UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________
`
`DISH Network L.L.C.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TQ Delta, LLC
`
`_____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,014,243
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`V.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................ 1
`A.
`Real Party-in-Interest ........................................................................... 1
`B.
`Related Matters ..................................................................................... 1
`C.
`Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information .......................... 2
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ....................................................................... 2
`III. RELIEF REQUESTED .................................................................................. 3
`IV. REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF ............................................. 3
`A.
`Summary of Reasons ............................................................................ 3
`B.
`Summary of the ‘243 Patent ................................................................. 5
`C.
`Prosecution History .............................................................................. 8
`D. Note Regarding Page Citations ............................................................ 8
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES AND CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................................... 9
`A.
`Challenged Claims ............................................................................... 9
`B.
`Claim Construction .............................................................................. 9
`1.
`“multicarrier” (claims 1-25): ...................................................... 9
`2.
`“transceiver” (claims 1-12, 15-17, 20, 22 and 23): .................... 9
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges ...................................................... 10
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................... 10
`Identification of How the Claims Are Unpatentable ......................... 11
`1.
`Challenge #1: Claims 1-3, 7-9, 13-16, and 20-22 are
`rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Shively
`in view of Stopler ..................................................................... 11
`1.
`Brief Summary of Shively ............................................. 11
`a)
`Brief Summary of Stopler ................................... 13
`b)
`Reasons to Combine ............................................ 14
`c)
`Detailed Claim Analysis ...................................... 16
`
`C.
`D.
`E.
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Challenge #2: 4-6, 10-12, 17-19 and 23-25 are rendered
`obvious under 35 U.S.C ........................................................... 43
`a)
`Brief Summary of Gerszberg .............................. 44
`b)
`Reasons to Combine ............................................ 44
`c)
`Detailed Claim Analysis ...................................... 48
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 53
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`May 9, 2016
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243 to Tzannes (“the ’243 patent”)
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Pat. No. 9,014,243
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Pat. No. 8,355,427
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Pat. No. 8,218,610
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Pat. No. 8,073,041
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Pat. No. 7,292,627
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Pat. No. 6,961,369
`
`Ex. 1008 U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/164,134
`
`Ex. 1009 Declaration of Dr. Jose Tellado under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`Ex. 1010 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Jose Tellado
`
`Ex. 1011 U.S. Patent No. 6,144,696 to Shively et al. (“Shively”)
`
`Ex. 1012 U.S. Patent No. 6,625,219 to Stopler (“Stopler”)
`
`Ex. 1013 U.S. Patent No. 6,424,646 to Gerszberg et al. (“Gerszberg”)
`Ex. 1014 Harry Newton, NEWTON’S TELECOM DICTIONARY, 13th Ed. (1998)
`(selected pages)
`
`Ex. 1015 Kim Maxwell, “Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line: Interim
`Technology for the Next Forty Years,” IEEE Communications
`Magazine (Oct. 1996).
`
`Ex. 1016 Walter Goralski, ADSL AND DSL TECHNOLOGIES (McGraw-Hill
`1998) (selected pages)
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`Ex. 1017 American National Standard for Telecommunications, Network and
`Customer Installation Interfaces-Asymmetric Digital Subscribers
`Line (ADSL) Metallic Interface (ANSI T1.413-1995)
`
`Ex. 1018 Declaration of David Bader
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`I. Mandatory Notices
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`
`Petitioner DISH Network L.L.C., along with DISH DBS Corporation and
`
`DISH Network Corporation are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`To the best knowledge of the petitioner, the ‘243 patent is involved in the
`
`following 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
`TQ Delta LLC v. Time Warner Cable
`Inc.
`TQ Delta LLC v. Verizon
`Communications, Inc.
`
`
`Court Filed
`Number
`1-15-cv-00611 DED
`Jul. 17, 2015
`
`1-15-cv-00612 DED
`1-15-cv-00613 DED
`1-15-cv-00614 DED
`
`Jul. 17, 2015
`Jul. 17, 2015
`Jul. 17, 2015
`
`1-15-cv-00615 DED
`
`Jul. 17, 2015
`
`1-15-cv-00616 DED
`
`Jul. 17, 2015
`
`The ’243 Patent and related U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158 (“the ’158 Patent”)
`
`are involved in the following related matters:
`
`Name
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of the
`’243 Patent by Cisco Systems, Inc.
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of the
`’158 Patent by Cisco Systems, Inc.
`
`
`Court Filed
`Number
`IPR2016-01020 PTAB May 9, 2016
`
`IPR2016-01021 PTAB May 9, 2016
`
`Concurrent with the filing of this Petition, Petitioner is also filing a Petition
`
`1
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`for the related ’158 Patent.
`
`
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information
`
`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
`Dish-TQDelta@cooley.com
`zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (703) 456-8000
`Fax: (703) 456-8100
`
`
`
`II. Grounds for Standing
`
`Petitioner certifies that it is not estopped or barred from requesting inter
`
`partes review of the ‘243 Patent because this petition is accompanied by a motion
`
`for joinder. The one-year time bar of 35 U.S.C. §315(b) does not apply to a
`
`request for joinder. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) (final sentence) (“[t]he time limitation set
`
`forth in the preceding sentence shall not apply to a request for joinder under
`
`subsection (c)”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`III. Relief Requested
`
`Petitioner asks that the Board review the accompanying prior art and
`
`analysis, institute a trial for inter partes review of claims 1-25 of the ‘243 patent,
`
`and cancel those claims as unpatentable.
`
`IV. Reasons for the Requested Relief
`
`As explained below, the concepts described and claimed in the ‘243 patent
`
`were not patentable. This petition and Dr. Jose Tellado’s declaration explain where
`
`each element is found in the prior art and why the claims would have been obvious
`
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) when the ‘243 patent was filed.
`
`A.
`
`Summary of Reasons
`
`The ‘243 patent generally describes transmitting data using discrete
`
`multitone transmission (DMT), a multicarrier technology commonly associated
`
`with Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) service. The ‘243 patent explains that if the
`
`phases of the multiple carrier signals are not substantially random, the resulting
`
`transmission signal will have a high peak-to-average power ratio (PAR), raising
`
`power consumption and/or the probability of clipping of the transmission signal.
`
`The ‘243 patent notes that an example scenario in which the carrier signals are not
`
`random is when the same data bits are transmitted on multiple carriers.
`
`The use of multiple carriers to transmit redundant data bits was not new, as
`
`shown in U.S. Patent No. 6,144,696 to Shively (Ex. 1011, “Shively”). Shively
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`describes sending a single bit of data on multiple carriers that that would otherwise
`
`be unusable because of excessive noise. By making use of otherwise “wasted”
`
`portions of the frequency spectrum, Shively’s redundant-bit transmission technique
`
`actually increases the data rate of the communication channel. A person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have recognized, however, that transmitting the
`
`same bit (or bits) on multiple carriers reduces the apparent randomness of the
`
`transmitted signal, and thus increases the peak-to-average power ratio (PAR).
`
`The ‘243 patent addresses the potential for a high peak-to-average power
`
`ratio (PAR) by employing a phase scrambler. This technique was also known in
`
`the prior art. U.S. Patent No. 6,625,219 to Stopler (Ex. 1012, “Stopler”), for
`
`example, describes a multicarrier transmitter with a phase scrambler for scrambling
`
`phases of the carrier signals. As explained further below and by Dr. Tellado, a
`
`POSITA would have recognized that a phase scrambler could be similarly
`
`employed to reduce the PAR of Shively’s system.
`
`The ‘243 patent also describes various uses for multicarrier signal
`
`transmission, such as providing cable, DSL, VDSL, wireless, high speed internet,
`
`and video services. Providing such services via a multicarrier signal transmission
`
`was known before the earliest priority date of the ‘243 patent, as these ideas were
`
`described in U.S. Patent No. 6,424,646 to Gerszberg (Ex. 1013, “Gerszberg”).
`
`The evidence in this petition demonstrates that claims 1-25 of the ‘243
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`patent recite obvious combinations of known features and are unpatentable.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests that claims 1-25 of the ‘243 patent be
`
`held unpatentable.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the ‘243 Patent
`
`The ‘243 patent relates “to communications systems using multicarrier
`
`modulation.” Ex. 1001, 1:26-29. More specifically, the ‘243 patent states that “the
`
`present invention features a system and a method that scrambles the phase
`
`characteristics of the modulated carrier signals in a transmission signal.” Ex. 1001,
`
`2:34-36. This phase scrambling is described in the context of a digital subscriber
`
`line (DSL) communication system that includes a discrete multitone (DMT)
`
`transmitter. Ex. 1001, 3:25-30. While the purpose of the phase scrambling is not
`
`identified in the claims, the specification states that the phase scrambling is used to
`
`“produce a transmission signal with a reduced PAR.” Ex. 1001, Abstract.
`
`The ‘243 patent describes how each of the multiple carrier signals is
`
`modulated to convey data using quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM). Ex.
`
`1001, 3:63-4:9. QAM is a prior art technique that manipulates both the amplitude
`
`and phase of the carrier. Ex. 1009, p. 13. By using multiple amplitudes and phase
`
`shifts, multiple bits of data can be modulated onto the carrier simultaneously. Id. A
`
`specific amplitude and phase-shift combination is sometimes referred to as a QAM
`
`symbol, and the relationship between these QAM symbols and the data that they
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`represent is called a constellation. Id., p. 13. Below is an example of a 16-level
`
`QAM constellation showing 16 different combinations of phase and amplitude,
`
`each of which would represent a distinct 4-bit value.
`
`Ex. 1009, p. 14.
`
`Fig. 1 of the ‘243 patent illustrates a functional block diagram of an
`
`exemplary communication system capable of the claimed techniques.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`Claims 1, 13 and 20 are the independent claims. Claim 1 is representative:
`
`1. A method, in a multicarrier communications transceiver comprising
`a bit scrambler followed by a phase scrambler, comprising:
`scrambling, using the bit scrambler, a plurality of input bits to generate a
`plurality of scrambled output bits, wherein at least one scrambled
`output bit is different than a corresponding input bit;
`scrambling, using the phase scrambler, a plurality of carrier phases
`associated with the plurality of scrambled output bits;
`transmitting at least one scrambled output bit on a first carrier; and
`transmitting the at least one scrambled output bit on a second
`carrier.
`
`Ex. 1001, 10:58-11:5.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The ‘243 patent was filed as U.S. Patent Application No. 13/718,016 (“the
`
`‘016 application”) on December 18, 2012. The earliest claim priority date for ‘243
`
`patent is to provisional Application No. 60/164,134, filed on November 9, 1999.
`
`The ‘016 application was filed with a preliminary amendment cancelling
`
`original claims 1-20 and presenting new claims 21-41. Ex. 1002 at 255. During
`
`prosecution, all of the claims were rejected over two patents—U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`5,896,419 to Suzuki and U.S. Patent No. 5,903,614 to Suzuki et al. Ex. 1002 at
`
`117-120. The Applicant responded to the rejections by amending the independent
`
`claims to recite “wherein at least one scrambled output bit is different than a
`
`corresponding input bit.” Ex. 1002 at 85-88. According to the Applicant, the
`
`amendment is supported by “the known definition of scrambler” as “discussed in
`
`Wikipedia.” Ex. 1002 at 89. The Examiner then allowed the claims. Ex. 1002 at
`
`70. The ‘243 patent issued on April 21, 2015.
`
`D. Note Regarding Page Citations
`
`For exhibits that include suitable page numbers from in their original
`
`publication, Petitioner’s citations are to those original page numbers and not to the
`
`page numbers added for compliance with 37 CFR 42.63(d)(2)(ii).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`V.
`
`Identification of Challenges and Claim Construction
`
`A. Challenged Claims
`
`Claims 1-25 of the ‘243 patent are challenged in this petition.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`This petition analyzes the claims consistent with the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner
`
`also proposes construing the following claim terms.
`
`1.
`
`“multicarrier” (claims 1-25):
`
`The ‘243 patent does not expressly define this term. Ex. 1009, p. 17.
`
`However, the specification of the ‘243 patent describes a “conventional
`
`multicarrier communications system” as using a “combination of multiple
`
`carriers.” Ex. 1001, 1:33-47. Consistent with the specification’s description of this
`
`term and for the purposes of this proceeding, the broadest reasonable construction
`
`of the term “multicarrier” includes “multiple carriers.” Ex. 1009, p. 19.
`
`2.
`
`“transceiver” (claims 1-12, 15-17, 20, 22 and 23):
`
`The ‘243 patent does not expressly define this term. Ex. 1009, p. 19.
`
`However, the specification of the ‘243 patent states that “[t]he DMT transceiver 10
`
`includes a DMT transmitter 22 and a DMT receiver 26.” Ex. 1001, 3:25-37. The
`
`‘243 patent specification also states that a “transceiver” may be a modem, such as a
`
`wireless modem. Ex. 1001, 3:38-50. A technical dictionary defines “transceiver” as
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`“any device that transmits and receives.” Ex. 1014, p. 709. Consistent with the
`
`specification’s description of this term and the dictionary definition, and for the
`
`purposes of this proceeding, the broadest reasonable construction of the term
`
`“transceiver” includes a “device, such as a modem, with a transmitter and a
`
`receiver.” Ex. 1009, p. 21.
`
`C.
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges
`
`Challenge #1: Claims 1-3, 7-9, 13-16, and 20-22 are obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Shively (Ex. 1011) in view of Stopler (Ex. 1012). Shively
`
`was filed on December 31, 1997. See Ex. 1011. Stopler was filed on February 26,
`
`1999. See Ex. 1012. Accordingly, both Shively and Stopler are prior art under
`
`§ 102(e).
`
`Challenge #2: Claims 4-6, 10-12, 17-19 and 23-25 are obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Shively in view of Stopler, and further in view of Gerszberg
`
`(Ex. 1013). Gerszberg was filed on December 31, 1997. See Ex. 1013.
`
`Accordingly, Gerszberg is prior art under § 102(e).
`
`D. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected by the prior art of
`
`record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re
`
`GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Here, the person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art is someone knowledgeable concerning multicarrier communications.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`That person would have (i) a Master’s degree in Electrical and/or Computer
`
`Engineering, or equivalent training, and (ii) approximately five years of experience
`
`working in multicarrier telecommunications. Ex. 1009, p.6-8. Lack of work
`
`experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa. Id., p. 8.
`
`E.
`
`Identification of How the Claims Are Unpatentable
`
`1.
`
`Challenge #1: Claims 1-3, 7-9, 13-16, and 20-22 are
`rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Shively in
`view of Stopler
`
`Claims 1-3, 7-9, 13-16, and 20-22 of the ‘243 patent are rendered obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Shively in view of Stopler. Ex. 1009, p. 22.
`
`1.
`
`Brief Summary of Shively
`
`Shively describes the “discrete multitone transmission (DMT) of data by
`
`digital subscriber line (DSL) modems.” Shively explains that communications
`
`standards, such as ANSI T1.413-1995, establish upper limits on the power for each
`
`frequency sub-band of the communication channel. Ex. 1011, 2:12-15. This limit,
`
`known as the power spectral density mask, refers to the power as a function of
`
`frequency or tones on the channel from data transmissions. Ex. 1011, 1:48-50,
`
`1:60-65; Ex. 1009, p. 22. External standards may also “impose limits on the
`
`aggregate power of a signal (the power applied in all the sub-band channels.” Ex
`
`1011, 1:46-48.
`
`In certain subchannels, it is possible for the interaction between the
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`aggregate power limit, the existing noise, and the attenuation of transmitted signals
`
`to leave little or no room for data to be transmitted. Shively illustrates this concept
`
`in Fig. 1, where line A is the combined effect of noise and attenuation across the
`
`subchannels, line B is the transmit power required to effectively send one bit per
`
`subchannel, and line C is the power limit. Ex. 1011, 2:1-12.
`
`Ex. 1011, Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`Fig. 1 shows some subchannels (such as b4) where a signal could be
`
`transmitted, but there is insufficient room between the attenuation/noise floor (line
`
`A) and the power limit (line C) for the signal to reliably transmit even a single bit.
`
`Ex. 1009, pp. 22-23. Shively teaches a mechanism for exploiting such power-
`
`limited subchannels by transmitting the same bit on two or more such subchannels.
`
`Ex. 1011, 16:21-29; Ex. 1009, p. 23. By summing the signals across the two
`
`subchannels, the receiver can achieve the signal-to-noise ratio necessary to reliably
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`decode the transmitted bit. Ex. 1011, 16:21-29. Thus, Shively provides a “method
`
`for increasing a data rate in a communication channel” by transmitting data on
`
`“those parts of the band where transmission would otherwise be impossible.” Ex.
`
`1011, 8:2-3 & 16:6-7.
`
`a)
`
`Brief Summary of Stopler
`
`Like Shively, Stopler describes multicarrier data transmission, including
`
`specifically the use of discrete multitone transmission (DMT). Ex. 1012, 1:50-51.
`
`Stopler explains that DMT is one type of multitone modulation, which involves “a
`
`number of narrow-band carriers positioned at different frequencies, all transmitting
`
`simultaneously in parallel.” Ex. 1012, 1:9-11 & 1:42-45.
`
`Stopler explains that its multitone modulation techniques are compatible
`
`with various signal modulation technologies, an example of which employs 256
`
`carriers positioned at different frequencies. Ex. 1012, 1:42-61; 12:55-57. Stopler
`
`also explains that its signal transmission scheme may implement techniques of
`
`DSL standards such as “ADSL (Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line).” Ex. 1012,
`
`9:37-41, 12:21-24.
`
`Stopler also explains that some of the available carriers may be reserved for
`
`the transmission of overhead signals, such as pilot tones. Ex. 1012, 10:60-62 &
`
`12:51-54. To randomize these overhead channels, Stopler employs a phase
`
`scrambler. Ex. 1012, 12:24-26. A POSITA would have understood that the values
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`transmitted in an overhead channel may not be random, and in fact, may be highly
`
`structured. Ex. 1009, p. 24. Without the phase scrambler, the structured nature of
`
`the overhead channel could contribute to an increase in the peak-to-average power
`
`ratio of the transmitter. Ex. 1009, pp. 24-25.
`
`Stopler is analogous to the ‘243 patent because both Stopler and the ‘243
`
`patent are in the same field of endeavor - data communications and processing. Ex.
`
`1009 at 25; see also Ex. 1012, 1:7-8; Ex. 1001, 1:28-31.
`
`b)
`
`Reasons to Combine
`
`It would have been obvious for a POSITA to combine Shively and Stopler
`
`because the combination is merely a use of a known technique to improve a similar
`
`device, method or product in the same way. Ex. 1009 at 26.
`
`A POSITA would have recognized that by transmitting redundant data on
`
`multiple carriers, Shively’s transmitter would suffer from an increased peak-
`
`toaverage power ratio. Ex. 1009, p. 26. This increase is due to the fact that the
`
`overall transmitted signal in a multicarrier system is essentially the sum of its
`
`multiple subcarriers. Id. When N subcarrier signals with the same phase are added
`
`together, they have a peak power which is N times greater than their individual
`
`maximum powers. Id.
`
`Since Shively’s subcarriers use quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM)—
`
`which encodes bits to be transmitted by modulating the phase and amplitude of the
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`subcarrier—transmitting the same bits on two different subcarriers causes those
`
`subcarriers to have the same phase and amplitude. Id. By transmitting the same bits
`
`on multiple subcarriers, Shively creates a situation where those multiple
`
`subcarriers will be phase-aligned. Id. Having phase-aligned subcarriers causes a
`
`high peak-to-average power ratio (PAR), since all of the subcarriers add up
`
`coherently at the same time. Id. The ‘243 patent acknowledges that it was known
`
`for a high PAR to result from transmitting the same data on multiple carriers. Ex.
`
`1001, 2:17-21.
`
`Since a high PAR brings numerous disadvantages, a POSITA would have
`
`sought out an approach to reduce the PAR of Shively’s transmitter. Ex. 1009, p.
`
`27.
`
`Stopler provides a solution for reducing the PAR of a multicarrier
`
`transmitter. Specifically, Stopler teaches that a phase scrambler can be employed
`
`to randomize the phase of the individual subcarriers. Ex. 1011, 12:24-28. A
`
`POSITA would have recognized that by randomizing the phase of each subcarrier,
`
`Stopler provides a technique that allows two subcarriers in Shively’s system to
`
`transmit the same bits, but without those two subcarriers having the same phase.
`
`Ex. 1009, p. 27. Since the two subcarriers are out-of-phase with one another, the
`
`subcarriers will not add up coherently at the same time, and thus the peak-to-
`
`average power ratio for the overall system will be less than in Shively’s original
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`system. Ex. 1009, p.27-28.
`
`Combining Stopler’s phase scrambler into Shively’s transmitter would have
`
`been a relatively simple and obvious solution to reduce Shively’s PAR. Ex. 1009,
`
`p. 28.
`
`Market forces would have prompted the development of multicarrier
`
`communications devices, such as Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) modems,
`
`employing both redundant bit transmission and phase scrambling. As Shively
`
`explains, effective use of redundant bit transmission actually increases the
`
`available bandwidth by exploiting subcarriers that would otherwise be wasted
`
`(unused). Combining redundant bit transmission with Stopler’s phase scrambling
`
`technique would have allowed the development of faster DSL modems without
`
`requiring more complex (and expensive) circuitry for handling an increased
`
`peakto-average power ratio. Ex. 1009, p. 28.
`
`Thus, it would have been obvious to combine Shively and Stopler as the
`
`combination is merely the use of a known technique to improve a similar device,
`
`method or product in the same way. Id., p. 29.
`
`c)
`
`Detailed Claim Analysis
`
`Claim 1
`
`[1.0] “A method, in a multicarrier communications transceiver comprising”
`
`Shively and Stopler each render this limitation obvious. Shively describes a
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`“method for transmission in a multitone communication system.” Ex. 1011, 3:28-
`
`29. In connection with Shively’s method, it was known to employ multicarrier
`
`communications techniques, such as discrete multitone modulation, using a
`
`modem. Ex. 1009, p. 29; Ex. 1011, 1:5-7 (“This invention relates to discrete
`
`multitone transmission (DMT) of data by digital subscriber loop (DSL)
`
`modems.”). DMT is an example of a multicarrier modulation system. See Ex.
`
`1001, 1:35-38. As discussed in the claim construction of “transceiver,” a modem is
`
`an example of a transceiver. Ex. 1009, p. 30.
`
`Shively illustrates in Fig. 2 (below) two communicating modems, where “a
`
`transmitting modem 31 . . . [is] connected to a receiving modem 32.” Ex. 1011,
`
`9:42, 9:63-64 & Fig. 2. The transmitting modem is a “multicarrier communications
`
`transceiver.” Ex. 1009, p. 30.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1011, Fig. 2.
`
`Similarly, Stopler teaches “a method and apparatus for encoding/framing a
`
`data stream of multitone modulated signals.” Ex. 1012, 1:7-12. Stopler explains
`
`that “[m]ultitone modulation is a signal transmission scheme which uses a number
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`of narrow-band carriers positioned at different frequencies, all transmitting simul-
`
`taneously in parallel.” Ex. 1012, 1:42-49. “The discrete bands or subchannels are
`
`independently modulated, and each have a carrier frequency[.]” Ex. 1012, 1:42-49.
`
`Stopler identifies that “[o]ne type of multitone transmission scheme is
`
`discrete multitone” or DMT. Ex. 1012, 1:50-58; Ex. 1009, pp. 31-32. As
`
`previously noted, this is the same multicarrier technology used in the ‘243 patent.
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:35-38. Accordingly, a POSITA would have recognized that Stopler’s
`
`method for encoding multitone modulated signals is a method that uses
`
`“multicarrier communications” because it transmits using multiple carriers. Ex.
`
`1009, p. 32.
`
`Stopler also teaches that “[d]igital data communications systems are
`
`commonly used to transmit and/or receive data.” Ex. 1012, 1:14-16. Accordingly,
`
`it would have been obvious for Stopler’s multicarrier communications apparatus to
`
`both transmit data and receive data. Ex. 1009, p. 32. The transmitter to transmit
`
`data and the receiver to receive data at the communications apparatus would have
`
`been understood to be a “transceiver.” Ex. 1009, p. 32.
`
`Thus, a POSITA would have recognized that Shively and Stopler each
`
`describe multicarrier communications apparatuses, such as modems, and also
`
`methods performed by such modems. Ex. 1009, p. 33. Shively and Stopler
`
`therefore render obvious “a method, in a multicarrier communications transceiver.”
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`Id.
`
`[1.1] “a bit scrambler followed by a phase scrambler, comprising:”
`
`Stopler renders obvious this limitation because it teaches that the transmitter
`
`of the multicarrier communications apparatus (the “transceiver” of portion [1.0])
`
`includes scrambler 56 followed by a QAM mapper and phase scrambler 82:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1009, p. 33; Ex. 1012, Fig. 5 (annotated).
`
`The scrambler 56 is a bit scrambler because it scrambles a bit stream by
`
`randomizing the data (the bits) of the bit stream. Ex. 1012, 9:34-37 (“The data
`
`output by the interleaver 54 is rearranged into a serial bit stream (MSB first) and
`
`then scrambled in scrambler 56, which is used to randomize the coded and
`
`interleaved data.”); Ex. 1009, pp. 33-34.
`
`Thus, Stopler’s scrambler 56 followed by the QAM mapper and phase
`
`scrambler 82 renders obvious “a bit scrambler followed by a phase scrambler.” Ex.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`1009, p. 34.
`
`[1.2] “scrambling, using the bit scrambler, a plurality of input bits to generate a
`
`plurality of scrambled output bits,”
`
`Stopler renders obvious this limitation because it teaches that “data output
`
`by the interleaver 54 is rearranged into a serial bit stream (MSB first) and then
`
`scrambled in scrambler 56, which is used to randomize the coded and interleaved
`
`data.” Ex. 1012, 9:34-48. The bits are randomized by performing an exclusive-OR
`
`(XOR) operation between the plurality of input bits and a randomizing sequence of
`
`bits. Ex. 1009, p.34.; Ex. 1012, 9:34-48 (“The scrambler 56 generates a
`
`randomizing sequence according to the rule: DS(n)=DS(n-14)DS(n-15).The
`
`serialized bit stream from the interleaver 54 is XORed with DS(n). Specifically,
`
`data bit ‘n’ is XOR’d with DS(n).”). A POSITA would have recognized that
`
`Stopler’s generating a randomizing sequence that is XORed with an input bit
`
`stream constitutes “scrambling . . . a plurality of input bits,” as claimed. Ex. 1009,
`
`p. 35.
`
`Stopler also teaches that after the scrambler 56 performs the XOR operation,
`
`the scrambled bits are “output by the scrambler 56 . . . .” Ex. 1012, 9:48-49.
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`
`
`Ex. 1009, p. 35; Ex. 1012, Fig. 5 (annotated).
`
`Thus, Stopler’s scrambler 56 that outputs an input bit stream XORed with a
`
`generated randomizing sequence renders obvious “scrambling, using the bit
`
`scrambler, a plurality of input bits to generate a plurality of scrambled output bits.”
`
`Ex. 1009, p. 36.
`
`[1.3] “wherein at least one scrambled output bit is different than a corresponding
`
`input bit;”
`
`Stopler renders obvious this limitation because it teaches that the bits of the
`
`serial bit stream are “scrambled in scrambler 56” to “randomize” the data. Ex.
`
`1012, 9:34-47. In particular, the scrambled output bits result from a XOR operation
`
`performed on the input bits of the bit stream using a randomizing sequence of bits
`
`(the “DS(n)” sequence discussed above in [1.2]). Ex. 1009, p. 36; see Ex. 1012,
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`9:34-47. A POSITA would have recognized that the XOR operation would result
`
`in at least one input bit to be changed when the corresponding bit in the
`
`randomizing sequence has a value of 1. Ex. 1009, p. 37. Thus, the scrambled
`
`output bits that result from performing an XOR operation on the plurality of input
`
`bits and a randomizing sequence of bits, as disclosed by Stopler, renders obvious
`
`“at least one scrambled output bit is different than a corresponding input bit.” Ex.
`
`1009, pp. 37-38.
`
`[1.4a] “scrambling, using the phase scrambler, a plurality of carrier phases”
`
`Shively in view of Stopler renders this limitation obvious. First, Stopler
`
`teaches that th