Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`April 19, 2018
`Apple, Inc. v. California Institute of Technology.
`Case No. IPR2017-00210
`
`CALTECH - EXHIBIT 2038
`Apple Inc. v. California Institute of Technology
`IPR2017-00210
`
`
`April 19, 2018
`Apple, Inc. v. California Institute of Technology.
`Case No. IPR2017-00210
`
`CALTECH - EXHIBIT 2038
`Apple Inc. v. California Institute of Technology
`IPR2017-00210
`
`
`
`Instituted Grounds
`IPR2017-00210: Patent No. 7,116,710
`1
`1, 3
`102
`Frey
`2
`1-8, 11-14
`103
`Frey and Divsalar
`3
`15-17, 19-22, 24-33
`103
`Frey, Divsalar, and Luby97
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`Prior Art
`
`2
`
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00210
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00210
`Ground 1: Frey
`
`IPR2017—002 10
`
`3
`
`Ground 1: Frey
`
`
`
`No “obtaining a block of data”
`POR 20
`(cid:1)Petitioner admits that “block length N = 131,072” refers
`to the format and length of the output, not input. Reply 5.
`
`4
`
`EX2004 (MM Decl.) (“MM”) ¶63
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00210
`
`
`
`No “partitioning said data block”
`POR 21-24; Sur. 2-3
`(cid:1)Petitioner misreads Figure 2, which depicts a codeword.
`(cid:1)Petitioner does not substantiate its inherency theory.
`EX1002, p. 4
`Irregular repetition can be achieved without partitioning.
`MM ¶69
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00210
`
`5
`
`
`
`Frey’s convolutional code has rate at least 2
`POR 18-19, 24-27; Sur. 3-4
`(cid:1)Rate = No. of input bits/ No. of output bits= 2
`
`Annotated Frey’s Fig. 1; MM ¶76
`“The rate of the code … is the number of input bits
`… divided by … how many output bits you have.”
`EX2033 (Davis Dep.) 39:11-16; see also MM ¶72-73
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00210
`
`6
`
`
`
`Frey’s convolutional code has rate at least 2
`POR 24-27; Sur. 3-4
`(cid:1)Dr. Davis confirmed Frey’s convolutional code has a rate
`of at least 2, and only outputs parity bits.
`
`7
`
`EX2033 (Davis Dep.) 127:20-128:10
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00210
`
`
`
`Frey’s rate computation is incorrect
`
`POR 27
`
`EX2033 (Davis Dep.) 13:22-14:3
`
`8
`
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00210
`
`
`
`POR 9-10, 38
`
`Dr. Davis did not consider puncturing
`Q. Do you have an opinion on whether the rate of
`the convolutional coder in the 5thpicture of Frey’s
`Figure 1 would include the punctured parity bits?
`A. I don’t have an opinion on that at this stage. I
`need to do some analysis to think about that.
`EX2033 (Davis Dep.) 148:12-14
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00210
`
`EX1002, p. 2
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00210
`Grounds 2 and 3: Frey and Divsalar
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petitioner ignores disclosure of Frey
`POR 6, 33-42; Sur. 4-5
`(cid:1)Frey states that incorporating irregularity is “not trivial,”
`depends on parameters not disclosed in Frey, e.g.
`permuter, etc. EX1002, p. 5.
`(cid:1)Profiles tested performed poorly. Id., pp. 5-6, Figs. 3, 4.
`(cid:1)Frey concludes that further experimentation necessary.
`Id., p. 6.
`
`11
`
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00210
`
`
`
`Frey’s irregularity led to poor results
`POR 32-35; Sur. 4
`(cid:1)Frey’s irregular degree profiles performed significantly
`worse than regular turbocodes(~0.005 BER for Eb/No of
`0.06 dB).
`
`12
`
`EX1002, p. 5-6; MM ¶92
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00210
`
`
`
`Frey’s irregularity led to poor results
`POR 35-39; Sur. 4
`(cid:1)“Best” profile exhibited high error floor of 10-4, one
`order of magnitude worse than the regular turbocode.
`
`13
`
`EX1002, p. 6; MM ¶¶93-98
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00210
`
`
`
`Petitioner did not consider full scope of art
`POR 9-10, 31, 38-42
`(cid:1)Failure to consider full scope of prior art results in a
`defective Graham inquiry.
`(cid:1)Claimed proposal was a “trivial change” despite Frey’s explicit
`teaching that incorporating irregularity is “not trivial.” Pet. 44;
`EX1022, p. 5.
`(cid:1)Did not address Frey’s experimental results in Figure 3.
`(cid:1)Did not consider puncturing, or its incompatibility with
`Divsalar’saccumulator. EX2033, 148:5-14; 150:3-10.
`(cid:1)Failed to comprehend Frey’s error floor. EX2033, 162:20-
`166:18.
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`14
`IPR2017-00210
`
`
`
`No basis for proposed modification
`POR 44-46, 48
`(cid:1)Proposal: modify (Khandekarthesis) repeat-3 to repeat-2/4
`
`(cid:1)Frey’s proposal: small percentage (5%) of high-repetition “elite
`bits” (repeat-10), puncture extra parity bits. EX1002, 6.
`Pet. 47
`Pet. 45
`(cid:1)Divsalar: repetition must be at least 3. EX1003, 6; EX2031 ¶27.
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`15
`IPR2017-00210
`
`
`
`Divsalar
`POR 6-7, 10, 48-50
`(cid:1)Research tool chosen to prove the IGE conjecture, not
`for application as error correction code. EX1003, p. 5;
`EX2031 ¶23-24
`(cid:1)Regular repetition, and must repeat bits at least 3 times.
`EX1003, p. 6 (“It follows from (5.6) that an RA code can
`have word error probability interleaving gain only if q >=
`3.”)
`(cid:1)Accumulator is a specific structure incompatible with
`puncturing. EX2004 ¶¶118-120; EX2031 ¶31.
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`16
`IPR2017-00210
`
`
`
`Not obvious to add irregularity to Divsalar
`
`POR 33, 41
`
`EX2004 (DivsalarDecl.) ¶33
`MM ¶89
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00210
`
`17
`
`
`
`Obviousness inquiry requires REOS
`POR 31-32, 46-47
`“The combination of familiar elements according to
`known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
`no more than yield predictable results.”
`KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)
`“Although predictability is a touchstone of obviousness, the
`‘predictable result’ discussed in KSR refers not only to the
`expectation that prior art elements are capable of being
`physically combined, but also that the combination would
`have worked for its intended purpose.”
`DePuySpine, Inc. v. Medtronic SofamorDanek, Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
`“Obviousness requiresa reasonable
`expectation of success.”
`MPEP 2143.2.I
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00210
`
`18
`
`
`
`Petition provided no analysis of REOS
`POR 31-32, 46-47; Sur. 5-6
`(cid:1)The petition provided no analysis as to whether the
`proposed combinations would have a reasonable
`expectation of success or yield predictable results.
`(cid:1)Frey itself showed lack of success.
`“JTEKT’s rationale that an artisan of ordinary skill would have
`been motivated to reduce weight, without further persuasive
`evidence why such a weight loss would have been predictably
`realized, or at least expected, amounts to an unsupported
`conclusory assertion.”
`JTEKT Corp. v. GKN Automotive, Ltd., IPR2016-00046,
`Paper No. 27 at 28-29 (Jan. 23, 2017)
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`19
`IPR2017-00210
`
`
`
`Unpredictability is undisputed
`POR 4-5, 47-50; Sur. 5-6; Reply isoMTE 2
`“[W]hat you would really like to be able to do is a
`formal mathematical analysis of the strength of the
`codes that you are working with, but that’s often
`really hard … [I]t might even be impossible to do
`the mathematical analysis.”
`EX2033 (Davis Dep.) 256:21-258:12
`20(cid:1)See also MM ¶¶37-40, 108-121.
`
`EX1002, p. 5
`Reply 9
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00210
`
`
`
`Unpredictability is undisputed
`Reply isoMTE 2
`“Unpredictabilityof results equates more
`with nonobviousnessrather than
`obviousness, whereas that which is
`predictable is more likely to be obvious.”
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. MexichemAmancoHolding S.A.,
`865 F.3d 1348, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`21
`
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00210
`
`
`
`The proposed modifications are “not trivial”
`POR 47; Sur. 4-6 Reply isoMTE 2
`(cid:1)The “simplicity” of combining elements does not speak to
`EX1002, p. 5
`whether a POSA wouldcombine them. Petitioner must
`alsoshow an expectation “that the combination would
`have worked for its intended purpose.” DePuySpine, Inc. v.
`Medtronic SofamorDanek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed.
`Cir. 2009)
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`22
`IPR2017-00210
`
`
`
`New experimental data is untimely and
`irrelevant
`Sur. 6-7
`(cid:1)Petitioner tested codes that were not proposed in the
`petition.
`(cid:1)Had 18+ years of hindsight, including the knowledge of
`the patents and Dr. Jin’ssource code.
`(cid:1)Matlabreceived 35 updates since May 2000.
`(cid:1)Data inconsistent with parameters.
`(cid:1)Did not discuss whether experiments were comparable
`to what a POSA at the relevant timeframe would have
`done.
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`23
`IPR2017-00210
`
`
`
`Sur. 5-6
`
`Petitioner’s Reply is Improper
`“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the
`corresponding opposition. §42.23. While replies can help
`crystalize issues for decision, a reply that raises a new issue
`or belatedly presents evidence will not be considered and may
`be returned. The Board will not attempt to sort proper from
`improper portions of the reply. Examples of indications that a
`new issue has been raised in a reply include new evidence
`necessary to make out a prima faciecase for the patentability
`or unpatentability of an original or proposed substitute claim,
`and new evidence that could have been presented in a prior
`filing.”
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48767 (Aug. 14, 2012) (emphasis added)
`
`24
`
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00210
`
`
`
`POR 50-51
`
`No motivation to combine Luby97
`(cid:1)Petitioner’s solerationale is inadequate.
`(cid:1)No rationale to mix and match different types of codes
`from the same highly unpredictable field.
`Pet. 61
`“The mere fact that the two references are ‘in the same field of
`endeavor’ is not persuasive.”
`TRW Auto. US LLC v. Magna Elecs. Inc., Case No. IPR2014-00263,
`Paper15 at14 (P.T.A.B. June26, 2014)
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`25
`IPR2017-00210
`
`
`
`Objective Indicia
`
`
`
`Objective Indicia
`
`26
`
`
`
`POR52
`
`Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness
`“As this court has repeatedly explained, this evidence is not
`just a cumulative or confirmatory part of the obviousness
`calculus but constitutes independent evidence of
`nonobviousness.”
`Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 520 F.3d1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (emphasis added)
`“This case illustrates a good reason for considering objective
`indicia as a critical piece of the obviousness analysis:
`Objective indicia ‘can be the most probative evidence of
`nonobviousness in the record, and enables the court to avert
`the trap of hindsight.’”
`Leo Pharm. Prod., Ltd. v. Rea, 726 F.3d1346, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (emphasis added)
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00210
`
`27
`
`
`
`IRA codes used successfully in industry
`
`POR 52-53
`
`28
`
`MM ¶128
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00210
`
`
`
`Reply isoMTE 5
`
`J. Pfaelzerdid not find noninfringement
`(cid:1)Caltech was moving party.
`(cid:1)Judge Pfaelzerleft issue of infringement for jury to decide.
`EX1067, *2
`Id., *5.
`29
`
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00210
`
`
`
`J. Pfaelzerdecision based on narrow
`construction
`MTE 13-14
`(cid:1)Judge Pfaelzernarrowly construed “repeat” to preclude
`“re-use” of a bit.
`(cid:1)Same court in current case rejected this construction.
`California Institute of Technology v. Hughes Communications Inc.,
`No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM, Dkt. 105, p. 14 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2014)
`California Institute of Technology v. Broadcom Limited, et al.,
`No. 2:16-cv-03714-GW-AGRx, Dkt. 213, p. 1 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 12, 2017)
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00210
`
`30
`
`
`
`Praise for IRA codes
`
`31
`
`POR 58-60
`
`EX2008, p. 196
`
`EX2010, p. 23
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00210
`
`
`
`DVB-S2 performance credited to IRA codes
`
`POR 53-55
`
`EX2006, p. 1
`
`EX2007, p. 1
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00210
`
`32
`
`
`
`DVB-S2’s commercial success
`
`POR 61-63
`
`EX2013, p. 2
`
`33
`
`EX2014, p. 1
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00210
`
`
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
