PTAB

IPR2022-01443

CommScope Inc v. TQ Delta LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Impulse Noise Management
  • Brief Description: The ’835 patent discloses methods and apparatuses for managing impulse noise in Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) systems. The technology allows for the online reconfiguration of forward error correction (FEC) and interleaver parameter (FIP) settings during steady-state communication, avoiding the need for a full system re-initialization to adjust noise protection levels.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over G.992.1 - Claims 8-10, 15, 24-26, and 31 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) by G.992.1.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: G.992.1 (ITU-T Recommendation G.992.1 (1999)).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that G.992.1, an international standard for ADSL transceivers, discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Specifically, Appendix II of G.992.1 describes a Dynamic Rate Adaptation (DRA) procedure that allows for the reconfiguration of FEC and interleaver settings during "Showtime" (steady-state operation). Petitioner asserted that G.992.1's DRA procedure teaches transmitting a signal with a first FIP setting, transmitting a flag signal (the DRA_Swap_Request message), and switching to a second FIP setting following the flag signal. Crucially, Petitioner contended that G.992.1 explicitly discloses that the parameter switch "always coincide[s] with codeword boundaries," directly teaching the key limitation upon which the patent was granted. The argument for independent claim 24 (receiving) mirrors that for claim 8 (transmitting).

Ground 2: Obviousness over G.992.1 in view of SC-060 - Claims 8-10, 15, 24-26, and 31 are obvious over G.992.1 in view of SC-060.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: G.992.1 (ITU-T Recommendation G.992.1 (1999)) and SC-060 (ITU-T SG15/Q4 contribution SC-060 (Aug. 2001)).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that G.992.1 discloses the foundational DRA protocol for reconfiguring FIP settings. SC-060, a contribution to the same standards body that created G.992.1, proposes an improved on-line reconfiguration (OLR) protocol that uses a "Synch Flag" and additional timing parameters (SFlgSf and SfDly) to create a more robust and efficient system than G.992.1’s message-reply protocol.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings of SC-060 with the existing G.992.1 standard to improve the reliability and efficiency of the DRA procedure. Petitioner contended that G.992.1’s reliance on repeated messages was known to be susceptible to errors, especially from impulse noise, which could cause a loss of synchronization. SC-060 was created specifically to address such shortcomings by proposing a more robust "extremely robust" protocol using a physical layer Synch Flag, providing a clear reason to incorporate its teachings into the G.992.1 framework.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as SC-060 was a proposed enhancement to the technology standardized in G.992.1, submitted to the same standards body and addressing known problems with the existing protocol.

Ground 3: Obviousness over G.992.1 in view of Wunsch - Claims 8-10, 15, 24-26, and 31 are obvious over G.992.1 in view of Wunsch.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: G.992.1 (ITU-T Recommendation G.992.1 (1999)) and Wunsch (Application # 2002/0172188).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground is similar to Ground 2, with Wunsch providing the motivation to improve G.992.1. Wunsch discloses an on-line reconfiguration protocol for DSL systems that explicitly addresses the problem of acknowledgment messages being missed, which can lead to desynchronization and require a full retrain. Wunsch teaches using a "sync flag" sent over the physical media dependent (PMD) layer as a more reliable acknowledgment mechanism.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Wunsch's teachings with G.992.1 to improve the reliability of the DRA protocol. Wunsch directly identified the problem of missed reply messages in "current generation ADSL equipment" (which operated under G.992.1) and proposed a specific solution—using a physically robust sync flag—to prevent the very desynchronization issues that plagued the G.992.1 protocol. This provided a strong motivation to replace G.992.1’s less reliable message-based acknowledgment with Wunsch’s sync flag method.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success because Wunsch was designed to solve a known, practical problem in systems implementing the G.992.1 standard, making the integration of its solution straightforward.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge based on SC-060 alone but relied on similar design modification theories.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner accepted the claim constructions from a parallel district court litigation for the purposes of the IPR. Key constructions included:
  • "flag signal": "signal used to indicate when an updated FIP setting is to be used (the signal does not include the FEC codeword counter value upon which the updated FIP setting is to be used)"
  • "the switching occurs on a pre-defined forward error correction codeword boundary": "the switching to an updated FIP setting is effective on the boundary of a forward error correction codeword where the position of the boundary of each codeword is known prior to the switching"

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) or §325(d) would be inappropriate.
  • Fintiv Factors: Petitioner argued against denial under Fintiv because it had filed a Sotera stipulation in the parallel district court litigation, agreeing not to pursue the same grounds in that venue if the IPR is instituted. Petitioner also asserted that the petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability, particularly the anticipation ground based on G.992.1.
  • General Plastic Factors: Petitioner contended this petition, filed as a "copycat" of an already-instituted IPR (IPR2022-00471, filed by Nokia), should not be denied. It argued that the petition seeks joinder and does not present the "roadmapping" or gamesmanship concerns that the General Plastic factors are designed to prevent, instead promoting efficiency by addressing the same grounds and art on the same timeline.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review and cancellation of claims 8-10, 15, 24-26, and 31 of Patent 8,462,835 as unpatentable.