`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS A. CHRISSAN, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01160
`Patent No. 8,611,404
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`TQ Delta Exhibit 2001
`
`
`Arris Group, Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01160
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
` My name is Douglas A. Chrissan. I have been engaged by TQ Delta,
`1.
`
`LLC in connection with IPR number 2016-01160, which relates to U.S. Pat. No.
`
`8,611,404 (“the ’404 patent”). In this declaration I provide my opinion that the
`
`challenged claims of the ’404 patent would not have been obvious in view of the
`
`references and grounds asserted by the Petitioner Arris Group, Inc. (“Arris” or
`
`“Petitioner”).
`
`II.
`
`PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
`
`A. Background and Experience
`
`
`2.
`
`I am presently a technical consultant in the areas of communications
`
`systems, multimedia systems, computer systems, and digital signal processing.
`
`
`3.
`
`I earned a B.S. and M.S. in Electrical Engineering from the University
`
`of Southern California in 1988 and 1990, respectively, and a Ph.D. in Electrical
`
`Engineering from Stanford University in 1998.
`
`
`4.
`
`
`5.
`
`A copy of my current CV is attached as Ex. 2004.
`
`I was a Masters Fellow and Member of the Technical Staff at Hughes
`
`Aircraft Company in El Segundo, California, from 1988–1993. While at Hughes
`
`Aircraft, I designed and developed communication systems for commercial and
`
`military spacecraft, including for the MILSTAR satellite program.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01160
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Between 1992 and 1993, while at Hughes Aircraft Company, I
`
`designed and built a
`
`state-of-the-art, 800 megabit-per-second
`
`(Mbps)
`
`telecommunications modem for the NASA Lewis Research Center.
`
`
`7.
`
`From 1997–2003, I worked at 8x8, Inc., starting as a DSP software
`
`engineer in 1997, becoming a manager in 1998, a director in 1999, and Vice
`
`President of Engineering in 2000 (managing a team of approximately 60 engineers
`
`in the company’s microelectronics group). I played a key role in developing
`
`several
`
`semiconductor products used worldwide
`
`in multimedia
`
`and
`
`communications devices, mainly for video conferencing systems and Internet
`
`Protocol (“IP”) telephones. Some of these semiconductor products were in
`
`production more than ten years.
`
`
`8.
`
`From 2003–2007, I was a Systems Architect and Engineering
`
`Program Manager at Texas Instruments in the Digital Subscriber Line (“DSL”)
`
`product business unit. At Texas Instruments, I was directly involved in the
`
`architecture, design, development and production of multicarrier DSL modem
`
`products. My work specifically included architecting a multicarrier DSL
`
`semiconductor and software product and managing all aspects of its development
`
`from inception to production.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01160
`
`
` My Ph.D. dissertation and related publications are in the fields of
`9.
`
`statistical signal processing and communication systems, and more specifically in
`
`the area of impulsive noise modeling for communication systems.
`
`
`10.
`
`In 1995 I was the instructor for the graduate Statistical Signal
`
`Processing class (EE278) in the Electrical Engineering department at Stanford
`
`University. Prior to teaching this class, I was a teaching assistant for ten different
`
`classes in signal processing and radio frequency electronics at Stanford.
`
`
`11.
`
`I have developed, and managed the development of, several
`
`successful semiconductor, software and systems products in the communications
`
`and multimedia fields. These products are listed in the attached curriculum vitae.
`
`B. Compensation
`
`
`12.
`
`I am being compensated for my time in this case at the rate of $250
`
`per hour (plus expenses) for analysis, depositions, and, if necessary, trial
`
`testimony. My compensation for this matter is not determined by or contingent on
`
`the outcome of this case.
`
`C. Materials Relied Upon
`
`
`13.
`
`In the course of preparing this expert declaration, I have considered
`
`the ’404 Patent, its file history, the Petition and its exhibits (including the
`
`Declaration of Mr. McNally), the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, the
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01160
`
`Board’s Institution Decision, the transcript of the deposition of Lance McNally, as
`
`well as any additional documents I cite or refer to in this declaration.
`
`III. THE BOARD’S INSTITUTION DECISION
`
`
`14.
`
`I understand the Board granted review of the ’404 patent on the
`
`ground that claims 1–20 are unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,956,323
`
`(“Bowie”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,247,725 (“Vanzieleghem”) in view of the
`
`American National Standards Institute (ANSI) T1.413-1995 Standard, entitled
`
`“Network and Customer Installation Interfaces—Asymmetric Digital Subscriber
`
`Line (ADSL) Metallic Interface” (referenced herein as “ANSI T1.413” or the
`
`“1995 ADSL Standard”).
`
`IV. BACKGROUND
`
`A. Overview of the Technology and the ’404 Patent
`
` The ’404 patent claims improvements to multicarrier transceiver
`15.
`
`devices used for data communication. The ’404 patent describes inventions that
`
`allow a transceiver to enter a low power mode from a full power mode and to
`
`rapidly exit the low power mode at some later time. The transceiver stores one or
`
`more transmission and/or reception parameters associated with a full power mode
`
`in the low power mode and uses the one or more parameters when exiting the low
`
`power mode so that no re-initialization is required.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01160
`
`
`1.
`
`Background of Multicarrier Technology
`
` As explained in the ’404 patent, multicarrier transmission systems
`16.
`
`provide high speed data links between communication points. See Ex. 1001 at
`
`1:37–38. Digital subscriber line (“DSL”) systems are multicarrier transmission
`
`systems that are used to provide high-speed data communication over the same
`
`subscriber loop that provides telephone service to a subscriber. See id. at 1:37–47.1
`
`The transceivers in a DSL system communicate with each other by dividing the
`
`bandwidth of the communication channel connecting the subscriber and a central
`
`office into separate subchannels, or carriers, each of limited bandwidth, operating
`
`in parallel with each other. See id. at 1:48–55. The transceiver divides the data to
`
`be communicated over the DSL link into groups of bits, allocates each group of
`
`bits to a respective carrier, and modulates each group of bits onto its respective
`
`carrier. See id. at 1:63–66. A transceiver that communicates data by modulating
`
`data onto multiple carriers simultaneously is referred to as a multicarrier
`
`transceiver.
`
`
`1 The ’404 patent lists ADSL (asynchronous digital subscriber line) and HDSL
`
`(High-Speed Digital Subscriber Line); this declaration references only ADSL, as
`
`described in the 1995 ADSL Standard.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01160
`
`
` Before a multicarrier transceiver begins transmitting and receiving
`17.
`
`data, the transceiver undergoes an initialization process. See id. at 3:7–9. There
`
`are several distinct phases of initialization. Set forth below are the initialization
`
`steps for a DSL transceiver.
`
`2.
`
`Timing Synchronization
`
` As part of initialization, the transceivers exchange information to
`18.
`
`synchronize their timing, including synchronizing the frequencies of their
`
`respective clocks (i.e., “timing synchronization”). In the context of DSL systems
`
`timing synchronization is accomplished as follows: one transceiver sends known
`
`signals to the other transceiver. The transmitting transceiver typically derives the
`
`known signal from its clock. Therefore the frequency of this known signal is
`
`representative of the clock frequency of the transmitting transceiver. The other
`
`transceiver receives this known signal and adjusts the frequency of its clock based
`
`on the frequency of the received signal. The known signal thus indirectly allows
`
`the two transceivers to synchronize, or “lock,” the frequencies of their respective
`
`clocks. The timing synchronization procedure is also described in the ’404 patent.
`
`See Ex. 1001 at 5:37–50 and 5:54–62. In the 1995 ADSL Standard, this procedure
`
`is referred to as “loop timing” or “timing recovery.” See Ex. 1009, 1995 ADSL
`
`Standard at § 12.2.2 (p. 90) & 12.5.6 (p. 97). In the context of the claims of the
`
`’404 patent, the known signal is the claimed “synchronization signal.”
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01160
`
`
`3.
`
`Loop Characterization
`
` Subsequently, the initialization process continues with the transceivers
`19.
`
`determining certain characteristics of
`
`the wire
`
`loop
`
`that connects
`
`them.
`
`Attenuation, also known as loop loss, is an example of a loop characteristic.
`
`Attenuation is the reduction in power a signal experiences as it travels across a
`
`wire loop and is a function of different physical characteristics of the wire loop,
`
`such as its length, wire diameter and cable composition. The transceivers estimate
`
`attenuation by measuring the received power of a known signal and comparing that
`
`power to the known transmit power of the signal. The ratio of the signal power at
`
`the transmitter to the signal power at the receiver is the attenuation. (For example,
`
`a 100x reduction in power is an attenuation of 20 decibels, or 20 dB.) Attenuation
`
`may be used to adjust transmit power, since less attenuation allows a smaller
`
`transmit power to be used in order to meet a received power level requirement at a
`
`receiver. Loop background noise is another example of a loop characteristic.
`
`4.
`
`Channel Characterization
`
` The initialization process typically continues with the transceivers
`20.
`
`performing transceiver training and channel analysis, which include determining
`
`equalization settings, echo canceller settings, and measuring signal to noise ratio
`
`on a per-subchannel basis. Signal to noise ratio (“SNR”) is a function of, inter
`
`alia, loop characteristics (e.g., line noise levels and line attenuation), and is used to
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01160
`
`determine transmission parameters that are used for transmission of data. If the
`
`line noise level is elevated, SNR will be lower, and vice versa. SNR then in turn is
`
`used to determine transmission parameters including transmission and reception
`
`data ranges, fine gain parameters, and bit allocation parameters. See id. at 3:10–
`
`20. The transceivers then go through the step of exchanging the transmission
`
`parameters
`
` As explained in the ’404 patent, the initialization process of a DSL
`21.
`
`system can take tens of seconds. See id. at 3:23–25. Once the transceivers are
`
`initialized, the transceivers can transmit and receive data. Data may be sent in
`
`superframes that include frames of modulated data followed by a modulated
`
`synchronization symbol. Id. at 5:5–10. For example, the superframe may include
`
`68 data frames followed by a 69th frame that is a synchronization frame. Id. at
`
`5:10–13. The synchronization frame may be used by a transceiver to determine the
`
`boundary of
`
`the
`
`superframe and maintain
`
`superframe alignment or
`
`synchronization.
`
`5.
`
`The Inventions of the ’404 Patent
`
` The ’404 Patent recognizes that prior art multicarrier transceivers
`22.
`
`were maintained in the continuous “on” state because of the importance that they
`
`remain ready to immediately transmit or receive data. See Ex. 1001 at 2:55–58. In
`
`this “on” state, both the transmitter and receiver portion of a prior art transceiver
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01160
`
`remained fully functional at all times, resulting in transceivers unnecessarily using
`
`a significant amount of power and potentially having a reduced life span. See Ex.
`
`1001 at 2:58–63. Low power modes (in which data communications are
`
`temporarily suspended) were known in the prior art, but required a lengthy re-
`
`initialization sequence upon coming out of the low power mode. See Ex. 1001 at
`
`3:23–30. This was unacceptable to users who desired near-instantaneous return to
`
`full data communications. Id.
`
` The claimed inventions of the ’404 patent overcame this problem by
`23.
`
`providing a transceiver that can enter a low power mode from a full power mode
`
`(and thus reduce power consumption) and then subsequently exit the low power
`
`mode and restore the full power mode without the need of going through the re-
`
`initializing process. See Ex. 1001 at 10:2–12:21. The claimed transceivers of the
`
`’404 patent provide this capability by (1) storing, in the low power mode, a full
`
`power mode operation parameter (such as a fine gain and a bit allocation
`
`parameter) and using that parameter to restore full power, and (2) transmitting or
`
`receiving, in the low power mode, a synchronization signal. In this way, the
`
`transceiver, upon waking up, does not have to engage in the re-initialization
`
`process in order to commence exchanging data with another transceiver in the
`
`system.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01160
`
`
`B. Overview of the Cited Art
`
`
`24.
`
`I understand that Petitioner relies on three references in its proposed
`
`ground of invalidity of the ’404 patent claims – U.S. Pat. No. 5,956,323 (“Bowie”),
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,246725 (“Vanzieleghem”), and the American National Standard
`
`Institute’s ANSI T1.413-1995 Standard for Telecommunications—Network and
`
`Customer Installation Interfaces – Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL)
`
`Metallic Interface (the “1995 ADSL Standard,” as first mentioned earlier).
`
`1.
`
`Bowie
`
` Bowie describes an invention that is directed to a power conservation
`25.
`
`method for an asymmetric digital subscriber line (“ADSL”) system that transmits
`
`wide-bandwidth modulated data over a two-wire loop using high frequency carrier
`
`signals. Ex. 1005 at 1:4–8, 1:23–25. As shown in Figure 1 of Bowie, reproduced
`
`below, the Bowie system uses ADSL units (e.g., modems) that are connected by a
`
`wire loop 120. Each ADSL unit includes signal processing electronics 111, data
`
`transmit circuitry 112 and data receive circuitry 113 to send, receive, and process
`
`modulated data. See id. at 2:1–6, 3:2–5, 5:52–55. Each unit also includes a
`
`resume signal detector 115, which can be a 16 kHz AC signal detector 115 that
`
`employs conventional frequency detection techniques. See id. at 5:52–55.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01160
`
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 1.
`
` Bowie explains that, prior to data being sent between two ADSL units
`26.
`
`over the loop, loop characteristics must be determined and exchanged. See id. at
`
`4:64–5:4. He explains that loop characteristics include loop loss characteristics.
`
`Id. Bowie uses the terms “loop characteristics,” “electronic characteristics of the
`
`particular wire loop,” “loop transmission characteristics” and “loop characteristic
`
`parameters” interchangeably, and describes “loop loss characteristics” as an
`
`example of these. See Ex. 1005 at 4:67–5:3, 5:23–25, 5:62–66, 6:25–33. Bowie
`
`refers to the exchange of loop characteristics as “handshaking.” Id. at 5:1–5.
`
` Bowie further teaches that when an ADSL unit receives a shut down
`27.
`
`signal, it enters a low power mode in which the signal processing electronics, data
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01160
`
`transmit circuitry, and data receive circuitry all shut down. See id. at 5:17–28. The
`
`resume signal detector is the only circuitry that remains operational. See id.
`
`Bowie explains that loop 220 is “in an inactive state” when the unit enters the low
`
`power mode. Id. at 5:28–29. Bowie recognizes that the signal processing,
`
`transmitting, and receiving circuitry consume substantial amounts of power when
`
`transmitting and receiving “modulated data signals” and that consequently shutting
`
`down the transmitting, receiving, and signal processing circuitry, i.e., most of the
`
`transceiver’s circuitry, saves a significant amount of power—up to five watts per
`
`loop. See id. at 2:1–6.
`
` Bowie further teaches that, upon entering the low power mode, the
`28.
`
`ADSL units may “store[] in memory 117 characteristics of the loop 220 that were
`
`determined by… handshaking.” Id. at 5:17–28. As previously explained at supra
`
`IV.A.3, attenuation and loop background noise are exemplary loop characteristics.
`
`Thus, Bowie teaches storing loop characteristics, such as attenuation, upon going
`
`into low power mode. It is noteworthy that Bowie, however, does not disclose
`
`storing bit allocation or fine gain parameters in the low power mode.
`
` Upon receipt of a “resume signal” at the resume signal detector 115,
`29.
`
`the Bowie unit “returns the signal processing 111, transmitting 112, and receiving
`
`113 circuitry to full power mode.” Id. at 5:60–62. The stored “loop transmission
`
`characteristics… are retrieved from memory 117 and used to enable data
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01160
`
`transmission to resume quickly by reducing the time needed to determine loop
`
`transmission characteristics.” Id. at 5:62–66 (emphasis added). Thus, Bowie
`
`teaches using the stored loop characteristics as a starting point for a process of re-
`
`determining the loop characteristics upon coming out of the low power mode.
`
` Bowie teaches that one of the reasons that the loop characteristics
`30.
`
`have to be re-determined upon coming out of the low power mode is that the loop’s
`
`characteristics may have changed while the system was in the low power mode.
`
`See Ex. 1005 at 5:66–6:1 (“After resumption of full power mode, additional
`
`handshaking between ADSL units 232 and 242 may occur.”); id. at 6:37–41
`
`(“Handshaking
`
`information may be
`
`required where,
`
`for example,
`
`loop
`
`characteristics have changed due, for example, to temperature-dependent changes
`
`in loop resistance.”). Re-determining the loop characteristics after coming out of
`
`low power mode is required to ensure the transceivers “establish reliable data
`
`communication between the units.” Id. at 6:36–37.
`
` Accordingly, Bowie
`31.
`
`teaches
`
`that some
`
`initialization (i.e., re-
`
`determining the loop characteristics) must occur when the unit comes out of the
`
`low power mode. Moreover, Bowie does not teach avoiding the initialization step
`
`of determining transmission parameters such as bit allocation and fine gain
`
`parameters.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01160
`
`
`
`32.
`
`In my opinion, Bowie’s invention is limited to (1) a “resume signal
`
`generator” and a “resume signal detector” added onto an existing ADSL Standard
`
`transceiver, (2) a low-power mode that turns off the ADSL transceiver’s
`
`communication circuitry except for the “resume signal detector” (and the “resume
`
`signal generator,” if and when it is time to return the other transceiver to normal
`
`operation) and (3) the concept of storing some information about the loop, such as
`
`attenuation, while in low power mode. As Bowie explains, storing loop
`
`information allows the Bowie unit to reduce the time needed to determine loop
`
`characteristics, which in turn are used to determine transmission parameters. This
`
`is a simplistic power saving scheme that does little to integrate with the existing
`
`internal functionality of an ADSL modem, and Bowie does very little to describe
`
`how any integration is to be performed by one of skill in the art. Therefore, it is
`
`substantially different from the ’404 patent regarding the implementation of a low
`
`power mode, as discussed further in this declaration.
`
` Bowie also does not teach using a synchronization signal when in the
`33.
`
`low power mode. This is consistent with Bowie’s teaching that all of the
`
`transceiver circuitry except for the resume signal detector is shut off in low power
`
`mode in order to save power.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01160
`
`
`2.
`
`Vanzieleghem
`
` Vanzieleghem discloses an ADSL transmitter for a multicarrier
`34.
`
`system that can reduce power dissipation during operation depending on the type
`
`of input data it is being asked to transmit. Ex. 1006 at 1:10–14; 4:46–50, 6:29–36.
`
`The input data may be either effective data or idle data. See Ex. 1006 at 5:33–35.
`
`When effective data is to be transmitted, the transmitter uses all of its carriers (e.g.,
`
`256 carriers) to send the data to a receiver. See Ex. 1006 at 5:66–6:15. When the
`
`transmitter has only idle data to transmit, it reduces power dissipation by
`
`transmitting a reduced number of carriers.
`
` See Ex. 1006 at 6:30–41.
`
`Vanzieleghem further discloses maintaining frame synchronization with a receiver
`
`by periodically sending synchronization symbols of the type described in the
`
`ADSL Standard as part of a superframe. See Ex. 1006 at 6:59–61; 5:53–65.
`
`Specifically, with respect to the synchronization symbol, Vanzieleghem explains
`
`that at least one synchronization signal is sent for every 68 DMT symbols. See Ex.
`
`1006 at 5:53–55 (“For every N=68 DMT symbols transmitted on the line, at least
`
`one synchronization symbol
`
`is sent.”).
`
` Vanzieleghem explains
`
`that
`
`the
`
`synchronization symbols “are generated as usual.” See Ex. 1006 at 6:60–61. Per
`
`the 1995 ADSL Standard, the synchronization symbol is generated from a pseudo-
`
`random number and is transmitted using all but the 64th carrier of the
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01160
`
`communication channel. See Ex. 1009 at 46–47. The 64th carrier is used to
`
`communicate the pilot tone. See Ex. 1009 at 47.
`
` Vanzieleghem does not disclose storing, in a low power mode, any
`35.
`
`transmission parameters such as fine gain or bit allocation parameters.
`
`Vanzieleghem also does not disclose exiting a low power mode and restoring a full
`
`power by using stored transmission parameters. Vanzieleghem also does not teach
`
`that restoration of the full power mode can occur without re-initialization or
`
`avoiding any steps of the initialization process upon coming out of a low power
`
`mode. Vanzieleghem is directed to saving power by reducing solely the power
`
`consumed by the transmitter of the transceiver. In contrast, Bowie saves power by
`
`shutting down transmitting, receiving and processing circuity of the transceiver.
`
`Therefore, Bowie’s low power mode saves more power than Vanzieleghem does
`
`because Vanzieleghem only reduces the power dissipation of just its transmitter.
`
`3.
`
`The 1995 ADSL Standard
`
` The 1995 ADSL Standard discloses electrical characteristics of ADSL
`36.
`
`signals appearing at a network interface and the requirements for transmission
`
`between a network and customer installation. Ex. 1009 at 1.
`
` A person of skill in the art (“POSITA”) would understand that
`37.
`
`initialization, as defined in the 1995 ADSL Standard, includes distinct, sequential
`
`steps of determining loop characteristics and determining bit and gain parameters
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01160
`
`based on the loop characteristics. The 1995 ADSL Standard states “[o]ne part of
`
`the ADSL initialization and training sequence estimates the loop characteristics to
`
`determine whether the number of bytes per Discrete MultiTone (“DMT”) frame
`
`required for the requested configuration's aggregate data rate [i.e., the necessary bit
`
`allocations] can be transmitted across the given loop.” Ex. 1009 at 9. The
`
`Standard further explains that “each receiver communicates to its far-end
`
`transmitter the number of bits and relative power levels [i.e., bit allocation and fine
`
`gain parameters] to be used on each DMT sub-carrier, as well as any messages and
`
`final data rates information. For highest performance these settings shall be based
`
`on the results [i.e., based in part on loop characteristics] obtained through the
`
`transceiver training and channel analysis procedures.” Ex. 1009 at 87 (with
`
`bracketed comments inserted). Therefore, the Standard distinguishes between loop
`
`characteristics of the loop and transmission parameters like bit allocation and fine
`
`gain parameters.
`
` A POSITA would further understand that the 1995 ADSL Standard
`38.
`
`does not describe operating in a low power mode, going into a low power mode, or
`
`coming out of a low power mode. The 1995 ADSL Standard does not explain how
`
`to store bit allocation or fine gain parameters in a low power mode or how to use
`
`those parameters to avoid re-initialization when coming out of a low power mode.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01160
`
`Further, the 1995 ADSL Standard describes a mandatory control channel that is
`
`always required to be active. See Ex. 1009 at 13.
`
`V. LEGAL STANDARDS APPLIED
`
`
`39.
`
`I am not an expert in patent law, and I am not purporting to provide
`
`any opinions regarding the correct legal standards to apply in these proceedings. I
`
`have been asked, however, to provide my opinions in the context of the following
`
`legal standards that have been provided to me by TQ Delta’s attorneys.
`
` Obviousness in General: I have been informed that a patent can be
`40.
`
`invalidated through obviousness if the subject matter of a claim as a whole would
`
`have been obvious at the time of the invention to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art. I understand that obviousness allows for the combination of prior art
`
`references. I have been informed that there are three basic inquiries that must be
`
`considered for obviousness:
`
`a. What is the scope and content of the prior art?
`
`b. What are the differences, if any, between the prior art and each claim
`
`of the patent?
`
`c. What is the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`of the patent was made?
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01160
`
`
`
`41.
`
`I also understand that a claim composed of several elements is not
`
`proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was
`
`independently known in the prior art. I understand that when prior art references
`
`require selective combination to render a patent obvious, there must be some
`
`reason to combine the references other than hindsight. I further understand that an
`
`assertion of obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements, and
`
`that there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
`
`support a finding of obviousness. In particular, a person of skill in the art had to
`
`have had a motivation to combine the prior art in the way claimed in the claim and
`
`had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. I understand that features
`
`from prior art references need not be physically combinable (i.e., a combination
`
`may be obvious if one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to make any
`
`necessary modifications to combine features from prior art references), but that this
`
`concept does not negate the requirement of a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`
`42.
`
`I understand that one must also consider the evidence from secondary
`
`considerations including commercial success, copying, long-felt but unresolved
`
`needs, failure of others to solve the problem, unexpected results, and whether the
`
`invention was made independently by others at the same time of the invention. I
`
`understand that these secondary considerations can overcome a finding of
`
`obviousness.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01160
`
`
`
`43.
`
`I also understand that a combination of references does not render a
`
`claim obvious if a reference teaches away from its combination with another
`
`reference. I understand that a reference may teach away when (1) the teachings of
`
`a prior art reference undermine the reason being proffered as to why a person of
`
`ordinary skill would have combined elements of the reference with another prior
`
`art reference, (2) a proposed modification to a prior art reference’s device would
`
`render the device inoperable for its intended purpose, or (3) when a person of
`
`ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be led in a direction divergent
`
`from the path that was taken by the applicant.
`
`
`44.
`
`I further understand that in performing an obviousness analysis, it
`
`may be necessary to construe the one or more terms that are recited in the claims. I
`
`have been informed that in an Inter Partes Review, claims are given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the claims and specification. I have been
`
`informed that this means that the broadest reasonable construction of a term is not
`
`simply one which covers the most embodiments but one that is reasonable in light
`
`of the claims and specification.
`
`VI. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`
`45.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is considered to
`
`have the normal skills and knowledge of a person in a certain technical field, as of
`
`the time of the invention at issue. I understand that factors that may be considered
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01160
`
`in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the education level
`
`of the inventor; (2) the types of problems encountered in the art; (3) the prior art
`
`solutions to those problems; (4) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (5)
`
`the sophistication of the technology; and (6) the education level of active workers
`
`in the field.
`
`
`46.
`
`I understand that Petitioner’s expert, Mr. McNally, opined that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “education and/or experience in
`
`the field of digital communication or telecommunications products” and had “a
`
`basic Bachelor’s of Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or equivalent
`
`degree, but with more than three years of relevant work experience” or “more
`
`advanced degrees—e.g., Masters or Ph.D.—but having fewer years of experience.”
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 31–32.
`
`
`47.
`
`I have considered the factors listed above and Mr. McNally’s
`
`description of a person of ordinary skill in the art. In my opinion, with respect to
`
`the ’404 patent, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have an electrical
`
`engineering background and experience
`
`in
`
`the design of multicarrier
`
`communication systems, such as those employing orthogonal frequency division
`
`multiplexing (“OFDM”) or DMT modulation. More particularly, a person of skill
`
`in the art would be a person with a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering (or a
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01160
`
`similar technical degree or equivalent work experience) and at least three years of
`
`experience working with such multicarrier communication systems.
`
`
`48.
`
`I have 18 years of combined industrial and academic experience in the
`
`architecture, design, development, testing and production of communication
`
`systems. Furthermore, I have worked directly in the field of multicarrier
`
`communication systems, including product design and development, with many
`
`engineers meeting the standard defined in the previous paragraph for a person of
`
`skill in the art. Therefore, in view of my education and background, it is my
`
`opinion that I am qualified to opine as to the knowledge, understanding, and
`
`perspective of a person of skill in the art in the relevant time frame. Accordingly,
`
`my opinions concerning the application of the references to the claimed subject
`
`matter of the ’404 patent and the state of the art are based on what a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood at the time of the invention of the
`
`’404 patent, which I understand to be the patent’s priority date of January 26, 1998.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
` To the extent that the Board did not construe a claim term, I applied
`49.
`
`the plain and ordinary meaning of the term to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
` With respect to the claim term “synchronization signal,” Petitioner
`50.
`
`proposed that the term should be construed to mean “a signal allowing frame
`
`synchronization between the transmitter of the signal and the receiver of the
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01160
`
`signal” or a “signal providing frame synchronization between a transmit