UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FASTVDO LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER FASTVDO LLC’s
`RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. The ‘482 Patent Claims Elements Not Disclosed Or Suggested In
`The Cited Art ............................................................................................................. 4
`a. About U.S. Patent No. 5,850,482 (the “‘482 patent” or “Meany”) .................. 4
`b. Petitioner Challenges The Five Independent Claims Of The ‘482 Patent ....... 7
`c. The Petition Fails To Present A Construction For “Storage Medium” .......... 13
`d. Petitioner’s Challenges Of Claims 7-11 And 22-26 Must Fail ...................... 18
`III. The Challenged Claims Are Not Obvious Over Kato Alone, Or
`Over Fiala In View Of Fazel, Further In View Of Fazel ‘622 ................................ 23
`a. Kato Fails To Disclose A “first data block of a storage medium”
`That Is “error protected” As Required In Claims 5, 10, 16, 25, And 28 .............. 26
`b. Petitioner Fails To Establish A Reason To Modify Kato To Reach
`Claims 5, 10, 16, 25, And 28 ................................................................................ 33
`c. Kato Fails To Disclose Or Suggest A Plurality Of Data Links As
`Required In Claims 6, 11, 17, And 26 .................................................................. 37
`d. The Petition Fails To Establish Obviousness Of The Challenged
`Claims Over Kato ................................................................................................. 39
`e. The Petition Fails To Remedy Kato’s Fourth Embodiment Deficiencies
`With Other Embodiments Of Kato ....................................................................... 44
`f. There Is No Evidence Or Reason To Support A Combination Of
`Fiala, Fazel, And Fazel ‘622 In The Manner Claimed ......................................... 49
`g. Petitioner Also Fails To Establish Proper Motivation To Incorporate
`The Claimed Steps Of Transforming And Quantizing Into Fiala ........................ 58
`h. At Least Claims 5, 10, 16, 25, And 28 Are Independently Patentable
`Over Petitioner’s Second Challenge ..................................................................... 60
`i. Claim 29 Is Patentable .................................................................................... 61
`
`ii
` 
`
`

`

`j. An Invalidity Ruling In This Case Constitutes An Impermissible Taking Of
`A Private Right Without Article III Oversight ..................................................... 61
`IV. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 62
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
` 
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Cases 
`
`Gracenote, Inc. v. Iceberg Industries LLC,
`IPR2013-00551 (PTAB Feb. 28, 2014) (Paper 6) ......................................... 19, 20
`Heart Failure Technologies, LLC v. Cardiokinetix, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00183 (PTAB July 13, 2013) (Paper 12) .............................................. 48
`In re Fritch,
`972 F.2d 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ............................................................................ 61
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 25
`In re Nuijten,
`500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 17
`In re Rambus, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 42 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................ 13
`Intelligent Bio-Systems v. Illumina Cambridge,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 3
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... passim
`LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC,
`IPR2014-01092 (PTAB Jan. 13, 2015) (Paper 9) ................................................. 24
`McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Aultman,
`169 U.S. 606 (1898) .............................................................................................. 62
`Michigan Land and Lumber Co. v. Rust,
`168 U.S. 589 (1897) .............................................................................................. 62
`Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc.,
`679 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 51
`Moore v. Robbins,
`96 U.S. 530 (1877) ................................................................................................ 62
`
`iv
` 
`
`

`

`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 44
`Network Commerce, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`422 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 17
`Omron Oilfield & Marine, Inc. v. MD/TOTCO, a Division of Varco, L.P.,
`IPR2013-00265 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2013) ................................................................ 13
`Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................... passim
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ..................................................................... 13, 15
`Stryker Corp. v. Karl Storz Endoscopy America, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00764 (PTAB September 2, 2015) (Paper 13) ...................................... 48
`TRW Automotive U.S. LLC v. Magna Electronics, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00972 (September 16, 2015) (Paper 9) ................................................. 47
`United States v. Am. Bell Telephone Co.,
`128 U.S. 315 (1888) .............................................................................................. 62
`
`
`
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .......................................................................................................... 7
`35 U.S.C. § 112(b) ................................................................................................... 19
`35 U.S.C. § 112(f) ......................................................................................... 7, 11, 18
`35 U.S.C. § 311(b) ............................................................................................ 19, 20
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e) ........................................................................................ 3, 25, 63
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ................................................................................................... 25
`
`
`Other Authorities 
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ............... 58
`
`v
` 
`
`
`
`

`

`Rules 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) .................................................................................................. 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65 .............................................................................................. 35, 58
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ...................................................................................... passim
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ............................................................................................... 20
`Fed. R. Evid. 705 ..................................................................................................... 58
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
` 
`
`

`

`LIST OF PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit Number
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`Patent Owner FastVDO LLC’s Power of Attorney
`
`Patent Owner’s Opening Claim Construction Brief in
`FastVDO LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC et al., Case No. 3:16-
`cv-00385
`
`Claim Construction Order issued in FastVDO LLC v. AT&T
`Mobility LLC, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00385
`
`2004-2006
`
`Reserved
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`Deposition Transcript of Edward J. Delp, III, Ph.D.
`
`Declaration of Kenneth A. Zeger, Ph.D.
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Kenneth A. Zeger, Ph.D.
`
`2010-2013
`
`Reserved
`
`2014
`
`Deposition Transcript of Andrew Lippman, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
` 
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01203 – Patent Owner’s Response
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`The Petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 5,850,482 (“the ‘482
`
`patent” or “Meany”) presents grounds for challenge against claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-
`
`17, 22-26, and 28-29 of the ‘482 patent. Petitioner contends that these claims are
`
`obvious over U.S. Patent No. 5,392,037 to Kato (“Kato”) alone, and over a
`
`combination of three references:
`
` Fiala and Greene, “Data Compression with Finite Windows,”
`
`Communications of the ACM, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 490-505 (1989)
`
`(“Fiala”);
`
` Fazel and Lhuillier, “Application of Unequal Error Protection Codes
`
`on Combined Source-Channel Coding of Images,” International
`
`Conference on Communications, Including SuperComm Technical
`
`Sessions (IEEE), Atlanta, April 15-19, 1990, Vol. 3, pp. 898-903
`
`(“Fazel”); and
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,218,622 to Fazel et al. (“Fazel ‘622)
`
`The Board instituted on the challenges in the Decision dated December 16,
`
`2016 (“Inst. Dec.”) with citations Dr. Lippman’s declaration (Ex.1002,
`
`“Lippman”). But as explained below with support from the declaration of IEEE
`
`Fellow, Dr. Kenneth Zeger (Ex.2008, “Zeger”), each of the challenged claims
`
` 
`
`1 
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01203 –Patent Owner’s Response
` 
`survive IPR because Petitioners’ obviousness-based challenges contain fatal flaws
`
`that cannot be remedied in this proceeding.
`
`First, Kato fails to disclose or suggest all features of all challenged claims, as
`
`those features are arranged in the claims. For example, claims 5, 10, 16, 25, and
`
`28 (and claim 29 by dependence) each require storage of unequal error protected
`
`data. Kato’s encoding circuit includes RAM that stores variable-length encoded
`
`data (or compressed data). But the encoding circuit is upstream of the error
`
`correction code (ECC) encoder, and it is the ECC encoder that adds error
`
`correction codes to the data. Thus, Kato’s memory (RAM) stores data to which no
`
`error protection is added. Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Lippman proposes to modify
`
`the location of RAM vis-à-vis the ECC encoder, and neither Petitioner nor Dr.
`
`Lippman proposes to incorporate additional storage to Kato downstream of the
`
`ECC encoder.
`
`Second, while an obviousness challenge requires a reason that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have implemented a specific
`
`modification or combination of teachings in the way claimed by the challenged
`
`claims, the Petitioner and Dr. Lippman instead rely in both challenges on
`
`impermissible hindsight, and conclusory statements supported by no evidence.
`
`Indeed, the Petitioner and Dr. Lippman often assume the ultimate conclusion that a
`
`POSITA would have had a reason to pursue a combination of references, and then
`
`2
` 
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01203 –Patent Owner’s Response
` 
`simply recount the alleged advantages of one of the references in the combination.
`
`But this “if-then” approach is not sufficient under KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`
`550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) and its progeny, including Personal Web Technologies,
`
`LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`Third, Petitioner and Dr. Lippman fail to provide a discussion of how the
`
`alleged combination of Fiala, Fazel, and Fazel ‘622 would operate. In view of this
`
`deficiency, Federal Circuit law requires that this alleged combination must fail.
`
`Under Personal Web Technologies, LLC, “a clear, evidence-supported account of
`
`the contemplated workings of the combination is a prerequisite to adequately
`
`explaining and supporting a conclusion that a relevant skilled artisan would have
`
`been motivated to make the combination and reasonably expect success in doing
`
`so.” Id. The Petition lacks such an account. Dr. Lippman’s declaration lacks such
`
`an account. And any account produced in Petitioners’ Reply would be improper
`
`for presenting new theories of obviousness in a Reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b);
`
`Intelligent Bio-Systems v. Illumina Cambridge, 821 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016).
`
`For these reasons and more, the challenged claims should be confirmed in a
`
`Final Written Decision, and Petitioner should be estopped to the fullest extent
`
`permitted under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e).
`
`3
` 
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01203 –Patent Owner’s Response
` 
`
`II. The ‘482 Patent Claims Elements Not Disclosed Or Suggested In The
`Cited Art
`
`
`
`a. About U.S. Patent No. 5,850,482 (the “‘482 patent” or “Meany”)
`The ‘482 patent was filed as U.S. Patent Application No. 08/633,896 on
`
`April 17, 1996, and issued on December 15, 1998. The title of the ‘482 patent is
`
`“ERROR RESILIENT METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ENTROPY
`
`CODING,” and the ‘482 patent discloses an encoding apparatus that applies
`
`unequal error protection (UEP) to the prefix and suffix of a source-encoded code
`
`word, and further includes information about a characteristic of the suffix into the
`
`prefix of the code word. See, e.g., ‘482 patent at Abstract; 13:36-50; 14:38-56;
`
`16:15-27; Fig. 1 (shown below).
`
`As part of the compression encoding (also referred to as source encoding),
`
`the ‘482 patent discloses a code word generator that encodes data using split field
`
`
`
`4
` 
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01203 –Patent Owner’s Response
` 
`coding, where each generated code word includes a prefix field and an associated
`
`suffix field. Id. at Abstract. The prefix field includes information representing a
`
`characteristic of the suffix field, such as its length, while the suffix field includes
`
`information representing at least a portion of the original data. Id. As the ‘482
`
`patent explains it, if the prefix field is decoded without any errors, the method and
`
`apparatus can correctly determine the length of the suffix field or the range of
`
`values represented by the suffix field such that the suffix field is resilient to errors.
`
`Id. To increase the probability that the prefix field is correctly decoded, the prefix
`
`field is protected to a greater degree than the suffix field. Id.
`
`Figure 1 above shows a block diagram of error resilient data compression
`
`apparatus 10. Id. at 8:48–51. Original data is transformed by data transformer 12,
`
`and then quantized by data quantizer 14 such that the quantized data has fewer
`
`unique data values or coefficients than the transformed data. Id. at 9:32-33; 11:36–
`
`39. The quantized data is encoded “to thereby increase the compression
`
`performance by eliminating explicit coding of each insignificant coefficient” by
`
`the data encoder 16. Id. at 13:20-25.
`
`The data encoder 16 of Figure 1 includes a code word generator 26 to
`
`generate code words that represent the quantized coefficients. Id. at 13:36–39.
`
`Code word generator 26 includes a prefix generator 27 for generating the prefix
`
`field of each code word, and a suffix generator 28 for generating the associated
`
`5
` 
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01203 –Patent Owner’s Response
` 
`suffix field of each code word. Id. at 13:44–48. Since each code word is formed of
`
`two fields including a first portion, or prefix field, and an associated second portion,
`
`or suffix field, this method of coding is termed “split field coding” in the ‘482
`
`patent. Id. at 13:41–43; 13:48–50. In split field coding, the prefix field “includes
`
`information representative of the associated suffix field,” examples of which
`
`include the length of the suffix field, or the range of coefficient values represented
`
`by the suffix field. Id. at 13:51–63. “[i]f the prefix field is decoded correctly, the
`
`method and apparatus of the present invention can correctly determine the length
`
`of the associated suffix field and can also correctly determine the range of
`
`coefficient values to be represented by the suffix field. Id. at 15:61–66.
`
`In order to improve the probability that the prefix fields will be decoded
`
`correctly, the ‘482 patent error encodes (or channel encodes) the prefix fields at
`
`“an appropriately high level of error protection.” Id. at 16:15–18. Because the
`
`suffix fields are error resilient, “the suffix fields may be channel encoded with a
`
`lower level of error protection” than the prefix fields. Id. at 16:18-21. The lower
`
`level of error protection reduces the addition of redundancies, and therefore
`
`reduces storage requirements and transmission bandwidth. Id. at 16:22–27. To
`
`provide these unequal levels of error protection, the data encoder 16 of FIG. 1
`
`includes unequal error protection means 29 for providing unequal levels of error
`
`protection to the source-encoded data. Id. at 17:1–4.
`
`6
` 
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01203 –Patent Owner’s Response
` 
`
`Once unequal error protection has been applied, the ‘482 patent discloses
`
`that the error-encoded prefixes of the code words can be stored in a first data block
`
`of a storage medium, and the suffixes of the code words can be stored in a second
`
`data block of the storage medium. Id. at 17:14-25; Fig. 1; Fig. 6. The ‘482 patent
`
`also discloses that the error-encoded prefixes of the code words can be transmitted
`
`via a first data link, while the suffixes of the code words can be transmitted via a
`
`second data link. Id. at 17:26-37; Fig. 1.
`
`b. Petitioner Challenges The Five Independent Claims Of The ‘482
`Patent
`
`Petitioner challenges the validity of claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-17, 22-26, and 28-
`
`29 of the ‘482 patent. Of these challenged claims, claims 1, 7, 12, 22, and 28 are
`
`independent. Petitioner contends that independent claims 7 and 22 invoke means-
`
`plus-function law under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).1 See Pet. at 9-16. Thus, these claims
`
`will be addressed separately from independent claims 1, 12, and 28.
`
`Claims 1, 12, and 28
`
`Independent claims 1, 12, and 28 do not invoke a means-plus-function
`
`analysis, and these three independent claims are discussed below:
`
`
`
`1. An error resilient method of encoding data comprising the
`steps of:
`                                                            
`1 Formerly 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6.
`
`7
` 
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01203 –Patent Owner’s Response
` 
`
`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.
`
`Claim 12 differs from claim 1 in that claim 12 includes the additional steps
`
`of “transforming the data,” “quantizing the transformed data,” and then “encoding
`
`the quantized data,” as further recited below:
`
`
`12. An error resilient method of compressing data comprising
`the steps of:
`transforming the data based upon a predetermined
`transformation function;
`
`8
` 
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01203 –Patent Owner’s Response
` 
`
`quantizing the transformed data such that the quantized data has
`fewer unique coefficients than the transformed data; and
`encoding the quantized data, said encoding step comprising the
`steps of:
`generating a plurality of code words, representative of
`respective portions of the data, which have respective first and second
`portions, wherein said code word generating step comprises the steps
`of including information within the first portion that is representative
`of a predetermined characteristic of the associated second portion, and
`including information within the second portion that is representative
`of a 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.
`
`
`Claim 28 differs from the method claims of claims 1 and 12 by being
`
`directed to a “computer readable memory for storing error resilient encoded data.”
`
`Additionally, as the elements of claim 28 make clear, the claimed “storage
`
`medium” is “partitioned into a first error protected data block and a second data
`
`block.” Relevant elements of claim 28 are emphasized below for easier reference:
`
`
`28. A computer readable memory for storing error resilient
`encoded data, the computer readable memory comprising:
`9
` 
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01203 –Patent Owner’s Response
` 
`
`a storage medium for storing the error resilient encoded data,
`said storage medium being partitioned into a first error protected
`data block and a second data block, wherein any error protection
`provided by said second data block is at a lower level than the error
`protection provided by said first data block; and
`a plurality of code words, representative of respective portions
`of the original data, which have respective first and second portions,
`wherein the first portion of each code word includes information
`representative of a predetermined characteristic of the associated
`second portion, and wherein the associated second portion of each
`code word includes information representative of a respective portion
`of the original data,
`wherein at least one of the first portions of the plurality of code
`words is stored in the first data block of said storage medium such
`that the at least one first portion is error protected, and wherein the
`respective second portion associated with the at least one first portion
`is stored in the second data block of said storage medium such that
`any error protection provided to the respective second portion
`associated with the at least one first portion is at a lower level than the
`error protection provided to the respective first portion.
`
`
`
`Similar to claim 28, dependent claims 5 and 16, which respectively depend
`
`from claims 1 and 12, further limit the underlying “providing error protection”
`
`steps of their independent claims to comprise “storing” the code words in a storage
`
`medium, where the “first data block is error protected.” Thus, claims 5, 16, and 28
`
`each require the claimed “storage medium” to include a first data block that is error
`
`10
` 
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01203 –Patent Owner’s Response
` 
`protected. In light of the proper construction of “storage medium” presented in
`
`Section II.c below, Kato fails to disclose or suggest at least these features of claims
`
`5, 16, and 28. As a result, at least claims 5, 16, and 28 must survive this inter
`
`partes review. 2
`
`Claims 7 and 22
`
`As noted above, Petitioner contends that these independent claims are in
`
`means-plus-function format and invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). These two
`
`independent claims are introduced below:
`
`7. A data encoding apparatus comprising:
`code word generating means for 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 means comprises:
`first generating means for generating the first portion of each
`code word, said first generating means comprising means for
`including information within the first portion that is representative of
`a predetermined characteristic of the associated second portion; and
`second generating means for generating the second portion of
`each code word, said second generating means comprising means for
`including information within the second portion that is representative
`of the respective portion of the data; and
`                                                            
`2 Dependent claims 10 and 25 include similar features as claims 5, 16, and 28, and
`
`must also survive this inter partes review. 
`
`11
` 
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01203 –Patent Owner’s Response
` 
`
`error protection means for 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.
`The differences between claim 7 and claim 22 are similar to the differences
`
`between claim 1 and claim 12. Specifically, like claim 12, claim 22 includes claim
`
`language directed to “transforming the data,” “quantizing the transformed data,”
`
`and “encoding the quantized data,” emphasized below for easier reference:
`
`22. An error resilient data compression apparatus comprising:
`a data transformer for transforming the data based upon a
`predetermined transformation function;
`a data quantizer for quantizing the transformed data such that
`the quantized data has fewer unique coefficients than the transformed
`data; and
`a data encoder for encoding the quantized data, said data
`encoder comprising:
`code word generating means for generating a plurality of code
`words, representative of respective portions of the data, which have
`respective first and second portions, wherein said code word
`generating means comprises means for including information within
`the first portion that is representative of a predetermined characteristic
`of the associated second portion, and means for including information
`within the second portion that is representative of a respective portion
`of the data; and
`
`12
` 
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01203 –Patent Owner’s Response
` 
`
`error protection means for 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.
`
`
`As introduced above and as will be explained below with the support of Dr.
`
`Zeger’s testimony, all of Petitioner’s challenges are founded upon deficient
`
`obviousness arguments. The Petition’s deficiencies as to claims 7 and 22, and all
`
`the claims that depend therefrom, are explained in more detail in Section II.d.
`
`c. The Petition Fails To Present A Construction For “Storage
`Medium”
`
`The standard for construing claim terms in this proceeding is not in dispute.
`
`The ‘482 patent expired as of April 17, 2016, and the parties agree that the Board
`
`reviews the claims of an expired patent according to a district court’s standard. See
`
`In re Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Pet. at 17. In Phillips v.
`
`AWH Corp., the court set forth the principle that claim terms “are generally given
`
`their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art in question at the time of the invention, construed to preserve validity in
`
`case of ambiguity. 415 F.3d 1303, 1312, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Omron
`
`Oilfield & Marine, Inc. v. MD/TOTCO, a Division of Varco, L.P., IPR2013-00265,
`
`slip op. at 7 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2013) (Paper 11).
`
`13
` 
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01203 –Patent Owner’s Response
` 
`
`According to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b), a petition must identify both “[h]ow the
`
`challenged claim is to be construed” and “[h]ow the construed claim is
`
`unpatentable … .” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)-(4) (emphasis added). Patent Owner
`
`disagrees with Petitioners’ proposed claim constructions to the extent they differ
`
`from the claim constructions reached by the Board in the Institution Decision
`
`(Paper 14) and from the claim constructions reached by the District Court in co-
`
`pending litigation. See generally Ex.2003.
`
`Patent Owner further notes that Petitioners failed to provide any proposed
`
`construction for the claimed “storage medium” of claims 5, 10, 16, 25, and 28.
`
`This term is properly construed according to the ‘482 patent 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. Zeger, ¶34. This
`
`proper construction is consistent with the preamble of claim 28, which is directed
`
`to “computer readable memory.” Ex.1001, 2:23; Zeger, ¶36. Additionally, as Dr.
`
`Zeger testifies, transmission channels and data links do not generally store data.
`
`Zeger, ¶34.
`
`Nevertheless, Petitioner has advanced the theory that Kato’s col. 33, lines 2-
`
`7, support a characterization of “transmission media” or transitory data as a
`
`“storage medium.” See Pet. at 20 (“A data store region can be a segment of a
`
`transmission packet or a sector of a storage disc.”); Lippman, ¶80 (opining that
`
`14
` 
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01203 –Patent Owner’s Response
` 
`“Kato uses the term ‘data store region’ to refer to both recording media and
`
`transmission media.”). Patent Owner disagrees. Kato’s disclosure in the cited
`
`portions of 33:2-7 fails to support an impermissibly broad interpretation or
`
`characterization of the ‘482 patent’s claimed “storage medium.”
`
`In describing a “data store region,” Kato’s column 33 explains that “[i]t is
`
`unnecessary that a data store region always agrees with a physical data store region
`
`(for example, a data store region in a packet in the case of packet transmission, or a
`
`data region in a sector in the case of a disk-shaped recording medium).” Kato,
`
`33:2-7. Even assuming arguendo that this excerpt of Kato characterizes a “data
`
`store region” to include a transmission channel, data link, or transitory data carried
`
`on a transmission medium, this disclosure does not stand for the proposition that
`
`the claimed “storage medium” of the ‘482 patent could be construed as a
`
`transmission channel, data link, or transitory data carried on a transmission
`
`medium. Indeed, to construe the claimed “storage medium” of claims 5, 10, 16,
`
`25, and 28 based on the extrinsic evidence of Kato over the ‘482 patent’s own
`
`specification would violate the principles of claim construction under Phillips v.
`
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1317-18 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“We have viewed extrinsic
`
`evidence in general as less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in
`
`determining how to read claim terms, for several reasons.”).
`
`15
` 
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01203 –Patent Owner’s Response
` 
`
`Here, the ‘482 patent claims clearly distinguish between the concept of
`
`“storing” data “in a first data block of a storage medium” and the concept of
`
`“transmitting” data “via a first data link.” Ex.1001, 18:57-59; 19:1-2. Dr. Zeger
`
`and Dr. Lippman agree. Zeger, ¶36; Ex.2014, 98:11-16; 134:4-22. Dr. Lippman
`
`even testified that a storage medium would not be referred to by a POSITA as a
`
`transmission medium. Ex.2014, 119:1-5. To interpret a “storage medium” to be
`
`tantamount to a transmission channel, signal, or transmission media is to overlook
`
`that the ‘482 patent purposefully claimed the transmission of data using different
`
`terms than “storage medium.”
`
`The specification and drawings of the ‘482 patent also support the proper
`
`interpretation of a “storage medium” as a physical storage medium. Zeger, ¶35.
`
`For example, in FIG. 1 of the ‘482 patent, the Storage Medium is represented as
`
`module 18, and is arranged parallel to a Transmitter module 20 accessing data
`
`links 22 and 24. Ex.1001, FIG. 1. As described in the ‘482 specification, the
`
`storage medium 18 may be a “magnetic disk storage which is error protected as
`
`shown in FIG. 6.” Id., 17:15-19. In contrast to storing the compressed and
`
`encoded data in a storage medium 18, the ’482 patent discloses that “the
`
`compressed and encoded data can be efficiently transmitted, such as via first and
`
`second data links.” Id., 17:26-27. This usage clearly indicates that the ‘482 patent
`
`16
` 
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01203 –Paten