`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_________
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`___________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: November 8, 2017
`___________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON and MATTHEW
`R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`THEODORE M. FOSTER, ESQUIRE
`DAVID MCCOMBS, ESQUIRE
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`2323 Victory Avenue
`Suite 700
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`RAJENDRA A. CHIPLUNKAR, ESQUIRE
`PETER MCANDREWS, ESQUIRE
`McAndrews Held & Malloy, Ltd.
`500 West Madison Street
`34th Floor
`Chicago, Illinois 60661
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing Wednesday, November
`
`8, 2017, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Good afternoon. This is the final hearing for
`IPR2016-01466 and 01760 between petitioner, Cisco Systems, Inc. and
`patent owner, TQ Delta, LLC.
`
`I'm Judge Clements, participating remotely from San Jose. In the
`room with you are Judges Medley and Jefferson. And at this time we'd like
`counsel to introduce yourselves beginning with petitioner, please.
`
`MR. MCCOMBS: Your Honor, this is David McCombs here
`representing Cisco Systems. With me is Michael Parsons and Theo Foster.
`And Theo Foster will be making our presentation today.
`
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Okay. Thank you.
`
`And patent owner?
`
`MR. MCANDREWS: Good afternoon, Your Honors. I'm Peter
`McAndrews on behalf of patent owner TQ Delta. With me I have Rajendra
`Chiplunkar -- who will be making the argument -- Tom Wimbiscus and
`Chris Scharff. I also have a representative from the client, Nabha Rege.
`That's spelled N-A-B-H-A, R-E-G-E. Thank you. JUDGE CLEMENTS:
`Thank you. Before we proceed, I have a couple reminders. Number one,
`each party will have 45 minutes of total time for arguments in the two cases.
`Petitioner will proceed first and reserve rebuttal time. Thereafter, patent
`owner will respond to the petitioner's presentation, and petitioner may then
`make use of any time it has reserved.
`
`Second, with respect to demonstratives, please refer to the slide
`number so it will appear on the record and so I can follow along remotely. I
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`have a copy of your demonstratives here in front of me.
`
`Any questions, petitioner?
`
`MR. MCCOMBS: No, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Okay. Any questions, counsel for patent
`owner?
`
`MR. MCANDREWS: No, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Okay. Very good.
`
`Mr. Foster, would you like to reserve any rebuttal time?
`
`MR. FOSTER: Yes, Your Honor. I would like to reserve 15 minutes.
`
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Okay. 15 minutes. I'll give you a warning as
`we get close to that. And otherwise, you may begin when ready.
`
`MR. FOSTER: Thank you.
`
`Good afternoon. May it please the Board. I believe the panel is
`already familiar with the patents and the technology involved in these two
`cases. And so I will jump straight into the issues. And going to slide 2,
`there are four issues that I've tried to encapsulate the arguments that patent
`owner has made regarding the obviousness of the two patents at issue.
`
`And so I will go straight to slide 6. And the first of those issues, which
`is that Bowie, our primary reference, stores loop transmission characteristics
`which are associated with full power mode. And looking at slide 7, I have a
`short quotation from the patent owner's own response, where patent owner
`acknowledges that Bowie has a teaching to store in memory characteristics
`of the loop. So that is the line between two communicating transceivers.
`
`And then the second quote -- and this is, again, from patent owner's
`response -- their footnote, number 1, page 10, of their response, where they
`acknowledge that when Bowie is talking about characteristics of the loop or
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`loop characteristics, those are indeed loop transmission characteristics.
`Those are characteristics or parameters associated with the transmission of
`data. And patent owner acknowledges that the term loop characteristics and
`loop transmission characteristics are used interchangeably in Bowie. And so
`I believe that shows that what Bowie is storing are indeed parameters
`associated with the transmission of data and associated with full power
`mode.
`
`Moving to slide 8 and looking at quotations from Bowie itself as I
`highlighted at the top of the slide, Bowie describes storing loop
`characteristics and that that enables the rapid resumption of user data
`transmission after exiting low power mode.
`
`So again, Bowie is describing that by storing these characteristics, it
`can resume data transmission. Therefore, those parameters being stored, the
`characteristics being stored, are associated with full power mode in data
`transmission.
`
`Moving to slide 9, and this is an issue that is specific to the '404
`patent, which, in its independent claims, has a further limitation describing
`the parameters that are stored and requiring that they include a bit allocation
`of the fine gain parameter. And our position there is that that concept is
`obvious over the combination of Bowie and the ANSI T.1413 standard.
`
`As we see in the quotations on slide 9 from Bowie, Bowie is storing in
`memory the characteristics that are determined during handshaking. And
`that handshaking process includes a process in which parameters and values,
`these -- characteristics is what it calls them -- those values are exchanged.
`
`And the ANSI standard further explains that exchange process and
`explains that, included in the exchange of parameters during initialization of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`the ADSL transceivers, included in that exchange are the number of bits in
`the relative power levels to be used on each subcarrier for communication.
`
`I believe patent owner concedes that the ANSI standard description of
`the number of bits and the power levels here, that that corresponds in the
`claim to bit allocation and fine gain parameters. And so it's this combination
`of Bowie and the ANSI standard -- Bowie saying -- teaching to store the
`values that are exchanged and then the ANSI standard explaining and stating
`that what gets exchanged are indeed fine gain bit allocation parameters.
`
`Moving to slide 11, the second issue for discussion is that Bowie does
`not require redetermining loop transmission characteristics when it exits low
`power mode. And looking at slide 12, first, Bowie expressly states that
`when the signal to wake up and to resume data transmission is given,
`Bowie's transceivers will return to full power operation and that that
`includes restoring the loop characteristics of these exchange parameters that
`were previously stored.
`
`Bowie does state that there may then be an exchange of handshaking
`information. But Bowie's quite clear that that step is optional and it follows
`after the return to full power operation. Bowie indicates the optional nature
`of that step by using the word "may." It states that that exchange of
`handshaking information may happen. They implication obviously being it
`is not required and is not necessary for Bowie's transceivers to return to full
`power operation.
`
`Bowie explains that one reason why that might be needed in some
`instances is that, as it says, there may have been temperature-dependent
`changes in the loop which would then potentially cause some of the loop
`transmission parameters, these bit allocation of fine gain perhaps, might
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`cause those values to change.
`
`But patent owner's expert, Dr. Chrissan, explained that even if those
`underlying physical properties, like temperature change, that does not
`necessarily mean that the transmission parameters will change. He testified:
`"It's not the case that loop parameters change and then transmission
`parameters change, or even necessarily change."
`
`So even in the instance that there's been a temperature change because
`perhaps the modems have been asleep for a long time, that does not
`necessarily mean that there would be any requirement for handshaking.
`Again, as Bowie says, the handshaking is optional. It may happen but it is
`not necessary.
`
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Counsel, how does petitioner understand this
`claim phrase "without needing to reinitialize the transceiver"?
`
`In other words, is that taught if a prior art reference teaches skipping
`only some of the initialization, or does that clause require a prior art
`reference to teach skipping all of initialization?
`
`MR. FOSTER: So neither party has proposed a formal construction
`of that phrase or that word. I think if we look at the '404 patent itself, it
`describes the -- the '404 patent describes the initialization process. And I do
`not have a citation for you right now, but I can get that. And it describes the
`initialization process as including essentially all of the steps when going
`from zero, from nothing, to a fully operational communication line. And so
`I think the natural indication for reinitialization would be performing that
`initialization process again.
`
`So even to the extent that we might see Bowie as suggesting a
`handshaking process, if you look at the ANSI standard, exchanging
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`information is the very last step of the initialization process. So even if
`Bowie was potentially suggesting -- I don't believe it is -- but if it was
`suggesting that that were somehow necessary to perform that last step again,
`I don't believe that that's reinitialization of the line because all of those other
`steps that are part of initialization have not been performed, they've been
`skipped.
`
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Okay. Thank you.
`
`MR. FOSTER: Looking at slide 14 and comparing Bowie's
`description of its resumption data transmission to the detailed description in
`the '404 patent itself, the '404 patent specification similarly recognizes that
`there may be instances where a complete reinitialization could be required.
`
`And just like Bowie, where Bowie says that there might be changes
`that would require something to happen with loop characteristics, the '404
`patent states, you know, that there may be instances where reinitialization
`must be performed. So I think that the disclosure of these two patents is
`very similar in that respect.
`
`Moving to slide 14, and the third issue is that Yamano separately
`controls the power to transmit and receive circuits and that allows greater
`power saving relative to the additional disclosure of Bowie and Bowie's
`description of power conservation in its techniques.
`
`So looking at Bowie in slide 14, the way Bowie saves power is by
`shutting off power and disabling both the transmit and receive circuits
`together. And as Bowie says, when those are both off, then the loop will be
`in an inactive state. So everything is off. There's no communication going
`on there, no use of data communication.
`
`Bowie is different. Rather than tying the transmitter and receiver
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`together, looking at slide 16 -- I'm sorry. Yamano is different.
`
`Yamano, rather than tying the receiver and the transmitter together on
`slide 16, Yamano is describing when the transmitter will be active or
`inactive. And Yamano describes the transmitter as being active only when
`there is meaningful packet data to be sent. So only when something needs to
`be transmitted will the transmitter be on and transmitting a signal. When
`there's nothing useful to transmit, no meaningful packet data, the transmitter
`will be turned off.
`
`Yamano doesn't associate that in any way with what might be
`happening on the receiver. The receiver is independent. In looking at slide
`18, the receiver will be in a full processing mode when it gets the indication
`that data is about to be transmitted to it. Again, this is independent of the
`transmitter that's right adjacent to the that receiver on the same end of the
`communication. So this is where Yamano's description of independent
`powering of the transmit-and-receive components comes from. Yamano is
`describing each of them is depending only on what's relevant to itself. The
`transmitter is only on when it needs something to transmit, and the receiver
`is only on when there's data for it to receive.
`
`This independence is confirmed looking at slide 17 with Yamano's
`description of the echo canceler. Yamano states that when the transmitter is
`not transmitting, the echo canceler can be turned off because there's no local
`transmission signal to be canceled. The receiver can still be on. The rest of
`the receiver can still be operating and receiving data. But it doesn't mean the
`echo canceler sits between those two circuits, the transmitter and receiver
`circuit.
`
`We believe -- looking at slide 20 we believe that Dr. Chrissan has
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`essentially acknowledged that this is how Yamano is operating with the
`independence of the transmit and receive circuits.
`
`Looking at slide 20 -- and this is a quotation from Dr. Chrissan's
`declaration -- he states that "Yamano leverages the intermittent nature of
`internet data to conserve power by not communicating idle information."
`
`That's reference to Yamano's description of not transmitting, turning
`off the transmitter when there's no useful data to transmit. So patent owner
`has argued that we're misquoting and mischaracterizing this statement from
`Dr. Chrissan. I'm not sure what their point is with that exactly because Dr.
`Chrissan acknowledged that Yamano is conserving power and doing that by
`not transmitting when there's nothing to transmit.
`
`Going to slide 21 and our fourth issue, which is that Yamano's timing
`signal is used to maintain synchronization -- that timing signal is a
`synchronization signal. And looking at slide 22, we have the quotation from
`Yamano describing that synchronization signal. Yamano states that "a
`periodic poll or some other timing signal would be used to maintain
`synchronization."
`
`This timing signal in Yamano is expressly taught as being used to
`maintain synchronization. We believe that that would make it a
`synchronization signal under any claim construction. It's literally using the
`words of the claim. It uses the word signal. It uses the word
`synchronization. It's tying them together for the same purpose in the same
`context of saving power, and in the same kind of system and ADSL
`transmitter and transceiver system.
`
`I further note, looking at the '268 and the '404 patents, their
`specification has almost the same language and refers to using other forms
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`of timing signal. Just like Yamano says, another timing signal might be
`used for synchronization. But the patents at issue here reference using other
`forms of timing signal assuming a person of ordinary skill in the art knows
`what those kinds of timing signals would be and how to implement them.
`
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Counsel, I think petitioner and patent owner
`both seem to point to synchronizing pilot tone in 62A in the '404 patent as an
`example of a synchronization signal. And patent owner draws a distinction
`between what they say that signal is doing, which is timing synchronization,
`and they distinguish that against frame synchronization, which the receiver
`does using the superframe, the sync frame within the superframe.
`And
`petitioner, in its reply, agreed that sync signals should be broad enough, that
`our preliminary construction in the DI was overly narrow because it
`excluded timing sync, and that it should be broad enough to include timing
`sync.
`And so when I look at this periodic poll in Yamano, is petitioner
`
`contending that this is doing timing sync? I mean the synchronization of
`these time intervals when the receiver circuit wakes up and listens for the
`non-idle signal, is that the same as timing sync?
`
`MR. FOSTER: I believe it is a form of timing synchronization. It
`refers to it as a timing signal and it's maintaining the synchronization of time
`intervals. I think that is a form of timing synchronization. The use of those
`signals is to coordinate when a -- essentially a wake-up signal or data is
`about to be transmitted, a ready-to-transmit type signal is about to be sent to
`synchronize when the receiver should wake up and check for that ready-to-
`transmit signal and when the transmitter knows the receiver will be available
`to receive such a ready-to-transmit signal and then activate its receiver and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`receive the data. So that's a -- that's coordination of timing between the two
`components.
`
`I think it is also a form of leading-to-frame synchronization, because
`what happens when that data transmission does ultimately happen, is that's
`the indication of when a superframe will start, when user data transmission
`will resume, and with that, the beginning of a new superframe. So there's an
`aspect of frame synchronization to it as well. But plainly, I think it is a form
`of timing synchronization.
`
`And with respect to the claim construction issue that you raised, Judge
`Clements, we agreed that the initial construction, because it focused solely
`on frame synchronization and because both parties agreed that within the
`context of a DSL, there are many types of synchronization. And because the
`claim is not specific on what specific kind of synchronization this
`synchronization signal is synchronizing, the claim term should be interpreted
`to encompass those many different possibilities, including frame
`synchronization and timing synchronization.
`
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Well, this is my issue. In the '404 patent this
`synchronizing signal 62A is being used to synchronize the clock of the
`receiver with the clock of the transmitter, what patent owner calls timing
`sync. And both parties seem to agree that that's the synchronization signal.
`
`And so I'm wondering -- I mean if that's what the synchronization
`signal is doing, I don't see in Yamano this periodic poll being used to
`synchronize the clocks between the transmitter and the receiver. It's
`synchronizing instead these sort of intervals when the receiver wakes up
`listening for something that the transmitter may or may not be transmitting.
`And if it doesn't hear it, and then it goes to sleep until the next polling
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`period.
`
`Am I misunderstanding what's in Yamano? Is there something in
`Yamano that suggests that periodic polls can be used to synchronize the
`clocks of the receiver and transmitter?
`
`MR. FOSTER: Well, so I think we need to be careful about reading
`concepts from the specification into the claims because these claims -- for
`example, if we look at slide 3, slide 3, which has claim 6, which is the first
`independent claim of the '404 patent at issue in that IPR, the claim doesn't
`say anything about a clock. So there's no requirement for the claimed
`apparatus to have a clock.
`
`So I think we have to be careful about whether we're injecting a new
`clock limitation here.
`
`And with respect to what that -- that signal 62A in the '404
`specification, that's an example. And as I've highlighted earlier, the '404
`specification states that other timing signals may be used and may be
`something different than that signal 62A could be used for the purpose of
`synchronization.
`
`So I think the understanding of what's claimed -- and I don't think
`there's been any argument that this is some form of means plus function, but
`we should look at the specification and limit the claim to the disclosed
`embodiment.
`
`I think that the construction of the synchronization signal needs to
`encompass the ideas that were expressed there with the idea of there being
`some other form of timing signal, which is practically the same word as used
`in Yamano.
`
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Okay. Thank you.
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`
`MR. FOSTER: Looking at slide 23. And on this claim construction
`issue, patent owner acknowledges that it has changed its position upon what
`the claim construction for synchronization signal should be. And they've
`added a lot of new words, this concept of correcting errors between a timing
`reference of a transmitter and the timing reference of the receiver.
`
`And among the problems with this shift in claim construction is that
`it's not based on what's in the specification. This is not attempting to
`construe the claim in light of the specification. This is very results oriented,
`attempting to distinguish the prior art. Just naked results-oriented claim
`interpretation. And that's shown looking at slide 24, when we asked Dr.
`Chrissan why he added this new language and why he was shifting his
`understanding of the claim to amend. And he acknowledged that, in part, he
`added this new language in response to the prior art. And I don't think that
`that's the right away to go about construing the claim. But we need to look
`at what's in the specification in the attempt to look at how a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim term in the context and
`not try to be results oriented about it in this learning.
`
`And furthermore, looking at slide 25, Dr. Chrissan has almost
`acknowledged that these new words -- he argues that the new words don't
`change the construction, which I'm not sure I completely understand. But
`then he also testified, looking at slide 25, he said that if you are not
`correcting for errors, you are not going to be in synchronism.
`
`Well, Yamano expressly states that this timing signal is being used to
`maintain synchronization. Well, by Dr. Chrissan's own logic then, if
`Yamano is maintaining synchronization, then it must be correcting for
`errors.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`And so this new language that Dr. Chrissan and the patent owner have
`
`added, trying to distinguish the prior art, doesn't get them anywhere, because
`they've set it for maintaining synchronization like Yamano is, that you are
`doing these extra steps that they are trying to add to the construction.
`
`Then finally, looking at slide 26 regarding motivation to combine, all
`of these references are in the same technical space -- Yamano and Bowie are
`both valid DSL and ADSL transceiver systems. The ANSI standard,
`T1.413, is the ADSL standard from 1995. It's clearly implicated by Bowie
`and Yamano.
`
`And Bowie and Yamano were both directed to the core goal and same
`problem, if you want to call it that, of trying to reduce the power
`consumption of ADSL transceivers, the same goal as the two patents at issue
`here. So I think that given that they are all in the same space, given that they
`are all dealing with the same kinds of issues, the motivation to combine is
`plainly there, to look -- to start with Bowie and start with Bowie's
`description of how to enable a sleep mode, a low power mode, that can
`resume really quickly, and then looking at Yamano's additional technique of
`independently powering a transmitter and receiver to create more
`opportunities for one part or the other of the transceiver to be in full power
`mode, that that combination makes a lot sense would have been obvious to
`somebody with many years of experience in the art.
`
`If there are no further questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time
`for rebuttal. JUDGE CLEMENTS: One more question about the
`construction of synchronization signal. So I think if we go back to your
`demonstrative slide 3, which has claim 6 on it, that first received clause
`recites a superframe compressing plurality of data frames followed by a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`synchronization frame. And the claim separately recites in the next clause
`the synchronization signal.
`
`Our preliminary construction in the decision to institute construed
`synchronization signal as something encompassing or allowing for frame
`synchronization. But since a synchronization frame is actually separately
`recited in the claim and is the thing that actually allows for frame
`synchronization, isn't our preliminary construction unduly broad? In other
`words, shouldn't synchronization signal exclude frame synchronization?
`
`MR. FOSTER: I don't believe that it should. As the parties agree in
`this case that there are many forms of synchronization in the DSL system. I
`would point you, for example, to patent owner's response at page 18, where
`they said: "In the context of DSL transmission there are different types of
`synchronization that occur between transceivers." And our expert, Dr.
`Kiaei, similarly testified -- this is Exhibit 2017, page 50, starting around line
`20. He stated: In DSL we have many different types of synchronization.
`
`So I think that the claim construction for synchronization signal
`should encompass the parties' agreement that there are many kinds of
`synchronization in this context -- specific to claim 6 in the recitation of the
`synchronization claim and then separately receiving a synchronization
`signal.
`
`I read those as -- as they are written they are two separate reception
`steps. They don't have to be performed at the same time, and so you can
`receive a plurality of superframes and at the those is a synchronization
`frame.
`
`And if you look at the communication technology here, the idea is that
`when you are communicating data, you are constantly transmitting super
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`claims. Yamano first described when you are not communicating data you
`can turn the transmitter off and not be transmitting empty idle superframes.
`
`But when you are transmitting data there will be many super frames in
`a row. And so you will receive a plurality of superframes. And then after
`you receive two, there will be a plurality, you will receive a third. At the
`end of that third is, again, a synchronization frame. That synchronization
`frame meets the synchronization signal of the second step that you're
`receiving a set of frames. And then after you've received that set of frames,
`you receive yet more frames. And there, again, is another form of
`synchronization signal.
`
`Now, to the extent that you would consider, as you asked, Judge
`Clements, the possibility of a construction of synchronization signal that
`excluded any kind of frame synchronization and so somehow a construction
`of synchronization signal that would not include the synchronization frame, I
`believe that we put in the petition, as we put in the reply, the prior art still
`teaches that. Because if you look at what's within the synchronization frame
`or the synchronization signal, in the ANSI standard, included within that is
`the pilot tone. And I believe pilot tone is an agreed example of a
`synchronization signal for timing synchronization. The patent owner has
`made that argument.
`And so to the extent that the synchronization
`symbol or synchronization frame as a whole -- you might try to exclude
`from synchronization signal -- I think that's inappropriate because within
`that, there are components that are specifically used for timing
`synchronization such as the pilot tone.
`
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: But isn't that disclosure from ANSI -- and
`we've hit your 30 minutes so I'll try not to run you over, but doesn't that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`disclosure in ANSI say that the synchronization can be transmitted as a pilot
`tone?
`Wouldn't it still essentially, if we read that synchronization signal as a
`
`sync frame, wouldn't we still have two steps that say essentially receive in
`full power mode a sync frame -- receive in full power mode a sync frame or
`a second sync frame I think as you suggested?
`
`MR. FOSTER: I don't see where the claim would exclude that
`concept in a system that's transmitting these synchronization frames,
`synchronization signals, synchronization symbols frequently. I believe the
`ANSI standard is something like 4,000 times per second. So there will be a
`lot of these synchronization opportunities with -- of the functioning system.
`
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Okay. Thank you. I have no further
`questions.
`
`MR. FOSTER: Thank you.
`
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Thank you.
`
`Mr. Chiplunkar, you may proceed when ready.
`
`MR. CHIPLUNKAR: May it please the Board. My name is Rajendra
`Chiplunkar. I'm representing patent owner TQ Delta.
`
`Let me start off by addressing a couple of questions that Judge
`Clements raised, and we've been down this path before with Bowie and what
`reinitialization means. Bowie performs all the steps of reinitialization. And
`if I have time, I'll address Bowie again in some detail.
`
`The last time we were here I had the ADSL initialization sequence up
`on the screen, and I have a slide directed to it, where there are four distinct
`steps of ADSL initialization. There's timing and acknowledgment, there's
`channel characterization, there's transceiver training, and there's exchange.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01466 and IPR2016-01760
`Patent 8,611,404 B2 and 9,094,268 B2
`
`Bowie is only concerned with reducing the time it takes to do steps
`
`two and three, reducing the time. It does steps two and three -- fewer
`iterations of steps two and three, but it does do two and three each and every
`time. It doesn't address steps one and it doesn't address steps four. So
`Bowie does the entire reinitialization sequence all the time. And --
`
`JUDGE CLEMENTS: Counsel, wait. If it doesn't do parts of two and
`three but it always does one and four, how does it do the entire thing every
`time?
`MR. CHIPLUNKAR: I did not say it doesn't do all the steps of two
`
`and three. I said it reduces the time. So you have a loop like the example I
`gave you the las