`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 66
`Entered: June 29, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-002971
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KEN B. BARRETT, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
`JOHN A. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`In Case IPR2017-00297 (“297 IPR”), Petitioner, Apple, Inc.
`(“Petitioner”), filed a Petition (Paper 5,2 “297 Petition” or “297 Pet.”)
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 3–12 and 19–21 of U.S. Patent
`
`1 Case IPR2017-00423 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`2 Unless otherwise indicated, citations to papers and exhibits are made to
`Case IPR2017-00297.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00297
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`No. 7,916,781 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’781 patent”). Patent Owner, California
`Institute of Technology (“Patent Owner”), filed a Preliminary Response to
`the 297 Petition. Paper 14 (“297 Preliminary Response” or “297 Prelim.
`Resp.”). Taking into account the arguments presented in Patent Owner’s
`297 Preliminary Response, we determined that the information presented in
`the 297 Petition established that there was a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in challenging claims 19–21 of the ’781 patent
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we instituted this
`proceeding on July 5, 2017, as to claims 19–21 of the ’781 patent. Paper 16
`(“297 Institution Decision” or “297 Dec. on Inst.”).
`In related Case IPR2017-00423 (“423 IPR”), Petitioner filed a second
`Petition (423 IPR, Paper 5, “423 Petition” or “423 Pet.”) requesting an inter
`partes review of claims 13–22 of the ’781 patent. Patent Owner filed a
`Preliminary Response to the 423 Petition. 423 IPR, Paper 14
`(“423 Preliminary Response” or “423 Prelim. Resp.”). Taking into account
`the arguments presented in Patent Owner’s 423 Preliminary Response, we
`determined that the information presented in the 423 Petition established that
`there was a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`challenging claims 13–16, 18, and 22 of the ’781 patent under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we instituted an inter partes review
`proceeding on July 5, 2017, as to claims 13–16, 18, and 22 of the
`’781 patent. Paper 183 (“423 Institution Decision” or “423 Dec. on Inst.”).
`In the 423 Institution Decision, we ordered the consolidation of the 423 IPR
`with the 297 IPR for purposes of trial. Id. at 25.
`
`3 The 423 Institution Decision is included in the 297 IPR as Paper 18
`because it includes a consolidation order.
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00297
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`During the course of trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
`Response (Paper 31, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent
`Owner Response (Paper 38, “Pet. Reply”). Patent Owner also filed a Sur-
`Reply (Paper 54, “PO Sur-Reply”), as was authorized by our Order of
`March 2, 2018 (Paper 47). An oral hearing was held on April 19, 2018, and
`a transcript of the hearing is included in the record. Paper 65 (“Tr.”).
`Petitioner filed Declarations of James A. Davis, Ph.D., with the
`297 Petition (Ex. 1004) and the 423 Petition (Ex. 1024). Petitioner also filed
`a Declaration of Brendan Frey, Ph.D. (Ex. 1049) with its Reply. Patent
`Owner filed a Declaration of Michael Mitzenmacher, Ph.D., with its
`Response (Ex. 2004). The parties also filed transcripts of the depositions of
`Dr. Davis (Ex. 2033) and Dr. Mitzenmacher (Ex. 1045).
`As authorized in our Order of February 10, 2018 (Paper 39), Patent
`Owner filed a motion for sanctions related to Petitioner’s cross-examination
`of Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Mitzenmacher4 (Paper 40), and Petitioner
`filed an opposition (Paper 44).
`Patent Owner also filed a motion to exclude certain exhibits filed by
`Petitioner. Paper 49. Petitioner filed an opposition (Paper 53), and Patent
`Owner filed a reply (Paper 55).
`In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute, Inc. v.
`Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018), we modified the 297 Institution Decision and
`
`
`4 Petitioner’s motion also seeks sanctions related to Petitioner’s cross-
`examination of Dariush Divsalar, Ph.D., in certain related cases. See
`Paper 40, 3–7. Nevertheless, Patent Owner did not file direct testimony
`from Dr. Divsalar in this consolidated case. Accordingly, we only address
`Patent Owner’s motion for sanctions in this case to the extent it relates to
`Dr. Mitzenmacher’s cross-examination.
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00297
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`the 423 Institution Decision to institute on all of the challenged claims and
`all of the grounds presented in the 297 Petition and the 423 Petition.
`Paper 61. Subsequently, the parties filed a joint motion to limit the Petitions
`to the claims and grounds that were originally instituted. Paper 63. We
`granted the motion. Paper 64. As a result, the remaining instituted grounds
`are the same as they had been at the time of the 297 Institution Decision and
`the 423 Institution Decision. See id. at 3.
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This decision is a Final
`Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of
`claims 13–16 and 18–22 of the ’781 patent. For the reasons discussed
`below, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that
`claims 19–21 are unpatentable. Petitioner has not demonstrated by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 13–16, 18, and 22 are
`unpatentable.
`
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`Related Proceedings
`A.
`The parties identify the following district court cases related to the
`
`’781 patent (297 Pet. 1; 423 Pet. 1; Paper 7, 1):
`Cal. Inst. of Tech. v. Broadcom Ltd., No. 2:16-cv-03714 (C.D. Cal.
`filed May 26, 2016);5
`Cal. Inst. of Tech. v. Hughes Commc’ns, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-01108
`(C.D. Cal. filed Feb. 17, 2015); and
`
`
`5 Petitioner is a defendant in this case. See 297 Pet. 1; 423 Pet. 1.
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00297
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`Cal. Inst. of Tech. v. Hughes Commc’ns, Inc., 2:13-cv-07245 (C.D.
`Cal. filed Oct. 1, 2013).
`The ’781 patent was previously subject to an inter partes review in
`Case IPR2015-00059 (“059 IPR”). 297 Pet. 1, 19; 423 Pet. 1, 19; Ex. 1011;
`Paper 7, 1. In the Final Written Decision from the 059 IPR, which Petitioner
`filed as Exhibit 1011 in this proceeding, the Board determined that claims 1
`and 2 of the ’781 patent are unpatentable as anticipated by a reference
`known as “Divsalar” that is no longer at issue in this consolidated
`proceeding. See Ex. 1011, 43.
`Petitioner additionally states that patents in the priority chain of the
`’781 patent were challenged in Cases IPR2015-00068, IPR2015-00067,
`IPR2015-00060, IPR2015-00061, and IPR2015-00081. 297 Pet. 1;
`423 Pet. 1. We additionally identify the following cases between the parties:
`Cases IPR2017-00210, IPR2017-00211, IPR2017-00219, IPR2017-00700,
`IPR2017-00701, IPR2017-00702, IPR2017-00703, and IPR2017-00728.
`
`The ’781 patent
`The ’781 patent describes the serial concatenation of interleaved
`convolutional codes forming turbo-like codes. Ex. 1001, Title. It explains
`some of the prior art with reference to its Figure 1, reproduced below.
`
`B.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00297
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`
`Figure 1 is a schematic diagram of a prior “turbo code” system. Id. at 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.
`Id. at 1:44–60.
`A coder 200, according to a first embodiment of the invention, is
`described with respect to Figure 2, reproduced below.
`6
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00297
`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 n×k matrix, and the rate[6] 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
`
`
`6 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.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00297
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`is a nonsingular n×n matrix. The inner coder 210 can have a
`rate that is close to 1, e.g., within 50%, more preferably 10%
`and perhaps even more preferably within 1% of 1.
`Id. at 2:40–3:2 (footnote added). 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)7 codes are a special class of low density parity check codes that
`
`
`7 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.
`8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00297
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`allow for less encoding and decoding complexity. LDGM codes are
`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.
`Petitioner notes (297 Pet. 3; 423 Pet. 3) that the ’781 patent claims
`priority to a provisional application filed on May 18, 2000. Ex. 1001, [60].
`Patent Owner does not dispute that May 18, 2000, is the effective filing date
`for the challenged claims of the ’781 patent.
`
`
`C.
`
`Illustrative Claims
`Claims 13 and 19–21 of the ’781 patent are independent. Claims 14–
`16 and 18 depend directly or indirectly from claim 13, and claim 22 depends
`from claim 21. Claims 13 and 19 are illustrative of the challenged claims
`and recite:
`13. A method of encoding a signal, comprising:
`receiving a block of data in the signal to be encoded, the
`block of data including information bits; and
`performing an encoding operation using the information
`bits as an input, the encoding operation including an
`accumulation of mod-2 or exclusive-OR sums of bits in subsets
`of the information bits, the encoding operation generating at
`least a portion of a codeword,
`wherein the information bits appear in a variable number
`of subsets.
`19. A method of encoding a signal, comprising:
`receiving a block of data in the signal to be encoded, the
`block of data including information bits; and
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00297
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`performing an encoding operation using the information
`bits as an input, the encoding operation including an
`accumulation of mod-2 or exclusive-OR sums of bits in subsets
`of the information bits, the encoding operation generating at
`least a portion of a codeword,
`wherein at least two of the information bits appear in
`three subsets of the information bits.
`Id. at 8:7–17, 8:35–44.
`
`D.
`
`297 Pet. 57–60
`
`Ping and MacKay 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 13–15, 18,
`and 22
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 16
`
`Ping, MacKay,
`and Coombes
`
`423 Pet. 31–43,
`47–48
`423 Pet. 48–50
`
`10
`
`
`The Prior Art
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art:
`MacKay et al., “Comparison of Constructions of Irregular
`Gallager Codes,” IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS,
`Vol. 47, No. 10, pp. 1449–54, October 1999 (Ex. 1002,
`“MacKay”);
`Ping et al., “Low Density Parity Check Codes with Semi-
`Random Parity Check Matrix,” IEE ELECTRONICS LETTERS,
`Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 38–39, Jan. 7, 1999 (Ex. 1003, “Ping”); and
`Coombes et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,271,520, filed June 25,
`1979, issued June 2, 1981 (Ex. 1018, “Coombes”).
`
`Remaining Instituted Grounds
`The following instituted grounds remain at issue in this consolidated
`proceeding (297 Dec. on Inst. 26; 423 Dec. on Inst. 24; Paper 64, 3):
`Reference(s)
`Basis
`Claim(s)
`Citation
`Challenged
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) 19–21
`
`E.
`
`Ping
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00297
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`
`F.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`In an inter partes review, we construe claims by applying the broadest
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`see Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016).
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, and absent any
`special definitions, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary
`meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary 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 definitions for claim terms or
`phrases must be set forth “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`We determine that no terms require explicit construction. See Vivid
`Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
`(“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to
`the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Citing testimony from Dr. Davis, Petitioner contends a person of
`ordinary skill in the art was “a person with a Ph.D. in mathematics, electrical
`or computer engineering, or computer science with emphasis in signal
`processing, communications, or coding, or a master’s degree in the above
`area with at least three years of work experience in this field at the time of
`the alleged invention.” 297 Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 84); 423 Pet. 22
`(citing Ex. 1024 ¶ 77). Patent Owner takes no position on the level of
`ordinary skill in the art, but Dr. Mitzenmacher applies the same standard
`advanced by Petitioner. Ex. 2004 ¶ 64.
`
`G.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00297
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
` We determine that Petitioner’s proposed definition comports with the
`qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the
`teachings of the ’781 patent and the prior art of record. Accordingly, we
`apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`A.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`Anticipation Ground Based on Ping (297 IPR)
`Petitioner contends that claims 19–21 are anticipated by Ping.
`297 Pet. 57–59; Pet. Reply 1–2. Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s
`contention. PO Resp. 49–51; PO Sur-Reply 1.
`
`Ping
`1.
`Ping is an article directed to “[a] semi-random approach to low
`density parity check [LDPC] code design.” Ex. 1003, 38. In this approach,
`“only part of [parity check matrix] H is generated randomly, and the
`remaining part is deterministic,” which “achieve[s] essentially the same
`performance as the standard LDPC encoding method with significantly
`reduced complexity.” Id. The size of matrix H is (n–k) × n where k is the
`information length and n is the coded length. Id. A codeword c is
`decomposed “as c = [p, d], where p and d contain the parity and information
`bits, respectively.” Id. Parity check matrix H can be decomposed into two
`parts corresponding to p and d as “H = [Hp, Hd].” Id. Hp is defined as
`follows:
`
`0
`1(cid:3442)
`
`⋱
`1
`
`(cid:1782)(cid:1816)(cid:3404)(cid:3438)1
`1
`0
`
`1⋱
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00297
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`Id. Hd is created such that it “has a column weight of t and a row weight of
`kt/(n–k) (the weight of a vector is the number of 1s among its elements)”
`such that
`
`(cid:1782)(cid:1804)(cid:3404)
`
`(cid:1743)(cid:1742)(cid:1742)(cid:1742)(cid:1742)(cid:1742)(cid:1741)(cid:1860)(cid:2869),(cid:2869)(cid:3031)
`
`(cid:1860)(cid:2870),(cid:2869)(cid:3031)
`(cid:1860)(cid:2871),(cid:2869)(cid:3031)
`⋮
`(cid:1860)(cid:3041)(cid:2879)(cid:3038),(cid:2869)
`(cid:3031)
`
`(cid:1860)(cid:2869),(cid:2870)(cid:3031)
`(cid:1860)(cid:2870),(cid:2870)(cid:3031)
`(cid:1860)(cid:2871),(cid:2870)(cid:3031)
`⋮
`(cid:1860)(cid:3041)(cid:2879)(cid:3038),(cid:2870)
`(cid:3031)
`
`(cid:1860)(cid:2869),(cid:2871)(cid:3031)
`(cid:1860)(cid:2870),(cid:2871)(cid:3031)
`(cid:1860)(cid:2871),(cid:2871)(cid:3031)
`⋮
`(cid:1860)(cid:3041)(cid:2879)(cid:3038),(cid:2871)
`(cid:3031)
`
`(cid:1860)(cid:2869),(cid:3038)(cid:3031)
`…
`(cid:1860)(cid:2870),(cid:3038)(cid:3031)
`…
`(cid:1860)(cid:2871),(cid:3038)(cid:3031)
`…
`⋮
`⋮
`… (cid:1860)(cid:3041)(cid:2879)(cid:3038),(cid:3038)
`(cid:3031)
`
`(cid:1746)(cid:1745)(cid:1745)(cid:1745)(cid:1745)(cid:1745)(cid:1744)
`
`
`
`Id.; Ex. 1004 ¶ 67.8 For each sub-block of Hd, there is exactly “one element
`1 per column and kt/(n-k) 1s per row.” Ex. 1003, 38. This construction
`“increase[s] the recurrence distance of each bit in the encoding chain” and
`“reduces the correlation during the decoding process.” Id.
`Parity bits “p = {pi} can easily be calculated from a given d = {di}”
`using the following expressions:
`
`(cid:1868)(cid:2869)(cid:3404)(cid:3533)(cid:1860)(cid:2869)(cid:3037)(cid:3031)
`(cid:3037)
`
`(cid:1856)(cid:3037) and (cid:1868)(cid:3036)(cid:3404)(cid:1868)(cid:3036)(cid:2879)(cid:2869)(cid:3397)(cid:3533)(cid:1860)(cid:3036)(cid:3037)(cid:3031)
`(cid:3037)
`
`(cid:1856)(cid:3037) (cid:4666)mod 2(cid:4667)
`
`Ex. 1003, 38 (Equation (4)).9
`Petitioner contends Ping “was published on January 7, 1999” and “is
`thus prior art to the ’781 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (b).”
`297 Pet. 24, 34–35; 423 Pet. 24. Ping appears to be included in a publication
`
`
`8 This particular representation of Hd is taken from Dr. Davis’s testimony.
`Patent Owner’s description of Hd is found at pages 8–9 of its Response.
`9 The reference to “mod 2” refers to modulo-2 addition. Modulo-2 addition
`
`corresponds to the exclusive-OR (XOR or ⊕) logical operation, which is
`defined as follows: 1⊕1=0, 1⊕0=1, 0⊕1=1, and 0⊕0=0. See 297 Pet. 11–12
`
`& n.2; 423 Pet. 11–12 & n.2.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00297
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`from the Institution of Electrical Engineers (IEE) bearing a “7th January
`1999” date and a “JAN 25 1999” date stamp from “LINDA HALL
`LIBRARY.” Ex. 1003. Patent Owner does not dispute the prior art status of
`Ping. The January 7, 1999, edition date and the January 25, 1999, date
`stamp provide some evidence of publication in a well-known IEE journal
`more than one year before the earliest possible effective filing date for the
`challenged claims of the ’781 patent, which is May 18, 2000. See Ex. 1001,
`[60]; Ex. 1003. Thus, we determine that Ping qualifies as prior art under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Claim 19
`2.
`To anticipate a patent claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “a reference must
`describe, either expressly or inherently, each and every claim limitation and
`enable one of skill in the art to practice an embodiment of the claimed
`invention without undue experimentation.” Am. Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda
`Motor Co., 651 F.3d 1318, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing In re Gleave, 560
`F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). When evaluating a prior art reference in
`the context of anticipation, the reference must be “considered together with
`the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen,
`30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562
`(CCPA 1978)). “[A] reference can anticipate a claim even if it ‘d[oes] not
`expressly spell out’ all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim,
`if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’
`the claimed arrangement or combination.” Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll
`Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00297
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`Petering, 49 CCPA 993, 301 F.2d 676, 681 (1962)). We analyze the instant
`ground with these principles in mind.
`Petitioner’s anticipation analysis for claim 19 references its analysis
`for an obviousness ground based on Ping and Divsalar that is no longer part
`of this consolidated proceeding. See 297 Pet. 57; Paper 64, 3. For
`“receiving a block of data in the signal to be encoded, the block of data
`including information bits,” Petitioner contends “Ping teaches block codes”
`wherein “Ping denotes the block of information bits to be encoded using the
`vector variable d.” 297 Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1003, 38). According to
`Petitioner, “Ping receives the information bits d and computes from them a
`codeword c.” Id. at 41 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 109), 57 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 160).
`Petitioner contends Ping “provides equations from which the parity bits
`‘p = {pi} can easily be calculated from a given d = {di}.’” Id. at 40–41
`(citing Ex. 1003, 38); Pet. Reply 1–2. Petitioner also states that “Ping’s code
`is binary, meaning that all of its coding operations are performed using
`binary arithmetic.” 297 Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1003, 38; Ex. 1004 ¶ 110).
`Regarding the recited “encoding operation,” Petitioner cites Ping’s
`
`Equation (4): (cid:1868)(cid:2869)(cid:3404)(cid:3533)(cid:1860)(cid:2869)(cid:3037)(cid:3031)
`(cid:1856)(cid:3037) (cid:4666)mod 2(cid:4667)
`(cid:1856)(cid:3037) and (cid:1868)(cid:3036)(cid:3404)(cid:1868)(cid:3036)(cid:2879)(cid:2869)(cid:3397)(cid:3533)(cid:1860)(cid:3036)(cid:3037)(cid:3031)
`(cid:3037)
`(cid:3037)
`information bits,” Petitioner cites the modulo-2 summation ∑(cid:1860)(cid:3036)(cid:3037)(cid:3031)(cid:3037)
`(cid:1856)(cid:3037) and
`
`Id. at 41–42 (citing Ex. 1003, 38; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 112–114), 57 (citing Ex. 1004
`¶ 161). For the recitation “the encoding operation including an
`accumulation of mod-2 or exclusive-OR sums of bits in subsets of the
`
`contends that these summations are sums of bits in a subset of the
`information bits, because each dj is an information bit. Id. at 53 (citing
`15
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00297
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`Ex. 1003, 38; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 147–148), 57 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 161). Regarding
`the limitation “at least two of the information bits appear in three subsets of
`the information bits,” Petitioner contends “[t]he number of subsets in which
`an information bit appears is given by the number of 1s in the column of Hd
`corresponding to that information bit.” Id. at 55, 57. Petitioner cites an
`example in Ping where Hd has a column weight of four, meaning that every
`column of Hd contains exactly four 1s. See id. at 55 (citing Ex. 1003, 39;
`Ex. 1004 ¶ 153). Accordingly, Petitioner contends every information bit
`“necessarily appears in at least ‘three subsets of the information bits’” if it
`appears in four subsets. Id.
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s analysis is flawed “because Ping
`is clear that d is a component of the codeword c, which is an output of the
`encoder, not its input.” PO Resp. 50 (citing Ex. 1003, 38). Citing
`Dr. Mitzenmacher’s testimony, Patent Owner further argues “Ping is silent
`as to whether data is received, generated internally for simulation purposes,
`or how [it is] received.” Id. at 50 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 135).
`Patent Owner’s arguments would require us to overlook the context of
`Ping, namely, the known use of codewords and parity-check matrices to
`determine when there has been an error during transmission of information
`bits. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 46–47; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 29, 32, 37. In particular, a
`codeword includes information bits and parity bits. See Ex. 1003, 38;
`Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 25–26; Ex. 2004 ¶ 29. A valid codeword, when multiplied with
`a parity check matrix, results in an output of 0. See Ex. 1003, 38
`(equation 1); Ex. 1004 ¶ 47; Ex. 2004 ¶ 37. Consistent with this application,
`Ping’s codeword c is described as including parity bits p and information
`bits d. See Ex. 1003, 38.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00297
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`Petitioner identifies the information bits in vector d as the received
`block of data in the signal to be encoded. 297 Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1004
`¶ 109). Although Patent Owner is correct that Ping details how the
`information bits in vector d of codeword c interact with parity check
`matrix H on the output side of the encoder (see PO Resp. 50), Ping also
`describes encoding. See Ex. 1003, 38 (referring to “LDPC encoding” and
`“the encoding process in eqn. 4,” among other things). In particular, Ping
`describes how parity bits “can easily be calculated from a given d” in
`equation 4. 297 Pet. 40–41 (quoting Ex. 1004, 38). The “given d”
`referenced in Ping is a vector of information bits that is inputted into the
`encoding process. See Ex. 1004 ¶ 46 (describing the encoding process as
`“convert[ing] blocks of information bits into codewords” via “a linear
`transformation that maps k-dimensional [information] bit vectors to n-
`dimensional [codeword] bit vectors.”); Ex. 2004 ¶ 33 (“[O]ne generates the
`codeword by multiplying the generator matrix by the input vector of bits.”).
`Thus, considering the cited teachings of Ping from the perspective of
`an ordinarily skilled artisan, we are satisfied that such an artisan would at
`once envisage that vector d is the “block of data in the signal to be encoded”
`with “the block of data including information bits.” See Kennametal, 780
`F.3d at 1381. The information bits in vector d are received insofar as Ping
`teaches how to compute from them codeword c. See 297 Pet. 41 (citing
`Ex. 1004 ¶ 109). Importantly, the Specification of the ’781 patent does not
`describe any particular form of the input signal or particular process for
`receiving a block of data. Ping’s references to encoding a “given d” are
`coextensive with the ’781 patent’s generic description of receiving data at
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00297
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`the input side of the encoding process. As such, we determine that the cited
`disclosures from Ping describe the “receiving” step of claim 19.
`Based on the entire trial record, we are satisfied that Ping describes
`each limitation of claim 19, combined in the same way as in claim 19. Thus,
`we determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
`claim 19 is anticipated by Ping.
`
`Claim 20
`3.
`Petitioner’s analysis for claim 20 references much of the same
`analysis for claim 19. See 297 Pet. 58. Petitioner additionally maps the
`
`(cid:1856)(cid:3037)
`
`for the “first sum” limitation. Id. at 53, 58. Regarding the “second sum”
`
`calculation of Ping’s first parity bit (cid:1868)(cid:2869) according to the summation ∑(cid:1860)(cid:2869)(cid:3037)(cid:3031)(cid:3037)
`limitation, Petitioner maps the calculation of Ping’s second parity bit (cid:1868)(cid:2870)
`according to the equation (cid:1868)(cid:2870)(cid:3404)(cid:1868)(cid:2869)(cid:3397)(cid:3533)(cid:1860)(cid:2870)(cid:3037)(cid:3031)
`(cid:1856)(cid:3037)
`(cid:3037)
`
`Id. at 53, 58–59.
`Based on the evidence and analysis presented in the Petition,
`Petitioner has established that Ping describes each limitation of claim 20,
`combined in the same way as in claim 20. Patent Owner relies on the same
`arguments discussed above with respect to claim 19. Thus, we determine
`Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 20 is
`anticipated by Ping.
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00297
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`
`Claim 21
`4.
`Claim 21 recites, inter alia, a “first parity bit” and “second parity bit”
`rather than a “first sum” and “second sum” as in claim 20. Petitioner’s
`analysis for claim 21 is similar to that for claim 20. See 297 Pet. 59–60. In
`addition, for the “outputting a codeword” limitation, Petitioner contends
`Ping describes an encoding process that “outputs a ‘codeword c as c = [p, d],
`where p and d contain the parity and information bits, respectively.’” Id. at
`60 (quoting Ex. 1003, 38). Petitioner contends Ping’s codeword includes all
`parity bits, including the “first parity bit” and “second parity bit” recited in
`the claim. Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 175).
`Based on the evidence and analysis presented in the Petition,
`Petitioner has established that Ping describes each limitation of claim 21,
`combined in the same way as in claim 21. Patent Owner relies on the same
`arguments discussed above with respect to claim 19. Thus, we determine
`Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 21 is
`anticipated by Ping.
`
`B.
`
`Obviousness Ground Based on Ping and MacKay (423 IPR)
`Apple contends claims 13–15, 18, and 22 would have been obvious
`over Ping and MacKay. 423 Pet. 31–48; Pet. Reply 2–21. Patent Owner
`disputes Petitioner’s contention. PO Resp. 15–49, 51–62; PO Sur-Reply 1–
`8.
`
`
`1. MacKay
`MacKay is a paper related to Gallager codes based on irregular
`graphs, which are “low-density parity check codes whose performance is
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00297
`Patent 7,916,781 B2
`closest to the Shannon limit.” Ex. 1002, 1449. According to MacKay,
`“[t]he best known binary Gallager codes are irregular codes whose parity
`check matrices have nonuniform weight per column.” Id. A parity check
`matrix that “can be viewed as defining a bipartite graph with ‘bit’ vertices
`corresponding to the columns and ‘check’ vertices corresponding to the
`rows” where “[e]ach nonzero entry in the matrix corresponds to an edge
`connecting a bit to a check.” Id. at 1450. As an example of an irregular
`code in a parity check matrix, MacKay describes a matrix that “has columns
`of weight 9 and of weight 3 [and] all rows hav[ing] weight 7.” Id. at 1451.
`
`Claims 13–15, 18, and 22
`2.
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
`matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
`pertains. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).
`The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
`determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior