`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 33
`Entered: December 11, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FASTVDO LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`____________
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
`PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner filed a Petition for inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5, 6,
`12–14, 16, 17, and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 5,850,482 (Ex. 1001, “the ’482
`patent”). Paper 3 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response.
`Paper 13 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We instituted trial for claims 1–3, 5, 6, 12–14,
`16, 17, and 28. Paper 15. Patent Owner filed a response. Paper 22 (“PO
`Resp.”). Petitioner filed a reply to the Patent Owner’s Response. Paper 24
`(“Reply”). The record includes a transcript of the Oral Hearing. Paper 32.
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`Decision issues pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). Petitioner has shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 5, 6, 12–14, 16, 17, and 28
`of the ’482 patent are unpatentable.
`A. Related Matters
`The ’482 patent is the subject of the following related litigations:
`FastVDO LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00385
`(S.D. Cal.), filed Feb. 11, 2016. Pet. 2; Paper 7 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory
`Notice).
`FastVDO LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00386
`(S.D. Cal.), filed Feb. 11, 2016. Pet. 2; Paper 7 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory
`Notice).
`FastVDO LLC v. NEC Corp. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00389 (S.D.
`Cal.), filed Feb. 11, 2016 (terminated). Pet. 2; Paper 7 (Patent Owner’s
`Mandatory Notice).
`FastVDO LLC v. Nokia Corp. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00390 (S.D.
`Cal.), filed Feb. 11, 2016. Paper 7 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notice).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`
`FastVDO LLC v. ZTE Corp. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00394 (S.D.
`Cal.), filed Feb. 11, 2016. Pet. 2; Paper 7 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory
`Notice).
`FastVDO LLC v. Dell Inc. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00395 (S.D. Cal.),
`filed Feb. 11, 2016. Paper 7 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notice).
`FastVDO LLC v. Huawei Technologies Co., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-
`00396 (S.D. Cal.), filed Feb. 11, 2016. Pet. 2; Paper 7 (Patent Owner’s
`Mandatory Notice).
`The ’482 patent is also the subject of IPR2016-01203. Paper 7 (Patent
`Owner’s Mandatory Notice).
`B. The ’482 Patent
`The ’482 patent relates generally to error resilient methods and
`
`apparatus for entropy coding, and the application of error resilient coding to
`image compression. Ex. 1001, 1:5–11. Entropy coding reduces the number
`of bits required to represent a data set by using variable length coding in a
`manner that exploits the statistical probabilities of various symbols in the
`data set. Id. at 4:36–39. For example, entropy coding assigns shorter code
`words to those symbols that occur frequently, and assigns longer code words
`to those symbols that occur less frequently. Id. at 4:40–43. Error resilient
`entropy coding can utilize unequal error protection techniques, isolate
`effects of a bit error to a single code word, and constrain the resulting error
`to an interval. Id. at 6:33–47.
`
`The error resilient method and apparatus includes a code word
`generator that encodes data pursuant to split field coding, in which each code
`word includes a prefix field and an associated suffix field. Id. at Abstract.
`The prefix field includes information representing a characteristic of the
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`suffix field, such as the length. Id. The suffix field includes information
`representing at least some of the original data. Id. If the prefix field is
`decoded without any errors, the method and apparatus can correctly
`determine the length of the suffix field and the range of values represented
`by the suffix field such that the suffix field is resilient to errors. Id. To
`increase the probability that the prefix field is correctly decoded, the prefix
`field is error protected to a greater degree than the suffix field, such that the
`data can be more efficiently compressed. Id. Figure 1 of the ’482 patent is
`reproduced below.
`
`Figure 1 above shows a block diagram of error resilient data
`compression apparatus 10, including error resilient data encoder 16. Id. at
`8:48–51. Original data is initially transformed by data transformer 12. Id. at
`9:30–32. The original data can be transformed based upon one of a number
`of predetermined functions, such as a cosine function, a complex
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`exponential function, or a wavelet transform. Id. at 9:41–52. The
`transformed data is then quantized by data quantizer 14 such that the
`quantized data has fewer unique data values or coefficients than the
`transformed data. Id. at 11:36–38. In one embodiment, transformed
`coefficients whose magnitudes fall below a certain level, called a clipping
`threshold, are designated as insignificant and set to zero. Id. at 11:55–61.
`Entropy encoder 16 shown in Figure 1 above includes code word
`generator 26 to generate code words that represent the quantized significant
`coefficients. Id. at 13:36–39. Each code word includes a first portion, or
`prefix field, and an associated second portion, or suffix field. Id. at 13:41–
`43. Code word generator 26 includes prefix generator 27 for generating the
`prefix field of each code word and suffix generator 28 for generating the
`associated suffix field of each code word. Id. at 13:44–48. Because each
`code word is composed of two fields, this method of coding is termed split
`field coding. Id. at 13:48–50.
`According to split field coding, the prefix field includes information
`representative of the associated suffix field, such as the number of characters
`which form the suffix field, or the range of coefficient values represented by
`the suffix field. Id. at 13:51–63. If the prefix field is decoded correctly, the
`length of the suffix field and the range of values represented by the suffix
`field can be determined. Id. at 15:61–66. Bit errors within the suffix field
`will not result in loss of code word synchronization, but instead will be
`isolated to that single code word. Id. at 16:1–4. Also, the resulting error
`will be within the range of coefficient values included in the prefix field. Id.
`at 16:4–9.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`
`The prefix fields are encoded at an appropriately high level of error
`protection in order to provide a high probability that the prefix fields will be
`decoded correctly. Id. at 16:15–18. The suffix field can be encoded with a
`lower level of error protection, which reduces storage requirements and
`transmission bandwidth while still providing error resiliency. Id. at 16:18–
`27. To provide error protection, entropy encoder 16 includes unequal error
`protection means 29 for providing appropriate levels of error protection to
`the encoded data. Id. at 17:1–4.
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Claims 1, 12, and 28 of the challenged claims of the ’482 patent are
`independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
`1.
`An error resilient method of encoding data
`comprising the steps of:
`generating a plurality of code words representative of
`respective portions of the data, wherein each code word
`comprises a first portion and an associated second portion, and
`wherein said code word generating step comprises the steps of:
`generating the first portion of each code word,
`wherein said first portion generating step comprises the
`step of including information within the first portion that
`is representative of a predetermined characteristic of the
`associated second portion; and
`generating the second portion of each code word,
`wherein said second portion generating step comprises the
`step of including information within the second portion
`that is representative of the respective portion of the data;
`and
`providing error protection to at least one of the first
`portions of the plurality of code words while maintaining any
`error protection provided to the respective second portion
`associated with the at least one first portion at a lower level than
`the error protection provided to the respective first portion.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`Ex. 1001, 18:8–29.
`
`D. References
`Petitioner relies on the following references. Pet. 4.
`Wei
`
`US 5,243,629
`Sept. 7, 1993
`Ex. 1004
`Kato
`US 5,392,037
`Feb. 21, 1995
`Ex. 1002
`
`
`E. Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`We instituted review of claims 1–3, 5, 6, 12–14, 16, 17, and 28 of the
`
`’482 patent on the following specific grounds:
`
`Reference(s)
`Kato
`Kato and Wei
`
`
`Basis
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`Challenged Claims
`1–3, 5, 12–14, 16, and 28
`6 and 17
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`The term of the ’482 patent expired April 17, 2016. See Pet. 17. For
`claims of an expired patent, the Board’s claim interpretation is similar to that
`of a district court. See In re Rambus Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`“[T]he words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary
`meaning’ . . . that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`in question at the time of the invention.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations omitted). “[T]he person
`of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the
`context of the particular claim in which [it] appears, but in the context of the
`entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. For
`example, a “claim construction that excludes [a] preferred embodiment
`[described in the specification] ‘is rarely, if ever, correct and would require
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`highly persuasive evidentiary support.’” Adams Respiratory Therapeutics,
`Inc. v. Perrigo Co., 616 F.3d 1283, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).
`But “a claim construction must not import limitations from the specification
`into the claims.” Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Products Co., 717 F.3d
`1336, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). Therefore, “it is improper to
`read limitations from a preferred embodiment described in the
`specification—even if it is the only embodiment—into the claims absent a
`clear indication in the intrinsic record that the patentee intended the claims
`to be so limited.” Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1327 (Fed.
`Cir. 2012) (citation omitted).
`1. “code word”
`Each of independent claims 1, 12, and 28 recites “a plurality of code
`words.” Petitioner contends one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood “code word” as used in the ’482 patent to mean “‘code from a
`code book representing a symbol.’” Pet. 19. Patent Owner does not propose
`construction of the phrase “code word” in its Response.
`The language of claims 1–3, 5, 6, 12–14, 16, 17, and 28 at issue does
`not contain the word “codebook.” In support of the argument that the
`claimed “code word” is limited to code “from a code book,” Petitioner relies
`on the following language from the Specification of the ’482 patent: “The
`assignment of code words for entropy coding is typically governed by means
`of a codebook which must be known to both the encoder and decoder.” Pet.
`19 (emphasis omitted) (citing Ex. 1001, 4:51–54). But it is improper to read
`limitations from the Specification into the claims absent a clear indication in
`the intrinsic record that the patentee intended the claims to be so limited.
`See Dealertrack, 674 F.3d at 1327; Douglas Dynamics, 717 F.3d at 1342.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`Here, the Specification merely states that the code word is “typically”
`governed by a codebook. The Specification does not state that the code
`word must be generated from a codebook. We decline to include the
`“codebook” limitation in our construction of the term “code word.”
`The ’482 patent explains that entropy coding assigns shorter code
`words to symbols which occur frequently, and longer code words to symbols
`which occur less frequently. Ex. 1001, 4:36–43; 14:27–31 (italics added).
`An example of entropy coding is Huffman coding. Id. at 4:25–26, 43–46.
`The ’482 patent also explains that Huffman coding represents data symbols
`using code words that each have a length of a number of bits. Id. at 4:43–46
`(italics added).
`We construe “code word” as used in the ’482 patent to encompass “a
`number of bits assigned to a symbol and used to represent the symbol.”
`2. “first portion of each code word”
`Each of independent claims 1 and 28 recites a “first portion of each
`code word.” Ex. 1001, Claim 12 recites “a plurality of code words . . .
`which have respective first and second portions.”
`Petitioner contends one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood “first portion of each code word” as used in the ’482 patent to
`mean, “prefix field of a code word generated in a manner such that a bit
`error in the field could result in a potential loss of code word
`synchronization.” Pet. 20 (citation omitted). Patent Owner does not propose
`construction of the phrase “first portion of each code word” in its
`Preliminary Response.
`The language of independent claims 1, 12, and 28 does not include the
`requirement that the first portion is generated in a manner such that a bit
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`error could result in loss of code word synchronization. The ’482 patent
`discloses that each code word includes at least a first portion, termed a prefix
`field, and an associated second portion, termed a suffix field. Ex. 1001,
`13:41–50. The ’482 patent also provides that “[e]ach code word has . . . a
`first or prefix field which is susceptible to bit errors . . . . [T]he code words
`can be generated such that a bit error in the prefix field of a code word could
`result in a potential loss of code word synchronization . . . .” Id. at 6:52–59
`(emphasis added). The ’482 patent states that the first portion is susceptible
`to errors, but does not state that the first portion must be generated such that
`an error in the prefix field could result in loss of synchronization. Rather,
`the ’482 patent uses permissive language, stating that the first portion can be
`generated such that a bit error could result in loss of synchronization.
`Therefore, we decline to import the merely permissive language into the
`claim.
`We construe a “first portion of each code word” as used in the ’482
`patent to encompass “a first or prefix field which is susceptible to bit errors.”
`3. “second portion of each code word”
`Each of independent claims 1 and 28 recites a “second portion of each
`code word.” Claim 12 recites “a plurality of code words . . . which have
`respective first and second portions.” Petitioner contends one of ordinary
`skill in the art would have understood “second portion of each code word” as
`used in the ’482 patent to mean a “‘suffix field of a code word generated in a
`manner such that a bit error in the field results in a miscoded value that falls
`in a predetermined range about the correct value.’” Pet. 21. Patent Owner
`does not propose construction of the phrase “second portion of each code
`word” in its Response.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`
`The ’482 patent discloses that each code word includes at least a first
`portion, termed a prefix field, and an associated second portion, termed a
`suffix field. Ex. 1001, 13:41–50. The ’482 patent also provides that “[e]ach
`code word has . . . an associated second or suffix field which is resilient to
`bit errors. [T]he code words can be generated such that . . . a bit error in the
`suffix field of a code word will . . . fall within a predetermined interval about
`the correct value.” Id. at 6:52–65 (emphasis added). The ’482 patent does
`not state that the second portion must be generated in this manner. We do
`not import this limitation into the claims.
`We construe a “second portion of each code word” as used in the ’482
`patent to encompass at least “a second or suffix field associated with the first
`field which is resilient to bit errors.”
`4. “storage medium”
`Patent Owner contends “storage medium” recited in claims 5, 16, and
`28 should be construed as a physical storage device or memory, and should
`not be construed so broadly as to cover a transmission channel, data link, or
`transmission media generally. PO Resp. 13. According to Patent Owner,
`the claims of the ’482 patent distinguish between “storing” data “in a first
`block of a storage medium” and “transmitting” data “via a first data link.”
`PO Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 1001, 18:57–59, 19:1–2). Patent Owner also relies
`on the ’482 patent’s distinction between the storage medium represented as
`module 18, and transmitter module 20 that accesses data links 22 and 24. Id.
`(citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 1, 17:15–19, 26–27; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 34–35).
`Petitioner observes that Patent Owner did not include this construction
`in the Preliminary Response. Reply 17. But without more, this is an
`insufficient basis to reject Patent Owner’s proposal. Whether to file a
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`Preliminary Response is optional, and Patent Owner is under no obligation
`to set forth all of its positions in a Preliminary Response. See 37 C.F.R.
`42.107(a) (“The patent owner may file a preliminary response to the
`petition.” (Emphasis added)). Petitioner does not propose an alternative
`construction of “storage medium.”
`Differences among claims can “be a useful guide in understanding the
`meaning of particular claim terms.” Phillips, 550 F.3d at 1314–15. Here,
`claim 5 of the ’482 patent, which depends from claim 1, recites “storing”
`data in “a storage medium,” while claim 6, which also depends from claim
`1, recites “transmitting” data “via a data link.” Given that the claims of the
`’482 patent distinguish between storing data in a storage medium and
`transmitting data over a transmission medium, we construe the scope of the
`claim term “storage medium” excludes a transmission channel or a
`transmission medium.
`Also, we read the claimed “storage medium” in view of the
`Specification of the ’482 patent, because the Specification “‘is always highly
`relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive, it is the
`single best guide to the meaning of the disputed term.’” Phillips, 550 F.3d at
`1315. The ’482 patent discloses that a communications or storage medium
`is referred to as a channel. Ex. 1001, 4:66–5:3. We conclude the scope of
`the claim term “storage medium,” read in view of the Specification of the
`’482 patent, encompasses at least a channel other than a transmission
`channel.
`We further determine that none of the other terms require express
`construction.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`
`B. Asserted Obviousness Over Kato: Claims 1–3, 5, and 28
`Petitioner, relying on the declaration of Robert L. Stevenson, Ph. D.,
`challenges claims 1–3, 5, and 28 as obvious over Kato. Pet. 38–52, 56–59
`(citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 79–115, 131–135). The first embodiment of Kato
`entropy encodes input data into a first portion and a second portion. Ex.
`1002, 10:44–11:4. The fourth embodiment of Kato entropy encodes input
`data into a first portion and a second portion, then provides unequal error
`protection to the first and second portions. Id. at 24:2–59, 31:52–67.
`1. Kato (Ex. 1002) first and fourth embodiments
`a. first embodiment
`Kato provides a method of efficient encoding that can reduce the total
`
`number of bits of recorded or transmitted data. Ex. 1002, 1:7–9. Figure 1(a)
`of Kato is reproduced below.
`
`Figure 1(a) of Kato above shows an efficient encoding apparatus that
`uses an efficient coding method according to what it designates as a “first
`embodiment.” The efficient encoding apparatus includes prediction circuit
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`102, subtraction circuit 103, classification circuit 104, data conversion
`circuit 105, remainder calculation circuit 106, main encoding circuit 107,
`sub encoding circuit 109, sub encoding circuit 110, and multiplexing circuit
`111. Ex. 1002, 9:46–51.
`Input terminal 101 is subject to input data Di to be encoded. Id. at
`9:41–42. Prediction circuit 102 generates an estimate Pi of the input data.
`Id. at 9:52–53. The estimate Pi is subtracted from the input data Di by
`subtraction circuit 103 to generate estimation error Si. Id. at 9:53–55.
`Classification circuit 104 receives the estimation error Si and outputs a
`category index Ji. Id. at 9:56–57. Data conversion circuit 105 generates
`divisor data OUi in response to the category index Ji. Id. at 9:57–59.
`Remainder calculation circuit 106 divides data Di by divisor data OUi to
`generate remainder data Ei. Id. at 9:59–62. Main encoding circuit 107
`encodes the category number Ji and remainder data Ei into coded data Ci,
`which is transmitted through output terminal 108. Id. at 9:62–65. Main
`encoding circuit 107 includes sub encoding circuit 109 which encodes
`category index Ji into a Huffman code CJi. Id. at 9:65–10:1. Sub encoding
`circuit 110 in main encoding circuit 107 determines a bit number Mi of
`remainder data Ei, and outputs coded data CEi. Id. at 10:1–2. Multiplexing
`circuit 111 adds coded data CEi to the end of the coded data CJi to produce
`multiplexed coded data Ci. Id. at 10:2–4.
`Table 1 of Kato is reproduced below.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`
`
`Table 1 above shows category indexes Ji, corresponding estimation
`error ranges (SNi – SXi), divisor data OUi, and word lengths Mi of
`remainder data Ei. Id. at 7:56–59. The estimation error Si is classified in
`accordance with the value thereof by referring to Table 1. Id. at 7:1–5. A
`decision is made regarding which range, or category, the estimation error is
`in, and the category index Ji denoting this range is determined. Id. at 7:5–7.
`The bit number Mi of remainder data Ei is determined in accordance with
`category index Ji by referring to Table 1. Id. at 10:64–67.
`b. fourth embodiment
`Kato also provides, in what it styles as its “fourth embodiment,” a
`method of efficient encoding that encodes input data into variable-length
`code words, each having a first portion and a second portion, wherein the
`first portion includes a bit pattern that can determine a code length of the
`related word, and wherein the second portion is equal to a part of the related
`word except the first portion. Ex. 1002, 4:31–42. The first portions are
`collected into a group and arranged into a data store region. Id. at 4:42–44.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`The second portions are also collected into a group and arranged into the
`data store region. Id. at 44–46. Figure 6(a) is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 6(a) above shows a transmitter using an efficient coding
`method according to the so-called fourth embodiment. Ex. 1002, 23:47–49.
`The transmitter includes encoding circuit 602, ECC (error correction code)
`encoder 603, and modulation circuit 604. Id. at 23:52–54. Encoding circuit
`602 encodes input data Di into a variable-length code, and places the
`variable-length code in a data store region within a transmission format. Id.
`at 23:54–57. ECC encoder 603 adds an error correction code to the data
`output from encoding circuit 602. Id. at 23:57–59. Modulation circuit 604
`modulates the data from ECC encoder 603 and feeds the signal to output
`terminal 605. Id. at 23:59–62.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`
`Encoding circuit 602 includes read only memory (ROM) 606, shift
`register 607, control circuit 608, addition circuit 609, subtraction circuit 610,
`selection circuit 611, selection circuit 612, register 613, register 614,
`selection circuit 615, counter 616, random access memory (RAM) 617, and
`side information adding circuit 618. Id. at 23:64–24:21. ROM 606 receives
`input data Di via input terminal 601 and encodes it into data Vi, and
`generates word length data L1 and L2. Id. at 24:2–5. Shift register 607
`converts data Vi from bit-parallel format to bit-series format, which is stored
`in RAM 617. Id. at 24:7–10.
`A first portion Pi of code word Ci has length L1. Id. at 25:20–21.
`When writing Pi to RAM 617, control circuit 608 controls register 613,
`selection circuit 615, and counter 616 to write the L1 bits into RAM 617. Id.
`at 25:45–58. A second portion Ri of code word Ci has length L2. Id. at
`25:21–23. When the second portion Ri is written into RAM 617, control
`circuit 608 controls register 614, selection circuit 615, and counter 616 to
`write the L2 bites into RAM 617. Id. at 25:59–26:4.
`Encoding circuit 602 encodes input data Di into a variable length code
`word Ci and locates the code word Ci in a data store region within a data
`transmission format. Id. at 24:40–45. Figure 7 of Kato is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`
`Figure 7 above shows an example of conditions of the arrangement of
`variable-length code words in the data store region within the data
`transmission format. Id. at 24:46–48. Each variable length code word Ci is
`divided into a first portion Pi and a second portion Ri. Id. at 24:48–50. The
`first portion Pi includes a bit pattern from which the code length L
`(L=L1+L2) of the word Ci can be detected. Id. at 24:50–53. The first
`portion Pi has L1 former bits of word Ci, and the second portion Ri is equal
`to the remaining portion having L2 remaining bits of word Ci. Id. at 24:53–
`58. First portions Pi and second portions Ri of respective code words Ci are
`arranged in the data store region. Id. at 24:58–63.
`First portions Pi are sequentially arranged from the starting edge of
`the data store region toward the ending edge, and second portions Ri are
`sequentially arranged from the ending edge toward the starting edge. Id. at
`24:63–25:8. First portions Pi are separated from second portions Ri. Id. at
`31:51–55. This separating arrangement is adopted because an error can
`propagate through the first portions Pi, but cannot propagate through the
`second portions Ri. Id. at 31:55–59. ECC encoder 603 of Figure 6(a) adds
`error correction codes of higher ability to first portions Pi to increase the
`average number of code words which can be decoded correctly in the
`presence of a transmission error. Id. at 31:60–67.
`2. Analysis of Claims 1–3 and 5
`Petitioner contends, “[a]n error resilient method of encoding data” as
`recited in the preamble of claim 1, is disclosed by the “fourth embodiment”
`of Kato, which describes that ECC encoder 603 increases the average
`number of code words which can be decoded correctly in the presence of a
`transmission error. Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1002, 31:62–65).
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`
`Petitioner contends “generating a plurality of code words
`representative of respective portions of the data” is disclosed by the “first
`embodiment” of Kato, which describes generating code words Ci having two
`portions, CJi and CEi. Pet. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1002, 10:45–49 and 10:65–
`11:2).
`Petitioner contends “wherein each code word comprises a first portion
`and an associated second portion” is disclosed by the first embodiment of
`Kato, which discloses that code word Ci comprises a first portion CJi and an
`associated second portion CEi. Pet 42–43 (citing Ex. 1002, 10:1–4).
`Petitioner also contends this limitation is disclosed by the fourth
`embodiment of Kato, which describes a code word Ci comprising a first
`portion Pi and an associated second portion Ri. Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1002,
`23:46–57 and 24:40–45). According to Dr. Stevenson, “an error” to first
`portions CJi from Kato’s first embodiment, or first portions Pi from Kato’s
`fourth embodiment, “can propagate through,” but “an error” to associated
`second portions CEi or Ri “can not propagate through.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 87
`(citing Ex. 1002 31:55–59).
`Petitioner contends “generating the first portion of each code word,
`wherein said first portion generating step comprises the step of including
`information within the first portion that is representative of a predetermined
`characteristic of the associated second portion” is disclosed by the first
`embodiment of Kato, which describes generating a first portion of a code
`word CJi from a category index Ji, and an associated second portion CEi
`generated from remainder data Ei. Pet 43 (citing Ex. 1002, Table 1, 6:55–
`7:59). Petitioner contends the length Mi of remainder data Ei is determined
`by Ji, as shown in Table 1 of Kato, which represents a predetermined
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`characteristic of CEi, namely, the length of remainder data Ei represented by
`CEi. Pet. 43–44. Petitioner also contends this limitation is disclosed by the
`fourth embodiment of Kato, which describes a code word Ci generated to
`have first portion Pi that provides information about a second portion Ri.
`Pet. 44. According to Petitioner, Kato describes that Pi includes a bit pattern
`from which the length L (L=L1+L2) of the code word Ci can be determined,
`which in turn determines the length of Ri, where the first portion Pi has L1
`bits and the second portion Ri has L2 bits. Pet. 44–45 (citing Ex. 1002,
`24:50–58).
`Petitioner contends “generating the second portion of each code word,
`wherein said second portion generating step comprises the step of including
`information within the second portion that is representative of the respective
`portion of the data” is disclosed by the first embodiment of Kato, which
`describes a code word Ci having a second portion CEi generated from
`remainder data Ei. Pet. 45–46 (citing Ex. 1002, Table 1; 7:1–59 and 9:64–
`10:4).
`Petitioner contends “providing error protection to at least one of the
`first portions of the plurality of code words while maintaining any error
`protection provided to the respective second portion associated with the at
`least one first portion at a lower level than the error protection provided to
`the respective first portion” is disclosed by the fourth embodiment of Kato,
`which describes providing greater error protection to first portions Pi than to
`second portions Ri. Pet. 47 (citing Ex. 1002, 31:51–67).
`Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art would apply
`the unequal error protection provided to the first and second portions of a
`code word as taught by the fourth embodiment of Kato, to the first and
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01179
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`second portions CJi and CEi of the code word of the first embodiment of
`Kato, because an error can propagate through the first portions but not the
`second portions. Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1002, 31:55–59; 32:14–20; Ex. 1005
`¶¶ 83–87). Petitioner contends that adding the error correction codes of
`higher ability to the first portions increases the average number of code
`words which can be decoded into correct data in the presence of
`transmission errors as taught by Kato. Pet. 40–41 (citing Ex. 1002, 31:63–
`65; Ex. 1005 ¶ 88); Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 107, 108).
`Patent Owner contends first, that the Petition and Dr. Stevenson’s
`declaration lack any discussion of how the combined embodiments of Kato
`would operate; second, that the Petition does not establish a reason to
`incorporate the unequal error protection of the fourth embodiment into the
`first embodiment; and third, that Dr. Stevenson does not establish a
`reasonable expectation of success in combining Kato’s embodiments. PO
`Resp. 30–49.
`According to Patent Owner’s first contention, Dr. Stevenson proposes
`to incorporate the unequal protection scheme from Kato’s fourth
`embodiment in the encoding apparatus of Kato’s first embodiment, but does
`not testify about where Error Correction Code (ECC) encoder 603 of the
`fourth embodiment would interact with components of the first embodiment.
`PO Resp. 32. Petitioner explains that applying unequal error protection to
`split field code word portions was within the level of ordinary skill, as
`recognized by the ’482