`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. AND OCLARO, INC. and
`NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`OYSTER OPTICS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2017-02189 and IPR2017-02190
`Patent 6,476,952
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: December 21, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before Patrick M. Boucher, Jessica C. Kaiser, and John R. Kenny,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-02189 and IPR2017-02190
`Patent 6,476,952
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER, CISCO SYSTEMS:
`
`
`BRIAN OAKS, ESQUIRE
`AASHISH KAPADIA, ESQUIRE
`Baker Botts LLP
`98 San Jacinto Blvd, Suite 1500
`Austin, TX 78701
`Tel: 512-322-5470 OAKS
`Tel: 512-322-2554 KAPADIA
`
`DARREN DONNELLY, ESQUIRE
`Polsinelli LLP
`1661 Page Mill Road, Suite A
`Palo Alto, CA. 94304
`Tel: 650-461-7735
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER, OYSTER OPTICS:
`
`
`WAYNE M. HELGE, ESQUIRE
`JAMES T. WILSON, ESQUIRE
`Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey L.L.P.
`8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`Tel: 571-765-7700 HELGE
`Tel: 571-765-7700 WILSON
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Friday, December
`
`21, 2018, commencing at 12:30 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 207 S. Houston Street, Dallas, Texas 75202.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-02189 and IPR2017-02190
`Patent 6,476,952
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
` JUDGE KAISER: Good afternoon, everyone. Please be
`seated.
` Just make sure that Judge Kenny and Judge Boucher can
`hear.
` JUDGE BOUCHER: I can.
` JUDGE KENNY: I can hear you also.
` JUDGE KAISER: Okay. Great. Are we on the record?
` REPORTER: Yes.
` JUDGE KAISER: Okay. Very good.
` Good afternoon. So this is the oral hearing for
`IPR2017-02189 and IPR2017-02190. These cases have also been
`joined with IPR2018-00984 and IPR2018-00988.
` I'm Judge Jessica Kaiser. With us remotely are Judge
`John Kenny and Judge Patrick Boucher. Because they're
`participating remotely, as you know, please make sure that you
`identify the exhibit numbers or the demonstratives by number so
`that they can follow along.
` Each side has 60 minutes to present their arguments, and
`Petitioner will go first, followed by Patent Owner, and Petitioner
`can reserve rebuttal time. And I'll be keeping the time and give
`you warnings. If you have questions about where you are, just let
`me know.
` So, at this time, I'll have counsel introduce
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-02189 and IPR2017-02190
`Patent 6,476,952
`
`themselves, beginning with Petitioner.
` MR. OAKS: Good afternoon, Your Honors. My name is
`Brian Oaks. I'm lead counsel for Petitioners, Cisco and Oclaro.
`With me is backup counsel, Darren Donnelly. And also representing
`Petitioners is Anshish Kapadia in the back of the room.
` JUDGE KAISER: Okay. And Mr. Oaks, will you be
`presenting the argument today?
` MR. OAKS: I will, Your Honor.
` JUDGE KAISER: Thank you.
` And for Patent Owner?
` JUDGE BOUCHER: I actually couldn't hear Mr. Oaks very
`clearly. Can you check to make sure the microphone by the lectern
`is actually on?
` MR. OAKS: Okay. Let's try that again.
` JUDGE BOUCHER: Yes, that's much better. Okay.
` JUDGE KAISER: Mr. Oaks, I think, because you're taller,
`sometimes you might have to hold it up -- pull it up a little bit.
` MR. OAKS: Okay. I think I had it turned off.
` JUDGE KAISER: Okay. Great. Thank you.
` MR. HELGE: Good afternoon, Your Honor. My name is
`Wayne Helge here for the Patent Owner, Oyster Optics. And with me
`is Mr. James Wilson. And today, Mr. Wilson will be presenting for
`the Patent Owner.
` JUDGE KAISER: Very good. Thank you.
` MR. HELGE: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-02189 and IPR2017-02190
`Patent 6,476,952
`
` JUDGE KAISER: Mr. Oaks, would you like to reserve time
`for rebuttal?
` MR. OAKS: Yes, Your Honor. I would like to reserve
`10 minutes.
` JUDGE KAISER: 10 minutes? Very good.
` Okay. You can proceed when you're ready.
` MR. OAKS: All right. Good afternoon, Your Honors. May
`it please the board. So the functionality that we're talking
`about here today in the two IPRs -- 2189 and 2190 -- relates to a
`modulation system that modulates data according to a technique
`that's known in the industry as Differential Phase Shift Keying,
`or DPSK. In the claims, the Patent Owner doesn't actually talk
`about that, but I believe it's undisputed that's sort of what's
`going on.
` And in addition to that DPSK transmitter and receiver,
`the transmitter also has, at the very end of claim 1, a
`digital-to-analog converter that is used to alter the phase of the
`phase modulator.
` Now, DPSK systems were well-known in the art, and that's
`shown in both Bauch and Kaneda. In addition, modulator control
`using a DAC was also known in the art, and that's shown in
`Schneider. So those references form the basis for the grounds for
`these two different IPR petitions.
` JUDGE BOUCHER: I actually have a very high-level
`question, because I just wondered if you could kind of address, if
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-02189 and IPR2017-02190
`Patent 6,476,952
`
`Mach-Zehnder Modulators were known to be used for intensity
`modulation and for phase modulation, why choose Schneider as a
`reference? Everybody seems to agree that it's focused exclusively
`on intensity modulation and not phase modulation. So doesn't it
`introduce an additional complication to your argument? And
`wouldn't -- was there no reference that you could rely on, though,
`to show phase modulation?
` MR. OAKS: Well, I mean, what Schneider is used for and
`why it's a good reference in our argument is that it has all the
`details of the control system. It shows the micro controller with
`the DACs that are controlling the modulator. And as I'll talk
`about that, Mach-Zehnder Modulator is well-known to be used for
`either intensity or phase modulation.
` So we believe it's no great leap to use a Mach-Zehnder
`Modulator for phase modulation because that is how a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would know that it's used.
` JUDGE BOUCHER: Okay. So those other aspects of
`Schneider, I guess, support your argument that one of skill
`in the art would have been motivated to make the combination?
` MR. OAKS: Yes, Your Honor. And, you know, there's also
`dependent claims and including claims about rotating phase, and
`that's also led to reasons for using Schneider as opposed to some
`of the other prior art that you mentioned.
` JUDGE BOUCHER: Okay. Thank you.
` MR. OAKS: So as the board knows, in the institution
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-02189 and IPR2017-02190
`Patent 6,476,952
`
`decision, as the board preliminarily found, that the petitions has
`shown an unpatentability of all the challenged claims except for
`one dependent claim in the 2189 petition, and that's the Kaneda
`petition that was claim 4. And we can talk about that.
` And importantly, the Patent Owner doesn't dispute that
`Schneider shows a DAC that is used to control a modulator. What
`the dispute revolves around is what, Judge Boucher, you were
`mentioning is whether you can use that control system shown in
`Schneider to control a phase modulator -- a Mach-Zehnder Modulator
`being used as a phase modulator, and that's really the crux of the
`dispute in these matters.
` JUDGE KAISER: So, Mr. Oaks, I have some questions
`around how you're putting the combination together --
` MR. OAKS: Okay.
` JUDGE KAISER: -- because there seems to be a lot of
`focus on Schneider's control algorithm. But my understanding in
`the petition for the DAC, or D-A-C, limitation is that really what
`you're relying on is the DAC for -- that has the bias output for
`that limitation; is that right?
` MR. OAKS: That's correct.
` JUDGE KAISER: Okay. And so how does the control
`algorithm or how is Schneider's specific control algorithm
`necessary to the combination for claim 1?
` MR. OAKS: Okay. So if we look at claim 1 -- and I'm on
`slide 3 of the presentation slides, which are the last paper filed
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-02189 and IPR2017-02190
`Patent 6,476,952
`
`in each IPR. And so that claim limitation, claim 1, is the
`control circuit, including a digital-to-analog converter, having
`an output for altering the phase of the phase modulator.
` So as an initial matter, all the other limitations of
`this claim are shown in Bauch and Kaneda and, for the most part, I
`believe that's undisputed. That's the sort of just generic DPSK
`functionality. And so we're using Schneider, as I mentioned,
`because it shows a DAC that is being used to control a phase
`modulator.
` I'll go to -- or if you go to our slide 9, that's an
`annotated figure from the petition that shows the combination, and
`this particular figure is from Bauch but Kaneda also is modified
`similarly.
` And if you look at Figure 2 of Schneider, you'll see
`that it has the micro controller, 50, there to the left of
`Figure 2 that's running the control algorithm, and then that micro
`controller, based on the findings of the control algorithm will
`output values to the DACs, which modify -- they modify the
`Mach-Zehnder Modulator both for gain and for bias.
` And so that's -- I mean, you ask about how we use the
`DAC. That DAC is what is outputting a signal to the modulator,
`which is a voltage, that changes the way that the Mach-Zehnder
`Modulator operates, and the way it changes it alters the phase of
`the Mach-Zehnder Modulator.
` JUDGE KAISER: Right. And so the control algorithm sort
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-02189 and IPR2017-02190
`Patent 6,476,952
`
`of tells it what value to output; right? What value for the DAC
`to output, and then it's the actual output of the DAC that alters
`the phase -- for the phase modulator.
` MR. OAKS: Right. The micro controller based on what
`the control algorithm discovers, the shape of the transfer
`function, and the micro controller outputs a value to the DAC.
`And then that's converted to an analog voltage that's supplied to
`the electrode of the modulator.
` JUDGE KAISER: And so if you go back to the claim
`language, claim 1, which, I think, was on your slide 3, where it
`talks about the DAC having an output for altering the phase of the
`phase modulator, do you interpret that as requiring that it have
`the capability to do that or that it's actually doing that?
` MR. OAKS: That it has an output or that it alters --
` JUDGE KAISER: That the output has the capability of
`altering the phase in the phase modulator. Or does it actually
`have to have that purpose?
` MR. OAKS: Well, it is sort of an intended use
`statement, but we have treated it as -- we have shown in our
`combination how that DAC does output a signal that would alter the
`phase modulator.
` JUDGE KAISER: And so in the DAC that's in Schneider --
`I guess maybe just a broader question. When a DAC, say, for bias,
`is outputting a voltage with the bias to the phase modulator,
`isn't it necessarily altering the phase just by virtue of doing
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-02189 and IPR2017-02190
`Patent 6,476,952
`
`that?
` MR. OAKS: Yes.
` JUDGE KAISER: Okay.
` MR. OAKS: I mean, we have shown how it alters the phase
`of the Mach-Zehnder Modulator when it's being used to modulate
`phase, but as we'll talk about with the transfer function, when
`you change -- when you change the voltage applied to the
`Mach-Zehnder Modulator, it's changing the phase of the signal,
`even if you're intentionally modulating the signal. But we're
`showing it -- our combination shows how you can use that
`Mach-Zehnder Modulator specifically for a phase modulation so that
`it's a phase modulator as recited in the claims.
` JUDGE BOUCHER: And with respect to that, what specific
`changes -- I don’t have a good idea of what changes need
`to be made to the control algorithm in Schneider for it to operate
`as a phase modulator. I mean, I recall -- I think it was -- I
`think that Patent Owner kind of focused on some testimony by your
`expert in which Dr. Blumenthal said that it wasn't his job to do
`an invention, and I read your redirect examination with respect to
`that. But it sounded from that testimony that some significant --
`potentially significant modifications would need to be made to the
`control algorithm in Schneider for it to operate as a phase
`modulator instead of an intensity modulator.
` And can you give some sense of what modifications need
`to be made?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-02189 and IPR2017-02190
`Patent 6,476,952
`
` MR. OAKS: So our position is that they are not
`significant modifications; that what Dr. Blumenthal testified
`about is, when you run the control algorithm of Schneider, you are
`going to determine the necessary points on the transfer function
`so that you can determine the whole transfer function. So
`Schneider -- let me go to slide 20.
` So Schneider's control algorithm provides all the
`information needed to characterize the transfer function. And I
`have some slides on the transfer function, but if everybody
`understands how that works, I'll skip them. But let me know if
`you want me to go over that.
` But what that algorithm does is it determines particular
`points along the transfer function, and in particular, it finds
`the peak voltage, which, if you look at the slides on the transfer
`function, is the -- the peaks are located at both the maximums and
`the minimums of this sine wave that is the transfer function and
`it finds a swing voltage. And in particular, what it finds is the
`peak-to-null swing voltage. So it's going from -- if you look at
`the transfer function figure, it's going from 1 on the X axis to 2
`on the X axis, or 0 to 1.
` And so it also -- the experts also agree that what it
`settles on is the bias voltage is at the quadrature point. And so
`you know the quadrature, you know the peak, and -- you know both
`peaks, you know the minimum and the maximum because you know the
`swing. So you have all the voltages that gets you to those three
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-02189 and IPR2017-02190
`Patent 6,476,952
`
`points, and it's a sinusoid.
` And what Dr. Blumenthal explained in detail in the
`petition and in his declaration is how you change the voltages to
`operate as a phase modulator versus an intensity modulator. And I
`have -- let me go to slide --
` JUDGE BOUCHER: So let me just make sure I understand
`that correctly then. You're saying that no modification is needed
`to the algorithm in Schneider because, essentially, all that
`algorithm does is determine parameters that will uniquely specify
`what the transfer function is, and that transfer function is the
`same, whether it's operating as a phase modulator or an intensity
`modulator, and so, therefore, I have all the information I need.
`Is that right?
` MR. OAKS: That's correct. And so, if you turn to slide
`24, it kind of summarizes what you're doing with the Mach-Zehnder
`Modulator for phase modulation. So -- and for phase modulation,
`you're biasing at the minimum, and so, again, Schneider has found
`the peaks. It's found the peak-to-null swings. You know the
`voltage at the minimum. And then, really, the only changes
`you're -- instead of doing a peak-to-null swing, so on this graph,
`it would be from zero to one or from one to two, you're doing a
`peak-to-peak swing.
` And so what Dr. Blumenthal has said is you just -- you
`apply twice the swing voltage. This is on slide 23 from his
`declaration filed with the petition, the bottom excerpt from --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-02189 and IPR2017-02190
`Patent 6,476,952
`
`this is from paragraph 102 and also 162. He says when twice the
`swing voltage is applied differentially to the electrodes, one
`waveguide rotates counterclockwise to pi while the other waveguide
`rotates clockwise to the same point. When the waveguides
`counter-rotate in this manner, 180 degrees phase shift could be
`imparted at the output of the phase modulator.
` So -- and then the excerpt above, it talks about how
`it's known that the bias point is the minimum for phase
`modulation. So in sort of response to the Patent Owner saying,
`Well, this is some complicated method, Dr. Blumenthal explained in
`his reply declaration a number of ways you could do it. He had
`already mentioned doubling -- he says twice, which is just simple
`multiplication. And there's a few other ways that you can get to
`those points, and it's all just using simple math:
`Multiplication, addition, subtraction.
` JUDGE KAISER: So, Mr. Oaks, it seems to me that it's
`not disputed that the transfer function of the modulator is the
`same regardless of whether you use intensity or phase modulation.
`And you have pointed us to things that show that the points that
`you would calculate about the transfer function are the same. But
`it seems to me that, in your demonstratives, it's clear that --
`and in the pleadings -- it's clear that what bias point you use
`for phase modulation or intensity modulation is different; is that
`right?
` MR. OAKS: That's correct.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-02189 and IPR2017-02190
`Patent 6,476,952
`
` JUDGE KAISER: So what are you relying on that a person
`of ordinary skill in the art would have taken Schneider and known
`how to use its control algorithm to have the correct bias point
`for phase modulation?
` MR. OAKS: So we cited to a number of different
`references, and one of the ones we relied on extensively is
`Chikama, which is Exhibit 1029, but there's several others that we
`put into the record that talk about it was well-known that these
`Mach-Zehnder Modulators could be used for either function. In
`fact, if you go to slide 22, there's an excerpt from Chikama at
`page 310 that says this modulation scheme is talking about
`Mach-Zehnder Modulation is attractive because a modulator can be
`commonly used as a phase modulator and an intensity modulator
`simply by changing its dry voltage.
` And there's also -- we have excerpts from Exhibit 1036
`which shows also how you -- what the set points are for those two
`different modes. So what Dr. Blumenthal testified as supported by
`the exhibits is that it was well known that a Mach-Zehnder
`Modulator has this dual functionality. You could use it for
`either one. And based on the fact that Schneider is telling you
`everything you needed to know about the transfer function -- and I
`kind of skipped some slides, but what's going on is, over time,
`you have environmental conditions that can change that transfer
`function.
` So normally, the peak -- the first peak of the transfer
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-02189 and IPR2017-02190
`Patent 6,476,952
`
`function is at zero on the X axis, but that transfer function can
`shift along the X axis back and forth based on aging or
`temperature variations or other environmental conditions.
` And so what Schneider is doing is basically running, you
`know, the control algorithm to see -- changing the bias point,
`changing the gain to see am I on the maximum and the minimum. So
`if the transfer function is shifted along the X axis, it will
`determine that. That's why you find the bias point. And once it
`does that, it knows exactly where the transfer function is.
` And so, like I said, you have all that information, and
`Dr. Blumenthal testified that, given all that information, given
`the fact that you know it could be used for either, it would be
`obvious to use it as a fixed modulator.
` JUDGE KAISER: But just to be clear, Schneider doesn't
`tell you how to do that; right? You're relying on the knowledge
`of a person of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by these
`other references for how to specifically implement Schneider's
`control function in phase modulation.
` MR. OAKS: Right. So Schneider doesn't say multiply the
`swing voltage by two to get phase modulation. What Schneider
`says -- if you look at slide 20, there's a couple of excerpts from
`Schneider. The first one says that -- from column 2, line 36 --
`says that "the bias control subroutine derives the peak of the
`sinusoidal Mach-Zehnder function." That's the transfer function.
` But then it goes on to say, "The bias control
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-02189 and IPR2017-02190
`Patent 6,476,952
`
`subroutine, therefore, depends on the shape of the transfer
`functio0n and not on the absolute values of the controller feedback
`signal."
` So this is teaching a POSITA -- this is controlled
`algorithm that's trying to figure out the shape of the transfer
`function. It goes on to talk about, in Column 4, line 48, about
`the gain control, and it says, "The driver gain control routine
`non-disruptively optimizes the peak-to-peak swing of the
`electrical data signal output by the data driver."
` And then, like I said, what the experts agree is that's
`actually peak-to-null, that the experts call the minimum and the
`maximum peaks. So it's determining the swing and the bias points,
`so it has -- it's defining the transfer function. So that's what
`Dr. Blumenthal testified. That's how a POSITA would understand
`this disclosure of Schneider.
` So to answer your question, yes, you take that
`information a POSITA knows -- I have the transfer function, I know
`I can use this modulator either in intensity or phase, it was
`known to use them in phase, so I can use it as the modulator in
`Bauch or Kaneda for phase modulation, and I can control it using
`Schneider's algorithm, given all the information that Schneider
`gives about the transfer function.
` So let me move on to slide 26. So, again, claim 1
`merely recites this DAC, a digital analog converter, that has an
`output for altering the phase of the phase modulator. There's no
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-02189 and IPR2017-02190
`Patent 6,476,952
`
`dispute that Schneider has a DAC that controls a modulator. So
`what the dispute is about, like we have discussed, is whether you
`can use that control algorithm and associated DAC to control that
`Mach-Zehnder Modulator for phase modulation.
` And so the Patent Owner has come up with a number of
`arguments that basically we believe it's reading or misreading
`Schneider to -- in a way that it says would not motivate a POSITA
`to make this combination. And it has a number of those arguments
`that's made, so I'd like to go through those. They're listed here
`on slide 26, but I'm just going to go through them in order in the
`following slides.
` So if we turn to slide 27 of the demonstratives, the
`first argument that Patent Owner makes is that Schneider had some
`closed-loop control requirement that's not met by the combination.
`But our response to that is that the control loop that we're using
`in the combination is the exact same control loop that's being
`used in Schneider. And as I mentioned, after the control loop's
`run, you have (indiscernible) points from Schneider, and yes, you
`have to multiply the swing voltage by two to get to run it as a
`phase modulator, but the control loop itself is exactly the same
`control loop.
` So it can't be that somehow we're not complying with
`what Schneider says is a closed-loop control. We're doing the
`same feedback, a loop control, in the combination that's being
`done in Schneider alone. What Schneider is referring to --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-02189 and IPR2017-02190
`Patent 6,476,952
`
`sorry -- when it talks about the closed-loop control is really --
`it's relating to the prior art. It's talking about the system
`for, like, manual alignment that had to constantly be adjusted and
`applied, and this closed-loop control is simply using the data
`itself, using the output of the modulator to control the
`modulator. And so that's what we're doing in the combination,
`just like Schneider alone.
` JUDGE KAISER: So Patent Owner seems to talk a lot about
`running -- whether your combination runs Schneider's control loop
`at the same time that it's transmitting data. Can you just talk a
`little bit about that and whether -- are you using Schneider's
`control loop in that way or are you using it in some different way
`than Schneider uses it in terms of transmission of data?
` MR. OAKS: So Schneider -- the Patent Owner reads
`certain passages of Schneider to suggest that it is running while
`data is being transmitted, and we don't disagree that those might
`imply that. But Schneider doesn't ever say "this is an algorithm
`that has to be run when data is being transmitted." It doesn't
`say you can't run it when data is not being transmitted, when sort
`of real data over the network is being transmitted.
` So, I mean, to answer your question, we're not -- we're
`running the control loop when data is not being phase modulated.
`So it would be run -- and I'll talk about that because this kind
`of relates to the disruption argument. So I'm on slide 29. What
`Patent Owner says is, by doing that, by pausing the data briefly
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-02189 and IPR2017-02190
`Patent 6,476,952
`
`at some periodic intervals, which could be large, that that
`somehow disrupts the data, and that's the disruption that
`Schneider is talking about when it talks about disruption. That's
`not the case.
` Like I said, like the closed-loop control, Schneider
`mentions disruption when it's talking about the prior art. The
`prior art had this -- what they call time-consuming manual
`alignment techniques, and it proposed this micro controller-based
`controller algorithm that eliminated that and that would not
`disrupt the data because you're not doing this manual alignment
`without a micro controller.
` And of course, in the combination, we're using the micro
`controller just like Schneider teaches. Dr. Blumenthal testified
`on this disruption point, and he said that pausing this data --
`and we're talking about a very short time, from milliseconds, to
`run this control algorithm is not -- a POSITA wouldn't consider
`that disruption of a system. He explained that Schneider's
`control algorithm could run more quickly than the prior art
`routines, and those routines found the bias, for example, in
`50 milliseconds.
` Dr. Goossen, the Patent Owner's expert, also -- when he
`ran his program, he found a conversion like four iterations, so
`we're talking about a very short amount of time. And so that
`short time, milliseconds, Dr. Blumenthal explained that that's,
`quote, "the time period is consistent with acceptable link
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-02189 and IPR2017-02190
`Patent 6,476,952
`
`downtime."
` He talked about SONET, for example, which was a
`well-used optical networking system that, at times -- still is
`today -- has actual data buffer storage. So it has buffers that
`buffer the data for a period of time for these -- for
`50 milliseconds that allows for pausing of the data so that you
`can do maintenance and other things and then the data can be run.
`So the end points don't know that anything was wrong, because
`you've been buffering the data.
` He explained -- he was asked about this in his
`deposition, and he explained that the SONET standard didn't
`transmit data, so it paused data. When you had, like, a link
`switch or a link down, when you're doing a protection switch, that
`it verified everything was working, and it had a built-in
`50-second -- 50-millisecond restoration time. So, again, it
`paused the data for 50 milliseconds to do that restoration. So
`it's not uncommon that you have pauses in data in these systems.
` He went on --
` JUDGE KAISER: And just so I can understand, you know,
`assuming that there is some disruption from Schneider's
`control algorithm, would you have a -- would it matter whether
`that -- whether Schneider was doing intensity or phase modulation
`in terms of this disruption? In other words, does phase
`modulation somehow exacerbate the disruption aspect of running a
`control algorithm?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-02189 and IPR2017-02190
`Patent 6,476,952
`
` MR. OAKS: I don't think there's any evidence in the
`record one way or the other about phase versus intensity
`modulation. I mean, it's just a fundamental -- it's more about
`what does the network expect? Does it have built-in leeway to
`deal with pauses in data transmission, and that's what
`Dr. Blumenthal says they do. If you turn to slide 31,
`Dr. Blumenthal went on to explain in his deposition that the
`system stopped data to do things and there's not a problem with
`that; that data transmission was commonly stopped for maintenance
`in addition to, as I mentioned before, for switching, if you have
`a link problem. And he said that these acceptable -- these are
`acceptable levels of -- if you want to call them disruption, fine.
`I would say it's pausing or interruption, but they're acceptable
`because that's built into the system already for maintenance.
` JUDGE KAISER: Yeah, I mean, I guess what I'm trying to
`understand is, is the disruption aspect, is that part of Schneider
`to begin with or is that introduced by your combination?
` MR. OAKS: So I think what Patent Owner has argued is
`that Schneider, when it's running an intensity modulation, is
`running a control algorithm during data transmission. So we --
`and so we wouldn't dispute that. That is, we're running the
`control algorithm not during data transmission so pausing it for
`the milliseconds that it --
` JUDGE KAISER: But you're saying that's what Schneider
`does anyway, or you're saying that's how you would use Schneider
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-02189 and IPR2017-02190
`Patent 6,476,952
`
`when you're --
` MR. OAKS: No, that's in the combination. That's how it
`would be used.
` JUDGE KAISER: Okay.
` MR. OAKS: And just to finish that point, so
`Dr. Blumenthal also explained in his deposition, quote, that it
`was quite common to run these routines periodically during link
`downtimes and scheduled maintenance at nighttime when there wasn't
`a lot of traffic running on the link. So, again, Dr.
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
