Paper No. 7
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: July 14, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ELBIT SYSTEMS LAND AND C4I LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00496
`Patent 7,245,874 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
`SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00496
`Patent 7,245,874 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Hughes Network Systems, LLC (hereafter “Hughes” or “Petitioner”) filed a
`Petition (“Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 2–7 of U.S. Patent
`No. 7,245,874 B2 (“the ’874 patent,” Ex. 1001). Paper 2. Elbit Systems Land and
`C4I Ltd. (hereafter “Elbit” or “Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). Paper 6.
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted
`unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`challenged in the petition.” Taking into account Elbit’s Preliminary Response, and
`for the reasons that follow, we conclude that the information presented in the
`Petition does not establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that Hughes would
`prevail in challenging claims 2–7 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C § 103(a).
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we hereby decline to institute an inter partes review
`of the ’874 patent.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`Related Matters
`A.
`According to the parties, the ’874 patent is involved in a district court case
`captioned Elbit Systems Land and C4I Ltd. v. Hughes, No. 2:15-CV-37-RWS-RSP
`(E.D. Tex.). Pet. 1; Paper 5, 1.
`The ’874 patent is also the subject of another inter partes review between
`the same parties, Case IPR2016-00135. Pet. 1; Paper 5, 1; Prelim. Resp. 1. In that
`review, the Petition was denied as to claims 1 and 8–12 of the ’874 patent. Case
`IPR2016-00135, slip op. 12 (PTAB April 27, 2016) (Paper 8). Petitioner filed a
`Request for Rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) disputing the denial, which was
`denied. Case IPR2016-00135, Papers 9, 10.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00496
`Patent 7,245,874 B2
`
`
`B. The ’874 Patent
`The ’874 patent, titled “Infrastructure For Telephony Network,” issued July
`17, 2007, from U.S. Patent Application No. 09/918,443, filed on August 1, 2001.
`Ex. 1001, at [54], [45], [21], [22].
`The ’874 patent is directed to infrastructure for a telephony network,
`including backbone and peripheral infrastructure for a cellular telephony network.
`Ex. 1001, 1:6–9. It further relates to an interface for conversions of
`communications between conventional telephony protocols and those of cellular
`systems, such as Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (“TCP/IP”). Id.
`at Abstract, 1:26–28, 1:54–59; 1:63–2:2.
`The ’874 patent explains that telephony systems are “generally based on the
`E1, or possibly T1, protocol for multiplexing transmissions into time slots.”
`Ex. 1001, 1:26–28. Under these protocols, “[t]he protocol is strongly synchronous
`in that the individual transmission to which a time slot is assumed to belong to is
`determined from its temporal position amongst the other time slots.” Id. at 1:28–
`31.
`
`The TCP/IP protocol involves
`individual data packets being sent out over a network in
`accordance with destination information contained in a
`packet header. A single transmission is thus broken
`down into numerous packets which are each sent out
`independently over the network. The packets may be
`sent along different routes depending on availability and
`may not arrive in the order in which they have been sent.
`However the packet headers may be used by the
`receiving application to rebuild an original sequence
`from the packets.
`Ex. 1001, 1:36–44.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00496
`Patent 7,245,874 B2
`
`The ’874 patent further explains that “[t]he E1 (and T1) protocol thus
`
`depends on the preservation of a temporal relationship between time slots whereas
`the TCP/IP protocol does not preserve timing information.” Ex. 1001, 1:45–48.
`One objective of the invention is to address the problem that “TCP/IP based
`capacity cannot be used to transport E1 data since synchronization is not preserved,
`rendering the E1 datastream irrecoverable,” by providing “a system in which the
`incompatibility between TCP/IP and E1 is overcome.” Id. at 1:48–50, 1:54–56.
`In order to address this incompatibility, the invention discloses an Internet
`protocol multiplexer (“IPMux”) that converts between TC/IP and E1/T1 protocols.
`Ex. 1001, 6:60–7:32. The IPMux 50 is depicted below in Figure 2:
`
`
`Figure 2 “is a simplified block diagram of a converter or an [IPMux], which is able
`to convert between synchronous and asynchronous protocols, in particular between
`E1/T1 and TCP/IP.” Ex. 1001, 4:48–51.
`
`The IPMux filter strips out the blank time slots of the E1/T1 signal, and then
`the filtered data is packaged and encoded for transmission as TCP/IP data packets.
`Ex. 1001, 7:6–12. The original data stream can be reconstructed at the receiving
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00496
`Patent 7,245,874 B2
`
`end after transmission “to leave the original E1 or T1 data stream in its entirety.”
`Id. at 7:2–6, 7:8–13.
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`The challenged claims, claims 2–7, depend directly or indirectly from
`
`independent claim 1. Independent claim 1 must, therefore, also be considered in
`this proceeding because each of dependent claims 2–7 includes the limitations
`recited in independent claim 1. Accord Pet. 15 (confirming that the limitations
`recited in independent clam 1 must be addressed in order to account for all the
`limitations of dependent claims 2–7). Claims 1 and 2 are reproduced below:
`1. A branch of a cellular telephone network based on a first
`synchronous data communication protocol, comprising interfaces to a
`satellite link using a second, asynchronous, data communication
`protocol, wherein said interfaces comprise converters for converting
`data of a datastream between said first data communication protocol
`and said second data communication protocol, and wherein said
`synchronous data protocol allows non-data carrying time slots, and
`said interfaces comprising a non-data carrying time slot remover for
`removing said non-data carrying time slots during conversion into
`said asynchronous protocol and a time slot regenerator for
`regenerating non-data carrying time slots during reconstruction of said
`datastream.
`
`2. The branch of claim 1, being one of peripheral branches of a
`telephone network, the peripheral branches being connected to a
`central high-capacity data trunking region and, wherein said first
`synchronous protocol is the El protocol and wherein said second,
`synchronous protocol is the TCP/IP protocol, said high-capacity data
`trunking region comprises a satellite interface for a satellite
`connection using a TCP/IP protocol, said satellite interface
`comprising said converter, said converter being an El-TCP/IP
`converter being operable to receive El signaling containing SS7
`control signaling distributed therein at a predetermined data rate, said
`converter using a multiplexer for converting between the El signal and
`the TCP/IP signal;
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00496
`Patent 7,245,874 B2
`
`
`wherein said high capacity trunking region comprises a
`terrestrial high capacity trunking connection in parallel with
`said satellite connection such that said satellite connection is
`usable to back up said terrestrial connection.
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 15:19–49.
`
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`Hughes relies upon the following prior art references:
`Reference Identifier
`Issue/Publication
`Date (Filing Date)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,459,708 B1 October 1, 2002
`(December 21, 1999)
`Silverman U.S. Patent No. 6,731,649 B1 May 4, 2004
`(July 26, 2000)
`November 2, 1995
`(April 18, 1995)
`January 28, 1999
`(June 19, 1998)
`June 20, 2006
`(July 31, 2001)
`
`Cox
`
`Arimilli WO 95/29576 A2
`
`Henkel
`
`Lim
`
`Canadian App. No.
`CA 2,290,967 A1
`U.S. Patent No. 7,065,321 B2
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1008
`
`1020
`
`
`
`E. Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`Hughes challenges claims 2–7 of the ’874 patent based on the alleged
`grounds of unpatentability set forth in the table below. Pet. 3–4, 14–59.
`References
`Basis
`Claim(s) Challenged
`
`Cox, Silverman, Arimilli, and
`Lim
`Cox, Silverman, Arimilli,
`Lim, and Henkel
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`2–7
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00496
`Patent 7,245,874 B2
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Interpretation
`We construe claims by applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in
`
`light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the broadest reasonable
`interpretation standard, and absent any special definitions, 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).
`
`Hughes proposes that the term “synchronous data communication protocol”
`be construed as “a data communications protocol that relies on the temporal
`relationship between time slots, such as the E1 or T1 protocols.” Pet. 10–11.
`Hughes bases its proposed construction upon its alleged broadest reasonable
`interpretation of a dictionary definition of the term “synchronous,” and the view of
`one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in light of a portion of
`the Specification. Id. (citing Ex. 1019, 727 (Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (14th
`Ed.)); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 44, 45; Ex. 1001, 1:26–50). Elbit takes no position on the
`construction of this term. Prelim. Resp. 22. In the related case, Case IPR2016-
`00135, Hughes’s proposed construction was adopted for the purposes of that
`proceeding in further consideration of additional portions of the Specification.
`Case IPR2016-00135, Paper 8, 6 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:27–31, 1:44–45). For similar
`reasons, we adopt Hughes’s proposed construction of the term “synchronous data
`communication protocol” for the purposes of this Decision.
`
`Hughes proposes a construction of the term “asynchronous data
`communication protocol” as “a data communications protocol that does not rely on
`the temporal relationship between time slots, such as the TCP/IP protocol.” Pet.
`11. Elbit takes no position on the construction of this term. Prelim. Resp. 22. In
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00496
`Patent 7,245,874 B2
`
`the related case, Hughes’s proposed construction was adopted in further
`consideration of additional portions of the Specification. IPR2016-00135, Paper 8,
`7 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:44–46, 2:18–19). For similar reasons, we adopt Hughes’s
`proposed construction of the term “asynchronous data communication protocol”
`for the purposes of this Decision.
`
`Hughes also proposes a construction for the following claim terms:
`(1) “central high-capacity data trunking region,” and (2) “peripheral branches of a
`telephone network.” Pet. 12–14. Elbit takes no position on the construction of
`these terms. Prelim. Resp. 22. We need not assess these proposed constructions
`for purposes of this Decision because they are not necessary to resolve the issues
`discussed below. See, e.g., Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d
`795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (explaining that only those claim terms or phrases that
`are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve
`the controversy).
`B. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 2–7 over Cox, Silverman, Arimilli, and Lim
` Hughes contends that claims 2–7 are obvious over Cox, Silverman, Arimilli,
`and Lim. Pet. 3, 15–56. To support its contentions, Hughes provides explanations
`as to how these prior art references disclose each claim limitation. Id. at 15–56.
`Hughes also relies upon the Declaration of Dr. Raymond Leopold (Ex. 1003,
`“Leopold Declaration”), to support its contentions. As Hughes notes, because
`claims 2–7 depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 1, Hughes also
`presents explanations on how the combination of Cox, Silverman, and Arimilli
`renders claim 1 obvious, with the Leopold Declaration providing further support.
`See Pet. 15–25; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 104–145.
`
`Elbit counters that the Petition fails to provide articulated reasoning
`supported by the evidence that the elements of claim 1 are disclosed in the prior art
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00496
`Patent 7,245,874 B2
`
`references, and fails to demonstrate a sufficient rationale to combine the
`references. Prelim. Resp. 22–43. More specifically, Elbit further argues the
`Petition fails to provide sufficient disclosure of the limitation of claim 1 of
`“synchronous data protocol [that] allows non-data carrying time slots” and a “non-
`data carrying time slot remover for removing said non-data carrying time slots
`during conversion into said asynchronous protocol.” Id. at 27–33, 35–37.
`
`Based on the evidence of record, we are not persuaded Hughes properly
`accounts for the claim 1 limitations of “synchronous data protocol allows non-data
`carrying time slots” and “non-data carrying time slot remover for removing said
`non-data carrying time slots during conversion into said asynchronous protocol,” in
`the prior art identified in the Petition, as discussed further below.
`1. Analysis
`Hughes relies upon the teachings of Cox, Silverman, and Arimilli to account
`for all the limitations of claim 1. Pet. 15–25. We will address the selected
`elements of this claim as follows.
`“wherein said synchronous data protocol allows non-data carrying time slots”
`To account for claim 1’s limitation reciting “wherein said synchronous data
`protocol allows non-data carrying time slots” (Ex. 1001, 15:25–26), Hughes refers
`to Arimilli’s disclosure of
`[a] silence detection algorithm 1205 is also included in
`the programmed code of the DSP 620. The silence
`detection function is a summation of the square of each
`sample of the voice signal over the frame. If the power
`of the voice frame falls below a preselected threshold,
`this would indicate a silent frame. The detection of a
`silence frame of speech is important for later
`multiplexing of the V-data (voice data) and C-data
`(asynchronous computer data) described below. During
`silent portions of the speech, data processor 318 will
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00496
`Patent 7,245,874 B2
`
`
`transfer conventional digital data (C-data) over the
`telephone line in lieu of voice data (V-data).
`Pet. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1006, 28:8–15).
`Hughes contends that the T1/E1 protocols of Cox may include non-data
`carrying time slots, referring to its disclosure where the T1/E1 protocols are used
`for telephonic communication, and where its “T1/E1 time slots may correspond to
`silence and therefore not carry any data.” Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 130; Ex. 1004,
`2:18–34; Ex. 1006, 28:8–15). Hughes argues that Arimilli’s disclosure “of how a
`‘silent frame’ is handled” confirms that “some voice time slots may be non-data
`carrying time slots.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006 at 28:8–15). Dr. Leopold states that
`Arimilli’s disclosure “further demonstrates that voice data is transmitted with a
`synchronous protocol, because it is contrasted with asynchronous computer data.”
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 131. Dr. Leopold states that a person of ordinary skill would have
`understood that a “‘silent frame’ is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`a ‘non-data carrying time slot.’” Id.
`Hughes’s rationale for combining the teachings of Cox, Silverman, and
`Arimilli includes that these references are
`directed to the same field as the ‘874 patent
`(infrastructure for a telephony network); operate using
`the same architecture as the ’874 patent (converters for
`T1/E1 to TCP/IP); and are designed to solve the same
`problem as the ’874 patent (incompatibility between
`T1/E1 and TCP/IP networks).
`
`Pet. 6.
`
`Dr. Leopold states that the combination of Cox and Silverman with Arimilli
`is a “simple substitution,” “a combination of prior art elements according to known
`methods to yield predictable results,” and the combination “is a choice from a
`finite number of options.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 135, 136, 138. Dr. Leopold also states that
`the need for silence suppression was known at the time of the invention and that
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00496
`Patent 7,245,874 B2
`
`Arimilli’s silence suppression “was just one element of a multiplexing telephony
`system that could be paired with a T1/E1 to IP-based adapter.” Id. ¶¶ 135–137
`(citing Ex. 1004, Abstract, 18:4–9; Ex. 1005, Abstract; Ex. 1006, Abstract). Dr.
`Leopold additionally states that “[t]he silence suppression system of Arimilli was
`just one element of a traditional telephony system that could be adapted to use an
`IP-based protocol,” and a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to combine
`Arimilli’s silent frame detection with Cox’s protocol conversion “in order to
`conserve and maximize bandwidth.” Id. ¶ 138.
`Elbit argues that the Petition fails to identify “non-data carrying time slots”
`in the prior art, as claim 1 requires. Prelim. Resp. 27–33. More specifically, Elbit
`alleges that Arimilli’s algorithms fail to disclose time slots. Id. at 27 (citing
`Ex. 1006, 9:30–10:2). Elbit contrasts claim 1’s limitation that requires
`synchronous data having a “temporal relationship between time slots,” with
`Arimilli’s disclosure that “synchronous data is transmitted in a packet that first
`contains a header.” Id. at 28 (citing Ex. 1006 at 10:1–2). Elbit disputes Dr.
`Leopold’s statement that a “‘silent frame’ is within the broadest reasonable
`interpretation of a ‘non-data carrying time slot’” because there is no explanation
`provided by Hughes and Dr. Leopold as to why one of skill would have taken this
`view. Id. at 29–30. Instead, Elbit contends that Arimilli’s “silence detection
`algorithm” is not related to “non-data carrying time slots” because it is directed to
`the measurement of “the power content of a digitized sample of a voice signal.”
`Id. at 30 (citing Ex. 1006 at 28:7–11).
`Elbit also argues that Hughes’s allegations that voice data is transmitted with
`a synchronous protocol is not correct because its reliance on Arimilli’s disclosure
`of contrasting voice data with “asynchronous computer data” is misconstrued.
`Prelim. Resp. 31–32. Alternatively, Elbit argues that, because the “asynchronous
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00496
`Patent 7,245,874 B2
`
`computer data” that is referred to in Arimilli’s passage is contrasted with computer
`data, not voice data, Arimilli does not “treat voice data as part of a synchronous
`protocol.” Id. (referring to Pet. 22). Elbit bases this argument on the view that,
`under Arimilli, the “‘voice signals’ are ‘represent[ed]’ as ‘an asynchronous data
`stream,’” and the computer data can be asynchronous or synchronous. Id. at 32
`(emphasis omitted) (citing Ex. 1006 at 1:12–19, 3:20–23). As such, Elbit argues
`that Hughes misunderstood the teachings of the prior art, and there is no showing
`that Arimilli’s voice signals are transmitted with a synchronous protocol that
`“allows non-data carrying time slots,” as required by the challenged claims. Id. at
`32–33.
`Elbit additionally alleges that Hughes fails to provide adequate explanation
`supporting a rationale to combine Arimilli’s silence detection algorithm acting on
`voice frames with any elements of Cox or Silverman. Prelim. Resp. 33–34. Elbit
`contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to
`combine the references in the manner proposed by Hughes, and would not have a
`reasonable likelihood of success because the prior art references use fundamentally
`different technologies, with Arimilli directed to individual data streams and Cox
`directed to trunks. Id. at 34 (citing to Ex. 1004, 4:5–9; Ex. 1006, 40:14–16).
`On this record, we are not persuaded that Hughes has presented sufficient
`evidence to support a finding that the combination of Cox, Silverman, and Arimilli
`teaches all limitations recited in claim 1. Arimilli discloses that its silent frame
`detection operates by summing “the square of each sample of the voice signal over
`the frame. If the power of the voice frame falls below a preselected threshold, this
`would indicate a silent frame.” Ex. 1006, 28:9–11. The determination of “silent
`frame” is, therefore, based on a power level, and not based upon whether no data
`exists in the frame. Neither party offers a per se construction of the claim term
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00496
`Patent 7,245,874 B2
`
`“non-data carrying time slots,” however, Dr. Leopold states that a person of
`ordinary skill would have understood that a “’silent frame’ is within the broadest
`reasonable interpretation of a ‘non-data carrying time slot.’” Ex. 1003 ¶ 131. Dr.
`Leopold, however, fails to provide any explanation to support that conclusion and
`we, therefore, do not afford his testimony in that regard much, if any, weight. See
`Perreira v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 33 F.3d 1375, 1377 n.6 (Fed. Cir.
`1994) (“An expert opinion is no better than the soundness of the reasons
`supporting it.”).
`Hughes, additionally, proffers that Cox “may include non-data carrying time
`slots,” and “where the T1/E1 protocols are used for telephonic communication
`T1/E1 time slots may correspond to silence and therefore not carry any data.” Pet.
`22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 130; Ex. 1004, 2:18–34; Ex. 1006, 28:18–34). As we
`discussed above, we determine that Hughes does not provide sufficient evidence to
`support its assertion that “silence” equates to “no data.” For essentially the same
`reasons, as well as the lack of any disclosure in Cox of this element, Hughes’
`assertion that Cox (Ex. 1004, 2:18–34) “may” disclose or suggest non-data
`carrying time slots is not persuasive.
`We also find the sufficiency of the evidence provided in support of Hughes’
`assertion that Arimilli’s voice data transmission uses asynchronous protocol to be
`lacking. It is unclear as to whether the voice data is intended to be “synchronous”
`in the portion of Arimilli relied upon by Hughes. Ex. 1006, 28:8–13. Indeed,
`voice data is discussed as being asynchronous in Arimilli. Id. at Abstract, 3:20–23.
`Lastly, the rationale provided by Hughes for combining the teachings of Cox
`and Silverman with Arimilli lacks specificity. Hughes asserts that the combination
`uses known techniques to improve similar devices, and their combination is a
`“simple substitution.” See Pet. 52–53; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 136, 138. Notably absent is a
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00496
`Patent 7,245,874 B2
`
`sufficient explanation of how the teachings of the Cox, Silverman, and Arimilli
`might be combined to arrive at the claimed invention, e.g., by combining and
`applying specific teachings of these prior art references to account for all the
`features of the challenged claims. For instance, Dr. Leopold’s supporting
`testimony that Arimilli’s silence suppression system “could be implemented over
`any given protocol” is conclusory and lacks detail. Ex. 1003 ¶ 139; see
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1328 (Fed.
`Cir. 2012) (“This testimony is generic . . . . [and] fails to explain why a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have combined elements from specific references in
`the way the claimed invention does.”). The fact that the combination of the prior
`art could result in benefits, such as conserving and maximizing bandwidth (Pet. 52)
`does not fully support establishing that it would have been obvious to combine
`their respective teachings or give any rationale for why a person of ordinary skill
`would have done so with these specific references. Here, there are technical
`differences in the details of Cox, Silverman, and Arimilli that are relevant to key
`limitations of claim 1, and Hughes’s general assertions underlying a combination
`of the references lacking in explanation do not substitute for a fact-based analysis
`as to why it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to make the
`combination and any modifications.
`
`
`“non-data carrying time slot remover for removing said non-data carrying time
`slots during conversion into said asynchronous protocol”
`Hughes contends that Cox and Arimilli together teach the claim 1 limitation
`“non-data carrying time slot remover for removing said non-data carrying time
`slots during conversion into said asynchronous protocol.” Pet. 22–24. In part,
`Hughes argues that “Arimilli’s Digital Signal Processor (“DSP”) 620 is
`programmed with a silence detection algorithm,” and “Arimilli’s flagging and
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00496
`Patent 7,245,874 B2
`
`discarding of silent frames is thus within the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`‘said interfaces comprising a non-data carrying time slot remover for removing
`said non-data carrying time slots.’” Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1006, 28:7–33; Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 133, 134). For reasons similar to those discussed above, we find this contention
`to be conclusory and lacking explanation. Even assuming arguendo, that
`Arimilli’s silent frame removal disclosure is equivalent to the non-data carrying
`slot remover of the claim, this, by itself, is insufficient to demonstrate that the time
`slot removal occurs during the conversion from synchronous to asynchronous
`protocols, as required by claim 1.
`
`*
`
`
`*
`
`
`*
`Accordingly, on this record, Hughes has not established a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing in showing that independent claim 1 would have been
`obvious over Cox, Silverman, and Arimilli. By virtue of their dependency, claims
`2–7 include all the limitations of independent claim 1. As applied by Hughes, Lim
`does not remedy the deficiencies noted above in the combination of Cox,
`Silverman, and Arimilli. In light of this, Hughes has not established a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 2–7 would have been obvious over
`Cox, Silverman, Arimilli, and Lim.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, the information presented in the Petition does not
`demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood that Hughes would prevail in
`challenging claims 2–7 of the ’874 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C § 103(a).
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00496
`Patent 7,245,874 B2
`
`
`V. ORDER
`
` Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to claims 2–7 of the ’874 patent
`and no inter partes review is instituted.
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Eliot D. Williams
`G. Hopkins Guy III
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`1001 Page Mill Road, Bld. 1, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, California 94304-1007
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`Andrea G. Reister
`Jay I. Alexander
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`One City Center, 850 Tenth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`
`
`
`16