`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