throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Paper No. 9
` 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 IPR2016-010081
`Patent 8,238,412 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, which filed IPR2017-00253, and Comcast Cable
`Communications, LLC, Cox Communications, Inc., Time Warner Cable
`Enterprises LLC, Verizon Services Corp., and ARRIS Group, Inc., which
`filed IPR2017-00419, have been joined in this proceeding. Paper 14; Paper
`15.
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01008
`Patent 8,238,412 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`In this inter partes review, instituted pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314,
`Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Petitioner”) challenges claims 1–8, 13, 14, 19, and 20
`(“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,238,412 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the
`’412 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
`1‒8, 13, 14, 19, and 20 of the ’412 patent. Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner
`filed a corrected Preliminary Response. Paper 7. On November 4, 2016, we
`instituted inter partes review of claims 1‒8, 13, 14, 19, and 20 of the ’412
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)2 as obvious over Milbrandt,3 Hwang,4 and
`ANSI T1.413.5 Paper 7 (“Inst. Dec.”), 24.
`
`
`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
`’412 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. 6,636,603 B1; issued Oct. 21, 2003 (Ex. 1011)
`(“Milbrandt”).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 6,590,893 B1; issued July 8, 2003 (Ex. 1013) (“Hwang”).
`5 Network and Customer Installation Interfaces – Asymmetric Digital
`Subscriber Line (ADSL) Metallic Interface, AMERICAN NATIONAL
`STANDARDS INSTITUTION (ANSI) T1.413-1995 STANDARD (Ex. 1014)
`(“ANSI T1.413”).
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01008
`Patent 8,238,412 B2
`
`
`Thereafter, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 13,
`“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 that Patent
`Owner considered to be beyond the proper scope of a reply. Paper 22.
`Petitioner filed a response to Patent Owner’s listing. Paper 26.
`Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude (Paper 30), Petitioner filed an
`Opposition (Paper 35), and Patent Owner filed a Reply (Paper 38). Patent
`Owner also filed a Corrected Motion for Observation (Paper 33) to which
`Petitioner filed a Response (Paper 36).
`We held a consolidated hearing on August 3, 2017, for this case and
`related Cases IPR2016-01006, IPR2016-01007, and IPR2016-01009, and a
`transcript of the hearing is included in the record. Paper 40 (“Tr.”).
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`The parties indicate that the ’412 patent is involved in the following
`district court cases: (1) TQ Delta LLC v. Comcast Cable Communications
`LLC, No. 1:15-cv-00611 (D. Del.); (2) TQ Delta LLC v. CoxCom, LLC, No.
`1:15-cv-00612 (D. Del.); (3) TQ Delta LLC v. DIRECTV, No. 1:15-cv-
`00613 (D. Del.); (4) TQ Delta LLC v. DISH Network Corp., No. 1:15-cv-
`00614 (D. Del.); (5) TQ Delta LLC v. Time Warner Cable Inc., No. 1:15-cv-
`00615 (D. Del.); (6) TQ Delta LLC v. Verizon Communications, Inc., No.
`1:15-cv-00616 (D. Del.); (7) ARRIS Group, Inc. v. TQ Delta LLC, Case
`IPR2016-00430; (8) Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. TQ Delta,
`LLC, Case IPR2017-00419; and (9) DISH Networks, LLC v. TQ Delta, LLC,
`Case IPR2017-00253. Paper 11, 1; Paper 6, 2–4. Patent Owner further
`identifies (1) TQ Delta LLC v. 2Wire, Inc., No. 13-cv-1835 (D. Del.); (2) TQ
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01008
`Patent 8,238,412 B2
`
`Delta LLC v. Zhone Technologies, Inc., No. 13-cv-1836 (D. Del.); (3) TQ
`Delta LLC v. ZyXEL Communications, Inc. and ZyXEL Communications
`Corp., No. 13-cv-02013 (D. Del.); (4) TQ Delta LLC v. ADTRAN, Inc., No.
`1:14-cv-00954 (D. Del.); and (5) ADTRAN, Inc. v. TQ Delta LLC, No. 1:15-
`cv-00121 (D. Del.). Paper 6, 3–4. Also, Petitioner filed, concurrently with
`this Petition, a second petition challenging claims of the ’412 patent, which
`became Case IPR2016-01009.
`Petitioner also indicates that the ’412 patent is related to U.S. Patent
`No. 8,432,956 B2 and U.S. Patent No. 7,835,430 B2, which are the subjects
`of IPR2016-00428 and IPR2016-00429, respectively. Pet. 1. U.S. Patent
`No. 8,432,956 B2 also is the subject of IPR2016-01007 and IPR2017-00422.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,835,430 B2 also is the subject of IPR2016-01006,
`IPR2017-00251, and IPR2017-00420.
`
`C. The ’412 patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’412 patent discloses systems and methods for reliably
`exchanging diagnostic and test information between transceivers over a
`digital subscriber line in the presence of disturbances. Ex. 1001, 1:59‒62.
`The systems and methods include the use of a diagnostic link mode in the
`communication of diagnostic information from a remote terminal (RT)
`transceiver or modem to the central office (CO) transceiver or modem,
`where either modem transmits a message to the other modem to enter
`diagnostic link mode. Id. at 2:60‒64, 3:34‒42. In diagnostic mode, the RT
`modem sends diagnostic and test information as bits to the CO modem. Id.
`at 3:48‒53.
`
`Figure 1 illustrates the additional modem components associated with
`the diagnostic link mode, and is reproduced below:
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01008
`Patent 8,238,412 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a diagnostic mode system, where CO modem 200 and RT
`modem 300 are connected via link 5 to splitter 10 for a phone switch, and a
`splitter 30 for a phone 40. Id. at 4:58‒5:5. CO modem 200 includes CRC
`checker 210, diagnostic device 220, and diagnostic information monitoring
`device 230. Id. RT modem includes message determination device 310,
`power control device 320, diagnostic device 330, and diagnostic information
`storage device 340. Id.
`
`D. Illustrative Claims
`Of the instituted claims, claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 13, 14, 19, and 20 are
`independent. Claims 2, 4, 6, and 8 depend from independent claims 1, 3, 5,
`and 7, respectively. Independent claims 13 and 19 are illustrative of the
`challenged claims and are reproduced below:
`13. A communications system for DSL service comprising a
`first DSL transceiver capable of transmitting test information
`over a communication channel using multicarrier modulation
`and a second DSL transceiver capable of receiving the test
`information over the communication channel using multicarrier
`modulation comprising:
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01008
`Patent 8,238,412 B2
`
`
`a transmitter portion of the first transceiver capable of
`
`transmitting a message, wherein the message comprises one or
`more data variables that represent the test information, wherein
`bits in the message are modulated onto DMT symbols using
`Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (QAM) with more than 1 bit
`per subchannel and wherein at least one data variable of the one
`or more data variables comprises an array representing Signal
`to Noise ratio per subchannel during Showtime information;
`and
`a receiver portion of the second transceiver capable of
`
`receiving the message, wherein the message comprises the one
`or more data variables that represent the test information,
`wherein the bits in the message were modulated onto the DMT
`symbols using Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (QAM) with
`more than 1 bit per subchannel and wherein the at least one data
`variable of the one or more data variables comprises the array
`representing Signal to Noise ratio per subchannel during
`Showtime information.
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 9:56–10:15.
`
`
`19. A communications system for DSL service comprising a
`first DSL transceiver capable of transmitting test information
`over a communication channel using multicarrier modulation
`and a second DSL transceiver capable of receiving the test
`information over the communication channel using multicarrier
`modulation comprising:
`
`a transmitter portion capable of transmitting a message,
`wherein the message comprises one or more data variables that
`represent the test information, wherein bits in the message are
`modulated onto DMT symbols using Quadrature Amplitude
`Modulation (QAM) with more than 1 bit per subchannel and
`wherein at least one data variable of the one or more data
`variables comprises an array representing power level per
`subchannel information; and
`a receiver portion capable of receiving the message,
`wherein the message comprises the one or more data variables
`that represent the test information, wherein bits in the message
`were modulated onto DMT symbols using Quadrature
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01008
`Patent 8,238,412 B2
`
`
`Amplitude Modulation (QAM) with more than 1 bit per
`subchannel and wherein at least one data variable of the one or
`more data variables comprises an array representing power level
`per subchannel information.
`Ex. 1001, 11:63–12:21.
`
`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).
`In our Decision on Institution, we construed “array” to mean “an
`ordered collection of multiple data items of the same type,” and we
`construed “transceiver” to mean “a device, such as a modem, with a
`transmitter and a receiver.” Based on the record developed during this
`proceeding, we continue to apply these constructions.
`The parties dispute the meaning of “during Showtime” and
`“subchannel.” PO Resp. 5–8; Reply 7–10. Accordingly, we construe those
`terms expressly.
`
`1. “during Showtime”
`In our Decision on Institution, we construed “during Showtime” to
`mean “during normal communications of an ANSI T1.413-compliant
`device.” Inst. Dec. 6–8. Patent Owner argues that this construction (1)
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01008
`Patent 8,238,412 B2
`
`“could be incorrectly understood to cover modem initialization and
`training,” and (2) neither the phrase “during Showtime” nor the claims of the
`’412 patent are limited to an “ANSI T1.413 compliant device.” PO Resp. 6–
`7 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 31; Ex. 2005 (Declaration of Douglas Chrissan, Ph.D.)).
`According to Patent Owner, “during Showtime” should be construed to
`mean “during normal data communication that occurs after initialization.”
`Petitioner replies that, to the extent any revision is necessary, the testimony
`of Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Chrissan, may be taken into account by
`construing “during Showtime” to mean “as “during normal communications
`of a device compliant with the ANSI T1.413, ITU-T G.992.1, G.992.2,
`ADSL2, or VDSL2 communication standards.” Reply 10.
`Apart from the claims and Table 1, the ’412 patent uses “during
`Showtime” only once. Ex. 1001, 3:33–34 (“during showtime, e.g., the
`normal steady state transmission mode”). There appears to be no dispute
`that “during Showtime” is intended to distinguish initialization and training.
`Pet. 8–9; PO Resp. 6; Reply 10; see also Tr. 21:19–23:11 (counsel for
`Petitioner). Moreover, both experts acknowledge that “during Showtime” is
`a term of art in DSL technology. Ex. 1009 ¶ 52; Ex. 1110 (deposition of Dr.
`Chrissan), 79:21–24. Although DSL is not recited in every challenged claim
`of the ’412 patent, the Specification summarizes the invention as “systems
`and methods . . . directed toward reliably exchanging diagnostic and test
`information between transceivers over a digital subscriber line in the
`presence of voice communications and/or other disturbances.” Ex. 1001,
`1:59–62 (emphasis added). Accordingly, we determine that the broadest
`reasonable interpretation of “during Showtime” in the context of the ’412
`patent is “during normal communications of a DSL transceiver.”
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01008
`Patent 8,238,412 B2
`
`
`2. “subchannel”
`Patent Owner argues that “subchannel” should be construed to mean a
`“carrier of a multicarrier communication channel.” PO Resp. 8. Patent
`Owner argues that “communication between ADSL transceivers ‘is
`accomplished by modulating the data to be transmitted onto a multiplicity of
`discrete frequency carriers which are summed together and then transmitted
`over the subscriber loop. Individually, the carriers form discrete, non-
`overlapping communication subchannels of limited bandwidth.’”
`Id. (quoting Ex. 1001, 1:41–45 (emphasis added)).
`Petitioner replies that this construction is overly narrow because the
`’412 patent elsewhere uses “subchannel” interchangeably with “tone,” not
`just with “carrier.” Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:35–39; Ex. 1100 ¶ 6).
`Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood “subchannel” to be equivalent and interchangeable with
`“channel,” “carrier,” “subcarrier,” “band,” “subband,” and “tone.” Id.
`(citing Ex. 1110, 43:13–49:15, 53:20–54:1). Petitioner’s expert also testifies
`that “sub-frequency” would have been understood to be equivalent and
`interchangeable with “subchannel.” Id. at 9 (citing Ex. 1100 ¶¶ 8–9).
`Petitioner also argues that Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation is circular
`and confusing because it refers to both a “carrier” and a “channel,” which
`Patent Owner’s expert testified are equivalent terms. Id. (citing Ex. 1110,
`53:20–54:1). Petitioner concludes that “subchannel” should be construed to
`mean “a portion of a frequency spectrum used for communication.”
`Apart from the claims and portion of column 1 cited by Patent Owner,
`the ’412 patent uses “subchannels” only as follows:
`Individually,
`the carriers form discrete, non-overlapping
`communication subchannels of limited bandwidth.
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01008
`Patent 8,238,412 B2
`
`
`. . .
`Each modem includes a transmitter section for transmitting data
`and a receiver section for receiving data, and is of the discrete
`multitone type, i.e., the modem transmits data over a multiplicity
`of subchannels of limited bandwidth. Typically, the upstream or
`ATU-C modem transmits data to the downstream or ATU-R
`modem over a first set of subchannels, which are usually the
`higher-frequency subchannels, and receives data from the
`downstream or ATU-R modem over a second, usually smaller,
`set of subchannels, commonly the lower-frequency subchannels.
`Ex. 1001, 1:44–2:16 (emphases added). This description is consistent with
`the following illustration provided by Patent Owner:
`
`
`PO Resp. 14. Patent Owner contends that a “subchannel” is “the smallest
`division of the data transmission in a multicarrier communication system
`that uses DMT modulation,” and gives, as examples, the 256 subchannels of
`ADSL1, the 512 subchannels of ADSL2+, and the 4096 subchannels of
`VDSL2. Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 38–39). Petitioner, likewise, contends a
`“subchannel” is “a discrete non-overlapping portion (e.g., one of 256
`carriers) of a frequency spectrum . . . that uses DMT/QAM modulation for
`communication.” Reply 14 (emphasis omitted). Both parties, therefore,
`appear to agree that a “subchannel” is a single carrier, such as one of the 256
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01008
`Patent 8,238,412 B2
`
`carriers in ADSL1; they disagree, however, on the specific construction to
`be used.
`Petitioner’s proposed construction is overly broad because “a portion
`of a frequency spectrum used for communication” is not limited to one
`carrier. For example, “a portion of a frequency spectrum used for
`communication” could encompass the group of carriers used for upstream
`communication. Patent Owner’s proposed construction, in contrast, is
`limited to a single carrier. With respect to Petitioner’s concern about Dr.
`Chrissan’s testimony that “channel” and “carrier” are equivalent “in certain
`contexts” (Ex. 1110, 53:20–21), it is not clear that that testimony was in the
`context of DSL specifically. For the sake of clarity, however, we determine
`explicitly that a “subchannel” is a single carrier within a multicarrier
`communication system that, by definition, has a plurality of carriers.
`Accordingly, we construe “subchannel” to mean “one of a plurality of
`carriers of a multicarrier communication channel.”
`
`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’412 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. 8.
`Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Chrissan, essentially agrees:
`[A] person of ordinary skill in the art would have an electrical
`engineering background and experience in the design of
`multicarrier communication systems, such as those employing
`OFDM or DMT modulation. More particularly, a person of skill
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01008
`Patent 8,238,412 B2
`
`
`in the art would be a person with a bachelor’s degree in electrical
`engineering (or a similar technical degree or equivalent work
`experience) and at least three years of experience working with
`such multicarrier communication systems.
`Ex. 2001 ¶ 34. We determine that the hypothetical person of ordinary skill
`in the art would have had either a Master’s degree or a Bachelor’s degree in
`electrical or computer engineering, and several years of experience working
`with multicarrier telecommunications. We note, however, that neither party
`has explained substantively any significance that the difference in the
`proffered levels of ordinary skill in the art would play in the obviousness
`analysis. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966);
`Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he level of
`skill in the 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.”). To that end, we note that, in this
`case, the prior art itself reflects an appropriate skill level. See Okajima, 261
`F.3d at 1355.
`
`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 1‒8, 13, 14, 19, and 20 of the ’412 patent are unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Milbrandt, Hwang, and
`ANSI T1.413. Inst. Dec. 24. 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
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01008
`Patent 8,238,412 B2
`
`instructed Patent Owner that “any arguments for patentability not raised in
`the [Patent Owner Response] will be deemed waived.” Paper 9, 6; see also
`In re Nuvasive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1379–82 (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).
`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 1‒8, 13, 14, 19, and 20
`over Milbrandt, Hwang, and ANSI T1.413
`Petitioner contends that claims 1‒8, 13, 14, 19, and 20 of the ’412
`patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Milbrandt,
`Hwang, and ANSI T1.413. Pet. 18–55.
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01008
`Patent 8,238,412 B2
`
`
`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
`(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. Milbrandt Overview
`Milbrandt discloses a system and method for determining the transmit
`power of a communication device operating on digital subscriber lines.
`Ex. 1011, 1:20‒24. An example of the system is illustrated in Figure 1 as
`follows:
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01008
`Patent 8,238,412 B2
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a communication system that provides both
`telephone and data services. Id. at 4:4‒5. Communication system 10
`includes system management server 18 coupled to central offices 14, which
`are coupled to several subscribers’ premises 12 using subscriber lines 16.
`Id. at 4:6‒9. Database 22 stores subscriber line information 28 and
`communication device information 29 defining the physical and operating
`characteristics of the subscriber lines 16 and communication devices 60. Id.
`at 4:9‒15. System management server 18 determines the data rate capacity
`of selected subscriber lines 16 using subscriber line information 28 stored in
`database 22, and the optimal transmit power for a communication device
`operating on a subscriber line 16. Id. at 4:15‒21.
`Modem 42 at subscriber premises 12 receives the data signal
`communicated by modem 60 and determines the subscriber line information
`28, such as attenuation information, noise information, received signal
`power spectrum density, or any other information describing the physical or
`operating characteristics of subscriber line 16 at the one or more sub-
`frequencies over which the connection between modem 60 and 42 is
`established. Id. at 11:38‒45. Modem 42 extrapolates subscriber line
`information 28 to central office 14 over any achievable range of sub-
`frequencies using any suitable communication protocol. Id. at 4:45‒53.
`3. Hwang Overview
`Hwang discloses an adaptive transmission system used in a network.
`Ex. 1013, 1:6‒8. The system includes a computer network including
`network nodes capable of transmitting and receiving data over a channel
`using a transmitter and receiver. Id. at 5:1‒8. The computer network
`utilizes discrete multi-tone (DMT) technology to transmit data over the
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01008
`Patent 8,238,412 B2
`
`channels. Id. at 5:12‒14. A DMT-based system utilizes 256 tones, where
`each tone is capable of transmitting up to 15 bits of data on the tone
`waveform. Id. at 5:22‒24. If a channel characteristics are poor and the
`receiving node is unable to receive the transmitted data without errors, the
`transmitting node is able to adapt the transmission rate to ensure error-free
`data is received. Id. at 7:3‒7.
`
`4. ANSI T1.413 Overview
`ANSI T1.413 discloses electrical characteristics of Asymmetric
`Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) signals appearing at a network interface.
`Ex. 1014, Abstract. ADSL allows for the provision of Plain Old Telephone
`Service (POTS) and a variety of digital channels. Id. at 1. Digital channels
`consist of full duplex low-speed channels and simplex high-speed channels
`in the direction from the network to the customer premises, and low-speed
`channels in the opposite direction. Id.
`
`5. Petitioner’s Initial Positions
`Petitioner contends that a combination of Milbrandt, Hwang, and
`ANSI T1.413 would have rendered obvious claims 1‒8, 13, 14, 19, and 20
`of the ’412 patent. Pet. 18–55. 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 1‒8, 13,
`14, 19, and 20, and we adopt Petitioner’s contentions discussed below as our
`own.
`For example, the claim 19 preamble recites “a communications
`system for DSL service comprising” that includes “a first DSL transceiver
`capable of transmitting test information over a communication channel using
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01008
`Patent 8,238,412 B2
`
`multicarrier modulation” and “a second DSL transceiver capable of
`receiving the test information over the communication channel using
`multicarrier modulation.” Petitioner argues that Milbrandt discloses a
`“communication system . . . that provides both telephone and data services
`to subscribers” and a “communication device that transmits and receives
`data in [a] communication system . . . using any suitable digital subscriber
`line technology (xDSL).” Pet. 37‒38 (quoting Ex. 1011, 4:3‒4, 4:64‒67)
`(emphasis omitted). Petitioner also argues that Milbrandt discloses a modem
`that “transmits and receives data” and discloses measuring the values of the
`power spectrum density per sub-frequency and noise information per sub-
`frequency, which are the claimed “test information.” Id. at 18‒19 (quoting
`Ex. 1011, 4:64‒65; citing Ex. 1011, 11:20‒53, 12:65‒13:16, 16:40‒50).
`Petitioner further argues that Milbrandt discloses a central office modem that
`receives “communication using ADSL techniques that comply with ANSI
`Standard T1.413, such as discrete multi tone (DMT) modulation.” Id. at 30
`(quoting Ex. 1011, 9:58‒65). Petitioner further argues that Hwang discloses
`a “DMT signal is basically the sum of N independently quadrature amplitude
`modulated (QAM) signals, each carried over a distinct carrier frequency
`channel.” Id. at 19‒20 (quoting Ex. 1013, 2:67‒3:3). We are persuaded by
`Petitioner’s showing and find that Milbrandt’s modem 42 is a first DSL
`transceiver capable of transmitting test information, and that Milbrandt’s
`modem 60 is a second DSL transceiver capable of receiving test
`information.
`Claim 19 additionally recites “a transmitter portion capable of
`transmitting a message, wherein the message comprises one or more data
`variables that represent the test information.” Petitioner argues that
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01008
`Patent 8,238,412 B2
`
`Milbrandt discloses this limitation. Pet. 20‒21, 49‒50. Petitioner explains
`that Milbrandt discloses a “[m]odem . . . comprises any suitable
`communication device that transmits and receives data.” Id. at 20 (quoting
`Ex. 1011, 4:64‒656) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner argues that Milbrandt
`discloses a modem that transmits data using any suitable communication
`protocols, and a person with ordinary skill in the art would have understood
`the modem can transmit a message using DMT and the message using DMT
`includes one or more data variables representing the subscriber line
`information. Id. at 20‒21 (citing Ex. 1011, 11:45‒54, 13:12‒15; Ex. 1009,
`53‒54, 56). Petitioner further argues that Milbrandt discloses “subscriber
`line information” that includes power spectrum density per sub-frequency Sf,
`attenuation information per sub-frequency Hf, and noise information per sub-
`frequency Nf, and it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill
`in the art that these values represent “one or more data variables.” Id. at 21
`(citing Ex. 1011, 11:31‒43; Ex. 1009, 56). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s
`showing and find that Milbrandt’s description of measured values of power
`spectrum density per sub-frequency Sf, noise information per sub-frequency
`Nf, and attenuation information per sub-frequency Hf meets the claim
`element of data variables that represent test information.
`Claim 19 also recites “wherein bits in the message are modulated onto
`DMT symbols using Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (QAM) with more
`than 1 bit per subchannel.” Petitioner argues that the combination of
`
`
`6 Petitioner cites to Exhibit 1011 pages 64‒65. Pet. 20. We, however,
`understand this to be a typographical error, and understand that Petitioner
`intended to cite to Exhibit 1011 column 6, lines 46‒49, as evidenced by
`Petitioner’s citation on page 31 of the Petition.
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01008
`Patent 8,238,412 B2
`
`Milbrandt and Hwang discloses this limitation. Id. at 22‒23, 49‒50.
`Petitioner contends that Milbrandt discloses communicating using DMT
`modulation, where “DMT technology divides a subscriber line into
`individual ‘sub-bands or channels,’ and ‘uses a form of quadrature amplitude
`modulation (QAM) to transmit data in each channel simultaneously.’” Id. at
`22 (quoting Ex. 1011, 11:60‒64) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner argues that
`Hwang discloses that a “DMT signal is basically the sum of N independently
`quadrature amplitude modulated (QAM) signals, each carried over a distinct
`carrier frequency channel,” and the ANSI T1.413 standard provides for 256
`carriers or tones, where “[e]ach tone is QAM to carry up to 15 bits of data on
`each cycle of the tone waveform (symbol).” Id. (quoting Ex. 1013, 2:67‒
`3:12; citing Ex. 1009, 58) (emphasis omitted). Accordingly, Petitioner
`argues that Milbrandt discloses modulating bits using DMT and QAM, and
`Hwang discloses that DMT and QAM provide for transmission of up to 15
`bits of data per subchannel. Id. at 22‒23. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s
`showing and find that Milbrandt and Hwang describe using QAM to
`modulate bits onto DMT symbols.
`Petitioner contends, with supporting evidence, that a “person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the
`teachings of Milbrandt and Hwang because Hwang provides additional
`details of ADSL communication technology” and a person with ordinary
`skill in the art would “refer to all of their teachings in implementing an
`ADSL communication system for the purpose of obtaining a more complete
`understanding.” Pet. 12‒13. Petitioner argues that a person with ordinary
`skill in the art would have combined Hwang’s teaching of using up to 15 bits
`for each subchannel with Milbrandt’s communication system in order to
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01008
`Patent 8,238,412 B2
`
`transmit more data on each subchannel. Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 1009, 41).
`Petitioner also arg

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