`
`Paper No. ___
`Filed: April 11, 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 IPR2017-00700
`Patent No. 7,421,032
`
`
`
`_____________________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SURREPLY
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Petitioner’s new argument that MacKay discloses nonuniform
`
`I.INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
`II.ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................... 1
`A.
`column weights for information bits should be rejected ...................... 1
`B.
`No motivation to combine Ping and MacKay...................................... 2
`C.
`Petitioner failed to show nonuniform row weights .............................. 5
`D.
`LDGM ................................................................................................ 5
`E.
`Reasonable expectation of success was never addressed ..................... 5
`F.
`corresponding experimental data should be rejected ........................... 6
`G. New attorney-generated Tanner graphs and block diagram ................. 8
`III.CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 8
`
`Petitioner failed to explain how Ping discloses Claim 13’s
`
`The newly proposed Hd submatrix modifications and
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In view of new argument and evidence submitted in Petitioner’s Reply
`
`briefing, the Board (Paper 43) authorized a short sur-reply but prohibited
`
`submission of rebuttal evidence. As illustrated in further detail below, the Reply
`
`materials are replete with untimely and improper new argument and evidence—
`
`including submission of newly generated experimental data, attorney-generated
`
`Tanner graphs and block diagrams, and a declaration from a new witness. The
`
`Reply provides no justification for replacing Dr. Davis with a new witness. Dr.
`
`Davis was aware of his Fulbright commitment since at least February 2017 and he
`
`testified he remains available for deposition in the U.S. EX1073, ¶3. Accordingly,
`
`the Reply materials should be disregarded and given no weight.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner’s new argument that MacKay discloses nonuniform
`column weights for information bits should be rejected
`
`As the POR explained, the petition failed to provide any evidence that
`
`MacKay discloses non-uniform column weights for information bits. POR 21-25.
`
`Having realized the flaws in its petition, Petitioner now relies on MacKay’s
`
`Figures 5 and 6 to pivot to a new theory that MacKay discloses information bits
`
`appearing in a variable number of subsets. Reply 3-4. This is improper and should
`
`be rejected, not least because Caltech will not have an opportunity to rebut the
`
`argument with expert evidence. Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, 818 F.3d 1293, 1301
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016). Even then, Petitioner’s new argument does not explain why
`
`Figures 5 and 6 would motivate a POSA to modify Ping’s Hd submatrix (they
`
`would not). MacKay presents Figures 5 and 6 as a way to achieve “fast encoding”
`
`by applying a “lower triangular structure” already found in Ping. EX1002 1453;
`
`EX1003 38. Moreover, MacKay’s fast-encoding codes perform worse than the
`
`“ordinary-encoding codes” described earlier in the paper. EX1002, 1454, Fig. 7.
`
`B. No motivation to combine Ping and MacKay
`
`There is no motivation to modify Ping at least because its parity-check
`
`matrix is already irregular and MacKay does not teach selective application of
`
`uneven column weights to a submatrix. POR 23-25. The Reply’s (6) response is
`
`that this argument should be rejected “for at least the reasons in the Petition and
`
`DI.” But while the petition does not addres the fact that Ping’s parity-check matrix
`
`is already irregular (see POR 29-30), the Reply (7) admits that Ping’s parity-check
`
`matrix already has nonuniform column weights of, e.g., 4, 2, and 1.
`
`The Reply does not dispute that setting Ping’s “t” value to 9 shows a parity-
`
`check matrix that is more irregular than MacKay’s. Rather, the Reply (6) falsely
`
`asserts that this example is “contrived,” but Caltech’s example of Hd having
`
`column weights 9 was based on Petitioner’s proposal to use column weights of 3
`
`and 9 for Ping’s Hd. Pet. 42; see also EX2033 229:4-9 (“[A]ny positive integer is a
`
`possibility”). PO’s example simply adopts one of the weights proposed by
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner, while maintaining Hd’s uniform column weight, as instructed by Ping.
`
`The Reply (7) absurdly asserts that it is improper to compare Ping’s H
`
`matrix with MacKay’s parity-check matrices. As Ping’s H matrix is its parity-
`
`check matrix, it is the only thing properly compared with MacKay’s parity-check
`
`matrices. Hd and Hp are indisputably not parity-check matrices. EX2033, 218:3-5.
`
`The Reply (8) incorrectly asserts that the only way to obtain MacKay’s
`
`benefits gained from nonuniform column weights is to modify Hd. The easiest way
`
`to obtain MacKay’s nonuniform column weights is to do nothing to Ping, because
`
`Ping’s parity-check matrix already has nonuniform column weights.
`
`The Reply (8) argues its combination has met claim 11, which requires
`
`generating parity bits “in accordance with the following Tanner graph,” because
`
`“parity check matrices and Tanner graphs are interchangeable.” But that is not an
`
`argument made in the petition, nor does the petition make any attempt to compare
`
`a modified version of Ping with Claim 11’s Tanner graph. The Reply (9) attempts
`
`to cure this defect by presenting for the first time purported Tanner graphs of Ping
`
`and MacKay (EX1048, 1049), but again fails to explain how its proposed
`
`modifications generate parity bits in accordance with Claim 11’s Tanner graph as
`
`no comparison with Claim 11’s Tanner graph is given.
`
`These purported Tanner graph depictions of Ping and MacKay should also
`
`be rejected as untimely, discussed below in Section II.G. In addition, Petitioner’s
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`description of the exhibits is misleading. The Reply (10) claims the “open circles
`
`on the left” are “message nodes,” and incorrectly claims that “Ping’s message
`
`nodes all have degree four.” But EX1048’s right nodes are message nodes (because
`
`they correspond to parity bits in the codeword), and have degrees less than four.
`
`Moreover, both graphs depict a misleadingly identical “Random
`
`Permutation,” but as Dr. Mitzenmacher noted, these permutations are constrained
`
`in very different ways. EX2038, 426:11-428:2. Ping distributes its edges evenly to
`
`“best increase the recurrence distance” (EX1003, 38), whereas MacKay’s 93y does
`
`the opposite of “distribut[ing] high weight columns per row [with] greater variance”
`
`(EX1002, 1451), which involves more clumping of edges. POR 48-49.1
`
`The Reply (13-14) also admits that its modification breaks Ping’s constraints,
`
`but claims the combination does not “prevent[] the ones from still being distributed
`
`and randomly placed.” To the contrary, Ping’s teachings prevent this combination
`
`in requiring “exactly one element 1 per column” to “best increase the recurrence
`
`distance of each bit” and “reduce[] the correlation during the decoding process.”
`
`EX1003, 38. The Reply does not address how its combination would maintain
`
`these benefits. Indeed, the very codes Dr. Frey tested do precisely the opposite. See
`
`1 The Reply (10) next mischaracterizes Caltech’s argument (a problem common
`
`throughout Petitioner’s Reply briefs) as claiming “Ping’s encoding is not
`
`performed in two steps.” Caltech’s actual argument is presented at POR 34-36.
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`Section II.F.
`
`C.
`
`Petitioner failed to show nonuniform row weights
`
`The Reply (18-19) does not dispute POR’s argument that MacKay
`
`discouraged nonuniform row weight, required by claim 12. POR 25-26. Instead,
`
`the Reply believes mere disclosure of nonuniform row weight is enough, but that is
`
`not a suitable argument for an obviousness inquiry. Instead, there must be some
`
`rationale for incorporating the nonuniform row weight that MacKay explicitly
`
`discouraged and did not use. EX1002, p. p. 1449 (“[W]e concentrate on irregular
`
`codes with the weight per row as uniform as possible.”); 1451 (“[A]ll rows have
`
`weight 7.”). Petitioner failed to provide any such rationale in its petition.
`
`D.
`
`Petitioner failed to explain how Ping discloses Claim 13’s LDGM
`
`As explained in the POR (53-54), the petition does not provide any
`
`explanation for how Ping’s Hd submatrix would meet the definition of a generator
`
`matrix. Having recognized that deficiency, the Reply (20-21) attempts to explain
`
`how Hd could be used as a generator matrix. This argument should be rejected as
`
`untimely. Moreover, it does not explain why a POSA would use Hd as a generator
`
`matrix to implement Ping’s equations.
`
`E. Reasonable expectation of success was never addressed
`
`The POR (18-19, 44-49) points out that the petition wholly lacks discussion
`
`of reasonable expectation of success or the (now conceded) unpredictability in the
`
`field. As such, any discussion of reasonable expectation of success presented in the
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`Reply (e.g., 14-17, 19-20) is improperly new and should be ignored. Office Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48767 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`F.
`
`The newly proposed Hd submatrix modifications and
`corresponding experimental data should be rejected
`
`Petitioner relies on newly proposed modifications to Ping’s submatrix Hd
`
`and related experimental data generated by substitute expert Dr. Frey. Reply 14-17,
`
`citing EX1068. The data should be disregarded for a number of reasons, not least
`
`of which is that the modifications are found nowhere in the petition and the
`
`experimental data has not been shown to have any relevance to Petitioner’s case.
`
`First, Dr. Frey modifies Ping’s code in a way never proposed in the petition.
`
`In fact, an entire section of the POR (40-44) is dedicated to discussing a critical
`
`lack of specificity in the proposed modification. Whereas the petition only makes
`
`a general assertion to modify Ping’s Hd submatrix to have column weights of 9 and
`
`3, the experiment cited in Petitioner’s reply instead applies specific weight
`
`distributions that require graphical depictions, one of which does not even have
`
`column weights of 9 and 3. EX1065 ¶¶48, 52. Dr. Frey provides no explanation
`
`how he arrived at these distributions and they are not taught in MacKay or Ping.
`
`Notably, these weight distributions break Ping’s constraints of sub-blocks
`
`containing “one element 1 per column” and uniform row weights (the latter of
`
`which is also a constraint in MacKay), and do not at all maximize the recurrence
`
`distance. EX1003, 38. Petitioner now attempts to belatedly cure a fundamental
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`defect in the petition, which should be rejected at this stage of the proceeding.
`
`In addition, the experimental data materials are not contemporaneous with
`
`the “relevant time” and the understanding of a POSA. It is irrelevant what Dr. Frey
`
`claims he could do in the year 2018 when armed with Caltech’s disclosures, Dr.
`
`Jin’s original coding work, contemporary resources (e.g., Matlab), and some 18
`
`years of post-filing date knowledge. Further demonstrating use of improper
`
`hindsight, Dr. Frey admits that his decoder is “like the one described in the ’032
`
`patent.” EX1065, ¶46. His testimony presents zero reflection of the environment in
`
`1999-2000, and provides no information as to why a POSA would make the
`
`proposed modification 18 years ago or reasonably expected success at that time.
`
`If surreply evidence was permitted, Caltech’s witnesses would have been
`
`able to provide rebuttal testimony explaining its unreliability—including numerous
`
`technical flaws, apparent cherry-picking of parameters, and selection of a weight
`
`distribution that in no way flows from any prior art reference at issue in this case.
`
`For example, while Dr. Frey claims that his nonuniform column weight simulation
`
`files “operate[] identically” to the version corresponding to the unaltered Ping code
`
`(EX1065 ¶¶30,33), examining the code files tells a different story. Dr. Frey altered
`
`a number of parameters beyond the Hd matrix, including the Gaussian noise levels
`
`applied to each simulation, the number of blocks per noise level, and even the
`
`number of decoding iterations (using twice as many iterations for the irregular
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`codes). EX1068 1, 3, 6 (“Parameters” sections). These differences alone are
`
`sufficient to preclude meaningful comparison between the purported simulations,
`
`yet are unexplained, casting doubt on the entire methodology. The new data is
`
`untimely, unreliable and fails to comply with 37 C.F.R. §42.65.
`
`G. New attorney-generated Tanner graphs and block diagram
`
`Petitioner relies on new exhibits 1071 and 1072, purported to be block
`
`diagrams of implementations of Ping’s encoder, and exhibits 1048 and 1049,
`
`purported to be Tanner graph representations of Ping and MacKay codes,
`
`respectively. Reply 9, 11-13. Yet these figures are not in the petition. Reliance on
`
`them now should be rejected as untimely. Moreover, Petitioner’s argument that
`
`these exhibits show a motivation to combine (Reply 8-12) is logically flawed.
`
`Simply because Petitioner’s lawyers generated similarly-styled graphs in preparing
`
`the Reply no way demonstrates that the a POSA would have motivation to
`
`combine the codes 18 years ago, or expected success in improving error-correction.
`
`Furthermore, the new exhibits are erroneous and tainted with impermissible
`
`hindsight. Prior to Caltech’s IRA patents, Tanner graphs were conventionally
`
`presented as bipartite graphs depicting the relationship between a codeword and
`
`parity-check equations. See, e.g., EX2004 ¶40; EX1004 ¶¶54-55; EX1009 p. 258.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Accordingly, the Reply materials should be given no weight.
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: April 11, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/ Michael T. Rosato /
`Michael T. Rosato, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 52,182
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that the foregoing Patent Owner’s Surreply was served on this 11th
`
`day of April, 2018, on the Petitioner at the electronic service addresses of the
`
`Petitioner as follows:
`
`
`Richard Goldenberg
`Dominic Massa
`Michael H. Smith
`James M. Dowd
`Mark D. Selwyn
`Arthur Shum
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
`richard.goldenberg@wilmerhale.com
`dominic.massa@wilmerhale.com
`michaelh.smith@wilmerhale.com
`james.dowd@wilmerhale.com
`mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com
`arthur.shum@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: April 11, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/ Michael T. Rosato /
`Michael T. Rosato, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 52,182
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
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
