`571-272-7822
`
`;
`
`.
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: November4, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS,INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE,and
`TREVORM.JEFFERSON,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 CFR. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Cisco Systems,Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter
`
`partes review of claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158 B2 (Ex. 1001,
`
`“the ?158 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). TQ Delta, LLC (“Patent Owner’’) filed
`
`a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Institution of an inter
`
`partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the
`
`. showsthat there is a reasonable likelihood
`.
`petition ... and any response .
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`
`challengedin the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C_F.R. § 42.108.
`
`Uponconsideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we conclude
`
`the information presented showsthere is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claims 1-30 of
`
`the °158 patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`Petitioner indicates that the 158 patent is the subject of several
`
`pending judicial matters. Pet. 1.
`
`B. The ’158 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ’158 patent relates to multicarrier communications systems that
`lowerthe peak-to-average power ratio (PAR)oftransmitted signals.
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:28-31. A value is associated with each carrier signal, and a
`
`phase shift is computed for each carrier signal based on the value associated
`
`with that carrier signal. Jd. at 2:38-41. The value is determined
`
`independentof the input bit value carried by the carrier signal. The
`
`computed phase shift value is combined with the phase characteristic of that
`
`carrier signal to substantially scramble the phase characteristics of the carrier
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`signals. Id. at 2:38-45. Figure 1 illustrates the multicarrier communication
`
`system and is reproduced below:
`
`Phase
`|
`| Scrambler
`
`Transceiver 10
`
`Receiver
`
`Phase
`Descrambler
`
`-
`
`Transmitter
`
`Remote
`Transceiver
`14
`
`FIG. 1
`
`Figure 1 illustrates the multicarrier communication system,digital
`
`subscriber line (DSL) communication system 2, which includes discrete
`
`multitoned (DMT)transceiver 10 communicating with remote transceiver 14
`
`over communication channel 18 using transmission signal 38 having a
`
`plurality of carrier signals. Jd. at 3:27-31. DMTtransceiver 10 includes
`
`DMTtransmitter 22 and DMTreceiver 26. Jd. at 3:31-32. Remote
`
`transceiver also includes transmitter 30 and receiver 34. Id. at 3:32-34.
`
`DMTtransmitter 22 transmits signals over communication channel 18 to
`
`receiver 34. Id. at 3:40-42.
`
`DMTtransmitter 22 includes a quadrature amplitude modulation
`
`(QAM)encoder 42, modulator 46, bit allocation table (BAT) 44, and phase
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`scrambler 66. Jd. at 3:53-56. QAM encoder 42 hasa single input for
`
`receiving serial data bit stream 54 and multiple parallel outputs to transmit
`
`QAM symbols 58 generated by QAM encoder42 from bit stream 54. Id. at
`
`3:65—4:1. Modulator 46 provides DMT modulation functionality and
`
`transforms QAM symbols 58 into DMT symbols 70. Jd. at 4:12-14.
`
`Modulator 46 modulates each carrier signal with a different QAM symbol
`
`58, and, therefore, this modulation results in carrier signals having phase and
`
`amplitude characteristics based on QAM symbol 58. Jd. at 4:15—18.
`
`Modulator 46 also includes phase scrambler 66 that combines a phase shift
`
`computed for each QAM-modulated carrier signal with the phase
`
`characteristics of that carrier signal. Jd. at 4:31-34.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1-30 of the ’158 patent. Claims 1 and 15
`
`are independent claims. Claims 2—14 and 29 depend,either directly or
`
`indirectly, from claim 1, and claims 16—28 and 30 depend,either directly or
`
`indirectly, from claim 15. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
`
`In a multicarrier modulation system includinga first
`1.
`transceiver in communication with a secondtransceiver using a
`transmission signal having a plurality of carrier signals for
`modulating a plurality of data bits, each carrier signal having a
`phase characteristic associated with at least one bit of the
`plurality of data bits, a method for scrambling the phase
`characteristics ofthe carrier signals comprising:
`
`transmitting the plurality of data bits from the first
`transceiver to the second transceiver;
`
`associating a carrier signal with a value determined
`independentof any bit of the plurality of data bits carried by the
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`f
`
`?
`
`carrier signal, the value associated with the carrier signal
`determined by a pseudo-random number generator;
`determining a phase shift for the carrier signal at least
`based on the value associated with the carrier signal;
`
`;
`
`modulating at least one bit ofthe pluralityofdatabits on
`the carrier signal; and
`
`modulating the at least one bit on a second carrier signal
`of the plurality of carrier signals.
`
`Ex. 1001, 10:59-11:11.
`D. The Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`The information presented in the Petition sets forth proposed grounds
`of unpatentability of claims 1-30 of the °158 patent under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as follows (Pet. 9-10):
`
`
`References
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Shively” and Stopler?
`Shively,Stopler,and
`Gerszberg*
`Shively, Stopler, and
`Bremer
`Shively, Stopler, Bremer,
`and Gerszberg
`
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`1, 2, 4, 15, 16, and 18
`3, 5, 14,.17,.19, and 28-30
`6, 9, 10, 12, 20, 23, 24, and 26
`8, 11, 13, 22, 25, and 27
`—
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`' Petitioner supports its challenges with the Declarationof Dr. Jose Tellado.
`Ex. 1009.
`*U.S. Patent No. 6,144,696; issued Nov. 7, 2000 (Ex. 101 1) (“Shively”).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 6,625,219 B1; issued Sept. 23, 2003 (Ex. 1012)
`(“Stopler”).
`“U.S. Patent No. 6,424,646 B1; issued July 23, 2002 (Ex. 1013)
`(“Gerszberg”’).
`
`> U.S. PatentNo.4,924,516; issued May8, 1990 (Ex. 1017) (“Bremer”).
`
`r
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`.
`
`.
`
`¢
`
`’
`
`
`
`
`
`Shively, Stopler, Bremer,
`and Flammer®
`
`,
`Claims
`Challenged
`
`7 and 21
`
`Tl. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`The Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. at 48,766. Under the broadest reasonable construction
`standard, claim termsare given their ordinary and customary meaning, as
`“would be understood by one of ordinary skill in theart in the contextof the
`“entire disclosure. In re Tiranslogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
`Cir. 2007).
`|
`
`“multicarrier”
`
`Each of independentclaims 1 and 15 recites a “multicarrier.” -
`Petitionerproposesthat weinterpret the phrase to include “multiple
`carriers.” Pet. 8-9. Petitioner arrives at its proposed interpretation by
`explaining that although the term is not expressly defined, the Specification
`ofthe ?158 patent describes a conventional multicarrier communications
`system as using a combination ofmultiple carriers. Id. at 9 (citing Ex. 1001,
`1:33-47). Patent Owner argues that the term “multicarrier” need not be
`interpreted to render a decision on whetherto institute trial. Prelim. Resp.
`| 11. We determinethat it is not necessary to interpret the term “multicarrier”,
`for purposesof this decision.
`*
`
`|
`
`6 U.S. Patent No. 5,515,369; issued May 7, 1996 (Ex. 1019) (“Flammer”).-
`.
`6
`.
`
`t
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`“transceiver”
`
`Each of independent claims 1 and 15 recites a “transceiver.”
`
`Petitioner proposes that we interpret transceiver to include “a device, such as
`
`a modem, with a transmitter and a receiver.” Pet. 9. Petitioner arrivesat its
`
`proposedinterpretation by explaining that the word “transceiver”is a
`
`combination of the words transmitter and receiver and that the specification
`
`of the 158 patent refers to transceivers as modems. Jd. (citing Ex. 1009, 23;
`Ex. 1001, 1:42, 3:30—53).
`.
`
`—
`
`Patent Ownerarguesthat the term “transceiver” need not be
`
`interpreted to render a decision on whetherto institute trial. Prelim. Resp.
`
`11. Patent Owner, however, does not submit that Petitioner’s proposed
`
`interpretation of the term “transceiver” is incorrect. Based on the record
`
`before us, at this stage of the proceeding, we adopt Petitioner’s interpretation
`
`of “transceiver” to include “a device, such as a modem,with a transmitter
`
`and receiver.”
`
`B. Asserted Obviousness over Shively and Stopler
`Petitioner contendsthat claims 1, 2, 4, 15, 16, and 18 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Shively and Stopler. Pet. 11-32.
`
`Relying on the testimony of Dr. Jose Tellado, Petitioner explains how the
`
`combination of Shively and Stopler allegedly meets all of the claim
`
`limitations. Jd. (citing Ex. 1009).
`
`Shively (Ex. 1011)
`
`Shively discloses discrete multitoned transmission (DMT) of data by
`
`digital subscriber loop (DSL) modemsandtheallocation ofbits to the
`
`discrete multitones. Ex. 1011, 1:5—8. Bit allocation is performed to
`
`optimize throughput within aggregate power and powerspectral density
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`masklimits. Jd. at 4:17-19. The system includes a transmitting modem and
`
`a receiving modem connected by a cable having four twisted pairs of
`
`conductors. Jd. at 9:63-65. The modemsinclude a source encoder, a
`
`channel decoder, and a digital modulator to take in and transmit data from a
`
`data source. Jd. at 10:9-12. The modemsalso includea digital
`
`demodulator, a channel decoder, and a source decoderto receive the data
`and supply it to a data sink. Jd. at 10:12-14. The source encoder
`
`compresses data, applies the compressed data to the channel decoder, which
`
`performserror correction. Jd. at 10:15-19. The error corrected data is
`
`applied to the digital modulator, which acts as the interface with the
`
`communication channel. /d. at 10:15—22. The digital demodulator
`
`constructs a data stream from the modulated signal and appliesit to the
`
`channel decoder, which performserror correction, and then applies the
`
`corrected data to the source decoder, which decompressesthe data. Id. at
`
`10:22—26.
`
`In the QAM multitoned modulation, the spectrum is broken into
`
`multiple sub-bands or QAM channels. Jd. at 10:27—29. Thedigital
`
`modulator generates N QAM signal tones, one for each QAM channel.
`
`Id. at 10:29-30. Theserial stream is segmented in to N frames, each having
`
`allocated to it k; bits of data. Jd. at 10:30-31. The multi-carrier modulator
`
`generates N QAM tones, one for each channel, at the same symbolrate but
`
`with a respective constellation for each channel. Jd. at 10:35-37.
`
`Stopler (Ex. 1012)
`
`Stopler discloses a method and apparatus for encoding/framing a data
`
`stream of multitoned modulated signals to improve impulse burst immunity.
`
`Ex. 1012, 1:8-11. The encoding/framing schemeallowsefficient operation
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`in multipoint to point channels affected by ingress and impulsive
`
`interference. Jd. at 5:11-14. Two dimensionalinterleaving is performed,
`
`with one dimension being time and the other dimension being frequency
`
`(tones or sub-channels). Jd. at 5:18—20. Stopler further discloses a
`
`diagonalization scheme, where data packets are spread over time in a
`
`diagonal fashion, such that an impulse noise affects more than one user’s
`
`packets, with the effect on each being reduced. Jd. at 5:64—-67.
`
`Analysis
`
`Claim | recites “[i]n a multicarrier modulation system includinga first
`
`transceiver in communication with a secondtransceiver.” Petitioner
`
`contends, for example, that Shively’s description of two communicating
`
`modems meetsthe first and second transceivers. Pet. 17. Petitioner further
`
`contends that Shively describes a multicarrier modulation system.
`
`Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1011, 1:5—7, 1:35-38).
`
`Claim 1 further recites “using a transmission signal having a plurality
`of carrier signals for modulating a plurality of data bits.” Petitioner |
`contends, for example, that Shively describes a transmitting modem that
`receives digital data from a data source and modulates separate carriers to
`represent the digital data, which results ina modulated signal sent to a
`receiving modem.Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1011, 5:22—26). Petitioner further
`
`contends that Shively explains that the available frequency spectrum is
`
`divided into multiple QAM channels, which a personof ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have understood to be a “plurality of carrier signals for modulating
`
`a plurality of data bits.” See Pet. 19; Ex. 1009, 36.
`
`‘
`
`Claim 1 recites “each carrier signal having a phase characteristic
`
`associated with at least one bit of the plurality of data bits.” Petitioner
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`contends that Shively describes that quadrature amplitude modulation
`
`(QAM), for example, produces a signal whose phase and amplitude convey
`
`the encoded k-bits of information and that a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have understoodthat the phase of a signal used in QAM to
`
`conveybits is a phase characteristic as claimed. Pet. 20; Ex. 1011, 1:29-30;
`
`Ex. 1009, 38.
`
`Claim 1 further recites a “method for scrambling the phase
`
`characteristics of the carrier signals.” Petitioner contends that Stopler
`
`describes a phase scrambler that applies a phase scrambling sequence to data
`
`in the form of m-tuples which are to be mapped into QAM symbols. Pet. 22;
`
`Ex. 1012, 12:20—-28. Petitioner contends that the QAM symbols are then
`
`provided to a modulator which implements the particular signal modulation.
`
`Pet. 22; Ex. 1012, 12:55-57, Fig. 5; Ex. 1009, 39-40. Petitioner explains,
`
`with supporting evidence, that it would have been obviousto a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art that modulating the phase-scrambled QAM
`
`symbols results in the phases ofthe carrier signals being scrambled. Pet. 22;
`
`Ex. 1009, 44. Petitioner contends that it would have been obviousto a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art to employ Stopler’s phase scrambling
`
`techniques in Shively’s transmitter. Pet. 22; Ex. 1009, 45.
`
`Claim 1 also recites “transmitting the plurality of data bits from the
`
`first transceiver to the second transceiver.” Petitioner relies on Shively’s
`description of a transmitting modem that transmits data bits to a receiving
`modem to meetthis limitation. Pet. 23. Claim 1 also recites “associating a
`
`carrier signal with a value determined independently of any bit of the
`
`plurality of data bits carried by the carrier signal, the value associated with
`
`the carrier signal determined by a pseudo-random numbergenerator.”
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`Petitioner relies on Stopler to meet this limitation. In particular, Petitioner
`
`contends that Stopler teaches a pseudo random generator that outputs
`
`consecutive output pairs that are converted into numbers 2at+b. Pet. 24;
`
`Ex. 1012, 12:28-45. The value (2at+b), derived from the pseudo-random
`
`number generator, Petitioner contends, is a “value determined independently
`
`of any bit of the plurality of data bits carried by the carrier signal.” Pet. 24;
`
`Ex. 1009, 48. Petitioner further explains, with supporting evidence,that
`
`because Stopler teaches that the value (2at+b)is associated with a symbol
`
`that is transmitted on a sub-channelhaving a carrier frequency, the value
`
`(2atb) is associated with a carrier signal. Pet 25; Ex. 1009, 48-49.
`
`Claim 1 recites “determining a phase shift for the carrier signal at least
`
`based on the value associated with the carrier signal.” Petitioner contends
`
`that Stopler teaches that the (2a+b) value is used to determine a phase shift
`
`because the sum (2a+b)is used to select the amountof rotation to be applied
`
`to the symbol, where the phase rotation can be 0, 2/2, 1, or -2/2. Pet. 25;
`
`Ex. 1012, 12:28-45; Ex. 1009, 49. Petitioner contends that a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that applying a rotation to the
`
`symbolresults in a phase shift in the carrier signal after the symbolis
`
`modulated onto the carrier. Pet. 25—26; Ex. 1009, 49.
`
`Claim 1 recites “modulating at least one bit of the plurality of data bits
`
`on the carrier signal” and “modulating the at least one bit on a second carrier
`
`signal of the plurality of carrier signals.” Petitioner points to descriptions in
`
`Shively that describes determining “a respective carrier modulated to
`
`transmit onebit in each of a plurality of multitone subchannels ofthe
`
`channel” and “modulatinga first set of respective carriers to represent
`
`respective unique portions of the data stream.” Pet. 26 (quoting Ex. 1011,
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`8:3-6, 8:5-13). Petitioner further contends that Shively employs QAM
`
`multitone modulation, and Shively’s multiple sub-bands or QAM channels
`
`correspondto the claimed “plurality of carrier signals.” Pet. 26; Ex. 1009,
`
`51. Petitioner submits that Stopler also teaches using QAM to convey data
`
`bits on carrier signals. Pet. 26-27. Petitioner explains that it would have
`
`been obviousto a person with ordinary skill in the art to employ the
`
`techniques of Shively and Stopler to modulate at least one bit of the plurality
`
`of data bits on the carrier signal. Jd. at 27 (citing Ex. 1009, 52). Petitioner
`
`further argues that Shively discloses modulating a portion of data on
`
`multiple carriers, and, therefore, meets the “second carrier” claim limitation.
`
`Id. at 27-29.
`
`Petitioner provides reasonable rationale for combining Shively and
`
`Stopler. Pet. 14-24. For example, Petitioner argues that “[i]t 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.” Jd. at 14 (citing Ex. 1009, 27).
`
`Petitioner explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`recognized that “by transmitting redundant data on multiple carriers,
`
`Shively’s transmitter would suffer from an increased peak-to-average power
`
`ratio” because “the overall transmitted signal in a multicarrier system is
`
`essentially the sum ofits multiple subcarriers.” Jd. (citing Ex. 1009, 27).
`
`Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have
`
`sought out an approachto reduce the [(peak-to-average powerratio)] PAR of
`
`Shively’s transmitter” and “Stopler provides a solution for reducing the PAR
`
`of a multicarrier transmitter.” Jd. at 15 (citing Ex. 1009, 29). Petitioner
`
`argues that Stopler discloses “a phase scrambler[that] can be employed to
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`randomize the phase of the individual subcarriers” (/d. at 15 (quoting
`
`Ex. 1012, 12:24—28)) and “[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 samebits, but
`
`without those two subcarriers having the same phase.” Jd. at 15. Petitioner
`
`explains that “[s]ince the two subcarriers are out-of-phase with one another,
`
`the subcarriers will not reach their peak powerat the sametime,” thereby
`
`reducing the peak-to-average powerratio (PAR) in Shively’s system. dd.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner argues that “[c]ombining Stopler’s phase scrambler
`
`into Shively’s transmitter would have beenarelatively simple and obvious
`
`solution to reduce Shively’s PAR.” /d. at 16 (citing Ex. 1009, 29).
`
`Independent claim 15 is similar to claim 1. Petitioner has made a
`
`showing with respect to claim 15 similar to its showing with respect to claim
`
`1. See, e.g., Pet. 30-32. To the extent that claim 15 is different from claim
`
`1, Petitioner has accounted for such differences. We also have reviewed
`
`Petitioner’s showing with respect to dependent claims2, 4, 16, and 18.
`
`Based on the current record before us, and notwithstanding Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments, which we address below, we determinethat there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that claims1, 2,4,
`
`15, 16, and 18 would have been obviousover Shively and Stopler.
`
`Patent Owner’s Contentions
`
`Patent Ownerarguesthat “no review should beinstituted because
`
`Petitioner has not provided a sufficient rationale to combine Shively and
`
`Stopler.” Prelim. Resp. 13. Specifically, Patent Owner argues (1) Shively
`
`does not suffer from an increased peak-to-average powerratio (PAR),
`
`(2) Shively only uses a small numberof carriers and therefore would not
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`suffer from a PAR problem,(3) Stopler is ambiguousas to whatit teaches,
`
`and (4) Petitioner’s rationale for combining Shively and Stopler suffers from
`
`hindsight bias. /d. at 13-21.
`
`Weare not persuaded by Patent Owner’s attorney arguments because
`
`such arguments do not persuadeusthat Petitioner’s challenge, whichis
`
`based on record evidenceis insufficient to institute a trial. For example,
`
`Petitioner explains, through the testimony of Dr. Tellado, that a person with
`
`ordinary skillin the art would have recognized that the combination of
`Shively and Stopler is nothing more than the use of a knowntechnique to
`
`improve a similar device, method or product. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1009, 27).
`
`Dr. Tellado further explains why a person with ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have recognized that Shively would have suffered from increased
`
`PAR. Ex. 1009, 27. Patent Owner’s attorney arguments regarding Shively’s
`
`lack of increased PAR and Stopler’s ambiguity are not persuasive because
`
`they are not based on evidence of record, such as from a declarant attesting
`
`to how a personofordinary skill in the art would have understood the
`
`teachings of Stopler and Shively. Furthermore, Dr. Tellado discloses that
`
`the knowledge of the advantages and benefits of the combination were
`
`known at the time of the invention, and, accordingly, we are not persuaded
`
`that Petitioner’s rationale for combining Shively and Stopler is based on
`
`impermissible hindsight. See Pet. 14-16; Ex. 1009, 27-30.
`
`C. Asserted Obviousness over Shively, Stopler, and Gerszberg
`Petitioner contendsthat claims 3, 5, 14, 17, 19, and 28-30 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Shively, Stopler, and
`
`Gerszberg. Pet. 33-41. Relying on the testimony of Dr. Jose Tellado,
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`Petitioner explains how the combination of Shively, Stopler, and Gerszberg
`
`allegedly meetsall of the claim limitations. Jd. (citing Ex. 1009).
`
`Gerszberg discloses using a Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) modem,
`
`such as an ADSL modem,to transmit and receive modulated data. Ex. 1013,
`
`11:66-12:7. The modem uses DMT modulation to transmit data. Id. at
`
`12:7-9. Gerszberg further describes types of data services that may be
`
`provided to subscriber premises by a DSL modem that uses DMT
`
`modulation, such as high-speed internet access and video services.
`
`Id. at
`
`7:44-60, 8:16-36, 10:63-11:3. Gerszberg also describes that a DSL modem
`
`can be used in various DSL communications, such as HDSL, ADSL, SDSL,
`
`and VDSL. Jd. at 9:66-10:3.
`
`Based onthe record before us, Petitioner has accounted sufficiently
`
`for dependentclaims 3, 5, 14, 17, 19, and 28-30. Pet. 33-41. For example,
`
`claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites ‘““wherein one or more ofthefirst
`
`transceiver and second transceiver are VDSLtransceivers.” Claim 17,
`
`which depends from independent claim 15, is similar to claim 3. Petitioner
`
`relies on Gerszberg’s description that its “DSL modem maybe constructed
`
`using any of the techniques described in the applications incorporated by
`
`reference below”such as “High Speed Digital Subscriber Line (HDSL),
`
`Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL), Symmetrical Digital
`
`Subscriber Line (SDSL) and Very high data rate Digital Subscriber Line
`(VDSL).” Pet. 37-38 (emphasis omitted); Ex. 1013, 9:62—10:3. Petitioner
`contends that it would have been obviousto replace Shively’s ADSL
`
`modems with VDSL modems,as taught by Gerszberg, in order to achieve
`
`higher bandwidth. Pet. 38; Ex. 1009, 67. Moreover, Petitioner provides a
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`rational reason for combining Gerszberg with the combined teachings of
`
`Shively and Stopler. Pet. 34-37.
`
`We havereviewedPetitioner’s showing with respectto all of claims 3,
`
`5, 14, 17, 19, and 28-30 and determine that there is reasonable likelihood
`
`that Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to those claims. Patent Owner
`
`does not present arguments for any of those claims separate from the
`
`arguments addressed previously.
`
`D. Asserted Obviousness over Shively, Stopler, and Bremer
`
`Petitioner contendsthat claims 6, 9, 10, 12, 20, 23, 24, and 26 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Shively, Stopler, and
`
`Bremer. Pet. 41-50. Relying on the testimony of Dr. Jose Tellado,
`
`Petitioner explains how the combination of Shively, Stopler, and Bremer
`
`allegedly meetsall of the claim limitations. Jd. (citing Ex. 1009).
`
`Bremerrelates to encoding and decoding techniques for a data signal
`
`that is transmitted over a communications channel. Ex. 1017, 1:41-67.
`
`Bremerdescribes using a pseudorandom generator to encodethe gain or
`phase ofa signal prior to transmission, and on the receiving end, uses a
`second pseudorandom generator to decode the encodeddata signal. Jd.at
`
`1:53-64.
`
`Based on the record before us, Petitioner has accounted sufficiently
`
`for dependentclaims6, 9, 10, 12, 20, 23, 24, and 26. Pet. 41-50. For
`
`example, claim 6 depends from claim 1 andrecites “independently deriving
`
`the values associated with each carrier using a second pseudo-random
`
`number generator in the second transceiver.” Claim 20, which depends from
`
`independentclaim 15, is similar to claim 6. Petitioner contends that Bremer
`
`teaches that when a transmitting device includes components causing a
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`pseudorandom phaseshift to the transmitted signal, a receiving device
`
`requires complementary components to decode the signal. Pet. 45;
`
`Ex. 1017, 1:60-65. Petitioner further contends that Bremer describes
`
`altering gain and phase modifiers of a data signal being transmitted from a
`
`QAM modem based on values from a pseudorandom signal generator, which
`
`generates a pseudorandom number. Pet. 45; Ex. 1017, Abstract, 2:32;
`
`Ex. 1009, 77. Petitioner further contends that the values produced by a
`
`second pseudorandom numbergenerator are independentofthe values
`
`producedbya first pseudorandom numbergenerator. Pet. 46; Ex. 1017,
`
`4:10-16, 4:35-36; Ex. 1009, 80. Petitioner providesrational reasoning for
`
`combining Bremerwith the combined teachings of Shively and Stopler.
`
`Pet. 42-44.
`
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s showing with respect to all of claims6,
`
`9, 10, 12, 20, 23, 24, and 26 and determine that there is reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to those claims.
`
`Patent Ownerdoes not present arguments for any of those claims separate
`
`from the arguments addressed previously.
`
`E. Asserted Obviousness over Shively, Stopler, Bremer, and Gerszberg
`
`Petitioner contendsthat claims 8, 11, 13, 22, 25, and 27 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Shively, Stopler,
`
`Bremer, and Gerszberg. Pet. 50-53. Relying on the testimonyof Dr. Jose
`
`Tellado, Petitioner explains how the combination of Shively, Stopler,
`
`Bremer, and Gerszberg allegedly meets all of the claim limitations. Jd.
`
`(citing Ex. 1009).
`
`Based on the record before us, Petitioner has accounted sufficiently
`
`for dependent claims 8, 11, 13, 22, 25, and 27. Pet. 50-53. For example,
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`claim 11 depends from claim 6, and recites “wherein the first and second
`transceivers are VDSLtransceivers.” Claim 25, which depends from claim
`
`20, is similar to claim 11. Petitioner relies on Gerszberg’s description that
`
`its “DSL modem maybe constructed using any of the techniques described
`
`in the applications incorporated by reference below”such as “High Speed
`
`Digital Subscriber Line (HDSL), Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line
`
`(ADSL), Symmetrical Digital Subscriber Line (SDSL)and Very high data
`
`rate Digital Subscriber Line (VDSL).” Pet. 37-38 (emphasis omitted), 52;
`
`Ex. 1013, 9:62—10:3. Petitioner contends that it would have been obviousto
`
`replace Shively’s ADSL modems with VDSL modems,as taught by
`
`Gerszberg, in order to achieve higher bandwidth. Pet. 38, 52; Ex. 1009, 67,
`
`89. Moreover, Petitioner provides a rational reason for combining
`
`Gerszberg with the combined teachings of Shively and Stopler. Pet. 50-51.
`
`Wehave reviewed Petitioner’s showing with respect to all of claims8,
`
`11, 13, 22, 25, and 27 and determine that there is reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to those claims. Patent Owner does
`
`not present arguments for any of those claims separate from the arguments
`
`addressed previously.
`
`F. Asserted Obviousness over Shively, Stopler, Bremer, and Flammer
`Petitioner contends that claims 7 and 21 are unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Shively, Stopler, Bremer, and Flammer.
`
`Pet. 53-60. Relying on the testimony of Dr. Jose Tellado, Petitioner
`
`explains how the combination of Shively, Stopler, Bremer, and Flammer
`
`allegedly meetsall of the claim limitations. Jd. (citing Ex. 1009).
`
`Flammerrelates to data transmission between a source node and a
`
`target node, where each nodehas a transmitter and a receiver. Ex. 1019,
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`Abstract. Flammer uses pseudo-random numbergeneratorsin its
`
`communication system. Flammerdescribes synchronization between
`
`pseudo-random numbergenerators at different ends of a communication
`
`channel. Jd. at 3:49-4:10. As part of the synchronization, an acquisition/
`
`synchronization packetis transmitted that includes a seed value from the
`
`source nodeto the target node. Jd. at 3:52—58. The transmitted seed valueis
`
`usedto initialize the pseudo-random numbergenerators executing at the
`
`respective source and target nodes. /d. at 3:52-4:9. Once the pseudo-
`
`random numbergenerators at both the source node andthe target node have
`
`the same seed value, they can generate identical pseudo-random number
`
`sequences for selecting frequency bands. Jd. at 4:42—53.
`
`Based onthe record before us, Petitioner has accounted sufficiently
`
`for dependent claims 7 and 21. Pet. 50-53. Claim 7 depends from claim 6
`
`and recites “using in the first and second transceivers a same seed for the
`
`first and second pseudo-random numbergenerators and the value of the seed
`
`is transmitted from thefirst transceiver to the second transceiver.” Claim
`
`21, which depends from claim 20, is similar to claim 7. Petitioner contends
`
`that Flammer teaches a transceiver as a node having a transmitter and a
`
`receiver. Pet. 57; Ex. 1019, Abstract. Petitioner further contends that in
`
`Flammer, the source nodeis the first transceiver and the target nodeis the
`
`second transceiver. Ex. 1009, 92. Petitioner argues that Flammerteaches
`
`that it was known for the pseudo-random numbergenerators in the source
`
`node and the target node to use the same seed value. Pet. 57; Ex. 1019,
`
`3:52-67; Ex. 1009, 92-93. Petitioner further explains, with supporting
`
`evidence, that Flammer teaches transmitting a value of a seed from a source
`
`node(afirst transceiver) to a target node (a second transceiver) when the
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`target node receives an acquisition/synchronization packet which contains
`information about the node, including a seed value. Moreover,Petitioner
`providesa rational reason for combining Flammerwith the combined
`teachings of Shively, Stopler, and Bremer. Pet. 54-57.
`| Wehave reviewedPetitioner’s showingwith respect to claims 7 and
`21 and determinethat there is reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`| prevailin its challenge to those claims. Patent Owner doesnotpresent _
`arguments for claims 7 and 21 separate from the arguments addressed
`previously.
`
`II. CONCLUSION
`
`. For the foregoing reasons, we determinethat the information
`presented establishes a reasonable likelihoodthat Petitioner would prevail in|
`showing that claims 1-30 of the ’158 patent are unpatentable. At this
`
`preliminary stage, we have not made a final determination with respect to
`
`the patentability of the challenged claims or any underlying factual and legal
`
`issues.
`
`Se
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly,it is:
`
`ORDEREDthat pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`
`review is herebyinstituted for the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`
`
`Shively and Stopler
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`1, 2, 4, 15, 16, and 18
`
`ceppen