`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