`
`Filed on behalf of TQ Delta, LLC
`By: Peter J. McAndrews
`Thomas J. Wimbiscus
`Scott P. McBride
`Christopher M. Scharff
`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
`_____________
`
`DISH NETWORK L.L.C.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01470
`Patent No. 8,611,404
`_____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2016-01470
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`OVERVIEW OF U.S. PATENT No. 8,611,404 ............................................. 4
`
`A. Background of the Technology .............................................................. 4
`
`B. The ’404 Patent ....................................................................................... 7
`
`III. Overview of the cited references ..................................................................... 9
`
`A. Bowie ...................................................................................................... 9
`
`B. Vanzieleghem ....................................................................................... 14
`
`C. The 1995 ADSL Standard .................................................................... 15
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 18
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 19
`
`A.
`
`“Low Power Mode,” “Fine Gain Parameter,” “Transceiver” ............. 19
`
`B.
`
`“Synchronization Signal” ..................................................................... 19
`
`C.
`
`“Parameter Associated with the Full Power Mode Operation” .......... 23
`
`VI. PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE CLAIMS OF
`THE ’404 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE ............................................. 25
`
`A. Petitioner Has Failed To Establish That Bowie Discloses Storing
`In A Low Power Mode A “Parameter Associated With the Full
`Power Mode Operation” ..................................................................... 25
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner Has Failed To Establish That “Storing, In the Low
`Power Mode . . . At Least One of a Fine Gain Parameter and a
`Bit Allocation Parameter” Would Have Been Obvious Over
`Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and the 1995 ADSL Standard ........................ 31
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2016-01470
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner Provides No Non-Conclusory or Non-
`Hindsight Reasons to Modify Bowie to Store Parameters
`That
`the 1995 ADSL Standard Only Discloses
`Exchanging ................................................................................ 32
`
`
`
`Bowie’s Teachings Undermine Petitioner’s Reasons for
`Modifying It to Store Bit Allocation or Fine Gain
`Parameters in a Low Power Mode ............................................ 35
`
`C.
`
`Petitioner Has Failed to Establish That Bowie Discloses
`“[Exit/Exiting] From the Low Power Mode and
`[Restore/Restoring] the Full Power Mode . . . Without Needing
`to Reinitialize the Transceiver” ........................................................... 38
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Bowie Discloses That Its Transceiver Does Undergo
`Reinitialization .......................................................................... 38
`
`Bowie Would Have Led A POSITA Away From the
`Inventions of the ’404 Patent .................................................... 40
`
`D. Petitioner Has Failed to Establish That It Would Have Been
`Obvious to Modify Bowie to Receive a “Synchronization
`Signal” in the Low Power Mode ......................................................... 42
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Bowie Taught Away From the Proposed Modification
`Because It Would Greatly Reduce Bowie’s Power
`Savings ...................................................................................... 43
`
`The Proposed Modification Would Render Bowie’s Low
`Power Mode Inoperable ............................................................ 46
`
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 49
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2016-01470
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit 2005
`
`
`Exhibit 2003 Declaration of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D. for Inter Partes Review
`No. IPR2016-01470
`
`Exhibit 2004 May 3, 2017 Deposition Transcript of Leo Hoarty (IPR2016-
`01470)
`
`IEEE 100 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms,
`Seventh Edition
`
`Exhibit 2006 Curriculum Vitae of Douglas A. Chrissan, Ph.D.
`
`Exhibit 2007 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Ed. (2003) at 70
`
`Exhibit 2008 Dictionary Of Networking, Third Edition (1999) at 360
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2016-01470
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`The Board instituted inter partes review of four claims (6, 11, 16, and 20) of
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,611,404 (“the ’404 patent”) based on a single Ground—alleged
`
`obviousness in view of a combination of U.S. Patent No. 5,956,323 (“Bowie”),
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,247,725 (“Vanzieleghem”), and the American National
`
`Standards Institute (ANSI) T1.413-1995 Standard, entitled “Network and
`
`Customer Installation Interfaces—Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL)
`
`Metallic Interface” (the “1995 ADSL Standard”).
`
`For purposes of institution, however, the Board accepted as true several
`
`unsupported factual statements by Petitioner and its expert that are incorrect and
`
`contradicted by the asserted references themselves. The Board did not have the
`
`benefit of a complete record with respect to how a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art (“POSITA”) would have understood the teachings of the cited references.
`
`Therefore, Patent Owner provides additional details and technical explanations
`
`from Dr. Douglas Chrissan, an expert in DSL technologies, along with further legal
`
`support, that show that a POSITA would not have found the claims of the ’404
`
`patent obvious in view of Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and the 1995 ADSL Standard.
`
`First, Petitioner has not established that any of the references teaches or
`
`suggests the limitation of storing, in the low power mode, at least one “parameter
`
`associated with full power mode operation,” as required by each of the instituted
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2016-01470
`
`
`claims. Petitioner only points to Bowie for this limitation. But Bowie discloses
`
`storing only “loop characteristics,” which are not associated with the “full power
`
`mode operation.” Indeed, loop characteristics, as disclosed in Bowie, are not
`
`associated with any power mode or operation.
`
`Second, Petitioner has not established that the combination of Bowie and the
`
`1995 ADSL Standard renders obvious “stor[ing], in the low power mode . . . at
`
`least one of a fine gain parameter and a bit allocation parameter,” which is also
`
`recited by all of the claims. Again, Bowie only discloses storing “loop
`
`characteristics.” The 1995 ADSL Standard’s disclosure of exchanging (not
`
`storing) fine gain and bit allocation parameters for a different purpose does not fill
`
`in this gap. And Petitioner’s only purported reasons for modifying Bowie and the
`
`1995 ADSL Standard to store these parameters in a low power mode, are either (a)
`
`wholly conclusory and mere hindsight or (b) technologically incorrect. For
`
`example, Petitioner’s argument that Bowie could simply store “more data” or “add
`
`more parameters to storage” is not a reason to do so. And Petitioner’s argument
`
`that storing these particular parameters would enable Bowie to resume data
`
`transmission “faster” is both technologically false and unsupported by any
`
`evidence that doing so would have been known to a POSITA. In fact, Bowie’s
`
`own teachings undermine Petitioner’s theory.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2016-01470
`
`
`Third, Petitioner has not established that the combination of Bowie and the
`
`1995 ADSL Standard renders obvious the limitation of “exit[ing] from the low
`
`power mode and restor[ing] the full power mode . . . without needing to reinitialize
`
`the transceiver,” which is also recited by all of the claims. Petitioner again relies
`
`only on Bowie for this limitation, but Bowie teaches that some reinitialization is
`
`required. Moreover, Bowie would lead a POSITA on a path divergent from that
`
`taken by the inventors of the ’404 patent. Specifically, Bowie discloses a
`
`transceiver that performs reinitialization upon coming out of low power mode for
`
`the sake of insuring reliable transmission parameters upon the resumption of data
`
`transmission. In contrast, the inventions of the ’404 patent do not reinitialize upon
`
`coming out of low power mode for the sake of a speedy resumption of data
`
`transmission (but at the risk of using parameters that will result in errored
`
`transmissions).
`
`Fourth, Petitioner has not established that the cited references disclose,
`
`teach, or render obvious the limitation of receiving “in the low power mode, a
`
`synchronization signal,” which is recited by all of the challenged claims.
`
`Petitioner argues that Vanzieleghem disclosed a synchronization signal by teaching
`
`a “pilot tone.” Petitioner, however, has not established that it would have been
`
`obvious to modify Bowie to transmit or receive such a pilot tone in the low power
`
`mode. In fact, modifying Bowie as Petitioner proposes would render Bowie
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2016-01470
`
`
`inoperable for its intended purpose of reducing power consumption—among other
`
`things, Vanzieleghem’s pilot tone would cause Bowie to constantly wake up to
`
`return to full power mode.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner’s single Ground for alleged obviousness fails.
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board issue a Final Written Decision
`
`upholding the patentability of claims 6, 11, 16, and 20 of the ’404 patent.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,611,404
`
`The ’404 patent, entitled “Multicarrier Transmission System with Low
`
`Power Sleep Mode and Rapid-On Capability,” issued on December 17, 2013, to
`
`Patent Owner TQ Delta, LLC. The inventions of the ’404 patent represented a
`
`significant improvement in the field of multicarrier transmission systems and
`
`multicarrier transceivers. In particular, the ’404 patent teaches a transceiver that
`
`saves energy by operating in a low power mode, but that can go rapidly from the
`
`low power mode back to a full power mode, without needing to reinitialize the
`
`transceiver, when it is needed to transmit or receive data. See Ex. 2003, Chrissan
`
`Decl. at ¶ 15.
`
`A. Background of the Technology
`
`Multicarrier transmission systems provide high speed data links between
`
`communication points. See Ex. 1001 at 1:37-38; Ex. 2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 16.
`
`A digital subscriber
`
`loop (“DSL”) system
`
`is an exemplary multicarrier
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2016-01470
`
`
`transmission system that is used to provide high-speed data communication over
`
`the same local subscriber loop that is used to provide telephone service to a
`
`subscriber. See Ex. 1001 at 1:38-41; Ex. 2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 16. In a DSL
`
`system, the overall communication bandwidth of the communication channel
`
`between the subscriber and the central office is divided into a number of separate
`
`sub-channels or carriers, e.g., 256 sub-channels. See Ex. 1001 at 1:48-55; Ex.
`
`2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 16. A transceiver divides data to be transmitted into
`
`groups of bits, allocates each group of bits to a sub-channel, and modulates each
`
`group of bits onto its respective sub-channel. See Ex. 1001 at 1:63-66; Ex. 2003,
`
`Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 16.
`
`Prior to exchanging data over the channel, the DSL transceivers first go
`
`through an initialization process. See Ex. 1001 at 3:7-9; Ex. 2003, Chrissan Decl.
`
`at ¶ 17. The initialization process includes several distinct phases. The first phase
`
`involves synchronizing the timing references of the transceivers. The transceivers
`
`synchronize their timing by exchanging information to synchronize and “lock” the
`
`timing of their respective clocks. Ex. 2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 18. This is called
`
`“timing synchronization” or “clock synchronization.” Id.
`
`After timing synchronization, the initialization process goes into its next
`
`phase, during which the transceivers determine characteristics of the wire loop
`
`connecting the transceivers, i.e., loop characteristics. Ex. 2003, Chrissan Decl. at
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2016-01470
`
`
`¶¶ 19, 61. Attenuation is an example of a loop characteristic. Id. at ¶ 19; Ex. 2004
`
`at 40:6-10. Attenuation is the reduction in signal power a signal experiences as it
`
`travels across the wire from the originating transceiver to the destination
`
`transceiver. Ex. 2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 19. Attenuation is a function of
`
`different physical characteristics of the wire loop, such as the length, diameter, and
`
`composition. Id. Loop background noise is another example of a loop
`
`characteristic. Id.
`
`Once the loop characteristics are determined, the initialization process
`
`continues with a sub-channel characterization and analysis phase. During this
`
`phase, the transceivers determine equalization settings and echo canceller settings
`
`and measure signal to noise ratios (“SNR”) on a sub-channel basis. Id. at ¶ 20.
`
`SNR is a function of loop characteristics such as line noise levels and attenuation.
`
`Id.
`
`In
`
`the
`
`last phase of
`
`initialization,
`
`the sub-channel characterization
`
`information, including SNR, is used to determine transmission parameters that are
`
`used for data transmission. See id.; Ex. 1001 at 3:10-20. Examples of
`
`transmission parameters include transmission and reception data rates, fine gain
`
`parameters, and bit allocation parameters. Transmission parameters are specific to
`
`and conform to the communication protocol used for data transmission. See Ex.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2016-01470
`
`
`2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 72. The transceivers then go through the step of
`
`exchanging the transmission parameters. Id. at ¶ 20.
`
`When initialization has finished, the transceivers can start exchanging data
`
`using the transmission parameters. Id. at ¶ 21. In the context of DSL, data is sent
`
`in superframes. A superframe includes 68 data frames or DMT symbols followed
`
`by a synchronization frame or sync symbol. See id. The transceivers count the
`
`received frames and may use their respective timing references to synchronize their
`
`respective frame counters. See Ex. 1001 at 5:51–52. A transceiver may use the
`
`received synchronization frame to identify, in part, the superframe boundaries and
`
`maintain superframe alignment or synchronization. Ex. 2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶
`
`21. This is known as “frame synchronization.” Id. at ¶ 53. Timing
`
`synchronization is not the same as frame synchronization.
`
`B.
`
`The ’404 Patent
`
`The ’404 Patent recognizes that prior art multicarrier transceivers were
`
`commonly maintained in the “on” state because of their complexity and because
`
`they had to remain ready to immediately transmit or receive data. See Ex. 1001 at
`
`2:55-58; Ex. 2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 22. In this “on” state, both the transmitter
`
`and receiver portion of a prior art transceiver remained fully functional at all times.
`
`As a result, the multicarrier transceivers used a significant amount of power and
`
`had short life spans. See Ex. 1001 at 2:58-63; Ex. 2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 22.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2016-01470
`
`
`Although low power modes (in which data communications are temporarily
`
`suspended) were known in the prior art, they were unsatisfactory because, after
`
`exiting the low power mode, the transceivers still had to go through the lengthy re-
`
`initialization process to determine parameters necessary for full data transmission.
`
`See Ex. 1001 at 3:23-30; Ex. 2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 22. The initialization
`
`process could take, for example, “tens of seconds.” This was unacceptable because
`
`users typically desired near-instantaneous response for data communications. See
`
`Ex. 1001 at 3:23-25; Ex. 2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶¶ 21-22. This inability to rapidly
`
`return to full power mode meant that conventional multicarrier transceivers were
`
`always kept “on” even in the absence of data communications, resulting in high
`
`power consumption.
`
`The inventions of the ’404 patent (e.g., Claims 1-20) provide a unique low
`
`power mode that improves the operation of multicarrier transceivers. The
`
`inventions allow the multicarrier transceiver to enter a low power mode (and thus
`
`save power) while maintaining a framework that enabled rapid return to full data
`
`communication capability. See Ex. 1001 at 3:31-33. The inventive framework for
`
`rapid-on capability includes maintaining synchronization between first and second
`
`transceivers by transmitting or receiving a synchronization signal while in the low
`
`power mode, reducing power consumption of at least one portion of a transmitter,
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2016-01470
`
`
`and/or storing, while in the low power mode, parameters used for full power mode
`
`data transmission (such as fine gain or bit allocation parameters).
`
`Storing parameters associated with full-power mode and maintaining
`
`synchronization in the low power mode allows the claimed multicarrier transceiver
`
`to rapidly emerge from the low power mode and resume full data transmission
`
`immediately without the necessity of performing time-consuming steps to re-
`
`initialize the transceivers. Id. at 7:13-15, 8:4-13; Ex. 2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 23.
`
`Thus, the claims of the ’404 patent address the deficiencies of prior art
`
`transceivers that implement a low power mode by eliminating the need for a
`
`constant “on” mode while still providing the desired near-instantaneous response.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 3:38–41. As discussed below, none of Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and the
`
`1995 ADSL Standard teaches or suggests the novel systems and methods of the
`
`’404 patent, and, in fact, those references disclose systems that operate very
`
`differently.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE CITED REFERENCES
`
`A. Bowie
`
`Bowie relates to a power conservation method for an asymmetric digital
`
`subscriber line (“ADSL”) system. See Ex. 1004, Bowie at 1:4-8, 1:23-25; Ex.
`
`2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 25. Bowie’s system differs significantly from the
`
`inventive system of the ’404 patent because, among other things, it shuts down all
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2016-01470
`
`
`the data receiving, data transmission, and signal processing circuitry in its
`
`disclosed low power mode, does not store bit allocation or fine gain parameters in
`
`the low power mode, does not send or receive a synchronization signal in the low
`
`power mode, and requires reinitialization after coming out of the low power mode.
`
`As shown 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, data receive circuitry 113, and a
`
`resume signal detector 115 (which can be “a 16kHz AC signal detector 115 that
`
`employs conventional frequency detection techniques”). See Ex. 1004, Bowie at
`
`5:52-55; Ex. 2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 25.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2016-01470
`
`
`Bowie explains that, prior to data being sent between two ADSL units over
`
`the loop, loop characteristics, such as “loop loss,” (i.e., attenuation) must be
`
`determined and exchanged. See Ex. 1004, Bowie at 4:64-5:3. Bowie describes
`
`this exchange of loop characteristics as “handshaking.” See id. at 5:3-5; Ex. 2003,
`
`Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 26.
`
`Bowie further teaches that when an ADSL unit receives a shut-down signal,
`
`it enters a low power mode in which the signal processing, data transmit, and data
`
`receive circuitry all shut down; only the resume signal detector remains
`
`operational. See Ex. 1004, Bowie at 5:17-28. In the low power mode, the loop in
`
`Bowie is “in an inactive state.” Id. at 5:28-29; Ex. 2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 27.
`
`As Bowie explains, 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 Ex. 1004, Bowie at 2:1-6. Bowie
`
`further teaches that, upon entering the low power mode, the ADSL units may
`
`“store[] in memory 117 characteristics of the loop 220 that were determined by . . .
`
`handshaking.” Ex. 1004, Bowie at 5:17-28. Such loop characteristics would
`
`include things like attenuation, i.e., “loop loss.” Ex. 2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶¶ 19,
`
`28. Importantly, and unlike the inventions of the ’404 patent, Bowie does not
`
`teach storing bit allocation or fine gain parameters in the low power mode. Id. at ¶
`
`28.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2016-01470
`
`
`Upon receipt of a “resume signal” at the resume signal detector 115, the
`
`Bowie unit “returns the signal processing 111, transmitting 112, and receiving 113
`
`circuitry to full power mode.” Id. at 5:60-62; Ex. 2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 29. “If
`
`loop transmission characteristics had been stored, these parameters are retrieved
`
`from memory 117 and used to enable data transmission to resume quickly by
`
`reducing the time needed to determine loop transmission characteristics.”1 Ex.
`
`1004, Bowie at 5:62-66; Ex. 2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 29. In this way, Bowie
`
`teaches using the stored loop characteristics as a starting point for determining the
`
`transmission parameters that are necessary for returning to full data transmission
`
`after coming out of the low power mode. Ex. 2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 29; Ex.
`
`1004, Bowie at Fig. 3 (step 306), 6:26-45 (describing additional handshaking after
`
`coming out of low power mode).
`
`According to Bowie, the additional handshaking (i.e., reinitialization) that
`
`occurs before returning to full data transmission includes a re-determination of
`
`loop characteristics to account for changes in loop characteristics that occurred
`
`
`1 Bowie uses the terms “loop characteristics,” “electronic characteristics of the
`
`particular wire loop,” “loop transmission characteristics,” and “loop characteristic
`
`parameters” interchangeably. Ex. 1004, Bowie at 5:1-3, 5:23-25, 5:62-66, 6:25-33;
`
`Ex. 2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 26.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2016-01470
`
`
`while the system was in the low power mode. See Ex. 2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶
`
`30; Ex. 1004, Bowie at 5:65-66 (“. . . reducing the time needed to determine loop
`
`transmission characteristics.”); id. At 66-6:1 (“After resumption of full power
`
`mode, additional handshaking between ADSL units 232 and 242 may occur.”); id.
`
`at 6:37-45 (“Handshaking information may be required [after coming out of low
`
`power mode] where, for example, loop characteristics have changed due, for
`
`example, to temperature-dependent changes in loop resistance.”); Ex. 2004 at 91:3-
`
`15 (“Q. Bowie does not teach, don’t redetermine loop characteristics? A. I think
`
`a POSITA would know, if he were to teach that, that would be incorrect, and it
`
`could not function as a circuit.”) (objections omitted). Re-determining the loop
`
`characteristics after coming out of low power mode is required to ensure “reliable
`
`data communication between the units.” Ex. 1004, Bowie at 6:36-37; Ex. 2003,
`
`Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 30.
`
`Accordingly, in contrast to the inventions of the ’404 patent, Bowie teaches
`
`that reinitialization (i.e., re-determining the loop characteristics and exchanging
`
`handshaking information) must occur when the transceiver comes out of the low
`
`power mode. See Ex. 1004, Bowie at 5:62-6:2, 6:35-43; Ex. 2003, Chrissan Decl.
`
`at ¶ 31.
`
`Bowie also differs from the inventions of the ’404 patent in that it does not
`
`transmit or receive a synchronization signal when in the low power mode. Ex.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2016-01470
`
`
`2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 33. Indeed, Bowie cannot transmit or receive a
`
`synchronization signal when in the low power mode because all of the transceiver
`
`circuitry except for the resume signal detector is shut off in a low power mode in
`
`order to save power. Ex. 1004, Bowie at 5:25-28.
`
`B. Vanzieleghem
`
`Vanzieleghem discloses a multicarrier transmission system that differs
`
`significantly from both
`
`the
`
`inventions of
`
`the ’404 patent and Bowie.
`
`Vanzieleghem discloses an ADSL transmitter for a multicarrier system that can
`
`reduce power dissipation during operation depending on the type of input data it is
`
`being asked to transmit. See Ex. 1005, Vanzieleghem at 4:46-50, 6:29-36; Ex.
`
`2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 34. The input data may be either effective data or idle
`
`data. See Ex. 1005, Vanzieleghem at 5:33-35; Ex. 2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 34.
`
`When effective data is to be transmitted, the transmitter uses all of its carriers (e.g.,
`
`256 carriers) to send the data to a receiver. See Ex. 1005, Vanzieleghem at 5:66-
`
`6:15; Ex. 2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 34. When the transmitter has only idle data to
`
`transmit, it reduces power dissipation by transmitting on a reduced number of
`
`carriers. See Ex. 1005, Vanzieleghem at 6:30-41; Ex. 2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 34.
`
`Vanzieleghem teaches maintaining frame synchronization with a receiver by
`
`periodically sending a synchronization symbol as part of a superframe. See Ex.
`
`1005, Vanzieleghem at 6:59–61; 5:53–65; Ex. 2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 34.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2016-01470
`
`
`Unlike the claimed transceivers of the ’404 patent, Vanzieleghem does not
`
`disclose storing, in a low power mode, any transmission parameters such as fine
`
`gain or bit allocation parameters. Ex. 2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 35. Vanzieleghem
`
`also does not disclose exiting a low power mode and restoring a full power by
`
`using stored transmission parameters. Id. Further, Vanzieleghem does not teach
`
`restoring a full power mode without re-initialization. Id.
`
`Moreover, unlike Bowie – which teaches reducing power by completely
`
`shutting down the transmitter, receiver, and signal processing circuitry –
`
`Vanzieleghem teaches reducing power usage of only the transmitter. Id. Thus,
`
`Bowie’s low power mode saves more power than Vanzieleghem’s. Id.
`
`C. The 1995 ADSL Standard
`
`The 1995 ADSL Standard discloses electrical characteristics of ADSL
`
`signals appearing at a network interface and the requirements for transmission
`
`between a network and customer installation. Ex. 1006, 1995 ADSL Standard at 1;
`
`Ex. 2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 36. In its obviousness argument, Petitioner relies on
`
`the 1995 ADSL Standard, in part, for teaching determining fine gains and bit
`
`allocations as part of the initialization process. Pet. at 40. Importantly, the 1995
`
`ADSL Standard teaches that, in the context of ADSL transceiver initialization, bit
`
`allocation and fine gain parameters are different than, and, in fact, are determined
`
`in part from, loop characteristics like those disclosed in Bowie.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2016-01470
`
`
`In that regard, the 1995 ADSL Standard explains that initialization includes
`
`separate, sequential steps of determining loop characteristics and then determining
`
`bit and gain parameters based on the loop characteristics and other information.
`
`See Ex. 2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 37. For example, 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 can be transmitted across the given loop.” Ex. 1006, 1995 ADSL Standard at
`
`9. The 1995 ADSL Standard also states that “each receiver communicates to its
`
`far-end transmitter the number of bits and relative power levels to be used on each
`
`DMT sub-carrier [i.e., bit allocation and fine gain parameters], as well as any
`
`messages and final data rates information. For highest performance these settings
`
`shall be based on the results [e.g.,, loop characteristics] obtained through the
`
`transceiver training and channel analysis procedures.” Ex. 1006, 1995 ADSL
`
`Standard at 87 (emphasis added). In this way, the 1995 ADSL Standard clearly
`
`distinguishes between collecting loop characteristics, on one hand, and determining
`
`and exchanging bit allocation and fine gain parameters, on the other hand. See Ex.
`
`2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 37.
`
`Though the 1995 ADSL Standard describes the steps taken to initialize and
`
`operate an ADSL transceiver, the described technology differs in important ways
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2016-01470
`
`
`from the inventions of the ’404 patent. Specifically, the 1995 ADSL Standard does
`
`not describe, anywhere, operating in a low power mode, going into a low power
`
`mode, or coming out of a low power mode. Ex. 2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 38. The
`
`1995 ADSL Standard, therefore, does not disclose storing 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. Ex. 2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶
`
`38.
`
`Moreover, it is important to note that the ’404 patent teaches avoiding the
`
`initialization steps disclosed in the 1995 ADSL Standard when transitioning from a
`
`low power mode to a full power mode. See Ex. 1001 at 10:16-18, Ex. 2003,
`
`Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 23. None of the 1995 ADSL Standard, Bowie, and
`
`Vanzieleghem – either alone or in combination with the other references – teaches
`
`such capability. Bowie and Vanzieleghem do not teach avoiding redetermination
`
`of bit allocation and fine gain parameters. Ex. 2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶¶ 31, 35.
`
`Furthermore, Bowie, despite disclosing storing loop characteristics, specifically
`
`teaches
`
`that determination and exchange of
`
`those characteristics
`
`(i.e.,
`
`“handshaking information”) occurs upon coming out of the low power mode. Ex.
`
`2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 31; Ex. 1004, Bowie at 5:62-6:2, 6:35-45. And Mr.
`
`Hoarty concedes that handshaking discussed in Bowie is synonymous with
`
`initialization. See Ex. 2004 at 109:21-110:10. Similarly, Vanzieleghem does not
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2016-01470
`
`
`teach avoiding the step of determining loop characteristics. And, of course,
`
`because the 1995 ADSL Standard does not provide any low power mode or teach
`
`storing any transmission parameters when a DSL transceiver is turned off, it does
`
`not teach avoiding any initialization steps upon coming out of a low power mode.
`
`Ex. 2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 38.
`
`In addition, the Bowie device, when in the low power mode, does not
`
`comply with the 1995 ADSL Standard. The 1995 ADSL Standard teaches that the
`
`“mandatory control (C) channel” in the ADSL system “shall always be active.”
`
`Ex. 1006, 1995 ADSL Standard at 13; Ex. 2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 38. Bowie,
`
`however, teaches that the loop has to be inactive when the system is in low power
`
`mode. Ex. 1004, Bowie at 5:28-29; Ex. 2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 27. As such, the
`
`1995 ADSL Standard precludes the low power mode of the Bowie device. Ex.
`
`2003, Chrissan Decl. at ¶ 104.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`As of January 1998, and with respect to the ’404 patent, a POSITA would
`
`have had an electrical engineering background and experience in the design of
`
`multicarrier communication systems, such as
`
`those employing orthogonal
`
`frequency division multiplexing or discrete multitone modulation. Ex. 2003,
`
`Chrissan Decl. at ¶¶ 47-48. Such a POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in
`
`electrical engineering (or a similar technical degree or equivalent work experience)
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2016-01470
`
`
`and at least 3 years of experience working with such multicarrier communication
`
`systems. See id.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A.
`
`“Low Power Mode,” “Fine Gain Parameter,” “Transceiver”
`
`Petitioner only proposed constructions for three terms—“low power mode,”
`
`“transceiver,” and “data.” See Pet. at 9-11. The Board adopted these
`
`constructions fo
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
