Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 35
`
`
`
` Entered: March 12, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01760
`Patent 9,094,268 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JEFFERSON, 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 35
`
`
`
` Entered: March 12, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01760
`Patent 9,094,268 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01760
`Patent 9,094,268 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`We instituted inter partes review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314 on a
`petition filed by Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Petitioner”) challenging claims 1, 2,
`4, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 9,094,268 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the
`’268 patent”) owned by TQ Delta, LLC (“Patent Owner”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”).
`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 denied.
`
`A. Procedural History
`Petitioner filed a Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims
`1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 18 of the ’268 patent. Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent
`Owner filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6. We instituted inter partes
`review of claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 18 of the ’268 patent as
`unpatentable over Bowie1 and Yamano2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Paper 9
`(“Inst. Dec.”), 21.
`Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 13, “PO Resp.”),
`to which Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 15, “Reply”). Pursuant to our Order
`(Paper 22), Patent Owner filed a listing of alleged statements and evidence
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 5,956,323; filed July 30, 1997, issued Sep. 21, 1999
`(Ex. 1005, “Bowie”).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,075,814; filed May 9, 1997, issued June 13, 2000
`(Ex. 1006, “Yamano”).
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01760
`Patent 9,094,268 B2
`
`in connection with Petitioner’s Reply it deemed to be beyond the proper
`scope of a reply. Paper 23. Petitioner filed a response to Patent Owner’s
`listing. Paper 28.
`We held a hearing on November 8, 2017, and a transcript of the
`hearing is included in the record. Paper 34 (“Tr.”).
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`The parties state that the ’268 patent is asserted in TQ Delta LLC v.
`Comcast Cable Comms., et. al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00611 (D. Del.); TQ Delta
`LLC v. CoxCom LLC et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00612 (D. Del.); TQ Delta
`LLC v. DirecTV et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00613 (D. Del.); TQ Delta LLC v.
`DISH Network Corp. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00614 (D. Del.); TQ Delta
`LLC v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00615 (D. Del.);
`and TQ Delta LLC v. Verizon Comms., Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00616 (D.
`Del.). Pet. 1; Paper 4, 2–3. The ’268 patent is also involved in Dish
`Networks LLC v. TQ Delta LLC, IPR2016-01469 (PTAB Jul. 21, 2016). Pet.
`1; Paper 4, 2–3.
`
`C. The ʼ268 Patent
`The ’268 patent describes “a multicarrier transmission system having
`a low power sleep mode and a rapid-on capability.” Ex. 1001, 3:35–37. The
`sleep mode idles a multicarrier transceiver when it is not needed to transmit
`or receive data, with transmission and reception capabilities quickly restored
`without requiring full initialization after inactivity. Id. at Abstract. The
`system includes a transceiver at the local central telephone office’s location
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01760
`Patent 9,094,268 B2
`
`(“CO transceiver”) and a transceiver at the customer’s premises (“CPE
`transceiver”), which communicate over a telephone line. Id. at 3:66–4:9.
`Figure 1 reproduced below depicts a preferred embodiment of the invention.
`
`
`Figure 1 shows a block diagram of a multicarrier transmission system. Id. at
`3:50–53. Each transceiver includes “DSL transceiver 10” with “transmitter
`section 12 for transmitting data over a digital subscriber line 14 and a
`receiver section 16 for receiving data from the line.” Id. at 4:18–21, FIG. 1.
`In one embodiment, the transmitter and receiver sections 12, 16 enter a low
`power mode (or “sleep” mode), where power is reduced or cut off to the
`digital modulators/demodulator portions (sections 12, 16) of the transmitter
`and receiver sections (corresponding to the IFFT 20 (data modulator) and
`FFT 56 (demodulator) of the CPE transceiver of Figure 1). Id. at 6:66–7:21.
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01760
`Patent 9,094,268 B2
`
`In another embodiment, the transceiver is placed into a “partial” sleep mode
`“in which only part of each transceiver is powered down.” Id. at 8:52–60.
`The ’268 patent specification discloses that a transceiver entering a
`low power mode must first store a variety of line parameters comprising its
`“state memory.” Id. at 6:66–7:14. During sleep mode state, the CO
`transceiver monitors data subscriber line 14 for an “Exiting Sleep Mode”
`signal from the CPE transceiver. Id. at 7:64–69. The CPE transceiver
`transmits this signal when the “controller receives an ‘Awaken’
`indication. . . . In response to the ‘Awaken’ signal, the CPE transceiver
`retrieves its stored state from the state memory 38; [and] restores full power
`to its circuitry.” Id. at 7:64–8:6.
`
`D. Illustrative Claims
`Claims 1 and 11 are independent and reproduced below as illustrative
`of the claims at issue:
`1. A method, in a multicarrier transceiver, comprising:
`transmitting or receiving a message to enter a low power
`mode; and
`entering the low power mode, wherein a transmitter
`portion of the transceiver does not transmit data during the
`low power mode and a receiver portion of the transceiver
`receives data during the low power mode, wherein the
`transceiver is a device that is capable of transmitting or
`receiving internet and video data.
`
`11. A method, in a multicarrier transceiver, comprising:
`transmitting or receiving a message to enter a low
`power mode for a transmitter portion while a receiver
`portion remains in a full power mode; and
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01760
`Patent 9,094,268 B2
`
`
`entering the low power mode for the transmitter
`portion while the receiver portion remains in the full
`power mode, wherein the transceiver is a device that is
`capable of transmitting or receiving internet and video
`data.
`Ex. 1001, 10:6–14, 10:64–11:4.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Interpretation
`We interpret claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`they 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). Any special definition for a claim term must be set
`forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen,
`30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`1. “data” (claims 1, 4, 11, 16, 18)
`Our Decision on Institution determined that no further interpretation is
`required for “data.” Inst. Dec. 7. Patent Owner and Petitioner did not
`dispute this construction. PO Resp. 24. Based on the record developed
`during this proceeding, we determine that no further interpretation is
`required for “data.”
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01760
`Patent 9,094,268 B2
`
`
`2. “storing during low power mode” (claims 4, 14)
`Our Decision on Institution construed “storing during the low power
`mode” as “maintaining in memory while in a reduced power consumption
`mode.” Inst. Dec. 7–8. Neither party disputes this construction. PO Resp.
`24. Based on the record developed during this proceeding, we continue to
`apply this construction.
`3. “maintaining synchronization with a second transceiver
`during the low power mode” (claims 2 and 12)
`Dependent claims 2 and 12 recite “maintaining synchronization with a
`second transceiver during the low power mode.” Petitioner did not propose
`a construction for this term, and our Decision on Institution did not construe
`this term.
`Patent Owner argues that
`interpretation of “maintaining
`the broadest
`reasonable
`synchronization with a second transceiver,” in view of the
`specification, is “maintaining a timing relationship between two
`transceivers by correcting errors or differences in the timing of
`the timing reference of the transceiver and the timing reference
`of a second transceiver,” and the Board should adopt this
`construction.
`PO Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 83). Patent Owner argues that the ’268
`patent explains synchronization based on clock synchronization reference
`signals between the transmitter and receiver clocks and not periodic polls to
`maintain synchronization. PO Resp. 19–21 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:62–5:4,
`5:44–50; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 83, 84). Patent Owner further contends that the ’268
`patent
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01760
`Patent 9,094,268 B2
`
`
`explains that the clock of a ‘remote transceiver, such as a
`subscribers premises will be synchronized’ to the clock in CO
`transceiver, i.e., a master clock. Ex. 1001 at 4:64-67. Thus, in
`the context of the ’268 patent maintaining synchronization is the
`process used to ‘drive[] clock 30 [in one transceiver] in
`synchronism with the Master Clock in the driving transmitter [in
`another transceiver].’ Ex. 1001 at 5:53-55 (emphasis added); Ex.
`2005 at ¶¶ 82–82.
`PO Resp. 17–18. Thus, Patent Owner argues that the construction consistent
`with the specification of the ’268 patent requires maintaining
`synchronization as described in the ’268 patent, which means “maintaining a
`timing relationship between two transceivers by correcting errors or
`differences in the timing of the timing reference of the transceiver and the
`timing reference of a second transceiver.” PO Resp. 19.
`Patent Owner contends that “construing ‘maintaining synchronization’
`in a manner consistent with the clock synchronism described in the ’268
`patent is necessary to ‘tether the claims to what the specification[]
`indicate[s] the inventor actually invented.’ Retractable Techs., Inc. v.
`Becton, Dickinson & Co., 653 F.3d 1296, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” PO Resp.
`20. Patent Owner argues that its proposed construction is also consistent
`with technical dictionaries that refer to checking and correcting variations in
`timing. PO Resp. 20–21 (citing Ex. 2007, 360; Ex. 2005 ¶ 84). Patent
`Owner also asserts that the Board’s preliminary construction in its Decision
`to Institute in a related case, IPR2016-01466, credits an argument regarding
`maintaining synchronization between transceivers based on timing and
`correction of timing errors between DSL transceivers. PO Resp. 21 (citing
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01760
`Patent 9,094,268 B2
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC, No. IPR2016-01466, slip op. at 11 (PTAB
`Feb. 9, 2017) (Paper 7) (“Petitioner explains that ANSI T1.413 uses a
`synchronization symbol in order to maintain timing by correcting timing
`errors in communication between DSL transceivers.” (citing Ex. 1007, 64));
`Ex. 2005 ¶ 85).
`Petitioner responds that the ’268 patent is not limited to “correcting
`errors or differences in [] timing” as Patent Owner asserts. Reply 6.
`Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s construction was added to avoid the
`cited art and relies on a single embodiment that uses phase lock loops to
`reach Patent Owner’s overly narrow construction. Id. (citing Ex. 1011,
`88:20–89:5, 86:3–9).
`Petitioner states that although the ’268 specification discloses
`maintaining synchronization via phase lock loops, it is not limited and also
`expressly states that “[o]ther forms of timing signal may, of course, be used”
`(Ex. 1001, 5:47–50). Reply 6 (emphasis omitted). In light of this intrinsic
`evidence, Petitioner argues the ’268 specification encompasses other forms
`of timing signals for synchronization and not just a pure tone to correct
`errors or differences in the timing reference. Reply 6 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:47–
`50; Ex. 1012 ¶ 5).
`Petitioner argues that “the broadest reasonable construction for
`‘maintaining synchronization with a second transceiver’ [] include[s]
`‘maintaining a timing relationship between transceivers.’” Reply 7 (citing
`Ex. 1012 ¶ 6).
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01760
`Patent 9,094,268 B2
`
`
`Having considered the parties’ arguments and evidence, we do not
`agree with Patent Owner’s proposed construction that “maintaining
`synchronization” requires timing synchronization by correcting errors or
`differences between timing references. The claims of the ’268 patent do not
`recite “synchronization signal” or “synchronization frame” but refer only to
`“maintaining synchronization” during low power mode without specification
`as to the method of synchronization. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 10:6–17 (claims 1
`and 2). Indeed, claims 2 and 12 do not recite any particular type of
`synchronization as a limitation.
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument as the examples
`cited by Patent Owner (Ex. 1001, 4:42–67, 5:44–55) do not support limiting
`“maintaining synchronization” as recited in claims 2 and 12, to timing
`synchronization by “maintaining a timing relationship between two
`transceivers by correcting errors or differences in the timing of the timing
`reference of the transceiver and the timing reference of a second transceiver”
`as Patent Owner asserts. PO Resp. 17–18, 20. Instead, we find that the ’268
`patent expressly discusses different types of synchronization using different
`timing signals, synchronization frames, and synchronizing pilot tones. See
`Ex. 1001, 5:5–20, 5:42–67, 6:50, 8:64–9:10, 9:31–36.
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument regarding the
`preliminary construction of limitations in a related case, IPR2016-01466,
`being consistent with Patent Owner’s narrow construction. That case
`involved a different patent, U.S. 8,611,404 B2, and the claims at issue
`included limitations on distinct synchronization signals that are not present
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01760
`Patent 9,094,268 B2
`
`in the claims of the ’268 patent. We also are not persuaded by Patent
`Owner’s dictionary definition, which does not address “synchronization” as
`recited in the challenged claims, but instead, is directed to “synchronous
`transmission.” PO Resp. 20–21 (citing Ex. 2007, 360; Ex. 2005 ¶ 84).
`Petitioner notes that, in a related case, Patent Owner previously
`asserted that “synchronization” refers to a “timing relationship between two
`transceivers.” Reply 5 (citing Arris Group, Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC, IPR2016-
`01160, slip op. at 24 (PTAB March 28, 2017) (Paper 16); Ex. 1010 ¶ 55;
`Ex. 1019, 4 (district court construction of “synchronization signal”)). We
`agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s changed position on
`synchronization is influenced by the cited prior art and not the scope of the
`claims in light of the specification. See, e.g., Ex. 1011, 86:3–9 (Patent
`Owner’s declarant explaining additions to proposed construction).
`We agree with Petitioner that “maintaining synchronization”
`encompasses maintaining a timing relationship between transceivers. Patent
`Owner’s proposed construction narrowly limits maintaining synchronization
`to timing synchronization by correcting errors and is not consistent with the
`’268 patent specification, which expressly contemplates “[o]ther forms of
`timing signal.” Ex. 1001, 5:47–50. As we discussed above, the ’268 patent
`expressly discusses different types of synchronization using different timing
`signals, synchronization frames, and synchronizing pilot tones. See Ex.
`1001, 5:5–20, 5:42–67, 6:50, 8:64–9:10; 9:31–36. Accordingly, based on
`the full record and the ’268 patent specification, we determine that
`“maintaining synchronization with a second transceiver during the low
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01760
`Patent 9,094,268 B2
`
`power mode” encompasses maintaining a timing relationship between
`transceivers, including timing and frame synchronization.
`4. “parameter associated with [a/the] full power mode”(claims 4 and 14)
`Independent claim 4 recites “at least one parameter associated with a
`full power mode,” and independent claim 14 recites a similar limitation. Ex.
`1001, 10:29–30, 11:17–20.
`Patent Owner argues that the ’268 patent teaches recording the “state”
`of the transceiver when the transceiver goes from the state of active data
`transmission activity to a sleep mode. PO Resp. 23. Patent Owner states:
`The ’268 patent lists the parameters included in its state memory
`that are stored in the low power mode. See Ex. 1001 at 7:5-14
`(“In pursuance of [entering the sleep mode], the CO transceiver
`stores its state in its own state memory . . . . The state of the . . .
`transceivers preferably includes at least the frequency and time-
`domain equalizer coefficients (FDQ; TDQ) and the echo-
`canceller coefficients (ECC) of its receiver portion and the gain
`of its transmitter portion; the transmission and reception data
`rates; the transmission and reception coding parameters; the-
`transmission fine gains; and the Bit Allocation Tables.”).
`PO Resp. 23. Patent Owner argues that the ’268 patent teaches a parameter
`list that “includes only communication protocol-specific parameters that are
`used for the transmission of data—and does not include loop
`characteristics.” Id. (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 88). In light of the ’268
`specification, Patent Owner argues that “at least one parameter associated
`with a[] full power mode” should be construed as “parameter associated with
`the transmission and/or reception of data during normal operation.” Id. at
`24.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01760
`Patent 9,094,268 B2
`
`
`Petitioner counters that Patent Owner errs by construing the term as
`limited to parameters associated with the transmission and/or reception of
`data, ignoring that the claim term states that the parameter is associated with
`the full power mode. Reply 8. Petitioner argues that full power mode
`includes operational parameters, such as a measured signal-to-noise ratio
`(“SNR”) which is used to derive transmission/reception parameters. Reply
`7–8 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 9; Ex. 2005 ¶ 30; Ex. 2008, 82, 108).
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s proposed construction which
`relies on the exemplary statements in the ’268 patent, which expressly states
`that stored parameters “preferably include at least” the items listed,
`indicating that other parameters may be stored. Ex. 1001, 7:8–9. Absent a
`clear disavowal of scope, Petitioner argues that the claims are simply not
`limited to the types of parameters listed in the specification. See Thorner v.
`Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`(holding full scope of plain and ordinary meaning is appropriate “unless the
`patentee explicitly redefines the term or disavows its full scope”); 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).
`In light of the arguments and evidence presented, we are not
`persuaded that this term requires an express construction. Patent Owner’s
`proposed construction does not add necessary clarity to the claims, as it
`merely replaces “full power mode operation” with “transmission and/or
`reception of data during normal operation.” The parties, however, do not
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01760
`Patent 9,094,268 B2
`
`dispute the meaning of “full power mode operation.” Accordingly, an
`express construction is not necessary to resolve the disputes between the
`parties.
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`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.
`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 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 18 of the ’268 patent are unpatentable as
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Bowie and Yamano. Inst. Dec. 21.
`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). Our Order previously instructed
`Patent Owner that “any arguments for patentability not raised in the [Patent
`Owner Response] will be deemed waived.” Paper 10, 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).
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01760
`Patent 9,094,268 B2
`
`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 the 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, we determine that the record now
`contains persuasive, unrebutted arguments and evidence presented by
`Petitioner regarding the manner in which the asserted prior art teaches
`corresponding 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 based on Bowie (Ex. 1005) and Yamano (Ex. 1006)
`Petitioner contends that Bowie and Yamano teach the limitations of
`claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 18. Pet. 24–46. Petitioner articulates a
`rationale for combining the teachings of Bowie and Yamano, providing
`citations to the Declaration of Dr. Kiaei in support of their contentions. Id.
`at 22–24 (citing Ex. 1003, 32–34).
`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
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01760
`Patent 9,094,268 B2
`
`whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
`obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations,
`including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in
`the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective indicia of non-obviousness (i.e.,
`secondary considerations). Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18
`(1966). We analyze this asserted ground based on obviousness with the
`principles identified above in mind.
`2. Bowie (Ex. 1005)
`Bowie discloses a power conservation system for transmission
`systems in which data is modulated over a communications loop from a
`central office location to a customer premise. Ex. 1005, 1:4‒8. Bowie
`discloses that to provision ADSL service, ADSL units are located at each
`end of a wire loop, a first ADSL unit at the customer premises (CPE) and a
`second ADSL unit at the telephone company central office (COT). Id. at
`3:51‒58. Figure 1, below, shows an ADSL unit.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01760
`Patent 9,094,268 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a block diagram of ADSL unit 100, with signal processing
`electronics 111, transmit circuitry 112, and receive circuitry 113, used to
`send and receive modulated data. Id. at 3:34–41.
`Bowie teaches that 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, including signal processing 111, transmitting 112, and
`receiving 113 circuitry. Id. at 5:26‒28. After shutdown, the loop is in an
`inactive state. Id. at 5:28‒29. During low power operation, circuitry 115
`remains capable of detecting the resume signal. Id. at 5:28–29. This resume
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01760
`Patent 9,094,268 B2
`
`signal may be detected by the COT unit using a 16 kHz AC signal detector
`115 that employs conventional frequency detection techniques and remains
`operative when the COT unit is in low-power mode. Id. at 5:52–56. The
`units return to full power mode after the CPE unit transmits to the COT unit
`a resume signal. Id. at 5:48‒59. The stored loop characteristics are used to
`restore the loop parameters. Id. at 5:60‒66.
`3. Yamano (Ex. 1006)
`Yamano relates to “the reduction of the required amount of signal
`processing in a modulator/demodulator (modem) which is transferring
`packet-based data or other information which is intermittent in nature on a
`communication channel.” Ex. 1006, 1:9–13. Yamano discloses a “receiver
`circuit of the modem [that] is coupled to receive a continuous analog signal
`from a communication channel.” Id. at Abstract. “The receiver circuit
`monitors the analog signal to detect the presence of idle information. Upon
`detecting idle information, the receiver circuit enters a standby mode in
`which the processing requirements of the receiver circuit are reduced.” Id.
`Yamano discloses that the modem can be an xDSL modem that
`communicates with a central office to provide data communications to
`remote locations. Id. at 2:14–21. Figure 3, below, shows a block diagram of
`receiver circuity of a modem.
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01760
`Patent 9,094,268 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 3 is a block diagram of receiver circuit 300 of a modem, which
`includes A/D converter 301, resampler 302, equalizer 303, carrier recovery
`circuit 304, symbol decision circuit 305, channel decoder 306, framer/idle
`detector 307, sample buffer 308, echo canceler 309, timing update circuit
`310, equalizer update circuit 311, carrier update circuit 312, idle generator
`314, idle symbol predictor 316, comparator circuit 317, packet queue 318,
`and summing node 319. Id. at 6:62–7:3. Receiver circuit 300 is coupled to
`receive an analog RECEIVE signal from communication channel 321
`(telephone line). Id. at 7:10–13.
`Yamano teaches that receive circuitry in a modem can operate in both
`a “full processing mode” and a “reduced processing mode.” Id. at 14:25–33.
`The receiver is in its full processing mode “[u]pon detecting the easily
`detected signal” where it “perform[s] full demodulation on the incoming
`RECEIVE signal,” and the receiver is in its reduced processing mode in “the
`absence of the easily detected signal.” Id. at 14:25–33. Yamano teaches
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01760
`Patent 9,094,268 B2
`
`that in reduced processing mode, the receive circuit disables a number of
`components because “there is no packet data being received.” Id. at 14:33–
`42.
`
`4. Petitioner’s Contentions
`With respect to claim 1, Petitioner argues that Bowie and Yamano
`teach “a multi-carrier transceiver.” Pet. 24–26. Petitioner argues that Bowie
`teaches that this transceiver “transmit[s] or receiv[es] a message to enter a
`low power mode” (id. at 26–27) and “enter[s] the low power mode” (id. at
`27–28) by shutting off unnecessary portions of the transceiver. Petitioner
`provides citations to Bowie that teaches the ADSL unit receives a shut-down
`signal and enters low power mode for the transceiver. Id. at 24–28 (citing
`Ex. 1005, 5:6–9, 5:8–13, 5:17–28; 6:10–11; Ex. 1003, 39–40).
`With respect to the claim 1 limitation that recites “wherein a
`transmitter portion of the transceiver does not transmit data during the low
`power mode,” Petitioner relies on Bowie, which describes shutting down of
`all unnecessary sections of the transmitting and receiving circuitry of Bowie.
`Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1005, 5:25–28; Ex. 1003, 40).
`Petitioner then relies on Bowie and Yamano in combination to teach
`the claim limitation that “a receiver portion of the transceiver receives data
`during the low power mode.” Pet. 28–32. In particular, Petitioner argues
`that Yamano “teaches how to reduce ‘the required amount of signal
`processing in a modulator/demodulator (modem) which is transferring
`packet-based data or other information which is intermittent in nature on a
`communication channel.’” Pet. 29 (quoting Ex. 1006, 1:9–13). Petitioner
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01760
`Patent 9,094,268 B2
`
`cites this reduction in signal processing applied to DSL technology as the
`reduced power consumption mode that is applied in Yamano. Pet. 29 (citing
`Ex. 1006, 15:54–55). Specifically, Petitioner relies on the “burst mode
`protocol,” which is part of the reduced power mode in Yamano. Pet. 29–30
`(citing Ex. 1006, 13:56–65, Ex. 1003, 43). Petitioner also cites the
`processing savings for the receiver and transmitter in Yamano. Pet. 30
`(Ex. 1006, 15:63–16:5 (discussing disabled echo canceler used in receive
`portion as a power savings in the DSL modem)). Petitioner asserts that
`Yamano’s receive process teaches a low power mode because it reduces
`processing necessary in the receive circuitry. Pet. 30–31. Specifically
`Petitioner states that
`for a receive circuit in Yamano, [the] direct support of packet
`traffic means that “[u]pon detecting the easily detected signal,
`non-idle detector 401 enables the full processing mode of
`receiver circuit 400, thereby causing receiver circuit 400 to
`perform full demodulation on the incoming RECEIVE signal.”
`Ex. 1006 at 14:20-29. And, “[a]fter the packet data has been
`received, non-idle detector 401 detects the absence of the easily
`detected signal (and the packet data) on the communication
`channel, and in response, enables a reduced processing mode of
`receiver circuit 400.” Ex. 1006 at 14:29-33. Reduced processing
`is achieved in the receiving circuit by disabling a number of
`subcomponents, thereby reducing power consumption. Ex. 1006
`at 14:34-42; Ex. 1003 at p. 44-45. Thus, when the receive circuit
`is not receiving data, processing in the receive circuit is reduced
`resulting in the DSL modem operating in a lower power mode.
`Ex. 1003 at p. 45.
`Pet. 30–31. Thus, Petitioner argues that the Yamano reduced processing in a
`DSL modem addresses the same problem of reducing power usage in Bowie.
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01760
`Patent 9,094,268 B2
`
`Pet. 31. Petitioner argues that Yamano improves upon the shut-down of the
`transmitter and receiver in Bowie, by teaching a method to reduce
`processing in the transmitter and receiver when not in active use. Id.
`Finally, Petitioner argues that Bowie and Yamano teach that “the
`transceiver is a device that is capable of transmitting or receiving internet
`and video data,” as Bowie teaches that the remote source can be an Internet
`service provider and Yamano teaches that communication is suitable for
`real-time information, such as voice or video. Pet. 32–33 (citing Ex. 1006,
`1:20–21; Ex. 1005, 6:5–8).
`With respect to claim 2 that depends from claim 1, Petitioner relies on
`the arguments and evidence presented for claim 1, arguing that Bowie and
`Yamano tea
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
