Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 44
`Entered: February 7, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`DISH NETWORK, L.L.C.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 44
`Entered: February 7, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`DISH NETWORK, L.L.C.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`In this inter partes review, instituted pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314,
`DISH Network, L.L.C. (“Petitioner”) challenges claims 6, 11, 16, and 20
`(“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the
`’404 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 requesting an inter partes review of claims
`6, 11, 16, and 20 of the ’404 patent. Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner filed a
`Preliminary Response. Paper 10. On February 9, 2017, we instituted inter
`partes review of claims 6, 11, 16, and 20 of the ’404 patent as unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)1 over Bowie,2 Vanzieleghem,3 and ANSI T1.413.4
`Paper 14 (“Inst. Dec.”), 22.
`
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Because the ’404
`patent has an effective filing date before the effective date of the applicable
`AIA amendments, we refer to the pre-AIA versions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and
`103.
`2 U.S. Patent No. 5,956,323; issued Sept. 21, 1999 (Ex. 1004) (“Bowie”).
`3 EP 0 883239 A1; issued Sept. 12, 1998 (Ex. 1005) (“Vanzieleghem”).
`4 Network and Customer Installation Interfaces – Asymmetric Digital
`Subscriber Line (ADSL) Metallic Interface, AMERICAN NATIONAL
`STANDARDS INSTITUTE (ANSI) T1.413-1995 STANDARD (Ex. 1006)
`(“ANSI T1.413” or “the 1995 ADSL Standard”).
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`
`Thereafter, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 26,
`“PO Resp.”), to which Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 29, “Reply”).
`Pursuant to an Order (Paper 39), 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 40. Petitioner filed a response
`to Patent Owner’s listing. Paper 41.
`We held a hearing on November 8, 2017, and a transcript of the
`hearing is included in the record. Paper 43 (“Tr.”).
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`The parties indicate that the ’404 patent is the subject of several
`district court cases and related inter partes reviews. Pet. 2–3; Paper 6, 2–3.
`
`C. The ’404 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`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.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01470
`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 6:53‒65. 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 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, CPE transceiver
`retrieves its stored state from state memory and restores full power to its
`circuitry. Id. at 7:64‒66. CO Transmitter detects “Exit Sleep Mode”
`notification and restores its state and power. Id. at 8:1‒4.
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner challenges claims 6, 11, 16, and 20 of the ’404 patent. Pet.
`5. Claims 6, 11, and 16 are independent claims. Claim 6 is illustrative of
`the claims at issue and is reproduced below:
`6.
`An apparatus comprising a transceiver operable to:
`receive, in a full power mode, a plurality of superframes,
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`
`wherein the superframe comprises a plurality of data frames
`followed by a synchronization frame;
`receive, in the full power mode, a synchronization signal;
`transmit a message to enter into a low power mode;
`store, in a 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;
`receive, 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, 10:29–43.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`We interpret 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 Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v.
`Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142–46 (2016). 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 Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
`1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`1. “low power mode”
`In our Decision on Institution, we construed “low power mode” to
`mean “a mode in which power to the circuitry is reduced for the purpose of
`power conservation.” Inst. Dec. 5–6. Neither party addressed this
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`construction in subsequent briefing. Based on the record developed during
`this proceeding, we continue to apply this construction.
`
`2. “fine gain parameter”
`In our Decision on Institution, we construed “fine gain parameter” to
`mean “a parameter used to determine power level on a per subcarrier basis.”
`Inst. Dec. 6–7. Neither party addressed this construction in subsequent
`briefing. Based on the record developed during this proceeding, we continue
`to apply this construction.
`
`3. “transceiver”
`In our Decision on Institution, we construed “transceiver” to mean “a
`communications device capable of transmitting and receiving.” Inst. Dec. 7.
`Neither party addressed this construction in subsequent briefing. Based on
`the record developed during this proceeding, we continue to apply this
`construction.
`
`4. “synchronization signal”
`Each independent claim recites a “synchronization signal.” We did
`not construe this term in our Decision on Institution.
`Patent Owner argues that this term should be construed to mean “a
`signal used to maintain a timing relationship between transceivers by
`correcting errors or differences between a timing reference of the transmitter
`of the signal and a timing reference of the receiver of the signal.” PO Resp.
`19–20. Patent Owner identifies the timing reference signal disclosed in the
`’404 patent as the recited “synchronization signal” and argues that the timing
`reference signal provides for timing synchronization between two
`transceivers—i.e., to synchronize their respective clocks—not for frame
`synchronization—i.e., to detect the boundaries of the transmitted
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`superframe. Id. at 19–22. According to Patent Owner, “Petitioner agrees
`that ‘the timing reference signal’ corresponds to the claimed
`“synchronization signal.” Id. at 21 (citing Pet. at 28–29). Finally, Patent
`Owner argues that its proposed construction is correct because a
`“synchronization signal” is used to maintain timing synchronization by
`correcting errors between respective timing references of the transmitter and
`the receiver of a signal. Id. at 23.
`Petitioner counters that “by correcting errors or differences between a
`timing reference of the transmitter and a timing reference of the receiver of
`the signal” is not supported by the ’404 patent and is “much narrower than
`the broadest reasonable interpretation.” Pet. Reply 1–2. According to
`Petitioner, nothing in the ’404 patent requires correcting errors or differences
`between timing references. Id. at 2–3. Petitioner argues that Patent Owner
`admits there are other uses for a synchronization signal besides correcting
`errors and that the dictionary definition on which Patent Owner relies is for
`the term “synchronous transmission,” whereas the same dictionary
`separately defines “synchronization” as “[t]he timing of separate elements or
`events to occur simultaneously.” Id. at 3–4 (quoting Ex. 1060, 6). Petitioner
`also points to testimony in a related case, IPR2016-01466, in which Patent
`Owner’s declarant admitted that the “by correcting” language was added
`because of arguments made by Petitioner’s expert in that case. Id. at 4.
`Petitioner contends that no construction is necessary but, to the extent we
`construe the term, we should construe it to mean “a signal used to maintain a
`timing relationship between transceivers.” Id. at 5.
`Having considered the arguments and evidence, we agree with Patent
`Owner that the “synchronization signal” corresponds to timing
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`synchronization, not to frame synchronization. This is consistent with the
`’404 patent’s description of “normal (non-sleep mode) operation”:
`During normal (non-sleep mode) operation, a phase-lock
`loop (PLL) 62 receives from the FFT 56 a timing reference signal
`62a (see FIG. 1A) via a line 62b. The timing reference signal
`62a is transmitted from the transmitter with which the receiver
`16 communicates (e.g., the CO transmitter). This signal is
`advantageously a pure tone of fixed frequency and phase which
`is synchronized with the Master Clock in the transmitter; its
`frequency defines the frame rate of the transceivers. Other forms
`of timing signal may, of course, be used, but use of a pure tone
`has the advantage of simplicity and reliability even when
`portions of the transceiver are powered down in accordance with
`the invention. The PLL 62 locks itself to this signal and drives
`clock 30 in synchronism with the Master Clock in the driving
`transmitter. This also synchronizes frame counter 34 of the CPE
`transceiver to the corresponding frame counter of the CO
`transceiver. Control of the receiver section is provided by the
`controller 32.
`Ex. 1001, 5:37–53 (emphasis omitted).
`Notwithstanding our agreement with Patent Owner that
`“synchronization signal” does not correspond to frame synchronization, we
`are not persuaded that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is correct
`because it also is overly broad in one way and overly narrow in another.
`First, “used to . . . maintain a timing relationship between transceivers” is
`arguably broad enough to encompass the timing of superframe boundaries
`and, therefore, encompass the very frame synchronization that Patent Owner
`tries to distinguish. Moreover, Patent Owner does not attempt to find
`support in the ’404 patent for “timing relationship,” relying instead upon the
`testimony of its declarant. PO Resp. 19–20 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 53). Second,
`Patent Owner proposes to limit the way in which the timing relationship is
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`maintained “by correcting errors or differences between a timing reference
`of the transmitter of the signal and a timing reference of the receiver of the
`signal.” Id. We agree with Petitioner that that language is not supported by
`the Specification, and the dictionary definition upon which Patent Owner
`relies is not persuasive.
`Because both parties agree that timing reference signal 62a
`corresponds to the recited “synchronization signal” and because the only
`purpose disclosed for timing reference signal 62a is being used, by PLL 62,
`to “drive[] clock 30 in synchronism with the Master Clock in the driving
`transmitter” ( Ex. 1050 5:49–50), we determine that “synchronization
`signal” means “a signal allowing synchronization between the clock of the
`transmitter of the signal and the clock of the receiver of the signal.”
`
`5. “parameter associated with
`the full power mode operation”
`Patent Owner proposes construing this term to mean “parameter
`associated with the transmission and/or reception of data during normal
`operation.” PO Resp. 23. The ’404 patent describes storing a list of
`parameters comprising the “state” of transceiver. Ex. 1001, 6:67–7:9.
`Patent Owner argues that this list “includes only communication protocol-
`specific parameters that are used for the transmission of data and does not
`include loop characteristics.” Id. at 24.
`Petitioner counters that the term should have its ordinary and
`customary meaning. Pet. Reply 6–7. Petitioner argues that fine gain and bit
`allocation parameters are explicitly required by the claims, that the claim
`language “wherein the at least one parameter comprises” expressly indicates
`that the “at least one parameter” includes, but is not limited to, fine gain and
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`bit allocation parameter, and that the Specification clearly contemplates
`additional parameters other than those listed. Id. at 6–7 (citing Ex. 1001,
`7:3–4).
`Having considered the arguments and evidence, we are not persuaded
`that this term requires an express construction. Patent Owner’s proposed
`construction merely replaces “full power mode operation” with
`“transmission and/or reception of data during normal operation.” The
`parties, however, do not dispute the meaning of “full power mode
`operation.” As a result, it is not clear that Patent Owner’s proposed
`construction adds any necessary clarity. Accordingly, an express
`construction is not necessary to resolve the disputes between the parties.
`
`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 hold a
`bachelor’s degree or the equivalent in electrical engineering (or related
`academic fields) and at least five years of additional work experience in the
`area of digital and/or telecommunication system design, as applicable to
`DSL systems, or equivalent work experience.” Pet. 12.
`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. Here, the level of
`ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`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
`In our Decision on Institution, we concluded that the arguments and
`evidence advanced by Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that
`claims 6, 11, 16, and 20 of the ’404 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and ANSI T1.413. Inst. Dec. 22. We
`must now determine whether Petitioner has established by a preponderance
`of the evidence that the specified claims are unpatentable over the cited prior
`art. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). We previously instructed Patent Owner that “any
`arguments for patentability not raised in the [Patent Owner Response] will
`be deemed waived.” Paper 15, 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). Additionally, the
`Board’s Trial Practice Guide states that the Patent Owner Response “should
`identify all the involved claims that are believed to be patentable and state
`the basis for that belief.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`With a complete record before us, we note that we have reviewed
`arguments and evidence advanced by Petitioner to support its unpatentability
`contentions where Patent Owner chose not to address certain limitations in
`its Patent Owner Response. In this regard, the record now contains
`persuasive, unrebutted arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner
`regarding the manner in which the asserted prior art teaches corresponding
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`limitations of the claims against which that prior art is asserted. Based on
`the preponderance of the evidence before us, we conclude that the prior art
`identified by Petitioner teaches or suggests all uncontested limitations of the
`reviewed claims. The limitations that Patent Owner contests in the Patent
`Owner Response are addressed below.
`
`D. Obviousness over Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and ANSI T1.413
`Petitioner contends that claims 6, 11, 16, and 20 of the ’404 patent are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bowie,
`Vanzieleghem, and ANSI T1.413. Pet. 12–57.
`
`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 Overview
`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. 1004, 1:4‒8. Bowie
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`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. Data is arranged in a structure known as a “frame” prior to
`transmission. Id. at 3:66‒67.
`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 low power mode by shutting off the now unnecessary
`sections of the signal processing, transmitting, and receiving circuitry. Id. at
`5:26‒28. After shutdown, the loop is in an inactive state. Id. at 5:28‒29.
`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 Overview
`Vanzieleghem discloses a transmitter that modulates a plurality of
`carriers with data received by the transmitter to derive symbols. Ex. 1005,
`1:3–10. Vanzieleghem discloses an Asymmetrical Digital Subscriber Line
`(ADSL) transceiver unit located in the central office ATU-C. Id. at 5:8–15.
`Bits of data received are grouped into frames and the frames are transferred
`to coding circuit MMC. Id. at 6:11–16. Coding circuit MMC maps the
`frames to carriers and modulates the carriers to Discrete Multi-tone (DMT)
`symbols. Id. at 6:16–20. For every 68 DMT symbols transmitted on the
`communication line, a synchronization symbol is also transmitted. Id. at
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`6:26–27. The combination of the synchronization symbol and the 68 DMT
`symbols is considered a superframe. Id. at 6:36–39. After generating 256
`superframes, coding circuit MMC generates a “line-monitoring superframe”
`that contains information used to measure the quality of transmission on the
`communication line. Id. at 6:40–45. The combination of 256 superframes
`and a line-monitoring superframe is considered a hyperframe. Id. at 6:45–
`48.
`
`4. ANSI T1.413 Overview
`ANSI T1.413 discloses electrical characteristics of Asymmetric
`Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) signals appearing at a network interface.
`Ex. 1006, 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 Initial Positions
`Petitioner contends that a combination of Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and
`ANSI T1.413 would have rendered obvious claims 6, 11, 16, and 20 of the
`’404 patent. Pet. 12–57. We have reviewed the Petition, Patent Owner’s
`Response, and Petitioner’s Reply, as well as the relevant evidence discussed
`in those papers and other record papers, and are persuaded that the record
`establishes Petitioner’s contentions for claims 6, 11, 16, and 20, and we
`adopt Petitioner’s contentions discussed below as our own.
`For example, claim 6 recites “[a]n apparatus comprising a
`transceiver.” As discussed above, “transceiver” is defined as a
`“communication device capable of transmitting and receiving.” See supra
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`Section II.A.3. Petitioner argues that Bowie discloses “a method of
`conserving power in a terminal unit having a transmitter and receiver for
`modulated data communications.” Pet. 19‒20 (quoting Ex. 1004, 2:9‒11;
`citing Ex. 1004, Abstract, 3:34‒50, Fig. 1). We are persuaded by
`Petitioner’s showing and find that Bowie’s terminal unit is a “transceiver.”
`Claim 6 further recites “receive, 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
`combination of Bowie and ANSI T1.413 discloses this limitation. Petitioner
`argues that Bowie discloses ADSL units that transmit and receive frames,
`where a “frame is an arrangement of bits including both user data and
`signaling information required by the ADSL units.” Pet. 20‒21 (quoting Ex.
`1004, 3:66‒4:2). Petitioner further argues that Bowie discloses that “the
`ADSL units . . . may enter low power mode when user data transmission is
`complete” and, therefore, the data transmission occurs in full power mode.
`Id. at 21‒22 (quoting Ex. 1004, 5:6‒8; citing Ex. 1004, 3:2‒4, 3:37‒41,
`5:22‒24, 5:25‒28, 5:60‒6:2, 7:23‒27, Fig. 3) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner
`argues that ANSI T1.413 discloses the use of superframes, where “[e]ach
`superframe is composed of 68 ADSL data frames, numbered 0 to 67, which
`shall be encoded and modulated into DMT symbols, followed by a
`synchronization symbol, which carriers [sic] no user or overhead bit-level
`data.” Id. 23 (quoting Ex. 1006, 40; citing Ex. 1006, 72). Petitioner
`explains that ANSI T1.413’s “synchronization symbol” is the same as the
`claimed “synchronization frame.” Id. at 23‒24 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 5).
`Petitioner argues that a person with ordinary skill in the art would have
`combined ANSI T1.413’s disclosure of the structure of superframes with
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`Bowie’s transmission system because Bowie utilizes ADSL units and ANSI
`T1.413 provides the standards for ADSL. Id. at 24‒25. Petitioner argues
`that a person with ordinary skill in the art “would understand that Bowie’s
`ADSL units . . . must transmit and receive superframes.” Id. at 25 (citing
`Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 124‒126) (reference numerals omitted). We are persuaded by
`Petitioner’s showing and find that Bowie’s terminal units are ADSL units
`that received, in full power mode, superframes comprising a plurality of data
`frames followed by a synchronization frame.
`Claim 6 also recites “receiv[ing], in the full power mode, a
`synchronization signal.” Petitioner argues that the combination of Bowie,
`Vanzieleghem, and ANSI T1.413 disclose this limitation. Petitioner argues,
`that as discussed above, the combination of Bowie and ANSI T1.413
`discloses ADSL units that communicate, in full power mode, with a
`superframe that includes a synchronization frame. Pet. 26. Petitioner argues
`that Vanzieleghem discloses a pilot tone that carries a synchronization
`frame, and the pilot tone is the same as the claimed “synchronization
`signal.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 2:6‒13). Specifically, Petitioner argues that
`Vanzieleghem discloses that the transmitter operates in full power mode and
`user data is grouped into frames, which is then modulated and transmitted as
`a superframe. Id. at 28 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:5‒39). Petitioner further argues
`that Vanzieleghem discloses that “the 69th frame of the superframe is
`reserved for the synchronization frame and its corresponding
`synchronization signal (i.e., pilot tone).” Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 6:26‒29).
`Petitioner argues that this disclosure in Vanzieleghem is consistent with the
`description in the ’404 patent, where a superframe is received and a
`synchronizing pilot tone is extracted from the superframe. Id. at 28‒29
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`(citing Ex. 1001, 5:37‒53; Ex. 1005, 5:45‒57). Petitioner concludes that it
`would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to
`combine the pilot tone or synchronization signal, as disclosed by
`Vanzieleghem, with the ADSL units of Bowie because both Bowie and
`Vanzieleghem use the standard set forth in ANSI T1.413 and in order to
`maintain the frequency synchronization disclosed by Vanzieleghem. Id. at
`28‒31 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 129‒135; Ex. 1005, 5:45‒57, 6:58‒7:5; Ex. 1006,
`64). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing and find that
`Vanzieleghem’s pilot tone teaches the recited “synchronization signal” and
`that it would have been obvious to modify the superframe received by
`Bowie’s ADSL units to include a synchronizing frame carried by a pilot
`tone.
`
`Claim 6 additionally recites “transmit[ting] a message to enter into a
`low power mode.” Petitioner argues that Bowie discloses this limitation.
`Petitioner argues that Bowie discloses sending a shut-down signal to either
`unit to “enter low-power mode by shutting off the now unnecessary sections
`of the signal processing, transmitting, and receiving circuitry.” Pet. 32
`(quoting Ex. 1004, 5:17‒27; citing Ex. 1004, 5:6‒27, 5:30‒32, 7:12‒19,
`7:28‒32, 7:51‒53). Petitioner argues that the shut-down signal is a series of
`signaling bits, and, therefore, is a message. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 6:44‒65;
`Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 137‒142). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing and find
`that Bowie’s transmission of a shut-down signal teaches transmitting a
`message to enter into a low power mode.
`Claim 6 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 this limitation. Petitioner argues that Bowie discloses
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`“[u]pon receipt of the shut-down signal, the COT unit . . . optionally stores
`in memory . . . characteristics of the loop . . . that were determined by the
`CPE to COT handshaking.” Pet. 33 (quoting Ex. 1004, 5:18‒25; citing Ex.
`1004, 7:23‒26, 8:8‒9, 8:22‒25, 9:1‒5) (reference numerals omitted).
`Petitioner argues that Bowie then discloses that when exiting low power
`mode and resuming full power mode, “these parameters are retrieved from
`memory . . . and used to enable data transmission to resume quickly by
`reducing the time needed to determine loop transmission characteristics.”
`Id. at 33‒34 (quoting Ex. 1004, 5:60‒66) (reference numerals omitted). We
`are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing and find that Bowie’s characteristics
`of the loop determined during handshaking are “at least one parameter
`associated with the full power mode operation” and that Bowie’s storage and
`retrieval of those characteristics from memory teaches this limitation.
`Claim 6 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 the combination of Bowie and ANSI
`T1.413 discloses this limitation. Petitioner argues that ANSI T1.413
`discloses that the initialization process of ADSL units includes “each
`receiver communicates to its far-end transmitter the number of bits and
`relative power levels to be used on each DMT sub-carrier.” Pet. 35‒36
`(quoting Ex. 1006, 105) (emphasis omitted); see Ex. 1006, 106, 128‒129;
`see Pet. 37‒38. Petitioner explains that ANSI T1.413’s “number of bits” is
`the claimed “bit allocation parameter,” and the “relative power levels to be
`used on each DMT sub-carrier” is the claimed “fine gain parameter.” Id. at
`36‒37 (citing Ex. 1006, 54, 106); see supra Section II.A.2. Petitioner argues
`that Bowie can be modified to include the “bit allocation parameter” and
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`“fine gain parameter” because these parameters are “needed to ‘physically
`connect’ and ‘establish a communications link’ between the transceivers so
`that the data transmission can occur over the link.” Id. at 38 (citing Ex.
`1006, 105). Petitioner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person
`with ordinary skill in the art to combine the “bit allocation parameter” and
`“fine gain parameter” disclosed by ANSI T1.413 with Bowie because the
`ADSL units in Bowie “must comply with ADSL standards to function
`properly.” Id. at 39‒40 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:24‒4:9, 4:55‒58; Ex. 1006,
`Abstract; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 151‒152; see Ex. 1004, 3:44‒47; see Ex. 1019, 3).
`We are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing and find that ANSI T1.413’s
`“number of bits” is the claimed “bit allocation parameter,” ANSI T1.413’s
`“relative power levels to be used on each DMT sub-carrier” is the claimed
`“fine gain parameter,” and that it would have been obvious to modify
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
