Filed on behalf of Oracle America, Inc.
`By: Monica Grewal, Reg. No. 40,056 (Lead Counsel)
`Donald Steinberg, Reg. No. 37,241 (Back-up Counsel)
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`Phone: (617) 526-6223
`Email: Monica.Grewal@wilmerhale.com
` Donald.Steinberg@wilmerhale.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________________________________
`
`ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC
`
`Patent Owner of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530 to Fallon
`
`IPR Trial No. IPR2016-00376
`
`DECLARATION OF PROFESSOR JAMES A. STORER, Ph.D.
`
`CLAIM 24
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,415,530
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`1
`
`Oracle 1102
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00376: Storer Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530, Claim 24
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.(cid:3)
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................. 4(cid:3)
`II.(cid:3) MATERIALS REVIEWED ............................................................................ 7(cid:3)
`III.(cid:3) THE RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................... 8(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3)
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 8(cid:3)
`B.(cid:3)
`Obviousness ........................................................................................... 9(cid:3)
`IV.(cid:3) STATE OF THE ART AT THE TIME OF THE ’530 PATENT ................. 12(cid:3)
`V.(cid:3) OVERVIEW OF THE ’530 PATENT .......................................................... 14(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3)
`Brief Description ................................................................................. 14(cid:3)
`B.(cid:3)
`Summary of the Prosecution History .................................................. 19(cid:3)
`VI.(cid:3) CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 20(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3)
`The term “said compression and storage occurs faster than said data
`stream is able to be stored on said memory device in said received
`form”.................................................................................................... 20(cid:3)
`The term “bandwidth” ......................................................................... 21(cid:3)
`B.(cid:3)
`VII.(cid:3) PRIOR ART REFERENCES ........................................................................ 22(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3) Kawashima .......................................................................................... 22(cid:3)
`B.(cid:3)
`Sebastian .............................................................................................. 30(cid:3)
`C.(cid:3)
`Chu ...................................................................................................... 33(cid:3)
`VIII.(cid:3) THE CHALLENGED CLAIM IS NOT PATENTABLE............................. 36(cid:3)
`IX.(cid:3)
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW CLAIM 24 IS UNPATENTABLE .............. 36(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3)
`Claim 24 is Obvious in View of Kawashima, Sebastian, and Chu ..... 36(cid:3)
`1.(cid:3) Motivation to Combine Kawashima, Sebastian, and Chu ........ 36(cid:3)
`2.(cid:3)
`Independent Claim 24 is Obvious in View of Kawashima,
`Sebastian and Chu. .................................................................... 39(cid:3)
`i.(cid:3)
`The preamble of Claim 24 is disclosed in Kawashima. . 40(cid:3)
`ii.(cid:3)
`Limitation A of Claim 24 is disclosed in Kawashima.... 42(cid:3)
`iii.(cid:3)
`Limitation B of Claim 24 is disclosed in Kawashima. ... 42(cid:3)
`iv.(cid:3)
`Limitation C of Claim 24 is disclosed in Kawashima. ... 44(cid:3)
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00376: Storer Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530, Claim 24
`v.(cid:3)
`Limitation D of Claim 24 is obvious in view of
`Kawashima and Sebastian. ............................................. 45(cid:3)
`Limitation E of Claim 24 is disclosed in Kawashima. ... 46(cid:3)
`vi.(cid:3)
`vii.(cid:3) Limitation F of Claim 24 is obvious in view of
`Kawashima and Sebastian, as well as obvious in view of
`Kawashima and Chu. ...................................................... 47(cid:3)
`viii.(cid:3) Limitation G of Claim 24 is obvious in view of
`Kawashima, Sebastian, and Chu. ................................... 52(cid:3)
`Limitation H of Claim 24 is disclosed in Kawashima.... 56(cid:3)
`Limitation I of Claim 24 is disclosed in Kawashima. .... 58(cid:3)
`Limitation J of Claim 24 is obvious in view of
`Kawashima and Sebastian. ............................................. 60(cid:3)
`xii.(cid:3) Limitation K of Claim 24 is obvious in view of
`Kawashima and Sebastian. ............................................. 61(cid:3)
`
`ix.(cid:3)
`x.(cid:3)
`xi.(cid:3)
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00376: Storer Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530, Claim 24
`I, Prof. James A. Storer, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1.
`
`My name is James Storer. I am a Professor at Brandeis University in
`
`the Computer Science Department. I am an expert in the field of computer
`
`algorithms, including data communications and internet related computing, data
`
`compression, data and image retrieval, storage and processing of large data sets,
`
`and image/video processing. I have studied, researched, and practiced in the field
`
`of computer science for more than 35 years, and have taught Computer Science at
`
`Brandeis since 1981.
`
`2.
`
`I received my Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree in the field of
`
`Computer Science from Princeton University in 1979. I received my Masters of
`
`Arts (M.A.) degree in Computer Science from Princeton University and my
`
`Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) degree in Mathematics and Computer Science from
`
`Cornell University.
`
`3.
`
`After receiving my Ph.D. degree, I worked in industry as a researcher
`
`at AT&T Bell Laboratories from 1979 to 1981 before joining the faculty of
`
`Brandeis University.
`
`4.
`
`I have been involved in computer science research since 1976. My
`
`research has been funded by a variety of governmental agencies, including the
`
`National Science Foundation (NSF), National Aeronautics and Space
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00376: Storer Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530, Claim 24
`Administration (NASA), and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
`
`(DARPA). In addition, I have received government Small Business Innovation
`
`Research (SBIR) funding, as well as numerous industrial grants.
`
`5.
`
`I regularly teach courses in software and hardware technology for data
`
`compression and communications (including text, images, video, and audio) at
`
`both the undergraduate and graduate level, and in my capacity as co-chair of the
`
`Annual Data Compression Conference, I regularly referee academic papers in these
`
`areas. In addition, much of my consulting activity has been in the areas of
`
`software and hardware for consumer electronic devices, including cell
`
`phones/PDAs (including cellular technology), smartphones, digital cameras, digital
`
`video and audio recorders, and personal computers (“PCs”), as well as devices for
`
`communications over the Internet.
`
`6.
`
`I am the author of two books: An Introduction to Data Structures and
`
`Algorithms and Data Compression: Methods and Theory (Ex. 1115). Both books
`
`have been used as references for undergraduate level computer science courses in
`
`universities. I am the editor or co-editor of four other books, including
`
`Hyperspectral Data Compression and Image and Text Compression.
`
`7.
`
`I have three issued U.S. patents that relate to computer software and
`
`hardware (two for which I am sole inventor and one for which I am co-inventor).
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00376: Storer Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530, Claim 24
`These are submitted herewith as Exhibits 1106, 1119-1120. I am the author or co-
`
`author of well over 100 articles and conference papers.
`
`8.
`
`In 1991, I founded the Annual Institute of Electrical and Electronics
`
`Engineers (IEEE) Data Compression Conference (DCC), the first major
`
`international conference devoted entirely to data compression, and have served as
`
`the conference chair since then.
`
`9.
`
`I routinely serve as referee for papers submitted to journals such as,
`
`for example, JACM, SICOMP, Theoretical CS, Computer Journal, J. Algorithms,
`
`Signal Processing, JPDC, Acta Informatica, Algorithmicia, IPL, IPM, Theoretical
`
`CS, J. Algorithms, Networks, IEEE J. Robotics & Automation, IEEE Trans.
`
`Information Theory, IEEE Trans. Computers, IEEE Trans. Image Processing,
`
`Proceedings of the IEEE, IBM J. of R&D, and J. Computer and System Sciences.
`
`10.
`
`I have served as guest editor for a number of professional journals,
`
`including Proceedings of the IEEE, Journal of Visual Communication and Image
`
`Representation, and Information Processing and Management. I have served as a
`
`program committee member for various conferences, including IEEE Data
`
`Compression Conference, IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory,
`
`Combinatorial Pattern Matching (CPM), International Conference on String
`
`Processing and Information Retrieval (SPIRE), Conference on Information and
`
`Knowledge Management (CIKM), Conference on Information Theory and
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00376: Storer Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530, Claim 24
`Statistical Learning (ITSL), Sequences and Combinatorial Algorithms on Words,
`
`Dartmouth Institute for Advanced Graduate Studies Symposium (DAGS),
`
`International Conference on Language and Automata Theory and Applications
`
`(LATA), DIMACS Workshop on Data Compression in Networks and
`
`Applications, Conference on Combinatorial Algorithms on Words.
`
`11. A copy of my latest curriculum vitae (C.V.) is attached as Appendix
`
`A.
`
`12. My compensation is in no way contingent on the results of these or
`
`any other proceedings relating to the above-captioned patent.
`
`II. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`13.
`
`I have carefully reviewed U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530 patent (“the ’530
`
`patent”).
`
`14.
`
`For convenience, a list of the information that I considered in arriving
`
`at my opinions is attached as Appendix B. I understand that the prior art relied on
`
`in this petition includes:
`
`(cid:120) U.S. Patent No. 5,805,932 to Kawashima (“Kawashima”, Ex. 1103),
`
`which was filed on February 13, 1996, and issued on September 8,
`
`1998. I have been informed that Kawashima qualifies as prior art.
`
`(cid:120) U.S. Patent No. 6,253,264 to Sebastian (“Sebastian”, Ex. 1104),
`
`which was filed on March 6, 1998, claims priority to U.S. Provisional
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00376: Storer Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530, Claim 24
`Application No. 60/036,548 (filed on March 7, 1997), and issued on
`
`June 26, 2001. I have been informed that Sebastian qualifies as prior
`
`art.
`
`(cid:120) U.S. Patent No. 5,467,087 to Chu (“Chu”, Ex. 1105), which was filed
`
`on December 18, 1992, and issued on November 14, 1995. I have
`
`been informed that Chu qualifies as prior art.
`
`15. Based on my review of these materials, I believe that the relevant field
`
`for purposes of the ’530 patent is systems and methods of data compression.
`
`16. As described in Section I above, I have extensive experience in
`
`computer science and data compression. Based on my experience, I have a good
`
`understanding of the relevant field in the relevant timeframe (which is discussed in
`
`Section IV below).
`
`III. THE RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`17.
`
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions. My
`
`understanding of the law is as follows:
`
`A.
`
`18.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`I have been informed that claim construction is a matter of law and
`
`that the final claim construction will ultimately be determined by the Board. For
`
`the purposes of my invalidity analysis in this proceeding and with respect to the
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00376: Storer Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530, Claim 24
`prior art, I have applied the broadest reasonable construction of the claim terms as
`
`they would be understood by one skilled in the relevant art.
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a claim in inter partes
`
`review is given the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). I have also been informed and understand that any claim
`
`term that lacks a definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad
`
`interpretation.
`
`B.
`
`20.
`
`Obviousness
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`’530 patent was effectively filed, is a person who has an undergraduate degree in
`
`computer science and two years’ industry experience or a graduate degree in the
`
`field of computer science.
`
`21. Based on my experience, I have an understanding of the capabilities
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field. I have supervised and directed
`
`many such persons over the course of my career. Further, I had at least those
`
`capabilities myself at the time the patent was filed.
`
`22.
`
`The analysis set forth herein evaluates obviousness consistent with the
`
`foregoing principles and through the eyes of one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of filing (which is discussed in Section IX below).
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00376: Storer Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530, Claim 24
`23.
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim can be
`
`considered to have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed. This means that, even if all of the requirements of a
`
`claim are not found in a single prior art reference, the claim is not patentable if the
`
`differences between the subject matter in the prior art and the subject matter in the
`
`claim would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed.
`
`24.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a determination of whether
`
`a claim would have been obvious should be based upon several factors, including,
`
`among others:
`
`(cid:120) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was
`
`filed;
`
`(cid:120) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(cid:120) what differences, if any, existed between the claimed invention and
`
`the prior art.
`
`25.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the teachings of two or
`
`more references may be combined in the same way as disclosed in the claims, if
`
`such a combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
`
`art. In determining whether a combination based on either a single reference or
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00376: Storer Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530, Claim 24
`multiple references would have been obvious, it is appropriate to consider, among
`
`other factors:
`
`(cid:120) whether the teachings of the prior art references disclose known
`
`concepts combined in familiar ways, and when combined, would yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`(cid:120) whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could implement a
`
`predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so;
`
`(cid:120) whether the claimed elements represent one of a limited number of
`
`known design choices, and would have a reasonable expectation of
`
`success by those skilled in the art;
`
`(cid:120) whether a person of ordinary skill would have recognized a reason to
`
`combine known elements in the manner described in the claim;
`
`(cid:120) whether there is some teaching or suggestion in the prior art to make
`
`the modification or combination of elements claimed in the patent;
`
`and
`
`(cid:120) whether the innovation applies a known technique that had been used
`
`to improve a similar device or method in a similar way.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that one of ordinary skill in the art has ordinary
`
`creativity, and is not an automaton.
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00376: Storer Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530, Claim 24
`27.
`I understand that in considering obviousness, it is important not to
`
`determine obviousness using the benefit of hindsight derived from the patent being
`
`considered.
`
`28. Given this standard, the Board should conclude, based on the
`
`information in this petition, that the challenged claims are merely a predictable
`
`combination of old elements that are used according to their established functions.
`
`IV.
`
`STATE OF THE ART AT THE TIME OF THE ’530 PATENT
`
`29. Using multiple compression techniques to accelerate the
`
`transmission/storage of data has been one of the primary applications of
`
`compression since compression was first used in the 1950s and 1960s, and
`
`continues today, as described in more detail below. See generally D. Huffman, “A
`
`Method for the Construction of Minimum-Redundancy Codes,” Proceedings of the
`
`IRE 40, 1098-1101 (1952) (Ex. 1116); U.S. Patent No. 3,394,352 (“Wernikoff”,
`
`Ex. 1113); J. Ziv and A. Lempel, “A Universal Algorithm for Sequential Data
`
`Compression,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 23:3, 337-343 (1977)
`
`(Ex. 1117); J. Ziv and A. Lempel, “Compression of Individual Sequences Via
`
`Variable-Rate Coding,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory (1978) (Ex.
`
`1118). In addition, rate control (adjusting system parameters to accommodate
`
`bandwidths) was well known in the art, and including in established standards
`
`(e.g., MPEG video compression standard).
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00376: Storer Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530, Claim 24
`30. U.S. Patent No. 4,956,808 (“Aakre”) discloses a system for managing
`
`efficient compression and storage of data by controlling a continuous flow of
`
`compressed data being written to a storage device. Aakre at 1:54-2:4; Ex. 1112.
`
`Aakre controls the flow of compressed data “as a function of the data acceptance
`
`rate of the [storage] medium” through a buffering mechanism. See id. at 1:66-2:4.
`
`Aakre’s method has the advantage of operating the storage device “in a continuous
`
`or streaming mode thus reducing the time required for the save operations.” Id. at
`
`3:13-17.
`
`31. U.S. Patent No. 5,794,229 (“French”) discloses a system for
`
`compression and decompression of the data pages. French at Abstract; Ex. 1111.
`
`The system uses “flags” to select the optimal type of compression from an array of
`
`compression algorithms. Id. at 4:18-26. “The pages are further optimized for
`
`compression by storing in the page header a status flag indicating whether the data
`
`page is a candidate for compression and (optionally) what type of compression is
`
`best suited for the data on that page.” Id. As “objects are streamed to disk . . . ,
`
`Manager in turn stores the object on disk using the best compression methodology
`
`known to it . . . [such that] data compression is transparent.” Id. at 4:27-45, 16:17-
`
`24. “Actual compression methodology can be provided using commercially
`
`available compression/decompression libraries,” such as “LZ221,” “LZRW1,”
`
`“LZW” “PKZIP,” and “PKWare.” Id. at 16:25-42.
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00376: Storer Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530, Claim 24
`32. U.S. Patent No. 4,593,324 (“Ohkubo”) describes compressing and
`
`transferring image data between a main memory and an auxiliary memory.
`
`Ohkubo at 1:60-68; Ex. 1110. As described by Ohkubo, using the data
`
`compression/expansion device during transfer between the memories results in
`
`increasing the data transfer rate between the main and auxiliary memories,
`
`allowing more data to be stored in the auxiliary memory. Id. at 4:7-14. Ohkubo
`
`manages this by compressing image data at an average compression rate faster than
`
`the rate at which data may be stored to the magnetic disk. Id. at 2:60-3:16. In
`
`some embodiments, “the data compression/expansion device 6 employs a one-
`
`dimensional run length coding system; however, this system may be replaced by a
`
`two-dimensional coding system.” Id. at 3:59-65. Ohkubo describes that “the
`
`image data transfer rate between the main memory 5 and the data compression/
`
`expansion device 6 is greatly increased, i.e. to 40 M bits/sec at maximum.” Id. at
`
`3:25-34.
`
`V.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’530 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`33.
`
`Brief Description
`
`The ’530 patent, titled “Systems and Methods for Accelerated Data
`
`Storage and Retrieval,” was filed on October 26, 2006. I understand that the ’530
`
`patent claims priority to several U.S. patent applications, the earliest of which was
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00376: Storer Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530, Claim 24
`Application No. 09/266,394, filed on March 11, 1999, and issued as U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,601,104 (Ex. 1108).
`
`34.
`
`The ’530 patent is directed to systems and methods for providing
`
`“accelerated” data storage and retrieval (’530 Patent at Abstract; Ex. 1101) and
`
`allegedly teaches systems and methods for improving data storage and retrieval
`
`“bandwidth” by using lossless data compression and decompression (id. at 4:42-
`
`44).
`
`35.
`
`Figure 8 illustrates a detailed block diagram of a system for
`
`accelerated data storage according to the ’530 patent’s preferred embodiment:
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00376: Storer Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530, Claim 24
`36. As shown above, the claimed “data storage accelerator” (10) receives
`
`an incoming “data stream” of “data blocks” and optionally stores the blocks in the
`
`“input data buffer” (15) and sends the blocks to the “data block counter” (20),
`
`where data blocks’ sizes are measured and recorded. See id. at 11:23-34. One of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand that a buffer, such as the “input data
`
`buffer” (15), is typically random access memory (RAM). The ’530 patent states
`
`that “the input buffer 15 and counter 20 are not required elements of the present
`
`invention.” Id.at 11:23-51.
`
`37.
`
`The ’530 patent explains that the data blocks received and compressed
`
`by the “data storage accelerator” may range in size (also referred to in the art as
`
`“length”) from “individual bits through complete files or collections of multiple
`
`files,” and that they may be either fixed or variable in size. Id. at 11:26-30. The
`
`“data block counter” “counts” or “otherwise enumerates the size” of the data
`
`blocks in “any convenient units including bits, bytes, words, double words.” Id. at
`
`11:30-33; Ex. 1101.
`
`38. Data compression is performed by the “encoder module” (25). Id. at
`
`11:40. This module may include any number of encoders (i.e., compression
`
`engines represented in Figure 8 as “E1,” E2,” E3,” and “En”) that may use any
`
`number of the lossless compression techniques “currently well known within the
`
`art” such as “run length, Huffman, Lempel-Ziv Dictionary Compression,
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00376: Storer Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530, Claim 24
`arithmetic coding, data compaction, and data null suppression.” Id. at 11:40-46;
`
`see also id. at 12:41-46. The ’530 patent discloses that the compression techniques
`
`may be selected based upon their “ability to effectively encode different types of
`
`input data” (id. at 11:47-48), that more than one encoder may use the same
`
`compression technique (id. at 12:41-46), and the compression process may be
`
`performed in parallel or sequentially (id. at 11:62-64). In other words, using the
`
`compression process described in the ’530 patent, either the same or different data
`
`blocks may be compressed by different encoders simultaneously (in parallel), or
`
`the same or different data blocks may be compressed by different encoders
`
`sequentially, one block at a time.
`
`39. After a data block is compressed by the “encoder module,” it may be
`
`buffered and its newly compressed size may be measured or “counted” by the
`
`“buffer/counter module” (30). Id. at 12:14-16. Next, the “compression ratio
`
`module” (35) determines the “compression ratio” obtained for each of the encoders
`
`by calculating the ratio of the size of the uncompressed data block to the size of the
`
`compressed block. Id. at 12:20-25. If, for example, a single data block is
`
`compressed by several different encoders E1 . . . En, each using a different
`
`compression technique, the “compression ratio module” may also compare each
`
`calculated ratio with an “a priori-specified compression ratio threshold limit” to
`
`determine if at least one of the compressed blocks were compressed at an equal or
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00376: Storer Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530, Claim 24
`greater ratio. See id. at 12:25-30. If at least one of the compressed blocks was
`
`compressed at an equal or greater ratio, then the block compressed with the highest
`
`ratio is transmitted/stored. Id. at 12:46-49. If none of the compressed blocks were
`
`compressed at an equal or greater ratio, then the uncompressed block is
`
`transmitted/stored. Id. at 12:49-53.
`
`40. Before the uncompressed or compressed block is transmitted/stored,
`
`the “description module” or “compression type description” module (38)
`
`“appends” a descriptor to the block indicating, for a compressed block, the
`
`compression technique that was used, or else a “null” descriptor indicating that the
`
`block was not compressed. Id. at 12:33-59. The block, with its appended
`
`descriptor, is then transmitted/stored, and the descriptor is used for “subsequent
`
`data processing, storage, or transmittal.” Id.
`
`41.
`
`The ’530 patent describes that “accelerated data storage and retrieval”
`
`is achieved “by utilizing lossless data compression and decompression.” Id. at
`
`2:58-60. For example, data storage can be “accelerated” by compressing an input
`
`data stream at a compression ratio (e.g., 3:1) that is at least equal to the ratio of the
`
`input data transmission rate (e.g., 60 megabytes per second) to the data storage rate
`
`(e.g., 20 megabytes per second) “so as to provide continuous storage of the input
`
`data stream at the input data transmission rate.” Id. at 3:13-18; see also id. at 5:29-
`
`43. By compressing the data at this compression ratio, 60 megabytes worth of
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00376: Storer Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530, Claim 24
`compressed data can be stored per second, even though the target storage device is
`
`capable of storing only 20 megabytes per second, thus “accelerating” the storage of
`
`data.
`
`B.
`
`42.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`
`I understand that the ’530 patent has undergone one reexamination:
`
`Reexamination No. 95/001,927 (“the ’927 reexamination”), filed on March 2,
`
`2012. I also understand that independent claims 1 and 24 were found patentable by
`
`the examiner. ’927 Reexamination, 5/31/13 Right of Appeal Notice at 6-14; Ex.
`
`1107. I have been informed that the examiner found that the primary references
`
`relied upon by the third party requester, U.S. Patent Nos. 4,956,808 (“Aakre”, Ex.
`
`1112), 4,593,324 (“Ohkubo”, Ex. 1110), and 5,150,430 (“Chu ’430”, Ex. 1109)1,
`
`did not disclose the following limitation: “said compression and storage occurs
`
`faster than said data stream is able to be stored on said memory device in said
`
`received form.” Id. I have also been informed that while the examiner found that
`
`references before him did disclose “fast” compression and storage systems, he
`
`concluded that none specified that those systems compressed and stored faster than
`
`storage of the uncompressed stream could otherwise occur. See id. at 6 (citing
`
`Aakre (Ex. 1112) at Abstract, 1:54-59, 1:62-2:4, 2:10-13, 2:17-21, 2:43-47, 3:30-
`
`1 I understand that Chu ’430 is a different patent than the Chu patent (U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,467,087) that provides the basis for the ground of this petition.
`
`19
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00376: Storer Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530, Claim 24
`50), 7 (citing Okhubo (Ex. 1110) at Abstract, 1:54-67, 2:62-63, 2:67-3:8, 3:29-31,
`
`4:10-14, 4:22-29), 8 (citing Chu ’430 (Ex. 1109) at 3:65-68, 4:10-12, 4:16-20,
`
`4:24-38, 6:4-28, 17:3-6, and Figure 2).
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`It is my understanding that a claim in inter partes review is given the
`
`43.
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification,” as mentioned in
`
`Section III.A above.
`
`A.
`
`The term “said compression and storage occurs faster than said
`data stream is able to be stored on said memory device in said
`received form”
`
`44.
`
`Independent claim 24 of the ’530 patent recites the term, “said
`
`compression and storage occurs faster than said data stream is able to be stored on
`
`said memory device in said received form.” The proposed construction is wherein
`
`the time to compress and store the received data stream is less than the time to
`
`store the received data stream without compressing it.
`
`45. As explained in Section V.A above, the ’530 patent is generally
`
`directed to “accelerated data storage and retrieval” (’530 Patent at Abstract; Ex.
`
`1101). The ’530 patent teaches that storage “acceleration” can be achieved by
`
`receiving a data stream at an input data transmission rate (e.g., 80 megabytes per
`
`second) that is greater than the data storage rate of a target storage device (e.g., 20
`
`megabytes per second) and compressing the data stream at a compression ratio
`
`20
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00376: Storer Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530, Claim 24
`(e.g., 4:1) that provides a compression rate (e.g., 40 megabytes per second) that is
`
`greater than the data storage rate. See id. at 2:63-3:3.
`
`46. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`that the broadest reasonable construction of the term “said compression and storage
`
`occurs faster than said data stream is able to be stored on said memory device in
`
`said received form” to mean “wherein the time to compress and store the received
`
`data stream is less than the time to store the received data stream without
`
`compressing it.”
`
`B.
`
`47.
`
`The term “bandwidth”
`
`Independent claim 24 of the ’530 patent recites the term “bandwidth.”
`
`The proposed construction is the speed at which data can be transmitted or stored,
`
`and is quantified as a certain number of bits per second.
`
`48.
`
` The ’530 specification uses “data [] rate” (speed) synonymously with
`
`“bandwidth.” See, e.g., ’530 Patent at 5:25-43, 9:18-10:10 (equating “input
`
`bandwidth” with “input data rate,” and “bandwidth of the target storage device”
`
`with a “data storage device . . . [that] is capable of storing 20 megabytes per
`
`second” (number of bits per second)); Ex. 1101. Also, the ’530 specification notes
`
`that “[t]iming and counting [(rate)] enables determination of the bandwidth of the
`
`input data stream.” Id. at 9:26-27 (emphasis added). This understanding is also
`
`consistent with the dictionary definition of bandwidth, which is “[t]he amount of
`
`21
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00376: Storer Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530, Claim 24
`data that can be transmitted in a fixed amount of time . . . [and] is usually
`
`expressed in bits per second (bps) or bytes per second.” Random House
`
`Webster’s, Computer & Internet Dictionary at 45 (3d ed. 1999); Ex. 1114.
`
`49. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the
`
`broadest reasonable construction of the term “bandwidth” to mean “the speed at
`
`which data can be transmitted or stored, and is quantified as a certain number of
`
`bits per second.”
`
`VII. PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`
`A.
`
`Kawashima
`
`50. U.S. Patent No. 5,805,932 to Kawashima (“Kawashima”, Ex. 1103),
`
`which was filed on February 13, 1996, and issued on September 8, 1998. I have
`
`been informed that Kawashima is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (e). I
`
`understand that Kawashima was among hundreds of references cited during the
`
`original prosecution of the ’530 patent, but it was never discussed during original
`
`prosecution or reexamination of the ’530 patent.
`
`51. Kawashima discloses a data compression and transmission/storage
`
`system that maximizes the effective bandwidths of the system’s transmissions
`
`channels and storage devices while maximizing the system’s storage capacity.
`
`Figures 1, 3, and 8 show basic components of the Kawashima system, and will be
`
`referred to throughout this declaration.
`
`22
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00376: Storer Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530, Claim 24
`
`23
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00376: Storer Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530, Claim 24
`52. Kawashima discloses a data transmission/storage system that analyzes
`
`the compressibility of data before transmission/storage. Kawashima at Abstract;
`
`Ex. 1103. Figures 1 and 8 above show a “data transmitting apparatus 1” that is
`
`connected to “data source 2” and “data destination 3.” Id. at 21:15-18 (Figure 1),
`
`25:8-22 (Figure 8). “Data source 2” and “data destination 3” each may comprise a
`
`“communication device” or an “external memory device having an internal storage
`
`medium[.]” Id. at 21:27-34. Similarly, Figure 3 shows a “data transmitting
`
`app