PTAB

IPR2016-00430

ARRIS Group Inc v. TQ Delta LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Multicarrier modulation system and method
  • Brief Description: The ’412 patent discloses systems and methods for data communication using multicarrier modulation, particularly within the context of Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) technology. The invention focuses on aspects of modem operation, including modulation techniques and the exchange of diagnostic information between transceivers.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness of Independent Claims over Hughes-Hartogs, Baran, and Frenkel

  • Legal Basis: Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 16-21 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over the combination of three prior art references.
  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hughes-Hartogs (Patent 4,679,227), Baran (Patent 4,438,511), and Frenkel (Patent 5,838,268).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the primary reference, Hughes-Hartogs, discloses the foundational elements of a multicarrier modem system that transmits data over numerous orthogonally modulated carriers, a technique known as Discrete Multi-tone (DMT) modulation. To meet other limitations of the independent claims, Petitioner asserted that Frenkel teaches modulating data bits onto these DMT symbols using Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (QAM), also referred to as Quadrature Amplitude Shift Keying (QASK). Furthermore, Petitioner contended that Baran discloses the use of performance data, such as power levels per subchannel, to exchange diagnostic information between modems, thereby teaching the diagnostic-related limitations of the challenged claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: The central motivation presented was the explicit cross-referencing within the prior art documents themselves. Petitioner highlighted that Hughes-Hartogs not only describes itself as a continuation of efforts initiated in Baran but also expressly incorporates Baran by reference. Similarly, Frenkel directly references a patent that is a grandchild of the Hughes-Hartogs patent and shares the same specification, thereby linking its teachings on QAM directly to the DMT system of Hughes-Hartogs. Petitioner argued these express citations create a clear and compelling reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to combine their teachings. A POSITA reviewing Frenkel would be directed to Hughes-Hartogs, which in turn directs the POSITA to Baran, creating a "connect the dots" scenario.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining these references because they all address compatible aspects of the same technology field—high-speed modems. Applying the specific modulation scheme from Frenkel (QAM) and the diagnostic methods from Baran to the base system of Hughes-Hartogs would involve the application of known techniques to a known system to achieve predictable results.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Dependent Claims over Hughes-Hartogs, Baran, Frenkel, and Wu

  • Legal Basis: Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 are obvious under §103 over the core combination from Ground 1 in further view of Wu.
  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hughes-Hartogs (Patent 4,679,227), Baran (Patent 4,438,511), Frenkel (Patent 5,838,268), and Wu (Patent 6,219,378).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds upon the combination of Hughes-Hartogs, Baran, and Frenkel. Petitioner asserted that Wu, which discloses a digital subscriber line modem initialization process, provides the additional limitations recited in this set of dependent claims. The arguments likely centered on Wu’s teachings of specific protocols or steps used during the setup and training phases of a DSL modem connection, which were common in standardized ADSL systems.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Wu with the core references to implement a complete, operational modem system. The base system from Ground 1 would require a standardized initialization procedure, as taught by Wu, to establish a communication link effectively. Petitioner argued that Wu expressly cites ADSL standards historically related to the technology in Hughes-Hartogs, providing a further reason to look to its teachings for implementing modem initialization features.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Dependent Claims over Hughes-Hartogs, Baran, Frenkel, and TR-024

  • Legal Basis: Claims 13-15 are obvious under §103 over the core combination from Ground 1 in further view of TR-024.
  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hughes-Hartogs (Patent 4,679,227), Baran (Patent 4,438,511), Frenkel (Patent 5,838,268), and TR-024 (ADSL Forum Technical Report, “DMT Line Code Specific MIB,” June 1999).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground also extends the core combination of Hughes-Hartogs, Baran, and Frenkel. Petitioner argued that TR-024, a technical report from the ADSL Forum defining a Management Information Base (MIB) for DMT-based ADSL lines, teaches the specific limitations of claims 13-15. These claims relate to the management and monitoring of modem performance. TR-024 explicitly defines data objects and parameters for storing and exchanging performance and diagnostic information in a standardized format, directly mapping onto the claim limitations.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to add the teachings of TR-024 to the base system is rooted in the need for network management and interoperability. A POSITA implementing the modem system from Ground 1 would be motivated to incorporate a standardized management framework like the MIB defined in TR-024 to allow for remote monitoring, configuration, and diagnostics, which are essential functions for commercial network equipment. Like Wu, TR-024 is part of the ADSL standards ecosystem related to the Hughes-Hartogs technology.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-21 of the ’412 patent as unpatentable.