`
`
`
` 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