Paper 9
`
`
`
` Entered: 30 June 2016
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`2016
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-00429
`Patent 8,432,956 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Entered: 30 June 2016
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`2016
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-00429
`Patent 8,432,956 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00429
`Patent 8,432,956 B2
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Arris Group, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to
`institute an inter partes review of claims 1–10 of U.S. Patent No. 8,432,956
`B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’956 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. TQ
`Delta, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response to the Petition.
`(Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`Section 314(a) 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 claims 1–10.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner states that the “”956 patent is asserted in TQ Delta LLC v.
`2Wire Inc., Case No. 1-13-cv-01835 (D. Del.). Pet. 2–3. In addition, the
`’956 patent is asseted in TQ Delta LLC v. Zhone Technologies Inc., Case
`No. 1:13-cv-01836 (D. Del.); TQ Delta LLC v. ZyXELComms. Corp., Case
`No. 1:13-cv-02013 (D. Del.); TQ Delta LLC v. ADTRAN Inc., Case No.
`1:14-cv-00954 (D. Del.); Adtran Inc v. TQ Delta LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-
`00121 (D. Del.); TQ Delta LLC v. Comcast Corp., et. al., Case No. 1:15-cv-
`00611 (D. Del.); TQ Delta LLC v. CoxCom LLC et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-
`00612 (D. Del.); TQ Delta LLC v. DirecTV et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00613
`(D. Del.); TQ Delta LLC v. DISH Network Corp. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-
`00614 (D. Del.); TQ Delta LLC v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al., Case No.
`1:15-cv-00615 (D. Del.); and TQ Delta LLC v. Verizon Services Corp.,
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00429
`Patent 8,432,956 B2
`
`Case No. 1:15-cv-00616 (D. Del.). Pet. 3.
`
`B. The ʼ956 Patent
`The ’956 patent provides a systems and methods “to reliably exchange
`diagnostic and test information between transceivers over a digital
`subscriber line in the presence of voice communications and/or other
`disturbances.” Ex. 1001, 1:63–65. 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 2:63‒67, 3:19‒29. Each
`modem includes a 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 2:9‒13. In diagnostic mode, the RT modem sends
`diagnostic and test information as bits that are modulated to the CO modem.
`Id. at 3:50‒53. One described modulation technique includes Differential
`Phase Shift Keying (DPSK) on a subset of all the carriers, as specified in
`ITU standard G.994,1, higher order Quadrature Amplitude Modulation
`(QAM) (>1 bit per carrier). Id. at 3:57‒60.
`Figure 1, reproduced below, illustrates the modem components
`associated with the diagnostic link mode.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00429
`Patent 8,432,956 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 4:60‒5:8. CO modem 200 includes CRC
`checker 210, diagnostic device 220, and diagnostic information monitoring
`device 220. Id. RT modem includes message determination device 310,
`power control device 320, diagnostic device 330, and diagnostic information
`storage device 340. Id.
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative and
`reproduced below (Ex. 1001, 8:47–58):
`1. A transceiver capable of transmitting diagnostic
`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 diagnostic
`information,
`wherein bits in the message are modulated onto DMT
`symbols using Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (QAM)
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00429
`Patent 8,432,956 B2
`
`
`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.
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`The information presented in the Petition sets forth proposed grounds of
`unpatentability for claims 1–10 of the ’956 patent as follows (Pet. 5–6):
`
`Reference[s]
`Hughes-Hartogs,1 Baran,2
`and Frenkel3
`Hughes-Hartogs, Baran,
`Frenkel, and Wu4
`Hughes-Hartogs, Baran,
`Frenkel, and TR-0245
`Hughes-Hartogs, Baran,
`Frenkel, TR-024, and TR-
`0046
`
`Basis
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`1, 3, 5, and 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`2, 4, 6, and 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`9
`
`10
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)
`Petitioner represents, at the time of filing the Petition, that Petitioner
`does not own the ’956 patent and that “[n]either Petitioner nor any real
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 4,679,227; issued July 7, 1987 (Ex. 1004, “Hughes-
`Hartogs”).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 4,438,511; issued Mar. 20, 1984 (Ex. 1005, “Baran”).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 5,838,268; issued Nov. 17, 1998 (Ex. 1006, “Frenkel”).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 6,219,378 B1; issued Apr. 17, 2001 (Ex. 1008, “Wu”).
`5 ADSL Forum Technical Report TR-024, DMT Line Code Specific MIB for
`Network Management Working Group (June 1999) (Ex. 1011, “TR-024”).
`6 ADSL Forum Technical Report TR-0004, Network Migration (December
`1997) (Ex. 1010, “TR-004”).
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00429
`Patent 8,432,956 B2
`
`party-in-interest filed a civil action challenging validity of a claim in the
`’956 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 ’956 Patent.” Id.
`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. 11. Patent Owner argues that on
`February 7, 2014, Patent Owner served 2Wire a Second Amended
`Complaint alleging infringement by 2Wire (“2Wire Lawsuit”). Id. at 12; see
`also Ex. 2007. 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
`12. Patent Owner argues that 2Wire and Pace are barred from filing a
`petition for an inter partes review of the ’956 patent under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 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 12‒13 (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 11‒18.7
`
`
`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).
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00429
`Patent 8,432,956 B2
`
`
`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.”).
`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
`
`
`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.”).
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00429
`Patent 8,432,956 B2
`
`Defense Agreement dated 5/20/15” (Prelim. Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2003)),
`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. 17 (citing
`Ex. 2006). 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. at 14
`(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.
`Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner that Petitioner is
`barred from filing a petition under section 315(b).
`B. Claim Interpretation
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Cuozzo Speed
`Techs., LLC v. Lee, No. 15-446, 2016 WL 3369425, at *10-14 (U.S. June
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00429
`Patent 8,432,956 B2
`
`20, 2016). There is a presumption that a claim term carries its ordinary and
`customary meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359,
`1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The “ordinary and customary meaning” is that which
`the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question. In re
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special
`definition for a claim term must be set forth with reasonable clarity,
`deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`1994).
`Petitioner argues that “all terms should have their ordinary and
`customary meaning read in light of the ‘956 Patent’s specification, as would
`have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Pet. 6–7.
`Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner propose express construction for any
`claim terms. See Pet. 6–7; Prelim. Resp. 10. We determine, for purposes of
`this Decision, that no claim terms require express construction. See Vivid
`Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`C. Obviousness of Claims 1–10
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 of the ’956 patent are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hughes-Hartogs,
`Baran, and Frenkel. Pet. 17–31. Petitioner also contends that claims 2, 4, 6,
`and 8 of the ’956 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`obvious over Hughes-Hartogs, Baran, Frenkel, and Wu. Id. at 31‒33.
`Petitioner additionally contends that claim 9 of the ’956 patent is
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hughes-Hartogs,
`Baran, Frenkel, and TR-024 (Pet. 33–53) and that claim 10 of the ’956
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00429
`Patent 8,432,956 B2
`
`patent is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hughes-
`Hartogs, Baran, Frenkel, TR-024, and TR-004 (Pet 53–54).
`1. Hughes-Hartogs (Ex. 1004)
`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. 1004, 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.
`2. Baran (Ex. 1005)
`Baran discloses a high speed, full duplex modem in the field of data
`communications. Ex. 1005, 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. All
`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 arrangement in the modem permit ready use of packets
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00429
`Patent 8,432,956 B2
`
`containing only test data, which are useful in providing remote diagnostics
`and to pinpoint transmission failures. Id. at 5:55‒59.
`3. Frenkel (Ex. 1006)
`Frenkel is directed to an apparatus and methods for modulation and
`demodulation of data. Ex. 1006, 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 7:55‒58. An array of narrow band pass
`filters receive and filter 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.
`4. Wu (Ex. 1008)
`Wu is directed to the initialization of communications between high-
`speed modems. Ex. 1008, 1:17‒20. The modems include analog filters at
`the analog front end, which both reduce costs and increase the channel
`impulse response. Id. at 3:30‒34. A session is initiated between the central
`office modem and remote modems, and training of the modems is carried
`out in order to establish synchronization of the modems. Id. at 3:34‒40.
`Measurement of the signal-to-noise ratio over each subcarrier channel is
`then effected, followed by exchange of bit loading information for each
`subchannel between the two modems. Id. at 3:44‒47.
`5. TR-024 (Ex. 1011)
`TR-024 defines a standard Simple Network Management Protocol
`(SNMP) Management Information Base (MIB) for the Discrete Multi-Tone
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00429
`Patent 8,432,956 B2
`
`(DMT) line code. Ex. 1011, 1. Configuration profiles and current
`performance statistics are defined. Id. at 3. Configuration, statistics,
`performance and history count are defined elements for DMT coded lines.
`Id. at 1. These elements cover use during normal operation of asymmetric
`digital subscriber lines (ADSL), as well as detailed measurements for fault
`prediction and location. Id.
`6. TR-004 (Ex. 1010)
`TR-004 is a technical report that describes migration from then
`existing telephone company networks to ADSL networks. Ex. 1010,
`Abstract. The report describes initial and target network scenarios and
`identifies issues that impact the deployment of an ADSL access network in
`existing telco architectures. Id. at 6.
`7. Analysis
`Based on the record before us, the evidence set forth by Petitioner
`indicates there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in
`showing that claims 1‒10 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`obvious. Pet. 17–54. Petitioner provides an analysis, supported by
`evidence, identifying alleged sections of the prior art as disclosing claims 1–
`10. Id. For example, Petitioner argues that Hughes-Hartogs discloses all of
`the limitations of claim 1, except for the limitations reciting that “the
`message comprises one or more data variables that represent the diagnostic
`information” (Pet. 20–21) and “bits in the message are modulated on to
`DMT symbols using Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (QAM) with more
`than 1 bit per subchannel” (Pet. 22–23). Petitioner argues that the
`combination of Hughes-Hartogs and Baran teaches or suggests “the message
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00429
`Patent 8,432,956 B2
`
`comprises one or more data variables that represent the diagnostic
`information.” Id. at 20–21. Petitioner further argues that the combination of
`Hughes-Hartogs and Frenkel teaches or suggests “bits in the message are
`modulated on to DMT symbols using Quadrature Amplitude Modulation
`(QAM) with more than 1 bit per subchannel.” Id. at 22‒22. However, as
`argued 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. 28‒36. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not provided a
`sufficient reason for combining the asserted prior art. “[A] patent composed
`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 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. 17. 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. at 17–18. Petitioner does not
`point to evidence or make any other argument explaining why a person with
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00429
`Patent 8,432,956 B2
`
`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. 33. Accordingly, we agree that Petitioner has not
`provided any reason that would have prompted a person with ordinary skill
`in the art to combine Hughes-Hartogs, Baran, and Frenkel in the manner
`Petitioner proposes.
`With respect to claims 1, 3, 5, and 7, at best, Petitioner directs us to
`pages 34‒38 of the Declaration of Mr. Lance McNally. Id. at 17‒31.
`Although we decline to incorporate Mr. McNally’s Declaration into the
`Petition, we note that pages 34‒37 of Mr. McNally’s Declaration consist of
`paragraphs discussing the application of the cited prior art to independent
`claim 1 of the ’956 patent. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 55–65. Only paragraph 61 discusses
`the combination of Hughes-Hartogs and Baran. Id. ¶ 61. Paragraph 61
`states “[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. McNally’s
`Declaration statement in support of the combination is conclusory,
`unsupported by a sufficient rationale or reason to combine Hughes-Hartogs
`and Baran. This statement additionally does not provide a sufficient reason
`for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Frenkel with Hughes-
`Hartogs and Baran. As such, even if we were to incorporate this passage
`from Mr. McNally’s Declaration into the Petition, which we do not, this
`single statement is insufficient to support the legal conclusion of
`obviousness.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00429
`Patent 8,432,956 B2
`
`
`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 3, 5, and 7 (see
`Pet. 28‒31), which rely on the combination of Hughes-Hartogs, Baran, and
`Frenkel. Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has not established a
`reasonable likelihood in prevailing in its challenge to these independent
`claims for the same reasons discussed above.
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s challenge to dependent claims 2,
`4, 6, and 8, as obvious over Hughes-Hartogs, Baran, Frenkel, and Wu, and
`Petitioner’s challenge to independent claim 9 as obvious over Hughes-
`Hartogs, Baran, Frenkel, and TR-024, and dependent claim 10 as obvious
`over Hughes-Hartogs, Baran, Frenkel, TR-024, and TR-004 are deficient for
`the same reasons. Prelim. Resp. 39–42, 52–55, 55–57. We agree with
`Patent Owner that the Petition suffers the same deficiencies in its challenge
`to claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 10, and, accordingly, we determine that Petitioner
`has not established a reasonable likelihood in prevailing in its challenge to
`these claims for the same reasons discussed above.
`III. Conclusion
`For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has
`met its burden of showing a reasonable likelihood that claims 1‒10 of the
`’956 patent are unpatentable.
`IV. ORDER
`For the reasons given, it is
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied; and
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00429
`Patent 8,432,956 B2
`
`
`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 ’956 patent on the grounds of unpatentability asserted in the Petition.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00429
`Patent 8,432,956 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Charles Griggers
`Thomas I Horstemeyer, LLP
`charles.griggers@thomashorstemeyer.com
`
`Bob Starr
`ARRIS Group, Inc.
`bob.starr@arris.com
`
`Dan Gresham
`Thomas I Horstemeyer, LLP
`dan.gresham@thomashorstemeyer.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
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
