Nokia Of America Corp v. Adaptive Spectrum Signal Alignment Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00428
• Patent #: 7,991,122
• Filed: January 22, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Nokia of America Corp.
• Patent Owner(s): Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-20

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Method of adding a new DSL line set to an already-operating DSL line set
• Brief Description: The ’122 patent discloses methods and systems for adding a new Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) line set to a group of already-operating DSL lines without causing disruptive crosstalk. The technology utilizes a controller to collect operational data, determine a non-disruptive operational configuration for the new line(s) (e.g., by setting low transmit power), and then adjust system parameters to integrate the new line set.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Tsatsanis and Savoor - Claims 1-20 are obvious over Tsatsanis in view of Savoor.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Tsatsanis (Application # 2006/0029148) and Savoor (Patent 7,400,720).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Tsatsanis teaches the core inventive concept: activating a new communication channel alongside existing ones by first transmitting a low-power training signal, measuring the resulting crosstalk ("coupling components"), and then processing this data to generate and apply pre-cancellation signals before increasing the new channel's power. This process was asserted to meet the independent claims' limitations of collecting operational data, analyzing it to determine a non-disruptive configuration, and sending control signals to adjust operations. Petitioner contended that Savoor supplements Tsatsanis by teaching a method for modifying various DSL control parameters based on measured real-time performance parameters. Savoor’s disclosure of adjusting parameters like "power and noise margin settings" and using "PSD masks" to limit crosstalk was argued to render obvious dependent claims reciting setting transmit power levels (claim 6) and using specific operational parameters like PSDMASK (claim 7).
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Tsatsanis's new-line activation method with Savoor's more detailed performance measurement and control techniques. The combination would allow for a more robust and optimized integration of the new DSL line, ensuring acceptable performance, which Petitioner argued was a predictable and natural step for improving the system.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a high expectation of success because both references are in the same field of DSL technology and share a similar operational framework of measuring line characteristics and adjusting parameters to improve performance.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Tsatsanis and Rezvani - Claims 5 and 18 are obvious over Tsatsanis in view of Rezvani.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Tsatsanis (Application # 2006/0029148) and Rezvani (Patent 7,356,049).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground specifically addressed claims 5 and 18, which require "using orthogonal training sequences on a plurality of DSL lines" to permit independent identification during "simultaneous training." Petitioner argued that while Tsatsanis teaches a training process for a new line, Rezvani explicitly discloses the missing element. Rezvani teaches that training can be "conducted in parallel on all lines at once" by injecting a training sequence combined with "subscriber line specific orthogonal key codes." This use of orthogonal codes for simultaneous, parallel training on multiple lines was argued to directly map to the limitations of claims 5 and 18.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Rezvani's parallel training method into Tsatsanis's activation process to achieve faster and more efficient activation of multiple new subscriber lines simultaneously. This modification was presented as a known and beneficial improvement for deploying DSL services at scale.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued success was predictable because both references relate to DSL systems. Furthermore, Petitioner noted that the ’122 patent specification itself acknowledges that such orthogonal training sequences "may be known to those skilled in the art," supporting the argument that their application to Tsatsanis's method would have been an obvious modification.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial under §325(d) because the primary prior art references (Savoor and Rezvani) were never considered by the Examiner during prosecution. While Tsatsanis was cited on an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), it was never substantively applied in a rejection, and thus was not meaningfully evaluated.
• Petitioner also argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv factors for a co-pending district court litigation. Key arguments included that the litigation is in its early stages (e.g., claim construction is not scheduled until March 2025), a trial is not set until late 2025 and is likely to be delayed, there is only partial overlap between the claims challenged in the IPR and those at issue in the litigation, and, critically, the Petitioner (Nokia) is not a party to the underlying litigation.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’122 patent as unpatentable.