UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,612,404
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF LANCE MCNALLY
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`I. Background and Qualifications ........................................................................... 5
`II.
`Legal Understanding ........................................................................................ 9
`III. Material Considered ....................................................................................... 10
`IV. The State of the Art ........................................................................................ 11
`A. Overview of U.S. Patent 5,956,323 (“Bowie”) ........................................... 12
`B. Overview of U.S. Patent 6,246,725 (“Vanzieleghem”) .............................. 13
`C. Overview of ATIS/Committee T1 Standards Process ................................ 13
`D. Overview of ANSI T1.413-1995 (“1995 ADSL Standard”) ....................... 17
`E. Overview of 97-161R1 ................................................................................ 17
`F. Overview of 97-319 ..................................................................................... 18
`V. Overview of U.S. Patent No. 8,612,404 (‘404 Patent) ................................... 19
`VI. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................................. 19
`VII. Claim Construction ...................................................................................... 21
`VIII. Claims 1-20 Are Obvious in View of Bowie, Vanzieleghem and the 1995
`ADSL Standard ........................................................................................................ 25
`A. Claim 1 ........................................................................................................ 25
`B. Claim 1 Motivation to combine Bowie, Vanzieleghem and the 1995 ADSL
`Standard................................................................................................................ 66
`C. Claim 2 ........................................................................................................ 67
`D. Claim 3 ........................................................................................................ 70
`E. Claim 4 ........................................................................................................ 73
`F. Claim 5 ........................................................................................................ 77
`
`2
`
`

`
`G. Claim 6 ...................................................................................................... ..82
`
`Standard .............................................................................................................. ..9O
`
`1.
`
`J.
`
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................................... ..91
`
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................................... ..92
`
`K. Claim 9 ...................................................................................................... ..93
`
`L.
`
`Claim 10 .................................................................................................... ..94
`
`M. Claim 11 .................................................................................................... ..95
`
`0. Claims 12 - 15 ......................................................................................... ..100
`
`P.
`
`Claim 16 .................................................................................................. ..101
`
`R. Claims 17 and 18 ..................................................................................... ..103
`
`S.
`
`Claim 19 .................................................................................................. ..104
`
`T.
`
`Claim 20 .................................................................................................. .. 108
`
`G. Claim 6 ........................................................................................................ 82
`H. Claim 6 Motivation to combine Bowie, Vanzieleghem and the 1995 ADSL
`H. Claim 6 Motivation to combine Bowie, Vanzieleghem and the 1995 ADSL
`Standard................................................................................................................ 90
`I.
`Claim 7 ........................................................................................................ 91
`J. Claim 8 ........................................................................................................ 92
`K. Claim 9 ........................................................................................................ 93
`L. Claim 10 ...................................................................................................... 94
`M. Claim 11 ...................................................................................................... 95
`N. Claim 11 Motivation to combine Bowie, Vanzieleghem and the 1995
`N. Claim 11 Motivation to combine Bowie, Vanzieleghem and the 1995
`ADSL Standard ..................................................................................................100
`ADSL Standard ................................................................................................ ..10O
`O. Claims 12 - 15 ...........................................................................................100
`P. Claim 16 ....................................................................................................101
`Q. Claim 16 Motivation to combine Bowie, Vanzieleghem and the 1995
`Q. Claim 16 Motivation to combine Bowie, Vanzieleghem and the 1995
`ADSL Standard ..................................................................................................103
`ADSL Standard ................................................................................................ ..103
`R. Claims 17 and 18 .......................................................................................103
`S. Claim 19 ....................................................................................................104
`T. Claim 20 ....................................................................................................108
`IX. Claims 1-20 Are Obvious in View of the 1995 ADSL Standard, 97-161R1
`IX. Claims 1-20 Are Obvious in View of the 1995 ADSL Standard, 97-161R1
`and 97-319 ..............................................................................................................112
`A. Claim 1 ......................................................................................................112
`B. Claim 1 Motivation to combine the 1995 ADSL Standard, 97-161R1 and
`B. Claim 1 Motivation to combine the 1995 ADSL Standard, 97-161R1 and
`97-319 ................................................................................................................137
`C. Claim 2 ......................................................................................................138
`D. Claim 3 ......................................................................................................140
`E. Claim 4 ......................................................................................................141
`F. Claim 5 ......................................................................................................145
`G. Claim 6 ......................................................................................................149
`
`and 97-319 ............................................................................................................ ..112
`
`A. Claim 1 .................................................................................................... ..112
`
`97-3 19 .............................................................................................................. .. 137
`
`C. Claim 2 .................................................................................................... .. 138
`
`D
`
`E
`
`Claim 3 .................................................................................................... ..140
`
`Claim 4 .................................................................................................... .. 141
`
`F.
`
`Claim 5 .................................................................................................... .. 145
`
`G
`
`Claim 6 .................................................................................................... ..149
`
`3
`
`

`
`97-319 .............................................................................................................. ..156
`
`1.
`
`J
`
`Claim 7 .................................................................................................... ..157
`
`Claim 8 .................................................................................................... ..158
`
`K
`
`Claim 9 .................................................................................................... ..159
`
`L.
`
`Claim 10 .................................................................................................. ..160
`
`M Claim 11 .................................................................................................. ..161
`
`H. Claim 6 Motivation to combine the 1995 ADSL Standard, 97-161R1 and
`H. Claim 6 Motivation to combine the 1995 ADSL Standard, 97—161R1 and
`97-319 ................................................................................................................156
`I.
`Claim 7 ......................................................................................................157
`J. Claim 8 ......................................................................................................158
`K. Claim 9 ......................................................................................................159
`L. Claim 10 ....................................................................................................160
`M. Claim 11 ....................................................................................................161
`N. Claim 11 Motivation to combine the 1995 ADSL Standard, 97-161R1 and
`N. Claim 11 Motivation to combine the 1995 ADSL Standard, 97—161R1 and
`97-319 ................................................................................................................164
`O. Claims 12 - 15 ...........................................................................................164
`P. Claim 16 ....................................................................................................165
`Q. Claim 16 Motivation to combine the 1995 ADSL Standard, 97-161R1 and
`Q. Claim 16 Motivation to combine the 1995 ADSL Standard, 97—161R1 and
`97-319 ................................................................................................................167
`R. Claims 17 and 18 .......................................................................................167
`S. Claim 19 ....................................................................................................168
`T. Claim 20 ....................................................................................................171
`
`97-319 .............................................................................................................. ..164
`
`0. Claims 12 — 15 ......................................................................................... ..164
`
`P.
`
`Claim 16 .................................................................................................. ..165
`
`97-319 .............................................................................................................. ..167
`
`R. Claims 17 and 18 ..................................................................................... ..167
`
`S.
`
`Claim 19 .................................................................................................. ..168
`
`T.
`
`Claim 20 .................................................................................................. ..171
`
`4
`
`

`
`I, Lance McNally, hereby declare and state as follows:
`1.
`I have been retained as a technical expert on behalf of ARRIS Inc., the
`
`petitioner in the present proceeding, to provide technical assistance in the
`
`above-captioned inter partes review. This declaration is a statement of my
`
`opinions on issues related to the unpatentability of claims 1-20 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,612,404 (“the ‘404 Patent”).
`
`I. Background and Qualifications
`2.
`I have been asked to provide assistance, if needed, to the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office in its
`
`consideration of the ‘404 Patent and the references that are cited in support
`
`of the petition for inter partes review of the ‘404 Patent. I am being
`
`compensated for my time at $105.00 per hour, which is not dependent upon
`
`the outcome of this inter partes review or any related litigation.
`
`3. My qualifications are stated more fully in my curriculum vita, which is
`
`attached to this declaration. A brief summary of my qualifications follows:
`
`4.
`
`I am currently a principal of Harbor Falls, Inc., a consulting firm
`
`specializing in computer, data networking and telecommunication technical
`
`expertise applied to patents. Previously, I served as Vice President of
`
`Engineering at OPVISTA, Inc.; Director of Engineering at Bay/Nortel
`
`Networks, Inc., in the area of data and telecommunication systems; and
`
`5
`
`

`
`Director of Engineering at Honeywell, Inc./Honeywell Ericsson, Inc./Zenith
`
`Data Systems, Inc., in the area of computer server, data and
`
`telecommunication systems.
`
`5.
`
`At Honeywell Ericsson, Inc., I was involved in developing switching
`
`software for least cost routing and integrated service digital network (ISDN)
`
`hardware interfaces for Ericsson private branch exchange (PBX) and class 5
`
`central office switch products.
`
`6.
`
`At Honeywell/Zenith Data Systems, Inc., I served in several positions.
`
`Initially, I was a senior staff analyst for telecommunications with
`
`responsibilities that included being the corporate representative on the T1S1
`
`American National Standard Institute (ANSI) committee for the definition of
`
`telecommunications services, architecture, and signaling. During this period
`
`Honeywell had the three core businesses of Computers, Communications
`
`and Controls. Honeywell believed that leveraging existing in-building
`
`wiring (e.g., telephone wires) for communication would enable the
`
`integration of Computer, Communication and Control products. For
`
`example, in-building telephone wiring could be used to interconnect user
`
`terminals or HVAC control points (Heating Ventilation Air Conditioning) to
`
`applications residing on Honeywell’s computers. In support of this strategic
`
`vision, Honeywell formed a joint venture with L.M. Ericsson to Americanize
`
`6
`
`

`
`and market L.M. Ericsson’s Private Automatic Branch Exchange (PABX).
`
`Additionally, Honeywell joined the Digital Multiplexed Interface (DMI)
`
`users group and developed DMI on their mini-computers providing data
`
`connectivity between PABX-based terminals and their host computers.
`
`While Honeywell was developing their DMI interface, ISDN (Integrated
`
`Services Digital Network) was in the process of being standardized and also
`
`provided for connectivity between computers and remote terminals. It is not
`
`surprising that the the standardization process of ISDN could significantly
`
`impact Honeywell’s strategy. As such, a major responsibility I had as a Sr.
`
`Staff Analyst for telecommunications was to actively participate, track and
`
`report back on the ISDN standardization process at T1S1.
`
`7.
`
`Additionally at Honeywell, I was one of the key architects in the definition,
`
`implementation, and deployment of the first nationwide Electronic Funds
`
`Transfer Point-of-Sale network, for which I received the highest divisional
`
`achievement award. Prior to leaving Honeywell/Zenith Data Systems, Inc., I
`
`was responsible for the design and development of Intel processor based
`
`servers. The servers were built to order with pre-loaded operating systems
`
`(e.g., Windows NT Server, Netware and SCO UNIX).
`
`8.
`
`As an employee of Bay/Nortel Networks, I also held numerous positions
`
`including development responsibility of DOCSIS CMTS(Cable Modem
`
`7
`
`

`
`Termination System)/CM(Cable Modem), Network Processor and router
`
`products. I was selected as the Design Authority for Network Processor
`
`Units that were used corporate-wide for the implementation of ATM/IP
`
`routers and Ethernet-based switches.
`
`9.
`
`At Opvista Inc., I led the engineering organization in the development of
`
`Optical networking equipment.
`
`10.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from Purdue
`
`University in 1979 and a Master in Business Administration from the
`
`University of Dallas in 1985.
`
`11.
`
`I’m a co-inventor on ten U.S. Patents: 4,831,634 (Modem backplane
`
`interconnections); 4,879,716 (Resilient Data Communication Systems);
`
`4,999,787 (Hot extraction and insertion of logic boards in an on-line
`
`communication system); 5,517,648 and 5,522,069 (Symmetric
`
`multiprocessing system with unified environment and distributed system
`
`functions); 5,809,340 (Adaptively generating timing signals for access to
`
`various memory devices based on stored profiles); 5,956,522 (Symmetric
`
`multiprocessing system with unified environment and distributed system
`
`functions); 6,098,131 (Network apparatus with removable electronic
`
`module); 6,125,436 (Symmetric multiprocessing system with unified
`
`environment and distributed system functions wherein bus operations related
`
`8
`
`

`
`storage spaces are mapped into a single system address space); and
`
`6,311,286 (Symmetric multiprocessing system with unified environment and
`
`distributed system functions.
`
`12.
`
`I have served as a technical consultant in a number of patent related legal
`
`matters, and am familiar with terms of art.
`
`II. Legal Understanding
`13.
`I understand that a patent claim in an inter partes review is given its broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent, as would
`
`be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed
`
`invention. I understand that claims should be construed consistent with the
`
`patent itself as well as the prosecution history. I understand that a patentee
`
`can explicitly set a definition for a specific term for purposes of the patent. I
`
`understand that words of the claims should be given their plain meaning,
`
`unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification.
`
`14.
`
`I understand that prior art may render a patent claim “obvious” if the
`
`differences between the claim and the prior art are such that the claim as a
`
`whole would have been obvious to one or of ordinary skill in the art. I
`
`understand that obviousness analysis must focus on the knowledge and skill
`
`of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to avoid
`
`improper hindsight. I understand that a prior art reference must be
`
`9
`
`

`
`considered in its entirety, including portions that would lead away from a
`
`claimed invention.
`
`III. Material Considered
`15.
`I have reviewed and considered the following documents:
`
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`The ‘404 Patent;
`The file history of the ‘404 Patent;
`U.S. Patent 5,956,323 (“Bowie”);
`The file history of Bowie;
`U.S. Patent 6,246,725 (“Vanzieleghem”);
`ANSI T1.413-1995 – Network and Customer Installation Interfaces –
`Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) Metallic Interface (Aug.
`18, 1995) (“1995 ADSL Standard”);
`T1E1.4/97-161R1, “Warm Re-Start for ADSL”, Werner Henkel, Peter
`S. Chow, September 22-26, 1997 T1E1.4 Working Group Meeting
`(“97-161”);
`T1E1.4/97-319, “Power Down in Multicarrier Transmission”, Thierry
`Pollet, Peter Reusens, September 22-26, 1997 T1E1.4 Working Group
`Meeting (“97-319”)
`Procedures for the Development and Coordination of American
`National Standards, American National Standards, March 1997
`(“ANSI Procedures”);
`Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS) (Susan
`M. Miller) response to: In the Matter of Implementation of Section
`273 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended by the
`Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-254, Feb. 24,
`1997 (“ATIS Procedures”);
`IPR2014-00891 Decision, (‘228 Patent IPR).
`
`10
`
`

`
`IV. The State of the Art
`16. The ‘404 Patent is directed at DSL technology (e.g. ADSL) that enables data
`
`communications over traditional telephone lines without interrupting normal
`
`telephone voice services. DSL technology provides data communication by
`
`generally using frequencies above those used for normal, legacy telephone
`
`services. Prior to Cable Modems and DSL, consumers accessed the Internet
`
`with dial-up modems through their telephone lines. During an Internet
`
`session the consumer was unable to receive or make normal telephone calls.
`
`Two competing technologies emerged in the 1990’s enabling consumer high
`
`speed Internet access without interrupting telephone service. The first was
`
`the standardization of DOCSIS cable modems driven by the cable operators,
`
`and the second was the standardization of DSL driven by the phone
`
`companies. Standardization was critical to the success of both technologies
`
`since it facilitated multi-vendor competition that drove equipment costs
`
`down.
`
`17. During the same period as DSL standardization, the standardization of wake-
`
`on-LAN technology (i.e., the Advanced Manageability Alliance formed by
`
`Intel and IBM) was also active, enabling energy conservation where
`
`computers in a reduced power consumption state could be awakened by a
`
`message.
`
`11
`
`

`
`18. The ‘404 Patent, similar to wake-on-LAN technology, is directed at a low-
`
`power mode initiated through messaging. DSL technology uses multiple
`
`frequency signals (known as carriers) to carry information and provide data
`
`services. Communication impairments (noise) may affect one carrier
`
`frequency band differently than others resulting in different data rates and
`
`RF characteristics (e.g., amplifier gains). When a DSL modem initializes, it
`
`goes through a lengthy process to characterize each frequency carrier’s
`
`characteristics on a subscriber loop and the resulting transmitter and receiver
`
`settings. To enable a DSL modem in a reduced power mode to awaken in
`
`response to a message without having to repeat a full initialization process,
`
`the ‘404 Patent teaches the saving of the transmitter and receiver settings so
`
`that these settings can be restored. The ‘404 Patent also describes
`
`maintaining synchronization between the transceivers of the central office
`
`(CO) and customer premises equipment (CPE) based DSL modems.
`
`A.
`Overview of U.S. Patent 5,956,323 (“Bowie”)
`19. Bowie, similar to the ‘404 Patent, is based on DSL technology.1 Bowie,
`
`again like the ‘404 Patent, introduces a lower power mode initiated through
`
`a message.2 Bowie advocated the same solution as the ‘404 Patent - storing
`
`
`1 Bowie, 7:34-41.
`2 Bowie, 5:6-13.
`
`12
`
`

`
`loop characteristics (i.e., transceiver parameters) to enable rapid service
`
`restoration.3 Identical to the ‘404 Patent, Bowie achieves rapid service
`
`restoration by reactivating the previously saved parameters when
`
`transitioning from a low power mode to normal operation.4
`
`B.
`Overview of U.S. Patent 6,246,725 (“Vanzieleghem”)
`20. Vanzieleghem, similar to the ‘404 Patent and Bowie, is also based on DSL
`
`technology and seeks power conservation through a low-power mode.5
`
`While Bowie fails to explicitly discuss the use of a synchronization signal in
`
`low power mode and normal operation, Vanzieleghem does. Similar to the
`
`‘404 Patent, Vanzieleghem maintains synchronization between the CO and
`
`CPE transceivers during low power mode and normal operation.6
`
`C.
`Overview of ATIS/Committee T1 Standards Process
`21. Telecommunication operators (e.g., Exchange Carriers/Interexchange
`
`Carriers) receive economic benefits from the standardization of equipment
`
`they use to offer services. Competition between manufacturers can drive
`
`prices down. Additionally, common solutions increase volumes that can
`
`motivate semiconductor manufacturers to integrate functions, further
`
`
`3 Bowie, 5:17-24.
`4 Bowie, 5:60-66.
`5 Vanzieleghem, Abstract.
`6 Vanzieleghem, 5:15-26 and 2:7-14.
`
`13
`
`

`
`reducing costs. As such, the Telecommunication operators have always
`
`played a significant role in driving standards organizations (e.g., Alliance for
`
`Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS)) to specify equipment. The
`
`T1E1 Working Group of Committee T1 (responsible for carrier to customer
`
`premise equipment interfaces) was one of many such standards committees
`
`comprising Telecommunication operators, manufacturers and
`
`individuals/organizations with a general interest (e.g., U.S. General Services
`
`Administration). See 1995 ADSL Standard at pp. vii-ix for a list of the
`
`Committee T1 member organizations as well as the actual working group
`
`members who participated. The participation in and/or awareness of
`
`technology standardization is mandatory for a corporation in a particular
`
`industry and failure to do so can result in insolvency of a company. For
`
`example, in the 1980s Wang Laboratories had a dominant market share in
`
`office automation software (e.g., word processing software). During the
`
`development and evolution of Intel-based Personal Computers (PCs), Wang
`
`chose to limit their office automation software to their proprietary hardware
`
`platform rather than port it to the standard PC platform. Many agree this
`
`decision by Wang ultimately resulted in their bankruptcy. ANSI provided
`
`requirements for standards bodies to ensure that the processes that developed
`
`national standards were fair. A detailed discussion of Committee T1
`
`14
`
`

`
`processes and procedures was provided by ATIS to the FCC in 1997 in
`
`response to an FCC call for comment (ATIS Procedures).
`
`22.
`
`I have been asked to differentiate between the ATIS/Committee T1 policies
`
`and that of the IEEE. As referenced in the FCC filing of ATIS Procedures,
`
`the Committee T1 process had openness as a key attribute, not only for
`
`idealistic purposes, but also to protect its members from any antitrust legal
`
`concerns. “As in the case of any industry effort, ATIS acknowledges that the
`
`standards development process may present certain antitrust compliance
`
`issues. In particular, ATIS has been cognizant that the standards process
`
`must not (1) unfairly advantage one competitor over another; (2) restrict
`
`participation and consideration of a wide spectrum of views; (3) exclude
`
`competitors from the markets to which the standards apply; (4) exclude new
`
`competitors from the marketplace; or (5) inhibit innovation. ATIS's
`
`sponsorship of the Committee T1 has been sensitive to these concerns.
`
`Consistent with the requirements of ANSI's Procedures for the Development
`
`and Coordination of American National Standards, T1 has established
`
`procedural safeguards to ensure that its standards processes operate fairly,
`
`that the standards it develops are reasonable, and that its members are not
`
`exposed to antitrust risks. Most importantly, membership and full
`
`participation in the Committee T1 are open to all parties with a direct
`
`15
`
`

`
`and material interest in the T1 process and activities.”7 All material was
`
`available to the public via an electronic bulletin board system as well as by
`
`hard copy. “T1 due process procedures provide additional guarantees of
`
`fairness and reasoned decision-making in standards development. All
`
`meetings of the Committee T1, including its subcommittees, working
`
`groups, and subworking groups are open and pre-announced to members
`
`and others having a direct and material interest in the subject matter of the
`
`proceeding. Today, this is accomplished electronically by the T1 bulletin
`
`board system ("T1BBS") as well as in hard copy for those parties
`
`requesting such documentation.”8 The IEEE, as discussed in the ’228 Patent
`
`IPR, password protected drafts of standards, and access to documents had to
`
`be requested.9
`
`23. The objective of the T1E1.4 Working Group was to develop a standard to
`
`define the layer 1 (i.e. physical layer) Asymmetrical Digital Subscriber Line
`
`(ADSL) interface. ADSL uses a multicarrier signal sent over a single pair of
`
`twisted pair telephone wires (i.e., loop) to connect two ADSL units. One
`
`unit, referred to as the ATU-C, resides at the central office and the other
`
`unit, the ATU-R, is located remotely at the customer premises.
`
`7 ATIS Procedures, p. 6, emphasis is my own.
`8 ATIS Procedures, p. 7, emphasis is my own.
`9 ‘228 IPR, p. 7.
`
`16
`
`

`
`D.
`Overview of ANSI T1.413-1995 (“1995 ADSL Standard”)
`24. The 1995 ADSL Standard addressed areas such as transport capacity
`
`functions of the ATU-C/ATU-R (e.g., framing, error correction, tone
`
`ordering, modulation, etc…), electrical characteristics, operations and
`
`maintenance and initialization. Manufacturers would rely on the 1995 ADSL
`
`Standard in the development of ADSL standards-compliant products.
`
`E.
`Overview of 97-161R1
`25. As part of the Committee T1 standards process, individuals would submit
`
`written contributions to be presented for discussion and potential adoption in
`
`the standard. 97-161R1 is such a document developed and submitted by Dr.
`
`Werner Henkel of Deutsche Telekom AG and Peter Chow of Amati
`
`Communications Corporation for adoption by the ADSL standard.
`
`26. The contributors of 97-161R1 came up with the same solution as the ‘404
`
`Patent. It discloses the advantages of storing loop characteristic parameters
`
`that can be later restored to resume normal modem operation without having
`
`to go through the lengthy power-on initialization process.10 97-161R1 lists
`
`specifically storing the bit and gain allocations as important parameters to
`
`shorten the initialization process. A person skilled in the art would have
`
`equated the “bit and gain allocation” reference in 97-191R1 with the “fine
`
`
`10 97-161, Abstract, Section 2 and Section 3.
`
`17
`
`

`
`gain parameter and bit allocation parameter” reference in the ‘404 patent.
`
`The 1995 ADSL spec also refers to bits and gains. The terms “fine gain
`
`parameter” and “bit allocation parameter” are construed in a later section.
`
`97-161R1 also notes that frame and sample synchronization are still needed
`
`for a solution.
`
`F.
`Overview of 97-319
`27. Similar to 97-161R1, 97-319 is also a contribution to the T1E1.4 ADSL
`
`standards group. 97-319 was developed and submitted by Thierry Pollet and
`
`Peter Reusens of Alcatel.
`
`28.
`
` 97-319, similar to the ‘404 Patent, identifies a power down mode for VDSL
`
`modems initiated by a message.11 Though the contribution was made to the
`
`VDSL project, it was equally applicable to ADSL, and was added to the
`
`ADSL watch list during the September 1997 T1E1.4 meeting.12 97-319
`
`comes up with the same solution as the ‘404 Patent to maintain
`
`synchronization between the central office and customer premise equipment
`
`modems while in a low power mode.13
`
`
`11 97-319, p. 2.
`12 97-362, p. 3.
`13 97-319, Abstract, p. 2 and p. 3.
`
`18
`
`

`
`V. Overview of U.S. Patent No. 8,612,404 (‘404 Patent)
`29. The ‘404 Patent is directed at multicarrier communication devices (e.g., DSL
`
`systems) where operation in a “low power mode” is desirable.14 Low power
`
`mode facilitates the powering down of circuitry in a transceiver.15 The ‘404
`
`Patent teaches that saving transceiver settings prior to entering into a low
`
`power mode and restoring the settings upon a return to normal operation
`
`reduces the time to transition from “low power mode” to “full power
`
`mode”.16 The ‘404 Patent also teaches maintaining synchronization between
`
`the CO and CPE transceivers during normal operation and low power
`
`mode.17
`
`VI. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`30.
`I am familiar with the knowledge and capabilities of one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art. For example, my work as a practicing engineer and engineering
`
`manager during that period allowed me to become personally familiar with
`
`the level of skill of individuals and the general state of the art. Unless
`
`otherwise stated, my testimony below refers to the knowledge of one of
`
`