Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 39
`Entered: December 11, 2017
`
`
`
`
`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
`____________
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 39
`Entered: December 11, 2017
`
`
`
`
`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
`____________
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner filed a Petition for inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5–14,
`
`16, 17, 22–26, 28, and 29 of U.S. Patent No. 5,850,482 (Ex. 1001, “the ’482
`
`patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response.
`
`Paper 10 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We instituted trial for claims 1–3, 5–14, 16, 17,
`
`22–26, 28, and 29. Paper 14. Patent Owner filed a response. Paper 27 (“PO
`
`Resp.”). Petitioner filed a reply. Paper 30 (“Reply”). The record includes a
`
`transcript of the oral hearing. Paper 36.
`
`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, 7–10, 12–14, 16, 22–25,
`
`28, and 29 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;
`
`FastVDO LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00386
`
`(S.D. Cal.), filed Feb. 11, 2016;
`
`FastVDO LLC v. NEC Corp. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00389 (S.D.
`
`Cal.), filed Feb. 11, 2016 (terminated);
`
`FastVDO LLC v. Nokia Corp. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00390 (S.D.
`
`Cal.), filed Feb. 11, 2016;
`
`FastVDO LLC v. ZTE Corp. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00394 (S.D.
`
`Cal.), filed Feb. 11, 2016;
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`
`FastVDO LLC v. Dell Inc. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00395 (S.D. Cal.),
`
`filed Feb. 11, 2016; and
`
`FastVDO LLC v. Huawei Technologies Co., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-
`
`00396 (S.D. Cal.), filed Feb. 11, 2016. Pet. 1; Paper 6 (Patent Owner’s
`
`Mandatory Notice).
`
`The ’482 patent is also the subject of IPR2016-01179. Paper 6 (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 include 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
`
`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
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`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 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
`
`exponential function, or a wavelet transform. Id. at 9:41–52. The
`
`transformed data is then quantized by data quantizer 14 such that the
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`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. Since each code
`
`word is formed 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
`
`that 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.
`
`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
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`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, 7, 12, 22, and 28 of the challenged claims of the ’482 patent
`
`are independent. Claims 1 and 7 are illustrative of the claimed subject
`
`matter:
`
`An error resilient method of encoding data
`1.
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`Ex. 1001, 18:8–29; 19:9–30.
`
`
`
`D. References
`
`Petitioner relies on the following references. Pet. 18.
`
`US 5,392,037
`US 5,218,622
`
`Feb. 21, 1995
`June 8, 1993
`
`Ex. 1003
`Ex. 1006
`
`Kato
`Fazel ’622
`
`Fiala et al., Data Compression with Finite Windows,
`COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM, Vol. 32, No. 4, 490–505 (1989) (Ex. 1004;
`“Fiala”).
`
`Fazel et al., Application of Unequal Error Protection Codes on
`Combined Source-Channel Coding of Images, International Conference on
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`Communications, Including SuperComm Technical Sessions (IEEE),
`Atlanta, Vol. 3, 898–903 (April 15–19, 1990) (Ex. 1005; “Fazel”).
`
`
`E. Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`
`
`We instituted review of claims 1–3, 5–14, 16, 17, 22–26, 28, and 29
`
`of the ’482 patent on the following specific grounds:
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Kato
`
`Basis
`
`§ 103
`
`Fiala, Fazel, and Fazel ’622
`
`§ 103
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`1–3, 5–14, 16, 17, 22–26,
`28, and 29
`1–3, 5–14, 16, 17, 22–26,
`28, and 29
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`The term of the ’482 patent expired April 17, 2016. See Pet. 8. 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
`
`highly persuasive evidentiary support.” Adams Respiratory Therapeutics,
`
`Inc. v. Perrigo Co., 616 F.3d 1283, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`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. Claim 29
`
`The preamble for claim 29 reads “a computer readable memory for
`
`storing error resilient encoded data according to claim 21.” Petitioner
`
`contends claim 29 is indefinite, because claim 29 depends from claim 21,
`
`and claim 21 is directed to “an error resilient method of compressing data.”
`
`Pet. 50; Ex. 1001, 21:15. Petitioner also contends that Patent Owner has
`
`asserted in related litigation that claim 29 actually depends from claim 28,
`
`and the reference to claim 21 is a typographical error. Pet. 50. Petitioner
`
`provides an alternative construction of claim 29 as depending from claim 28.
`
`Id. Patent Owner submits Exhibit 2002, which provides us with its proposed
`
`construction of claim 29 presented to the District Court, namely, that claim
`
`29’s reference to claim 21 is a typographical error. Ex. 2002, 12–14.
`
`We agree with Patent Owner’s proposed construction of claim 29
`
`presented to the District Court. In the ’482 patent, every dependent claim
`
`other than claim 29 depends from the nearest preceding independent claim.
`
`Further, claim 28 is the only independent claim that has the same preamble
`
`as claim 29. Neither claim 21 nor claim 12, the antecedent independent for
`
`claim 21, contains the preamble of “a computer readable memory for storing
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`error resilient encoded data.” Finally, to construe claim 29 as being
`
`dependent from claim 21, with intervening independent claims 22 and 28,
`
`would be inconsistent with the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
`
`guidelines. See MPEP § 608.01(n) (“A claim which depends from a
`
`dependent claim should not be separated therefrom by any claim which does
`
`not also depend from said dependent claim.”). Therefore, from our review
`
`of the claim language in the ’482 patent, we conclude that claim 29’s
`
`reference to claim 21 is a typographical error. See Hoffer v. Microsoft
`
`Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (correcting a numbering error
`
`in a dependent claim).
`
`Accordingly, we construe the term “a computer readable memory for
`
`storing error resilient encoded data according to claim 21” as “a computer
`
`readable memory for storing error resilient encoded data according to claim
`
`28.”
`
`2. Means-Plus-Function Claims
`
`“Construing a means-plus-function claim term is a two-step process.
`
`The court must first identify the claimed function. Then, the court must
`
`determine what structure, if any, disclosed in the specification corresponds
`
`to the claimed function.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339,
`
`1351 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (citation omitted).
`
`a. “error protection means”
`
`Independent claims 7 and 22 each recite “error protection means” with
`
`the function of
`
`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
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`
`with the at least one first portion at a lower level than the error
`protection provided to the respective first portion.
`
`Petitioner contends the specification of the ’482 patent does not disclose any
`
`structure for performing the function. Pet. 10. In the proposed claim
`
`construction to the District Court, Patent Owner contends the corresponding
`
`structure disclosed in the ’482 patent is the data encoder and the unequal
`
`error protector. Ex. 2002, 21–23.
`
`A review of the claim language shows that the recited “error
`
`protection means” is part of the “data encoding apparatus” of claim 7 and
`
`part of the “data encoder” of claim 22. This is consistent with the
`
`specification, which explains that data encoder 16 can include unequal error
`
`protection means 29 for providing appropriate level of error protection to the
`
`encoded data. Ex. 1001, 17:1–4; Fig. 1. We construe the corresponding
`
`structure for the claim term “error protection means” as data encoder 16 and
`
`unequal error protection means 29.
`
`Petitioner contends that the disclosure contained in the specification
`
`for the claim term “error protection means” is inadequate to provide
`
`structure for this limitation. Pet. 10. According to Petitioner, the statement
`
`that methods and apparatus for performing “unequal error protection” were
`
`“known to those skilled in the art” “as described, for example, in R. G.
`
`Gallager, ‘Information Theory and Reliable Communication’, Wiley and
`
`Sons (1968)” is a bare statement of the mere title of a book that does not
`
`adequately disclose any structure for unequal “error protection means.” Id.
`
`(citing Ex. 1001, 16:10–14).
`
`In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-
`
`plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit requires “that the specification
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function.” Media Rights
`
`Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 800 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015). “A description of the function in words may disclose, at least to the
`
`satisfaction of one of ordinary skill in the art, enough of an algorithm to
`
`provide the necessary structure under § 112, ¶ 6.” Typhoon Touch Techs.,
`
`Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “The law is clear
`
`that patent documents need not include subject matter that is known in the
`
`field of the invention and is in the prior art, for patents are written for
`
`persons experienced in the field of the invention.” S3 Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp.,
`
`259 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Further, a “documentary source may
`
`be resorted to for such assistance.” Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices,
`
`Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`Here, the specification teaches that “the method and apparatus of the
`
`present invention is suitable for use with unequal error protection means as
`
`known to those skilled in the art and as described, for example, in [the
`
`Gallager textbook]” and provides examples of unequal error protection. Ex.
`
`1001, 16:11–27. This discloses enough of an algorithm to allow a person of
`
`ordinary skill to discern the necessary structure for performing the claimed
`
`function of the “error protecting means.”
`
`We therefore construe “error protection means” as being a means-
`
`plus-function limitation with the function of
`
` 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
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`and with the corresponding structure of data encoder 16 and unequal error
`
`protector 29 and equivalents thereof.
`
`b. “code word generating means”
`
`Independent claims 7 and 22 recite “code word generating means.”
`
`Claim 7 recites the function 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.” Claim 22
`
`recites a similar limitation. Petitioner contends these limitations are
`
`indefinite. Pet. 13–14. In its proposed claim construction to the District
`
`Court, Petitioner alternatively proposes that the corresponding structure is
`
`the prefix generator 27 and suffix generator 28 shown in Figures 1 and 5B of
`
`the ’482 patent. Ex. 2002, 14–15. Patent Owner proposes the corresponding
`
`structure is the data encoder 16 and code word generator 26. Id.
`
`The specification discloses algorithms for generating code words
`
`when describing the prefix generator and the suffix generator. Ex. 1001,
`
`15:12–60. Claim 7 and claim 22 each recite that the “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 the respective portion of the data.”
`
`Therefore, under the claim language, the prefix generator and the suffix
`
`generator are part of the “code word generating means.” This is supported
`
`by the specification, which discloses that the code word generating means
`
`includes prefix generating means and suffix generating means for generating
`
`the prefix and suffix fields of each code word, respectively. Ex. 1001, 7:5–
`
`8; Fig. 1. The structure for the prefix generator is the algorithm described by
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`the ’482 patent at 15:12–54 and equivalents thereof. The structure for the
`
`suffix generator is the algorithm described by the ’482 patent at 15:27–33
`
`and equivalents thereof.
`
`We construe the term “code word generating means” as a means-plus-
`
`function limitation with the function of generating a plurality of code words,
`
`representative of respective portions of the data, which have respective first
`
`and second portions, and with the corresponding structure of data encoder
`
`16, code word generator 26, prefix generator 27 algorithm (described at Ex.
`
`1001, 15:12–24), and suffix generator 28 algorithm (described at Ex. 1001,
`
`15:27–33) and equivalents thereof.
`
`Based on this construction of the term “code word generating means,”
`
`we also provide the following constructions. We construe the term “means
`
`for including information within the first portion” recited in claims 7 and 22
`
`as a means-plus-function limitation with the function of “including
`
`information within the first portion that is representative of a predetermined
`
`characteristic of the associated second portion” and with the corresponding
`
`structure of data encoder 16, code word generator 26, and prefix generator
`
`27 algorithm (described at 15:12–24) and equivalents thereof.
`
`We construe the term “means for including information within the
`
`second portion” recited in claims 7 and 22 as a means-plus-function
`
`limitation with the function of including information within the second
`
`portion that is representative of a respective portion of the data and with the
`
`corresponding structure of data encoder 16, code word generator 26, and
`
`suffix generator 28 algorithm (described at 15:27–33) and equivalents
`
`thereof.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`
`We construe the term “first generating means” recited in claim 7 as a
`
`means-plus-function limitation with the function of generating first portions
`
`which include information representative of the predetermined number of
`
`characters which comprise the associated second portion and with the
`
`corresponding structure of data encoder 16, code word generator 26, and
`
`prefix generator 27 algorithm (described at 15:12–24) and equivalents
`
`thereof.
`
`We construe the term “second generating means” recited in claim 7 as
`
`a means-plus-function limitation with the function of generating second
`
`portions having predetermined number of characters and with the
`
`corresponding structure of data encoder 16, code word generator 26, and
`
`suffix generator 28 algorithm (described at 15:27–33) and equivalents
`
`thereof.
`
`c. first and second “data link transmitting means”
`
`Claim 11 recites “first data link transmitting means” having the
`
`function of “transmitting the at least one first portion of the plurality of code
`
`words via a first data link, wherein the first data link is error protected.”
`
`Claims 11 also recites “second data link transmitting means” having the
`
`function of “transmitting the respective second portion associated with the at
`
`least one first portion via a second data link, wherein any error protection
`
`provided by said second data link is at a lower level than the error protection
`
`provided by said first data link.” Claim 26 recites similar limitations.
`
`Petitioner contends the corresponding structure in the specification is
`
`a transmitter. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1001, 17:26–37). According to Petitioner,
`
`these terms are indefinite because the specification explains that the error
`
`protection is provided by unequal error protection means 29, not transmitter
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`20. Pet. 15–16. In its proposed construction to the District Court, Patent
`
`Owner appears to agree that the error protection means performs the
`
`function of providing error protection, and the transmitter performs the
`
`transmitting function. Ex. 2002, 24–25.
`
`The specification explains that
`
`the present invention can include a transmitter 20 which
`transmits the respective run length code words and the prefix
`fields of the quantized coefficient code words via a first data link
`22 which is error protected, and which transmits the respective
`suffix fields of the quantized coefficient code words via a second
`data link 24 which is not error protected or is error protected to a
`lesser degree than the first data link.
`
`Ex. 1001, 17:28–37.
`
`In light of this explanation, we construe the term “first data link
`
`transmitting means” as a means-plus-function limitation with the function of
`
`transmitting the at least one first portion of the plurality of code words via a
`
`first data link, wherein the first data link is error protected and with the
`
`corresponding structure of transmitter 20 and first data link 22 and
`
`equivalents thereof. We construe the term “second data link transmitting
`
`means” as a means-plus-function limitation with the function of transmitting
`
`the respective second portion associated with the at least one first portion via
`
`a second data link, wherein any error protection provided by the second data
`
`link is at a lower level than the error protection provided by the first data
`
`link and with the corresponding structure of transmitter 20 and second data
`
`link 24 and equivalents thereof.
`
`d. “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
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`not be construed so broadly as to cover a transmission channel, data link, or
`
`transmission media generally. PO Resp. 13–17. According to Patent
`
`Owner, the claims of the ’482 patent distinguish between “storing” data “in a
`
`first data block of a storage medium” and “transmitting” data “via a first data
`
`link.” PO Resp. 16 (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. PO Resp. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 1, 17:15–19, 26–27; Ex.
`
`2008 ¶¶ 34–36).
`
`Petitioner agrees with Patent Owner that “storage medium” should be
`
`afforded its plain and ordinary meaning, and asserts that Petitioner has not
`
`argued that “storage medium” encompasses a transmission channel, data
`
`link, or transitory signal. Reply 4–5. Petitioner further asserts that neither
`
`Petitioner nor Dr. Lippman has ever suggested that transmission is the same
`
`as storage. Reply 5.
`
`Differences among claims can “be a useful guide in understanding the
`
`meaning of particular claim terms.” Phillips, 415 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 first data link” and “via a second 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 claim term “storage medium” as excluding 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
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive, it is the
`
`single best guide to the meaning of the disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1315 (quotation and citation omitted). The ’482 patent discloses that a
`
`communications or storage medium is referred to as a channel. Ex. 1001,
`
`4:66–5:3. We construe the scope of the claim term “storage medium,” read
`
`in view of the specification of the ’482 patent, as encompassing at least a
`
`channel other than a transmission channel.
`
`We further determine that none of the other terms require express
`
`construction.
`
`B. Asserted Obviousness over Kato: Claims 1–3, 5–11, 28, and 29
`
`Petitioner, relying on the declaration of Andrew Lippman, Ph.D. (Ex.
`
`1002), challenges claims 1–3, 5–11, 28, and 29 as obvious over the “fourth
`
`embodiment” of Kato. Pet. 19–33, 41–50 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 67–69, 77–
`
`83).
`
`1. Kato (Ex. 1003) fourth embodiment
`
`Kato provides 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. 1003, 4:31–42. The
`
`first portions are collected into a group and arranged into a data store region.
`
`Id. at 4:42–44. The second portions are also collected into a group and
`
`arranged into the data store region. Id. at 4:44–46. Figure 6(a) is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`
`
`
`Figure 6(a) above shows a transmitter using an efficient coding
`
`method according to a fourth embodiment. Ex. 1003, 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.
`
`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,
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`selection circuit 615, counter 616, random access memory (RAM) 617, and
`
`side information adding circuit 618. Id. at 23:62–24:21. 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.
`
`Figure 7 above shows an example of conditions of the arrangement of
`
`a variable-length code word 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
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`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
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
