`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Apple Inc.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`California Institute of Technology
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00728
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00728
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64, Petitioner Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) serves the
`
`following objections to evidence served with the Patent Owner’s Response of
`
`California Institute of Technology (“Patent Owner”).
`
`
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2004, Declaration of Dr. Michael
`
`Mitzenmacher, as not relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit
`
`2004 on the ground that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder, undue
`
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence (FRE 403).
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2004 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802).
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2004 as lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902).
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2004 as improper expert testimony by a lay
`
`witness and/or as unreliable and lacking a sufficient basis (FRE 701, 702).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2005, Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Michael
`
`Mitzenmacher as not relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit
`
`2005 on the on the ground that its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder,
`
`undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence (FRE
`
`403). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2005 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801,
`
`2
`
`
`
`802). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2005 as lacking authentication (FRE
`
`IPR2017-00728
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`901, 902).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2006, Kienle et al., “A synthesizable IP Core for
`
`DVB-S2 LDPC Code Decoding,” IEEE, 2005 as not relevant (FRE 401).
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2006 on the ground that its probative value is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`
`cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2006 as
`
`inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2006 as
`
`lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902).
`
`
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2007, Gomes et al., “Factorizable modulo M
`
`parallel architecture for DVB-S2 LDPC decoding,” Proceedings of the 6th
`
`Conference on Telecommunications, CONFTELE, 2007 as not relevant (FRE
`
`401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2007 on the ground that its probative
`
`value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the
`
`issues, misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly
`
`presenting cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit
`
`2007 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit
`
`2007 as lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902).
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2008, Liva et al., “Design of LDPC Codes: A
`
`IPR2017-00728
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`petitioner objects to exhibit Survey and New Results,” Journal of Communications
`
`Software and Systems, 2(3):191-211, 2006 as not relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner
`
`further objects to Exhibit 2008 on the ground that its probative value is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`
`cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2008 as
`
`inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2008 as
`
`lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902).
`
`
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2009, Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB) User
`
`guidelines for the second generation systems for Broadcasting, Interactive
`
`Services, News Gathering and other broadband satellite applications (DVB-S2),
`
`ETSI TR 102 376, V11111 (2005-02), as not relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner
`
`further objects to Exhibit 2009 on the ground that its probative value is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`
`cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2009 as
`
`inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2008 as
`
`lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902).
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2010, Kim et al., “Development of Rate-
`
`IPR2017-00728
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`Compatible Structured LDPC CODEC Algorithms and Hardware IP,” Project
`
`Final Report, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Georgia Institute of
`
`Technology, December 2006, as not relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner further objects
`
`to Exhibit 2010 on the ground that its probative value is substantially outweighed
`
`by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder,
`
`undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence (FRE
`
`403). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2010 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801,
`
`802). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2010 as lacking authentication (FRE
`
`901, 902). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2010 as incomplete (FRE 106).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2011, Richardson et al., “Efficient Encoding of
`
`Low-Density Parity-Check Codes,” March 6, 2001, as not relevant (FRE 401).
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2011 on the ground that its probative value is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`
`cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2011 as
`
`inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2011 as
`
`lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902).
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2012, Lestable et al., “Irregular Repeat-
`
`IPR2017-00728
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`Accumulate LDPC Code Proposal – Technology Overview,” IEEE 802.20
`
`Working Group on Mobile Broadband Wireless Access, March 5, 2007, as not
`
`relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2012 on the ground that
`
`its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
`
`confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, or
`
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further objects to
`
`Exhibit 2012 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further objects to
`
`Exhibit 2012 as lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2013, DVB-S2 Factsheet, DVB Project Office,
`
`August 2012, as not relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2013
`
`on the ground that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner
`
`further objects to Exhibit 2013 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner
`
`further objects to Exhibit 2013 as lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2014, DVB-S2 Technology to Stimulate
`
`Demand for Broadband Interactive Services via Satellite, DVB Press Release,
`
`March 30, 2004 (obtained from https://www.dvb.org/news/dvb-s2-technology-to-
`
`6
`
`
`
`stimulate-demand-for-broadband-interact...), as not relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner
`
`IPR2017-00728
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`further objects to Exhibit 2014 on the ground that its probative value is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`
`cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2014 as
`
`inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2014 as
`
`lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2015, New SKY Perfect DVB-S2 Satellite
`
`service for Japan, DVB-S2 Press Release, October 13, 2008 (obtained from
`
`https://www.dvb.org/news/new-sky-perfect-dvb-s2-sattellite-service-for-japan), as
`
`not relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2015 on the ground
`
`that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting
`
`time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further
`
`objects to Exhibit 2015 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further
`
`objects to Exhibit 2015 as lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2016, BBC HDin DVB-S2 move, DVB-S to
`
`DVB-S2 Press Release, June 2, 2011 (obtained from
`
`https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2011/06,02,bbc-hd-in-dvb-s2-move/).
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2016 on the ground that its probative value is
`
`IPR2017-00728
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`
`cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2016 as
`
`inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2016 as
`
`lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2017, Joint Stipulated Motion for Dismissal
`
`with Prejudice in California Institute of Technology vs. Hughes Communications,
`
`Inc. et al., 2:13-CV-7245 MRP-JEM (March 6, 2014) as not relevant (FRE 401).
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2017 on the ground that its probative value is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`
`cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2017 as
`
`inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2018, Amended Complaint for Patent
`
`Infringement Prejudice in California Institute of Technology vs. Hughes
`
`Communications, Inc., et al., 2:13-CV-7245 MRP-JEM (March 6, 2014), as not
`
`relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2018 on the ground that
`
`its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
`
`8
`
`
`
`confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, or
`
`IPR2017-00728
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further objects to
`
`Exhibit 2018 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2019, Lee, (LDPC Codes, Application to
`
`Generation Communications Systems,” Hughes Network Sys. presentation,
`
`October 8, 2003, as not relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit
`
`2019 on the ground that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder, undue
`
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence (FRE 403).
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2019 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802).
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2019 as lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2020, Declaration of Dr. Hui Jin, as not relevant
`
`(FRE 401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2020 on the ground that its
`
`probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
`
`confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, or
`
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further objects to
`
`Exhibit 2020 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further objects to
`
`Exhibit 2020 as lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902). Petitioner objects to
`
`Exhibit 2020 as lacking personal knowledge/foundation (FRE 602). Petitioner
`
`9
`
`
`
`further objects to Exhibit 2020 as improper expert testimony by a lay witness
`
`IPR2017-00728
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`and/or as unreliable and lacking a sufficient basis (FRE 701, 702).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2021, March 7, 2000 Email from Dr. McEliece,
`
`as not relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2021 on the ground
`
`that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting
`
`time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further
`
`objects to Exhibit 2021 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further
`
`objects to Exhibit 2021 as lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902). Petitioner
`
`further objects to Exhibit 2021 as unwitnessed and insufficient to corroborate
`
`alleged reduction to practice. Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1170
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A]n unwitnessed notebook is insufficient on its own to support
`
`a claim of reduction to practice.”); Brown v. Barbacid, 276 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2002) (“[A]n inventor’s own unwitnessed documentation does not corroborate
`
`an inventor’s testimony about inventive facts.”).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2022, Dr. McEliece’s Lab Notebook, as not
`
`relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2022 on the ground that
`
`its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
`
`confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, or
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00728
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further objects to
`
`Exhibit 2022 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further objects to
`
`Exhibit 2022 as lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902). Petitioner further objects
`
`to Exhibit 2022 as incomplete (FRE 106). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit
`
`2022 as unwitnessed and insufficient to corroborate alleged reduction to practice.
`
`Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A]n
`
`unwitnessed notebook is insufficient on its own to support a claim of reduction to
`
`practice.”); Brown v. Barbacid, 276 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[A]n
`
`inventor’s own unwitnessed documentation does not corroborate an inventor’s
`
`testimony about inventive facts.”).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2023, Jin, IRA.h code file, Head file for IRA,
`
`March 10, 2000, first version, is not relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner further objects
`
`to Exhibit 2023 on the ground that its probative value is substantially outweighed
`
`by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder,
`
`undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence (FRE
`
`403). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2023 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801,
`
`802). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2023 as lacking authentication (FRE
`
`901, 902). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2023 as incomplete (FRE 106).
`
`Petitioner also objects to Exhibit 2023 as violating FRE 1002, 1003. Petitioner
`
`11
`
`
`
`further objects to Exhibit 2023 as unwitnessed and insufficient to corroborate
`
`IPR2017-00728
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`alleged reduction to practice. Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1170
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A]n unwitnessed notebook is insufficient on its own to support
`
`a claim of reduction to practice.”); Brown v. Barbacid, 276 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2002) (“[A]n inventor’s own unwitnessed documentation does not corroborate
`
`an inventor’s testimony about inventive facts.”).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2024, Jin, IRA.cpp code file, Implementation
`
`file for class IRA, March 10, 2000, first version, as not relevant (FRE 401).
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2024 on the ground that its probative value is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`
`cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2024 as
`
`inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2024 as
`
`lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2024
`
`as incomplete (FRE 106). Petitioner also objects to Exhibit 2024 as violating FRE
`
`1002, 1003. Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2024 as unwitnessed and
`
`insufficient to corroborate alleged reduction to practice. Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo
`
`S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A]n unwitnessed notebook is
`
`insufficient on its own to support a claim of reduction to practice.”); Brown v.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Barbacid, 276 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[A]n inventor’s own
`
`IPR2017-00728
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`unwitnessed documentation does not corroborate an inventor’s testimony about
`
`inventive facts.”).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2025, RA15_6 code file, as not relevant (FRE
`
`401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2025 on the ground that its probative
`
`value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the
`
`issues, misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly
`
`presenting cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit
`
`2025 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit
`
`2025 as lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902). Petitioner further objects to
`
`Exhibit 2025 as incomplete (FRE 106). Petitioner also objects to Exhibit 2025 as
`
`violating FRE 1002, 1003. Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2025 as
`
`unwitnessed and insufficient to corroborate alleged reduction to practice.
`
`Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A]n
`
`unwitnessed notebook is insufficient on its own to support a claim of reduction to
`
`practice.”); Brown v. Barbacid, 276 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[A]n
`
`inventor’s own unwitnessed documentation does not corroborate an inventor’s
`
`testimony about inventive facts.”).
`
`13
`
`
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2026, Jin, IRAsimu.cpp code file, March 20,
`
`IPR2017-00728
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`2000, first version, as not relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit
`
`2025 on the ground that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder, undue
`
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence (FRE 403).
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2026 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802).
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2026 as lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902).
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2026 as incomplete (FRE 106). Petitioner also
`
`objects to Exhibit 2026 as violating FRE 1002, 1003. Petitioner further objects to
`
`Exhibit 2026 as unwitnessed and insufficient to corroborate alleged reduction to
`
`practice. Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`
`(“[A]n unwitnessed notebook is insufficient on its own to support a claim of
`
`reduction to practice.”); Brown v. Barbacid, 276 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
`
`(“[A]n inventor’s own unwitnessed documentation does not corroborate an
`
`inventor’s testimony about inventive facts.”).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2027, makefile.bak code file, as not relevant
`
`(FRE 401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 7n the ground that its probative
`
`value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the
`
`issues, misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly
`
`14
`
`
`
`presenting cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit
`
`IPR2017-00728
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`2027 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit
`
`2027 as lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902). Petitioner further objects to
`
`Exhibit 2027 as incomplete (FRE 106). Petitioner also objects to Exhibit 2027 as
`
`violating FRE 1002, 1003. Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2027 as
`
`unwitnessed and insufficient to corroborate alleged reduction to practice.
`
`Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A]n
`
`unwitnessed notebook is insufficient on its own to support a claim of reduction to
`
`practice.”); Brown v. Barbacid, 276 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[A]n
`
`inventor’s own unwitnessed documentation does not corroborate an inventor’s
`
`testimony about inventive facts.”).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2028, Jin, GenINter.cpp code file, April 12,
`
`2000 modification, as not relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit
`
`2028 on the ground that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder, undue
`
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence (FRE 403).
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2028 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802).
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2028 as lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902).
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2028 as incomplete (FRE 106). Petitioner also
`
`15
`
`
`
`objects to Exhibit 2028 as violating FRE 1002, 1003. Petitioner further objects to
`
`IPR2017-00728
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`Exhibit 2028 as unwitnessed and insufficient to corroborate alleged reduction to
`
`practice. Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`
`(“[A]n unwitnessed notebook is insufficient on its own to support a claim of
`
`reduction to practice.”); Brown v. Barbacid, 276 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
`
`(“[A]n inventor’s own unwitnessed documentation does not corroborate an
`
`inventor’s testimony about inventive facts.”).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2029, IRA48_8prm code file, as not relevant
`
`(FRE 401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2029 on the ground that its
`
`probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
`
`confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, or
`
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further objects to
`
`Exhibit 2029 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further objects to
`
`Exhibit 2029 as lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902). Petitioner further objects
`
`to Exhibit 2029 as incomplete (FRE 106). Petitioner also objects to Exhibit 2029
`
`as violating FRE 1002, 1003. Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2029 as
`
`unwitnessed and insufficient to corroborate alleged reduction to practice.
`
`Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A]n
`
`unwitnessed notebook is insufficient on its own to support a claim of reduction to
`
`16
`
`
`
`practice.”); Brown v. Barbacid, 276 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[A]n
`
`IPR2017-00728
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`inventor’s own unwitnessed documentation does not corroborate an inventor’s
`
`testimony about inventive facts.”).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2030, Error floor, Wikipedia (obtained from
`
`https://en/wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_floor), as not relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner
`
`further objects to Exhibit 2030 on the ground that its probative value is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`
`cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2030 as
`
`inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2030 as
`
`lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2031, Declaration of Dr. Dariush Divsalar, as
`
`not relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2031 on the ground
`
`that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting
`
`time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further
`
`objects to Exhibit 2031 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further
`
`objects to Exhibit 2031 as lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902). Petitioner
`
`objects to Exhibit 2031 as lacking personal knowledge/foundation (FRE 602).
`
`17
`
`
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2031 as improper expert testimony by a lay
`
`IPR2017-00728
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`witness and/or as unreliable and lacking a sufficient basis (FRE 701, 702).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2032, Curriculum Vitae of Dr. of Dr. Dariush
`
`Divsalar as not relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2032 on
`
`the on the ground that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
`
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner
`
`further objects to Exhibit 2032 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner
`
`further objects to Exhibit 2032 as lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Michael Smith/
`
`____________________________
`Michael Smith
`Registration No. 71,190
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00728
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on November 29, 2017, I caused a true and correct copy
`
`of the foregoing materials:
`
` Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`to be served via electronic mail on the following correspondents of record as listed
`
`in Patent Owners’ Mandatory Notices:
`
`Michael Rosato (mrosato@wsgr.com)
`Matthew Argenti (margenti@wsgr.com)
`Richard Torczon (rtorczon@wsgr.com)
`
`
`/Michael Smith/
`
`________________________________
`Michael Smith
`Registration No. 71,190
`
`
`
`19
`
`