`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`vs.
`
`TQ Delta, LLC
`
`———————
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,718,158
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158
`
`V. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST ......................................................................... iv
`I.  Mandatory Notices ............................................................................................. 1 
`A.  Real Party-in-Interest ................................................................................. 1 
`B.  Related Matters .......................................................................................... 1 
`C.  Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information ............................... 1 
`II.  Grounds for Standing ......................................................................................... 2 
`III.  Relief Requested ................................................................................................ 2 
`IV.  Reasons for the Requested Relief ...................................................................... 2 
`A.  Summary of Reasons ................................................................................. 2 
`B.  Summary of the ’158 Patent ...................................................................... 4 
`C.  Prosecution History ................................................................................... 7 
`D.  Note Regarding Page Citations ................................................................. 8 
`Identification of Challenges and Claim Construction ....................................... 8 
`A.  Challenged Claims ..................................................................................... 8 
`B.  Claim Construction .................................................................................... 8 
`“multicarrier” (claims 1-30): ............................................................ 8 
`1. 
`“transceiver” (claims 1-28): ............................................................. 9 
`2. 
`C.  Statutory Grounds for Challenges ............................................................. 9 
`D.  Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................................... 10 
`E. 
`Identification of How the Claims Are Unpatentable ............................... 11 
`1.  Challenge #1: Claims 1, 2, 4, 15, 16, and 18 are obvious under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Shively in view of Stopler ....................... 11 
`a)  Brief Summary of Shively ...................................................... 11 
`a)  Brief Summary of Stopler ....................................................... 13 
`b)  Reasons to Combine ............................................................... 14 
`c)  Detailed Claim Analysis ......................................................... 16 
`2.  Challenge #2: 3, 5, 14, 17, 19, and 28-30 are obvious under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Shively in view of Stopler, and further in
`view of Gerszberg ........................................................................... 33 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158
`
`(a)  Brief Summary of Gerszberg .................................................. 33 
`a)  Reasons to Combine ............................................................... 34 
`b)  Detailed Claim Analysis ......................................................... 37 
`3.  Challenge #3: 6, 9, 10, 12, 20, 23, 24, and 26 are obvious under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Shively in view of Stopler, and further
`in view of Bremer ............................................................................ 41 
`a)  Brief Summary of Bremer ...................................................... 41 
`b)  Reasons to Combine ............................................................... 42 
`c)  Detailed Claim Analysis ......................................................... 44 
`4.  Challenge #4: Claims 8, 11, 13, 22, 25, and 27 are obvious
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Shively in view of Stopler,
`further in view of Bremer, and further in view of Gerszberg ......... 50 
`a)  Reasons to Combine ............................................................... 50 
`b)  Detailed Claim Analysis ......................................................... 51 
`5.  Challenge #5: Claims 7 and 21 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over Shively in view of Stopler, further in view of
`Bremer, and further in view of Flammer ........................................ 53 
`a)  Brief Summary of Flammer .................................................... 53 
`b)  Reasons to Combine ............................................................... 54 
`c)  Detailed Claim Analysis ......................................................... 57 
`VI.  Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 60 
`VII.  CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT .............................................................. 61 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`May 9, 2016
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158 to Tzannes (“the ’158 patent”)
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Pat. No. 8,718,158
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Pat. No. 8,090,008
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Pat. No. 7,769,104
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Pat. No. 7,471,721
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Pat. No. 7,292,627
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Pat. No. 6,961,369
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/164,134
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jose Tellado under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Jose Tellado
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,144,696 to Shively et al. (“Shively”)
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,625,219 to Stopler (“Stopler”)
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,424,646 to Gerszberg et al. (“Gerszberg”)
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`Harry Newton, NEWTON’S TELECOM DICTIONARY, 13th Ed. (1998)
`(selected pages)
`
`Kim Maxwell, “Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line: Interim
`Technology for the Next Forty Years,” IEEE Communications
`Magazine (Oct. 1996).
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158
`
`Ex. 1016 Walter Goralski, ADSL AND DSL TECHNOLOGIES (McGraw-Hill
`1998) (selected pages)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,924,516 to Bremer et al. (“Bremer”)
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`Ex. 1018
`
`Ex. 1019
`
`American National Standard for Telecommunications, Network and
`Customer Installation Interfaces—Asymmetric Digital Subscribers
`Line (ADSL) Metallic Interface (ANSI T1.413-1995)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,515,369 to Flammer, III et al. (“Flammer”)
`
`Ex. 1020
`
`
`Declaration of David Bader
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158
`
`I. Mandatory Notices
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`
`The petitioner and real party in interest is Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Petitioner”)
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`To the best knowledge of the petitioner, the ’158 patent is involved in the
`
`following litigations and matters:
`
`Number
`1-15-cv-00611
`
`Court Filed
`DED
`Jul. 17, 2015
`
`Name
`TQ Delta LLC v. Comcast Cable
`Communications LLC
`TQ Delta LLC v. CoxCom, LLC et al
`TQ Delta LLC v. DIRECTV et al
`TQ Delta LLC v. DISH Network
`Corporation et al
`TQ Delta LLC v. Time Warner Cable
`Inc. et al.
`TQ Delta LLC v. Verizon
`Communications, Inc. et al
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information
`
`1-15-cv-00612
`1-15-cv-00613
`1-15-cv-00614
`
`DED
`DED
`DED
`
`1-15-cv-00615
`
`DED
`
`1-15-cv-00616
`
`DED
`
`Jul. 17, 2015
`Jul. 17, 2015
`Jul. 17, 2015
`
`Jul. 17, 2015
`
`Jul. 17, 2015
`
`Lead Counsel
`David L. McCombs
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`Back-up Counsel
`Theodore M. Foster
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`
`
`214-651-5533
`Phone:
`214-200-0853
`Fax:
`
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 32,271
`
`972-739-8649
`Phone:
`972-692-9156
`Fax:
`
`ipr.theo.foster@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 57,456
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158
`
`II. Grounds for Standing
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’158 patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in this petition.
`
`III. Relief Requested
`
`Petitioner asks that the Board review the accompanying prior art and
`
`analysis, institute a trial for inter partes review of claims 1-30 of the ’158 patent,
`
`and cancel those claims as unpatentable.
`
`IV. Reasons for the Requested Relief
`
`As explained below and in the declaration of Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Jose
`
`Tellado, the concepts described and claimed in the ’158 patent were not patentable.
`
`This petition and Dr. Jose Tellado’s declaration explain where each element is
`
`found in the prior art and why the claims would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art when the ’158 patent was filed.
`
`A.
`
`Summary of Reasons
`
`The ’158 patent generally describes transmitting data using discrete
`
`multitone transmission (DMT), a multicarrier technology commonly associated
`
`with Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) service. The ’158 patent explains that if the
`
`phases of the multiple carrier signals are not substantially random, the resulting
`
`transmission signal will have a high peak-to-average power ratio (PAR), raising
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158
`
`power consumption and/or the probability of clipping of the transmission signal.
`
`The ’158 patent notes that an example scenario in which the carrier signals are not
`
`random is when the same data bits are transmitted on multiple carriers.
`
`The use of multiple carriers to transmit redundant data bits was not new, as
`
`shown in U.S. Patent No. 6,144,696 to Shively (Ex. 1011, “Shively”). Shively
`
`describes sending a single bit of data on multiple carriers that that would otherwise
`
`be unusable because of excessive noise. By making use of otherwise “wasted”
`
`portions of the frequency spectrum, Shively’s redundant-bit transmission technique
`
`actually increases the data rate of the communication channel. A person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have recognized, however, that transmitting the
`
`same bit (or bits) on multiple carriers reduces the apparent randomness of the
`
`transmitted signal, and thus increases the peak-to-average power ratio (PAR).
`
`The ’158 patent addresses the potential for a high peak-to-average power
`
`ratio (PAR) by employing a phase scrambler. This technique was also known in
`
`the prior art. U.S. Patent No. 6,625,219 to Stopler (Ex. 1012, “Stopler”), for
`
`example, describes a multicarrier transmitter with a phase scrambler for scrambling
`
`phases of the carrier signals. As explained further below and by Dr. Tellado, a
`
`POSITA would have recognized that a phase scrambler could be similarly
`
`employed to reduce the PAR of Shively’s system.
`
`The ’158 patent also describes various uses for multicarrier signal
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158
`
`transmission, such as providing cable, DSL, VDSL, wireless, high speed internet,
`
`and video services. Providing such services via a multicarrier signal transmission
`
`was known before the earliest priority date of the ’158 patent, as these ideas were
`
`described in U.S. Patent No. 6,424,646 to Gerszberg (Ex. 1013, “Gerszberg”).
`
`The ’158 patent also describes multiple pseudo-random number generators
`
`that determine values associated with a phase shift. U.S. Patent No. 4,924,516 to
`
`Bremer et al. (Ex. 1017, “Bremer”) teaches that the use of multiple pseudo-random
`
`number generators for generating values for phase-shifting a carrier signal was
`
`known before the earliest priority date of the ’158 patent.
`
`The ’158 patent also describes synchronizing the multiple pseudo-random
`
`number generators by transmitting a seed value from one device to another. U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,515,369 to Flammer III et al. (Ex. 1019, “Flammer”) teaches that
`
`transmitting a seed value to synchronize two pseudo-random number generators
`
`was known before the earliest priority date of the ’158 patent.
`
`The evidence in this petition demonstrates that all of the ’158 patent claims
`
`recite nothing more than obvious combinations of known features and are
`
`unpatentable. Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests that this proceeding be
`
`instituted and claims 1-30 of the ’158 patent be held unpatentable.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the ’158 Patent
`
`The ’158 patent relates “to communications systems using multicarrier
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158
`
`modulation.” Ex. 1001, 1:27-31. More specifically, the ’158 patent describes “a
`
`system and a method that scrambles the phase characteristics of the modulated
`
`carrier signals in a transmission signal.” Ex. 1001, 2:34-36. The phase scrambling
`
`is described in the context of a digital subscriber line (DSL) communication
`
`system that includes a discrete multitone (DMT) transmitter. Ex. 1001, 3:25-30.
`
`While the purpose of the phase scrambling is not identified in the claims, the
`
`specification states that the phase scrambling is used to “produce a transmission
`
`signal with a reduced PAR.” Ex. 1001, Abstract.
`
`The ’158 patent describes how each of the multiple carrier signals is
`
`modulated to convey data using quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM). Ex.
`
`1001, 3:65-4:11. QAM is a prior art technique that manipulates both the amplitude
`
`and phase of the carrier. Ex. 1009, p. 14. By using multiple amplitudes and phase
`
`shifts, multiple bits of data can be modulated onto the carrier simultaneously. Id. A
`
`specific amplitude and phase-shift combination is sometimes referred to as a QAM
`
`symbol, and the relationship between these QAM symbols and the data that they
`
`represent is called a constellation. Id., pp. 14-15. Below is an example of a 16-
`
`level QAM constellation showing 16 different combinations of phase and
`
`amplitude, each of which would represent a distinct 4-bit value. Id., p. 15.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158
`
`1100
`
`0000
`
`0100
`
`1100
`
`1000
`
`0001
`
`0101
`
`1101
`
`1001
`
`0011
`
`0111
`
`1111
`
`1011
`
`0010
`
`0110
`
`1110
`
`1010
`
`Ex. 1009, p. 15.
`
`Fig. 1 of the ’158 patent illustrates an exemplary diagram of a
`
`communication system capable of the claimed techniques.
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 1.
`
`The ’158 patent includes two independent claims—claims 1 and 15. Claim 1
`
`is representative:
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158
`
`1. In a multicarrier modulation system including a first transceiver in
`communication with a second transceiver using a transmission
`signal having a plurality of carrier signals for modulating a
`plurality of data bits, each carrier signal having a phase
`characteristic associated with at least one bit of the plurality of
`data bits, a method for scrambling the phase characteristics of
`the carrier signals comprising:
`transmitting the plurality of data bits from the first transceiver to
`the second transceiver;
`associating a carrier signal with a value determined independently
`of any bit of the plurality of data bits carried by the carrier
`signal, the value associated with the carrier signal determined
`by a pseudo-random number generator;
`determining a phase shift for the carrier signal at least based on the
`value associated with the carrier signal;
`modulating at least one bit of the plurality of data bits on the
`carrier signal;
`modulating the at least one bit on a second carrier signal of the
`plurality of carrier signals.
`Ex. 1001, 10:58-11:5.
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The ’158 patent was filed as U.S. Patent Application No. 13/303,417 on
`
`November 23, 2011. The earliest claim priority date for ’158 patent is to
`
`provisional Application No. 60/164,134, filed on November 9, 1999.
`
`During prosecution, all of the claims were rejected over U.S. Patent
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158
`
`Application No. 2002/0172146 to Wu et al. Ex. 1002, 121-126. The Applicant
`
`responded to the rejections by making numerous amendments to the claims,
`
`including adding the limitations of “modulating at least one bit of the plurality of
`
`data bits on the carrier signal” and “modulating the at least one bit on a second
`
`carrier signal of the plurality of carrier signals.” Ex. 1002, 88, 90-91. Following
`
`these amendments, the Examiner allowed claims 1-30. Ex. 1002, 76. The ’158
`
`patent issued on May 6, 2014.
`
`D. Note Regarding Page Citations
`
`For exhibits that include suitable page numbers from in their original
`
`publication, Petitioner’s citations are to those original page numbers and not to the
`
`page numbers added for compliance with 37 CFR 42.63(d)(2)(ii).
`
`V.
`
`Identification of Challenges and Claim Construction
`
`A. Challenged Claims
`
`Claims 1-30 of the ’158 patent are challenged in this petition.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`This petition analyzes the claims consistent with the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner
`
`also proposes construing the following claim terms.
`
`1.
`
`“multicarrier” (claims 1-30):
`
`The ’158 patent does not expressly define a multicarrier. Ex. 1009, p. 19.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158
`
`However, the specification of the ’158 patent describes a “conventional
`
`multicarrier communications system” as using a “combination of multiple
`
`carriers.” Ex. 1001, 1:33-47. Consistent with the specification’s description and for
`
`the purposes of this proceeding, a POSITA would have understood that the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of “multicarrier” includes “multiple carriers.”
`
`Ex. 1009, p. 20.
`
`2. “transceiver” (claims 1-28):
`
`The ’158 patent does not expressly define a transceiver. Ex. 1009, p. 21. But
`
`the ’158 specification states that “DMT transceiver 10 includes a DMT transmitter
`
`22 and a DMT receiver 26.” Ex. 1001, 3:27-39. The ’158 specification also states
`
`that a “transceiver” may be a modem. Ex. 1001, 1:42 & 3:30-53. A computer
`
`dictionary defines “transceiver” as “any device that transmits and receives.” Ex.
`
`1014, p. 709. Consistent with the ’158 specification and the dictionary definition
`
`for the transceiver, and for the purposes of this proceeding, a POSITA would have
`
`understood that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “transceiver” includes a
`
`“device, such as a modem, with a transmitter and a receiver.” Ex. 1009, p. 23.
`
`C.
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges
`
`Challenge #1: Claims 1, 2, 4, 15, 16, and 18 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) over Shively (Ex. 1011) in view of Stopler (Ex. 1012). Shively was filed on
`
`December 31, 1997. See Ex. 1011. Stopler was filed on February 26, 1999. See Ex.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158
`
`1012. Accordingly, both Shively and Stopler are prior art under § 102(e).
`
`Challenge #2: Claims 3, 5, 14, 17, 19, and 28-30 are obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Shively in view of Stopler, and further in view of Gerszberg
`
`(Ex. 1013). Gerszberg was filed on December 31, 1997. See Ex. 1013.
`
`Accordingly, Gerszberg is prior art under § 102(e).
`
`Challenge #3: Claims 6, 9, 10, 12, 20, 23, 24, and 26 are obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Shively in view of Stopler, and further in view of Bremer
`
`(Ex. 1017). Bremer issued on May 8, 1990. See Ex. 1017. Accordingly, Bremer is
`
`prior art under § 102(b).
`
`Challenge #4: Claims 8, 11, 13, 22, 25, and 27 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) over Shively in view of Stopler, further in view of Bremer, and further in
`
`view of Gerszberg.
`
`Challenge #5: Claims 7 and 21 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`Shively in view of Stopler, further in view of Bremer, and further in view of
`
`Flammer. Flammer issued on May 7, 1996, and is prior art under § 102(b). See Ex.
`
`1019.
`
`D. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected by the prior art of
`
`record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re
`
`GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Here, the person of ordinary skill
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158
`
`in the art is someone knowledgeable concerning multicarrier communications.
`
`That person would have (i) a Master’s degree in Electrical and/or Computer Engi-
`
`neering, or equivalent training, and (ii) approximately five years of experience
`
`working with multicarrier communications systems. Ex. 1009, p.7-9. Lack of work
`
`experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa. Id. at 9.
`
`E.
`
`Identification of How the Claims Are Unpatentable
`
`1.
`
`Challenge #1: Claims 1, 2, 4, 15, 16, and 18 are obvious
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Shively in view of Stopler
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 15, 16, and 18 of the ’158 patent are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) over Shively in view of Stopler. Ex. 1009 at 23.
`
`a)
`
`Brief Summary of Shively
`
`Shively describes the “discrete multitone transmission (DMT) of data by
`
`digital subscriber line (DSL) modems.” Shively explains that communications
`
`standards, such as ANSI T1.413-1995, establish upper limits on the power for each
`
`frequency sub-band of the communication channel. Ex. 1011, 2:12-15. This limit,
`
`known as the power spectral density mask, refers to the power as a function of
`
`frequency or tones. Ex. 1011, 1:48-50, 1:60-65; Ex. 1009, p. 23. External standards
`
`may also “impose limits on the aggregate power of a signal (the power applied in
`
`all the sub-band channels.” Ex 1011, 1:46-48.
`
`In certain subchannels, it is possible for the interaction between the
`
`aggregate power limit, the existing noise, and the attenuation of transmitted signals
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158
`
`to leave little or no room for data to be transmitted. Ex. 1009, p. 24. Shively
`
`illustrates this concept in Fig. 1, where line A is the combined effect of noise and
`
`attenuation across the subchannels, line B is the transmit power required to
`
`effectively send one bit per subchannel, and line C is the power limit. Id.; Ex.
`
`1011, 2:1-12.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1011, Fig. 1.
`
`Fig. 1 shows some subchannels (such as b4) where a signal could be
`
`transmitted, but there is insufficient room between the attenuation/noise floor (line
`
`A) and the power limit (line C) for the signal to reliably transmit even a single bit.
`
`Ex. 1009, pp. 24-25. Shively teaches a mechanism for exploiting such power-
`
`limited subchannels by transmitting the same bit on two or more such subchannels.
`
`Ex. 1011, 16:21-29; Ex. 1009, p. 25. By summing the signals across the two
`
`subchannels, the receiver can achieve the signal-to-noise ratio necessary to reliably
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158
`
`decode the transmitted bit. Ex. 1011, 16:21-29. Thus, Shively provides a “method
`
`for increasing a data rate in a communication channel” by transmitting data on
`
`“those parts of the band where transmission would otherwise be impossible.” Ex.
`
`1011, 8:2-3 & 16:6-7.
`
`a)
`
`Brief Summary of Stopler
`
`Like Shively, Stopler describes multicarrier data transmission, including
`
`specifically the use of discrete multitone transmission (DMT). Ex. 1012, 1:50-51.
`
`Stopler explains that DMT is one type of multitone modulation, which involves “a
`
`number of narrow-band carriers positioned at different frequencies, all transmitting
`
`simultaneously in parallel.” Ex. 1012, 1:9-11 & 1:42-45.
`
`Stopler explains that its multitone modulation techniques are compatible
`
`with various signal modulation technologies, an example of which employs 256
`
`carriers positioned at different frequencies. Ex. 1012, 1:42-61; 12:55-57. Stopler
`
`also explains that its signal transmission scheme may implement techniques of
`
`DSL standards such as “ADSL (Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line).” Ex. 1012,
`
`9:37-41, 12:21-24.
`
`Stopler also explains that some of the available carriers may be reserved for
`
`the transmission of overhead signals, such as pilot tones. Ex. 1012, 10:60-62 &
`
`12:51-54. To randomize these overhead channels, Stopler employs a phase
`
`scrambler. Ex. 1012, 12:24-26. A POSITA would have understood that the values
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158
`
`transmitted in an overhead channel may not be random, and in fact, may be highly
`
`structured. Ex. 1009, p.26. Without the phase scrambler, the structured nature of
`
`the overhead channel could contribute to an increase in the peak-to-average power
`
`ratio of the transmitter. Id.
`
`Stopler is analogous to the ’158 patent because both Stopler and the ’158
`
`patent are in the same field of endeavor – data communications and processing. Ex.
`
`1009 at 27; see also Ex. 1012, 1:7-8; Ex. 1001, 1:28-31.
`
`b)
`
`Reasons to Combine
`
`It would have been obvious for a POSITA to combine Shively and Stopler
`
`because the combination is merely a use of a known technique to improve a similar
`
`device, method or product in the same way. Ex. 1009 at 27.
`
`A POSITA would have recognized that by transmitting redundant data on
`
`multiple carriers, Shively’s transmitter would suffer from an increased peak-to-
`
`average power ratio. Id. This increase is due to the fact that the overall transmitted
`
`signal in a multicarrier system is essentially the sum of its multiple subcarriers. Id.
`
`When N subcarrier signals with the same phase and amplitude are added together,
`
`they have a peak power which is N times greater than their individual maximum
`
`powers. Id.
`
`Since Shively’s subcarriers use quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM)—
`
`which encodes bits to be transmitted by modulating the phase and amplitude of the
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158
`
`subcarrier—transmitting the same bits on two different subcarriers causes those
`
`subcarriers to have the same phase and amplitude. Id., pp. 27-28. By transmitting
`
`the same bits on multiple subcarriers, Shively creates a situation where those
`
`multiple subcarriers will be phase-aligned. Having phase-aligned subcarriers
`
`causes a high peak-to-average power ratio (PAR), since all of the subcarriers reach
`
`their maximum power at the same time. Id., p. 28. The ’158 patent acknowledges
`
`that it was known for a high PAR to result from transmitting the same data on
`
`multiple carriers. Ex. 1001, 2:17-21.
`
`Since a high PAR brings numerous disadvantages, a POSITA would have
`
`sought out an approach to reduce the PAR of Shively’s transmitter. Ex. 1009, p.29.
`
`Stopler provides a solution for reducing the PAR of a multicarrier
`
`transmitter. Specifically, Stopler teaches that a phase scrambler can be employed
`
`to randomize the phase of the individual subcarriers. Ex. 1012, 12:24-28. A
`
`POSITA would have recognized that by randomizing the phase of each subcarrier,
`
`Stopler provides a technique that allows two subcarriers in Shively’s system to
`
`transmit the same bits, but without those two subcarriers having the same phase.
`
`Ex. 1009, p.29. Since the two subcarriers are out-of-phase with one another, the
`
`subcarriers will not reach their peak power at the same time, and thus the peak-to-
`
`average power ratio for the overall system will be less than in Shively’s original
`
`system. Id.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158
`
`Combining Stopler’s phase scrambler into Shively’s transmitter would have
`
`been a relatively simple and obvious solution to reduce Shively’s PAR. Id.
`
`Market forces would have prompted the development of multicarrier
`
`communications devices, such as Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) modems,
`
`employing both redundant bit transmission and phase scrambling. Id. As Shively
`
`explains, effective use of redundant bit transmission actually increases the
`
`available bandwidth by exploiting subcarriers that would otherwise be wasted
`
`(unused). Ex. 1011, 16:7-10. Combining redundant bit transmission with Stopler’s
`
`phase scrambling technique would have allowed the development of faster DSL
`
`modems without requiring more complex (and expensive) circuitry for handling an
`
`increased peak-to-average power ratio. Ex. 1009, p. 30.
`
`Thus, it would have been obvious to combine Shively and Stopler as the
`
`combination is merely the use of a known technique to improve a similar device,
`
`method or product in the same way. Ex. 1009, p. 30.
`
`c)
`
`Detailed Claim Analysis
`
`Claim 1
`
`[1.0] “In a multicarrier modulation system including a first transceiver in
`communication with a second transceiver”
`
`Shively and Stopler each render this limitation obvious. Shively describes a
`
`“method for transmission in a multitone communication system.” Ex. 1011, 3:28-
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158
`
`29. In connection with Shively’s method, it was known to employ multicarrier
`
`communications techniques, such as discrete multitone modulation, using a
`
`modem. Ex. 1009, 31; Ex. 1011, 1:5-7 (“This invention relates to discrete
`
`multitone transmission (DMT) of data by digital subscriber loop (DSL)
`
`modems.”). DMT is an example of a multicarrier modulation system. See Ex.
`
`1001, 1:35-38. As discussed in the claim construction of “transceiver,” a modem
`
`is an example of a transceiver. Ex. 1009, p. 31.
`
`Shively illustrates in Fig. 2 (below) two communicating modems, where “a
`
`transmitting modem 31 . . . [is] connected to a receiving modem 32.” Ex. 1011,
`
`9:42, 9:63-64 & Fig. 2. The transmitting modem is a “first transceiver,” and the
`
`receiving modem is a “second transceiver.” Ex. 1009, p. 32.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1011, Fig. 2.
`
`Similarly, Stopler teaches “a method and apparatus for encoding/framing a
`
`data stream of multitone modulated signals.” Ex. 1012, 1:7-12. Stopler explains
`
`that “[m]ultitone modulation is a signal transmission scheme which uses a number
`
`of narrow-band carriers positioned at different frequencies, all transmitting simul-
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158
`
`taneously in parallel.” Ex. 1012, 1:42-49. “The discrete bands or subchannels are
`
`independently modulated, and each have a carrier frequency[.]” Ex. 1012, 1:42-49.
`
`Stopler identifies that “[o]ne type of multitone transmission scheme is
`
`discrete multitone” or DMT. Ex. 1012, 1:50-58; Ex. 1009, p. 32-33. As previously
`
`noted, this is the same multicarrier technology used in the ’158 patent. Ex. 1001,
`
`1:35-38. Accordingly, a POSITA would have recognized that Stopler’s method for
`
`encoding multitone modulated signals is a method that uses “multicarrier
`
`communications” because it transmits using multiple carriers. Ex. 1009, p. 33.
`
`Stopler also teaches that “[d]igital data communications systems are
`
`commonly used to transmit and/or receive data.” Ex. 1012, 1:14-16. Accordingly,
`
`it would have been obvious for Stopler’s multicarrier communications apparatus to
`
`both transmit data and receive data. Ex. 1009, p. 34. The transmitter to transmit
`
`data and the receiver to receive data at the communications apparatus would have
`
`been understood to be a “transceiver.” Id.
`
`Thus, a POSITA would have recognized that Shively and Stopler each
`
`describe multicarrier communications apparatuses, such as modems, and also
`
`methods performed by such modems. Id. Shively and Stopler therefore render
`
`obvious a method performed in a “multicarrier modulation system including a first
`
`transceiver in communication with a second transceiver.” Id.
`
`[1.1] “using a transmission signal having a plurality of carrier signals for
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158
`
`modulating a plurality of data bits:”
`
`Shively and Stopler each render this limitation obvious. First, Shively
`
`describes a “transmitting modem that receives digital data from a data source and
`
`modulates separate carriers to represent the digital data.” Ex. 1011, 5:22-24. This
`
`results in a “modulated signal” that is sent to a receiving modem. Ex. 1011, 5:25-
`
`26. Shively further explains that the available frequency spectrum is divided into
`
`multiple QAM channels, that are each modulated with a QAM signal tone:
`
`In a QAM multitone modulation, the spectrum is broken