U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
`Patent Owner.
`_________________________________________
`
`Case IPR2017-00219
`Patent 7,116,710
`_________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF BRENDAN FREY, PH.D.
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 7,116,710
`CLAIMS 1-8, 11-17, 19-22, AND 24-33
`
`Apple v. Caltech
`IPR2017-00219
`Apple 1265
`
`
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
`Patent Owner.
`_________________________________________
`
`Case IPR2017-00219
`Patent 7,116,710
`_________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF BRENDAN FREY, PH.D.
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 7,116,710
`CLAIMS 1-8, 11-17, 19-22, AND 24-33
`
`Apple v. Caltech
`IPR2017-00219
`Apple 1265
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................... 6
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. DIVSALAR IN VIEW OF LUBY RENDERS CLAIMS 1-8 AND 11-14
`
`OBVIOUS ........................................................................................................ 8
`
`A.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Luby’s Table 1. ...................................................................................... 8
`
`Luby teaches irregular repetition of information bits. ........................ 11
`
`Using Luby’s irregular degrees in Divsalar results in irregular
`
`repetition of information bits even if Luby alone does not
`
`disclose irregular repetition of information bits. ................................. 15
`
`Divsalar in view of Luby discloses the “partitioning” limitation. ...... 20
`
`One of ordinary skill would have combined Divsalar and Luby. ....... 21
`
`Dr. Divsalar’s testimony confirms that it would have been
`
`obvious to combine Divsalar and Frey. ............................................... 31
`
`IV. DIVSALAR IN VIEW OF LUBY AND LUBY97 RENDERS CLAIMS
`
`15-17, 19-22, AND 24-33 OBVIOUS ........................................................... 33
`
`V.
`
`SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS .............. 34
`
`i
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`VI. AVAILABILITY FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION ...................................... 35
`
`VII. RIGHT TO SUPPLEMENT .......................................................................... 36
`
`VIII. JURAT ........................................................................................................... 36
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`
`
`
`I, Brendan Frey, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`1. My name is Brendan Frey.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`2.
`
`I received a B.Sc. with Honors in Electrical Engineering from the
`
`University of Calgary in 1990, a M.Sc. in Electrical and Computer Engineering from
`
`the University of Manitoba in 1993, and a Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering from the University of Toronto in 1997.
`
`3.
`
`Since July 2001, I have been at the University of Toronto, where I am a
`
`Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Computer Science.
`
`4.
`
`During my career I have conducted research in the areas of graphical
`
`models, error-correcting coding, machine learning, genome biology, medicine, and
`
`computer vision.
`
`5.
`
`In 2015, I co-founded Deep Genomics Inc., a startup located in Toronto
`
`that is using artificial intelligence to find new medicines. Since then I have acted as
`
`its Chief Executive Officer. Deep Genomics has received over $17M in venture
`
`capital funding, mostly from Silicon Valley investors. Deep Genomics has recruited
`
`scientists and engineers from top universities, including MIT, Stanford, the
`
`University of California, San Diego, and the University of Toronto, and from
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`competing biotech and software companies, including Amazon, Autodesk, Calico,
`
`and Human Longevity. In 2017, I co-founded the Vector Institute for Artificial
`
`Intelligence. The Vector Institute is internationally regarded as one of, if not the, top
`
`artificial intelligence research institutes in the world. It has over $200M in funding
`
`and its current and newly hired professors have chosen faculty positions at the
`
`Vector Institute in preference to faculty offers from leading universities, including
`
`Stanford and MIT, and to senior researcher offers from leading industrial labs,
`
`including DeepMind, Google, Facebook, Microsoft and OpenAI.
`
`6.
`
`I have received a number of honors and awards for the research I have
`
`conducted. In 2008, I was named a Fellow of the Institute for Electrical and
`
`Electronic Engineers (IEEE), an honor given to a person with an “extraordinary
`
`record or accomplishments” in the field of electrical engineering. In 2009, I was
`
`named a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
`
`(AAAS), an honor that recognizes “efforts on behalf of the advancement of science
`
`or its applications which are scientifically or socially distinguished.” In 2009, I was
`
`awarded a Steacie Fellowship for my work on the theory and implementation of
`
`artificial and natural mechanisms for inferring patterns from data. The Steacie
`
`Fellowship is awarded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
`
`Canada (NSERC) to “outstanding and highly promising scientists and engineers”
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`who are faculty members of Canadian universities. In 2011, I received the
`
`NSERC’s John C. Polanyi Award, in recognition of my research on inferring genetic
`
`codes embedded in DNA that direct activities within cells. In 2015, I was elected as
`
`a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, with the following citation: “Professor
`
`Frey has contributed to the emergence of new fields of research in machine learning
`
`and genome biology. He was one of the first researchers to successfully train a deep
`
`neural network, and he was a pioneer in inventing message passing algorithms,
`
`which are now widely used. He co-developed the long-sought-after ‘splicing code’
`
`for determining how genes are expressed and introduced a new approach to
`
`understanding the genetics of disease.”
`
`7.
`
`Throughout my career I have received funding from various
`
`governmental agencies to support my research, including the Natural Sciences and
`
`Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health
`
`Research, and the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research.
`
`8.
`
`I have authored more than 200 publications and am named as an
`
`inventor on nine patents issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
`
`9.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae is included as Exhibit 1266.
`
`10.
`
`I have reviewed the specification and claims of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,116,710 (the “’710 patent”; Ex. 1201). I have been informed that the ’710
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`patent claims priority to a provisional application filed on May 18, 2000, and to U.S.
`
`application Ser. No. 09/922,852, filed on Aug. 18, 2000.
`
`11.
`
`I have also reviewed the following references, all of which I understand
`
`to be prior art to the ’710 patent:
`
`(cid:120) Frey, B. J. and MacKay, D. J. C., “Irregular Turbocodes,” Proc. 37th
`Allerton Conf. on Comm., Control and Computing, Monticello,
`Illinois, published on or before March 20, 2000 (“Frey”; Ex. 1202.)
`
`(cid:120) Frey, B. J. and MacKay, D. J. C., “Irregular Turbo-Like Codes,”
`37th Allerton Conf. on Comm., Control and Computing, Monticello,
`Illinois, published on or before September 24, 1999 (“Frey Slides”;
`Ex. 1213)
`
`(cid:120) D. Divsalar, H. Jin, and R. J. McEliece, “Coding theorems for
`“turbo-like” codes,” Proc. 36th Allerton Conf. on Comm., Control
`and Computing, Allerton, Illinois, pp. 201-10, March, 1999
`(“Divsalar”; Ex. 1203.)
`
`(cid:120) Luby, M. et al., “Analysis of Low Density Codes and Improved
`Designs Using Irregular Graphs,” STOC ‘98, pp. 249-59, published
`in 1998 (“Luby”; Ex. 1204.)
`
`(cid:120) Luby, M. et al., “Practical Loss-Resilient Codes,” STOC ‘97, pp.
`150-159, published in 1997 (“Luby97”; Ex. 1211)
`
`12.
`
`I have also reviewed the following filings in this inter partes review:
`
`(cid:120) Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,116,710 (Paper 5)
`(“Petition” or “Pet.”)
`
`(cid:120) Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper 16) (“POPR”)
`
`(cid:120) Institution Decision (Paper 17)
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`(cid:120) Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 34) (“POR”)
`
`(cid:120) Declaration of Professor James Davis, Ph.D. (Ex. 1206)
`
`(cid:120) Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. Michael Mitzenmacher
`(Ex. 1262) and associated exhibits (Exs. 1244-1249)
`
`(cid:120) Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. Dariush Divsalar (Ex. 1264) and
`associated exhibits (Exs. 1257-1261)
`
`(cid:120) California Institute of Technology v. Hughes Communications Inc.,
`No. 2:13-cv-07245, 2015 WL 11089495 (C.D. Cal. May 5, 2015)
`(Ex. 1267)
`
`(cid:120) Declaration of Dr. Michael Mitzenmacher (Ex. 2004)
`
`(cid:120) DVB-S2 User Guidelines (Ex. 2009)
`
`(cid:120) Declaration of Dr. Hui Jin (Ex. 2020)
`
`(cid:120) Declaration of Dr. Dariush Divsalar (Ex. 2031)
`
`(cid:120) Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Dariush Divsalar (Ex. 2032)
`
`13.
`
`I am being compensated at my normal consulting rate of $950 per hour
`
`for my work.
`
`14. My compensation is not dependent on and in no way affects the
`
`substance of my statements in this Declaration.
`
`15.
`
`I have no financial interest in Petitioner. I similarly have no financial
`
`interest in the ’710 patent.
`
`16.
`
`I have reviewed the Petition and the declaration of Dr. Davis and agree
`
`with their explanation of why the instituted claims are invalid. I have also reviewed
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`the institution decision and agree with the Board’s reasoning regarding the instituted
`
`claims. I have also read Caltech’s POPR, its POR, the declaration of Dr. Jin, and the
`
`declaration of Caltech’s experts, Drs. Mitzenmacher and Divsalar, and disagree with
`
`their challenges to the invalidity of the instituted claims.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that after submitting his declaration in this case, Dr. Davis
`
`relocated to Europe pursuant to a Fulbright Global Scholar Award. I further
`
`understand that he is unavailable to work on the Reply due to these professional
`
`obligations. As explained below, in my opinion the challenged claims are invalid.
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed that a claim is invalid as anticipated under
`
`Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) if “the invention was known or used by others in this
`
`country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country,
`
`before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.” I have also been informed
`
`that a claim is invalid as anticipated under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) if “the
`
`invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign
`
`country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the
`
`date of the application for patent in the United States.” Further I have been informed
`
`that a claim is invalid as anticipated under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) if “the
`
`invention was described in . . . an application for patent, published under section
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for
`
`patent . . . .” It is my understanding that for a claim to be anticipated, all of the
`
`limitations must be present in a single prior art reference, either expressly or
`
`inherently.
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed that a claim is invalid as obvious under Pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
`
`if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and
`
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art to which [the] subject matter pertains.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that a claimed invention would have been obvious, and
`
`therefore not patentable, if the subject matter claimed would have been considered
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made.
`
`I understand that when there are known elements that perform in known ways and
`
`produce predictable results, the combination of those elements is probably obvious.
`
`Further, I understand that when there is a predictable variation and a person would
`
`see the benefit of making that variation, implementing that predictable variation is
`
`probably not patentable. I have also been informed that obviousness does not
`
`require absolute predictability of success, but that what does matter is whether the
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`prior art gives direction as to what parameters are critical and which of many
`
`possible choices may be successful.
`
`III. DIVSALAR IN VIEW OF LUBY RENDERS CLAIMS 1-8 AND 11-14
`OBVIOUS
`
`A. Luby’s Table 1.
`
`21. Luby’s Table 1 is copied below.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1204 at 256.
`
`22. The lambda (λ) values in Luby’s Table 1 identify the fraction of edges
`
`of particular degrees. Id.; Ex. 1262 at 221:2-19. For example, in Code 14,
`
`approximately 49.6% of the edges in a Tanner graph for the code would have degree
`
`5. As an example, a Tanner graph for Luby’s code 14 is shown below.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`
`
`
`Ex. 1247.
`
`23. A degree n edge is an edge that connects to a node of degree n. For
`
`example, in the above Tanner graph, the degree 5 edges are the edges that connect to
`
`the degree 5 message nodes. Ex. 1262 at 223:5-224:5.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`24. The lambda (λ) values can be used to determine the percentage of each
`
`type of message node in the Tanner graph. Id. at 224:6-9. Using Luby’s Code 14
`
`and Luby’s disclosed example with 16,000 message bits and rate 1/2, there are
`
`112,000 edges in the Tanner graph. That is, each check node has degree 14 and there
`
`are 8,000 check nodes. So, the graph includes a total of 14 * 8,000 = 112,000 edges.
`
`25. Table 1 states that 49.6041% of the edges have degree 5. Multiplying
`
`0.496041 times 112,000 yields a fraction (55,556.592). Tanner graphs do not
`
`contain fractional edges, only an integer number of edges. Dr. Mitzenmacher
`
`explained that for this reason, some rounding is required to determine the number of
`
`edges of each degree. Id. at 221:20-223:4. Therefore, in this example, there are
`
`approximately 55,557 edges of degree 5. Using a similar procedure for the other
`
`degrees shows that for Luby’s 16,000 message node, rate 1/2 example of Code 14,
`
`there are 55,557 edges with degree 5; 19,473 edges with degree 6; 8,649 edges with
`
`degree 21; and 28,322 edges with degree 23.
`
`26. The percentage of nodes of degree n equals the number of edges with
`
`degree n divided by the degree n times the number of message nodes (which in this
`
`case is 16,000), i.e., if “fi” is the fraction of nodes with degree “i,” then
`
`fi=(number of edges with degree i) / (i) * 16,000
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`27. The table below shows the percentages and numbers of nodes of each
`
`degree for all the codes described in Luby’s Table 1, for Luby’s example of 16,000
`
`message bits and rate ½.
`
`Code
`14
`
`22
`
`10’
`
`14’
`
`
`
`Percentages of messages nodes of each degree
`Degree 5 Message Nodes: ~69% (~11,040 nodes)
`Degree 6 Message Nodes: ~20% (~3,200 nodes)
`Degree 21 Message Nodes: ~3% (~480 nodes)
`Degree 23 Message Nodes: ~8% (~1,280 nodes)
`Degree 5 Message Nodes: ~63% (~10,080 nodes)
`Degree 6 Message Nodes: ~23% (~3,680 nodes)
`Degree 27 Message Nodes: ~3% (~480 nodes)
`Degree 29 Message Nodes: ~4% (~640 nodes)
`Degree 30 Message Nodes: ~4% (~640 nodes)
`Degree 100 Message Nodes: ~3% (~480 nodes)
`Degree 3 Message Nodes: ~21% (~3,360 nodes)
`Degree 4 Message Nodes: ~69% (~11,040 nodes)
`Degree 16 Message Nodes: ~10% (~1,600 nodes)
`Degree 3 Message Nodes: ~22% (~3,520 nodes)
`Degree 4 Message Nodes: ~61% (~9,760 nodes)
`Degree 21 Message Nodes: ~5% (~800 nodes)
`Degree 23 Message Nodes: ~12% (1,920 nodes)
`
`A. Luby teaches irregular repetition of information bits.
`
`28. Caltech concedes that Luby teaches message nodes with irregular
`
`degree. POR at 19-20. However, it claims that, because Luby’s message nodes
`
`contain both information bits and parity bits, it is unclear whether the irregular
`
`message nodes result from irregular information bits, irregular parity bits, or both.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`POR at 19-26. I disagree. A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would
`
`have understood Luby to disclose irregular repetition of information bits.
`
`29. When each of Luby’s 16,000 message nodes are assigned to correspond
`
`to one of the 8,000 information bits or one of the 8,000 parity bits, the information
`
`bits will have different degrees. For example, in Luby’s Code 22, there would be
`
`some information bits of degree 100, some information bits of degree 30, and
`
`additional information bits of other degree. This is because, as Luby states, message
`
`nodes “with higher degree tend to their correct value quickly.” Ex. 1204 at 253.
`
`This would have led a POSA to preferentially use higher degrees for information
`
`bits. In Luby’s Code 22, there are only ~480 nodes of degree 100. Even if the POSA
`
`made all ~480 nodes of degree 100 information bits, he would still have ~7,520
`
`information bits to assign. Some of those information bits would be assigned a
`
`degree of 30, while others would be assigned different degrees. The information bits
`
`would thus be irregular. Even if a POSA were not motivated to preferentially use
`
`higher degrees for information bits, which is unlikely, there is no reason that a POSA
`
`would preferentially choose all information bits to have the same degree. A POSA
`
`would know that they are free to select information bits from a wide range of nodes
`
`with a wide range of degrees and that there is no reason that the information bit
`
`nodes should have constant degree.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`30. Luby’s Code 14’ would also necessarily result in information bits of
`
`different degree. In Code 14’, there are only ~1,920 nodes with degree 23 (the
`
`highest degree). As a result, some of the information bits would have degree 23 and
`
`others would have degree 21. In other words, Luby teaches having information bits
`
`with different degrees.
`
`31. Also, even if a POSA were to randomly assign each information and
`
`parity bit to correspond to a particular node, it would have been highly unlikely for
`
`all the information bits to have the same degree. For example, in Luby’s Code 22,
`
`63% of the nodes have degree 5 and the remaining 37% of the nodes have a different
`
`degree. This means that if information and parity bits were assigned to nodes at
`
`random, for every 10 selected information bits, roughly 6 would have degree 5 and
`
`the other 4 would have a degree that is different from 5. That is, when making
`
`assignments at random, the information bits would have varying degree. What is the
`
`probability that all 8000 information bits would be assigned to nodes with the same
`
`degree? First, note that all nodes associated with information bits would need to
`
`have degree 5, because there are only 5,920 nodes with degree other than 5 (total of
`
`16,000 nodes minus 10,080 with degree 5). The probability that the first selected
`
`information bit would be associated with a node with degree 5 is 10,080 divided by
`
`16,000, that is, the number of unassociated nodes with degree 5 divided by the total
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`number of unassociated nodes. The probability that the second selected information
`
`bit would be associated with a node with degree 5 given that the first information bit
`
`has degree 5 is 10,079 divided by 15,999. And so on, until we compute the
`
`probability that the 8000th selected information bit would be associated with a node
`
`with degree 5 given that all preceding information bits have degree 5. That
`
`probability is 2081 divided by 8001. The probability that all information bits were
`
`assigned to nodes with the same degree is given by the product of these probabilities,
`
`which is 10-2,587.7. This probability is so vanishingly small that virtually every code
`
`generated by this process would repeat information bits with varying degrees. At a
`
`minimum, working through this analysis confirms that repeating information bits
`
`irregularly would have been obvious to a POSA from reading Luby.
`
`32. Also, when bits are assigned to nodes in one of Luby’s codes, all
`
`possibilities can be described by these two options: (a) some information bits have
`
`different degrees than others and (b) all information bits have the same degree (and
`
`as explained above, a POSA would have understood Luby to teach against this).
`
`Given that there are at most two options, option (a) would have been an obvious
`
`choice for a POSA.
`
`33. Thus, a POSA would have understood that Luby discloses information
`
`bits with different degrees.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`B. Using Luby’s irregular degrees in Divsalar results in irregular
`repetition of information bits even if Luby alone does not disclose
`irregular repetition of information bits.
`
`34. Luby teaches irregular codes in which the degrees of codeword bits are
`
`irregular, i.e., some codeword bits have one degree and other codeword bits have a
`
`different degree. For example, in Luby’s “Code 14’” codeword bits have either
`
`degree 3, 4, 21 or 23. Luby teaches that such irregular codes outperform their
`
`regular counterparts.
`
`35. A POSA would have been motivated to use Luby’s irregularity in
`
`Divsalar to improve the performance of Divsalar’s code. Doing so would have
`
`resulted in repeating data “in different sub-blocks a different number of times” as
`
`required by the claims. In other words, applying Luby’s fundamental teaching – that
`
`irregular codes, with message bits that have irregular degrees, outperform their
`
`regular counterparts – to Divsalar results in a code that repeats information bits a
`
`different number of times and therefore meets the limitations of the instituted claims.
`
`36. Divsalar’s Figure 3 shows a coder with a repeater followed by an
`
`interleaver, which is then followed by an accumulator. The simplest way for a
`
`POSA to incorporate Luby’s irregularity into Divsalar would have been to modify
`
`Divsalar’s repeater to make it repeat some bits more than others. Doing so would
`
`have been simple, and would not have required modification of Divsalar’s other
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`components, i.e., the interleaver and accumulator. Incorporating irregularity into
`
`Divsalar’s repeater would only have required repeating some bits more than others.
`
`By contrast, a POSA would not have incorporated irregularity in Divsalar’s
`
`accumulator – doing so would have complicated the already simple accumulator.
`
`37. Divsalar’s code can be represented as a Tanner graph in which the
`
`degree of a message node equals the number of times the corresponding message bit
`
`is repeated. Exhibit 1246 shows such a Tanner graph for Divsalar’s code for the case
`
`in which q=3, i.e., the case in which the information bits are all repeated three times.
`
`Ex. 1247 shows the Tanner graph for Luby’s Code 14.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`
`
`Ex. 1246
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1247
`
`As shown, both Divsalar’s code and Luby’s code connect message nodes to check
`
`nodes using a random permutation. Divsalar’s coder includes the extra step shown
`
`at the right side of the Tanner graph, which corresponds to Divsalar’s accumulator.
`
`The left sides of the Tanner graphs are similar, i.e., they both include nodes and a
`
`random permutation. The difference is that Divsalar’s left nodes all have degree
`
`three (i.e., three edges intersect each node), while Luby’s left nodes have different
`
`degrees (i.e., Luby’s left nodes have degree 5, 6, 21 or 23). It would have been
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`obvious for a POSA to use Luby’s irregularity in Divsalar by making the degree of
`
`Divsalar’s information nodes irregular. Doing so exactly corresponds to Divsalar
`
`repeating some information bits more than others. As shown by the above Tanner
`
`graphs, Divsalar’s and Luby’s codes are similar and it would have been easy for a
`
`POSA to use Luby’s irregularity in Divsalar.
`
`38. Caltech claims that, because Luby’s irregularity is in the codeword bits,
`
`using Luby’s irregularity in Divsalar would mean changing the degree of the parity
`
`nodes at the right side of Divsalar’s Tanner graph. POR at 24-25, 28-29. I disagree.
`
`As I explain above, a POSA would not have been motivated to change Divsalar’s
`
`accumulator. A POSA likewise would not have been motivated to change the
`
`connections between Divsalar’s parity and check nodes. Changing Divsalar’s
`
`repeater to repeat bits a different number of times, which is the same as changing the
`
`degrees in Divsalar’s Tanner graph such that some information nodes are connected
`
`to more edges than others, would have been a simple and obvious way to use Luby’s
`
`irregularity in Divalar.
`
`39. That a POSA would have been motivated to use Luby’s irregularity by
`
`repeating Divsalar’s information bits irregularly is demonstrated by my own paper,
`
`Frey. Ex. 1202. Frey notes the success of Luby and goes on to describe a new code
`
`in which irregularity is incorporated into the code by repeating some information
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`bits more than others. Ex. 1202 at 241. My experimental results demonstrated that
`
`these irregular turbocodes perform better than the regular turbocodes that were
`
`known in the art. Id. at 246. A POSA reading Divsalar and Luby would have been
`
`motivated to make the Divsalar’s repetition irregular.
`
`40.
`
`I even suggested applying this same type of irregularity to Dr. Dariush
`
`Divsalar – the co-author of Divsalar – by e-mail on December 8, 1999. Ex. 1235,
`
`App. A. At that time, I was an active contributor and collaborator in the community
`
`that included some of the inventors of the ’710 patent. In particular, I attended talks
`
`given by Dr. Robert McEliece and Dr. McEliece attended talks that I presented.
`
`These talks included the 1998 and 1999 Allerton Conferences held by the University
`
`of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, among others. In the e-mail, I suggested “it would be
`
`interesting to extend the work that you and Bob [McEliece] have done to the case of
`
`irregular turbocodes.” Id. This is a clear suggestion to the author of Divsalar to
`
`combine the RA codes of Divsalar with the irregularity discussed in my paper, Frey,
`
`which itself was motivated by Luby. The email said only what would have been
`
`obvious to a POSA, i.e., that it would have been obvious to make Divsalar’s
`
`repetition of information bits irregular.
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`C. Divsalar in view of Luby discloses the “partitioning” limitation.
`
`41. By repeating some information bits a different number of times than
`
`others, the combination of Divsalar and Luby “partition[s] said data block into a
`
`plurality of sub-blocks” – e.g., a sub-block with bits repeated one number of times
`
`and another sub-block with bits repeated a different number of times.
`
`42.
`
`I do not understand Caltech to dispute that repeating bits a different
`
`number of times would disclose partitioning them into different sub-blocks, or that
`
`such partition would have been an obvious implementation of the irregular repeater
`
`of Divsalar in view of Luby. See POR at 29-30. Instead, I understand Caltech to
`
`contend that it is theoretically possible to “implement the modified Divsalar code
`
`without partitioning.” Id. Even if theoretically true, a POSA would not implement
`
`the modified Divsalar code without partitioning.
`
`43. Dr. Mitzenmacher claims that a POSA implementing Divsalar and
`
`Luby could avoid partitioning by using a random number generator to determine
`
`how many times to repeat each bit. Ex. 1262 at 381:3-382:13. But, even if such a
`
`random number generator were used, its output sequence would be known in
`
`advance. As a result, that sequence would provide the claimed partitioning because
`
`it would define in advance of repeating exactly which bits are repeated exactly
`
`which number of times.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`44. Even if it were possible to alter Divsalar’s encoder to irregularly repeat
`
`without partitioning, the combination of Divsalar and Luby would still disclose
`
`partitioning because that is what a POSA would have reasonably understood from
`
`the disclosure. Dr. Mitzenmacher acknowledges his proposed implementation is
`
`merely a hypothetical that “[o]ne could envision.” Ex. 2003, ¶94. He offers no
`
`testimony that this implementation is a practical or likely implementation. Id. And,
`
`in my opinion such an implementation is not practical or likely. A POSA would
`
`instead have implemented irregular repetition of information bits in Divsalar by
`
`simply repeating some bits a certain number of times and other bits a different
`
`number of times. In doing so, the POSA would have partitioned the block of
`
`information bits into different sub-blocks as recited in the claims. This is exactly
`
`what I did in my own work where I partitioned the input bits into sub-blocks f1
`
`through fD. Ex. 1202 at 244.
`
`D. One of ordinary skill would have combined Divsalar and Luby.
`
`45.
`
`It would have been obvious to combine Divsalar and Luby for multiple
`
`reasons.
`
`46. Luby expressly states that irregularity could be used to design codes
`
`that are “far superior to any regular code.” Ex. 1204 at 257. Caltech claims that
`
`Luby’s teaching is only applicable to “Gallager” codes. POR, 30-32, 35. A POSA
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`would not have read Luby so narrowly, as shown by my paper, Frey, which applies
`
`Luby’s teaching to turbo-like codes. In fact, a POSA would have been encouraged
`
`to use Luby’s irregular degrees in other codes. I did exactly that and, noting the
`
`success of Luby’s irregularity, went on to incorporate irregularity in a code by
`
`irregularly repeating information bits. Ex. 1202 at 241-244. A POSA would have
`
`similarly been motivated to do what I did and obtain the benefit of Luby’s
`
`irregularity in other codes such as Divsalar’s – just as I encouraged Dr. Divsalar to
`
`do in 1998. Ex. 1235, App. A.
`
`47. Caltech states that Luby defines irregularity with respect to the lambda
`
`(λ) values in Table 1. POR at 25-26. But as I showed above, those lamba (λ) values
`
`expressly disclose irregular information bits. Thus, contrary to Caltech’s assertion,
`
`Table 1 shows that Luby’s use of irregularity is consistent with the definition offered
`
`by Dr. Davis and with the understanding of those in the art.
`
`48. Caltech does not dispute that Divsalar could be made irregular by
`
`modifying the repeater to repeat different information bits a different number of
`
`times. It likewise does not dispute that Divsalar could be made irregular by
`
`modifying its Tanner graph by redistributing a few edges. Instead, Caltech argues
`
`that such modifications were not sufficiently described and would not necessarily
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Apple v. California Institute of Technology
`result in desired performance for particular applications or have a reasonable
`
`expectation of success. POR at 37-47. I disagree.
`
`49. Rigorous mathematical analysis of codes is difficult, and, as a result,
`
`POSAs routinely developed codes by experimentation. POR at 2. Encouraged by
`
`Luby’s results, a POSA would have been motivated to tr
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
