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.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`Case No. IPR2016-010201
`Patent No. 9,014,243
`_____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`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.
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`
`THE PANEL’S CONSTRUCTION OF “SCRAMBLING THE
`PHASE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CARRIER SIGNALS” IS
`OVERBROAD ................................................................................................ 1 
`A. 
`There Is Universal Agreement That Scrambling Phases As
`Claimed Reduces PAR .......................................................................... 3 
`The FWD’s Construction Includes Situations in Which PAR Is
`Not Reduced .......................................................................................... 5 
`
`B. 
`
`STOPLER DOES NOT DISCLOSE “SCRAMBLING THE PHASE
`CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CARRIER SIGNALS” ................................ 6 
`A. 
`Stopler’s “Phase Scrambling” Must Be Compatible with Single-
`Carrier CDMA ....................................................................................... 6 
`There Is No Way to Reduce PAR in a Single-Carrier System by
`Phase Scrambling As Claimed .............................................................. 7 
`
`B. 
`
`IV.  THE FWD IS PREDICATED ON MISAPPREHENDED
`ASSUMPTIONS AND OVERLOOKED TESTIMONY ............................... 8 
`
`V. 
`
`THE FWD MISAPPREHENDS THAT SHIVELY DOES NOT
`HAVE AN “INCREASED” OR “HIGH” PAR BECAUSE OF THE
`ENORMOUS REDUCTION IN TRANSMISSION POWER ...................... 12 
`
`VI.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 15 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), TQ Delta, LLC (“Patent Owner”) requests
`
`rehearing of the Panel’s final written decision (“FWD”), Paper 41. The FWD is
`
`based on an overbroad construction of “scrambling the phase characteristics of the
`
`carrier signals” that misapprehends or overlooks the specification of the ’243
`
`patent, Patent Owner’s discussion, and the statements of Petitioners, including their
`
`own expert. Furthermore, given a proper construction of “scrambling the phase
`
`characteristics of the carrier signals,” the FWD misapprehends or overlooks that
`
`Stopler’s2 alleged phase scrambling is different than what is claimed. The FWD
`
`also mistakenly concludes, based on a misapprehension of the record, that one of
`
`skill in the art would have (1) considered Shively’s3 PAR without the frame of
`
`reference of its clipping rate and (2) considered Shively to have a “high” or
`
`“increased” PAR. But the relative terms “high” or “increased” PAR lack meaning
`
`without a frame of reference.
`
`II. THE PANEL’S CONSTRUCTION OF “SCRAMBL[E/ING]…A
`PLURALITY OF CARRIER PHASES” IS OVERBROAD
`
`Patent Owner asserted that this term (and the similar term “scramble … a
`
`plurality of phases”) should be construed to mean “adjusting the phases of a
`
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,625,219 B1; issued Sept. 23, 2003 (Ex. 1012) (“Stopler”).
`
`3 U.S. Patent No. 6,144,696 B1; issued Nov. 9, 2000 (Ex. 1011) (“Shively”).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`plurality of carriers in a single multicarrier symbol by pseudo-randomly varying
`
`amounts.” POR, Paper 12 at 14. Petitioners, on the other hand, argued that it
`
`needs no construction, “since [Stopler] uses the same ‘phase scrambling’
`
`terminology to describe pseudo-random phase changes.” Reply, Paper 20 at 7.
`
`The FWD, however, diverged from both of these approaches and construed
`
`the term to mean “adjusting the phases of a plurality of carriers in a single
`
`multicarrier symbol.” FWD, Paper 41 at 9. But this cannot be a proper
`
`construction of this term because it leaves open the possibility that all of the phases
`
`within a single multicarrier symbol are adjusted by a single (i.e., same) amount.
`
`The FWD misapprehends or overlooks that, under any proper construction, there
`
`must at a minimum be varying amounts by which the phases are adjusted within a
`
`single multicarrier symbol (i.e., from carrier-to-carrier) such that PAR is reduced.
`
`Under the construction set forth in the FWD, the claim term would still be met
`
`where the phases of a plurality of carriers in a single multicarrier signal are
`
`adjusted even if each of the phases of the plurality of carriers in the single
`
`multicarrier symbol are adjusted by the same amount. Such uniform adjustment,
`
`however, would not result in the recited “scrambling” where phase adjustment
`
`varies among carriers—and therefore would not reduce PAR.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`
`A. There Is Universal Agreement That Scrambling Phases As
`Claimed Reduces PAR
`
`As both Patent Owner and Petitioners explained, the claimed “scrambling”
`
`must lower PAR. Patent Owner’s discussion on this point is clear, unrefuted, and
`
`fully supported by the ’243 patent. See, e.g., POR, Paper 12 at 16 (“As the ’243
`
`patent explains, PAR in the transmission signal is reduced by adjusting the carrier
`
`phases within a single DMT symbol. See [Ex. 1001] at 6:30–53. If the carrier
`
`phases were only adjusted from one symbol to the next, PAR would not be
`
`reduced. See Ex. 2003 at ¶¶ 41–42.”); Ex. 2003 (Short Decl.) at ¶ 42; Ex. 1001 at
`
`6:30–53.
`
`Petitioners’ arguments showed that they agree that the claims required
`
`adjusting phases of the individual carriers. For example, Petitioners alleged:
`
`A POSITA would have known that one way to reduce PAR is to
`scramble phases of individual carriers.
`
`Reply, Paper 17 at 12.4 Another example is Petitioners’ section heading: “IV.
`
`Stopler’s phase scrambler reduces PAR because it scrambles phases of individual
`
`QAM symbols.” Reply, Paper 17 at 16.
`
`
`4 Patent Owner disagrees and contests Petitioners’ conclusions and untimely
`
`submission of evidence, but agrees that the claimed phase-scrambling must reduce
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`
`Even the FWD acknowledges that the claimed phase scrambling reduces
`
`PAR.5 See FWD, Paper 41 at 25 (“The known technique is identified as phase
`
`scrambling. Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1009, 27–28). The similar device is Shively’s
`
`modem. Pet. 16. And the improvement to it is the same as in Stopler—to reduce
`
`PAR. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1009, 28–29).”); id. at 29 (“In addition, Dr. Tellado
`
`testified that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
`
`the purpose of Stopler’s phase scrambler to randomize data symbols would be to
`
`reduce PAR of transmitted signals….”); id. at 31 (“Accordingly, a drive to reduce
`
`equipment costs would have motivated a person having ordinary skill in the art to
`
`include Stopler’s phase scrambler into Shively’s transmitter to reduce PAR.”).
`
`Thus, all parties and the Panel are in agreement that phase scrambling
`
`reduces PAR. And, of course, if PAR is not reduced, then there can be no phase
`
`scrambling.
`
`
`PAR.
`
`5 Patent Owner does not agree with the conclusions of the FWD, but notes only
`
`that PAR reduction using phase scrambling is discussed and not refuted.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`
`B.
`
`The FWD’s Construction Includes Situations in Which PAR Is
`Not Reduced
`
`The construction in the FWD of “scrambl[e/ing]…a plurality of carrier
`
`phases” (and the similar term “scramble … a plurality of phases”) is overbroad
`
`because it includes scenarios in which PAR is not reduced. For example, if all of
`
`the carriers in a single multicarrier symbol are rotated by the same amount, then
`
`PAR would not be reduced. That is because the phases would not be “scrambled”
`
`in any sense. Instead, when undesirably aligned carrier phases in a single
`
`multicarrier symbol are rotated by the same amount, they will still align by the
`
`same undesirable amount. The FWD overlooks or misapprehends that, without
`
`phase variance from carrier-to-carrier within a single multicarrier symbol, there
`
`can be no reduction in PAR according to the claims and the invention of the ’243
`
`patent, and therefore no phase scrambling as claimed. See, e.g., Petition, Paper 2 at
`
`14, and Ex. 1009 (Tellado Decl.) at ¶ 64 (“Having phase-aligned subcarriers causes
`
`a high peak-to-average power ratio (PAR), since all of the subcarriers add up
`
`coherently at the same time.”); POR, Paper 15 at 49 (“[O]ut of all the evidence in
`
`this inter partes review, only the inventor of the ’243 patent recognized the
`
`problem of high PAR due to phase-aligned carriers.”); Reply, Paper 20 at 20
`
`(“Such non-random, structured data increases the likelihood for phases of carriers
`
`to align, thereby increasing PAR. CSCO-1009, ¶60.”).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`III. STOPLER DOES NOT DISCLOSE “SCRAMBLING THE PHASE
`CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CARRIER SIGNALS”
`A.
`
`Stopler’s “Phase Scrambling” Must Be Compatible with Single-
`Carrier CDMA
`
`There is no disagreement that Stopler’s “phase scrambling” must be
`
`compatible with single-carrier CDMA. POR, Paper 12 at 34 (“So, plainly,
`
`Stopler’s phase scrambling idea must be compatible with single-carrier CDMA.”);
`
`Reply, Paper 17 at 18 (“Stopler contemplates that the phase scrambler could be
`
`used with either a DMT or CDMA modulator.”) (emphasis in original); IPR2016-
`
`01021, FWD, Paper 44 at 15 (“The output from the QAM mapper 82 is provided to
`
`a modulator (not shown) which implements the particular signal modulation
`
`desired, e.g., VCMT, CDMA, etc.”). Nor could there be any reasonable
`
`disagreement based on the disclosure of Stopler. See, e.g., Stopler, Ex. 1012 at
`
`FIG. 5 (Reference numeral 82—“QAM Mapper and Phase Scrambler”); id. at 12:
`
`55–57 (“The output from the QAM mapper 82 is provided to a modulator (not
`
`shown) which implements the particular signal modulation desired, e.g., VCMT,
`
`CDMA, etc.”); id. at 16:4–31 (“25. A method of arranging and transmitting data in
`
`a CDMA system…31. The method of claim 24, wherein…said method includes
`
`the step of phase scrambling….”).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`
`B.
`
`There Is No Way to Reduce PAR in a Single-Carrier System by
`Phase Scrambling As Claimed
`A single carrier system, such as CDMA, transmits only one carrier for each
`
`symbol period. There is only one phase associated with that single carrier. POR,
`
`Paper 12 at 36. Consequently, the FWD overlooks or misapprehends that is
`
`impossible to impose any phase variance between carriers since there is only one
`
`carrier. Id. at 37 (“It is nonsensical to scramble phases within a [single-carrier]
`
`symbol because there is only one phase in each symbol.”). Even if the single phase
`
`of that single carrier is rotated, such rotation would not reduce PAR. This is
`
`because there is no plurality of carriers and respective phases in the first place that
`
`could align to cause an undesirably high PAR. Compare Reply, Paper 17 at 20
`
`(“Such non-random, structured data increases the likelihood for phases of carriers
`
`to align, thereby increasing PAR. CSCO-1009, ¶59.”) (emphasis added).
`
`Because Stopler operates with single-carrier CDMA, Stopler’s “phase
`
`scrambling,” does not and cannot reduce PAR. Single-carrier CDMA does not
`
`have a plurality of carriers which can align. Therefore, the FWD misapprehended
`
`or overlooked that Stopler’s “phase scrambling” is different, and must have a
`
`different purpose than the claimed phase scrambling because Stopler’s “phase
`
`scrambling” is applied to a single carrier, and cannot reduce PAR.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`IV. THE FWD IS PREDICATED ON MISAPPREHENDED
`ASSUMPTIONS AND OVERLOOKED TESTIMONY
`
`The logic in the FWD is based on several incorrect assumptions. In
`
`particular, it states:
`
`Thus, Patent Owner’s diagram shows only that a single-carrier
`embodiment of Stopler would transmit one phase-scrambled QAM
`symbol at a time. It does not show that QAM Mapper and Phase
`Scrambler 82 phase scrambles a DMT symbol—i.e., rotates, by the
`same amount, the phase of a plurality of QAM symbols. This is
`consistent with the cross-examination testimony of Patent Owner’s
`expert, Dr. Short, who admitted that Stopler does not describe phase
`scrambling DMT symbols. Pet. Reply 17–18 (citing Ex. 1027, 60:11–
`14). Thus, Patent Owner’s own diagram is consistent with
`Petitioner’s position that Stopler phase scrambles individual QAM
`symbols, and Patent Owner identifies nothing in Stopler to suggest
`that, in an alternative embodiment with a multicarrier modulator,
`QAM Mapper and Phase Scrambler 82 do not supply a plurality of
`phase-scrambled QAM symbols for modulation onto the plurality of
`carriers in the, e.g., DMT symbol.
`
`FWD, Paper 41 at 21 (emphasis in original).
`
`There are several inaccuracies in this section of the FWD. First, a DMT
`
`symbol cannot be phase scrambled as that term is used in the claims by having its
`
`component QAM symbols rotated by the same amount. As discussed in § II.B,
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`supra, there must be variance of phase adjustment between symbols for there to be
`
`phase scrambling as claimed.
`
`Second, the FWD overlooked or misapprehended Dr. Short’s testimony. He
`
`never admitted that Stopler does not describe phase scrambling DMT symbols, as
`
`interpreted in the FWD (“i.e., rotates by the same amount, the phase of a plurality
`
`of QAM symbols.”). Instead, he was very clear that Stopler’s phase scrambler is
`
`applied to a DMT symbol “as a whole” or “all at once.” See Ex. 1027 at 60:11–
`
`61:5. He clearly meant by this that the same phase adjustment is applied to all of
`
`the QAM symbols in a single DMT symbol. Any conclusion to the contrary is a
`
`misapprehension of Dr. Short’s testimony and also overlooks other testimony of
`
`Dr. Short where he explained that Stopler adjusts each QAM symbol by the same
`
`amount within a DMT symbol, but that amount changes over time from DMT
`
`symbol to DMT symbol (or, in a single carrier system, from over time from QAM
`
`symbol to QAM symbol). See, e.g., Ex. 2003 at ¶ 90 (cited in the POR, Paper 12 at
`
`44) (“The sensible interpretation of Stopler’s statement is that all of the carriers
`
`within a [DMT] symbol are rotated by the same phase shift with the phase shift
`
`changing from [DMT] symbol to [DMT] symbol, but NOT [QAM symbol] to
`
`[QAM symbol]. Instead, the only simplifying way to execute Stopler’s directive is
`
`to rotate the phases of each [QAM symbol] by the same amount.”).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`
`Third, the FWD overlooks or misapprehends Patent Owner’s explanation of
`
`why Stopler would be understood by one of skill in the art to describe adjusting the
`
`phases of the carriers (i.e., QAM symbols) over time from one DMT symbol to the
`
`next, and not by varying amounts within one DMT symbol. In particular, Patent
`
`Owner explained that “[a]ccording to a second narrowband-noise-reducing
`
`technique, Stopler addresses narrowband noise at the frequency of an overhead
`
`pilot carrier by scrambling the phase of the pilot carrier over time from one DMT
`
`symbol to the next, i.e. by inter-symbol phase scrambling.” POR, Paper 12 at 39
`
`(citing Ex. 2003 at ¶ 82) (emphasis in original). The FWD, however, conflated this
`
`argument with a discussion about multiple pilot tones and apparently
`
`misunderstood Patent Owner’s argument to be that Stopler only applied scrambling
`
`to pilot tones or overhead tones. Instead, Patent Owner’s argument is that Stopler
`
`explicitly describes narrowband noise as a problem (in contrast with Stopler’s lack
`
`of any discussion of PAR), and randomizing the phases of carriers over time from
`
`one DMT symbol to the next was a known solution to narrowband noise.
`
`Fourth, the FWD misapprehends that it is not Patent Owner’s burden to
`
`identify somewhere in Stopler that suggests that, “in an alternative embodiment
`
`with a multicarrier modulator, QAM Mapper and Phase Scrambler 82 do not
`
`supply a plurality of phase-scrambled QAM symbols for modulation onto the
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`plurality of carriers in the, e.g., DMT symbol.” Instead, it is Petitioners’ burden to
`
`explain and prove what Stopler does necessarily disclose, and not Patent Owner’s
`
`burden to explain what Stopler does not disclose. See In re Magnum Oil Tools,
`
`Intl., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In an inter partes review, the burden
`
`of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of
`
`the evidence,’ 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), and that burden never shifts to the patentee.”)
`
`(quoting Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015)). And Petitioners have not satisfied their burden. Furthermore,
`
`Patent Owner was never given an opportunity to respond by filing a sur-reply to
`
`Petitioners’ newly-introduced argument about scrambling QAM symbols vs. DMT
`
`symbols. 6/22/2017 Order, Paper 21 at 2.
`
`In addition to the inaccuracies in the above-quoted language of the FWD, the
`
`following arguments were repeated from Petitioners’ Reply, and Patent Owner was
`
`denied an opportunity to respond. For example, the Reply argued for the first time
`
`that “Stopler does not describe phase scrambling DMT symbols.” Petitioners’
`
`Reply, Paper 17 at 17. As another example, the Reply also alleged for the first
`
`time that “the straightforward reading of Stopler—as applying the phase scrambler
`
`to individual QAM symbols—is the only possible reading that is logically and
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`technically coherent.” Id. at 18–19. Again, Patent Owner was denied the
`
`opportunity to file a sur-reply. 6/22/2017 Order, Paper 24 at 2.
`
`V. THE FWD MISAPPREHENDS THAT SHIVELY DOES NOT HAVE
`AN “INCREASED” OR “HIGH” PAR BECAUSE OF THE
`ENORMOUS REDUCTION IN TRANSMISSION POWER
`
`The FWD either misapprehended or overlooked Patent Owner’s argument
`
`and supporting expert testimony when it stated:
`
`There is no dispute that transmitting the same data on multiple carriers
`increases PAR (Pet. Reply 10 (citing PO Resp. 6–7; Ex. 2003 (Short
`Decl.) ¶ 22)) or that Shively’s technique, specifically, will increase
`PAR (PO Resp. 28 (“Shively’s ‘spreading’ technique will contribute a
`small uptick in clipping probability.”).
`
`FWD, Paper 41 at 27–28. This statement, however, is not supported by the record.
`
`Patent Owner absolutely did dispute that Shively exhibits an “increased” (or
`
`“high”) PAR.6 Contrary to the FWD’s selective excerpt of the POR, Patent Owner
`
`actually stated:
`
`6 Notably, the FWD concludes that the probability of clipping is irrelevant to
`
`Petitioner’s stated reason to combine. See FWD, Paper 41 at 27 (stating that “We
`
`need not determine the exact probability of clipping in Shively’s proposed system
`
`because, even assuming Patent Owner’s analysis is accurate, it does not rebut
`
`Petitioner’s reason to combine. Petitioner does not allege that Shively’s proposed
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`
`While Shively’s “spreading” technique will contribute a small uptick
`in clipping probability, any increase would be negated by the
`enormous reduction in clipping probability achieved by reducing
`signal power by more than half. Based on worst-case assumptions
`regarding Shively’s spreading technique, the clipping probability for
`both normal and power-boost modes is virtually zero.
`
`POR, Paper 12 at 28 (emphasis added); see also Ex. 2003 at ¶ 63.
`
`The FWD misapprehends or overlooks Patent Owner’s rigorous analysis that
`
`there is no PAR problem presented by Shively. See FWD, Paper 41 at 26 (“Patent
`
`Owner also argues that because Shively does not disclose a problem with PAR,
`
`one having ordinary skill in the art would have had no reason to look for a solution.
`
`PO Resp. 50. We are not persuaded by these arguments.”). Instead, the FWD
`
`characterizes Shively as having a “high” or “increased” PAR. FWD, Paper 41 at
`
`27–28. The words “high” and “increased,” however, are meaningless without a
`
`frame of reference. “High” with respect to what? “Increased” by how much
`
`
`system causes clipping, or that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`motivated to reduce PAR only if it caused clipping. Instead, Petitioner alleges that
`
`Shively’s proposed system would have an “increased” or “high” PAR: . . . .”).
`
`And yet, the FWD’s assertion that there is purportedly no dispute about what
`
`constitutes “increased” PAR cites to Dr. Short’s discussion of clipping probability.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`and/or with respect to what reference? The FWD does not say. But, the level of
`
`PAR is only relevant to the extent it high enough or increased enough to cause a
`
`“problem” and motivate one to attempt to lower it. See POR, Paper 12 at 7–11;
`
`Ex. 2003 at ¶¶ 23–32. The FWD overlooked that one of skill in the art would need
`
`a frame of reference, and that the relevant frame of reference is clipping
`
`probability.
`
`The FWD further misapprehends or overlooks that Petitioners fail to name
`
`even one other PAR problem besides “clipping.” The FWD cites Petitioners’
`
`Reply and states that “‘numerous problems’ other than clipping ‘would have
`
`motivated a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to look for ways to reduce the PAR
`
`of Shively’s technique.’ Reply 37.” FWD, Paper 41 at 28. Yet Petitioners (and
`
`the FWD) do not disclose even one of these “numerous” other problems. Reply,
`
`Paper 17 at 37. Instead, the FWD correctly observes that “equipment designed to
`
`handle a higher PAR can be larger, more expensive, and more power hungry than
`
`equipment designed to handle a lower PAR.” FWD, Paper 41 at 28. This
`
`statement, however, is confirmation that the only PAR problem in this case relates
`
`to clipping. There are no other problems, much less “numerous” unidentified ones.
`
`As Dr. Short testified: “One way to reduce clipping is to use transceiver
`
`components that have larger dynamic ranges. Such components, however, can be
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`expensive and may consume a relatively large amount of power. Increasing the
`
`dynamic ranges of the components, therefore, can be impractical.” Ex. 2003 at
`
`¶ 26 (emphasis added); see also POR, Paper 12 at 8–9. Petitioners did not present
`
`any evidence for the illogical argument that a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have been motivated by a desire to avoid the need for more expensive or
`
`power-hungry equipment when Shively’s technique would not create such a need
`
`because it does not increase clipping.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner respectfully requests rehearing of
`
`the FWD, and reconsideration and reversal of the findings of unpatentability for
`
`claims 1–25 of the ’243 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: November 27, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Peter J. McAndrews/
`Peter J. McAndrews
`Registration No. 38,547
`McANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY, LTD.
`500 West Madison Street, 34th Floor
`Chicago, Illinois 60661
`Office: (312) 775-8000
`Fax: (312) 775-8100
`pmcandrews@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`
`
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, that a complete copy of the
`
`attached PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION are
`
`being served via electronic mail on this 27th day of November, 2017 to 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
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`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
`
`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
`McANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY,
`LTD.
`500 West Madison Street, 34th Floor
`Chicago, Illinois 60661
`Telephone: (312) 775-8000
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 27, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

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