Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al

Filing 661

EXHIBITS re 660 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Apple Inc.'s Notice of Motion and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Exhibits to Mueller Declaration ISO Apple's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [660-9] filed byApple Inc.(a California corporation). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 2, # 2 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 3, # 3 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 4, # 4 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 5, # 5 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 6, # 6 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 7, # 7 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 8, # 8 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 9, # 9 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 10, # 10 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 11, # 11 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 12, # 12 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 13, # 13 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 14, # 14 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 15, # 15 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 16, # 16 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 17, # 17 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 18, # 18 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 19, # 19 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 20, # 20 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 21, # 21 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 22, # 22 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 23, # 23 Exhibit Mueller Decl Exhibit 24)(Related document(s) 660 ) (Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on 1/25/2012)

Download PDF
Mueller Exhibit 19 3GPP_TSG_RAN_WG1 Archives--July 1999 (#294) View: Next in topic I Previous in topic Next by same author I Previous by same author Previous page (July 1999) I Back to main 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 page Join or leave 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 ~1 Post a new message Search Options: Page 1 of 1 Chronologically I Most recent first Proportional font I Non-proportional font Date: Reply-To: Sender: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 16:21:47 +0900 Clog in to unmaskl "3GPP TSG RAN WGI: TSG RAN Working Group 1" <[log in To unmask]> "(Min-goo KIM)" <Clog in to unmask]> From: Subject: CAH04] & CAH05] Tdoc 919: "Unified rate matching scheme " Content-Type: multipart/mixed; Dear Ad Hoc 4 and 5 colleagues, Please find attached the final version of our proposal. Tdoc number: TSGRl#6(99)919 Title: "Unified rate matching scheme for turbo/convolutional codes and up/down links" File name: Tdoc 919.ZIP I’m sorry for our late submission. I will bring the paper copies to the meeting. Ms. Marlene Forina, could you please place these documents on the server? Thank you in advance. Best Regards, Min Goo KIM Samsung Electronics Co. E-mail: Clog in to unmaskl TDOC 919.ZIP Capplication/zip] Back to: Top of message I Previous page I Main 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 page http://list.etsi.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind9907&L=3 gpp_tsg_ran_wg 1 &T=0&P=37037 7/26/2011 APLNDC-WH-A 0000010279 TSG-RAN Working Group1 meeting #6 Espoo, Finland, 13-16, July 1999 TSGRl#6(99)919 Agenda item: Source: SAMSUNG Electronics Co. Title: Unified rate matching scheme for Turbo/ convolutional codes and up/down links Document for: Discussion & decision 1. introduction In this document, we propose a new common rate matching scheme for both convolutionai codes and turbo codes, and for both up-link and down-link. Recently, LGIC and Fujitsu have proposed rate matching algorithms with different algorithms for convolutional coding and turbo coding, respectively [1]-[5]. Also, Siemens and Nortel have investigated rate matching algorithms for both down-link and up-link respectively[6]-[7]. However the different characteristics of convolutional codes and turbo codes make it difficult to find an optimal solution for all cases. In [6], Siemens proposed a rate matching algorithm for convolutional codes for up-link and down-link, which has been adopted in [8]. In [1]-[5], Fujitsu and LGI C proposed two rate matching algorithms for down-link turbo codes. The performances of two algorithms are similar for turbo coding and it seems difficult to find performance improvement in terms of puncturing patterns in both algorithms. This reason is related to the turbo interleaver characteristics such that the random property of turbo interleaver gives a similar performance regardless of puncturing pattern for parity symbols. In addition, for convolu tional codes both algorithms have shown little performance degradation. In this contribution, we propose a new common rate matching scheme for both convolutional codes and Turbo codes for up/down-links which reuses conventional rate matching algorithm with parameter control. Unified rate matching method Figure 1 illustrates conventional rate matching algorithm for convolutional codes in downlink. The rate matching algorithm has been proposed by Siemens and adopted for convolutional codes. All symbols from channel encoder are punctured uniformly. However, for turbo codes systematic code symbols should not be punctured and the number of the punctured parity symbols should be distributed evenly. In order to achieve optimal puncturing for turbo codes in down-link with minimal complexity, we propose a new rate matching scheme given in Figure 2. The idea can also be applied in up-link. In Figure 2, all code symbols are classified into three parts such as systematic code symbols (information symbols), the first parity symbols from constituent encoder 1, and the second parity symbols from constituent encoder 2, respectively. Rate matching algorithm blocks (RMB) for each part are the same as conventional algorithm except modifying number of bits per matching block and number of bits per matched block. For R=1/3 turbo codes, number of bits per matching block Nc and number of bits per matched block Ni are reduced to 1/3 of the total number of bits per matching blocks and matched blocks, respectively. Parameter (a,b) is selected for generating arbitrary puncturing or repetition patterns. Typically, (2,1) is used for conventional rate matching algorithm. If (a,b) for all RMB is fixed to the same value then all patterns for puncturing and repetition are also the same. The APLNDC-WH-A 0000010708 definition of parameters is as follows. It is obvious that the proposed algorithm is identical to conventional rate matching algorithm in [8] except parameter control. So, there are no implementation complexity increases. Definition of parameters Ne: Number of bits per matching block (=Ncs for convolutional codes) Ni: Number of bits per matched block (=Nis for convolutional codes) Ncs: Total number of bits per all matching blocks Nis: Total number of bits per all matched blocks (a,b): Parameter for conventional rate matching algorithm (to control pattern generation) The following shows the definition and roles of parameter (a,b) in conventional rate matching algorithm. Parameter "b" is usually 1 and parameter "a" is only variable for considering hardware or software implementation complexity. Conventional Rate Matching Algorithm with parameters (a,b) control Let’s denote: ~o = { d] , d2 ..... d N~: }= set ofNcdata bits The rate matching rule is as tbllows: if puncturing is to be performed y = NC-Ni e-~ (2*S(k) * y + h’~Nc) mod ~f*NC -- initial error bePa,een current and desired puncturing rdtio (down/ink : S-O) m=1 -- index of current bit do while m < ~- NC e =e-,:~ *y -- update error i f e < = 0 then -- check if bit number m should be punctured puncture bit m from set SO e = e + t*NC -- update error end if m=mtl -- next bit end do else y = Ni-NC e = (2*S(k) * y + b*Nc) rood c~NC -- initial error between current and desired puncturing ratio (downlink : S=O) m-I -- index of current bit APLNDC-WH-A 0000010709 do while m <- NC e e ~*y --updateerror do while e < = 0 -- check ifbit number mshouMbe repeated repeat bit m ~orn set SO ~’ = e + (~*~rC update error enddo m=m1 -- next bit end do end if 3. Rate matching for down-link 3.1 Convolutional codes For convolutional codes, the proposed algorithm is identical to the current optimal rate matching algorithm using parameters below Nc = Ncs Ni=Nis (a,b)=(2, 1) : exactly the same as conventional rate matching algorithm in [6,8]. This assures that the proposed algorithm gives optimal performance for convolutional coding. 3.2 Turbo code codes For turbo codes, all code symbols are classified into three parts such as systematic code symbols (information symbols), the first parity symbols from constituent encoder 1, and the second parity symbols from constituent encoder 2, respectively. Rate matching algorithm blocks (RMB) for each part are the same as conventional algorithm except modifying number of bits per matching block and number of bits per matched block as follows. Systematic information symbols part: Nc=Ncs/3, Ni=Ncs/3, (a,b)=(2,1) Parity symbols part 1: Nc=Ncs/3, Ni=(Nis- Ncs/3)/2, (a,b) =arbitrary constant Parity symbols part 2: Nc=Ncs/3, hh=(NJs- Ncs/3)/2, (a,b) =arbitrary constant Parameter "b" is usually 1 and parameter "a" is only variable for considering hardware or software implementation complexity. In order to generate the same puncturing or repetition patterns for RMB2 and RMB3, it is sufficient to make parameter "a" have the same value for RMB2 and RMB3. Otherwise, it is sufficient to make parameter "a" have different value for RMB2 and RMB3, respectively. Therefore, there are no change of conventional rate matching algorithm except these parameters. Table 1 shows examples of rate matching algorithm (puncturing) according to different parameters (a,b). Typically parameter "b" is 1 and parameter "a" is 2. However, arbitrary constant can be used for (a,b). Case 1, 3, and 5 give systematic puncturing with the same puncturing pattern and Case 2, 4, and 6 give systematic puncturing with different puncturing APLNDC-WH-A 0000010710 patterns. Figure 3 shows implementation of the proposed rate matching scheme using single rate matching block for both convoultional codes and turbo codes in down-link. It is sufficient to use single conventional rate matching block with temporal registers to store (Nc, Ni, e, b, a). These parameters are updated for each RMB blocks. Also, the proposed scheme requires neither high speed clock nor additional memory for buffering. Furthermore a current rate matching algorithm block hardware can be used for the proposed scheme with slight modification for loading parameters. Software implementation is very simple such that it needs only one more subroutine call for rate matching with updated parameters. Another merit of the proposed scheme is that it dose not produce time delay for rate matching. All symbols form channel encoder are transferred into rate matching block and pass out through rate matching block at the same time, with or without puncturing or repetition. Table1. Examples of rate matching algorithm variation according to parameters (a,b). Case 1 2 3 4 5 6 RMB1 Nc Ni a b Ncs/3 Ncsi3 NR NR Ncs/3 Ncs/3 NR NR RMB2 Nc Ni Ncs/3 (Nis-Ncs/3)/2 Ncs/3 (Nis-Ncs/3)/2 a 2 2 b 1 1 RMB3 Nc Ni a Ncs/3 (Nis-Ncs/3)/2 2 Ncs/3 (Nis-Ncs/3)/2 5 b 1 1 (Nis-Ncs/3)/2 (Nis-Ncs/3)/2 p p 1 1 Ncs/3 Ncs/3 111 INcs/3 INcs/31NRINRINcs/3 Ncs/3 Ncs/3 NR NR Ncs/3 (Nis-Ncs/3)/2 q (Nis-Ncs/3)/21P INcsl3 INcsl3 tNRINRINcsl3 I(Nis-Ncsl3)12 tPp Iqq INcs/3 Ncs/3 Ncs/3 NR NR Ncs/3 (Nis-Ncs/3)/2 Ncs/3 (Nis-Ncs/3)/2 IP (Nis-Ncsi3)/2 p,q,r,s: arbitrary constant NR: Not related to the rate matching algorithm. RMB1, RMB2, RMB3: Rate Matching Block 1, 2, 3. RMBI: Rate matching block for Systematic information symbols part (By passed) RMB2: Rate matching block for Parity symbol I RMB3: Rate matching block for Parity symbol 2 yk Rate Matching Block ..11xllx10x... Fig. 1. Conventional rate matching scheme for convolutional codes (Down-link). APLNDC-WH-A 0000010711 ,,111101011. Rate Matching Algorithm Block Nc N i (a,b) Xk Turbo Encoder R=1/3 C2k I Rate Matching ----~ [~°rithi Bl°cki .. 11X! 1010x. yk -- (a,b) Nc Ni Rate Matching AIg_~rithm block 3 Nc ,, x101 lxl lx. Ni Fig. 2. A conceptual block diagram of the proposed rate matching scheme for both convoultional codes and turbo codes (Down-link). Input information symbols Rate Matching Block Output symbols Channel Encoder Code rate R=k/n (R=1/3 or 1/2) Clock Register(F/F) or RAM for temporal (Nc,Ni,e,b,a) nxClock * Initial value for Turbo codes RMBl:(Nc,Ni,e,b,a) RMB2:(Nc,Ni,e,b,a) RMBn:(Nc,Ni,e,b,a) * Initial value for Convolutlonal codes RMB:(Nc,Ni,e,b,a) Fig. 3. Implementation of the proposed rate matching scheme using single rate matching block for both convoultional codes and turbo codes (Down-link). APLNDC-WH-A 0000010712 4. Rate matching for up-link Figure 4 illustrates conventional rate matching algorithm for up-link. Rate matching algorithm operates after radio frame segmentation so it is difficult to separate the flow containing systematic bits and the two flows containing parity bits (in the case of R=1/3). Operation of rate matching block is identical to that of down-link. To solve this problem, we proposed a new rate matching scheme in Figure 5. Note that there is no difference between up-link and down-link except the existence of de-multiplexing in case of up-link. The key idea is that de-multiplexing can separate the three flows containing systematic information, parity bits part 1, and parity bits part 2 one another. This is done due to the good property of MIL 1’t interleaver for transmission time interval of 10, 20, 40, 80msec. So, the proposed rate matching algorithm in up-link is exactly the same as in down-link. 4.1 Convolutional codes For convolutional code, the proposed algorithm is identical to the current optimal rate matching algorithm using parameters below Nc=Ncs Ni=Nis This assures that the proposed algorithm gives optimal performance for convolutional coding. 4.2 Turbo code codes For turbo codes, all code symbols are classified into three parts such as systematic code symbols (information symbols), the first parity symbols from constituent encoder 1, and the second parity symbols from constituent encoder 2. Rate matching algorithm blocks (RMB) for each part are the same as conventional algorithm except modifying number of bits per matching block and number of bits per matched block as follows Systematic information symbols part." Nc=Ncs/3, Ni=Ncsi3, (a,b)=(2,1) Parity symbols part 1: Nc=Ncs/3, Ni=(Nis- Ncs/3)/2, (a, b) =arbitrary constant Parity symbols part 2: Nc=Ncs/3, Ni=(Nis- Ncs/3)/2, (a,b) =arbitrary constant yk i Encoder K=9, R=1/3 1 ’st Interleaver Radio frame segementation Rate Matching Algorithm Block ..11xllxlOx... Fig. 4. Conventional rate matching scheme for convolutional codes (Up-link). APLNDC-WH-A 0000010713 systematic information symbols Nc Xk ! Radio 1’st __~,, i Frame Intedeaver Segmentation Turbo Encoder R=1/3 Ni (a,b) Rate Matching parity 1 symbols .111101011.., Rate Matching Algorithm Block 1 i .11x11010x... yk .Algorithm Block 2 (a,b) Nc Ni C3k parity 2 symbols Rate Matching Algorithm block .x1011xllx,.. (a,b) Nc Ni Fig. 5. A conceptual block diagram of the proposed rate matching scheme for both convoultional codes and turbo codes (Up-link). input information symbols Channel Encoder Code rate R=1/3 Rate Matching Algorithm Block ~ n:l I ,..._! 1 ’st MUX [-~ Interleavar ¯ ¯ ! Radio frame l:n seg~ DEMUX , ementation i I Clock nxClock Note. xk: systematic information symbot ylk,y2k: parity symbols of encoderl and encoder 2, respectively Output symbols Register(F/F) or RAM | for temporal (Nc,Ni,e,b,a) Initial value for Turbo codes RMBI:(Nc,Ni ,e,b,a) RI~B2: (Nc,Ni ,e,b,a) RMBn:(Nc,Ni ,e,b,a) Initial value for Convolutlonal codes RI~B:(Nc,Ni ,e,b,a) Fig, 6. Implementation of the proposed rate matching scheme using single rate matching block for both convoultional codes and turbo codes (Up-link). APLNDC-WH-A 0000010714 Figure 6 shows implementation of the proposed rate matching scheme using single rate matching block for both convoultional codes and turbo codes in up-link. It is sufficient to use single conventional rate matching block with temporal registers to store (Nc, Ni, e, b, a) 5. Simulation results For turbo codes, the suggested simulation conditions announced at the 2nd AdHoc meetin g at Cheju are as follows Block sizes: 320, 321,640,641, 5120, 5119 Puncturing rates: 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, and 1/2 code (=33%) Decoding algorithm: Log MAP decoder Turbo interleaver: PIL Number of iterations: 12 BFR: >10E-6 Number of frame error: greater than 100 Channel model: AWGN Tail bits puncturing Algorithms: SEC, Siemens ,LGIC, and Fujitsu In the following figures, SEC_T1 and SEC_T2 mean the following parameter setting for RMB2 and RMB3, respectively. SEC_T1 SEC T2 RMB1 Not used Not used RMB2 (atb)=(2,1 ) (a,b)=(2,1) RMB3 (a,b)=(5,4) (a,b)=(3,1) 6. Conclusion In this contribution, we proposed a unified rate matching algorithm for both turbo codes a nd convolutional codes and both down-link and up-link. The proposed rate matching algori thm does not change the conventional rate matching algorithm proposed by Siemens. It o nly controls parameter for the conventional rate matching algorithm. The conclusions are as follows The proposed rate matching algorithm can support both turbo code and convolutional codes and both up-link and down-link. ¯ The rate matching algorithm is optimal for both convolutional coding and turbo coding. ¯ For up-link, it has been shown that the output symbols from the 1’st interleaver can b e classified into two parts implicitly such as systematic information symbol part and parity symbols (from constituent encoder "1 or 2 part, respectively. For rate matching of turbo codes, LGIC’s algorithm and Fujitsu’s old algorithm are sp ecial cases of the proposed algorithm. Implementation of the proposed rate matching algorithm require neither increase in ha rdware complexity nor software complexity. It can be easily implemented by using convent ional rate matching algorithm block with parameter configuration. The proposed rate matching algorithm provides a single structure of rate matching for both down-link and up-link. The proposed rate matching algorithm does not require any increase of buffer memor APLNDC-WH-A 0000010715 y in both sides of transmitter and receiver. Also it does not require processing delay for storing output symbols from channel encoder for reordering. 7. References [1] "Comparison of downlink puncturing algorithms", LGIC, TSGR1#5(99)654(1999-06). [2] "Puncturing algorithm for turbo code", LGIC, TSGR1#4(99) 338 (1999-04) [3] "Further results of rate matching algorithm for downlink", Fujitsu,TSGRl#5(99)698(199 9-06). [4] "Tail bits and puncturing of rate 1/2 turbo coding", Fujitsu, TSGR1#5(99)665(1999-06). [5] "Optimised puncturing schemes for turbo coding", Fujitsu, TSGR1#4(99)388(1999-04). [6] "Optimised rate matching after interleaving", Siemens, TSGR1#3(99)203. [7] "Proposal for rate matching for turbo codes", Nortel Networks, TSGR1#4(99)467 (199 9-04) [8] 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Multiplexing and channel coding (FDD)TS 25.212 v2.0.0 (1999-06) Contact inform: K i m m i n qu_~Z!A#_&g, c o. k r ~telecom.samsung..co. kr APLNDC-WH-A 0000010716 intedeaver si/~=320,puncturing rate=5% I OE+O0 I 0E-02 I 0E-03 1.5 Eb!No (dB) Fig. 7. interleaver size=320,puncturing rate=5%. interlenver size=320,pun¢luring rale=10% 10E+O0 l 0E~03 I 0E-04 I 0E-05 E b/’Na (dB) Fig. 8. interleaver size=320,puncturing rate=10 o ’/’o. 10 APLNDC-WH-A 0000010717 10E+O0 I 0E-02 10E-05 I 0E-06 Fig. 9. interleaver size=320,puncturing rate=15%. interleaver size=320,punemring rate=20% I 0E+00 I OE-02 I OE-04 I 0E-05 Fig. 10. interleaver size=a20,puncturing rate=20%. 11 APLNDC-WH-A 0000010718 1 0E-03 I 0E-04 Fig. 11. interleaver size=320,puncturing rate=33%. interleaver size=321 ,puncturing rate=5% Fig. 12. interleaver size=321,puncturing rate=5%. 12 APLNDC-WH-A 0000010719 interleaver size=32 l,p~nctur2ng rate~ 10% E b, ,,%to (dB) Fig. 13. interleaver size=321,puncturing rate=lO%. interleaver size=32 l,puncturing rate= 15% t OE-02 F~g. 14. interleaver size=321,puncturing rate=15%. 13 APLNDC-WH-A 0000010720 interleaver size=32],puncturing rate~20% IOE+O0 | OE-02 I 0E-04 1 OH-05 1.5 EI~’N o (dB) Fig. 15. interleaver size=321,puncturing rate=20%. interleaver size~321,punctuang rate=33% I 0E4)I t OE-05 Fig. 16. interleaver size=321,puncturing rate=33%. !4 APLNDC-WH-A 0000010721 imerleavel size=640.pun¢turing rate=~% I OE-02 I 0E-06 Eb/No Fig. 17. interleaver size=640,puncturing rate=5%. interleaver size=640,punctufing tale= 10% I.OE+O0 I OE-02 I 0 E-()4 I OE-O5 Fig. 18. interleaver size=640,puncturing rate=lO%. 15 APLNDC-WH-A 0000010722 Fig. 19. inter|eaver size=640,puncturing rate=15%. intefleaver size=fi4{t,punctunng rate=20% Eb,qqo (dB) Fig. 20. interleaver size=640,puncturing rate=20%. APLNDC-WH-A 0000010723 interleave~ size=640,puncmflng rate~33% Fig. 21. interleaver size=640,puncturing rate=33%. interleaver size=64 l,puncturing rate~5% I OE-03 I 0E-04 Eb/No (d13) Fig. 22. interleaver size=641,puncturing rate=5%. 17 APLNDC-WH-A 0000010724 interleaver size=64 I,punctunng rate= I 0E-02 [ 0E-05 I 0E-06 Fig. 23. interleaver size=641,puncturing rate=l 0%. Eb,No Fig. 24. interleaver size=641,puncturing rate=l 5%. 18 APLNDC-WH-A 0000010725 mterleav*r size=641,puncturn~g rate~20% l OE+O0 I 0E-02 Fig. 25. in~erleaver size=641,|mnet~ring ra~e=20%. interleaver size=641 ,puncturing rate-33% IOE+O0 I 0E-02 t 0E~03 ] OE~04 Fig. 26. interleaver size=641,p~net~ring rate=33%. APLNDC-WH-A 0000010726

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?