UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________
`
`MAXLINEAR, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CRESTA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00592
`Patent No. 7,075,585
`_____________
`
`PETITIONER REPLY
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`U.S. Patent Trial & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00592
`Patent 7,075,585
`
`
` I. 
`II. 
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 
`ALLEGED INVENTION: “CONSOLIDATING SIGNAL
`PROCESSING” ............................................................................................. 1 
`PROPRIETY OF THE PETITION ............................................................... 2 
`III. 
`IV.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 3 
`A. 
`“Signal Processor” ............................................................................... 3 
`B. 
`“Select Signal” .................................................................................... 6 
`V.  GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1, 2, 4, AND 16–20 ARE OBVIOUS ..................... 8 
`A. 
`Claims 1 and 17 are Obvious .............................................................. 8 
`1. 
`POR Misrepresents the ITC Proceedings ................................. 8 
`2. 
`VDP Teaches the Claimed “Single Processor” ........................ 9 
`3. 
`Ishikawa Teaches the Claimed “Plurality of
`Demodulators” and a POSITA would combine Ishikawa
`with VDP ................................................................................. 10 
`a. 
`VDP’s outputs are exactly the outputs as construed
`by the Board .................................................................. 11 
`VDP does not suggest eliminating the demodulator .... 12 
`VDP and Ishikawa teach multiple modulation-
`demodulation combinations .......................................... 13 
`Dr. Hashemi did not change his position ...................... 15 
`d. 
`The “Multi-Tuner Tuner” Distinction is Unsupported ........... 15 
`4. 
`Claims 19 and 20 are Obvious .......................................................... 16 
`Patent Owner Waived Any Argument for Patentability
`Regarding Limitations Added by Claims 2, 4, 16, and 18 ................ 20 
`VI.  GROUND 2: CLAIM 3 IS OBVIOUS ........................................................ 20 
`VII.  GROUND 3: CLAIMS 6, 7, AND 21 ARE OBVIOUS ............................. 21 
`VIII.  PO WAIVED ALL ARGUMENTS DIRECTED TO CLAIMS 8 & 9 ...... 23 
`IX.  LEVEL OF SKILL ...................................................................................... 23 
`
`b. 
`c. 
`
`B. 
`C. 
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00592
`Patent 7,075,585
`
`
`A.  Dr. Opris was Evasive and His Testimony is Not Credible .............. 24 
`B. 
`Dr. Hashemi is a Credible and Skilled Artisan ................................. 24 
`THERE ARE NO SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ........................... 25 
`X. 
`XI.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 25 
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00592
`Patent 7,075,585
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases 
`Conopco, Inc. v. The Procter & Gamble Co.,
`IPR2014-00506 ...................................................................................................... 2
`
`In re Etter,
`756 F.2d 852 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .............................................................................. 11
`
`In re GPAC Inc.,
`57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) .............................................................................. 25
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................ 14
`
`Microsoft v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`89 F.3d 1292, 1298, (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................... 23
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .............................................................................. 23
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`ABBREVIATIONS
`
`
`
`’585 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,585
`
`’728 FWD
`
`Final Written Decision, IPR2014-00728, Paper No. 53 (PTAB
`Oct. 21, 2015)
`
`AAPA
`
`Applicant Admitted Prior Art
`
`AM
`
`BRI
`
`DSP
`
`FM
`
`ID
`
`I/Q
`
`ITC
`
`LPF
`
`Amplitude Modulation
`
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`
`Digital Signal Processor
`
`Frequency Modulation
`
`Institution Decision
`
`In Phase/ Quadrature Phase
`
`International Trade Commission
`
`Low Pass Filter
`
`Opris Dep.
`
`Ex. 1203, Deposition of Ion E. Opris Ph.D.
`
`Petition
`
`Petition, Paper No. 1
`
`PO
`
`POR
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, Paper No. 19
`
`POSITA
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`
`QPSK
`
`RF
`
`Quadrature Phase Shift Keying
`
`Radio Frequency
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00592
`Patent 7,075,585
`
`
`SAW
`
`VDP
`
`
`
`Surface Acoustic Wave
`
`Van de Plassche
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00592
`Patent 7,075,585
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`PO ignores teachings in the references inconsistent with its position, adopts
`
`claim construction positions that are not the BRI and are narrower than those it
`
`advanced in the ITC litigation, and withheld inconsistent information from its
`
`expert and the Board. The challenged claims are unpatentable in light of the
`
`current grounds.
`
`II. ALLEGED INVENTION: “CONSOLIDATING SIGNAL
`PROCESSING”
`
`The essence of an obviousness analysis is determining the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claimed invention, but PO’s Expert, Dr. Opris, was
`
`generally evasive on this topic (Opris Dep. at 65:18-69:14; 79:8-81:6) and did not
`
`even analyze the differences between AAPA in Figure 1 of the ’585 Patent and the
`
`preferred embodiment in Figure 2. “Q: Did you analyze the differences between
`
`the prior art in the claimed invention for purposes of your declaration? [Counsel
`
`objects] A: For the purpose of my declaration, I did not perform an analysis of the
`
`difference between Figure 1 and Figure 2 in the ’585 patent.” Id. at 79:8-16.
`
`The POR alleges that the ’585 Patent provides “a cost effective, small-sized,
`
`integrated, multistandard television universal receiver that receives a Radio
`
`Frequency (RF) television signal.” (POR at 2.) Even though the PO’s Expert was
`
`unwilling and/or unable to identify what was novel in Figure 2, the POR identifies
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00592
`Patent 7,075,585
`
`DSP 64 as allegedly providing novelty for the claims. (Id: “The claims at issue in
`
`this proceeding achieve this by consolidating signal processing into a single signal
`
`processor that can handle multiple different input signal formats.”) The POR does
`
`not state that Tuner 54 and/or Demodulators 66 add any novelty, and much of what
`
`Dr. Opris and the POR praise is not claimed, is notoriously old in the art, or both.
`
`(Opris Dep. at 62-81; see also 280-283; 289-305; 312:14-314:10.)
`
`III. PROPRIETY OF THE PETITION
`The POR quotes Conopco, Inc. v. The Procter & Gamble Co., IPR2014-
`
`00506 and urges “[t]his proceeding is an improper attempt by MaxLinear to raise
`
`‘substantially the same prior art of [sic] arguments previously presented to the
`
`Office’ and should be rejected on that ground alone.” (POR at 4.) The Conopco
`
`panel was not comparing a petition with the original patent prosecution. The panel
`
`used its “discretion to consider whether the prior art and arguments are
`
`‘substantially the same’ in a first and second petition.” (Ex. 1205 at 5.) In
`
`Conopco, the issue was whether to “allow petitioners to file ‘follow-on’ second
`
`petitions in order to ‘correct deficiencies noted’ by the Board in decisions that deny
`
`a first petition.” (Id.) This Petition is not a second petition filed to ‘correct
`
`deficiencies’ in a first petition. The POR is attempting to equate “previously
`
`presented to the Office” with “previously considered during examination.”
`
`According to the POR, an IPR petition should be denied if the grounds include
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00592
`Patent 7,075,585
`
`prior art cited in the original examination. Even if this was true, the Petition should
`
`still be allowed because all grounds raised include Ishikawa, and the POR admits
`
`Ishikawa was not “previously considered during examination.” (POR at 3-4.) PO’s
`
`attack on the “propriety” of MaxLinear’s petition is therefore incorrect and
`
`unsupported.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`“Signal Processor”
`PO’s proposed BRI for “signal processor” is much narrower than the
`
`construction it offered in the ITC. In its ITC pre-trial brief, PO discussed the
`
`following proposed constructions for “a signal processor for processing said digital
`
`representation of said intermediate signals in accordance with said television signal
`
`format of said input RF signal, said signal processor generating digital output
`
`signals indicative of information encoded in said input RF signal”:
`
`Patent Owner’s
`Construction
`“circuitry that
`processes a
`television signal in
`the digital domain”
`
`ITC Staff’s
`Constructions
`“circuitry that
`processes a signal”
`
`Respondent Samsung’s
`Construction
`“a single programmable digital
`signal processor with a single
`processing path for processing both
`analog and digital television signals”
`
`
`(Ex. 1206, Excerpts from PO’s Pre-Trial Brief at 54-55; see also Ex. 1201 (joint
`
`claim construction chart.) The PO stated, “it does not appear that the difference
`
`between [Staff’s] construction and CrestaTech’s [PO’s] construction is material to
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00592
`Patent 7,075,585
`
`… validity, or other issues in the case.” (Id. at 56.) Regarding Samsung’s
`
`construction, the phrase “both analog and digital television signals” refers to the
`
`“input RF signals.” In the ITC proceeding, PO referred to Samsung’s construction
`
`as being “unduly restrictive”; “not supported by the patents”; and imposing “strict
`
`limitations.” (Id.) In the context of the independent claims, which require “input
`
`RF signals encoding information in one of a plurality of formats,” Samsung’s
`
`“analog and digital
`
`television signals” are not received and processed
`
`simultaneously. And, Samsung’s “single programmable digital signal processor”
`
`excludes parallel processors (e.g., parallel filters) and excludes processing the data
`
`in two or more formats simultaneously. Now, however, PO wishes to adopt what it
`
`previously urged was an “unduly restricted,” and “unsupported” narrowing
`
`construction for “signal processor,” to exclude parallel processors (e.g., parallel
`
`filters) and exclude processing the data in two or more formats simultaneously.
`
`(See, e.g., POR at 23: “Rather than the claimed signal processor, VDP includes
`
`only a set of fixed parallel and sequential filters that each perform “a specific task,”
`
`and id. at 24: “This task-based processing stands in stark contrast to the format-
`
`based FIR filters applied by the claimed signal processor.”). Cresta’s flip-flopping
`
`position should be rejected. PO’s construction is plainly not the BRI.
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00592
`Patent 7,075,585
`
`
`The POR alleges that the Board intended “processing in accordance with the
`
`exactly one format in which each received input RF signal is encoded” to exclude
`
`“process[ing] the data in two or more formats.” (POR at 7-8.)
`
`POR Construction
`
`No construction
`
`Term
`
`Institution Decision
`Construction
`“each received input RF
`“said input RF signals
`signal encode information
`encoding information in one
`of a plurality of formats”
`in exactly one format”
`“process[ing] the data
`“processing in
`“processing said digital
`accordance with the
`in exactly one format”
`representation of said
`exactly one format in
`intermediate signals in
`and “not process[ing]
`accordance with said
`the data in two or more
`which each received input
`format”
`formats”
`RF signal is encoded”
`(Id.) PO twists the Board’s construction into a “not parallel” exclusion that is not
`
`the BRI as discussed supra. The Board maintains the antecedent basis for the type
`
`of “format” (i.e., “the exactly one format”) in which the input RF signal encodes
`
`information. The POR construction eliminates this antecedent basis by omitting
`
`“the” from “the exactly one format.” By making this change, “exactly one format”
`
`no longer refers to the antecedent in the term “each received input RF signal
`
`encode information in exactly one format.” The POR achieves its asserted
`
`construction of exclusive, non-parallel processing based on “exactly one”
`
`modifying “processing” – not the “format” in which the input RF signal encodes
`
`information. PO’s removal of the word “the” rewrites the ID’s construction.
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00592
`Patent 7,075,585
`
`
`The POR applies its narrowed claim construction assuming that parallel
`
`filters must operate concurrently. During deposition, Petitioner’s Expert, Dr.
`
`Hashemi, confirmed that the paths in the figure 5 embodiment of VDP (which as
`
`explained in §V.A.1 and §V.A.2 below, is not the embodiment of VDP cited in the
`
`Petition) will not necessarily operate concurrently. One path could simply be
`
`turned off.
`
`Q. Yes. So I am assuming that we have a digital format coming
`into the receiver. We get to this step here where we have
`Xbb and Ybb. The signal goes to Block 1. Does the signal
`also go to Block 2?
`A. The signal can go to Block 2 unless they are turned off.
`(Id. at 20, emphasis added.) The POR’s allegation that “Dr. Hashemi confirmed
`
`that his two circled paths in VDP’s signal processor operate in parallel, just like the
`
`prior art... concurrently” is therefore a mischaracterization of what Dr. Hashemi
`
`actually said. As Dr. Hashemi testified, “VDP’s signal processor” as cited by the
`
`POR will operate exactly like the POR’s “non-parallel” signal processor if one of
`
`the two paths is “turned off.” (Id.)
`
`“Select Signal”
`
`B.
`PO wishes to narrow the term “a select signal indicative of a format of said
`
`input RF signal.” PO states, “[t]his term is found in claim 13.” However, claim 13
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00592
`Patent 7,075,585
`
`is not considered in this IPR. While a similar term is found in claim 19, the PO has
`
`not specifically stated its proposed construction for the similar term in claim 19.
`
`PO’s proposed construction suffers from two fatal flaws. The first is that it
`
`misconstrues the term “indicative.” PO concedes that the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of “indicative” is “serving as a sign or indication (of).” (Id. at 9 quoting
`
`Ex. 2014). Ironically, “information about” is not cited by PO. Based on PO’s own
`
`extrinsic evidence, the plain and ordinary meaning of this term is “a select signal
`
`serving as a sign of said format of said input RF signal.”
`
`Second, PO suggests this term means “a signal that performs a selection and
`
`that comprises information about the format of said input RF signal.” (Id. at 8-
`
`12.) PO’s construction requires one signal to have two explicit functions: a
`
`command function and an information function. The preferred embodiment does
`
`not show this and is not required by the BRI in light of the specification. (See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1101, ‘585 Patent at 5:7-22.) PO attempts to avoid the invalidating prior art
`
`that teaches a select signal that commands an explicit selection implicitly based on
`
`information about the format – the same way the preferred embodiment works.
`
`Petitioner agrees with the Board’s decision not to construe this term beyond the
`
`ordinary meaning. If the Board wishes to construe “a select signal indicative of
`
`said format of said input RF signal,” this term should be construed to mean “a
`
`select signal serving as a sign of a format of said input RF signal.”
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00592
`Patent 7,075,585
`
`V. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1, 2, 4, AND 16–20 ARE OBVIOUS
`A. Claims 1 and 17 are Obvious
`1.
`POR Misrepresents the ITC Proceedings
`On November 25, 2015, the POR stated:
`
`In its attempt to evade liability for its infringing activities, Petitioner
`alleged that the VDP renders the ’585 patent invalid. But the ITC
`established both that Petitioner infringed several of the claims of the
`’585 patent and that VDP did not teach the claimed invention. . .
`Judge Lord was correct in ruling that VDP does not teach the
`claimed signal processor.
`
`(POR at 23-24, emphasis added.) The POR fails to disclose that on October 30,
`
`2015, the full Commission reversed the ITC support the POR relies upon. The
`
`Commission stated, “VDP teaches a programmable filter that we find falls within
`
`the scope of claim 10 of the '585 patent. VDP col. 8 lines 38-49.” (Ex. 1184 at 50.)
`
`Claim 10 of the ’585 Patent further limits “signal processor” in claim 1. The
`
`Commission found:
`
`In VDP, there are a number of filters DF4-DFI0, which ordinarily
`process demodulated signals, VDP col. 6 lines 52-56, but which can
`be placed before the demodulator if the filters are digital, id. col. 9
`lines 3-9. The effect of these seven filters (DF4-DF10) is to “provide
`various frequency responses Hfil1, Hfil2 associated with different
`transmission standards.” VDP col. 3 lines 5-8; id. col. 8 lines 59-61;
`Abstract.
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00592
`Patent 7,075,585
`
`(Ex. 1184 at 50-51.) This alternate embodiment of VDP (depicted below) is also
`
`the basis for the Petition. (See, e.g., Pet. at 27, 35 & 36, citing Ex. 1104, VDP,
`
`8:38-51 & 9:3-9.) Even though the Commission’s findings were served on PO
`
`three weeks prior to the due date for the POR, they were never communicated to
`
`PO’s expert. Dr. Opris admitted that he did not consider “anything going on in the
`
`ITC.” (Opris Dep. at 130:2-7.) PO did not produce this information despite the
`
`obligation to produce inconsistent information as routine discovery. Instead, PO
`
`embarked on a multi-front effort to keep Cresta’s inconsistent positions and
`
`inconvenient facts out of this IPR. (See Exs. 1169 -1176.)
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1202 at 33, 34.)
`
`VDP Teaches the Claimed “Single Processor”
`
`2.
`PO spends nine pages (POR at 13-22) urging that the VDP/Ishikawa
`
`combination is a “parallel” architecture and that the claims somehow exclude
`
`“processing a plurality of formats in parallel.” Even if PO’s claim construction
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00592
`Patent 7,075,585
`
`position was correct, VDP still discloses the preferred embodiment of the ’585
`
`patent as an alternate arrangement for Figure 5. On cross, Dr. Opris admitted that
`
`the alternate arrangement is “exactly the ‘585 patent”:
`
`Q: If I replace all of that logic in Figure – if the filter of Figure
`5 with a general purpose DSP which is programmed for each
`standard that I want to filter, would that remove your concern about
`VDP?
`[Objection by Counsel]
`A: I would have to see exactly the system that you’re referring
`to. But from your verbal description, I think you’re describing
`exactly the ’585 patent.
`(Opris dep. at 157:12-24, emphasis added.) The Petition exactly cites this
`
`embodiment of VDP, where: 1) “with reference to FIG. 5, the filter arrangement
`
`FIL may be implemented in the form of a signal processor” (Ex. 1104, VDP at
`
`8:43-51); 2) “digital filters DF4-DF10 behind the synchronous demodulator SDEM
`
`may be replaced by a digital filter in front of the synchronous demodulator SDEM”
`
`(id. at 9:3-9); and 3) “digital filters DF4-DF10 may be replaced by a single
`
`adjustable filter.” (Id. at 8:38-43). (Pet. at, e.g., 27, 35, 36.)
`
`3.
`
`Ishikawa Teaches the Claimed “Plurality of Demodulators”
`and a POSITA would combine Ishikawa with VDP
`
`Nothing in the POR or attached evidence refutes that Ishikawa teaches the
`
`claimed “plurality of demodulators.” Instead, PO asserts that the art is difficult and
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00592
`Patent 7,075,585
`
`unpredictable. Alleged difficulty in physically combining prior art does not prevent
`
`the claimed inventions from being rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior
`
`art as a whole. See, e.g., In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(“Etter's
`
`assertions that Azure cannot be incorporated in Ambrosio are basically irrelevant,
`
`the criterion being not whether the references could be physically combined but
`
`whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior
`
`art as a whole.”).
`
`a.
`
`VDP’s outputs are exactly the outputs as construed by
`the Board
`In the ‘585 Patent, the preferred embodiment of the digital demodulator
`
`includes “a down-converter, an analog-to-digital converter and other supporting
`
`circuitry to perform the demodulation” and “outputs data in a MPEG data stream.”
`
`(Ex. 1101, ‘585 Patent at 2:21-26.) To satisfy the ID construction, “MPEG data
`
`stream” must be “a single signal that encodes both video and audio information
`
`without transmission modulation.” The preferred embodiment of the analog
`
`demodulator “provides three output signals: a Composite Video Baseband Signal
`
`(CVBS) containing the video information, and audio 1 and audio 2 containing the
`
`audio information.” (Id. at 5:59-62) Audio 1 and audio 2 signals contain AM, FM
`
`or any other format of modulated sound. (Id. at 5:59-62.) To satisfy the ID
`
`construction, the “three output signals” must be “a single signal that encodes both
`
`video and audio information without transmission modulation.”
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00592
`Patent 7,075,585
`
`
`The POR alleges that “SDEM functionality does not including outputting
`
`baseband signals as the Board has construed that term.” (POR at 37.) This is
`
`incorrect. VDP’s demodulator outputs a “stream of symbols” (e.g., “MPEG data
`
`stream”) or “a luminance signal, [and] a chrominance-carrier signal” (e.g., “CVBS
`
`containing the video information”) and “one or more sound-carrier signals” (e.g.,
`
`“audio 1 and audio 2 containing the audio information”):
`
`The content of the vectorial baseband signal Svbb depends on the
`standard . . . . If the reception signal Srf is an analog terrestrial TV
`transmission, the vectorial baseband signal Svbb will comprise a
`luminance signal, a chrominance-carrier signal and one or more
`sound-carrier signals. These signals are multiplexed in frequency in a
`manner which depends on the standard in accordance with which the
`analog terrestrial TV transmission takes place. If the reception signal
`Srf is a digital TV transmission, the vectorial baseband signal Svbb
`will comprise a stream of symbols.
`(Ex. 1104, VDP at 6:38-51, emphasis added.)
`b.
`VDP does not suggest eliminating the demodulator
`The POR also alleges that “VDP explains that, in the ‘modified’ example on
`
`which Hashemi depends, a synchronous demodulator cannot be used.” (POR at
`
`41.) This is false. VDP’s ‘modified’ example comprises “a digital filter in front of
`
`the synchronous demodulator SDEM.” (Ex. 1104, VDP at 9:6-7.) The SDEM
`
`exists in this embodiment of VDP. PO misreads VDP’s statement that “the filter
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00592
`Patent 7,075,585
`
`arrangement FIL would not comprise a synchronous demodulator SDEM” (id. at
`
`9:8-9) to mean SDEM is eliminated from VDP’s receiver altogether. However,
`
`VDP merely states that SDEM is then not part of the filter arrangement, not that
`
`the demodulator disappears.
`c.
`
`VDP and Ishikawa teach multiple modulation-
`demodulation combinations
`The POR alleges that “A POSITA would therefore have no expectation of
`
`success when trying to combine VDP’s apparatus (tuner, anti-aliasing filter and
`
`signal processor) with Ishikawa’s demodulators.” The argument appears to be that
`
`Ishikawa Figure 14 uses FM demodulation, while VDP is directed to AM
`
`modulated signals. (POR at 43.) PO alleges that using VDP’s signal processor with
`
`Ishikawa’s demodulators would not work for the “intended purpose of TV
`
`reception, because a required part of
`
`the
`
`information signal (amplitude
`
`information) would be lost.” This argument is illogical because 1) PO fails to show
`
`that “VDP’s apparatus (tuner, anti-aliasing filter and signal processor)” removes
`
`“amplitude information”; and 2) PO fails to show that “Ishikawa’s demodulators”
`
`require “amplitude information.” VDP’s “filter arrangement may be used to
`
`provide various frequency responses associated with different transmission
`
`standards.” (See, Ex. 1104, VDP at 8:59-61.) VDP describes digital filters that can
`
`be designed for amplitude modulated signals, but VDP does not exclude the use of
`
`digital filters designed for phase and/or frequency modulated signals. (See id. at
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00592
`Patent 7,075,585
`
`8:59-61: “other types of filters are by no means excluded.”) Also, Ishikawa
`
`teaches a receiver that “is adapted to be capable of demodulating modulated
`
`signals in a variety of modulation systems.” (See, Ex. 1105, Ishikawa at Abstract.)
`
`Ishikawa even teaches three embodiments for demodulating amplitude modulated
`
`signals. (See Ishikawa, Ex. 1105 at 6:30-52; 13:15-16:44; and Figures 6, 11, and
`
`13.) Furthermore as cited in VDP’s Background, VDP itself is an improvement on
`
`EP-A 0,696,854, “Thompson,” (Ex. 1122; discussed at length in related proceeding
`
`No. IPR 2015-00615) which is directed to a satellite (FM) application. (Ex. 1207,
`
`Dep. Tr. of Dr. Opris in IPR 2015-00615 taken on Jan. 13, 2016, at 134:24-
`
`135:12.)
`
`The implications of using various modulation/demodulation schemes are not
`
`disclosed or claimed in the ’585 patent. PO cannot require more of the prior art.
`
`“[T]he [asserted] patent itself does not disclose the level of detail that Lockwood
`
`would have us require of the prior art.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, 107 F.3d 1565,
`
`1570 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (invalidating patent in view of prior system, even though
`
`implementation details of the prior art were not public). PO suggests that a
`
`POSITA would not combine VDP and Ishikawa because they would not know
`
`enough about the modulation scheme, how to connect the demodulators, and other
`
`implementation detail. No such details are taught by the ’585 patent, however, and
`
`PO’s expert admits that a POSITA would have access to “all the other known art”
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00592
`Patent 7,075,585
`
`to implement the demodulation feature of independent claims 1 and 17:
`
`THE WITNESS: Okay. So based on the reading of the column 5,
`line 53 to line 6-11, I believe a POSITA, having also access to all the
`other known art, would be able to implement the decode – the
`demodulators.
`(Opris Dep. at 89:19-23.) Thus, both PO (through Figure 1 of the patent) and its
`
`expert, Dr. Opris, admit that the claimed “plurality of demodulators” is in “all the
`
`other known art.”
`d.
`Dr. Hashemi did not change his position
`PO accuses Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Hashemi, of shifting his position
`
`regarding filters and demodulators. Not so. Petitioner’s expert was answering a
`
`question from PO about the embodiment of VDP in figure 5 that discloses SDEM
`
`before DF4-DF10. As explained in §V.A.1 and §V.A.2 above, this is not the
`
`embodiment of VDP cited in the Petition. Dr. Hashemi’s answers are additional
`
`support for invalidating the claims, not a position shift.
`
`The “Multi-Tuner Tuner” Distinction is Unsupported
`
`4.
` PO devotes five POR pages attempting to create a “multi-tuner” exception
`
`to the recited “tuner” limitation such that “multiple tuners,” where each tuner is
`
`dedicated to one format, are excluded by the claims. (POR at 25: “That is to say
`
`that the claims require a receiver that includes at least one tuner that receives input
`
`RF signals in multiple formats.”) PO attempts to expand upon its argument that the
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00592
`Patent 7,075,585
`
`signal processor can only process one format at a time, by imposing a constraint
`
`that the “tuner” cannot be a parallel bank of dedicated tuners as well.
`
`PO’s position is unavailing. First, the “tuner” limitation itself is not limited
`
`to “one and only” or any other structural limitation. The claim language does not
`
`exclude a bank of dedicated tuners. Second, even if it did, VDP still discloses a
`
`single “multi-format tuner” as an alternate embodiment:
`
`In principle, any type of tuner may be used. For example, with
`reference to FIG. 5, the tuner TUN may be a single TV tuner such as,
`for example, the commercially available Philips TV tuner UV916H.
`
`(Ex. 1104 at 8:52-55.) PO’s claim this embodiment would not be chosen because
`
`the single tuner had a higher market price due to lower production volumes at the
`
`time is not supported by any evidence this was actually so, or if it was that it
`
`remained true at the time of the alleged invention. VDP teaches both alternatives
`
`and even provides a commercial part number. No more is required.
`
`B. Claims 19 and 20 are Obvious
`
`Claim 19 requires: “said processing said digital signals is performed in
`
`response to a select signal indicative of said format of said input RF signal.” The
`
`POR states, “[n]otably absent from any of the analysis is the identification of any
`
`select signal.” (POR at 45.) The Petition’s claim 19 analysis (Pet. at 43-44) refers
`
`to claim 13 (Pet. at 39-40), which cites to Ishikawa’s teachings of the claimed
`
`16
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00592
`Patent 7,075,585
`
`“select signal.” The Petition cites four discriminators, which differentiate between
`
`formats to generate an “identification flag” (i.e., sign) of the RF signal format:
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1105, Ishikawa at Figs. 7(B), 8(B), 9(B), and 10(B) as cited in Pet. at 40; see
`
`also id. at 10:35-13:14.) The “identification flag” is the “select signal” output of
`
`from each of the discriminators in Figures 7(B), 8(B), 9(B), and 10(B). (Ex. 1113,
`
`Hashemi Dec, ¶102.) The Petition also identifies where Ishikawa teaches
`
`“processing said digital signals [] in response to a select signal.”
`
`The digital LPFs 514 and 515 operate as filters for removing high
`frequency components from their input signals if the input signals
`include the FM signal. While if the input signals include the QPSK
`modulated signal, they operate as filters for providing transfer
`characteristics required for preventing an inter-symbol interference in
`the digital data transmission.
`(Ex. 1105, Ishikawa, 17:18-25 as cited in Pet. at 40.) The POR alleges that
`
`17
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00592
`Patent 7,075,585
`
`“[n]either VDP nor Ishikawa teach the claimed signal processor; they each process
`
`the input data in multiple formats in parallel.” (POR at 21.) As described in
`
`§V.A.2, VDP satisfies PO’s construction of “signal processor.” The combination
`
`of the digital LPFs 514 and
`
`515
`
`in
`
`Ishikawa
`
`also
`
`satisfies
`
`PO’s
`
`“signal
`
`processor”
`
`construction.
`
`The complex digital filter
`
`for “processing said digital
`
`signals [] in response to a
`
`select signal” is highlighted here. The LPFs (514 and 515, one for each output of
`
`the complex (“I/Q”) multiplier 513) are not “process[ing] the input data in multiple
`
`formats in parallel” as PO alleges. (Id. at 17:12-18.) Ishikawa’s filter combination
`
`does “process the data in exactly one format” at a time. The format changes “if the
`
`input signals include the FM signal” or “if the input signals include the QPSK
`
`modulated signal.” (Pet. at 40.)
`
`The POR further states, “since the analysis fails to identify any ‘select
`
`signal’ at all, it certainly does not teach a ‘select signal’ that ‘comprises
`
`information about the format of said input RF signal.’” (POR at 44.) As discussed
`
`in §IV.B above, such a narrow claim construction is not the BRI.
`
`18
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00592
`Patent 7,075,585
`
`
`The ’585 Patent states that in the preferred embodiment the select signal is
`
`generated by “detecting in the baseband signals the presence or absence of carrier
`
`signals.” (Ex. 1101 at 5:12–18.) The “Discriminator for Digital Modulated Signal
`
`using Carrier Frequency Deviation,” as illustrated above in Figure 9(B) of
`
`Ishikawa, is an example of generating a “select signal by detecting carrier signals.”
`
`Ishikawa teaches to “discriminate between the analog modulated signals and the
`
`digital modulated signals, based on a demodulated signal output from the digital
`
`section of the demodulator.” (Pet. at 39-40 citing Ex. 1105, Ishikawa abstract.)
`
`The ‘585 patent suggests carrier detection; Ishikawa shows how to do it.
`
`Claim 20 requires “generating said select signal by detecting carrier signals
`
`in said input RF signal identifying said format of said input RF signal.” PO argues
`
`that MaxLinear did not address claim 20. (POR at 44.) The Petition states that the
`
`invalidity of claim 20 (Pet. at 44) relies on the analysis of claim 15, which cites:
`
`The video carrier frequency is at a position lower than the center by
`1.75MHz. Therefore, frequencies of t