Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`May 8, 2018
`Apple, Inc. v. California Institute of Technology.
`Case No. IPR2017-00701
`
`CALTECH - EXHIBIT 2040
`Apple Inc. v. California Institute of Technology
`IPR2017-00701
`
`
`May 8, 2018
`Apple, Inc. v. California Institute of Technology.
`Case No. IPR2017-00701
`
`CALTECH - EXHIBIT 2040
`Apple Inc. v. California Institute of Technology
`IPR2017-00701
`
`
`
`Instituted Grounds: Pat. No. 7,421,032
`IPR2017-00700
`Ground
`Claims
`Basis
`Prior Art
`1
`11, 12, 14-16
`103
`Ping, MacKay, Divsalar
`IPR2017-00701
`2
`13
`103
`Ping, MacKay, Divsalar, Luby97
`Ground
`Claims
`Basis
`Prior Art
`IPR2017-00728
`1
`1, 4-10
`103
`Ping, MacKay, Divsalar, Luby97
`Ground
`Claims
`Basis
`Prior Art
`18-23
`1
`103
`Ping, MacKay, Divsalar, Luby97
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`2
`IPR2017-00701
`
`
`
`Caltech’s Groundbreaking Invention
`
`3
`
`
`
`IRA codes solved a decades-old problem
`POR 1, 51-62
`(cid:1)Gallagerintroduced LDPCcodes in 1963, but they required
`complex quadratic encoding that prevented their adoption
`for decades. (MM ¶¶181-182, 194.)
`Richardson 2001 (EX2011) at 2 (emphasis added)
`
`4
`
`Kim 2006 (EX2010) at 1 (emphasis added)
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00701
`
`
`
`IRA codes solved a decades-old problem
`
`POR 1, 51-62
`
`5
`
`MM ¶¶ 186, 187
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00701
`
`
`
`IRA codes solved a decades-old problem
`
`POR 1, 51-62
`
`Kim 2006 (EX2010) at 23 (emphasis added)
`
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00701
`
`6
`
`
`
`Academia and industry praised IRA codes
`POR 1, 51-62
`(cid:1)The IEEE 802.20 Working Group proposed the use of IRA
`codes in a new standard. (MM ¶¶189.)
`(cid:1)The named inventors’ contemporaneous paper, titled
`“Irregular Repeat-Accumulate Codes,” has been cited over
`Lestable2007 (EX2012) at 2 (emphasis added)
`700 times. (MM ¶191.)
`(cid:1)Named inventors Dr. Jin’sand Dr. Khandekar’sPh.D. theses
`regarding IRA codes have been cited 75 and 54 times,
`respectively. (MM ¶191.)
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`7
`IPR2017-00701
`
`
`
`The Field Of Error Correction Is
`Highly Unpredictable
`
`8
`
`
`
`Unpredictability equates with nonobviousness
`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).
`
`9
`
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00701
`
`
`
`Mathematical analysis of new codes is
`difficult or impossible
`
`POR 4-6, 42-43; Sur. 5; Reply isoMTE 2
`
`EX2033 (Davis Dep.) 256:22-258:12
`Reply 17-18
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00701
`
`10
`
`
`
`Discovery of new codes requires
`guesswork and experimentation
`
`POR 4-6, 42-43; Sur. 5;
`Reply isoMTE 2
`
`EX2033 (Davis Dep.) 258:8-12
`
`11
`
`MM ¶128
`
`EX1102 (MacKay) at 1450
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00701
`
`
`
`Discovery of new codes requires
`guesswork and experimentation
`(cid:1)Divsalar’s1998 paper shows that leading scientists were still
`POR 42
`seeking to understand how turbo codes achieved near-Shannon-
`limit performance years after Berrou’sdiscovery.
`EX1117 (Divsalar) p. 201
`
`12
`
`EX2031 (DivsalarDecl.) ¶18
`
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00701
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed Motivations to
`Combine are Flawed
`
`13
`
`
`
`MacKay discloses “irregular” parity-check
`matrices
`(cid:1)The ’032 patent claims are directed to the encoding and
`POR 6-7, 18-21
`decoding of information bits to form codewords. MM ¶¶
`29-37.
`(cid:1)In contrast, MacKay is directed to “irregular” parity-check
`matrices that represent codewords. MM ¶¶ 57-58.
`“[MacKay’s] 93 variations don’t give any sense of what the
`encoding would befor the code associated to that.”
`EX2033 (Davis Dep.) 300:5-6
`
`14
`
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00701
`
`
`
`MacKay’s discloses “irregular” parity-check
`matrices
`(cid:1)Regular codes: “[V]ery
`sparse random parity check
`matriceswith uniformweight
`t per column and trper row.”
`EX1102, p. 1449.
`(cid:1)Irregular codes: “[P]arity
`check matrices[that] have
`nonuniformweight per
`column.” Id.
`15
`
`EX1102, p. 1450
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00701
`
`POR 6-7, 14-15, 20-21, 24-29
`
`EX1102, p. 1450
`
`
`
`Ping’s code is already irregular
`POR 24-29; Sur. 2
`“[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” code per MacKay.
`Pet. 38
`(cid:1)There is no motivation to combine Ping with MacKay because
`EX 2033 (Davis Dep.) 231:11-14
`Ping’s parity-check matrix is already irregular.
`POPR 9
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`16
`IPR2017-00701
`
`
`
`Ping’s code is already irregular
`POR 24-29; Sur. 2
`(cid:1)Ping’s parity check matrix has column weights of t, 2, and 1.
`
`Ping’s parity-check matrix; MM ¶92
`
`MacKay’s regular code; EX1102, p. 1450
`
`17
`
`MacKay’s irregular code; EX1102, p. 1450
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00701
`
`
`
`Ping’s code is not “nearly uniform”
`POR 24-29; Sur. 2
`“Thus Ping’s parity-check matrix is not regular and its
`column weights are non-uniform. MacKay’s teaching that
`non-uniform party-check matrices perform better than
`regular parity-check matrices provide no motivation to
`modify Ping.”
`MM ¶93
`Q. So would MacKay considers codes which have some
`weight 2 columns and some weight 4 columns regular or
`irregular?
`A. And that, I didn’t form any opinionsthat in the –in my
`declaration. It is unclear to me. It could go either way.
`EX2033 (Davis Dep.) 246:2-7
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00701
`
`18
`
`
`
`Ping’s Hdsubmatrix is not a parity-check matrix
`POR 25-28; Sur. 3
`(cid:1)Petitioner’s combination fails because MacKay defines
`“irregularity” in terms of an entire parity-check matrix,
`not a portion thereof.
`(cid:1)Ping’s Hdis not a parity-check matrix because it cannot
`be used to determine whether a codeword is valid.
`EX1104 (Davis Decl.) ¶47 (cited by Pet. 14)
`
`19
`
`EX1103 (Ping) 38 (cited by MM ¶91)
`
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00701
`
`
`
`Ping’s Hdsubmatrix is not a parity-check matrix
`POR 27-28, Sur. 3-4
`(cid:1)Petitioner’s expert admits that Ping’s Hdis not a parity-
`check matrix
`
`20
`
`EX 2033 (Davis Dep.) 217:18-218:5
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00701
`
`
`
`Ping’s structure improves on random LDPC
`codes (MacKay)
`POR 7-9, 29-31, 45-47
`(cid:1)Petitioner’s proposed modification ignores that Ping
`presents itself as an improvement over randomly
`generated parity check matrices, such as those found in
`MacKay.
`
`21
`
`EX1103, p. 38
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00701
`
`
`
`Ping imposes specific “rules” for its parity-
`check matrix
`(cid:1)Ping’s proposed parity-check matrix is split into two sub-
`POR 7-9, 29-31, 45-47
`matrices, Hpand Hd, each of which is structured
`according to specific “rules.”
`
`22
`
`EX1103, p. 38
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00701
`
`
`
`Petitioner selectively disregards Ping’s rules
`(cid:1)Petitioner’s argument is inconsistent.
`POR 7-9, 29-31, 45-47
`(cid:1)Petitioner expressly acknowledges that a POSA would notbe
`motivated to modify the constrained structure of Hp.
`(cid:1)Yet Petitioner inconsistently contends that a POSA wouldbe
`Reply, p. 10
`motivated to modify the constrained structure of Hd.
`Reply, p. 17
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00701
`
`23
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s proposal violates Ping’s “rules to
`create Hd”
`(cid:1)Ping imposes specific “rules to create Hd”for
`performance reasons
`POR 7-9, 29-31, 45-47; Sur. 5
`(cid:1)Petitioner’s proposal violates these rules and ignores their
`benefits without providing any rationale to do so.
`EX1103, p. 38
`(cid:1)Petitioner does not address that its proposal would not
`“best increase the recurrence distance” or “reduce[] the
`correlation during the decoding process.”
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`24
`IPR2017-00701
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s proposal violates Ping’s
`principle of operation
`POR 29-31
`(cid:1)Petitioner’s combination modifies Ping’s principle of
`operation.
`“Our predecessor court held that if a proposed modification
`or combination of the prior art would change the principle of
`operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the
`teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the
`claims prima facie obvious.” In re Gardner, 449 F. App'x914, 916 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`(citing In re Ratti, 270 F.2d810 (C.C.P.A. 1959))
`“[A]nyproposed combination is unreasonable if it modifies
`the principle of operation of the reference relied upon.”
`Blue CoatSystems v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2017-00996, Paper7, p. 15
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00701
`
`25
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s rationale is illogical
`POR 24-29, 44-46; Sur. 3-5
`“[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)There is no reason to incorporate irregularity into Ping
`because Ping’s parity check matrix is already irregular.
`Pet. 40
`(cid:1)MacKay does not teach modifying a submatrix.
`(cid:1)Petitioner’s modification disregards and violates Ping’s
`“rules.”
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`26
`IPR2017-00701
`
`
`
`Petitioner provides no rationale
`to combine Divsalar’srepeater
`POR 47-51; Sur. 8
`(cid:1)Incorporating Divsalar’srepeater into Ping adds needless
`complexity and requires additional memory. MM ¶¶141-42.
`(cid:1)This is confirmed by Petitioner’s attorney-made diagram
`EX1103, p. 38
`
`27
`
`Annotated Petitioner’s EX1172
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00701
`
`
`
`Petitioner provides no rationale
`to make Ping non-systematic
`POR 22-23; Sur. 2-3
`(cid:1)Claim 9 requires a non-systematic code.
`(cid:1)Making Ping non-systematic would destroy its code.
`“[T]his would require removing the Hdsubmatrix from the
`parity-check matrix H.”
`(cid:1)Hdis the very thing petition seeks to modify.
`MM ¶156
`
`28
`
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00701
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s proposed modification lacks
`particularity
`POR 38-42; 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 ¶118
`“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.” (Pet. 40)
`POR 38
`(cid:1)For a small codewordof 10,000 bits, there are 101500
`possibilities. MM ¶¶118-19.
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`29
`IPR2017-00701
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply is Improper
`Petitioner’s Reply is Improper
`30
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner cannot introduce new improper
`evidence in Reply
`“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)
`
`Sur. 5
`
`31
`
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00701
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s new reply theories are untimely
`Sur. 6-8
`(cid:1)Petitioner tries to cure the defects identified in the POR
`with with brand new evidence.
`(cid:1)The Reply includes new weight distribution patterns not
`found in the Petition.
`(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.
`
`32
`
`EX1165 ¶48
`
`EX1165 ¶52
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00701
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s new experimental data is irrelevant
`Sur. 6-8
`(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)Irregular codes used twiceas many decoding iterations.
`(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
`33
`IPR2017-00701
`
`
`
`Petition Articulates No Reasonable
`Expectation of Success
`
`34
`
`
`
`Obviousness inquiry requires REOS
`POR 16-17, 42
`“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
`IPR2017-00701
`
`35
`
`
`
`Petition provided no analysis of REOS
`POR 16-17, 42-47, 51; 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
`IPR2017-00701
`
`36
`
`
`
`Unpredictability is undisputed
`POR 4-6, 42-43; 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 17-18
`(cid:1)See also MM ¶¶46-49, 126-131.
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`37
`IPR2017-00701
`
`
`
`Unpredictability is undisputed
`POR 7, 44-45
`(cid:1)Even in MacKay’s small test sample, several irregular
`codes resulted in highly undesirable error floors.
`
`EX 1102 (MacKay) 1450, 1452
`
`38
`
`EX 2033 (Davis Dep.) 261:17-262:13
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00701
`
`
`
`Objective Indicia of Non-obviousness
`
`39
`
`
`
`Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness
`POR 51-52
`“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
`IPR2017-00701
`
`40
`
`
`
`IRA codes are commercially successful
`
`POR 51-52
`
`41
`
`MM ¶168
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00701
`
`
`
`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.
`EX1167, *2
`Id., *5.
`42
`
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00701
`
`
`
`J. Pfaelzerdecision based on narrow
`construction
`MTE 9-10
`(cid:1)Judge Pfaelzernarrowly construed “repeat” to preclude
`“re-use” of a bit.
`(cid:1)Judge Wu 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
`IPR2017-00701
`
`43
`
`
`
`Praise for IRA codes
`
`44
`
`POR 57-59
`
`EX2008, p. 196
`
`EX2010, p. 23
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00701
`
`
`
`DVB-S2 performance credited to IRA codes
`
`POR 53
`
`EX2006, p. 1
`
`EX2007, p. 1
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00701
`
`45
`
`
`
`DVB-S2’s commercial success
`
`POR 60-62
`
`EX2013, p. 2
`
`46
`
`EX2014, p. 1
`Patent Owner Caltech’s Oral Argument
`IPR2017-00701
`
`
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
