`
`
`
`
`
`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 RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR
`OBSERVATION ON CROSS-EXAMINATION TESTIMONY
`
`
`
`
`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 Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`IPR2016-01008
`This response is submitted in view of the Scheduling Order (Paper 9); the
`
`Notice of Parties’ Stipulation Regarding Scheduling Order, submitted June 28,
`
`2017 (Paper 23); and the Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48767–68
`
`(Aug. 14, 2012). This paper responds to Patent Owner’s Corrected Motion for
`
`Observation on Cross-examination (Paper 33) filed on July 5, 2017, in the present
`
`inter partes review. Patent Owner presented fourteen (14) observations on the
`
`June 26, 2017, deposition testimony of Dr. Kiaei (Ex. 2011). Although Petitioner
`
`responds to each of Patent Owner’s observations below, the Board should deny
`
`Patent Owner’s motion because the observations contain at least one of the
`
`following deficiencies: (1) they fail to identify the relevant issue; (2) they are not
`
`relevant to any issue; (3) they include attorney argument, and; (4) they
`
`mischaracterize Dr. Kiaei’s testimony.
`
`Response to Observation 1:
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s observation omits relevant testimony pertaining to the term
`
`“subchannel” in the ‘956 patent (which shares a common specification with the
`
`‘412 patent at issue). Specifically, Dr. Kiaei testified that based on the ‘956
`
`patent’s disclosure at “Column 1, lines 47 to 49” (which corresponds to the ‘412
`
`patent at 1:44-45), “only subchannels that are discrete, nonoverlapping, and have
`
`limited bandwidth are carriers.” Ex. 2011, 173:24-174:17. This testimony is
`
`consistent with Dr. Kiaei’s declaration testimony that in the context of the ‘412
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`IPR2016-01008
`
`patent, “a ‘subchannel’ would be understood to be ‘a portion of a frequency
`
`spectrum used for communication.’” Ex. 1100, ¶11. Furthermore, as to the
`
`relevance of this testimony to Milbrandt, Dr. Kiaei explained that Milbrandt’s
`
`“sub-frequency” teaches the claimed “subchannel,” “even under TQ Delta’s
`
`narrow construction.” Ex. 1100, ¶¶15-24.
`
`Response to Observation 2:
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s observation includes attorney argument, which
`
`mischaracterizes that Dr. Kiaei “testified that subbands and carriers are not the
`
`same” and that “Dr. Kiaei contradicts himself.” To the contrary, nowhere does Dr.
`
`Kiaei “testif[y] that subbands and carriers are not the same.” Dr. Kiaei merely
`
`quoted Exhibit 1101 at 69, which states that “there are 256 subbands” and no
`
`distinction was made between ADSL carriers and subbands. Ex. 2011, 21:6-11.
`
`(“Q. So you said here, and I quote, ‘We're not talking about carriers right now.
`
`We're talking about 256 subbands.’ So you make a distinction between carriers and
`
`subbands? A. No, that's not -- specifically, I was just reading what they [Exhibit
`
`1101 at 69] said.”)
`
`Response to Observation 3:
`
`Patent Owner’s observation omits relevant testimony pertaining to the term
`
`“subchannel.” Specifically, Dr. Kiaei testified that based on the ‘956 patent’s
`
`disclosure at “Column 1, lines 47 to 49,” subchannels are not always carriers and
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`IPR2016-01008
`
`that “only subchannels that are discrete, nonoverlapping, and have limited
`
`bandwidth are carriers.” Ex. 2011, 173:24-174:17. Dr. Kiaei’s deposition
`
`testimony is consistent with his declaration testimony since in the context of the
`
`‘412 patent, “a ‘subchannel’ would be understood to be ‘a portion of a frequency
`
`spectrum used for communication.’” Ex. 1100, ¶11. Furthermore, as to the
`
`relevance of this testimony to Milbrandt, Dr. Kiaei explained that Milbrandt’s
`
`“sub-frequency” teaches the claimed “subchannel,” “even under TQ Delta’s
`
`narrow construction.” Ex. 1100, ¶¶15-24.
`
`Response to Observation 4:
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s observation mischaracterizes the cited testimony.
`
`Specifically, and contrary to Patent Owner’s observation, the question was not “if a
`
`subchannel is associated with a frequency” but rather “is that the frequency
`
`associated with that subchannel?” Ex. 2011, 84:16-17. Regardless, Dr. Kiaei’s
`
`cited deposition testimony is consistent with his declaration in Ex. 1009, ¶67 and
`
`¶69; Ex. 1100, ¶6 Moreover, Patent Owner’s experts, Dr. Chrissan and Dr. Short,
`
`similarly testified that, in the ADSL context, the terms at issue were used
`
`interchangeably. Ex. 1103, ¶36; Ex. 1110, 53:20-54:1.
`
`Response to Observation 5:
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s observation is consistent and actually reaffirms Dr. Kiaei’s
`
`declaration testimony, as evidenced by testimony omitted by Patent Owner. Ex.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`IPR2016-01008
`
`2011, 33:12-22 (“A. … Elahi actually reaffirms other terminologies that uses as
`
`well for the same thing. As you read on page 108, it says that ‘ADSL uses discrete
`
`multitone encoding methods which use QAM to divide the bandwidth of the
`
`channel into multiple subchannels and each channel which is now the subchannel.’
`
`So it's interchanging channel and subchannels transmitting information using QAM
`
`modulation.”) Regardless, the testimony cited by Patent Owner is not relevant
`
`since Dr. Kiaei’s combination relies on Milbrandt—not Elahi.
`
`Response to Observation 6:
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s cited deposition testimony pertains to a specific example in
`
`the ANSI T1.413 (related to the maximum value of PSD) that is not relevant to Dr.
`
`Kiaei’s declaration, which relied on other portions of the ANSI T1.413 standard.
`
`Further, Patent Owner mischaracterizes the cited testimony in presenting attorney
`
`argument that allegedly Dr. Kiaei testified that the communicated PSD “could be a
`
`single value for the entire upstream or downstream channel”—in fact, he testified
`
`that it is for a “portion” of the upstream or downstream. Ex. 2011, 106:7-8.
`
`Moreover, Patent Owner omits clear testimony that PSD is not a single value for
`
`the entire upstream or downstream channel. Ex. 2011, 113:21-114:4 (“Q. Do you
`
`agree that that 3-bit value is for the entire upstream or downstream channel? ...
`
`THE WITNESS: All it's saying here is talking about C-REVERB1 reporting the
`
`bits representing the power spectral density of that. It doesn't talk about the entire
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`IPR2016-01008
`
`upstream or downstream issues in here.”); see also, id., 117:9-25 (“PSD is not a
`
`single value for the entire spectrum. What PSD in here is that -- is a level of power
`
`for each one of the subchannels that are going downstream being sent on C-
`
`REVERB1. So ATU-C is telling ATU-R the level of power PSD per each one of
`
`the subchannels...you cannot have a single number for the entire bandwidth.”)
`
`Response to Observation 7:
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s cited deposition testimony pertains to a specific example in
`
`the ANSI T1.413 (related to the maximum value of PSD) that is not relevant to Dr.
`
`Kiaei’s declaration, which relied on other portions of the ANSI T1.413 standard.
`
`Further, Patent Owner omits clear testimony from Dr. Kiaei that PSD is not a
`
`single value for the entire upstream or downstream channel. Ex. 2011, 117:9-25
`
`(“PSD is not a single value for the entire spectrum. What PSD in here is that -- is a
`
`level of power for each one of the subchannels that are going downstream being
`
`sent on C-REVERB1...you cannot have a single number for the entire bandwidth.”)
`
`Also, Dr. Kiaei’s credibility and the accuracy of his statement that “a POSITA
`
`would have measured PSD per subfrequency in Milbrandt’s ADSL system based
`
`on Reverb to also comply with ANSI T1.413” is supported by Alcatel’s FCC filing
`
`of figures illustrating PSD based on Reverb per subchannel that complies with
`
`ANSI T1.413 power requirements. Ex. 1100, ¶39 (citing Ex.1109, 3 FIG. 5.6.).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`IPR2016-01008
`
`Response to Observation 8:
`
`
`
`Dr. Kiaei’s deposition testimony is consistent with his declaration since
`
`initialization functions, such as measuring SNR, can occur during Showtime. Ex.
`
`2011, 51:2-8 (“Q. So initialization continues during Showtime? THE WITNESS:
`
`Some of the procedures for looking at SNL [sic] degradation, for example, looking
`
`at the other issues that may come up in the transmission and communication
`
`between ATU-C and ATU-R…there is still some training- and initialization-type
`
`processes going on, yes.”); see also, Ex. 2011, 49:15-50:15. Furthermore, as to the
`
`relevance of this testimony to Milbrandt, Dr. Kiaei explained that “Milbrandt
`
`measures noise information… after initialization.” Ex. 1100, ¶48.
`
`Response to Observation 9:
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s observation includes attorney argument, which
`
`mischaracterizes that “Dr. Kiaei testified that he did not have an opinion on the
`
`topic” of “whether Milbrandt’s modem determined test and diagnostic information
`
`… ‘during Showtime.’” The testimony indicates otherwise. Ex. 2011, 62:24-63:4
`
`(“Q. So it is your understanding as an expert in DSL that a modem can determine
`
`attenuation while it is transmitting and receiving data? A. I -- there are
`
`possibilities, yeah. I don't -- yes, there are possible ways to do that.”) Only when
`
`asked “How would you do it?” did Dr. Kiaei answer that it was “outside of the
`
`scope of this” and did not provide an opinion. Ex. 2011, 63:5-17. Furthermore,
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`IPR2016-01008
`
`the cited testimony in Patent Owner’s observation is a general statement unrelated
`
`to the specific teachings in Milbrandt that Petitioner relied upon.
`
`Response to Observation 10:
`
`Patent Owner’s observation includes attorney argument, which
`
`mischaracterizes the cited testimony. Dr. Kiaei never said that a person with a
`
`background in mathematics and statistics “would qualify as a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art.” When the question was posed, and after providing qualifiers, Dr.
`
`Kiaei stated that such a person would understand some of the concepts. Ex. 2011,
`
`15:20-24 (“I don't have Mr. Abe's -- Mr. Abe's resume in front of me, but in
`
`general, a person with a background in mathematics and statistics would, and
`
`having a background in other areas related to that would understand some of the
`
`concepts that are discussed here”). To the point, Dr. Kiaei testified that he was not
`
`changing his definition of a POSITA. Ex. 2011, 15:12-17. (“Q. So are you
`
`changing your definition of a 13 POSITA then? A. No, I'm not.” “Q. So you're
`
`supplementing your definition of a POSITA then? A. No, I'm not, Counsel.”)
`
`Response to Observation 11:
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s observation includes attorney argument which
`
`mischaracterizes the cited testimony. Dr. Kiaei never “agreed that the ‘956 patent
`
`specification…does not equate channel and subchannel.” To the contrary, Dr.
`
`Kiaei testified that “[a] POSITA will also understand that terminology used here
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`IPR2016-01008
`
`for a broadband communication channel, which is the DSL upstream or
`
`downstream channels, could also be said as an upstream subchannel and
`
`downstream subchannel.” Ex. 2011, 86:16-24. This is also consistent with Dr.
`
`Chrissan’s testimony that he “personally in appropriate contexts equate[s], channel,
`
`subchannel, carrier, and subcarrier. I believe that other people in appropriate
`
`contexts would equate any of those four terms as well.” Ex-1110, 53:20-54:1.
`
`Further, Dr. Kiaei testified that based on the ‘956 patent’s disclosure at “Column 1,
`
`lines 47 to 49” (which corresponds to the ‘412 patent at 1:44-45), subchannels are
`
`not always carriers and that “only subchannels that are discrete, nonoverlapping,
`
`and have limited bandwidth are carriers.” Ex. 2011, 173:24-174:17. Furthermore,
`
`as to the relevance of this testimony to Milbrandt, Dr. Kiaei explained that
`
`Milbrandt’s “sub-frequency” teaches the claimed “subchannel,” “even under TQ
`
`Delta’s narrow construction.” Ex. 1100, ¶¶15-24.
`
`Response to Observation 12:
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s cited deposition testimony is consistent with Dr. Kiaei’s
`
`declaration testimony that “the terms ‘tone,’ ‘carrier,’ ‘subcarrier,’ ‘channel,’
`
`‘band,’ ‘sub-band’…‘subfrequency,’ in the ADSL context, would also be
`
`understood to be equivalent and interchangeable with the term ‘subchannel.’” Ex.
`
`1100, ¶6. This is also consistent with Dr. Chrissan’s testimony that he “personally
`
`in appropriate contexts equate[s], channel, subchannel, carrier, and subcarrier. I
`
`9
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`IPR2016-01008
`
`believe that other people in appropriate contexts would equate any of those four
`
`terms as well.” Ex-1110, 53:20-54:1. Moreover, the fact that these terms are
`
`admittedly equivalent and interchangeable, in the ADSL context, confirms Dr.
`
`Kiaei’s position that Patent Owner’s construction for “subchannel” is “confusing
`
`and circular.” Ex. 1100 at ¶ 10.
`
`Response to Observation 13:
`
`
`
`The cited testimony in Patent Owner’s observation is consistent with Dr.
`
`Kiaei’s declaration. Specifically, Dr. Kiaei testified that “[a] POSITA will also
`
`understand that terminology used here for a broadband communication channel,
`
`which is the DSL upstream or downstream channels, could also be said as an
`
`upstream subchannel and downstream subchannel.” Ex. 2011, 86:16-24. Dr. Kiaei
`
`additionally testified that based on the ‘956 patent’s disclosure “Column 1, lines 47
`
`to 49” (which corresponds to the ‘412 patent at 1:44-45), subchannels are not
`
`always carriers and that “only subchannels that are discrete, nonoverlapping, and
`
`have limited bandwidth are carriers.” Ex. 2011, 173:24-174:17. Only when asked
`
`specifically with respect to “subchannels in DSL” context, did Dr. Kiaei testify that
`
`the subchannels do not overlap. Ex. 2011, 180:11-13. As such, Dr. Kiaei’s
`
`deposition testimony is consistent with the testimony in his declaration that “the
`
`terms ‘tone,’ ‘carrier,’ ‘subcarrier,’ ‘channel,’ ‘band,’ ‘sub-band’…‘subfrequency,’
`
`in the ADSL context, would also be understood to be equivalent and
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`IPR2016-01008
`
`interchangeable with the term ‘subchannel.’” Ex. 1100, ¶6; see also Ex. 1001,
`
`1:42-49.
`
`Response to Observation 14:
`
`
`
`The testimony in Patent Owner’s observation is consistent with Dr. Kiaei’s
`
`declaration that the “V.90 protocol uses the voice frequency spectrum, which is in
`
`fact a ‘sub-frequency’ of the overall frequency spectrum” and that “[a] POSITA
`
`would have understood that since the V.90 protocol is an alternative to the ADSL
`
`protocol, Milbrandt’s teaching or use of the term ‘sub-frequency’ in the context of
`
`V.90 protocol is not inconsistent with the use of that term in the context of the
`
`ADSL protocol.” Ex. 1100, ¶25.
`
`July 17, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/David L. McCombs/
`David L. McCombs
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Registration No. 32,271
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`IPR2016-01008
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.205, that
`service was made on the Patent Owner as detailed below.
`
`Date of service
`
`July 17, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Persons served
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Manner of service
`Email: pmcandrews@mcandrews-ip.com;
`twimbiscus@mcandrews-ip.com; smcbride@mcandrews-ip.com;
`cscharff@mcandrews-ip.com; rchiplunkar@mcandrew-ip.com;
`TQD-CISCO@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`Documents served
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion
`for Observation on Cross-examination Testimony
`
`Peter J. McAndrews
`Thomas J. Wimbiscus
`Scott P. McBride
`Christopher M. Scharff
`Rajendra A. Chiplunkar (admitted PHV)
`MCANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY, LTD
`500 West Madison Street, 34th Floor
`Chicago, IL 60661
`
`
`
`/David L. McCombs/
`David L. McCombs
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Registration No. 32,271
`
`12
`
`