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., 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 No. IPR2016-010201
`Patent No. 9,014,243
`_____________
`
`PATENT OWNER MOTION FOR OBSERVATION REGARDING
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR. JOSE TELLADO
`
`
`1 DISH Network, L.L.C., who filed a Petition in IPR2017-00254, and Comcast
`Cable Communications, L.L.C., Cox Communications, Inc., Time Warner Cable
`Enterprises L.L.C., Verizon Services Corp., and ARRIS Group, Inc., who filed a
`Petition in IPR2017-00418, have been joined in this proceeding.
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Motion For Observation
`IPR2016-01020
`
`
`Patent Owner moves for observation regarding the cross-examination of Dr.
`
`Jose Tellado, the reply declarant of Petitioner (transcript filed as Ex. 2013).
`
`Observation #1
`
`In Ex. 2013, at 43:24–44:20, Dr. Tellado testified:
`
`Q. The noise profiles that you reference in your paragraphs 9 through 13,
`you didn't actually apply those in selecting your 182 random carriers and
`52 Shively carriers, did you?
`
`A. ADSL transceivers have to work over many combinations of loops,
`gauges, crosstalk attenuation. I didn't go through all the combinations. I just
`picked one combination to justify my simulation.
`
`I only need to find one example to justify a simulation. There is many
`other combinations.
`
`Q. And do you believe that the one 12,000-foot attenuation curve that you
`picked justifies your selection of those carriers?
`
`A. So my simulation shows that 182 QAM random carriers, 52 structured
`carriers has high PAR implementing Shively’s techniques.
`
`To come up with 182 and the 52, I need to justify where I get the 182
`and 52, and I could have done it through combinations of loss and
`crosstalks. There is infinite number of combination. I pick one to justify it,
`and then it applies more generally.
`
`That testimony is relevant to Dr. Tellado’s second declaration, Ex. CSCO-
`
`1026, at ¶¶ 7-14 (pp. 3-9), where he discusses a number of noise profiles and states
`
`that “Shively states that bit-spreading is a way to ‘compensate for high attenuation
`
`and/or high noise’” (emphasis in original) and “[s]ince noise can occur on a line
`
`of any length, a POSITA would not have considered Shively’s bit-spreading
`
`technique to be limited to being used on only long lines.” The testimony is
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Motion For Observation
`IPR2016-01020
`
`
`relevant because it shows that Dr. Tellado “just picked one combination to justify
`
`[his] simulation,” and that simulation was not based the long lines with high
`
`attenuation and noise addressed by Shively, but was instead based on a line of
`
`12,000 feet that is not a long line and does not have high attenuation or high noise.
`
`Observation #2
`
`In Ex. 2013, at 45:23–46:5, Dr. Tellado testified:
`
`Q. Do you know which attenuation and noise characteristics Dr. Short
`relied on in choosing his random, Shively and unusable carriers?
`
`A. I believe Dr. Short used Figure 6 or variants of it, and he selected one
`of these high-attenuation loops, and I believe he used the thin-gauge, high-
`loss AWG26 that's marked 18,000 in this figure.
`
`That testimony is relevant to (1) Dr. Tellado’s statement, in Ex. CSCO-1026
`
`at ¶ 7 (p. 4), that Shively (Ex. CSCO-1011) “describes using its bit spreading
`
`technique ‘to compensate for high attenuation and/or high noise in those parts of
`
`the communication channel frequency band that would otherwise not be usable due
`
`to noise and attenuation effects’” and (2) to the teaching in Shively, Ex. CSCO-
`
`1011, at 9:65–10:1, that “[i]n long loop systems where cable 3 is of length of the
`
`order 18,000 feet or more, high signal attenuation at higher frequencies (greater
`
`than 500 kHz) is usually observed[]” and, at 11:11-12 that “[s]uch noisy and/or
`
`highly attenuated sub-bands can occur for example in long-run twisted pair
`
`conductors.” The testimony is relevant because it shows that the opinions of
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Motion For Observation
`IPR2016-01020
`
`
`Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Short, are based on the long loops with high attenuation
`
`and noise to which Shively’s teachings are directed.
`
`Observation #3
`
`In Ex. 2013, at 46:10–47:20, Dr. Tellado testified:
`
`Q. Did you run a simulation --
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. -- using an 18,000-foot loop with the attenuation characteristics shown
`in Figure 6 on page 18 of your declaration?
`
`A. So in this AWG26 loop of 18,000 feet, I did a quick estimate.
`
`Q. But you didn't run a full simulation on it?
`
`A. Not a full simulation.
`
`***
`
`Q. What did you determine from your quick estimate?
`
`A. That Dr. Short’s approximation of a Gaussian approximation was poor.
`It was worse than -- than Dr. Short said.
`
`Q. How much worse?
`
`A. I don't recall. It was significantly worse.
`
`Q. You don't recall. Did you run a simulation?
`
`A. I said I ran a quick estimate to see if the Gaussian approximation was
`good, and it was not.
`
`Q. How did you do that quick estimation?
`
`A. Using similar techniques to the ones that I provided.
`
`Q. Where is that simulation?
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Motion For Observation
`IPR2016-01020
`
`A. So when I started working the declaration, I just did a quick estimate to
`see if the Gaussian approximation was correct, and I determined it was not.
`
`
`
`Q. Did you use MATLAB for that?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Where are the results of that MATLAB?
`
`A. I don't have them.
`
`That testimony is relevant to the credibility of, sufficiency of, and factual
`
`basis for Dr. Tellado’s statement, in Ex. CSCO-1026 at ¶ 29 (p. 17), that “Dr.
`
`Short’s analysis is flawed ….” The testimony is relevant because (1) it shows that,
`
`in evaluating Dr. Short’s analysis, Dr. Tellado did not run a “full simulation,” he
`
`does not “recall” the results, and he no longer has the results, and (2) that
`
`simulation would show whether Dr. Short’s analysis is flawed.
`
`Observation #4
`
`In Ex. 2013, at 50:6–56:17, Dr. Tellado testified:
`
`Q. Are you suggesting that Dr. Short’s -- if you had run a full simulation on
`Dr. Short’s 18,000-foot loop, assuming the 88 usable carriers and 16
`Shively carriers and the remainder unusable, are you telling me that that
`would be worse than your Scenario 1 here?
`
`A. I didn't say that. I just said it was diverging relative to a Gaussian
`process.
`
`***
`
`Q. If we were to run a Gaussian on the 104 carriers that you ran this quick
`simulation on, where would that line show up in graph 2 on your -- page 30
`of your declaration?
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Motion For Observation
`IPR2016-01020
`
`A. The Gaussian process?
`
`Q. Mm-hmm.
`
`
`
`A. The Gaussian process would be proportional to the power of 104
`carriers.
`
`Q. Okay. So would it be to the left of the Gaussian process for the 250
`carriers that you used for –
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. -- graph 2?
`
`A. Uh-huh. Yes.
`
`Q. And the simulation -- so using your simulation and your MATLAB
`script on 88 random carriers and 16 Shively carriers, where would that
`show up on graph 2 on page 30 of your declaration?
`
`A. The Gaussian approximation or the actual simulation?
`
`Q. The actual simulation.
`
`A. The actual simulation, I don't remember where it crossed over.
`
`Q. Well, would it be to the left of the Scenario 1 line that you show here in
`graph 2?
`
`A. I don’t recall.
`
`***
`
`Q. Based on your expertise, do you believe it would have crossed the
`clipping threshold to the left of your Scenario 1 in graph 2?
`
`A. I don't want to guess.
`
`That testimony is relevant to (1) the credibility of, sufficiency of, and factual
`
`basis for Dr. Tellado’s statement, in Ex. CSCO-1026 at ¶ 29 (p. 17), that “Dr.
`
`Short’s analysis is flawed …” and (2) the accuracy of Dr. Short’s statement, in Ex.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Motion For Observation
`IPR2016-01020
`
`
`2003 at ¶ 63 (p. 32), that “[w]hile Shively’s ‘spreading’ idea will cause a small
`
`uptick in clipping probability, any increase is negated many times over by the
`
`enormous reduction in clipping achieved by reducing signal power by more than
`
`half. Based on worst-case assumptions regarding Shively’s spreading idea, the
`
`clipping probability for both normal and power-boost modes is virtually zero.”
`
`The testimony is relevant because it shows that Dr. Tellado does not know whether
`
`Dr. Short’s conclusion is flawed.
`
`Observation #5
`
`In Ex. 2013, at 58:10–60:24, Dr. Tellado testified:
`
`Q. So Dr. Tellado, did you save, in any form, your MATLAB simulation
`script for the 18,000-foot loop scenario?
`
`MR. McDOLE: Objection; asked and answered.
`
`THE WITNESS: I don't recall.
`
`***
`
`Q. Did you share with anyone, including your lawyers, a copy of your
`MATLAB simulation script for 88 usable carriers and 16 Shively carriers?
`
`A. I don't recall.
`
`***
`
`Q. Did you save, in any form, the output of your MATLAB simulation for
`the 88 random carriers and 16 Shively carriers?
`
`A. I don't recall.
`
`Q. Do you currently have in your possession, in any form, the output of
`your MATLAB simulation for the 88 usable carriers and 16 Shively
`carriers?
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Motion For Observation
`IPR2016-01020
`
`A. I don't recall.
`
`
`
`That testimony is relevant to the credibility of, sufficiency of, and factual
`
`basis for Dr. Tellado’s statement, in Ex. CSCO-1026 at ¶ 29 (p. 17), that “Dr.
`
`Short’s analysis is flawed ….” The testimony is relevant because it shows that Dr.
`
`Tellado used a MATLAB simulation to evaluate the 18,000 foot loop scenario that
`
`Dr. Short relied on, but Dr. Tellado “does not recall” whether any record of that
`
`simulation still exists, and that simulation would show whether Dr. Short’s analysis
`
`is flawed.
`
`Observation #6
`
`In Ex. 2013, at 114:12-16 and 116:18-20, Dr. Tellado testified:
`
`Q. Do you know intuitively whether 88 random carriers and 16 Shively
`carriers would have a lower probability of clipping than Scenario 2?
`
`MR. McDOLE: Objection; form.
`
`THE WITNESS: No, I’m not going to guess.
`
`***
`
`Q. Do you know intuitively whether Scenario 5 presents a lower chance of
`clipping than Scenario 2?
`
`A. I don’t want to guess.
`
`That testimony is relevant to (1) the scenarios shown on the graph in Ex.
`
`2011 and (2) the credibility of Dr. Tellado’s statement, in Ex. CSCO-1026 at ¶ 52
`
`(p. 32), about “what a POSITA would have intuitively recognized without
`
`performing mathematical calculations.” The testimony is relevant because Ex.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Motion For Observation
`IPR2016-01020
`
`
`2011 shows a lower probability of clipping for Scenario 5 (a long loop scenario)
`
`than for Scenario 2 (the clipping rate allowed by the ADSL standard) but Dr.
`
`Tellado says he would not have known this intuitively.
`
`Observation #7
`
`In Ex. 2013, at 54:10-23, Dr. Tellado testified:
`
`Q. If we were to run a Gaussian on the 104 carriers that you ran this quick
`simulation on, where would that line show up in graph 2 on your -- page 30
`of your declaration?
`
`A. The Gaussian process?
`
`Q. Mm-hmm.
`
`A. The Gaussian process would be proportional to the power of 104
`carriers.
`
`Q. Okay. So would it be to the left of the Gaussian process for the 250
`carriers that you used for --
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. -- graph 2?
`
`A. Uh-huh. Yes.
`
`That testimony is relevant to Dr. Short’s statement, in Ex. 2003 at ¶ 58
`
`(pp. 26-27), that “[i]n Shively’s proposed system using normal mode for ADSL-
`
`1995 across 18,000 foot cables, … about 60% of the carriers are unusable. . . .
`
`Consequently, the power of a transmitted signal will be reduced by 60%, thereby
`
`resulting in power levels only 40% of maximum” and, at ¶ 63 (p. 32), that there is
`
`an “enormous reduction in clipping achieved by reducing signal power by more
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Motion For Observation
`IPR2016-01020
`
`
`than half.” The testimony is relevant because it confirms that Dr. Tellado agrees
`
`that the proportional drop in signal power due to using only 104 carriers (as in the
`
`long loop scenario) has a lower chance of clipping than when all 250 carriers are
`
`used as in Scenario 2 (the clipping rate allowed by the ADSL standard) and Dr.
`
`Tellado knew this without running a simulation.
`
`Observation #8
`
`In Ex. 2013, at 70:4-21 and 92:24–93:9, Dr. Tellado testified:
`
`Q. So you used the 2-bit threshold that, in your annotated figure on page 21
`of your declaration, is shown in black; correct?
`
`***
`
`Q. So you used the 2-bit threshold that’s illustrated as a black dotted line;
`correct?
`
`A. At around minus 125 dBm?
`
`Q. Yes. Is that the line you used?
`
`A. That’s about -- I mean, just going by eye accuracy. Yes, that’s taken
`from Dr. Short’s 2-bit line.
`
`Q. Okay. But you understand that Dr. Short used a 1-bit threshold as the
`proper line. Do you know that?
`
`A. Okay. …
`
`***
`
`Q. So you didn’t do a simulation that would have shown the chance of
`clipping if a 1-bit threshold had been used -- [objection to form] -- and
`applied to the figure on page 21 of your declaration; right?
`
`MR. McDOLE: Objection; form.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Motion For Observation
`IPR2016-01020
`
`THE WITNESS: Can you ask it a different way? So I don’t recall running
`that combination.
`
`
`
`That testimony is relevant to (1) the graph, in Ex. CSCO-1026 at ¶ 33 (p.
`
`21), annotating a “1-bit (non-repeating) threshold,” (2) Dr. Tellado’s opinions, in
`
`Ex. CSCO-1026 at ¶ 33 (p. 21) that were based on a using a 2-bit theshold, and (3)
`
`Shivley’s teaching, in Ex. CSCO-1011 at 2:6-8, that “[t]he power of a signal in a
`
`given sub-band must be sufficiently high to carry a minimal (1-bit) QAM tone to
`
`obtain a predefined bit error rate.” The testimony is relevant because it shows that
`
`Dr. Short used a 1-bit threshold as described in Shively, Dr. Tellado instead used a
`
`2-bit threshold, and Dr. Tellado did not run a simulation to determine the chance of
`
`clipping using Shively and a 1-bit threshold.
`
`Observation #9
`
`In Ex. 2013, at 127:13-20, Dr. Tellado testified:
`
`Q. So let me read this to try to make sure its clear.
`
`So your testimony is that a system that rotates all of the QAM symbols
`from the same DMT symbol by the same amount, that rotation is applied to
`each of the QAM symbols in that DMT symbol that have been rotated?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`That testimony is relevant to (1) Patent Owner’s statements, in the Patent
`
`Owner Response (Paper 12) at p. 44, that “Stopler’s directive is to adjust the
`
`phases of all carriers within a single symbol by the same amount,” and, at p. 51,
`
`that “Stopler does not reduce PAR because phase scrambling is performed from
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Motion For Observation
`IPR2016-01020
`
`
`symbol-to-symbol and not from carrier-to-carrier,” and (2) Petitioner’s argument,
`
`in its Reply (Paper 17) at pp. 16-17, that “Stopler’s phase scrambler reduces PAR
`
`because it scrambles phases of individual QAM symbols.” The testimony is
`
`relevant because it shows that Petitioner’s argument that Stopler scrambles QAM
`
`symbols is irrelevant to whether Stopler teaches scrambling QAM symbols over
`
`time or from carrier-to-carrier.
`
`Observation #10
`
`In Ex. 2013, at 142:9–144:23, Dr. Tellado testified:
`
`Q. At the time of the invention of the ‘158 and ‘243 patents, were there
`multiple ways of reducing PAR that were known to those of skill in the art?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`***
`
`Q. Exhibit 2012 has been placed in front of you, Dr. Tellado. Can you tell
`me what Exhibit 2012 is?
`
`A. This one says United States Patent by Tellado, et al, and it’s titled ‘Peak
`to Average Power Ratio Reduction,’ and its filed April 20th, 1998.
`
`Q. This is your patent?
`
`A. Yes
`
`Q. It says:
`
`***
`
`***
`
`“One method randomly shuffles the phase of the signals 10(1)-10(n) at
`each carrier frequency f(1)-f(n). Random shuffling does not completely
`eliminate the problem, although randomizing has been shown to somewhat
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Motion For Observation
`IPR2016-01020
`
`reduce the peak to average power ratio to an extent. Random shuffling also
`requires performing an additional IFFT. In addition to not completely
`reducing the peak to average power ratio to a practical point, that particular
`method also requires that additional information, side information, be sent
`along with the transmitted signal. In order for the receiver to be able to
`decode the transmitted signal the receiver must also know how the signals
`10(1)-10(n) were randomized. Thus, the randomization scheme requires
`extra bandwidth to transmit the side information and does not effectively
`reduce the peak to average power ratio.”
`
`
`
`Do you see that?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Did I accurately read that?
`
`A. I believe so.
`
`That testimony is relevant to (1) Patent Owner’s statement, in the Patent
`
`Owner Response (Paper 12) at p. 45, that “Petitioners’ (and Petitioners’ expert’s)
`
`reasons to combine Shively and Stopler are without a rational basis, factually
`
`wrong, and suffer from hindsight bias,” (2) Petitioner’s statement, in its Reply
`
`(Paper 17) at p. 8, that “a POSITA would have found it obvious to incorporate a
`
`phase scrambler—like that in Stopler—into Shively’s system to counteract the
`
`increase in PAR caused by Shively’s bit spreading technique,” and (3) Dr.
`
`Tellado’s statement in Ex. CSCO-1026 at ¶ 54 (p. 33) that “the desire to reduce the
`
`cost of a transmitter employing Shively’s technique would have motivated a
`
`POSITA to incorporate a phase scrambler (like in Stopler) into Shively’s system.”
`
`The testimony is relevant because it shows that Petitioner’s own expert, Dr.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Motion For Observation
`IPR2016-01020
`
`
`Tellado, acknowledged that, at the time of the invention, there were multiple ways
`
`of reducing PAR and he criticized using phase randomization for this purpose.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/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
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 30, 2017
`
`
`
`
`CUSTOMER NUMBER: 23446
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Motion For Observation
`IPR2016-01020
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Motion for Observation Regarding Cross-Examination of Dr. Jose Tellado
`
`was served on June 30, 2017, via email to counsel for Petitioner 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
`
`Heidi L. Keefe
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel. 650-843-5001
`Fax 650-849-7400
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`Dish-TQDelta@cooley.com
`zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com
`
`John M. Baird
`Duane Morris LLP
`505 9th St. NW, Ste 1000
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Theodore M. Foster
`Tel. 972-739-8649
`Russell Emerson
`Tel. 214-651-5328
`Jamie H. McDole
`Tel. 972-651-5121
`HAYNES & BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave., Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`Fax 972-692-9156
`ipr.theo.foster@haynesboone.com
`russell.emerson.ipr@haynesboone.com
`jamie.mcdole@haynesboone.com
`
`Stephen McBride
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel. 650-843-5001
`Fax 650-849-7400
`smcbride@cooley.com
`
`
`Christopher Tyson
`Duane Morris LLP
`505 9th St. NW, Ste 1000
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Motion For Observation
`IPR2016-01020
`
`
`
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel. 202-776-7819
`Fax 202-776-7801
`CJTyson@duanemorris.com
`
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel. 202-776-7819
`Fax 202-776-7801
`JMBaird@duanemorris.com
`
`
`
`Date: June 30, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Peter J. McAndrews/
`Peter J. McAndrews
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

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