Re: [Rmt] Posting of IPR Disclosure related to QUALCOMM Incorporated's Statement about IPR related to RFC 5170
Vincent Roca <vincent.roca@inrialpes.fr> Fri, 06 November 2009 08:50 UTC
Return-Path: <vincent.roca@inrialpes.fr>
X-Original-To: rmt@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rmt@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEEA33A6A68 for <rmt@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 00:50:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.443, BAYES_05=-1.11, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ww+JRnRVisau for <rmt@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 00:50:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E5723A6A64 for <rmt@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 00:50:26 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,691,1249250400"; d="scan'208";a="37639758"
Received: from ornon.inrialpes.fr (HELO [194.199.24.115]) ([194.199.24.115]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 06 Nov 2009 09:50:46 +0100
Message-ID: <4AF3E365.6040300@inrialpes.fr>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:50:45 +0100
From: Vincent Roca <vincent.roca@inrialpes.fr>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Luby, Michael" <luby@qualcomm.com>
References: <C6F09F94.77CF%luby@qualcomm.com> <4AE00235.5000800@inrialpes.fr>
In-Reply-To: <4AE00235.5000800@inrialpes.fr>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: Vincent Roca <vincent.roca@inrialpes.fr>, "rmt@ietf.org" <rmt@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Rmt] Posting of IPR Disclosure related to QUALCOMM Incorporated's Statement about IPR related to RFC 5170
X-BeenThere: rmt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Reliable Multicast Transport <rmt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt>, <mailto:rmt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rmt>
List-Post: <mailto:rmt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rmt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt>, <mailto:rmt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:50:28 -0000
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" <vincent.roca@inrialpes.fr> 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 >> Rmt@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt >> > > _______________________________________________ > Rmt mailing list > Rmt@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt
- [Rmt] Posting of IPR Disclosure related to QUALCO… IETF Secretariat
- Re: [Rmt] Posting of IPR Disclosure related to QU… Vincent Roca
- Re: [Rmt] Posting of IPR Disclosure related to QU… Luby, Michael
- Re: [Rmt] Posting of IPR Disclosure related to QU… Luby, Michael
- Re: [Rmt] Posting of IPR Disclosure related to QU… Vincent Roca
- Re: [Rmt] Posting of IPR Disclosure related to QU… Luby, Michael
- Re: [Rmt] Posting of IPR Disclosure related to QU… Vincent Roca
- Re: [Rmt] Posting of IPR Disclosure related to QU… Luby, Michael
- Re: [Rmt] Posting of IPR Disclosure related to QU… Vincent Roca
- Re: [Rmt] Posting of IPR Disclosure related to QU… Vincent Roca
- Re: [Rmt] Posting of IPR Disclosure related to QU… Luby, Michael
- Re: [Rmt] Posting of IPR Disclosure related to QU… Vincent Roca
- Re: [Rmt] Posting of IPR Disclosure related to QU… Luby, Michael
- Re: [Rmt] Posting of IPR Disclosure related to QU… Vincent Roca
- Re: [Rmt] Posting of IPR Disclosure related to QU… Vincent Roca