throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 15
`Entered: December 16, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION, MICROSOFT MOBILE INC.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FASTVDO LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`____________
`
`
`Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, PATRICK M. BOUCHER, and PETER P.
`CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Instituting Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner filed a Petition for inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5, 6,
`
`12–14, 16, 17, and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 5,850,482 (Ex. 1001, “the ’482
`
`patent”). Paper 3 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response.
`
`Paper 12 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Institution of an inter partes review is
`
`authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and
`
`any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in
`
`the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108.
`
`Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we
`
`are persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it
`
`would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claims 1–3, 5, 6, 12–14,
`
`16, 17, and 28 of the ’482 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes
`
`review.
`
`
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`The ’482 patent is the subject of the following related litigations:
`
`FastVDO LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00385
`
`(S.D. Cal.), filed Feb. 11, 2016. Pet. 2; Paper 8 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory
`
`Notice).
`
`FastVDO LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00386
`
`(S.D. Cal.), filed Feb. 11, 2016. Pet. 2; Paper 8 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory
`
`Notice).
`
`FastVDO LLC v. NEC Corp. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00389 (S.D.
`
`Cal.), filed Feb. 11, 2016 (terminated). Pet. 2; Paper 8 (Patent Owner’s
`
`Mandatory Notice).
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`
`FastVDO LLC v. Nokia Corp. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00390 (S.D.
`
`Cal.), filed Feb. 11, 2016. Paper 8 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notice).
`
`FastVDO LLC v. ZTE Corp. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00394 (S.D.
`
`Cal.), filed Feb. 11, 2016. Pet. 2; Paper 8 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory
`
`Notice).
`
`FastVDO LLC v. Dell Inc. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00395 (S.D. Cal.),
`
`filed Feb. 11, 2016. Paper 8 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notice).
`
`FastVDO LLC v. Huawei Technologies Co., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-
`
`00396 (S.D. Cal.), filed Feb. 11, 2016. Pet. 2; Paper 8 (Patent Owner’s
`
`Mandatory Notice).
`
`The ’482 patent is also the subject of IPR2016-01203. Paper 8 (Patent
`
`Owner’s Mandatory Notice).
`
`
`
`B. The ’482 Patent
`
`
`
`The ’482 patent relates generally to error resilient methods and
`
`apparatus for entropy coding, and the application of error resilient coding to
`
`image compression. Ex. 1001, 1:5–11. Entropy coding reduces the number
`
`of bits required to represent a data set by using variable length coding in a
`
`manner which exploits the statistical probabilities of various symbols in the
`
`data set. Id. at 4:36–39. For example, entropy coding assigns shorter code
`
`words to those symbols which occur frequently, while longer code words are
`
`assigned to those symbols which occur less frequently. Id. at 4:40–43.
`
`Error resilient entropy coding can utilize unequal error protection
`
`techniques, isolate effects of a bit error to a single code word, and constrain
`
`the resulting error to an interval. Id. at 6:33–47.
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`
`
`The error resilient method and apparatus includes a code word
`
`generator that encodes data pursuant to split field coding, in which each code
`
`word includes a prefix field and an associated suffix field. Id. at Abstract.
`
`The prefix field includes information representing a characteristic of the
`
`suffix field, such as the length. Id. The suffix field includes information
`
`representing at least some of the original data. Id. If the prefix field is
`
`decoded without any errors, the method and apparatus can correctly
`
`determine the length of the suffix field and the range of values represented
`
`by the suffix field such that the suffix field is resilient to errors. Id. To
`
`increase the probability that the prefix field is correctly decoded, the prefix
`
`field is protected to a greater degree than the suffix field, such that the data
`
`can be more efficiently compressed. Id. Figure 1 of the ’482 patent is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`
`Figure 1 above shows a block diagram of error resilient data
`
`compression apparatus 10, including error resilient data encoder 16. Id. at
`
`8:48–51. Original data is initially transformed by data transformer 12. Id. at
`
`9:30–32. The original data can be transformed based upon one of a number
`
`of predetermined functions, such as a cosine function, a complex
`
`exponential function, or a wavelet transform. Id. at 9:41–52. The
`
`transformed data is then quantized by data quantizer 14 such that the
`
`quantized data has fewer unique data values or coefficients than the
`
`transformed data. Id. at 11:36–38. In one embodiment, transformed
`
`coefficients whose magnitudes fall below a certain level, called a clipping
`
`threshold, are designated as insignificant and set to zero. Id. at 11:55–61.
`
`Entropy encoder 16 shown in Figure 1 above includes code word
`
`generator 26 to generate code words that represent the quantized significant
`
`coefficients. Id. at 13:36–39. Each code word includes a first portion, or
`
`prefix field, and an associated second portion, or suffix field. Id. at 13:41–
`
`43. Code word generator 26 includes prefix generator 27 for generating the
`
`prefix field of each code word and suffix generator 28 for generating the
`
`associated suffix field of each code word. Id. at 13:44–48. Because each
`
`code word is formed of two fields, this method of coding is termed split field
`
`coding. Id. at 13:48–50.
`
`According to split field coding, the prefix field includes information
`
`representative of the associated suffix field, such as the number of characters
`
`which form the suffix field, or the range of coefficient values represented by
`
`the suffix field. Id. at 13:51–63. If the prefix field is decoded correctly, the
`
`length of the suffix field and the range of values represented by the suffix
`
`field can be determined. Id. at 15:61–66. Bit errors within the suffix field
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`will not result in loss of code word synchronization, but instead will be
`
`isolated to that single code word. Id. at 16:1–4. Also, the resulting error
`
`will be within the range of coefficient values included in the prefix field. Id.
`
`at 16:4–9.
`
`The prefix fields are encoded at an appropriately high level of error
`
`protection in order to provide a high probability that the prefix fields will be
`
`decoded correctly. Id. at 16:15–18. The suffix field can be encoded with a
`
`lower level of error protection, which reduces storage requirements and
`
`transmission bandwidth while still providing error resiliency. Id. at 16:18–
`
`27. To provide error protection, entropy encoder 16 includes unequal error
`
`protection means 29 for providing appropriate levels of error protection to
`
`the encoded data. Id. at 17:1–4.
`
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claims 1, 12, and 28 of the challenged claims of the ’482 patent are
`
`independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
`
`An error resilient method of encoding data
`1.
`comprising the steps of:
`
`generating a plurality of code words representative of
`respective portions of the data, wherein each code word
`comprises a first portion and an associated second portion, and
`wherein said code word generating step comprises the steps of:
`
`generating the first portion of each code word,
`wherein said first portion generating step comprises the
`step of including information within the first portion that
`is representative of a predetermined characteristic of the
`associated second portion; and
`
`generating the second portion of each code word,
`wherein said second portion generating step comprises the
`step of including information within the second portion
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`
`that is representative of the respective portion of the data;
`and
`
`providing error protection 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
`associated with the at least one first portion at a lower level than
`the error protection provided to the respective first portion.
`
`Ex. 1001, 18:8–29.
`
`
`
`D. References
`
`Petitioner relies on the following references. Pet. 4.
`
`
`Wei
`Kato
`
`
`US 5,243,629
`US 5,392,037
`
`Sept. 7, 1993
`Feb. 21, 1995
`
`Ex. 1004
`Ex. 1002
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–3, 5, 6, 12–14, 16, 17, and 28 of the
`
`’482 patent are unpatentable based on the following specific grounds:
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Kato
`
`Kato and Wei
`
`
`
`Basis
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`§ 103
`
`1–3, 5, 12–14, 16, and 28
`
`§ 103
`
`6 and 17
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`The term of the ’482 patent expired April 17, 2016. For claims of an
`
`expired patent, the Board’s claim interpretation is similar to that of a district
`
`court. See In re Rambus Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “[T]he
`
`words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning’
`
`. . . that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`question at the time of the invention.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations omitted). “[T]he person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the
`
`context of the particular claim in which [it] appears, but in the context of the
`
`entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. For
`
`example, a “claim construction that excludes [a] preferred embodiment
`
`[described in the specification] ‘is rarely, if ever, correct and would require
`
`highly persuasive evidentiary support.’” Adams Respiratory Therapeutics,
`
`Inc. v. Perrigo Co., 616 F.3d 1283, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).
`
`But “a claim construction must not import limitations from the specification
`
`into the claims.” Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Products Co., 717 F.3d
`
`1336, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). Therefore, “it is improper to
`
`read limitations from a preferred embodiment described in the specification–
`
`even if it is the only embodiment–into the claims absent a clear indication in
`
`the intrinsic record that the patentee intended the claims to be so limited.”
`
`Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citation
`
`omitted).
`
`1. “code word”
`
`Each of independent claims 1, 12, and 28 recites “a plurality of code
`
`words.” Petitioner contends one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood “code word” as used in the ’482 patent to mean “‘code from a
`
`code book representing a symbol.’” Pet. 19. Patent Owner does not propose
`
`construction of the phrase “code word” in its Preliminary Response.
`
`The language of claims 1–3, 5, 6, 12–14, 16, 17, and 28 at issue does
`
`not contain the word “codebook.” In support of the argument that the
`
`claimed “code word” is limited to code “from a codebook,” Petitioner relies
`
`on the following language from the Specification of the ’482 patent: “‘The
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`assignment of code words for entropy coding is typically governed by means
`
`of a codebook which must be known to both the encoder and decoder.’” Pet.
`
`19 (emphasis omitted) (citing Ex. 1001, 4:51–54). But it is improper to read
`
`limitations from the Specification into the claims absent a clear disavowal.
`
`See Dealertrack, 674 F.3d at 1327; Douglas Dynamics, 717 F.3d at 1342.
`
`Here, the Specification merely states that the code word is typically
`
`governed by a codebook. The Specification does not state that the code
`
`word must be generated from a codebook. We decline to include the
`
`“codebook” limitation in our construction of the term “code word.”
`
`The ’482 patent explains that entropy coding assigns shorter code
`
`words to symbols which occur frequently, and longer code words to symbols
`
`which occur less frequently. Ex. 1001, 4:36–43; 14:27–31 (italics added).
`
`An example of entropy coding is Huffman coding. Id. at 4:25–26, 43–46.
`
`The ’482 patent also explains that Huffman coding represents data symbols
`
`using code words that each have a length consisting of a number of bits. Id.
`
`at 4:43–46 (italics added).
`
`Based on the record before us, in light of these explanations, we
`
`construe “code word” as used in the ’482 patent to encompass “a number of
`
`bits assigned to a symbol and used to represent the symbol.”
`
`2. “first portion of each code word”
`
`Each of independent claims 1 and 28 recites a “first portion of each
`
`code word.” Ex. 1001, Claim 12 recites “a plurality of code words . . .
`
`which have respective first and second portions.”
`
`Petitioner contends one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood “first portion of each code word” as used in the ’482 patent to
`
`mean, “‘prefix field of a code word generated in a manner such that a bit
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`error in the field could result in a potential loss of code word
`
`synchronization.’” Pet. 20 (citation omitted). Patent Owner does not
`
`propose construction of the phrase “first portion of each code word” in its
`
`Preliminary Response.
`
`The language of independent claims 1, 12, and 28 does not include the
`
`requirement that the first portion is generated in a manner such that a bit
`
`error could result in loss of code word synchronization. The ’482 patent
`
`discloses that each code word includes at least a first portion, termed a prefix
`
`field, and an associated second portion, termed a suffix field. Ex. 1001,
`
`13:41–50. The ’482 patent also provides that “Each code word has . . . a
`
`first or prefix field which is susceptible to bit errors. . . . [T]he code words
`
`can be generated such that a bit error in the prefix field of a code word could
`
`result in a potential loss of code word synchronization . . . . ” Id. at 6:52–59
`
`(italics added). The ’482 patent states that the first portion is susceptible to
`
`errors, but does not state that the first portion must be generated such that an
`
`error in the prefix field could result in loss of synchronization. Rather, the
`
`’482 patent uses permissive language, stating that the first portion can be
`
`generated such that a bit error could result in loss of synchronization.
`
`Therefore, we decline to import the merely permissive language into the
`
`claim.
`
`For purposes of this Decision, we construe a “first portion of each
`
`code word” as used in the ’482 patent to encompass “a first or prefix field
`
`which is susceptible to bit errors.”
`
`3. “second portion of each code word”
`
`Each of independent claims 1 and 28 recites a “second portion of each
`
`code word.” Claim 12 recites “a plurality of code words . . . which have
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`respective first and second portions.” Petitioner contends one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have understood “second portion of each code word” as
`
`used in the ’482 patent to mean a “‘suffix field of a code word generated in a
`
`manner such that a bit error in the field results in a miscoded value that falls
`
`in a predetermined range about the correct value.’” Pet. 21. Patent Owner
`
`does not propose construction of the phrase “second portion of each code
`
`word” in its Preliminary Response.
`
`The ’482 patent discloses that each code word includes at least a first
`
`portion, termed a prefix field, and an associated second portion, termed a
`
`suffix field. Ex. 1001, 13:41–50. The ’482 patent also provides that “Each
`
`code word has . . . an associated second or suffix field which is resilient to
`
`bit errors. [The] code words can be generated such that . . . a bit error in the
`
`suffix field of a code word will . . . fall within a predetermined interval about
`
`the correct value.” Id. at 6:52–65. The ’482 patent does not state that the
`
`second portion must be generated in this manner. We do not import this
`
`limitation into the claims.
`
`For purposes of this Decision, we construe a “second portion of each
`
`code word” as used in the ’482 patent to encompass at least “a second or
`
`suffix field associated with the first field which is resilient to bit errors.”
`
`We further determine that none of the other terms require express
`
`construction at this stage.
`
`
`
`B. Asserted Obviousness Over Kato: Claims 1–3, 5, and 28
`
`Petitioner, relying on the declaration of Robert L. Stevenson, Ph. D.,
`
`challenges claims 1–3, 5, and 28 as obvious over Kato. Pet. 38–52, 56–59
`
`(citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 79–115, 131–135). The first embodiment of Kato
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`entropy encodes input data into a first portion and a second portion. Ex.
`
`1002, 10:44–11:4. The fourth embodiment of Kato entropy encodes input
`
`data into a first portion and a second portion, then provides unequal error
`
`protection to the first and second portions. Id. at 24:2–59, 31:52–67.
`
`1. Kato (Ex. 1002) first and fourth embodiments
`
`a. first embodiment
`
`
`
`Kato provides a method of efficient encoding that can reduce the total
`
`number of bits of recorded or transmitted data. Ex. 1002, 1:7–9. Figure 1(a)
`
`of Kato is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1(a) of Kato above shows an efficient encoding apparatus that
`
`uses an efficient coding method according to a “first embodiment.” The
`
`efficient encoding apparatus includes prediction circuit 102, subtraction
`
`circuit 103, classification circuit 104, data conversion circuit 105, remainder
`
`calculation circuit 106, main encoding circuit 107, sub encoding circuit 109,
`
`sub encoding circuit 110, and multiplexing circuit 111. Ex. 1002, 9:46–51.
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`
`Input terminal 101 is subject to input data Di to be encoded. Id. at
`
`9:41–42. Prediction circuit 102 generates an estimate Pi of the input data.
`
`Id. at 9:52–53. The estimate Pi is subtracted from the input data Di by
`
`subtraction circuit 103 to generate estimation error Si. Id. at 9:53–55.
`
`Classification circuit 104 receives the estimation error Si and outputs a
`
`category index Ji. Id. at 9:56–57. Data conversion circuit 105 generates
`
`divisor data OUi in response to the category index Ji. Id. at 9:57–59.
`
`Remainder calculation circuit 106 divides data Di by divisor data OUi to
`
`generate remainder data Ei. Id. at 9:59–62. Main encoding circuit 107
`
`encodes the category number Ji and remainder data Ei into coded data Ci,
`
`which is transmitted through output terminal 108. Id. at 9:62–65. Main
`
`encoding circuit 107 includes sub encoding circuit 109 which encodes
`
`category index Ji into a Huffman code CJi. Id. at 9:65–10:1. Sub encoding
`
`circuit 110 in main encoding circuit 107 determines a bit number Mi of
`
`remainder data Ei, and outputs coded data CEi. Id. at 10:1–2. Multiplexing
`
`circuit 111 adds coded data CEi to the end of the coded data CJi to produce
`
`multiplexed coded data Ci. Id. at 10:2–4.
`
`Table 1 of Kato is reproduced below.
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`
`
`
`Table 1 above shows category indexes Ji, corresponding estimation
`
`error ranges (SNi – SXi), divisor data OUi, and word lengths Mi of
`
`remainder data Ei. Id. at 7:56–59. The estimation error Si is classified in
`
`accordance with the value thereof by referring to Table 1. Id. at 7:1–5. A
`
`decision is made regarding which range, or category, the estimation error is
`
`in, and the category index Ji denoting this range is determined. Id. at 7:5–7.
`
`The bit number Mi of remainder data Ei is determined in accordance with
`
`category index Ji by referring to Table 1. Id. at 10:64–67.
`
`b. fourth embodiment
`
`Kato also provides, in what it styles as its “fourth embodiment,” a
`
`method of efficient encoding which encodes input data into variable-length
`
`code words each having a first portion and a second portion, wherein the
`
`first portion includes a bit pattern that can determine a code length of the
`
`related word, and wherein the second portion is equal to a part of the related
`
`word except the first portion. Ex. 1002, 4:31–42. The first portions are
`
`collected into a group and arranged into a data store region. Id. at 4:42–44.
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`The second portions are also collected into a group and arranged into the
`
`data store region. Id. at 44–46. Figure 6(a) is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 6(a) above shows a transmitter using an efficient coding
`
`method according to the so-called fourth embodiment. Ex. 1002, 23:47–49.
`
`The transmitter includes encoding circuit 602, ECC (error correction code)
`
`encoder 603, and modulation circuit 604. Id. at 23:52–54. Encoding circuit
`
`602 encodes input data Di into a variable-length code, and places the
`
`variable-length code in a data store region within a transmission format. Id.
`
`at 23:54–57. ECC encoder 603 adds an error correction code to the data
`
`output from encoding circuit 602. Id. at 23:57–59. Modulation circuit 604
`
`modulates the data from ECC encoder 603 and feeds the signal to output
`
`terminal 605. Id. at 23:59–62.
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`
`Encoding circuit 602 includes read only memory (ROM) 606, shift
`
`register 607, control circuit 608, addition circuit 609, subtraction circuit 610,
`
`selection circuit 611, selection circuit 612, register 613, register 614,
`
`selection circuit 615, counter 616, random access memory (RAM) 617, and
`
`side information adding circuit 618. Id. at 23:62–24:21. ROM 606 receives
`
`input data Di via input terminal 601 and encodes it into data Vi, and
`
`generates word length data L1 and L2. Id. at 24:2–5. Shift register 607
`
`converts data Vi from bit-parallel format to bit-series format, which is stored
`
`in RAM 617. Id. at 24:7–10.
`
`A first portion Pi of code word Ci has length L1. Id. at 25:20–21.
`
`When writing Pi to RAM 617, control circuit 608 controls register 613,
`
`selection circuit 615, and counter 616 to write the L1 bits into RAM 617. Id.
`
`at 25:45–58. A second portion Ri of code word Ci has length L2. Id. at
`
`25:21–23. When the second portion Ri is written into RAM 617, control
`
`circuit 608 controls register 614, selection circuit 615, and counter 616 to
`
`write the L2 bites into RAM 617. Id. at 25:59–26:4.
`
`Encoding circuit 602 encodes input data Di into a variable length code
`
`word Ci and locates the code word Ci in a data store region within a data
`
`transmission format. Id. at 24:40–45. Figure 7 of Kato is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`
`Figure 7 above shows an example of conditions of the arrangement of
`
`variable-length code word in the data store region within the data
`
`transmission format. Id. at 24:46–48. Each variable length code word Ci is
`
`divided into a first portion Pi and a second portion Ri. Id. at 24:48–50. The
`
`first portion Pi includes a bit pattern from which the code length L
`
`(L=L1+L2) of the word Ci can be detected. Id. at 24:50–53. The first
`
`portion Pi has L1 former bits of word Ci, and the second portion Ri is equal
`
`to the remaining portion having L2 remaining bits of word Ci. Id. at 24:53–
`
`58. First portions Pi and second portions Ri of respective code words Ci are
`
`arranged in the data store region. Id. at 24:58–63.
`
`First portions Pi are sequentially arranged from the starting edge of
`
`the data store region toward the ending edge, and second portions Ri are
`
`sequentially arranged from the ending edge toward the starting edge. Id. at
`
`24:63–25:8. First portions Pi are separated from second portions Ri. Id. at
`
`31:51–55. This separating arrangement is adopted because an error can
`
`propagate through the first portions Pi, but cannot propagate through the
`
`second portions Ri. Id. at 31:55–58. ECC encoder 603 of Figure 6(a) adds
`
`error correction codes of higher ability to first portions Pi to increase the
`
`average number of code words which can be decoded correctly in the
`
`presence of a transmission error. Id. at 31:59–67.
`
`2. Analysis of Claims 1–3 and 5
`
`Petitioner contends, “An error resilient method of encoding data” as
`
`recited in the preamble of claim 1, is disclosed by the “fourth embodiment”
`
`of Kato, which describes that ECC encoder 603 increases the average
`
`number of code words which can be decoded correctly in the presence of a
`
`transmission error. Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1002, 31:62–65).
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`
`Petitioner contends “generating a plurality of code words
`
`representative of respective portions of the data” is disclosed by the “first
`
`embodiment” of Kato, which describes generating code words Ci having two
`
`portions, CJi and CEi. Pet. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1002, 10:45–49 and 10:65–
`
`11:2).
`
`Petitioner contends “wherein each code word comprises a first portion
`
`and an associated second portion” is disclosed by the first embodiment of
`
`Kato, which discloses that code word Ci comprises a first portion CJi and an
`
`associated second portion CEi. Pet 42–43 (citing Ex. 1002, 10:1–4).
`
`Petitioner also contends this limitation is disclosed by the fourth
`
`embodiment of Kato, which describes a code word Ci comprising a first
`
`portion Pi and an associated second portion Ri. Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1002,
`
`23:46–57 and 24:40–45).
`
`Petitioner contends “generating the first portion of each code word,
`
`wherein said first portion generating step comprises the step of including
`
`information within the first portion that is representative of a predetermined
`
`characteristic of the associated second portion” is disclosed by the first
`
`embodiment of Kato, which describes generating a first portion of a code
`
`word CJi from a category index Ji, and an associated second portion CEi
`
`generated from remainder data Ei. Pet 43 (citing Ex. 1002, Table 1, 6:55–
`
`7:59). Petitioner contends the length Mi of remainder data Ei is determined
`
`by Ji, as shown in Table 1 of Kato, which represents a predetermined
`
`characteristic of CEi, namely, the length of remainder data Ei represented by
`
`CEi. Pet. 43–44. Petitioner also contends this limitation is disclosed by the
`
`fourth embodiment of Kato, which describes a code word Ci generated to
`
`have first portion Pi that provides information about a second portion Ri.
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`Pet. 44. According to Petitioner, Kato describes that Pi includes a bit pattern
`
`from which the length L (L=L1+L2) of the code word Ci can be determined,
`
`which in turn determines the length of Ri, where the first portion Pi has L1
`
`bits and the second portion Ri has L2 bits. Pet. 44–45 (citing Ex. 1002,
`
`24:50–58).
`
`Petitioner contends “generating the second portion of each code word,
`
`wherein said second portion generating step comprises the step of including
`
`information within the second portion that is representative of the respective
`
`portion of the data” is disclosed by the first embodiment of Kato, which
`
`describes a code word Ci having a second portion CEi generated from
`
`remainder data Ei. Pet. 45–46 (citing Ex. 1002, Table 1; 7:1–59 and 9:64–
`
`10:4).
`
`Petitioner contends “providing error protection 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 associated with the at
`
`least one first portion at a lower level than the error protection provided to
`
`the respective first portion” is disclosed by the fourth embodiment of Kato,
`
`which describes providing greater error protection to first portions Pi than to
`
`second portions Ri. Pet. 47 (citing Ex. 1002, 31:51–67).
`
`Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art would apply
`
`the unequal error protection provided to the first and second portions of a
`
`code word as taught by the fourth embodiment of Kato, to the first and
`
`second portions CJi and CEi of the code word of the first embodiment of
`
`Kato, because an error can propagate through the first portions but not the
`
`second portions. Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1002, 31:55–59; 32:14–20; Ex. 1005 ¶¶
`
`83–87). Petitioner contends that adding the error correction codes of higher
`
`19
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`ability to the first portions increases the average number of code words
`
`which can be decoded into correct data in the presence of transmission errors
`
`as taught by Kato. Pet. 40–41 (citing Ex. 1002, 31:63–65; Ex. 1005 ¶ 88);
`
`Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 107, 108).
`
`Patent Owner contends the fourth embodiment of Kato does not teach
`
`providing unequal levels of error protection to first and second portions of a
`
`code word, such as CJi and CEi of the first embodiment of Kato. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 16–17. Patent Owner also contends the declaration of Dr. Stevenson
`
`does not provide a factual basis to conclude that incorporating unequal error
`
`protection from the fourth embodiment of Kato into the first and second
`
`portions of a code word taught by the first embodiment of Kato could be
`
`achieved without undue experimentation and yield predictable results. Id. at
`
`18.
`
`Patent Owner contends that the fourth embodiment of Kato discloses
`
`an encoding circuit that encodes input data into a variable length code, and
`
`places the code in a data store region with a data transmission format having
`
`a first portion Pi and a second portion Ri separated by an open area. Id. at
`
`19–20. Patent Owner further contends the code word of the first
`
`embodiment of Kato encodes input data into first portion CJi and second
`
`portion CEi, and multiplexes them into Ci. Id. at 21–22. According to
`
`Patent Owner, Petitioner has not explained why the fourth embodiment of
`
`Kato, where the first portion and second portion of a code word are
`
`separated by an open area, is compatible with an arrangement of coded data
`
`Ci, where CJi and CEi are sequentially arranged as taught by the first
`
`embodiment of Kato, nor how the sequentially arranged first and second
`
`portions can receive different levels of error protection. Id. at 23–24.
`
`20
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`
`Petitioner contends Kato’s fourth embodiment discusses the benefits
`
`of providing unequal error protection to first and second portions of a code
`
`word, due to the relative importance of the first portion, which contains
`
`information about the second portion, without which it would be difficult to
`
`decode the second portion of the code word and subsequent code words.
`
`Pet. 39. Petitioner contends it would have been obvious to apply unequal
`
`error protection, as taught by the fourth embodiment, to the first and second
`
`portions CJi and CEi of the first embodiment, because the fourth
`
`embodiment teaches an error can propagate through the first portion, but not
`
`the second portion. Pet. 39–41 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 87, 88).
`
`Dr. Stevenson testifies that “Kato’s fourth embodiment discusses the
`
`benefits of providing unequal error protection to first and second portions of
`
`a code word, particularly due to the relative importance of the two code
`
`word portions.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 83. Dr. Stevenson continues that
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
`provide higher level of error protection, as described in Kato’s
`fourth embodiment, to the first portions CJi from Kato’s first
`embodiment (where, like first portions Pi in Kato’s fourth
`embodiment “an error can propagate through,”) than to the
`associated second portions CEi (where, like second portions Ri
`in Kato’s fourth embodiment, “an error can not propagate
`through.”).
`
`Id. at ¶ 87. Dr. Stevenson further testifies that adding unequal error
`
`protection from the fourth embodiment to the encoding apparatus of the first
`
`embodi

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