Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`April 19, 2018
`Apple, Inc. v. California Institute of Technology.
`Case No. IPR2017-00297
`
`CALTECH - EXHIBIT 2038
`Apple Inc. v. California Institute of Technology
`IPR2017-00297
`
`
`April 19, 2018
`Apple, Inc. v. California Institute of Technology.
`Case No. IPR2017-00297
`
`CALTECH - EXHIBIT 2038
`Apple Inc. v. California Institute of Technology
`IPR2017-00297
`
`
`
`Instituted Grounds
`IPR2017-00423*: Patent No. 7,916,781
`Ground
`Claims
`Basis
`Prior Art
`1
`13-15, 18, 22
`103
`Ping and MacKay
`IPR2017-00297: Patent No. 7,916,781
`2
`16
`103
`Ping, MacKay, Coombes
`*Consolidated with IPR2017-00297
`Ground
`Claims
`Basis
`Prior Art
`2
`19-21
`102
`Ping
`
`2
`
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00297
`
`
`
`POR 7-8, 21-23, 24-29, 37-39
`
`MacKay’s regular and irregular codes
`(cid:1)Regular codes: “[V]ery
`sparse random parity check
`matriceswith uniformweight
`t per column and trper row.”
`EX1002, p. 1449.
`(cid:1)Irregular codes: “[P]arity
`check matrices[that] have
`nonuniformweight per
`column.” Id.
`
`EX1002, p. 1450
`
`3
`
`EX1002, p. 1450
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00297
`
`
`
`Pet.’s rationale lacks logical underpinnings
`POR 23-29; Sur. 2-3
`“[A]ftercomparing ‘regular’ Gallagercodes (like those of
`Ping)against ‘irregular Gallagercodes’, MacKay concludes
`that making an LDPC code irregular improves performance.”
`(cid:1)Ping’s parity-check matrix has nonuniform column
`weights, and so is not a regular Gallagercode.
`423 Pet. 34
`EX 2033 (Davis Dep.) 231:11-14
`423 POPR 12
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00297
`
`4
`
`
`
`Ping’s parity-check matrix is nonuniform
`
`POR 24-29; Sur. 2
`
`Ping’s parity-check matrix; MM ¶84
`
`MacKay’s regular code; EX1002, p. 1450
`
`5
`
`MacKay’s irregular code; EX1002, p. 1450
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00297
`
`
`
`Ping’s Hdis not a parity-check matrix
`POR 19-20, 24, 27; Sur. 3
`(cid:1)Ping’s Hdcannot be used to determine whether a
`codewordis valid.
`EX1004 (423 Davis Decl.) ¶47 (cited by 423 Pet. 13)
`
`6
`
`EX 1003 (Ping) 38 (cited by MM ¶83)
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00297
`
`
`
`Ping’s Hdis not a parity-check matrix
`POR27, Sur. 3
`(cid:1)Petitioner’s expert admits that Ping’s Hdis not a parity-
`check matrix
`
`7
`
`EX 2033 (Davis Dep.) 217:18-218:5
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00297
`
`
`
`Pet.’s rationale lacks logical underpinnings
`POR 23-29, 45-47; Sur. 2-5
`“[S]traightforwardfor a [POSA] to change Ping’s generator Hd
`matrix such that not all columns had the same weight …
`This would have been an easy way for one of ordinary skill to
`incorporate the irregularity disclosed by MacKay into Ping.”
`(cid:1)Easiest way to “incorporate the irregularity” into Ping is
`to do nothing.
`423 Pet. 34
`(cid:1)MacKay does not teach modifying a submatrix.
`(cid:1)Modification destroys constraints of Ping.
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`8
`IPR2017-00297
`
`
`
`Ping’s structure improves on random LDPC
`codes (MacKay)
`
`POR 8-9, 30-33, 47-49
`
`9
`
`EX1003, p. 38
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00297
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s proposal violates Ping structure
`POR 8-9, 12, 30-33, 47-49; Sur. 4-5
`(cid:1)Ping’s Hdhas constraints for performance reasons
`
`(cid:1)Petitioner’s proposal violates these constraints but does
`not provide any rationale for doing so.
`EX1003, p. 38
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`10
`IPR2017-00297
`
`
`
`Proposed modification lacks specificity
`POR 39-43; Reply isoMTE 1
`“A large problem with the Petition and Dr. Davis’s obviousness argument
`is that they do not provide much if any specificityregarding how a
`person of ordinary skill would modify Ping in view of MacKay.”
`MM ¶110
`“A petition must identify its challenge ‘in writing and with particularity…’
`35 U.S.C. §312(a)(3); see also 37 C.F.R. §§42.22(a), 42.104(b)(4)-(5).
`(EX2004, ¶¶110-117).”
`(cid:1)Proposal: modify Ping’s Hdby “setting some columns to
`weight 9 and others to weight 3.” (423 Pet. 36)
`POR 40
`(cid:1)For a small codewordof 10,000 bits, there are 101500
`possibilities. MM ¶¶110-11.
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`11
`IPR2017-00297
`
`
`
`Untimely new reply theories
`Sur. 5-7
`(cid:1)Petitioner tries to cure this defect with brand new weight
`distribution patterns in its Reply.
`(cid:1)The pattern on the left has nonuniform row weights.
`(cid:1)The pattern on the right has column weights of 4, 5, and 9.
`
`12
`
`EX1049 ¶47
`
`EX1049 ¶59
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00297
`
`
`
`New experimental data is irrelevant
`Sur. 5-7
`(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)Inconsistent and cherry-picked 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
`13
`IPR2017-00297
`
`
`
`Sur. 5
`
`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)
`
`14
`
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00297
`
`
`
`Obviousness inquiry requires REOS
`POR 16-18, 44
`“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
`IPR2017-00297
`
`15
`
`
`
`Petition provided no analysis of REOS
`POR 16-18, 44; Sur. 5; Reply isoMTE 1
`(cid:1)The petitions provided no analysis as to whether the
`proposed combinations would have a reasonable
`expectation of success or yield predictable results.
`“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
`IPR2017-00297
`
`16
`
`
`
`Unpredictability is undisputed
`POR 5-7, 44-49; Sur. 5; 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
`(cid:1)Unpredictability contradicts any assertion that suggested
`modification would have been “straightforward.”
`Reply 9
`(cid:1)See also MM ¶¶46-49, 118-123.
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`17
`IPR2017-00297
`
`
`
`Unpredictability is undisputed
`POR8, 46-47
`(cid:1)Even in MacKay’s small test sample, several irregular
`codes resulted in highly undesirable error floors.
`
`EX 1002 (MacKay) 1450, 1452
`
`18
`
`EX 2033 (Davis Dep.) 261:17-262:13
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00297
`
`
`
`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).
`
`19
`
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00297
`
`
`
`Objective Indicia
`
`
`
`Objective Indicia
`
`20
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2017-00297
`
`21
`
`
`
`IRA codes used successfully in industry
`
`POR 51-52
`
`22
`
`MM ¶139
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00297
`
`
`
`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.
`23
`
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00297
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2017-00297
`
`24
`
`
`
`Praise for IRA codes
`
`25
`
`POR 57-59
`
`EX2008, p. 196
`
`EX2010, p. 23
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00297
`
`
`
`DVB-S2 performance credited to IRA codes
`
`POR 53
`
`EX2006, p. 1
`
`EX2007, p. 1
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00297
`
`26
`
`
`
`DVB-S2’s commercial success
`
`POR 60-62
`
`EX2013, p. 2
`
`27
`
`EX2014, p. 1
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00297
`
`
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
