throbber
Filed on behalf of TQ Delta LLC
`By: Peter J. McAndrews
`McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.
`500 W. Madison St., 34th Floor
`Chicago, IL 60661
`Tel: 312-775-8000
`Fax: 312-775-8100
`E-mail:
`pmcandrews@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. and ARRIS GROUP, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`Case IPR2016-010071
`Patent No. 8,432,956 B2
`_____________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 ARRIS Group, Inc., who filed a Petition in IPR2017-00422, has been joined in
`this proceeding.
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`IPR2016-01007
`Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`
`Patent Owner TQ Delta, LLC (“Patent Owner”) submits this motion for
`
`observation regarding cross-examination of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei a reply declarant for
`
`Petitioners. Patent Owner submits the following Observation based on Dr. Kiaei’s
`
`testimony taken on June 26, 2017.
`
`Observation #1: In Ex. 2011, on page 45, line 10 to page 46, line 16, with
`
`reference to claim 1 of the ‘956 patent, Dr. Kiaei testified that “the communication
`
`channel is a channel within a much broader frequency band. And it could be
`
`subchannel that -- subchannel or the broader frequency band. It could be a
`
`subchannel of a much broader frequency band that this subchannel of that broader
`
`frequency band is used for communication channel, specifically for the rest of the
`
`patent that claimed that it discussed it.” This testimony is relevant to Dr. Kiaei’s
`
`declaration testimony that “[a] carrier may be another term for a sub-channel when
`
`the sub-channel’s frequency is modified to carry information” (Ex. 1009 at ¶ 69)
`
`and “a sub-channel has its own frequency.” See Ex. 1009 at ¶ 67. The testimony
`
`is relevant because it undermines the credibility of Dr. Kiaei’s declaration
`
`testimony concerning the claimed “subchannel” recited in the ‘956 patent claims
`
`and
`
`the accuracy of Dr. Kaiei declaration
`
`testimony
`
`that Milbrandt’s
`
`“subfrequency” is the claimed “subchannel.”
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`IPR2016-01007
`Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`
`Observation #2: In Ex. 2011, on page 31, lines. 11-12, Dr. Kiaei testified
`
`that “subbands and carriers in OFDM are -- and ADSL -- and ADSL are the same.”
`
`Separately, on page 20, lines 21-22, Dr. Kiaei testified that subbands and carriers
`
`are not the same. (“Q. Is 4 kilohertz the spacing between carriers? A. We’re not
`
`talking about carriers here right now. We're talking about 256 subbands.”) The
`
`testimony is relevant because Dr. Kaiei contradicts himself and this contradiction
`
`goes to the credibility of his declaration testimony relating to the claimed
`
`subchannel. See Ex. 1100 at ¶¶ 6, 8 and 9.
`
`Observation #3: In Ex. 2011, on page 91, line 1 to page 92, line 19, with
`
`reference to “annotated figure on pg. 13 of” his reply declaration, Ex. 1100, Dr.
`
`Kiaei testified, inter alia, that Petitioner’s definition of subchannel “is a broad
`
`definition of a subchannel” and that the definition would include “all the
`
`frequencies in that red box” of the figure or “a portion actually from 30 hertz to
`
`11.04 kilohertz or other portions of frequencies. . . .” This is relevant to Dr.
`
`Kiaei’s declaration testimony concerning his understanding of “sub-channel” in the
`
`context of the ‘956 patent that “[a]channel may be divided into multiple sub-
`
`channels, where each sub-channel has its own frequency. For example, the
`
`broadband communications channel of the ‘956 patent is formed by multiple
`
`carriers. . . .” Ex. 1009 at ¶ 58. This testimony is relevant because it goes to Dr.
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`IPR2016-01007
`Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`Kiaei’s claim construction analysis of the claimed “subchannel” and application of
`
`the construction to the claimed “subchannel” and Milbrandt’s (Ex. 1011) sub-
`
`frequency. Further, this testimony is relevant because it contradicts Dr. Kiaei’s
`
`declaration testimony and goes to the credibility and accuracy of his declaration
`
`testimony equating Milbrandt’s “sub-frequency” with the claimed “sub-channel.”
`
`Observation #4: In Ex. 2011, at page 84, lines 8-19, in response to a
`
`question if a subchannel is associated with a frequency, Dr. Kiaei responded that a
`
`frequency band is associated with a subchannel. This is relevant to Dr. Kiaei’s
`
`declaration testimony that “[a] carrier may be another term for a sub-channel when
`
`the sub-channel’s frequency is modified to carry information” (Ex. 1009 at ¶ 69)
`
`and “a sub-channel has its own frequency.” See Ex. 1009 at ¶ 67. This testimony
`
`is also relevant because it undermines Dr. Kiaei’s credibility.
`
`Observation #5: In Ex. 2011, on page 31, lines 1-12, Dr. Kiaei agreed that
`
`the Elahi reference (Petitioner’s Ex. 1108 at pages 108 and 109) recites that
`
`“[e]ach subfrequency is an independent channel[]”and that “ADSL uses DMT
`
`encoding to divide the bandwidth of the channel into multiple subchannels,” and he
`
`further testified that he understands Elahi’s subfrequency “to be the subfrequency
`
`mentioned in Milbrandt[.]” This testimony is relevant to Dr. Kiaei’s declaration
`
`testimony at Ex. 1009 at ¶ 59 regarding his understanding that “Milbrandt’s ‘sub-
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`IPR2016-01007
`Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`frequency’” “correspond[s] to the ‘subchannel’ in the ‘956 patent.” Dr. Kiaei’s
`
`testimony that Elahi and Milbrandt’s subfrequency is a channel and that “ADSL
`
`uses DMT encoding to divide the bandwidth of the channel into multiple
`
`subchannels” is relevant because it is inconsistent with Dr. Kiaei’s declaration
`
`testimony that Milbrandt’s sub-frequency is the claimed “subchannel.” This is
`
`relevant because it undermines the credibility and accuracy of Dr. Kiaei’s
`
`declaration testimony relied upon in the institution decision (Paper 8 at p. 15) that
`
`“Milbrandt’s ‘sub-frequency’” “correspond[s] to the ‘subchannel’ in the ’956
`
`patent.”
`
`Observation #6: In Ex. 2011, on page 104, line 19 to page 111, line 24, Dr.
`
`Kiaei testified that the single value for Transmit Power Spectrum Density (“PSD”)
`
`communicated in a message in the ANSI T1.413 standard (Ex. 1014 at p. 101)
`
`could be a single value for the entire upstream or downstream channel, rather than
`
`separate values per subchannel. See, e.g. Ex. 2011, page 106, lines 4-8 (“Q. Okay.
`
`But that’s [3-bit value] for the entire upstream or downstream channel? THE
`
`WITNESS: That’s for the portion of the upstream or downstream channel. It could
`
`be, but I need to look at it carefully.”); Ex. 2011, page 111, lines 13-18 (“Q. So in
`
`your opinion, these 3-bit – this 3-bit value does not represent the PSD for the entire
`
`upstream or downstream channel? THE WITNESS: That’s not what I said.”) Dr.
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`IPR2016-01007
`Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`Kiaei further testified that it is this PSD value that is calculated based on a
`
`REVERB signal. Ex. 2011, page 116, lines 3-5. This is relevant because it
`
`contradicts Dr. Kiaei’s declaration testimony that ANSI T1.413 measures “power
`
`level per subchannel values based on a Reverb signal” and that the transmitted
`
`PSD in ANSI T1.413 “includes individual values for each of sub-carriers.” See
`
`Ex. 1100 at ¶34.
`
`Observation #7: In Ex. 2011, at page 111, line 4 to page 112, line 14, with
`
`reference to the ANSI T1.413 standard (Exhibit 1014) at pages 95-100 and in
`
`response to a question whether “the result of that calculation [set forth in 12.4.3] is
`
`reported back in these three bits of C-MSGS1,” Dr. Kiaei testified that “I presume
`
`so, but I don’t have an opinion on it right now looking at it unless I read the whole
`
`-- the whole section and see what it’s trying to do.” Dr. Kiaei further testified that
`
`he hasn’t spent a lot of time analyzing that section of Ex. 1014. See id., (“Q. Is this
`
`3-bit value based on a -- on the C-REVERB signal? . . . THE WITNESS: Again, I
`
`haven’t spent a lot of time on this. What it says is that ‘shall report the level of C-
`
`REVERB’ based on the calculation on page 95 on what it's trying to do there. I will
`
`-- I can look at it, more details of it, and give you an answer, if you like.”). This is
`
`relevant to Dr. Kiaei’s declaration testimony that “[b]ecause Milbrandt, Chang and
`
`Hwang implement the technology standardized by ANSI T1.413, a POSITA would
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`IPR2016-01007
`Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`have referred to the ANSI T1.413 document for additional details about how the
`
`ADSL communication equipment should function in accordance with the standard”
`
`(Ex. 1009 at ¶ 106) and that “a POSITA would have measured PSD per sub-
`
`frequency in Milbrandt’s ADSL system based on Reverb to also comply with
`
`ANSI T1.413, which is a goal of Milbrandt (Ex. 1100 at ¶ 40). The testimony is
`
`relevant because it undermines Dr. Kiaei’s credibility and the accuracy of his
`
`declaration testimony that “PSD per sub-frequency in Milbrandt’s ADSL system
`
`based on Reverb” is for the individual subchannels of the communication channel.
`
`Id.
`
`Observation #8: In Ex. 2011, page 50, lines 8-15, with reference to the
`
`claim term “during Showtime,” Dr. Kiaei testified, inter alia, that “some of the
`
`initialization . . . is being done while data is being transmitted.” That testimony is
`
`relevant to Dr. Kaiei’s testimony during his first deposition where he testified that
`
`“Showtime is after the initialization with the first modem is turned on” (Ex. 2005
`
`at 56:22-24) and his declaration testimony at Ex. 1009 at ¶ 52 (“Showtime is used
`
`to describe the mode where the remote and the central office DSL modems can
`
`conduct normal communications over the access network.”) The testimony is
`
`relevant because it undermines Dr. Kiaei’s credibility and the accuracy of his
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`IPR2016-01007
`Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`opinion that Milbrandt discloses measuring Signal to Noise ratio per subchannel
`
`during Showtime information.
`
`Observation #9: In Ex. 2011 at page 62, lines 19 to page 63, line 18, in
`
`response to a line of questions regarding whether Milbrandt’s modem determined
`
`test and diagnostic information like attenuation “during operation” or “during
`
`Showtime,” Dr. Kiaei testified that he did not have an opinion on that topic. This
`
`testimony is relevant because it contradicts Dr. Kiaei’s declaration testimony that
`
`“it would have been obvious to a POSITA that the noise measurements gathered by
`
`Milbrandt’s modem 42 are obtained ‘during Showtime’ as claimed.” Ex. 1009 at
`
`pages 83-84. The testimony is relevant because it undermines the credibility and
`
`accuracy of Dr. Kaiei’s declaration opinions.
`
`Observation #10: In Ex. 2011 at pages 15, lines 2-10, Dr. Kiaei testified
`
`that “in general, a person with a background in mathematics and statistics would,
`
`and having a background in other areas” would qualify as a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art. This testimony is relevant to Dr. Kiaei declaration testimony that “the
`
`level of a POSITA needed to have the capability of understanding multicarrier
`
`communications and engineering principles applicable to the ‘412 patent is (i) a
`
`Master’s degree in Electrical and/or Computer Engineering, or equivalent training,
`
`and
`
`(ii) approximately
`
`five years of experience working
`
`in digital
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`IPR2016-01007
`Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`telecommunications. Lack of work experience can be remedied by additional
`
`education, and vice versa. Such academic and industry experience would be
`
`necessary to appreciate what was obvious and/or anticipated in the industry and
`
`what a POSITA would have thought and understood at the time.” Ex.1009 at ¶ 36.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Kaiei credibility and Dr. Kaiei’s obviousness
`
`analysis, specifically, evaluation of the patents and the pertinent art.
`
`Observation #11: In Ex. 2011 at page 88, lines 18-19, Dr. Kiaei agreed that
`
`the ‘956 patent specification does not equate channel and subchannel as
`
`interchangeable concepts. (“Q. Does it say channel is subchannel? A. Doesn’t
`
`necessarily say that either[.]”). And at page 86, lines 11-13, Dr. Kiaei testified that
`
`“the “’956 patent describes the collection of these subchannels into an effectively
`
`broadband communication channel, which is either an upstream or downstream
`
`channel[.]” This testimony is relevant because it undermines the credibility and
`
`accuracy of Dr. Kiaei’s declaration testimony relied upon in the institution decision
`
`(Paper 8 at p. 15) that “Milbrandt’s ‘sub-frequency’” “correspond[s] to the
`
`‘subchannel’ in the ‘956 patent.”
`
`Observation #12: In Ex. 2011 at page 45, line 10 to page 46, line 16, Dr.
`
`Kiaei, in response to a question if a POSITA would interchange “channel” and
`
`“subchannel” in the challenged claims, testified that it depends on the “content and
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`IPR2016-01007
`Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`application” of the specification. This is relevant to Dr. Kiaei’s declaration
`
`testimony criticizing Dr. Chrissan’s definition of subchannel, which does not
`
`interchange the two. See Ex. 1100 at ¶ 10. This testimony is relevant because it
`
`undermines the credibility and accuracy of Dr. Kiaei’s declaration testimony that
`
`Dr. Chrissan’s construction for “subchannel” is “confusing and circular.” Id.
`
`Observation #13: In Ex. 2011, page 173, line 24 to 174, line 10, on redirect,
`
`Dr. Kiaei testified as follows: “Q. And in the context of the ‘956 patent, are
`
`subchannels always carriers? A. In the context of ‘956, no, they’re not. Q. So it in
`
`context of the ‘956 patent, when is a subchannel a carrier? A. A subchannel which
`
`are non-overlapping of limited bandwidth are the carriers as outlined in the ‘956
`
`patent.” In Ex. 2011, page 180, lines 11-13, Dr. Kiaei further testified that in the
`
`context of the ‘956 patent: “Q. Can you have overlapping subchannels in DSL? A.
`
`No.” This testimony is relevant because Dr. Kiaei’s redirect testimony contradicts
`
`his direct testimony, and it undermines the credibility of Dr. Kiaei and his general
`
`understanding of the claimed “subchannels” and “channel.”
`
`Observation #14: In Ex. 2011, Dr. Kiaei testified that “a POSITA will
`
`know that [] V.90 occupies that frequency band from 0 to 4 kilohertz which is a
`
`subfrequency” (page 98 at lines 2-4) and “that the V.90 protocol uses a voice
`
`frequency spectrum which is in fact a subfrequency of the overall frequency
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`IPR2016-01007
`Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`spectrum. So what I’m talking about in here is that overall frequency spectrum – a
`
`portion of that is a subfrequency that the V.90 uses that” (page 98, lines 18-23).
`
`Separately, with reference to the figure at p. 13 of Dr. Kiaei’s declaration
`
`testimony (Ex. 1100), he testified that ADSL is allocated a “portion of the
`
`frequency spectrum” from 25 kilohertz to 1.1 MHz. Ex. 2011, 90:2-19 (“Q. Is that
`
`a portion of the frequency spectrum? A. That is a frequency spectrum that is
`
`allocated for ADSL from -- in this particular figure. Q. Yes. A. From 25 kilohertz
`
`to 1.5 -- 1.1 megahertz. Q. So it’s a portion of the frequency spectrum? . . . Q. Is it
`
`a portion of the frequency spectrum? A. You’re talking very general terminology
`
`here. This ADSL frequency covers 25 kilohertz to 11.04 kilohertz. That’s what I
`
`would call it.”). This testimony is relevant because it contradicts Dr. Kaiei’s
`
`contention that Milbrandt’s subfrequency is the claimed “subchannel.” This
`
`testimony is also relevant to Dr. Kiaei’s disagreement with Dr. Chrissan’s
`
`declaration testimony that “[b]ased on Milbrandt’s use of the term ‘sub-frequency,’
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the term refers to the upstream
`
`or downstream frequency bands in ADSL or to the frequency bands used for
`
`communication protocols other than ADSL (such as VDSL, SDSL or the voice
`
`spectrum protocols such as V.90.).” Ex. 2001 at ¶ 40.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`/Peter J. McAndrews/
`Peter J. McAndrews
`Registration No. 38,547
`McANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY,
`LTD.
`500 West Madison St., Suite 3400
`Chicago, IL 60661
`Telephone: (312) 775-8000
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`IPR2016-01007
`Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`Dated: July 5, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`IPR2016-01007
`Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion for Observation was served on July 5, 2017, via email to
`
`counsel for Petitioners at the following:
`
`Lead Counsel
`David L. McCombs
`HAYNES & BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave., Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`Tel. 214-651-5533
`Fax 214-200-0853
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`John M. Baird
`Duane Morris LLP
`505 9th St. NW, Ste 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel. 202-776-7819
`Fax 202-776-7801
`JMBaird@duanemorris.com
`
`
`
`MCANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Telephone: 312-775-8000
`
`
`Facsimile: 312-775-8100
`
`
`
`CUSTOMER NUMBER: 23446
`Date: July 5, 2017
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Theodore M. Foster
`Tel. 972-739-8649
`Gregory P. Huh
`Tel. 972-739-6939
`Russell Emerson
`Tel. 214-651-5328
`HAYNES & BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave., Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`Fax 972-692-9156
`ipr.theo.foster@haynesboone.com
`gregory.huh.ipr@haynesboone.com
`russell.emerson.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Christopher Tyson
`Duane Morris LLP
`505 9th St. NW, Ste 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel. 202-776-7819
`Fax 202-776-7801
`CJTyson@duanemorris.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Peter J. McAndrews/
`Peter J. McAndrews
`Registration No. 38,547
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket