`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.
`Petitioner,
`v.
`CONSTELLATION DESIGNS, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`________________
`
`Case IPR2023-00319
`U.S. Patent 10,693,700
`
`________________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`The ’700 Patent does not describe “each of the plurality of different non-
`uniform multidimensional symbol constellations is capable of providing a
`greater parallel decoding capacity at a specific SNR than the other symbol
`constellations in the plurality of multidimensional symbol constellations at
`the same SNR”. ................................................................................................ 2
`A. The ’700 patent provides no description of optimizing a
`multidimensional symbol constellation (e.g., QAM constellation) that is
`created from a one-dimensional symbol constellation (e.g., PAM) ......... 5
`B. The ’700 patent fails to disclose that an optimized PAM used to form a
`QAM yields an optimized QAM. ........................................................... 11
`C. Patent Owner only points to evidence of 1D constellations being
`optimized, which is not enough to support claims 5, 15, and 25 ........... 14
`D. There is no comparison of parallel decoding capacity between different
`non-uniform multidimensional symbol constellations ........................... 19
`III. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 21
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`LGE1001
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`
`LGE1002
`
`LGE1003
`
`LGE1004
`
`LGE1005
`
`LGE1006
`
`LGE1007
`
`LGE1008
`
`LGE1009
`
`LGE1010
`
`LGE1011
`
`LGE1012
`
`LGE1013
`
`LGE1014
`
`Prosecution History for U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Bertrand Hochwald
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`Ulrich Reimers et al., DVB The Family of International
`Standards for Digital Video Broadcasting, Second Edition,
`2005 (“Ulrich”)
`
`RESERVED
`
`U.S. Provisional application No. 60/933,319 (“’319
`Provisional”)
`
`Declaration of June Munford (ATSC322)
`
`Second Stipulation by Petitioner, LGE, Constellation Designs,
`LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al, Case No. 2:21-cv-00448
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`RESERVED
`
`De Gaudenzi et al., Turbo-coded APSK modulations design for
`satellite broadband communications, Int. J. Satell. Commun.
`Network. 2006; 24:261–281, Published online 19 May 2006 in
`Wiley InterScience (“DeGaudenzi”)
`
`ii
`
`
`
`LGE1015
`
`LGE1016
`
`LGE1017
`
`LGE1018
`
`LGE1019
`
`LGE1020
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,978,777
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`Memorandum, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in
`AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court
`Litigation (USPTO June 21, 2022) (“Interim Procedure”)
`
`Docket Control Order, Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG
`Electronics, Inc. et al, Case No. 2:21-cv-00448 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Complaint, Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc.
`et al, Case No. 2:21-cv-00448 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`LGE1021
`
`RESERVED
`
`LGE1022
`
`LGE1023
`
`LGE1024
`
`LGE1025
`
`LGE1026
`
`LGE1027
`
`LGE1028
`
`ATSC Recommended Practice: Guidelines for the Physical
`Layer Protocol, Document no. A/327:2018
`
`ATSC 3.0 Standard: Physical Layer Protocol, Document no.
`A/322:2018
`
`Loghin, et al., Non-Uniform Constellations for ATSC 3.0, IEEE
`Transactions on Broadcasting, Vol 62, No. 1, March 2016.
`(“Loghin”)
`
`G. Ungerboeck, Channel Coding with Multilevel/Phase Signals,
`IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, Vol. IT-28, No. 1, Jan. 1982, pp.
`55-67 (“Ungerboeck”)
`
`Declaration of June Munford (ATSC327)
`
`Declaration of June Munford (DG)
`
`Declaration of June Munford (Loghin)
`
`iii
`
`
`
`LGE1029
`
`LGE1030
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`Second Declaration of Dr. Bertrand Hochwald
`
`Muela, Manuel Fuentes, Non-Uniform Constellations for Next-
`Generation Digital Terrestrial Broadcast Systems,
`Departamento de Comunicaciones Universitat Politècnica de
`València, June 2017 (“Fuentes”)
`
`LGE1031
`
`Proakis, John G. Digital Communications, Fourth Edition, 2000
`(“Proakis”)
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`Introduction
`LG Electronics, Inc. (“Petitioner” or “LGE”) submits this Petitioner Reply
`
`
`I.
`
`in response to the Patent Owner’s Response (“POR”) in IPR2023-00319, which
`
`challenges the validity of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700 (“the ’700 patent”). As
`
`explained below, claims 5, 11, and 251 do not have written description support in the
`
`’700 patent, and thus are not entitled to the earlier June 5, 2007 priority date.
`
`Consequently , the ’700 patent should be assigned a priority date of December 23,
`
`2019, the filing date of the ’700 patent. And because Constellation Designs, LLC
`
`(“Patent Owner”) fails to address the substance of the 35 USC § 103 invalidity
`
`challenge against claims 5, 15, and 25 based on the combination of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,978,777 (the “’777 patent”) and ATSC327 in the POR, and instead focuses on
`
`attempting to establish written description support and an earlier priority date for the
`
`’700 patent (which as explained herein the ’700 patent is not entitled to), claims 5,
`
`15, and 25 should be found unpatentable.
`
`As explained below, Patent Owner has failed to show written description
`
`support for claims 5, 15, and 25 in the ’700 Patent at least because:
`
`
`
` Claims 5 ,15, and 25 are the only remaining claims at issue because Patent Owner
`
` 1
`
`disclaimed the other challenged claims (claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 22, and 23). POR, 2.
`
`1
`
`
`
`(1) The ’700 patent does not describe “each of the plurality of different non-
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`uniform multidimensional symbol constellations is capable of providing a
`
`greater parallel decoding capacity at a specific SNR than the other symbol
`
`constellations in the plurality of multidimensional symbol constellations at
`
`the same SNR,” as recited in feature [5];
`
`(2) The ’700 patent provides no description of optimizing a multidimensional
`
`symbol constellation (e.g., QAM constellation) that is created from a one-
`
`dimensional symbol constellation (e.g., PAM);
`
`(3) The ’700 patent fails to disclose that an optimized PAM used to form a
`
`QAM yields an optimized QAM; and
`
`(4) The ’700 patent fails to disclose a comparison between the parallel
`
`decoding capacities of different non-uniform multidimensional
`
`constellations.
`
`II. The ’700 Patent does not describe “each of the plurality of different
`non-uniform multidimensional symbol constellations is capable of
`providing a greater parallel decoding capacity at a specific SNR than
`the other symbol constellations in the plurality of multidimensional
`symbol constellations at the same SNR.”
`Patent Owner contends that there are two approaches for optimizing
`
`multidimensional QAM constellations. POR, 25-26. The first approach “for
`
`optimizing a multidimensional QAM constellation is to directly optimize over each
`
`degree of freedom.” POR, 25-26. The second approach “is to first optimize a PAM
`
`2
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`constellation, then apply that PAM constellation to both of the in-phase and
`
`quadrature components.” POR, 26 (citing to EX1001 at 3:25-34; 12:42-67 and
`
`EX1015 at 3:9-19, 12:11-37); EX2001, 26; LGE1029, ¶¶0006-0007.
`
`With respect to the first approach, the ’700 patent is devoid of any details for
`
`directly optimizing each degree of freedom. In fact, the ’700 patent explicitly notes
`
`that “[t]he complexity of the optimization step grows exponentially in the number
`
`of dimensions as does the complexity of the resulting receiver de-mapper.” 2
`
`LGE1001, 13:1-11. The ’700 patent provides no details of the additional complexity
`
`of the receiver demapper or other details of the complex optimization steps. Patent
`
`Owner points to one paragraph to argue that this first approach is supported (see
`
`LGE1001, 13:1-11), but this paragraph fails to describe or explain whether the
`
`optimization is for uniform or non-uniform multi-dimensional constellations, and
`
`whether there is any difference in optimizing the two types of constellations. Thus,
`
`such disclosure cannot be relied upon as written description support for feature [5],
`
`which is directed to “non-uniform multidimensional symbol constellations.”
`
`LGE1029, ¶¶0006-0007.
`
`Seemingly recognizing the lack of disclosure of the first approach in the ’700
`
`patent, Patent Owner focuses on the second approach in its POR for written
`
`
`
` Bolding and italicized font added for emphasis here and throughout this reply.
`
` 2
`
`3
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`description support. POR, 25-33, 42-45; LGE1029, ¶¶0006-0007. However, a
`
`careful review of the ’700 patent, reveals that even the second optimization
`
`approach (even if true, which Petitioner does not concede) is not described in the
`
`’700 patent. LGE1029, ¶¶¶0006-0007.
`
`For example, for the second approach, Patent Owner focuses on two portions
`
`of the ’700 patent, but these portions disclose how a QAM constellation can be
`
`created from a PAM constellation, not how a QAM constellation is optimized.
`
`LGE1001, 3:25-34 (“creating an orthogonalized PAM constellation using the
`
`geometrically shaped PAM constellation, and combining the geometrically shaped
`
`PAM constellation and the orthogonalized PAM constellation to produce a
`
`geometrically shaped QAM constellation”), 12:42-67. The mere disclosure of
`
`creating a QAM constellation from a PAM constellation does not teach optimizing
`
`a multidimensional QAM constellation such that “each of the plurality of different
`
`non-uniform multidimensional symbol constellations is capable of providing a
`
`greater parallel decoding capacity at a specific SNR than the other symbol
`
`constellations in the plurality of multidimensional symbol constellations at the same
`
`SNR,” as recited in claim 5. LGE1029, ¶0021. As is explained below, none of the
`
`descriptions of the creation of a multidimensional QAM constellation from
`
`orthogonalized single-dimension PAM constellations discloses
`
`the claimed
`
`multidimensional QAM constellations and associated characteristics (e.g., parallel
`
`4
`
`
`
`decoding capacity and SNR). LGE1029, ¶0021.
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`A. The ’700 patent provides no description of optimizing a
`multidimensional symbol constellation (e.g., QAM constellation)
`that is created from a one-dimensional symbol constellation (e.g.,
`PAM)
`The ’700 patent explains that “[d]ue to the orthogonality of the in-phase and
`
`quadrature components the capacity characteristics of the resulting QAM-64
`
`constellation are identical to that of the PAM-8 constellation on a per-dimension
`
`basis.” LGE1001, 12:64-67; LGE1015, 12:33-37. The newly created QAM
`
`constellation
`
`is not an optimized multidimensional constellation, but a
`
`multidimensional constellation that includes individual rows or columns that were
`
`optimized. Patent Owner does not acknowledge this distinction. LGE1029, ¶¶0008-
`
`0017, 0025-0027.
`
`As Dr. Hochwald explains, it was well-known in the art that 2D constellations,
`
`such as a QAM constellation, could be created by orthogonalizing two 1D
`
`constellations, such as a PAM constellation. LGE1029, ¶¶0008-0017. Indeed, using
`
`the annotated figures Patent Owner produced in the POR as shown below, when a
`
`column of a QAM constellation is compared to a row of a QAM constellation (“per-
`
`dimension basis”), the capacity characteristics may be the same. LGE1029, ¶¶0008-
`
`0017, 0025-0027.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`
`
`
`
`POR, 27-28 (showing annotated FIG. 21 of LGE1001).
`
`Similarly, when a singular column or row of the QAM constellation is
`
`compared to the original PAM constellation used to create the QAM constellation,
`
`that row or column has the same capacity characteristics as the PAM constellation.
`
`As shown above, the individual highlighted rows or columns are copies of the PAM
`
`constellation. Thus, “the capacity characteristics of the resulting QAM-64
`
`constellation are identical to that of the PAM-8 constellation on a per-dimension
`
`basis.” LGE1001, 12:64-67. However, the QAM constellation, as a whole, is not
`
`necessarily optimized. Indeed, it is necessarily incorrect that the capacity
`
`characteristics of a PAM and a QAM are the same. In the example of PAM-8 and
`
`QAM-64, the PAM-8 constellation has 3 bits per symbol and the QAM-64
`
`constellation has 6 bits per symbol. Thus, their respective capacity characteristics
`
`are necessarily different. Yet, the statement in 12:64-67 of the ’700 patent holds true
`
`6
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`only when the two constellations are compared “on a per-dimension basis.” That
`
`is, when the capacity characteristics of a singular column or row of the QAM-64
`
`constellation are compared to the capacity characteristics of the PAM-8 constellation
`
`used to form the QAM-64 constellation, the capacity characteristics are identical for
`
`that column or row. LGE1029, ¶¶0008-0017, 0025-0027.
`
`Indeed, the notion that 1D and 2D symbol constellations do not necessarily
`
`have the same characteristics is well understood and known in the art. Dr.
`
`Hochwald, with reference to the Fuentes reference, explains that single dimension
`
`and multidimensional constellations do not have the same capacity characteristics.
`
`For example, Fuentes explains that “2D-NUCs [(Non-Uniform Constellations)] are
`
`always a better option than 1D-NUCs from the capacity point of view. … First, the
`
`BICM capacity gain increases with the constellation order, regardless of the type
`
`of NUC used. Second, the relative gain between 2D- and 1D-NUCs is always higher
`
`for the medium range of SNRs in which each order of constellation works.
`
`Logically, the SNR range also increases with the constellation order.”3 LGE1030,
`
`
`
` Bit-Interleaved Coded Modulation (BICM) and parallel decoding capacity are
`
` 3
`
`terms that are used interchangeably in the art, as acknowledged by the Patent
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`75-77. Thus, Fuentes explains that a 1D-NUC (Non-Uniform Constellation) and
`
`2D-NUC do not necessarily have capacity characteristics when 1D constellations
`
`and 2D constellations (as a whole) are compared. Indeed, Fuentes teaches that the
`
`opposite is true and that SNR and capacities of 1D and 2D constellations can be
`
`different. For instance, the difference between the dashed lines and the solid lines
`
`in Fuentes’ FIG. 3.16 (reproduced below) show how different the BICM or parallel
`
`decoding capacities for various 1D and 2D NUC QAM constellations can be at
`
`various SNRs. Consequently, the parallel decoding capacity and SNR at which a
`
`1D constellation may be configured and optimized for, are not necessarily the same
`
`as the parallel decoding capacity and SNR of a 2D constellation formed from the 1D
`
`constellation. LGE1029, ¶¶0008-0017, 0025-0027.
`
`
`Owner. LG Electronics Inc. v Constellation Designs, LLC, IPR2022-01482, Paper
`
`
`
`7 at 35 (Jan. 24, 2023).
`
`8
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`LGE1030, FIG. 3.16.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner attempts to exceed the scope of the disclosed subject matter in
`
`the ’700 patent related to capacity characteristics of a constellation “on a per-
`
`dimension basis" and equate constellation capacities of 1D and 2D constellations by
`
`linking the optimization of a 1D constellation to a 2D constellation, for example as
`
`shown below using FIGS. 13B and 21 of the ’700 patent on page 27 of the POR.
`
`However, these figures and Patent Owner’s annotations merely reinforce that the
`
`constellations are, at best, optimized in one-dimension, not multiple dimensions and
`
`therefore they fail to describe that “each of the plurality of different non-uniform
`
`multidimensional symbol constellations is capable of providing a greater parallel
`
`decoding capacity at a specific SNR than the other symbol constellations in the
`
`9
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`plurality of multidimensional symbol constellations at the same SNR,” as recited in
`
`the claims. EX2001, 25-28; POR, 26-28; LGE1029, ¶¶0008-0017, 0025-0027,
`
`0035-0038.
`
`
`
`POR, 27.
`Thus, throughout the POR and as reflected in Patent Owner’s figure above,
`
`the ’700 patent, at best, discloses optimized 1D symbol constellations used to create
`
`a 2D constellation. As seen above, the “replication” of a PAM-8 (eight times) shows
`
`the use of individual constellations that have been optimized. Each of the individual
`
`boxes highlight the symbol constellations points of a single optimized PAM-8. As
`
`such, the created QAM-64 is optimized on a “per dimension basis” only. And
`
`because there is no disclosure of the multidimensional symbol constellation being
`
`10
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`optimized, the ’700 patent does not describe “each of the plurality of different non-
`
`uniform multidimensional symbol constellations is capable of providing a greater
`
`parallel decoding capacity at a specific SNR than the other symbol constellations in
`
`the plurality of multidimensional symbol constellations at the same SNR.”
`
`LGE1029, ¶¶0008-0017, 0025-0027.
`
`B. The ’700 patent fails to disclose that an optimized PAM used to
`form a QAM yields an optimized QAM.
`The ’700 patent does not disclose that using optimized one-dimensional
`
`constellations to produce two-dimensional constellations would also result in
`
`optimized two-dimensional constellations. Indeed, as shown below, throughout its
`
`disclosure, the ’700 patent focuses on optimizing desired capacity on a per
`
`dimension basis. Example excerpts are provided below. LGE1029, ¶¶0010-0017,
`
`0028-0033.
`
` “selecting an appropriate constellation size and a desired capacity per
`
`dimension, estimating an initial SNR at which the system is likely to
`
`operate, and iteratively optimizing” (LGE1001, 3:4-24);
`
` “[t]hroughout the description of the present invention SNR is defined
`
`as the ratio of the average constellation energy per dimension to the
`
`average noise energy per dimension. In most cases the capacity can be
`
`set to equal the target user bit rate per symbol per dimension”
`
`11
`
`
`
`(LGE1001, 7:51-56); and
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
` “the SNR at which the optimized M-ary constellation provides the
`
`desired capacity per dimension η (SNRout) is determined.” (LGE1001,
`
`8:13-15).
`
`Far from disclosing that 1D constellation optimization would also apply to 2D
`
`constellation optimization, the ’700 patent discloses the opposite. In particular, the
`
`’700 patent reveals that:
`
`The minimum distance (dmin) between constellation points is indicative
`
`of the capacity of a constellation at high signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs).
`
`Therefore, constellations used in many communication systems are
`
`designed to maximize dmin. Increasing the dimensionality of a
`
`constellation allows
`
`larger minimum distance for constant
`
`constellation energy per dimension.
`
`LGE1001, 1:45-54. This disclosure clearly indicates that the dmin used to
`
`optimize capacity at a high SNR for a single dimensional symbol constellation
`
`could be different for a dmin associated with a constellation with increased
`
`dimensionality (i.e., multidimensional constellation).
`
` Consequently, any
`
`optimization of a parallel decoding capacity at a specific SNR for a single
`
`dimensional symbol constellation, such as a PAM, would not necessarily be the same
`
`or applicable for a non-uniform multidimensional symbol constellation, such as a
`
`12
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`QAM, even if that QAM were formed using an optimized PAM. LGE1029, ¶¶0010-
`
`0017, 0028-0033.
`
`The above-disclosure and the omission of any statement in the ’700 patent (or
`
`any evidence submitted by Patent Owner) disclosing that the parallel decoding
`
`capacities and SNRs of a PAM and a QAM formed using the PAM are the same,
`
`demonstrate that the ’700 patent has no written description support for claims 5, 15,
`
`and 25. LGE1029, ¶¶0010-0017, 0028-0033.
`
`Moreover, a POSITA would have understood that SNR and parallel decoding
`
`optimizations of PAM constellations would involve amplitude and/or 1D spacing
`
`optimizations, whereas optimizations of QAM constellations would also involve
`
`phase considerations. LGE1029, ¶¶0010, 0033. But there is no disclosure of phase
`
`optimization in the ’700 patent (with respect to a multidimensional symbol
`
`constellation (e.g., QAM) created from one-dimensional symbol constellations
`
`(PAMs)). Indeed, even in the instance of generating a multidimensional symbol
`
`constellation (e.g., QAM) from single dimensional symbol constellations (e.g.,
`
`PAM), the ’700 patent provides no discussion of how phase is considered with other
`
`parameters when optimizing SNR, parallel decoding capacity, or any other capacity
`
`characteristic of a multi-dimensional symbol constellation. A QAM constellation
`
`constructed from PAM does not account for interference and noise related to phase
`
`when the only previous optimization was based on 1D amplitude and spacing.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`LGE1031, 887. Thus, the ’700 patent fails to explain how a multidimensional QAM
`
`constellation generated using optimized PAMs is itself optimized. It is thus not
`
`surprising that the ’700 patent also fails to disclose the relationship of the SNR of a
`
`one-dimensional constellation (e.g., PAM-8) compared to the SNR of a multi-
`
`dimensional constellation (e.g., QAM-64) formed by orthogonalizing the one-
`
`dimensional constellation. LGE1029, ¶¶0010-0017, 0028-0033.
`
`C. Patent Owner only points to evidence of 1D constellations being
`optimized, which is not enough to support claims 5, 15, and 25
`In attempting to defend the lack of support of claims 5, 15, and 25 in the ’700
`
`patent, Patent Owner turns to evidence that addresses optimizations in 1D. For
`
`instance, Patent Owner turns to Figures 11b, 13b, 15b, and 17b, 10:8-13, and other
`
`portions of the ’700 patent in support of claim 5. POR, 42-45. But none of these
`
`disclosures teach optimization of a multidimensional symbol constellation. As one
`
`example, even if FIG. 13b discloses optimizing a PAM-8 constellation for parallel
`
`decoding capacity at a particular SNR, such information would not be understood as
`
`disclosing an optimization of a QAM-64 constellation such that “each of the plurality
`
`of different non-uniform multidimensional symbol constellations is capable of
`
`providing a greater parallel decoding capacity at a specific SNR than the other
`
`symbol constellations in the plurality of multidimensional symbol constellations at
`
`the same SNR.” LGE1001, 14:65-15:3. Indeed, the ’700 patent does not explain
`
`14
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`whether the orthogonalized multidimensional constellations created from PAM
`
`constellations are already optimized or need to be further optimized for the code rate,
`
`SNR, capacity, or other characteristics. LGE1029, ¶¶0034-0038.
`
`Focusing on the example of FIG. 13b which Patent Owner highlights in its
`
`POR, as shown below, Patent Owner attempts to link FIG. 13b to the multi-
`
`dimensional constellation shown in FIG. 21. POR, 27-28. But the title of FIG. 21
`
`states “QAM-64 constructed from 2 orthogonal PAM-8 optimized for PDC=1.5
`
`bits/dimension.” The ’700 patent does not describe the QAM-64 constellation as
`
`optimized, nor is there any information in the disclosure about the parallel decoding
`
`capacity or SNR of the QAM-64 constellation. With no description of the SNR or
`
`parallel decoding capacity of
`
`the non-uniform multi-dimensional symbol
`
`constellation shown in FIG. 13b or in any other multi-dimensional constellation, the
`
`’700 patent fails to provide written description support for claims 5, 15, and 25.
`
`LGE1029, ¶¶0034-0038.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`POR, 27 (annotated with yellow highlighted box).
`Moreover, throughout the POR, Patent Owner mischaracterizes the alleged
`
`supporting disclosure. For instance, Patent Owner contends that:
`
`
`
`the specification includes a number of tables identifying a plurality of
`
`different non-uniform multidimensional symbol constellations that are
`
`capable of providing a greater parallel decoding capacity at a specific
`
`SNR than the other symbol constellations in the plurality of
`
`multidimensional symbol constellations at the same SNR. For
`
`example, Barsoum’s Figs. 11b, 13b, 15b and 17b all disclose
`
`constellations that are capable of providing the greatest parallel
`
`decoding capacity at a specific SNR.
`
`16
`
`
`
`POR, 43. But none of Figs. 11b, 13b, 15b and 17b are related to multidimensional
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`constellations. As shown below, the same holds true for various other disclosure
`
`Patent Owner points to as allegedly supporting the claim features at issue. Indeed,
`
`such mischaracterizations may have contributed to the Board being misled by
`
`Patent Owner regarding support for claims 5, 15, and 25 at the stage of institution.
`
`Paper 10 (Institution Decision), 15; LGE1029, ¶¶0034-0038.
`
`
`
`POR, 42.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`POR, 40 (annotated).
`
`
`
`
`
`POR, 44-45 (annotated).
`
`Throughout its arguments, Patent Owner relies on an assumption that the
`
`characteristics of non-uniform 1D constellations would necessarily also apply to
`
`18
`
`
`
`non-uniform 2D constellations, which, as noted above, is incorrect. To the extent
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`there could be circumstances in which such an assumption would hold true, the
`
`‘700 patent provides no description of such circumstances and it certainly would
`
`not apply to “each” of the different non-uniform multidimensional constellations.
`
`Thus, none of the evidence provided by the Patent Owner provides written
`
`description support for claims 5, 15, and 25. LGE1029, ¶¶0034-0038.
`
`D. There is no comparison of parallel decoding capacity between
`different non-uniform multidimensional symbol constellations
`The ’700 patent (e.g., Figs. 10a-17b) also fails to provide any description
`
`regarding a comparison of the parallel decoding capacity of non-uniform
`
`multidimensional symbol constellations. For instance, even if one were to
`
`orthogonalize the various PAM-8 constellations of FIG. 13b into various
`
`corresponding QAM-64 constellations, the ’700 patent does not disclose the parallel
`
`decoding capacities of these corresponding QAM-64 constellations. Specifically,
`
`the ’700 patent states “the PD capacity of a channel can be viewed in terms of the
`
`mutual information between the output bits of the encoder (such as an LDPC
`
`encoder) at the transmitter and the likelihoods computed by the demapper at the
`
`receiver.” LGE1001, 6:64-7:1. Then when describing
`
`the complexity of
`
`multidimensional optimization, the ’700 patent states that “[t]he complexity of the
`
`optimization step grows exponentially in the number of dimensions as does the
`
`19
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`complexity of the resulting receiver de-mapper.” LGE1001, 13:7-10. As noted
`
`above, the ’700 patent does not disclose the design of the more complex de-mapper
`
`or how such multidimensional optimization would be implemented. Thus, the
`
`parallel decoding capacity of multidimensional constellation system utilizing an
`
`“exponentially” more complex de-mapper is not shown to be the same as that of a
`
`one dimensional (PAM) de-mapper. LGE1029, ¶¶0019, 0039. For this additional
`
`reason, the features of claims 5, 15, and 25, namely “each of the plurality of different
`
`non-uniform multidimensional symbol constellations is capable of providing a
`
`greater parallel decoding capacity at a specific SNR than the other symbol
`
`constellations in the plurality of multidimensional symbol constellations at the
`
`same SNR” do not have written description support. LGE1029, ¶¶0039-0040.
`
`To the extent other comparisons are disclosed in the ’700 patent, the
`
`comparisons are between the capacity of a non-uniform constellation and the
`
`capacity of a constellation that maximizes dmin (i.e., uniform constellation).
`
`LGE1001, 2:51-55, 3:25-34, 6:25, 8:24-29. In fact, even when producing a QAM
`
`constellation, the ’700 patent discloses “obtaining a geometrically shaped PAM
`
`constellation with a constellation size that is the square root of said given
`
`constellation size” of the QAM constellation, and then comparing the capacity of the
`
`PAM to “a PAM constellation that maximizes dm.” LGE1001, 3:25-34. Thus, the
`
`’700 patent discloses comparing the capacity of a geometrically shaped PAM
`
`20
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`constellations to constellations maximized for dmin, which is not the same as
`
`comparing the parallel decoding capacity at a particular SNR of a non-uniform
`
`multidimensional symbol constellation to “other symbol constellations in the
`
`plurality of multidimensional symbol constellations at the same SNR,” as claimed
`
`in claims 5, 15, and 25. LGE1011, 14:65-15:3; LGE1029, ¶¶0039-0040.
`
`III. Conclusion
`For the various foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully submits that claims
`
`5, 15, and 25 lack written description support and thus should not be entitled to an
`
`earlier priority. For example, because there is no teaching of multidimensional
`
`optimization and there is no comparison between optimized constellations at the
`
`same SNR, the ’700 patent fails to show written description support for claims 5,
`
`15, and 25. Consequently, the ’777 patent (Barsoum) and ATSC327 are both prior
`
`art to the ’700 patent. And because Patent Owner did not address the invalidity
`
`grounds based on the ’777 patent (Barsoum) and ATSC327, claims 5, 15, and 25
`
`should be found invalid.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Usman Khan/
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Jeremy J. Monaldo, Reg. No. 58,680
`Patrick Darno, Reg. No. 69,205
`Usman A. Khan, Reg. No. 70,439
`
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: 202-783-5553
`F: 877-769-7945
`
`
`
`Dated: December 22, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`CERTIFICATION UNDER 37 CFR § 42.24(d)
`
`Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 42.24(d), the undersigned hereby certifies
`
`that the word count for the foregoing Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`totals 3,662, which is less than the 5,600 allowed under 37 CFR § 42.24.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Usman Khan/
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Jeremy J. Monaldo, Reg. No. 58,680
`Patrick Darno, Reg. No. 69,205
`Usman A. Khan, Reg. No. 70,439
`
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: 202-783-5553
`F: 877-769-7945
`
`
`
`Dated: December 22, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4)(i) et seq. and 42.105(b), the undersigned
`
`certifies that on December 22, 2023, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s
`
`Reply to Patent Owner’s Response and all supporting exhibits were provided via e-
`
`mail to the Patent Owner, by serving the correspondence address of record as
`
`follows:
`
`William A. Meunier (Reg. No. 41,193)
`Michael T. Renaud (Reg. No. 44,299)
`Kevin C. Amendt (Reg. No. 69,361)
`MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY
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
