throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 44
`
`
`
` 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 IPR2016-010211
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and,
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`1 DISH Network, L.L.C., who filed a Petition in IPR2017-00255, and
`Comcast Cable Communications, L.L.C., Cox Communications, Inc., Time
`Warner Cable Enterprises L.L.C., Verizon Services Corp., and ARRIS
`Group, Inc., who filed a Petition in IPR2017-00417, have been joined in this
`proceeding.
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`In this inter partes review, instituted pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314,
`Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Petitioner”) challenges claims 1–30 (“the challenged
`claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’158 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 for inter partes review of claims 1‒30 of the
`’158 patent. Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response.
`Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). On November 4, 2016, we instituted an inter
`partes review of claims 1–30 of the ’158 patent on the following grounds
`(Paper 7 (“Dec.”)):
`
`References
`
`
`Basis
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`1, 2, 4, 15, 16, and 18
`
`3, 5, 14, 17, 19, and 28‒30
`6, 9, 10, 12, 20, 23, 24, and
`26
`8, 11, 13, 22, 25, and 27
`
`Shively,2 and Stopler3
`Shively, Stopler, and
`Gerszberg4
`Shively, Stopler, and
`Bremer5
`Shively, Stopler,
`
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,144,696; issued Nov. 7, 2000 (Ex. 1011) (“Shively”).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 6,625,219 B1; issued Sept. 23, 2003 (Ex. 1012)
`(“Stopler”).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 6,424,646 B1; issued July 23, 2002 (Ex. 1013)
`(“Gerszberg”).
`5 U.S. Patent No. 4,924,516; issued May 8, 1990 (Ex. 1017) (“Bremer”).
`2
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`
`
`

`

`Claims
`Challenged
`
`
`Basis
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`
`
`
`7 and 21
`
`References
`Bremer, and Gerszberg
`Shively, Stopler,
`Bremer, and Flammer6
`
`Thereafter, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (“PO
`Resp.”). Paper 15. Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent Owner Response
`(“Pet. Reply”). Paper 20. Pursuant to an Order (Paper 24), 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
`25. Petitioner filed a response to Patent Owner’s listing. Paper 32.
`Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude, Paper 31 (“PO Mot. Exc.”),
`Petitioner filed an Opposition, Paper 36 (“Pet. Opp. Mot. Exc.”), and Patent
`Owner filed a Reply, Paper 40. Patent Owner filed a Motion for
`Observation, Paper 30 (“PO Mot. Obs.”) and Petitioner filed a Response to
`the Motion for Observation, Paper 37 (“Pet. Resp.”).
`We held a consolidated hearing on August 3, 2017, for this case and
`related Case IPR2016-01020, and a transcript of the hearing is included in
`the record. Paper 42 (“Tr.”).
`B. Related Proceedings
`The parties indicate that the ’158 patent is the subject of several
`
`pending judicial matters. Pet. 1; Paper 5, 2–3.
`C. The ʼ158 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’158 patent relates to multicarrier communications systems that
`
`lower the peak-to-average power ratio (PAR) of transmitted signals.
`
`6 U.S. Patent No. 5,515,369; issued May 7, 1996 (Ex. 1019) (“Flammer”).
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:28‒31. 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 2:38‒41. The value is determined
`independent of the input bit value carried by the carrier signal. 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 2:38‒45. Figure 1 illustrates the multicarrier communication
`system and is reproduced below:
`
`Figure 1 illustrates the multicarrier communication system, digital
`
`subscriber line (DSL) communication system 2, which includes discrete
`multitoned (DMT) transceiver 10 communicating with remote transceiver 14
`over communication channel 18 using transmission signal 38 having a
`plurality of carrier signals. Id. at 3:27‒31. DMT transceiver 10 includes
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`DMT transmitter 22 and DMT receiver 26. Id. at 3:31‒32. Remote
`transceiver also includes transmitter 30 and receiver 34. Id. at 3:32‒34.
`DMT transmitter 22 transmits signals over communication channel 18 to
`receiver 34. Id. at 3:40‒42.
`DMT transmitter 22 includes a quadrature amplitude modulation
`(QAM) encoder 42, modulator 46, bit allocation table (BAT) 44, and phase
`scrambler 66. Id. at 3:53‒56. QAM encoder 42 has a single input for
`receiving serial data bit stream 54 and multiple parallel outputs to transmit
`QAM symbols 58 generated by QAM encoder 42 from bit stream 54. Id. at
`3:65‒4:1. Modulator 46 provides DMT modulation functionality and
`transforms QAM symbols 58 into DMT symbols 70. Id. at 4:12‒14.
`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 4:15‒18.
`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 4:31‒34.
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner challenges claims 1‒30 of the ’158 patent. Claims 1 and 15
`are independent claims. Claims 2‒14 and 29 depend, either directly or
`indirectly, from claim 1, and claims 16‒28 and 30 depend, either directly or
`indirectly, from claim 15. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
`
`In a multicarrier modulation system including a first
`1.
`transceiver in communication with a second transceiver using a
`transmission signal having a plurality of carrier signals for
`modulating a plurality of data bits, each carrier signal having a
`phase characteristic associated with at least one bit of the
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`
`plurality of data bits, a method for scrambling the phase
`characteristics of the carrier signals comprising:
`
`transmitting the plurality of data bits from the first
`transceiver to the second transceiver;
`
`associating a carrier signal with a value determined
`independent of any bit of the plurality of data bits carried by the
`carrier signal, the value associated with the carrier signal
`determined by a pseudo-random number generator;
`
`determining a phase shift for the carrier signal at least
`based on the value associated with the carrier signal;
`
`modulating at least one bit of the plurality of data bits on
`the carrier signal; and
`
`modulating the at least one bit on a second carrier signal
`of the plurality of carrier signals.
`
`Ex. 1001, 10:59–11:11.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Principles of Law
`To prevail in its challenge to Patent Owner’s claims, Petitioner must
`demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims are
`unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). A claim is
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 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 of the invention to a person
`having ordinary skill in the art. 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
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence
`of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1,
`17–18 (1966).
`In that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
`a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; see also
`Translogic Technology, Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1259, and 1262 (Fed. Cir.
`2007).
`
`B. Level of Ordinary skill in the Art
`Citing its declarant, Dr. Jose Tellado, Petitioner contends that a person
`having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had
`(1) a Master’s degree in Electrical and/or Computer Engineering, or
`equivalent training, and (2) approximately five years of experience working
`with multicarrier communications systems. Pet. 10–11; Ex. 1009 ¶ 18.
`Petitioner also contends that “[l]ack of work experience can be remedied by
`additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 11.
`Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Robert Short indicated that for purposes of
`the proceeding he adopts Dr. Tellado’s definition of a person of ordinary
`skill in the art. Ex. 2003 ¶ 16. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt
`Petitioner’s proposed definition, and further find that 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).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`
`C. Claim Interpretation
`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 also Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,766. 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, 504 F.3d at 1257.
`Petitioner proposes constructions for the following claim terms:
`“multicarrier” and “transceiver.” Pet. 8–9. In our Decision to Institute, we
`interpreted the term “transceiver” to mean “a device, such as a modem, with
`a transmitter and receiver,” but determined that it was not necessary to
`interpret the term “multicarrier.” Dec. 6–7. Neither party has indicated that
`our determinations were improper and we do not perceive any reason or
`evidence that now compels any deviation from our initial determinations.
`PO Resp. 13–14; Pet. Reply 7–8. Accordingly, the construction of
`transceiver to mean “a device, such as a modem, with a transmitter and
`receiver” applies to this Decision. Dec. 7. For purposes of this decision, we
`find it necessary to construe “scrambling the phase characteristics of the
`carrier signals” found in claim 1.
`Scrambling the Phase Characteristics of the Carrier Signals
`The preamble of claim 1 recites a transmission signal with a plurality
`of carrier signals where each carrier signal has a phase characteristic and “a
`method for scrambling the phase characteristics of the carrier signals,
`comprising.” (Emphasis added). Patent Owner argues that the italicized
`language should be interpreted to mean “adjusting the phases of a plurality
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`of carriers in a single multicarrier symbol by pseudo-randomly varying
`amounts.” PO Resp. 14–19. Petitioner argues that the phrase needs no
`interpretation, since the prior art relied upon uses the same “phase
`scrambling” terminology to describe pseudo-random phase changes. Pet.
`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 [P]atent [O]wner’s proposal of the
`construction, we believe that is exactly how Stopler is describing this phase
`scrambler as operating.” Tr. 18:23–19:5.
`The phrase “scrambling the phase characteristics of the carrier
`signals” is recited in the preamble of claim 1. Although neither party
`explicitly explains why the preamble of claim 1 is limiting, both parties
`implicitly contend that the preamble is limiting. For purposes of this
`decision, we determine that the preamble is limiting. We further find it
`helpful to our decision and analysis to interpret the phrase in order to
`understand the parties’ positions with respect to how the prior art reference
`Stopler meets the phrase.
`Patent Owner argues that “scrambling the phase characteristics of the
`carrier signals” 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 ’158 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
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`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
`’158 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, 4:15–16). 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, 4:9–11, 9:8–9; Ex. 2003 ¶ 39). Patent Owner further
`contends that the ’158 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, 6:32–
`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.” PO Resp. 14. Patent Owner,
`however, provides no persuasive reasoning for also adding to that
`construction “by pseudo-randomly varying amounts.” Id. 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 a child application to the ’158 patent, the applicant explained
`that a “scrambler” operates by pseudo-randomly selecting bits to invert; and
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`(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. Patent Owner’s explanation
`for why we should add “by pseudo-randomly varying amounts” to its
`proposed construction is conclusory. Id. at 17. 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 before us, here. Moreover, Patent Owner does not explain why
`statements made during prosecution of a child application for the term
`“scrambler” is relevant to how we should interpret the disputed phrase that
`does not even contain the term “scrambler” in it. Id. at 16. 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.”
`
`D. Asserted Obviousness over Shively and Stopler
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 4, 15, 16, and 18 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Shively and Stopler. Pet. 11–32.
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s showing identifying where each limitation
`allegedly appears in Shively and Stopler, along with the testimony of
`Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Jose Tellado. Id. (citing Ex. 1009). We also have
`reviewed Patent Owner’s assertions and evidence, including the testimony of
`Dr. Robert Short, as to why Petitioner’s showing is deficient.. PO Resp.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`
`Shively (Ex. 1011)
`Shively discloses discrete multitoned 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 multitoned 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. at 10:29‒30. The serial stream is segmented in to N frames, each having
`allocated to it ki bits of data. Id. at 10:30‒31. The multi-carrier modulator
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`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.
`Stopler (Ex. 1012)
`Stopler discloses a method and apparatus for encoding/framing a data
`
`stream of multitoned 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. A code
`having lower redundancy can be used since the amount of corruption
`expected in one user’s data packet will be reduced. Id. at 5:67‒6:3.
`
`
`
`Figure 5 of Stopler is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`As shown above, Figure 5 of Stopler, input data, in the form of data
`
`packets, is input to an RS coder 52. Id. at 8:55‒57. Data output by RS coder
`52 is input to interleaver 54. Id. at 9:8‒10. The output of interleaver 54 is
`rearranged into a serial bit stream and then scrambled in scrambler 56, which
`is used to randomize coded and interleaved data. Id. at 9:34‒37. Data
`output by scrambler 56 is divided by level splitter 58 into two levels of the
`TCM encoder. Splitter 58 divides serial bit stream into a group of data bits
`to be processed by lower level 70, and the remaining data bits to be
`processed by upper level 60. Id. at 9:48‒55. In lower level 70 of TCM
`encode, data is collected into groups by group collector 72, which is input to
`coder 74, then group interleaver 76 and then group filler 78. Id. at 10:40‒
`11:18. The outputs of upper stream 60 and lower stream 70 are combined
`into m-tuples (QAM symbols) and temporarily stored in FIFO buffer 80,
`which then delivers data to a QAM mapper 82. Id. at 11:51‒57.
`
`The input to QAM mapper 82 is data in the form of m-tuples which
`are mapped into QAM symbols. Id. at 12:21‒22. To randomize the
`overhead channel symbols, a phase scrambling sequence is applied to the
`output symbols. For example, the phase scrambling sequence may be
`generated by a pseudo-random generator composed of a linear feedback shift
`register of length 21, and initialized by a user programmable seed. Id. at
`12:24‒31. Consecutive output pairs from the pseudo-random generator are
`converted into numbers 2a+b and the sum (2a+b) is used to select the
`amount of rotation to be applied to the symbol according to the following
`table below:
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`
`
`Id. at 12:31‒45. The output from the QAM mapper 82 is provided to a
`modulator (not shown) which implements the particular signal modulation
`desired, e.g., VCMT, CDMA, etc. Id. at 12:55‒57.
`Analysis
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 4, 15, 16, and 18 would have been
`obvious over Shively and Stopler. Pet. 11–32. Patent Owner’s arguments
`are directed to whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`combined Shively and Stopler and whether Stopler describes phase
`scrambling. PO Resp. 45‒58.
`Claim 1 recites “[i]n a multicarrier modulation system including a first
`transceiver in communication with a second transceiver.” Petitioner
`contends that Shively and Stopler each describe this limitation. For
`example, and with respect to Shively, Petitioner argues that Shively
`describes a discrete multitoned transmission (DMT) of data (a multicarrier
`modulation system) by digital subscriber loop (DSL) modems (illustrated in
`Figure 2 as a transmitting modem 31 and a receiving mode 32). Pet. 17
`(citing Ex. 1011, 1:5‒7, 9:42, 9:63‒64, and Fig. 2; Ex. 1009, 31‒32).7 We
`are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing and find that Shively’s modem 31 is a
`first transceiver in communication with a second transceiver 32 and that the
`
`7 In the Petition, Petitioner references page numbers of Dr. Tellado’s
`Declaration, as opposed to paragraph numbers. Citations are to page
`numbers, unless otherwise indicated by use of the paragraph symbol (“¶”).
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`two transceivers communicate using discrete multitoned transmission
`(DMT) of data, and thus are in a multicarrier modulation system.
`Claim 1 further recites “using a transmission signal having a plurality
`of carrier signals for modulating a plurality of data bits.” Petitioner contends
`that Shively and Stopler each render obvious this phrase. For example, and
`with respect to Shively, Petitioner contends that Shively describes a
`transmitting modem that receives digital data from a data source and
`modulates separate carriers to represent the digital data, which results in a
`modulated signal sent to a receiving modem. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1011, 5:22‒
`26). Petitioner further contends that Shively describes that the available
`frequency spectrum is divided into multiple QAM channels, which a person
`of ordinary skill in the art would have understood to be a “plurality of carrier
`signals” for modulating “a plurality of data bits.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1011,
`5:47, 5:52; Ex. 1009, 35‒36). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing,
`which we adopt as our own findings and conclusions, that Shively renders
`obvious “using a transmission signal having a plurality of carrier signals for
`modulating a plurality of data bits.”
`Claim 1 recites “each carrier signal having a phase characteristic
`associated with at least one bit of the plurality of data bits.” Petitioner
`contends that Shively and Stopler each render obvious this phrase. For
`example, and with respect to Shively, Petitioner contends that Shively
`describes transmitting data bits using quadrature amplitude modulation
`(QAM) and that QAM produces a signal whose phase and amplitude convey
`encoded k-bits of information. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1011, 1:29‒30).
`Petitioner further contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art
`would have understood that the phase of a signal used in QAM to convey
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`bits is a phase characteristic as claimed. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:43‒44;
`Ex. 1009, 38). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing, which we adopt
`as our own findings and conclusions, that Shively describes “each carrier
`signal having a phase characteristic associated with at least one bit of the
`plurality of data bits.”
`
`Claim 1 further recites a “method for scrambling the phase
`characteristics of the carrier signals.” Petitioner contends that Stopler
`describes a phase scrambler that applies a phase scrambling sequence to data
`in the form of m-tuples which are to be mapped into QAM symbols. Pet. 22
`(citing Ex. 1012, 12:20‒28). Petitioner contends that the QAM symbols are
`then provided to a modulator which implements the particular signal
`modulation. Pet. 22; Ex. 1012, 12:55‒57, Fig. 5; Ex. 1009, 41–45).
`Petitioner explains, with supporting evidence, that it would have been
`understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art that modulating the
`phase-scrambled QAM symbols results in the phases of the carrier signals
`being scrambled. Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1009, 44‒45). Petitioner contends that
`it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
`employ Stopler’s phase scrambling techniques in Shively’s transmitter. Pet.
`22–23 (citing Ex. 1009, 45). In particular, Dr. Tellado testifies that a person
`having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that by transmitting
`redundant data symbols on multiple carriers, Shively’s transmitter would
`suffer from an increased peak-to-average power ratio (PAR). Ex. 1009
`¶¶ 63‒64. He further testifies that a person having ordinary skill in the art
`would have understood the drawbacks from a high PAR and that such a
`person would have sought out an approach to reduce PAR of Shively’s
`transmitter. Id. ¶ 66. Dr. Tellado further testifies that it would have been
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`obvious to randomize the carrier phases using Stopler’s techniques in order
`to reduce Shively’s PAR. Id. ¶ 67. 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 Stopler teaches “scrambling the phase characteristics of the
`carrier signals” and that it would have been obvious to combine Stopler’s
`scrambling technique to Shively’s system for the reasons provided by
`Petitioner. Pet. 23.
`Claim 1 also recites “transmitting the plurality of data bits from the
`first transceiver to the second transceiver.” As discussed above, Petitioner
`relies on Shively’s description of a transmitting modem (e.g., Figure 2
`transmitting modem 31) that transmits digital data to a receiving modem
`(e.g., Figure 2 receiving modem 32). Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1011, 8:56‒60).
`We find that Shively describes transmitting digital data from a first
`transceiver to a second transceiver. Ex. 1011, 8:56‒60. Petitioner further
`explains, with supporting evidence, and we agree, that a person having
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Shively’s digital data are
`“data bits.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1009, 46); see also Ex. 1011, 5:47‒58.
`Claim 1 also recites “associating a carrier signal with a value
`determined independently of any bit of the plurality of data bits carried by
`the carrier signal, the value associated with the carrier signal determined by
`a pseudo-random number generator.” Petitioner relies on Stopler to meet
`this limitation. In particular, Petitioner contends that Stopler teaches a
`pseudo-random generator that outputs consecutive output pairs that are
`converted into numbers 2a+b. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1012, 12:28‒45). The
`value (2a+b), derived from the pseudo-random number generator, Petitioner
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`contends, is a “value determined independently of any bit of the plurality of
`data bits carried by the carrier signal.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1009, 48).
`Petitioner further explains, with supporting evidence, that because Stopler
`teaches that the value (2a+b) is associated with a symbol that is transmitted
`on a sub-channel having a carrier frequency, the value (2a+b) is associated
`with a carrier signal. Pet 24–25 (citing Ex. 1009, 48‒49). We are persuaded
`by Petitioner’s showing, which we adopt, that Stopler renders obvious
`associating a carrier signal with a “value determined independently of any
`bit of the plurality of data bits carried by the carrier signal, the value
`associated with the carrier signal determined by a pseudo-random number
`generator.”
`
`Claim 1 recites “determining a phase shift for the carrier signal at least
`based on the value associated with the carrier signal.” Petitioner contends
`that Stopler teaches that the (2a+b) value is used to determine a phase shift
`because the sum (2a+b) is used to select the amount of rotation to be applied
`to the symbol, where the phase rotation can be 0, π/2, π, or -π/2. Pet. 25
`(citing Ex. 1012, 12:28‒45; Ex. 1009, 49). Petitioner contends that a person
`having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that applying a
`rotation to the symbol results in a phase shift in the carrier signal after the
`symbol is modulated onto the carrier. Pet. 25‒26 (citing Ex. 1009, 49). We
`are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing, which we adopt, that Stopler renders
`obvious “determining a phase shift for the carrier signal at least based on the
`value associated with the carrier signal.”
`Claim 1 recites “modulating at least one bit of the plurality of data bits
`on the carrier signal” and “modulating the at least one bit on a second carrier
`signal of the plurality of carrier signals.” Petitioner points to descriptions in
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`Shively that describes 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.” Pet. 26 (quoting Ex. 1011,
`8:3‒6, 8:5‒13). Petitioner further contends that Shively employs QAM
`multitone modulation to modulate carriers, and Shively’s multiple sub-bands
`or QAM channels correspond to the claimed “plurality of carrier signals.”
`Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1009, 51). Petitioner submits that Stopler also teaches
`using QAM to convey data bits on carrier signals. Pet. 26‒27. Petitioner
`further

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