Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 7
`
`
` Entered: June 22, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00428
`Patent 7,835,430 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00428
`Patent 7,835,430 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Arris Group, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter
`
`partes review of claims 1‒6 of U.S. Patent No. 7,835,430 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the
`
`’430 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). TQ Delta, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`
`Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may
`
`not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in
`
`the petition.” After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and
`
`associated evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a
`
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing unpatentability of at
`
`least one of the challenged claims. Thus, we do not authorize institution of
`
`an inter partes review of claims 1‒6 of the ’430 patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`
`
`Petitioner indicates that the ’430 patent is the subject of proceedings,
`
`including TQ Delta LLC v. 2Wire Inc., Case No. 1-13-cv-01835 (D. Del.).
`
`Pet. 3.
`
`B. The ʼ430 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`The ’430 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, 1:44‒47.
`
`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 2:44‒48, 3:19‒29. Each modem includes a
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00428
`Patent 7,835,430 B2
`
`transmitter section for transmitting data and a receiver section for receiving
`
`data, and is of the discrete multitone (DMT) type (the modem transmits data
`
`over a multiplicity of subchannels of limited bandwidth). Id. at 1:58‒62. In
`
`diagnostic mode, the RT modem sends diagnostic and test information as
`
`bits that are modulated to the CO modem. Id. at 3:32‒34. One described
`
`modulation technique includes Differential Phase Shift Keying (DPSK) on a
`
`subset or all the carriers, as specified in ITU standard G.994.1, higher order
`
`Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (QAM) (>1 bit per carrier). Id. at 3:38‒
`
`41.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates the additional modem components associated with
`
`the diagnostic link mode, and is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`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 20, and
`
`a splitter for a phone 40. Id. at 4:48‒62. CO modem 200 includes CRC
`
`checker 210, diagnostic device 220, and diagnostic information monitoring
`
`device 230. Id. RT modem includes message determination device 310,
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00428
`Patent 7,835,430 B2
`
`power control device 320, diagnostic device 330, and diagnostic information
`
`storage device 340. Id.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claims 1‒6 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
`
`1. A transceiver capable of transmitting test information
`over a 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 frequency domain
`received idle channel noise information.
`
`Ex. 1001, 8:33–44.
`
`D. The Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`The information presented in the Petition sets forth proposed grounds
`
`of unpatentability of claims 1‒6 of the ’430 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`as follows (see Pet. 5):1
`
`References
`
`T2500 Manual2 and Held-
`DataComDev43
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`
`1‒6
`
`
`1 Petitioner supports its challenges with the Declaration of Lance McNally.
`Ex. 1002.
`2 Telebit T2500 Reference Manual (90100-02 Rev. C) (1990) (Ex. 1004)
`(“T2500 Manual”).
`3 Data Communications Networking Devices: Operation, Utilization and
`LAN and WAN Internetworking (4th ed. 1990) (Ex. 1006) (“Held-
`DataComDev4”).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00428
`Patent 7,835,430 B2
`
`
`References
`
`Hughes-Hartogs,4 Baran,5
`and Frenkel6
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`
`1‒6
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)
`
`Petitioner represents, at the time of filing the Petition, that Petitioner
`
`does not own the ’430 patent and that “[n]either Petitioner nor any real
`
`party-in-interest filed a civil action challenging validity of a claim in the
`
`’430 Patent.” Pet. 4. Petitioner further represents that “[n]one of the
`
`Petitioner nor any real party-in-interest or privy of the Petitioner, has been
`
`served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’430 Patent.” Id. at 4‒
`
`5.
`
`Patent Owner argues that the Petition should be denied because
`
`“Petitioner Arris is simply the successor-in-interest of another company,
`
`2Wire, Inc. [(2Wire)], which has been involved in litigation with Patent
`
`Owner for over two years.” Prelim. Resp. 9. Patent Owner argues that on
`
`February 7, 2014, Patent Owner served 2Wire a Second Amended
`
`Complaint alleging infringement by 2Wire (“2Wire Lawsuit”). Id.; see also
`
`Ex. 2008. At the time of filing of that complaint, 2Wire, as alleged by
`
`Patent Owner, was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pace Plc. (“Pace”). Id. at
`
`10. Patent Owner argues that 2Wire and Pace are barred from filing a
`
`petition for an inter partes review of the ’430 patent under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`
`4 U.S. Patent No. 4,679,227; issued July 7, 1987 (Ex. 1008) (“Hughes-
`Hartogs”).
`5 U.S. Patent No. 4,438,511; issued Mar. 20, 1984 (Ex. 1010) (“Baran”).
`6 U.S. Patent No. 5,838,268; issued Nov. 17, 1998 (Ex. 1011) (“Frenkel”).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00428
`Patent 7,835,430 B2
`
`315(b). Patent Owner further argues that Petitioner and Pace entered a “Co-
`
`operation Agreement to implement a Scheme for the Acquisition and Merger
`
`of Pace/2Wire and Arris” and the final closing of the merger occurred on
`
`January 4, 2016. Id. at 10‒11 (citing Ex. 2002; Ex. 2005). This Petition was
`
`filed on January 2, 2016. Patent Owner argues that “the Board cannot
`
`institute review here, where Arris has acquired a company that otherwise
`
`was barred from filing a petition under § 315(b).” Id. at 11‒14.7
`
`We disagree with Patent Owner that Petitioner is barred under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(b). Section 315(b) states “[a]n inter partes review may not be
`
`instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year
`
`after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the
`
`petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.”
`
`Specifically, section 315(b) precludes institution if the petition is filed “more
`
`than 1 year after the date on which . . . privy of the petitioner is served with a
`
`complaint.” Accordingly, § 315(b) is concerned with privity relationships
`
`up until the time a petition is filed. See Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics
`
`Corp., Case IPR2012-00042, slip op. at 12 (PTAB February 22, 2014)
`
`(Paper 60 ) (“This rule makes clear that it is only privity relationships up
`
`until the time a petition is filed that matter; any later-acquired privies are
`
`irrelevant.”).
`
`
`7 Patent Owner cited to VMWare, Inc. v. Good Technology Software, Inc.,
`Case IPR2015-00027, slip op. at 2 (PTAB March 6, 2015) (Paper 11).
`However, that case is distinguished from this case because the Petitioner in
`VMWare admitted a barred party was in privity at the time of the filing of
`the Petition. Id. at 2 (“Petitioner admits that AirWatch became its privy . . .
`at least since February 2014 . . . Petitioner filed the Petition challenging the
`’386 patent on October 6, 2014.”).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00428
`Patent 7,835,430 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner fails to demonstrate that Petitioner and 2Wire/Pace
`
`were in privity on the filing date of the Petition. Patent Owner
`
`acknowledges that the Petition was filed on January 2, 2016, whereas the
`
`merger between 2Wire/Pace and Petitioner allegedly occurred on January 4,
`
`2016. Patent Owner fails to demonstrate that Petitioner had control over the
`
`2Wire Lawsuit at the time of filing the Petition, or that 2Wire/Pace had
`
`controlled, or had an opportunity to control, this proceeding. Although
`
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner and 2Wire/Pace entered a “Common
`
`Defense Agreement dated 5/20/15” (Prelim. Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2004)),
`
`Patent Owner does not provide evidence that this agreement gave Petitioner
`
`control or the right to control the 2Wire Lawsuit at the time of the filing of
`
`the Petition, or that 2Wire/Pace controlled, or had an opportunity to control,
`
`this proceeding. Moreover, Patent Owner has not demonstrated that there
`
`was a relationship between Petitioner and 2Wire at the time the complaint
`
`was served on 2Wire.
`
`Patent Owner additionally argues that Petitioner “controls or has the
`
`ability to assume control of the 2Wire Lawsuit.” Prelim. Resp. 14‒15 (citing
`
`Ex. 2007). Patent Owner argues that “it is not necessary that Arris actually
`
`control the 2Wire Lawsuit. It is sufficient if Arris has a ‘legal right, to
`
`assume control’ of the on-going 2Wire Lawsuit.” Id. (citing Aruze Gaming
`
`Macau, Ltd. v. MGT Gaming, Inc., Case IPR2014-01288, slip op. 4 (PTAB
`
`February 20, 2015) (Paper 13)). Although we have considered that
`
`Petitioner was in the process of acquiring 2Wire/Pace at the time the Petition
`
`was filed, Patent Owner has not directed us to sufficient evidence to show
`
`that Petitioner had control or had the legal right to assume control over the
`
`2Wire lawsuit at the time of filing the Petition.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00428
`Patent 7,835,430 B2
`
`
`Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner that Petitioner is
`
`barred from filing a petition under section 315(b).
`
`B. 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); 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 Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2007).
`
`Neither party proposes a specific construction for any of the terms of
`
`the claims. See Pet. 6‒7; Prelim. Resp. 8. For purposes of this Decision, we
`
`need not construe any limitations of the challenged claims.
`
`C. Obviousness of Claims 1‒6 over T2500 Manual and
`Held-DataComDev4
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1‒6 of the ’430 patent are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over T2500 Manual and Held-
`
`DataComDev4. Pet. 22–41.
`
`1. T2500 Manual (Ex. 1004)
`
`T2500 Manual is a manual for setting up and using the Telebit T2500
`
`modem. Ex. 1004, 1-1. The manual describes the T2500 modem as using
`
`Packetized Ensemble Protocol (PEP) modulation. PEP analyzes the quality
`
`of the connection at 511 separate frequency points and compensates for line
`
`impairments which may exist. Id.
`
`T2500 Manual describes that each time you turn on the modem, a
`
`series of internal logic tests, memory tests, and internal loop back checks are
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00428
`Patent 7,835,430 B2
`
`performed. Id. at 1-5. Additionally, “the modem provides data transmission
`
`statistics, such as line quality analysis, signal-to-noise ratios, frequency
`
`offset measurements, data flow analysis and error rates.” Id.
`
`T2500 Manual describes the S76 register under the section entitled
`
`“Equivalent Line Noise Profile” of the T2500 modem as containing noise
`
`level in dBm to the nearest tenth observed at 511 frequency points in the
`
`current telephone connection. Id. at 5-60. All 511 values are displayed at
`
`the time this read only register is accessed. Id.
`
`2. Held-DataComDev4 (Ex. 1006)
`
`Held-DataComDev4 is a book entitled “Data Communications
`
`Networking Devices.” Ex. 1006. Chapter 4 of Held-DataComDev4
`
`includes a section on broadband modems and describes Discrete Multitone
`
`(DMT) modulation which permits the transmission of high-speed data using
`
`Frequency Division Multiplexing to create multiple channels on twisted pair
`
`lines. Id. at 503. Held-DataComDev4 describes that the concept behind
`
`DMT modulation is similar to that used in the Telebit Packetized Ensemble
`
`Protocol (PEP) modem. Id.
`
`3. Analysis
`
`Based on the record before us, we determine that there is not a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in showing that claims 1‒6
`
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over T2500 Manual
`
`and Held-DataComDev4. Pet. 22–41. Petitioner provides a showing,
`
`supported by evidence, identifying alleged sections of the prior art as
`
`disclosing claims 1‒6. Id. However, for the reasons that follow, Petitioner
`
`has failed to sufficiently account for certain limitations in all of the claims.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00428
`Patent 7,835,430 B2
`
`
`Petitioner relies on T2500 Manual for all of the limitations with the
`
`exception of the recited “DMT symbols” recited in all of the claims. For the
`
`“DMT symbols” limitation, Petitioner relies on a description at page 503 of
`
`Held-DataComDev4. Pet. 31.
`
`All of the claims recite “wherein at least one data variable of the one
`
`or more data variables comprises an array representing frequency domain
`
`received idle channel noise information.” Petitioner relies on the description
`
`found at page 5-60 of T2500 Manual with respect to “Equivalent Line Noise
`
`Profile” to meet the limitation. Pet. 33‒35. Petitioner, recognizing that the
`
`prior art it relies upon describes “line noise” or “equivalent line noise,”
`
`argues that line noise is idle channel noise information. Id.
`
`In particular, Petitioner relies on page 55 of the Lance McNally
`
`Declaration (Ex. 1002) in support of the argument that “[l]ine noise is idle
`
`channel noise information.” Pet. 33. But McNally does not state that line
`
`noise is idle channel noise information. Rather, he testifies that “line noise
`
`information” disclosed by the T2500 Manual “is equivalent to ‘idle channel
`
`noise information.’” Ex. 1002 ¶ 87. McNally does not further expand on
`
`what he means when he says that one is “equivalent” to the other. In any
`
`event, even if he intended to mean that they are the same, he does not direct
`
`us to supporting evidence to support his assertions, and we, therefore, accord
`
`his testimony little weight in that regard. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Nor
`
`does Petitioner or Mr. McNally explain or direct us to evidence that would
`
`show that, even if line noise information is the same as idle channel noise
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00428
`Patent 7,835,430 B2
`
`information, why line noise information is also the same as frequency
`
`domain received idle channel noise information8 as claimed.
`
`4. Conclusion
`
`For the above reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not shown that
`
`there is a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail as to this ground against
`
`claims 1‒6.
`
`D. Obviousness of Claims 1‒6 over Hughes-Hartogs, Baran, and
`Frenkel
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1‒6 of the ’430 patent are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hughes-Hartogs, Baran, and
`
`Frenkel. Pet. 41‒60.
`
`1. Hughes-Hartogs (Ex. 1008)
`
`Hughes-Hartogs is directed to the field of data communications and to
`
`a high speed modem for use with dial-up voice frequency (VF) telephone
`
`lines. Ex. 1008, 1:7‒9, 2:43‒44. The modem utilizes a multicarrier
`
`modulation scheme and variably allocates data and power to the various
`
`carriers to maximize the overall data transmission rate. Id. at 2:44‒47. The
`
`modem includes a variable allocation system for sharing control of a
`
`communication link between two modems according to user requirements.
`
`Id. at 2:50‒54. Quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) is utilized to
`
`encode data elements of varying complexity on each carrier. Id. at 2:58‒60.
`
`
`8 Petitioner does not provide a claim construction for the phrase “frequency
`domain received idle channel noise information” such that we should read
`out of the phrase the italicized words. Nor do we determine, based on the
`record before us, that we should read out of the phrase the italicized words.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00428
`Patent 7,835,430 B2
`
`
`2. Baran (Ex. 1010)
`
`Baran discloses a high speed, full duplex modem in the field of data
`
`communications. Ex. 1010, 1:7‒9. An ensemble of sixty-four orthogonally
`
`modulated carriers is digitally generated such that each carrier or tone is
`
`individually modulated to contain five bits. Id. at 4:45‒48. One carrier
`
`serves as the pilot tone for coordination between the transmitter and receiver
`
`sections of the modem, and maintains timing and frequency calibration or
`
`“alignment” irrespective of the telephone network’s carrier heterodyne
`
`errors or changes in transmission paths length. Id. at 4:48‒55. Significant
`
`signal parameters are measured and corrective signals are returned to the
`
`originating modem on a simultaneous reverse channel. Id. at 4:60‒62. Test
`
`signal arrangements in the modem permit ready use of packets containing
`
`only test data, which are useful in providing remote diagnostics and to
`
`pinpoint transmission failures. Id. at 5:55‒59.
`
`3. Frenkel (Ex. 1011)
`
`Frenkel is directed to an apparatus and methods for modulation and
`
`demodulation of data. Ex. 1011, 1:6‒7. Frenkel discloses a data modulating
`
`system that includes a mapper that generates a stream of complex-valued
`
`vectors from an input stream. Id. at 7:55‒57. An array of narrow band pass
`
`filters receives and filters complex-valued vectors to generate a single
`
`stream of complex samples. Id. at 7:58‒61. An interpolator receives output
`
`from the filter array and an up-converter converts this stream to an analog
`
`front-end. Id. at 8:22‒41. The analog front-end generates the final radio
`
`frequency (RF) output signal to be transmitted. Id. at 8:39‒41.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00428
`Patent 7,835,430 B2
`
`
`4. Analysis
`
`Based on the record before us, we determine that there is not a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in showing that claims 1‒6
`
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hughes-Hartogs,
`
`Baran, and Frenkel. Pet. 41–60. Petitioner provides a showing, supported
`
`by evidence, identifying alleged sections of the prior art as disclosing the
`
`limitations of claims 1‒6. Id. For example, Petitioner argues that Hughes-
`
`Hartogs discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, except for the limitations
`
`“the message comprises one or more data variables that represent the test
`
`information” and “bits in the message are modulated onto DMT symbols
`
`using Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (QAM) with more than 1 bit per
`
`subchannel.” Pet. 47‒51. Petitioner argues that the combination of Hughes-
`
`Hartogs and Baran teaches or suggests “the message comprises one or more
`
`data variables that represent the test information.” Id. at 47‒49. Petitioner
`
`further argues that the combination of Hughes-Hartogs and Frenkel teaches
`
`or suggests “bits in the message are modulated onto DMT symbols using
`
`Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (QAM) with more than 1 bit per
`
`subchannel.” Id. at 49‒51. However, as pointed out by Patent Owner,
`
`Petitioner fails to provide articulated reasoning with some rational
`
`underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l Co.
`
`v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
`
`Specifically, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner does not provide
`
`“sufficient factual or reasoned analysis for why a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have combined . . . Hughes, Baran, and Frenkel.” Prelim.
`
`Resp. 48‒51. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not provided a
`
`sufficient reason for combining the asserted prior art. “[A] patent composed
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00428
`Patent 7,835,430 B2
`
`of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each
`
`of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S.
`
`at 418.
`
`Petitioner generally states that the subject matter of the claims was
`
`described by Hughes-Hartogs, Baran, and Frenkel “in a manner that would
`
`have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to the claimed subject matter
`
`through the exercise of only routine skill.” Pet. 45. Petitioner further states
`
`that “the modification of ‘227 Patent [Hughes-Hartogs] to include the
`
`teachings of ‘511 Patent [Baran] and ‘268 Patent [Frenkel] is demonstrative
`
`of the application of a known technique to a known device to yield
`
`predictable results under 35 U.S.C. §103.” Id. However, Petitioner does not
`
`point to evidence or explain why a person with ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have combined Hughes-Hartogs, Baran, and Frenkel, why such a
`
`combination would have required only “routine skill,” or even why the
`
`results of such a combination would have been predictable. See Prelim.
`
`Resp. 48‒51. Accordingly, Petitioner has not provided any reason or
`
`sufficient evidence that would have prompted a person with ordinary skill in
`
`the art to combine Hughes-Hartogs, Baran, and Frenkel in the manner
`
`proposed by Petitioner.
`
`At best, Petitioner directs us to pages 66‒69 of the Declaration of Mr.
`
`Lance McNally. Id. at 47‒51. Although we decline to incorporate Mr.
`
`McNally’s Declaration into the Petition, we note that pages 66‒69 of Mr.
`
`McNally’s Declaration consist of several paragraphs discussing the
`
`application of the cited prior art to independent claim 1 of the ’430 patent.
`
`Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 125–136. Only paragraphs 132 and 134 discuss the
`
`combination of Hughes-Hartogs and Baran and Hughes-Hartogs with
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00428
`Patent 7,835,430 B2
`
`Frenkel. Id. ¶¶ 132, 134. For example, McNally declares that “[a] POSA
`
`would combine the ‘227 [Hughes-Hartogs] and ‘511 [Baran] patents to show
`
`a test mode with messages comprising one or more data variables that
`
`represent the test information.” Id. ¶ 132. McNally further declares that “[a]
`
`POSA would combine the ‘268 [Frenkel] and ‘227 [Hughes-Hartogs] patents
`
`as obvious to meet the claim element of a DMT symbol, using QAM and
`
`more than 1 bit per subchannel.” Id. ¶ 134. However, such statements are
`
`conclusory, unsupported by a sufficient rationale or reason to combine
`
`Hughes-Hartogs with Baran or Frenkel. As such, even if we were to
`
`incorporate these passages from Mr. McNally’s Declaration into the Petition,
`
`which we do not, these passages are insufficient to support a conclusion of
`
`obviousness.
`
`Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not established a
`
`reasonable likelihood it would prevail in demonstrating the obviousness of
`
`claim 1 over Hughes-Hartogs, Baran, and Frenkel. The Petition suffers
`
`similar deficiencies in its challenge to independent claims 2‒6 (see Pet. 55‒
`
`60), and, therefore, we determine that Petitioner has not established a
`
`reasonable likelihood in prevailing in its challenge to these claims for the
`
`same reasons discussed above.
`
`5. Conclusion
`
`On this record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown a
`
`reasonable likelihood that claims 1‒6 are obvious over a combination of
`
`Hughes-Hartogs, Baran, and Frenkel.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00428
`Patent 7,835,430 B2
`
`
`E. Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has
`
`met its burden of showing a reasonable likelihood that claims 1‒6 of the
`
`’430 patent are unpatentable.
`
`III. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that no inter partes review will be instituted
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) with respect to any of the challenged claims
`
`of the ’430 patent on the grounds of unpatentability asserted in the Petition.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00428
`Patent 7,835,430 B2
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Dan Gresham
`Thomas I Horstemeyer, LLP
`dan.gresham@thomashorstemeyer.com
`
`
`
`Charles Griggers
`Thomas I Horstemeyer, LLP
`charles.griggers@thomashorstemeyer.com
`
`Bob Starr
`ARRIS Group, Inc.
`bob.starr@arris.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Peter J. McAndrews
`McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.
`pmcandrews@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`
`
`Thomas J. Wimbiscus
`McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.
`twimbiscus@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`
`
`Scott P. McBride
`McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.
`smcbride@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`
`
`Christopher M. Scharff
`McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.
`cscharff@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`
`
`
`17