`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 44
`
`
`
` Entered: October 26, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., DISH NETWORK, LLC,
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`TIME WARNER CABLE ENTERPRISES LLC,
`VERIZON SERVICES CORP., and ARRIS GROUP, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-010211
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and,
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`1 DISH Network, L.L.C., who filed a Petition in IPR2017-00255, and
`Comcast Cable Communications, L.L.C., Cox Communications, Inc., Time
`Warner Cable Enterprises L.L.C., Verizon Services Corp., and ARRIS
`Group, Inc., who filed a Petition in IPR2017-00417, have been joined in this
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`In this inter partes review, instituted pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314,
`Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Petitioner”) challenges claims 1–30 (“the challenged
`claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’158 patent”),
`owned by TQ Delta, LLC (“Patent Owner”). We have jurisdiction under
`35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written Decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§ 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner
`has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are
`unpatentable. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is dismissed.
`
`A. Procedural History
`Petitioner filed a Petition for inter partes review of claims 1‒30 of the
`’158 patent. Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response.
`Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). On November 4, 2016, we instituted an inter
`partes review of claims 1–30 of the ’158 patent on the following grounds
`(Paper 7 (“Dec.”)):
`
`References
`
`
`Basis
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`1, 2, 4, 15, 16, and 18
`
`3, 5, 14, 17, 19, and 28‒30
`6, 9, 10, 12, 20, 23, 24, and
`26
`8, 11, 13, 22, 25, and 27
`
`Shively,2 and Stopler3
`Shively, Stopler, and
`Gerszberg4
`Shively, Stopler, and
`Bremer5
`Shively, Stopler,
`
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,144,696; issued Nov. 7, 2000 (Ex. 1011) (“Shively”).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 6,625,219 B1; issued Sept. 23, 2003 (Ex. 1012)
`(“Stopler”).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 6,424,646 B1; issued July 23, 2002 (Ex. 1013)
`(“Gerszberg”).
`5 U.S. Patent No. 4,924,516; issued May 8, 1990 (Ex. 1017) (“Bremer”).
`2
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`
`
`Basis
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`
`
`
`7 and 21
`
`References
`Bremer, and Gerszberg
`Shively, Stopler,
`Bremer, and Flammer6
`
`Thereafter, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (“PO
`Resp.”). Paper 15. Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent Owner Response
`(“Pet. Reply”). Paper 20. Pursuant to an Order (Paper 24), Patent Owner
`filed a listing of alleged statements and evidence in connection with
`Petitioner’s Reply deemed to be beyond the proper scope of a reply. Paper
`25. Petitioner filed a response to Patent Owner’s listing. Paper 32.
`Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude, Paper 31 (“PO Mot. Exc.”),
`Petitioner filed an Opposition, Paper 36 (“Pet. Opp. Mot. Exc.”), and Patent
`Owner filed a Reply, Paper 40. Patent Owner filed a Motion for
`Observation, Paper 30 (“PO Mot. Obs.”) and Petitioner filed a Response to
`the Motion for Observation, Paper 37 (“Pet. Resp.”).
`We held a consolidated hearing on August 3, 2017, for this case and
`related Case IPR2016-01020, and a transcript of the hearing is included in
`the record. Paper 42 (“Tr.”).
`B. Related Proceedings
`The parties indicate that the ’158 patent is the subject of several
`
`pending judicial matters. Pet. 1; Paper 5, 2–3.
`C. The ʼ158 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’158 patent relates to multicarrier communications systems that
`
`lower the peak-to-average power ratio (PAR) of transmitted signals.
`
`6 U.S. Patent No. 5,515,369; issued May 7, 1996 (Ex. 1019) (“Flammer”).
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:28‒31. A value is associated with each carrier signal, and a
`phase shift is computed for each carrier signal based on the value associated
`with that carrier signal. Id. at 2:38‒41. The value is determined
`independent of the input bit value carried by the carrier signal. The
`computed phase shift value is combined with the phase characteristic of that
`carrier signal to substantially scramble the phase characteristics of the carrier
`signals. Id. at 2:38‒45. Figure 1 illustrates the multicarrier communication
`system and is reproduced below:
`
`Figure 1 illustrates the multicarrier communication system, digital
`
`subscriber line (DSL) communication system 2, which includes discrete
`multitoned (DMT) transceiver 10 communicating with remote transceiver 14
`over communication channel 18 using transmission signal 38 having a
`plurality of carrier signals. Id. at 3:27‒31. DMT transceiver 10 includes
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`DMT transmitter 22 and DMT receiver 26. Id. at 3:31‒32. Remote
`transceiver also includes transmitter 30 and receiver 34. Id. at 3:32‒34.
`DMT transmitter 22 transmits signals over communication channel 18 to
`receiver 34. Id. at 3:40‒42.
`DMT transmitter 22 includes a quadrature amplitude modulation
`(QAM) encoder 42, modulator 46, bit allocation table (BAT) 44, and phase
`scrambler 66. Id. at 3:53‒56. QAM encoder 42 has a single input for
`receiving serial data bit stream 54 and multiple parallel outputs to transmit
`QAM symbols 58 generated by QAM encoder 42 from bit stream 54. Id. at
`3:65‒4:1. Modulator 46 provides DMT modulation functionality and
`transforms QAM symbols 58 into DMT symbols 70. Id. at 4:12‒14.
`Modulator 46 modulates each carrier signal with a different QAM symbol
`58, and, therefore, this modulation results in carrier signals having phase and
`amplitude characteristics based on QAM symbol 58. Id. at 4:15‒18.
`Modulator 46 also includes phase scrambler 66 that combines a phase shift
`computed for each QAM-modulated carrier signal with the phase
`characteristics of that carrier signal. Id. at 4:31‒34.
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner challenges claims 1‒30 of the ’158 patent. Claims 1 and 15
`are independent claims. Claims 2‒14 and 29 depend, either directly or
`indirectly, from claim 1, and claims 16‒28 and 30 depend, either directly or
`indirectly, from claim 15. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
`
`In a multicarrier modulation system including a first
`1.
`transceiver in communication with a second transceiver using a
`transmission signal having a plurality of carrier signals for
`modulating a plurality of data bits, each carrier signal having a
`phase characteristic associated with at least one bit of the
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`
`plurality of data bits, a method for scrambling the phase
`characteristics of the carrier signals comprising:
`
`transmitting the plurality of data bits from the first
`transceiver to the second transceiver;
`
`associating a carrier signal with a value determined
`independent of any bit of the plurality of data bits carried by the
`carrier signal, the value associated with the carrier signal
`determined by a pseudo-random number generator;
`
`determining a phase shift for the carrier signal at least
`based on the value associated with the carrier signal;
`
`modulating at least one bit of the plurality of data bits on
`the carrier signal; and
`
`modulating the at least one bit on a second carrier signal
`of the plurality of carrier signals.
`
`Ex. 1001, 10:59–11:11.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Principles of Law
`To prevail in its challenge to Patent Owner’s claims, Petitioner must
`demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims are
`unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). A claim is
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the
`claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a
`whole, would have been obvious at the time of the invention to a person
`having ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
`406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of
`underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of
`the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence
`of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1,
`17–18 (1966).
`In that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
`a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; see also
`Translogic Technology, Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1259, and 1262 (Fed. Cir.
`2007).
`
`B. Level of Ordinary skill in the Art
`Citing its declarant, Dr. Jose Tellado, Petitioner contends that a person
`having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had
`(1) a Master’s degree in Electrical and/or Computer Engineering, or
`equivalent training, and (2) approximately five years of experience working
`with multicarrier communications systems. Pet. 10–11; Ex. 1009 ¶ 18.
`Petitioner also contends that “[l]ack of work experience can be remedied by
`additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 11.
`Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Robert Short indicated that for purposes of
`the proceeding he adopts Dr. Tellado’s definition of a person of ordinary
`skill in the art. Ex. 2003 ¶ 16. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt
`Petitioner’s proposed definition, and further find that the level of ordinary
`skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v.
`Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d
`1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`
`C. Claim Interpretation
`The Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,766. Under the broadest reasonable construction
`standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as
`would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the
`entire disclosure. In re Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1257.
`Petitioner proposes constructions for the following claim terms:
`“multicarrier” and “transceiver.” Pet. 8–9. In our Decision to Institute, we
`interpreted the term “transceiver” to mean “a device, such as a modem, with
`a transmitter and receiver,” but determined that it was not necessary to
`interpret the term “multicarrier.” Dec. 6–7. Neither party has indicated that
`our determinations were improper and we do not perceive any reason or
`evidence that now compels any deviation from our initial determinations.
`PO Resp. 13–14; Pet. Reply 7–8. Accordingly, the construction of
`transceiver to mean “a device, such as a modem, with a transmitter and
`receiver” applies to this Decision. Dec. 7. For purposes of this decision, we
`find it necessary to construe “scrambling the phase characteristics of the
`carrier signals” found in claim 1.
`Scrambling the Phase Characteristics of the Carrier Signals
`The preamble of claim 1 recites a transmission signal with a plurality
`of carrier signals where each carrier signal has a phase characteristic and “a
`method for scrambling the phase characteristics of the carrier signals,
`comprising.” (Emphasis added). Patent Owner argues that the italicized
`language should be interpreted to mean “adjusting the phases of a plurality
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`of carriers in a single multicarrier symbol by pseudo-randomly varying
`amounts.” PO Resp. 14–19. Petitioner argues that the phrase needs no
`interpretation, since the prior art relied upon uses the same “phase
`scrambling” terminology to describe pseudo-random phase changes. Pet.
`Reply 7 (citing Ex. 1012, 12:24–31). Additionally, Petitioner argues,
`without any other explanation, that “the Board should not adopt TQ Delta’s
`proposed construction.” Id. During oral argument, however, counsel for
`Petitioner reiterated that it is Petitioner’s position that no construction of the
`term is necessary, because “[r]egarding [P]atent [O]wner’s proposal of the
`construction, we believe that is exactly how Stopler is describing this phase
`scrambler as operating.” Tr. 18:23–19:5.
`The phrase “scrambling the phase characteristics of the carrier
`signals” is recited in the preamble of claim 1. Although neither party
`explicitly explains why the preamble of claim 1 is limiting, both parties
`implicitly contend that the preamble is limiting. For purposes of this
`decision, we determine that the preamble is limiting. We further find it
`helpful to our decision and analysis to interpret the phrase in order to
`understand the parties’ positions with respect to how the prior art reference
`Stopler meets the phrase.
`Patent Owner argues that “scrambling the phase characteristics of the
`carrier signals” should be construed to mean “adjusting the phases of a
`plurality of carriers in a single multicarrier symbol by pseudo-randomly
`varying amounts.” PO Resp. 14. Patent Owner contends that the
`construction is supported by the specification of the ’158 patent and clarifies
`that the claimed phase scrambling “must be performed amongst the
`individual carrier phases in a single multicarrier symbol” and is not met if
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`the phase adjustment only occurs over time from one symbol to the next.
`PO Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 37).
`In support of its proposed interpretation, Patent Owner argues that the
`’158 patent describes that each of the plurality of carriers (of a multicarrier
`signal) corresponds to a different QAM symbol. PO Resp. 15 (citing Ex.
`1001, 4:15–16). Patent Owner further argues that each carrier (or QAM
`symbol) has its own phase or phase characteristic, and that the combination
`of the carriers (or QAM symbols) is referred to as a DMT symbol. PO Resp.
`16 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:9–11, 9:8–9; Ex. 2003 ¶ 39). Patent Owner further
`contends that the ’158 patent describes that a “phase scrambler” scrambles
`phases or phase characteristics of carriers within a single DMT symbol, and
`that PAR in the transmission signal is reduced by adjusting the carrier
`phases within a single DMT symbol. PO Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:32–
`8:13; Ex. 2003 ¶ 39). PAR, Patent Owner contends, would not be reduced if
`carrier phases were only adjusted from one symbol to the next. PO Resp. 16
`(Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 41–42).
`Based on the record before us, we agree with Patent Owner’s
`proposed construction as far as meaning “adjusting the phases of a plurality
`of carriers in a single multicarrier symbol.” PO Resp. 14. Patent Owner,
`however, provides no persuasive reasoning for also adding to that
`construction “by pseudo-randomly varying amounts.” Id. Rather, Patent
`Owner merely contends that (1) in a corresponding district court matter, the
`court construed the phrase to mean “adjusting the phase characteristics of the
`carrier signals by pseudo-randomly varying amounts;” (2) during
`prosecution of a child application to the ’158 patent, the applicant explained
`that a “scrambler” operates by pseudo-randomly selecting bits to invert; and
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`(3) there was no fundamental disagreement between parties that scrambling
`involves adjusting the phase characteristic of a carrier signal by pseudo-
`randomly varying amounts. PO Resp. 16–17. Patent Owner’s explanation
`for why we should add “by pseudo-randomly varying amounts” to its
`proposed construction is conclusory. Id. at 17. We interpret claims using
`the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`involved patent. That standard is not the same as the standard used in
`district court. Patent Owner, however, provides no explanation for why we
`should apply the district court construction, which is not necessarily the
`same as used before us, here. Moreover, Patent Owner does not explain why
`statements made during prosecution of a child application for the term
`“scrambler” is relevant to how we should interpret the disputed phrase that
`does not even contain the term “scrambler” in it. Id. at 16. In summary,
`Patent Owner’s arguments are conclusory.
`For all of the above reasons, and for purposes of this decision, we
`determine that “scrambling the phase characteristics of the carrier signals”
`means “adjusting the phases of a plurality of carriers in a single multicarrier
`symbol.”
`
`D. Asserted Obviousness over Shively and Stopler
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 4, 15, 16, and 18 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Shively and Stopler. Pet. 11–32.
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s showing identifying where each limitation
`allegedly appears in Shively and Stopler, along with the testimony of
`Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Jose Tellado. Id. (citing Ex. 1009). We also have
`reviewed Patent Owner’s assertions and evidence, including the testimony of
`Dr. Robert Short, as to why Petitioner’s showing is deficient.. PO Resp.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`
`Shively (Ex. 1011)
`Shively discloses discrete multitoned transmission (DMT) of data by
`digital subscriber loop (DSL) modems and the allocation of bits to the
`discrete multitones. Ex. 1011, 1:5‒8. Bit allocation is performed to
`optimize throughput within aggregate power and power spectral density
`mask limits. Id. at 4:17‒19. The system includes a transmitting modem and
`a receiving modem connected by a cable having four twisted pairs of
`conductors. Id. at 9:63‒65. The modems include a source encoder, a
`channel decoder, and a digital modulator to take in and transmit data from a
`data source. Id. at 10:9‒12. The modems also include a digital
`demodulator, a channel decoder, and a source decoder to receive the data
`and supply it to a data sink. Id. at 10:12‒14. The source encoder
`compresses data, applies the compressed data to the channel decoder, which
`performs error correction. Id. at 10:15‒19. The error corrected data is
`applied to the digital modulator, which acts as the interface with the
`communication channel. Id. at 10:15‒22. The digital demodulator
`constructs a data stream from the modulated signal and applies it to the
`channel decoder, which performs error correction, and then applies the
`corrected data to the source decoder, which decompresses the data. Id. at
`10:22‒26.
`In the QAM multitoned modulation, the spectrum is broken into
`multiple sub-bands or QAM channels. Id. at 10:27‒29. The digital
`modulator generates N QAM signal tones, one for each QAM channel.
`Id. at 10:29‒30. The serial stream is segmented in to N frames, each having
`allocated to it ki bits of data. Id. at 10:30‒31. The multi-carrier modulator
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`generates N QAM tones, one for each channel, at the same symbol rate but
`with a respective constellation for each channel. Id. at 10:35‒37.
`Stopler (Ex. 1012)
`Stopler discloses a method and apparatus for encoding/framing a data
`
`stream of multitoned modulated signals to improve impulse burst immunity.
`Ex. 1012, 1:8‒11. The encoding/framing scheme allows efficient operation
`in multipoint to point channels affected by ingress and impulsive
`interference. Id. at 5:11‒14. Two dimensional interleaving is performed,
`with one dimension being time and the other dimension being frequency
`(tones or sub-channels). Id. at 5:18‒20. Stopler further discloses a
`diagonalization scheme, where data packets are spread over time in a
`diagonal fashion, such that an impulse noise affects more than one user’s
`packets, with the effect on each being reduced. Id. at 5:64‒67. A code
`having lower redundancy can be used since the amount of corruption
`expected in one user’s data packet will be reduced. Id. at 5:67‒6:3.
`
`
`
`Figure 5 of Stopler is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`As shown above, Figure 5 of Stopler, input data, in the form of data
`
`packets, is input to an RS coder 52. Id. at 8:55‒57. Data output by RS coder
`52 is input to interleaver 54. Id. at 9:8‒10. The output of interleaver 54 is
`rearranged into a serial bit stream and then scrambled in scrambler 56, which
`is used to randomize coded and interleaved data. Id. at 9:34‒37. Data
`output by scrambler 56 is divided by level splitter 58 into two levels of the
`TCM encoder. Splitter 58 divides serial bit stream into a group of data bits
`to be processed by lower level 70, and the remaining data bits to be
`processed by upper level 60. Id. at 9:48‒55. In lower level 70 of TCM
`encode, data is collected into groups by group collector 72, which is input to
`coder 74, then group interleaver 76 and then group filler 78. Id. at 10:40‒
`11:18. The outputs of upper stream 60 and lower stream 70 are combined
`into m-tuples (QAM symbols) and temporarily stored in FIFO buffer 80,
`which then delivers data to a QAM mapper 82. Id. at 11:51‒57.
`
`The input to QAM mapper 82 is data in the form of m-tuples which
`are mapped into QAM symbols. Id. at 12:21‒22. To randomize the
`overhead channel symbols, a phase scrambling sequence is applied to the
`output symbols. For example, the phase scrambling sequence may be
`generated by a pseudo-random generator composed of a linear feedback shift
`register of length 21, and initialized by a user programmable seed. Id. at
`12:24‒31. Consecutive output pairs from the pseudo-random generator are
`converted into numbers 2a+b and the sum (2a+b) is used to select the
`amount of rotation to be applied to the symbol according to the following
`table below:
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`
`
`Id. at 12:31‒45. The output from the QAM mapper 82 is provided to a
`modulator (not shown) which implements the particular signal modulation
`desired, e.g., VCMT, CDMA, etc. Id. at 12:55‒57.
`Analysis
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 4, 15, 16, and 18 would have been
`obvious over Shively and Stopler. Pet. 11–32. Patent Owner’s arguments
`are directed to whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`combined Shively and Stopler and whether Stopler describes phase
`scrambling. PO Resp. 45‒58.
`Claim 1 recites “[i]n a multicarrier modulation system including a first
`transceiver in communication with a second transceiver.” Petitioner
`contends that Shively and Stopler each describe this limitation. For
`example, and with respect to Shively, Petitioner argues that Shively
`describes a discrete multitoned transmission (DMT) of data (a multicarrier
`modulation system) by digital subscriber loop (DSL) modems (illustrated in
`Figure 2 as a transmitting modem 31 and a receiving mode 32). Pet. 17
`(citing Ex. 1011, 1:5‒7, 9:42, 9:63‒64, and Fig. 2; Ex. 1009, 31‒32).7 We
`are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing and find that Shively’s modem 31 is a
`first transceiver in communication with a second transceiver 32 and that the
`
`7 In the Petition, Petitioner references page numbers of Dr. Tellado’s
`Declaration, as opposed to paragraph numbers. Citations are to page
`numbers, unless otherwise indicated by use of the paragraph symbol (“¶”).
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`two transceivers communicate using discrete multitoned transmission
`(DMT) of data, and thus are in a multicarrier modulation system.
`Claim 1 further recites “using a transmission signal having a plurality
`of carrier signals for modulating a plurality of data bits.” Petitioner contends
`that Shively and Stopler each render obvious this phrase. For example, and
`with respect to Shively, Petitioner contends that Shively describes a
`transmitting modem that receives digital data from a data source and
`modulates separate carriers to represent the digital data, which results in a
`modulated signal sent to a receiving modem. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1011, 5:22‒
`26). Petitioner further contends that Shively describes that the available
`frequency spectrum is divided into multiple QAM channels, which a person
`of ordinary skill in the art would have understood to be a “plurality of carrier
`signals” for modulating “a plurality of data bits.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1011,
`5:47, 5:52; Ex. 1009, 35‒36). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing,
`which we adopt as our own findings and conclusions, that Shively renders
`obvious “using a transmission signal having a plurality of carrier signals for
`modulating a plurality of data bits.”
`Claim 1 recites “each carrier signal having a phase characteristic
`associated with at least one bit of the plurality of data bits.” Petitioner
`contends that Shively and Stopler each render obvious this phrase. For
`example, and with respect to Shively, Petitioner contends that Shively
`describes transmitting data bits using quadrature amplitude modulation
`(QAM) and that QAM produces a signal whose phase and amplitude convey
`encoded k-bits of information. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1011, 1:29‒30).
`Petitioner further contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art
`would have understood that the phase of a signal used in QAM to convey
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`bits is a phase characteristic as claimed. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:43‒44;
`Ex. 1009, 38). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing, which we adopt
`as our own findings and conclusions, that Shively describes “each carrier
`signal having a phase characteristic associated with at least one bit of the
`plurality of data bits.”
`
`Claim 1 further recites a “method for scrambling the phase
`characteristics of the carrier signals.” Petitioner contends that Stopler
`describes a phase scrambler that applies a phase scrambling sequence to data
`in the form of m-tuples which are to be mapped into QAM symbols. Pet. 22
`(citing Ex. 1012, 12:20‒28). Petitioner contends that the QAM symbols are
`then provided to a modulator which implements the particular signal
`modulation. Pet. 22; Ex. 1012, 12:55‒57, Fig. 5; Ex. 1009, 41–45).
`Petitioner explains, with supporting evidence, that it would have been
`understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art that modulating the
`phase-scrambled QAM symbols results in the phases of the carrier signals
`being scrambled. Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1009, 44‒45). Petitioner contends that
`it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
`employ Stopler’s phase scrambling techniques in Shively’s transmitter. Pet.
`22–23 (citing Ex. 1009, 45). In particular, Dr. Tellado testifies that a person
`having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that by transmitting
`redundant data symbols on multiple carriers, Shively’s transmitter would
`suffer from an increased peak-to-average power ratio (PAR). Ex. 1009
`¶¶ 63‒64. He further testifies that a person having ordinary skill in the art
`would have understood the drawbacks from a high PAR and that such a
`person would have sought out an approach to reduce PAR of Shively’s
`transmitter. Id. ¶ 66. Dr. Tellado further testifies that it would have been
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`obvious to randomize the carrier phases using Stopler’s techniques in order
`to reduce Shively’s PAR. Id. ¶ 67. Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s
`arguments, which we have considered and which we address below, we are
`persuaded by Petitioner’s showing, which we adopt as our own findings and
`conclusions, that Stopler teaches “scrambling the phase characteristics of the
`carrier signals” and that it would have been obvious to combine Stopler’s
`scrambling technique to Shively’s system for the reasons provided by
`Petitioner. Pet. 23.
`Claim 1 also recites “transmitting the plurality of data bits from the
`first transceiver to the second transceiver.” As discussed above, Petitioner
`relies on Shively’s description of a transmitting modem (e.g., Figure 2
`transmitting modem 31) that transmits digital data to a receiving modem
`(e.g., Figure 2 receiving modem 32). Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1011, 8:56‒60).
`We find that Shively describes transmitting digital data from a first
`transceiver to a second transceiver. Ex. 1011, 8:56‒60. Petitioner further
`explains, with supporting evidence, and we agree, that a person having
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Shively’s digital data are
`“data bits.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1009, 46); see also Ex. 1011, 5:47‒58.
`Claim 1 also recites “associating a carrier signal with a value
`determined independently of any bit of the plurality of data bits carried by
`the carrier signal, the value associated with the carrier signal determined by
`a pseudo-random number generator.” Petitioner relies on Stopler to meet
`this limitation. In particular, Petitioner contends that Stopler teaches a
`pseudo-random generator that outputs consecutive output pairs that are
`converted into numbers 2a+b. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1012, 12:28‒45). The
`value (2a+b), derived from the pseudo-random number generator, Petitioner
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`contends, is a “value determined independently of any bit of the plurality of
`data bits carried by the carrier signal.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1009, 48).
`Petitioner further explains, with supporting evidence, that because Stopler
`teaches that the value (2a+b) is associated with a symbol that is transmitted
`on a sub-channel having a carrier frequency, the value (2a+b) is associated
`with a carrier signal. Pet 24–25 (citing Ex. 1009, 48‒49). We are persuaded
`by Petitioner’s showing, which we adopt, that Stopler renders obvious
`associating a carrier signal with a “value determined independently of any
`bit of the plurality of data bits carried by the carrier signal, the value
`associated with the carrier signal determined by a pseudo-random number
`generator.”
`
`Claim 1 recites “determining a phase shift for the carrier signal at least
`based on the value associated with the carrier signal.” Petitioner contends
`that Stopler teaches that the (2a+b) value is used to determine a phase shift
`because the sum (2a+b) is used to select the amount of rotation to be applied
`to the symbol, where the phase rotation can be 0, π/2, π, or -π/2. Pet. 25
`(citing Ex. 1012, 12:28‒45; Ex. 1009, 49). Petitioner contends that a person
`having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that applying a
`rotation to the symbol results in a phase shift in the carrier signal after the
`symbol is modulated onto the carrier. Pet. 25‒26 (citing Ex. 1009, 49). We
`are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing, which we adopt, that Stopler renders
`obvious “determining a phase shift for the carrier signal at least based on the
`value associated with the carrier signal.”
`Claim 1 recites “modulating at least one bit of the plurality of data bits
`on the carrier signal” and “modulating the at least one bit on a second carrier
`signal of the plurality of carrier signals.” Petitioner points to descriptions in
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`Shively that describes determining “a respective carrier modulated to
`transmit one bit in each of a plurality of multitone subchannels of the
`channel” and “modulating a first set of respective carriers to represent
`respective unique portions of the data stream.” Pet. 26 (quoting Ex. 1011,
`8:3‒6, 8:5‒13). Petitioner further contends that Shively employs QAM
`multitone modulation to modulate carriers, and Shively’s multiple sub-bands
`or QAM channels correspond to the claimed “plurality of carrier signals.”
`Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1009, 51). Petitioner submits that Stopler also teaches
`using QAM to convey data bits on carrier signals. Pet. 26‒27. Petitioner
`further