UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., DISH NETWORK, LLC,
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`TIME WARNER CABLE ENTERPRISES LLC,
`VERIZON SERVICES CORP., and ARRIS GROUP, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________
`
`Case IPR2016-010081
`Patent 8,238,412 B2
`_____________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 DISH Network, LLC, who filed a Petition in IPR2017-00253, and Comcast Cable
`Communications, LLC, Cox Communications, Inc., Time Warner Cable
`Enterprises LLC, Verizon Services Corp., and ARRIS Group, Inc., who filed a
`Petition in IPR2017-00419, have been joined in this proceeding.
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, IPR2016-01008
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST .............................................................................. 4
`
`I. 
`
`Introduction ........................................................................................................ 7 
`
`II.  Claim Construction ............................................................................................ 7 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`“subchannel” ............................................................................................. 7 
`
`“during Showtime” .................................................................................... 9 
`
`III.  The Independent Claims Are Obvious ............................................................ 10 
`
`A.  Milbrandt teaches “power level per subchannel information”—
`independent claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 19-20 ................................................. 10 
`
`1.  Milbrandt’s “sub-frequency” teaches a “subchannel” .................... 11 
`
`2.  Milbrandt’s power spectrum density per sub-frequency teaches
`“power level per subchannel” ......................................................... 16 
`
`B.  Milbrandt in combination with ANSI T1.413 teaches “an array
`representing Signal to Noise Ratio per subchannel during Showtime
`information”—independent claims 13-14 ............................................... 18 
`
`1.  Milbrandt in combination with ANSI T1.413 teaches signal
`noise ratio (SNR) per “subchannel” ................................................ 18 
`
`2.  Milbrandt in combination with ANSI T1.413 teaches SNR
`“during Showtime” .......................................................................... 19 
`
`3.  ANSI T1.413’s measured “SNR” discloses “Signal to Noise
`Ratio…information” ........................................................................ 21 
`
`4.  ANSI T1.413’s “SNR margin test parameters” discloses
`“Signal to Noise Ratio…information” ............................................. 22 
`
`5.  There are numerous and distinct reasons to combine the
`teachings of Milbrandt and ANSI T1.413 to measure and
`transmit SNR during Showtime ...................................................... 23 
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, IPR2016-01008
`
`IV.  The Dependent Claims Are Also Obvious ...................................................... 26 
`
`A.  Dependent claims 2, 4, 6, and 8 .............................................................. 26 
`
`1.  Milbrandt in combination with ANSI T1.413 teaches that “the
`power level per subchannel information is based on a Reverb
`signal” ............................................................................................. 26 
`
`2.  There are numerous and distinct reasons to combine the
`teachings of Milbrandt and ANSI T1.413 to measure PSD
`based on a Reverb signal ................................................................. 29 
`
`V.  TQ Delta’s Attack on Dr. Kiaei Has No Merit ................................................ 32 
`
`VI.  Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 33 
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, IPR2016-01008
`
`PETITIONER’S UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST
`
`June 8, 2017
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,238,412 to Krinsky et al.
`
`1002 Prosecution File History of U.S. 8,432,956
`
`1003 Prosecution File History of U.S. 8,238,412
`
`1004 Prosecution File History of U.S. 7,835,430
`
`1005 Prosecution File History of U.S. 7,570,686
`
`1006 Prosecution File History of U.S. 6,658,052
`
`1007 U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/224,308
`
`1008 U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/174,865
`
`1009 Declaration of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`1010 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei
`
`1011 U.S. Patent No. 6,636,603 to Milbrandt
`
`1012 U.S. Patent No. 6,891,803 to Chang et al.
`
`1013 U.S. Patent No. 6,590,893 to Hwang et al.
`
`1014 ANSI T1.413-1995 Standard
`
`1015 Charles K. Summers, ADSL STANDARDS, IMPLEMENTATION, AND
`ARCHITECTURE (CRC Press 1999) (selected pages)
`
`1016 Walter Goralski, ADSL AND DSL TECHNOLOGIES (McGraw-Hill 1998)
`(selected pages)
`1017 Harry Newton, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, 16th Ed. (2000)
`(selected pages)
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, IPR2016-01008
`
`1018 Valerie Illingworth and John Daintith, THE FACTS ON FILE
`DICTIONARY OF COMPUTER SCIENCE (Market House Books 2001)
`(selected pages)
`
`1019 Thomas Starr, John M. Cioffi, Peter J. Silverman, Understanding
`Digital Subscriber Line Technology, (Prentice Hall 1999) (selected
`pages)
`
`1020 Andrew S. Tanenbaum, COMPUTER NETWORKS (Prentice Hall 1996)
`(selected pages)
`
`1021 B. P. Lathi, Modern Digital and Analog Communication Systems
`(Oxford University Press 1998) (selected pages)
`
`1022 Behzad Razavi, RF MICROELECTRONICS (Prentice Hall 1997) (selected
`pages)
`
`1023 Declaration of David Bader
`
`1100 Second Declaration of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`1101 George Abe, RESIDENTIAL BROADBAND (Cisco Press, Second Edition
`2000) (selected pages)
`
`1102 Martin Rowe, ADSL Testing Moves Out of the Lab (April 1, 1999)
`
`1103 Declaration of Robert Short
`
`1104 U.S. 6,625,219
`
`1105 U.S. 7,292,627
`
`1106 Douglas Chrissan, Uni-DSL: One DSL for Universal Service, White
`Paper (June 2004)
`
`1107 U.S. 6,374,288
`
`1108 Ata Elahi, Network Communications Technology (Delmar Thomson
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, IPR2016-01008
`
`Learning 2001) (selected pages)
`
`1109 FCC Filing for Alcatel Model 1000 ADSL Modem, 1999
`
`1110 Deposition Transcript of Douglas Chrissan
`
`1111 Second Declaration of David Bader
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, IPR2016-01008
`
`TQ Delta attempts to distinguish claims 1-9, 13-14, and 19-20 (the
`
`“Challenged Claims”) on three bases: (1) that Milbrandt does not teach “power
`
`level per subchannel information;” (2) that Milbrandt and ANSI T1.413 do not
`
`teach “power level per subchannel information [] based on a Reverb signal;” and
`
`(3) that Milbrandt and ANSI T1.413 do not teach “signal to noise ratio per
`
`subchannel during Showtime information.” Each of these arguments is incorrect.
`
`TQ Delta’s attempt to distinguish the prior art incorrectly relies on a narrow
`
`interpretation of “subchannel,” mischaracterizes Milbrandt’s disclosure of a “sub-
`
`frequency,” analyzes Milbrandt and ANSI T1.413 separately, and distorts the
`
`motivations for combining the references articulated in the Petition. For at least
`
`these reasons, TQ Delta’s arguments fail to refute the obviousness of the
`
`Challenged Claims.
`
`II.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`A.
`
`“subchannel”
`
`Because “subchannel” has a broad, well-understood meaning in the field of
`
`multicarrier communications, neither Cisco’s Petition nor the Board’s Decision on
`
`Institution offered a construction for the term. TQ Delta, however, in an attempt to
`
`differentiate the Challenged Claims from prior art, argues that “subchannel” should
`
`be construed as a “carrier of a multicarrier communication channel.” Resp. 8. But,
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, IPR2016-01008
`
`this construction is overly narrow and is contradicted by both the ‘412 patent
`
`specification and the testimony of TQ Delta’s own experts. The Board should
`
`reject TQ Delta’s proposal and, to the extent the Board believes it is necessary,2
`
`construe the term consistent with its broadest reasonable interpretation. Ex-1100,
`
`¶5.
`
`The entire basis for TQ Delta’s proposed construction is a single statement
`
`in the ‘412 patent that “carriers form discrete, non-overlapping communication
`
`subchannels of limited bandwidth.” Resp., 8 (citing Ex-1001, 1:44-45). In doing
`
`so, TQ Delta ignores other portions of the ‘412 patent that use the term “tone”
`
`interchangeably with “subchannel.” Ex-1001, 4:35-39; Ex-1100, ¶6. TQ Delta also
`
`ignores that both of its own experts testified that a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art (“POSITA”) would have understood the terms “subchannel,” “channel,”
`
`“carrier,” “subcarrier,” “band,” “subband,” “tone,” to be equivalent and
`
`interchangeable. Ex-1110, 43:13-49:15, 53:20-54:1; Ex-1103, ¶36.
`
`Cisco’s expert, Dr. Kiaei, similarly testified that “the term ‘subchannel’
`
`would [have been understood to be] equivalent and interchangeable with the terms
`
`‘tone,’ ‘carrier,’ ‘subcarrier,’ ‘channel,’ ‘band,’ and ‘sub-band.’” Ex-1100, ¶¶6-8;
`
`see also, Ex-1101, 69; Ex-1102, 3; Ex-1104, 1:41; Ex-1105, 1:36; Ex-1106, 13;
`
`
`2 See, Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir.
`1999).
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, IPR2016-01008
`
`Ex-1014, 46.3 Dr. Kiaei also testified that the term “‘sub-frequency,’ in the ADSL
`
`context, would be understood to be equivalent and interchangeable with the term
`
`‘subchannel.’” Ex-1100, ¶¶8-9; see also, Ex-1107, 1:29-33 (“sub-frequency”
`
`“channel”); Ex-1108, p. 108-109, (“subchannels” “subfrequency” “channel”); Ex-
`
`1011, 11:2-4. (“sub-frequency” “channel.”).
`
`TQ Delta’s proposed interpretation should also not be adopted because it is
`
`circular and confusing. The proposed interpretation refers to both a “carrier” and a
`
`“channel,” which as TQ Delta’s expert, Dr. Chrissan, testified are equivalent terms
`
`in the ADSL context. Ex-1110, 53:20-54:1 (“I personally…equate, channel [and]
`
`carrier.”); Ex-1100, ¶10.
`
`Therefore, as Dr. Kiaei explains, a POSITA after reviewing the patents at
`
`issue would have understood that the term “subchannel” includes a tone, carrier,
`
`subcarrier, band, sub-band, sub-frequency, or channel, of a multicarrier frequency
`
`spectrum. Ex-1100, ¶11. In this context, according to Dr. Kiaei, a “subchannel”
`
`would be understood to be “a portion of a frequency spectrum used for
`
`communication.” Id.
`
`B.
`“during Showtime”
`
`3 Petitioner’s evidence introduced in this Reply is responsive to arguments raised
`by TQ Delta and therefore proper. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Rules of Practice for
`Trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 77 Fed.Reg. 48,612, 48,620
`(Aug. 14, 2014); Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. Ltd. v BioMarin Pharm. Inc., 825
`F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, IPR2016-01008
`
`The Petition construed “during Showtime” because—as TQ Delta’s Dr.
`
`Chrissan conceded—it is a term of art specific to DSL technology. Ex-1110,
`
`79:21-24. Dr. Chrissan supplements Cisco’s construction and testifies that “during
`
`Showtime” is also applicable to “ITU-T G.992.1 and G.992.2 DSL” and the
`
`“ADSL2 and VDSL2” communication standards. Ex-2001, ¶31; Ex-1110, 80:2.
`
`Therefore, to the extent that revision is necessary, the term of art “during
`
`Showtime” should be construed as “during normal communications of a device
`
`compliant with the ANSI T1.413, ITU-T G.992.1, G.992.2, ADSL2, or VDSL2
`
`communication standards.” Ex-1100, ¶12.
`
`III. The Independent Claims Are Obvious
`
`TQ Delta does not dispute that a majority of the claim limitations of the
`
`independent claims were well known before the effective date of the ‘412 patent
`
`and are taught by the prior art. Resp., 10-11; Ex-1110, 39:7-11; 56:12-14; 57:1-5;
`
`67:8-13; 70:3-9; 73:6-22; and 135:9-136:9. The remaining disputes as to the
`
`independent claims are addressed below.
`
`A. Milbrandt teaches “power level per subchannel information”—
`independent claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 19-20
`
`TQ Delta argues that “power level per subchannel information” is not
`
`taught by Milbrandt because: (1) it “does not use the term ‘sub-frequency’ to refer
`
`to a multicarrier ‘subchannel,’” and (2) its “‘power spectrum density’ per sub-
`
`frequency [is] very different from the claimed ‘power level per subchannel.’”
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, IPR2016-01008
`
`Resp., 12-18. Both of these arguments mischaracterize Milbrandt and are
`
`incorrect. Ex-1100, ¶13.
`
`1. Milbrandt’s “sub-frequency” teaches a “subchannel”
`
`The Board already considered and correctly rejected TQ Delta’s argument
`
`that Milbrandt’s “sub-frequency” is not a “subchannel,” in the Decision on
`
`Institution. Paper 8, 16-17. Nevertheless, TQ Delta continues to mischaracterize
`
`Milbrandt as “refer[ing] to dividing the ADSL spectrum into ‘sub-frequencies’ for
`
`downstream and upstream transmission (i.e., large bands of frequencies).” Resp.,
`
`15. That is, TQ Delta asserts that a “sub-frequency” in Milbrandt refers to the
`
`whole upstream or downstream frequency spectrum. Ex-1100, ¶¶13, 21.
`
`TQ Delta is wrong. There is no dispute that Milbrandt describes
`
`“subchannels,” which Milbrandt refers to as “channels.” Ex-1011, 10:15-65. And
`
`Milbrandt equates these “channels” (which are “subchannels”) with “sub-
`
`frequencies.” Ex-1011, 11:2-6; Ex-1100, ¶14.
`
`a. Milbrandt’s “channel” is a “subchannel”
`
`Milbrandt’s ADSL modem uses DMT technology to divide the subscriber
`
`line into many individual “channels” and uses QAM “to transmit data in each
`
`channel simultaneously.” Ex-1011, 10:58-65. As Dr. Kiaei explains, “because
`
`Milbrandt uses discrete multitone technology to divide the ADSL frequency
`
`spectrum into channels, a POSITA would have understood that there would be, for
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, IPR2016-01008
`
`example, 256 tones/channels.” Ex-1100, ¶15; Ex-1013, 2:66-3:5.
`
`Furthermore, “a POSITA would understand that Milbrandt is describing how
`
`its ADSL modem performs QAM modulation on each of the individual 256
`
`tones/channels to transmit the data simultaneously as a single signal. In ADSL,
`
`QAM does not operate on the upstream or downstream frequency spectrum as a
`
`whole—it operates at the tone/channel level.” Ex-1100, ¶¶15-17.
`
`Dr. Chrissan agrees with this understanding, testifying that he
`
`“personally…equate[s] channel [and] subchannel” and conceding that, in
`
`Milbrandt’s ANSI T1.413 standard compliant device, "the QAM modulation is
`
`performed on each individual subchannel.” Ex-1110, 53:20-54:1, 62:2-3, 65:6-
`
`12; Resp., 28 n.2 (TQ Delta agreeing that Milbrandt “complie[s] with the ANSI
`
`T1.413 standard.”)
`
`Accordingly, it is undisputed that Milbrandt’s “channel” is the smallest
`
`division of the data transmission in a multicarrier communication system that uses
`
`DMT, and therefore discloses a “subchannel,” as construed by TQ Delta. Ex-
`
`1100, ¶18.
`
`b. Milbrandt’s “channel” (which is a “subchannel”) is a
`“sub-frequency”
`
`Milbrandt continues and explains that the frequency range from 25 kHz to
`
`1.1 MHz is divided into sub-frequencies and that “[e]ach sub-frequency is an
`
`independent channel.” Ex-1011, 11:2-10. As Dr. Kiaei testifies, “here Milbrandt
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, IPR2016-01008
`
`equates the earlier discussed ‘channel’ of ADSL modem (which is a ‘subchannel’)
`
`with a ‘sub-frequency’ and that each independent sub-frequency/channel is a
`
`discrete non-overlapping portion of a multicarrier frequency spectrum from 25 kHz
`
`to 1.1 MHz.” Ex-1100, ¶19. Therefore, Milbrandt’s “sub-frequency” is a
`
`“subchannel.” Id.
`
`This understanding is further confirmed by Milbrandt’s statement that “the
`
`sub-channels are divided into groups and one group of channels is allocated for
`
`the uplink transmission of data and the other for the downlink transmission of
`
`data.” Ex-1011, 11:2-10. As Dr. Kiaei explains, “Milbrandt provides a ‘group of
`
`channels’ for uplink and another ‘group of channels’ for downlink transmission.
`
`This further demonstrates that Milbrandt’s sub-frequency/channel is not the whole
`
`upstream and downstream frequency spectrum.” Ex-1100, ¶¶20-21.
`
`Dr. Kiaei illustrates Milbrandt’s ADSL frequency spectrum using the below
`
`figure, which demonstrates that the terms “channel,” “sub-channel,” and “sub-
`
`frequency” are used interchangeably.
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, IPR2016-01008
`
`“DMT technology to divide the bandwidth...into many individual
`… channels.” Ex-1011, 10:58-63
`
`“subchannels are divided into groups
`“subchannels are divided into
`and...other [group of channels is
`groups and one group of channels is
`
`allocated] for the downlink.” Ex-1011,
`allocated for the uplink” Ex-1011,
`11:6-10
`11:6-10
`
`
`
`“frequency range from 25 kHz to 1.1 MHz...divided into sub-frequencies.
`Each sub-frequency is an independent channel.” Ex-1011, 11:2-5
`
`
`
`Ex-1100, ¶¶22-24. As shown above, the terms sub-frequency/channel describe a
`
`discrete non-overlapping portion (e.g., one of 256 carriers) of a frequency
`
`spectrum from 25 kHz to 1.1 MHz that uses DMT/QAM modulation for
`
`communication. Id.
`
`Therefore—even under TQ Delta’s narrow construction—Milbrandt’s “sub-
`
`frequency” discloses a “subchannel.” Ex-1100, ¶24.
`
`c.
`
`V.90 protocol is an alternative to ADSL protocol
`
`TQ Delta further argues that Milbrandt’s disclosure of a “sub-frequency”
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, IPR2016-01008
`
`does not teach a “subchannel” because, allegedly, Milbrandt also uses the term
`
`“sub-frequency” to describe the “voice frequency spectrum using the
`
`V.90…protocol.” Resp. 15. This argument misses the point since “the V.90
`
`protocol is an alternative to the ADSL protocol (Milbrandt’s primary
`
`embodiment), and uses the POTS frequency range of 0-4kHz (which is
`
`approximately the size of one channel).” Ex-1100, ¶25; see also, Ex-1110, 142:2-5
`
`(Dr. Chrissan admitting that “V.90 [is an] alternative protocol[]”); Ex-1011,
`
`11:58-64. The voice frequency spectrum for V.90 is a “sub-frequency” of the
`
`overall frequency spectrum. Ex-1100, ¶25. And since the V.90 protocol is only
`
`used as an alternative to the ADSL protocol, its use of the term “sub-frequency” in
`
`the context of the V.90 protocol has no bearing on Milbrandt’s use of that term in
`
`the context of the ADSL protocol. Id.
`
`d. Milbrandt’s Figure 3 example is not limiting
`
`TQ Delta also argues that Milbrandt’s “sub-frequency” is not the same as a
`
`“subchannel,” because Milbrandt’s Figure 3 illustrates six columns of “sub-
`
`frequencies” instead of 256 sub-frequencies normally used for ADSL
`
`communication. Resp., 16. But this argument distorts Milbrandt’s overall
`
`teachings. Milbrandt plainly states that “FIG. 3 illustrates one example of
`
`subscriber line information.” Ex-1011, 3:51-52. Rather than being limited to this
`
`one example, Milbrandt discloses that there are “many individual...channels” and
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, IPR2016-01008
`
`that “[e]ach sub-frequency is an independent channel,” without providing an upper
`
`limit of how many sub-frequencies/channels are used. Ex-1011, 10:58-11: 4; Ex-
`
`1100, ¶26. Indeed, TQ Delta’s declarant, Dr. Chrissan, testified that “a person of
`
`skill in the art would not interpret this to mean exactly six columns” and TQ Delta
`
`provides no credible reason to deviate from that understanding. Ex-2001, ¶44. Dr.
`
`Kiaei concurred, testifying that “a POSITA would have understood that Milbrandt
`
`is not limited to the example illustrated in Figure 3 and that in fact includes many
`
`individual sub-channels/channels/sub-frequencies (e.g., 256 normally used ADSL
`
`communication).” Ex-1100, ¶26. Thus, the Figure 3 example does not limit the
`
`number of Milbrandt’s sub-frequencies. Ex-1100, ¶27.
`
`2. Milbrandt’s power spectrum density per sub-frequency teaches
`“power level per subchannel”
`
`TQ Delta’s second point—that Milbrandt’s power spectrum density (PSD) 4
`
`per sub-frequency is different from “power level per subchannel”—continues with
`
`the mischaracterization of the first point. That is, TQ Delta perpetuates its
`
`mischaracterization of Milbrandt’s “sub-frequencies” as “large bands of
`
`frequencies” used for downstream and upstream transmission, by arguing that
`
`Milbrandt’s PSD per sub-frequency represents the “power level over a wide swath
`
`of subchannels.” Resp., 15, 18-19; Ex-1100, ¶28.
`
`
`4 TQ Delta does not dispute that “power spectral density” represents “power level,”
`per se.
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, IPR2016-01008
`
`As discussed above, Milbrandt’s “sub-frequency” is a “subchannel,” even
`
`under TQ Delta’s narrow construction. Section III.A.1, supra. And as discussed
`
`in the Petition, Milbrandt’s PSD per sub-frequency is representative of how much
`
`power the signal carries in that sub-frequency/subchannel. Pet., 34; Ex-1009, p.
`
`59-60. Power and PSD are related as each other’s integral and derivative. Ex-
`
`1100, ¶29. That is, PSD is simply the derivative, with respect to frequency, of
`
`power. As Dr. Kiaei explains, a POSITA would have understood that the “power
`
`level in Milbrandt’s sub-frequency is represented by the integral of measured PSD
`
`across that sub-frequency,” as given by the following equation:
`
`
`
`where:
`Power Level between ω1 and ω2 is ΔPg;
`PSD is Sg;
`ω1 is the lower frequency bound; and
`ω2 is upper frequency bound.
`
`Ex-1100, ¶29; Ex-1021, pp. 126-127. TQ Delta’s expert, Dr. Chrissan, confirmed
`
`this understanding. Ex-1110, 104:2-15. (“Q. And so if you integrated the power
`
`spectral density function from Frequency 1 to Frequency 2 what you would end up
`
`with is a measure of power expressed in units of power such as watts or dBm,
`
`right? A. If you did that, you would have a measure of power of a signal from
`
`Frequency F1 to Frequency F2 as you described.”) When Milbrandt’s PSD sub-
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, IPR2016-01008
`
`frequency is integrated across its respective range of 4.3125 kHz, the power level
`
`for that sub-frequency is obtained. Ex-1100, ¶30; Ex-1009, ¶70; Ex-1013, 3:3-5.
`
`Therefore, Milbrandt’s PSD per sub-frequency does in fact “represent[]
`
`power level per subchannel information.” Ex-1100, ¶31.
`
`B. Milbrandt in combination with ANSI T1.413 teaches “an array
`representing Signal to Noise Ratio per subchannel during Showtime
`information”—independent claims 13-14
`
`TQ Delta’s expert, Dr. Chrissan, concedes that measuring “Signal to Noise
`
`Ratio per subchannel during Showtime information,” was not a novel aspect of the
`
`‘412 patent. Ex-1110, 121:3-125:14-16. Notwithstanding the admitted lack of
`
`novelty, TQ Delta presents four meritless arguments regarding this limitation. Ex-
`
`1100, ¶¶41-42.
`
`1. Milbrandt in combination with ANSI T1.413 teaches signal noise
`ratio (SNR) per “subchannel”
`
`TQ Delta perpetuates its earlier mischaracterization and argues that “none of
`
`the asserted references, alone or in combination, teach measuring any noise or
`
`signal to noise ratio parameters on a ‘per subchannel’ basis, as opposed to on an
`
`entire communication channel.” Resp., 24. This is incorrect. Ex-1100, ¶43.
`
`As discussed above, Milbrandt’s “sub-frequency” discloses a “subchannel,”
`
`even under TQ Delta’s narrow construction. Section III.A.1, supra. And the
`
`Petition explained that Milbrandt measures noise information on a per sub-
`
`frequency basis. Pet., 44-45; Ex-1100, ¶44.
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, IPR2016-01008
`
`Further, the Petition relied on ANSI T1.413’s “signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)
`
`margin test parameters” and also on “SNR, as measured” to show SNR per
`
`subchannel information. Pet., 45. TQ Delta’s expert, Dr. Chrissan conceded that
`
`ANSI T1.413 measures “SNR for each tone” and that a “tone [is] the same as [a]
`
`subchannel.” Ex-1110, 88:5-7, 125:23-126:12, 127:13-15. Therefore, ANSI
`
`T1.413 also teaches measuring SNR per “subchannel.” Ex-1100, ¶¶45-46.
`
`2. Milbrandt in combination with ANSI T1.413 teaches SNR “during
`Showtime”
`
`TQ Delta also argues that “[t]he asserted references also fail to
`
`teach...measuring SNR ‘during Showtime.’” Resp., 25. This argument also lacks
`
`merit. Ex-1100, ¶47.
`
`The Petition cited to Milbrandt at 12:58-63 in support of the position that
`
`noise is measured “during Showtime.” Pet., 44; Ex-1011, 12:58-63. TQ Delta
`
`ignores these cited portions and identifies other portions in Milbrandt in asserting
`
`that Milbrandt does not teach “during Showtime.” Resp., 25-26. The Board
`
`already rejected this argument in its Decision on Institution, noting that “Patent
`
`Owner does not address this argument presented by Petitioner, but rather highlights
`
`a different disclosure of Milbrandt unrelated to Petitioner’s argument, and,
`
`therefore, Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive.” Paper 8, 23. TQ Delta
`
`presents no evidence to alter the Board’s earlier determination. See Resp., 25-26
`
`(Section IV.C.2, only citing to Dr. Chrissan’s declaration, Ex-2001, ¶31, for the
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, IPR2016-01008
`
`construction of “Showtime.”) As Dr. Kiaei explains, “a POSITA would have
`
`understood that Milbrandt measures noise information during and after
`
`initialization; that is, also ‘during Showtime.’” Ex-1100, ¶47. Thus, Milbrandt
`
`teaches measuring noise information “during Showtime.” Id.
`
`TQ Delta also argues that “Petitioner alleges that ANSI T1.413 discloses
`
`measuring ‘signal to noise ratio’ (but not necessarily during Showtime).” Resp.,
`
`25-26. TQ Delta once again ignores the Petition. The Petition relied on ANSI
`
`T1.413’s teaching of both “signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) margin test parameters” and
`
`“SNR, as measured.” Pet., 45-46. First, the Petition explained that “ANSI T1.413
`
`discloses making ‘signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) margin test parameters’ available ‘at
`
`any other time following the execution of initialization and training sequence of
`
`the ADSL system.’” Pet., 46; Ex-1014, 82. Since SNR margin test parameters
`
`(which represent SNR per subchannel as discussed in the Petition and in Section
`
`III.B.3, infra) are made available to the central office modem “at any other time
`
`following the execution of initialization and training sequence of the ADSL
`
`system,” ANSI T1.413 renders obvious “during Showtime.” Ex-1100, ¶49.
`
`Second, the Petition also explained that “ANSI T1.413 [discloses that]
`
`‘SNR, as measured by the receivers at... the ATU-R shall be externally accessible
`
`from the ATU-C’” Pet., 46; Ex-1014, 82. That SNR is measured “during
`
`Showtime” is made clear by ANSI T1.413, which describes unused “sub-carriers
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, IPR2016-01008
`
`where no data are currently to be transmitted, but the receiver may allocate bits
`
`later (e.g., as a result of SNR improvement.)” Ex-1014, 108, 111. Dr. Kiaei
`
`testified that a “POSITA would have understood that SNR per tone is being
`
`measured ‘during Showtime,’ to identify SNR improvement and then allocate bits
`
`to previously unused sub-carriers.” Ex-1100, ¶50; see also Ex-1014, 106 (“SNR
`
`for each tone”); id., 109-110; Ex-1110, 125:23-126:12 (Dr. Chrissan conceding
`
`that ANSI T1.413 measures “SNR for each tone.”)
`
`As Dr. Kiaei further explains, “since ANSI T1.413 states that ‘SNR, as
`
`measured by the receivers at...the ATU-R shall be externally accessible from the
`
`ATU-C,’ a POSITA would have understood that this is an imperative requirement
`
`of making the measured SNR per tone available to the ATU-C on demand during
`
`Showtime. Modem initialization and training does not require making externally
`
`accessible measured SNR at the central office modem.” Ex-1100, ¶51; Ex-1014,
`
`82. Thus, ANSI T1.413’s measurement of SNR per tone is also “during
`
`Showtime.” Ex-1100, ¶52.
`
`3.
`
`ANSI T1.413’s measured “SNR” discloses “Signal to Noise
`Ratio…information”
`
`TQ Delta additionally argues that Cisco “fails to point to any reference that
`
`discloses measuring ‘signal to noise ratio’ (‘SNR’).” Resp., 27. This is incorrect
`
`since Dr. Chrissan conceded that ANSI T1.413 measures “SNR for each tone” and
`
`that a “tone [is a] subchannel.” Ex-1110, 88:5-7, 125:23-127:15.
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, IPR2016-01008
`
`Further, TQ Delta’s argument is based on the incorrect premise that ANSI
`
`T1.413 uses the terms “SNR margin” and “SNR” interchangeably. Resp., 27; Ex-
`
`2001, ¶64; Ex-1100, ¶53. Again, Cisco relied on both “signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)
`
`margin test parameters” and measured “SNR,” as taught by ANSI T1.413, to teach
`
`“Signal to Noise Ratio…information.” Pet., 45-46. Dr. Kiaei explains that
`
`“although ‘SNR margin’ is representative of ‘SNR,’ these two terms are in fact
`
`distinct concepts, and a POSITA would have understood that ANSI T1.413 at page
`
`82, which I relied upon in my first declaration, neither uses these terms
`
`interchangeably nor does it abbreviate ‘SNR margin’ as simply ‘SNR.’” Ex-1100,
`
`¶¶54-56. Interchanging or abbreviating “the term ‘SNR margin’ as simply
`
`‘SNR’…would cause confusion to engineers applying the standard.” Id. TQ
`
`Delta’s expert, Dr. Chrissan agreed. Ex-1110, 111:11-14 (“a POSITA at the time
`
`understands that SNR and SNR margin are different concepts.”), 112:2-4 (“Q.
`
`Would a POSITA use the terms SNR margin and SNR interchangeably? A. No, a
`
`POSITA would not.”)
`
`Therefore, since TQ Delta only argues about “SNR Margin” (discussed
`
`further below), it is undisputed that ANSI T1.413’s measured “SNR,” as relied on
`
`in the Petition, teaches “Signal to Noise Ratio…information.” Ex-1100, ¶57.
`
`4.
`
`ANSI T1.413’s “SNR margin test parameters” discloses “Signal to
`Noise Ratio…information”
`
`Further, TQ Delta’s argument that a POSITA “would not...say that an array
`
`22
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, IPR2016-01008
`
`containing SNR margin values is an array representing SNR itself,” is wrong.
`
`Resp., 27. As Dr. Kiaei explains, “in ANSI T1.413, SNR margin test parameters
`
`are back off from the maximum SNR in each subchannel.” Ex-1100, ¶58. “SNR
`
`margin is determined by measuring SNR per subchannel and subtracting from that
`
`measured SNR an SNR required value that is function of the number of bits
`
`allocated for that subchannel.” Ex-1100, ¶54. Accordingly, and “contrary to TQ
`
`Delta’s assertion, an array of SNR margin test parameters would in fact represent
`
`SNR per subchannel.” Ex-1100, ¶58. Thus, ANSI T1.413’s “SNR margin test
`
`parameters” also discloses the “Signal to Noise Ratio…information.” Id.
`
`5.
`
`There are numerous and distinct reasons to combine the teachings
`of Milbrandt and ANSI T1.413 to measure and transmit SNR
`during Showtime
`
`TQ Delta also argues that there is no valid rationale for why it would have
`
`been obvious to combine Milbrandt and ANSI T1.413 to transmit an array
`
`representing SNR information in Milbrandt’s multicarrier transceiver. Resp., 28.
`
`According to TQ Delta, there is no reason to combine because, allegedly,
`
`Milbrandt alone can already facilitate system testing, and improve signal quality
`
`and reliability with the SNR calculated “at the central office modem.” Resp., 29-
`
`30. This argument misses the point. Ex-1100, ¶59.
`
`In the proposed combination, by measuring SNR at the subscriber’s modem
`
`and then transmitting SNR to the central office modem, both modems can take
`
`23
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, IPR2016-01008
`
`action. Indeed, the Petition explained that it would have been obvious “to have
`
`Milbrandt’s subscriber modem to determine and transmit to the central office
`
`modem its SNR on demand (as ANSI T1.413 teaches), because [1] it would
`
`facilitate system testing, [2] improve signal quality [3] and reliability, and [4]
`
`allow for Milbrandt’s system to comply with the ANSI T1.413 standard.” Pet., 26;
`
`Ex-1100, ¶60.
`
`By measuring SNR at the subscriber modem as ANSI T1.413 teaches, the
`
`modem can perform bit swapping to allocate bits on sub-carriers based on SNR.
`
`Pet., 42; Ex-1014, 108; Ex-1110, 117:12-119:5 (Dr. Chrissan conceding this
`
`point). As Dr. Kiaei explains, “a POSITA would have understood that by
`
`allocating more bits on sub-carriers when SNR improves, throughput is maximized
`
`and the perceived signal quality improves and by allocating less bits on sub-
`
`carriers when SNR degrades, reliability is maximized since potential error rates are
`
`reduced.” Ex-1100, ¶61; see also E