UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LG Electronics, Inc.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`FastVDO LLC
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 5,850,482
`
`Inter Partes Review No.
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`la-1320122
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`I. NOTICES AND STATEMENTS ...................................................................... 1
`II. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 4
`III. BACKGROUND ON DATA ENCODING ......................................................... 4
`A. Source Coding ........................................................................................... 4
`1. Three Steps of Source Coding ........................................................... 5
`2. Prefix Codes ...................................................................................... 6
`B. Channel Coding ............................................................................................. 6
`IV. THE ’482 PATENT ............................................................................................. 8
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................. 9
`A. Relevant Law on Means-Plus-Function Limitations ............................... 10
`B. Constructions of Means-Plus-Function Limitations .............................. 10
`1. “Error protection means” (Claims 7, 22) ........................................ 10
`2. “Code word generating means” (Claims 7, 22) .............................. 11
`3. “Entropy coding means” (Claims 8 and 23) ................................... 15
`4. “First data link transmitting means” / “Second data link
`transmitting means” (Claims 11 and 26) ......................................... 16
`C. Other Claim Terms .................................................................................. 17
`1. “Information within the first portion” (Claims 1, 7, 12, 22) / “the
`first portion of each code word includes information representative”
`(Claim 28) ........................................................................................ 17
`2. Data link (Claims 6, 11, 17, 26) ...................................................... 17
`VI. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE ............................................................ 19
`
`la-1320122
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`A. Ground 1 – Obviousness Based on Kato ................................................ 20
`1. Background of Kato
`20
`2. Kato Renders Claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-17, 22-26, and 28-29 Obvious
`22
`B. Ground 2 – Obviousness Based on Admitted Prior Art to Fiala in View
`of Fazel and Fazel ’622 .......................................................................... 51
`1. Summary of Fiala
`52
`2. Summary of Fazel
`52
`3. Summary of Fazel ’622
`54
`4. Fiala in View of Fazel and Fazel ’622 Renders Claims 1-3, 5-14,
`16-17, 22-26, and 28-29 Obvious ................................................... 55
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 67
`
`la-1320122
`
`i i
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Appendix of Exhibits for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,850,482
`
`Exhibit Description
`U.S. Patent No. 5,850,482 to Meany et al. [referenced as “the
`’482 patent” or, simply, “’482”]
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Lippman [referenced as “Lippman”]
`(includes Dr. Lippman’s CV as Exhibit A thereto)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,392,037 to Kato [referenced as “Kato”]
`E. Fiala et al., Data Compression with Finite Windows, Communications
`of the ACM, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 490-505 (1989) [referenced as “Fiala”]
`K. Fazel et al., Application of Unequal Error Protection Codes on
`Combined Source-Channel Coding of Images, International Conference
`on Communications, Including SuperComm Technical Sessions (IEEE),
`Atlanta, April 15 19, 1990, Vol. 3, pp. 898-903 [referenced as “Fiala”]
`U.S. Patent No. 5,218,622 to Fazel et. al. [referenced as “Fiala”]
`Wallace, “The JPEG Still Picture Compression Standard,”
`IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, Vol. 38, No. 1,
`Feb. 1992[referenced as “Wallace”]
`Lin, “Codes with Multi-Level Error-Correcting Capabilities,” Discrete
`Mathematics 83 (1990), pp. 301-14 [referenced as “Lin”]
`Printout from Wiley & Sons website showing that R.G. Gallager,
`Information Theory and Reliable Communication (1968) is a 608-
`page book (http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-
`0471290483.html)
`January 26, 1998 Amendment in prosecution history of ’482 patent
`June 1, 2016 FastVDO First Amended Preliminary Claim Constructions
`in pending litigation on ’482 patent
`June 9, 2016 email exchange with FastVDO re claim construction
`
`*Prior art relied upon as grounds for unpatentability in this Petition.
`
`Ex. #
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003*
`
`1004*
`
`1005*
`
`1006*
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`la-1320122
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner LG Electronics, Inc. ( “Petitioner”) respectfully petition for inter
`
`partes review of claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-17, 22-26, and 28-29 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,850,482 (“the ’482 patent” (Ex. 1001)) in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`I.
`
`NOTICES AND STATEMENTS
`
`A.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), LG Electronics, Inc. and LG
`
`Electronics U.S.A, Inc. are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioner identifies the following
`
`related cases in which the ’482 patent has been asserted, some of which
`
`are no longer pending:
`
` FastVDO LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00385
`Terminated 2/19/16
`
` FastVDO LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00386
`
`Active
`
` FastVDO LLC v. NEC Corp. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00389
`
`Terminated 4/29/16
`
`FastVDO LLC v. Nokia Corp. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00390
`
`Terminated 1/6/17 but identified as FastVDO LLC v. Microsoft Mobile)
`
` FastVDO LLC v. ZTE Corp. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00394 Active
`
` FastVDO LLC v. Dell Inc. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00395 Active
`
`
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
` FastVDO LLC v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 3:16-
`
`00396 Active
`
`FastVDO LLC v. LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc, Case 3:16-
`
`cv-02499-H-WVG Active
`
`
`
`Petitioners are defendants in the second-listed case FastVDO LLC v. LG
`
`Electronics, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00386 . Each of the above-listed cases,
`
`except the last, were originally filed in the Eastern District of Texas in early June
`
`2015, before being transferred in a February 11, 2016 Order to the Southern District
`
`of California, where they are currently pending.
`
` C. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), Petitioner identifies the following as their
`
`counsel (and a power of attorney accompanies this Petition):
`
`Lead Counsel
`David N. Makous
`dmakous@lhlaw.com
`Registration No.: 29,559
`LeeHongDegermanKangWaimey
`660 S. Figueroa St, Suite 2300
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543
`Tel: (213) 244-7064
`Fax: (213) 623-2211
`
`
`
`Backup Counsel
`Jonathan Kang
`jkang@lhlaw.com
`Registration No.: 38,199
`LeeHongDegermanKangWaimey
`660 S. Figueroa St, Suite 2300
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543
`Tel: (213) 244-7064
`Fax: (213) 623-2211
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4), service information for lead and back-up
`counsel is provided above. Petitioner consents to electronic service by email to
`patent@lhlaw.com.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ’482 patent is
`
`2
`
`

`
`available for inter partes review. Petitioner was first served with a Complaint
`
`alleging infringement of the ’482 patent on June 17, 2015. Concurrently with this
`
`petition, Petitioner is submitting a request for joinder to instituted IPR 2016-01203
`
`and thus, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), Petitioner is not barred or estopped
`
`from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent claims on the grounds
`
`identified in this Petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`la-1320122
`
`

`
`
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`The ’482 patent is directed to a method and apparatus of encoding data. It
`
`issued on December 15, 1998 from an application filed on April 17, 1996. The
`
`patent expired April 17, 2016.
`
`Section III of this Petition discusses the background of data encoding.
`
`Section IV summarizes the ’482 patent, while Section V discusses claim
`
`construction. Section VI sets forth the detailed grounds for unpatentability in view
`
`of certain prior art (Exhibits 1003-1006). This showing is accompanied by the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Lippman (“Lippman”; Ex. 1002). Accordingly,
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests a Decision to institute inter partes review.
`
`III. BACKGROUND ON DATA ENCODING
`
`Data encoding is the process of representing data in a different form,
`
`generally to reduce the amount of information that is necessary to represent the
`
`original data when it is to be transmitted or stored and/or to protect that data.
`
`(Lippman ¶19.) Two basic types of data encoding are source coding and channel
`
`coding, which are often used together. (Lippman ¶20.)
`
`A.
`
`Source Coding
`
`Source coding is the process of encoding data (such as images or audio) in a
`
`different form so as to reduce its size. (Lippman ¶21.) Thus, source coding is also
`
`called “compression.” (Id.)
`
`la-1320122
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`1. Three Steps of Source Coding
`
`
`
`Source coding commonly includes three basic steps: transformation,
`
`quantization, and entropy coding. (’482, 2:10-13.) The transformation step
`
`typically converts image or audio data into their frequency components. (Lippman
`
`¶25.) The frequency components are easier to compress than the original data.
`
`(Lippman ¶26.) The use of Discrete Cosine Transform (“DCT”) transformation is
`
`common. (Id.)
`
`The quantization step converts the transformed data into a smaller set of
`
`possible values by going from a continuous set of values to a discrete set.
`
`Quantization reduces the number of bits necessary to represent the frequency
`
`components. (Lippman ¶¶28-30.)
`
`Entropy coding can be applied to provide further compression. This step
`
`converts the quantized values into variable-length code words. (Lippman ¶¶31-34.)
`
`More frequently occurring data is assigned to smaller code words than less
`
`frequently occurring data further reducing the number of bits necessary to represent
`
`the original data. (Id.)
`
`These three basic steps of source coding were well known prior to the ’482
`
`patent. (Lippman ¶37; ’482, 2:10-13 (“A common approach
`
`to
`
`image
`
`compression ... involves three primary steps, namely, a transform step, a
`
`quantization step, and an encoding step.”); 1:20-4:65 (discussing source coding in
`
`la-1320122
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`the context of image compression).) For example, a well-known image compression
`
`method is illustrated in Wallace, “The JPEG Still Picture Compression Standard,”
`
`IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, Vol. 38, No. 1, Feb. 1992 (Ex. 1007).
`
`As shown in Figure 1 of Wallace (below), the processing steps include
`
`transformation (FDCT), quantization, and entropy coding:
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Prefix Codes
`
`In many entropy coding schemes (also known as “prefix-code” schemes),
`
`the variable-length code words include a prefix portion and suffix portion and are
`
`designed such that the prefix of each code word is unique (i.e., no one code word is
`
`the prefix of another code word). (Lippman ¶32.) Prefix-code schemes enable a
`
`decoder to determine where one code word ends and the next begins. (Lippman
`
`¶35.) Two prior art prefix-code schemes mentioned in the ’482 patent are “Huffman
`
`coding” and “unary coding.” (4:36-50, 15:12-24; Lippman ¶33.)
`
`B. Channel Coding
`
`Channel coding is the process of encoding data to put it in a form suitable
`
`for transmission or storage. (Lippman ¶¶38-43.) Generally, channel coding
`6
`
`la-1320122
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`involves adding redundant data that is used to check whether the main data was
`
`accurately transmitted or stored. (Id.)
`
`Often, some data is more important than other data for reconstructing the
`
`pre-encoded information, such as an image or video. (Lippman ¶¶44-45.) Thus,
`
`channel-coding schemes often involve “unequal error protection”— the application
`
`of different levels of error protection to different subsets of data depending upon
`
`their importance. (Id.) See, e.g., Lin, “Codes with Multi-Level Error-Correcting
`
`Capabilities,” Discrete Mathematics 83 (1990), pp. 301-14 (Ex. 1008):
`
`In conventional channel coding, all of the information symbols
`of a message are regarded equally significant, and hence codes are
`devised to provide equal protection for each information symbol
`against channel errors. However, in some circumstances, some
`information symbols in a message are more significant than the other
`symbols. As a result, it is desirable to devise codes with multi-level
`error-correcting capabilities[.] ...
`
`... A code with multi-levels of error-correcting capabilities is known as
`an unequal error protection (UEP) code. ...
`
`(Id. at 301-02.) This reserves the additional information necessary for greater error
`
`protection for the most important data.
`
`All of these aspects of channel coding were well known in the prior art.
`
`(Lippman ¶¶38-45; ’482, 4:66-5:45.)
`
`la-1320122
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`IV. THE ’482 PATENT
`
`
`
`The ’482 patent discloses an encoding process that involves both source
`
`coding and channel coding. As shown in FIG. 1 (below), original data is first
`
`transformed, quantized, and entropy coded. The data is then applied to unequal
`
`error protection means 29. The data is then stored or transmitted.
`
`
`
`The ’482 patent expresses a concern with transmission or storage of entropy-
`
`coded data. (6:17-29.) Specifically, an error in a transmitted or stored bit of one
`
`code word can corrupt a decoder’s ability not only to decode that one code word,
`
`but also to determine where that code word ends and the next one begins. (Id.) As a
`
`consequence, the error can propagate to subsequent code words. (Id.)
`
`The ’482 patent proposes solving this problem using an approach called
`
`“split-field coding.” (Abstract, 6:48-7:29, 13:50.) This approach uses a “prefix
`
`field” and “suffix field” in each code word. (Abstract, 6:52-56.) The prefix field
`
`la-1320122
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`includes information representative of the suffix field, and the suffix field includes
`
`information representative of the original data. (7:5-29, 13:36-14:2.)
`
`The prefix field includes information representative of a predetermined
`
`characteristic of the suffix field, such as the number of bits contained in the suffix.
`
`This allows a decoder to rely on information within the prefix fields to identify
`
`where one suffix field ends and the next prefix field begins. (17:38-41.)
`
`Because the information in the prefix fields is used to determine the lengths
`
`of the suffix fields, the ’482 patent discloses applying higher error protection to the
`
`prefix fields than to the suffix fields. (7:30-52.) The patent describes this process as
`
`advantageously preventing loss of code word synchronization and propagation of
`
`errors to subsequent code words. (17:41-45.)
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Because the ’482 patent has expired, claim construction here is governed by
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See,
`
`e.g., Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Straight Path IP Grp., Inc., IPR2015-01011, Final Decision
`
`at 10 (PTAB Mar. 4, 2016).
`
`Petitioner’s proposed claim constructions are set forth below. With respect to
`
`most of
`
`the means-plus-function recitations, Petitioner believes
`
`that no
`
`corresponding structure is disclosed in the specification, and that claims containing
`
`such limitations are thus indefinite.
`
`la-1320122
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`Relevant Law on Means-Plus-Function Limitations
`“Means-plus-function claiming occurs when a claim term is drafted in a
`
`manner that invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, [¶] 6[.]” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`
`792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc).
`
`Construing a means-plus-function claim term is a two-step process.
`The court must first identify the claimed function. [Citation omitted.]
`Then, the court must determine what structure, if any, disclosed in the
`specification corresponds to the claimed function.
`
`Id. at 1351. “If the function is performed by a general purpose computer or
`
`microprocessor, then the specification must also disclose the algorithm that the
`
`computer performs to accomplish that function.” Triton Tech of Texas, LLC v.
`
`Nintendo of Am., Inc., 753 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`“If the patentee fails to disclose adequate corresponding structure, the claim
`
`is indefinite.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1352. In particular, “[f]ailure to disclose the
`
`corresponding algorithm for a computer-implemented means-plus-function term
`
`renders the claim indefinite.” Triton, 753 F.3d at 1378.
`
`B.
`
`Constructions of Means-Plus-Function Limitations
`1.
`“Error protection means” (Claims 7, 22)
`Claims 7 and 22 each recite “error protection means for providing error
`
`protection to at least one of the first portions of the plurality of code words while
`
`maintaining any error protection provided to the respective second portion
`
`la-1320122
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`associated with the at least one first portion at a lower level than the error
`
`protection provided to the respective first portion.” The specification does not
`
`disclose any structure for performing this function. (Lippman ¶62.)
`
`Instead, the specification simply states that methods and apparatus for
`
`performing “unequal error protection” were “known to those skilled in the art” “as
`
`described, for example, in R. G. Gallager, ‘Information Theory and Reliable
`
`Communication’, Wiley and Sons (1968).” (’482, 16:10-14). This bare statement is
`
`inadequate to provide structure for this limitation:
`
`[A] bare statement that known techniques or methods can be used does
`not disclose structure. To conclude otherwise would vitiate the
`language of the statute requiring “corresponding structure, material, or
`acts described in the specification.”
`
`Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 953 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
`
`(quoting § 112, ¶ 6). Here, the provision of the mere title of a book of more than
`
`600 pages (see Ex. 1009) does not adequately disclose any structure for unequal
`
`“error protection means.” Therefore, this limitation is indefinite.
`
`2.
`
`“Code word generating means” (Claims 7, 22)
`
`Claims 7 and 22 recite several means-plus-function elements in a nested
`
`fashion, i.e., they recite “code word generating means,” which includes “first
`
`generating means,” which in turn includes “means for including information,” as
`
`well as “second generating means,” which in turn includes “means for including
`
`la-1320122
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`information.” These elements of the “code word generating means” are addressed
`
`in reverse order below.
`
`a.
`
`“Means for including information within the first
`portion” (Claims 7, 22)
`
`Challenged claims 7 and 22 each recite “means for including information
`
`within the first portion that is representative of a predetermined characteristic of the
`
`associated second portion.” The only disclosure in the ’482 specification relating to
`
`performing the recited function is a general discussion of unary coding to generate
`
`a prefix (15:12-24), and the statements at the end of the specification that the data
`
`encoder 16 is “preferably implemented by a combination of hardware and
`
`software[]” and that “the method and apparatus for compressing data can be
`
`implemented by a computer having one or more controllers which operate under
`
`the control of software to provide the data transformation, quantization and
`
`encoding processes described above.” (17:59-67.) As the function is performed by
`
`a general purpose computer, the specification must disclose the algorithm that the
`
`computer performs to accomplish that function.
`
`In the related litigation, Patent Owner has identified the corresponding
`
`structure as only “data encoder 16 and/or code word generator 26 and/or prefix
`
`generator 27.” (Ex. 1011 at 3, Ex. 1012.) This is not structure. No algorithm for
`
`either determining the value of a unary code to be used for a given code word or the
`
`operation of performing unary coding has been identified, and none is disclosed
`
`la-1320122
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`in the specification. As such, there is no corresponding structure, and this limitation
`
`is indefinite.
`
`In the event the Board disagrees and concludes that the general discussion of
`
`unary coding constitutes sufficient algorithmic structure, then the corresponding
`
`structure is “prefix generator 27 including a controller to execute an algorithm to
`
`perform unary coding as described at 15:12-24.”
`
`b.
`
`“First generating means” (Claim 7)
`
`Claim 7 recites “first generating means for generating the first portion of
`
`each code word.” Claim 7 states that this first generating means comprises the
`
`“means for including” discussed in the preceding subsection. Thus, the only
`
`corresponding disclosure in the ’482 specification is a “controller” to perform
`
`unary coding (15:12-24, 17:59-67); once again, no algorithm is disclosed. This
`
`further renders claim 7 indefinite.
`
`a.
`
`“Means for including information within the
`second portion” (Claims 7, 22)
`
`Claims 7 and 22 each recite “means for including information within the
`
`second portion that is representative of the respective portion of the data.” The only
`
`disclosure in the specification relating to the function of “including information
`
`within the second portion that is representative of the respective portion of the
`
`data” is the description regarding representing the suffix with binary
`
`la-1320122
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`integers of length K (15:25-46), and the general statement regarding use of a
`
`controller (17:59-67).
`
`Patent Owner has identified “data encoder 16 and/or code word generator 26
`
`and/or suffix generator 28.” (Ex. 1011 at 4, Ex. 1012.) Again, no algorithm of a
`
`specific encoding process is identified or disclosed, and this limitation is therefore
`
`indefinite.
`
`In the event the Board disagrees and concludes that the general discussion of
`
`binary coding constitutes sufficient algorithmic structure, then the corresponding
`
`structure is “suffix generator 28 including a controller to execute an algorithm to
`
`perform binary coding as described at 15:25-46.”
`
`d.
`
`“Second generating means” (Claim 7) Claim 7
`
`recites “second generating means for generating the second portion
`
`of each code word.” Claim 7 states that this “second generating means” comprises
`
`the “means for including” that is discussed in the preceding subsection. Again, no
`
`algorithm is disclosed and this limitation is therefore indefinite.
`
`b.
`
`“Code word generating means” (Claim 7) Claim 7
`
`recites “code word generating means for generating a plurality of
`
`code words representative of respective portions of the data, wherein each code
`
`word comprises a first portion and an associated second portion.” Claim 7 states
`
`that this “code word generating means” comprises the first and second “generating
`
`la-1320122
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`means” discussed in the preceding subsections. Thus, this limitation is indefinite
`
`for the reasons set forth above.
`
`f.
`
`“Code word generating means” (Claim 22) Claim 22
`
`recites “code word generating means for generating a plurality of
`
`code words, representative of respective portions of the data, which have
`
`respective first and second portions.” Claim 22 states that this “code word
`
`generating means” comprises the two “means for including” discussed above.
`
`Accordingly, this limitation is also indefinite for the reasons set forth above.
`
`c.
`
`“Second generating means” (Claim 24) Claim 24
`
`recites “second generating means for generating second portions
`
`having predetermined numbers of characters.” This limitation is indefinite due to
`
`the lack of any algorithm.
`
`d.
`
`“First generating means” (Claim 24) Claim 24
`
`recites a “first generating means for generating first portions which
`
`include information representative of the predetermined number of characters
`
`which comprise the associated second portion.” This limitation is indefinite due to
`
`the lack of any algorithm.
`
`3.
`
`“Entropy coding means” (Claims 8 and 23)
`
`Claims 8 and 23 each recite entropy coding means “for entropy coding the
`
`data to thereby reduce the size of the resulting code words.” The only disclosure in
`
`la-1320122
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`the specification that identifies entropy coding is block 35. (Fig. 2, 13:4-7.) Patent
`
`Owner has identified only data encoder 16. (Ex. 1011 at 5, Ex. 1012.) No specific
`
`Huffman or Arithmetic code algorithm is disclosed, and this limitation is
`
`indefinite.
`
`If the Board disagrees and concludes that entropy coding block 35
`
`constitutes sufficient algorithmic structure, then the corresponding structure is “a
`
`controller programmed to perform entropy coding as described at 13:4-7.”
`
`4.
`
`“First data link transmitting means” / “Second data link
`transmitting means” (Claims 11 and 26)
`Claims 11 and 26 each recite a “first data link transmitting means for
`
`transmitting the at least one first portion of the plurality of code words via a first
`
`data link, wherein the first data link is error protected” and a “second data link
`
`transmitting means for transmitting the respective second portion associated with
`
`the at least one first portion via a second data link, wherein any error protection
`
`provided by [the/said] second data link is at a lower level than the error protection
`
`provided by [the/said] first data link.” The specification does not disclose any
`
`structure for performing the claimed functions.
`
`Instead, the specification merely discloses a “transmitter” 20. (17:26-37.)
`
`Furthermore, the specification provides no explanation whatsoever of any structure
`
`inside the “transmitter” that would provide error protection for the first and second
`
`data links. (Lippman ¶63.) Instead, any error protection that is provided is
`
`la-1320122
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`provided by the unequal error protection means (block 29) before transmitter 20.
`
`Therefore, these limitations are indefinite.
`
`Although Petitioner believes that numerous means-plus-function claim
`
`elements are indefinite (for the reasons discussed above), the claims reciting them
`
`are nonetheless addressed below in the event that the Board disagrees.
`
`C. Other Claim Terms
`1. “Information within the first portion” (Claims 1, 7, 12, 22) /
`
`“the first portion of each code word includes information representative”
`(Claim 28)
`The ’482 specification discloses that the prefix includes information within it
`
`that allows the decoder to determine the length of the suffix. (’482, 8:33-38,
`
`15:61-66.)
`
`Such information is thus representative of a predetermined
`
`characteristic. During prosecution, the applicant amended claims 1, 7, 12, and 22 to
`
`add the limitation that the representative information is included “within the first
`
`portion,” and argued that all independent claims (including claim 28) were similar to
`
`claim 1, thereby confirming that the code content of the information in the first
`
`portion itself represents the characteristic. (Ex. 1010.)
`
`2.
`
`Data link (Claims 6, 11, 17, 26)
`
`The “data links” that are disclosed in the ’482 patent are illustrated as
`
`nothing more than two arrows 22 and 24 in the below excerpt from FIG. 1:
`
`la-1320122
`
`17
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`The patent contains no discussion whatsoever of any particular
`
`transmission structure or medium that constitutes a data link, or any indication of
`
`whether the signals on “links” 22 and 24 are multiplexed, transmitted on channels
`
`of different frequencies or otherwise. (See, e.g., 17:26-35.) The specification states
`
`at 16:1022 that the invention is suitable for use with unequal error protection
`
`means “as known in the art” and states that “the prefix fields of the encoded data
`
`are preferably channel encoded with an appropriately high level of error
`
`protection” and the suffix fields “may be channel encoded with a lower level of
`
`error protection,” resulting in a reduction of transmission bandwidth. In view of
`
`the complete lack of disclosure of data links other than in connection with channel
`
`coding, the term “data link” should be construed to mean “a path through which
`
`encoded data is transmitted.”
`
`la-1320122
`
`18
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`VI. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b), Petitioner respectfully requests
`
`cancellation of claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-17, 22-26, and 28-29 of the ’482 patent based
`
`on the following references:
`
`Prior Art Reference
`Kato et. al., U.S. Patent No. 5,392,037
`
`E. Fiala et al., Data Compression with Finite Windows,
`Communications of the ACM, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 490-
`505 (1989)
`
`Fazel et al., Application of Unequal Error Protection
`Codes on Combined Source-Channel Coding of
`Images, International Conference on Communications,
`Including SuperComm Technical Sessions (IEEE),
`Atlanta, April 15-19, 1990, Vol. 3, pp. 898-903
`
`Abbreviation (Ex. #)
`“Kato” (Ex. 1003)
`
`“Fiala” (Ex. 1004)
`
`“Fazel” (Ex. 1005)
`
`Fazel et. al., U.S. Patent 5,218,622
`
`“Fazel ’622” (Ex. 1006)
`
`The statutory grounds for the challenge of each claim are set forth below.
`All of the statutory citations are pre-AIA.
`
`Ground
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`
`Claims
`
`Prior Art Reference(s)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`103(a)
`
`103(a)
`
`1-3, 5-14, 16-17, 22-
`26, and 28-29
`
`1-3, 5-14, 16-17, 22-
`26, and 28-29
`
`Kato
`
`Fiala, Fazel, and Fazel ’622
`
`
`
`
`
`Set forth below is a discussion of how the claims are unpatentable under the
`statutory grounds raised, including claim charts specifying where each element of a
`
`challenged claim is met by the prior art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). The showing in
`19
`
`la-1320122
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`the ensuing sections establishes a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to each
`
`ground of invalidity with respect to the challenged claims as to that ground. This
`
`showing is accompanied by the Declaration of Dr. Andrew Lippman (Ex. 1002).
`
`A. Ground 1 – Obviousness Based on Kato
`1. Background of Kato
`Kato issued on February 21, 1995 and is prior art to the ’482 patent under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b). Kato teaches a method and apparatus for encoding data. Kato
`
`discloses a number of embodiments, with the third and fourth embodiments in
`
`particular being relevant to this challenge.
`
`Like the ’482 patent, Kato discloses that data is source coded by transforming
`
`(3:47-49, 19:60-68), quantizing (3:49-53, 20:1-9), and entropy coding (3:49-53,
`
`20:29-33).
`
`Kato further discloses a split-field-coding scheme like that of the ’482
`
`patent. (Lippman ¶¶67-69.) In particular, Kato discloses in connection with the
`
`fourth embodiment described beginning at 23:44, and in connection with FIGS.
`
`6(a) (encoder), 6(b) (decoder) and 7 (data structure), that input data (Di) are
`
`encoded into code words (Ci) having a first portion (Pi) and a second portion (Ri).
`
`(24:46-59.)
`
`The first portion (Pi) includes data bits “L” representing the bit length of the
`
`code word (Ci), which is used during decoding to identify the bit length of the
`
`la-1320122
`
`20
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`second portion (Ri). (24:50-53, 29:26-30:9; Lippman ¶69.) The second portion (Ri)
`
`includes data representative of the data to be encoded. (25:9-23, 30:54-68;
`
`Lippman ¶69.) The encoder is shown in FIG. 6(a):
`
`
`
`Kato further discloses applying higher error protection to the first portions of
`
`the code words than to the second portions. (31:51-32:20.) As shown in FIG. 7
`
`(below), Kato discloses that the first portions (Pi) are located in a different “data
`
`store region” from the second portions (Ri) to facilitate this unequal error
`
`protection. (24:60-25:8, 32:35-39.) A data store region can be a segment of a
`
`transmission packet or a sector of a storage disc. (33:2-7.)
`
`la-1320122
`
`2 1
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Additionally, Kato discloses the same rationale as the ’482 patent for this
`
`scheme of split-field coding with unequal error protection. In particular, Kato notes
`
`that an error in the transmission of a variable-length code word can propagate to
`
`subsequent code words by corrupting a decoder’s ability to detect the boundaries
`
`between code words. (2:59-3:2)
`
`Like the ’482 patent, Kato teaches that this problem can be mitigated by
`
`providing a prefix field that includes information representative of the length of the
`
`associated suffix field. (24:50-53, 25:9-23, 29:22-29; Lippman ¶¶69-74.) Because a
`
`decoder relies on the length informatio