Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 7
`
`
`
` Entered: November 4, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 7
`
`
`
` Entered: November 4, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter
`
`partes review of claims 1‒30 of U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158 B2 (Ex. 1001,
`
`“the ’158 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). TQ Delta, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed
`
`a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Institution of an inter
`
`partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the
`
`petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood
`
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`
`challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108.
`
`Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we conclude
`
`the information presented shows there is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claims 1–30 of
`
`the ’158 patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`
`
`Petitioner indicates that the ’158 patent is the subject of several
`
`pending judicial matters. Pet. 1.
`
`B. The ʼ158 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`The ’158 patent relates to multicarrier communications systems that
`
`lower the peak-to-average power ratio (PAR) of transmitted signals.
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:28‒31. A value is associated with each carrier signal, and a
`
`phase shift is computed for each carrier signal based on the value associated
`
`with that carrier signal. Id. at 2:38‒41. The value is determined
`
`independent of the input bit value carried by the carrier signal. The
`
`computed phase shift value is combined with the phase characteristic of that
`
`carrier signal to substantially scramble the phase characteristics of the carrier
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`signals. Id. at 2:38‒45. Figure 1 illustrates the multicarrier communication
`
`system and is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates the multicarrier communication system, digital
`
`subscriber line (DSL) communication system 2, which includes discrete
`
`multitoned (DMT) transceiver 10 communicating with remote transceiver 14
`
`over communication channel 18 using transmission signal 38 having a
`
`plurality of carrier signals. Id. at 3:27‒31. DMT transceiver 10 includes
`
`DMT transmitter 22 and DMT receiver 26. Id. at 3:31‒32. Remote
`
`transceiver also includes transmitter 30 and receiver 34. Id. at 3:32‒34.
`
`DMT transmitter 22 transmits signals over communication channel 18 to
`
`receiver 34. Id. at 3:40‒42.
`
`DMT transmitter 22 includes a quadrature amplitude modulation
`
`(QAM) encoder 42, modulator 46, bit allocation table (BAT) 44, and phase
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`scrambler 66. Id. at 3:53‒56. QAM encoder 42 has a single input for
`
`receiving serial data bit stream 54 and multiple parallel outputs to transmit
`
`QAM symbols 58 generated by QAM encoder 42 from bit stream 54. Id. at
`
`3:65‒4:1. Modulator 46 provides DMT modulation functionality and
`
`transforms QAM symbols 58 into DMT symbols 70. Id. at 4:12‒14.
`
`Modulator 46 modulates each carrier signal with a different QAM symbol
`
`58, and, therefore, this modulation results in carrier signals having phase and
`
`amplitude characteristics based on QAM symbol 58. Id. at 4:15‒18.
`
`Modulator 46 also includes phase scrambler 66 that combines a phase shift
`
`computed for each QAM-modulated carrier signal with the phase
`
`characteristics of that carrier signal. Id. at 4:31‒34.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1‒30 of the ’158 patent. Claims 1 and 15
`
`are independent claims. Claims 2‒14 and 29 depend, either directly or
`
`indirectly, from claim 1, and claims 16‒28 and 30 depend, either directly or
`
`indirectly, from claim 15. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
`
`In a multicarrier modulation system including a first
`1.
`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
`independent of any bit of the plurality of data bits carried by the
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`
`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; and
`
`modulating the at least one bit on a second carrier signal
`of the plurality of carrier signals.
`
`Ex. 1001, 10:59–11:11.
`
`D. The Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`The information presented in the Petition sets forth proposed grounds
`
`of unpatentability of claims 1‒30 of the ’158 patent under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as follows (Pet. 9‒10):1
`
`References
`
`Shively2 and Stopler3
`Shively, Stopler, and
`Gerszberg4
`Shively, Stopler, and
`Bremer5
`Shively, Stopler, Bremer,
`and Gerszberg
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`
`1, 2, 4, 15, 16, and 18
`
`3, 5, 14, 17, 19, and 28‒30
`
`6, 9, 10, 12, 20, 23, 24, and 26
`
`8, 11, 13, 22, 25, and 27
`
`
`1 Petitioner supports its challenges with the Declaration of Dr. Jose Tellado.
`Ex. 1009.
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,144,696; issued Nov. 7, 2000 (Ex. 1011) (“Shively”).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 6,625,219 B1; issued Sept. 23, 2003 (Ex. 1012)
`(“Stopler”).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 6,424,646 B1; issued July 23, 2002 (Ex. 1013)
`(“Gerszberg”).
`5 U.S. Patent No. 4,924,516; issued May 8, 1990 (Ex. 1017) (“Bremer”).
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`
`References
`
`Shively, Stopler, Bremer,
`and Flammer6
`
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`
`7 and 21
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`The Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`
`77 Fed. Reg. at 48,766. Under the broadest reasonable construction
`
`standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as
`
`would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the
`
`entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2007).
`
`“multicarrier”
`
`
`
`Each of independent claims 1 and 15 recites a “multicarrier.”
`
`Petitioner proposes that we interpret the phrase to include “multiple
`
`carriers.” Pet. 8‒9. Petitioner arrives at its proposed interpretation by
`
`explaining that although the term is not expressly defined, the Specification
`
`of the ’158 patent describes a conventional multicarrier communications
`
`system as using a combination of multiple carriers. Id. at 9 (citing Ex. 1001,
`
`1:33‒47). Patent Owner argues that the term “multicarrier” need not be
`
`interpreted to render a decision on whether to institute trial. Prelim. Resp.
`
`11. We determine that it is not necessary to interpret the term “multicarrier”
`
`for purposes of this decision.
`
`
`6 U.S. Patent No. 5,515,369; issued May 7, 1996 (Ex. 1019) (“Flammer”).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`
` “transceiver”
`
`Each of independent claims 1 and 15 recites a “transceiver.”
`
`Petitioner proposes that we interpret transceiver to include “a device, such as
`
`a modem, with a transmitter and a receiver.” Pet. 9. Petitioner arrives at its
`
`proposed interpretation by explaining that the word “transceiver” is a
`
`combination of the words transmitter and receiver and that the specification
`
`of the ’158 patent refers to transceivers as modems. Id. (citing Ex. 1009, 23;
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:42, 3:30‒53).
`
`Patent Owner argues that the term “transceiver” need not be
`
`interpreted to render a decision on whether to institute trial. Prelim. Resp.
`
`11. Patent Owner, however, does not submit that Petitioner’s proposed
`
`interpretation of the term “transceiver” is incorrect. Based on the record
`
`before us, at this stage of the proceeding, we adopt Petitioner’s interpretation
`
`of “transceiver” to include “a device, such as a modem, with a transmitter
`
`and receiver.”
`
`B. Asserted Obviousness over Shively and Stopler
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 4, 15, 16, and 18 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Shively and Stopler. Pet. 11–32.
`
`Relying on the testimony of Dr. Jose Tellado, Petitioner explains how the
`
`combination of Shively and Stopler allegedly meets all of the claim
`
`limitations. Id. (citing Ex. 1009).
`
`Shively (Ex. 1011)
`
`Shively discloses discrete multitoned transmission (DMT) of data by
`
`digital subscriber loop (DSL) modems and the allocation of bits to the
`
`discrete multitones. Ex. 1011, 1:5‒8. Bit allocation is performed to
`
`optimize throughput within aggregate power and power spectral density
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`mask limits. Id. at 4:17‒19. The system includes a transmitting modem and
`
`a receiving modem connected by a cable having four twisted pairs of
`
`conductors. Id. at 9:63‒65. The modems include a source encoder, a
`
`channel decoder, and a digital modulator to take in and transmit data from a
`
`data source. Id. at 10:9‒12. The modems also include a digital
`
`demodulator, a channel decoder, and a source decoder to receive the data
`
`and supply it to a data sink. Id. at 10:12‒14. The source encoder
`
`compresses data, applies the compressed data to the channel decoder, which
`
`performs error correction. Id. at 10:15‒19. The error corrected data is
`
`applied to the digital modulator, which acts as the interface with the
`
`communication channel. Id. at 10:15‒22. The digital demodulator
`
`constructs a data stream from the modulated signal and applies it to the
`
`channel decoder, which performs error correction, and then applies the
`
`corrected data to the source decoder, which decompresses the data. Id. at
`
`10:22‒26.
`
`In the QAM multitoned modulation, the spectrum is broken into
`
`multiple sub-bands or QAM channels. Id. at 10:27‒29. The digital
`
`modulator generates N QAM signal tones, one for each QAM channel.
`
`Id. at 10:29‒30. The serial stream is segmented in to N frames, each having
`
`allocated to it ki bits of data. Id. at 10:30‒31. The multi-carrier modulator
`
`generates N QAM tones, one for each channel, at the same symbol rate but
`
`with a respective constellation for each channel. Id. at 10:35‒37.
`
`Stopler (Ex. 1012)
`
`
`
`Stopler discloses a method and apparatus for encoding/framing a data
`
`stream of multitoned modulated signals to improve impulse burst immunity.
`
`Ex. 1012, 1:8‒11. The encoding/framing scheme allows efficient operation
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`in multipoint to point channels affected by ingress and impulsive
`
`interference. Id. at 5:11‒14. Two dimensional interleaving is performed,
`
`with one dimension being time and the other dimension being frequency
`
`(tones or sub-channels). Id. at 5:18‒20. Stopler further discloses a
`
`diagonalization scheme, where data packets are spread over time in a
`
`diagonal fashion, such that an impulse noise affects more than one user’s
`
`packets, with the effect on each being reduced. Id. at 5:64‒67.
`
`Analysis
`
`Claim 1 recites “[i]n a multicarrier modulation system including a first
`
`transceiver in communication with a second transceiver.” Petitioner
`
`contends, for example, that Shively’s description of two communicating
`
`modems meets the first and second transceivers. Pet. 17. Petitioner further
`
`contends that Shively describes a multicarrier modulation system.
`
`Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1011, 1:5‒7, 1:35‒38).
`
`Claim 1 further recites “using a transmission signal having a plurality
`
`of carrier signals for modulating a plurality of data bits.” Petitioner
`
`contends, for example, that Shively describes a transmitting modem that
`
`receives digital data from a data source and modulates separate carriers to
`
`represent the digital data, which results in a modulated signal sent to a
`
`receiving modem. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1011, 5:22‒26). Petitioner further
`
`contends that Shively explains that the available frequency spectrum is
`
`divided into multiple QAM channels, which a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have understood to be a “plurality of carrier signals for modulating
`
`a plurality of data bits.” See Pet. 19; Ex. 1009, 36.
`
` Claim 1 recites “each carrier signal having a phase characteristic
`
`associated with at least one bit of the plurality of data bits.” Petitioner
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`contends that Shively describes that quadrature amplitude modulation
`
`(QAM), for example, produces a signal whose phase and amplitude convey
`
`the encoded k-bits of information and that a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have understood that the phase of a signal used in QAM to
`
`convey bits is a phase characteristic as claimed. Pet. 20; Ex. 1011, 1:29‒30;
`
`Ex. 1009, 38.
`
`
`
`Claim 1 further recites a “method for scrambling the phase
`
`characteristics of the carrier signals.” Petitioner contends that Stopler
`
`describes a phase scrambler that applies a phase scrambling sequence to data
`
`in the form of m-tuples which are to be mapped into QAM symbols. Pet. 22;
`
`Ex. 1012, 12:20‒28. Petitioner contends that the QAM symbols are then
`
`provided to a modulator which implements the particular signal modulation.
`
`Pet. 22; Ex. 1012, 12:55‒57, Fig. 5; Ex. 1009, 39‒40. Petitioner explains,
`
`with supporting evidence, that it would have been obvious to a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art that modulating the phase-scrambled QAM
`
`symbols results in the phases of the carrier signals being scrambled. Pet. 22;
`
`Ex. 1009, 44. Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art to employ Stopler’s phase scrambling
`
`techniques in Shively’s transmitter. Pet. 22; Ex. 1009, 45.
`
`
`
`Claim 1 also recites “transmitting the plurality of data bits from the
`
`first transceiver to the second transceiver.” Petitioner relies on Shively’s
`
`description of a transmitting modem that transmits data bits to a receiving
`
`modem to meet this limitation. Pet. 23. Claim 1 also recites “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.”
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`Petitioner relies on Stopler to meet this limitation. In particular, Petitioner
`
`contends that Stopler teaches a pseudo random generator that outputs
`
`consecutive output pairs that are converted into numbers 2a+b. Pet. 24;
`
`Ex. 1012, 12:28‒45. The value (2a+b), derived from the pseudo-random
`
`number generator, Petitioner contends, is a “value determined independently
`
`of any bit of the plurality of data bits carried by the carrier signal.” Pet. 24;
`
`Ex. 1009, 48. Petitioner further explains, with supporting evidence, that
`
`because Stopler teaches that the value (2a+b) is associated with a symbol
`
`that is transmitted on a sub-channel having a carrier frequency, the value
`
`(2a+b) is associated with a carrier signal. Pet 25; Ex. 1009, 48‒49.
`
`
`
`Claim 1 recites “determining a phase shift for the carrier signal at least
`
`based on the value associated with the carrier signal.” Petitioner contends
`
`that Stopler teaches that the (2a+b) value is used to determine a phase shift
`
`because the sum (2a+b) is used to select the amount of rotation to be applied
`
`to the symbol, where the phase rotation can be 0, π/2, π, or -π/2. Pet. 25;
`
`Ex. 1012, 12:28‒45; Ex. 1009, 49. Petitioner contends that a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that applying a rotation to the
`
`symbol results in a phase shift in the carrier signal after the symbol is
`
`modulated onto the carrier. Pet. 25‒26; Ex. 1009, 49.
`
`Claim 1 recites “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.” Petitioner points to descriptions in
`
`Shively that describes determining “a respective carrier modulated to
`
`transmit one bit in each of a plurality of multitone subchannels of the
`
`channel” and “modulating a first set of respective carriers to represent
`
`respective unique portions of the data stream.” Pet. 26 (quoting Ex. 1011,
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`8:3‒6, 8:5‒13). Petitioner further contends that Shively employs QAM
`
`multitone modulation, and Shively’s multiple sub-bands or QAM channels
`
`correspond to the claimed “plurality of carrier signals.” Pet. 26; Ex. 1009,
`
`51. Petitioner submits that Stopler also teaches using QAM to convey data
`
`bits on carrier signals. Pet. 26‒27. Petitioner explains that it would have
`
`been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to employ the
`
`techniques of Shively and Stopler to modulate at least one bit of the plurality
`
`of data bits on the carrier signal. Id. at 27 (citing Ex. 1009, 52). Petitioner
`
`further argues that Shively discloses modulating a portion of data on
`
`multiple carriers, and, therefore, meets the “second carrier” claim limitation.
`
`Id. at 27‒29.
`
`Petitioner provides reasonable rationale for combining Shively and
`
`Stopler. Pet. 14‒24. For example, Petitioner argues that “[i]t 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.” Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 1009, 27).
`
`Petitioner explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`recognized that “by transmitting redundant data on multiple carriers,
`
`Shively’s transmitter would suffer from an increased peak-to-average power
`
`ratio” because “the overall transmitted signal in a multicarrier system is
`
`essentially the sum of its multiple subcarriers.” Id. (citing Ex. 1009, 27).
`
`Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have
`
`sought out an approach to reduce the [(peak-to-average power ratio)] PAR of
`
`Shively’s transmitter” and “Stopler provides a solution for reducing the PAR
`
`of a multicarrier transmitter.” Id. at 15 (citing Ex. 1009, 29). Petitioner
`
`argues that Stopler discloses “a phase scrambler [that] can be employed to
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`randomize the phase of the individual subcarriers” (Id. at 15 (quoting
`
`Ex. 1012, 12:24‒28)) and “[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.” Id. at 15. Petitioner
`
`explains that “[s]ince the two subcarriers are out-of-phase with one another,
`
`the subcarriers will not reach their peak power at the same time,” thereby
`
`reducing the peak-to-average power ratio (PAR) in Shively’s system. Id.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner argues that “[c]ombining Stopler’s phase scrambler
`
`into Shively’s transmitter would have been a relatively simple and obvious
`
`solution to reduce Shively’s PAR.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1009, 29).
`
`Independent claim 15 is similar to claim 1. Petitioner has made a
`
`showing with respect to claim 15 similar to its showing with respect to claim
`
`1. See, e.g., Pet. 30‒32. To the extent that claim 15 is different from claim
`
`1, Petitioner has accounted for such differences. We also have reviewed
`
`Petitioner’s showing with respect to dependent claims 2, 4, 16, and 18.
`
`Based on the current record before us, and notwithstanding Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments, which we address below, we determine that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that claims 1, 2, 4,
`
`15, 16, and 18 would have been obvious over Shively and Stopler.
`
`Patent Owner’s Contentions
`
`Patent Owner argues that “no review should be instituted because
`
`Petitioner has not provided a sufficient rationale to combine Shively and
`
`Stopler.” Prelim. Resp. 13. Specifically, Patent Owner argues (1) Shively
`
`does not suffer from an increased peak-to-average power ratio (PAR),
`
`(2) Shively only uses a small number of carriers and therefore would not
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`suffer from a PAR problem, (3) Stopler is ambiguous as to what it teaches,
`
`and (4) Petitioner’s rationale for combining Shively and Stopler suffers from
`
`hindsight bias. Id. at 13‒21.
`
` We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s attorney arguments because
`
`such arguments do not persuade us that Petitioner’s challenge, which is
`
`based on record evidence is insufficient to institute a trial. For example,
`
`Petitioner explains, through the testimony of Dr. Tellado, that a person with
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination of
`
`Shively and Stopler is nothing more than the use of a known technique to
`
`improve a similar device, method or product. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1009, 27).
`
`Dr. Tellado further explains why a person with ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have recognized that Shively would have suffered from increased
`
`PAR. Ex. 1009, 27. Patent Owner’s attorney arguments regarding Shively’s
`
`lack of increased PAR and Stopler’s ambiguity are not persuasive because
`
`they are not based on evidence of record, such as from a declarant attesting
`
`to how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the
`
`teachings of Stopler and Shively. Furthermore, Dr. Tellado discloses that
`
`the knowledge of the advantages and benefits of the combination were
`
`known at the time of the invention, and, accordingly, we are not persuaded
`
`that Petitioner’s rationale for combining Shively and Stopler is based on
`
`impermissible hindsight. See Pet. 14‒16; Ex. 1009, 27‒30.
`
`C. Asserted Obviousness over Shively, Stopler, and Gerszberg
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 3, 5, 14, 17, 19, and 28–30 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Shively, Stopler, and
`
`Gerszberg. Pet. 33–41. Relying on the testimony of Dr. Jose Tellado,
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`Petitioner explains how the combination of Shively, Stopler, and Gerszberg
`
`allegedly meets all of the claim limitations. Id. (citing Ex. 1009).
`
`Gerszberg discloses using a Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) modem,
`
`such as an ADSL modem, to transmit and receive modulated data. Ex. 1013,
`
`11:66‒12:7. The modem uses DMT modulation to transmit data. Id. at
`
`12:7‒9. Gerszberg further describes types of data services that may be
`
`provided to subscriber premises by a DSL modem that uses DMT
`
`modulation, such as high-speed internet access and video services. Id. at
`
`7:44‒60, 8:16‒36, 10:63‒11:3. Gerszberg also describes that a DSL modem
`
`can be used in various DSL communications, such as HDSL, ADSL, SDSL,
`
`and VDSL. Id. at 9:66‒10:3.
`
`Based on the record before us, Petitioner has accounted sufficiently
`
`for dependent claims 3, 5, 14, 17, 19, and 28–30. Pet. 33–41. For example,
`
`claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein one or more of the first
`
`transceiver and second transceiver are VDSL transceivers.” Claim 17,
`
`which depends from independent claim 15, is similar to claim 3. Petitioner
`
`relies on Gerszberg’s description that its “DSL modem may be constructed
`
`using any of the techniques described in the applications incorporated by
`
`reference below” such as “High Speed Digital Subscriber Line (HDSL),
`
`Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL), Symmetrical Digital
`
`Subscriber Line (SDSL) and Very high data rate Digital Subscriber Line
`
`(VDSL).” Pet. 37‒38 (emphasis omitted); Ex. 1013, 9:62‒10:3. Petitioner
`
`contends that it would have been obvious to replace Shively’s ADSL
`
`modems with VDSL modems, as taught by Gerszberg, in order to achieve
`
`higher bandwidth. Pet. 38; Ex. 1009, 67. Moreover, Petitioner provides a
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`rational reason for combining Gerszberg with the combined teachings of
`
`Shively and Stopler. Pet. 34‒37.
`
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s showing with respect to all of claims 3,
`
`5, 14, 17, 19, and 28–30 and determine that there is reasonable likelihood
`
`that Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to those claims. Patent Owner
`
`does not present arguments for any of those claims separate from the
`
`arguments addressed previously.
`
`D. Asserted Obviousness over Shively, Stopler, and Bremer
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 6, 9, 10, 12, 20, 23, 24, and 26 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Shively, Stopler, and
`
`Bremer. Pet. 41–50. Relying on the testimony of Dr. Jose Tellado,
`
`Petitioner explains how the combination of Shively, Stopler, and Bremer
`
`allegedly meets all of the claim limitations. Id. (citing Ex. 1009).
`
`Bremer relates to encoding and decoding techniques for a data signal
`
`that is transmitted over a communications channel. Ex. 1017, 1:41‒67.
`
`Bremer describes using a pseudorandom generator to encode the gain or
`
`phase of a signal prior to transmission, and on the receiving end, uses a
`
`second pseudorandom generator to decode the encoded data signal. Id. at
`
`1:53‒64.
`
`Based on the record before us, Petitioner has accounted sufficiently
`
`for dependent claims 6, 9, 10, 12, 20, 23, 24, and 26. Pet. 41–50. For
`
`example, claim 6 depends from claim 1 and recites “independently deriving
`
`the values associated with each carrier using a second pseudo-random
`
`number generator in the second transceiver.” Claim 20, which depends from
`
`independent claim 15, is similar to claim 6. Petitioner contends that Bremer
`
`teaches that when a transmitting device includes components causing a
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`pseudorandom phase shift to the transmitted signal, a receiving device
`
`requires complementary components to decode the signal. Pet. 45;
`
`Ex. 1017, 1:60–65. Petitioner further contends that Bremer describes
`
`altering gain and phase modifiers of a data signal being transmitted from a
`
`QAM modem based on values from a pseudorandom signal generator, which
`
`generates a pseudorandom number. Pet. 45; Ex. 1017, Abstract, 2:32;
`
`Ex. 1009, 77. Petitioner further contends that the values produced by a
`
`second pseudorandom number generator are independent of the values
`
`produced by a first pseudorandom number generator. Pet. 46; Ex. 1017,
`
`4:10–16, 4:35–36; Ex. 1009, 80. Petitioner provides rational reasoning for
`
`combining Bremer with the combined teachings of Shively and Stopler.
`
`Pet. 42‒44.
`
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s showing with respect to all of claims 6,
`
`9, 10, 12, 20, 23, 24, and 26 and determine that there is reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to those claims.
`
`Patent Owner does not present arguments for any of those claims separate
`
`from the arguments addressed previously.
`
`E. Asserted Obviousness over Shively, Stopler, Bremer, and Gerszberg
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 8, 11, 13, 22, 25, and 27 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Shively, Stopler,
`
`Bremer, and Gerszberg. Pet. 50–53. Relying on the testimony of Dr. Jose
`
`Tellado, Petitioner explains how the combination of Shively, Stopler,
`
`Bremer, and Gerszberg allegedly meets all of the claim limitations. Id.
`
`(citing Ex. 1009).
`
`Based on the record before us, Petitioner has accounted sufficiently
`
`for dependent claims 8, 11, 13, 22, 25, and 27. Pet. 50–53. For example,
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`claim 11 depends from claim 6, and recites “wherein the first and second
`
`transceivers are VDSL transceivers.” Claim 25, which depends from claim
`
`20, is similar to claim 11. Petitioner relies on Gerszberg’s description that
`
`its “DSL modem may be constructed using any of the techniques described
`
`in the applications incorporated by reference below” such as “High Speed
`
`Digital Subscriber Line (HDSL), Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line
`
`(ADSL), Symmetrical Digital Subscriber Line (SDSL) and Very high data
`
`rate Digital Subscriber Line (VDSL).” Pet. 37‒38 (emphasis omitted), 52;
`
`Ex. 1013, 9:62‒10:3. Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious to
`
`replace Shively’s ADSL modems with VDSL modems, as taught by
`
`Gerszberg, in order to achieve higher bandwidth. Pet. 38, 52; Ex. 1009, 67,
`
`89. Moreover, Petitioner provides a rational reason for combining
`
`Gerszberg with the combined teachings of Shively and Stopler. Pet. 50‒51.
`
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s showing with respect to all of claims 8,
`
`11, 13, 22, 25, and 27 and determine that there is reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to those claims. Patent Owner does
`
`not present arguments for any of those claims separate from the arguments
`
`addressed previously.
`
`F. Asserted Obviousness over Shively, Stopler, Bremer, and Flammer
`
` Petitioner contends that claims 7 and 21 are unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Shively, Stopler, Bremer, and Flammer.
`
`Pet. 53–60. Relying on the testimony of Dr. Jose Tellado, Petitioner
`
`explains how the combination of Shively, Stopler, Bremer, and Flammer
`
`allegedly meets all of the claim limitations. Id. (citing Ex. 1009).
`
`Flammer relates to data transmission between a source node and a
`
`target node, where each node has a transmitter and a receiver. Ex. 1019,
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`Abstract. Flammer uses pseudo-random number generators in its
`
`communication system. Flammer describes synchronization between
`
`pseudo-random number generators at different ends of a communication
`
`channel. Id. at 3:49–4:10. As part of the synchronization, an acquisition/
`
`synchronization packet is transmitted that includes a seed value from the
`
`source node to the target node. Id. at 3:52–58. The transmitted seed value is
`
`used to initialize the pseudo-random number generators executing at the
`
`respective source and target nodes. Id. at 3:52–4:9. Once the pseudo-
`
`random number generators at both the source node and the target node have
`
`the same seed value, they can generate identical pseudo-random number
`
`sequences for selecting frequency bands. Id. at 4:42–53.
`
`Based on the record before us, Petitioner has accounted sufficiently
`
`for dependent claims 7 and 21. Pet. 50–53. Claim 7 depends from claim 6
`
`and recites “using in the first and second transceivers a same seed for the
`
`first and second pseudo-random number generators and the value of the seed
`
`is transmitted from the first transceiver to the second transceiver.” Claim
`
`21, which depends from claim 20, is similar to claim 7. Petitioner contends
`
`that Flammer teaches a transceiver as a node having a transmitter and a
`
`receiver. Pet. 57; Ex. 1019, Abstract. Petitioner further contends that in
`
`Flammer, the source node is the first transceiver and the target node is the
`
`second transceiver. Ex. 1009, 92. Petitioner argues that Flammer teaches
`
`that it was known for the pseudo-random number generators in the source
`
`node and the target node to use the same seed value. Pet. 57; Ex. 1019,
`
`3:52–67; Ex. 1009, 92–93. Petitioner further explains, with supporting
`
`evidence, that Flammer teaches transmitting a value of a seed from a source
`
`node (a first transceiver) to a target node (a second tran
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
