throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`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

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