`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS A. CHRISSAN, Ph.D.
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01469
`Patent No. 9,094,268
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TQ Delta Exhibit 2012
`
`Dish Network LLC v. TQ Delta, LLC
`
`
`IPR2016-01469
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01469
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
` My name is Douglas A. Chrissan. I have been engaged by TQ Delta,
`1.
`
`LLC in connection with IPR number 2016-01469, which relates to U.S. Pat. No.
`
`9,094,268 (“the ’268 patent”). In this declaration I provide my opinion that the
`
`challenged claims of the ’268 patent would not have been obvious in view of the
`
`references and grounds asserted by the Petitioner Dish Network L.L.C. (“Dish” or
`
`“Petitioner”).
`
`II.
`
`PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
`
`A. Background and Experience
`
`
`2.
`
`I am presently a technical consultant in the areas of communications
`
`systems, multimedia systems, computer systems, and digital signal processing.
`
`
`3.
`
`I earned a B.S. and M.S. in Electrical Engineering from the University
`
`of Southern California in 1988 and 1990, respectively, and a Ph.D. in Electrical
`
`Engineering from Stanford University in 1998.
`
`
`4.
`
`
`5.
`
`A copy of my current CV is attached as Ex. 2015.
`
`I was a Masters Fellow and Member of the Technical Staff at Hughes
`
`Aircraft Company in El Segundo, California, from 1988–1993. While at Hughes
`
`Aircraft, I designed and developed communication systems for commercial and
`
`military spacecraft, including for the MILSTAR satellite program.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01469
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Between 1992 and 1993, while at Hughes Aircraft Company, I
`
`designed and built a
`
`state-of-the-art, 800 megabit-per-second
`
`(Mbps)
`
`telecommunications modem for the NASA Lewis Research Center.
`
`
`7.
`
`From 1997–2003, I worked at 8x8, Inc., starting as a DSP software
`
`engineer in 1997, becoming a manager in 1998, a director in 1999, and Vice
`
`President of Engineering in 2000 (managing a team of approximately 60 engineers
`
`in the company’s microelectronics group). I played a key role in developing
`
`several
`
`semiconductor products used worldwide
`
`in multimedia
`
`and
`
`communications devices, mainly for video conferencing systems and Internet
`
`Protocol (“IP”) telephones. Some of these semiconductor products were in
`
`production more than ten years.
`
`
`8.
`
`From 2003–2007, I was a Systems Architect and Engineering
`
`Program Manager at Texas Instruments in the Digital Subscriber Line (“DSL”)
`
`product business unit. At Texas Instruments, I was directly involved in the
`
`architecture, design, development and production of multicarrier DSL modem
`
`products. My work specifically included architecting a multicarrier DSL
`
`semiconductor and software product and managing all aspects of its development
`
`from inception to production.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01469
`
`
` My Ph.D. dissertation and related publications are in the fields of
`9.
`
`statistical signal processing and communication systems, and more specifically in
`
`the area of impulsive noise modeling for communication systems.
`
`
`10.
`
`In 1995 I was the instructor for the graduate Statistical Signal
`
`Processing class (EE278) in the Electrical Engineering department at Stanford
`
`University. Prior to teaching this class, I was a teaching assistant for ten different
`
`classes in signal processing and radio frequency electronics at Stanford.
`
`
`11.
`
`I have developed, and managed the development of, several
`
`successful semiconductor, software and systems products in the communications
`
`and multimedia fields. These products are listed in the attached curriculum vitae.
`
`B. Compensation
`
`
`12.
`
`I am being compensated for my time in this case at the rate of $250
`
`per hour (plus expenses) for analysis, depositions, and, if necessary, trial
`
`testimony. My compensation for this matter is not determined by or contingent on
`
`the outcome of this case.
`
`C. Materials Relied Upon
`
`
`13.
`
`In the course of preparing this expert declaration, I have considered
`
`the ’268 Patent, its file history, the Petition and its exhibits (including the
`
`Declaration of Mr. Leo Hoarty), the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, the
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01469
`
`Board’s Institution Decision, the transcript of the deposition of Mr. Hoarty, as well
`
`as any additional documents I cite or refer to in this declaration.
`
`III. THE BOARD’S INSTITUTION DECISION
`
`
`14.
`
`I understand the Board granted review of the ’268 patent on the
`
`ground of alleged obviousness of claims 1, 2, 11, and 12 in view of U.S. Pat. No.
`
`5,956,323 to Bowie (“Bowie”), U.S. Pat. No. 6,236,674 to Morelli (“Morelli”), and
`
`the ANSI T1.413-1995 (“the 1995 ADSL Standard”), and the Board also granted
`
`review of the ’268 patent on the ground of alleged obviousness of claims 4, 14, 16,
`
`and 18 in view of Bowie and Morelli.
`
`IV. BACKGROUND
`
`A. Overview of the Technology and the ’268 Patent
`
` The ’268 patent claims improvements to multicarrier transceiver
`15.
`
`devices used for data communication. The ’268 patent describes inventions that
`
`allow a transceiver to enter a low power mode from a full power mode and to
`
`rapidly exit the low power mode at some later time. The transceiver stores one or
`
`more transmission and/or reception parameters associated with a full power mode
`
`in the low power mode and uses the one or more parameters when exiting the low
`
`power mode so that no re-initialization is required. The challenged claims of the
`
`’268 patent also recite transceiver operation whereby (1) the transmitter does not
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01469
`
`transmit data during a low power mode but the receiver receives data during the
`
`low power mode (claims 1, 2 & 4), or (2) the transmitter enters a low power mode
`
`while the receiver remains in a full power mode (claims 11, 12, 14, 16 & 18). See
`
`’268 at 10:6–11:43 (claims 1–18).
`
`1.
`
`Background of Multicarrier Technology
`
` As explained in the ’268 patent, multicarrier transmission systems
`16.
`
`provide high speed data links between communication points. See Ex. 1001 at
`
`1:42–43. Digital subscriber line (“DSL”) systems are multicarrier transmission
`
`systems that are used to provide high-speed data communication over the same
`
`subscriber loop that provides telephone service to a subscriber. See id. at 1:42–52.1
`
`The transceivers in a DSL system communicate with each other by dividing the
`
`bandwidth of the communication channel connecting the subscriber and a central
`
`office into separate subchannels, or carriers, each of limited bandwidth, operating
`
`in parallel with each other. See id. at 1:53–60. The transceiver divides the data to
`
`be communicated over the DSL link into groups of bits, allocates each group of
`
`bits to a respective carrier, and modulates each group of bits onto its respective
`
`
`1 The ’268 patent lists ADSL (asynchronous digital subscriber line) and HDSL
`
`(High-Speed Digital Subscriber Line); this declaration references only ADSL, as
`
`described in the 1995 ADSL Standard.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01469
`
`carrier. See id. at 2:1–4. A transceiver that communicates data by modulating data
`
`onto multiple carriers simultaneously is referred to as a multicarrier transceiver.
`
` Before a multicarrier transceiver begins transmitting and receiving
`17.
`
`data, the transceiver undergoes an initialization process. See id. at 3:11–13. There
`
`are several distinct phases of initialization. Set forth below are the initialization
`
`steps for a DSL transceiver.
`
`2.
`
`Timing Synchronization
`
` As part of initialization, the transceivers exchange information to
`18.
`
`synchronize their timing, including synchronizing the frequencies of their
`
`respective clocks (i.e., “timing synchronization”). In the context of DSL systems
`
`timing synchronization is accomplished as follows: one transceiver sends known
`
`signals to the other transceiver. The transmitting transceiver typically derives the
`
`known signal from its clock. Therefore the frequency of this known signal is
`
`representative of the clock frequency of the transmitting transceiver. The other
`
`transceiver receives this known signal and adjusts the frequency of its clock based
`
`on the frequency of the received signal. The known signal thus indirectly allows
`
`the two transceivers to synchronize, or “lock,” the frequencies of their respective
`
`clocks. The timing synchronization procedure is also described in the ’268 patent.
`
`See Ex. 1001 at 5:42–55 and 5:59–67. In the 1995 ADSL Standard, this procedure
`
`is referred to as “loop timing” or “timing recovery.” See Ex. 1006, 1995 ADSL
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01469
`
`Standard at § 12.2.2 (p. 90) & 12.5.6 (p. 97). In the context of the claims of the
`
`’268 patent, the known signal is the claimed “synchronization signal.”
`
`3.
`
`Loop Characterization
`
` Subsequently, the initialization process continues with the transceivers
`19.
`
`determining certain characteristics of
`
`the wire
`
`loop
`
`that connects
`
`them.
`
`Attenuation, also known as loop loss, is an example of a loop characteristic.
`
`Attenuation is the reduction in power a signal experiences as it travels across a
`
`wire loop and is a function of different physical characteristics of the wire loop,
`
`such as its length, wire diameter and cable composition. The transceivers estimate
`
`attenuation by measuring the received power of a known signal and comparing that
`
`power to the known transmit power of the signal. The ratio of the signal power at
`
`the transmitter to the signal power at the receiver is the attenuation. (For example,
`
`a 100x reduction in power is an attenuation of 20 decibels, or 20 dB.) Attenuation
`
`may be used to adjust transmit power, since less attenuation allows a smaller
`
`transmit power to be used in order to meet a received power level requirement at a
`
`receiver. Loop background noise is another example of a loop characteristic.
`
`4.
`
`Channel Characterization
`
` The initialization process typically continues with the transceivers
`20.
`
`performing transceiver training and channel analysis, which include determining
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01469
`
`equalization settings, echo canceller settings, and measuring signal to noise ratio
`
`on a per-subchannel basis. Signal to noise ratio (“SNR”) is a function of, inter
`
`alia, loop characteristics (e.g., line noise levels and line attenuation), and is used to
`
`determine transmission parameters that are used for transmission of data. If the
`
`line noise level is elevated, SNR will be lower, and vice versa. SNR then in turn is
`
`used to determine transmission parameters including transmission and reception
`
`data ranges, fine gain parameters, and bit allocation parameters. See id. at 3:10–
`
`20. The transceivers then go through the step of exchanging the transmission
`
`parameters
`
` As explained in the ’268 patent, the initialization process of a DSL
`21.
`
`system can take tens of seconds. See id. at 3:23–25. Once the transceivers are
`
`initialized, the transceivers can transmit and receive data. Data may be sent in
`
`superframes that include frames of modulated data followed by a modulated
`
`synchronization symbol. Id. at 5:5–10. For example, the superframe may include
`
`68 data frames followed by a 69th frame that is a synchronization frame. Id. at
`
`5:10–13. The synchronization frame may be used by a transceiver to determine the
`
`boundary of
`
`the
`
`superframe and maintain
`
`superframe alignment or
`
`synchronization.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01469
`
`
`5.
`
`The Inventions of the ’268 Patent
`
` The ’268 Patent recognizes that prior art multicarrier transceivers
`22.
`
`were maintained in the continuous “on” state because of the importance that they
`
`remain ready to immediately transmit or receive data. See Ex. 1001 at 2:60–63. In
`
`this “on” state, both the transmitter and receiver portion of a prior art transceiver
`
`remained fully functional at all times, resulting in transceivers unnecessarily using
`
`a significant amount of power and potentially having a reduced life span. See Ex.
`
`1001 at 2:63–68. Low power modes (in which data communications are
`
`temporarily suspended) were known in the prior art, but required a lengthy re-
`
`initialization sequence upon coming out of the low power mode. See Ex. 1001 at
`
`3:27–29. This was unacceptable to users who desired near-instantaneous return to
`
`full data communications. Id.
`
` The claimed inventions of the ’268 patent overcame this problem by
`23.
`
`providing a transceiver that can enter a low power mode from a full power mode
`
`(and thus reduce power consumption). Specifically, in the claimed low power
`
`mode, operation of the transmitter is restricted while the receiver remains
`
`operational. In the claimed low power mode, synchronization is maintained with a
`
`second transceiver. Further, to facilitate return to the full power mode,
`
`communication parameters used in the full power mode are saved when in the low
`
`power mode. See Ex. 1001 at 10:6–12:49. The claimed transceivers of the ’268
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01469
`
`patent provide this capability by (1) storing, in the low power mode, a full power
`
`mode operation parameter (such as a fine gain and a bit allocation parameter), and
`
`(2) transmitting or receiving, in the low power mode, a synchronization signal.
`
`B. Overview of the Cited Art
`
`
`24.
`
`I understand that Petitioner relies on three references in its proposed
`
`ground of invalidity of the ’268 patent claims: U.S. Pat. No. 5,956,323 (“Bowie”),
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,236,674 to Morelli (“Morelli”), and the American National
`
`Standard Institute’s ANSI T1.413-1995 Standard for Telecommunications—
`
`Network and Customer Installation Interfaces – Asymmetric Digital Subscriber
`
`Line (ADSL) Metallic Interface (the “1995 ADSL Standard,” as first mentioned
`
`earlier).
`
`1.
`
`Bowie
`
` Bowie describes an invention that is directed to a power conservation
`25.
`
`method for an asymmetric digital subscriber line (“ADSL”) system that transmits
`
`wide-bandwidth modulated data over a two-wire loop using high frequency carrier
`
`signals. Ex. 1004 at 1:4–8, 1:23–25. As shown in Figure 1 of Bowie, reproduced
`
`below, the Bowie system uses ADSL units (e.g., modems) that are connected by a
`
`wire loop 120. Each ADSL unit includes signal processing electronics 111, data
`
`transmit circuitry 112 and data receive circuitry 113 to send, receive, and process
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01469
`
`modulated data. See id. at 2:1–6, 3:2–5, 5:52–55. Each unit also includes a
`
`resume signal detector 115, which can be a 16 kHz AC signal detector 115 that
`
`employs conventional frequency detection techniques. See id. at 5:52–55.
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 1.
`
` Bowie explains that, prior to data being sent between two ADSL units
`26.
`
`over the loop, loop characteristics must be determined and exchanged. See id. at
`
`4:64–5:4. He explains that loop characteristics include loop loss characteristics.
`
`Id. Bowie uses the terms “loop characteristics,” “electronic characteristics of the
`
`particular wire loop,” “loop transmission characteristics” and “loop characteristic
`
`parameters” interchangeably, and describes “loop loss characteristics” as an
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01469
`
`example of these. See Ex. 1004 at 4:67–5:3, 5:23–25, 5:62–66, 6:25–33. Bowie
`
`refers to the exchange of loop characteristics as “handshaking.” Id. at 5:1–5.
`
` Bowie further teaches that when an ADSL unit receives a shut down
`27.
`
`signal, it enters a low power mode in which the signal processing electronics, data
`
`transmit circuitry, and data receive circuitry all shut down. See id. at 5:17–28. The
`
`resume signal detector is the only circuitry that remains operational. See id.
`
`Bowie explains that loop 220 is “in an inactive state” when the unit enters the low
`
`power mode. Id. at 5:28–29. Bowie recognizes that the signal processing,
`
`transmitting, and receiving circuitry consume substantial amounts of power when
`
`transmitting and receiving “modulated data signals” and that consequently shutting
`
`down the transmitting, receiving, and signal processing circuitry, i.e., most of the
`
`transceiver’s circuitry, saves a significant amount of power—up to five watts per
`
`loop. See id. at 2:1–6.
`
` Bowie further teaches that, upon entering the low power mode, the
`28.
`
`ADSL units may “store[] in memory 117 characteristics of the loop 220 that were
`
`determined by… handshaking.” Id. at 5:17–28. As previously explained at supra
`
`IV.A.3, attenuation and loop background noise are exemplary loop characteristics.
`
`Thus, Bowie teaches storing loop characteristics, such as attenuation, upon going
`
`into low power mode. It is noteworthy that Bowie, however, does not disclose
`
`storing bit allocation or fine gain parameters in the low power mode.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01469
`
`
` Upon receipt of a “resume signal” at the resume signal detector 115,
`29.
`
`the Bowie unit “returns the signal processing 111, transmitting 112, and receiving
`
`113 circuitry to full power mode.” Id. at 5:60–62. The stored “loop transmission
`
`characteristics… are retrieved from memory 117 and used to enable data
`
`transmission to resume quickly by reducing the time needed to determine loop
`
`transmission characteristics.” Id. at 5:62–66 (emphasis added). Thus, Bowie
`
`teaches using the stored loop characteristics as a starting point for a process of re-
`
`determining the loop characteristics upon coming out of the low power mode.
`
` Bowie teaches that one of the reasons that the loop characteristics
`30.
`
`have to be re-determined upon coming out of the low power mode is that the loop’s
`
`characteristics may have changed while the system was in the low power mode.
`
`See Ex. 1004 at 5:66–6:1 (“After resumption of full power mode, additional
`
`handshaking between ADSL units 232 and 242 may occur.”); id. at 6:37–41
`
`(“Handshaking
`
`information may be
`
`required where,
`
`for example,
`
`loop
`
`characteristics have changed due, for example, to temperature-dependent changes
`
`in loop resistance.”). Re-determining the loop characteristics after coming out of
`
`low power mode is required to ensure the transceivers “establish reliable data
`
`communication between the units.” Id. at 6:36–37.
`
` Accordingly, Bowie
`31.
`
`teaches
`
`that some
`
`initialization (i.e., re-
`
`determining the loop characteristics) must occur when the unit comes out of the
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01469
`
`low power mode. Moreover, Bowie does not teach avoiding the initialization step
`
`of determining full power mode parameters such as bit allocation and fine gain
`
`parameters.
`
`
`32.
`
`In my opinion, Bowie’s invention is limited to (1) a “resume signal
`
`generator” and a “resume signal detector” added onto an existing ADSL Standard
`
`transceiver, (2) a low-power mode that turns off the ADSL transceiver’s
`
`communication circuitry except for the “resume signal detector” (and the “resume
`
`signal generator,” if and when it is time to return the other transceiver to normal
`
`operation) and (3) the concept of storing some information about the loop, such as
`
`attenuation, while in low power mode. As Bowie explains, storing loop
`
`information allows the Bowie unit to reduce the time needed to determine loop
`
`characteristics, which in turn are used to determine transmission parameters. This
`
`is a simplistic power saving scheme that does little to integrate with the existing
`
`internal functionality of an ADSL modem, and Bowie does very little to describe
`
`how any integration is to be performed by one of skill in the art. Therefore, it is
`
`substantially different from the ’268 patent regarding the implementation of a low
`
`power mode, as discussed further in this declaration.
`
` Bowie also does not teach using a synchronization signal when in the
`33.
`
`low power mode. This is consistent with Bowie’s teaching that all of the
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01469
`
`transceiver circuitry except for the resume signal detector is shut off in low power
`
`mode in order to save power.
`
`2. Morelli
`
` Morelli discloses a single carrier, packet-based, wireless transmission
`34.
`
`system that is directed to different communication technology from the inventions
`
`of the ’268 patent, Bowie, and the 1995 ADSL Standard. Whereas the latter
`
`references relate to point-to-point ADSL systems, Morelli relates to a multi-point
`
`wireless network for mobile devices (such as 802.11 “Wi-Fi” or to cellular
`
`networks). See Ex. 1005, Morelli at 1:11–30 (wireless mobile transceivers which
`
`communicate with a network); 1:34–36 (“The mobile terminals communicate
`
`through one of several base stations interconnected to the network.”); 5:17–38; Fig.
`
`10.
`
` Morelli’s mobile terminals enter low power mode differently than a
`35.
`
`remote transceiver (e.g., a customer premises modem) in ADSL. Specifically, in
`
`Morelli a modem enters low power mode unilaterally making no effort to
`
`coordinate with another modem. In order to enter and exit “sleep mode,” Morelli’s
`
`mobile terminal 210 utilizes a Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI). See Ex.
`
`1005, Morelli at Abstract; see also 3:35–59, 7:32–37, 8:32–53. During periods
`
`when incoming signals are below a pre-determined threshold level, Morelli keeps
`
`“digital circuitry associated with the back-end circuitry of the receiver system”
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01469
`
`disabled. See id. If the RSSI signal “rises above the threshold level, the digital
`
`circuitry of the receiver is enabled.” Id. at Abstract. I note that in this
`
`arrangement, the “receiver” in Morelli does not stay in full power mode during the
`
`transceiver’s “sleep mode.” Nor does the receiver “receive” the data signal during
`
`the transceiver’s “sleep mode”—the back-end circuitry of the receiver only
`
`determines that data is “available to be received.” See id. at Abstract, 8:40–43,
`
`8:60–9:3. Each of Morelli’s mobile terminals 210 therefore determines internally
`
`whether to enter and exit sleep mode based on whether data is available to be
`
`received. Morelli’s mobile terminal 210 only resumes full power mode to receive
`
`and process incoming “data packets” if a threshold signal level indicates a packet
`
`may be available to be received.
`
` Morelli also states that “[t]he data packet 45 includes, in order, a
`36.
`
`synchronization field 46 including synchronizing bits for synchronizing the
`
`receiver 16 . . . .” Ex. 1005 at 9:1–3. This is shown in Figure 2 of Morelli, below:
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01469
`
`
` These synchronization bits in Morelli, however, are not the same thing
`37.
`
`as synchronization signals in ADSL. In ADSL, once modems are initialized,
`
`synchronization is maintained (i.e., occurs continuously) independent of the user
`
`data. For example, if no user data is being received, synchronization in ADSL is
`
`still maintained while the modems are in full power mode. In wireless networks
`
`such as Morelli, however, synchronization occurs separately for each and every
`
`data packet. Reception of a wireless packet is not necessarily time-aligned with
`
`any other received packet, or with the receiver’s clock prior to packet arrival. In a
`
`wireless network, synchronization is also not maintained when no user data is
`
`being received.
`
` Further, unlike the claimed transceivers of the ’268 patent, Morelli
`38.
`
`does not disclose storing, in a low power mode, any full power mode parameters
`
`such as fine gain or bit allocation parameters.
`
`3.
`
`The 1995 ADSL Standard
`
` The 1995 ADSL Standard discloses electrical characteristics of ADSL
`39.
`
`signals appearing at a network interface and the requirements for transmission
`
`between a network and customer installation. Ex. 1006 at 1.
`
` A person of skill in the art (“POSITA”) would understand that
`40.
`
`initialization, as defined in the 1995 ADSL Standard, includes distinct, sequential
`
`steps of determining loop characteristics and determining bit and gain parameters
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01469
`
`based on the loop characteristics. The 1995 ADSL Standard states “[o]ne part of
`
`the ADSL initialization and training sequence estimates the loop characteristics to
`
`determine whether the number of bytes per Discrete MultiTone (“DMT”) frame
`
`required for the requested configuration's aggregate data rate [i.e., the necessary bit
`
`allocations] can be transmitted across the given loop.” Ex. 1006 at 9. The
`
`Standard further explains that “each receiver communicates to its far-end
`
`transmitter the number of bits and relative power levels [i.e., bit allocation and fine
`
`gain parameters] to be used on each DMT sub-carrier, as well as any messages and
`
`final data rates information. For highest performance these settings shall be based
`
`on the results [i.e., based in part on loop characteristics] obtained through the
`
`transceiver training and channel analysis procedures.” Ex. 1006 at 87 (with
`
`bracketed comments inserted). Therefore, the Standard distinguishes between loop
`
`characteristics of the loop and full power mode parameters like bit allocation and
`
`fine gain parameters.
`
` A POSITA would further understand that the 1995 ADSL Standard
`41.
`
`does not describe operating in a low power mode, going into a low power mode, or
`
`coming out of a low power mode. The 1995 ADSL Standard does not explain how
`
`to store full power mode parameters such as bit allocation or fine gain parameters
`
`in a low power mode, or how to use those parameters to avoid re-initialization
`
`when coming out of a low power mode. Further, the 1995 ADSL Standard
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01469
`
`describes a mandatory control channel that is always required to be active. See Ex.
`
`1006 at 13.
`
`V. LEGAL STANDARDS APPLIED
`
`
`42.
`
`I am not an expert in patent law, and I am not purporting to provide
`
`any opinions regarding the correct legal standards to apply in these proceedings. I
`
`have been asked, however, to provide my opinions in the context of the following
`
`legal standards that have been provided to me by TQ Delta’s attorneys.
`
` Obviousness in General: I have been informed that a patent can be
`43.
`
`invalidated through obviousness if the subject matter of a claim as a whole would
`
`have been obvious at the time of the invention to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art. I understand that obviousness allows for the combination of prior art
`
`references. I have been informed that there are three basic inquiries that must be
`
`considered for obviousness:
`
`a. What is the scope and content of the prior art?
`
`b. What are the differences, if any, between the prior art and each claim
`
`of the patent?
`
`c. What is the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`of the patent was made?
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01469
`
`
`
`44.
`
`I also understand that a claim composed of several elements is not
`
`proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was
`
`independently known in the prior art. I understand that when prior art references
`
`require selective combination to render a patent obvious, there must be some
`
`reason to combine the references other than hindsight. I further understand that an
`
`assertion of obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements, and
`
`that there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
`
`support a finding of obviousness. In particular, a person of skill in the art had to
`
`have had a motivation to combine the prior art in the way claimed in the claim and
`
`had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. I understand that features
`
`from prior art references need not be physically combinable (i.e., a combination
`
`may be obvious if one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to make any
`
`necessary modifications to combine features from prior art references), but that this
`
`concept does not negate the requirement of a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`
`45.
`
`I understand that one must also consider the evidence from secondary
`
`considerations including commercial success, copying, long-felt but unresolved
`
`needs, failure of others to solve the problem, unexpected results, and whether the
`
`invention was made independently by others at the same time of the invention. I
`
`understand that these secondary considerations can overcome a finding of
`
`obviousness.
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01469
`
`
`
`46.
`
`I also understand that a combination of references does not render a
`
`claim obvious if a reference teaches away from its combination with another
`
`reference. I understand that a reference may teach away when (1) the teachings of
`
`a prior art reference undermine the reason being proffered as to why a person of
`
`ordinary skill would have combined elements of the reference with another prior
`
`art reference, (2) a proposed modification to a prior art reference’s device would
`
`render the device inoperable for its intended purpose, or (3) when a person of
`
`ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be led in a direction divergent
`
`from the path that was taken by the applicant.
`
`
`47.
`
`I further understand that in performing an obviousness analysis, it
`
`may be necessary to construe the one or more terms that are recited in the claims. I
`
`have been informed that in an Inter Partes Review, claims are given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the claims and specification. I have been
`
`informed that this means that the broadest reasonable construction of a term is not
`
`simply one which covers the most embodiments but one that is reasonable in light
`
`of the claims and specification.
`
`VI. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`
`48.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is considered to
`
`have the normal skills and knowledge of a person in a certain technical field, as of
`
`the time of the invention at issue. I understand that factors that may be considered
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01469
`
`in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the education level
`
`of the inventor; (2) the types of problems encountered in the art; (3) the prior art
`
`solutions to those problems; (4) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (5)
`
`the sophistication of the technology; and (6) the education level of active workers
`
`in the field.
`
`
`49.
`
`I understand that Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Hoarty opined that a
`
`“POSITA would hold a bachelor’s degree (or show the equivalent understanding
`
`through actual work experience) in electrical engineering (or related academic
`
`fields such as data communications or digital signal processing) and at least four
`
`years of additional experience in the area of digital and/or telecommunication
`
`system design, or equivalent work experience, or, alternately, eight years of
`
`equivalent work experience.”) Ex. 1002-1 at ¶ 28.
`
`
`50.
`
`I have considered the factors listed above and Mr. Hoarty’s
`
`description of a person of ordinary skill in the art. In my opinion, with respect to
`
`the ’268 patent, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have an electrical
`
`engineering background and experience
`
`in
`
`the design of multicarrier
`
`communication systems, such as those employing orthogonal frequency division
`
`multiplexing (“OFDM”) or DMT modulation. More particularly, a person of skill
`
`in the art would be a person with a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering (or a
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`IPR2016-01469
`
`similar technical degree or equivalent work experience) and at least three years of
`
`experience working with such multicarrier communication systems.
`
`
`51.
`
`I have 18 years of combined industrial and academic experience in the
`
`architecture, design, development, testing and production of communication
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
