Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 45
`
`
`
` Date: January 27, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
`GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION ON REMAND
`Determining All Remaining Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. §§ 144, 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 45
`
`
`
` Date: January 27, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
`GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION ON REMAND
`Determining All Remaining Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. §§ 144, 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision in Cisco
`Sys., Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC, 928 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2019), vacated our claim
`construction in the Final Written Decision (Paper 34, “Final Dec.”), which
`found that ARRIS Group, Inc. (“Petitioner”) failed to show by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404
`B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’404 patent”) owned by TQ Delta, LLC (“Patent Owner”),
`were unpatentable, and remanded for consideration of Petitioner’s case under
`the proper construction. Cisco Sys., 928 F.3d at 1364. This decision
`addresses the parties’ contentions following remand.
`Claims 6, 11, 16, and 20 were affirmed as unpatentable in a related
`Federal Circuit decision discussed below, so they are no longer involved in
`this proceeding. TQ Delta, LLC v. Dish Network LLC, 929 F.3d 1350, 1360–
`1362 (Fed. Cir. 2019). For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner has shown
`by a preponderance of the evidence that the remaining claims are
`unpatentable. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is dismissed.
`
`A. Procedural History
`1. Proceedings Before the Board
`Petitioner filed a Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 1‒
`20 (“the original challenged claims”) of the ’404 patent. Paper 1 (“Pet.”).
`Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response to the Petition. (Paper 7, “Prelim.
`Resp.”). We instituted inter partes review of claims 1‒ 20 of the ’404 patent
`on the following ground.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`
`Original Claims
`Challenged
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`
`References/Basis
`Bowie,1 Vanzieleghem,2
`ANSI T1.413.3
`Paper 8, 2, 16 (“Inst. Dec.”). In the Decision on Institution we exercised our
`discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and did not institute inter partes review
`on Petitioner’s proposed ground that claims 1‒20 of the ’404 patent were
`unpatentable over T1E1.4/97-161R1, T1E1.4/97-319, and ANSI T1.413.4
`Inst. Dec. 15–16.
`Following institution of inter partes review, Patent Owner filed a Patent
`Owner Response (Paper 16, “PO Resp.”), to which Petitioner filed a Reply
`(Paper 17, “Reply”). Pursuant to our Order (Paper 22), Patent Owner filed a
`listing of alleged statements and evidence in connection with Petitioner’s
`Reply it deemed to be beyond the proper scope of a reply. Paper 23.
`Petitioner filed a response to Patent Owner’s listing. Paper 29. We held a
`
`1–20
`
`103
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 5,956,323; issued Sep. 21, 1999 (Ex. 1005, “Bowie”).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,246,725 B1; issued Jun. 12, 2001 (Ex. 1006,
`“Vanzieleghem”).
`3 Network and Customer Installation Interfaces – Asymmetric Digital
`Subscriber Line (ADSL) Metallic Interface, AMERICAN NATIONAL
`STANDARDS INSTITUTION (ANSI) T1.413-1995 STANDARD (Ex. 1009,
`“ANSI T1.413”).
`4 Following remand, the parties informed the Board that “no additional
`briefing or argument is necessary for this matter, and that the decision on
`remand should be rendered on the existing record.” Paper 41, 2.
`Accordingly, we do not address Petitioner’s proposed ground that claims 1‒20
`of the ’404 patent were unpatentable over T1E1.4/97-161R1, T1E1.4/97-319,
`and ANSI T1.413 as that contention is waived.
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`hearing on September 7, 2017, and a transcript of the hearing is included in
`the record. Paper 33 (“Tr.”).
`We issued a Final Written Decision finding that Petitioner failed to
`show by a preponderance of the evidence that the original challenged claims
`of the ’404 patent, were unpatentable. Final Dec. 17. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.71(d), Petitioner requested rehearing of our Final Written Decision
`(Paper 35), which we denied (Paper 36). Petitioner appealed our Final
`Written Decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
`Circuit. Paper 38 (Notice of Appeal).
`2. Federal Circuit Decisions and the Remand Proceeding
`The ’404 patent entitled “Multicarrier Transmission System with Low
`Power Sleep Mode and Rapid-On Capability,” relates to the field of
`“multicarrier transmission systems” and “establishing a power management
`sleep state in a multicarrier system.” Ex. 1001, code (54), 1:31–33. Each
`independent claim recites a “synchronization signal,” however, that term
`appears only in the claims and is not expressly discussed in the specification.
`See Ex. 1001, 10:6–12:6. Our Final Written Decision found that
`“synchronization signal” should not be construed to encompass a
`synchronization frame because the claims separately recite a “synchronization
`frame.” Final Dec. 6. Based on this claim construction, we found that
`Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the cited art
`teaches the “synchronization signal” as recited in claims 1–20. Final Dec. 15–
`17.
`
`In related IPR2016-01466, we applied the same claim construction in
`concluding that claims 1–20 of the ’404 patent had not been shown to be
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`unpatentable based on different unpatentability grounds. In a decision
`addressing the combined appeal of our Final Written Decisions in this
`proceeding and IPR2016-01466 proceeding (Paper 38), the Federal Circuit
`vacated our decision and remanded “to consider [Petitioner’s] unpatentability
`challenge under the proper claim construction.” Cisco Sys., 928 F.3d at 1359.
`“Contrary to the [our] conclusion [in the Final Written Decision], [the Federal
`Circuit] determine[d] that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`disputed claim term ‘synchronization signal’ is simply ‘used to establish or
`maintain a timing relationship between transceivers between the transmitter of
`the signal and the receiver of the signal,’ meaning synchronization signal
`includes frame synchronization.” Cisco Sys., 928 F.3d at 1364 (Fed. Cir.
`2019). Critically, for purposes of our Remand Decision, the Federal Circuit
`found that the proper claim construction for “synchronization signal” includes
`“frame synchronization.” Id. Our prior construction of “synchronization
`signal” excluded “frame synchronization.” Final Dec. 15–16.
`In IPR2016-01470 that is closely related to this proceeding, a different
`Petitioner, DISH Network, LLC (“the ’1470 Petitioner”), presented closely
`related arguments based on the same prior art combination in the instant
`case—Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and ANSI T1.413—and argued that the
`references rendered the limitations of claims 6, 11, 16, and 20 of the ’404
`obvious.5 DISH Network LLC. v. TQ Delta, LLC, IPR2016-01470, Paper 44
`at 16–17, 37 (PTAB Feb. 7, 2018) (“’1470 Final Dec.”). The Board found
`that the ’1470 Petitioner demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence,
`
`5 Claims 6, 11, and 16 are independent, claim 20 depends from claim 16. See
`Ex. 1001, 10:6–12:6
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`that claims 6, 11, 16, and 20 of the ’404 patent are unpatentable over Bowie,
`Vanzieleghem, and ANSI T1.413, arguing successfully that the combined
`references taught the narrower claim construction. DISH Network, IPR2016-
`01470, Paper 44 at 37.
`In the appeal of the Final Decision in IPR2016-01470, the Federal
`Circuit affirmed our Final Written Decision that claims 6, 11, 16, and 20 of
`the ’404 patent are unpatentable as obvious over the combination of prior
`art—Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and ANSI T1.413—addressed in this instant
`proceeding, IPR2016-01160. See TQ Delta, LLC v. Dish Network LLC, 929
`F.3d 1350, 1360–1362 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (rejecting Patent Owner’s arguments
`and finding them unpersuasive).
`Critical for our present case, the affirmance of the unpatentability of
`claims 6, 11, 16, and 20 of the ’404 patent in IPR2016-01470 mooted
`Petitioner’s appeal of the adjudicated claims, leaving the remaining claims
`challenged in IPR2016-01160 as claims 1–5, 7–10, 12–15, and 17–19 of the
`’404 patent. See Cisco Sys., Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC, 928 F.3d at 1361 (stating
`that “[b]ecause we have already determined that claims 6, 11, 16, and 20 of
`the ’404 patent would have been obvious, [see TQ Delta, 929 F.3d at 1360–
`62], the issue of patentability of these claims is mooted”).
`Based on the forgoing, the claims at issue in this Remand Proceeding,
`are claims 1–5, 7–10, 12–15, and 17–19 of the ’404 patent (“the Remaining
`Challenged Claims”). Id. Furthermore, we are guided by our Final Written
`Decision in IPR2016-01470, which presents similar arguments for the
`challenges to the Remaining Challenged Claims of the ’404 patent based on
`Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and ANSI T1.413. See DISH Network, IPR2016-
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`01470, Paper 44 at 11–34 (PTAB Feb. 7, 2018) (addressing Patent Owner
`arguments regarding cited prior art); PO Resp. 22–64 (Patent Owner
`arguments regarding cited prior art).
`Following the remand, the parties jointly stipulated that “no additional
`briefing or argument is necessary for this matter, and that the decision on
`remand should be rendered on the existing record.” Paper 41, 1.
`
`B. Related Matters
`The parties indicate that the ’404 patent is the subject of several district
`court cases. Pet. 2–3; Paper 11, 2–3. The ’404 patent is also involved in
`IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01470.
`
`C. The ʼ404 Patent
`The ’404 patent discloses a method and apparatus for establishing a
`power management sleep state in a multicarrier system.” Ex. 1001, 1:31‒33.
`The ’404 patent discloses an asynchronous digital subscriber loop (ADSL)
`system having a first transceiver located at the site of a customer’s premises
`(“CPE transceiver”) and a second transceiver located at the local central
`telephone office (“CO transceiver”). Id. at 3:62‒67. The transceivers include
`a transmitter section for transmitting data over a digital subscriber line and a
`receiver section for receiving data from the line. Id. at 4:14‒17. The
`transceivers further include a clock, controller, frame counter, and a state
`memory. Id. at 4:58‒5:15. Typically, data is communicated in the form of a
`sequence of data frames, sixty-eight frames for ADSL, followed by a
`synchronization frame. Id. The sixty-nine frames comprise a “superframe.”
`Id.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`
`The power down operation of the CPE transceiver begins on receipt of
`a power-down indication. Id. at 6:27‒30. The CPE transceiver responds to
`the power down indication by transmitting to the CO transceiver an “Intend to
`Enter Sleep Mode” notification. Id. at 6:39‒42. The CO transceiver responds
`by transmitting an “Acknowledge Sleep Mode” notification to the CPE
`transceiver, and the CPE transceiver transmits an “Entering Sleep Mode”
`notification to the CO transceiver. Id. at 6:52‒65. The CO transceiver detects
`the notification and transmits its own “Entering Sleep Mode” notification. Id.
`at 6:65‒67. The CO transceiver stores its state in its own state memory
`corresponding to the state memory of the CPE transceiver. Id. at 6:67‒7:2.
`“The CO transceiver continues to advance the frame count and the superframe
`count during the period of power-down in order to ensure synchrony with the
`remote CPE transceiver when communications are resumed.” Id. at 7:9‒12.
`The CO transceiver further continues to monitor the subscriber line for an
`“Exiting Sleep Mode” notification, and the CPE transceiver transmits this
`signal when it receives an “Awaken” indication. Id. at 7:57‒64. In response
`to the “Awaken” signal, the CPE transceiver retrieves its stored state from
`state memory and restores full power to its circuitry. Id. at 7:64‒66. The CO
`Transmitter detects “Exit Sleep Mode” notification and restores its state and
`power. Id. at 8:1‒4.
`
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner challenges claims 1‒20 of the ’404 patent (Pet. 22–58).
`Claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 are independent claims and we identify claim 6 as
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`illustrative of the Remaining Challenged Claims (claims 1–5, 7–10, 12–15,
`and 17–19) at issue. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
`1. An apparatus comprising a transceiver operable to:
`transmit, in a full power mode, a plurality of
`superframes, wherein the superframe comprises a plurality
`of data frames followed by a synchronization frame;
`transmit, in the full power mode, a synchronization
`signal;
`receive a message to enter into a low power mode;
`enter into the low power mode by reducing a power
`consumption of at least one portion of a transmitter;
`store, in the low power mode, at least one parameter
`associated with the full power mode operation wherein the
`at least one parameter comprises at least one of a fine gain
`parameter and a bit allocation parameter;
`transmit, in the low power mode, a synchronization
`signal; and
`exit from the low power and restore the full power
`mode by using the at least one parameter and without
`needing to reinitialize the transceiver.
`Ex. 1001, 10:2–18.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Interpretation
`We interpret claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2015); see Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v.
`Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142–46 (2016).6
`Applying that standard and the Federal Circuit claim constructions
`applicable to ’404 patent, we construe the terms as follows in accordance with
`the Federal Circuit decisions in Cisco Sys., 928 F.3d at 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
`(construing “synchronization signal”) and our Final Written Decisions in
`IRP2016-01160 (Final Dec. 5–6 (transceiver), 10 (parameter associated with
`the full power mode)) and IPR2016-01470 (’1470 Final Dec. 5–10 (construing
`’404 patent terms). See also TQ Delta LLC, 929 F.3d at 1356–1358. In
`accordance with our Final Written Decisions, we construed “transceiver” to
`mean “a communications device . . . capable of transmitting and receiving.”
`Final Dec. 5–6. We also determined that no express construction of
`“parameter associated with the full power mode operation” was necessary in
`order to resolve the parties’ dispute. Id. at 10.
`As stated above, the Federal Circuit determined “that the broadest
`reasonable interpretation of the claim . . . term ‘synchronization signal’ is
`simply ‘used to establish or maintain a timing relationship between
`transceivers between the transmitter of the signal and the receiver of the
`
`
`6 Patent claims challenged in district court are construed according to the
`standard enunciated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`(en banc). A rule change that makes applicable the Phillips standard in all
`trial proceedings before the Board does not apply here, because the Petition
`was filed before November 13, 2018. See Changes to the Claim Construction
`Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial
`and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b), effective November 13, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b) (2019)).
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`signal,’ meaning synchronization signal includes frame synchronization.”
`Cisco Sys., 928 F.3d at 1364. We apply this proper construction below.
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner contends that a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the
`art, with respect to and at the time of the’404 patent, would have (1) “a
`bachelor’s degree to a master’s degree in electrical engineering or a related
`field, or an equivalent educational experience;” (2) “experience working in a
`relevant field ranging from at least three years with a bachelor’s degree to
`fewer years of experience for with a more advanced degree;” and (3) “would
`have been familiar with the ANSI T1E1 standards and bodies and would have
`monitored their discussions to ensure that new products or services could
`comply with their mandates.” Pet. 26.
`Patent Owner contends that such a person would have had “a bachelor’s
`degree in electrical engineering (or a similar technical degree or equivalent
`work experience) and at least 3 years of experience working with such
`multicarrier communication systems.” PO Resp. 18–19.
`We determine that no express finding on a specific corresponding level
`of technical education and experience is necessary as our conclusion would be
`the same under either party’s definition. Here, 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).
`
`C. The Parties’ Post-Institution Arguments
`With the complete record before us and in light of the Federal Circuit’s
`claim construction of the “synchronization limitation,” we have reviewed
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`Petitioner’s arguments and evidence in support of its unpatentability
`contentions for limitations that Patent Owner chose not to address in its Patent
`Owner Response. We determine that the record contains persuasive,
`unrebutted arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner (Pet. 33–45; Reply
`8–24; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 46–147) regarding the manner in which the asserted prior
`art teaches these uncontested limitations of the claims against which that prior
`art is asserted.7 Based on the totality of the evidence before us, we conclude
`that the prior art identified by Petitioner teaches or suggests all uncontested
`limitations of the reviewed claims by a preponderance of the evidence. The
`limitations that Patent Owner contests in the Patent Owner Response are
`addressed below.
`
`D. Obviousness over Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and ANSI T1.
`Petitioner contends that a combination of Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and
`ANSI T1.413 would have rendered obvious the original challenged claims of
`the ’404 patent. Pet. 27–46.
`
`
`7 Our Order instructed Patent Owner that “any arguments for patentability not
`raised in the [Patent Owner Response] will be deemed waived.” Paper 9, 5–6;
`see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a) (“Any material fact not specifically denied may
`be considered admitted.”); In re Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1379–1382
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding Patent Owner waived an argument addressed in
`Preliminary Response by not raising the same argument in the Patent Owner
`Response); see also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756,
`48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`
`1. Principles of Law
`A claim is unpatentable under § 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 the invention was made to a
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.”
`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 prior art; (3) the level of skill in
`the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective indicia of non-obviousness (i.e.,
`secondary considerations). Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18
`(1966). We analyze this asserted ground based on obviousness with the
`principles identified above in mind.
`2. Bowie (Ex. 1005)
`Bowie discloses a “power conservation system for transmission systems
`in which data is modulated over a communications loop from a central office
`location to a customer premise.” Ex. 1005, 1:4‒8. Bowie discloses that to
`provision ADSL service, ADSL units are located at each end of a wire loop, a
`first ADSL unit at the customer premises (CPE) and a second ADSL unit at
`the telephone company central office (COT). Id. at 3:51‒58.
`ADSL units enter a low power mode to reduce power requirements. Id.
`at 5:6‒8. CPE unit initiates low power mode by sending a “shut-down” signal
`to the COT unit. Id. at 5:8‒10. Both the CPE unit and COT unit may store
`loop characteristics that enable rapid resumption of user data transmission
`when units return to full power mode. Id. at 5:18‒25. Each unit then enters
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`low power mode by shutting off the now unnecessary sections of the signal
`processing, transmitting, and receiving circuitry, including signal processing
`111, transmitting 112, and receiving 113 circuitry. Id. at 5:26‒28. After
`shutdown, the loop is in an inactive state. Id. at 5:28‒29. During low power
`operation, circuitry 115 remains capable of detecting the resume signal. Id. at
`5:28–29. “This resume signal may be detected by the COT unit using a 16
`kHz AC signal detector 115 that employs conventional frequency detection
`techniques” and remains operative when the COT unit is in low-power mode.
`Id. at 5:52–56. The units return to full power mode after the CPE unit
`transmits to the COT unit a resume signal. Id. at 5:48‒59. The stored loop
`characteristics are used to restore the loop parameters. Id. at 5:60‒66.
`3. Vanzieleghem (Ex. 1006)
`Vanzieleghem discloses a transmitter that modulates a plurality of
`carriers with data received by the transmitter to derive symbols. Ex. 1006,
`code (57), 1:15–18. Vanzieleghem discloses an Asymmetrical Digital
`Subscriber Line (ADSL) transceiver unit located in the central office ATU-C.
`Id. at 4:46–65. Bits of data received are grouped into frames and the frames
`are transferred to coding circuit MMC. Id. at 5:5:66–6:15. Coding circuit
`MMC maps the frames to carriers and modulates the carriers to Discrete
`Multi-tone (DMT) symbols. Id. at 5:39–51, 6:51–57. For every 68 DMT
`symbols transmitted on the communication line, a synchronization symbol is
`also transmitted. Id. at 5:51–65. The combination of the synchronization
`symbol and the 68 DMT symbols is considered a superframe. Id. at 5:66–
`6:15. After generating 256 superframes, coding circuit MMC generates a
`“line-monitoring superframe” that contains information used to measure the
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`quality of transmission on the communication line. Id. The combination of
`256 superframes and a line-monitoring superframe is considered a
`hyperframe. Id. at 6:4–8.
`4. ANSI T1.413 (Ex. 1009)
`ANSI T1.413 discloses electrical characteristics of Asymmetric Digital
`Subscriber Line (ADSL) signals appearing at a network interface. Ex. 1009,
`Abstract. ADSL allows for the provision of Plain Old Telephone Service
`(POTS) and a variety of digital channels. Id. at 1. Digital channels consist of
`full duplex low-speed channels and simplex high-speed channels in the
`direction from the network to the customer premises, and low-speed channels
`in the opposite direction. Id.
`5. Petitioner’s Contentions
`We are persuaded that the record establishes Petitioner’s contentions for
`the unpatentability of the Remaining Challenged Claims. See Pet. 33–45;
`Reply 8–24; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 46–147. We find the underlying evidence credible
`and persuasive. Thus, we adopt Petitioner’s contentions discussed below as
`our own.
`Claim 1 recites “[a]n apparatus comprising a transceiver.” As discussed
`above, “transceiver” is defined as a “communication device . . . capable of
`transmitting and receiving.” See Section II.A. Petitioner argues that Bowie
`discloses terminal units that transmit and receive data. Pet. 33 (citing Ex.
`1005, Abstract; Ex. 1003 ¶ 47). Petitioner alternatively argues that
`Vanzieleghem discloses ADSL transceivers. Id. (citing Ex. 1006, 4:45‒47;
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 47).
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`
`Claim 1 further recites “transmit, in a full power mode, a plurality of
`superframes, wherein the superframe comprises a plurality of data frames
`followed by a synchronization frame.” Petitioner argues that the ’404 patent
`specification discloses that “full power mode is understood to refer to normal
`operation when low power mode has not been invoked,” and Petitioner’s
`expert, Mr. McNally, testifies that the “broadest reasonable construction for
`the term ‘full power mode’ is normal operation.” Pet. 34–35 (citing Ex. 1001,
`5:38); Ex. 1003 ¶ 35. Petitioner further argues that Bowie and Vanzieleghem
`describe ADSL systems that use superframes to communicate data in normal
`operation, where Vanzieleghem further discloses transmitting 68 DMT
`symbols and a synchronization symbol as a superframe in full power to a
`receiver. Id. at 34–35, 36‒37 (citing Ex. 1005, 2:41‒43; Ex. 1006, 2:35‒40,
`5:62‒65, Fig. 2; Ex. 1003 ¶ 104). Finally, Petitioner argues that ANSI T1.413
`discloses a superframe structure that comprises 68 frames (frame 0 ‒ frame
`67) and a synchronization symbol. Id. at 36 (citing Ex. 1009, 24).
`Claim 1 also recites “transmitting, in the full power mode, a
`synchronization signal.” As discussed above, a synchronization signal is
`properly construed to mean a signal “used to establish or maintain a timing
`relationship between transceivers between the transmitter of the signal and the
`receiver of the signal” and “includes frame synchronization.” Cisco Sys., 928
`F.3d at 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Petitioner argues that Vanzieleghem and ANSI
`T1.413 disclose transmitting such a synchronization frame within a
`superframe, and, accordingly, a synchronization signal is transmitted and
`received. Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1006, 5:55‒65; Ex. 1009, 46‒47, 113; Ex.
`1003 ¶¶ 58–59).
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`
`Claim 1 additionally recites the apparatus “receive[s] a message to enter
`into a low power mode.” Petitioner argues that Bowie discloses the use of a
`message, and other means, for initiating a low power mode. Pet. 38 (citing
`Ex. 1005, 5:9‒12; Ex. 1003 ¶ 62). Petitioner also argues that Vanzieleghem
`discloses the transmission of a message from transmitter to a receiver to avoid
`unneeded decoding operations at the receiver in the low power state. Id. at 38
`(citing Ex. 1006, 7:15‒17; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62, 107).
`Claim 1 also recites “stor[ing], in a low power mode, at least one
`parameter associated with the full power mode operation.” Petitioner argues
`that Bowie discloses storing “loop characteristic parameters in a low-power
`state,” where loop characteristic parameters are required to adapt the devices
`to the wire loops so that normal data transmission can begin. Pet. 39‒40
`(citing Ex. 1005, 4:66‒5:3, 8:22‒24; Ex. 1003 ¶ 70).
`Claim 1 additionally recites “wherein the at least one parameter
`comprises at least one of a fine gain parameter and a bit allocation parameter.”
`Petitioner argues that ANSI T1.413 discloses that the goal of the initialization
`sequence that the ’404 patent and Bowie propose to avoid is the determination
`of optimum carrier gains and bit allocations. Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1009, 87).
`Mr. McNally, Petitioner’s expert, explains that Bowie must include at least
`one of a fine gain parameter and a bit allocation parameter because Bowie
`claims storing loop characteristic parameters. Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 8:22‒24);
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 74‒75. Mr. McNally testifies that ANSI T1.413 identifies fine
`gain and bit allocation parameters, and “it would have been obvious based on
`the 1995 ADSL Standard [ANSI T1.413] for one skilled in the art to store the
`bits allocation and gains as Bowie’s loop characteristics.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 74.
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`
`Claims 1 further recites “transmit, in the low power mode, a
`synchronization signal.” Petitioner argues that Vanzieleghem discloses a
`signal that maintains frame synchronization during low power mode. Pet. 41
`(citing Ex. 1006, 6:57‒61; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77–78).
`Claim 1 also recites “exit from the low power and restore the full power
`mode by using the at least one parameter and without needing to reinitialize
`the transceiver.” Petitioner argues that Bowie discloses restoring the loop
`parameters to enable data transmission to resume quickly. Pet. 42 (citing
`Ex. 1005, 5:62‒66, 6:31‒34, 8:24‒25). Petitioner also argues that ANSI
`T1.413 discloses “determining the parameters to account for loop
`characteristics.” Id. (citing Ex. 1009, 87).
`Similar to claim 1 discussed above, Petitioner presents persuasive
`evidence for claims 2–5, 7–10, 12–15, and 17–19 of the ’404 patent. Pet. 33–
`45.
`
`With respect to the motivations to combine the references, Petitioner
`argues that Bowie and Vanzieleghem are systems based on the standard
`disclosed in ANSI T1.413, and were obvious to combine because “they
`provide complementary technology for the efficient implementation of low
`power modes with rapid-on capabilities.” Pet. 27. Petitioner argues that
`Vanzieleghem addresses synchronization concerns and low power transmitter
`technology, and Bowie addresses the need for controlling the transition
`between normal and low power operation. Id. Petitioner further argues that
`Bowie also addresses the “importance of storing . . . subscriber loop
`characteristics to ensure a rapid return to normal operation.” Id.
`Accordingly, because Bowie and Vanzieleghem are based on the standard
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`disclosed in ANSI T1.413, a person with ordinary skill in the art would have
`found it obvious to combine Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and ANSI T1.413. Id. at
`27‒28.
`
`6. Patent Owner’s Contentions
`Patent Owner argues that the challenged claims would not have been
`obvious over the combination of Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and ANSI T1.413 for
`the following reasons: (1) Petitioner does not perform the proper obviousness
`analysis (PO Resp. 26–27); (2) the references do not teach storing in low
`power mode a “parameter associated with the full power mode operation,” as
`recited in the independent claims (id. at 28–29); (3) the combination of
`references does not teach “stor[ing], in [a/the] low power mode, . . . at least
`one of a fine gain parameter and a bit allocation parameter,” as recited in the
`independent claims (id. at 29–36); (4) a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would not have modified Bowie to store bit allocation or fine gain parameters
`in the Bowie device in a low power mode as Petitioner proposes (id. at 36–
`38); (5) the combination of references does not teach “[exit/exiting] from the
`low power mode and [restore/restoring] the full power mode . . . without
`needing to reinitialize the transceiver,” as recited in independent claims 6, 11,
`and 16 (id. at 38–41); and (6) the references fail to disclose a “synchronization
`signal” as recited in the independent claims (id. at 45–48) and a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Bowie to transmit or receive
`a “synchronization signal” in low power mode (id. at 49–50).
`Finally, Patent Owner argues that Bowie would have led a person of
`ordinary skill in the art away from the claimed invention of the ’404 patent
`(id. at 42–44); that Petitioner’s proposed modifications to Bowie’s low power
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`mode would render it inoperable (id. at 51–57); and that Petitioner’s rationales
`to combine the references conflict with the actual teachings of the references
`(id. at 57–61). We address Patent Owner’s arguments below.
`a. Proper Obviousness Analysis
`We disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that “[t]he Petition does
`not articulate ‘a plausible rationale as to why the prior art references would
`have worked toget
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
