`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 14
`Entered: December 16, 2016
`
`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 JEFFREY S. SMITH, PATRICK M. BOUCHER, and PETER P.
`CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Instituting Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 12 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Institution of an inter partes review is
`authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and
`any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the
`petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in
`the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108.
`Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we
`are persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it
`would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claims 1–3, 5–14, 16, 17,
`22–26, 28, and 29 of the ’482 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter
`partes review.
`
`
`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;
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`
`FastVDO LLC v. ZTE Corp. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00394 (S.D.
`Cal.), filed Feb. 11, 2016;
`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, while longer code words are
`assigned 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
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01203
`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 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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01203
`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. 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
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`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, 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
`
`
`A data encoding apparatus comprising:
`7.
`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.
`Kato
`
`US 5,392,037
`Feb. 21, 1995
`Fazel ’622
`
`US 5,218,622
`Jun. 8, 1993
`
`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
`
`Ex. 1003
`Ex. 1006
`
`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. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–3, 5–14, 16, 17, 22–26, 28, and 29
`
`of the ’482 patent are unpatentable based on the following specific grounds:
`
`Reference(s)
`Kato
`
`Fiala, Fazel, and Fazel ’622
`
`
`
`Basis
`§ 103
`
`§ 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. 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 1229,
`1351 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc).
`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 with the at least one
`first portion at a lower level than the error protection provided to the
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`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
`disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function.” Media Rights
`Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 800 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`2015). “A description of the function in words may disclose, at least to the
`satisfaction of one of 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” and with the
`corresponding structure of data encoder 16 and unequal error protector 29
`and equivalents thereof.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`
`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 a 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
`the ’482 patent at 15:12–54 and equivalents thereof. The structure for the
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`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.
`We construe the term “first generating means” recited in claim 7 as a
`means-plus-function limitation with the function of generating first portions
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`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
`20. Pet. 15–16. In its proposed construction to the District Court, Patent
`Owner appears to agree that the error protection means performs the
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`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.
`We further determine that none of the other terms require express
`construction at this stage.
`
`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, and 28 as obvious over the “fourth
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`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 44–46. Figure 6(a) is reproduced
`below.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`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,
`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.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`
`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
`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 in view of the fact that an
`error can propagate through the first portions Pi, but cannot propagate
`through the second portions Ri. Id. at 31:55–58. ECC encoder 603 of
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`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 31:59–67.
`2. Analysis of Claims 1–3, 5, and 6
`Petitioner contends “An error resilient method of encoding data” as
`recited in the preamble of claim 1 is disclosed by the fourth embodiment of
`Kato in describing an error resilient method of encoding data. Pet. 22 (citing
`Ex. 1003, 23:44–33:12; Figs. 6(a), 6(b), and 7).
`Petitioner contends “generating a plurality of code words
`representative of respective portions of the data” is disclosed by the fourth
`embodiment of Kato in describing generating code words Ci representative
`of input data Di, and word length data L1 and L2 corresponding to the input
`data. Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1003, 24:2–5, 24:21–30, 24:46–25:23).
`Petitioner contends “wherein each code word comprises a first portion
`and an associated second portion” is disclosed by the fourth embodiment of
`Kato in describing that code word Ci comprises a first portion Pi and a
`second portion Ri. Pet 22–23 (citing Ex. 1003, 24:48–50). According to
`Petitioner, each first portion Pi is associated with the second portion Ri and
`indicates the number of bits in Ci. Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 24:2–5, 24:50–55,
`29:26–29).
`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 fourth
`embodiment of Kato in describing generating the first portion Pi of code
`word Ci that includes information indicating the characteristic of the length
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01203
`Patent 5,850,482
`
`L of code word Ci. Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1003, 24:48–58, 25:13–21,
`29:26–29). Petitioner contends Kato describes that Pi is written