Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 14
`
`
` Filed: February 9, 2017
`
`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, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 14
`
`
` Filed: February 9, 2017
`
`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, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`DISH Network L.L.C. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an
`inter partes review of claims 6, 11, 16, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404
`B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’404 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). TQ Delta, LLC (“Patent
`Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 10 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We
`have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter
`partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the Petition, the
`Preliminary Response, and associated evidence, we conclude that Petitioner
`has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing
`the unpatentability of claims 6, 11, 16, and 20 of the ’404 patent. Thus, we
`authorize institution of an inter partes review of claims 6, 11, 16, and 20 of
`the ’404 patent as unpatentable over Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and ANSI
`T1.413.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner indicates that the ’404 patent is the subject of several
`
`district court proceedings. See Pet. 2‒3. Petitioner further indicates that the
`’404 patent is the subject of IPR2016-01160. See id. at 3.
`B. The ʼ404 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
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`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.
`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 store state from state memory and restores full power to its
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`circuitry. Id. at 7:64‒66. CO Transmitter detects “Exit Sleep Mode”
`notification and restores its state and power. Id. at 8:1‒4.
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner challenges claims 6, 11, 16, and 20 of the ’404 patent.
`Pet. 18–58. 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,
`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.
`D. The Alleged Ground of Unpatentability
`The information presented in the Petition sets forth a proposed ground
`of unpatentability of claims 6, 11, 16, and 20 of the ’404 patent under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows (see Pet. 18–58):1
`
`
`1 Petitioner supports its challenge with the Declaration of W. Leo Hoarty.
`(Ex. 1002).
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`
`References
`Bowie,2 Vanzieleghem,3 and
`ANSI T1.4134
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`6, 11, 16, and 20
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`The Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see 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”
`Petitioner proposes that the term “low power mode” should be
`interpreted to mean “a mode in which power to the circuitry is reduced for
`the purpose of power conservation.” Pet. 10. Petitioner argues that such a
`construction is consistent the ’404 patent specification, which describes a
`“multicarrier transmission system having a low power sleep mode” and the
`purpose of sleep mode is “power conservation as well as to accommodate
`
`
`2 U.S. Patent No. 5,956,323; issued Sep. 21, 1999 (Ex. 1005) (“Bowie”).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 6,246,725 B1; issued Jun. 12, 2001 (Ex. 1006)
`(“Vanzieleghem”).
`4 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”).
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`[the transceiver] to integration with, or incorporation into, computer systems
`having a power conservation mode.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1001, 3:31‒33, 9:58‒
`63). Petitioner further argues that the ’404 patent specification teaches that
`“[i]t is thus desirable that the transceiver be able to suspend operations and
`enter a ‘sleep’ mode in which it consumes reduced power when it is not
`needed for data transmission or reception.” Id. at 10‒11 (quoting Ex. 1001,
`6:1‒6). Patent Owner argues that “no construction of these terms is
`required” and “construction of these terms is not necessary in deciding
`whether or not to institute trial.” Prelim. Resp. 8.
`We are persuaded by Petitioner. Petitioner’s construction of “low
`power mode” is based in light of the ’404 patent specification. On this
`record, we interpret “low power mode” to mean “a mode in which power to
`the circuitry is reduced for the purpose of power conservation.”
`2. “Fine Gain Parameter”
`Petitioner argues that the ’404 patent specification “does not define
`the term ‘fine gain parameter’ and there is nothing in the specification that
`provides guidance as to the meaning of this term.” Petitioner argues that
`Patent Owner asserted a construction for this term in a related proceeding
`and “Petitioner adopts this construction here.” Pet. 11. Accordingly,
`Petitioner argues that the broadest reasonable interpretation for “fine gain
`parameter” is “a parameter used to determine power level on a per subcarrier
`basis.” Id. (citing Ex. 1050, 4). Patent Owner argues that “no construction
`of these terms is required” and “construction of these terms is not necessary
`in deciding whether or not to institute trial.” Prelim. Resp. 8.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`
`We are persuaded by Petitioner. On this record, we interpret “fine
`gain parameter” to mean “a parameter used to determine power level on a
`per subcarrier basis.”
`3. “Transceiver”
`Petitioner argues that “transceiver” should be construed to mean “a
`communications device capable of transmitting and receiving.” Pet. 11.
`Petitioner argues that this is the construction proposed by Patent Owner in a
`related proceeding and this construction is consistent with the plain and
`ordinary meaning of the term. Id. at 11‒12 (citing Ex. 1050, 8). Patent
`Owner argues that “no construction of these terms is required” and
`“construction of these terms is not necessary in deciding whether or not to
`institute trial.” Prelim. Resp. 8.
`We are persuaded by Petitioner. On this record, we interpret
`“transceiver” to mean “a communications device capable of transmitting and
`receiving.”
`B. Obviousness of Claims 6, 11, 16, and 20 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. 33–46. For the reasons discussed
`below, the evidence, on this record, indicates there is a reasonable likelihood
`that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claims 6, 11, 16, and 20 of the
`’404 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious.
`1. Bowie (Ex. 1004)
`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
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`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.
`2. Vanzieleghem (Ex. 1005)
`Vanzieleghem discloses a transmitter that modulates a plurality of
`carriers with data received by the transmitter to derive symbols. Ex. 1005,
`1:13‒19. Vanzieleghem discloses an Asymmetrical Digital Subscriber Line
`(ADSL) transceiver unit located in the central office ATU-C. Id. at 4:46‒52.
`Bits of data received are grouped into frames and the frames are transferred
`to coding circuit MMC. Id. at 5:39‒44. Coding circuit MMC maps the
`frames to carriers and modulates the carriers to Discrete Multi-tone (DMT)
`symbols. Id. at 5:44‒47. For every 68 DMT symbols transmitted on the
`communication line, a synchronization symbol is also transmitted. Id. at
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`5:53‒54. The combination of the synchronization symbol and the 68 DMT
`symbols is considered a superframe. Id. at 5:62‒65. 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 5:66‒6:4. The combination of 256 superframes
`and a line-monitoring superframe is considered a hyperframe. Id. at 6:4‒6.
`3. ANSI T1.413 (Ex. 1006)
`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.
`4. Analysis
`The evidence set forth by Petitioner indicates there is a reasonable
`likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in showing that claims 6, 11, 16, and
`20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Pet. 18–58.
`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
`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). Claim 6 further recites “receive,
`in a full power mode, a plurality of superframes, wherein the superframe
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`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 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). Petitioner
`further argues that Bowie may utilize a “Motorola Coppergold Chip set” and
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`this chip employed the standard set forth by ANSI T1.413. Id. at 25‒26
`(citing Ex. 1019, 3).
`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 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 transmitter operates in full power mode and user data is
`grouped in to 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
`(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, to the ADSL units of Bowie because both Bowie and
`Vanzieleghem use the standard set forth in ANSI T1.413, and the in order to
`maintain the frequency synchronization disclosed by Vanzieleghem. Id. at
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`28‒31 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 129‒135; Ex. 1005, 5:45‒57, 6:58‒7:5; Ex. 1006,
`64).
`
`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).
`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
`“[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).
`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
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`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
`“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).
`Claims 6 further recites “receive, in the low power mode, a
`synchronization signal.” Petitioner argues that the combination of Bowie
`and Vanzieleghem discloses this limitation. Petitioner argues that
`Vanzieleghem discloses that units enter an idle mode when no user data is
`being transmitted, however, superframes are still transmitted in order to
`maintain synchronization. Pet. 40‒41 (citing Ex. 1005, 2:6‒13, 3:5‒11,
`7:13‒50, 8:49‒56, 9:21‒36). Petitioner argues that these superframes only
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`include a single pilot tone carrier, which is the same as the claimed
`“synchronization signal.” Id. (citing 3:58‒4:6). Petitioner argues that a
`person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine
`the pilot tone or synchronization signal transmitted in low power mode, as
`disclosed by Vanzieleghem, with Bowie in order to maintain
`synchronization during low power modes, thereby allowing units to quickly
`resume transmitting user data. Id. at 41‒43 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:17‒25, 5:62‒
`66; Ex. 1005, 2:6‒13, 7:20‒25; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 155‒157).
`Claim 6 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 this
`limitation. Petitioner argues that Bowie discloses that “[u]pon receipt of [a]
`resume signal, the receiving ADSL unit returns the signal processing,
`transmitting, and receiving circuitry to full power mode.” Pet. 43‒44
`(quoting Ex. 1004, 5:60‒62; citing Ex. 1004, 3:1‒10, 6:30‒33) (reference
`numerals omitted). Petitioner argues that Bowie further discloses that the
`loop transmission characteristics 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 44 (quoting Ex. 1004,
`5:60‒6:2; citing Ex. 1004, 6:30‒34, 8:8‒12, 8:22‒25, 9:1‒5) (reference
`numerals omitted). Petitioner explains that a person with ordinary skill in
`the art would understand this to mean that the “parameters are used to
`restore data transmission on the loop without having to perform the
`‘handshaking’ (or initialization) process again.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 160).
`Petitioner further argues that the ADSL units of Bowie, as modified by
`ANSI T1.413, would store the loop characteristics of the “bit allocation” and
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`“fine gain” parameters that would allow the ADSL units from “not having to
`perform initialization exchanges C-B&G and R-B&G.” Id. at 45 (citing
`Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 161‒162).
`Petitioner further argues that Bowie, Vanzieleghem, ANSI T1.413 and
`the ’404 patent are analogous art because they are all in the “field of power
`conservation in multicarrier communications system and, more specifically,
`to implementing low power / sleep modes in these systems.” Pet. 18‒19
`(citing Ex. 1004, 3:24‒4:9, 4:55‒58, Ex. 1005, 1:1‒21; Ex. 1006, 45, 70;
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 121). Petitioner further explains that Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and
`the ’404 patent employ ADSL technology and, therefore, employ the
`standards set forth by ANSI T1.413. Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:37‒47,
`3:62‒67; Ex. 1004, 3:23‒50; Ex. 1005, 1:1‒21; Ex. 1006, 3).
`Petitioner has provided a similar detailed analysis of claims 11, 16,
`and 20. See Pet. 45‒57. Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s arguments, which
`we address below, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claims 6, 11, 16,
`and 20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious.
`Patent Owner argues that (a) the combination of Bowie,
`Vanzieleghem, and ANSI T1.413 each provide very different low power
`mode capabilities and very different methods of restoring full power mode
`(b) the combination of Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and ANSI T1.413 fails to
`disclose “stor[ing], 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” and “exit[ing] from the low power and restore the full power
`mode by using the at least one parameter and without needing to reinitialize
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`the transceiver,” (c) Petitioner fails to provide a reasoned analysis to support
`a finding that it would have been obvious to combine Bowie and
`Vanzieleghem, and ANSI T1.413, and (d) Petitioner does not provide
`whether a person with ordinary skill in the art would have had a “reasonable
`expectation of success” in making the asserted modifications to Bowie,
`Vanzieleghem, and ANSI T1.413. Prelim. Resp. 10–36. We address each
`argument in the order presented by Patent Owner.
`a. Low Power Mode Capabilities and Restoring Full Power Mode
`Patent Owner argues that Bowie discloses an ADSL unit that receives
`a shut down signal and enters a low power mode, in which processing,
`transmitting, and receiving circuitry are shut down. Id. at 10 (citing Ex.
`1004, 5:25‒28). Patent Owner argues that the resume signal remains
`operational in order to receive a resume signal, and the ADSL unit returns to
`full power after receiving a resume signal. Id. at 10‒11 (citing Ex. 1004,
`5:48‒55, 5:60‒62). Patent Owner argues that Bowie does not disclose that
`the ADSL unit is capable of receiving a synchronization signal when in low
`power mode, and Bowie does not disclose storing a fine gain parameter or
`bit allocation parameter when in low power mode. Id. at 11.
`Patent Owner argues that Vanzieleghem discloses a transmitter that
`uses all of its carriers for effective data, and it reduces power dissipation
`when only idle data. Id. at 11 (citing Ex. 1005, 5:33‒35, 5:55‒6:15, 6:30‒
`41). Patent Owner argues that Vanzieleghem does not disclose storing any
`parameters associated with full power operation in low power mode, and
`further does not disclose any parameters regarding the data to be transmitted
`such as bit allocation or fine gain parameters. Id. at 11‒12.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner further argues that ANSI T1.413 discloses “electrical
`characteristics of ADSL signals appearing at a network interface and the
`requirements for transmission between a network and customer installation.”
`Id. at 12. Patent Owner argues that ANSI T1.413 does not disclose
`operation in low power mode, and does not disclose storing, in low power
`mode, fine gain or bit allocation parameters. Id.
`Accordingly, Patent Owner argues that Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and
`ANSI T1.413 disclose very different systems having very different
`functionalities. Prelim. Resp. 10‒12. As such, Patent Owner argues that
`Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and ANSI T1.413 disclose very different low power
`mode capabilities and very different methods of restoring full power mode.
`Id.
`
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. As discussed
`above, Petitioner sets forth an analysis of the combination of Bowie,
`Vanzieleghem, and ANSI T1.413, and argues that the combination of
`Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and ANSI T1.413 discloses each of the limitations of
`claims 6, 11, 16, and 20. See Pet. 12‒58. Petitioner further articulates a
`reasoning supported by rational underpinnings in its conclusion of
`obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742 (2007).
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument because Patent Owner’s
`arguments are tantamount to identifying deficiencies in each reference
`individually, whereas Petitioner’s analysis is based on what the combination
`of references teaches. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking
`the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a
`combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d
`1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, Patent Owner fails to set forth
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`persuasive evidence that a person with ordinary skill in the art would not
`have combined Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and ANSI T1.413 because the
`references disclose very different low power mode capabilities and very
`different methods of restoring full power mode.
`Accordingly, on this record, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s
`argument.
`b. The “Storing” and “Exiting” Limitations
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner fails to show that any of Bowie,
`Vanzieleghem, and ANSI T1.413 disclose “stor[ing], 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” and “exit[ing] from the low power
`and restore the full power mode by using the at least one parameter and
`without needing to reinitialize the transceiver.” Patent Owner argues that
`Petitioner “improperly split these discrete claim limitations into smaller
`pieces in order to distance the claimed invention of the ’404 from its
`individual words.”
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. As discussed
`above, Petitioner argues that the combination of Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and
`ANSI T1.413 discloses each of the limitations of claims 6, 11, 16, and 20.
`See Pet. 12‒58. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument because
`Patent Owner’s argument are tantamount to identifying deficiencies in each
`reference individually, whereas Petitioner’s analysis is based on what the
`combination of references teaches. Nonobviousness cannot be established
`by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01470
`Patent 8,611,404 B2
`
`upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800
`F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
`Accordingly, on this record, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s
`argument.
`c. Rationale to Combine Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and ANSI T1.413
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner provides “no reason” supported
`by rational underpinnings to combine Bowie with ANSI T1.413 in order to
`disclose “stor[ing], 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.” Prelim. Resp. 18‒32.
`On this record, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. As
`discussed above, Petitioner argues that Bowie can be modified to include the
`“bit allocation parameter” and “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.” Pet. 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 paramete
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
