UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_________
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`___________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: November 8, 2017
`___________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON and MATTHEW
`R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_________
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`___________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: November 8, 2017
`___________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON and MATTHEW
`R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`THEODORE M. FOSTER, ESQUIRE
`DAVID MCCOMBS, ESQUIRE
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`2323 Victory Avenue
`Suite 700
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`RAJENDRA A. CHIPLUNKAR, ESQUIRE
`PETER MCANDREWS, ESQUIRE
`McAndrews Held & Malloy, Ltd.
`500 West Madison Street
`34th Floor
`Chicago, Illinois 60661
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing Wednesday, November
`
`8, 2017, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`
`
`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
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Good afternoon. This is the final hearing for
`IPR2016-01466 and 01760 between petitioner, Cisco Systems, Inc. and
`patent owner, TQ Delta, LLC.
`
`I'm Judge Clements, participating remotely from San Jose. In the
`room with you are Judges Medley and Jefferson. And at this time we'd like
`counsel to introduce yourselves beginning with petitioner, please.
`
`MR. MCCOMBS: Your Honor, this is David McCombs here
`representing Cisco Systems. With me is Michael Parsons and Theo Foster.
`And Theo Foster will be making our presentation today.
`
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Okay. Thank you.
`
`And patent owner?
`
`MR. MCANDREWS: Good afternoon, Your Honors. I'm Peter
`McAndrews on behalf of patent owner TQ Delta. With me I have Rajendra
`Chiplunkar -- who will be making the argument -- Tom Wimbiscus and
`Chris Scharff. I also have a representative from the client, Nabha Rege.
`That's spelled N-A-B-H-A, R-E-G-E. Thank you. JUDGE CLEMENTS:
`Thank you. Before we proceed, I have a couple reminders. Number one,
`each party will have 45 minutes of total time for arguments in the two cases.
`Petitioner will proceed first and reserve rebuttal time. Thereafter, patent
`owner will respond to the petitioner's presentation, and petitioner may then
`make use of any time it has reserved.
`
`Second, with respect to demonstratives, please refer to the slide
`number so it will appear on the record and so I can follow along remotely. I
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`have a copy of your demonstratives here in front of me.
`
`Any questions, petitioner?
`
`MR. MCCOMBS: No, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Okay. Any questions, counsel for patent
`owner?
`
`MR. MCANDREWS: No, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Okay. Very good.
`
`Mr. Foster, would you like to reserve any rebuttal time?
`
`MR. FOSTER: Yes, Your Honor. I would like to reserve 15 minutes.
`
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Okay. 15 minutes. I'll give you a warning as
`we get close to that. And otherwise, you may begin when ready.
`
`MR. FOSTER: Thank you.
`
`Good afternoon. May it please the Board. I believe the panel is
`already familiar with the patents and the technology involved in these two
`cases. And so I will jump straight into the issues. And going to slide 2,
`there are four issues that I've tried to encapsulate the arguments that patent
`owner has made regarding the obviousness of the two patents at issue.
`
`And so I will go straight to slide 6. And the first of those issues, which
`is that Bowie, our primary reference, stores loop transmission characteristics
`which are associated with full power mode. And looking at slide 7, I have a
`short quotation from the patent owner's own response, where patent owner
`acknowledges that Bowie has a teaching to store in memory characteristics
`of the loop. So that is the line between two communicating transceivers.
`
`And then the second quote -- and this is, again, from patent owner's
`response -- their footnote, number 1, page 10, of their response, where they
`acknowledge that when Bowie is talking about characteristics of the loop or
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`loop characteristics, those are indeed loop transmission characteristics.
`Those are characteristics or parameters associated with the transmission of
`data. And patent owner acknowledges that the term loop characteristics and
`loop transmission characteristics are used interchangeably in Bowie. And so
`I believe that shows that what Bowie is storing are indeed parameters
`associated with the transmission of data and associated with full power
`mode.
`
`Moving to slide 8 and looking at quotations from Bowie itself as I
`highlighted at the top of the slide, Bowie describes storing loop
`characteristics and that that enables the rapid resumption of user data
`transmission after exiting low power mode.
`
`So again, Bowie is describing that by storing these characteristics, it
`can resume data transmission. Therefore, those parameters being stored, the
`characteristics being stored, are associated with full power mode in data
`transmission.
`
`Moving to slide 9, and this is an issue that is specific to the '404
`patent, which, in its independent claims, has a further limitation describing
`the parameters that are stored and requiring that they include a bit allocation
`of the fine gain parameter. And our position there is that that concept is
`obvious over the combination of Bowie and the ANSI T.1413 standard.
`
`As we see in the quotations on slide 9 from Bowie, Bowie is storing in
`memory the characteristics that are determined during handshaking. And
`that handshaking process includes a process in which parameters and values,
`these -- characteristics is what it calls them -- those values are exchanged.
`
`And the ANSI standard further explains that exchange process and
`explains that, included in the exchange of parameters during initialization of
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`the ADSL transceivers, included in that exchange are the number of bits in
`the relative power levels to be used on each subcarrier for communication.
`
`I believe patent owner concedes that the ANSI standard description of
`the number of bits and the power levels here, that that corresponds in the
`claim to bit allocation and fine gain parameters. And so it's this combination
`of Bowie and the ANSI standard -- Bowie saying -- teaching to store the
`values that are exchanged and then the ANSI standard explaining and stating
`that what gets exchanged are indeed fine gain bit allocation parameters.
`
`Moving to slide 11, the second issue for discussion is that Bowie does
`not require redetermining loop transmission characteristics when it exits low
`power mode. And looking at slide 12, first, Bowie expressly states that
`when the signal to wake up and to resume data transmission is given,
`Bowie's transceivers will return to full power operation and that that
`includes restoring the loop characteristics of these exchange parameters that
`were previously stored.
`
`Bowie does state that there may then be an exchange of handshaking
`information. But Bowie's quite clear that that step is optional and it follows
`after the return to full power operation. Bowie indicates the optional nature
`of that step by using the word "may." It states that that exchange of
`handshaking information may happen. They implication obviously being it
`is not required and is not necessary for Bowie's transceivers to return to full
`power operation.
`
`Bowie explains that one reason why that might be needed in some
`instances is that, as it says, there may have been temperature-dependent
`changes in the loop which would then potentially cause some of the loop
`transmission parameters, these bit allocation of fine gain perhaps, might
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`cause those values to change.
`
`But patent owner's expert, Dr. Chrissan, explained that even if those
`underlying physical properties, like temperature change, that does not
`necessarily mean that the transmission parameters will change. He testified:
`"It's not the case that loop parameters change and then transmission
`parameters change, or even necessarily change."
`
`So even in the instance that there's been a temperature change because
`perhaps the modems have been asleep for a long time, that does not
`necessarily mean that there would be any requirement for handshaking.
`Again, as Bowie says, the handshaking is optional. It may happen but it is
`not necessary.
`
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Counsel, how does petitioner understand this
`claim phrase "without needing to reinitialize the transceiver"?
`
`In other words, is that taught if a prior art reference teaches skipping
`only some of the initialization, or does that clause require a prior art
`reference to teach skipping all of initialization?
`
`MR. FOSTER: So neither party has proposed a formal construction
`of that phrase or that word. I think if we look at the '404 patent itself, it
`describes the -- the '404 patent describes the initialization process. And I do
`not have a citation for you right now, but I can get that. And it describes the
`initialization process as including essentially all of the steps when going
`from zero, from nothing, to a fully operational communication line. And so
`I think the natural indication for reinitialization would be performing that
`initialization process again.
`
`So even to the extent that we might see Bowie as suggesting a
`handshaking process, if you look at the ANSI standard, exchanging
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`information is the very last step of the initialization process. So even if
`Bowie was potentially suggesting -- I don't believe it is -- but if it was
`suggesting that that were somehow necessary to perform that last step again,
`I don't believe that that's reinitialization of the line because all of those other
`steps that are part of initialization have not been performed, they've been
`skipped.
`
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Okay. Thank you.
`
`MR. FOSTER: Looking at slide 14 and comparing Bowie's
`description of its resumption data transmission to the detailed description in
`the '404 patent itself, the '404 patent specification similarly recognizes that
`there may be instances where a complete reinitialization could be required.
`
`And just like Bowie, where Bowie says that there might be changes
`that would require something to happen with loop characteristics, the '404
`patent states, you know, that there may be instances where reinitialization
`must be performed. So I think that the disclosure of these two patents is
`very similar in that respect.
`
`Moving to slide 14, and the third issue is that Yamano separately
`controls the power to transmit and receive circuits and that allows greater
`power saving relative to the additional disclosure of Bowie and Bowie's
`description of power conservation in its techniques.
`
`So looking at Bowie in slide 14, the way Bowie saves power is by
`shutting off power and disabling both the transmit and receive circuits
`together. And as Bowie says, when those are both off, then the loop will be
`in an inactive state. So everything is off. There's no communication going
`on there, no use of data communication.
`
`Bowie is different. Rather than tying the transmitter and receiver
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`together, looking at slide 16 -- I'm sorry. Yamano is different.
`
`Yamano, rather than tying the receiver and the transmitter together on
`slide 16, Yamano is describing when the transmitter will be active or
`inactive. And Yamano describes the transmitter as being active only when
`there is meaningful packet data to be sent. So only when something needs to
`be transmitted will the transmitter be on and transmitting a signal. When
`there's nothing useful to transmit, no meaningful packet data, the transmitter
`will be turned off.
`
`Yamano doesn't associate that in any way with what might be
`happening on the receiver. The receiver is independent. In looking at slide
`18, the receiver will be in a full processing mode when it gets the indication
`that data is about to be transmitted to it. Again, this is independent of the
`transmitter that's right adjacent to the that receiver on the same end of the
`communication. So this is where Yamano's description of independent
`powering of the transmit-and-receive components comes from. Yamano is
`describing each of them is depending only on what's relevant to itself. The
`transmitter is only on when it needs something to transmit, and the receiver
`is only on when there's data for it to receive.
`
`This independence is confirmed looking at slide 17 with Yamano's
`description of the echo canceler. Yamano states that when the transmitter is
`not transmitting, the echo canceler can be turned off because there's no local
`transmission signal to be canceled. The receiver can still be on. The rest of
`the receiver can still be operating and receiving data. But it doesn't mean the
`echo canceler sits between those two circuits, the transmitter and receiver
`circuit.
`
`We believe -- looking at slide 20 we believe that Dr. Chrissan has
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`essentially acknowledged that this is how Yamano is operating with the
`independence of the transmit and receive circuits.
`
`Looking at slide 20 -- and this is a quotation from Dr. Chrissan's
`declaration -- he states that "Yamano leverages the intermittent nature of
`internet data to conserve power by not communicating idle information."
`
`That's reference to Yamano's description of not transmitting, turning
`off the transmitter when there's no useful data to transmit. So patent owner
`has argued that we're misquoting and mischaracterizing this statement from
`Dr. Chrissan. I'm not sure what their point is with that exactly because Dr.
`Chrissan acknowledged that Yamano is conserving power and doing that by
`not transmitting when there's nothing to transmit.
`
`Going to slide 21 and our fourth issue, which is that Yamano's timing
`signal is used to maintain synchronization -- that timing signal is a
`synchronization signal. And looking at slide 22, we have the quotation from
`Yamano describing that synchronization signal. Yamano states that "a
`periodic poll or some other timing signal would be used to maintain
`synchronization."
`
`This timing signal in Yamano is expressly taught as being used to
`maintain synchronization. We believe that that would make it a
`synchronization signal under any claim construction. It's literally using the
`words of the claim. It uses the word signal. It uses the word
`synchronization. It's tying them together for the same purpose in the same
`context of saving power, and in the same kind of system and ADSL
`transmitter and transceiver system.
`
`I further note, looking at the '268 and the '404 patents, their
`specification has almost the same language and refers to using other forms
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`of timing signal. Just like Yamano says, another timing signal might be
`used for synchronization. But the patents at issue here reference using other
`forms of timing signal assuming a person of ordinary skill in the art knows
`what those kinds of timing signals would be and how to implement them.
`
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Counsel, I think petitioner and patent owner
`both seem to point to synchronizing pilot tone in 62A in the '404 patent as an
`example of a synchronization signal. And patent owner draws a distinction
`between what they say that signal is doing, which is timing synchronization,
`and they distinguish that against frame synchronization, which the receiver
`does using the superframe, the sync frame within the superframe.
`And
`petitioner, in its reply, agreed that sync signals should be broad enough, that
`our preliminary construction in the DI was overly narrow because it
`excluded timing sync, and that it should be broad enough to include timing
`sync.
`And so when I look at this periodic poll in Yamano, is petitioner
`
`contending that this is doing timing sync? I mean the synchronization of
`these time intervals when the receiver circuit wakes up and listens for the
`non-idle signal, is that the same as timing sync?
`
`MR. FOSTER: I believe it is a form of timing synchronization. It
`refers to it as a timing signal and it's maintaining the synchronization of time
`intervals. I think that is a form of timing synchronization. The use of those
`signals is to coordinate when a -- essentially a wake-up signal or data is
`about to be transmitted, a ready-to-transmit type signal is about to be sent to
`synchronize when the receiver should wake up and check for that ready-to-
`transmit signal and when the transmitter knows the receiver will be available
`to receive such a ready-to-transmit signal and then activate its receiver and
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`receive the data. So that's a -- that's coordination of timing between the two
`components.
`
`I think it is also a form of leading-to-frame synchronization, because
`what happens when that data transmission does ultimately happen, is that's
`the indication of when a superframe will start, when user data transmission
`will resume, and with that, the beginning of a new superframe. So there's an
`aspect of frame synchronization to it as well. But plainly, I think it is a form
`of timing synchronization.
`
`And with respect to the claim construction issue that you raised, Judge
`Clements, we agreed that the initial construction, because it focused solely
`on frame synchronization and because both parties agreed that within the
`context of a DSL, there are many types of synchronization. And because the
`claim is not specific on what specific kind of synchronization this
`synchronization signal is synchronizing, the claim term should be interpreted
`to encompass those many different possibilities, including frame
`synchronization and timing synchronization.
`
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Well, this is my issue. In the '404 patent this
`synchronizing signal 62A is being used to synchronize the clock of the
`receiver with the clock of the transmitter, what patent owner calls timing
`sync. And both parties seem to agree that that's the synchronization signal.
`
`And so I'm wondering -- I mean if that's what the synchronization
`signal is doing, I don't see in Yamano this periodic poll being used to
`synchronize the clocks between the transmitter and the receiver. It's
`synchronizing instead these sort of intervals when the receiver wakes up
`listening for something that the transmitter may or may not be transmitting.
`And if it doesn't hear it, and then it goes to sleep until the next polling
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`period.
`
`Am I misunderstanding what's in Yamano? Is there something in
`Yamano that suggests that periodic polls can be used to synchronize the
`clocks of the receiver and transmitter?
`
`MR. FOSTER: Well, so I think we need to be careful about reading
`concepts from the specification into the claims because these claims -- for
`example, if we look at slide 3, slide 3, which has claim 6, which is the first
`independent claim of the '404 patent at issue in that IPR, the claim doesn't
`say anything about a clock. So there's no requirement for the claimed
`apparatus to have a clock.
`
`So I think we have to be careful about whether we're injecting a new
`clock limitation here.
`
`And with respect to what that -- that signal 62A in the '404
`specification, that's an example. And as I've highlighted earlier, the '404
`specification states that other timing signals may be used and may be
`something different than that signal 62A could be used for the purpose of
`synchronization.
`
`So I think the understanding of what's claimed -- and I don't think
`there's been any argument that this is some form of means plus function, but
`we should look at the specification and limit the claim to the disclosed
`embodiment.
`
`I think that the construction of the synchronization signal needs to
`encompass the ideas that were expressed there with the idea of there being
`some other form of timing signal, which is practically the same word as used
`in Yamano.
`
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Okay. Thank you.
`
`
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`
`MR. FOSTER: Looking at slide 23. And on this claim construction
`issue, patent owner acknowledges that it has changed its position upon what
`the claim construction for synchronization signal should be. And they've
`added a lot of new words, this concept of correcting errors between a timing
`reference of a transmitter and the timing reference of the receiver.
`
`And among the problems with this shift in claim construction is that
`it's not based on what's in the specification. This is not attempting to
`construe the claim in light of the specification. This is very results oriented,
`attempting to distinguish the prior art. Just naked results-oriented claim
`interpretation. And that's shown looking at slide 24, when we asked Dr.
`Chrissan why he added this new language and why he was shifting his
`understanding of the claim to amend. And he acknowledged that, in part, he
`added this new language in response to the prior art. And I don't think that
`that's the right away to go about construing the claim. But we need to look
`at what's in the specification in the attempt to look at how a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim term in the context and
`not try to be results oriented about it in this learning.
`
`And furthermore, looking at slide 25, Dr. Chrissan has almost
`acknowledged that these new words -- he argues that the new words don't
`change the construction, which I'm not sure I completely understand. But
`then he also testified, looking at slide 25, he said that if you are not
`correcting for errors, you are not going to be in synchronism.
`
`Well, Yamano expressly states that this timing signal is being used to
`maintain synchronization. Well, by Dr. Chrissan's own logic then, if
`Yamano is maintaining synchronization, then it must be correcting for
`errors.
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`And so this new language that Dr. Chrissan and the patent owner have
`
`added, trying to distinguish the prior art, doesn't get them anywhere, because
`they've set it for maintaining synchronization like Yamano is, that you are
`doing these extra steps that they are trying to add to the construction.
`
`Then finally, looking at slide 26 regarding motivation to combine, all
`of these references are in the same technical space -- Yamano and Bowie are
`both valid DSL and ADSL transceiver systems. The ANSI standard,
`T1.413, is the ADSL standard from 1995. It's clearly implicated by Bowie
`and Yamano.
`
`And Bowie and Yamano were both directed to the core goal and same
`problem, if you want to call it that, of trying to reduce the power
`consumption of ADSL transceivers, the same goal as the two patents at issue
`here. So I think that given that they are all in the same space, given that they
`are all dealing with the same kinds of issues, the motivation to combine is
`plainly there, to look -- to start with Bowie and start with Bowie's
`description of how to enable a sleep mode, a low power mode, that can
`resume really quickly, and then looking at Yamano's additional technique of
`independently powering a transmitter and receiver to create more
`opportunities for one part or the other of the transceiver to be in full power
`mode, that that combination makes a lot sense would have been obvious to
`somebody with many years of experience in the art.
`
`If there are no further questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time
`for rebuttal. JUDGE CLEMENTS: One more question about the
`construction of synchronization signal. So I think if we go back to your
`demonstrative slide 3, which has claim 6 on it, that first received clause
`recites a superframe compressing plurality of data frames followed by a
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`synchronization frame. And the claim separately recites in the next clause
`the synchronization signal.
`
`Our preliminary construction in the decision to institute construed
`synchronization signal as something encompassing or allowing for frame
`synchronization. But since a synchronization frame is actually separately
`recited in the claim and is the thing that actually allows for frame
`synchronization, isn't our preliminary construction unduly broad? In other
`words, shouldn't synchronization signal exclude frame synchronization?
`
`MR. FOSTER: I don't believe that it should. As the parties agree in
`this case that there are many forms of synchronization in the DSL system. I
`would point you, for example, to patent owner's response at page 18, where
`they said: "In the context of DSL transmission there are different types of
`synchronization that occur between transceivers." And our expert, Dr.
`Kiaei, similarly testified -- this is Exhibit 2017, page 50, starting around line
`20. He stated: In DSL we have many different types of synchronization.
`
`So I think that the claim construction for synchronization signal
`should encompass the parties' agreement that there are many kinds of
`synchronization in this context -- specific to claim 6 in the recitation of the
`synchronization claim and then separately receiving a synchronization
`signal.
`
`I read those as -- as they are written they are two separate reception
`steps. They don't have to be performed at the same time, and so you can
`receive a plurality of superframes and at the those is a synchronization
`frame.
`
`And if you look at the communication technology here, the idea is that
`when you are communicating data, you are constantly transmitting super
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`claims. Yamano first described when you are not communicating data you
`can turn the transmitter off and not be transmitting empty idle superframes.
`
`But when you are transmitting data there will be many super frames in
`a row. And so you will receive a plurality of superframes. And then after
`you receive two, there will be a plurality, you will receive a third. At the
`end of that third is, again, a synchronization frame. That synchronization
`frame meets the synchronization signal of the second step that you're
`receiving a set of frames. And then after you've received that set of frames,
`you receive yet more frames. And there, again, is another form of
`synchronization signal.
`
`Now, to the extent that you would consider, as you asked, Judge
`Clements, the possibility of a construction of synchronization signal that
`excluded any kind of frame synchronization and so somehow a construction
`of synchronization signal that would not include the synchronization frame, I
`believe that we put in the petition, as we put in the reply, the prior art still
`teaches that. Because if you look at what's within the synchronization frame
`or the synchronization signal, in the ANSI standard, included within that is
`the pilot tone. And I believe pilot tone is an agreed example of a
`synchronization signal for timing synchronization. The patent owner has
`made that argument.
`And so to the extent that the synchronization
`symbol or synchronization frame as a whole -- you might try to exclude
`from synchronization signal -- I think that's inappropriate because within
`that, there are components that are specifically used for timing
`synchronization such as the pilot tone.
`
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: But isn't that disclosure from ANSI -- and
`we've hit your 30 minutes so I'll try not to run you over, but doesn't that
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`disclosure in ANSI say that the synchronization can be transmitted as a pilot
`tone?
`Wouldn't it still essentially, if we read that synchronization signal as a
`
`sync frame, wouldn't we still have two steps that say essentially receive in
`full power mode a sync frame -- receive in full power mode a sync frame or
`a second sync frame I think as you suggested?
`
`MR. FOSTER: I don't see where the claim would exclude that
`concept in a system that's transmitting these synchronization frames,
`synchronization signals, synchronization symbols frequently. I believe the
`ANSI standard is something like 4,000 times per second. So there will be a
`lot of these synchronization opportunities with -- of the functioning system.
`
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Okay. Thank you. I have no further
`questions.
`
`MR. FOSTER: Thank you.
`
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Thank you.
`
`Mr. Chiplunkar, you may proceed when ready.
`
`MR. CHIPLUNKAR: May it please the Board. My name is Rajendra
`Chiplunkar. I'm representing patent owner TQ Delta.
`
`Let me start off by addressing a couple of questions that Judge
`Clements raised, and we've been down this path before with Bowie and what
`reinitialization means. Bowie performs all the steps of reinitialization. And
`if I have time, I'll address Bowie again in some detail.
`
`The last time we were here I had the ADSL initialization sequence up
`on the screen, and I have a slide directed to it, where there are four distinct
`steps of ADSL initialization. There's timing and acknowledgment, there's
`channel characterization, there's transceiver training, and there's exchange.
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`Bowie is only concerned with reducing the time it takes to do steps
`
`two and three, reducing the time. It does steps two and three -- fewer
`iterations of steps two and three, but it does do two and three each and every
`time. It doesn't address steps one and it doesn't address steps four. So
`Bowie does the entire reinitialization sequence all the time. And --
`
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Counsel, wait. If it doesn't do parts of two and
`three but it always does one and four, how does it do the entire thing every
`time?
`MR. CHIPLUNKAR: I did not say it doesn't do all the steps of two
`
`and three. I said it reduces the time. So you have a loop like the example I
`gave you the las
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
