`
`Paper No. ___
`Filed: August 22, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`—————————————————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`—————————————————
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
`Patent Owner.
`
`—————————————————
`
`Case IPR2017-00701
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`—————————————————
`
`PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00701
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner California Institute of
`
`Technology (“Caltech”), submits the following objections to Petitioner Apple
`
`Inc.’s (“Petitioner”) Exhibits 1106, 1110, 1115, 1118, 1119, and 1124. As required
`
`by 37 C.F.R. § 42.62, Patent Owner’s objections below apply the Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence (“F.R.E.”).
`
`II. OBJECTIONS
`
`A. Objections to Ex. 1106 and any Reference to/Reliance Thereon
`
`Evidence objected to: Ex. 1106, “Berrou et al., ‘Near Shannon Limit Error-
`
`Correcting Coding and Decoding: Turbo Codes.’”
`
`Grounds for Objection: F.R.E. 401 (Test for Relevant Evidence); F.R.E. 402
`
`(Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other
`
`Reasons).
`
`Ex. 1106 is not cited in the petition that initiated this proceeding. As such,
`
`this exhibit is not relevant to the instituted ground of review or any other aspect of
`
`this proceeding as it has no tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it
`
`would be without the evidence. Moreover, Ex. 1106 is additionally not relevant to
`
`the instituted ground because any asserted facts to which the exhibit relates are of
`
`no consequence in determining this proceeding. Further, to the extent it is deemed
`
`relevant admission of the exhibit would be unduly prejudicial, misleading, and a
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00701
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`
`waste of time in view of the fact that it is not cited in the petition.
`
`B. Objections to Ex. 1110 and any Reference to/Reliance Thereon
`
`Evidence objected to: Ex. 1110, “Frey, B.J. and MacKay, D.J.C., ‘Irregular
`
`Turbocodes.’”
`
`Grounds for Objection: F.R.E. 106 (Remainder of or Related Writings or
`
`Recorded Statements); F.R.E. 801, 802 (Impermissible Hearsay); F.R.E. 901
`
`(Authenticating and Identifying Evidence).
`
`Ex. 1110 is purportedly an excerpt of the Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh
`
`Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control and Computing and, as
`
`such, it is incomplete and omits parts of the record “that in fairness ought to be
`
`considered at the same time.” In addition, insofar as any aspect of the exhibit is
`
`relied on to establish a date of public accessibility, the exhibit represents
`
`impermissible hearsay. Moreover, the exhibit has not been authenticated.
`
`C. Objections to Ex. 1115 and any Reference to/Reliance Thereon
`
`Evidence objected to: Ex. 1115, “Expert Report of Dr. Brendan Frey.’”
`
`Grounds for Objection: F.R.E. 401 (Test for Relevant Evidence); F.R.E. 402
`
`(Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other
`
`Reasons).
`
`Ex. 1115 is not cited in the petition that initiated this proceeding. As such,
`
`this exhibit is not relevant to the instituted ground of review or any other aspect of
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00701
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`
`this proceeding as it has no tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it
`
`would be without the evidence. Moreover, Ex. 1115 is additionally not relevant to
`
`the instituted ground because any asserted facts to which the exhibit relates are of
`
`no consequence in determining this proceeding. Further, to the extent it is deemed
`
`relevant admission of the exhibit would be unduly prejudicial, misleading, and a
`
`waste of time in view of the fact that it is not cited in the petition.
`
`D. Objections to Ex. 1118 and any Reference to/Reliance Thereon
`
`Evidence objected to: Ex. 1118, “U.S. Patent No. 4,271,520”
`
`Grounds for Objection: F.R.E. 401 (Test for Relevant Evidence); F.R.E. 402
`
`(Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other
`
`Reasons).
`
`Ex. 1118 is not cited in the petition that initiated this proceeding. As such,
`
`this exhibit is not relevant to the instituted ground of review or any other aspect of
`
`this proceeding as it has no tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it
`
`would be without the evidence. Moreover, Ex. 1118 is additionally not relevant to
`
`the instituted ground because any asserted facts to which the exhibit relates are of
`
`no consequence in determining this proceeding. Further, to the extent it is deemed
`
`relevant admission of the exhibit would be unduly prejudicial, misleading, and a
`
`waste of time in view of the fact that it is not cited in the petition.
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00701
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`
`E. Objections to Ex. 1119 and any Reference to/Reliance Thereon
`
`Evidence objected to: Ex. 1119, “Declaration of Robin Fradenburgh.”
`
`Grounds for Objection: F.R.E. 801, 802 (Impermissible Hearsay).
`
`Ex. 1119 is a declaration prepared for and submitted in another proceeding
`
`in which the witness was not made available for cross-examination. Ms.
`
`Fradenburgh is not a witness in this proceeding. As such, the exhibit represents
`
`impermissible hearsay.
`
`F. Objections to Ex. 1123 and any Reference to/Reliance Thereon
`
`Evidence objected to: Ex. 1123, “Declaration of Paul H. Siegel”
`
`Grounds for Objection: F.R.E. 401 (Test for Relevant Evidence); F.R.E. 402
`
`(Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other
`
`Reasons).
`
`Ex. 1123 is not cited in the petition that initiated this proceeding. As such,
`
`this exhibit is not relevant to the instituted ground of review or any other aspect of
`
`this proceeding as it has no tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it
`
`would be without the evidence. Moreover, Ex. 1123 is additionally not relevant to
`
`the instituted ground because any asserted facts to which the exhibit relates are of
`
`no consequence in determining this proceeding. Further, to the extent it is deemed
`
`relevant admission of the exhibit would be unduly prejudicial, misleading, and a
`
`waste of time in view of the fact that it is not cited in the petition.
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00701
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`
`G. Objections to Ex. 1124 and any Reference to/Reliance Thereon
`
`Evidence objected to: Ex. 1124, “Kschischang, et al., ‘Iterative decoding of
`
`compound codes by probability propagation in graphical models.’”
`
`Grounds for Objection: F.R.E. 401 (Test for Relevant Evidence); F.R.E. 402
`
`(Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other
`
`Reasons).
`
`Ex. 1124 is not cited in the petition that initiated this proceeding. As such,
`
`this exhibit is not relevant to the instituted ground of review or any other aspect of
`
`this proceeding as it has no tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it
`
`would be without the evidence. Moreover, Ex. 1124 is additionally not relevant to
`
`the instituted ground because any asserted facts to which the exhibit relates are of
`
`no consequence in determining this proceeding. Further, to the extent it is deemed
`
`relevant admission of the exhibit would be unduly prejudicial, misleading, and a
`
`waste of time in view of the fact that it is not cited in the petition.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`This proceeding was instituted on August 8, 2017. These objections are
`
`made within ten business days of institution.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: August 22, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/ Michael T. Rosato /
`Michael T. Rosato, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 52,182
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00701
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that the foregoing Patent Owner’s Notice of Objections to Evidence
`
`was served on this 22nd day of August, 2017, on the Petitioner at the
`
`correspondence address of the Petitioner as follows:
`
`
`Richard Goldenberg
`Brian M. Seeve
`Dominic Massa
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`richard.goldenberg@wilmerhale.com
`brian.seeve@wilmerhale.com
`dominic.massa@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`
`Date: August 22, 2017
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/ Michael T. Rosato /
`Michael T. Rosato, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 52,182
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
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
