`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CONSTELLATION DESIGNS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00319
`U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00319
`Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`B.
`
`Summary .......................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`Patent Owner’s Supplemental Mandatory Notices ......................................... 4
`II.
`III. Using “Constellations” In Digital Communications ....................................... 5
`A. Overview of a Digital Communication System .................................... 6
`1.
`The Transmitter ........................................................................... 7
`2.
`The Receiver ............................................................................... 9
`Constellation Mapping and Demapping .............................................. 10
`1.
`Constellation Point Locations and Labels ................................ 10
`2.
`The Mapper ............................................................................... 12
`3.
`The Demapper ........................................................................... 13
`IV. Prior Art Approaches ..................................................................................... 16
`A.
`The Shannon Channel Capacity Limit ................................................ 17
`B.
`Prior Art Approaches Failed To Achieve the Shannon Limit ............. 18
`1.
`Constellation Point Locations That Are Equally Spaced ......... 18
`The Challenged ʼ700 Patented Inventions ..................................................... 20
`A.
`The Development of the Inventive Technology.................................. 21
`B.
`The Patent’s Improved Approach to Implementing Non-
`Uniform Constellations ....................................................................... 23
`1.
`Optimizing Constellation Locations and Labels ....................... 24
`2.
`The ʼ700 Patent Describes Optimizing Single-Dimension
`and Multi-Dimension Constellations ........................................ 25
`
`V.
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00319
`Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Non-Uniform Constellations Optimized For Particular
`Code Rates ................................................................................ 28
`Using Multiple Optimized Constellations for a System
`Having Multiple Code Rate and SNR Operating Points .......... 31
`The Revolutionary Results .................................................................. 33
`C.
`The Challenged Claims ....................................................................... 35
`D.
`VI. The Petition Does Not Establish That Any Remaining Challenged
`Claims Are Unpatentable ............................................................................... 37
`A. Ground 1A: The Board Should Not Address Ground 1A
`Because the Patent Owner Has Disclaimed All of Ground 1A’s
`Challenged Claims .............................................................................. 37
`Ground 1B: Petitioner Has Not Established That Challenged
`Claims 5, 15, or 25 Are Unpatentable Because It Has Failed To
`Prove That the Ground 1B References Are Prior Art ......................... 38
`1.
`Ground 1B Depends on Petitioner’s Baseless Priority
`Argument .................................................................................. 39
`Petition’s Priority Challenge (and Ground 1B) Fails
`Because Challenged Claims 5, 15, And 25 Properly
`Claim Priority to Barsoum ........................................................ 40
`VII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 46
`
`
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`ii
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00319
`Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`
`Apple Inc. v. MPH Techs. Oy,
`IPR2019-00826, Paper 25, 2020 WL 6494252 (PTAB Nov. 4, 2020) ..........................2, 37, 38
`
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................45
`
`Guinn v. Kopf,
`96 F.3d 1419 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..............................................................................................2, 37
`
`Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech. LLC,
`IPR2018-01040, Paper 36, 2020 WL 719058 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2020) .................................2, 38
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 253 ..............................................................................................................................37
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a).........................................................................................................................5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3) ......................................................................................................................4
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00319
`Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`Description
`Declaration of Dr. Giuseppe Caire
`RESERVED
`U. Madhow, Fundamentals of Digital Communication, Cambridge
`University Press 2008
`R.G. Gallager, Principles of Digital Communication, Cambridge
`University Press 2008
`Eroz et al., New DVB-S2X constellations for improved performance
`on the satellite channel, Int. J. Satell. Commun. Network 2016;
`34:351–360, Published online 14 September 2015 in Wiley Online
`Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com)
`RESERVED
`N.S. Login et al., Non-Uniform Constellations for ATSC 3.0, IEEE
`Transactions on Broadcasting, Vol. 62, No. 1, March 2016
`P. Gill, W. Murry, M. Wright, Practical Optimization, Emerald
`Group Publishing Limited (1982)
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`Curriculum Vitae and Publication List of Dr. Giuseppe Caire
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`Giuseppe Caire, Giorgio Taricco, and Ezio Biglieri, Bit-
`Interleaved Coded Modulation, IEEE Transactions of
`Information Theory, vol. 44, no. 3, May 1998 (“Caire”)
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`Board's June 26, 2023 Email Authorizing Patent Owner Submission
`Of Limited Fintiv Paper
`District Court’s 05-03-2023 Third Amended Docket Control Order -
`Jury Selection set for 7-5-2023 09-00AM
`Petitioner-Defendant LGs June 28 2023 Email Identifying Final
`Election Of Invalidity Theories And Prior Art In District Court
`LG’s 03-14-2023 Final Election of Asserted Prior Art for District
`Court
`District Court’s 04-04-2022 Docket Control Order
`
`Exhibit
`2001
`2002
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`2010
`2011
`2012
`2013
`2014
`2015
`
`2016
`2017
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00319
`Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`Description
`District Court’s 02-28-2023 Markman Order
`Statutory Disclaimer of Claims 2-3, 12-13, and 22-23 of US Patent
`No. 10,693,700
`
`Exhibit
`2023
`2024
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`Summary
`Patent Owner Constellation Designs has statutorily disclaimed all challenged
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00319
`Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`I.
`
`claims of the ʼ700 Patent except for claims 5, 15, and 25. The Board should find
`
`that Petitioner LG failed to prove that any of the remaining challenged claims are
`
`unpatentable because:
`
`(1) the Board’s Institution Decision acknowledged that Petitioner’s asserted
`
`references “are only prior art to the ʼ700 patent if the ʼ700 patent cannot claim
`
`priority to Barsoum;”1 and
`
`(2) the Board’s Institution Decision determined that the ʼ700 Patent does
`
`properly claim priority to Barsoum for claims 5, 15, and 25, and therefore, the
`
`Petition’s asserted references “are not prior art to claims 5, 15, and 25, and the
`
`Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that claims 5, 15, and 25 are
`
`obvious.”2
`
`As correctly described in the Institution Decision, the challenged ʼ700 Patent
`
`“states that it is a continuation of the ʼ777 Patent (aka Barsoum)” and “Petitioner
`
`challenges this claim to priority, arguing that features of the challenged claims do
`
`not have written description support in Barsoum.” (Institution Decision at 10).
`
`The Board then analyzed Petitioner’s written description assertions by breaking the
`
`
`1 Institution Decision at 10; 16-17 (emphasis added).
`2 Institution Decision at 15, 17.
`
`1
`
`
`
`challenged claims into two groups: (1) challenged claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 22, and 23
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00319
`Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`(the subject of the Petition’s Ground 1A); and (2) challenged claims 5, 15, and 25
`
`(the subject of the Petition’s Ground 1B).
`
`Ground 1A - Disclaimed Claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 22, and 23: The first set of
`
`challenged claims included limitations concerning one or more types of QAM
`
`constellations. (Institution Decision at 11, 13-14). The Board determined that in
`
`light of these limitations, Petitioner had established a reasonable likelihood of
`
`succeeding on its written description/priority argument for at least some of these
`
`claims, and the Board instituted solely on that basis. (Institution Decision 13-14,
`
`16-17).
`
`But to streamline these proceedings, Patent Owner Constellation has now
`
`statutorily disclaimed each of these claims that were the subject of Ground 1A and
`
`that formed the Board’s only basis for instituting the Petition. As a result of this
`
`statutory disclaimer, claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 22, and 23 are treated as if they “never
`
`existed,” and the Board need not and should not address their patentability in this
`
`IPR proceeding. Guinn v. Kopf, 96 F.3d 1419, 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Apple Inc. v.
`
`MPH Techs. Oy, IPR2019-00826, Paper 25 at 10-11, 2020 WL 6494252, at *5
`
`(PTAB Nov. 4, 2020) (Final Written Decision); Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech. LLC,
`
`IPR2018-01040, Paper 36 at 16, 2020 WL 719058, at *6 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2020)
`
`(Final Written Decision).
`
`2
`
`
`
`Ground 1B – Remaining Challenged Claims 5, 15, and 25: In contrast to
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00319
`Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`the set of (now disclaimed) claims that were the subject of Ground 1A, the Board’s
`
`Institution Decisions found that the Petition did not establish a reasonable
`
`likelihood of success as to the remaining challenged claims 5, 15, and 25.
`
`Challenged claims 5, and 15, and 25 do not include the QAM constellation
`
`limitations that were the subject of the Board’s Ground 1A analysis. Instead, these
`
`claims recite a communication system having a plurality of constellations, where
`
`each constellation is capable of providing greater parallel decoding capacity at a
`
`specific signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) than the other constellations in the plurality:
`
`The communication system of claim 1, wherein each of the
`5.
`plurality of different non-uniform multidimensional symbol
`constellations is capable of providing a greater parallel decoding
`capacity at a specific SNR than other symbol constellations in the
`plurality of multidimensional symbol constellations at the same SNR.
`(Ex. 1001, ʼ700 Patent, at claims 5, 15, and 25).3
`Petitioner’s entire Ground 1B hinges on its argument that this limitation is
`
`not described in Barsoum and, therefore, that the challenged ʼ700 Patent cannot
`
`claim priority to Barsoum for claims 5, 15, and 25. But in the Institution Decision,
`
`the Board properly rejected Petitioner’s argument:
`
`Patent Owner correctly points to the specific examples of [Barsoum’s]
`Figures 11b, 13b, 15b, and 17b as each showing a plurality of
`constellations, each optimized for a particular SNR than the other
`
`
`3 Unless otherwise noted, all emphases in this response are added.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00319
`Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`symbol constellations in the plurality. … More specifically, Figure
`13b shows five constellations (i.e. a plurality), each optimized for a
`particular identified SNR that will perform better at that particular
`SNR than the other constellations, which have not been optimized at
`that particular SNR.
`(Institution Decision at 15).
`
`
`
`As a result, the Board preliminarily found:
`
` “For these reasons, we preliminarily determine that Petitioner has not
`
`shown that claims 5, 15, and 25 lack written description support in
`
`Barsoum” (Institution Decision at 15); and
`
` “As we have preliminarily determined that Barsoum is not prior art to
`
`claims 5, 15, and 25, the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood
`
`that claims 5, 15, and 25 are obvious over the combination of Barsoum and
`
`ATSC327” (Institution Decision at 17).
`
`As established below, the Board’s preliminary analysis was correct and there
`
`has been no change to the evidentiary record (and indeed, there cannot be any such
`
`change because Petitioner is limited to its original Petition and Grounds and cannot
`
`now present any new evidence or arguments on this issue). The Board should
`
`therefore confirm its original analysis and find that Petitioner failed to prove
`
`claims 5, 15, and 25 are unpatentable.
`
`II.
`
`Patent Owner’s Supplemental Mandatory Notices
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3), Patent Owner provides the
`
`4
`
`
`
`following supplemental mandatory notices regarding Related Matters:
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00319
`Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`Related Matters
`
`In the following administrative proceeding, Patent Owner has statutorily
`
`disclaimed claims that are challenged in the present Inter Partes Review
`
`Proceedings (see new EX2024 submitted herewith), and therefore the following
`
`administrative proceeding may affect or be affected by a decision in this
`
`proceeding:
`
` US Patent No. 10,693,700 (Granted from US Application No. 16/726,037),
`
`see, e.g., Statutory Disclaimer in A Patent Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a) filed
`
`October 2, 2023 (EX2024).
`
`III. Using “Constellations” In Digital Communications
`The challenged ʼ700 patent concerns an improved method and system for
`
`using “constellations” in a digital communication system. A digital
`
`communication system is used to transmit digital bits (sequences of 0s and 1s)
`
`from one device (a transmitter) to another (a receiver). As explained below in
`
`more detail, a “constellation” point is a carrier signal value (such as amplitude
`
`and/or phase) that can be used to represent a longer sequence of bits. Transmitting
`
`information using an appropriate constellation point signal value can make a data
`
`communication system faster and more efficient.
`
`5
`
`
`
`A. Overview of a Digital Communication System
`A digital communication system typically includes a transmitter that sends
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00319
`Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`information to a receiver over a wireless or wired channel. (EX2001 at 7; EX2003
`
`at 2-4; EX2004 at 1-5, 95, 181-183, 208-209).
`
`
`
`As illustrated in the above overview, information in the form of user bits
`
`(sequences of 0s and 1s) is input to the transmitter, which first converts those bits
`
`into an electromagnetic signal and then transmits that electromagnetic signal over
`
`the channel to the receiver. (EX2001 at 7; EX2003 at 2-4; EX2004 at 1-5, 95, 181-
`
`183, 208-209). As the electromagnetic signal passes through the channel, bits and
`
`data can be lost or corrupted; in this manner, the channel introduces “noise” (signal
`
`loss) to the transmission. (EX2001 at 7; EX2003 at 2-4; EX2004 at 1-5, 95, 181-
`
`183, 208-209). The receiver receives the electromagnetic signal (along with any
`
`noise introduced by its passage through the channel) and converts the received
`
`signal back into bits. (EX2001 at 7; EX2003 at 2-4; EX2004 at 1-5, 95, 181-183,
`
`208-209).
`
`6
`
`
`
`Each digital communication system has a measurable “capacity,” which is
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00319
`Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`the maximum amount of information that the system can reliably send over the
`
`channel. (EX2001 at 8; EX2003 at 252; EX2004 at 253-254, 311-312).
`
`The Transmitter
`1.
`In a digital communication system, the transmitter typically includes three
`
`main components: a coder, a mapper, and a modulator. (EX2001 at 8; EX2003 at
`
`2-4; EX2004 at 1-5, 95, 181-183, 208-209).
`
`
`
`The coder is used to transform the input user bits into a longer sequence of
`
`output bits according to error-correcting codes to enable later error correction by
`
`the receiver. (EX2001 at 8; EX2003 at 2-3; EX2004 at 11, 298). For example, the
`
`coder may add additional redundant bits to the input user bits that would later
`
`enable the receiver’s decoder to use error-correcting codes (such as turbo codes or
`
`Low Density Parity Check (LDPC) codes) to help detect or recover user bits lost to
`
`noise during transmission. (EX2001 at 8; EX2003 at 2-3; EX2004 at 11, 298). The
`
`amount of expansion in the number of bits from the input user bits to the longer
`
`sequence of output bits is referred to as the code rate. (EX2001 at 9). The code rate
`
`is a ratio of the relative length of the input user bits to the length of the output bits.
`
`7
`
`
`
`(EX2001 at 9). For example, a code rate of 1/2 indicates that for every bit in the
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00319
`Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`sequence of input user bits, there are 2 bits in the sequence of output bits. (EX2001
`
`at 9). Similarly, a code rate of 3/5 indicates that for every 3 bits in the sequence of
`
`input user bits, there are 5 bits in the sequence of output bits. (EX2001 at 9).
`
`The resulting new bit sequence is input to the mapper, which maps this new
`
`sequence to constellation points, which are one or more carrier signal values (such
`
`as amplitude and/or phase) that can be used to represent a longer sequence of bits.
`
`(EX2001 at 9; EX2003 at 7; EX2004 at 181-209). Such mapping and constellations
`
`are a focal point of the challenged claims and are discussed in more detail in the
`
`following “Constellation Mapping and Demapping” section. (EX2001 at 9).
`
`Next, the mapper provides these constellation values to the modulator,
`
`which creates a signal to be modulated to reflect the constellation values provided
`
`by the mapper and then to be sent through the channel. (EX2001 at 9; EX2003 at
`
`2-3; EX2004 at 181-209). There are numerous different ways for a modulator to
`
`apply such information to a carrier signal. (EX2001 at 9; EX2003 at 2-3; EX2004
`
`at 181-209). For example, in a Pulse Amplitude Modulation (PAM), the modulator
`
`can modify (modulate) the amplitude of the carrier signal so that the signal’s
`
`different amplitudes will represent different bit sequences. (EX2001 at 9-10;
`
`EX2003 at 45; EX2004 at 184-196).
`
`8
`
`
`
`The Receiver
`2.
`In a digital communication system, the receiver typically mirrors the
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00319
`Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`transmitter and includes: a de-modulator, a demapper, and a decoder. (EX2001 at
`
`20; EX2003 at 2-4; EX2004 at 1-5, 11, 95, 181-183, 208-209).
`
`
`
`The de-modulator receives the transmitted signal via the channel and
`
`attempts to extract the signal values that are indicative of the transmitted
`
`constellation points. (EX2003 at 3-4; EX2004 at 189).
`
`The extracted signal values are then input to the demapper, which is used to
`
`help identify which bit sequence corresponds to the extracted constellation signal
`
`values. (EX2001 at 10; EX2003 at 3-4; EX2004 at 181-209). Such demapping is
`
`discussed in more detail in the following “Constellation Mapping and Demapping”
`
`section.
`
`Next, the decoder uses information from the demapper and the structure of
`
`the error-correcting code to try to identify the appropriate bit sequence and recover
`
`any of the user bits lost or corrupted due to noise during transmission. (EX2001 at
`
`10; EX2003 at 3-4, EX2004 at 11).
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00319
`Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`B. Constellation Mapping and Demapping
`1.
`Constellation Point Locations and Labels
`As discussed above, the transmitter’s coder provides sequences of bits (such
`
`as the original user bits plus error correcting bits) to the mapper. The mapper then
`
`maps each sequence to constellation points.
`
`A constellation point has at least two characteristics: (1) it is a value
`
`associated with a variable characteristic of the signal transmitted over the channel;
`
`and (2) it represents a unique bit sequence. (EX2001 at 11). As explained below,
`
`the former is a constellation point’s “location,” and the latter is its “label.”
`
`(EX2001 at 11).
`
`Signal characteristics that may be used as constellation point locations
`
`include amplitude, phase, and frequency. (EX2001 at 11; EX2003 at 2-3, 45;
`
`EX2004 at 181-209). The particular signal characteristic (or characteristics) used
`
`as constellation point locations can depend on the type of modulation performed by
`
`the modulator. (EX2001 at 11; EX2003 at 2-3, 45; EX2004 at 181-209). For
`
`example, recall that if a modulator uses pulse amplitude modulation (PAM) to
`
`apply information to the carrier signal, the resulting signal’s different amplitudes
`
`are used to represent different bit sequences. (EX2001 at 11; EX2003 at 45;
`
`EX2004 at 184-196). In such a system, the signal’s different amplitudes may serve
`
`as constellation point locations.
`
`10
`
`
`
`To illustrate, if the transmitter can send a high frequency signal having
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00319
`Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`pulses of any amplitude between 0 and 1.0 volts, then any amplitude between 0
`
`and 1.0 volts can be chosen and used as a constellation point. (EX2001 at 12). For
`
`example, if four constellation points are needed, each of 0, .33, .66, and 1.0 volts
`
`could be used as an individual constellation point. (EX2001 at 12). Where a
`
`particular constellation point falls on the spectrum of available values is called its
`
`“location.” (EX2001 at 12).
`
`To continue this simplified illustration, if each sequence of bits to be
`
`communicated from the transmitter to the receiver comprises a series of shorter 2-
`
`bit sequences (00, 01, 10, and 11), then each of those 2-bit sequences can be
`
`assigned to a corresponding constellation point. (EX2001 at 12). For example,
`
`using the constellation points identified above, the 01 sequence could be assigned
`
`any one of the 0, .33, .66, and 1.0 volt constellation points. (EX2001 at 12). The
`
`sequence to which a constellation point is assigned is its “label.” (EX2001 at 12).
`
`To complete this simplified example, the following depicts the location and
`
`labels for four constellation points. (EX2001 at 13). The first constellation point is
`
`located at 0.0 volts and is labeled to “00,” the second is located at .33 volts and is
`
`labeled to the “01,” and so on. (EX2001 at 13).
`
`Constellation
`Label
`“00”
`
`Constellation
`Location
`0
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00319
`Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`“01”
`“10”
`“11”
`
`.33
`.66
`1.0
`
`
`
`The Mapper
`2.
`The transmitter’s mapper uses these constellation labels and locations to
`
`map a bit sequence to a corresponding sequence of constellation points. (EX2001
`
`at 13; EX2003 at 7; EX2004 at 181-209). For example, to send sequence
`
`“10000111”, the mapper would take each 2-bit sequence, and map it to its
`
`corresponding constellation point. (EX2001 at 13). Applying the locations and
`
`labels from the below table using the PAM example, the sequence “10000111”
`
`would be broken into its composite bit sequences 10, 00, 01, and 11, which would
`
`be mapped to the voltages .66, 0.0, .33, and 1.0 respectively. (EX2001 at 13).
`
`Constellation
`Label
`“00”
`“01”
`“10”
`“11”
`
`Constellation
`Location
`0
`.33
`.66
`1.0
`
`
`
`The resulting output of the example mapper is the sequence 0.66, 0.0, 0.33.
`
`and 1.0 shown in the following figure, in which the y-axis represents voltage and
`
`the x-axis represents time. (EX2001 at 14). For reference, the transmitted bit
`
`sequence is shown for each time slot below the figure.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00319
`Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`The Demapper
`3.
`On the receiver side, the demodulator receives and demodulates the received
`
`
`
`signal, which is a noisy version of the transmitted signal, in an attempt to extract
`
`the transmitted constellation point signal values. (EX2001 at 14; EX2003 at 3-4;
`
`EX2004 at 181-209). But because noise results from the transmission, the
`
`demodulated signal may not be identical to the constellation points output from the
`
`mapper (as shown above) but might include errors. (EX2001 at 15; EX2003 at 3-4;
`
`EX2004 at 181-209). An example output of the demodulator is shown below, in
`
`which a time-dependent continuous waveform is shown in black including noise,
`
`the average of the time-dependent continuous waveform is shown in red, the output
`
`of the demodulator is shown as discrete time values in black, and the figure is
`
`again annotated with the corresponding bit sequence:
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00319
`Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`
`
`This demodulated signal is then sent to the demapper so that the demapper
`
`can convert the demodulated signal values back to bits based on the constellation
`
`points. (EX2001 at 15; EX2003 at 3-4; EX2004 at 181-209). But because of the
`
`noise introduced during transmission, the signal characteristic (e.g., amplitude,
`
`phase, frequency) values of received pulses may not exactly match the assigned
`
`constellation point locations. (EX2001 at 15-16; EX2003 at 3-4; EX2004 at 181-
`
`209). Accordingly, in some implementations, the demapper uses a predetermined
`
`14
`
`
`
`set of signal characteristic (e.g., amplitude, phase, frequency) ranges to attempt to
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00319
`Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`determine the corresponding bit sequence4. (EX2001 at 16; EX2003 at 127).
`
`Continuing the ongoing example, the demapper could use the following
`
`amplitude ranges to map the received signal to a corresponding bit sequence:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Output of
`Demodulator
`(y)
`y <= .25
`.25 < y <= .5
`.5 < y <= .75
`.75 <= y
`
`Bit
`Sequence
`
`“00”
`“01”
`“10”
`“11”
`
`Applying this demapping scheme:
`
` if the output of the demodulator is less than or equal to .25 volts, then
`
`the bit sequence is “00”;
`
` if the output of the demodulator is greater than .25 but less than or
`
`equal to .5, then the bit sequence is “01”;
`
` if the output of the demodulator is greater than .5 but less than .75,
`
`then the bit sequence is “10”; and
`
`
`4 For the purpose of illustrating the basic operation of a demapper, the described
`example illustrates a demapper that performs “hard” decisions, that is, outputs actual
`decisions on which bit sequence corresponds to the input signal. (EX2001 at 16). In
`many implementations, the demapper performs “soft” decisions, that is, outputs
`probabilities on which bit sequence corresponds to the input signal. (EX2001 at 16).
`
`15
`
`
`
` if the output of the demodulator is greater than .75, then the bit
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00319
`Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`sequence is “11”. (EX2001 at 17).
`
`
`
`Using this mapping, the example output from the demodulator (shown in the
`
`figure above) would be demapped to “10” for the first pulse, demapped to “00” for
`
`the second pulse, demapped to “01” for the third pulse, and demapped to “11” for
`
`the fourth pulse. (EX2001 at 17). Put together, these component bits result in the
`
`sequence “10000111.”5 (EX2001 at 17).
`
`IV. Prior Art Approaches
`Digital communications systems and constellations as described above were
`
`generally known in the art. A primary—and wholly unrealized—goal in designing
`
`such systems was to design systems able to perform very close to the ultimate limit
`
`for reliable transmission of information, which is established by Shannon channel
`
`coding theorem and is known as the Shannon channel capacity limit.
`
`In designing these prior art systems, conventional wisdom dictated that
`
`constellation locations must be equally spaced apart so that that each constellation
`
`point is as far as possible from its neighboring points. But this and all other prior
`
`art approaches fell far short of their “holy grail,” the Shannon limit.
`
`
`5 To simplify the illustrative example, it does not include any error correction coding.
`
`16
`
`
`
`A. The Shannon Channel Capacity Limit
`Each digital communication system has a measurable “capacity,” which is
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00319
`Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`the maximum amount of information that the system can reliably send over the
`
`channel. (EX2001 at 18; EX2003 at 252; EX2004 at 253-254, 311-312). As
`
`detailed in the challenged ʼ700 Patent, two different ways of measuring capacity
`
`are “joint capacity” and “parallel decode capacity.” (EX1001 at 5:6-8; 6:42-7:30).
`
`Regardless of which measure is used, each communication channel’s
`
`capacity is constrained by the Shannon channel capacity limit, which represents the
`
`theoretically best capacity a channel could possibly achieve in light of physically
`
`unsurmountable limits on error correction methods. (EX2001 at 21-22; EX2003 at
`
`252-255, 263-264; EX2004 at 1,184-187, 253). Just as nothing can move faster
`
`than the speed of light, no channel’s capacity can exceed the Shannon capacity
`
`limit. (EX2001 at 22; EX2003 at 252-255, 263-264; EX2004 at 1).
`
`Shannon calculated this capacity limit by determining the maximum possible
`
`efficiency of error correcting methods. (EX2001 at 22; EX2003 at 252-255, 263-
`
`264; EX2004 at 1,184-187, 253). This maximum amount of error correction is then
`
`compared to the levels of noise and data corruption to determine the Shannon limit,
`
`which is the maximum amount of data that can reliably transmitted over a given
`
`communication channel using error correcting methods of the maximum possible
`
`17
`
`
`
`efficiency. (EX2001 at 48; EX2003 at 252-255, 263-264; EX2004 at 1,184-187,
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00319
`Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`253).
`
`B.
`Prior Art Approaches Failed To Achieve the Shannon Limit
`Claude Shannon first published the Shannon channel capacity limit in 1948.
`
`(EX2004 at 6). But although Shannon’s limit formed a critical foundation to
`
`information theory, he did not describe any practical method for achieving this
`
`capacity limit. (EX2004 at 6). Thus, for the next 60 years, achieving a channel
`
`capacity near or equaling this limit became the ultimate goal for communication
`
`systems designers. (EX2004 at 6). But until the invention disclosed and claimed in
`
`the ʼ700 Patent, no designers were able to even come close.
`
`Nearly every prior approach had at least two things in common: (1) equally
`
`spaced constellations; and (2) a focus on improving joint capacity.
`
`Constellation Point Locations That Are Equally Spaced
`1.
`The ʼ700 Patent’s Background explains that the most prevalent (by far)
`
`approach at the time of the invention was to locate constellation points with equal
`
`spacing between points to maximize the distance between neighboring
`
`constellation points. (EX1001 at 1:46-50).
`
`As already discussed and illustrated above, noise is introduced when
`
`constellation points are sent from the transmitter to the receiver. (EX2001 at 23;
`
`EX2003 at 2-4; EX2004 at 1-5, 95, 181-183, 208-209).
`
`18
`
`
`
`The prevailing wisdom was that if constellation points were located close
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00319
`Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`together (for example, if one constellation point at 0.7 volts and another at 0.6),
`
`then there was a greater chance that noise would cause the demapper to mistake
`
`one transmit signal value for another, resulting in the wrong bit sequence being
`
`selected and output. Thus, to minimize the chances of noise resulting in the
`
`demapper erroneously selecting the wrong bits, it was well accepted that
`
`constellation points should be spaced equally apart, to maximize the distance
`
`between any two neighboring locations. (EX1001 at 1:44-52).
`
`Accordingly, most viable systems spread constellation locations evenly over
`
`the range of values that the locations could take, putting as much distance between
`
`any two points as the range of values allowed, and resulting in equal spacing
`
`between constellation points. (EX1001 at 1:44-52; 2:6-17; 7:61-63). At the time of
`
`the invention, such “equally spaced” locations were well accepted as the best
`
`approach with no drawbacks to be improved upon. (EX1001 at 1:44-52, 2:6-17;
`
`7:61-63).
`
`
`
`After 60 years of this approach, however, there still existed a tremendous
`
`gap between the achieved capacities and the Shannon limit. Specifically, even
`
`after the development of LDPC codes in the 1990s, a large and seemingly
`
`insurmountable “Shannon gap” of at least 1.53 dB remained.
`
`19
`
`
`
`V. The Chall
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
