chrissan, patent
` owner's expert, was asked this question, and the
` question was -- and I'll quote it in the record:
` "And the QAM modulation is performed on
` each individual subchannel, right?"
` And the answer was:
` "... that happens -- that occurs within
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01006 (Patent 7,835,430)
`Case IPR2016-01007 (Patent 8,432,956)
`Case IRP2016-01008 (Patent 8,238,412)
`Case IPR2016-01009 (Patent 8,238,412)
`
`
` the IFFT itself."
` So what this means is -- it's very
` important. It clearly shows that Milbrandt's
` channels are equivalent to the subchannel claimed at
` the carrier level.
` Now Milbrandt describes the ADSL modem 16
` in a single paragraph that spans two different
` columns, two different pages. And that, as shown on
` slide 11, is the remaining portion of that
` paragraph. And in the middle of the paragraph we
` have Milbrandt explaining that each subfrequency is
` an independent channel.
` So what this means is that the petitioner
` relied on the subfrequency disclosed in Milbrandt as
` teaching a subchannel in the claim. And here now we
` have Milbrandt expressly fairly pointing out that
` the subfrequency is an independent channel. And
` that really make sense in this context.
` I'm going a little bit out of slide order,
` Judge Clements, but I'm showing here, presenting
` here, our reply in the 1007 IPR case, page 14. And
` I just want to focus and say that if we just focus
` on the upstream part, which is the blue vertical
` lines, the thin lines, each one of those thin
` vertical lines as blue will correspond to
`
`
`
`13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01006 (Patent 7,835,430)
`Case IPR2016-01007 (Patent 8,432,956)
`Case IRP2016-01008 (Patent 8,238,412)
`Case IPR2016-01009 (Patent 8,238,412)
`
`
` Milbrandt's channel. And as you can see, each of
` the channel has its own 4 kilohertz frequency --
` subfrequency. So what that means is that each
` subfrequency is the channel for the upstream and
` that's why the Milbrandt states each subfrequency is
` and independent channel. It makes complete sense.
` So again, Milbrandt clearly unequivocally
` states that each subfrequency is and independent and
` the channel again uses QAM which means that the
` subfrequency corresponds to the claim's subchannel
` even under patent owner's construction.
` Let me go back to the claim on Slide 8.
` So I just want to the Milbrandt teaches a subchannel
` even under patent owner's construction. Now, with
` respect to -- the first part of this limitation
` which is power level, in the petition we explain
` that Milbrandt teaches measured power special
` density or subfrequency.
` And during deposition Dr. Chrissan agreed
` that if you integrated power special density you
` would in fact have a measure of power. And this
` makes sense. Again, each subfrequency of the
` channel would be integrated for obtaining that power
` level for that channel with a subfrequency.
` In short, Your Honors, going back to the
`14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01006 (Patent 7,835,430)
`Case IPR2016-01007 (Patent 8,432,956)
`Case IRP2016-01008 (Patent 8,238,412)
`Case IPR2016-01009 (Patent 8,238,412)
`
`
` claim language, Milbrandt's power spectral density
` per subfrequency does in fact teach a power level
` per subchannel even under patent owner's
` construction.
` Now turning to Slide 13 -- if there's no
` other questions on that issue -- okay. Thank you.
` I want to now discuss Issue Number 3,
` which is how Milbrandt, combined with ANSI, teaches
` signal-to-noise ratio per subchannel during
` Showtime.
` Shown on Slide 14 is claim 9 of the '956
` patent. The '412 patent includes claims with
` similar limitations. And what I want to note is
` patent owner is disputing only one limitation here
` which is the one I think I identified in the center
` of the claim. The other limitations have been
` conceded and their expert, again, were will known in
` the art.
` Now, with respect to this limitation the
` patent owner makes three different arguments. The
` first one is that a subchannel isn't shown, which I
` just addressed. Milbrandt (undiscernible)* a
` subchannel. The second argument was during Showtime
` as is shown; and the third argument is
` signal-to-noise ratio is not shown by the prior art.
`15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01006 (Patent 7,835,430)
`Case IPR2016-01007 (Patent 8,432,956)
`Case IRP2016-01008 (Patent 8,238,412)
`Case IPR2016-01009 (Patent 8,238,412)
`
`
` Now, just to step back to give the board
` some context, the petition relied on Milbrandt and
` explained that Milbrandt's measures total noise per
` subchannel during Showtime. Milbrandt measures
` total noise per subfrequency, specifically and after
` normal operation, and then we relied on the ANSI
` standard to teach that -- the data in the array
` would represent signal-to-noise ratio, and a
` combination in fact would explain ** whole
` limitation as recited in a claim.
` So turning now to the -- during
` Showtime -- again, during Showtime is during normal
` operation, and that's shown on Slide 15, we rely on
` Milbrandt to teach during Showtime as specifically
` relied on Milbrandt at column 12, lines 58 to 63.
` And the petition explained how, here, Milbrandt is
` measuring noise characteristics during operation,
` and we explained how that (undiscernible) during
` Showtime.
` As shown on Slide 16, patent owner does
` not address the arguments and the evidence in the
` petition, rather they highlight different portions
` of Milbrandt and argue that that's not during
` Showtime. It's simply incorrect. They don't
` respond to our arguments. And in fact, they made
`16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01006 (Patent 7,835,430)
`Case IPR2016-01007 (Patent 8,432,956)
`Case IRP2016-01008 (Patent 8,238,412)
`Case IPR2016-01009 (Patent 8,238,412)
`
`
` the same arguments in their preliminary response and
` the board rejected that position raised by patent
` owner.
` The board recognized that they are arguing
` about different disclosures in Milbrandt, and they
` don't address the arguments in the petition. But I
` also want to note if you look on Slide 16, the
` quoted portion of Milbrandt which is 1041 at 46
` actually teaches that it's measuring information
` while providing data services subscribers. That's
` during Showtime.
` JUDGE CLEMENTS: That actually raises a question I
` wanted to ask which is, what's petitioner's position
` on this paragraph? It does say modem
` training. And yet it also says during data services. So
` what are we to make of the paragraph? Is it about
` training or is it about Showtime?
` MR. HUH: So thank you for the question.
` That's a very good question, Your Honor.
` Shown on Slide 17 was the deposition
` transcript off Dr. Kiaei. And underlying patent
` owner's argument is the erroneous assumption that
` during Showtime you don't perform training type of
` procedures. In fact, you do. For example, during
` Showtime you will measure signal-to-noise ratio
`17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01006 (Patent 7,835,430)
`Case IPR2016-01007 (Patent 8,432,956)
`Case IRP2016-01008 (Patent 8,238,412)
`Case IPR2016-01009 (Patent 8,238,412)
`
`
` and during Showtime you will reallocate bits on
` various carriers to optimize your through put and
` also to adjust in order to meet your error rate
` requirements of the system.
` So during deposition Dr. Kiaei was asked
` whether initialization continues during Showtime,
` and he explained that there's still some training
` and initialization type of process going on. And
` the answer was yes.
` What that means is that Showtime will
` occur around initialization, but Showtime itself
` is not mutually exclusive from training. Showtime
` will in fact include training operations such as,
` for example, here in the ANSI standard on Slide
` 17. ANSI is describing how certain carriers will
` not transmit data because of noise and they will
` have an allocated zero bits for those subchannels
` or subcarriers. But then it notes that the
` receiver may allocate this later as a result of an
` SNR improvement.
` So you perform your training, you enter
` Showtime, and now you are providing services and
` you are receiving services from the central office
` modem. But you may reallocate your bits on, for
` example, certain carriers that were not at use
`18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01006 (Patent 7,835,430)
`Case IPR2016-01007 (Patent 8,432,956)
`Case IRP2016-01008 (Patent 8,238,412)
`Case IPR2016-01009 (Patent 8,238,412)
`
`
` because that continues during the whole Showtime
` process. You will constantly reallocate your bits
` based on the noise in the system. That's
` dynamics. So Showtime occurs after
` initialization, but Showtime is not mutually
` exclusive from training processes, including
` signal-to-noise ratio measurements and
` reallocating bits, for example.
` Does that answer your question, Your
` Honor?
` JUDGE CLEMENTS: It does, and by way of
` follow-up, what impact, if any, does this paragraph
` in column 10 starting at line 41 have on Milbrandt's
` later disclosure in column 11 about receiving the
` data signal -- this is at column 11, lines --
` beginning at lines 38, where it discusses receiving
` the data signal and calculating subscriber line or
` determining subscriber line information.
` Does the paragraph in column 10 have
` anything to do with the paragraph in column 11?
` MR. HUH: So specifically you are speaking
` to column 11 what lines, Your Honor?
` JUDGE CLEMENTS: Beginning at line 38,
` Modem 42 at subscriber premises 12 receives the data signal
` ...and determines subscriber line
`
`
`
`19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01006 (Patent 7,835,430)
`Case IPR2016-01007 (Patent 8,432,956)
`Case IRP2016-01008 (Patent 8,238,412)
`Case IPR2016-01009 (Patent 8,238,412)
`
`
` information 28, such as attenuation, ...received signal
` power spectrum density,...at the one or more
` sub-frequencies.
` MR. HUH: That -- nothing within that
` would contradict the fact that Milbrandt's modem is
` in fact receiving and looking at line information
` while provide data services. If that's your
` question.
` JUDGE CLEMENTS: I guess is there any
` reason to think that what's described here in this
` paragraph in column 11 is occurring, quote, during
` modem training, close quote, as described in that
` previous paragraph.
` MR. HUH: So again, modem training
` procedures would occur during Showtime also. They
` are not mutually exclusive. So the fact that you
` may have training procedures during initialization
` does not mean that it's talking about training
` that's not during Showtime.
` Let me give you another example from the
` ADSL standard. Give me one second, bear with me
` and I'll find it, and we can talk about it.
` So here we have the ANSI standard on
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01006 (Patent 7,835,430)
`Case IPR2016-01007 (Patent 8,432,956)
`Case IRP2016-01008 (Patent 8,238,412)
`Case IPR2016-01009 (Patent 8,238,412)
`
`
` Slide 21, Your Honor, and it's describing, for
` example, obtaining SNR margin and also attenuation
` information. And at the latter part it says: At
` any other time following execution of
` initialization and training sequence.
` In other words it's saying we're going
` to obtain SNR margin and attenuation during
` Showtime. So again, ANSI standard itself
` contemplates obtaining line information during
` Showtime. These are training type of procedures
` that occur during initialization and also during
` Showtime. At least, the attenuation part.
` So I don't think -- the only evidence of
` record is that these are not mutually exclusive
` concepts. Patent owner' expert never says that
` Showtime would not include training type of
` procedures such as obtaining SNR information; or
` reallocated bits.
` JUDGE CLEMENTS: In terms of the claim
` construction dispute for “during Showtime,” the primary
` difference in the competing proposals is how many
` standards get listed. Is it going to matter or -- I
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01006 (Patent 7,835,430)
`Case IPR2016-01007 (Patent 8,432,956)
`Case IRP2016-01008 (Patent 8,238,412)
`Case IPR2016-01009 (Patent 8,238,412)
`
`
` mean is it wrong to include only ANSI T1.413 or do
` you need to include all four or five with the ITU
` and the ADSL and the VDSL and even the SDSL. Do
` we have to even construe this term in resolving the parties’
` dispute?
` MR. HUH: The short answer is I don't
` believe so, Your Honor. But to answer your question
` where the construction during Showtime, we agree
` that during Showtime is during normal operation and
` that Showtime does occur after initialization, but
` it's not mutually exclusive from training type of
` operations. Regarding the various DSL standards
` listed in petitioner's proposed construction, we
` believe that those are the DSL standards that patent
` owner's expert identified and he testified that
` these are -- that "during Showtime" is a term of art
` and term of art in what? Well, a term of art in
` DSL. So even if you were to look to -- you know, to
` look at Showtime, the construction itself, seeing as
` that's not really been determinative for the
` proceedings here, it's a term of art in a DSL
` context. Patent owner provides no evidence and
` neither does their expert that some (undiscernible)
` were required outside of DSL.
` So if it was forward looking, for
`
`
`
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01006 (Patent 7,835,430)
`Case IPR2016-01007 (Patent 8,432,956)
`Case IRP2016-01008 (Patent 8,238,412)
`Case IPR2016-01009 (Patent 8,238,412)
`
`
` example, and we were to save all, perhaps there
` will be some other DSL standards coming down that
` that could be summarized as during normal
` operation after initialization of an eighth of a
` DSL standard compliant device and keeping it open
` ended without specifying five different standards.
` That's perfectly fine also. But again, the
` Showtime construction does not determine the
` outcome of these proceedings. Showtime includes
` training type of operations and the art shows
` that.
` JUDGE CLEMENTS: Okay. Thank you.
` MR. HUH: Thank you, Your Honor. Let me
` get my slides correct now.
` So next I want to address how ANSI teaches
` signal-to-noise ratio, and we relied on two
` different disclosures in the same paragraph in the
` ANSI standard to address signal-to-noise ratio in
` the claim.
` Just to come back to the claim language,
` if I may, the claim recites signal-to-noise ration
` for subchannel during Showtime. I just explained
` how Milbrandt measures noise information per
` subchannel during Showtime, and I want to focus now
` on the first part of this limitation, which is the
`23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01006 (Patent 7,835,430)
`Case IPR2016-01007 (Patent 8,432,956)
`Case IRP2016-01008 (Patent 8,238,412)
`Case IPR2016-01009 (Patent 8,238,412)
`
`
` signal-to-noise ratio. But just step back a back a
` few words, in the claim is actually talking about
` data variables in an array that represents
` signal-to-noise ratio. So something in the art
` would have to represent signal-to-noise ratio. It
` doesn't recite an array containing single noise to
` ratio.
` Now, again, we relied on the two different
` disclosures to teach signal-to-noise ratio. Turning
` to Slide 19 we explained how ANSI measures
` signal-to-noise ratio and that in fact teaches the
` signal-to-noise ratio in the claim. On Side 19 we
` have the ANSI standard disclosure, which states that
` you would measure SNR at the ATU-R and make it
` externally accessible from the ATU-C. And what that
` means is -- and this is in the same paragraph in the
` context of -- actually it's during Showtime also.
` ANSI states that you would have the remote modem
` measure SNR and then transmit it upstream to the
` central office modem to make it available for
` external equipment effectively.
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
