Filed on behalf of TQ Delta, LLC
`By: Peter J. McAndrews
`Thomas J. Wimbiscus
`Scott P. McBride
`McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.
`500 W. Madison St., 34th Floor
`Chicago, IL 60661
`Tel: 312-775-8000
`Fax: 312-775-8100
`E-mail: pmcandrews@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01160
`Patent No. 8,611,404
`_____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`SUMMARY OF THE 404 PATENT .............................................................. 5 
`II. 
`III.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 6 
`IV.  NO REVIEW SHOULD BE INSTITUTED WITH
`RESPECT TO THE GROUNDS RAISED BY
`PETITIONER .................................................................................................. 7 
`A.  Ground 1: Obviousness of Claims 1-20 Over
`Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and the ADSL Standard ................................. 10 
`1. 
`The Ground 1 References ......................................................... 10 
`2. 
`The Combination of Ground 1 References
`Fails to Disclose the Claimed “Storing in a
`Low Power Mode at Least One Parameter
`Associated with Full Power Mode of
`Operation” ................................................................................ 13 
`a. 
`None of Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and
`the ADSL Standard Discloses Storing,
`in Low Power Mode, a Fine Gain
`Parameter or
`a Bit Allocation
`Parameter ........................................................................ 13 
`Petitioner’s
`Invalidity Arguments
`with Respect to the Storing Limitation
`Have No Merit ................................................................ 14 
`Petitioner Fails to Provide Sufficient Non-
`Conclusory Evidence to Support a Reason
`to Combine Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and
`the ADSL Standard ................................................................. 19 
`a. 
`The Statements in the Petition ........................................ 20 
`1) 
`The First Statement .............................................. 20 
`2) 
`The Second Statement .......................................... 21 
`3) 
`The Third Statement ............................................. 22 
`4) 
`The Board Has Found Similarly
`Conclusory
`Statements
`i
`
`
`
`b. 
`
`3. 
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01160
`
`b. 
`
`4. 
`
`B. 
`
`Obviousness
`Regarding
`Insufficient ............................................................ 23 
`The Statements
`in
`the McNally
`Declaration ...................................................................... 26 
`A Person of Skill in the Art Would Not
`Have Combined the Ground 1 References
`as Petitioner Proposes ............................................................. 27 
`Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 1-20 Over 97-
`161R1, 97-319, and the ADSL Standard ............................................ 31 
`1. 
`The Ground 2 References ......................................................... 31 
`2. 
`The 97-161R1 and 97-319 Contributions
`Are Not Prior Art ...................................................................... 33 
`a. 
`The
`97-161R1
`and
`97-319
`Contributions .................................................................. 35 
`The T1 Committee Procedures and
`ATIS FCC Filing ............................................................ 35 
`The McNally Testimony ................................................. 37 
`The T1E1.4 Meeting Report ........................................... 39 
`The “Wayback Machine” Printout ................................. 40 
`The Contributions Are Not Printed
`Publications Under Samsung Even if
`Petitioner’s Allegations Are Accurate ............................ 42 
`The Combination of 97-161R1, 97-319, and
`the ADSL Standard Fails to Disclose the
`Claimed “Storing in a Low Power Mode at
`least One Parameter Associated with Full
`Power Mode of Operation” ........................................................ 46 
`Petitioner Fails to Provide Sufficient Non-
`Conclusory Evidence to Support a Reason
`to Combine the References ..................................................... 48 
`a. 
`The First Statement ......................................................... 49 
`b. 
`The Second Statement .................................................... 50 
`c. 
`The Third Statement ....................................................... 52 
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`d. 
`e. 
`f. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01160
`
`d. 
`
`5. 
`
`the McNally
`in
`The Statements
`Declaration ...................................................................... 54 
`A Person of Skill in the Art Would Not
`Have Combined the Ground 2 References
`as Petitioner Proposes ............................................................. 56 
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 58 
`
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01160
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES 
`AT&T Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 01 Civ. 4872, 2004 WL 292321 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2004) .......................... 38
`BSP Software, LLC v. Motio, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00307, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2013) ................................... 21, 50
`Customplay, LLC v. Clearplay, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00484, Paper 29 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2014) .............................................. 7
`Daifuku Co., v. Murata Machinery, Ltd.,
`IPR2015-00084, 87, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. May 4, 2015) ....................................... 25
`Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 56
`Du Pont v. Monsanto Tech., LLC,
`IPR2014-00334, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. July 11, 2014) .............................................. 7
`In re Gordon,
`733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .............................................................................. 28
`In re ICON Health & Fitness,
`496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 28
`Jacobs Corp. v. Genesis III, Inc.,
`IPR2014-01267, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. January 22, 2015) ........................................ 8
`Kinetic Techs., Inc. v. Skyworks Solutions, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00529, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 23, 2014) ............................................ 25
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 16, 19
`Moses Lake Indus., Inc. v. Enthone, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00243, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. June 18, 2014) ...................................... 16, 19
`NJOY, Inc. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.,
`IPR2015-01301, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2015) ...................................... 24, 54
`Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp.,
`363 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 36
`Oxford Nanopore Tech. Ltd. v. University of Washington,
`IPR2014-00512, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 15, 2014) ............................................ 9
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01160
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP,
`IPR2014-00891, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2014) ................................ 34, 44, 45
`SAS Institute, Inc. v. Complementsoft, LLC,
`IPR2013-00581, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. December 30, 2013) .................................... 8
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc.,
`511 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..................................................................... 33, 41
`Standard Innovation Corp. v. Lelo, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00148, Paper 41 (P.T.A.B. April 23, 2015) .......................................... 40
`Symantec Corp. v. Rpost Comm., Ltd.,
`IPR2014-00355, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. July 15, 2014) ............................................ 17
`TRW Auto. US LLC v. Magna Elecs., Inc.,
`IPR2014-00262, Paper 20 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2014) .......................................... 27
`TRW Automotive US LLC v. Magna Elecs., Inc.,
`IPR2014-00258, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. June 26, 2014) ........................ 24, 48, 54, 56
`Wowza Media Sys., LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2013-00054, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. July 13, 2013) ..................................... 27, 56
`STATUTES 
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ....................................................................................... 4, 31, 33, 46
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) ........................................................................... 8, 16, 26, 54
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) ............................................................................. 9, 17, 26, 55
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01160
`
`Patent Owner TQ Delta, LLC (“TQ Delta” or “Patent Owner”) submits this
`
`preliminary response to the Petition filed by Arris Group, Inc. (“Arris” or
`
`“Petitioner”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1-20 of U.S. Pat. No.
`
`8,611,404 (the “404 patent”).
`
`The Petition fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-20 of
`
`the 404 patent are unpatentable. As an initial matter, two of the references
`
`Petitioner relies upon for one of its grounds of alleged invalidity are not printed
`
`publications and, thus, not even prior art. See infra at § IV.B.2. Moreover, each of
`
`the asserted prior art references differs significantly from the inventions claimed by
`
`the 404 patent, and certain claim limitations are missing from each of the asserted
`
`prior art references. Therefore, and not surprisingly, each of Petitioner’s asserted
`
`grounds for unpatentability relies on obviousness. Petitioner’s obviousness
`
`arguments, however, cobble together various discrete features from multiple
`
`different prior art references without evidence of any valid reason for doing so or
`
`of any reasonable expectation of success.
`
`The Board should, therefore, decline instituting trial on each of the two
`
`proposed Grounds for at least the following reasons:
`
`
`
`Ground 1: The Petition asserts unpatentability of claims 1-20 under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over U.S. Pat. No. 5,956,323 (“Bowie”) and U.S. Pat. No.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01160
`
`6,246,725 (“Vanzieleghem”) in view of the ANSI T1.413-1995 ADSL
`
`Standard (the “ADSL Standard”).
`
`Petitioner’s asserted obviousness combination does not disclose all of the
`
`limitations of each of the challenged claims. None of the references discloses at
`
`least “store [or storing], in the [or a] low power mode, at least one parameter
`
`associated with the full power mode operation wherein the at least one parameter
`
`comprises at least one of a fine gain parameter and a bit allocation parameter,” as
`
`required by claims 1-20. Indeed, Bowie does not disclose storing in low power
`
`mode a fine gain or bit allocation parameter, and the ADSL Standard does not
`
`disclose storing in low power mode parameters associated with full power mode
`
`operation.1
`
`Undoubtedly recognizing that it cannot show that any of the references
`
`teaches this limitation, Petitioner (improperly) splits the limitation up and
`
`(erroneously) argues that Bowie discloses storing in a low power mode at least one
`
`parameter associated with the full power mode operation and that the “at least one
`
`parameter compris[ing] at least one of a fine gain parameter and a bit allocation
`
`parameter” is obvious over Bowie and the ADSL Standard. The requirement that
`
`the “at least one parameter comprises at least one of a fine gain parameter and a bit
`
`allocation parameter,” however, cannot be separated from the requirement that the
`
`
`1 Petitioner does not allege that Vanzieleghem discloses this limitation.
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01160
`
`at least one parameter be “stored in the low power mode.” Moreover, Petitioner
`
`only provides insufficient and conclusory arguments as to why a person of skill in
`
`the art would combine Bowie with the ADSL Standard to arrive at the full teaching
`
`of this limitation.
`
`Further, Petitioner provides only insufficient and conclusory statements as to
`
`why it allegedly would have been obvious to combine Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and
`
`the ADSL Standard. Indeed, Petitioner never provides any “articulated reasoning
`
`with rational underpinnings” for why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`been motivated to combine the teachings of the three references, how the
`
`application of routine skill would have resulted in this combination, what the result
`
`would be, or why the result would have been predictable. Moreover, Petitioner’s
`
`citations to the declaration of its expert, Mr. McNally, do not remedy the lack of
`
`reasoning and support in the Petition.
`
`Lastly, it would not have been obvious to combine the references as
`
`Petitioner proposes in Ground 1 because the references teach away from such a
`
`combination.
`
`Ground 2: The Petition asserts unpatentability of claims 1-20 under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over the T1E1.4/97-161R1 (“97-161R1”) and T1E1.4/97-319
`
`(“97-319”) contributions to the T1E1.4 Working Group (collectively, the
`
`“Contributions”) in view of the ADSL Standard.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01160
`
`To start with, Petitioner’s obviousness arguments must fail because
`
`Petitioner has not shown that the 97-161R1 and 97-319 Contributions are prior art.
`
`In particular, Petitioner has not met its burden of showing that either of the
`
`Contributions is a “printed publication.” See 35 U.S.C. § 102. Indeed, the
`
`evidence Petitioner relies upon does not demonstrate that the Contributions were
`
`disseminated to the extent that a person interested and ordinarily skilled in the art,
`
`exercising reasonable diligence, could locate them.
`
`In addition, the proposed combination of Ground 2 references fails to
`
`disclose all the limitations of claims 1-20. As with Ground 1, none of the
`
`references discloses at least “store [or storing], in the [or a] low power mode, at
`
`least one parameter associated with the full power mode operation wherein the at
`
`least one parameter comprises at least one of a fine gain parameter and a bit
`
`allocation parameter,” as required by claims 1-20. Petitioner does not show that
`
`97-161R1 teaches or suggests even being in a low power mode, let alone storing,
`
`in a low power mode, a parameter associated with the full power mode operation.
`
`As such, 97-161 does not teach the limitation, and Petitioner does not point to
`
`anything in the other Ground 2 references that teaches the limitation.
`
`In addition, the Petition again provides insufficient articulated reasoning to
`
`support obviousness for Ground 2. Petitioner does not allege why a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the teachings of 97-
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01160
`
`161R1, 97-319, and the ADSL Standard. Instead, as with Ground 1, Petitioner
`
`only provides conclusory allegations regarding obviousness and cites to conclusory
`
`statements regarding obviousness from its expert’s declaration. Furthermore, the
`
`references of Ground 2 teach away from Petitioner’s proposed combination.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has not carried its burden of showing that any of
`
`claims 1-20 are unpatentable. Should the Board institute review, however, Patent
`
`Owner reserves
`
`the right
`
`to further explain why Petitioner’s proposed
`
`combinations do not make sense from a technological standpoint. Patent Owner
`
`also reserves the right to further explain how the cited references are incompatible
`
`or would be rendered inoperable or unsuitable for their intended purposes, why the
`
`prior art teaches away from the combinations, and why a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have reasons not to make the combinations. Patent Owner also
`
`reserves the right to object to, and move to exclude, Petitioner’s non-authenticated
`
`and hearsay evidence.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE 404 PATENT
`
`The 404 patent is one of a series of patents by the named inventors in the
`
`field of digital subscriber line (“DSL”) technology. DSL is a technology that
`
`provides high-speed broadband access over the wires of a telephone network.
`
`The inventors were substantial contributors of core technology to DSL
`
`standards on behalf of TQ Delta’s predecessor in interest, Aware, Inc., a world-
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01160
`
`leading innovator and provider of DSL technologies. Some of the core
`
`technologies developed by Aware, including the inventions of the 404 Patent, have
`
`been adopted for use in other communications protocols, such as the Multimedia
`
`over Coax Alliance (“MoCA”) protocol, which
`
`is used for high-speed
`
`communication of content over coaxial cables within a home. Petitioner uses the
`
`inventions of the 404 patent in both its DSL and MoCA products.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Petitioner construes “synchronization signal” to mean “a signal allowing
`
`frame synchronization between the transmitter of the signal and the receiver of the
`
`signal.” See Pet. at 24. It is not necessary at this stage of the proceeding to
`
`construe this limitation. Nevertheless, Patent Owner proposes that the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of “synchronization signal” is “an indication used to
`
`establish or maintain a timing relationship between transceivers.”
`
`For purposes of determining whether to institute based on the Petition only,
`
`Patent Owner does not construe any other claim terms of the 404 patent, but Patent
`
`Owner does not waive its right to propose new or additional constructions in
`
`litigation involving the 404 patent, or later in this proceeding if the Board should
`
`decide to institute a trial.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01160
`IV. NO REVIEW SHOULD BE INSTITUTED WITH RESPECT TO THE
`GROUNDS RAISED BY PETITIONER
`
`The Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that the challenged
`
`claims are unpatentable. Specifically, the Petition proposes two grounds against
`
`the 404 patent:
`
`
`
`Ground 1. Unpatentability of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) over Bowie and Vanzieleghem in view of the ADSL Standard.
`
`
`
`Ground 2. Unpatentability of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) over the 97-161R1 and 97-319 Contributions in view of the ADSL
`
`Standard.
`
`As explained in more detail below, the Board should deny institution for
`
`several reasons. As an initial matter, the cited references do not, individually or
`
`collectively, disclose, teach, or suggest all of the elements of claims 1-20. Where
`
`none of the references disclose an element of the claims, inter partes review for
`
`obviousness cannot be instituted. See Customplay, LLC v. Clearplay, Inc.,
`
`IPR2013-00484, Paper 29 at p. 12 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2014) (claims not
`
`unpatentable where none of the asserted prior art references disclosed a claim
`
`element); Du Pont v. Monsanto Tech., LLC, IPR2014-00334, Paper 16 at p. 8
`
`(P.T.A.B. July 11, 2014) (denying institution where none of the asserted prior art
`
`disclosed a claim element).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01160
`
`Moreover, with respect to Ground 2, Petitioner has not even demonstrated
`
`that the Contributions constitute prior art. Indeed, Petitioner fails to provide any
`
`persuasive evidence that the Contributions are printed publications.
`
`Additionally, with respect to both Grounds, the Petition fails to provide a
`
`sufficient rationale or reason as to why the separate references would have been
`
`combined. “An obviousness analysis requires more than simply showing that each
`
`limitation is found in the prior art.” Jacobs Corp. v. Genesis III, Inc., IPR2014-
`
`01267, Paper 12 at p. 8 (P.T.A.B. January 22, 2015). “Petitioner must also show
`
`‘whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the
`
`fashion claimed by the patent at issue.’” Id. “Petitioner must set forth sufficient
`
`articulated reasoning with rational underpinning
`
`to support
`
`its proposed
`
`obviousness ground.” SAS Institute, Inc. v. Complementsoft, LLC, IPR2013-
`
`00581, Paper 15 at p. 12 (P.T.A.B. December 30, 2013). The Petition “has failed
`
`to address this latter, ‘reason to combine’ portion of the obviousness analysis.”
`
`Jacobs Corp., IPR2014-01267, Paper 12 at p. 8.
`
`Moreover, the Petition’s blanket citations to the McNally Declaration do
`
`nothing to overcome the deficiencies in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2)
`
`(a petition must contain a “full statement of the reasons for the relief requested,
`
`including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence”). A Petition
`
`cannot incorporate by reference a more detailed expert declaration. See 37 C.F.R.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01160
`
`§ 42.6(a)(3) (prohibiting arguments in a supporting document from being
`
`incorporated by reference into a petition); Oxford Nanopore Tech. Ltd. v.
`
`University of Washington, IPR2014-00512, Paper 12 at p. 16 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 15,
`
`2014) (“[E]ssentially none of the discussion in the cited paragraphs of the Branton
`
`Declaration, allegedly explaining why an ordinary artisan would have combined
`
`Akeson with Butler, Wong, or Faller, appears in the Petition. We decline to import
`
`the extensive discussion regarding obviousness from
`
`the declarations of
`
`Petitioner’s experts into the Petition, based solely on the Petition’s citation of
`
`certain paragraphs within the declarations.”) (emphasis added).
`
`In addition, even if such incorporation by reference were allowed, the
`
`McNally Declaration is no better than the Petition in terms of providing reasons to
`
`combine. As discussed in detail below, the McNally Declaration is full of its own
`
`conclusory, unsupported statements regarding alleged reasons to combine the
`
`disparate references. The statements fall far short of constituting articulated
`
`reasoning with rational underpinning to support the proposed obviousness grounds.
`
`For the foregoing reasons and as further discussed below, the Petition fails
`
`to establish a prima facie case of obviousness on either Ground. Accordingly,
`
`the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims
`
`are unpatentable, and the Board should not institute an inter partes review.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01160
`
`A. Ground 1:
` Obviousness of Claims 1-20 Over Bowie,
`Vanzieleghem, and the ADSL Standard
`
`The combination of Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and the ADSL Standard would not
`
`have rendered any of the claims of the 404 patent obvious. The combination of
`
`references does not teach, at least, “store [or storing], in the [or a] low power
`
`mode, at least one parameter associated with the full power mode operation
`
`wherein the at least one parameter comprises at least one of a fine gain parameter
`
`and a bit allocation parameter” (the “Storing Limitation”), as required by claims
`
`1-20. Further, Petitioner’s stated rationales for combining Bowie, Vanzieleghem,
`
`and the ADSL Standard are conclusory and unsupported by any articulated
`
`reasoning and rational underpinning. In addition, the references teach away from
`
`Petitioner’s proposed combination.
`
`1.
`
`The Ground 1 References
`
`The three Ground 1 references disclose very different systems having very
`
`different functionalities. As shown below, Bowie discloses an ADSL unit 100 that
`
`includes signal processing electronics 111, modulated data transmit circuitry 112,
`
`modulated data receive circuitry 113, and a resume signal detector 115.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01160
`
`
`
`When Bowie’s ADSL unit 100 receives a shut down signal, the unit 100
`
`enters a low power mode in which the signal processing electronics 111,
`
`modulated data transmit circuitry 112, and modulated data receive circuitry 113 all
`
`shut down. See Ex. 1005 at 5:25-28. The resume signal detector 115 remains
`
`operational in order to receive a resume signal. See id. at 5:48-55. The unit 100
`
`returns to full power after receiving a resume signal. See id. at 5:60-62. Bowie
`
`does not disclose that the unit 100 is capable of receiving a synchronization signal
`
`when in the low power mode. Bowie also does not disclose that the unit 100 stores
`
`a fine gain parameter or a bit allocation parameter when in the low power mode.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01160
`
`Rather, Bowie discloses storing “characteristics of the loop,” which do not
`
`comprise a fine gain parameter or a bit allocation parameter. See id. at 5:17-24.
`
`The system taught in Vanzieleghem operates differently. Vanzieleghem
`
`discloses a transmitter that reduces power dissipation depending on the type of
`
`input data it is being asked to transmit. 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 – along with a
`
`synchronization symbol – to a receiver. See id. 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 id. at 6:30-41. If the set of carriers is reduced to a
`
`single carrier, the pilot tone is chosen to maintain frequency synchronization with a
`
`receiver. See id. Vanzieleghem does not disclose storing in a low power mode any
`
`parameters associated with the full power operation, including fine gain or bit
`
`allocation parameters.
`
`Lastly, the ADSL Standard presents the electrical characteristics of ASDL
`
`signals appearing at a network interface and the requirements for transmission
`
`between a network and customer installation. Ex. 1009 at 1. The ADSL Standard
`
`does not discuss operation in a low power mode, and, like Bowie and
`
`Vanzieleghem, the ADSL Standard does not disclose storing, in a lower power
`
`mode, a fine gain parameter or a bit allocation parameter.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01160
`
`In view of the foregoing, claims 1-20 would not have been obvious over
`
`Petitioner’s proposed combination of these three references.
`
`2.
`
`The Combination of Ground 1 References Fails to
`Disclose the Claimed “Storing in a Low Power Mode at
`Least One Parameter Associated with Full Power Mode
`of Operation”
`
`a.
`
`None of Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and the ADSL
`Standard Discloses Storing, in Low Power Mode, a
`Fine Gain Parameter or a Bit Allocation Parameter
`
`Petitioner fails to show that any of Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and the ADSL
`
`Standard disclose the Storing Limitation. Petitioner admits that Bowie does not
`
`disclose storing a fine gain parameter or a bit allocation parameter in a low power
`
`mode. See Ex. 1003 at ¶ 74 (“Bowie does not explicitly identify fine gain and bit
`
`allocation parameters . . . .”). The ADSL Standard also does not disclose a low
`
`power mode much less storing a fine gain parameter or a bit allocation parameter
`
`in a low power mode. Petitioner cites to a section of the ADSL Standard that
`
`merely discusses communicating “the number of bits and relative power levels to
`
`be used on each DMT sub-carrier” from a receiver to a transmitter. Pet. at 40; Ex.
`
`1009 at 87. However, even assuming that this discussion discloses “bit allocation”
`
`and “fine gain” parameters, the cited ADSL Standard section does not disclose, or
`
`even suggest, storing “the number of bits and relative power levels to be used on
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01160
`each DMT sub-carrier” in a low power mode.2 Furthermore, Petitioner does not
`
`allege that Vanzieleghem teaches the Storing Limitation.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has not met its burden of establishing that any of
`
`Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and the ADSL Standard disclose the Storing Limitation.
`
`b.
`
`Petitioner’s Invalidity Arguments with Respect to the
`Storing Limitation Have No Merit
`
`In a transparent attempt to get around the fact that it cannot show that any of
`
`the Ground 1 references disclose the Storing Limitation, Petitioner misleadingly
`
`breaks up the limitation into two different parts and makes a different invalidity
`
`argument with respect to each part. In that regard, Petitioner argues that Bowie
`
`teaches “storing in the low power mode, at least one parameter associated with the
`
`full power mode operation” and then argues that the requirement that “the at least
`
`one parameter comprise[] at least one of a fine gain parameter and a bit
`
`allocation parameter” is “obvious over Bowie and the 1995 ADSL Standard.” Pet.
`
`at 39-40. Petitioner’s “divide and conquer” argument has no merit.
`
`First, Petitioner’s effort to break up the Storing Limitation is improper. The
`
`“at least one parameter [that] comprises at least one of a fine gain parameter and a
`
`bit allocation parameter” is the same “at least one parameter” that is “store[d], in
`
`
`2 Petitioner’s expert acknowledges that the “1995 ADSL standard does not address
`
`a low power mode of operation.” See Ex. 1003 at ¶ 195.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01160
`
`low power mode.” Thus, those two requirements related to the “at least one
`
`parameter” are not discrete limitations and cannot be separated for purposes of an
`
`invalidity analysis. Accordingly, Petitioner’s attempt to rewrite the recitation of
`
`“at least one of a fine gain parameter and a bit allocation parameter” to not require
`
`that the parameter be “stored in the low power mode” in order to attack the Storing
`
`Limitation with two different invalidity arguments must fail. Indeed, it betrays the
`
`weakness of the Ground 1 references.
`
`Furthermore, even assuming, arguendo, that (1) Bowie does disclose storing
`
`“at least one parameter associated with the full power mode operation” and (2) the
`
`ADSL Standard discloses at least one of a fine gain parameter and a bit allocation
`
`parameter, Petitioner does not demonstrate why or how a person of skill in the art
`
`would have modified Bowie to store, in a low power mode, the fine gain parameter
`
`and/or bit allocation parameter of the ADSL Standard. Indeed, Petitioner’s entire
`
`obviousness argument comes down to the following:
`
`initialization process specifically
`The 1995 ADSL Standard’s
`mentions that determination of optimum subcarrier gains and bit
`allocations is the goal of the initialization sequence that the ‘404
`Patent and Bowie propose to avoid. Ex. 1009 at 87. Mr. McNally’s
`expert report describes how Bowie’s claims of storing
`loop
`characteristics must obviously include at least one of the two
`parameters in this limitation. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 74. Therefore, the
`limitation of at least one parameter comprising at least one of a fine
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01160
`
`gain parameter and a bit allocation parameter is obvious over Bowie
`and the 1995 ADSL Standard. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 75.
`
`Pet. at 40.
`
`This statement falls woefully short of establishing obviousness. The first
`
`sentence is just a characterization of the teachings of the ADSL Standard and does
`
`not include any reason as to why a person of skill in the art would have combined
`
`the alleged teachings of the ADSL Standard with Bowie as Petitioner proposes.
`
`The second and third sentences are just conclusory statements. Such conclusory
`
`statements, backed up with no explanation or evidence, cannot constitute evidence
`
`of obviousness. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (an
`
`assertion of obviousness “cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements;
`
`instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning
`
`to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”); Moses Lake Indus., Inc. v.
`
`Enthone, Inc., IPR2014-00243, Paper 6 at p. 20 (P.T.A.B. June 18, 2014) (“MLI
`
`must provide more than conclusory expert testimony, as discussed above,
`
`and conclusory rationales to combine the teachings, to present a prima facie case of
`
`obviousness.”).
`
`In addition, while it references and cites to the McNally Declaration, mere
`
`citation to an expert declaration does not excuse the failure to provide sufficient