UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`Case IPR2016-
`
`Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. SAYFE KIAEI UNDER
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.68 IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,432,956 '
`
`ARRIS-1009
`
`Arris Group, Inc. v. TQ Delta
`
`Page 1 of 93
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`VI.
`
`Introduction .................................................................................................. .. 3
`
`4 Background and Qualifications .................................................................... .. 6
`
`Understanding of Patent Law ....................................................................... .. 8
`
`THE ’956 PATENT .................................................................................... .. 11
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Pertinent Art ............................................... .. 15
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation.......................................
`..................... 17
`
`A.
`B.
`
`C.
`
`“during Showtime” ........................................................................... .. 18
`“array” ................................................................................................ 20
`
`’
`
`“transceiver” ..................................................................................... .. 21
`
`D.
`
`Other relevant terms ......................................................................... .. 23
`
`VII.
`
`Detailed Invalidity Analysis ....................................................................... .. 27
`
`A.
`
`Background on Prior Art References ............................................... .. 28
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Background on Milbrandt ...................................................... ..28
`
`Background on Hwang .......................................................... ..29
`
`Background on ANSI Tl .413-1995 ....................................... ..30
`
`B.
`
`Claims 1-10 are Obvious over Milbrandt, Hwang, and ANSI
`T1 .413 ........ . ._.................................................................................... .. 3 l
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Reasons to Combine Milbrandt with Hwang ........................ ..3l
`
`Reasons to Combine Milbrandt/Hwang with ANSI
`T1 .413 .................................................................................... . . 3 3
`
`VIII.
`
`IX.
`
`Challenges .................................................................................................. .. 36
`
`Conclusion .................................................................................................. .. 93
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`I, Sayfe Kiaei, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained as an independent expert witness on behalf of
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) for the above-captioned Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,432,956 (“the ’956 patent”). I am being
`
`compensated at my usual and customary rate of $400 per hour for the time I spend
`
`in connection with this IPR. My compensation is not affected by the outcome of
`
`this IPR.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding Whether claims 1-
`
`10 (“the Challenged Claims”) of the ’956 patent are invalid as they would have
`
`been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of
`the alleged invention. It is my opinion that all ofthe limitations of claims 1-10
`
`would have been obvious to a POSITA after reviewing the Milbrandt, Hwang and
`
`ANSI T1.413 references, as discussed f11rther below.
`
`3.
`
`The ’956 patent issued on April 30, 2013, from U.S. Patent Appl. No.
`
`13/476,310, filed May 21, 2012. The ’310 Application is a continuation of U.S.
`
`Patent Appl. No. 12/779,660, filed on May 13, 2010, which is a continuation U.S.
`
`Patent Appl. No. 12/477,742, filed on Jun. 3, 2009, which is a continuation of U.S.
`
`Patent Appl. No. 10/619,691, filed July 16, 2003, which is a continuation of U.S.
`
`Patent Appl. No. 09/755,173, filed on January 8, 2001. The ’956 patent also claims
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/224,308, filed on August 10,
`
`2000, and U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/174,865, filed on January 7, 2000.1
`
`4.
`
`The face of the ’956 patent names David M. Krinsky and Robert
`
`Edmund Pizzano, Jr., as the inventors. Further, the face of the ’956 patent
`
`identifies TQ Delta, LLC as the assignee of the ’956 patent.
`
`5.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed:
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`the ’956 patent, EX. 1001;
`
`the file history of the ’956 patent, EX. 1002;
`
`the file histories of the patent applications to which the ’956
`
`patent is related, Ex. 1003-1008;
`
`(1)
`
`the prior art references discussed below: Ex. 1011 (Milbrandt),
`
`Ex. 1013 (Hwang), and EX. 1014 (ANSI T1413); and
`
`e)
`
`selected portions of these references, as discussed below:
`
`° Charles K. Summers, ADSL Standards, Implementation, and
`
`Architecture (CRC Press 1999) (“Summers”),
`
`1 Although it does not appear that the ’956 patent claims are entitled to the
`
`provisional date of January 7, 2000, this declaration presents prior art and analysis
`
`which demonstrates that the Challenged Claims would have been obvious even as
`
`of the provisional date.
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`° Walter Goralski, ADSL and DSL Technologies (McGraW-Hill
`
`1998) (“Goralski”),
`
`° Harry Newton, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, 16th Ed. (2000)
`
`(“Newton’s”),
`
`° Valerie Illingworth and John Daintith, The Facts on File
`
`Dictionary of Computer Science (Market House Books 2001)
`
`(“Illingworth”),
`
`° Thomas Starr, John M. Cioffi, Peter J. Silverman,
`
`Understanding Digital Subscriber Line Technology, (Prentice
`
`Hall 1999) (“Starr”),
`
`° Andrew S. Tanenbaum, Computer Networks (Prentice Hall
`
`1996) (“Tanenbaum”),
`
`° B. P. Lathi, Modern Digital and Analog Communication
`
`Systems (Oxford University Press 1998) (“Lathi”), and
`
`' Behzad Razavi, RF Microelectronics (Prentice Hall 1997)
`
`(“Razavi”).
`
`6.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed in this Declaration, I relied upon
`
`my education and experience in the relevant field of art, and have considered the
`
`Viewpoint of a POSITA, as of January 7, 2000. I have also considered:
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`the documents listed above,
`
`the additional documents and references cited in the analysis
`
`below,
`
`c)
`
`the relevant legal standards, including the standard for
`
`obviousness provided in and any additional authoritative
`
`documents as cited in the body of this declaration, and
`
`d)
`
`my knowledge and experience based upon my work in this area
`
`as described below.
`
`7.
`
`I understand that in an IPR, claims are given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in View of the patent specification and the understandings of a
`
`PO SITA. I further understand that this is not the same claim construction standard
`
`as one would use ir1 a District Court proceeding.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`8.
`
`My qualifications are set forth in my curriculum vitae, a copy of
`
`which is attached as Ex. 1010 to this declaration. As set forth in my curriculum
`
`vitae:
`
`9.
`
`I earned my B.S. in Computer and Electrical Engineering from
`
`Washington State University-Northeastern in 1982, a M.S. in Electrical and
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`Computer Engineering from Washington State University in 1984, and a PhD. in
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering from Washington State University in 1987.
`
`10.
`
`I have been a Professor at Arizona State University (ASU) since 2001.
`
`In this capacity, I have served as a Motorola Endowed Professor and Chair in
`
`analog and RF integrated circuits. I am also Director of ASU’s Center on Global
`
`Energy Research and Director of NSF Connection One Research Center with a
`
`focus on integrated communication systems.
`
`11.
`
`From 2009 to 2012, and concurrent with my position at ASU, I was
`
`the Associate Dean of Research at the Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering.
`
`12.
`
`From 1993 to 2001, I was a senior member of technical staff with the
`
`Wireless Technology Center and Broadband Operations at Motorola. In that
`
`capacity, I was responsible for the development of RF and transceiver integrated
`
`circuits, GPS RF IC and digital subscriber lines (DSL) transceivers.
`
`13.
`
`From 1987 to 1993, I served as an Associate Professor at Oregon
`
`State University.
`
`14.
`
`In addition to the above noted positions, I was the Co-Director of the
`
`Industry-University Center for the Design of Analog/Digital ICs (CDADIC). Also,
`
`I am an IEEE Fellow, and have been the Chair and on the Technical Program
`
`Committee of several IEEE conferences including RFIC, MTT, ISCAS and other
`
`international conferences.
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`15.
`
`In total, I have more than thirty years of experience in research,
`
`development, design, commercialization, evaluation, and testing, of Wireless
`
`technologies, products, and systems. My research interests include Wireless
`
`transceiver design, RF, and mixed-signal IC’s in CMOS and SiGe.
`
`16.
`
`I have published more than 100 journal and conference papers and
`
`have been awarded several U.S. patents.
`
`17.
`
`I have organized and chaired international conferences on
`
`electrochemical capacitor technology and taught short courses at Electrochemical
`
`Society and IEEE meetings.
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW
`
`18.
`
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions. My
`
`understanding of the law was provided to me by Cisco’s attorneys.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that prior art to the ’_956 patent includes patents and
`
`printed publications in the relevant art that predate the priority date of the alleged
`
`invention recited in the ’956 patent. I have applied the date of January 7, 2000, the
`
`filing date of the earliest provisional application in the chain of continuing
`
`applications resulting in the ’956 patent, as the priority date. I understand,
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei Under 37 CFR. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`however, that the ’956 patent claims may not be entitled to this earlier date, and
`
`that the actual entitled priority date may be later.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid if it would have been obvious.
`
`Obviousness of a claim requires that the claim would have been obvious from the
`
`perspective of a POSITA at the time the alleged invention was made. I understand
`
`that a claim could have been obvious from a single prior art reference or from a
`
`combination of two or more prior art references.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis requires an understanding of
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, any differences between the alleged
`
`invention and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in evaluating the
`
`pertinent art.
`
`22.
`
`I further understand that certain factors may support or rebut the
`
`obviousness of a claim. I understand that such secondary considerations include,
`
`among other things, commercial success of the patented invention, skepticism of
`
`those having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, unexpected results of
`
`the invention, any long—fe1t but unsolved need in the art that was satisfied by the
`
`alleged invention, the failure of others to make the alleged invention, praise of the
`
`alleged invention by those having ordinary skill in the art, and copying of the
`
`alleged invention by others in the field. I understand that there must be a neXus—a
`
`connection—between any such secondary considerations and the alleged invention.
`
`9
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`I also understand that contemporaneous and independent invention by others is a
`
`secondary consideration tending to show obviousness.
`
`23.
`
`I further understand that a claim would have been obvious if it unites
`
`old elements with no change to their respective functions, or alters prior art by
`
`mere substitution of one element for another known in the field and that
`
`combination yields predictable results. Also, I understand that obviousness does
`
`not require physical combination/bodily incorporation, but rather consideration of
`
`what the combined teachings would have suggested to persons of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`24. While it may be helpful to identify a reason for this combination,
`
`common sense should guide and no rigid requirement of finding a teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation to combine is required. When a product is available,
`
`design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the
`
`same field or different one. If a POSITA can implement a predictable variation,
`
`obviousness likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has
`
`been used to improve one device and a POSITA would recognize that it would
`
`improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique would have been
`
`obvious. I understand that a claim would have been obvious if common sense
`
`directs one to combine multiple prior art references or add missing features to
`
`reproduce the alleged invention recited in the claims.
`
`10
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`25.
`
`I am not aware of any allegations by the named inventor of the ’956
`
`patent or any assignee of the ’956 patent that any secondary considerations tend to
`
`rebut the obviousness of any Challenged Claim of the ’956 patent.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that in considering obviousness, it is important not to
`
`determine obviousness using the benefit of hindsight derived from the patent being
`
`considered.
`
`27.
`
`The analysis in this declaration is in accordance with the above—stated
`
`legal principles.
`
`IV.
`
`THE ’956 PATENT
`
`28.
`
`The ’956 patent relates to a “diagnostic information transmission
`
`mode allow[ing] for two modems to exchange diagnostic and/or test information
`
`that may not otherwise be exchangeable during normal communication.” ’95 6
`
`patent, Abstract. The ’956 patent states that “[i]n the diagnostic link mode, the RT
`
`[remote terminal] modem sends diagnostic and test information in the form of a
`
`collection of information bits to the CO [central office] modem that are, for
`
`example, modulated by using one bit per DTM [discrete multi-tone] symbol
`
`modulation.” Id., 3:50-53. “Other exemplary modulation techniques include
`
`Differential Phase Shift Keying (DPSK) on a subset or all the carriers, as specified
`
`ll
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`in, for example, ITU standard G.994.1, higher order QAM [quadrature amplitude
`
`modulated] modulation (>1 bit per carrier), or the like.” Id. 3:55-59.
`
`29.
`
`The ’956 patent shows in Table l, below, “an example of a data
`
`message that can be sent by the RT to the CO during the diagnostic link mode.”
`
`Id. 4:31-32.
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`TABLE 1
`
`Exemplary Message Variables
`
`Data Sent in the Diag Link
`Train Type
`ADSL Standard
`
`Chip Type
`Vendor ID
`
`Code Version
`
`Average Reverb Received Signal
`Programmable gain amplifier (PGA) Gain — Training
`Programmable gain amplifier PGA Gain - Showtime
`Filter Present during Idle Channel Calculation
`Average Idle Channel Noise
`Signal to Noise during Training
`Signal to Noise during Showtime
`Bits and Gains
`
`Data Rate
`
`Framing Mode
`Margin
`Reed-Solomon Coding Gain
`QAM Usage
`Frequency Domain Equalizer (FDQ) Coefficients
`Gain Scale
`
`Time domain equalizer (TDQ) Coeflicients
`Digital Echo Canceller (DEC) Coefficients
`
`’956 patent, 4:7-30.
`
`30.
`
`The ’956 patent describes communicating digital data using discrete
`
`multitone (DMT) signals. Those of skill in the art Would have been familiar with
`
`DMT, as it had been employed for over five years in various communication
`
`systems, including asymmetric digital subscriber line (ADSL) standards such as
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`ANSI T1.413-1995 and ITU G.992.l. Summers, 26-27; ANSI T1.413, 1-2. DMT
`
`divides the available communication bandwidth (range of frequencies) into
`
`multiple distinct subchannels (or subcarriers). Goralski, 187. Each subcarrier is
`
`tested for its characteristic signal attenuation (or the reciprocal, its signal gain) and
`for noise. Id., 188. The amount of data encoded into each subchannel is then
`
`tailored to the subchanne1’s characteristics. A subchannel with a strong signal and
`
`low noise will have more bits of data encoded into it than another subchannel with
`
`a Weaker signal or greater noise. These ideas are illustrated in the figure below.
`
`Actual bits/channel
`
`Typical Loop Gain
`
`
`Frequency Range
`
`Frequency Range
`
`Real Loop Gain
`
`Typical bits/channel
`
`
`Figure 8-6
`
`Ideal bits/channel
`
`DMT in operation
`
`Frequency Range
`
`Ideal bits/channel
`
`
`
`Frequency Range
`
`Frequency Range
`(“Notch” from bridged tap
`Noise from AM radio station)
`
`Frequency Range
`
`Goralski, Fig. 8-6, 189.
`
`31. As discussed above, the ’956 patent purports to provide a diagnostic
`
`link mode for transmitting test or diagnostic information from one modem to
`
`another modem.
`
`32.
`
`Independent claim 1 is representative of the Challenged Claims:
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`1. A transceiver
`
`capable of
`
`transmitting
`
`diagnostic
`
`information
`
`over
`
`a
`
`communication
`
`channel
`
`using
`
`multicarrier modulation comprising:
`
`a transmitter portion capable of transmitting a message,
`
`wherein the message comprises one or more data Variables
`
`that represent the diagnostic information, wherein bits in the
`
`message
`
`are modulated
`
`onto DMT symbols
`
`using
`
`Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (QAM) with more than 1
`
`bit per subchannel and wherein at least one data variable of
`
`the one or more data Variables
`
`comprises
`
`an array
`
`representing power level per subchannel information.
`
`V.
`
`“ LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE PERTINENT ART
`
`33.
`
`I understand that the level of ordinary skill may be reflected by the
`
`prior art of record, and that a POSITA to which the claimed subject matter pertains
`
`would have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering
`
`principles applicable to the pertinent art. I understand that one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art has ordinary creativity, and is not a robot.
`
`34.
`
`I understand there are multiple factors relevant to determining the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, including (1) the levels of education and
`
`experience of persons working in the field at the time of the invention; (2) the
`
`sophistication of the technology; (3) the types of problems encountered in the field;
`
`15
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`and (4) the prior art solutions to those problems. There are likely a wide range of
`
`educational backgrounds in the technology field pertinent to the ’956 patent.
`
`35.
`
`I am very familiar with the knowledge and capabilities that a POSITA
`
`of multicarrier communication systems (such as digital subscriber line (DSL)
`
`communications) would have possessed during the late 90s and early 2000s,
`
`especially as it pertains to testing lines for their support of multicarrier
`
`communications. Specifically, my experience in the industry, with colleagues from
`
`academia, and with engineers practicing in the industry during the relevant
`
`timeframe allowed me to become personally familiar with the knowledge and
`
`capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the area of multicarrier
`
`communications. Unless otherwise stated, my testimony below refers to the
`
`knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art in the field of multicarrier
`
`communications during the time period around the priority date of the ’956 patent.
`
`36.
`
`In my opinion, the level of a POSITA needed to have the capability of
`
`understanding multicarrier communications and engineering principles applicable
`
`to the ’95 6 patent is (i) a Master’s degree in Electrical and/or Computer
`
`Engineering, or equivalent training, and (ii) approximately five years of experience
`
`working in digital telecommunications. Lack of work experience can be remedied
`
`by additional education, and vice versa. Such academic and industry experience
`
`would be necessary to appreciate what was obvious and/or anticipated in the
`
`16
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`industry and what a POSITA would have thought and understood at the time. For
`
`example, an understanding of the ’95 6 patent requires an appreciation of digital
`
`communications using discrete multitone (DMT) signals. Such knowledge would
`
`be within the level of skill in the art. I believe I possess such experience and
`
`knowledge, and am qualified to opine on the ’956 patent.
`
`37.
`
`For purposes of this Declaration, in general, and unless otherwise
`
`noted, my statements and opinions, such as those regarding my experience and the
`
`understanding of a POSITA generally (and specifically related to the references I
`
`consulted herein), reflect the knowledge that existed in the field as of January
`
`2000.
`
`VI. BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
`
`38.
`
`It is my understanding that in order to properly evaluate the ’95 6
`
`patent, the terms of the claims must first be interpreted. It is my understanding that
`
`the claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification. It is my further understanding that claim terms are given their
`
`ordinary and accustomed meaning as would be understood by a POSITA, unless
`
`the inventor, as a lexicographer, has set forth a special meaning for a term.
`
`39.
`
`In order to construe the claims, I have reviewed the entirety of the
`
`’95 6 patent along with its prosecution history.
`
`17
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,432,95 6
`
`A.
`
`“during Showtime”
`
`40.
`
`The term “during Showtime” appears in each of claims 9-10.
`
`41. Aside from the claims, the term “during Showtime” appears in the
`
`’95 6 patent specification in only two locations. In the first reference, the
`
`specification references “a forward error correction or a CRC error during
`
`Showtime, e. g., the normal steady state transmission mode, or the like.” ’956
`
`patent, 3:35-37. The second reference is to “Signal to Noise during Showtime” in
`
`Table l as one of the exemplary message Variables that may be sent as diagnostic
`
`information:
`
`18
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`TABLE 1
`
`Exemplary Message Variables
`
`Data Sent in the Diag Link
`Train Type
`ADSL Standard
`
`Chip Type
`Vendor ID
`Code Version
`
`Average Reverb Received Signal
`Programmable gain amplifier (PGA) Gain — Training
`Programmable gain amplifier PGA Gain - Showtime
`Filter Present during Idle Channel Calculation
`Average Idle Channel Noise
`Signal to Noise during Training
`Tsignal to Noise during Showtime
`Bits and Gains
`Data Rate
`
`Framing Mode
`Margin
`Reed-Solomon Coding Gain
`QAM Usage
`Frequency Domain Equali7.er (FDQ) Coefficients
`Gain Scale
`
`Time domain equalizer (TDQ) Coeflicients
`Digital Echo Canceller (DEC) Coefficients
`
`’956 patent, 427-30.
`
`42.
`
`The ’956 specification does not, however, describe how the “Signal to
`
`Noise during Showtime” information is measured, nor does it explain what tests
`
`are performed to gather information about a signal to noise ratio “during
`
`Showtime.”
`
`43.
`
`Those of skill in the art would have been familiar with the concept of
`
`“Showtime,” which is a term of art in the DSL space used to refer to the mode that
`
`follows the completion of initialization and handshake equipment: “Following C-
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei Under 37 CFR. § 1.68 in Support of _
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`SEGUE3 the ATU—C has completed initialization and enters state C-
`
`SHOWTIME.” ANSI Tl.4l3, 108. Showtime is used to describe the mode where
`
`the remote and the central office DSL modems can conduct normal
`
`communications over the access network. For example, a contemporary reference
`
`book on DSL communications states, “The connection is tested in both directions
`
`after which each modem notifies its peer that it is ready to enter normal
`
`communications, known in the standard as ‘showtime. ”’ Starr, 379. Also, the fact
`
`that the term “Showtime” is capitalized would suggest to a person of ordinary skill
`
`that the term is being used in accordance with its term of art meaning.
`
`44.
`
`Thus, a POSITA would have understood the phrase “during
`
`Showtime” to refer to during normal communications ofan ANSI T1 .413-
`
`compliant device.
`
`B.
`
`“array”
`
`45.
`
`The term “array” appears in each of claims 1-10.
`
`46. Aside from the claims, the term “array” appears in the ’956 patent
`
`specification only once:
`
`Many Variables that represent
`
`the type of diagnostic and test
`
`information that are used to analyze the condition of the link are
`
`sent from the RT modem to the CO modem. These Variables can
`
`be, for example, arrays with different lengths depending on, for
`
`example, information in the initiate diagnostic mode message.
`
`20
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`’956 patent, 4:43-48.
`
`47.
`
`Thus, the ’956 patent does not provide an express definition for the
`
`term “array,” but instead uses it according to its ordinary meaning.
`
`48.
`
`In my opinion, a POSITA would have been familiar with the term
`
`“array,” which is commonly used in both the computer and mathematical arts.
`
`Contemporary technical dictionaries define array as an “ordered collection of
`
`identical structures” (Newton’s, p. 71) or a “collection of data items
`
`[that are]
`
`arranged in a particular order or pattern and are all of the same type.” (Facts on
`
`File Dictionary of Computer Science, p. 9).
`
`49.
`
`Consistent with these dictionary definitions and the usage of the term
`
`“array” in the ’956 patent specification, I believe that a PO SITA would have
`
`understood the broadest reasonable interpretation of “array” to mean an ordered
`
`collection ofmultiple data items of the same type.
`
`C.
`
`“transceiver”
`
`50.
`
`The term “transceiver” appears in the preamble of each of claims 1-
`
`10.
`
`51. A POSITA would have been familiar with the term “transceiver” as
`
`being a combination of the words “transmitter” and “receiver.” Consistent with this
`
`ordinary understanding, the ’956 patent specification states that a “transceiver” is
`
`also referred to as a modem and includes a transmitter and a receiver:
`
`21
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`For simplicity of reference,
`
`the systems and methods of the
`
`invention will hereafter refer to the transceivers generically as
`
`modems. One such modem is typically located at a customer
`
`premises such as a home or business and is "downstream" from a
`
`central office with which it communicates. The other modem is
`
`typically located at the central office and is "upstream" from the
`
`customer premises. Consistent with industry practice, the modems
`
`are often referred to as
`
`"ATU—R"
`
`("ADSL transceiver unit,
`
`remote," i.e.,
`
`located at the customer premises) and "ATU—C"
`
`("ADSL transceiver unit, central office" i.e., located at the central
`
`office). Each modem includes
`
`a
`
`transmitter
`
`section for
`
`transmitting data and a receiver section for receiving data, and is
`
`of the discrete multitone type, i.e., the modern transmits data over a
`
`multiplicity of subchannels of limited bandwidth.
`
`’956 patent, 1266:2213. A POSITA would have understood that a modem, which
`
`stands for modulator/demodulator, is a transceiver since it modulates and
`
`demodulates for the purpose of transmitting and receiving.
`
`52. A contemporary dictionary defines a transceiver as “Any device that
`
`transmits and receives.” Newton’s at 913.
`
`53.
`
`Accordingly, I believe that a POSITA would have understood that the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of “transceiver” is a device, such as a modem,
`
`with a transmitter and a receiver.
`
`22
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`54.
`
`I apply these constructions as the broadest reasonable constructions in
`
`View of the specification for purposes of this Declaration.
`
`D. Other relevant terms
`
`55.
`
`The ’956 patent and the prior art — Milbrandt, Hwang, and ANSI
`
`T1.413 —- describe communication systems that use Discrete Multitone Modulation
`
`(DMT). As DMT communication systems evolved, so did the terms that persons of
`
`ordinary skill in the art use to describe the system’s components and functions.
`
`Some of these terms are different, but are used interchangeably by those of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, and refer to the same component or function in the
`
`communication system. I describe several of these terms below, with reference to
`
`the ’956 patent and the prior art and NeWton’s.
`
`56.
`
`“Channel” A channel is a medium over which data is transmitted.
`
`Newton describes a channel as a “path of communication, either electrical or
`
`electromagnetic, between two or more points.” Newton’s, 180. Example channel
`
`may be a twisted pair of a telephone Wire, a fiber optic cable, or a quad cable. ’956
`
`patent, 5:36-39; Hwang, 5:3-5. The ’956 patent refers to a broadband
`
`communications channel. ’95 6 patent, 1:45-47.
`
`57. A channel may have a defined frequency response, gain, and
`
`bandwidth. NeWton’s, 180. A bandwidth of an analog channel is typically
`
`measured in Hertz, which are cycles per second. Newton’s, 101.
`
`23
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`5 8.
`
`“Subchannel” A channel may be divided into multiple sub-channels,
`
`Where each sub-channel has its own frequency. For example, the broadband
`
`communications channel of the ’956 patent is formed by multiple carriers, where
`
`the carriers “form discrete, non-overlapping communication subchannels of limited
`
`bandwidth.” ’956 patent, 1:46-47 .
`
`5 9. Also, a person of ordinary skill would have recognized that the term
`
`“frequency sub-carrier” in the ANSI Tl.4l3 standard (ANSI T1 .413, 107)
`
`corresponds to Milbrand ’s “sub-frequency” (Milbrandt, 12: 14-31) and that both of
`
`these terms correspond to the “subchannel” in the ’956 patent.
`
`’956 patent, 1:46-
`
`47.
`
`60.
`
`“Carrier” A carrier is an electrical signal at a continuous frequency
`
`that is capable of being modified (also referred to as modulated) to carry
`
`information. The modifications can be changes to amplitude, frequency or phase.
`
`The modifications or the changes from the carrier’s frequency become the carried
`
`information. Newt0n’s, 159. A carrier may be another term for a sub—channel when
`
`the sub-channel’s frequency is modified to carry information.
`
`61.
`
`The ’95 6 patent uses terms carrier and sub—channel in the same
`
`context. For example, “the carriers form discrete, non-overlapping communication
`
`subchannels of limited bandwidth” that collectively form a broadband
`
`communication channel. ’956 patent, 1:46-47. Similarly, Hwang refers to the
`
`24
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei Under 37 C.F.R. § l.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,432,956
`
`signals being “carried over a distinct carrier frequency channel” where “frequency
`
`separation between consecutive carriers is 4.3125 KHZ.” Hwang, 2:67-3:5.
`
`‘
`
`62.
`
`“Tone” A tone is a type of a carrier or a carrier signal. A tone ref