UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., AND SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., AND APPLE INC. AND LG ELECTRONICS,
`INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FASTVDO LLC,
`Patent Owner.
` ______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01179
`Case IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
` ______________
`
` Record of Oral Hearing
`
`
` Held: August 24, 2017
` ______________
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and PATRICK M.
`BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., AND SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., AND APPLE INC. AND LG ELECTRONICS,
`INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FASTVDO LLC,
`Patent Owner.
` ______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01179
`Case IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
` ______________
`
` Record of Oral Hearing
`
`
` Held: August 24, 2017
` ______________
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and PATRICK M.
`BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01179 (Patent 5,850,482)
`Case IPR2016-01203 (Patent 5,850,482)
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER, SAMSUNG
` ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., AND SAMSUNG
` ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., AND APPLE INC. AND LG
` ELECTRONICS, INC.:
` DERRICK W. TODDY, ESQUIRE
` RETT SNOTHERLY, ESQUIRE
` KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
` 121 SW Salmon Street
` Suite 1600
` Portland, Oregon 97204
` 503.595.5300
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER, FASTVDO, LLC:
` WAYNE HELGE, ESQUIRE
` WALTER D. DAVIS, JR., ESQUIRE
` DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY, LLP
` 8300 Greensboro Drive
` Suite 500
` McLean, Virginia 22102
` 571.765.7708
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter come on for hearing on Thursday, August 24,
`2017, at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria,
`Virginia in Courtroom A, at 10:02 a.m.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01179 (Patent 5,850,482)
`Case IPR2016-01203 (Patent 5,850,482)
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` JUDGE SMITH: Good morning. Welcome to the Patent
` Trial and Appeal Board.
` We're here this morning to hear inter partes review
` number 2016-01179. Samsung is the Petitioner. FastVDO is
` the Patent Owner.
` I'd like to start by getting appearance of counsel.
` Who do we have here on behalf of Petitioner?
` MR. TODDY: Your Honor, Derrick Toddy from
` Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, on behalf of Petitioners, Samsung
` Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Electronics Company
` Limited.
` I'd also like to introduce Rett Snotherly with me
` today from Samsung.
` JUDGE SMITH: Thank you.
` Who do we have on behalf of Patent Owner?
` MR. HELGE: Good morning, Your Honor. My name is
` Wayne Helge. I'm here from the firm of Davidson, Berquist,
` Jackson & Gowdey. And with me is my backup counsel, Walter
` Davis.
` JUDGE SMITH: Thank you.
` I'd like to go over a few administrative details
` quickly before we begin. Our trial hearing order indicated
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01179 (Patent 5,850,482)
`Case IPR2016-01203 (Patent 5,850,482)
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` that there would be 30 minutes of argument for each side.
` Petitioner, you will go first presenting your
` case-in-chief.
` Patent Owner, you will then be allowed to respond
` to Petitioner.
` Petitioner, if you wish, you may reserve time for
` rebuttal. Do you wish to do so?
` MR. TODDY: Yes, Your Honor. I'd like to reserve
` ten minutes, please.
` JUDGE SMITH: Ten minutes for rebuttal. Thank you.
` One administrative detail as well. When you're
` referencing your demonstrative slides, please make sure you
` keep conscious mind to referencing a particular slide number.
` It helps for the transcript. It also help us follow you.
` Petitioner, when you are ready, you may begin.
` MR. TODDY: May it please the board, the '482
` patent, which is the subject of this inter partes review,
` merely combines a number of known coding techniques, some
` examples of which are entropy coding, split field coding, and
` channel coding using unequal error protection.
` While the '482 patent acknowledges that each of
` these coding techniques was known in the art, it goes on to
` state that "The proposed codes have not previously been
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01179 (Patent 5,850,482)
`Case IPR2016-01203 (Patent 5,850,482)
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` separated in order to provide error resiliency as provided by
` the method and apparatus of the present invention." That's a
` quote from the '482 patent, column 16, lines 33 to 35.
` As Petitioner's have shown in the petition and,
` again, in the reply, in view of the complementary embodiments
` of the Kato reference, it is clear that the '482 claims
` recite nothing more than an obvious combination of these
` known coding elements. For this reason, the challenged
` claims should be canceled in view of the Kato reference,
` whether alone or in the case of the two data link claims, in
` further view of the Wei reference.
` Petitioner's grounds upon which this IPR was
` instituted are as follows: The first ground is that Claims 1
` through 3, 5, 12 through 14, 16, and 28 are unpatentable as
` obvious over the Kato reference, which is Exhibit 1002. And
` then Claims 6 and 17 are unpatentable over that same Kato
` reference in further view of Wei, which is Exhibit 1004.
` FastVDO does not dispute that the vast majority of
` challenged claim elements are found in Kato. In fact, with
` the exception of the storage claims, its sole challenge to
` the majority of claims is to argue that one of skill in the
` art would not have been motivated to combine Kato's
` complementary embodiments either with one another or with the
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01179 (Patent 5,850,482)
`Case IPR2016-01203 (Patent 5,850,482)
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` Wei reference.
` As Petitioner's have shown, that is simply not the
` case. Petitioner's have further shown that the data storage
` elements that appear in a small subset of the claims, 5, 16,
` and 28, also would have been obvious in view of Kato's
` disclosure of separate storage, of first and second code word
` portions, and the application of a higher level of error
` protection to those first code word portions.
` Can you switch to the Elmo, please?
` There are three challenged independent claims in
` this IPR. Claim 1 is exemplary and it recites four main
` elements, three of which involve generating.
` JUDGE SMITH: Just real quick, when you put
` something on the screen, our colleague in Denver is unable to
` see the screen. Can you just please announce what you have
` on the screen?
` MR. TODDY: Sure.
` So I put on the screen Claim 1 of the '482 patent.
` This is from page -- as it is reproduced on page 15 of the
` petition, there is a portion of the last element of the claim
` that does not appear that I'll be talking about shortly. And
` then I'll switch over to that. That's on page 16.
` But I'd like to first address the three generating
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01179 (Patent 5,850,482)
`Case IPR2016-01203 (Patent 5,850,482)
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` steps of Claim 1. The first is generating a plurality of
` code words. The next is generating a first portion of each
` code word. And the added element there is that there is
` information in that first portion which is representative of
` a predetermined characteristic of the associated second
` portion. The third generating step is generating the second
` portion. And also included there is the concept that that
` second portion is representative of the respective portion of
` the data that is represented by the code words.
` I've now put up on the screen page 26 of the
` petition which includes a portion of the Figure 1A from the
` Kato reference.
` Kato teaches that there are two code word portions
` as well; a first portion, CJI, and a second portion, CEI.
` That CJI is encoded from a category index which Kato refers
` to as JI. And what's important about that category index is
` it can be used to determine the word length for the variable
` length word that is used in the second portion, CEI. And
` then CEI, in turn, as required by the claim, includes
` information representative of the data that is being
` represented by the code word.
` Turning back to the lower portion of page 15 of the
` petition, the remaining element is providing error protection
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01179 (Patent 5,850,482)
`Case IPR2016-01203 (Patent 5,850,482)
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` to at least one of the first portions of the plurality of
` code words while maintaining any error protection provided to
` the respective second portion, continuing on page 16,
` associated with the "at least one first portion at a lower
` level than the error protection provided to the respective
` first portion."
` I've now put on the screen the petition, page 29.
` The petition goes on to state that Kato's fourth
` embodiment provides a data store region that separately
` stores first portions of code words, which in this case it
` calls PIs, and second portions of code words, which it refers
` to as RIs.
` As with the first embodiment that we just
` discussed, Kato discloses that the PIs can be used to
` determine the length of the second portion's RIs.
` Kato goes on to say that because of this, unequal
` error protection should be applied with higher error
` protection being provided to the first portions than to the
` second portions.
` JUDGE SMITH: Let me just -- for my benefit, the PI
` and RI in this embodiment, are they the same as the JI and
` EI?
` JUDGE BOUCHER: I'm sorry, I can't hear who's
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01179 (Patent 5,850,482)
`Case IPR2016-01203 (Patent 5,850,482)
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` speaking.
` JUDGE SMITH: Sorry. How about now, is this
` better?
` JUDGE BOUCHER: Yeah, that's fine. Thank you.
` JUDGE SMITH: The first embodiment, the JI and the
` EI, is that the same as the PI and RI here?
` MR. TODDY: Kato does not expressly state that they
` are the same, but the way in which they are described and the
` most important characteristic that they share is that
` characteristic of that first portion being determinant of the
` length of the second portion and the second portion
` representing some data that's being represented by the code
` word.
` JUDGE SMITH: Okay. Thank you.
` MR. TODDY: Thus, Kato's fourth embodiment teaches
` providing higher levels of error protection to first code
` word portions that have the exact same characteristics as the
` first code word portions in its first embodiment. Namely,
` the first portions determine the length of the second code
` word portions, such that if an error is introduced in those
` first portions, it will propagate. While if there's an error
` in the second portions, it will not.
` One of ordinary skill would have understood from
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01179 (Patent 5,850,482)
`Case IPR2016-01203 (Patent 5,850,482)
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` reading the whole of Kato's disclosure, as Petitioners point
` out, that combining the fourth embodiment's unequal error
` protection scheme, namely, first separately storing first and
` second code word portions and then providing higher levels of
` error protection to those first portions would provide
` exactly the same benefit in Kato's first embodiment as it
` provided in the fourth, namely, preventing propagation of
` errors due to a loss of code word synchronization.
` And that motivation to combine was set forth in the
` petition, for example, at pages 39 through 41, citing to
` Dr. Stevenson's declaration at 83 to 87, and then again at
` 88. And Kato makes clear in Column 31, lines 55 through 59,
` exactly what I just said, namely, that errors can propagate
` through those first code word portions, whereas they will not
` propagate through the second code word portions.
` FastVDO's argument regarding this combination of
` Kato's embodiments suffers from a number of deficiencies.
` First, it misunderstands the Kato reference. FastVDO states
` that the fourth embodiment merely adds a benefit the first
` embodiment already provides. As FastVDO's expert later
` admitted, the fourth embodiment does add to the first
` embodiment something that the first embodiment lacks.
` Namely, higher error protection is provided for
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01179 (Patent 5,850,482)
`Case IPR2016-01203 (Patent 5,850,482)
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` those first code word portions that determine the length of
` the second code word portions, potentially preventing
` catastrophic error propagation. FastVDO ignores the
` discussion of how those embodiments would work together to
` provide that benefit, which is at least as fulsome as the
` similar description in the '482 patent itself of applying
` unequal error protection.
` The '482 patent merely describes adding known
` unequal error protection, such as can be found in a 1968
` text, to provide an appropriately high, quote from the '482
` at 16, 15 through 18, "level of error protection for the
` first code word portions."
` FastVDO's next argument against the obviousness of
` combining these two embodiments misstates the law regarding
` the requirements for combining references. And I would refer
` to the party's papers on that point, unless Your Honors have
` questions about the law regarding combinations there.
` JUDGE BOUCHER: Can I just ask a general question.
` Kato refers to embodiments, but it was translated
` from Japanese. Do you agree that these are, in fact,
` distinct embodiments in Kato or are these really aspects of a
` single embodiment?
` MR. TODDY: Our expert on this testified that they
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01179 (Patent 5,850,482)
`Case IPR2016-01203 (Patent 5,850,482)
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` were complementary embodiments that could be used together
` essentially as needed. The first embodiment deals with a
` certain aspect. The third embodiment, for example, adds
` transforming and quantizing steps in advance of the coding
` similar to what the '482 patent teaches. And then the fourth
` embodiment really deals with transmission and how that's
` going to be handled, and error protection is especially
` important in that context.
` So while it is not our position that they are all a
` single embodiment, if you will, or a single unified whole,
` they are complementary in that way, and that was our expert's
` testimony in that point as well.
` JUDGE BOUCHER: Okay. So you do agree, then, that
` you need to provide sufficient reasoning to combine the
` teachings from the separate embodiments then?
` MR. TODDY: Yes, Your Honor. And that's what I was
` just referring to about specifically the shortcoming in the
` first embodiment is that if no error protection is provided
` to those first portions, you are going to have a great risk
` of error propagation. There is -- as FastVDO points out,
` there is some error resiliency demonstrated in that first
` embodiment, but as its expert admitted at deposition, that
` error resiliency does nothing to solve the problem of a JI
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01179 (Patent 5,850,482)
`Case IPR2016-01203 (Patent 5,850,482)
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` that is misdecoded.
` And that JI is so centrally important because if
` it's misdecoded, not only are you not going to get the right
` value for EI, which is error enough, but you're not going to
` know where to start decoding the very next code word. And
` that loss of code word synchronization can continue to
` perpetuate throughout all subsequent code words.
` That's exactly the problem that the '482 patent
` pointed out and touted as one of its benefits of the claimed
` invention, but it already existed in Kato and had already
` been provided by Kato's fourth embodiment.
` On the screen now is Slide 10 from our
` presentation. And on Slide 10, there are two things. First
` is a quote from the Patent Owner response which states that,
` "The petition that Dr. Stevenson proposed to incorporate
` Kato's fourth embodiment into the first embodiment in order
` to provide a benefit that Kato's first embodiment already
` possesses."
` As Dr. Zeger, FastVDO's expert, admitted at
` deposition, that's simply not the case. He acknowledged that
` if the JIs are not properly decoded, if they're wrong, those
` would be examples where you would get error propagation. And
` he also acknowledged that those are examples that the fourth
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01179 (Patent 5,850,482)
`Case IPR2016-01203 (Patent 5,850,482)
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` embodiment would provide additional error protection for,
` acknowledging that is basically correct.
` JUDGE SMITH: What's the error protection that's
` provided by the first embodiment?
` MR. TODDY: By the first --
` JUDGE SMITH: By the first embodiment. You said it
` does provide some error protection.
` MR. TODDY: There is -- what the first embodiment
` refers to is error resiliency such that -- so the way the
` first embodiment works is to calculate the value for a given
` piece of data. It is basically subtracted from the prior
` piece of data and an estimate is given and then there's some
` remainder data.
` And if there's a small enough difference between
` the first piece of data and the second piece of data, the
` first embodiment teaches that that -- that will not -- that
` will not carry through.
` JUDGE SMITH: I see.
` MR. TODDY: But that does not address, and the
` expert admitted, that does not address the JI problem.
` JUDGE SMITH: I see.
` MR. TODDY: I'd like to skip ahead to Claim 5.
` Switch over to the Elmo, please.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01179 (Patent 5,850,482)
`Case IPR2016-01203 (Patent 5,850,482)
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` So the main substantive challenge to Kato from
` FastVDO is that this data storage element that appears in
` Claims 5, 16 and 28, according to FastVDO, is lacking in
` Kato. Up on the screen is page 50 from the petition setting
` forth the language of Claim 5. And in particular, Kato shows
` providing a data storage region, shown there in Figure 7 of
` Kato, that separates the PIs from the RIs.
` Kato goes on to state that those first portions PI
` are made higher in error correction ability. It further
` states in Claim 9, that an ability of error correction with
` respect to the first portions in the data store region is
` higher than an ability of error correction with respect to
` the second portions.
` It is Petitioner's position, then, that providing
` unequal error protection to the first data portion that is
` higher than the error protection provided to the second, if
` not expressly disclosed in Kato, certainly would have been
` obvious in view of what Kato does teach, namely, that those
` PIs are provided with a higher level of error protection.
` In fact, in Apple's petition, which will be
` discussed later today, there's an additional cite in Kato 32,
` lines 2 through 6, which they will be discussing that further
` addresses that point.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01179 (Patent 5,850,482)
`Case IPR2016-01203 (Patent 5,850,482)
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` JUDGE SMITH: But for your citing, in your
` petition, you're relying on Claim 9 of Kato; is that right?
` MR. TODDY: Claim 9 as well as the prior cite,
` which is at column 31, lines 65 to 67. And then the general
` disclosure of Kato as a whole talking about providing higher
` levels of error protection to those data portions that are
` separately stored.
` Interestingly --
` JUDGE SMITH: You have less than a minute left.
` Sorry, the clock is not blinking.
` MR. TODDY: Sure.
` Interestingly, stored very similar to -- and up on
` the screen right now is Figure 6 of the '482 -- stored in a
` way that's very similar with the exception of the fact that
` there is not an expressed statement that storage must be done
` while the first and second portions are in the data store
` region, it certainly is suggested by Kato and obvious in view
` of Kato's disclosure.
` JUDGE SMITH: Okay. Thank you.
` Counsel, before you begin, I just want to confirm,
` you haven't provided any slides or other demonstratives for
` us to look at; is that right?
` MR. HELGE: Correct, Your Honor. Your Honor,
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01179 (Patent 5,850,482)
`Case IPR2016-01203 (Patent 5,850,482)
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` Patent Owner only intends to refer to the record. If
` necessary, we're happy to put up some portions of the record
` onto the Elmo.
` JUDGE SMITH: That's fine. I just wanted to make
` sure.
` You may begin when ready.
` MR. HELGE: Thank you, Your Honor.
` May it please the board, Your Honors, during Patent
` Owner's deposition of Dr. Stevenson, as we identified in our
` Patent Owner's response, there was an indication from
` Petitioner that -- during redirect in particular, that there
` was going to be some reference to Column 33, lines 2 through
` 7 or line 1 through 7 of Kato, some discussion by
` Dr. Stevenson.
` In Patent Owner's response, we warned the board
` that perhaps there would be some new arguments and, indeed,
` that is exactly what has happened here as Your Honors have
` recently heard from us through the telephone conference
` seeking a motion to strike.
` Your Honors, the petition as it deals with Claims
` 5, 16, and 28, what we'll call the storage claims for today,
` there's no resemblance to what Petitioners have said recently
` in their reply. And, in fact, what I can tell Your Honors
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01179 (Patent 5,850,482)
`Case IPR2016-01203 (Patent 5,850,482)
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` regarding the oral hearing order is that while Petitioner
` didn't address these slides during this morning's
` presentation yet, we have outstanding objections to Slides
` 18, 20, 21, 23, and 25.
` And our objection is simply this: These slides
` refer to the petition for support for the arguments contained
` in those slides. And, indeed, the petition, in our view and
` the basis of our objection, the petition does not support
` those arguments.
` Your Honors, because these arguments have been made
` in the reply and Your Honors order on the motion to strike
` granted Patent Owner's permission to deal with this issue, I
` think we need to go through. Our foremost position is that
` the board should not consider these new arguments; but even
` if you do or even if you wanted to look at them, these
` arguments do not carry the day for Petitioner. They do not
` resolve the deficiencies that Petitioners' petition then
` challenges of those storage claims possess.
` Judge Boucher, I put up page 18 of the Petitioners'
` reply onto the Elmo just for reference. This specifically is
` directed to the portion that during the telephone conference,
` we pointed out as beginning Petitioners' new arguments on
` these storage claims.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01179 (Patent 5,850,482)
`Case IPR2016-01203 (Patent 5,850,482)
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` Your Honors, in this paragraph, beginning with
` "Additionally," there are two -- as we can count here, it
` seems to be reserving the right to make other arguments
` because it does say some nonlimiting examples here, but we
` see at least two arguments that are new. You won't see a
` discussion in the petition about buffers or buffers and
` modems or the buffer in Figure 1B of Kato. You won't see
` that discussion.
` JUDGE EASTHOM: Counsel, can I ask you a question.
` Is your contention that in Kato, they actually perform error
` correction on the fly?
` MR. HELGE: Your Honor, it seems to be the case.
` JUDGE EASTHOM: So there's no storage of these
` elements? I mean, I just don't understand how you could
` actually perform error correction without storing them
` somewhere.
` MR. HELGE: Well, Your Honor, what I'd like to add
` here is, in particular, the storage claims don't simply
` require storage. It's a certain arrangement of storage. And
` Petitioners have pointed to Figure 7 for that arrangement of
` storage, but there's no disclosure of using that exact same
` arrangement.
` For example, P1 through PN, an open area, and then
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01179 (Patent 5,850,482)
`Case IPR2016-01203 (Patent 5,850,482)
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` RN through R1, backing into it, in either the ECC encoder or
` in the modulator or the demodulator that show up in Kato's
` Figures 6A and 6B. So, Your Honor, your question was whether
` error correction encoding could happen on the fly. And what
` I would submit to you is that there's no evidence that the
` error correction encoder 603 of Kato performs error
` correction encoding on the data storage region that we see in
` Figure 7 in exactly that same format.
` JUDGE SMITH: But isn't that what Claim 9 --
` Petitioner just cited Claim 9 of Kato. Isn't that what Claim
` 9 is looking at?
` MR. HELGE: Your Honor, I think it's not. I think
` it's not. What it talks about is an ability of error
` correction.
` Claim 9 is directed to the act of adding error
` correction encoding. If we look at perhaps above where the
` Petitioner is focusing your attention, you can see that
` Claim 9 is directed to this act of adding error correction.
` Now, it's undisputed, Dr. Zeger, our expert,
` Dr. Stevenson, their expert, Dr. Delp [ph], their expert
` during litigation, they all agree that in the RAM, there are
` no error correction codes. And they all agree that the
` error correction codes are applied to data coming out of
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01179 (Patent 5,850,482)
`Case IPR2016-01203 (Patent 5,850,482)
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` the ECC encoder 602. The way Kato describes that data coming
` out is in bit stream format.
` So, Your Honor, your question is spot on in that it
` doesn't necessarily have to happen on the fly. We can think
` of a variety of different ways that maybe this error
` correction encoding is happening, but there's no disclosure
` in Kato that says that it's happening the same way that we're
` storing the data store region in Figure 7.
` So, for example, the ECC encoder -- I'm just
` throwing this out as a hypothetical -- could collect P1 and
` P2 and P3 and know that it's going to have to apply a certain
` level of error correction encoding. It could receive another
` portion, it could receive another portion, until it gets to
` an open area of this data stream realizing that that open
` area delineates the difference between the first portions and
` the second portions. And then begin to take part of those
` second portions.
` And, Your Honor, the modem -- or the modulator as
` we see in Figure 6A could perform exactly the same way. It
` could receive a small set of bits and send them, a small set
` of bits and send them.
` JUDGE SMITH: Even if it does, wouldn't that still
` encompass Claim 5? I mean, Claim 5 just has storing the
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01179 (Patent 5,850,482)
`Case IPR2016-01203 (Patent 5,850,482)
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` prefix and the suffix where the prefix is stored with a
` higher level of error protection than the suffix. Wouldn't
` that -- you know, even if what you're saying is true about
` Claim 9 of Kato, wouldn't that -- wouldn't you still have the
` first portion and second portion stored?
` MR. HELGE: Your Honor, the difference there, what
` I've just described this concept of perhaps collecting a
` portion of the bits, error correcting encoding them, sending
` them to the modulator, transmitting them out, what is missing
` in Claim 5 is this concept of a first data block and a second
` data block. And even if -- if you treat the entire memory --
` if you treat the entire memory as being a data block and you
` say at some point everything is being stored in the same data
` block, then you don't meet the limitations in Claim 5 because
` you don't have some showing of a first data block and a
` second data block.
` JUDGE SMITH: Well, I mean, Claim 5 uses the term
` "data block," but, I mean, the Kato reference of Claim 9 uses
` the term "first portion" and "second portion." Is there a
` difference between the claim data block and the disclosure of
` first portion and second portion in Kato?
` MR. HELGE: Well, Your Honor, what they're talking
` about in Claim 9, again, is the step of adding an error
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01179 (Patent 5,850,482)
`Case IPR2016-01203 (Patent 5,850,482)
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` correction code. Now, that occurs at 603. That doesn't
` occur in the RAM or in the data store region that we see in
` Figure 7 of Kato. But what they then talk about is an
` ability of error correction with respect to the first
` portions.
` We don't dispute the fact that the PIs or the P1
` through PN in Figure 7 of Kato are going to get a different
` level of error correction. That's what Kato talks about when
` it discloses this block 603. And there's going to be a
` different level in -- for the R values, RN -- or R1 through
` RN.
` But Claim 9 is talking about an ability of the
` error correction with respect to the first portions. So it's
` talking about --
` JUDGE SMITH: I'm sorry to interrupt. It says,
` "First portions in the data store region." The "first
` portion in the data store region."
` MR. HELGE: Yes, Your Honor. And it's talking
` about -- again, the data store region is in the RAM. I mean,
` there are three places effectively where Kato discloses a
` data store region; in RAM 617 and the ECC -- or excuse me, in
` the encoding circuit 602, there's a RAM 635 as well in the
` decoding circuit, and then there's a discussion of Figure 8,
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01179 (Patent 5,850,482)
`Case IPR2016-01203 (Patent 5,850,482)
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` which is the background, right, which is sort of the contrast
` between the arrangement of data in Figure 7 and the
` arrangement of data in Figure 8.
` But if we track this language from Claim 9, which
` talks about an ability of error correction, it actually
` tracts very closely to the specification of Kato in where it
` talks about this same idea of an ability of error correction
` to the data still in RAM 617 that hasn't gone to the ECC
` encoder.
` An ability of error correction really is sort of a
` vision that when this data comes out of the data store
` region, comes out of RAM 617, it's going to go to the ECC
` encoder.
` Now,
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
