`April 19, 2018
`Apple, Inc. v. California Institute of Technology.
`Case No. IPR2017-00219
`
`CALTECH - EXHIBIT 2038
`Apple Inc. v. California Institute of Technology
`IPR2017-00219
`
`
`
`Instituted Grounds
`IPR2017-00219: Patent No. 7,116,710
`Ground
`Claims
`Basis
`Prior Art
`1
`1-8, 11-14
`103
`Lubyand Divsalar
`2
`15-17, 19-22, 24-33
`103
`Luby, Divsalarand Luby97
`
`2
`
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00219
`
`
`
`Neither Luby nor Divsalar disclose irregular
`repetition of information bits
`
`POR 9-10, 19-23, 25-26; Sur. 1-3
`
`MM ¶63
`EX1206 (Davis Decl.) ¶414
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00219
`
`3
`
`
`
`Luby’sirregular bipartite graphs
`POR 9-10, 19-23, 25-26; Sur. 1-3
`“[W]e refer to the nodes on the leftand the right
`sides of a bipartite graph as its messagenodes and
`check nodes respectively. … [T]he bits of a
`codeword are indexed by the message nodes.”
`(cid:1)“An irregular bipartite graph is simply a bipartite graph
`EX1204, p. 250
`where different codeword bits are used in a different
`EX1204, p. 253
`number of check equations.” MM ¶79.
`(cid:1)Regular Gallagercode: message nodes have same # of edges.
`(cid:1)Irregular Gallagercode: some message nodes have different #
`of edges.
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00219
`
`4
`
`
`
`Lubydoes not disclose irregular repetition
`of information bits
`POR 19-23, 30-32; Sur. 1-3
`(cid:1)“[O]uruse of the term ‘message nodes’ in a bipartite
`graph refers to bits in the codeword, that is, the output of
`the encoder, whereas Divsalar’srepetition is performed
`on information bits, that is, the input of the encoder.” MM
`¶82.
`(cid:1)No basis to assume Luby’scode is systematic: “[Luby’s]
`EX1204, p. 256
`codewords do not even include information bits.” MM
`¶77.
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`5
`IPR2017-00219
`
`
`
`Petitioner confuses terminology
`POR 21-24, 27, 30-32; Sur. 3
`(cid:1)Luby’smessage nodes are notinformation bits.
`“[O]uruse of the term ‘message
`“[T]he bits of a codewordare
`nodes’ in a bipartite graph refers
`to bits in the codeword, that is,
`indexed by the message nodes.”
`(cid:1)Petitioner conflates Luby’s message nodes with Divsalar’s
`the output of the encoder.” MM ¶82
`information bits.
`EX1204, p. 250
`“Repeat codes, like the RA codes
`“[T]he RA codes defined by
`of Divsalar, are represented by
`Divsalar are not systematic,
`Tanner graphs in which the
`which means they don’t transmit
`degree of a message node is
`the information bits and,
`equal to the number of times the
`therefore, the only message
`corresponding message bit is
`nodes for an RA code would be
`repeated.”
`the parity bits at the bottom.”
`EX1206 (Davis Decl.) ¶421; see also
`EX2033 (Davis Dep.) 186:14-19
`Pet. 45-46
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`6
`IPR2017-00219
`
`
`
`Divsalar’scodeword is not regular
`POR 28-29, 31, 34, 40-41; Sur. 3
`(cid:1)Divsalar’scode is not a regular code under Luby’s
`definition.
`(cid:1)Divsalar’s“message nodes” have different numbers of
`edges.
`Check nodes
`MM ¶110
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00219
`
`Message nodes (codeword)
`7
`
`
`
`Proposed modification
`would result in No Change
`POR 24-25, 28-29, 33-34, 40-42; Sur. 3
`(cid:1)Making Divsalar’srepeater irregular has no effect on the
`irregularity of its codeword.
`
`(cid:1)“The only message nodes for an RA code would be the parity
`Original and modified Khandekargraph (Pet. 39-40); MM ¶¶86-87, 110-11
`bits at the bottom.” EX2031 (Davis Dep.) 186:14-19.
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00219
`
`8
`
`
`
`No basis for proposed modification
`POR 9-10, 13, 42-43, 45-46; Sur. 6-7
`(cid:1)Petition proposes a repetition profile of 2 and 4 (Pet. 40).
`(cid:1)Reply proposes a repetition profile of 3 and 7 (Reply 10).
`(cid:1)Divsalarrequires repetition of at least 3. EX1203, p. 6.
`(cid:1)Luby’s codes provide no rationale for Petitioner’s
`proposal.
`
`9
`
`EX1204, p. 256; MM ¶¶60-61
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00219
`
`
`
`Obviousness inquiry requires REOS
`POR 18-19, 44-45
`“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
`IPR2017-00219
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petition provided no analysis of REOS
`POR 18-19, 44-45; Sur. 7; Reply isoMTE 2
`(cid:1)The petitions 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
`11
`IPR2017-00219
`
`
`
`Unpredictability is undisputed
`POR 5-8, 44-47; Sur. 7; 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
`12(cid:1)See also MM ¶¶46-49, 115-119.
`
`EX1202, p. 5
`Reply 9
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00219
`
`
`
`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).
`
`13
`
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00219
`
`
`
`The proposed modifications are “not trivial”
`POR 44-47; Reply isoMTE 1
`(cid:1)The “simplicity” of combining elements does not speak to
`EX1202, 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
`14
`IPR2017-00219
`
`
`
`New experimental data is untimely and
`irrelevant
`Sur. 7-8
`(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
`15
`IPR2017-00219
`
`
`
`Sur. 7
`
`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)
`
`16
`
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00219
`
`
`
`POR 48-49
`
`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. 55
`“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
`17
`IPR2017-00219
`
`
`
`Objective Indicia
`
`
`
`Objective Indicia
`
`18
`
`
`
`POR 50
`
`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
`IPR2017-00219
`
`19
`
`
`
`IRA codes used successfully in industry
`
`POR 50-51
`
`20
`
`MM ¶131
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00219
`
`
`
`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.
`EX1267, *2
`Id., *5.
`21
`
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00219
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2017-00219
`
`22
`
`
`
`Praise for IRA codes
`
`23
`
`POR 56-58
`
`EX2008, p. 196
`
`EX2010, p. 23
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00219
`
`
`
`DVB-S2 performance credited to IRA codes
`
`POR 56-58
`
`EX2006, p. 1
`
`EX2007, p. 1
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00219
`
`24
`
`
`
`DVB-S2’s commercial success
`
`POR 60-61
`
`EX2013, p. 2
`
`25
`
`EX2014, p. 1
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00219
`
`