`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`_________________________________________
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVES FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple Inc., Petitioner
`v.
`California Institute of Technology, Patent Owner
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Slides
`U.S. Patent 7,116,710
`
`Case No. IPR2017-00219
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`April 19, 2018
`
`IPR2017-00219
`
`1
`
`
`
`RRoadmap
`
`The Claims Are Invalid
`
`PO’s Failure to Cross-Examine
`
`Response to Surreplies
`
`IPR2017-00219
`
`2
`
`
`
`RRoadmap
`
`The Claims Are Invalid
`
`PO’s Failure to Cross-Examine
`
`Response to Surreplies
`
`IPR2017-00219
`
`3
`
`
`
`TThe Claims Are Invalid
`• Claims 1–8 and 11–14 of the ’710 patent as obvious over
`Divsalar and Luby
`• Claims 15–17, 19–22, and 24–33 of the ’710 patent as
`obvious over Divsalar, Luby, and Luby97
`
`IPR2017-00219
`
`4
`
`
`
`’’710 Patent Claims a Conventional Coder
`CCombined With a Known Irregularity Technique
`
`’710 Patent Fig. 2
`
`IPR2017-00219
`
`
`
`Ex. 1201 [’710 patent] at Fig. 2 Ex 1201 [’710 patent] at Fig 2
`
`Pet. at 22; Ex. 1206 [Davis Decl.] at ¶¶ 97-98
`5
`
`
`
`DDivsalar Discloses Every Aspect Except Irregularity
`Divsalar Fig. 3
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003/1203 [Divsalar] at Fig. 3 Ex. 1003/1203 [Divsalar] at Fig. Ex 1003/1203 [Divsalar] at Fig 3
`
`Ex. 1003/1203 [Divsalar] at Fig. 3
`’710 Patent Fig. 2
`
`IPR2017-00219
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001/1201 [’710 patent] at Fig. 2 Ex 1001/1201 [’710 patent] at Fig 2i
`Pet. at 22, 26; Ex. 1206 [Davis Decl.] at ¶¶ 77-78, 97-98, 140-146
`6
`
`
`
`Luby Teaches Irregularity
`
`error-correcting
`codes based on random irregular bipartite graphs, which we
`call irregular codes.
`
`IPR2017-00219
`
`
`Ex. 1204 [Luby] at Title, Abstract Ex 1204 [Luby] at Title Abstract
`Pet. at 29-31, 46-67; Ex. 1206 [Davis Decl.] at ¶¶ 85-90, 422-424
`7
`
`
`
`LLuby Provides Motivations to Combine Irregularity
`
`In summary, irregular codes Code 14 and Code 22 appear
`superior to any regular code in practice, and irregular codes
`Code 10’ and Code 14’ are far superior to any regular code.
`
`call irregular codes. We introduce tools based on linear pro-
`gramming for designing linear time irregular codes with bet-
`ter error-correcting capabilities than possible with regular
`codes. For example, the decoding algorithm for the rate 1/2
`
`Ex. 1204 [Luby] at 249, 257
`
`IPR2017-00219
`
`Pet. at 29-31, 34-17; Ex. 1206 [Davis Decl.] at ¶¶ 83-90, 399-405
`8
`
`
`
`TThe Modification Would Have Been Simple
`
`IPR2017-00219
`
`Pet. at 37-41
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1206 [Davis Decl.] at ¶¶ 406-407 E 1206 [D i D l ] t ¶¶ 406 407
`
`
`
`TThe Modification Would Have Been Simple
`
`IPR2017-00219
`
`Pet. at 31, 45; Ex. 1206 [Davis Decl.] at ¶¶ 88, 421; Reply at 5; Ex. 1265 [Frey Decl.] at ¶ 37
`10
`
`
`
`TThe Modification Would Have Had a Reasonable
`EExpectation of Success
`
`IPR2017-00219
`
`Reply at 9
`Ex. 1265 [Frey Decl.] at ¶ 49
`11
`
`
`
`DDivsalar Luby and Luby97 Render Claims
`115-17, 19-22, and 24-33 Obvious
`
`Pet. at 31-32, 55-56, 61-64; Ex. 1206 [Davis Decl.] at ¶¶ 91, 185-187, 458-460; Reply at 13-14; Ex. 1265 [Frey Decl.] at ¶ 67
`IPR2017-00219
`12
`
`
`
`Ex. 1206 [Davis Decl.] at ¶¶ 185-186l
`
`
`
`RRoadmap
`
`The Claims Are Invalid
`
`PO’s Failure to Cross-Examine
`
`Response to Surreplies
`
`IPR2017-00219
`
`13
`
`
`
`PPO’s Failure to Cross-Examine
`• PO chose to not depose Petitioner’s experts
`–Dr. Frey (Reply Declarant)
`–Dr. Davis (2nd Declaration)
`
`• PO also chose to not depose Petitioner’s other declarants
`–Stansbury
`–Hajek
`–Basar
`–Sreenivas
`
`IPR2017-00219
`
`14
`
`
`
`RRoadmap
`
`The Claims Are Invalid
`
`PO’s Failure to Cross-Examine
`
`Response to Surreplies
`
`IPR2017-00219
`
`15
`
`
`
`RResponse to Surreplies
`
`CalTech Surreply Issue
`
`Issue Addressed in Briefing
`
`Luby teaches irregular use of information bits
`
`Petition at 28-31, 43, 46; Reply at 1-3
`
`Dr. Frey’s experimental data is proper
`
`Petition at 36-38; Reply at 10
`
`The Tanner graphs are supported by the petitions
`
`Petition at 18-19, 31, 45; Reply at 13
`
`Testimony of Dr. Davis and Dr. Frey is proper
`
`Reply at 2; Ex. 1273 [Davis Decl.]
`
`IPR2017-00219
`
`16
`
`
`
`DDr. Frey’s Unchallenged Declaration:
`LLuby Teaches Irregular Use of Information Bits
`
`
`
`Ex. 1265 [Frey Decl.] at ¶ 28E 1265 [F D l ] t ¶ 28
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00219
`
`Pet. at 28-31, 43, 46; Ex. 1206 [Davis Decl.] at ¶¶ 83-90, 417, 422; Reply at 1-3
`17
`
`
`
`DDr. Frey’s Unchallenged Declaration:
`LLuby Teaches Irregular Use of Information Bits
`
`IPR2017-00219
`
`Ex. 1265 [Frey Decl.] at ¶¶ 27, 29Ex 1265 [Frey Decl ] at ¶¶ 27 29
`
`Pet. at 28-31, 43, 46; Ex. 1206 [Davis Decl.] at ¶¶ 83-90, 417, 422; Reply at 1-3
`18
`
`
`
`DDr. Frey’s Unchallenged Declaration:
`LLuby Teaches Irregular Use of Information Bits
`
`
`
`Ex. 1265 [Frey Decl.] at ¶ 31Ex 1265 [Frey Decl ] at ¶ 31
`
`IPR2017-00219
`
`Pet. at 28-31, 43, 46; Ex. 1206 [Davis Decl.] at ¶¶ 83-90, 417, 422; Reply at 1-3
`19
`
`
`
`CCombining LLuby’s IIrregular Degrees With
`DDivsalar Results in Irregular Repetition Bits
`
`IPR2017-00219
`
`
`Ex. 1265 [Frey Decl.] at ¶¶ 35-36Ex 1265 [Frey Decl ] at ¶¶ 35 36
`Pet. at 45-46; Ex. 1206 [Davis Decl.] at 419-424; Reply at 3-4
`20
`
`
`
`EExperimental Data Is Proper
`
`IPR2017-00219
`
`Pet. at 36-38; Reply at 10; Ex. 1265 [Frey Decl.] at 51-63
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1206 [Davis Decl.] at ¶¶ 406-407 E 1206 [D i D l ] t ¶¶ 406 407
`
`
`
`EExperimental Data Is Proper
`
`IPR2017-00219
`
`Pet. at 36-38; Reply at 10; Ex. 1265 [Frey Decl.] at 51-63
`22
`
`
`
`Ex. 1265 [Frey Decl.] at ¶¶ 48, 51 E 1265 [F D l ] t ¶¶ 48 51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EExperimental Data Is Proper
`
`IPR2017-00219
`
`
`
`Ex. 1268 [Divsalar Simulation] at 5E 1268 [Di l Si l ti ] t 5
`
`
`
`
`Reply at 10-11; Ex. 1265 [Frey Decl.] at ¶¶ 51-63
`23
`
`
`
`TTanner Graphs Are Supported by Petitions
`
`Ex. 1206 [Davis Decl.] at ¶ 57
`
`IPR2017-00219
`
`Ex. 1265 [Frey Decl.] at ¶ 66
`
`Pet. at 18-19, 31, 45; Reply at 13
`24
`
`
`
`TTanner Graphs Are Supported by Petitions
`
`Pet. at 31
`
`the right have degree 14,
`
`For Code 14 all nodes on
`
`Ex. 1247
`
`IPR2017-00219
`
`Ex. 1204 [Luby] at 256
`Ex. 1206 [Davis Decl.] at 91, 512-514
`25
`
`
`
`TTanner Graphs Are Supported by Petitions
`
`Ex. 1246
`
`Pet. at 39
`
`IPR2017-00219
`
`Pet at 45; Ex. 1206 [Davis Decl.] at 77-78, 418-420
`26
`
`
`
`TTestimony of Dr. Davis and Dr. Frey Is Proper
`
`Ex. 1273 [Davis Decl.] at ¶ 2
`
`Ex. 1265 [Frey Decl.] at ¶ 16
`
`IPR2017-00219
`
`Reply at 2
`27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-00219
`
`Dated: April 16, 2018
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Michael Smith/
`
`
`
`Richard A. Goldenberg (No. 38,895)
`Dominic A. Massa (No. 44,905)
`Michael H. Smith (No. 71,190)
`Mark D. Selwyn (pro hac vice)
`James M. Dowd (pro hac vice)
`Kelvin Chan (No. 71,433)
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-00219
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on April 16, 2018, a true and correct copy of the
`
`following:
`
` Petitioner’s Demonstratives for Oral Argument
`was served via electronic mail upon the following attorneys of record:
`
`Michael Rosato (mrosato@wsgr.com)
`Matthew Argenti (margenti@wsgr.com)
`Richard Torczon (rtorczon@wsgr.com)
`Kevin P.B. Johnson (kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com)
`Todd M. Briggs (toddbriggs@quinnemanuel.com)
`
`
`/Kelvin Chan/
`
`Kelvin W. Chan (Reg. No. 71,433)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
