`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`HTC Corporation and
`HTC America, Inc.,
`Petitioners
`v.
`INVT SPE LLC,
`Patent Owner
`__________
`IPR Case No. IPR2018-01556
`U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`__________
`
`
`HTC CORPORATION AND HTC AMERICA, INC.’S
`REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`B. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .................................................................. 3 
`II. 
`III.  BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 3 
`A.  Under the BRI, Claim 4 Requires No More Than a Single
`Coding Scheme Applied to Channel Quality Information. ................... 3 
`HTC Demonstrated How Applying a Single Coding Scheme to
`A DRC Message Renders Claim 4 Obvious. ........................................ 4 
`1. 
`The DRC Message in Padovani Indicates Channel
`Quality. ........................................................................................ 4 
`Gils’s Coding Scheme Provides Unequal Error Protection
`That Better Protects the Most Significant Bit. ............................ 4 
`HTC Demonstrated Applying a Single Coding Scheme to
`the DRC Message Would Better Protect the Most
`Significant Bit. ............................................................................ 6 
`The Petition Identified Motivation to Combine Gils and
`Padovani. ..................................................................................... 8 
`The Board Denied Institution Based On Claim 4 Requiring
`Multiple Coding Schemes And Rejecting the Common
`Understanding of “Most Significant Bit”. ............................................. 9 
`IV.  LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................... 9 
`V.  ARGUMENT ................................................................................................. 10 
`A. 
`For Claim 4, HTC’s Petition Did Not, and Was Not Required
`to, Apply Different UEP Codes to Different Parts of the DRC
`Message. .............................................................................................. 10 
`Dr. Min’s Testimony Regarding the Most Significant Bit
`Merely Confirmed the Well Known and Common-Sense
`Relationship Between a Bit’s Location and Its Significance. ............. 12 
`The Petition Relied Not Only on the Leftmost Bit Being the
`Most Significant Bit But Also on the Teachings of Gils. ................... 14 
`VI.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 15 
`
`-i-
`
`
`C. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Cases
`Facebook, Inc. v. Software Rights Archive, LLC
`IPR2013-00478, Paper 31 (PTAB Apr. 14, 2014) ............................................. 10
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................... 10
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) ................................................................................................. 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) .................................................................................... 1, 3, 9, 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ............................................................................................... 10
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756, at 48765 .................................................................................. 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), Petitioners HTC Corporation and HTC
`
`America, Inc. (collectively “HTC”) respectfully request that the Board reconsider
`
`its decision not to institute inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,206,587 (“the ’587 Patent”) for Claim 4. See Paper 11 (“Decision”). HTC seeks
`
`this reconsideration due to erroneous factual findings made resulting from the
`
`Board’s oversight of key arguments, wherein, absent these errors, the IPR should
`
`have been instituted.
`
`The Board erred in denying institution for at least two reasons. First, the
`
`Decision misapprehended what the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) of
`
`independent Claim 4 requires, by improperly reading in limitations found in Claim
`
`3.1 Under the BRI, it is undisputed that Claim 4 includes applying only a single
`
`coding scheme to channel quality information (a single message). Yet, the Board
`
`read in limitations from Claim 3 that required the application of two different
`
`coding schemes to different parts of a message. Neither HTC nor the Patent
`
`Owner proposed this construction. By contrast, HTC’s Petition in fact relied on
`
`
`1 Claims 1-3 are no longer at issue in this IPR.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`

`

`
`
`applying a single coding scheme found in Gils2, to channel quality information (a
`
`“DRC message”) found in Padovani3, to render Claim 4 obvious. Nonetheless, the
`
`Board’s denial was based on HTC’s alleged failure to show motivation to apply
`
`two different coding schemes to different parts of the message—which was clearly
`
`based upon an incorrect premise. Decision at 16. But for this clearly erroneous
`
`factual finding, the IPR should have been instituted.
`
`Second, the Board improperly disregarded part of Dr. Min’s testimony as
`
`allegedly “uncorroborated” and “conclusory.” Decision at 15-16. Specifically, the
`
`Board disregarded Dr. Min’s testimony reciting the plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`“the most significant bit,” which is well known to be “the leftmost bit” in binary
`
`and other based-x systems. Id. In doing so, the Board overlooked the fact that
`
`there was no reason to construe the term differently from its common usage; nor
`
`did Padovani suggest a non-conventional definition of “the most significant bit.”
`
`Moreover, the Board overlooked corroborating evidence found in the record that
`
`Gils suggests stronger protection to higher order bits. This oversight lead to an
`
`
`2 Ex. 1010 (W. van Gils, “Design of error-control coding schemes for three
`problems of noisy information transmission, storage and processing,” Ph.D.,
`dissertation, Eindhoven Univ. of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands, 1988).
`3 Ex. 1009 (PCT Application No. PCT/US98/23428 to Padovani et al.).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`

`

`
`
`erroneous finding of fact—and is yet another reason for the Board to reconsider its
`
`Decision.
`II.
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`HTC respectfully submits that because the Board overlooked HTC’s
`
`application of a single coding scheme from Gils to the DRC message of Padovani,
`
`overlooked HTC’s reliance on certain teachings of Gils, and improperly discounted
`
`Dr. Min’s testimony, it failed to properly consider the evidence of obviousness
`
`offered in the Petition. Due to any one or all of these issues, the Board made
`
`clearly erroneous factual findings and/or a clear error in judgment. Accordingly,
`
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), HTC requests that the Board reconsider its
`
`Decision for Claim 4 of the ’587 Patent and institute an IPR of that claim.
`III. BACKGROUND
`A. Under the BRI, Claim 4 Requires No More Than a Single Coding
`Scheme Applied to Channel Quality Information.
`Claim 4 requires a coding device that encodes a message indicative of
`
`channel quality wherein “the coding device encodes the information such that the
`
`most significant bit of the plurality of bits is less susceptible to errors in a
`
`propagation path than other bits of the plurality of bits.” ’587 Patent, Claim 4. In
`
`this proceeding, neither party has advocated a construction of Claim 4 that requires
`
`encoding using multiple different coding schemes. See Decision at 6; see also Pet.
`
`at 15-19; Patent Owner Preliminary Response (“POPR”) at 13.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`

`

`
`
`B. HTC Demonstrated How Applying a Single Coding Scheme to a
`DRC Message Renders Claim 4 Obvious.
`It is undisputed that Padovani and Gils are prior art. Decision at 11–12.
`
`HTC’s Petition demonstrated Padovani, in view of Gils, renders Claim 4 obvious.
`1.
`The DRC Message in Padovani Indicates Channel Quality.
`It is undisputed that Padovani discloses a mobile station transmitting a DRC
`
`message containing an indication of forward link channel quality. Pet. at 20-22.
`
`Padovani further discloses encoding this 3-bit DRC message to reduce error
`
`probability. Id. at 22. The Board agreed. Decision at 9–10, 13, 16.
`2. Gils’s Coding Scheme Provides Unequal Error Protection
`That Better Protects the Most Significant Bit.
`Next, HTC’s Petition established Gils discloses error-control coding scheme
`
`“applications . . . in which some message positions are more important than
`
`others.” Decision 11 (citing Ex. 1010 at 18). Gils taught scenarios in which
`
`unequal error protection (“UEP”) may be useful, “[f]or example in transmitting
`
`numerical data, [where] errors in the sign or the high-order digits are more serious
`
`than the errors in the low-order digits.” Pet. at 24; Ex. 1010, 14. Neither the
`
`Board or Patent Owner contested this teaching. Decision at 11.
`
`HTC’s Petition explained how a skilled artisan would have applied a single
`
`coding scheme from Gils to the DRC message of Padovani, as shown below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Citation
`Pet. 30; Ex.
`1010 at 25
`
`Pet. 31;
`Ex. 1017 ¶ 129
`
`Pet. 31–32;
`Ex. 1017 ¶ 129
`
`Pet. 33
`
`Pet. 33;
`Ex. 1017 ¶ 132
`
`Argument / Fact
`“Each row of Table I of Gils reflects different (n,k) coding
`schemes that result in protecting certain part(s) of the message
`better than other parts of the message.”
`“It would have been obvious for a POSITA to have modified
`the DRC encoder of Padovani by using an encoder configured
`to implement a coding scheme, like those disclosed in Gils, in
`order to ensure that error probability of the encoded DRC
`message is sufficiently low.”4
`“[A] POSITA would have understood that the use of one
`coding scheme versus another would depend on, e.g., the type
`of data to be encoded and/or the amount of error protection
`desired.”
`“[A] single UEP coding scheme could . . . be used depending
`on how a POSITA would have wanted to implement unequal
`error protection.”
`“[T]o provide greater protection for a particular portion (one
`or more of the bits comprising the 3-bit rate index) of a C/I
`measurement representative of forward link channel quality, a
`POSITA would have been motivated to provide greater
`protection for certain bits by selecting appropriate code words
`generated by one or more of the coding schemes contemplated
`by Gils.”
`“[B]y encoding a data word (in the case of Padovani, the DRC
`message), using an (8,3) coding scheme set forth in Gils . . . ,
`the resulting code words would provide greater protection for
`the higher order bit (most significant bit) with a greater
`minimum distance (6,2,2) or (5,4,4).”
`“[T]he most significant bit in this example would result in the
`higher order digit being protected vis-à-vis a greater minimum
`distance, i.e., 6 versus 2 or 5 versus 4.”
`
`Although HTC mentioned UEP could be accomplished using different
`
`Pet. 42;
`Ex. 1017 ¶ 158
`
`Pet. 42;
`Ex. 1017 ¶ 158
`
`coding schemes for the different parts of a message, it did not argue Claim 4
`
`
`4 Emphasis added unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`

`

`
`
`requires multiple coding schemes. Pet. at 33. Patent Owner did not assert HTC’s
`
`argument used multiple coding schemes. POPR at § VI. And the Board
`
`acknowledged Dr. Min’s testimony that “a single UEP coding scheme could also
`
`be used depending on how a POSITA would have wanted to implement unequal
`
`error protection.” Decision at 15 (internal quotation marks omitted).
`3. HTC Demonstrated Applying a Single Coding Scheme to the
`DRC Message Would Better Protect the Most Significant Bit.
`The Petition explained that Padovani discloses encoding a DRC message to
`
`reduce errors. Pet. at 22, 29. And the Petition explained that Gils discloses UEP
`
`coding schemes to better protect higher order or more significant bits:
`
`Argument / Fact
`
`“For example, the (n,k) coding scheme (8,3) results in the
`encoding of 3 bits into a plurality of 8 bit codewords, where
`according to a first construction (A), one bit (which can be
`considered a most significant bit) is more important than two
`other bits.”
`“Gils recognizes that greater error protection may be needed
`for certain bits, e.g., one or more higher order or more
`significant bits.”
`“The coding schemes disclosed by Gils result in linear UEP
`codes ‘that protect some positions in a message word against a
`larger number of errors than other ones.’”
`“‘[I]n transmitting numerical data, errors in the sign or in the
`high-order digits are more serious than the errors in the low-
`order digits.’ . . . [T]he resulting code words would provide
`greater protection for the higher order bit (most significant bit)
`with greater minimum distance (6,2,2) or (5,4,4).”
`
`
`Citation
`
`Pet. 30
`
`Pet. 32
`
`Pet. 41
`
`Pet. 42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Therefore, the Petition explained, “a POSITA would have been motivated to
`
`provide greater protection for the decimal integer portion [of Padovani’s DRC
`
`message] (an error in which would be magnified versus an error in the decimal
`
`fraction portion).” Pet. at 33. The Petition then demonstrated applying the (8,3)
`
`coding scheme from Gils to encode the 3-bit DRC, which is consistent with HTC’s
`
`reliance on a single coding scheme. Pet. at 36–44.
`
`Specifically, the Petition described that applying the (8,3) coding scheme
`
`from Gils would result in code words with minimum distances of (6,2,2) or (5,4,4).
`
`Id. at 42–43. This illustrated that the highest order bit (most significant bit, or
`
`leftmost bit) is afforded the greatest minimum distance—i.e., 6 for the highest
`
`order/most significant (e.g., leftmost) bit versus 2 and 2 for the other bits, or 5 for
`
`the highest order/most significant (e.g., leftmost) bit versus 4 and 4 for the other
`
`bits. Id. at 42 (“[B]y encoding a data word (in the case of Padovani, the DRC
`
`message), using an (8,3) coding scheme set forth in Gils . . . , the resulting code
`
`words would provide greater protection for the higher order bit (most significant
`
`bit) with a greater minimum distance (6,2,2) or (5,4,4).”). “Thus, the most
`
`significant bit in this example would result in the higher order digit being protected
`
`vis-à-vis a greater minimum distance, i.e., 6 versus 2 or 5 versus 4.” Id. HTC
`
`explained that this meant the most significant bit in the DRC message was “less
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`

`

`
`
`susceptible to errors[.]” ’587 Patent, Claim 4; Pet. at 40–44. The Board did not
`
`address this analysis or identify any deficiencies. See generally Decision.
`4.
`The Petition Identified Motivation to Combine Gils and
`Padovani.
`Contrary to the Board’s findings, HTC’s explanation of the motivation to
`
`combine Padovani and Gils did not require applying different coding schemes to
`
`different portions of the DRC message, or that the leftmost bit of the DRC message
`
`be the most significant bit. Pet. at 31–33 (discussing use of single coding scheme).
`
`As discussed herein, the Petition demonstrated that it would have been obvious to
`
`encode the most significant bit of Padovani’s 3-bit DRC message using the UEP
`
`disclosed in Gils. Id. at 40–43. The DRC message of Padovani would have
`
`necessarily had a most significant bit, and Gils provided the motivation to better
`
`protect that bit, wherever in the DRC message it is located.
`
`A skilled artisan would have been motivated to “modif[y] the DRC encoder
`
`of Padovani by using an encoder configured to implement” a UEP coding scheme
`
`as disclosed in Gils “in order to ensure that error probability of the encoded DRC
`
`message is sufficiently low.” Pet. at 31, 33. Because “Gils is agnostic as to the
`
`context in which [UEP] codes may be used,” the skilled artisan would have
`
`understood that Gils’s UEP codes could be used for the transmission of the DRC
`
`message from Padovani. Pet. at 36 (citing Ex. 1017 ¶ 136). Further, the Petition
`
`explained that “Gils also recognizes that greater error protection may be needed for
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`

`

`
`
`certain bits, e.g., one or more higher order or most significant bits,” and that a
`
`skilled artisan “would have been motivated to provide greater protection for the
`
`decimal integer portion [of the DRC] (an error in which would be magnified versus
`
`an error in the decimal fraction portion” of the message. Pet. at 32–33 (citing Ex.
`
`1017 ¶ 131). The Petition also explained that the skilled artisan would have been
`
`motivated to better protect a particular portion of Padovani’s 3-bit rate index that
`
`can represent the DRC message. Id. at 33–36. Accordingly, the skilled artisan
`
`would have combined the references in the manner proposed in the Petition.
`
`C. The Board Denied Institution Based on Claim 4 Requiring
`Multiple Coding Schemes and Rejecting the Common
`Understanding of “Most Significant Bit”.
`The Board denied institution due to the Petitioner’s alleged lack of evidence
`
`for two points: First, “that the POSITA would have used ‘different coding
`
`schemes for the different parts’ in [the DRC of] Padovani”; and second, “that it
`
`was well understood by a POSITA that the leftmost bit in the DRC message of
`
`Padovani is the ‘most significant bit’ of claim 4[.]” Decision at 16.
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`A request for rehearing is appropriate when the requesting party believes
`
`“the Board misapprehended or overlooked” a matter that was previously addressed
`
`in the record. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The request “must specifically identify all
`
`matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place
`
`where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`reply.” Id. In evaluating such a request, the “panel will review the decision for an
`
`abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs where a
`
`decision is based on an “erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual
`
`findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” Facebook, Inc. v. Software Rights
`
`Archive, LLC, IPR2013-00478, Paper 31 at 2 (PTAB Apr. 14, 2014) (quoting PPG
`
`Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1988)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), for the
`
`Board to institute IPR, a petitioner need only show a “reasonable likelihood that
`
`the petitioner would prevail.” Accord 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). This is a “somewhat
`
`flexible standard.” 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, at 48765.
`V. ARGUMENT
`Accounting for the correct interpretation of Claim 4 under the BRI as well as
`
`all of HTC’s arguments, the full teaching of the prior art as explained in the
`
`Petition, and HTC’s expert testimony, the Petition illustrated beyond a “reasonable
`
`likelihood” of success that Claim 4 of the ’587 Patent is obvious in view of the
`
`grounds raised. Therefore, HTC respectfully requests that the Board reconsider its
`
`Decision, and institute IPR of the ’587 Patent.
`A.
`For Claim 4, HTC’s Petition Did Not, and Was Not Required to,
`Apply Different UEP Codes to Different Parts of the DRC Message.
`The Decision focused on HTC and Dr. Min’s alleged failure to support an
`
`analysis that requires applying different UEP coding schemes to different parts of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`

`

`
`
`the DRC message. Decision at 14–16. But under the BRI the coding device of
`
`Claim 4 does not require and has not been construed to require the use of multiple
`
`coding schemes. Decision at 6–7; see § III.A, supra. Therefore, as explained
`
`above in Section III.B.3, the Petition used the application of a single UEP coding
`
`scheme from Gils to Padovani’s 3-bit DRC message to show Claim 4 is obvious.
`
`Pet. at 36–44. The Petition did not argue multiple coding schemes were necessary
`
`to render Claim 4 obvious, nor did the Patent Owner.5 § III.B.3; Pet. at 40–43. It
`
`is likely, however, that the Board confused the requirements of Claim 4 with the
`
`limitations of Claim 3.
`
`For Claim 3, HTC applied different coding schemes from Gils to different
`
`portions of the claimed message in Claim 3, (Pet. at 72–73 (citing Ex. 1017 ¶
`
`239)), but as explained above, not for Claim 4. Pet. at 40–43. Alternatively, the
`
`oversight may be a relic of HTC’s Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,760,590,
`
`the ’587 Patent’s parent, that also applied two UEP coding schemes from Gils to
`
`different parts of the DRC in Padovani. See, e.g., IPR2018-01557, Paper 1 at 37–
`
`39. Given that the Board never explained its departure from the BRI standard of
`
`Claim 4, it is clear there was likely some confusion.
`
`
`5 Although Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (“POPR”) introduced the
`concept of “multiple codes to encode different portions of the DRC message[,]” in
`its overview of Padovani at p. 14, it did not argue Claim 4 required multiple codes.
`POPR at § VI.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`

`

`
`
`When properly interpreted, HTC’s ground using a single coding scheme
`
`from Gils rendered Claim 4 obvious. Applying a single UEP coding scheme to the
`
`DRC message would result in the higher order bit of the message being better
`
`protected (i.e., less susceptible to errors) than lower order bits. This is shown in
`
`the Petition where the (8,3) coding scheme of Gils is applied to the DRC message
`
`such that the higher order (most significant) bit has a greater minimum distance
`
`than the lower order bits. Pet. at 42. Because the Board criticized the Petition for
`
`not making the required showing under a dual coding scheme, it appears HTC’s
`
`real argument—based on a single coding scheme—was overlooked.
`
`Because Claim 4 is rendered obvious through the application of a single
`
`coding scheme, neither HTC nor Dr. Min needed to show that a skilled artisan
`
`would have applied different coding schemes to different parts of the message.
`
`But for the Board’s error in overlooking HTC’s single coding scheme argument,
`
`the IPR should have been instituted. Therefore, for at least the above reasons, it
`
`was an abuse of discretion to deny institution, and the Decision should be reversed.
`
`B. Dr. Min’s Testimony Regarding the Most Significant Bit Merely
`Confirmed the Well Known and Common-Sense Relationship
`Between a Bit’s Location and its Significance.
`Another basis for the Decision was the finding that Dr. Min’s testimony
`
`concerning the nature of binary numbers was “uncorroborated.” HTC respectfully
`
`submits that the Decision was clearly erroneous because the relationship between a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`

`

`
`
`bit’s position and its significance was well known and is a matter of common
`
`sense. As such, no expert testimony was required. Because Dr. Min’s testimony
`
`merely confirmed what was well known and common sense, it should not have
`
`been disregarded, and Patent Owner’s unsupported, un-conventional claim
`
`construction should not be given credence.
`
`The Board found “Dr. Min’s contention that ‘[t]he nature of binary numbers
`
`(or other base-x number systems) means that the leftmost bit of any binary number
`
`is the most significant bit’ … [to be] conclusory.” Decision at 15. Yet, Dr. Min
`
`was not stating his opinion—he was providing the plain and ordinary, common
`
`sense meaning of the term that reflects a fundamental, mathematical truth, that
`
`when referring to the “most significant bit,” one refers to the leftmost bit. Indeed,
`
`in the case of a decimal or base-10 number system, as also explained by the
`
`Petition and Dr. Min, an error in a decimal integer portion, which is to the left of
`
`the decimal fraction portion, “would be magnified versus an error in the decimal
`
`fraction portion,” which is to the right of the decimal integer portion. Pet. at 33,
`
`69. Binary numbers are no different, and Gils’ coding schemes support this
`
`commonly understood characteristic. See § III.B.3, supra.
`
`There is no expert testimony in the record disputing Dr. Min’s testimony.
`
`Moreover, there was no need to construe the term “most significant bit” given its
`
`well accepted plain and ordinary meaning (i.e., that it is the leftmost bit).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Furthermore, no evidence exists in the ’587 Patent, Padovani, or Gils that teaches
`
`against this common understanding of “the most significant bit.”
`
`Thus, it was a clear error in judgment to overlook Dr. Min’s testimony on
`
`the grounds that corroborating evidence was lacking. See Decision at 15–16
`
`(“There is no proffered evidence that it was well understood by a POSITA at the
`
`time that the leftmost bit in binary numbers, and specifically the DRC message of
`
`Padovani, is the ‘most significant bit.’”). Accordingly, to the extent the Decision
`
`relied on an alleged lack of corroborating evidence, the Decision should be
`
`reversed.
`
`C. The Petition Relied Not Only on the Leftmost Bit Being the Most
`Significant Bit But Also on the Teachings of Gils.
`To the extent it was relied on by the Board, the alleged failure to prove the
`
`leftmost bit of the DRC message is the most significant bit should not have been
`
`fatal to the Petition. The Petition did not rely exclusively on the leftmost bit being
`
`the most significant bit, though with only three bits in the DRC it would have been
`
`obvious for any of those bits to be the most significant. Rather, the Petition also
`
`used Gils’s teaching that UEP coding schemes “provide greater protection for the
`
`higher order bit (most significant bit),” and asserted that such protection would be
`
`provided to the most significant bit of Padovani’s 3-bit DRC message—i.e., the bit
`
`or digit in which Gils taught errors are “more serious” than errors in the lower
`
`order bits or digits. Pet. at 42; see also id. at 32–33.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Indeed, the Petition (as discussed above) used an (8,3) UEP coding scheme
`
`as an example from Gils that provides greater protection for the most significant bit
`
`of the encoded message. Pet. at 42. None of the UEP coding schemes disclosed
`
`by Gils would result in the lower order (e.g., rightmost) bits having greater
`
`protection than the highest order (e.g., leftmost) bit of a binary number. See, e.g.,
`
`Pet. at 43 (excerpting Table I of Gils). The Petition used Gils’s teaching of better
`
`protecting higher order bits to support the motivation to provide greater protection
`
`for the decimal integer portion of the 3-bit DRC message than the decimal fraction
`
`portion. Pet. at 32–33. The Board overlooked the Petition’s use of this teaching,
`
`focusing instead on Dr. Min’s alleged lack of corroborating evidence, discussed
`
`above. See Decision at 15. As demonstrated by HTC’s Petition, but for this
`
`oversight, inter partes review should have been instituted.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`As shown above, the Petition demonstrated there is a reasonable likelihood
`
`that HTC would prevail with respect to the obviousness of Claim 4 in view of
`
`Padovani and Gils. For the reasons provided above, HTC respectfully requests that
`
`the Board reconsider the arguments and evidence from the Petition showing Claim
`
`4 of the ’587 Patent is obvious in view of Padovani and Gils, and institute inter
`
`partes review.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 4, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/Stephen S. Korniczky/
`Stephen S. Korniczky (Reg. No. 34,853)
`Martin R. Bader (Reg. No. 54,736)
`Nam H. Kim (Reg. No. 64,160)
`Ericka J. Schulz (Reg. No. 60,665)
`Hector A. Agdeppa (Reg. No. 58,238)
`
`SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER &
`HAMPTON LLP
`12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Tel.: (858) 720-8900
`Fax: (858) 509-3691
`
`Counsel for Petitioners
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`