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 IPR2016-010201
`Patent 9,014,243
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR
`OBSERVATION ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 DISH Network, LLC, who filed a Petition in IPR2017-00254, 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 IPR2017-00418, have been joined in this proceeding.
`
`
`____________
`
`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 IPR2016-010201
`Patent 9,014,243
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR
`OBSERVATION ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 DISH Network, LLC, who filed a Petition in IPR2017-00254, 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 IPR2017-00418, have been joined in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`IPR2016-01020
`This response is submitted in view of the Scheduling Order (Paper 8) and the
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48767–68 (Aug. 14, 2012). This paper
`
`responds to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation on Cross-examination (Paper
`
`27) filed on June 30, 2017, in the present inter partes review. Patent Owner
`
`presented ten observations on the June 20, 2017, deposition testimony of Dr.
`
`Tellado (Ex. 2013). Petitioner responds to each of Patent Owner’s observations
`
`below.
`
`Response to Observation # 1:
`
`TQ Delta omits portions of Dr. Tellado’s testimony where he explained that
`
`his simulation is not limited to just one combination, but instead applies to many
`
`combinations of high attenuation and/or high crosstalk:
`
`Q. You did use them in the simulation?
`A. I’m saying, and I repeat, the simulation is a transmitter
`simulation. It’s modeling the case for which we have 182
`random carriers and 52 Shively carriers. It includes and it
`models many combinations of high attenuation and/or high
`crosstalk.
`
`***
`
`There is many loops that would come up with the answer 182
`pseudorandom carriers and 52 Shively carriers.
`There is lots of combinations of lengths, crosstalk, attenuation,
`noise that would lead to that answer. And one example is that a
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`IPR2016-01020
`standard with that loop length and that gauge and that noise
`floor.
`Ex. 2013, 34:21-35:2 & 84:14-21. Dr. Tellado also explained that Shively’s
`
`technique is not limited to 18,000-foot loops, but instead applies to many different
`
`combinations of line length and other factors:
`
`Q. Okay. And the example that Shively provides for high
`attenuation is long loops of 18,000 feet or greater; right?
`MR. McDOLE: Objection; form.
`THE WITNESS: Shively includes cables for which the
`relationship between attenuation and/or crosstalk or noise is
`such that some bits are stressed and need replication. It
`includes a plurality of combinations across cable types, gauges,
`taps, lengths, crosstalk. There is a lot of combinations that
`Shively could apply to.
`
`***
`Q. And the example he provides is an 18,000-foot loop; right?
`MR. McDOLE: Objection; form.
`THE WITNESS: He includes many combinations, and he
`includes a sentence that says “order of 18,000 feet.” “Order
`of.”
`BY MR. McANDREWS:
`Q. Or more?
`A. But “order of 18,000 feet” includes cables that are less than
`18,000 feet.
`Q. Right.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`IPR2016-01020
`Ex. 2013, 25:13-23 & 27:9-19. Dr. Tellado’s testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s
`
`argument that “Shively is not limited to cable lengths of 18,000 feet.” Petitioner’s
`
`Reply, Paper 17, p. 22.
`
`Response to Observation # 2:
`
`TQ Delta mischaracterizes Dr. Tellado’s testimony because the cited
`
`statements from Dr. Tellado do not discuss the noise characteristics used by Dr.
`
`Short. See Ex. 2013, 46:1-5. Dr. Tellado did not agree that Dr. Short’s analysis
`
`was based on a loop with high noise. Dr. Tellado’s declaration provided annotated
`
`graphs showing that ADSL systems could have noise levels much higher than
`
`“-140 dBm/Hz, which was the ‘background noise’ level shown in the attenuation
`
`graph relied upon by Dr. Short.” Ex. 1026, ¶ 9; see also id., ¶¶ 10-13.
`
`Response to Observation # 3:
`
`TQ Delta’s observation is misleading because Dr. Tellado did not rely on the
`
`18,000-foot “quick estimate” to state in paragraph 29 of his declaration (Ex. 1026)
`
`that “Dr. Short’s analysis is flawed….” PO’s Motion for Observation, p. 4. Rather,
`
`to show that Dr. Short’s use of a Gaussian approximation was flawed, Dr. Tellado
`
`relied on the simple math and logic explained in paragraphs 15-28 of his
`
`declaration (Ex. 1026). TQ Delta also ignores Dr. Tellado’s testimony explaining
`
`with “Graph 2” of Ex. 1026 (p. 30) that a system using Shively’s technique cannot
`
`be modeled accurately with a Gaussian approximation:
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`IPR2016-01020
`A. Can you see graph 2? You see the solid red line?
`Q. Yes.
`A. That is the Gaussian process. You see Scenario 1 with 250
`QAM-4 carriers? Doesn’t it look very similar to the Gaussian
`process, the round, blue circles?
`Q. Yes.
`A. So I call this following a Gaussian process. What about the
`cyan Scenario 4 curve? Does it -- is it tight with the Gaussian
`process Scenario 2 curve? It's diverging. It’s worse than. The
`Gaussian process has a lower PAR than Scenario 4. It’s not a
`good model. This shows you a Scenario 4 that has Shively
`carriers cannot be modeled accurately with a Gaussian process
`in Scenario 2.
`Ex. 2013, 49:13-50:5.
`
`Response to Observation # 4:
`
`TQ Delta’s observation is misleading because Dr. Tellado did not rely on the
`
`18,000-foot “quick estimate” to state in paragraph 29 of his declaration (Ex. 1026)
`
`that “Dr. Short’s analysis is flawed….” PO’s Motion for Observation, p. 5. Rather,
`
`to show that Dr. Short’s use of a Gaussian approximation was flawed, Dr. Tellado
`
`relied on the simple math and logic explained in paragraphs 15-28 of his
`
`declaration (Ex. 1026). TQ Delta also ignores Dr. Tellado’s explanation for why
`
`he could not guess how a non-Gaussian process, such one using Shively’s bit-
`
`spreading technique, would compare to a Gaussian process:
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`IPR2016-01020
`Q. Well, would it be to the left of the Scenario 1 line that you
`show here in graph 2?
`A. … So when you have a Gaussian process, it drops like the
`red line; if you have a non-Gaussian process, it could have a
`different slope. And it could look better at very high clipping
`rates, but it could be worse at low clipping rates. So I don’t
`remember exactly where it crossed. It didn’t have the same
`slope as a Gaussian process. That’s why I said the Gaussian
`approximation was not a good approximation.
`
`
`Ex. 2013, 55:8-56:2.
`
`Response to Observation # 5:
`
`TQ Delta’s observation is misleading because Dr. Tellado did not rely on the
`
`18,000-foot “quick estimate” to state in paragraph 29 of his declaration (Ex. 1026)
`
`that “Dr. Short’s analysis is flawed … .” PO’s Motion for Observation, p. 7.
`
`Rather, to show that Dr. Short’s use of a Gaussian approximation was flawed, Dr.
`
`Tellado relied on the simple math and logic explained in in paragraphs 15-28 of his
`
`declaration (Ex. 1026). TQ Delta also ignores Dr. Tellado’s testimony explaining
`
`with “Graph 2” of Ex. 1026 (p. 30) that a system using Shively’s technique cannot
`
`be modeled accurately with a Gaussian approximation:
`
`A. Can you see graph 2? You see the solid red line?
`Q. Yes.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`IPR2016-01020
`A. That is the Gaussian process. You see Scenario 1 with 250
`QAM-4 carriers? Doesn’t it look very similar to the Gaussian
`process, the round, blue circles?
`Q. Yes.
`A. So I call this following a Gaussian process. What about the
`cyan Scenario 4 curve? Does it -- is it tight with the Gaussian
`process Scenario 2 curve? It's diverging. It’s worse than. The
`Gaussian process has a lower PAR than Scenario 4. It’s not a
`good model. This shows you a Scenario 4 that has Shively
`carriers cannot be modeled accurately with a Gaussian process
`in Scenario 2.
`
`
`Ex. 2013, 49:13-50:5.
`
`Response to Observation # 6:
`
`TQ Delta mischaracterizes Dr. Tellado’s testimony by omitting Dr.
`
`Tellado’s explanation for why a non-Gaussian process (such as in Shively) cannot
`
`be intuitively compared to a Gaussian process:
`
`A. … So when you have a Gaussian process, it drops like the
`red line; if you have a non-Gaussian process, it could have a
`different slope. And it could look better at very high clipping
`rates, but it could be worse at low clipping rates. So I don’t
`remember exactly where it crossed. It didn’t have the same
`slope as a Gaussian process. That’s why I said the Gaussian
`approximation was not a good approximation.
`
`
`Ex. 2013, 55:19-56:2.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`IPR2016-01020
`Q. So you wouldn’t -- let me ask it this way: Would you know
`intuitively that 88 random carriers and 16 Shively carriers
`would be to the left on the graph of Scenario 2?
`MR. McDOLE: Objection; form.
`THE WITNESS: As I mentioned earlier, the repeating -- the
`repeating -- the replicated bits that Shively introduces has a
`non-Gaussian behavior and it separates from the Gaussian
`decay. So I cannot tell if this is correct.
`Ex. 2013, 111:14-23.
`
`Response to Observation # 7:
`
`TQ Delta’s cited testimony—which compares two Gaussian processes—is
`
`not relevant to Dr. Short’s analysis, which considered a non-Gaussian system
`
`employing Shively’s bit-spreading technique. Dr. Tellado explained that Shively’s
`
`bit-spreading technique is non-Gaussian:
`
`THE WITNESS: As I mentioned earlier, the repeating -- the
`repeating -- the replicated bits that Shively introduces has a
`non-Gaussian behavior and it separates from the Gaussian
`decay….
`Ex. 2013, 111:19-22.
`
`Q. Okay. So did you run a Gaussian process for 88 plus 16?
`A. I ran -- I compared a Gaussian process versus the 88 plus 16
`Shively.
`Q: So you ran a Gaussian process for 104 carriers?
`***
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`IPR2016-01020
`A: 88 [random carriers] plus 16 [Shively carriers] is not equal
`to 104 Gaussian.
`Ex. 2013, 52:25-53:5 & 53:8.
`
`Response to Observation # 8:
`
`TQ Delta mischaracterizes Dr. Tellado’s testimony by ignoring the full
`
`context of the testimony and failing to include portions of the testimony where Dr.
`
`Tellado explains that Shively is not limited to a 1-bit threshold:
`
`Q. Why would you use a 2-bit threshold when Shively says to
`use a 1-bit threshold?
`A. Shively doesn’t say you have to. Shively includes examples
`with 1-bit thresholds.
`Ex. 2013, 71:17-20. TQ Delta also ignores Dr. Tellado’s explanation that he used
`
`a 2-bit threshold for random carriers based on the ADSL T1.413-1995 standard:
`
`A. Now we’re focusing our discussion on the T1 -- ADSL
`T1.413-1995. I believe the minimum constellation size has 2
`bits. That’s why the 2-bit threshold.
`Q. Okay. But you understand that Shively is using BPSK on the
`Shively’s carriers; right?
`A. We’re talking about the random – or pseudorandom QAM
`symbols.
`Q. And you’re referencing
`justification for using --
`A. The 2-bit threshold.
`Ex. 2013, 71:1-11.
`
`
`the T1.413 specification as
`
`9
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`IPR2016-01020
`
`Response to Observation # 9:
`
`TQ Delta’s observation ignores Dr. Tellado’s repeated testimony that
`
`Stopler randomizes individual QAM symbols:
`
`Q. Is it your opinion that -- in Stopler, that QAM symbols are
`randomized one with respect to the other within a single DMT
`symbol?
`A. Yes.
`Ex. 2013, 117:24-118:2.
`
`Q. Okay. Would it be possible to take every one of those 250
`QAM symbols and rotate them by the same amount?
`A. So my interpretation of Stopler is he is rotating QAM
`symbols individually. There is – the other interpretation does
`not provide benefits to the context in which he is operating.
`Ex. 2013, 121:20-122:1.
`
`Stopler explicitly states that the purpose of the phase scrambler
`is to “randomize the overhead channel symbols” (Ex. 1012,
`12:24),… Since overhead channel symbols are generally QAM
`symbols in a DMT system, the only way to randomize the
`overhead channel symbols is to randomize the QAM symbols.
`Applying phase randomization to DMT symbols, as TQ Delta
`and Dr. Short interpret Stopler, would not break up any
`structure or phase alignment of the overhead channel symbols,
`and thus would not randomize the overhead channel symbols.
`The interpretation by TQ Delta and Dr. Short would not achieve
`Stopler’s stated purpose for the phase scrambler.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`IPR2016-01020
`
`Ex. 1026, ¶ 57.
`
`Response to Observation # 10:
`
`TQ Delta’s observation confirms Dr. Tellado’s testimony that in the 1990s
`
`phase scrambling for randomization was trivial and well-known. For example, Dr.
`
`Tellado testified that “[a]s I said, the research community in the ’90s was doing
`
`phase-scrambling randomization to reduce PAR to make it better than Gaussian.”
`
`Ex. 2013, 16:12-14. TQ Delta also ignores Dr. Tellado’s testimony regarding the
`
`Muller (Ex. 1024) and Mestdagh (Ex. 1023) references cited in Dr. Tellado’s thesis
`
`(Ex. 1025). Ex. 2013, 149:19-150:2, 146:16-147:8. Dr. Tellado testified that both
`
`papers were examples of how phase scrambling reduced PAR. Ex. 2013, 152:2-3,
`
`148:18-20. For example, Dr. Tellado stated that Muller describes “two algorithms
`
`that use phase rotations to reduce PAR,” while Mestdagh describes how “each
`
`QAM-modulated carrier within a DMT symbol has a phase transformation to
`
`reduce PAR.” Ex. 2013, 152:2-3, 148:18-20.
`
`July 14, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/David L. McCombs/
`David L. McCombs
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Registration No. 32,271
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`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 14, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Persons served
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Manner of service
`Email: pmcandrews@mcandrews-ip.com;
`twimbiscus@mcandrews-ip.com; smcbride@mcandrews-ip.com;
`cscharff@mcandrews-ip.com; akarp@mcandrews-ip.com;
`TQD-CISCO@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`Documents served
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion
`for Observation on Cross-Examination
`
`Peter J. McAndrews
`Thomas J. Wimbiscus
`Scott P. McBride
`Christopher M. Scharff
`Andrew B. Karp
`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
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
