IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent 8,611,404
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction................................................................................................. 1
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`II. Discussion Of The ‘404 Patent And The Cited References........................ 6
`
`III. The Board’s Claim Construction Is Proper................................................. 8
`
`A.
`
`“Synchronizing Signal”.................................................................... 8
`
`
`
`B.
`
`“Parameter Associated With The Full Power Mode Operation”....... 9
`
`IV. Discussion Of Bowie, Vanzieleghem, And The 1995 ADSL Standard....... 11
`
`A. Bowie, Vanzieleghem, And The 1995 ADSL Standard Are Obvious
`To Combine..................................................................................... 11
`Bowie Discloses Storing A Parameter Associated With The
`Full Power Mode Operation............................................................. 12
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Storing In The Low Power Mode At Least One of A Fine Gain
`Parameter And A Bit Allocation Parameter Is Obvious In View Of
`Bowie And The 1995 ADSL Standard............................................. 13
`
`Patent Owner Mischaracterizes Bowie............................................ 14
`
`Bowie And The ‘404 Patent Are Fundamentally Similar................. 16
`
`Disclosure Of The Claimed Synchronization Signal........................ 18
`
`G. Claims Are Obvious In View Of Proposed Combination................ 19
`
`V. Conclusion.................................................................................................. 24
`
`Certificate of Word Count..................................................................................... 25
`
`Certificate of Service............................................................................................. 26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Brief Description
`Ex. No.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,612,404 to Greszczuk, et. al. (“‘404 Patent”)
`1002 U.S. Provisional S/N: 60/072,447, “A Multicarrier Transmission
`System with a Low Power Sleep Mode and with Instant-On
`Capability,” filed Jan. 26, 1998.
`1003 Declaration of Lance McNally.
`1004 Curriculum Vitae of Lance McNally.
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 5,956,323 to Bowie. (“Bowie”)
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 6,246,725 to Vanzieleghem et al. (“Vanzieleghem”)
`T1E1.4/97-161R1, “Warm Re-Start for ADSL”, Werner Henkel, Peter
`S. Chow, September 22-26, 1997 T1E1.4 Working Group Meeting.
`(“97-161R1”)
`T1E1.4/97-319, “Power Down in Multicarrier Transmission”, Thierry
`Pollet, Peter Reusens, September 22-26, 1997 T1E1.4 Working Group
`Meeting. (“97-319”)
`1009 ANSI T1.413-1995 – Network and Customer Installation Interfaces –
`Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) Metallic Interface (Aug.
`18, 1995). (“1995 ADSL Standard”)
`1010 Accredited Standards Committee T1 – Telecommunications,
`Procedures Manual, Tenth Issue, Year End 1995.
`T1E1.4/97-362 Meeting Report of September 22-25 WG meeting in
`Minneapolis, MN - Uploaded to T1 FTP Server on Nov. 12, 1997.
`T1E1.4/97-463 Meeting Report, including Meeting Attendance Log
`from September 1997 Meeting.
`1013 Harry Newton, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (8th ed. 1994).
`1014 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.
`1015 Aware, Inc., Annual Report (Form 10-K) (January 27, 1998).
`1016
`Internet Archive Capture of T1E1.4 Uploaded 1997 Contributions,
`Jan. 30, 1998
`(http://web.archive.org/web/19980130071451/http:/t1.org/index/0312.
`htm).
`1017 U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/052,140 (July 10, 1997).
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404
`
`Ex. No.
`1018
`
`Brief Description
`Procedures for the Development and Coordination of American
`National Standards, American National Standards Institute, March
`1997.
`1019 Non-Final Office Action mailed July 24, 2003 for Application No.
`09/563,527 (issued as U.S. Patent 6,845,103) that cites ANSI T1.413-
`1995 as a prior art reference under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
` This Supplemental Exhibit has been served to Patent Owner but
`has not been filed.
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`
`Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.
`755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014).............................................................. 10
`
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.
`415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005).............................................................. 12
`
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
`
`550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)................................................................................. 24
`
`
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(a)............................................................................................... 1, 24
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.100(b)............................................................................................. 8
`
`37 C.F.R. §1.75(d)(1)............................................................................................ 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`Patent 8,611,404 (‘404 patent) discloses “a multicarrier transmission system
`
`for use in digital subscriber line communications that can rapidly switch from a
`
`sleep mode to a full-on condition.” Ex. 1001 at 3:31-33. Accordingly, stated
`
`objectives include reducing power consumption via a sleep mode and enabling a
`
`rapid resumption from the sleep mode. Id. As demonstrated in ARRIS’s Petition,
`
`the ‘404 patent’s system/method was obvious in view of Patent 5,956,323
`
`(“Bowie”) in combination with Patent 6,246,725 (“Vanzieleghem”) and the ANSI
`
`T1.413 1995 ADSL Standard (“1995 ADSL Standard”) and not patentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(a).
`
`
`
`On page 2, Patent Owner Response (POR) asserts one line of attack against
`
`the combination of Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and 1995 ADSL Standard as not
`
`teaching or suggesting storing, in the low power mode, at least one parameter
`
`associated with the full power mode. In particular, POR wrongly states that “loop
`
`characteristics, as disclosed in Bowie, are not associated with any power mode or
`
`operation.” POR at 2. Rather, Bowie clearly states that “[m]odulated data signal
`
`processing, transmitting, and receiving circuitry can be placed in a low power state
`
`when inactive, and then re-energized to resume full power operation as needed.”
`
`Ex. 1005 at 3:1-5. Bowie adds that “[s]toring loop characteristics enable rapid
`
`resumption of user data transmission when the units are returned to full power
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404
`
`mode,” Ex. 1005 at 5:22-24, and that “[i]f loop transmission characteristics had
`
`been stored, these parameters are retrieved from memory 117 and used to enable
`
`data transmission to resume quickly by reducing the time needed to determine loop
`
`transmission characteristics.” Ex. 1005 at 5:62-66.
`
`
`
`Next, page 2 of POR incorrectly asserts a second line of attack against the
`
`combination of references as not teaching or suggesting “stor[ing], in the low
`
`power mode . . . at least one of a fine gain parameter and a bit allocation
`
`parameter,” as recited in the claims. As explained in the Petition and testified by
`
`Expert McNally, the 1995 ADSL Standard clearly discloses bit allocation
`
`parameters and fine gain parameters as various types of loop transmission
`
`characteristics, as properly understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`(POSITA). Pet. at 39-40; Ex. 1003 at ¶¶70-75.
`
`
`
`On pages 2-3, POR wrongly asserts third and fourth lines of attack and
`
`argues that Bowie and the 1995 ADSL Standard fail to disclose “exit[ing] from the
`
`low power mode and restor[ing] the full power mode by using the at least one
`
`parameter and without needing to reinitialize the transceiver.” POR further states
`
`that Bowie teaches a device that operates in a fundamentally different way than the
`
`claimed inventions of the ‘404 patent and contends that Bowie teaches that “some
`
`initialization is required.” POR at 2. However, Bowie clearly states that for a loop
`
`characteristic that has changed during the low power mode, the loop characteristic
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404
`
`can be re-determined. Ex. 1005 a 5-6:62-2 and 6:35-41. Correspondingly, if there
`
`has been no change, the stored loop characteristics are not re-determined/
`
`reinitialized. Markedly, the ‘404 patent describes a similar process in which system
`
`conditions are verified to “have not changed so significantly as to require renewed
`
`initialization.” Ex. 1001 at 8:27-31. Accordingly, the ‘404 patent mimics the
`
`teachings of Bowie.
`
`Additionally, POR incorrectly asserts that the inventions of the ‘404 patent
`
`do not reinitialize upon coming out of a low power mode, and POR also
`
`inaccurately alleges that Bowie teaches that reinitialization is always performed
`
`after exiting of a low-power mode. POR at 3. However, both Bowie and the ‘404
`
`patent clearly state that reinitialization is optionally performed if necessary due to a
`
`change in system conditions. Ex. 1005 at 5-6:62-2 and 6:35-41; Ex. 1001 at 8:27-
`
`31.
`
`On pages 3-4, POR wrongly asserts a fifth line of attack and states that
`
`Petitioner has not shown how Vanzieleghem and the 1995 Standard teach or
`
`suggest the claimed “synchronization signal” and how it would have been obvious
`
`to modify the Bowie device to transmit or receive a synchronization signal in the
`
`low power mode. As stated in the Petition, the ‘404 Patent specification does not
`
`define or even mention a “synchronization signal.” Pet. at 24. However, a “timing
`
`reference signal” is introduced in the specification, and it is the only mechanism
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404
`
`disclosed for synchronization aside from that of the synchronization frame within
`
`the superframe. Ex. 1001 at 5:39-45. The ‘404 patent specifies that the timing
`
`reference signal, also referred to as a pilot signal, “synchronizes frame counter of
`
`the CPE transceiver to the corresponding frame counter of the CO transceiver.” Ex.
`
`1001 at 5:50-52. Both Vanzieleghem and the 1995 ADSL Standard disclose signals
`
`for the purpose of providing both frame and frequency synchronization, since they
`
`are both elements of the ADSL standard, as described in the ‘404 patent and
`
`demonstrated in Vanzieleghem and the 1995 ADSL Standard. Pet. at 37; Ex. 1003
`
`at ¶¶77-78; Ex. 1006 at 5:55-65; Ex. 1009 at 46-47, 113.
`
`For example, Vanzieleghem expressly discloses “the frequency
`
`synchronization between the transmitter and a receiver at the other end of the
`
`telecommunication line is maintained owing to the presence of the pilot tone. By
`
`sending one synchronization symbol for every N symbols, the framing
`
`synchronization is also maintained between the transmitter and the receiver.” Ex.
`
`1006 at 2-3:63-2; Pet. at 13-14. Similarly, page 46 of the 1995 ADSL Standard
`
`describes both the pilot signal/tone and frame synchronization using frame
`
`symbols, and Expert McNally testified that it would have been obvious to modify
`
`the Bowie device to transmit or receive a synchronization signal in the low power
`
`mode. Ex. 1003 at ¶77-78; Pet. at 41. Therefore, the “synchronization signal” is
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404
`
`properly construed as “a signal allowing frame synchronization between the
`
`transmitter of the signal and the receiver of the signal.” Pet. at 24; Ex. 1003 at ¶39.
`
`
`
`On page 4 and later referenced on page 18, POR wrongly asserts a sixth line
`
`of attack by arguing that Petitioner’s arguments for combining the references is in
`
`conflict with the teachings of the references, as evidenced by the ADSL standard
`
`allegedly not allowing for Bowie’s power conservation scheme. But, Section 1.2 of
`
`the 1995 ADSL Standard, in particular, describes the purpose of the standard
`
`which is to “define[] the minimal set of requirements to provide satisfactory
`
`simultaneous transmission between the network and the customer interface of
`
`POTS and a variety of high-speed simplex and low-speed full duplex channels.”
`
`Ex. 1009 at 1. As testified by Expert McNally, the 1995 ADSL Standard does not
`
`preclude power-saving capabilities from being implemented in addition to the
`
`“minimal set of requirements” listed in the Standard. Ex. 2002 at 66:8-21. Each of
`
`the ‘404 patent, Bowie, and Vanzieleghem documents discloses ADSL transceivers
`
`operating on DSL channels, and each of the documents discloses the stated
`
`objective of reducing power consumption and providing fast restarts from power-
`
`saving modes. Infra at 23. Therefore, Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and the 1995 ADSL
`
`Standard would be understood by a POSITA to be obvious to combine since they
`
`provide complementary technologies for the efficient implementation of low power
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404
`
`modes with rapid-on capabilities for ADSL systems as described within the 1995
`
`ADSL Standard. Pet. at 27.
`
`II. Discussion Of The ‘404 Patent And The Cited References
`
`Petitioner addresses some of the rebuttal comments of the POR as set forth
`
`below in relevant part. Pages 9-10 of the POR wrongly argue that Bowie shuts
`
`down all the data receiving, data transmission, and signal processing circuitry in its
`
`disclosed low power mode. Instead, Bowie expressly states “[e]ach unit 232 and
`
`242 may then enter low-power mode by shutting off the now unnecessary sections
`
`of signal processing 111, transmitting 112, and receiving 113 circuitry.” Ex. 1005
`
`at 5:25-27 (emphasis added). For reference, the ‘404 patent specifically states “[i]t
`
`is thus desirable that the transceiver be able to suspend operations and enter a
`
`‘sleep’ mode in which it consumes reduced power when it is not needed for data
`
`transmission or reception.” Ex. 1001 at 6:1-6 (emphasis added). Therefore, like the
`
`‘404 patent, Bowie discloses that the portions of circuitry that are not necessary or
`
`“not needed” in low-power mode may be shut off to conserve power.
`
`On page 12, POR admits that Bowie discloses “[t]he stored ‘loop
`
`transmission characteristics . . . are retrieved from memory 117 and used to enable
`
`data transmission to resume quickly by reducing the time needed to determine loop
`
`transmission characteristics.” The foregoing statement indicates that Bowie
`
`discloses that loop transmission characteristics are stored in the low power mode.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404
`
`POR then wrongly asserts that Bowie requires the transmission
`
`characteristics to be re-determined after exiting the low power mode and returning
`
`to full data transmission. As previously explained, however, both Bowie and the
`
`‘404 patent disclose that reinitialization is performed if necessary due to a change
`
`in system conditions. Supra at 2-3. Bowie states “[h]andshaking information may
`
`be required where, for example, loop characteristics have changed due, for
`
`example, to temperature-dependent changes in loop resistance.” Ex. 1005 at 6:38-
`
`41. Nowhere does Bowie suggest that loop transmission characteristics are stored
`
`and then unnecessarily re-determined after exiting the low power mode, as alleged
`
`on page 12 of the POR.
`
`On pages 14 and 17-18, POR wrongly states that Bowie teaches that
`
`reinitialization “must” occur when the transceiver comes out of the low power
`
`mode. Instead, Bowie states that reinitialization “may” occur when necessary, for
`
`example, due to “temperature-dependent changes in loop resistance.”1 Ex. 1005 at
`
`6:35-41, 5-6:62-2.
`
`For at least these reasons and the reasons that follow, the Patent Owner
`
`(PO)’s assertions against the Petition are incorrect.
`
`
`1 In contrast, the ‘404 patent states that reinitialization “must” be performed. Ex. 1001 at 8:31-34.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404
`
`III. The Board’s Claim Construction Is Proper
`
`A.
`
`“Synchronizing Signal”
`
`On pages 19-20, POR asserts that the Board’s construction of
`
`“synchronization signal” is incorrect as not being consistent with the ordinary
`
`meaning of the claim language, with the teachings of the specification, and also
`
`excluding the preferred embodiment of the claimed “synchronization signal.”
`
`A claim subject to inter partes review is given its “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in view of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37
`
`C.F.R. §42.100(b). In its arguments, PO references the ‘404 patent as citing a
`
`“timing reference signal” that provides timing synchronization between two
`
`transceivers. POR at 20. PO asserts that the claimed “synchronization signal”
`
`relates to this “timing reference signal” and that the adopted construction is
`
`incorrect because it conflates this timing reference signal with a synchronization
`
`frame that provides frame synchronization which is separately claimed. POR at 21.
`
`However, in the ‘404 patent, the timing reference signal (“pilot signal”)
`
`“synchronizes frame counter of the CPE transceiver to the corresponding frame
`
`counter of the CO transceiver.” Ex. 1001 at 5:50-52. Therefore, the term
`
`“synchronization signal” is properly construed as “a signal allowing frame
`
`synchronization between the transmitter of the signal and the receiver of the
`
`signal.” Pet. at 24; Ex. 1003 at ¶39.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404
`
`Regarding the PO’s proposed construction of “synchronization signal” as
`
`“an indication used to establish or maintain a timing relationship between
`
`transceivers,” Petitioner notes even if this construction is adopted, that such a
`
`signal is expressly disclosed by Vanzieleghem and the 1995 ADSL Standard. For
`
`example, the 1995 ADSL standard discloses signals for the purpose of providing
`
`both frame and frequency synchronization during data transmissions. Ex. 1009 at
`
`46-47, 113; Ex. 1003 at ¶160. Vanzieleghem discloses signals for the purpose of
`
`providing both frame and frequency synchronization in full and low power modes.
`
`Ex. 1006 at 5:55-65; Ex. 1003 at ¶77. Vanzieleghem expressly discloses “the
`
`frequency synchronization between the transmitter and a receiver at the other end
`
`of the telecommunication line is maintained owing to the presence of the pilot
`
`tone. By sending one synchronization symbol for every N symbols, the framing
`
`synchronization is also maintained between the transmitter and the receiver.” Ex.
`
`1006 at 2-3:63-2; Pet. at 13-14. Similarly, page 46 of the 1995 ADSL Standard
`
`describes the application of a pilot signal/tone during data transmissions.
`
`Nonetheless, the Board’s construction of the term “synchronization signal” is
`
`proper.
`
`B.
`
`“Parameter Associated With The Full Power Mode Operation”
`
`On pages 24-25, POR asserts that a proper construction of “parameter
`
`associated with the full power mode operation” is “a parameter associated with the
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404
`
`transmission and/or reception of data during normal operation.” Therefore, the PO
`
`is applying for a narrowing interpretation of the claimed term which is adverse to
`
`the broadest reasonable construction standard used in an inter partes review.
`
`Instead, the Board’s construction of the claim term is correct in that the claim
`
`should have its ordinary and customary meaning read in view of the ‘404 patent’s
`
`specification, as would have been understood by a POSITA. See, e.g., Hill-Rom
`
`Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Claim terms
`
`are generally given their plain and ordinary meanings to one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art when read in the context of the specification and the prosecution history.”).
`
`Additionally, the PO cites illustrative examples for the proposition that the
`
`storage of claimed “parameter associated with the full power mode operation” in
`
`the ‘404 patent only includes transmission parameters (which is not recited in the
`
`claims). However, the ‘404 patent is clearly not so limiting. For example, the
`
`specification discloses that a signal-to-noise ratio of a subchannel is a type of
`
`parameter that can be stored. Ex. 1001 at 3:7-20. Contradictorily, page 7 of the
`
`POR asserts that the signal-to-noise ratio is distinct from “transmission
`
`parameters” and is not the type of parameter that is taught by the ‘404 patent to be
`
`associated with the full power mode. Thus, under the proposed construction, the
`
`signal-to-noise ratio parameter should not be interpreted as a “parameter associated
`
`with the full power mode operation,” although the ‘404 patent clearly describes
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404
`
`signal-to-noise ratio as being associated with full power mode operation. Ex. 1001
`
`at 4:49-57. As such, the PO’s proposed claim construction is incorrect.
`
`IV. Discussion Of Bowie, Vanzieleghem, And The 1995 ADSL Standard
`
`A. Bowie, Vanzieleghem, And The 1995 ADSL Standard Are Obvious
`To Combine
`
`On page 26, POR incorrectly states that Petitioner has failed to provide a
`
`plausible rationale as to why the prior art references would have worked together
`
`to render the patent claims obvious. Rather, the Petition shows that Bowie,
`
`Vanzieleghem, and 1995 ADSL Standard provide complementary technology for
`
`the efficient implementation of low power modes with rapid-on capabilities. Pet.
`
`at 27. In particular, Vanzieleghem addresses synchronization concerns and low
`
`power transmitter technology, and Bowie addresses the need for controlling the
`
`transition between normal and low power operation. Id. The Petition also shows
`
`that Bowie addresses the “importance of storing subscriber loop characteristics to
`
`ensure a rapid return to normal operation.” Id. Accordingly, because Bowie and
`
`Vanzieleghem are based on the standard disclosed in ANSI T1.413, a person with
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Bowie,
`
`Vanzieleghem, and ANSI T1.413. Pet. at 27‒28.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404
`
`B. Bowie Discloses Storing A Parameter Associated With The Full
`Power Mode Operation
`
`On page 28, POR incorrectly states that Bowie “does not disclose storing
`
`any parameters or other information associated with transmitting or receiving data
`
`during normal operation.” For example, Bowie expressly discloses “[i]f loop
`
`transmission characteristics had been stored, these parameters are retrieved from
`
`memory 117 and used to enable data transmission to resume quickly by reducing
`
`the time needed to determine loop transmission characteristics.” Ex. 1005 at
`
`5:62-66.
`
`POR asserts that Bowie discloses at most storing loop characteristics which
`
`exist without regard to any operating mode, protocol, or transmission of data. In
`
`response, Petitioner submits that the claims do not recite any limitations related to
`
`operation mode, protocol or transmission of data. These are limitations being
`
`improperly read into the claims. See 37 C.F.R. §1.75(d)(1); Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`Furthermore, with respect to “loop characteristics,” Bowie explains that after
`
`the exchange of loop loss characteristics is completed, “transmission of user data
`
`may begin.” Ex. 1005 at 5:1-5; Pet. at 39-40. Therefore, Bowie teaches that the
`
`loop characteristics are stored with regard to the transmission of data and discloses
`
`the claimed limitation of “storing a parameter associated with the full power mode
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404
`
`operation.” In particular, Bowie explains that upon resuming a full power mode,
`
`“[i]f loop transmission characteristics had been stored, these parameters are
`
`retrieved from memory 117 and used to enable data transmission to resume quickly
`
`by reducing the time needed to determine loop transmission characteristics.” Ex.
`
`1005 at 5:62-66.
`
`C. Storing In The Low Power Mode At Least One Of A Fine Gain
`Parameter And A Bit Allocation Parameter Is Obvious In View Of
`Bowie And The 1995 ADSL Standard
`
`
`
`On pages 29-31, POR asserts that the Petitioner has failed to explain how it
`
`would have been obvious to store bit allocation or fine gain parameters in the
`
`Bowie device in a low power mode. While Petitioner acknowledges that Bowie
`
`does not expressly refer to fine gain and bit allocation parameters, pages 39-40 of
`
`the Petition explain that “[l]oop characteristic parameters are described in Bowie as
`
`required to adapt the devices to the wire loops so that normal data transmission can
`
`begin. Ex. 1005 at 4:66-67, 5:1-3.” In the Petition, Expert McNally explains that it
`
`would be obvious to a POSITA to reason that the type of loop characteristic
`
`parameters that are stored would include fine gain and bit allocation parameters.
`
`Pet. at 40 and Ex. 1003 at ¶74. Further, page 87 of the 1995 ADSL Standard
`
`specifies “transmission settings” that are exchanged between an ADSL receiver
`
`and an ADSL transmitter to include bit allocation and fine gain parameters: “the
`
`number of bits and relative power levels to be used on each DMT sub-carrier.” Pet.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404
`
`at 40. Thus, the Petition clearly explains how it would have been obvious to store
`
`bit allocation or fine gain parameters in the Bowie device in a low power mode.
`
`D. Patent Owner Mischaracterizes Bowie
`
`On pages 31-36, POR argues that “fine gain and bit allocation parameters
`
`are not loop characteristics but are instead protocol specific transmission
`
`parameters that are determined from loop characteristics, power and spectral
`
`constraints of the communication protocol, device configuration, transmission and
`
`reception data rates, and device performance.” This argument is related to the
`
`claims specifying that “at least one parameter” associated with the full power mode
`
`is stored in the low power mode and “wherein the at least one parameter comprises
`
`at least one of a fine gain parameter and a bit allocation parameter.” The PO is
`
`wrongly interpreting this language to mean that the “at least one parameter” only
`
`includes the fine gain parameter and a bit allocation parameter, although the ‘404
`
`patent discloses that a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of a subchannel is a type of
`
`parameter that can be stored in accordance with the invention. In particular, the
`
`‘404 patent itself describes that a parameter such as SNR can be stored during a
`
`low power mode. Ex. 1001 at 3:7-20. As such, the ‘404 patent includes and does
`
`not preclude parameters such as SNR from being stored in the low power mode.
`
`Similarly, the parameters stored in Bowie also expressly include a variety of loop
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404
`
`characteristic parameters including loop transmission characteristics, in the same
`
`manner as the ‘404 patent. Ex. 1005 at 5:1-5, 62-66. Therefore, Expert McNally’s
`
`reasoning that the “1995 ADSL Standard identifies the fine gain and bit allocation
`
`parameters of the ‘404 patent as part of the loop characterization parameters in
`
`ADSL” is not baseless as asserted in the POR. POR at 33; Ex. 1003 at ¶74.
`
`On page 37, POR wrongly asserts that since Bowie discloses that the local
`
`loop is tested to determine whether stored parameters have changed during a low
`
`power mode, a POSITA would not have been motivated to store bit allocation or
`
`fine gain parameters, as claimed in the ‘404 patent. Like Bowie, the ‘404 patent
`
`clearly discloses that the local loop is tested to determine whether stored
`
`parameters have changed during a low power mode: “On resuming
`
`communication, it may be desirable for the CPE to transmit several frames of test
`
`(known) data (step 100) before resuming transmission of user data. This enables
`
`the system to verify that system conditions have not changed so significantly as to
`
`require renewed initialization.” Ex. 1001 at 8:24-35. Accordingly, the PO’s
`
`statement that it would not be obvious to store bit allocation or fine gain
`
`parameters if the stored parameters may have changed during a low power mode is
`
`plainly contradicted by the teachings of the ‘404 patent. Rather, the ‘404 patent and
`
`Bowie disclose that system conditions may change during a low power mode such
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404
`
`that reinitialization may be required. Ex. 1001 at 8:24-35; Ex. 1005 at 4:5-10, 6:37-
`
`39.
`
`Related to this point, on pages 38-41, POR argues that Bowie fails to state
`
`that its invention “avoids or eliminates the need to reinitialize the transceiver.” As
`
`stated above, there are no distinctions to be made between the ‘404 patent and
`
`Bowie in possibly arguing that Bowie may perform reinitialization if system
`
`conditions change, when the ‘404 patent discloses the same. Additionally, POR
`
`argues that reinitialization includes, in the context of DSL systems, the step of
`
`synchronizing the timing of the transceivers and exchanging transmission
`
`parameters. With respect to this point, PO is attempting to add further limitations
`
`to the claims that are not supported by the ‘404 patent. Nonetheless, the secondary
`
`reference of Vanzieleghem discloses each of the added features related to
`
`synchronization. Pet. at 37; Infra at 18-19.
`
`E. Bowie And The ‘404 Patent Are Fundamentally Similar
`
`On page 42, POR states that “Bowie and the 404 patent follow
`
`fundamentally different –and mutually exclusive– paths to going back to
`
`transmitting data in a DSL system after coming out of a low power mode.” The
`
`foregoing statement is wrong as demonstrated by the following table showing
`
`fundamental similarities between the two patents.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404
`
`Bowie (Ex. 1005)
`“Signal processing, transmitting,
`and receiving circuitry for such
`high frequency modulated data
`signals require[] substantial
`amounts of power, typically up to 5
`watts per loop served. For a large
`central office, potentially serving
`many thousands of such data
`connections, this power usage is
`substantial.” 2:1-6 (emphasis
`added).
`“FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an
`ADSL unit. . . . Control circuitry
`117 is provided to control operation
`of the ADSL unit 100, to control
`power usage by ADSL unit
`circuitry, and for storage of ADSL
`unit parameters.” 3:34-50
`(emphasis added).
`
`“If loop transmission characteristics
`had been stored, these parameters
`are retrieved from memory 117 and
`used to enable data transmission to
`resume quickly by reducing the
`time needed to determine loop
`transmission characteristics.”
`5:62-66 (emphasis added)
`
`
`
`
`Problem to be
`solved
`
`
`Solution to
`Problem
`
`
`
`
`
`‘404 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`“[DSL transceivers]
`consume a significant
`amount of power, even
`when they are not
`actively transmitting or
`receiving data. It is
`generally desirable to
`limit this power
`consumption.” 2:55-61
`(emphasis added).
`
`“Thus, it is desirable to
`provide an ADSL
`modem which can
`accommodate power
`conservation
`procedures.” 3:2-5
`(emphasis added).
`
`“It is thus desirable that
`the transceiver be able
`to suspend operations
`and enter a ‘sleep’
`mode in which it
`consumes reduced
`power when it is not
`needed for data
`transmission or
`reception, but
`nonetheless be able to
`resume transmission or
`reception almost
`instantaneously, e.g.,
`within a few frames.”
`6:1-6 (emphasis added)
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01160
`Patent 8,611,404
`
`F. Disclosure Of The Claimed Synchronization Signal
`
`On page 45, POR incorrectly states that the Petition has not established that
`
`Vanzieleghem and the 1995 ADSL Standard disclose the claimed “synchronization
`
`signal.” For example, the claims simply recite transmitting/receiving a
`
`synchronization signal, and, the ‘404 patent specification does not define a
`
`“synchronization signal.” Pet. at 24. Instead, the ‘404 patent specifies a timing
`
`reference signal (“pilot signal”) that “synchronizes frame counter of the CPE
`
`transceiver to the corresponding frame counter of the CO transceiver” and
`
`additionally describes a synchronization frame. Ex. 1001 at 5:50-52. Therefore, the
`
`term “synchroni
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
