throbber
Paper 42
`Entered: April 21, 2016
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS, LLC and
`HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-00059
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`_______________
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, GLENN J. PERRY, and
`TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00059
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`A. Procedural History
`Hughes Network Systems, LLC and Hughes Communications, Inc.1
`(collectively “Petitioner” or “Hughes”) filed a Petition requesting an inter
`partes review of claims 1–7, 13–16, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 7,916,781 B2
`(Ex. 1005, “the ’781 Patent”). Paper 4 (“Pet.”).2 California Institute of
`Technology (“Patent Owner” or “CIT”) timely filed a Preliminary Response.
`Paper 13 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We instituted trial as to claims 1 and 2 of the
`’781 Patent as being anticipated by Divsalar3 and did not authorize trial as to
`the other grounds of unpatentability alleged in the Petition. Paper 18
`(“Dec.”). Following institution of trial, Patent Owner filed its formal
`response. Paper 24 (“PO Resp.”). Petitioner replied. Paper 29 (“Pet.
`Reply”). Patent Owner moved to “strike” and to “exclude” various
`Petitioner exhibits. Paper 32 (“Mot.”). Petitioner opposed. Paper 35 (“Mot.
`Opp.”). We heard oral argument on February 10, 2016. Paper 39 (“Tr.”).
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner states that the ’781 Patent is involved in a pending lawsuit
`titled California Institute of Technology v. Hughes Communications, Inc.,
`No. 13-CV-07245 (C.D. Cal.). Pet. 1 (citing Ex. 1015). In that lawsuit the
`following patents are asserted: (i) U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710; (ii) U.S.
`Patent No. 7,421,032; (iii) U.S. Patent No. 7,916,781; and (iv) U.S. Patent
`
`
`1 EchoStar Corporation is named in the Petition as the parent of Hughes
`Satellite Systems Corporation, which is the parent of Hughes
`Communications, Inc. Pet. 1.
`2 “Pet.” refers to the corrected Petition filed October 30, 2014 (Paper 4).
`3 Dariush Divsalar, et al., Coding Theorems for “Turbo-Like” Codes,
`THIRTY-SIXTH ANNUAL ALLERTON CONFERENCE ON COMMUNICATION,
`CONTROL, AND COMPUTING 201–209 (1998) (Ex. 1011, “Divsalar”).
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00059
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`No. 8,284,833. Petitioner has filed additional Petitions for inter partes
`review challenging other patents of the patent family. Pet. 1.
`
`C. The ’781 Patent
`1. Background and Context
`Error correcting codes are used to communicate information across a
`noisy communication channel. They enable recovery of a transmitted
`message that may have become distorted by noise on the communication
`channel. To error correction encode a message for transmission, its bits are
`parsed into groups of message bits that are “encoded” into “codewords” that
`include additional redundant information.4 Thus, the encoded codewords
`have more information than the original message had prior to encoding. The
`codewords are transmitted over the communication channel and are received
`at another location, where the codewords are “decoded” into the original
`message. No single coding scheme is optimal for all communication
`channels. There are design tradeoffs between the use of complex codes,
`which permit better error correction, and less complex codes, which are
`easier to decode. This has led to the development of many different
`encoding/decoding schemes. The ’781 Patent describes one such scheme.
`2. Disclosed Invention
`The ’781 Patent describes the serial concatenation of interleaved
`convolutional codes forming turbo-like codes. Ex. 1005, Title. It explains
`some of the prior art with reference to its Figure 1, reproduced below.
`
`
`4 For example, message bits “10011” may be encoded into a codeword
`“100111” by adding a “parity” bit “1” to the original message.
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00059
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`
`Figure 1 is a schematic diagram of a prior “turbo code” system. Ex. 1005,
`2:20–21. The ’781 Patent specification describes Figure 1 as follows:
`
`
`
`A block of k information bits is input directly to a first coder
`102. A k bit interleaver 106 also receives the k bits and
`interleaves them prior to applying them to a second coder 104.
`The second coder produces an output that has more bits than its
`input, that is, it is a coder with rate that is less than 1. The
`coders 102, 104 are typically recursive convolutional coders.
`Three different items are sent over the channel 150: the
`original k bits, first encoded bits 110, and second encoded bits
`112. At the decoding end, two decoders are used: a first
`constituent decoder 160 and a second constituent decoder 162.
`Each receives both the original k bits, and one of the encoded
`portions 110, 112. Each decoder sends likelihood estimates of
`the decoded bits to the other decoders. The estimates are used
`to decode the uncoded information bits as corrupted by the
`noisy channel.
`Ex. 1005, 1:44–60.
`A coder 200, according to a first embodiment of the invention, is
`described with respect to Figure 2, reproduced below.
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00059
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 2 of the ’781 Patent is a schematic diagram of coder 200.
`
`
`The coder 200 may include an outer coder 202, an interleaver
`204, and inner coder 206. . . . The outer coder 202 receives the
`uncoded data [that] may be partitioned into blocks of fixed size,
`[e.g.] k bits. The outer coder may be an (n,k) binary linear
`block coder, where n>k. The coder accepts as input a block u
`of k data bits and produces an output block v of n data bits.
`The mathematical relationship between u and v is v=T0u, where
`T0 is an nxk matrix, and the rate5 of the coder is k/n.
`
`The rate of the coder may be irregular, that is, the value of T0 is
`not constant, and may differ for sub-blocks of bits in the data
`block. In an embodiment, the outer coder 202 is a repeater that
`repeats the k bits in a block a number of times q to produce a
`block with n bits, where n=qk. Since the repeater has an
`irregular output, different bits in the block may be repeated a
`different number of times. For example, a fraction of the bits in
`the block may be repeated two times, a fraction of bits may be
`repeated three times, and the remainder of bits may be repeated
`four times. These fractions define a degree sequence or degree
`profile, of the code.
`
`The inner coder 206 may be a linear rate-1 coder, which means
`that the n-bit output block x can be written as x=TIw, where TI
`is a nonsingular n x n matrix. The inner coder 210 can have a
`
`5 We understand that the “rate” of an encoder refers to the ratio of the
`number of input bits to the number of resulting encoded output bits related to
`those input bits.
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00059
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`rate that is close to 1, e.g., within 50%, more preferably 10%
`and perhaps even more preferably within 1% of 1.
`
`
`Ex. 1005, 2:40–3:2. Codes characterized by a regular repeat of message bits
`into a resulting codeword are referred to as “regular repeat,” whereas codes
`characterized by irregular repeat of message bits into a resulting codeword
`are referred to as “irregular repeat.” The second (“inner”) encoder 206
`performs an “accumulate” function. Thus, the two step encoding process
`illustrated in Figure 2, including a first encoding (“outer encoding”)
`followed by a second encoding (“inner encoding”), results in either a
`“regular repeat accumulate” (“RRA”) code or an “irregular repeat
`accumulate” (“IRA”) code, depending upon whether the repetition in the
`first encoding is regular or irregular.
`Figure 4 of the ’781 Patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 4 shows an alternative embodiment in which the first encoding is
`carried out by a low density generator matrix. Low density generator matrix
`(LDGM)6 codes are a special class of low density parity check codes that
`allow for less encoding and decoding complexity. LDGM codes are
`
`6 We understand that a “generator” matrix (typically referred to by “G”) is
`used to create (generate) codewords. A parity check matrix (typically
`referred to by “H”) is used to decode a received message.
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00059
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`systematic linear codes generated by a “sparse” generator matrix. No
`interleaver (as in the Figure 2 embodiment) is required in the Figure 4
`arrangement because the LDGM provides scrambling otherwise provided by
`the interleaver in the Figure 2 embodiment.
`3. Illustrative Claim
`Independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
`1. A method of encoding a signal, comprising:
`
`[a] receiving a block of data in the signal to be encoded, the
`block of data including information bits;
`
`[b] performing a first encoding operation on at least some of the
`information bits, the first encoding operation being a linear
`transform operation that generates L transformed bits; and
`
`[c] performing a second encoding operation using the L
`transformed bits as an input, the second encoding operation
`including an accumulation operation in which the L
`transformed bits generated by the first encoding operation are
`accumulated, said second encoding operation producing at least
`a portion of a codeword, wherein L is two or more.
`
`
`(bracketed alphabetic references are added to the claim limitations).
`
`II. ANALYSIS OF PETITIONER’S CHALLENGES
`A. Real Parties in Interest
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner failed to name all Real Parties-in-
`Interest (RPI) including EchoStar Corporation (“EchoStar”) and the “DISH”
`entities. Paper 16, PO Resp. 5–18. We held a conference call on Feb. 25,
`2015 to discuss Patent Owner’s allegation of unnamed real parties-in-
`interest. The following figure is reproduced from page 9 of Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response.
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00059
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`
`
`The figure purports to portray relationships among EchoStar, Hughes, and
`Dish entities.
`We authorized additional briefing on the issue of potential unnamed
`real parties-in-interest. Petitioner (Paper 15) and Patent Owner (Paper 16)
`filed briefs directed to this issue. Petitioner also filed, without authorization
`and in support of Paper 15, a Declaration of T. Jezek, in house Intellectual
`Property Counsel of Hughes Network Systems, LLC. Ex. 1070.
`The Petition names Hughes Network Systems, LLC and Hughes
`Communications, Inc. (collectively “Hughes”) as real parties-in-interest.
`The Petition further states that EchoStar Corporation is the parent of Hughes
`Satellite Systems Corporation which is the parent of Hughes
`Communications, Inc. Pet. 1.
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner failed to name EchoStar
`Corporation (“EchoStar”) and the “DISH” entities as real parties in interest
`in the Petition. We held a conference call on Feb. 25, 2015 to discuss this
`issue. The following diagram sets forth our understanding of relationships
`among various corporate entities.
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00059
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`1. EchoStar
`Petitioner acknowledges that Hughes is wholly owned by EchoStar.
`Petitioner identified EchoStar in the Petition under the heading “Real Party-
`in-interest.” Pet. 1. During the conference call held on Feb. 25, 2015,
`Petitioner argued that the identification of EchoStar was in accordance with
`the PTO’s published guidance at 69 Fed. Reg. 49,960, 49,975 (Aug. 12,
`2004). It argued that no “magic words” are required to identify a RPI and
`that its identification set forth in accordance with USPTO published
`guidance is sufficient.
`Patent Owner argues that EchoStar should have been specifically
`named as a real party-in-interest. PO Resp. 5–8.
`The evidence of record indicates that EchoStar is the parent company
`of Hughes. Petitioner identified EchoStar in the “Real Parties in Interest”
`section of the Petition as the parent of Hughes. There is no evidence that
`EchoStar controls this inter partes review.
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00059
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`
`Patent Owner notes that aside from Mr. Jezek’s declaration, Hughes
`has not provided evidentiary support for its contention that it properly named
`the real parties-in-interest beyond a single exhibit containing a portion of a
`motion for summary judgment filed by Hughes and DISH in one of the
`related district court cases.
`We find that Petitioner has identified EchoStar in accordance with the
`Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences guidance of August 12, 2004. As
`such, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has failed to name EchoStar as a
`real party in interest.
`
`2. Dish Entities
`Dish is not identified in the Petition as a real party-in-interest. During
`the conference call of February 25, 2015 Petitioner indicated that Dish is a
`spinout of EchoStar.
`Patent Owner argues that public documents describe EchoStar as
`“calling the shots” for its subsidiaries. Paper 16, 1. Patent Owner recounts
`various activities with respect to the District Court litigation that suggest
`Dish is a real party-in-interest. Paper 16, 2. In particular, Patent Owner
`refers to the voting power of Charles W. Ergen, SEC documents indicating
`“common control,” R. Stanton Dodge being both Dish General Counsel and
`an EchoStar Director, EchoStar V.P. Roger J. Lynch being responsible for
`technology that is important to EchoStar and Dish, and Dish and Hughes
`having common counsel in the District Court proceeding. Id.
`Patent Owner argues that as a result of this “evidence,” the burden has
`shifted to Petitioner to demonstrate that Dish is not a real party-in-interest.
`We disagree.
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00059
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`Although Petitioner has the ultimate burden of persuasion in an inter
`partes review, once the Petitioner has represented what it believes to be a
`proper identification of the real parties-in-interest, Patent Owner has the
`burden of production in establishing that a real party-in-interest has not been
`named. Patent Owner has not carried that burden with respect to
`establishing that Dish is an unnamed real party-in-interest.
`Petitioner persuasively argues that Patent Owner failed to show that
`the Petition was filed at the behest of Dish. Paper 15, 1. The key to a real
`party-in-interest inquiry is the relationship between the potential unnamed
`real party-in-interest and the proceeding, not the relationship between
`parties. For example, “[a] common consideration is whether the non-party
`exercised or could have exercised control over a party’s participation in a
`proceeding.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,759.
`There is no persuasive evidence of record that Dish controls or even
`had an opportunity to control Hughes’ decision to file or maintain this inter
`partes review.
`
`3. Conclusion
`Patent Owner has not met its burden of production in establishing that
`Petitioner has failed to name a real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms of an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Office Patent Trial
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). Under the
`broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are given their
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00059
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic
`Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definition for
`a claim term must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`In this case, our construction discussed below would be the same
`using the broadest reasonable construction or the claim construction standard
`required by Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
`banc).
`
`1. “linear transformation”(claim 1)
`Petitioner argues that Divsalar teaches linear transformation within its
`broadest reasonable construction. However, it does not propose a formal
`construction for the term “linear transformation.” Pet. 11–14.
`Patent Owner argues that when the claims are properly construed,
`Divsalar fails to teach a “first encoding operation being a linear transform
`operation that generates L transformed bits,” and “the second encoding
`operation including an accumulation operation in which the L transformed
`bits generated by the first encoding operation are accumulated.” PO Resp. 2.
`According to Patent Owner, it is clear from the context of the ’781
`Patent that the first encoding operation is not so broad as to encompass any
`linear transformation. Rather, read in view of the specification, the first
`encoding operation must involve irregular repetition and scrambling of bits.
`PO Resp. 31−32 (citing Ex. 1005 at 1:63-2:10). Patent Owner provides
`declaration testimony of Dr. Solomon Golomb (Ex. 2024), who explains that
`the specification consistently refers to the invention as comprising two main
`aspects—an “outer coder” and an “inner coder” (Ex. 2024 ¶ 21)—and that a
`person of ordinary skill, upon reading the specification, would understand
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00059
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`that the outer coder must include irregular repetition of input bits. Ex. 2024
`¶ 22.
`We construe the term “linear transformation” in order to apply the
`Divsalar reference. The term “linear transformation” is used in the context
`of a transformation between two vector spaces. We adopt a linear algebra
`definition7 that a linear transformation is one that obeys the laws of linear
`algebra including distributive and associative properties, e.g., the transform
`of vectors a+b is equal to the transform of a + the transform of b. The linear
`transform of x (a scalar) times a vector y is equivalent to x times the
`transform of vector y. We decline to read into the claim limitation the
`requirement of an irregular repeat.
`2. Additional Claim Terms
`We find it unnecessary to construe additional claim terms.
`
`C. Divsalar (Ex. 1011) as a Publication
`The Petition relies upon Divsalar (Ex. 1011) being a printed
`publication citable against the ’781 Patent. Divsalar is an article written by
`Dariush Divsalar, Hui Jin, and Robert J. McEliece. Robert J. McEliece is
`listed as a co-inventor of the ’781 Patent at issue. The authorship of
`Divsalar is different from the inventorship of the ’781 Patent because only
`Robert J. McEliece is common to both.
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has not established that Divsalar
`is a printed publication within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) that can be
`relied upon to anticipate the claims of the ’781 Patent. PO Resp. 20−28.
`
`
`7 This definition is explained by “Wolfram MathWorld” at
`http://mathworld.wolfram.com/lineartransformation.html (Ex. 3000).
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00059
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`The ’781 Patent is part of a family of applications and patents as
`illustrated in the following diagram.
`
`
`
`We prepared the above diagram based on related cases data found on the
`cover page of the ’781 Patent. The ’781 Patent derives an earliest effective
`filing date, through a series of continuation applications, from the filing date
`of Provisional Application 60/205,095 which was filed on May 18, 2000.
`Petitioner does not challenge the May 18, 2000 effective filing date for the
`’781 Patent.
`The cover page of Divsalar (Exhibit 1011) is reproduced below.
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00059
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`
`
`The above image is taken directly from Exhibit 1011. The hallmark
`of whether a document is a printed publication within the meaning of the
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00059
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`America Invents Act is whether it has been made available to those of
`ordinary skill in the art in a manner such that those seeking it can find it.
`See e.g., SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed.
`Cir. 2008).The record includes sufficient evidence that Divsalar is a “printed
`publication” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) and that it predates
`the earliest effective filing date of the ’781 Patent.
`The Petition states that Divsalar was “published at least by April 30,
`1999.” Pet. 2. Petitioner provides a Declaration by Robin Fradenburgh (Ex.
`1064), Librarian at the University of Texas (“UT”). The Fradenburgh
`Declaration includes an “acquisition record” pasted into an email. Ex. 1064,
`4−6. Fradenburgh states that the exact date of acquisition of Divsalar by the
`UT library is unknown. Id. at ¶ 5. However, the acquisition record states at
`the bottom “UT Created 1999-04-30.” Id. at 6. We take this to mean that
`the acquisition record was created April 30, 1999. We infer from this date
`that Divsalar was received at the library no later than April 30, 1999. Patent
`Owner correctly notes that there are no details in the declaration or
`acquisition record concerning how Divsalar was treated at the library after
`the acquisition record was created; e.g., there are no details concerning its
`shelving and cataloging.
`Based on the cover page of Divsalar, we find that it is a print-out of a
`paper from a collection of papers in the Proceedings of the Allerton
`Conference that occurred September 23–25, 1998, about 20 months before
`the earliest effective filing date of the ’781 Patent. There is no evidence in
`the record suggesting otherwise.
`Petitioner further presents Declaration testimony of Henry D. Pfister,
`Ph.D. (Ex. 1010) stating that
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00059
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`[t]he Allerton Conference is generally regarded as one of the
`main conferences in the field of information theory and
`communications and generally occurs in September. In 1999,
`the conference occurred from September 22-24, 1999 with the
`paper being published on the author’s websites in October of
`1999. The proceedings were published later.
`Ex. 1010 ¶ 29.
`Petitioner further provides the Declaration testimony (Ex. 1060) of
`David J.C. Mackay, Ph.D. generally describing that he was active in the
`community of those engaged in error correction coding and in the period of
`1991 to present published papers, software, abstracts and other information
`on his own website regarding publications that he made available to others
`on his own website. Ex. 1060 ¶¶ 13−33. Dr. Mackay states that he attended
`talks given by Dr. Robert McEliece including those given in 1998 and 1999
`at the Allerton Conferences held by the University of Illinois. Ex. 1060
`¶ 11. He describes his process for publishing papers in detail in paragraph
`21 of his Declaration. Dr. Mackay further states that “more commonly final
`articles summarizing all or part of the conference presentation were
`completed immediately after the conference and sent to the organizers for
`publication.” Id. ¶ 21. Dr. Mackay does not provide testimony specifically
`directed to Allerton’s publication of its papers from its 1998 Allerton
`Conference. See id. However, he testifies (verified by Wayback Machine)
`that he placed a copy of his own paper, “Comparison of Constructions of
`Irregular Gallager Codes” on his website as of May 7, 1999. Ex. 1060 ¶ 27.
`See Tr. 13−14. His own paper cites Divsalar (see table below). We find,
`based on Dr. Mackay’s testimony, that Divsalar had been distributed to him
`prior to his posting of his own paper on his website in May, 1999.
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00059
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`Petitioner asserts that the “at least as early” publication date (i.e.,
`April 30, 1999) is based on the acquisition record of the UT library. Pet. 2
`(citing Ex. 1064). According to Patent Owner, the Fradenburgh Declaration
`fails to establish that Divsalar was published by the alleged publication date.
`PO Resp. 24−25. Patent Owner argues that the Fradenburgh Declaration
`does not explain the acquisition record and does not explain the
`circumstances of Divsalar having been cataloged and shelved, such that it
`would have been made available to one of ordinary skill exercising
`reasonable diligence. Id.
`However, paragraph 7 of the Fradenburgh Declaration states: “The
`library’s records reflect that this reference was made available to members
`of the public on ___ 1999-04-30________.” Paragraph 8 of the
`Fradenburgh Declaration states: “[If made-available date not available:]] [a]t
`the time of the acquisition of this reference, the library typically made newly
`acquired items available to the public with ___ days of acquisition.” There
`is no number filled in the blank before “days” and the paragraph begins with
`a double bracketed phase suggesting that it is an optional portion of a form.
`Petitioner argues that Divsalar is not an “obscure paper.” Tr. 45.
`Rather, it was an important paper to the field because it “proved that the IGE
`conjecture was true.” Id. As discussed below, there is evidence in the
`record that a significant portion of this “target” audience was actually aware
`of the Divsalar paper, indicating not only its availability, but its actual
`distribution.
`The Divsalar paper was co-authored by Robert McEliece, Ph.D., who
`is also a co-inventor of the patent at issue. Reply 15 (citing Ex. 1011). Dr.
`McEliece lists Divsalar as a “publication” in his C.V. Ex. 1075 ¶ 228.
`Further, David MacKay published several papers prior to the earliest
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00059
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`effective filing date of the ’781 Patent. Those papers cite to Divsalar. See,
`e.g., Ex. 1041, 2, 11 (citing Divsalar); Ex. 1042, 1, 3 (citing Divsalar); Ex.
`1060 ¶¶ 30–33.
`Finally, we note that Divsalar is listed as being of record among the
`“References Cited” in the ’781 Patent itself. It was not of record in the
`prosecution of its grandparent application, which issued as the ’710 Patent.8
`The following table summarizes evidence of record regarding
`Divsalar including citations to the Divsalar paper suggesting to us that
`Divsalar’s peers had actual knowledge of the paper and considered it in
`preparing their own work.
`Evidence
`Date
`April 29, 1999 Fradenburgh Declaration
`
`1999
`
`David MacKay, Gallager
`Codes – Recent Results
`(1999)(Ex. 1041, 2, 11);
`MacKay Decl., Ex. 1060
`¶ 30 (testifying that
`MacKay placed a copy of
`this paper on his website by
`July 16, 1999).
`
`Comment
`States “[t]he UT library’s
`records reflect that
`Divsalar was made
`available to the public on
`1999-04-30.”
`Cites to “Divsalar, D., Jin,
`H., and McEliece, R.J.,
`(1998) Coding theorems
`for 'turbo like' codes, In
`Proceedings of the 36th
`Allerton Conference on
`Communication,
`Control, and Computing,
`Sept. 1998, pp. 201-210,
`Monticello,
`Illinois. Allerton House.”
`Ex. 1041, 2, 11
`
`
`8 The Board understands that citation in an Information Disclosure
`Statement does not constitute an admission that the cited reference qualifies
`as prior art as of a particular date. Its mention here, however, is one more
`piece of circumstantial evidence which, taken with others, suggests public
`accessibility of the document. We weigh it accordingly.
`
`19
`
`
`
`

`
`Cites to “Divsalar, D., Jin,
`H., and McEliece, R. J.,
`(1998) Coding theorems
`for ‘turbo like’ codes.”
`Ex. 1042, 1, 3.
`
`
`
`Dr. Pfister’s paper
`presented at 1999 Allerton
`Conference cites to
`Divsalar presented at the
`previous year’s Allerton
`Conference. Ex. 1057, 1,
`11 (Ref. [4]).
`
`Cites “Divsalar et al.” (Ex.
`1031, 1 (Abstract)) and
`“DIVSALAR (D.), JIN (H.),
`MCELIECE (R.), Coding
`theorems for turbo-like
`codes, Jet Propulsion
`Laboratory, Pasadena,
`CA, (September 1998)”
`(id. at 10 (Reference [5]).
`
`
`
`1999
`
`IPR2015-00059
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`David MacKay, Gallager
`1999
`Codes – Recent Results,
`Abstract (1999) (Ex. 1042,
`1, 3); MacKay Decl., Ex.
`1060 ¶ 31 (testifying that
`MacKay placed a copy of
`this abstract on websites on
`June 2, 1999 and that paper
`copies of the abstract with a
`link to his website were
`distributed at a conference
`in July 1999) .
`David MacKay Declaration
`(Ex. 1060) explains
`MacKay papers. Par 30–33
`Henry D. Pfister and Paul
`H. Siegel, The Serial
`Concatenation of Rate-1
`Codes Through Uniform
`Random Interleavers,
`Proceedings from the
`Thirty-Seventh Allerton
`Conference on
`Communication, Control,
`and Commuting, Sept. 22–
`24, 1999 (Ex. 1057, 1, 11)
`(cited at Pfister Decl., Ex.
`1010 ¶ 32 n.22).
`Audrey M. Viterbi &
`Andrew J. Viterbi, New
`results on serial
`concatenated and
`accumulated-convolutional
`turbo code performance, 54
`Ann. Telecomms., 173–182
`(1999). Ex. 1031 at 1, 10
`(cited at Pfister Decl., Ex.
`1010 ¶ 32 n.22).
`
`1999
`
`20
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00059
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`Copyright
`CODING, COMMUNICATIONS
`20009
`AND BROADCASTING (2000)
`(Ex. 1043, 1 (showing
`copyright date), 9).
`
`
`
`File History of ’781 Patent
`(Ex. 1006) includes an IDS
`dated June 30, 2008 which
`lists reference BD.
`
`Cites to “Divsalar, D., Jin,
`H., and McEliece, R.. J.
`(1998) Coding theorems
`for 'turbo-like' codes. In
`Proceedings of the 36th
`Allerton Conference on
`Communication, Control,
`and Computing, Sept.
`1998, pp. 201-210,
`Monticello, Illinois.
`Allerton House.” Ex.
`1043, 9.
`Citing as “BD”: “Divsalar,
`D., et al., “Coding
`Theorems for ‘Turbo-
`Like’ Codes,”
`Proceedings of the 36th
`Annual Allerton
`Conference on
`Communication,
`Control, and Computing,
`Monticello, Illinois, pp.
`201–210, September
`1998.” Ex. 1006, 4.
`
`
`The various citations, in the table above, by others of skill in the error
`correction coding art demonstrate that they acknowledged the contributions
`of Divsalar and built upon them during the relevant time period.
`Based on the same named authors that appear in bibliographic
`citations in the 1998–1999 time frame, we find that the evidence of record
`supports that a relatively small community of artisans worked in error
`correction coding, several of whom referenced the Divsalar paper. Under
`
`9 The presence of the citation in a book copyrighted in 2000 suggests that the
`author of that portion of the book (here, David Mackay) would have
`received the article prior to the book’s publication.
`
`21
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00059
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`these circumstances, we find that the Divsalar paper was published to the
`relevant community of skilled artisans well before the earliest effective
`filing date of the patent at issue.
`We determine, based on the totality of the evidence discussed above,
`that Divsalar is prior art with respect to the ’781 Patent. We conclude that
`the preponderance of evidence establishes that Divsalar is a printed
`publication available as prior art against the ’781 Patent as required by 35
`U.S.C. § 311(b).
`
`
`
`D. Challenge to Claims 1 and 2 based on Divsalar
`1. Claim 1
`a. Limitation [a]
`Petitioner argues that Divsalar describes limitation [a] because
`Divsalar’s Figure 3, reproduced below, describes an encoder for a (qN, N)
`repeat and accumulate code. The numbers above the input-output lines
`indicate the length of the corresponding block, and those below the lines
`indicate the weight of the block. Pet 13 (citing Ex. 1011, 7).
`
`
`Divsalar Fig. 3 shows an encoderfor a (qN, N) repeat and accumulate
`code. The numbers above the input-output lines indicate the length of the
`corresponding block, and those below the lines indicate the weight of the
`block. Ex. 1011, 7. Divsalar encodes information block of length N, which
`is a block of data obtained from a signal to be encoded. See Divsalar Fig. 3
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00059
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`and Ex. 1010 ¶ 142. Petitioner argues that the subject of Divsalar is the
`encoding and decoding of error-correcting codes, and it would be clear to a
`person having ordinary skill in the art that all block encoding methods
`necessarily perform this step. Id. ¶ 143.
`Patent Owner argues that Divsalar does not explicitly desc

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket