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
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404
`Filing Date: May 6, 2013
`Issue Date: December 17, 2013
`
`Title: Multicarrier Transmission System with Low Power Sleep Mode and Rapid-On
`Capability
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,611,404
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2016-___
`
`
`
`
`  
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`Page
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ....................... 2
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................ 2
`B.
`Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ..................................... 2
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .................. 3
`D.
`Service Information .............................................................................. 4
`E.
`Power of Attorney ................................................................................ 4
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 .................................................. 4
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37
`C.F.R. §§ 42.104 AND 42.108 ....................................................................... 4
`A. Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................. 4
`B.
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested ................................................ 5
`Requirements for Inter Partes Review 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ............. 6
`C.
`BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE UNDERLYING TECHNOLOGY ......... 6
`V.
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE ‘404 PATENT ............................................................ 6
`A.
`Brief Description of the ‘404 Patent .................................................... 6
`B.
`Petitioned Claims of the ‘404 Patent .................................................... 7
`C.
`Priority Claim of the ‘404 Patent ......................................................... 9
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3) ................... 9
`A.
`Legal Overview .................................................................................... 9
`B.
`Proposed Claim Constructions ........................................................... 10
`1.
`“Low Power Mode” (claims 6, 11, 16) .................................... 10
`2.
`“Fine Gain Parameter” (claims 6, 11, 16) ................................ 11
`3.
`“Transceiver” (claim 6) ............................................................ 11
`VIII. PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART & STATE
`OF THE ART ............................................................................................... 12
`
` 
`
` 
`
`-i-
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`IX. CLAIMS 6, 11, 16 AND 20 ARE RENDERED OBVIOUS OVER
`BOWIE IN VIEW OF THE 1995 ADSL STANDARD AND
`VANZIELEGHEM (GROUND 1) ............................................................... 12
`A. Overview of the Prior Art ................................................................... 12
`1.
`Overview of Bowie .................................................................. 12
`2.
`Overview of the 1995 ADSL Standard .................................... 15
`3.
`Overview of Vanzieleghem ..................................................... 17
`Bowie, the 1995 ADSL Standard and Vanzieleghem Are
`Analogous Art .................................................................................... 18
`Independent claim 6 is rendered obvious by Bowie, the 1995
`ADSL Standard and Vanzieleghem (Ground 1) ................................ 19
`1.
`Preamble 6[a] ........................................................................... 19
`2.
`Claim element 6[b] .................................................................. 20
`3.
`Claim element 6[c] ................................................................... 26
`4.
`Claim element 6[d] .................................................................. 32
`5.
`Claim element 6[e] ................................................................... 33
`6.
`Claim element 6[f] ................................................................... 40
`7.
`Claim element 6[g] .................................................................. 43
`Independent claim 11 is rendered obvious by Bowie, the 1995
`ADSL Standard and Vanzieleghem (Ground 1) ................................ 45
`1.
`Preamble 11[a] ......................................................................... 45
`2.
`Claim element 11[b] ................................................................ 46
`3.
`Claim element 11[c] ................................................................. 48
`4.
`Claim element 11[d] ................................................................ 49
`5.
`Claim element 11[e] ................................................................. 50
`6.
`Claim element 11[f] ................................................................. 51
`7.
`Claim element 11[g] ................................................................ 51
`8.
`Claim element 11[h] ................................................................ 52
`
`D.
`
`
`
` 
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`
`
`Independent claim 16 is rendered obvious by Bowie, the 1995
`ADSL Standard and Vanzieleghem (Ground 1) ................................ 53
`1.
`Preamble 16[a] ......................................................................... 53
`2.
`Claim elements 16[b] to 16[g] ................................................. 53
`Dependent claim 20 is rendered obvious by Bowie, the 1995
`ADSL Standard and Vanzieleghem (Ground 1) ................................ 54
`X. NO SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS
`EXIST ........................................................................................................... 58
`XI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 58
`
`
`
` 
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Ex. No.
`
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`Description of Document
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404 to Greszczuk et al. (“the ’404 patent”)
`
`Declaration of Leo Hoarty (“Hoarty Decl.”)
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,956,323 to Bowie (“Bowie”)
`
`European Patent Publication No. EP 0883269 to Vanzieleghem
`(“Vanzieleghem”)
`
`ANSI T1.413-1995 – “Network and Customer Installation Interfaces –
`Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) Metallic Interface” (Aug.
`18, 1995) (“1995 ADSL Standard”)
`
`American National Standards Institute, “Procedures for the
`Development and Coordination of American National Standards”
`(March 22, 1995)
`
`Library of Congress, Excerpts from “Network and Customer
`Installation Interfaces – Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL)
`Metallic Interface” (Stamped Feb. 2, 1996)
`
`Linda Hall Library, Excerpts from “Network and Customer Installation
`Interfaces – Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) Metallic
`Interface” (Stamped Apr. 15, 1996)
`
`Zogakis and Cioffi, “The Effect of Timing Jitter on the Performance of
`a Discrete Multitone System” (Jul. 1996)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,144,695 to Helms et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,815,505 to Mills
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,974,139 to McNamara et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,091,722 to Russell et al.
`
` 1015 U.S. Patent No. 6,134,274 to Sankaranarayanan et al.
`
`
`
` 
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Ex. No.
`
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`Description of Document
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`Curriculum Vitae of W. Leo Hoarty
`
`Edfors, et al., “An introduction to orthogonal frequency-division
`multiplexing” (Sept. 1996)
`
`Franks, “Carrier and Bit Synchronization in Data Communication – A
`Tutorial Review” (Aug. 1980)
`
`Hall, “Selecting an ADSL transceiver: ANSI standard offers two levels
`of modem performance” (Oct. 1, 1997)
`
`“Learning About Saving Energy” (Jan. 1995)
`
`“Technical Report TR-001: ADSL Forum System Reference Model”
`(May 1996)
`
`“Technical Report TR-005: ADSL Network Element Management”
`(Mar. 1998)
`
`“Technical Report TR-007: Interfaces and System Configurations for
`ADSL: Customer Premises” (Mar. 1998)
`
`“TR-013: Interfaces and System Configuration for ADSL Central
`Office” (Jan. 1999)
`
`“Technical Report TR-022: The Operation of ADSL-based Networks”
`(1999)
`
`“DSL Forum Technical Report TR-023: Overview of ADSL Testing”
`(May 26, 1999)
`
`“Technical Report TR-026: T1.413 Issue 2 ATM based ADSL ICS”
`(Sep. 9, 1999)
`
`“Technical Report TR-029: ADSL Dynamic Interoperability Testing”
`(Feb. 2000)
`
`“Technical Report, DSL Forum TR-031: ADSL ANSI T1.413-1998
`Conformance Testing” (Mar. 2000)
`
`
`
` 
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`Description of Document
`
`“Technical Report, DSL Forum TR-033: ITU-T G.992.2 (G.lite) ICS”
`(Mar. 2000)
`
`PowerPoint Presentation, “ADSL and flavors in a nutshell”
`
`Bingham, “ADSL, VDSL, and Multicarrier Modulation” (2000)
`
`Kitz, “ADSL Technology and DMT”
`
`Tretter, “Communication System Design using DSP Algorithms”
`(2008)
`
`EE Times, “ADSL Technology Explained, Part 1: The Physical Layer”
`(Mar. 2001)
`
`EE Times, “ADSL2: Taking the Next Step in Broadband Designs” (Jul.
`2002)
`
`Rorke, “Introduction to Copper Access Technologies and ADSL,”
`Rhodes University Computer Science Honours (1997)
`
`Tuijl, “Modem Techniques”
`
`Frenzel, “Network Timing Reference from Frequency Synchronization
`in xDSL based Access Networks” (Nov. 2010)
`
`Cordes and Johansson, “Synchronization in ADSL Modems” (Dec.
`1998)
`
`University of California, “Overview of Cell Phone Technology”
`
`Radio-Electronics, “GSM Power Control and Power Class”
`
`ETSI, “Speech and multimedia Transmission Quality (STQ); QoS
`aspects for popular services in mobile networks; Part 2: Definition of
`Quality of Service parameters and their computation” (2016)
`
`Pettit, “Video Dialtone: Reflections on Changing Perspectives in
`Telecommunications Regulation,” Harvard Journal of Law and
`Technology, Vol. 6 (1993)
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. No.
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`Description of Document
`
`Fankhauser, et al. “The WaveVideo System and Network Architecture:
`Design and Implementation” (Jun. 1998)
`
`Hernandez, “April 20, 1964: Picturephone Dials Up First
`Transcontinental Video Call” (Apr. 2012)
`
`DSL Forum, “ADSL2 and ADSL2plus – The New ADSL Standards”
`(Mar. 2003)
`
`Abramson, “The Alohoa System – Another alternative for computer
`communications”, Fall Joint Computer Conference (1970)
`
`IEEE, “IEEE Standard for Ethernet” (Dec. 2012)
`
`Joint Claim Construction Chart, TQ Delta v. Dish Network Corp. et al.,
`15-cv-00614 (Jun. 30, 2016)
`
`Ex. No.
`
`1045
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1049
`
`1050
`
`1051 Website, "Streaming Video: Internet Broadcasting for the Masses"
`(1998)
`
`1052
`
`EE Times, “ADSL Technology Explained, Part 2: Getting to the
`Application Layer” (Apr. 2001)
`
`1053
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,181,711
`
`-vii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner DISH Network L.L.C. ( “DISH” or the “Petitioner”), respectfully
`
`submits this Petition for Inter Partes Review of claims 6, 11, 16 and 20 (“the
`
`Petitioned Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404 (“the ‘404 patent”)(Ex. 1001).
`
`As will be discussed in the following section, an IPR was previously filed for
`
`the ‘404 patent in June 2016, asserting claims 1-20. That case is assigned as
`
`IPR2016-01160 (“the ‘1160 petition”). Petitioner believes that this Petition is not
`
`repetitive of and should be instituted separately from the ‘1160 petition for several
`
`reasons. First, this Petition only addresses a subset of the claims addressed in the
`
`‘1160 petition and, as a result, provides more details and analysis than the ‘1160 as
`
`to why certain limitations are unpatentable over prior art references. Petitioner also
`
`relies on the prior art references differently than the ‘1160 petition. And, the
`
`motivation to combine arguments set forth herein are also different from, and
`
`provide additional detail to, those provided in the ‘1160 petition. Second, this
`
`Petition introduces a new prior art reference – European Patent Publication No. EP
`
`0883269. This reference is the parent to U.S. Patent No. 6,246,725, which was used
`
`in the ‘1160 Petition but was filed after the earliest possible priority date of the ‘404
`
`patent. The ‘1160 petition discusses how the ‘725 patent reaches back to its
`
`provisional application’s filing date to claim prior art status under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(e). The European Patent Publication (referred to herein as “Vanzieleghem”)
`
`
` 
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404
`
`used in this Petition, however, has a clear 102(e) priority date based on its actual
`
`filing date (as opposed to its provisional application’s filing date). Thus, the
`
`European Patent Publication avoids any potential dispute about priority dates that
`
`might arise with the ‘725 patent.
`
`For these reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board institute this
`
`Petition and find claims 6, 11, 16 and 20 obvious over the cited prior art (Ex. 1004-
`
`1006).
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)
`A. Real Party-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`Petitioner DISH Network L.L.C., along with DISH DBS Corporation and
`
`DISH Network Corporation, are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`The ‘404 patent is asserted in the following pending litigations:
`
`Name
`TQ Delta LLC v. Comcast
`Cable Communications
`LLC
`TQ Delta LLC v. CoxCom,
`LLC et al.
`TQ Delta LLC v.
`DIRECTV et al.
`TQ Delta LLC v. DISH
`Network Corporation et
`al.
`TQ Delta LLC v. Time
`Warner Cable Inc. et al.
`
`
`
` 
`
`Number
`1-15-cv-00611
`
`Court
`DED
`
`Filed
`July 17, 2015
`
`1-15-cv-00612
`
`1-15-cv-00613
`
`1-15-cv-00614
`
`DED
`
`DED
`
`DED
`
`July 17, 2015
`
`July 17, 2015
`
`July 17, 2015
`
`1-15-cv-00615
`
`DED
`
`July 17, 2015
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404
`
`TQ Delta LLC v. Verizon
`Communications, Inc. et
`al.
`TQ Delta LLC v. ADTRAN
`Inc.
`
`1-15-cv-00616
`
`1-14-cv-00954
`
`DED
`
`DED
`
`July 17, 2015
`
`July 17, 2014
`
`In addition, as previously mentioned, the ‘404 patent is involved in
`
`IPR2016-01160, Petition for Inter Partes Review by ARRIS Group, filed on June 6,
`
`2016. A Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,094,268, which
`
`claims priority to the ‘404 patent, is being filed concurrently with this Petition.
`
`Petitioner is not aware of any other judicial or administrative matters that would
`
`affect, or be affected by, a decision in this proceeding.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`Petitioners provide the following designation of counsel.
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`Heidi L. Keefe (Reg. No. 40,673) / hkeefe@cooley.com
`zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5001
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`Stephen McBride (pro hac vice to be filed) / smcbride@cooley.com
`Jennifer Volk (Reg. No. 62,305) / jvolkfortier@cooley.com
`Dish-TQDelta@cooley.com
`zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`
`
`
` 
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404
`
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (703) 456-8000
`Fax: (703) 456-8100
`D.
`As identified in the attached Certificate of Service, a copy of the present
`
`Service Information
`
`petition, in its entirety, including all Exhibits and a power of attorney, is being
`
`served by Federal Express, costs prepaid, to the address of the attorney or agent of
`
`record for the ‘404 patent: Jason H. Vick and Sabrina Stavish of Sheridan Ross,
`
`PC. Petitioner may be served at the address provided immediately above in Part
`
`II.C for lead and back-up counsel, and consents to electronic service at those
`
`addresses.
`
`Power of Attorney
`
`E.
`Filed concurrently with this Petition in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`This Petition requests review of claims 6, 11, 16 and 20 of the ‘404 patent. A
`
`payment of $23,000 is submitted herewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a). This Petition
`
`meets the fee requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(1).
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104
`AND 42.108
`A. Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioner certifies that the ‘404 patent is available for inter partes review, and
`
`
`
` 
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404
`
`that Petitioner is not barred or otherwise estopped from requesting inter partes
`
`review on the grounds identified herein. Petitioner is unaware of any previous
`
`petitions for inter partes review with respect to the ‘404 patent that have not already
`
`been identified.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested
`Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board initiate inter partes review of
`
`claims 6, 11, 16 and 20 of the ‘404 patent and requests that each claim be found
`
`unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on the following grounds:
`
`Ground
`1
`
`Basis for Challenge
`Claims
`6, 11, 16, 20 Obvious over Bowie in view of the 1995 ADSL Standard
`and Vanzieleghem under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Part IX below explains in detail why the Petitioned Claims are unpatentable
`
`based on this Ground.
`
`This Petition also cites additional materials for purposes of providing a
`
`technology background and describing the state of the art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention. These materials are also cited in the accompanying Declaration of Leo
`
`Hoarty (Ex. 1002), an expert with over forty years of technical experience, including
`
`extensive experience in the area of communications and messaging.
`
`
`
` 
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404
`
`
`C. Requirements for Inter Partes Review 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c)
`The Board should institute inter partes review of claims 6, 11, 16 and 20
`
`because this Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to
`
`each challenged claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`V. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE UNDERLYING TECHNOLOGY
`Mr. Hoarty provides a technology tutorial in his declaration. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶
`
`40-104.)
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE ‘404 PATENT
`A. Brief Description of the ‘404 Patent
`The ‘404 patent describes “a multicarrier transmission system having a low
`
`power sleep mode and a rapid-on capability.” (Ex. 1001 at 3:31-33.) The system
`
`includes a transceiver at the local central telephone office’s location (“CO
`
`transceiver”) and a transceiver at the customer’s premises (“CPE transceiver”).
`
`(Id., 3:62-4:5.) These transceivers communicate with each other over a telephone
`
`line. (Id.)
`
`Each transceiver includes a “transmitter section 12 for transmitting data over
`
`a digital subscriber line 14 and a receiver section 16 for receiving data from the
`
`line.” (Id., 4:14-17, FIG. 1.) The ‘404 patent describes one embodiment where both
`
`of the transmitter and receiver sections 12, 16 enter a low power mode (or “sleep”
`
`mode) such that power supplied to those sections 12, 16 is reduced or cut off. (Id.,
`
`
`
` 
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404
`
`6:61-7:16.) The ‘404 patent also describes another embodiment where the
`
`transceiver is placed into a “partial” sleep mode “in which only part of the
`
`transceiver is powered down.” (Id., 8:47-55.) For example, in this particular
`
`embodiment, the transmitter section 12 can operate in a low power or sleep mode
`
`while the receiver section 16 operates in a full power mode such that it can receive
`
`data and associated synchronization information. (Id.)
`
`The ‘404 patent describes that a transceiver entering a low power mode must
`
`first store a variety of line parameters comprising its “state memory”. (Id., 6:61-
`
`7:9.) Once the “controller receives an ‘Awaken’ indication…the transceiver
`
`retrieves its stored state from the state memory.” (Id., 7:59-8:1.) The stored state
`
`information “enables the rapid resumption of transmissions, whether from a power
`
`down or from an enforced idle condition due to temporary unavailability of
`
`processor resources in the case of an embedded transceiver.” (Id., 8:14-23.)
`
`To ensure that the two ends of the link can successfully communicate to
`
`restore normal operation, the ‘404 patent also discloses synchronization between
`
`the two transceivers connected by the ADSL link. (Id., 7:9-15.)
`
`B.
`
`Petitioned Claims of the ‘404 Patent
`
`Claim Limitation
`
`6[a] An apparatus comprising a transceiver operable to:
`6[b]
`receive, in a full power mode, a plurality of superframes, wherein the
`superframe comprises a plurality of data frames followed by a
`
`
`
` 
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404
`
`
`
`
`Claim Limitation
`
`6[c]
`6[d]
`6[e]
`
`6[f]
`6[g]
`
`synchronization frame;
`receive, in the full power mode, a synchronization signal;
`transmit a message to enter into a low power mode;
`store, in a low power mode, at least one parameter associated with the
`full power mode operation wherein the at least one parameter comprises
`at least one of a fine gain parameter and a bit allocation parameter;
`receive, in the low power mode, a synchronization signal; and
`exit from the low power and restore the full power mode by using the at
`least one parameter and without needing to reinitialize the transceiver.
`11[a] A method of multicarrier communications comprising:
`11[b]
`transmitting, by a transceiver, in a full power mode, a plurality of
`superframes, wherein the superframe comprises a plurality of data
`frames followed by a synchronization frame;
`transmitting, in the full power mode, a synchronization signal;
`11[c]
`receiving a message to enter into a low power mode;
`11[d]
`11[e] entering into the low power mode by reducing a power consumption of
`at least one portion of a transmitter;
`11[f] storing, in the low power mode, at least one parameter associated with
`the full power mode operation wherein the at least one parameter
`comprises at least one of a fine gain parameter and a bit allocation
`parameter;
`transmitting, in the low power mode, a synchronization signal; and
`11[g]
`11[h] exiting from the low power and restoring the full power mode by using
`the at least one parameter and without needing to reinitialize the
`transceiver.
`16[a] A method of multicarrier communications comprising:
`16[b]
`receiving, by a transceiver, in a full power mode, a plurality of
`superframes, wherein the superframe comprises a plurality of data
`frames followed by a synchronization frame;
`receiving, in the full power mode, a synchronization signal;
`transmitting a message to enter into a low power mode;
`-8-
`
`
`16[c]
`16[d]
`
`
` 
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404
`
`
`Claim Limitation
`
`16[e] storing, in a low power mode, at least one parameter associated with the
`full power mode operation wherein the at least one parameter comprises
`at least one of a fine gain parameter and a bit allocation parameter;
`
`receiving, in the low power mode, a synchronization signal; and
`
`16[f]
`
`16[g] exiting from the low power and restoring the full power mode by using
`the at least one parameter and without needing to reinitialize the
`transceiver.
`The method of claim 16, wherein the method is performed by a customer
`premises equipment that is receiving internet and video data.
`
`20
`
`Priority Claim of the ‘404 Patent
`
`C.
`The ‘404 patent was filed on May 6, 2013 as U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`13/887,889. It claims priority to numerous continuation applications and ultimately
`
`claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/072,447, which was filed on
`
`January 26, 1998. Thus, the ‘404 patent’s earliest possible priority date is January
`
`26, 1998.1
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3)
`A. Legal Overview
`A claim subject to inter partes review is given its “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37
`                                               
`
` Petitioners do not challenge the priority date of the ‘404 patent here; however,
`
` 1
`
`they reserve the right to do so in a later response or in another proceeding.
`
`
`
` 
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b). As the Federal Circuit has recognized, the “broadest reasonable
`
`construction” standard is fundamentally different from the manner in which the
`
`scope of a claim is determined in litigation. See In re Swanson, 540 F.3d 1368,
`
`1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the constructions proposed in this Petition
`
`are not necessarily the construction that would be appropriate in litigation.
`
`Proposed Claim Constructions
`
`B.
`Petitioner’s proposed claim constructions for selected terms are provided
`
`below. Any claim terms not expressly construed herein should be given their plain
`
`and ordinary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”). (See Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 110-111.)
`
`“Low Power Mode” (claims 6, 11, 16)
`
`1.
`The broadest reasonable interpretation for “low power mode” is “a mode in
`
`which power to circuitry is reduced for the purpose of power conservation.”
`
`According to the specification, “it is an object of the invention to provide a
`
`multicarrier transmission system having a low power sleep mode and a rapid-on
`
`capability.” (Ex. 1001, 3:31-33.) The purpose of sleep mode is “power
`
`conservation as well as to accommodate [the transceiver] to integration with, or
`
`incorporation into, computer systems having a power conservation mode.” (Id.,
`
`9:58-63.) “It is thus desirable that the transceiver be able to suspend operations and
`
`enter a ‘sleep’ mode in which it consumes reduced power when it is not needed for
`
`
`
` 
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404
`
`data transmission or reception.” (Id., 6:1-6.)
`
`“Fine Gain Parameter” (claims 6, 11, 16)
`
`2.
`The ‘404 patent does not define the term “fine gain parameter” and there is
`
`nothing in the specification that provides guidance as to the meaning of this term.
`
`At best, the ‘404 patent describes “setting the channel gains” and then “adjusting
`
`the fine gains on the subchannel over which communication is to take place.” (Id.,
`
`3:7-16; see also, 4:32-35, 7:2-9, 7:35-42, 8:4-12.) There are other mentions of
`
`“fine gain” throughout the specification but all in the same context. (see, e.g., id.,
`
`7:2-9, 7:35-42, 8:4-12.)
`
`Patent Owner asserted a claim construction for this term in the TQ Delta
`
`LLC v. DISH Network Corporation et al. litigation to which Petitioner is a party.
`
`This construction reads: “a parameter used to determine power level on a per
`
`subcarrier basis.” (Ex. 1050, 4.) Petitioner does not acquiesce to this construction
`
`but, for the sake of clarity, Petitioner adopts this construction here. Thus, the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation for “fine gain parameter” is “a parameter used to
`
`determine power level on a per subcarrier basis.”
`
`“Transceiver” (claim 6)
`
`3.
`The broadest
`
`reasonable
`
`interpretation
`
`for
`
`“transceiver”
`
`is
`
`“a
`
`communications device capable of transmitting and receiving.” This is the
`
`
`
` 
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404
`
`construction proposed by Patent Owner in the corresponding litigation and is
`
`consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning for this term. (Ex. 1050, 8.)
`
`VIII. PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART & STATE OF THE ART
`The ‘404 patent is directed to a multicarrier transceiver with a low power
`
`mode setting. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 27-34.) At the time of the alleged invention, a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of 1998 would hold a bachelor’s
`
`degree or the equivalent in electrical engineering (or related academic fields) and at
`
`least five years of additional work experience in the area of digital and/or
`
`telecommunication system design, as applicable to DSL systems, or equivalent
`
`work experience. (Id., ¶ 29.)
`
`IX. CLAIMS 6, 11, 16 AND 20 ARE RENDERED OBVIOUS OVER BOWIE IN VIEW
`OF THE 1995 ADSL STANDARD AND VANZIELEGHEM (GROUND 1)
`A. Overview of the Prior Art
`1. Overview of Bowie
`Bowie was filed on July 30, 1997 and issued on September 21, 1999. Because
`
`the earliest priority date of the ‘404 patent is January 26, 1998, Bowie qualifies as
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`
`
` 
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404
`
`
`Bowie describes “[m]ethods and apparatus for conserving power in terminal
`
`units that transmit and receive modulated data over a communications loop.” (Ex.
`
`1004,
`
`Abstract.)
`
`The
`
`terminal
`
`unit
`
`is
`
`an
`
`asymmetric
`
`digital
`
`subscriber line (ADSL) unit.
`
`(Id., 3:24-37.) In one of the
`
`disclosed embodiments, as
`
`shown in Figure 2 of Bowie
`
`(at right), an ADSL unit is
`
`located at each end of a wire loop 220. (Id., 3:51-52.) There is one ADSL unit
`
`located on the subscriber’s premise 240, which is referred to as a “customer
`
`premises equipment (CPE) ADSL unit 242.” (Id., 3:52-54.) And, a second ADSL
`
`unit located at the telephone company’s central office 230, which is referred to as
`
`the “central office terminal (COT) unit 232.” (Id., 3:54-57.)
`
`
`
` 
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404
`
`
`Each of the ADSL units 232, 242 have the internal components shown in
`
`Figure 1 of Bowie (at right). Both units 232, 242 also have a “low power mode” to
`
`reduce
`
`the
`
`power
`
`requirements
`
`for
`
`these
`
`components during operation.
`
`(Id., 5:6-16.) According to
`
`Bowie, “[e]ither unit may
`
`initiate the low power mode.”
`
`(Id.) For example, Bowie
`
`discloses that CPE unit 242
`
`can initiate the low power
`
`mode by “sending a shut-
`
`down signal” to the COT unit
`
`232 in the form of a “series of signaling bits”. (Id., 5:6-16, 7:12-19, 2:25-27.)
`
`When a shut-down signal is received by one of the units 232, 242, Bowie
`
`explains that certain “handshaking” information is stored at that unit. (Id., 5:17-
`
`24.) Such handshaking information includes “loop loss characteristics, which are a
`
`function of loop length, wire gauge, wire composition, and other factors.” (Id.,
`
`4:64-5:5.) “Storing loop characteristics enables rapid resumption of user data
`
`transmission when the units are returned to full power mode” because it “reduc[es]
`
`-14-
`
`
` 
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404
`
`the time needed to determine loop transmission characteristics” (i.e., handshaking).
`
`(Id., 5:23-25, 5:62-66.)
`
`During “low power mode”, the units 232, 242 in Bowie shut off the
`
`“unnecessary sections” of the transmitting and receiving circuitry. (Id., 5:25-28.)
`
`However, the resume signal detector 115 circuitry portion of the receiver “must
`
`remain capable of signal detection during low power operation.” (Id., 5:29-31,
`
`5:55-56.) In other words, this circuitry 115 in Bowie must remain in a full power
`
`mode while the other “unnecessary sections” of the unit 232, 242 are in a low
`
`power mode.
`
`2. Overview of the 1995 ADSL Standard
`ANSI T1.413 was approved on August 18, 1995, published shortly
`
`thereafter, and is prior art under § 102(b). (Ex. 1006, 3.) The cover page indicates
`
`that the 1995 ADSL Standard was published by the “American National Standards
`
`Institute” and lists copyright as “©1995 by Alliance for Telecommunications
`
`Industry Solutions”. (Ex. 1006, 4.) It was known at the time that ANSI policy was to
`
`publish standards and make them available as soon as possible; so, the 1995 ADSL
`
`standard was likely published on or shortly after the August 18, 1995 approval date.
`
`(See, e.g., Ex. 1007, 21 (“American National Standards shall be published and made
`
`available as soon as possible, but no later than six months after approval”).) Exhibits
`
`1008 and 1009, which are date stamped versions of the 1995 ADSL Standard,
`
`
` 
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter