`
`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 IPR2017-00728
`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 fails to show a “message passing decoder” ......................... 4
`D.
`Petitioner failed to show nonuniform row weights .............................. 5
`E.
`No explanation for how to modify Ping to be non-systematic ............. 5
`F.
`Reasonable expectation of success was never addressed ..................... 5
`G.
`corresponding experimental data should be rejected ........................... 6
`H. New attorney-generated Tanner graphs and block diagram ................. 8
`III.CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 8
`
`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, as Dr.
`
`Davis testified he remains available for deposition in the U.S. EX1273, ¶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 17-21.
`
`Realizing 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 2-4. 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 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016). Even then, Petitioner’s new argument does not explain why Figures 5 and 6
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. EX1202 1453; EX1203 38.
`
`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 28-32. 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 29-31), 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) 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. 44; see also EX2033 229:4-9. PO’s example simply adopts one of
`
`the weights proposed by Petitioner while maintaining Hd’s uniform column weight.
`
`The Reply (7-8) 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
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`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 18, which requires
`
`encoding a data stream “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 18’s Tanner graph. The Reply (9) attempts
`
`to cure this defect by presenting for the first time purported Tanner graphs of Ping
`
`and MacKay (EX1248, 1249), but again fails to explain how its proposed
`
`modifications encode a data stream in accordance with Claim 18’s Tanner graph.
`
`These purported Tanner graph depictions of Ping and MacKay should also
`
`be rejected as untimely, discussed below in Section II.H. In addition, Petitioner’s
`
`description of the exhibits is misleading. The Reply (9) claims the “open circles on
`
`the left” are “message nodes,” and incorrectly claims that “Ping’s message nodes
`
`all have degree four.” But EX1248’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
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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” (EX1203, 38), whereas MacKay’s 93y does
`
`the opposite of “distribut[ing] high weight columns per row [with] greater variance”
`
`(EX1202, 1451), which involves more clumping of edges. POR 50-51.
`
`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” and “reduce[] the correlation during … decoding.” EX1203, 38. The
`
`Reply does not address how its combination would maintain these benefits.
`
`C.
`
`Petitioner fails to show a “message passing decoder”
`
`POR (23-25) showed the petition provided no rationale to modify Ping with
`
`Divsalar, MacKay or Luby’s decoder. The Reply (17-18) still does not explain
`
`why a POSA would incorporate Divsalar, MacKay or Luby’s specific decoders.
`
`The petition also provided no analysis for why Divsalar, MacKay or Luby’s
`
`decoders would work with Ping’s code. The Reply (18) improperly attempts to
`
`shift the burden to Caltech. Dr. Frey’s testimony (EX1265 ¶59) regarding Ping’s
`
`decoding process is also untimely and improper, as is the Reply’s reliance on it.
`
`Finally, the POR (25) pointed out that the petition ignored Claim 18’s
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`limitation that its decoder operate in parallel. The Reply now states that parallel
`
`decoding was “conventional” and “obvious,” but provides no evidence of such.
`
`D.
`
`Petitioner failed to show nonuniform row weights
`
`The Reply (19-20) does not dispute POR’s argument that MacKay
`
`discouraged nonuniform row weight, required by claim 20. 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 discouraged
`
`and did not use. EX1202, 1449 (“weight per row as uniform as possible.”); 1451
`
`(“[A]ll rows have weight 7.”). Petitioner presents no such such rationale.
`
`E. No explanation for how to modify Ping to be non-systematic
`
`POR (26-27) pointed out that the petition provided no rationale for
`
`modifying Ping’s code to be non-systematic. The Reply does not address this
`
`deficiency. Instead, the Reply (20-21) now claims making Ping’s code non-
`
`systematic would have been simple, citing to Dr. Frey’s declaration (EX1265) at
`
`¶29. Yet Dr. Frey’s description is not a simple one, and he provides no
`
`explanation for why a POSA would make such changes. Moreover, the Reply does
`
`not address the POR’s argument that making Ping non-systematic would destroy
`
`Ping’s code by removing the Hd submatric from the parity-check matrix. POR 27.
`
`F.
`
`Reasonable expectation of success was never addressed
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`The POR (16-17, 46-51) 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
`
`Reply (e.g., 13-17) is improperly new and should be ignored. 77 Fed. Reg. 48767.
`
`G. 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 EX1268. 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 (42-45) 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. EX1265 ¶¶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
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`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. EX1203, 38. Petitioner now attempts to belatedly cure a fundamental
`
`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.” EX1265, ¶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
`
`(EX1265 ¶¶49,53), examining the code files tells a different story. Dr. Frey altered
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`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. EX1268 1, 3, 6 (“Parameters”). 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.
`
`H. New attorney-generated Tanner graphs and block diagram
`
`Petitioner relies on new exhibits 1271, 1272, 1248, and 1249, purported to
`
`be graphical representations of Ping and MacKay codes or implementations thereof.
`
`Reply 9, 10-12. Yet these figures are not in the petition and therefore untimely.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner’s argument regarding motivation to combine (Reply 8-12) is
`
`illogical. Simply because Petitioner’s lawyers generated similarly-styled graphs for
`
`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; EX1204 ¶¶54-55; EX1209 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-
`
`