`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`  
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 1
`A.
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction For “Synchronization
`Signal” Should Be Rejected ................................................................. 1
`B. No Construction Is Necessary For “Parameter Associated with
`the Full Power Mode Operation” ......................................................... 6
`III. THE COMBINATION OF BOWIE, VANZIELGHEM AND THE
`1995 ADSL STANDARD RENDER THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`OBVIOUS ....................................................................................................... 7
`A.
`The Declaration of Dr. Chrissan should be entitled little to no
`weight. .................................................................................................. 7
`Patent Owner’s arguments related to the first part of the
`“storing” element of claims 6, 11 and 16 are meritless and
`irrelevant. .............................................................................................. 8
`The combination of Bowie and the 1995 ADSL Standard
`discloses “stor[ing], in the low power mode … at least one of a
`fine gain parameter and a bit allocation parameter.” ......................... 10
`1.
`The combination of Bowie and the 1995 ADSL Standard
`is not the result of hindsight bias. ............................................ 10
`Bowie’s teachings do not undermine Petitioner’s stated
`motivations for combining Bowie and the 1995 ADSL
`Standard ................................................................................... 13
`Bowie discloses “exit[ing] from the low power mode …
`without needing to reinitialize the transceiver.” ................................ 14
`1.
`The ADSL unit in Bowie does not re-initialize every time
`it wakes up from its low power mode ...................................... 14
`Bowie does not teach away from the claimed invention. ........ 15
`2.
`The combination of Bowie and Vanzieleghem disclose
`“receiving, in the low power mode, a synchronization signal” ......... 16
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`2.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
` 
`
` 
`
`-i-
`
` 
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`Bowie does not teach away from modification by
`Vanzieleghem for the “synchronization signal” element. ....... 16
`The proposed modification does not render Bowie’s low
`power mode inoperable. ........................................................... 19
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 21
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`
`
` 
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1058
`1059
`
`1060
`1061
`
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`Description of Document
`
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Douglas A. Chrissan on August 11, 2017.
`
`Copy of Deposition Transcript of Dr. Douglas A. Chrissan filed in
`IPR2016-01466 on August 23, 2017 as Ex. 1011.
`
`Dictionary of Networking, Third Edition (1999).
`
`Claim Construction Order filed in TQ Delta, LLC v. Comcast Cable
`Communications, LLC, Case Nos. 15-cv-611, 15-cv-612, 15-cv-613,
`15-cv-614, 15-cv-615, 15-cv-616 (D. Del.) dated Dec. 6, 2016.
`
`
`
` 
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply
`Case No. IPR2016-01470
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner’s Response (“POR”) sets forth new unsupportable proposed
`
`claim constructions and uses them to argue that the combination of Bowie,
`
`Vanzieleghem, and the 1995 ADSL Standard fails to teach the limitations “stor[ing],
`
`in a low power mode, at least one parameter associated with the full power mode
`
`operation” (herein, the “storing” claim element), “exit[ing] from the low power
`
`mode … without needed to reinitialize the transceiver” (herein, the “exiting” claim
`
`element), and “receiv[ing], in the low power mode, a synchronization signal”
`
`(herein, the “synchronization signal” claim element). Patent Owner’s arguments are
`
`based on erroneous claim constructions, mischaracterizations of the prior art and a
`
`misinterpretation of the rules of obviousness so they should respectfully be rejected.
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction For “Synchronization
`Signal” Should Be Rejected
`Patent Owner (“PO”) proposes a construction for the claimed term
`
`“synchronization signal” for the first time in its Response. PO’s proposed
`
`construction provides for “a signal used to maintain a timing relationship between
`
`transceivers by correcting errors or differences between a timing reference of the
`
`
`
` 
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply
`Case No. IPR2016-01470
`
`transmitter and a timing reference of the receiver of the signal.”1 (POR, 19-20.) At
`
`least the underlined portion of the construction is not s supported by the ‘404
`
`patent and is also much narrower than the broadest reasonable interpretation for
`
`this term.
`
`Nothing in the ’404 patent relates to synchronizing “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”. The ‘404 patent’s disclosure of time
`
`synchronization is limited to an embodiment where a transmitter transmits a timing
`
`reference signal 62a to a receiver 16. (Ex. 1001, 5:37-62.) The timing reference
`
`signal 62a is “synchronized with the Master Clock in the transmitter.” (Id., 5:41-
`
`45.) The ‘404 patent explains that, when the receiver 16 receives this signal 62a, its
`
`                                               
`
` 1
`
` Patent Owner incorrectly states that it originally proposed a construction for the
`
`term “synchronization signal” in its Preliminary Response and that “further
`
`clarification is needed” of the term “synchronization signal” “based on the Board’s
`
`constructions in the Institution Decision and on the application of those
`
`constructions.” (POR, 19.) No construction for “synchronization signal” was
`
`previously proposed by either party in this IPR or adopted by the Board. (POR, 19;
`
`Decision, 5-7; POR, 8.)
`
`
`
` 
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply
`Case No. IPR2016-01470
`
`phase-lock loop 62 “locks itself to this signal and drives clock 30 [of the receiver
`
`16] in synchronism with the Master Clock in the driving transmitter.” (Id., 5:48-
`
`53.) Nothing in this disclosure requires correcting errors or differences between
`
`timing references.
`
`Further, the portions of the specification that PO relies on in support of its
`
`construction (POR, 21-22) discuss Figure 1, which is merely “a preferred
`
`embodiment” of the ‘404 patent. (Ex. 1001, 3:47-49.) PO even admits that there
`
`are other reasons for using a synchronization signal besides correcting errors or
`
`differences in multicarrier systems. (POR, 23 (“a synchronization signal is
`
`primarily used to correct errors or differences”)(emphasis added); Chrissan Decl.,
`
`¶ 57 (“a synchronization signal may find other system-specific, protocol-specific
`
`and indirect uses such as those identified in the patent specification. …”). The
`
`term “synchronization signal” is not expressly limited or defined by the language
`
`of the specification and is therefore not limited to the narrow construction
`
`proposed by PO. In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004) (holding that  features relating to particular embodiments may not be read
`
`into the claims “absent clear disclaimer in the specification”)..
`
`PO further relies on a single dictionary definition to argue that its new
`
`construction “is consistent with technical dictionaries that explain that maintaining
`
`synchronization is ‘check[ing] for and correct[ing] any variations in timing.’”
`
`-3-
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply
`Case No. IPR2016-01470
`
`(POR, 23.) This argument should be rejected by the Board because PO quotes the
`
`definition for the term “synchronous transmission” and not “synchronization.” The
`
`same technical dictionary that PO relies on for its definition of “synchronous
`
`transmission” includes a separate definition for “synchronization,” as [t]he timing
`
`of separate elements or events to occur simultaneously.” (Ex. 1060, 6.) The
`
`dictionary definition of “synchronization”
`
`is consistent with Petitioner’s
`
`understanding of the broadest reasonable interpretation of “synchronization signal”
`
`as used in the patent.
`
`Further, PO’s expert admitted in related proceeding IPR2016-01466, which
`
`challenges the same claims and includes the same proposed claim construction,
`
`that he added the underlined “by correcting” language to the proposed construction
`
`because of arguments made by the petitioner’s expert in that case, rather than
`
`because of the teachings of the ‘404 patent. (Ex. 1059, 85:12-15.) The added
`
`language should therefore be rejected by the Board.
`
`Petitioner maintains that no construction for this term is needed to determine
`
`
`
` 
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply
`Case No. IPR2016-01470
`
`the unpatentability of the challenged claims.2 That said, to the extent the Board
`
`determines that a construction is needed, Petitioner proposes: “a signal used to
`
`maintain a timing relationship between transceivers.” This proposal would adopt
`
`the first half of PO’s proposed construction without the unsupported and unduly
`
`narrow “by correcting…” limitation, and is supported by the ‘404 patent as
`
`explained above. (See Ex. 1001, 5:37-62.) It is also consistent with the construction
`
`proposed by PO in co-pending IPR2016-01466 (see IPR2016-01466 (Paper 6), 7
`
`and Ex. 1010, ¶ 55 from that proceeding) and adopted by the district court in the
`
`co-pending litigation proceedings. (See Ex. 1061, 4).
`
`For at least these reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`reject PO’s unsupported claim construction for the term “synchronization signal”
`
`and, if needed to resolve this dispute, adopt Petitioner’s supported construction of
`
`“a signal used to maintain a timing relationship between transceivers.”
`
`                                               
`
`  2
`
` This is evidenced by the fact that PO has not raised any arguments alleging that
`
`Vanzieleghem – the reference Petitioner relied on to teach a “synchronization
`
`signal” – does not satisfy PO’s proposed construction. 
`
`
`
` 
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply
`Case No. IPR2016-01470
`
`
`B. No Construction Is Necessary For “Parameter Associated with the
`Full Power Mode Operation”
`PO proposes that the above claim limitation should be construed as a
`
`“parameter associated with the transmission and/or reception of data during normal
`
`operation.” (POR, 23.) PO’ argues that the parameters stored during low power
`
`mode in the ‘404 patent include only “communication protocol-specific parameters
`
`that are used for the transmission of data,” such as “transmission fine gains” and
`
`“Bit Allocation Tables.” PO’s proposed construction is not supported by the
`
`language of the claims or the specification because fine gain and bit allocation
`
`parameters are explicitly required by the challenged claims of the ‘404 patent
`
`themselves. (POR, 24.) Moreover, the claim language “wherein the at least one
`
`parameter comprises at least one of a fine gain parameter and a bit allocation
`
`parameter” expressly indicates that the claimed parameters comprise (i.e., include,
`
`but are not limited to), fine gain and bit allocation parameters.
`
`PO’s proposed construction also impermissibly reads embodiments from the
`
`‘404 patent out of the claims. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1369
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that features relating to particular embodiments may not
`
`be read into the claims “absent clear disclaimer in the specification”). The passage
`
`Patent Owner relies on to support its construction explains that the “states” stored
`
`during low power mode “preferably includes at least” the parameters listed, which
`
`
`
` 
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply
`Case No. IPR2016-01470
`
`include fine gain and bit allocation parameters. (Ex. 1001, 7:3-4.) The “preferably
`
`includes at least” language from the specification clearly contemplates additional
`
`parameters other than those listed associated with a full power mode being stored
`
`during low power mode, and the specification does not limit what these stored
`
`parameters may be in any way. PO’s construction would therefore impermissibly
`
`read out other possible parameters permitted by the specification.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner maintains that no construction of “parameter
`
`associated with the full power mode operation” is needed here.
`
`III. THE COMBINATION OF BOWIE, VANZIELGHEM AND THE 1995 ADSL
`STANDARD RENDER THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OBVIOUS
`A. The Declaration of Dr. Chrissan should be entitled little to no
`weight.
`“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on
`
`which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a);
`
`see also, Final Rules of Practice at pg. 48763 (“The Board expects that most
`
`petitions and motions will rely upon affidavits of experts. Affidavits expressing an
`
`opinion of an expert must disclose the underlying facts or data upon which the
`
`opinion is based. See Fed. R. Evid. 705; and § 42.65. Opinions expressed without
`
`disclosing the underlying facts or data may be given little or no weight. Rohm &
`
`Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (nothing in the
`
`Federal Rules of Evidence or Federal Circuit jurisprudence requires the fact finder
`
`
`
` 
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply
`Case No. IPR2016-01470
`
`to credit unsupported assertions of an expert witness)”). For example, the Board
`
`has made clear that “if a declaration is based on argument or conclusory assertions,
`
`not supported by a factual basis, the Board may give such testimony little if any
`
`weight.” (IPR2013-00289, Paper 6, Order Regarding Conduct of the Proceeding
`
`dated June 19, 2013 at pg. 2.) Here, much of Dr. Chrissan’s declaration merely
`
`repeats the same arguments raised by the PO without providing any meaningful
`
`explanation or factual basis for the conclusory statements therein. (See e.g., Ex.
`
`2003, ¶¶ 53-57 compare to POR, 20-21-23; Ex. 2003, ¶¶ 89-92 compare to POR,
`
`43-45; Ex. 2003, ¶¶ 97-99 compare to POR, 47-48.)
`
`B.
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments related to the first part of the
`“storing” element of claims 6, 11 and 16 are meritless and
`irrelevant.
`PO’s arguments that the loop characteristics of Bowie are not associated
`
`with a full power mode are meritless. (POR, 25-30.) First, the loop characteristics
`
`disclosed in Bowie clearly satisfy the “storing” limitation. Loop characteristics in
`
`Bowie are parameters which are stored in memory. (See Ex. 1004, 5:17-19 (“Upon
`
`receipt of the shut-down signal, the COT unit 232 optionally stores in memory 117
`
`characteristics of the loop 220 that were determined by CPE to COT
`
`handshaking.”).) These loop characteristic parameters are also associated with the
`
`full power mode as they “enable data transmission to resume quickly by reducing
`
`the time needed to determine loop transmission characteristics” when the system
`
`
` 
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply
`Case No. IPR2016-01470
`
`wakes up from its sleep mode. (Ex. 1004, 5:62-6:2; see also Pet., 33-35; Ex. 1002,
`
`¶¶ 143-149.) Without these parameters there could be no data transmission as
`
`required by the full power mode.
`
`Second, the full context of the claims makes clear that the 1995 ADSL
`
`standard supplies the claimed parameters. As indicated in the petition, claim
`
`elements 6[e], 11[f] and 16[e] of the ‘404 patent each recite “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,” (the “storing” element). (See e.g., Pet., 8-9.) This
`
`is a single element that Petitioner addressed in two parts in the Petition for clarity.
`
`(See e.g., Pet., 33-40.) PO mischaracterizes this two-part explanation and attempts
`
`to argue the first part of the “storing” element separately on the merits from the
`
`second part as if they are two distinct limitations, which they are not.
`
`Petitioner has not asserted that Bowie alone renders the “storing” element as
`
`a whole obvious. The Petition explicitly states that “Bowie can be modified so that
`
`the ‘handshaking’ and ‘loop loss characteristics’ stored during the low power mode
`
`can include the bit allocation and/or fine gain parameters described in the 1995
`
`ADSL Standard as being exchanged during the initialization process.” (Pet., 38.) In
`
`other words, Petitioner’s position has always been that the combination of Bowie
`
`and the 1995 ADSL Standard discloses the claimed “parameters” of the “storing”
`
`-9-
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply
`Case No. IPR2016-01470
`
`element – not Bowie alone.
`
`(See also
`
`Institution Decision, 18-19
`
`(“Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually
`
`when
`
`the
`
`rejection
`
`is predicated upon a combination of prior art
`
`disclosures”)(citing In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1986)).)
`
`Accordingly, PO’s argument that Bowie alone does not disclose “stor[ing],
`
`in a low power mode, at least one parameter associated with the full power mode
`
`operation” is immaterial should be rejected.
`
`C. The combination of Bowie and the 1995 ADSL Standard discloses
`“stor[ing], in the low power mode … at least one of a fine gain
`parameter and a bit allocation parameter.”
`PO attacks the motivation to combine Bowie and the 1995 ADSL Standard
`
`to teach the “storing” element in two ways. First, it argues that the combination is
`
`the result of Petitioner’s hindsight bias. (POR, 32-35.) Then, it argues that the
`
`teachings in Bowie undermine Petitioner’s reasons for combining the references.
`
`(POR, 35-37.) Both arguments are incorrect.
`
`1.
`
`The combination of Bowie and the 1995 ADSL Standard is
`not the result of hindsight bias.
`Contrary to PO’s argument, the combination of Bowie and the 1995 ADSL
`
`Standard is a classic example of the well-established rule that “[e]vidence of a
`
`suggestion, teaching, or motivation to combine prior art references may flow, inter
`
`
`
` 
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply
`Case No. IPR2016-01470
`
`alia, from the references themselves.”3 Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202
`
`F.3d 1340, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Bowie expressly states that its system uses
`
`ADSL technology. (See e.g., Ex. 1004, 3:23-50.) Bowie describes a “handshaking”
`
`process where “signals are exchanged … to adapt the ADSL units to the electronic
`
`characteristics of the particular wire loop.” (Ex. 1004, 4:64-5:5.) Both experts
`
`agree that the “handshaking” process in Bowie is the same “initialization” process
`
`described in the 1995 ADSL Standard. (Ex. 1058, 52:18-53:14; Ex. 1002, ¶ 145;
`
`Ex. 2004, 53:7-15.) This makes sense because (a) the 1995 ADSL Standard was
`
`the only ADSL standard at the time of Bowie and the ‘404 patent and (b) the 1995
`
`ADSL Standard describes the initialization process that every ADSL compliant
`
`system must implement to function properly. (Ex. 1006, 3; Pet., 16-17.) Bowie’s
`
`express use of ADSL technology alone provides the general motivation to combine
`                                               
`
` 3
`
` There are at least two other co-pending IPR proceedings challenging the validity
`
`of claims 6, 11 and 16 of the ‘404 patent. (See IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-
`
`01160.) Petitioner in each IPR combines Bowie with the 1995 ADSL Standard to
`
`teach the “storing” limitation, yet the Patent Owner raises the argument of
`
`hindsight bias for the first time in its Response here. Patent Owner’s failure to even
`
`raise the argument in those proceedings is telling.
`
` 
`
` 
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply
`Case No. IPR2016-01470
`
`Bowie and 1995 ADSL Standard – i.e., the motivation flows from the references
`
`themselves. And, the experts’ combined admission that Bowie implements the
`
`1995 ADSL Standards in its system only bolsters this motivation. (See also Pet.,
`
`39-40; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 151-154.)
`
`Similarly, Bowie expressly describes storing the “characteristics of the loop
`
`220 that were determined by CPE to COT handshaking” when the system powers
`
`down to a low power mode. (Ex. 1004, 5:17-19; see also id., 5:62-66 (referring to
`
`“loop transmission characteristics”)(emphasis added).) It explains that “[s]toring
`
`loop characteristics enables rapid resumption of user data transmission when the
`
`units are returned to full power mode.” (Ex. 1004, 5:22-25.) The 1995 ADSL
`
`Standard states that “fine gain” and “bit allocation” parameters are exchanged as
`
`part of the “handshaking” process that is implemented in Bowie, and explains that
`
`the parameters are required to “physically connect” the ADSL units “to establish a
`
`communications link.” (See e.g., Ex. 1006, 103, 54; Pet., 35-38.) Bowie’s express
`
`teaching of storing parameters to aid in the “rapid resumption of user data
`
`transmission” provides clear motivation to combine with the exchange of “fine
`
`gain” and “bit allocation” parameters from the 1995 ADSL Standard that aid in the
`
`establishing a link for user data transmission, and vice versa. Thus, the motivations
`
`to combine Bowie and the 1995 ADSL Standard again flow directly from the
`
`references themselves. (See also Pet., 39-40; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 147-154.) Nothing about
`
`-12-
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply
`Case No. IPR2016-01470
`
`this combination is a result of hindsight bias.
`
`2.
`
`Bowie’s teachings do not undermine Petitioner’s stated
`motivations for combining Bowie and the 1995 ADSL
`Standard
`According to PO, there would be “no value” in storing the exchanged
`
`parameters from the 1995 ADSL Standard because Bowie teaches that “new
`
`transmission parameters would have to be re-calculated as well when the unit
`
`comes out of low power mode.” (POR, 36-37.) This argument misstates and
`
`misinterprets Bowie. Bowie’s stated purpose for storing loop characteristics is to
`
`“enable rapid resumption of user data transmission when the units are returned to
`
`full power mode.” (Ex. 1004, 5:23-25.) Bowie indicates that, when loop
`
`characteristics are stored, re-initialization – or “handshaking” – “may be required”
`
`upon wake up in limited circumstances, but not in every circumstance. (Ex. 1004,
`
`6:30-41; see also Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 144-145, 160-162.) For example, as discussed
`
`further below in Sect. III.D.1., Bowie points out that re-initialization may be
`
`required due to “temperature-dependent changes in loop resistance.” (Ex. 1004,
`
`6:38-41.) If initialization were required every time the ADSL unit powers up, as
`
`PO argues, then (a) there would be no logical reason to store the loop
`
`characteristics (and certainly no reason for Bowie to suggest storing them), and (b)
`
`“resumption of user data transmission” would not be “rapid” because it would
`
`require the same amount of time to initialize every time. PO’s arguments are
`
`
` 
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply
`Case No. IPR2016-01470
`
`therefore meritless and should be rejected by the Board.
`
`D. Bowie discloses “exit[ing] from the low power mode … without
`needing to reinitialize the transceiver.”
`PO sets forth two arguments related to the “exiting” claim element. First, PO
`
`argues that Bowie’s ADSL unit performs initialization every time it wakes up from
`
`a low power mode. (POR, 38-39.) Then, it argues that Bowie teaches away from
`
`the “exiting” element. (POR, 40-42.) Both arguments fail.
`
`1.
`
`The ADSL unit in Bowie does not re-initialize every time it
`wakes up from its low power mode
`PO’s arguments related to the re-initialization requirements in Bowie
`
`mischaracterize the reference. As described above, Bowie describes an option
`
`where loop characteristics can be stored during a low power mode. (Ex. 1004,
`
`5:17-19.) Bowie explains that “if loop transmission characteristics had been stored,
`
`these parameters are retrieved from memory 117 and used to enable data
`
`transmission to resume quickly by reducing the time needed to determine loop
`
`transmission characteristics” upon wake up, thus eliminating the need for
`
`handshaking. (Ex. 1004, 5:62-66; see also id., 5:22-25, 6:31-34, FIG. 3 (block
`
`305).) Bowie explains that “[a]fter resumption of full power mode, additional
`
`handshaking between ADSL units 232 and 242 may occur” (id., 5:66-6:2), but the
`
`use of “may” is permissive and does not require re-initialization, as PO suggests.
`
`This is consistent with other disclosures in Bowie, which clearly disclose that
`
`
`
` 
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply
`Case No. IPR2016-01470
`
`handshaking (i.e., re-initialization) upon wake-up is required in only limited
`
`circumstances. For example, Bowie teaches that “[h]andshaking information may
`
`be required where, for example, loop characteristics have changed due, for
`
`example, to temperature-dependent changes in loop resistance.” (Ex. 1004, 6:38-41
`
`(emphasis added); see also id., 6:42-43.) If handshaking were always required then
`
`this last passage in Bowie serves no purpose because handshaking would occur
`
`regardless of temperature changes. (See also Sect. III.C.2.) Therefore, PO’s
`
`arguments are meritless and should be rejected by the Board.
`
`2.
`Bowie does not teach away from the claimed invention.
`PO’s arguments on pages 40-42 of its Response are premised on its mistaken
`
`belief that the invention of the ‘404 patent does not perform re-initialization of any
`
`kind upon wake-up from a low power mode. This is a fallacy. The ‘404 patent
`
`states:
`
`
`
` 
`
`On resuming communication, it may be desirable for the
`CPE transceiver to transmit several frames of test
`(known) data (step 100) before resuming transmission of
`user data. This enables the system to verify that system
`conditions have not changed so significantly as to require
`renewed initialization. If the CO transceiver receives
`these without error, it notifies the CPE transceiver (step
`102) and the latter resumes full user data transmission
`(steps 104 and 106). Otherwise, reinitialization must be
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply
`Case No. IPR2016-01470
`
`
`performed (steps 104 and 108) before user data
`transmission occurs.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 8:24-35 (emphasis added).) This is exactly how Bowie functions. PO
`
`ignores this passage and does not provide any explanation as to why this test / re-
`
`initialization functionality differs from that described in Bowie. For at least these
`
`reasons, the Board should reject PO’s arguments here.
`
`E.
`
`The combination of Bowie and Vanzieleghem disclose “receiving,
`in the low power mode, a synchronization signal”
`PO sets forth two arguments related to the “synchronization signal” claim
`
`element. First, PO argues that Bowie teaches away from modifying its system to
`
`include the synchronization signal disclosed in Vanzieleghem. Next, it argues that
`
`this modification renders the ADSL units in Bowie inoperable. Both arguments are
`
`incorrect.
`
`1.
`
`from modification by
`teach away
`Bowie does not
`Vanzieleghem for the “synchronization signal” element.
`PO argues that “the intended purpose of Bowie is to save maximum power
`
`(up to five watts) when in the low power mode.” (POR, 43 (emphasis added).)
`
`Bowie, however, does not mention anything about saving “maximum” power.
`
`Instead, Bowie’s invention is concerned with power conservation by, for example,
`
`“reducing power consumption of certain of the electronic circuits in the terminal
`
`unit upon detection of a shut-down condition.” (See Ex. 1004, Abstract; see also
`
`
`
` 
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply
`Case No. IPR2016-01470
`
`id., Title, 3:1-10.) Indeed, Bowie acknowledges that “the particular components
`
`that can be placed in a low power mode may vary among differing brands, models,
`
`and versions of the ADSL units” so Bowie explicitly contemplates that some
`
`components (such as receiver 16) could be left “on” in Bowie such that the loop
`
`220 is active while the transmitter is in a low power mode. (Ex. 1004, 5:45-47.)
`
`Thus, there is no requirement that all components of the Bowie transceiver remain
`
`“off” during low power mode.
`
`Further, modifying Bowie so that its receiver 16 receives “synchronization
`
`signals” while the system is in a low power mode, as taught in Vanzieleghem,
`
`would not defeat Bowie’s intended purpose of conserving power, as PO suggests.
`
`Petitioner’s expert explained during his deposition that “[a] transmitter uses a
`
`hundred times the power of a receiver.” (Ex. 2004, 143:18-144:2.) Leaving the
`
`receiver 16 in Bowie “on” in any capacity while the transmitter is “off” would
`
`necessarily result in significant overall power conservation for the system. This is
`
`regardless of whether the receiver 16 in Bowie is “on” and idle or “on” and
`
`continuously receiving signals (synchronization signals or otherwise). PO has
`
`never disputed this. Instead, PO argues that the receiver 16 and/or some of the
`
`signal processing circuitry in Bowie must be “on” to demodulate a received
`
`“synchronization signal.” (POR, 43-45.) But, this is a distraction because the
`
`transmitter in Bowie is still “off” when the receiver and/or processing circuity are
`
`-17-
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply
`Case No. IPR2016-01470
`
`“on” so Bowie’s system is still saving significant power.4 (Pet., 40-43; Ex. 1002,
`
`¶¶ 155-159.)
`
`As discussed in the petition, Vanzieleghem is also a reference concerned
`
`with power conservation. (Pet., 40-43.) The “synchronization signals” it sends
`
`during low power mode include a single pilot tone carrier Cp instead of the usual
`
`68 carriers. (See e.g., Ex. 1005, 7:20-25.) Petitioner’s expert explained that the
`
`power needed for a receiver – such as the receiver 16 in Bowie – to demodulate a
`
`superframe having a single carrier is significantly less than the power needed to
`
`demodulate a typical superframe with 68 carriers. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 156-157; Pet., 41.)
`
`Implementing
`
`the
`
`low power mode synchronization signal
`
`teachings of
`
`Vanzieleghem into Bowie would therefore still result in significant power
`
`                                               
`
` 4
`
` Contrary to the Patent Owner’s position, Bowie does not make any specific
`
`remarks about how much power its system must save by entering a “low power
`
`mode.” (POR, 43.) At best, the background section of Bowie, states generally that
`
`“[s]ignal processing, transmitting, and receiving circuitry for [] high frequency
`
`modulated data signals requires [] substantial amounts of power, typically up to 5
`
`watts per loop served.” (Ex. 1004, 2:1-4.) Nothing in the passage requires Bowie’s
`
`system must conserve a “maximum” amount of power.
`
`
`
` 
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply
`Case No. IPR2016-01470
`
`conservation. PO does not dispute this.  
`
`Furthermore, PO’s argument that the loop 220 in Bowie is described as
`
`being in an “inactive” state when its components are in a low power mode is
`
`irrelevant. (POR, 45-46.) A loop is either active or inactive (i.e., sending data or
`
`not sending data). Bowie has stated no benefit to keeping the loop 220 in an
`
`inactive state when the components are in a low power mode. A loop 220 itself
`
`does not consume power so keeping it in an active state while the transmitter is
`
`“off” will still result in significant power savings.
`
`For at least these reasons, Bowie does not teach away from its combination
`
`with Vanzieleghem to teach “receiv[ing], in a low power mode, a synchronization
`
`signal.”
`
`2.
`
`The proposed modification does not render Bowie’s low
`power mode inoperable.
`PO’s argument that combination with Vanzieleghem would render Bowie’s
`
`low power mode inoperable is incorrect. Bowie discloses that its “resume signal
`
`may be an AC signal greater than 4kHz or may be a multi-tone AC signal.” (Ex.
`
`1004, 2:45-47.) Bowie therefore provides numerous options for implementing the
`
`resume signal. A 16kHz resume signal is merely one option. The fact that there is a
`
`remote possibility of both Bowie’s resume signal and Vanzieleghem’s pilot tone
`
`being set at the same frequency (e.g., 16kHz), as the PO suggests (POR, 48), is not
`
`
`
` 
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply
`Case No. IPR2016-01470
`
`enough to defeat obviousness when Bowi