throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Paper No. 13
` Entered: October 26, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., DISH NETWORK, LLC,
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`TIME WARNER CABLE ENTERPRISES LLC,
`VERIZON SERVICES CORP., and ARRIS GROUP, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-010201
`Patent 9,014,243 B2
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`1 DISH Network, LLC, who filed IPR2017-00254, and Comcast Cable
`Communications, LLC, Cox Communications, Inc., Time Warner Cable
`Enterprises LLC, Verizon Services Corp., and ARRIS Group, Inc., who filed
`IPR2017-00418, have been joined in this proceeding. Paper 14; Paper 15.
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent 9,014,243 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`In this inter partes review, instituted pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314,
`Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Petitioner”) challenges claims 1–25 (“the challenged
`claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’243 patent”),
`owned by TQ Delta, LLC (“Patent Owner”). We have jurisdiction under
`35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written Decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§ 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner
`has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are
`unpatentable. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is dismissed.
`
`A. Procedural History
`Petitioner filed a Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims
`1–25 of the ’243 patent. Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner filed a Preliminary
`Response. Paper 6. On November 4, 2016, we instituted inter partes review
`of claims 1–25 of the ’243 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)2 on the following
`grounds. Paper 7 (“Inst. Dec.”), 16.
`References
`Shively3 and Stopler4
`
`Claims
`1‒3, 7‒9, 13‒16, and 20‒22
`
`Shively, Stopler, and Gerszberg5
`
`4‒6, 10‒12, 17‒19, and 23‒25
`
`
`2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Because the ’243
`patent has an effective filing date before the effective date of the applicable
`AIA amendments, we refer to the pre-AIA versions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and
`103.
`3 U.S. Patent No. 6,144,696; issued Nov. 7, 2000 (Ex. 1011, “Shively”).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 6,625,219 B1; issued Sept. 23, 2003 (Ex. 1012, “Stopler”).
`5 U.S. Patent No. 6,424,646 B1; issued July 23, 2002 (Ex. 1013,
`“Gerszberg”).
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent 9,014,243 B2
`
`
`Thereafter, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 12,
`“PO Resp.”), to which Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 17, “Reply”).
`Pursuant to an Order (Paper 21), Patent Owner filed a listing of alleged
`statements and evidence in connection with Petitioner’s Reply deemed to be
`beyond the proper scope of a reply. Paper 22. Petitioner filed a response to
`Patent Owner’s listing. Paper 29.
`Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude (Paper 28), Petitioner filed an
`Opposition (Paper 33), and Patent Owner filed a Reply (Paper 37). Patent
`Owner also filed a Motion for Observation (Paper 27) to which Petitioner
`filed a Response (Paper 34).
`We held a consolidated hearing on August 3, 2017, for this case and
`related Case IPR2016-01021, and a transcript of the hearing is included in
`the record. Paper 39 (“Tr.”).
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`The parties indicate that the ’243 patent is the subject of several
`district court cases. Pet. 1; Paper 5, 2–3; Paper 10.
`
`C. The ’243 patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’243 patent discloses multicarrier communication systems that
`lower the peak-to-average power ratio (PAR) of transmitted signals.
`Ex. 1001, 1:26‒29. A value is associated with each carrier signal, and a
`phase shift is computed for each carrier signal based on the value associated
`with that carrier signal. Id. at 2:36‒40. The computed phase shift value is
`combined with the phase characteristic of that carrier signal to substantially
`scramble the phase characteristics of the carrier signals. Id. at 2:40‒43.
`Figure 1 illustrates the multicarrier communication system and is
`reproduced below:
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent 9,014,243 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates the multicarrier communication system, digital subscriber
`line (DSL) communication system 2 includes discrete multitone (DMT)
`transceiver 10 communicating with remote transceiver 14 over
`communication channel 18 using transmission signal 38 having a plurality of
`carrier signals. Id. at 3:25‒29. DMT transceiver 10 includes DMT
`transmitter 22 and DMT receiver 26. Id. at 3:29‒30. Remote transceiver
`also includes transmitter 30 and receiver 34. Id. at 3:30‒32. DMT
`transmitter 22 transmits signals over communication channel 18 to receiver
`34. Id. at 3:38‒41.
`DMT transmitter 22 includes quadrature amplitude modulation
`(QAM) encoder 42, modulator 46, bit allocation table (BAT) 44, and phase
`scrambler 66. QAM encoder 42 has a single input for receiving serial data
`bit stream 54 and multiple parallel outputs to transmit QAM symbols 58
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent 9,014,243 B2
`
`generated by QAM encoder 42 from bit stream 54. Modulator 46 provides
`DMT modulation functionality and transforms QAM symbols 58 into DMT
`symbols 70. Id. at 4:10‒13. Modulator 46 modulates each carrier signal
`with a different QAM symbol 58, and, therefore, this modulation results in
`carrier signals having phase and amplitude characteristics based on QAM
`symbol 58. Id. at 4:13‒16. Modulator 46 also includes phase scrambler 66
`that combines a phase shift computed for each QAM-modulated carrier
`signal with the phase characteristics of that carrier signal. Id. at 4:29‒32.
`
`D. Illustrative Claims
`Petitioner challenges claims 1‒25 of the ’243 patent. Pet. 8–52.
`Claims 1, 7, 13, and 20 are independent claims. Claims 2‒6 depend from
`independent claim 1, claims 8‒12 depend from independent claim 7, claims
`14‒19 depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 13, and claims
`21‒25 depend from independent claim 20. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
`claims at issue and is reproduced below:
`1. A method, in a multicarrier communications transceiver
`comprising a bit scrambler followed by a phase scrambler,
`comprising:
`scrambling, using the bit scrambler, a plurality of input
`bits to generate a plurality of scrambled output bits, wherein at
`least one scrambled output bit is different than a corresponding
`input bit;
`scrambling, using the phase scrambler, a plurality of
`carrier phases associated with the plurality of scrambled output
`bits;
`
`transmitting at least one scrambled output bit on a first
`carrier; and
`transmitting the at least one scrambled output bit on a
`second carrier.
`
`Ex. 1001, 10:58‒11:4.
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent 9,014,243 B2
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`The Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v.
`Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142–46 (2016). Under the broadest reasonable
`construction standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary
`meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the
`context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
`1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`1. “transceiver”
`In our Decision on Institution, we construed “transceiver” to mean “a
`device, such as a modem, with a transmitter and a receiver.” Inst. Dec. 6.
`Patent Owner contends that a construction is not necessary and cites a
`construction from a corresponding district court matter (Ex. 2007, 8), but
`does not argue we should adopt this construction. PO Resp. 13–14
`(“Petitioners’ arguments fail irrespective of which of the foregoing
`constructions for ‘transceiver’ is used.”). Petitioner contends we should
`maintain our construction. Reply 7–8. Based on the record developed
`during this proceeding, we continue to apply this construction.
`
`2. “scrambling . . . a plurality of carrier phases”
`Independent claim 1 recites “scrambling . . . a plurality of carrier
`phases.” Independent claim 7 similarly recites “scramble a plurality of
`carrier phases.” Independent claims 13 and 20 similarly recite “scramble[s]
`a plurality of phases.” Patent Owner argues that this language should be
`interpreted to mean “adjusting the phases of a plurality of carriers in a single
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent 9,014,243 B2
`
`multicarrier symbol by pseudo-randomly varying amounts.” PO Resp. 14–
`19. Petitioner argues that the phrase does not need to be interpreted, since
`the prior art relied upon uses the same “phase scrambling” terminology to
`describe pseudo-random phase changes. Reply 7 (citing Ex. 1012, 12:24–
`31). Additionally, Petitioner argues, without any other explanation, that “the
`Board should not adopt TQ Delta’s proposed construction.” Id. During oral
`argument, however, counsel for Petitioner reiterated that it is Petitioner’s
`position that no construction of the term is necessary, because “[r]egarding
`patent owner’s proposal of the construction, we believe that is exactly how
`Stopler is describing his phase scrambler as operating.” Tr. 18:23–19:5.
`Patent Owner argues that “scramble[e/ing . . . a plurality of carrier
`phases” and “scramble[] a plurality of phases” should be construed to mean
`“adjusting the phases of a plurality of carriers in a single multicarrier symbol
`by pseudo-randomly varying amounts.” PO Resp. 14. Patent Owner
`contends that the construction is supported by the Specification of the ’243
`patent and clarifies that the claimed phase scrambling “must be performed
`amongst the individual carrier phases in a single multicarrier symbol” and is
`not met if the phase adjustment only occurs over time from one symbol to
`the next. PO Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 37).
`In support of its proposed interpretation, Patent Owner argues that the
`’243 patent describes that each of the plurality of carriers (of a multicarrier
`signal) corresponds to a different QAM symbol. PO Resp. 15 (citing Ex.
`1001, 4:13–14). Patent Owner further argues that each carrier (or QAM
`symbol) has its own phase or phase characteristic, and that the combination
`of the carriers (or QAM symbols) is referred to as a DMT symbol. PO Resp.
`16 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:7–9, 9:8–9; Ex. 2003 ¶ 39). Patent Owner further
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent 9,014,243 B2
`
`contends that the ’243 patent describes that a “phase scrambler” scrambles
`phases or phase characteristics of carriers within a single DMT symbol, and
`that PAR in the transmission signal is reduced by adjusting the carrier
`phases within a single DMT symbol. PO Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:30–
`8:13; Ex. 2003 ¶ 39). PAR, Patent Owner contends, would not be reduced if
`carrier phases were only adjusted from one symbol to the next. PO Resp. 16
`(Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 41–42).
`Based on the record before us, we agree with Patent Owner’s
`proposed construction as far as meaning “adjusting the phases of a plurality
`of carriers in a single multicarrier symbol.” Patent Owner, however,
`provides no persuasive reasoning for also adding to that construction “by
`pseudo-randomly varying amounts.” Rather, Patent Owner merely contends
`that (1) in a corresponding district court matter, the court construed the
`phrase to mean “adjusting the phase characteristics of the carrier signals by
`pseudo-randomly varying amounts;” (2) during prosecution of the ’243
`patent, the applicant explained that a “scrambler” operates by pseudo-
`randomly selecting bits to invert; and (3) there was no fundamental
`disagreement between parties that scrambling involves adjusting the phase
`characteristic of a carrier signal by pseudo-randomly varying amounts. PO
`Resp. 16–17 (citing Ex. 2007, 10–11; Ex. 2008, 18). Patent Owner’s
`explanation for why we should add “by pseudo-randomly varying amounts”
`to its proposed construction is conclusory. We interpret claims using the
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the involved
`patent. That standard is not the same as the standard used in district court.
`Patent Owner, however, provides no explanation for why we should apply
`the district court construction, which is not necessarily the same as used
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent 9,014,243 B2
`
`before us, here. Moreover, the statement made during prosecution is in the
`context of summarizing an interview, purports to be part of a definition from
`Wikipedia, and is preceded by an “e.g.” (Ex. 2008, 18). Patent Owner does
`not explain persuasively why this statement should be interpreted as
`disclaiming other possible forms of scrambling. In summary, Patent
`Owner’s arguments are conclusory.
`For all of the above reasons, and for purposes of this decision, we
`determine that “scrambling the phase characteristics of the carrier signals”
`means “adjusting the phases of a plurality of carriers in a single multicarrier
`symbol.”
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner contends that a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the
`art, with respect to and at the time of the’243 patent, would have, “(i) a
`Master’s degree in Electrical and/or Computer Engineering, or equivalent
`training, and (ii) approximately five years of experience working in
`multicarrier telecommunications,” and that a “[l]ack of work experience can
`be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 9–10. Patent
`Owner’s expert, Dr. Short, agrees. Ex. 2003 ¶ 16 (“For purposes of this
`declaration only, I have adopted Dr. Tellado’s definition of a person of
`ordinary skill in the art.”)
`We determine that the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have had either Master’s degree in Electrical and/or Computer
`Engineering, or equivalent training, and approximately five years of
`experience working in multicarrier telecommunications. We note also that
`the prior art itself often reflects an appropriate skill level. Okajima v.
`Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he level of skill in the
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent 9,014,243 B2
`
`art is a prism or lens through which a judge, jury, or the Board views the
`prior art and the claimed invention.”); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950
`F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The importance of resolving the level of
`ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the
`obviousness inquiry.”).
`
`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 1‒3, 7‒9, 13‒16, and 20‒22 of the ’243 patent are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Shively and Stopler, and that claims 4‒6, 10‒12,
`17‒19, and 23‒25 of the ’243 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over Shively, Stopler, and Gerszberg. Inst. Dec. 16. We must now
`determine whether Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the
`evidence that the specified claims are unpatentable over the cited prior art.
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e). We previously instructed Patent Owner that “any
`arguments for patentability not raised in the [Patent Owner Response] will
`be deemed waived.” Paper 8, 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 argument addressed in Preliminary Response by not raising
`argument in the Patent Owner Response). Additionally, the Board’s Trial
`Practice Guide states that the Patent Owner Response “should identify all the
`involved claims that are believed to be patentable and state the basis for that
`belief.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766
`(Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent 9,014,243 B2
`
`
`With a complete record before us, we note that we have reviewed
`arguments and evidence advanced by Petitioner to support its unpatentability
`contentions where Patent Owner chose not to address certain limitations in
`its Patent Owner Response. In this regard, the record now contains
`persuasive, unrebutted arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner
`regarding the manner in which the asserted prior art teaches corresponding
`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 of Claims 1–3, 7–9, 13–16,
`and 20–22 over Shively and Stopler
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–3, 7–9, 13–16, and 20–22 of the
`’243 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
`Shively and Stopler. Pet. 10–42.
`
`1. Principles of Law
`A claim is unpatentable under § 103(a) if the differences between the
`claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a
`whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
`obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations,
`including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in
`the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective indicia of non-obviousness
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent 9,014,243 B2
`
`(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. Shively Overview
`Shively discloses discrete multitone transmission (DMT) of data by
`digital subscriber loop (DSL) modems and the allocation of bits to the
`discrete multitones. Ex. 1011, 1:5‒8. Bit allocation is performed to
`optimize throughput within aggregate power and power spectral density
`mask limits. Id. at 4:17‒19. The system includes a transmitting modem and
`a receiving modem connected by a cable having four twisted pairs of
`conductors. Id. at 9:63‒65. The modems include a source encoder, a
`channel decoder, and a digital modulator to take in and transmit data from a
`data source. Id. at 10:9‒12. The modems also include a digital
`demodulator, a channel decoder, and a source decoder to receive the data
`and supply it to a data sink. Id. at 10:12‒14. The source encoder
`compresses data, applies the compressed data to the channel decoder, which
`performs error correction. Id. at 10:15‒19. The error corrected data is
`applied to the digital modulator, which acts as the interface with the
`communication channel. Id. at 10:15‒22. The digital demodulator
`constructs a data stream from the modulated signal and applies it to the
`channel decoder, which performs error correction, and then applies the
`corrected data to the source decoder, which decompresses the data. Id. at
`10:22‒26.
`In the QAM multitone modulation, the spectrum is broken into
`multiple sub-bands or QAM channels. Id. at 10:27‒29. The digital
`modulator generates N QAM signal tones, one for each QAM channel. Id.
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent 9,014,243 B2
`
`at 10:29‒30. The serial stream is segmented into N frames, each having
`allocated to it ki bits of data. Id. at 10:30‒31. The multi-carrier modulator
`generates N QAM tones, one for each channel, at the same symbol rate but
`with a respective constellation for each channel. Id. at 10:35‒37.
`3. Stopler Overview
`Stopler discloses a method and apparatus for encoding/framing a data
`stream of multitone modulated signals to improve impulse burst immunity.
`Ex. 1012, 1:8‒11. The encoding/framing scheme allows efficient operation
`in multipoint to point channels affected by ingress and impulsive
`interference. Id. at 5:11‒14. Two dimensional interleaving is performed,
`with one dimension being time and the other dimension being frequency
`(tones or sub-channels). Id. at 5:18‒20. Stopler further discloses a
`diagonalization scheme, where data packets are spread over time in a
`diagonal fashion, such that an impulse noise affects more than one user’s
`packets, with the effect on each being reduced. Id. at 5:64‒67.
`
`4. Petitioner’s Initial Positions
`Petitioner contends that a combination of Shively and Stopler would
`have rendered obvious claims 1–3, 7–9, 13–16, and 20–22 of the ’243
`patent. Pet. 10–42. We have reviewed the Petition, Patent Owner’s
`Response, and Petitioner’s Reply, as well as the relevant evidence discussed
`in those papers and other record papers, and are persuaded that the record
`sufficiently establishes Petitioner’s contentions for claims 1–3, 7–9, 13–16,
`and 20–22, and we adopt Petitioner’s contentions discussed below as our
`own.
`For example, the claim 1 preamble recites “[a] method, in a
`multicarrier communications transceiver comprising a bit scrambler
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent 9,014,243 B2
`
`followed by a phase scrambler.” Petitioner argues that the combination of
`Shively and Stopler disclose the preamble. Pet. 15‒19. Petitioner argues
`that Shively discloses a “method for transmission in a multitone
`communication system,” and Shively teaches the use of modems to transmit
`and receive communications. Id. at 15‒16 (quoting Ex. 1011, 3:28‒29;
`citing 9:42, 9:63‒64, Fig. 2). Petitioner argues that Stopler discloses that
`“[m]ultitone modulation is a signal transmission scheme which uses a
`number of narrow-band carriers positioned at different frequencies, all
`transmitting simultaneously in parallel” and “[o]ne type of multitone
`transmission scheme is discrete multitone.” Id. at 16‒17 (quoting Ex. 1012,
`1:42‒49, 1:50‒58; citing Ex. 1009, 31‒32) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner
`further argues that Stopler discloses a transmitter that includes two
`scramblers, a bit scrambler and a phase scrambler. Id. at 18 (citing Ex.
`1012, 9:34‒37, Fig. 5; Ex. 1009, 33‒34). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s
`showing and find that Stopler’s scrambler 56 is a bit scrambler and Stopler’s
`QAM mapper and phase scrambler 82 is a phase scrambler.
`Claim 1 further recites “scrambling, using the bit scrambler, a
`plurality of input bits to generate a plurality of scrambled output bits.”
`Petitioner argues that Stopler discloses that “data output by the interleaver
`54 is rearranged into a serial bit stream (MSB first) and then scrambled in
`scrambler 56, which is used to randomize the coded and interleaved data.”
`Id. at 19 (quoting Ex. 1012, 9:34‒48) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner argues
`that a person with ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
`“Stopler’s generating a randomizing sequence that is XORed with an input
`bit stream constitutes ‘scrambling . . . a plurality of input bits.’” Id. (citing
`Ex. 1009, 35). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing and find that
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent 9,014,243 B2
`
`Stopler’s scrambler 56 scrambles a plurality of input bits to generate a
`plurality of scrambled output bits.
`Claim 1 also recites “wherein at least one scrambled output bit is
`different than a corresponding input bit.” Petitioner argues that Stopler
`discloses that “the bits of the serial bit stream are ‘scrambled in scrambler
`56’ to ‘randomize’ the data.” Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1012, 9:34‒47). Petitioner
`argues that a person with ordinary skill would have recognized that “the
`XOR operation would result in at least one input bit to be changed when the
`corresponding bit in the randomizing sequence has a value of 1.” Id. at 21
`(citing Ex. 1009, 37). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing and find
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, after
`Stopler’s XOR operation, at least one scrambled output bit is different than a
`corresponding input bit.
`Claim 1 additionally recites “scrambling, using the phase scrambler, a
`plurality of carrier phases.” Petitioner argues that Stopler discloses that “the
`phase scrambler applies ‘a phase scrambling sequence’ to ‘data in the form
`of m-tuples which are to be mapped into QAM symbols.’” Id. at 21 (quoting
`Ex. 1012, 12:20‒28). Petitioner argues that Stopler discloses that “the phase
`scrambled symbols are provided to a modulator that performs signal
`modulation.” Id. at 21‒22 (citing Ex. 1012, 12:55‒57, Fig. 5; Ex. 1009, 39‒
`40). Petitioner further argues that both Shively and Stopler disclose
`“transmitting information by modulating multiple carrier frequencies.” Id. at
`22 (citing Ex. 1011, 8:3‒13; Ex. 1012, 1:42‒49, 1:50‒61; Ex. 1009, 40).
`Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s arguments, which we have considered and
`which we address below, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing and find
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent 9,014,243 B2
`
`that Stopler’s QAM mapper and phase scrambler 82 scrambles a plurality of
`carrier phases.
`Claim 1 further recites “a plurality of carrier phases associated with
`the plurality of scrambled output bits.” Petitioner argues that the
`combination of Shively and Stopler discloses that “the plurality of carrier
`phases are based on the symbols provided to the modulator” and Stopler
`further discloses “the symbols are mapped from m-tuple data . . . [where] the
`m-tuple data provided to QAM mapper and phase scrambler 82 are formed
`by processing the data output by the big scrambler 56 on an ‘upper level’
`and a ‘lower level.’” Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1012, 9:48‒55, 10:1‒7, 10:40‒
`11:50, 11:51‒54, 12:20‒22, Fig. 5; Ex. 1009, 42‒43). We are persuaded by
`Petitioner’s showing and find that the plurality of scrambled output bits are
`processed to become m-tuple data that is then “associated with” a plurality
`of carrier phases by QAM mapper and phase scrambler 82.
`Claim 1 also recites “transmitting at least one scrambled output bit on
`a first carrier” and “transmitting the at least one scrambled output bit on a
`second carrier.” Petitioner argues that Shively discloses determining “a
`respective carrier modulated to transmit one bit in each of a plurality of
`multitone subchannels of the channel” and “modulating a first set of
`respective carriers to represent respective unique portions of the data stream
`in at least a subset of those of the multitone subchannels.” Id. at 24‒25
`(quoting Ex. 1011, 8:3‒6, 8:5‒13). Petitioner further argues that Stopler
`discloses “transmitting data bits by modulating the data bits on carriers using
`quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) and multitone (multicarrier)
`modulation.” Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1012, 1:42‒49, 12:20‒28). Petitioner
`explains that it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent 9,014,243 B2
`
`the art “to employ the techniques of Shively and Stopler to transmit at least
`one scrambled output bit that is provided to the modulator.” Id. (citing Ex.
`1009, 49). Petitioner further argues that Shively discloses transmitting a
`portion of data on multiple carriers, and, therefore, meets the “second
`carrier” claim limitation. Id. at 26‒27. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s
`showing and find that both Shively and Stopler teach transmitting at least
`one scrambled output data bit on a first carrier by modulating it using QAM.
`Petitioner argues that “[i]t would have been obvious for a POSITA to
`combine Shively and Stopler because the combination is merely a use of a
`known technique to improve a similar device, method or product in the same
`way.” Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 1009, 26). Petitioner explains that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that “by transmitting
`redundant data on multiple carriers, Shively’s transmitter would suffer from
`an increased peak-to-average power ratio” because “the overall transmitted
`signal in a multicarrier system is essentially the sum of its multiple carriers.”
`Id. (citing Ex. 1009, 26). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in
`the art “would have sought out an approach to reduce the [(peak-to-average
`power ratio)] PAR of Shively’s transmitter” and “Stopler provides a solution
`for reducing the PAR of a multicarrier transmitter.” Id. at 14 (citing
`Ex. 1009, 27). Petitioner argues that Stopler discloses “a phase scrambler
`[that] can be employed to randomize the phase of the individual subcarriers”
`(id. at 14 (quoting Ex. 1011, 12:24‒28)) and “[a] POSITA would have
`recognized that by randomizing the phase of each subcarrier, Stopler
`provides a technique that allows two subcarriers in Shively’s system to
`transmit the same bits, but without those two subcarriers having the same
`phase.” Id. at 14. Petitioner explains that “[s]ince the two subcarriers are
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent 9,014,243 B2
`
`out-of-phase with one another, the subcarriers will not add up coherently at
`the same time,” thereby reducing the peak-to-average power ratio (PAR) in
`Shively’s system. Id. at 14‒15. Accordingly, Petitioner argues that
`“[c]ombining Stopler’s phase scrambler into Shively’s transmitter would
`have been a relatively simple and obvious solution to reduce Shively’s
`PAR.” Id. at 15 (citing Ex. 1009, 28). Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s
`arguments, which we have considered and which we address below, we are
`persuaded by Petitioner’s showing and find that Petitioner’s articulated
`reasoning has sufficient rational underpinning to support the legal
`conclusion of obviousness. See KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re
`Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
`Petitioner performs a similar analysis for claims 2, 3, 7–9, 13–16, and
`20–22. Pet. 28–42. Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s arguments, which we
`have considered and which we address below, we are persuaded by
`Petitioner’s showing, which we adopt as our own findings and conclusions,
`that claims 1–3, 7–9, 13–16, and 20–22 are unpatentable as obvious over
`Shively and Stopler.
`
`5. Patent Owner’s Argument that
`Stopler Does Not Phase Scramble
`Patent Owner contends that “Stopler must be compatible with single-
`carrier CDMA” (PO Resp. 59) based on Stopler’s teaching that “[t]he
`framing scheme according to the present invention may also be performed in
`a CDMA system, in which case the modulator (not shown) may, for
`example, be a CDMA-type modulator in accordance with the TIA/EIA/IS-95
`‘Mobile Station Compatibility Standard for Dual Mode Wideband Spread
`Spectrum Cellular System.’” Ex. 1012, 12:58–63; PO Resp. 29–30; see also
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent 9,014,243 B2
`
`id. at 29–44 (arguing Stopler’s framing scheme must be compatible with
`single-carrier CDMA). According to Patent Owner, “[b]ecause Stopler must
`be compatible with single-carrier CDMA, it makes no sense to argue that his
`phase scrambling must be performed within a single multicarrier symbol.”
`PO Resp. 59. Thus, concludes Patent Owner, “Stopler only discloses
`scrambling phases from one symbol6 to the next symbol in time, and not
`with respect to multiple carriers in a single multicarrier symbol.” PO Resp.
`58–59; see also id. at 37 (“[i]t is nonsensical to scramble phases within a
`symbol because there is only one phase in each symbol.”).
`Patent Owner also relies on Stopler’s claim 31 as corroboration for its
`position, contending that the phase scrambling performed by QAM Mapper
`and Phase Scrambler 82 “must at least be compatible with single carrier
`CDMA” because claim 31 is directed to a method in a “CDMA system” that
`includes the step of “phase scrambling.” Id. at 33–34 (citing Ex. 1012,
`16:4–48).
`The “framing scheme” of Stopler is shown as a block diagram in
`Figure 5, reproduced below. Ex. 1012, 8:54–55 (“A block diagram of the
`framing scheme according to the present invention is shown in FIG. 5.”).
`
`
`6 Patent Owner uses “symbol” to mean “a collective multicarrier symbol in a
`single symbol period (e.g. a DMT symbol).” PO Resp. 12. Patent Owner
`uses “carrier” to mean “a carrier symbol (e.g., a QAM symbol).” Id.
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2016-010

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket