`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 44
`Entered: October 26, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., DISH NETWORK,LLC,
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS,LLC,
`COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`TIME WARNER CABLE ENTERPRISES LLC,
`VERIZON SERVICES CORP., and ARRIS GROUP,INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`Vv.
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-01021!'
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, TREVOR M.JEFFERSON,and,
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 USC. § 318(a) and 37 C.F-R. § 42.73
`
`| DISH Network, L.L.C., whofiled a Petition in IPR2017-00255, and
`Comcast Cable Communications, L.L.C., Cox Communications, Inc., Time
`Warner Cable Enterprises L.L.C., Verizon Services Corp., and ARRIS
`Group,Inc., whofiled a Petition in IPR2017-00417, have been joinedin this
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In this inter partes review,instituted pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314,
`Cisco Systems, Inc.(“Petitioner”) challenges claims 1-30 (“the challenged
`claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’158 patent”),
`owned by TQ Delta, LLC (“Patent Owner”). We have jurisdiction under
`35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written Decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§ 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons discussed below,Petitioner
`has shownbya preponderanceof the evidence that the challenged claimsare
`unpatentable. Patent Owner’s Motion to Excludeis dismissed.
`
`A, Procedural History
`
`Petitioner filed a Petition for inter partes review of claims 1—30 of the
`
`°158 patent. Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent Ownerfiled a Preliminary Response.
`Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). On November4, 2016, we instituted an inter
`partes review ofclaims 1-30 ofthe °158 patent on the following grounds
`
`(Paper 7 (“Dec.”’)):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Shively,” and Stopler?
`§ 103(a)
`1,2, 4,
`15, 16, and 18
`
`
`
`
`anively,Stoplen and §103(a)|3, 5, 14, 17, 19, and 28-30
`
`
`Shively, Stopler, and
`6, 9, 10, 12, 20, 23, 24, and
`premet
`1039)
`8, 11, 13, 22, 25, and 27
`Shively, Stopler,
`§ 103(a)
`
`
`
`
`Claims
`
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,144,696; issued Nov. 7, 2000 (Ex. 1011) (“Shively”).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 6,625,219 B1; issued Sept. 23, 2003 (Ex. 1012)
`(“Stopler’).
`4U.S. Patent No. 6,424,646 B1; issued July 23, 2002 (Ex. 1013)
`(“Gerszberg”).
`5 U.S. Patent No. 4,924,516; issued May 8, 1990 (Ex. 1017) (“Bremer”).
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Bremer, andGerszberg [|
`
`Shively, Stopler,
`103
`Bremer, and Flammer®
`7 and 21
`
`Claims
`
`Thereafter, Patent Ownerfiled a Patent Owner Response (“PO
`Resp.”). Paper 15. Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent Owner Response
`(Pet. Reply”). Paper 20. Pursuant to an Order (Paper 24), Patent Owner
`filed a listing of alleged statements and evidence in connection with
`Petitioner’s Reply deemedto be beyondthe proper scope of a reply. Paper
`
`25. Petitioner filed a response to Patent Owner’s listing. Paper 32.
`
`Patent Ownerfiled a Motion to Exclude, Paper 31 (“PO Mot. Exc.”),
`
`Petitioner filed an Opposition, Paper 36 (“Pet. Opp. Mot. Exc.”), and Patent
`
`Ownerfiled a Reply, Paper 40. Patent Ownerfiled a Motion for
`
`Observation, Paper 30 (“PO Mot. Obs.”) and Petitionerfiled a Response to
`
`the Motion for Observation, Paper 37 (“Pet. Resp.”’).
`
`Weheld a consolidated hearing on August 3, 2017, for this case and
`
`related Case IPR2016-01020, and a transcript of the hearing is included in
`
`the record. Paper 42 (“Tr.”).
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`The parties indicate that the ’158 patent is the subject of several
`
`pending judicial matters. Pet. 1; Paper 5, 2-3.
`
`C. The ’158 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The °158 patent relates to multicarrier communications systemsthat
`lower the peak-to-average powerratio (PAR) of transmitted signals.
`
`6 U.S. Patent No. 5,515,369; issued May 7, 1996 (Ex. 1019) (“Flammer”).
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`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 thecarrier 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
`
`signals. Jd. at 2:38-45. Figure 1 illustrates the multicarrier communication
`
`system and is reproduced below:
`
`—Phase
`Scrambler
`
`Receiver
`
`— a [LP
`Phase
`ey
`Descrambler
`
`Transceiver 10
`
`t
`
`ay
`
`Receiver
`
`:
`
`Transmitter
`
`Remote
`Transceiver
`14
`
`FIG. 1
`
`Figure1 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.
`
`/d. at 3:27-31. DMTtransceiver 10 includes
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`DMTtransmitter 22 and DMTreceiver 26. Jd. at 3:31-32. Remote
`
`transceiver also includes transmitter 30 and receiver 34. Jd. at 3:32-34.
`
`DMTtransmitter 22 transmits signals over communication channel 18 to
`
`receiver 34. Jd. at 3:40-42.
`
`DMTtransmitter 22 includes a quadrature amplitude modulation
`(QAM)encoder 42, modulator 46,bit allocation table (BAT) 44, and phase
`scrambler 66. Id. at 3:53-56. QAM encoder42 hasa single inputfor
`receivingserial 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 symbol58. Jd. at 4:15-18.
`Modulator 46 also includes phase scrambler 66 that combines a phaseshift
`computedfor each QAM-modulated carrier signal with the phase
`characteristics of that carrier signal. Jd. at 4:31—34.
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1-30 of the ’158 patent. Claims 1] and 15
`are independent claims. Claims 2-14 and 29 depend,eitherdirectly or
`indirectly, from claim 1, and claims 16-28 and 30 depend,either directly or
`indirectly, from claim 15. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
`
`1, In a multicarrier modulation system includingafirst
`
`transceiver in communication with a second transceiver using a
`transmission signal havinga plurality of carrier signals for
`modulating a plurality of data bits, each carrier signal having a
`phase characteristic associated with at least onebit of the
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`plurality of data bits, a method for scrambling the phase
`characteristics of the carrier signals comprising:
`
`transmitting the plurality of data bits from thefirst
`transceiver to the second transceiver;
`
`associating a carrier signal with a value determined
`independentofanybit ofthe plurality of data bits carried by the
`carrier signal, the value associated with the carrier signal
`determined by a pseudo-random numbergenerator;
`
`determining a phaseshift for the carrier signalat least
`based on the value associated with the carrier signal;
`
`modulatingat least onebit of the plurality of data bits on
`the carrier signal; and
`
`modulating the at least one bit on a secondcarrier signal
`of the plurality of carrier signals.
`
`Ex. 1001, 10:59-11:11.
`
`H. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Principles ofLaw
`To prevail in its challenge to Patent Owner’s claims, Petitioner must
`demonstrate by a preponderanceofthe evidencethat the claims are
`unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). A claim is
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the
`claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a
`whole, would have been obviousat the time of the invention to a person
`having ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co.v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
`406 (2007). The question of obviousnessis resolved on the basis of
`underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of
`the prior art; (2) any differences betweenthe claimed subject matter and the
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence
`of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co. ofKansas City, 383 U.S. 1,
`
`17-18 (1966).
`In that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim,for
`a court can take accountof the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; see also
`Translogic Technology, Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1259, and 1262 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007).
`
`B. Level of Ordinary skill in the Art
`Citing its declarant, Dr. Jose Tellado, Petitioner contends that a person
`having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had
`(1) a Master’s degree in Electrical and/or Computer Engineering, or
`equivalent training, and (2) approximately five years of experience working
`with multicarrier communications systems. Pet. 10-11; Ex. 1009 4 18.
`Petitioner also contendsthat“[l]Jack of work experience can be remedied by
`
`additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 11.
`Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Robert Short indicated that for purposes of
`the proceeding he adopts Dr. Tellado’s definition of a person of ordinary
`skill in the art. Ex. 2003 § 16. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt
`Petitioner’s proposed definition, and further find that the level of ordinary
`skill in the art is reflected by theprior art of record. See Okajimav.
`Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d
`1573, 1579 (Fed.Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`C. Claim Interpretation
`The Boardinterprets 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); see also Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,766. Underthe broadest reasonable construction
`standard, claim termsare given their ordinary and customary meaning, as
`would be understood by one ofordinary skill in the art in the context of the
`
`entire disclosure. Jn re Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1257.
`
`Petitioner proposes constructions for the following claim terms:
`“multicarrier” and “transceiver.” Pet. 8—9. In our Decision to Institute, we
`
`interpreted the term “transceiver” to mean “a device, such as a modem,with
`a transmitter and receiver,” but determined that it was not necessary to
`interpret the term “multicarrier.” Dec. 6-7. Neither party has indicated that
`our determinations were improper and wedo not perceive any reason or
`evidence that now compels any deviation from ourinitial determinations.
`PO Resp. 13-14; Pet. Reply 7-8. Accordingly, the construction of
`transceiver to mean “a device, such as a modem, with a transmitter and
`
`receiver” applies to this Decision. Dec. 7. For purposesof this decision, we
`find it necessary to construe “scrambling the phase characteristics of the
`
`carrier signals” found in claim 1.
`Scrambling the Phase Characteristics ofthe Carrier Signals
`The preambleof claim 1 recites a transmission signal with a plurality
`of carrier signals where eachcarrier signal has a phase characteristic and “a
`method for scrambling the phase characteristics ofthe carrier signals,
`comprising.” (Emphasis added). Patent Owner arguesthatthe italicized
`language should be interpreted to mean “adjusting the phases ofa plurality
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`of carriers in a single multicarrier symbol by pseudo-randomly varying
`
`amounts.” PO Resp. 14-19. Petitioner argues that the phrase needs no
`
`interpretation, since theprior art relied upon uses the same “phase
`
`scrambling” terminology to describe pseudo-random phase changes. Pet.
`
`Reply 7 (citing Ex. 1012, 12:24-31). Additionally, Petitioner argues,
`without any other explanation, that “the Board should not adopt TQ Delta’s
`
`proposed construction.” Jd. During oral argument, however, counsel for
`Petitioner reiterated that it is Petitioner’s position that no construction of the
`
`term is necessary, because “[r]egarding [P]atent [O]wner’s proposal ofthe
`
`construction, we believe that is exactly how Stopleris describing this phase
`
`scrambler as operating.” Tr. 18:23—19:5.
`
`Thephrase “scrambling the phase characteristics of the carrier
`
`signals” is recited in the preamble of claim 1. Although neither party
`explicitly explains why the preamble of claim 1 is limiting, both parties
`implicitly contend that the preamble is limiting. For purposes ofthis
`decision, we determinethat the preambleis limiting. We further find it
`
`helpful to our decision and analysis to interpret the phrasein order to
`understand the parties’ positions with respect tohow the prior art reference
`Stopler meets the phrase.
`Patent Ownerarguesthat “scrambling the phase characteristics of the
`
`carrier signals” should be construed to mean “adjusting the phases of a
`plurality of carriers in a single multicarrier symbol by pseudo-randomly
`varying amounts.” PO Resp. 14. Patent Owner contendsthat the
`construction is supported bythe specification of the ’158 patent andclarifies
`that the claimed phase scrambling “must be performed amongstthe
`individual carrier phases in a single multicarrier symbol” andis not metif
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`the phase adjustment only occurs over time from one symbolto the next.
`
`37).
`PO Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 2003
`In support of its proposed interpretation, Patent Owner arguesthat the
`’158 patent describes that each ofthe plurality of carriers (of a multicarrier
`signal) correspondsto a different QAM symbol. PO Resp.15 (citing Ex.
`1001, 4:15-16). Patent Ownerfurther argues that each carrier (or QAM
`symbol) has its own phase or phase characteristic, and that the combination
`of the carriers (or QAM symbols)is referred to as a DMT symbol. PO Resp.
`16 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:9-11, 9:8-9; Ex. 2003 4 39). Patent Owner further
`contendsthat the ’158 patent describes that a “phase scrambler” scrambles
`phases or phasecharacteristics of carriers within a single DMT symbol, and
`that PAR in the transmission signal is reduced by adjusting the carrier
`phases within a single DMT symbol. PO Resp.16 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:32-
`8:13; Ex. 2003 9 39). PAR, Patent Owner contends, would not be reduced if
`carrier phases were only adjusted from one symbolto the next. PO Resp. 16
`
`(Ex. 2003 9 41-42).
`Based on the record before us, we agree with Patent Owner’s
`proposed construction as far as meaning “adjusting the phasesofa plurality
`of carriers in a single multicarrier symbol.” PO Resp. 14. Patent Owner,
`however, provides no persuasive reasoning for also addingto that
`construction “by pseudo-randomly varying amounts.” /d. Rather, Patent
`Owner merely contendsthat (1) in a correspondingdistrict court matter, the
`court construed the phrase to mean “adjusting the phase characteristics of the
`carrier signals by pseudo-randomly varying amounts;” (2) during
`prosecution ofa child application to the ’158 patent, the applicant explained
`that a “scrambler” operates by pseudo-randomlyselecting bits to invert; and
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`(3) there was no fundamental disagreement betweenparties that scrambling
`involves adjusting the phase characteristic of a carrier signal by pseudo-
`randomly varying amounts. PO Resp. 16-17. Patent Owner’s explanation
`for why we should add “by pseudo-randomly varying amounts”to its
`proposed construction is conclusory. Jd. at 17. Weinterpret claimsusing
`the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`involved patent. That standard is not the same as the standard used in
`district court. Patent Owner, however, provides no explanation for why we
`should apply the district court construction, which is not necessarily the
`sameas used before us, here. Moreover, Patent Owner does not explain why
`
`statements made during prosecutionofa child application for the term
`“scrambler” is relevant to how weshouldinterpret the disputed phrase that
`
`does not even contain the term “scrambler”in it.
`
`/d. at 16. In summary,
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments are conclusory.
`
`For all of the above reasons, and for purposesofthis decision, we
`
`determinethat “scrambling the phase characteristics of the carrier signals”
`means “adjusting the phasesofa plurality of carriers in a single multicarrier
`symbol.”
`.
`D. 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.
`WehavereviewedPetitioner’s showing identifying where each limitation
`allegedly appears in Shively and Stopler, along with the testimony of
`Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Jose Tellado. Jd. (citing Ex. 1009). We also have
`reviewed Patent Owner’s assertions and evidence,including the testimony of
`
`Dr. Robert Short, as to why Petitioner’s showingis deficient. PO Resp.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`Shively (Ex. 1011)
`Shively discloses discrete multitoned transmission (DMT) ofdata by
`digital subscriber loop (DSL) modemsandthe allocationofbits to the
`discrete multitones. Ex. 1011, 1:5-8. Bit allocation is performed to
`
`optimize throughput within aggregate power and powerspectral density
`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 modulatorto 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. Jd. at 10:15—22. The digital demodulator
`
`constructs a data stream from the modulated signal and applies it to the
`
`channel decoder, which performserror correction, and then applies the
`corrected data to the source decoder, which decompresses the data. Jd. 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. The digital
`modulator generates N QAM signaltones, one for each QAM channel.
`Id. at 10:29-30. Theserial stream is segmented in to N frames, each having
`allocated toit k; bits of data. Jd. at 10:30-31. The multi-carrier modulator
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`generates N QAMtones,onefor each channel, at the same symbolrate but
`with a respective constellation for each channel.
`/d. 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
`
`in multipoint to point channels affected by ingress and impulsive
`interference. [d. at 5:11-14. Two dimensional interleaving 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. A code
`having lower redundancycan be used since the amountof corruption
`expected in one user’s data packet will be reduced. Jd. at 5:67—-6:3.
`
`Figure 5 of Stopler is reproduced below.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`As shown above, Figure 5 of Stopler, input data, in the form of data
`packets, is input to an RS coder 52. Jd. at 8:55-57. Data output by RS coder
`52 is input to interleaver 54. Jd. at 9:8-10. The outputof interleaver 54 is
`rearranged into a serial bit stream and then scrambled in scrambler 56, which
`is used to randomize codedandinterleaved data. Jd. at 9:34-37. Data
`
`output by scrambler 56 is divided by levelsplitter 58 into twolevels of the
`TCM encoder. Splitter 58 divides serial bit stream into a group ofdata bits
`to be processed by lowerlevel 70, and the remaining databits to be
`processed by upperlevel 60. Jd. at 9:48—55. In lowerlevel 70 of TCM
`encode, data is collected into groups by group collector 72, which is input to
`coder 74, then group interleaver 76 and then groupfiller 78. Jd. at 10:40—
`11:18. The outputs of upper stream 60 and lower stream 70 are combined
`into m-tuples (QAM symbols) and temporarily stored in FIFO buffer 80,
`which then delivers data to a QAM mapper 82. Jd. at 11:51—57.
`The input to QAM mapper82is data in the form of m-tuples which
`are mapped into QAM symbols.
`/d. at 12:21-22. To randomizethe
`overhead channel symbols, a phase scrambling sequenceis applied to the
`output symbols. For example, the phase scrambling sequence may be
`generated by a pseudo-random generator composedofa linear feedback shift
`register of length 21, andinitialized by a user programmableseed. Jd. at
`12:24-31. Consecutive output pairs from the pseudo-random generatorare
`converted into numbers 2a+b and the sum (2a+b)is usedto select the
`
`amountofrotation to be applied to the symbol according to the following
`
`table below:
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`neSD
`
`2a +b
`
`Phase Rotation
`
`a 0
`
`0
`—
`+n/2
`~
`1
`mT
`_~
`2
`-n/2
`_
`3
`
`
`Id. at 12:31-45. The output from the QAM mapper82 is providedto a
`modulator (not shown) which implementsthe particular signal modulation
`
`desired, e.g., VCMT, CDMA,etc. Jd. at 12:55—-57.
`
`Analysis
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 4, 15, 16, and 18 would have been
`
`obvious over Shively and Stopler. Pet. 11-32. Patent Owner’s arguments
`are directed to whethera person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`combined Shively and Stopler and whether Stopler describes phase
`
`scrambling. PO Resp. 45-58.
`Claim 1 recites “[iJn a multicarrier modulation system includingafirst
`transceiver in communication with a secondtransceiver.” Petitioner
`contends that Shively and Stopler each describe this limitation. For
`example, and with respect to Shively, Petitioner argues that Shively
`describes a discrete multitoned transmission (DMT)ofdata (a multicarrier
`modulation system) bydigital subscriber loop (DSL) modems(illustrated in
`Figure 2 as a transmitting modem 31 and a receiving mode 32). Pet. 17
`(citing Ex. 1011, 1:5—-7, 9:42, 9:63-64, and Fig. 2; Ex. 1009, 31-32).7? We
`are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing andfind that Shively’s modem 31 isa
`first transceiver in communication with a second transceiver 32 and that the
`
`7 In the Petition, Petitioner references page numbersof Dr. Tellado’s
`Declaration, as opposed to paragraph numbers. Citations are to page
`numbers, unless otherwise indicated by use of the paragraph symbol(“{?’).
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`two transceivers communicate using discrete multitoned transmission
`(DMT)ofdata, and thus are in a multicarrier modulation system.
`Claim 1 furtherrecites “using a transmission signal havingaplurality
`of carrier signals for modulating a plurality of data bits.” Petitioner contends
`that Shively and Stopler each render obviousthis phrase. For example, and
`with respect to Shively, Petitioner contends that Shively describes a
`transmitting modem thatreceivesdigital data from a data source and
`modulates separate carriers to represent the digital data, which results in a
`modulated signal sent to a receiving modem.Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1011, 5:22-
`26). Petitioner further contends that Shively describesthat the available
`frequency spectrum is divided into multiple QAM channels, which a person
`of ordinary skill in the art would have understoodto be a “plurality of carrier
`signals” for modulating “a plurality of data bits.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1011,
`5:47, 5:52; Ex. 1009, 35-36). Weare persuaded by Petitioner’s showing,
`which we adopt as our own findings and conclusions, that Shively renders
`obvious “using a transmissionsignal havinga plurality of carrier signals for
`
`modulating a plurality of data bits.”
`Claim 1 recites “each carrier signal having a phase characteristic
`
`associated with at least one bit of the plurality of data bits.” Petitioner
`
`contends that Shively and Stopler each render obvious this phrase. For
`example, and with respect to Shively, Petitioner contends that Shively
`describes transmitting data bits using quadrature amplitude modulation
`(QAM)and that QAM producesa signal whose phase and amplitude convey
`encoded k-bits of information. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1011, 1:29-30).
`
`Petitioner further contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have understoodthat the phase of a signal used in QAM to convey
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`bits is a phase characteristic as claimed. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:43-44;
`Ex. 1009, 38). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing, which we adopt
`as our ownfindings and conclusions, that Shively describes “each carrier
`signal having a phase characteristic associated with at least onebit of the
`
`plurality of data bits.”
`
`Claim 1 further recites a “method for scrambling the phase
`
`characteristics of the carrier signals.” Petitioner contends that Stopler
`describes a phase scramblerthat applies a phase scrambling sequenceto data
`in the form of m-tuples which are to be mapped into QAM symbols. Pet. 22
`(citing Ex. 1012, 12:20-28). Petitioner contends that the QAM symbols are
`then provided to a modulator which implementstheparticular signal
`modulation. Pet. 22; Ex. 1012, 12:55—57, Fig. 5; Ex. 1009, 41-45).
`
`Petitioner explains, with supporting evidence,that it would have been
`understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art that modulating the
`phase-scrambled QAM symbolsresults in the phases of the carrier signals
`being scrambled. Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1009, 44-45). Petitioner contends that
`it would have been obviousto a person havingordinary skill in the art to
`employ Stopler’s phase scrambling techniques in Shively’s transmitter. Pet.
`22-23 (citing Ex. 1009, 45). In particular, Dr. Tellado testifies that a person
`having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that by transmitting
`redundant data symbols on multiple carriers, Shively’s transmitter would
`suffer from an increased peak-to-average power ratio (PAR). Ex. 1009
`{| 63-64. Hefurthertestifies that a person having ordinary skill in the art
`would have understood the drawbacks from a high PAR andthat such a
`person would have soughtout an approachto reduce PARofShively’s
`transmitter. Id. ]66. Dr. Tellado furthertestifies that it would have been
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`obvious to randomize the carrier phases using Stopler’s techniques in order
`
`to reduce Shively’s PAR. Id. 467. Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s
`arguments, which we have considered and which we address below, we are
`persuadedby Petitioner’s showing, which we adopt as our own findings and
`conclusions, that Stopler teaches “scrambling the phase characteristics of the
`carrier signals” and that it would have been obvious to combine Stopler’s
`scrambling technique to Shively’s system for the reasons provided by
`
`Petitioner. Pet. 23.
`
`Claim 1 alsorecites “transmitting the plurality of data bits from the
`
`first transceiver to the second transceiver.” As discussed above, Petitioner
`
`relies on Shively’s description of a transmitting modem (e.g., Figure 2
`transmitting modem 31) that transmits digital data to a receiving modem
`(e.g., Figure 2 receiving modem 32). Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1011, 8:56-60).
`Wefind that Shively describes transmitting digital data fromafirst
`transceiver to a second transceiver. Ex. 1011, 8:56-60. Petitioner further
`explains, with supporting evidence, and we agree,that a person having
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Shively’s digital data are
`“data bits.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1009, 46); see also Ex. 1011, 5:47—-58.
`Claim 1 also recites “associating a carrier signal with a value
`determined independently ofanybit of the plurality of data bits carried by
`the carrier signal, the value associated with the carrier signal determined by
`a pseudo-random numbergenerator.” Petitioner relies on Stopler to meet
`this limitation. In particular, Petitioner contends that Stopler teaches a
`pseudo-random generatorthat outputs consecutive output pairs that are
`converted into numbers 2at+b. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1012, 12:28-45). The
`value (2atb), derived from the pseudo-random numbergenerator, Petitioner
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`contends,is a “value determined independently ofany bit of the plurality of
`
`data bits carried by the carrier signal.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1009, 48).
`Petitioner further explains, with supporting evidence, that because Stopler
`teaches that the value (2a+b) is associated with a symbolthat is transmitted
`on a sub-channel havingacarrier frequency, the value (2a+b)is associated
`with a carrier signal. Pet 24-25 (citing Ex. 1009, 48-49). Weare persuaded
`by Petitioner’s showing, which we adopt, that Stopler renders obvious
`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 number
`generator.”
`.
`Claim 1 recites “determining a phase shift for the carrier signalat 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 amountofrotation to be applied
`to the symbol, wherethe phaserotation can be 0, 1/2, x, or -7/2. Pet. 25
`(citing Ex. 1012, 12:28-45; Ex. 1009, 49). Petitioner contends that a person
`havingordinary skill in the art would have understood that applying a
`rotation to the symbolresults in a phase shift in the carrier signal after the
`symbol is modulated onto the carrier. Pet. 25-26 (citing Ex. 1009, 49). We
`are persuaded byPetitioner’s showing, which we adopt, that Stopler renders
`obvious “determining a phase shift for the carrier signal at least based onthe
`
`value associated with the carrier signal.”
`Claim 1 recites “modulating at least one bit of the plurality of databits
`on the carrier signal” and “modulating the at least one bit on a secondcarrier
`signal ofthe plurality of carrier signals.” Petitioner points to descriptions in
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`Shively that describes determining “a respective carrier modulated to
`transmit one bit in each ofaplurality of multitone subchannels ofthe
`channel” and “modulating a first set of respective carriers to represent
`respective unique portions ofthe data stream.” Pet. 26 (quoting Ex. 1011,
`8:3-6, 8:5-13). Petitioner further contends that Shively employs QAM
`multitone modulation to modulate carriers, and Shively’s multiple sub-bands
`or QAM channelscorrespondto the claimed“plurality of carrier signals.”
`Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1009, 51). Petitioner submits that Stopler also teaches
`using QAM to convey data bits on carrier signals. Pet. 26-27. 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. Weare persuaded by Petitioner’s showing, which we adopt,
`that the combined teachings of Shively and Stopler render obvious
`“modulating at least one bit of the plurality of data bits on the carrier signal”
`and “modulating the at least one bit on a secondcarrier signal of the
`
`plurality of carrier signals.”
`Independentclaim 15 is similar to claim 1. Petitioner has made a
`showing with respectto 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 dependentclaims 2, 4, 16, and 18.
`Claim 2 depends from claim 1 andrecites “wherein one or more of the first
`transceiver and secondtransceiverare cable transceivers.” Claim 16, which
`depends from claim 15 is similar. Petitioner sufficiently accounts for this
`limitation by explaining that Stopler describes a cable modem attached to a
`cable television networkandis a “cable transceiver.” Pet. 29 (citing Ex.
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent 8,718,158 B2
`
`1012,