PTAB

IPR2024-00393

DISH Network LLC v. Entropic Communications LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Broadband Network for Coaxial Cable Using Multi-Carrier Modulation
  • Brief Description: The ’518 patent relates to a local area network (LAN) implemented on existing coaxial cables of a cable television (CATV) network. It discloses using multi-carrier signaling, channel probing, and adaptive bit-loading to allow network devices to communicate with each other over the shared coaxial wiring.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Kliger and Isaksson - Claims 1 and 3 are obvious over Kliger in view of Isaksson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kliger (Application # 2002/0069417) and Isaksson (International Publication No. WO 1998/010545).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kliger taught a home network implemented on existing CATV coaxial wiring, comprising at least two network modules (HNMs) that use multi-carrier modulation (e.g., OFDM or DMT) to communicate. Kliger’s network included splitters and coaxial cables, and its HNMs contained the necessary modulators, demodulators, and frequency converters. For claim 3, Kliger explicitly taught that its home network signal operates in a frequency range (960-1046 MHz) above the standard CATV signal range (5-860 MHz). Isaksson taught the limitations absent from Kliger: a multi-carrier system where network devices transmit probe messages ("base sync frames") with predetermined content, analyze the received messages to determine channel characteristics like signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and select bit-loading parameters based on those characteristics to optimize data transmission.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to improve the reliability of Kliger's multi-carrier network, which was subject to known signal impairments like interference and noise from splitters and dynamic network conditions. Isaksson addressed these exact problems by teaching a method to dynamically adapt bit-loading based on measured channel conditions. A POSITA would have sought to incorporate Isaksson’s known technique to improve Kliger’s similar system, thereby overcoming interference and maintaining stable connections.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success. Both references are in the field of wired networking, and Isaksson expressly contemplated that its solution could be applied to other multi-carrier systems, including coaxial networks. Implementing Isaksson’s well-understood bit-loading techniques into Kliger’s multi-carrier system was a combination of known elements that would yield the predictable result of a more robust and efficient network.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Amit, Jacobsen, and Isaksson - Claims 1 and 3 are obvious over Amit in view of Jacobsen and Isaksson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Amit (Patent 7,127,734), Jacobsen (a 1994 paper titled "An Efficient Digital Modulation Scheme for Multimedia Transmission..."), and Isaksson (International Publication No. WO 1998/010545).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Amit taught a home network over coaxial CATV cables where network devices (HCNs) communicate directly using RF signaling. Amit’s network included splitters and the HCNs contained modulators, demodulators, and frequency converters. However, Petitioner contended that Amit taught single-carrier modulation. Jacobsen addressed the known problems of reflections and interference in CATV networks by teaching that multi-carrier modulation (DMT) is superior to single-carrier modulation, and disclosed the requisite multi-carrier modulators and demodulators. The combination of Amit and Jacobsen supplied all limitations of claim 1 except for channel probing and adaptive bit-loading, which were supplied by Isaksson, as described in Ground 1. For claim 3, Amit taught that its HomeCN operates in an out-of-band frequency (e.g., above 860 MHz) to coexist with the cable television service.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to first improve Amit's network by replacing its single-carrier modulation with Jacobsen’s demonstrably superior multi-carrier modulation. This would directly address the "RF challenges" like high reflection that Amit itself acknowledged. Having implemented a multi-carrier system, the POSITA would be further motivated to incorporate Isaksson's synchronized bit-loading. This would solve the secondary problem of maintaining stable connections in a dynamic multi-carrier environment, a known challenge that Isaksson's techniques were designed to overcome.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success because the combination involved applying known solutions to known problems in the same technical field. Jacobsen's teachings were directly applicable to the CATV network context of Amit. The subsequent addition of Isaksson’s bit-loading technique was a standard method for optimizing multi-carrier systems. The combination was a straightforward application of established principles to yield a predictable improvement in network performance.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) considering the Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. Petitioner asserted that the parallel district court proceeding is in a very early stage with no trial date set, minimal investment by the parties, and a high likelihood that a Final Written Decision (FWD) from the Board would issue well before any potential trial.
  • Petitioner further contended that the petition raises a unique issue for the Board—the validity of claim 3—which is not asserted in the district court litigation. Petitioner also argued against denial under §325(d), stating that the specific prior art combinations and arguments presented in the petition were never considered by the Examiner during the original prosecution of the ’518 patent.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1 and 3 of Patent 7,295,518 as unpatentable.