IPR2024-01059, No. 1 Petition as filed (2024)

`

`
`
`IPR2024-01059
`U.S. Patent No. 7,295,518
`
`2.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR—37 C.F.R. §42.104 ......................................... 1
`A. Grounds for Standing—37 C.F.R. §42.104(a) ...................................... 1
`B.
`Challenge and Relief Requested—37 C.F.R. §42.104(b) ..................... 1
`C.
`Claim Construction—37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3) .................................... 2
`III. THE ’518 PATENT ......................................................................................... 3
`A.
`Summary ............................................................................................... 3
`B. Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) ................................................. 6
`C.
`The ’518 Patent is not Entitled to the Benefit of Any Filing
`Date Before March 2002 ....................................................................... 7
`1.
`The ’834 application and the ’687 parent application
`were never copending ................................................................. 8
`The ’518 patent’s ’834 application cannot independently
`claim priority to the ’820 provisional .......................................11
`Prosecution History Summary ............................................................11
`D.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .......................................................12
`E.
`IV. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ..........................12
`A. GROUND 1: Claims 1 and 3 are Rendered Obvious by Kliger
`and Isaksson ........................................................................................13
`1.
`Kliger.........................................................................................13
`2.
`Overview of Isaksson ................................................................20
`3.
`Combination of Kliger and Isaksson ........................................22
`4.
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................27
`5.
`Claim 3 ......................................................................................40
`B. GROUND 2: Claims 1 and 3 are Rendered Obvious by Amit,
`Jacobsen, and Isaksson ........................................................................41
`1.
`Overview of Amit .....................................................................41
`2.
`Overview of Jacobsen ...............................................................44
`3.
`Combination of Amit, Jacobsen, and Isaksson .........................46
`4.
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................56
`5.
`Claim 3 ......................................................................................79
`V. DISCRETION SHOULD NOT PRECLUDE INSTITUTION .....................80
`A. Discretionary Denial Is Not Warranted Under Fintiv .........................80
`B. General Plastic is Not Applicable ......................................................82
`C. Discretionary Denial is Not Warranted Under § 325(d). ....................82
`VI. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................83
`VII. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R §42.8(a)(1) ..........................83
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01059
`U.S. Patent No. 7,295,518
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`D.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1) ...........................83
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2) ....................................83
`Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3) ................84
`Service Information .............................................................................85
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`EX-1001
`EX-1002
`
`EX-1003
`
`EX-1004
`EX-1005
`EX-1006
`EX-1007
`
`EX-1008
`
`EX-1009
`
`EX-1010
`
`EX-1011
`
`EX-1012
`
`EX-1013
`EX-1014
`EX-1015
`
`IPR2024-01059
`U.S. Patent No. 7,295,518
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,295,518 to Monk et al. (“the ’518 Patent”)
`Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the ’518 Patent (“the
`’518 Patent Prosecution History”)
`The Prosecution History of U.S. Patent Application No.
`10/230,687 to Monk et al. (“the ’687 Parent Application
`Prosecution History”)
`Declaration of Tim A. Williams, Ph.D.
`Tim A. Williams’s Curriculum Vitae and Case History
`Declaration of June Munford
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2002/0069417 to Kliger et al.
`(“Kliger”)
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/229,263 to Kliger et al.
`(“’263-Provisional”)
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/230,110 to Kliger et al.
`(“’110-Provisional”)
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/275,060 to Kliger et al.
`(“’060-Provisional”)
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/291,130 to Kliger et al.
`(“’130-Provisional”)
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/297,304 to Kliger et al.
`(“’304-Provisional”)
` Int’l Pub. No. WO 1998/010545 to Isaksson et al. (“Isaksson”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,127,734 to Amit et al. (“Amit”)
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/128,810 to Amit et al.
`(“Amit-Provisional”)
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`EX-1016
`
`EX-1017
`
`EX-1018
`EX-1019
`
`EX-1020
`EX-1021
`
`EX-1022
`
`EX-1023
`
`EX-1024
`EX-1025
`
`EX-1026
`
`EX-1027
`
`IPR2024-01059
`U.S. Patent No. 7,295,518
`
`Jacobsen et al., An Efficient Digital Modulation Scheme for
`Multimedia Transmission on the Cable Television Network,
`43rd Annual National Cable Television Association Convention
`and Exposition, New Orleans, LA. 1994 (“Jacobsen”)
`Excerpts from Robert M. Gagliardi, Introduction to
`Communications Engineering, 2d ed., 1988 (“Gagliardi”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,822,372 to Emami (“Emami”)
`Excerpts from Shlomo Ovadia, Broadband Cable TV Access
`Networks, 1d ed., March 2001 (“Ovadia”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,488,632 to Mason et al. (“Mason”)
`Excerpts from Walter Y. Chen, DSL: Simulation Techniques
`and Standards Development for Digital Subscriber Lines, 1998
`(“DSL Simulation Techniques”)
`Excerpts from Dennis J. Rauschmayer, ADSL/VDSL Principles,
`1999 (“ADSL/VDSL Principles”)
`Jacobsen, Krista S., Synchronized Discrete Multi-Tone (SDMT)
`Modulation for Cable Modems: Making the Most of the Scarce
`Reverse Channel Bandwidth, WESCON/97 Conference
`Proceedings, Santa Clara, CA, USA, 1997 (“Jacobsen2”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,706 to Ling et al. (“Ling”)
`Complaint from Entropic Communications, LLC v. DISH
`Network Corporation et al., Case 2:23-cv-01043, ECF No. 1
`(C.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2023)
`Federal Court Management Statistics for September 2023
`published by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
`retrieved from
`https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/data_tables/fcms_n
`a_distcomparison0930.2023.pdf
`Order Granting Stipulation Setting Claim Construction
`Schedule, Entropic Communications, LLC v. DISH Network
`Corporation et al., Case 2:23-cv-01043-JWH-KES (CDCA)
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`EX-1028
`
`EX-1029
`
`EX-1030
`EX-1031
`EX-1032
`
`
`
`IPR2024-01059
`U.S. Patent No. 7,295,518
`
`Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint on DISH Network
`Corporation in Entropic Communications, LLC v. DISH
`Network Corporation et al., Case 2:23-cv-01043, ECF No. 14
`(C.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2023)
`LegalMetric Time to Trial Report, Central District of California,
`Patent Cases (Jan. 2021 – Nov. 2023)
`Supplemental Declaration of Tim A. Williams, Ph.D.
`Supplemental Declaration of June Munford
`Defendants’ Preliminary Identification of Constructions, Case
`No. 2:23-CV-1043-JWH-KES (C.D. Cal. May 31, 2024)
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2024-01059
`U.S. Patent No. 7,295,518
`
`LISTING OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`Claim 1
`
`[1pre] A data communication network comprising:
`
`[1a.i]
`
`at least two network devices,
`
`each network device comprising a multi-carrier modulator for
`
`modulating data, an up converter for translating the modulated data to an
`
`[1a.ii]
`
`RF carrier frequency, a down converter for translating an RF signal, and
`
`a multi-carrier demodulator for demodulating the translated RF signal to
`
`produce data; and
`
`cable wiring comprising a splitter with a common port and a plurality of
`
`tap ports, and a plurality of segments of coaxial cable connecting
`
`between the splitter tap ports and the network devices;
`
`whereby network devices communicate with each other through the
`
`cable wiring using multi-carrier signaling;
`
`wherein network devices transmit probe messages through the cable
`
`wiring and analyze received probe message signals to determine channel
`
`[1b]
`
`
`
`[1c]
`
`[1d.i]
`
`characteristics and
`
`[1d.ii] bit loading is selected based on the determined channel characteristics.
`
`Claim 3
`
`vi
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01059
`U.S. Patent No. 7,295,518
`
`The data communication network of claim 1 wherein the network shares
`
`the cable wiring with a cable television service
`
`and the network device up converter translates the modulated data to an
`
`RF carrier frequency above the frequency used by the cable television
`
`[3a]
`
`[3b]
`
`service.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01059
`U.S. Patent No. 7,295,518
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`DIRECTV, LLC (Petitioner) requests inter partes review of claims 1 and 3
`
`(“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,295,518 (“’518 patent”). This petition
`
`is substantively the same as IPR2024-00393 (which is currently pending institution)
`
`and is being filed concurrently with a motion for joinder with respect to that
`
`proceeding. Petitioner respectfully requests institution of an IPR.
`
`II. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR—37 C.F.R. §42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing—37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)
`Petitioner certifies that the ’518 patent is available for IPR and Petitioner is
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting this review.
`
`B. Challenge and Relief Requested—37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)
`This Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to at least
`
`one Challenged Claim. Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of all
`
`Challenged Claims on the grounds identified below. The expert declaration
`
`(EX-1004) of Tim A. Williams, Ph.D. provides complementary explanation and
`
`support for each ground. See also EX-1030.
`
`Ground
`1
`2
`
`Claims
`1, 3
`1, 3
`
`§103 Basis
`Kliger in view of Isaksson
`Amit in view of Jacobsen and Isaksson
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01059
`U.S. Patent No. 7,295,518
`Each reference pre-dates 2001-08-30 (“Critical Date”), which is the earliest
`
`possible date from which the ’518 patent can claim priority.1
`
`Reference
`
`Kliger
`(EX-1007)
`
`Isaksson
`(EX-1013)
`Amit
`(EX-1014)
`Jacobsen
`(EX-1016)
`
`
`
`Prior Art Date
`(at least as early as)2
`2001-06-11
`(filing date of priority
`provisional application)
`1998-03-12
`(publication date)
`2000-04-12
`(filing date)
`1995-09-19
`(publication date)
`
`Basis
`(at least under)
`
`§102(e)
`
`§102(b)
`
`§102(e)
`
`§102(b)
`
`
`
`C. Claim Construction—37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3)
`Because the Challenged Claims are obvious under any reasonable
`
`interpretation, no express constructions are required in this proceeding. See
`
`Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`
`(“claim terms need only be construed to resolve a controversy”). Petitioner
`
`reserves the right to address any construction the Patent Owner or Board proposes.
`
`Petitioner also reserves the right to pursue constructions in district court that are
`
`necessary to decide matters of infringement and validity under §112 that exceed
`
`
`1 Petitioner does not concede that the ’518 patent is entitled to the claimed priority.
`
`2 See §§IV.A.1-2, IV.B.1-2 for explanations of these dates.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01059
`U.S. Patent No. 7,295,518
`the scope of IPR.3 See 35 U.S.C. §311(b). Petitioner does not concede that the
`
`Challenged Claims satisfy statutory requirements, including §112.
`
`III. THE ’518 PATENT
`Summary
`A.
`The ’518 patent is directed to “communications using coaxial cable building
`
`wiring.” EX-1001, 1:27-29. The ’518 patent describes “a coaxial cable based local
`
`area network (LAN)” that shares cables with a CATV network. Id., 1:33-36. Figure
`
`2 illustrates a LAN implemented on a CATV infrastructure. Id., Fig. 2, 5:35-40;
`
`EX-1004, ¶¶26-31.
`
`
`3 Petitioner’s proposed preliminary claim construction in the district court
`
`proceeding (EX-1032) are consistent with the positions raised in this Petition.
`
`Under any reasonable construction, the claims of the patent are unpatentable in
`
`view of the prior art for the reasons described below.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01059
`U.S. Patent No. 7,295,518
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 2, the CATV infrastructure includes coaxial cables (red)
`
`
`
`and splitters (blue). The splitters “distribute downstream signals from the point of
`
`entry (POE) to the various terminals in the home.” EX-1001, 1:33-45. These
`
`splitters have an “input port [that] can also be considered a common port” and
`
`“output ports [that] can also be considered tap ports.” Id., 1:54-57; EX-1004, ¶¶26-
`
`32.
`
`The ’518 patent implements the LAN by incorporating into the CATV
`
`infrastructure network devices (orange) that employ the techniques of multi-carrier
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01059
`U.S. Patent No. 7,295,518
`modulation and bit-loading. See EX-1001, 4:35-47, Fig. 2, 8:1-3. As admitted by
`
`the ’518 patent, both techniques were known before the Critical Date. See id., 8:19-
`
`26 (“U.S. Pat. No. 6,438,174 … discloses discrete multi-tone modulation and a
`
`technique for bit loading … [and] U.S. Pat. No. 6,259,746 … discloses a technique
`
`for bit loading applied to discrete multi-tone modulation.”); see also 3:52-4:18.
`
`The ’518 patent, which also refers to multi-carrier modulation as multitone
`
`modulation, lists discrete multi-tone (DMT) and orthogonal frequency division
`
`multiplexing (OFDM) as multi-carrier modulation techniques. See id., 7:22-27;
`
`EX-1004, ¶¶32-33.
`
`“Multi-tone modulation uses a set of modulating carriers” for carrying data
`
`bits. EX-1001, 7:22-24. For example, “OFDM utilizes quadrature phase shift
`
`keying (QPSK) and multi-level quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) wherein
`
`each OFDM carrier can be modulated by an amplitude/phase-varying signal.” Id.,
`
`7:27-30. To perform the modulation, “data bits are encoded into a number of …
`
`QAM constellations, which then modulate the respective carriers.” Id., 7:35-38.
`
`The modulated carriers are summed together for transmission over a channel. Id.,
`
`7:38-40; EX-1004, ¶34.
`
`The number of QAM constellations refers to the number of unique
`
`amplitude/phase combinations that are available for a particular carrier. Id., ¶35.
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01059
`U.S. Patent No. 7,295,518
`The number of combinations in turn specifies the number of data bits that can be
`
`modulated onto the carrier. Id.
`
`Bit-loading “allocate[es] a higher order signal constellation to carriers that
`
`have higher signal to noise ratio and a lower order constellation to carriers that
`
`have lower signal to noise ratio.” EX-1001, 8:9-12. That is, bit-loading allocates
`
`more bits to carriers that have higher SNR and fewer bits to carriers with lower
`
`SNR. EX-1004, ¶36. To estimate channel characteristics, including SNR,
`
`“[c]hannel probing messages are transmitted between network devices” (EX-1001,
`
`9:35-37), where a “channel probe uses a predetermined bit sequence which in [sic]
`
`known by the receiving device” (id., 9:37-41). The ’518 patent admits that
`
`“[d]etermination of a … SNR profile from a known signal is well known in the
`
`art.” Id., 10:12-16; EX-1004, ¶¶37-39.
`
`B. Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA)
`Throughout the ’518 patent, Applicant described the state of the art by
`
`referencing and incorporating nearly 20 prior art references. The AAPA establishes
`
`that the ’518 patent claims conventional components and functionality. The chart
`
`below provides a summary of the claimed concepts that Applicant admitted as
`
`being in the prior art. Dr. Williams provides a more detailed analysis
`
`in his declaration. EX-1004, ¶¶40-44.
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Claimed Concept
`Multi-carrier modulation
`Bit-loading
`RF-conversion circuitry
`Probe messaging for channel
`characterization
`
`IPR2024-01059
`U.S. Patent No. 7,295,518
`Applicant’s Admission
`EX-1001, 3:56-4:18, 9:29-32
`EX-1001, 8:9-26
`EX-1001, 4:8-19
`
`EX-1001, 10:21-28
`
`C. The ’518 Patent is not Entitled to the Benefit of Any Filing Date
`Before March 2002
`The cover of the ’518 patent states it is a continuation of the ’687 parent
`
`
`
`application. As explained below, U.S. Patent Appl. No. 10/322,834 (“’834
`
`application), which issued as the ’518 patent, cannot claim priority to the ’687
`
`parent application due to the lack of copendency between the two applications.
`
`Therefore, the ’834 application is not entitled to the benefit of the ’687 parent
`
`application’s earlier filing date.
`
`Further, whether the ’518 patent is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of
`
`any of the provisional applications listed on the patent’s cover must be assessed
`
`independently. Because the ’834 application was filed more than twelve months
`
`after the 2001-08-30 filing date of U.S. Provisional Appl. No. 60/316,820 (“’820
`
`provisional”), it is not entitled to claim priority to the ’820 provisional. Rather, the
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01059
`U.S. Patent No. 7,295,518
`earliest possible date to which the ’518 patent may claim priority is 2002-03-12
`
`based on U.S. Provisional Appl. No. 60/363,420 (“’420 provisional”).4
`
`1.
`
`The ’834 application and the ’687 parent application were
`never copending
`To establish a nonprovisional application’s claim to the filing date of an
`
`earlier nonprovisional application, the two applications must be copending. 37
`
`CFR §1.78 (“A nonprovisional application may claim an invention disclosed in
`
`one or more prior filed copending nonprovisional applications.”); MPEP §201.11
`
`(“With respect to claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 … the second application
`
`must be copending with the first application.”).5,6 MPEP §201.11 explains that
`
`“[i]f the first application is abandoned, the second application must be filed before
`
`the abandonment in order for it to be copending with the first.”
`
`As explained below, the ’687 parent application was abandoned before the
`
`’834 application was filed. So, the two applications were never copending.
`
`
`4 Petitioner does not concede that this is the effective priority date of the ’518
`
`patent.
`
`5 All emphasis added unless otherwise stated
`
`6 Citations to MPEP’s 8th-edition published 2001-08.
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01059
`U.S. Patent No. 7,295,518
`The ’687 parent application was filed 2002-08-29. EX-1003, 1.7 On 2002-
`
`10-01, the USPTO mailed a notice of missing parts (“Missing-Parts-Notice”)
`
`setting a reply period that expired on 2002-12-02. Id., 37. Applicant never
`
`responded to the Missing-Parts-Notice—no reply, petition, or fee for extension of
`
`time was ever filed. Id., 39, 41. Because Applicant never responded to the Missing-
`
`Parts-Notice in the ’687 parent application, that application was considered
`
`abandoned when the reply period expired on 2002-12-02. EX-1003, 39; 35 U.S.C.
`
`§133; MPEP §711.04(a) (“…the date of the abandonment is after midnight of the
`
`date the period for reply actually expired.”).
`
`Instead of responding to the Missing-Parts-Notice, Applicant filed the ’834
`
`application on 2002-12-18 accompanied by an express abandonment
`
`(Abandonment Request) of the ’687 parent application. EX-1002, 38.8 This was
`
`more than two weeks after the reply period expired.
`
`MPEP §711.01 specifies that an applicant’s failure to timely respond to such
`
`a notice is not forgiven by filing an abandonment request:
`
`
`7 Citations to stamped page numbers.
`
`8 Citations to stamped page numbers.
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01059
`U.S. Patent No. 7,295,518
`A letter of express abandonment which is not timely filed (because it was not
`
`filed within the period for reply), is not acceptable to expressly abandon the
`
`application. . . .
`
`The letter of express abandonment should be placed…in the application file
`
`but not formally entered. . . .
`
`The application should be pulled for abandonment after expiration of the
`
`minimum permitted period for reply (see MPEP § 711.04(a)) and applicant
`
`notified of the abandonment for failure to reply within the statutory period.
`
`MPEP §711.04(a) explains the abandonment timeline:
`
`Although the abandoned files are not pulled until the maximum permissible
`
`period for which an extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) plus 1 month
`
`has expired, the date of the abandonment is after midnight of the date the
`
`period for reply actually expired.
`
`This precisely mirrors the situation here. On 2004-01-22, i.e., after “the
`
`maximum permissible period for which an extension of time … plus 1 month has
`
`expired,” the USPTO mailed a notice of abandonment in the ’687 parent
`
`application. Instead of citing the Abandonment Request as the reason for
`
`abandonment, the notice stated that the application “is abandoned for failure to
`
`timely or properly reply to the Notice to File Missing Parts … mailed on
`
`10/01/2002.” EX-1003, 39.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01059
`U.S. Patent No. 7,295,518
`As a result, as summarized in the figure below, the ’687 parent application
`
`became abandoned 16 days before (2002-12-02) the filing of the ’834 application
`
`(2002-12-18), and the two applications were never copending. Therefore, the ’518
`
`patent is not entitled to claim priority to the ’687 parent application.
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`The ’518 patent’s ’834 application cannot independently
`claim priority to the ’820 provisional
`Because the ’834 application was filed on 2002-12-18, i.e., more than 12
`
`months after the 2001-08-30 filing date of the ’820 provisional, the ’834
`
`application is not entitled to claim priority to the ’820 provisional. MPEP §201.11.
`
`Thus, the ’518 patent’s earliest possible priority date is the 2002-03-12 date of the
`
`’420 provisional.
`
`Prosecution History Summary
`D.
`The ’834 application’s examination was short as the application was allowed
`
`without an office action being issued. See generally EX-1002.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01059
`U.S. Patent No. 7,295,518
`Following a restriction requirement (id., 15-20) and election of claims by
`
`Applicant (id., 9-12), the Examiner indicated that the claims would be allowable if
`
`claim 1 were amended to incorporate the subject matter of claim 2 (id., 9).
`
`Applicant accepted and the application was allowed. Id., 1-8. Claim 2 recited the
`
`features now found in elements [1d.i]-[1d.ii]. Id., 10. In the Notice of Allowance,
`
`the Examiner stated:
`
`The prior art … fails to disclose a network device for
`communicating data to other network devices by utilizing
`of determining
`channel
`unique method
`step
`characteristics and a bit loading profile used to
`transmit data by analyzing received probe message
`signals.
`Id., 6; EX-1004, ¶¶45-50.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`E.
`A POSITA would have a degree in electrical engineering, computer
`
`engineering, or a related field and experience working in signal processing and/or
`
`communication systems/networks, e.g., a bachelor’s and three or more years of
`
`experience; a master’s and at least one year of experience; or a doctorate and some
`
`work experience. Additional education could substitute for professional
`
`experience, or vice versa. EX-1004, ¶¶22-23.
`
`IV. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01059
`U.S. Patent No. 7,295,518
`A. GROUND 1: Claims 1 and 3 are Rendered Obvious by Kliger and
`Isaksson
`1. Kliger
`(a) Kliger has an effective filing date of at least
`2001-06-11
`Kliger is a publication of a U.S. patent application that was filed 2001-08-30
`
`and claims the benefit of five provisional applications (“Kliger Provisionals”) each
`
`of which predates the Critical Date. EX-1007, Cover. The earliest provisional, U.S.
`
`Provisional Appl. No. 60/229,263, was filed 2000-08-30, exactly 12 months before
`
`the Critical Date. Id. The following table lists the Kliger Provisionals and their
`
`filing dates. EX-1004, ¶¶51-52.
`
`Provisional
`’263-Provisional
`(EX-1008)
`’110-Provisional
`(EX-1009)
`’060-Provisional
`(EX-1010)
`’130-Provisional
`(EX-1011)
`’304-Provisional
`(EX-1012)
`
`Filed
`
`2000-08-30
`
`2000-09-05
`
`2001-03-12
`
`2001-05-15
`
`2001-06-11
`
`
`
`Kliger qualifies as prior art to the ’518 patent based on its 2001-08-30 filing
`
`date because, as explained above, the earliest possible priority date for the ’518
`
`patent is 2002-03-12. Kliger further qualifies as prior art based on the filing dates
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01059
`U.S. Patent No. 7,295,518
`of the Kliger Provisionals. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Geographics,
`
`Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In accordance with Dynamic
`
`Drinkware, the Kliger Provisionals provide clear and unambiguous support for at
`
`least Kliger’s claims 1, 27. EX-1004, ¶¶51-52. The following table identifies
`
`exemplary support in the Kliger Provisionals for each limitation of Kliger’s claims
`
`1 and 27, as confirmed by the testimony of Dr. Williams (id.).9 Accordingly, Kliger
`
`is entitled to the Kliger Provisionals’ filing dates. Id.; Huawei Techs. Co., Ltd. v.
`
`WSOU Invs., LLC, IPR2021-00222, Paper 10, 40-42 (PTAB Feb. 17, 2016) (citing
`
`Dynamic Drinkware and Ex Parte Mann, IPR2015-003571, 2016 WL 7487271
`
`(PTAB Dec. 21, 2016)).
`
`
`
`
`
`Kliger (Claims 1, 27)
`
`Exemplary Support from the Kliger
`
`Provisionals
`
`1. A home network,
`
`EX-1008, p. 5 (“a ‘no-new-wires’ home-
`
`comprising:
`
`network”), pp. 6-7; EX-1009, pp. 3-5; EX-1010,
`
`pp. 4-5; EX-1011, p. 4; EX-1012, p. 5; EX-1004,
`
`¶¶51-52.
`
`
`9 The Kliger Provisionals citations are to the stamped page numbers.
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`Kliger (Claims 1, 27)
`
`IPR2024-01059
`U.S. Patent No. 7,295,518
`Exemplary Support from the Kliger
`
`Provisionals
`
`a network backbone;
`
`EX-1008, p. 5 (“existing in-house cable TV coax
`
`wiring”), pp. 6-7; EX-1009, p. 6; EX-1010, p. 5;
`
`EX-1011, pp. 6-8; EX-1012, p. 6; EX-1004,
`
`¶¶51-52.
`
`a plurality of modules
`
`EX-1008, p. 10 (“Data Module”), p. 11
`
`connected to the network
`
`(“Audio/Video Module”), pp. 6-7; EX-1009,
`
`back-bone,
`
`p. 8; EX-1010, p. 4; EX-1011, pp. 4-6; EX-
`
`1012, pp. 5-6; EX-1004, ¶¶51-52.
`
`each module being connected
`
`EX-1008, p. 10 (“The DM is connected between
`
`between the network
`
`the Coax outlet and a data port of a data device”),
`
`backbone and a local bus, and
`
`p. 11 (“bridge unit”), p. 7; EX-1009,
`
`
`
`p. 13; EX-1010, p. 4; EX-1011, p. 7 (“home
`
`network embodiment consisting of several local
`
`buses and a backbone network.”), p. 5; EX-1012,
`
`p. 6; EX-1004, ¶¶51-52.
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`Kliger (Claims 1, 27)
`
`IPR2024-01059
`U.S. Patent No. 7,295,518
`Exemplary Support from the Kliger
`
`Provisionals
`
`a demarcation point unit
`
`EX-1008, p. 7 (“residential gateway (TRG)”),
`
`(“The TRG is installed in the demarcation point
`
`of the cable TV network”); EX-1009, p. 9;
`
`EX-1010, p. 4; EX-1011, p. 5; EX-1012, p. 6;
`
`EX-1004, ¶¶51-52.
`
`receiving a home network
`
`EX-1008, p. 10 (“Each of the network devices …
`
`signal from one of the
`
`connect[s] one to the other through … the
`
`modules over the network
`
`TRG”); EX-1009, p. 12; EX-1010, p. 4; EX-
`
`backbone and passing the
`
`1011, p. 4; EX-1012, p. 6; EX-1004,
`
`home network signal to the
`
`¶¶51-52.
`
`plurality of modules.
`
`27. A demarcation point unit
`
`EX-1012, p. 6 (“The home network … employs
`
`connected between a home
`
`an embodiment residing at the demarcation point
`
`network backbone and an
`
`… named Demarcation unit or DU. The DU …
`
`external network, the
`
`separates the home network signals from the
`
`demarcation point unit
`
`outside cable plant.”); EX-1004, ¶¶51-52.
`
`comprising:
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`Kliger (Claims 1, 27)
`
`IPR2024-01059
`U.S. Patent No. 7,295,518
`Exemplary Support from the Kliger
`
`Provisionals
`
`a diplexer receiving a home
`
`EX-1012, p. 7 (Figure 5 showing a DU that
`
`network signal from the home
`
`includes a diplexer (DIP) that receives a home
`
`network backbone and an
`
`network signal from “In home wires” and
`
`external signal from the
`
`external signal from “outside plant.” The DIP
`
`external network, the diplexer
`
`separates the in-home signal from the outside
`
`separating the home network
`
`signal by routing the in-home signal to the
`
`signal from the external
`
`“Home Network Reflector Unit [HRU]”); EX-
`
`signal; and
`
`1004, ¶¶51-52.
`
`a signal reflector unit
`
`EX-1012, p. 7 (The HRU receives the home-
`
`receiving the home network
`
`network signals from DIP and reflects them back
`
`signal from the diplexer and
`
`into the house to the in-home wires); EX-1004,
`
`returning the home network
`
`¶¶51-52.
`
`signal back to the home
`
`network backbone.
`
`
`
`
`
`Even beyond the support for Kliger’s claims, the evidence confirms that
`
`Kliger’s teachings cited herein against the ’518 patent were taught in the Kliger
`
`Provisionals. Infra, §IV.A.4-5 (citing EX-1007 and the corresponding portions of
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01059
`U.S. Patent No. 7,295,518
`EX-1008 through EX-1012); see also Ex Parte Mann, 2016 WL 7487271, at *6;
`
`Huawei, IPR2021-00222, Paper 10, 40-42. Thus, the Kliger Provisionals describe
`
`the subject matter relied upon as prior art in Kliger, and Kliger qualifies as prior art
`
`to the ’518 patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). See Dynamic Drinkware, 800
`
`F.3d at 1380-81; EX-1004, ¶¶51-52 and ¶¶83-144.
`
`(b) Overview
`Kliger discloses a home network implemented on “cable TV equipment …
`
`already installed in many homes.” EX-1007, ¶0041, FIG. 1; EX-1008, 6-7; EX-
`
`1012, 5-6; EX-1004, ¶53.
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01059
`U.S. Patent No. 7,295,518
`Kliger’s home network 10 includes “a demarcation point unit (DPU) 14
`
`located at the entry point into a home.” EX-1007, ¶0040; EX-1008, 7; EX-1012, 6.
`
`The DPU 14 “operates as the interface between the home network 10 and an
`
`external network 18, such as a cable television (TV) network.” EX-1007, ¶0040;
`
`EX-1008, 7; EX-1012, 6. Additionally, the “DPU 14 is in communication with a
`
`plurality of home-network modules (HNM) 28, 28', 28", 28'" (generally 28).” EX-
`
`1007, ¶0040; EX-1008, 7; EX-1011, 6-7. Kliger teaches its HNMs can provide
`
`internet access using a cable modem or DSL services. EX-1007, ¶¶0043, 0050;
`
`EX-1008, 5, 9; EX-1012, 6; EX-1004, ¶55.
`
`Each HNM, shown above in orange, is an “interface between devices in a
`
`room (e.g., home entertainment devices and computer devices) and the DPU 14.”
`
`EX-1007, ¶0040; EX-1008, 6-7, 10-11; EX-1011, 5; EX-1012, 6. Kliger’s HNMs
`
`28 communicate with the DPU 14 and with each other over standard cable
`
`equipment that includes coaxial cables 22 (red), splitters 24 (blue), and cable TV
`
`outlets 26. EX-1007, ¶0041; EX-1008, 7; EX-1010, 5; EX-012, 5-7; EX-1004, ¶56.
`
`Kliger explains that “[i]n each room 30 having a device 33 that the resident
`
`of the home wants to make available for intra-room communication, there is
`
`located a HNM 28 that connects that device 33 to the backbone 20.” EX-1007,
`
`¶0044; EX-1008, 6-7, 10-11; EX-1010, 5. In this arrangement, “[e]ach HNM 28
`
`communicates with … each other HNM 28 on the backbone 20 with analog signals
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2024-01059
`U.S. Patent No. 7,295,518
`and converts analog signals received from … the HNMs 28 into digital signals for
`
`delivery to devices 33 connected to that HNM 28.” EX-1007, ¶0047; EX-1008, 10-
`
`11. To do so, the HNMs use multi-carrier signaling, and specifically “an efficient
`
`modulation scheme, like … OFDM[] or … DMT.” EX-1007, ¶0073; EX-1009, 6;
`
`EX-1010, 4; EX-1004, ¶¶56-57.
`
`2. Overview of Isaksson
`Isaksson is a PCT application that published 1998-03-12 and qualifies as
`
`prior art at least under §102(b). EX-1013, Cover; EX-1004, ¶58.
`
`Isaksson describes “multi-carrier transmission systems having the facility to
`
`dynamically change carrier bit-loading.” EX-1013, 1:3-7. Like Kliger, Isaksson
`
`discusses using multi-carrier modulation as a “modulation system” for high bit-rate
`
`traffic transmission schemes, such as DSL. Id., 1:8-18. Like the ’518 patent,
`
`Isaksson’s multi-carrier system uses “bit-loading techniques [in which] the number
`
`of transmitted bits per symbol is adapted, or regulated, to the signal-to-noise ratio
`
`(SNR) of the current carrier.” Id., 3:24-27; EX-1001, Abstract; EX-1004, ¶59.
`
`Isaksson observes that adapting the number of bits to SNR “dynamically
`
`affects … the total bandwidth of the system.” EX-1013, 3:27-28. “This variation in