from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent
Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-01470.
Rajendra A. Chiplunkar, McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.,
Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. Also represented by Peter
J. McAndrews, David Z. Petty.
Lyn Keefe, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued for appellee.
Also represented by Jennifer Volk, Reston, VA; Stephen R.
Smith, Washington, DC.
Newman, Linn, and Wallach, Circuit Judges.
WALLACH, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
DISH Network ("Dish") sought inter partes review
("IPR") of claims 6, 11, 16, and 20 ("the
Challenged Claims") of Appellant TQ Delta, LLC's
("TQ Delta") U.S. Patent No. 8, 611, 404 ("the
'404 patent"). The U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB")
issued a final written decision finding, inter alia, that the
Challenged Claims are unpatentable as obvious. See DISH
Network LLC. v. TQ Delta, LLC, No. IPR2016-01470
(P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2018) (J.A. 1-38).
Delta appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(4)(A) (2012). We affirm.
"Multicarrier Transmission System with Low Power Sleep
Mode and Rapid-On Capability," the '404 patent
relates to the field of "multicarrier transmission
systems." '404 patent col. 1 l. 31.
"Multicarrier transmission systems provide high speed
data links between communication points[ and have recently
been used] . . . for communications over the local subscriber
loop that connects a telephone service subscriber to a
central telephone office. . . ." Id. col. 1 ll.
37-41. The '404 patent generally describes a method for
"establishing a power management sleep state in a
multicarrier system" and efficiently waking up a
transmission system utilized on hardware, such as a computer,
from sleep mode. Id. col. 1 ll. 32-33; see
id., Abstract. The process involved when the
transmission system is first powered up prior to sleep mode
is referred to as "full . . . initialization."
Id., Abstract. Specifically, the '404 patent
describes the invention "in the context of an ADSL
system having a first transceiver located at the site of a
customer's premises," referred to as the "CPE
transceiver," as well as "a second transceiver
located at a local central telephone office" referred to
as the "CO transceiver." Id. col. 3 ll.
63-67 (internal quotation marks omitted). The '404 patent
explains that "since the CPE transceiver and CO
transceiver are very similar, the invention [is] explained in
connection with a detailed illustration of the CPE
transceiver only." Id. col. 4 ll. 11-13.
Generally, in DSL systems, "a pair of transceivers
communicate with [each] other by dividing the overall
bandwidth of the channel interconnecting the subscriber and
the central office into a large number of separate
subchannels, each of limited bandwidth, operating in parallel
with each other." Id. col. 1 ll. 48-52.
claim 6 is illustrative and recites:
apparatus comprising a transceiver operable to:
receive, in a full power mode, a plurality of superframes,
wherein the superframe comprises a plurality of data frames
followed by a synchronization frame;
receive, in the full power mode, a synchronization signal;
transmit a message to enter into a low power mode;
store, in a low power mode, at least one parameter associated
with the full power mode operation wherein the at least one
parameter comprises at least one of a fine gain parameter and
a bit allocation parameter;
receive, in the low power mode, a synchronization signal; and
exit from the low power and restore the full power mode by
using the at least one parameter and without needing to
reinitialize the transceiver.
Id. col. 10 ll. 29-43 (emphasis added).
Delta challenges the PTAB's claim construction on the
basis that the PTAB violated TQ Delta's procedural rights
by relying on a new claim construction, see
Appellant's Br. 25-29, and improperly construed the
"without needing to reinitialize" limitation,
see id. at 29-36. TQ Delta also argues the
PTAB's finding of obviousness is not ...