Re: Posting of IPR Disclosure related to QUALCOMM Incorporated's Statement about IPR related to RFC 5170

Mike,

Apparently I won't get any answer to confirm or invalidate the
possibility of Prior Art. It's a pity since it would have clarified
the situation, perhaps definitively.
Regards,

  Vincent


Vincent Roca wrote:
> Hello Mike,
> 
> I'd like to have your opinion on the following point.
> 
> Claims 27-28 of US patent application 20080034273 detail the
> "multiple symbols per packet" technique as follows:
> 
> " 27. The method of claim 25, wherein the number of ouptput
> symbols carried in a packet is determined based on a desired
> number of input symbols.
> 
> 28. The method of claim 25, wherein the number of output
> symbols carried in a packet is determined based on desired
> reception overhead."
> 
> Now if I have a look at RFC 3453 (or the previous I-Ds,
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rmt-info-fec), it is said in
> section 2.4, p.12:
> 
> " There is a weak tradeoff between the number of source symbols and the
> reception overhead for LT codes, and the larger the number of source
> symbols the smaller the reception overhead. Thus, for shorter
> objects, it is sometimes advantageous to partition the object into
> many short source symbols and include multiple encoding symbols in
> each packet. In this case, a single encoding symbol ID is used to
> identify the multiple encoding symbols contained in a single packet."
> 
> Of course, the "man in the art" immediately understands that the above
> paragraph is not limited to LT codes but is applicable to any code
> that performs better with large objects, in particular LDPC codes.
> 
> And RFC 3453 was published in 2002, several years before the filling
> dates of 20080034273 and 7,418,651 (the latter containing IPR related
> to the claims 25-29 of patent 20080034273, as you explained).
> 
> Did I miss something? I'd like to understand.
> 
> Another detail that surprises me is the fact there is no reference to
> RFC 3453 in U.S. patent application 20080034273 (the same is true for
> patent 7,418,651) whereas this RFC discloses what is claimed in the patent.
> It won't simplify the work of the USPTO examiner.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Vincent
> 
> 
> Luby, Michael wrote:
>> Hi Vincent,
>> Yes, you got it with respect to the technical reason for the new
>> patent information in the updated IPR declaration on RFC 5170.
>>
>> With respect to 20080034273, it is not yet granted, it was published
>> in February of 2008.
>>
>> I’ll get back to you as soon as practical in a different thread
>> concerning
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/fecframe/current/msg00516.html.
>> Best, Mike
>>
>> On 10/6/09 3:18 AM, "Vincent Roca" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>     Mike,
>>
>>     If I understand correctly, your point is related to the possibility
>>     offered by RFC 5170 of having several encoding symbols per packet in
>>     order to increase the number of symbols, which is useful to improve
>>     LDPC erasure correction capabilities when dealing with small objects.
>>     This is what I understand when comparing claims 25-29 of U.S. patent
>>     20080034273 to our RFC.
>>
>>     And from your 09/23/2009 email, this is the "additional element added
>>     to the ldpc draft" that justified the 10 additional patents of IPR
>>     disclosure #1184 (WRT IPR disclosure #637).
>>
>>     So I recognize there is a problem here. Now that it has been
>>     clarified,
>>     we can search for a solution that would hopefully satisfy both of us.
>>
>>     As I said, we always did our best to avoid infringing any patent we
>>     were aware of... But of course, there's nothing we can do in case of
>>     unpublished pending patents!
>>
>>     Especially when an IPR disclosure referring to an unpublished pending
>>     patent is not quickly updated once the patent has been granted or
>>     rejected. In this case, patent 20080034273 has been granted in
>>     February
>>     2008, but the IPR disclosure only updated in September 2009. In the
>>     meantime I haven't received any complain from you there could be an
>>     issue with the "several symbols per packet" technique. It does not
>>     help!
>>
>>     This reminds me of the similar situation (unpublished pending patent)
>>     we are currently experiencing with our FECFRAME document... So far I
>>     didn't receive any clarification after my email sent mid-September:
>>     http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/fecframe/current/msg00516.html
>>
>>     Cheers,
>>
>>
>>     Vincent
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     Luby, Michael wrote:
>>     > Hi Vincent,
>>     >
>>     > Claims 25-29 of U.S. patent publication number 20080034273 is
>>     related to the IPR issue. Note that the patent specification for
>>     U.S. Patent 7,418,651 (and the patent specification for U.S.
>>     Provisional Patent Application No. 60/569,127 to which it claims
>>     priority and is incorporated by reference) also contains IPR
>>     related to claims 25-29 of U.S. patent publication number
>>     20080034273. It was realizing that the IPR in the patent
>>     specification for U.S. Patent 7,418,651 (and the patent
>>     specification for U.S. Provisional Patent Application No.
>>     60/569,127) is relevant, based on looking more carefully at the
>>     drafts as they evolved and not the specific material in any one
>>     particular draft, that triggered the new DF IPR declaration in
>>     December 2007.
>>     >
>>     > Best, Mike
>>     >
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rmt mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt
>>   
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rmt mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt