Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 76
`
`
`
` Entered: December 27, 2018
`
`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 B1
`____________
`
`
`Before KEN B. BARRETT, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
`JOHN A. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 76
`
`
`
` Entered: December 27, 2018
`
`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 B1
`____________
`
`
`Before KEN B. BARRETT, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
`JOHN A. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00219
`Patent 7,116,710 B1
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner, Apple, Inc. (“Apple”), filed a Petition (Paper 5, “Pet.”)
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–8, 10–17, and 19–33 of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,116,710 B1 (Ex. 1201, “the ’710 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 311–319. Patent Owner, California Institute of Technology (“Caltech”),
`filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 16, “Prelim. Resp.”) to the Petition.
`We instituted an inter partes review on claims 1–8, 11–17, 19–22, and
`24–33 of the ’710 patent on certain grounds of unpatentability presented.
`(Paper 17, “Inst. Dec.”). Caltech filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 34,
`“PO Resp.”), and Apple filed a Petitioner Reply (Paper 45, “Pet. Reply”).
`Caltech also filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 61, “PO Sur-Reply”), as was
`authorized by our Order of March 2, 2018 (Paper 54). An oral hearing was
`held on April 19, 2018, and a transcript of the hearing is included in the
`record. Paper 71 (“Tr.”).
`Petitioner filed a Declaration of James A. Davis, Ph.D. (Ex. 1206)
`submitted with its Petition and a Declaration of Brendan Frey, Ph.D.
`(Ex. 1265) submitted with its Petitioner’s Reply. Patent Owner filed
`Declarations of Dr. Dariush Divsalar (Ex. 2031) and Dr. Michael
`Mitzenmacher (Ex. 2004) with its Response.
`As authorized in our Order of February 10, 2018 (Paper 47), Patent
`Owner filed a motion for sanctions (Paper 49) related to Petitioner’s cross-
`examination of Patent Owner’s witnesses, Dr. Mitzenmacher and
`Dr. Divsalar, and Petitioner filed an opposition (Paper 51).
`In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute, Inc. v.
`Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018), we modified our Institution Decision to
`institute on all of the challenged claims and all of the grounds. Paper 68.
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00219
`Patent 7,116,710 B1
`Subsequently, the parties filed a joint motion to limit the Petitions to the
`claims and grounds that were originally instituted. Paper 70. We granted
`their motion. Paper 72. As a result, the remaining instituted claims and
`grounds are the same as they had been at the time of the Institution Decision.
`See id. at 2.
`The one-year period normally available to issue a Final Written
`Decision was extended under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c). Paper 74, 1–2.
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This decision is a Final
`Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of
`claims 1–8, 11–17, 19–22, and 24–33 of the ’710 patent. For the reasons
`discussed below, Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the
`evidence that claims that claims 1–8, 11–17, 19–22, and 24–33 are
`unpatentable.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`The parties indicate that the ’710 patent was involved in the following
`active case, Cal. Inst. of Tech. v. Broadcom Ltd., No. 2:16-cv-03714 (C.D.
`Cal. filed May 26, 2016), and in concluded cases, Cal. Inst. of Tech. v.
`Hughes Commc’ns, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-01108 (C.D. Cal. filed Feb. 17, 2015);
`and Cal. Inst. of Tech. v. Hughes Commc’ns, Inc., 2:13-cv-07245 (C.D. Cal.
`filed Oct. 1, 2013). Pet. 3, Paper 8, 2–3.
`The parties also identify co-pending case IPR2017-00210, in which
`Apple filed a petition for inter partes review of the ’710 patent. Pet. 3;
`Paper 8, 2–3. The Board previously denied petitions for inter partes review
`of the ’710 patent in Hughes Network Sys. v. Cal. Inst. of Tech., Case
`IPR2015-00067 (PTAB April 27, 2015) (Paper 18) (“IPR2015-00067”) and
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00219
`Patent 7,116,710 B1
`Hughes Network Sys. v. Cal. Inst. of Tech., Case IPR2015-00068 (PTAB
`April 27, 2015) (Paper 18) (“IPR2015-00068”). Finally, certain patents
`related to the ’710 patent were challenged in IPR2015-00059, IPR2015-
`00060, IPR2015-00061, and IPR2015-00081. Pet. 3. A Final Written
`Decision cancelling claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 7,916,781 B2 was
`issued in Hughes Network Sys. v. Cal. Inst. of Tech., Case IPR2015-00059
`(PTAB April 21, 2016) (Paper 42).
`
`B. The ʼ710 Patent
`The ’710 patent describes the serial concatenation of interleaved
`convolutional codes forming turbo-like codes. Ex. 1201, Title. It explains
`some of the prior art with reference to its Fig. 1, reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 is a schematic diagram of a prior “turbo code” system. Id. at 2:14–
`15. The ’710 patent specification describes Figure 1 as follows:
`
`A standard turbo coder 100 is shown in FIG. 1. A block
`of k information bits is input directly to a first coder 102. A
`k bit interleaver 106 also receives the k bits and interleaves
`them prior to applying them to a second coder 104. The second
`coder produces an output that has more bits than its input, that
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00219
`Patent 7,116,710 B1
`is, it is a coder with rate that is less than 1. The coders 102,104
`are typically recursive convolutional coders.
`Three different items are sent over the channel 150: the
`original k bits, first encoded bits 110, and second encoded bits
`112. At the decoding end, two decoders are used: a first
`constituent decoder 160 and a second constituent decoder 162.
`Each receives both the original k bits, and one of the encoded
`portions 110, 112. Each decoder sends likelihood estimates of
`the decoded bits to the other decoders. The estimates are used
`to decode the uncoded information bits as corrupted by the
`noisy channel.
`Id. at 1:38–53 (emphasis omitted).
`A coder 200, according to a first embodiment of the invention, is
`described with respect to Figure 2, reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 2 of the ’710 patent is a schematic diagram of coder 200. Id. at 2:16–
`17.
`
`The specification states that “coder 200 may include an outer coder
`202, an interleaver 204, and inner coder 206.” Id. at 2:34–35. It further
`states as follows.
`The outer coder 202 receives uncoded data. The data
`may be partitioned into blocks of fixed size, say k bits. The
`outer coder may be an (n,k) binary linear block coder, where
`n>k. The coder accepts as input a block u of k data bits and
`produces an output block v of n data bits. The mathematical
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00219
`Patent 7,116,710 B1
`relationship between u and v is v=T0u, where T0 is an n×k
`matrix, and the rate[1] of the coder is k/n.
`The rate of the coder may be irregular, that is, the value
`of T0 is not constant, and may differ for sub-blocks of bits in the
`data block. In an embodiment, the outer coder 202 is a repeater
`that repeats the k bits in a block a number of times q to produce
`a block with n bits, where n=qk. Since the repeater has an
`irregular output, different bits in the block may be repeated a
`different number of times. For example, a fraction of the bits in
`the block may be repeated two times, a fraction of bits may be
`repeated three times, and the remainder of bits may be repeated
`four times. These fractions define a degree sequence, or degree
`profile, of the code.
`The inner coder 206 may be a linear rate-1 coder, which
`means that then-bit output block x can be written as x=TIw,
`where TI is a nonsingular n×n matrix. The inner coder 210 can
`have a rate that is close to 1, e.g., within 50%, more preferably
`10% and perhaps even more preferably within 1% of 1.
`Id. at 2:41–64 (emphasis omitted). Codes characterized by a regular repeat
`of message bits into a resulting codeword are referred to as “regular repeat,”
`whereas codes characterized by irregular repeat of message bits into a
`resulting codeword are referred to as “irregular repeat.” The second
`(“inner”) encoder 206 performs an “accumulate” function. Thus, the two
`step encoding process illustrated in Figure 2, including a first encoding
`(“outer encoding”) followed by a second encoding (“inner encoding”),
`results in either a “regular repeat accumulate” (“RRA”) code or an “irregular
`repeat accumulate (“IRA”) code, depending upon whether the repetition in
`the first encoding is regular or irregular.
`
`
`1 The “rate” of an encoder refers to the ratio of the number of input bits to
`the number of resulting encoded output bits related to those input bits. See
`Pet. 9.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00219
`Patent 7,116,710 B1
`Figure 4 of the ’710 patent, reproduced below, shows an alternative
`embodiment in which the first encoding is carried out by a low density
`generator matrix.
`
`
`
`Figure 4 of the ’710 patent is a schematic of an irregular repeat and
`accumulate coder using a low density generator matrix (LDGM)2 coder. Id.
`at 2:20–21, 3:25. The LDGM coder “performs an irregular repeat of the k
`bits in the block, as shown in FIG. 4.” Id. at 3:52–54. LDGM codes are a
`special class of low density parity check codes that allow for less encoding
`and decoding complexity. LDGM codes are systematic linear codes
`generated by a “sparse” generator matrix. No interleaver (as in the Figure 2
`embodiment) is required in the Figure 4 embodiment because the LDGM
`provides scrambling otherwise provided by the interleaver.
`
`
`2 A “generator” matrix (typically referred to by “G”) is used to create
`(generate) codewords. A parity check matrix (typically referred to by “H”)
`is used to decode a received message.
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00219
`Patent 7,116,710 B1
`
`C. Challenged Claims
`We instituted challenges on claims 1–8, 10–17, and 19–33 of the
`’710 patent, of which claims 1, 11, 15, and 25 are independent. Inst.
`Dec 25; Pet. 21. Claims 1, 3, and 11 are illustrative and reproduced below:
`1. A method of encoding a signal, comprising:
`obtaining a block of data in the signal to be encoded;
`partitioning said data block into a plurality of sub-blocks,
`each sub-block including a plurality of data elements;
`first encoding the data block to from a first encoded data
`block, said first encoding including repeating the data elements
`in different sub-blocks a different number of times;
`interleaving the repeated data elements in the first encoded
`data block; and
`second encoding said first encoded data block using an
`encoder that has a rate close to one.
`3.
`The method of claim 1, wherein said first encoding is
`carried out by a first coder with a variable rate less than one, and
`said second encoding is carried out by a second coder with a rate
`substantially close to one.
`11. A method of encoding a signal, comprising:
`receiving a block of data in the signal to be encoded, the
`data block including a plurality of bits;
`first encoding the data block such that each bit in the data
`block is repeated and two or more of said plurality of bits are
`repeated a different number of times in order to form a first
`encoded data block; and
`second encoding the first encoded data block in such a way
`that bits in the first encoded data block are accumulated.
`Ex. 1201, 7:14–25, 7:28–31, 7:50–59.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00219
`Patent 7,116,710 B1
`D. The Remaining Grounds of Unpatentability
`The following instituted grounds remain at issue in this case (Inst.
`Dec. 25; Paper 72, 2):
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`1–8 and 11–14
`15–17, 19–22, and 24–33
`
`References
`Basis
`Divsalar3 and Luby4
`§ 103(a)
`Divsalar, Luby, and Luby975
`§ 103(a)
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Interpretation
`Because this inter partes review is based on a petition filed before
`November 13, 2018, we construe the claims by applying the broadest
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`(2016); see Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46
`(2016). In applying a broadest reasonable construction, claim terms
`generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257
`(Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth in
`
`
`3 Dariush Divsalar, et al., Coding Theorems for “Turbo-Like” Codes,
`PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRTY-SIXTH ANNUAL ALLERTON CONFERENCE ON
`COMMUNICATION, CONTROL, AND COMPUTING, Sept. 23–25, 1998, at 201–
`209 (Ex. 1203, “Divsalar”).
`4 “Luby, M., et al, Analysis of Low Density Codes and Improved Designs
`Using Irregular Graphs, PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRTIETH ANNUAL ACM
`SYMPOSIUM ON THEORY OF COMPUTING, May 23–26, 1997, at 249–258 (Ex.
`1204, “Luby”).
`5 Luby, M. et al., Practical Loss-Resilient Codes, PROCEEDINGS OF THE
`TWENTY-NINTH ANNUAL ACM SYMPOSIUM ON THEORY OF COMPUTING,
`May 4–6, 1997, at 150–159 (Ex. 1211, “Luby97”).
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00219
`Patent 7,116,710 B1
`the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`1. “close to one” (claims 1 and 3)
`Petitioner argues that the broadest reasonable construction of “close to
`one” as recited in claims 1 and 3 is “within 50% of one.” Pet. 24–25.
`Petitioner argues that this is consistent with the ’710 patent specification,
`which states that the inner code 210 of Figure 1, “can have a rate that is
`close to one, e.g., within 50%, more preferably 10% and perhaps even more
`preferably within 1% of 1.” Pet. 24–25 (quoting Ex. 1201, 2:62–64 and
`citing Ex. 1206 ¶¶ 102–103) (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner does not
`provide an express claim construction in this proceeding. In related
`proceeding IPR2017-00210, Patent Owner argues that the term “close to
`one” does not require construction and that the ’710 patent explains that the
`rate of a coder is the number of input bits divided by the number of output
`bits. IPR2017-00210, Paper 35, 18.
`We determine that “close to one” as recited in the challenged claims is
`construed as “within 50% of one.”
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner cites Dr. Davis’s testimony that “[a] person of ordinary skill
`in the art is a person with a Ph.D. in mathematics, electrical or computer
`engineering, or computer science with emphasis in signal processing,
`communications, or coding, or a master’s degree in the above area with
`at least three years of work experience in this field at the time of the alleged
`invention.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1206, ¶ 95). Patent Owner expresses no
`position on the level of ordinary skill in the art, but their declarant,
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00219
`Patent 7,116,710 B1
`Dr. Mitzenmacher, applies the same standard advanced by Petitioner.
`Ex. 2004 ¶ 70.
` We determine that Petitioner’s proposed definition comports with the
`qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the
`teachings of the ’710 patent and the prior art of record. Accordingly, we
`apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`C. Obviousness based on Luby and Divsalar: Claims 1–8 and 11–14
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–8 and 11–14 would have been
`obvious over the combination of Divsalar and Luby. Pet. 42–60 (citing
`Ex. 1206 ¶¶ 399–456). Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s contentions. PO
`Resp. 19–47.
`
`1. Divsalar
`Divsalar discloses “turbo-like” coding systems that are built from
`fixed convolutional codes interconnected with random interleavers,
`including both parallel concatenated convolutional codes and serial
`concatenated convolutional codes as special cases. Ex. 1203, 1. With fixed
`component codes and interconnection topology, Divsalar demonstrates that
`as the block length approaches infinity, the ensemble (over all possible
`interleavers) maximum likelihood error probability approaches zero, if the
`ratio of energy per bit to noise power spectral density exceeds some
`threshold. Id.
`The general class of concatenated coding systems is depicted in
`Figure 1 of Divsalar as follows:
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00219
`Patent 7,116,710 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates that encoders C2, C3, and C4 are preceded by
`interleavers (permuters) P2, P3, and P4, except C1, which is connected to an
`input rather than an interleaver. Id. at 2–3. The overall structure must have
`no loops and, therefore, is called a “turbo-like” code. Id.
`Divsalar further discloses that “turbo-like” codes are repeat and
`accumulate (RA) codes. Id. at 5. The general scheme is depicted in
`Figure 3 as follows:
`
`
`Figure 3 illustrates that information block of length N is repeated q
`times, scrambled by interleaver of size qN, and then encoded by a rate 1
`accumulator. Id. The accumulator can be viewed as a truncated rate-1
`recursive convolutional encoder. Id. Figure 3 further illustrates a simple
`class of rate 1/q serially concatenated codes where the outer code is a q-fold
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00219
`Patent 7,116,710 B1
`repetition code and the inner code is a rate 1 convolutional code with a
`transfer function 1/(1+ D). Id. at 1, 5.
`2. Luby
`Luby discloses derivation of irregular random graphs that improve
`upon the performance of Gallager’s low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes,
`and finds that irregular codes described in the paper resulted in codes with
`improved error correcting capabilities. Ex. 1204, 257. Luby discloses that
`irregular codes are represented by random irregular bipartite graphs, while
`regular codes are represented using regular graphs derived from Gallager
`codes based on sparse bipartite graphs. Id. at 249.
`Luby discloses that irregular codes are those represented by bipartite
`graphs in which different message nodes have different degrees (i.e., where
`different message nodes are connected to different numbers of check nodes).
`Luby. Id. at 257. Luby further states that message nodes with high degree
`tend to correct their value quickly and then provide good information for
`check nodes. Id. at 253.
`
`3. Analysis
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–8 and 11–14 would have been
`obvious over the combination of Divsalar and Luby. Pet. 34–55 (citing Ex.
`1206 ¶¶ 127–456). Petitioner contends that Luby was a significant advance
`in error-correcting codes using irregularity to design codes that were
`superior to regular codes. Id. at 34–35. Petitioner cites Frey,6 which credits
`Luby for providing motivation to study irregular codes, in particular citing
`
`6 Brendan J. Frey and David J.C. MacKay, Irregular Turbocodes,
`PROCEEDINGS OF THE 37TH ALLERTON CONFERENCE ON COMMUNICATION,
`CONTROL, AND COMPUTING (1999) at 241–248 (Ex. 1202, “Frey).
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00219
`Patent 7,116,710 B1
`Luby’s advancements regarding irregular Gallager codes. Id. at 35 (citing
`Ex. 1202, 1 (discussing Luby as reference [1])). Petitioner notes that Luby
`is expressly discussed as motivation to incorporate irregularity into turbo-
`like codes, and identifies the codes in Divsalar as such turbo-like codes. Id.
`(citing Ex. 1206 ¶ 401). Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill
`following Frey “would have understood that incorporating irregularity into
`RA codes would be even more likely to produce favorable results. Id. at 36
`(citing Ex. 1206 ¶ 403). Petitioner also relies on the Khandekar thesis (Ex.
`1218), a thesis written by a co-inventor of the ’710 patent, to support the
`rationale to combine Divsalar and Luby. Pet. 35. Finally, Petitioner argues
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Luby and
`Divsalar “for research” purposes to “study irregularity.” Id. at 36.
`Petitioner argues that incorporating irregularity into Divsalar’s RA
`codes would have been a simple matter, accomplished in a number of ways
`requiring minimal modification. Pet. 37–38. Petitioner argues that each of
`their proposed modifications would have been a routine matter for an
`ordinarily skilled artisan. Id.; Ex. 1206 ¶ 407.
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s articulated rationale is
`insufficient to support the motivation to combine the Divsalar and Luby as
`Petitioner proposes. PO Resp. 30–47. Patent Owner first asserts that Luby
`does not teach irregular repetition of information bits because Luby’s
`irregularity is different than the ’710 patent’s irregular repetition of
`information bits. PO Resp. 26, 30–31; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 96–97 (testimony from
`Dr. Mitzenmacher, a coauthor of Luby reference, distinguishing the
`irregularity discussed in Luby from the irregularity of the ’710 patent).
`Thus, Patent Owner argues that Luby would not have motivated a person of
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00219
`Patent 7,116,710 B1
`ordinary skill to modify Divsalar. PO Resp. 31–32. Indeed, Petitioner’s
`expert, Dr. Davis, struggled to define irregularity as it was used in Luby and
`could not determine whether Luby’s irregularity was depicted in an example
`from his own testimony. Id. (citing Ex. 2033 181:4–183:9; 194:4–18).
`Patent Owner also argues that “[g]iven the limited scope of Luby’s findings,
`a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would not be motivated to modify
`Divsalar in any way based on Luby.” PO Resp. 33 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 98–
`100). Patent Owner further asserts that “there was nothing simple about
`developing improved error-correcting codes, and many advancements in the
`field were the product of laborious experimentation and surprising,
`unexpected and unpredictable results.” PO Resp. 37 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 46,
`49–50, 53, 104–107); see also Ex. 2031 ¶¶ 9–13, 33–34.
`Finally, Patent Owner argues that the petition fails to make a
`sufficient showing that the obviousness combination would have had a
`reasonable expectation of success. PO Resp. 44–45 (citing Intelligent Bio-
`Sys. v. Illumina Cambridge, 821 F.3d 1359, 1367–68 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
`Patent Owner asserts that the evidence shows “that developing error-
`correction codes that showed an improvement was challenging and
`unpredictable.” PO Resp. 45 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 116–117; Ex. 2033,
`256:21–257:12; Ex. 2031 ¶ 33–35). Indeed, Patent Owner presents
`persuasive argument and evidence that the combinations proposed by
`Petitioner would not have been simple substitutions or modifications with a
`reasonable expectation of success. PO Resp. 45–47.
`We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not established that an
`ordinarily skilled artisan reasonably would have expected success from the
`combination of Divsalar and Luby. See PO Resp. 44–45. We also agree
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00219
`Patent 7,116,710 B1
`with Patent Owner that neither Frey (Ex. 1202) nor the Khandekar thesis
`(Ex. 1218) sufficiently or persuasively support modifications to Divsalar in
`view of Luby or a reasonable expectation of success in making those
`modifications. PO Resp. 35–37, 39–44.
`The Khandekar thesis (Ex. 1218) fails to support the combination of
`references. Petitioner provides no arguments or evidence that explains how
`the thesis supports its contention about how or why a person of ordinary skill
`in the art would have modified or combined Luby and Divsalar at the time of
`the ’710 patent. Moreover, Petitioner has not explained adequately why or
`how the thesis of a co-inventor of the ’710 patent, which postdates the
`’710 patent’s priority date, is timely corroborating evidence of how a person
`of ordinary skill in the art would have applied Luby’s teachings to Divsalar
`at the time of patenting. See Pet. 45; Inst. Dec. 25. We also find Petitioner’s
`argument and evidence regarding research motivating the combination to be
`vague and not supported adequately by the declarant testimony (Ex. 1206
`¶ 405).
`With respect to Frey,7 Patent Owner argues that Frey did not show
`superior results for all error codes, and instead showed that most irregular
`codes were inferior to other codes. PO Resp. 36–37; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 102–103.
`Patent Owner contends that a person of skill in the art would not have been
`motivated to apply aspects of Frey with a reasonable expectation of success
`
`
`7 Patent Owner’s contention that Frey is not a prior art publication (PO Resp.
`36) is not persuasive. Our Final Written Decision in IPR2017-00210
`considered and rejected Patent Owner’s argument that the ’710 patent
`inventors conceived and reduced the ’710 patent invention before the
`March 20, 2000, publication date of Frey. IPR2017-00210, Paper 77.
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00219
`Patent 7,116,710 B1
`based on Frey only showing improvement in one out of nine profiles. PO
`Resp. 37. We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that Petitioner’s
`reliance on Frey to does not cure the Petitioner’s deficiencies in addressing a
`reasonable expectation of success.
`Petitioner’s argument in response acknowledges the missing
`expectation of success evidence by turning to the experimental nature of the
`field as being routine practice. Pet. Reply 9. Petitioner states that
`[a]s [Patent Owner] concedes, rigorous mathematical analysis of
`codes is difficult, and, as a result, POSAs routinely developed
`codes by experimentation. POR, 2. Encouraged by Luby’s
`results, a POSA would have been motivated to use Luby’s
`irregularity in Divsalar. The Petition showed that POSAs would
`have had an expectation of success because it was simple to
`modify Divsalar to repeat information bits different numbers of
`times, which meets the limitations of the claimed invention. Pet.,
`37-41. . . . Dr. Mitzenmacher agreed that that [simply] repeating
`some bits in Divsalar “q+10” times and others “q” times would
`make the code irregular. Ex. 1262, 153:11-154:8.
`Pet. Reply 9–10 (emphasis added). To support this contention, Petitioner
`introduces new testimony and simulations from a new declarant, Dr. Frey, to
`confirm that using Frey’s irregularity in Divsalar would not have been
`difficult and would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success. Id. at
`10–11 (citing Ex. 1265).
`Even if we were to deem the testimony and simulation from Dr. Frey
`to be within the proper scope of a reply brief,8 they do not support a
`reasonable expectation of success at the time of the invention. We agree
`
`
`8 We need not reach this issue, because we do not rely on this evidence in a
`manner adverse to Patent Owner. See infra § III.A. (dismissing Patent
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude as moot on the same basis).
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00219
`Patent 7,116,710 B1
`with Patent Owner that “[i]t is completely irrelevant what Dr. Frey claims he
`could do in the year 2018 when armed with Caltech’s patent disclosures and
`publications, [the inventor’s] original coding work, contemporary resources,
`(e.g., Dr. Frey (¶51) used Matlab, a software program that received over 35
`version updates since May 2000), and 18 years of post-filing date
`knowledge” PO Sur-Reply 7. Because this evidence is not tied to the state
`of the art at the time of the invention, it is not probative of anticipated
`success. See Millennium Pharm., Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 862 F.3d 1356, 1367
`(Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d
`1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 1985)) (“Those charged with determining compliance
`with 35 U.S.C. § 103 are required to place themselves in the minds of those
`of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time the invention was made, to
`determine whether that which is now plainly at hand would have been
`obvious at such earlier time.” (emphasis added)).
`As part of our obviousness analysis, we consider “the scope and
`content of the prior art.” See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18
`(1966). In this regard, we credit Patent Owner’s testimony and evidence that
`an important aspect of the art in this case is the relative unpredictability of
`developing error-correction codes. See PO Resp. 5–6, 45–46 (citing Ex.
`2004 ¶¶ 116–117; Ex. 2033, 256:21–257:12) (“The field of error correction
`coding has historically been characterized by significant experimentation
`and unpredictable results . . . . Even when well-performing codes are
`identified, the reasons for the improved performance are often not
`understood.”)); Ex. 2004 ¶ 47.
`We do not agree with Petitioner that the need to run experiments in an
`unpredictable field, such as error-correction coding, indicates anything about
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00219
`Patent 7,116,710 B1
`whether such experiments ultimately would have been successful at the time
`of the invention. Importantly, “[u]npredictability of results equates more
`with nonobviousness rather than obviousness, whereas that which is
`predictable is more likely to be obvious.” Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Mexichem
`Amanco Holding S.A., 865 F.3d 1348, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2017). In the absence
`of any evidence rooted in the Petition that substantiates a reasonable
`expectation of success, Petitioner’s reliance on a known need for
`experimentation is not sufficient to support its obviousness rationale.9 See
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prod. Inc., 876 F.3d 1350,
`1360–61 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]here a party argues a skilled artisan would
`have been motivated to combine references, it must show the artisan would
`have had a reasonable expectation of success from doing so.” (internal
`quotation omitted)).
`We are also not persuaded by Petitioner’s deposition testimony of
`Dr. Divsalar as confirmation that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`have been motivated to combine Divsalar and Frey. Pet. Reply 12–13
`(citing Ex. 1264). Dr. Divsalar’s testimony does not address the expectation
`of success for the modifications to Divsalar proposed by Petitioner. PO Sur-
`Reply 6; Ex. 2031 ¶¶ 33–35; Ex. 1264 60:1–21, 183:15–186:20.
`
`
`9 Petitioner does not contend that its proposed combination should be
`analyzed under obvious-to-try case law. Cf. Tr., 14:1–6 (Petitioner
`acknowledging that it was not putting forth an obvious-to-try argument).
`Nor could Petitioner, because Petitioner does not develop an obvious-to-try
`theory. Specifically, Petitioner does not establish that the prior art directs
`which parameters to try and/or guides an inventor toward a particular
`solution. See Bayer Schering Pharma AG v. Barr Labs., Inc., 575 F.3d
`1341, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00219
`Patent 7,116,710 B1
`Furthermore, the alleged email from Dr. Frey to Dr. Divsalar suggesting
`further work on irregular turbocodes (Pet. Reply 12; Ex. 1264, 183:15–
`186:20) does not indicate an expectation that a particular irregular code
`would prove successful. As discussed above, the unpredictable nature of the
`field and need for experimentation for error correcting codes does not
`resolve the need to address the expectation of success for a proposed
`modification or combination. Dr. Divsalar’s deposition testimony does not
`persuasively address Petitioner’s lack of expectation of success evidence and
`argument.
`For these reasons, we are not persuaded that an ordinarily skilled
`artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Divsalar and
`Luby in the manner suggested by Petitioner. Thus, we determine Petitioner
`has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–8 and 11–
`14 would have been obvious over the combination of Divsalar and Luby.
`
`D. Obviousness based on Divsalar, Luby, and Luby97:
`Claims 15—17, 19–22, and 24–33
`Petitioner contends that claims 15–17, 19–22, and 24–33 would have
`been obvious over the combination of Divsalar, Luby, and Luby97. Pet. 55–
`69 (citing Ex. 1206 ¶¶ 457–503). Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s
`contentions. PO Resp. 48–50.
`1. Luby97 (Ex. 1211)
`Luby97 describes randomized constructions of linear-time encodable
`and decodable codes that can transmit over lossy channels at rates extremely
`close to capacity.” Ex. 1211, Abstract. Luby97 describes receiving data to
`be encoded in a stream of data symbols, such as bits, where the “stream of
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00219
`Patent 7,116,710 B1
`data symbols [] is partitioned and transmitted in logical units of blocks.” Id.
`at 150 (emphasis added).
`
`2. Analysis
`Building upon the reasoning offered to combine Divsalar and Luby,
`Petitioner contends that
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
