Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., DISH NETWORKS,
`LLC, COMCAST CABLE COMMUMICATIONS,
`LLC, COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., TIME
`WARNER CABLE ENTERPRISES LLC, Case Nos.
`VERIZON SERVICES CORP., and ARRIS
`GROUP, INC., IPR2016-01020
` Patent 9,014,243
` Petitioners,
` vs. IPR2016-01021
` Patent 8,718,158
`TQ DELTA, LLC,
` Patent Owner.
`___________________________________
`
` DEPOSITION OF JOSE TELLADO, Ph.D.
` Palo Alto, California
` Tuesday, June 20, 2017
`
`REPORTED BY:
`CYNTHIA MANNING, CSR No. 7645, CLR, CCRR
`JOB NO. 125938
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`10
`
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`25
`
`TQ Delta Exhibit 2013
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. TQ Delta LLC
`IPR2016-01021
`
`1
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`Page 3
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
` HAYNES and BOONE
` Attorneys for Petitioner Cisco Systems, Inc.
` 2323 Victory Avenue
` Dallas, TX 75219
` BY: JAMIE McDOLE
` 2505 N Plano Road
` Richardson, TX 75082
` BY: THEODORE FOSTER
` GREGORY HUH (Telephonically)
` 30 Rockefeller Plaza
` New York, NY 10112
` BY: DINA BLIKSHTEYN
`
` COOLEY
` Attorneys for Petitioner DISH Networks, LLC
` 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue
` Washington, DC 20004
` BY: STEPHEN McBRIDE (Telephonically)
`
`1
`
`234
`
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` June 20, 2017
` 9:03 a.m.
`
` Deposition of JOSE TELLADO, Ph.D., held at
`Haynes and Boone, LLP, 525 University Avenue, Suite
`400, Palo Alto, California, before Cynthia Manning,
`Certified Shorthand Reporter No. 7645, Certified
`LiveNote Reporter, California Certified Realtime
`Reporter.
`
`123
`
`4
`
`5678
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 4
`
`Page 5
`
` PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA;
` TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 2017, 9:03 A.M.
`
` JOSE TELLADO, Ph.D.,
` having first been duly sworn, testified as
` follows:
`
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. McANDREWS:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Tellado. How are you?
` A. Fine. And you?
` Q. Great.
` So you've obviously had your deposition
`taken before; right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And it was taken in this case?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Have you had a deposition taken since then
`in any other matters?
` A. No.
` Q. So you remember how this goes? I'm going
`to ask you questions. Hopefully they are clear
`enough for you to answer.
` A. Yes.
` Q. And when you answer, we need to provide
`
`1
`2
`
`34
`
`5
`6
`
`78
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S (Continued):
`
` DUANE MORRIS
` Attorneys for Petitioners Comcast Cable,
` Communications, LLC; Cox Communications,
` Inc.; Time Warner Cable Enterprises LLC;
` Verizon Services Corp.; and ARRIS Group,
` Inc.
` 1075 Peachtree NE
` Atlanta, GA 30309
` BY: COREY MANLEY
`
` McANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY
` Attorneys for Patent Owner
` 500 West Madison
` Chicago, IL 60661
` BY: PETER McANDREWS
` ANDREW KARP (Telephonically)
`
` Also present:
` Marcus Tzannes
`
`1
`
`234
`
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`2
`
`2
`
`

`

`Page 6
`audible answers so the court reporter can record the
`answer.
` Understood?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And I will try not to talk over you, and
`hopefully you'll do the same and try not to talk
`over me.
` Understood?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Great.
` Are there any reasons why you may not be
`able to testify truthfully and accurately today?
` A. No.
` Q. No prescription medications or things that
`could impair your ability to testify?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. So you have provided a second
`declaration in these IPR matters; correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And it was just a single declaration
`provided for the two matters?
` A. Yes.
` (Exhibit 1026 previously marked for
` identification was referenced herein)
`//
`
`Page 8
`
` A. Repeat the question.
` Q. Does your declaration cite to any evidence
`that PAR reduction was an active area of research in
`the 1990s?
` A. Paragraph 62 has Exhibit 1025, includes my
`Ph.D. dissertation, and there are many references to
`publications that show a lot of activity in PAR
`reduction in the '90s.
` Q. You're saying that your Ph.D. thesis cites
`to some papers; right?
` A. Many papers.
` Q. Okay. But as far as your declaration, this
`document, what does it cite as evidence that PAR
`reduction was an active area of research in the
`1990s?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection; asked and answered.
` THE WITNESS: So I have an Exhibit 1025,
`and it includes my thesis, and it has many citations
`to publications in the '90s --
`BY MR. McANDREWS:
` Q. Okay. But --
` A. -- that show PAR reduction.
` Q. Okay. Are there any other references
`beyond your thesis?
` I understand you're saying that your thesis
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 7
`
`BY MR. McANDREWS:
` Q. Okay. I'm going to put in front of you
`CSCO 1026. It appears that you have your own copy
`there in front of you as well.
` MR. McANDREWS: But this was previously
`marked.
` THE REPORTER: Okay.
`BY MR. McANDREWS:
` Q. So I'd like to refer your attention to
`paragraph 4. It's on page 2 of Exhibit 1026.
` A. I see it.
` Q. And you make the statement in paragraph 4
`there -- it says:
` "Indeed, PAR reduction was an active area
` of research in the 1990s. It was
` well-known to use a bit-scrambler (or,
` equivalently, a phase scrambler) to produce
` a pseudorandomly phase-aligned multicarrier
` signal, which (as discussed above) has an
` amplitude with a Gaussian distribution."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Does your declaration cite any evidence
`that PAR reduction was an active area of research in
`the '90s?
`
`Page 9
`satisfies the answer to my question. But are there
`any other --
` A. I don't recall any other, but this Exhibit
`1025 has a long list of citations.
` Q. Okay. But you don't explain any of those
`citations in paragraph 62; right?
` A. In paragraph 62, I don't see any list. I
`don't include a list in paragraph 62, but the
`exhibit has a long list.
` Q. Okay. And the sum total of paragraph 62
`reads:
` "I have reviewed Cisco's Exhibit 1025, and
` I confirm that it's a true and accurate
` copy of my Ph.D. dissertation entitled
` 'Peak to Average Power Reduction for
` Multicarrier Modulation,' submitted to the
` Department of Electrical Engineering and
` Committee on Graduate Studies of Stanford
` University in September 1999."
` Did I read that correctly?
` A. I believe so.
` Q. Okay. So other than the reference to your
`thesis in paragraph 62 -- strike that.
` So in your declaration, did you cite to any
`prior art that discusses PAR reduction?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`3
`
`3
`
`

`

`Page 10
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A. (Witness reviewing document.)
` In paragraph 43, I read:
` "A POSITA would also have known that
` quantifying the exact level of increase in
` PAR could not be calculated using a simple
` Gaussian approximation. Instead,
` quantifying the increase in PAR would have
` called for running numerical simulations of
` a transmitter. Such simulations were
` commonly created and run by engineers in
` the 1990s to investigate the impact of
` proposed modulation techniques on a
` communication system's performance."
` My thesis includes a long list of work in
`the area where people would do simulations to
`quantify PAR performance.
` Q. Okay. This portion of paragraph 43 that
`you just read, though, it doesn't cite to your
`thesis, does it?
` A. My thesis was written in the '90s.
` Q. It doesn't cite to your thesis, though,
`does it?
` A. My thesis is an example of work that was
`being done in the '90s to increase --
` Q. Do you understand what the word "cite"
`
`Page 12
`
` A. Can you repeat the question?
` Q. Do you agree with me that paragraph 43 does
`not reference your thesis?
` A. (Witness reviewing document.)
` So my thesis is an example of an active
`research in 1990s and is not referenced in paragraph
`4.
` Q. At the end of paragraph 4, you state:
` "Simply achieving Gaussian-level
` performance - which is all that the simple
` randomization techniques of the '243 and
` '158 patents achieve - was trivial and
` well-known."
` Did you cite any document of any kind in
`your second declaration that shows that
`randomization was trivial and well known?
` A. Repeat the question.
` Q. At the end of paragraph 4, you have the
`statement:
` "Simply achieving Gaussian-level
` performance - which is all that the simple
` randomization techniques of the '243 and
` '158 patents achieve - was trivial and
` well-known."
` Did you cite any document of any kind in
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`means?
` MR. McDOLE: Counsel, he wasn't done
`answering your question. If you could let him
`finish, I think that would be appreciated. That was
`part of the rules that you told him, that you
`wouldn't talk over each other.
` MR. McANDREWS: Sure.
` THE WITNESS: Okay. I lost my train of
`thought.
` So, yes. So I mentioned that the PAR
`reduction was an active of research area. I include
`my thesis as work that was done in the '90s. My
`thesis includes a long list of citations. I believe
`that is sufficient to show there was a lot of
`activity of research in the '90s in PAR reduction.
`BY MR. McANDREWS:
` Q. Okay. But can you answer my question?
` The paragraph that you just read, paragraph
`43, does it mention anything about your thesis?
` A. I assume this document has to be read as a
`whole, and my thesis is part of this document. I am
`sure if you get one line at a time, you can find
`things that don't reference my thesis.
` Q. So you agree with me that paragraph 43 does
`not reference your thesis?
`
`Page 13
`
`your second declaration that shows that
`randomization was trivial and well known?
` A. So the ANSI T1.413-1995 is an example of a
`transceiver standard where it used a scrambler to
`achieve Gaussian-like performance.
` Q. And that was a bit scrambler; correct?
` A. So bit scramblers and phase scramblers, if
`designed correctly, achieve similar objectives.
` Q. So are you saying that you could do with a
`bit scrambler and not use a phase scrambler and
`achieve the same objectives?
` A. I didn't say that.
` Q. So what did you just say?
` A. Can you repeat the question?
` Q. So your statement was, "bit scramblers and
`phase scramblers, if designed correctly, achieve
`similar objectives."
` A. They are both meant to break the structure
`on the bits or break the structure on the phases.
`And just randomizing the bits or randomizing the
`phases achieves Gaussian-like performance.
` Q. So let me -- maybe it's a matter of
`breaking down what you meant by "simple
`randomization techniques of the '243 and '158
`patents."
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`4
`
`4
`
`

`

`Page 14
` So in the last sentence of paragraph 4,
`when you say "the simple randomization techniques of
`the '243 and '158 patents," are you referencing bit
`scrambling or phase scrambling or both?
` A. Can you repeat the question?
` Q. Your sentence refers to "the simple
`randomization techniques of the '243 and '158
`patents."
` A. Uh-huh.
` Q. Are you intending to refer to bit
`scrambling there?
` A. And/or. Bit and/or phase scrambling.
` Q. Well, let's assume that you were referring
`to phase scrambling. Was it your intent to say that
`using phase scrambling for randomization was trivial
`and well known?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection; form, lacks
`foundation.
` THE WITNESS: Repeat the question.
`BY MR. McANDREWS:
` Q. Were you intending to say that using phase
`scrambling for randomization was trivial and well
`known?
` A. Again, my thesis has a list of citations
`that includes many papers that show that phase
`
`Page 16
` MR. McDOLE: I'll object to the gratuitous
`statement on the record.
`BY MR. McANDREWS:
` Q. Were you intending to imply that phase
`scrambling for randomization was trivial and well
`known? Is that the intent of the last sentence of
`paragraph 4 of your declaration?
` A. Can I read my answer?
` Q. Sure.
` A. Because I'm going to keep repeating it.
` (Witness reviewing realtime screen.)
` As I said, the research community in the
`'90s was doing phase-scrambling randomization to
`reduce PAR to make it better than Gaussian.
` Q. Okay. The research community in the '90s
`doesn't know what you meant; right?
` A. I am saying that people were trying to beat
`Gaussian. Phase randomizing is a subset, where
`you're not beating Gaussian.
` Q. So were you or were you not intending to
`say that simple randomization using phase scrambling
`was trivial and well known?
` A. The research community in the 1990s were
`trying to do better than simple randomization. They
`were trying to beat this performance, so this is an
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 15
`randomization could beat Gaussian performance. Just
`randomizing is a subset of that.
` Q. Okay. But we need to start with what your
`sentence means.
` Did you intend to imply by this sentence
`that phase scrambling for randomization was trivial
`and well known?
` A. I mentioned that my thesis has a long list
`of publications that show that if you are clever
`about doing phase randomization, you could do better
`than Gaussian. So just one phase randomizer is a
`subset of that, where you only try once, and it only
`achieves Gaussian performance.
` Q. Okay. I'm going to try it one more time,
`because I'm not getting an answer to my question.
` The last sentence of paragraph 4, were you
`intending to imply that phase scrambling for
`randomization was trivial and well known?
` A. So, as I said, the research community in
`the '90s was doing phase randomization to reduce PAR
`to make it better than Gaussian. If you only do it
`once, you get Gaussian.
` Q. Okay. You may think that's an answer to my
`question. It doesn't seem like it's an answer to my
`straightforward question.
`
`Page 17
`assumption. You are trying to do better than, so
`it's assumed you know this already.
` Q. Are you saying that because your thesis
`doesn't address phase scrambling?
` A. My thesis has a long list of people that
`were doing research in phase scrambling. That was
`prior art for my thesis. It was well known when I
`wrote my thesis.
` Q. But, again, you don't cite any of those
`research papers in here?
` A. My thesis does.
` MR. McDOLE: Objection; form.
` You want to let him finish his question,
`please.
`BY MR. McANDREWS:
` Q. So you're saying your thesis cites those
`papers; right?
` A. My thesis cites those papers.
` Q. But your declaration does not cite those
`papers?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: My declaration has my thesis,
`which was attached as an exhibit and includes a long
`list of publications that show how phase
`randomization could do better than Gaussian
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`5
`
`5
`
`

`

`Page 18
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`distribution.
`BY MR. McANDREWS:
` Q. So setting aside your thesis and these
`apparent things that were cited in your thesis, do
`you cite any documents that show that phase
`randomization was known prior to the filing of the
`'158 and '243 patents?
` A. Can I get a copy of my thesis?
` Q. I said "setting aside your thesis." I know
`your views on your thesis. I'd like to isolate the
`thesis to the side just for a moment.
` Does your declaration cite any document
`that shows that phase randomization was being used
`to reduce PAR prior to the '158 and '243 patents?
` A. I repeat, my thesis has a very long list of
`papers that show that phase randomization, done
`correctly, could do better than a Gaussian
`distribution.
` Q. Okay. But -- so you're referring to your
`thesis and whatever might be cited into it.
` You haven't cited any other document that
`you've referenced in your declaration; correct?
` I think that's pretty obvious. We can move
`on.
` MR. McDOLE: Are you withdrawing the
`
`Page 20
` Q. I am at the last sentence of paragraph 6,
`on page 3 of your declaration.
` A. Mm-hmm.
` Q. You say:
` "And, because of these spikes, Shively's
` technique increases PAR."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes, I see that.
` Q. And it's an increase compared to what?
` A. Increase relative to randomized carriers.
` Q. And do you agree that an increase in PAR is
`not always a problem that requires a solution?
` A. Can you ask the question?
` Q. Do you agree that an increase in PAR is not
`always a problem that requires a solution?
` A. Ask the question again.
` Q. Do you agree that an increase in PAR is not
`always a problem that requires a solution?
` A. If you are ready to live with a suboptimal
`transmitter, you may want to live with higher PAR.
` Q. So you reference spikes in power in the
`first sentence of paragraph 6.
` A. Mm-hmm.
` Q. Are -- every time there is a spike in
`power, is that a problem?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`question, or do you want an answer?
` MR. McANDREWS: I would like an answer, if
`he can answer the question, other than by referring
`to his thesis.
` MR. McDOLE: Do you need the question
`re-asked?
` THE WITNESS: I could answer -- I answered
`ten times. My thesis is a good example of a long
`list of --
` Can I just read my question [sic] so I --
`it's easier for me to say it over and over again?
`BY MR. McANDREWS:
` Q. I understand. So you're going to answer
`the question by reference to your thesis; correct?
` A. Which is a very --
` Q. Okay.
` A. It was published into a book. It was a
`popular reference.
` Q. All right. So let's go to paragraph 6.
` In paragraph 6 -- and I'll just read the
`last sentence. It says:
` "And, because of these spikes, Shively's
` technique increases PAR."
` Do you see that?
` A. Where are you?
`
`Page 21
` A. If you have a technique to avoid the spike,
`you could transmit more average power, which is used
`for more useful communication, more bytes. So
`spikes are a problem.
` Q. But every time there is a spike, would it
`exceed the capability of the transmitter?
` A. There is a better transmitter you could
`design that has less spikes, that has more average
`power, and it has more bits over the line.
` Q. So you think that every time there is a
`spike, one of skill in the art would try to fix that
`in some way?
` A. Can you repeat the question?
` Q. So do you believe that every time there is
`a spike in the transmission signal, that one of
`skill in the art would try to fix that?
` A. There is a trade-off between how optimal
`you want to make your transceiver and how much
`complexity you want to put at it.
` Q. And it's your opinion that Shively's system
`creates problematic spikes; right?
` A. Shively increases the probability of having
`spikes.
` Q. But Shively himself didn't propose a
`solution for that, did he?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`6
`
`6
`
`

`

`Page 22
`
` A. Repeat the question.
` Q. But Shively himself didn't propose a
`solution for that, did he?
` A. Shively -- I don't recall Shively proposing
`a solution for that.
` Q. Okay. I'd like to take a look at paragraph
`7 now. In the second sentence there, you say:
` "However, Shively's technique is not
` limited to lines of only 18,000 feet and
` AWG26 gauge, nor is it limited to lines
` suffering from very high attenuation.
` Shively broadly described using its
` bit-spreading technique 'to compensate for
` high attenuation and/or noise in those
` parts of the communication channel
` frequency band that would otherwise not be
` usable due to noise and attenuation
` effects' and reduce near-end crosstalk
` noise."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes, I see that.
` Q. So it's your opinion, apparently, that
`Shively's bit-spreading is a way to compensate for
`high attenuation and/or noise -- I'm sorry --
`"compensate for high attenuation and/or high noise."
`
`Page 24
` THE WITNESS: I don't recall Shively having
`specific examples of high noise or high crosstalk,
`but his techniques applied to channels where the
`relationship between attenuation and noise and
`crosstalk leads to bits that are stressed, meaning
`having challenge to get through.
`BY MR. McANDREWS:
` Q. So it's a combination of the attenuation
`and noise that determines when Shively's technique
`would be useful?
` A. Can you repeat the question again?
` Q. So it's a combination of the attenuation
`and noise that determines when Shively's technique
`would be useful?
` A. And/or noise.
` Q. And so there is apparently -- you agree
`that there are circumstances in which high
`attenuation would lead to the use of Shively?
` A. I agree that ADSL modems have to work over
`a plurality of channel attenuations and noise
`profiles, and they should be robust to many
`examples.
` Q. Okay. But at least you acknowledge that
`Shively was addressing a problem -- he was
`addressing a solution, I'm sorry, to compensate for
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 23
`
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. And you've given us some noise
`profiles that you found in the T1.413-1995
`specification; correct?
` A. Repeat the question.
` Q. You've provided in your declaration, in
`paragraph 9 through 13, some noise profiles in the
`T1.413-1995 standard; that's right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And are these -- these are apparently your
`examples of high noise? Is that what they're there
`for?
` A. Can you repeat the question?
` Q. These examples you've provided, are they
`intended to be examples of the high noise that
`Shively was referencing?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: Ask the question again.
`BY MR. McANDREWS:
` Q. These noise profiles that you provide in
`paragraphs 9 through 13, are they intended to be
`examples of the high noise that Shively is
`referencing?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection; form.
`
`Page 25
`high attenuation and/or high noise; correct?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: Repeat the question.
`BY MR. McANDREWS:
` Q. You acknowledge that Shively was --
`Shively's spreading technique, according to Shively,
`was to compensate for high attenuation and/or high
`noise?
` A. Shively's technique could use -- can be
`used to solve channels for which there is high
`noise, high loss, or both, depending on the
`relationship between loss and noise.
` 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.
`BY MR. McANDREWS:
` Q. I'm asking about what Shively actually
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`7
`
`7
`
`

`

`Page 26
`
`teaches, though.
` Shively references using his technique, in
`the case of high attenuation, on loops of 18,000
`feet or longer; correct?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: No.
`BY MR. McANDREWS:
` Q. He doesn't?
` A. He includes many examples -- not many
`examples. He includes -- his technique --
` You want to get a paragraph? You want to
`give me the reference to read it to you or just read
`it from my declaration?
` Q. The declaration is sufficient for now.
` A. Okay. So, again, this is taken from
`Shively:
` "Shively 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
` effect.'"
` So that includes many combinations. It
`includes cables that have a lot of crosstalk, cables
`
`Page 28
`
` A. He says --
` MR. McDOLE: Objection; form. I'll also
`object to the gratuitous statement on the record.
` THE WITNESS: "Order of 18,000 feet" is
`trying to indicate a high attenuation state and is a
`function of many other parameters.
`BY MR. McANDREWS:
` Q. So can we agree that it's addressed to high
`attenuation and/or high noise, as you state in your
`paragraph 7?
` A. High attenuation and/or high noise, and
`there is many combinations.
` Q. Okay. So you -- later in your declaration,
`you report on some -- a simulation that you ran;
`right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you state that you believe that
`Dr. Short didn't examine the 18,000-foot loop with
`"enough rigor," I think is the term you use?
` A. I don't recall the exact term. Can you
`point me to the paragraph?
` Q. That's not important.
` But did you believe that it requires a
`rigorous analysis to determine whether a particular
`loop and particular attenuation and noise conditions
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 27
`that are very thin, cables that are very thick, that
`have a lot of bridge taps. You need a combination
`of attenuation and noise to stress some subchannels.
` Q. Okay. But does Shively mention anything of
`those things that you just said: bridge taps, thin
`wire gauge?
` A. He talks about high attenuation and/or high
`noise.
` 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.
` A. It includes -- he did not talk about the
`gauge of the cable. The gauge of the cable has a
`big impact on the attenuation.
` Q. I agree with that.
` He doesn't discuss gauge of the cable. He
`says "order of 18,000 feet or more"; right?
`
`Page 29
`
`will cause a power problem?
` A. Please repeat the question.
` Q. Do you believe that it requires a rigorous
`analysis to determine whether a particular loop
`and/or noise attenuation -- and/or noise or
`attenuation will cause a PAR problem?
` A. So Shively describes this technique
`applying to cables of high attenuation and/or high
`noise. There is many loops that have those
`properties. To see the benefits of Shively, you
`would need to check many different loops. I only
`provided a model for one example. You would need to
`do more examples to show the benefit of Shively.
` Q. Okay.
` A. And my example is not the worst case, it's
`just an example.
` Q. Right. And your model doesn't include
`consideration of any of the noise, other than the
`background noise floor; correct?
` A. Repeat the question.
` Q. Your model does not take into consideration
`any noise, other than the background noise floor;
`correct?
` A. As I said, the number -- the Shively's
`benefits are a function of noise and/or crosstalk.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`8
`
`8
`
`

`

`Page 30
`To see the true benefits of Shively, you have to
`check many more combinations. I only did one
`combination.
` Q. You did -- you ran the simulation; right?
` A. I only did one of those plurality of
`combinations of high crosstalk and high noise.
` Q. But you did it? You did it; right?
` A. I did it.
` Q. Okay. So you're familiar with it?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. So can we talk about the simulation
`you actually ran, because you're familiar with it;
`right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. The simulation you actually ran, did
`it take into consideration any noise, other than
`background noise floor?
` A. As I mentioned, I could have done many
`other permutations. I just chose one example. I
`could have done examples where there was crosstalk
`and Shively's technique would have been more
`beneficial. I chose to do just -- change one
`parameter, which was length, and kept the gauge the
`same.
` Q. Okay. I know you're saying you could have
`
`Page 32
`simulation applies to many other combinations of
`loss and crosstalk, as long as the same number of
`tones are random and the same number of tones are
`structured, or Shively, tones.
` And to explain the simulation, I have shown
`it based on one example, but it applies to many
`other examples.
` Q. So let me ask it this way: The four noise
`profiles that you provide in paragraphs 9 through
`13 -- and there is Figure B.1, B.2, B.3, and B.4.
` A. Mm-hmm.
` Q. Do you see those?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Did you use any of those in your
`simulation?
` A. So my simulation just models the
`transmitter. It does not have crosstalk in it. It
`actually models anything where the relationship
`between the loop loss and the loop crosstalk is such
`that I believe there is 182 tones. Yes. I believe
`there is 182 random carriers and 52 Shively
`carriers.
` So to go back to Shively, any loop where
`the relationship between the attenuation and/or
`crosstalk is such that 182 carriers are random and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 31
`done more, but let's talk about what you actually
`did, okay?
` A. Mm-hmm.
` Q. Can we limit ourselves to what you actually
`did?
` A. Mm-hmm.
` Q. Okay. So the simulation you actually ran,
`does it take into consideration any noise, other
`than the noise floor?
` A. The simulation models a plurality of
`channels for which the loss and crosstalk
`relationship uses the first end tones that I did in
`the simulation. So the simulation would have
`generated the same output if there was less loss and
`more attenuation, as long as it used the same number
`of tones.
` Q. But you didn't model it based on any noise,
`other than the noise floor, did you?
` A. Repeat the question.
` Q. You didn't model your analysis, your
`simulation, based on any noise, other than the noise
`floor; correct?
` A. So that