UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CONSTELLATION DESIGNS, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`US Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`Issue Date: June 23, 2020
`
`Title: Receivers Incorporating Non-Uniform Multidimensional Constellations
`
`and Code Rate Pairs
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: IPR2023-00319
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. BERTRAND HOCHWALD
`
`1
`
`LGE 1003
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CONSTELLATION DESIGNS, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`US Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`Issue Date: June 23, 2020
`
`Title: Receivers Incorporating Non-Uniform Multidimensional Constellations
`
`and Code Rate Pairs
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: IPR2023-00319
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. BERTRAND HOCHWALD
`
`1
`
`LGE 1003
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 2
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................................. 3
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ............................................................................. 7
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS FORMED .................................................. 10
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................................................ 10
`
`VI. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................ 11
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................... 17
`
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF US PATENT NO. 10,693,700 .............................................. 17
`
`IX. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A JUNE 5, 2007
`
`PRIORITY DATE ...................................................................................................... 19
`
`X. OVERVIEW OF THE ’700 PATENT ............................................................... 41
`
`XI. APPLICATION OF PRIOR ART TO THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ........... 49
`
`XII. CONCLUSION................................................................................................. 119
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`2
`
`
`
`I, Dr. Bertrand Hochwald, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`[0001]
`
`I have been retained by LG Electronics, Inc. (“Petitioner” or “LG”) to
`
`serve as an independent expert consultant in the Inter Partes review (IPR)
`
`proceedings regarding U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700 (the “’700 Patent” or
`
`LGE1001). I have been asked to consider the validity of claims 2-3, 5, 12-13,
`
`15, 22-23, and 25 of the ’700 Patent (the “Challenged Claims”). My opinions
`
`are set forth below.
`
`[0002]
`
`I am being compensated at my normal rate of $675/hour for all services
`
`rendered. My compensation is not contingent upon the results of my study,
`
`the substance of my opinions, or the outcome of any proceeding involving the
`
`challenged claims. I have no financial interest in the outcome of this matter
`
`or on the pending litigation between Petitioner and Patent Owner.
`
`[0003] My analysis of the materials produced in this proceeding is ongoing and
`
`I will continue to review any new material that is provided. This declaration
`
`is indicative of only those opinions that I have formed to date. I reserve the
`
`right to amend, revise, and/or supplement my opinions stated herein based on
`
`any new information that may become available to me or my continuing
`
`analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`3
`
`
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`
`
`[0004] My qualifications for forming the opinions in this report are
`
`summarized here and also noted in my Curriculum Vitae (“CV”), which is
`
`submitted as Appendix A.
`
`[0005]
`
`In 1995, I received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Yale
`
`University. My Ph.D. work involved the analysis and processing of
`
`electromagnetic and audio signals for the estimation of the location of
`
`electromagnetic and audio sources. In 1993, I received an M.A. in Statistics
`
`from Yale University. My primary area of study was Signal Processing and
`
`Communications. I received an M.S. in Electrical Engineering from Duke
`
`University in 1986, and a B.S. in Engineering from Swarthmore College in
`
`1984.
`
`[0006]
`
`I have twenty-six years of combined industry and academic experience
`
`in the research and design of hardware, software, and systems for various
`
`technologies, including electronic devices, sensors, signal and image
`
`processing, networking and wireless communications. I have worked in
`
`various industry jobs, including at the Department of Defense, Bell Labs, and
`
`a start-up in California before joining the University of Notre Dame in
`
`2011. As I explain below, much of my work has been in the general areas of
`
`
`
`3
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`audio/video signal processing and communications.
`
`[0007] My most recent appointment, starting in 2011, is with the University of
`
`Notre Dame, where I am currently a Freimann Chaired Professor of Electrical
`
`Engineering. I have taught both graduate and undergraduate classes in signal
`
`processing, information theory, communications, and in systems theory. I
`
`have also taught courses in electronics, analog and digital signal sensing,
`
`processing, computation, and electronic forms of wireline and wireless
`
`networking and communications. My primary areas of research include such
`
`systems, sensors, communication system design and signal processing. I
`
`advise graduate students who are attaining Ph.D. degrees through research and
`
`coursework. My research work now includes processing of high data rate
`
`signals (similar to those used to transmit and receive coded signals) in
`
`communication systems.
`
`[0008] An example of my current work at the University includes a project that
`
`I lead called RadioHound distributed spectrum sensor system for remote
`
`monitoring using radio signals (https://wireless.nd.edu/research/radiohound-
`
`distributed-spectrum-sensing/), which is a multi-year effort involving several
`
`students, faculty, and technicians. The RadioHound system captures data
`
`from hundreds of sensors and displays it in a real-time setting for human
`
`
`
`4
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`interpretation and assessment. This project, which is funded by government
`
`and industrial sponsors, involves the design of hardware sensors, and software
`
`communications transceivers. The project has become an educational and
`
`research tool used by laboratories inside and outside the University of Notre
`
`Dame.
`
`[0009] Prior to Notre Dame, I worked from 2005-2010 at Beceem
`
`Communications, a 4G WiMax and LTE cellular communication chipset
`
`start-up company in Santa Clara, California, where I was Chief Scientist and
`
`Vice President of Systems Engineering. I was an integral part of the chipset
`
`development team. Beceem was bought by Broadcom Corporation in 2010
`
`and no longer exists as a separate company. Several aspects of channel coding
`
`and wireless communications for our products were developed within this
`
`team.
`
`[0010] From 1996-2005, I worked at Lucent Bell Laboratories in New Jersey,
`
`where I was a Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff doing research
`
`into various communication and networking systems. For example, my work
`
`in Bell Labs included wireless communications and multi-antenna signal
`
`processing and coding.
`
`[0011]
`
` Before Bell Laboratories, I was a Visiting Assistant Professor at the
`
`
`
`5
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign during the 1995-1996 school
`
`year, where I worked on a broad range of research topics related to signal
`
`processing and wireless communications.
`
`[0012] Prior to completing my Ph.D., during 1986-1989, I worked at the
`
`Department of Defense as a system engineer for signal processing and
`
`wireless communication systems. In this role, I designed wireless
`
`communication equipment for audio and video signal monitoring and
`
`processing. Much of this work is classified for security reasons.
`
`[0013] As a result of my research, I have obtained 48 patents, and I have
`
`published more than one-hundred articles in scholarly journals, many of them
`
`within the journals of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
`
`(IEEE), one of the premier societies for electrical engineers. I have been an
`
`invited and plenary speaker at several international conferences throughout
`
`the world and have received awards and recognition for my research and
`
`publications. An example relevant publication includes A. Ashikhmin, A. van
`
`Wijngaarden, Z. Haibo, B. Hochwald, et al, “Design and development of a
`
`terrestrial digital video broadcast demodulation core: An international
`
`collaborative effort,” Bell Labs Technical Journal, vol. 12, pp. 97-118, 2007.
`
`[0014] Since 2012, I have engaged in consulting work as an expert in various
`
`
`
`6
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`litigation matters
`
`including acoustic echo cancelling, multi-antenna
`
`technologies, cellular and wireless local-area-net standards and technologies,
`
`and touch-screen technologies. I have served as an expert on behalf of both
`
`plaintiffs and defendants in patent cases. I have served as a technology expert
`
`in various aspects of the litigation process, including trade secret disputes,
`
`trial testimony, Markman hearings, and IPRs.
`
`[0015]
`
`I have had experience drafting and successfully prosecuting my own
`
`patents, and have worked with other technology experts as a co-inventor and
`
`co-author. Some of my patents deal with coding for multi-antenna
`
`communications. An example is US Patent No. 6,363,121, which designs
`
`multidimensional constellations with a unitary structure for transmission
`
`across multiple antennas.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`[0016] All of the opinions contained in this declaration are based on the
`
`documents I have reviewed and my professional judgment, as well as my
`
`education, experience, and professional knowledge. I am not an attorney and
`
`I am not offering any legal opinions in this declaration.
`
`[0017]
`
`In forming my opinions expressed in this declaration, I relied on the
`
`’700 Patent (LGE1001), the prosecution history of the ’700 Patent
`
`
`
`7
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`(LGE1002), the prior art references cited herein, and other exhibits I have
`
`cited in this declaration. Some of the additional prior art references I reviewed
`
`include:
`
`Prior Art References
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700 to Barsoum et al. (LGE1001 or “the
`
`‘700 patent”)
`
`Prosecution History for U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700 (LGE1002)
`
`Ulrich Reimers et al., DVB The Family of International
`
`Standards for Digital Video Broadcasting, Second Edition, 2005
`
`(“Ulrich”) (LGE1008 or “Ulrich”)
`
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/933,319 (LGE1010 or
`
`“’319 Provisional”)
`
`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 (“LGE1014” or “DeGaudenzi”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,978,777 to Barsoum et al. (LGE1015 or “the
`
`’777 patent”)
`
`ATSC Recommended Practice: Guidelines for the Physical
`
`
`
`8
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Layer Protocol, Document no. A/327:2018 (LGE1022 or
`
`“ATSC327”)
`
`ATSC 3.0 Standard: Physical Layer Protocol, Document no.
`
`A/322:2018 (LGE1023 or “ATSC322”)
`
`Loghin, et al., Non-Uniform Constellations for ATSC 3.0, IEEE
`
`Transactions on Broadcasting, Vol 62, No. 1, March 2016.
`
`(LGE1024 or “Loghin”)
`
`G. Ungerboeck, Channel Coding with Multilevel/Phase Signals,
`
`IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, Vol. IT-28, No. 1, Jan. 1982, pp.
`
`55-67 (LGE1025 or “Ungerboeck”)
`
`
`
`
`
`[0018] Counsel (Fish & Richardson) has informed me that I should consider
`
`these materials through the lens of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(POSITA) related to the ’700 Patent, and I have done so during my review of
`
`these materials. See also infra Sections VIII-X. The ’700 Patent was filed on
`
`December 23, 2019 and claims priority from U.S. Provisional application No.
`
`60/933,319, which was filed on June 5, 2007. LGE1001, cover. For the
`
`purposes of this declaration, Counsel has indicated that I should use June 5,
`
`2007 for the purposes of what a POSITA would have known or considered. I
`
`9
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`have therefore used June 5, 2007 as the date for my analysis below.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS FORMED
`
`[0019] This declaration explains the conclusions that I have formed based on
`
`my analysis. Based on my review of the Challenged Claims and above-noted
`
`materials considered, it is my conclusion that:
`
` 1A: Claims 2-3, 12-13, and 22-23 are obvious over the ’777 patent and
`
`ATSC322.
`
` 1B: Claims 5, 15, 25 are obvious over the ’777 patent and ATSC 327
`
`[0020]
`
`In support of these conclusions, I provide an overview of the references
`
`and combinations in Section IX and more detailed comments regarding the
`
`obviousness of the Challenged Claims in Section X.
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`[0021]
`
`In rendering the opinions set forth in this declaration, I was asked to
`
`consider the Challenged Claims and the prior art through the eyes of a
`
`POSITA as of June 5, 2007. I understand that the factors considered in
`
`determining the ordinary level of skill in a field of art include the level of
`
`education and experience of persons working in the field; the types of
`
`problems encountered in the field; the teachings of the prior art, and the
`
`sophistication of the technology as of June 5, 2007. I understand that a
`10
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`POSITA is not a specific real individual, but rather is a hypothetical individual
`
`having the qualities reflected by the factors above. I understand that a POSITA
`
`would also have knowledge from the teachings of the prior art, including the
`
`art cited below.
`
`[0022] Taking these factors into consideration, a POSITA would have had at
`
`least a Master’s degree in an academic area emphasizing electrical
`
`engineering or a similar discipline, and at least two years of experience in the
`
`field working with, teaching, or researching communication systems
`
`including the use of constellations in transmitting signals between devices.
`
`Alternatively, the person could also hold a more advanced degree, e.g., a
`
`Masters or Doctor of Philosophy degree in these academic disciplines, with
`
`less than two years work experience in the same discipline.
`
`[0023] By June 5, 2007, my level of skill in the art was at least that of a
`
`POSITA. I am qualified to provide opinions concerning what a POSITA
`
`would have known and understood at that time, and my analysis and
`
`conclusions herein are from the perspective of a POSITA as of that date.
`
`VI. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`[0024]
`
`I am not an attorney and I have not been asked to express any legal
`
`opinions. I have been informed by Counsel and understand that:
`
`
`
`11
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
` documents and materials that qualify as prior art can render a patent claim
`
`unpatentable as being anticipated or obvious; and
`
` all prior art references are to be looked at from the viewpoint of a POSITA,
`
`and that this viewpoint prevents one from using his or her own insight or
`
`hindsight in deciding whether a claim is anticipated or rendered obvious.
`
`[0025]
`
`In connection with the analysis presented in this declaration, I
`
`considered the following legal standards that counsel for Petitioner provided
`
`to me.
`
`A. Anticipation
`
`[0026]
`
`I understand that patents or printed publications that qualify as prior art
`
`can be used to invalidate a patent claim as anticipated or as obvious.
`
`[0027]
`
`I understand that, once the claims of a patent have been properly
`
`construed, the second step in determining anticipation of a patent claim
`
`requires a comparison of the properly construed claim language to the prior
`
`art on a limitation-by-limitation basis.
`
`[0028]
`
`I understand that a prior art reference “anticipates” an asserted claim,
`
`and thus renders the claim invalid, if all limitations of the claim are disclosed
`
`in that prior art reference, either explicitly or inherently (i.e., necessarily
`
`present).
`
`
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`
`
`[0029]
`
`I understand that even if a patent is not anticipated, it is still invalid if
`
`the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such
`
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a POSITA as
`
`of the earliest priority date of a patent.
`
`[0030]
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that a claim is
`
`unpatentable for obviousness and that obviousness may be based upon a
`
`combination of prior art references. I am informed by Counsel and understand
`
`that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
`
`likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
`
`However, I am informed by Counsel and understand that a patent claim
`
`composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating
`
`that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.
`
`[0031]
`
`I am informed by Counsel and understand that when a patented
`
`invention is a combination of known elements, a court determines whether
`
`there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion
`
`claimed by the patent at issue by considering the teachings of prior art
`
`references, the effects of demands known to people working in the field or
`
`present in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a
`
`
`
`13
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`POSITA.
`
`[0032]
`
`I am informed by Counsel and understand that a patent claim composed
`
`of several limitations is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each
`
`of its limitations was independently known in the prior art. I am informed by
`
`Counsel and understand that identifying a reason those elements would be
`
`combined can be important because inventions in many instances rely upon
`
`building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost of
`
`necessity will be combinations of what, in some sense, is already known. I
`
`am informed by Counsel and understand that it is improper to use hindsight
`
`in an obviousness analysis, and that a patent’s claims should not be used as a
`
`“roadmap.”
`
`[0033]
`
`I am informed by Counsel and understand that an obviousness inquiry
`
`requires consideration of the following factors: (1) the scope and content of
`
`the prior art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims, (3) the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art, and (4) any so called “secondary
`
`considerations” of non-obviousness, which include: (i) “long felt need” for
`
`the claimed invention, (ii) commercial success attributable to the claimed
`
`invention, (iii) unexpected results of the claimed invention, and (iv) “copying”
`
`of the claimed invention by others.
`
`14
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`[0034]
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that an obviousness
`
`evaluation can be based on a single reference or a combination of multiple
`
`prior art references. I understand that the prior art references themselves may
`
`provide a suggestion, motivation, or reason to combine, but that the nexus
`
`linking two or more prior art references is sometimes simple common sense.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that obviousness analysis
`
`recognizes that market demand, rather than scientific literature, often drives
`
`innovation, and that a motivation to combine references may be supplied by
`
`the direction of the marketplace.
`
`[0035]
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that if a technique has
`
`been used to improve one device, and a POSITA at the time of invention
`
`would have recognized that it would improve similar devices in the same way,
`
`using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or
`
`her skill.
`
`[0036]
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that practical and
`
`common sense considerations should guide a proper obviousness analysis,
`
`because familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that a POSITA looking to
`
`overcome a problem will often be able to fit together the teachings of multiple
`
`
`
`15
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`prior art references. I have been informed by Counsel and understand that
`
`obviousness analysis therefore takes into account the inferences and creative
`
`steps that a POSITA would have employed at the time of invention.
`
`[0037]
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that a proper
`
`obviousness analysis focuses on what was known or obvious to a POSITA at
`
`the time of invention, not just the patentee. Accordingly, I understand that
`
`any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention
`
`and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements
`
`in the manner claimed.
`
`[0038]
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that a claim can be
`
`obvious in light of a single reference, without the need to combine references,
`
`if the elements of the claim that are not found explicitly or inherently in the
`
`reference can be supplied by the common sense of a POSITA.
`
`[0039]
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that there must be a
`
`relationship between any such secondary considerations and the invention,
`
`and that contemporaneous and independent invention by others is a secondary
`
`consideration supporting an obviousness determination.
`
`[0040]
`
`In sum, my understanding is that prior art teachings are properly
`
`combined where a POSITA having the understanding and knowledge
`
`
`
`16
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`reflected in the prior art and motivated by the general problem facing the
`
`inventor, would have been led to make the combination of elements recited in
`
`the claims. Under this analysis, the prior art references themselves, or any
`
`need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of the invention,
`
`can provide a reason for combining the elements of multiple prior art
`
`references in the claimed manner.
`
`[0041]
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that in an inter partes
`
`review (IPR), “the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition
`
`of unpatentability,”
`
`including a proposition of obviousness, “by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence.”
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`[0042]
`
`I understand that when considering the meaning of claims subject to
`
`inter partes review, one must consider the claim language. I understand that
`
`claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning, as would be
`
`understood by a POSITA in the context of the specification, the prosecution
`
`history, and other claims. I have applied the above principles in forming my
`
`opinions provided in this declaration.
`
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF US PATENT NO. 10,693,700
`
`A. Patent Family of the ’700 Patent
`
`17
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`[0043] The ’700 Patent, titled “Receivers Incorporating Non-Uniform
`
`Multidimensional Constellations and Code Rate Pairs” was filed on December
`
`23, 2019, and issued on June 23, 2020. LGE1001, cover page. I understand
`
`that:
`
` the ’700 Patent issued from US Patent Application No. 16/726,037, and
`
`claims to be a continuation of application No. 16/206,991, filed on Nov. 30,
`
`2018, now US Pat. No. 10,567,980;
`
` US Pat. No. 10,567,980 is a continuation of US Patent Application No.
`
`15/682,475, filed on Aug. 21, 2017, now US Pat. No. 10,149,179;
`
` US Pat. No. 10,149,179 is a continuation of US Patent Application No.
`
`15/200,800, filed on Jul. 1, 2016, now US Pat. No. 9,743,292;
`
` US Pat. No. 9,743,292 is a continuation of US Patent Application No.
`
`14/491,731, filed on Sep. 19, 2014, now US Pat. No. 9,385,832;
`
` US Pat. No. 9,385,832 is a continuation of US Patent Application No.
`
`13/618,630, filed on Sep. 14, 2012, now US Pat. No. 8,842,761;
`
` US Pat. No. 8,842,761 is a continuation of US Patent Application No.
`
`13/118,921, filed on May 31, 2011, now US Pat. No. 8,270,511;
`
` US Pat. No. 8,270,511 is a continuation of US Patent Application No.
`
`12/156,989, filed on Jun. 5, 2008, now US Pat. No. 7,978,777; and
`
`
`
`18
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
` US Pat. No. 7,978,777 claims priority from U.S. Provisional application No.
`
`60/933,319, filed on June 5, 2007. Id.
`
`[0044] Claims 2-3, 5, 12-13, 15, 22-23, and 25 of the ’700 Patent are not
`
`entitled to the priority to June 5, 2007 for the reason set forth in paragraphs
`
`IX. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A JUNE 5,
`
`2007 PRIORITY DATE
`
`A. Legal Standard for Priority
`
`[0045]
`
`I have been informed by counsel that in order to rely on the filing date
`
`of an earlier application, 35 U.S.C. § 120 requires that the earlier application
`
`include a disclosure that complies with the written description requirement of
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`[0046]
`
`I understand that to comply with the written description requirement,
`
`the specification must describe the inventions sufficiently to convey to a
`
`person of skill in the art that the patentee had possession of the claimed
`
`invention at the time of the application, i.e., that the patentee invented what is
`
`claimed.
`
`[0047]
`
`I understand that entitlement to a filing date extends only to the subject
`
`matter that is disclosed; not to that which is obvious. I understand this to mean
`
`the parent application must actually or inherently disclose the elements of the
`
`
`
`19
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`later-filed claims.
`
`[0048]
`
`I understand that in evaluating whether a disclosure provides a
`
`sufficient written description for claimed subject matter, the written
`
`description must include some form of disclosure that directs a person skilled
`
`in the art to the claimed subject matter in the originally filed disclosure. I
`
`understand that Federal Courts have referred to such disclosure as a “blaze
`
`mark.”
`
`[0049]
`
`I understand that the Challenged Claims were not “original claims” of
`
`any priority application, and the claimed subject matter was not included in
`
`the ’319 provisional application or the ’777 patent (collectively referred to
`
`herein as the “Barsoum Patents”). LGE1010; LGE1015. Instead, the text of
`
`the challenged claims were filed on December 23, 2019 when US. App. No.
`
`16/726,037, which eventually issued as the ’700 patent, was filed. LGE1002,
`
`1,088-1,097. This December 23, 2019 filing is more than 12 years after the
`
`earliest priority date of the Barsoum Patents.
`
`1. The Barsoum Patents Do Not Contain Written
`Description Support For the Claimed Code Rate Ranges
`of Claims 2-3, 12-13, and 22-23
`
`[0050] The Barsoum Patents lack written description support for the
`
`limitations of claims 2-3, 12-13, and 22-23 directed towards respective QAM
`
`
`
`20
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`constellations having an LDPC code rate within a specific range of LDPC
`
`code rates. Claims 2, 12, and 22 are directed towards a QAM constellation
`
`having “an LDPC code rate that is equal to or greater than 3/8 and less than
`
`or equal to 6/8.” LGE1001, 14:6-55, 16:6-55, 18:1-50. Claims 3, 13, and 23,
`
`depend from claims 2, 12, and 22, respectively, and further comprises specific
`
`limitations of
`
`an
`
`additional plurality of different non-uniform
`
`multidimensional symbol constellations comprising claim multiple different
`
`sixty-four-point QAM constellations, multiple different QAM-256
`
`constellations, and multiple different QAM-1024 constellations, wherein each
`
`of the additional plurality of different non-uniform multidimensional symbol
`
`constellations is only included in one of the plurality of predetermined LDPC
`
`code rate and multidimensional symbol constellation pairs, wherein:
`
` the LDPC code rate and multidimensional symbol constellation pairs
`
`that include one of the multiple different sixty-four-point symbol
`
`QAM constellations have an LDPC code rate that is equal to or
`
`greater than 2/6 and less than or equal to 5/6;
`
` the LDPC code rate and multidimensional symbol constellation pairs
`
`that include one of the multiple different two-hundred-fifty-six-point
`
`symbol QAM constellations have an an LDPC code rate that is equal
`
`
`
`21
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`to or greater than 3/8 and less than or equal to 7/8; and
`
` the LDPC code rate and multidimensional symbol constellation pairs
`
`that include one of the multiple different one-thousand-twenty-four-
`
`point symbol QAM constellations have an LDPC code rate that is
`
`equal to or greater than 4/10 and less than or equal to 9/10. Id.
`
`[0051] The Barsoum Patents do not contain written description support for
`
`these claim features sufficient to show that the Patent Owner had possession
`
`of the claimed subject matter as of the priority dates of the Barsoum Patents.
`
`2. The Text of the Barsoum Patents Do Not Contain Any Blaze
`Marks Directing a POSITA to the Claimed Code Rate Ranges
`
`[0052] There is nothing in the Barsoum Patents that demonstrates that the
`
`claimed code rate ranges and constellations were part of their invention.
`
`LGE1010, 1-6. To contrary, the ’319 provisional application explains that
`
`there is “link margin to be gained by tailoring the design of a constellation for
`
`a specific code rate.” LGE1010, 2 (emphasis added).
`
`[0053] To achieve the link margin gain, the ’319 provisional application seeks
`
`to parameterize constellation design based on a target code rate. Id. Indeed,
`
`the ’319 provisional application explains that “optimal design of a
`
`constellation depends on the target code rate to be used with it.” LGE1010,
`
`2. To this end, the ’319 provisional application found that “[t]he number of
`
`
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`user bits per dimension, (cid:1), is related to code rate, R, and the total number of
`
`real signaling dimensions, Ndim,” using the following equation:
`
`η =
`
`(cid:5)((cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)((cid:11)))
`(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)
`
`,
`
`wherein M is, as best understood by Petitioner, to be the number of
`
`constellation points. LGE1010, 2. Thus, though ’319 provisional application
`
`suggests optimizing the design of a constellation based on a target code rate,
`
`there is nothing in the ’319 provisional application that suggests, or otherwise
`
`identifies, the code rate ranges of the challenged claims. Indeed, the examples
`
`illustrated in Fig. 6 of the ’319 provisional application focus on code rate =
`
`½.
`
`[0054] Determination of a code rate range requires determination of a
`
`minimum code rate as a lower bound to the code rate range (e.g., 3/8 in claim
`
`2), determination of a maximum code rate as an upper bound to the code rate
`
`range (e.g., 6/8 in claim 2), and determination of whether minimum code rate,
`
`maximum code rate, or both, are included in the code rate range (e.g., 3/8 is
`
`included in the range of claim 2, as the language recites equal to or greater
`
`than). None of these aspects of the code rate ranges of the challenged claims
`
`are found in the ’319 provisional application.
`
`23
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`[0055] The ’777 patent does not remedy the deficiencies of the ’319
`
`provisional application regarding support for the claimed code rate ranges.
`
`The ’777 patent describes “[p]rocesses for selecting capacity optimized
`
`constellations to achieve increased coding gains based upon a specific coding
`
`rate…” LGE1015, 5:4-7. In line with this design objective, the ’777 patent
`
`provides design tables of constellations such as those shown in FIGs. 11a,
`
`11b, 13a, 13b, 15a, 15b, 17a, 17b with each column of each design table
`
`corresponding to a constellation optimized with a specific coding rate that can
`
`be calculated using the equation from the ’319 provisional application
`
`identified above. LGE1015, 3:61-4:21, 10:25-11:13, FIGS. 10a-17b.
`
`[0056] For example, FIGs. 11a and 11b of the ’777 patent show design tables
`
`of parallel decoding (PD) Capacity and joint capacity optimized PAM-4
`
`constellations, with each column of the design table corresponding to a
`
`particular single dimensional PAM-4 constellation optimized for a specific
`
`code rate. (explaining that each column in the table is a different
`
`constellation). The specific code rate for each single dimensional PAM-4
`
`constellation of the design tables in FIGs. 11a and 11b and determined using
`
`the equation of the ’319 provisional application identified above is R= 1/4 for
`
`the first column / constellation, R=3/8 for the second column / constellation,
`
`
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`R=1/2 for the third column / constellation, R= 5/8 for the fourth column /
`
`constellation, and R= 3/4 for the fifth column / constellation. LGE1015,
`
`10:35-55, FIGs. 10a-11b. Thus, the constellation design tables of FIGS. 11a
`
`and 11b describe a plurality of single dimensional PAM-4 constellations (not
`
`QAM constellations) that are each optimized to a specific code rate resulting
`
`in a set of discrete code rates of R = {1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8, 3/4} - i.e., one specific
`
`code rate for each constellation of the design table respectively. LGE1015,
`
`10:35-55, FIGs. 10a-11b.
`
`[0057] By way of another example, FIGs. 13a and 13b of the ’777 patent show
`
`design tables of PD Capacity and joint capacity optimized
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
