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
` Don.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. 9,116,908 to Fallon
`
`IPR Trial No. IPR2016-00377
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`CLAIMS 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11, 21-22, 24-25
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,116,908
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00377: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908, Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11, 21-22, 24-25
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 3 
`A. 
`Real Party In Interest ............................................................................. 3 
`B. 
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 4 
`C. 
`Counsel .................................................................................................. 4 
`D. 
`Service Information ............................................................................... 5 
`III.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL .................................................................... 5 
`IV.  CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................. 5 
`V.  OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................... 6 
`A. 
`Prior Art ................................................................................................. 6 
`B. 
`Grounds of Challenge ............................................................................ 6 
`VI.  LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................... 7 
`VII.  OVERVIEW OF THE ’908 PATENT ............................................................ 8 
`A. 
`Brief Description ................................................................................... 8 
`B. 
`Summary of the Prosecution History .................................................. 13 
`1. 
`Reexamination of the ’530 Patent ............................................. 13 
`VIII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 14 
`A. 
`The term “the compression and storage occurs faster than the first and
`second data blocks are able to be stored on the memory device in
`uncompressed form” (claims 1, 21, 25) .............................................. 15 
`IX.  PRIOR ART REFERENCES ........................................................................ 16 
`A.  Kawashima .......................................................................................... 16 
`B. 
`Sebastian .............................................................................................. 25 
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE NOT PATENTABLE ...................... 28 
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW CLAIMS 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11, 21-22, 24-25 ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ........................................................................................ 29 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11, 21-22, and 24-25 are Obvious in
`View of Kawashima and Sebastian ..................................................... 29 
`1.  Motivation to Combine Kawashima and Sebastian .................. 29 
`
`X. 
`XI. 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`7. 
`
`IPR2016-00377: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908, Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11, 21-22, 24-25
`2. 
`Independent Claim 1 is Obvious in View of Kawashima and
`Sebastian. .................................................................................. 32 
`i. 
`The preamble of Claim 1 is disclosed in Kawashima. ... 32 
`ii. 
`Limitation A of Claim 1 is disclosed in Kawashima. ..... 33 
`iii. 
`Limitation B of Claim 1 is obvious in view of
`Kawashima and Sebastian. ............................................. 34 
`Limitation C of Claim 1 is disclosed in Kawashima. ..... 38 
`iv. 
`Limitation D of Claim 1 is disclosed in Kawashima. ..... 39 
`v. 
`Dependent Claim 2 is Obvious in View of Kawashima and
`Sebastian. .................................................................................. 41 
`Dependent Claim 4 is Obvious in View of Kawashima and
`Sebastian. .................................................................................. 44 
`Dependent Claim 5 is Obvious in View of Kawashima and
`Sebastian. .................................................................................. 46 
`Dependent Claim 6 is Obvious in View of Kawashima and
`Sebastian. .................................................................................. 47 
`Dependent Claim 9 is Obvious in View of Kawashima and
`Sebastian. .................................................................................. 48 
`Dependent Claim 11 is Obvious in View of Kawashima and
`Sebastian. .................................................................................. 49 
`Independent Claim 21 is Obvious in View of Kawashima and
`Sebastian. .................................................................................. 50 
`i. 
`The preamble of Claim 21 is disclosed in Kawashima. . 51 
`ii. 
`Limitation A of Claim 21 is obvious in view of
`Kawashima and Sebastian. ............................................. 52 
`Limitation B of Claim 21 is disclosed in Kawashima. ... 52 
`iii. 
`Limitation C of Claim 21 is disclosed in Kawashima. ... 52 
`iv. 
`10.  Dependent Claim 22 is Obvious in View of Kawashima and
`Sebastian. .................................................................................. 53 
`11.  Dependent Claim 24 is Obvious in View of Kawashima and
`Sebastian. .................................................................................. 53 
`Independent Claim 25 is Obvious in View of Kawashima and
`Sebastian. .................................................................................. 53 
`i. 
`The preamble of Claim 25 is disclosed in Kawashima. . 54 
`ii
`
`12. 
`
`8. 
`
`9. 
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00377: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908, Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11, 21-22, 24-25
`ii. 
`Limitation A of Claim 25 is disclosed in Kawashima.... 54 
`iii. 
`Limitation B of Claim 25 is obvious in view of
`Kawashima and Sebastian. ............................................. 55 
`Limitation C of Claim 25 is disclosed in Kawashima. ... 55 
`iv. 
`Limitation D of Claim 25 is disclosed in Kawashima.... 56 
`v. 
`XII.  Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 56 
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00377: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908, Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11, 21-22, 24-25
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`Graham v. John Deere,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .................................................................................................. 8
`
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
`496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 15
`
`KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .................................................................................... 7, 8, 32
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (e) ............................................................................. 6, 17, 26
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................................................................... 7, 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R § 42.22(a)(1) ............................................................................................... 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 15
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(2) ...................................................................................... 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5) .................................................................................... 30
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012) ....................................................................... 15
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) .................................................................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00377: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908, Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11, 21-22, 24-25
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908 (“the ’908 patent”, Ex. 1001) describes the
`
`transmission and storage of both compressed and uncompressed data. By
`
`compressing incoming data before storing it, overall transmission and storage time
`
`is naturally accelerated. See ’908 Patent at Abstract; Ex. 1001. As acknowledged
`
`in the ’908 patent itself, this benefit was well known at the time of the alleged
`
`invention. Id. at 2:12-18. The alleged invention of the ’908 patent is a “data
`
`storage accelerator” that includes “one or a plurality of high speed data
`
`compression encoders that are configured to simultaneously or sequentially
`
`losslessly compress data at a rate equivalent to or faster than the transmission rate
`
`of an input data stream.” Id. at Abstract. The claims of the ’908 patent that are the
`
`subject of this Petition require that data compression and storage occur faster than
`
`storage alone could occur if the data were left in uncompressed form.
`
`The “data storage accelerator” limitation of the challenged claims of the
`
`’908 patent is similar to one found in the claims of a sibling patent, U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,415,530 (“the ’530 patent”, Ex. 1020). The ’530 patent was the subject of one
`
`inter partes reexamination—although the requester stopped participating after
`
`filing the request. The examiner ultimately concluded that the references relied on
`
`by the third party requester did not disclose this allegedly inventive limitation.
`
`Reexamination No. 95/001,927, 5/31/15 Right of Appeal Notice at 6-14; Ex. 1005
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00377: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908, Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11, 21-22, 24-25
`(concluding that the references relied upon did not disclose “said compression and
`
`storage occurs faster than said data stream is able to be stored on said memory
`
`device in said received form.”).
`
`A prior art reference which was not at issue in that reexamination, however,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,805,932 (“Kawashima”, Ex. 1003), indisputably discloses this
`
`limitation. Specifically, Kawashima discloses a high speed data compression
`
`system designed to compress an incoming data stream using a high compression
`
`ratio—through the use of any one or a combination of compression algorithms—
`
`and then to store the compressed data stream more quickly than could be stored in
`
`uncompressed form. Kawashima at 7:1-15; Ex. 1003.
`
`While Kawashima expressly mentions some exemplary lossless compression
`
`techniques such as the well-known Lempel-Ziv algorithm, Kawashima is agnostic
`
`as to what specific encoding technique is used. Instead, Kawashima states that the
`
`disclosed system can be used with different types of encoding techniques to
`
`achieve its goal.
`
`The challenged claims of the ’908 patent require that the received data
`
`stream be compressed using at least two different compression algorithms (or
`
`“encoders”) to compress different blocks of data in the stream. Compressing data
`
`using multiple encoders—specifically, compressing data using different techniques
`
`for different types of data—was well-known in the art at the time of the alleged
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00377: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908, Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11, 21-22, 24-25
`invention. For example, U.S. Patent No. 6,253,264 to Sebastian (“Sebastian”, Ex.
`
`1004), teaches that optimal compression can be obtained by compressing multiple
`
`data blocks using different compression techniques for each block based on the
`
`format or data type of the data in the data block. See Sebastian at Abstract, 19:31-
`
`48; Ex. 1004. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Kawashima to
`
`incorporate the use of two or more compression techniques, such as those
`
`compression techniques described by Kawashima itself, to compress different
`
`blocks of data in the incoming data stream.
`
`Because Kawashima and Sebastian disclose similar systems and methods,
`
`including systems and methods for analyzing and compressing incoming data
`
`streams while optimizing system performance, it would have been obvious to
`
`combine the teachings of Kawashima and Sebastian. Accordingly, Kawashima in
`
`view of Sebastian renders claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11, 21-22, and 24-25 of the ’908
`
`patent obvious and unpatentable.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party In Interest
`Oracle America, Inc. (“Petitioner”), HP Inc., Hewlett Packard Enterprise
`
`Company, and HP Enterprise Services, LLC are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`Petitioner submits this Petition for Inter Partes Review (“Petition”) for review of
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00377: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908, Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11, 21-22, 24-25
`claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11, 21-22, 24-25 of U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908 (the “’908
`
`patent”).
`
`B. Related Matters
`The following co-pending litigation matters would affect or could be
`
`affected by a decision in this proceeding: Realtime Data LLC v Actian
`
`Corporation et al., E.D. Tex. Case No. 6:2015-cv-00463, Realtime Data LLC v
`
`Dropbox, Inc., E.D. Tex. Case No. 6:2015-cv-00465, Realtime Data LLC v
`
`EchoStart Corporation et al., E.D. Tex. Case No. 6:2015-cv-00466, Realtime Data
`
`LLC v Oracle America, Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co. and HP Enterprise Services,
`
`LLC, E.D. Tex. Case No. 6:2015-cv-00467, Realtime Data LLC v Riverbed
`
`Technology, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex. Case No. 6:2015-cv-00468, Realtime Data LLC v
`
`SAP America, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex. Case No. 6:2015-cv-00469, Realtime Data LLC
`
`v Teradata Corporation et al., E.D. Tex. Case No. 6:2015-cv-00470, all filed on
`
`May 8, 2015.
`
`The following co-pending IPRs would affect or could be affected by a
`
`decision in this proceeding: IPR2016-00373; IPR2016-00374; IPR2016-00375;
`
`IPR2016-00376.
`
`C. Counsel
`Lead Counsel: Monica Grewal (Registration No. 40,056)
`
`Back-up Counsel: Donald Steinberg (Registration No. 37,241)
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00377: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908, Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11, 21-22, 24-25
`D.
`Service Information
`Email: Monica.Grewal@wilmerhale.com; Don.Steinberg@wilmerhale.com
`
`Post and hand delivery address: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP,
`
`60 State Street, Boston, MA 02109.
`
`Telephone: (617) 526-6223
`
`Facsimile: (617) 526-5000
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`A person of ordinary skill in the relevant field is a hypothetical person to
`
`whom an expert in the relevant field could assign a routine task with reasonable
`
`confidence that the task would be successfully carried out. The level of skill in the
`
`art is evidenced by prior art references. The prior art discussed herein
`
`demonstrates that a person of ordinary skill in the field, at the time the ’908 patent
`
`was effectively filed, had an undergraduate degree in computer science and two
`
`years’ experience or a graduate degree in the field of data compression.
`
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00377: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908, Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11, 21-22, 24-25
`V. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11, 21-22, 24-25 of the ’908 patent (Ex. 1001) and requests that
`
`the challenged claims be cancelled.
`
`A.
`Prior Art
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art:1
`
`1.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,805,932 to Kawashima (“Kawashima”, Ex. 1003),
`
`which was filed on February 13, 1996, and issued on September 8, 1998, is prior
`
`art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (e).
`
`2.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,253,264 to Sebastian (“Sebastian”, Ex. 1004),
`
`which was filed on March 6, 1998, claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application
`
`No. 60/036,548 (filed on March 7, 1997), and issued on June 26, 2001, is prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`B. Grounds of Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11, 21-22, and 24-25
`
`(the “challenged claims”) of the ’908 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103.
`
`1 The systems disclosed in these references will be referred to herein as the
`
`“Kawashima system” and “Sebastian system.” Reference to the operation of each
`
`of these systems is limited to the explicit disclosures of these references.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00377: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908, Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11, 21-22, 24-25
`This Petition, supported by the declaration of Dr. James Storer (“Storer
`
`Declaration” or “Storer Decl.,” Ex. 1002), demonstrates that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to the challenged claims and that
`
`the challenged claims are unpatentable for the reasons cited in this Petition. See 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`VI. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`The challenged claims were filed prior to the effective date of the Leahy-
`
`Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011). As such,
`
`the challenged claims should be analyzed for patentability under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103. A claim is invalid if it would have been obvious, that is “if the
`
`differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
`
`such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which [the]
`
`subject matter pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`In KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415 (2007), the U.S.
`
`Supreme Court addressed the issue of obviousness and provided an “expansive and
`
`flexible” approach it considers consistent with the “broad inquiry” set forth in
`
`Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966). According to the Supreme Court, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an
`
`automaton” and “in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00377: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908, Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11, 21-22, 24-25
`teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR, 550 U.S. at
`
`420-421.
`
`The key inquiry to determine obviousness is whether an “improvement is
`
`more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
`
`functions.” Id. at 417. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that “[w]hen there is
`
`a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number
`
`of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to
`
`pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” Id. at 421. The
`
`Supreme Court confirmed that combinations of known options that yield
`
`predictable results are rarely patentable. Id. at 416 (“The combination of familiar
`
`elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
`
`than yield predictable results.” (emphasis added)). Further, “[i]f a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
`
`patentability.” Id. at 401. The Board must ask, as guided by KSR, whether the
`
`claims recite an “improvement [that] is more than the predictable use of prior
`
`art elements according to their established functions.” Id. (emphasis added).
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’908 PATENT
`A. Brief Description
`The ’908 patent, titled “Systems and Methods for Accelerated Data Storage
`
`and Retrieval,” was filed on June 12, 2014 and claims priority to several U.S.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00377: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908, Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11, 21-22, 24-25
`patent applications, the earliest of which was Application No. 09/266,394, filed on
`
`March 11, 1999, and issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,601,104 (Ex. 1006).
`
`The ’908 patent is directed to systems and methods for providing
`
`“accelerated” data storage and retrieval (’908 Patent at Abstract; Ex. 1001) and
`
`allegedly teaches systems and methods for improving data storage and retrieval
`
`“bandwidth” by using loss-less data compression and decompression. Id. at 4:42-
`
`44, 11:31-36.
`
`Figure 8 illustrates a detailed block diagram of a system for accelerated data
`
`storage according to the ’908 patent’s preferred embodiment:
`
`As shown above, the claimed “data storage accelerator” (10) receives an
`
`incoming “data stream” of “data blocks” and optionally stores the blocks in the
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00377: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908, Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11, 21-22, 24-25
`“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 11:49-58. The
`
`“input data buffer” (15) is typically random access memory (RAM). See Storer
`
`Decl. at ¶ 37; Ex. 1002. The ’908 patent states that the “the input buffer 15 and
`
`counter 20 are not required elements of the present invention.” ’908 Patent at
`
`11:49-12:10; Ex. 1001.
`
`The ’908 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 11:52-56; see
`
`Storer Decl. at ¶ 38; Ex. 1002. The “data block counter” “counts” or “otherwise
`
`enumerates the size” of the data blocks in “any convenient units including bits,
`
`bytes, words, double words.” ’908 Patent at 11:56-68; Ex. 1001.
`
`Data compression is performed by the “encoder module” (25). Id. at 11:66.
`
`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, arithmetic coding,
`
`data compaction, and data null suppression.” Id. at 11:66-12:5; see also id. at
`
`12:67-13:5. The ’908 patent discloses that the compression techniques may be
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00377: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908, Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11, 21-22, 24-25
`selected based upon their “ability to effectively encode different types of input
`
`data” (id. at 12:5-7), that more than one encoder may use the same compression
`
`technique (id. at 12:67-13:5), and the compression process may be performed in
`
`parallel or sequentially (id. at 12:21-23). In other words, using the compression
`
`process described in the ’908 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.
`
`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 12:40-42. 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 12:46-51. 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
`
`greater ratio. See id. at 12:51-56. If at least one of the compressed blocks was
`
`compressed at an equal or greater ratio, then the block compressed with the highest
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00377: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908, Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11, 21-22, 24-25
`ratio is transmitted/stored. Id. at 13:5-8. If none of the compressed blocks were
`
`compressed at an equal or greater ratio, then the uncompressed block is
`
`transmitted/stored. Id. at 13:8-12.
`
`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 12:59-13:18. The block, with its appended descriptor, is
`
`then transmitted/stored, and the descriptor is used for “subsequent data processing,
`
`storage, or transmittal.” Id.
`
`The ’908 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, 5:56-6:3. By
`
`compressing the data at this compression ratio, 60 megabytes worth of compressed
`
`data can be stored per second, even though the target storage device is capable of
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00377: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908, Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11, 21-22, 24-25
`storing only 20 megabytes per second, thus “accelerating” the storage of data. See
`
`Storer Decl. at ¶ 42; Ex. 1002.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`
`B.
`The ’908 patent has not undergone any reexamination nor inter partes
`
`review. As described in the Introduction and in further detail below, however,
`
`claims with similar limitations from the ’530 sibling patent underwent one inter
`
`partes reexamination (Reexamination No. 95/001,927 (“the ’927 reexamination”)).
`
`Reexamination of the ’530 Patent
`
`1.
`During reexamination of the ’530 patent, independent claims 1 and 24 of the
`
`’530 patent were found patentable by the examiner. ’927 Reexamination, 5/31/13
`
`Right of Appeal Notice at 6-14; Ex. 1005. In finding that these claims were
`
`patentable, the examiner found that the primary references relied upon by the third
`
`party requester, U.S. Patent Nos. 4,956,808 (“Aakre”, Ex. 1011), 4,593,324
`
`(“Ohkubo”, Ex. 1009), and 5,150,430 (“Chu ’430”, Ex. 1008), 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.
`
`While the examiner found that references before him did disclose “fast”
`
`compression and storage, 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. 1011) at Abstract, 1:54-59, 1:62-
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00377: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908, Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11, 21-22, 24-25
`2:4, 2:10-13, 2:17-21, 2:43-47, 3:30-50), 7 (citing Okhubo (Ex. 1009) 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.
`
`1008) at 3:65-68, 4:10-12, 16-20, 24-38, 6:4-28, 17:3-6, and Figure 2).
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).2 In re ICON Health &
`
`Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`The following discussion proposes a construction and support for that
`
`construction. Any claim terms not included are given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the specification as commonly understood by those of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. Should the Patent Owner, in order to avoid the prior art,
`
`contend that the claim has a construction different from its broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, the appropriate course is for the Patent Owner to seek to amend the
`
`claim to expressly correspond to its contentions in this proceeding. See 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`
`2 Petitioner adopts this standard and reserves the right to pursue different
`
`constructions in a district court, where a different standard is applicable.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00377: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908, Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11, 21-22, 24-25
`A. The term “the compression and storage occurs faster than the
`first and second data blocks are able to be stored on the memory
`device in uncompressed form” (claims 1, 21, 25)
`
`Independent claims 1, 21, and 25 of the ’908 patent recite the term, “the
`
`compression and storage occurs faster than the first and second data blocks are able
`
`to be stored on the memory device in uncompressed form.” The proposed
`
`construction is wherein the time to compress and store the first and second data
`
`blocks is less than the time to store the first and second data blocks without
`
`compressing them.
`
`As explained in Section VII.A above, the ’908 patent is generally directed to
`
`“accelerated data storage and retrieval” (’908 Patent at Abstract; Ex. 1001). The
`
`’908 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 using a compression ratio (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.
`
`Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand 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 first and
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00377: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908, Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11, 21-22, 24-25
`second data blocks is less than the time to store the first and second data blocks
`
`without compressing them.” See Storer Decl. at ¶¶ 46-48; Ex. 1002.
`
`IX. PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`A. Kawashima
`U.S. Patent No. 5,805,932 to Kawashima (“Kawashima”, Ex. 1003), which
`
`was filed on February 13, 1996, and issued on September 8, 1998, is prior art under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (e). Kawashima was among hundreds of references cited
`
`during the original prosecution of the ’908 patent, but it was never discussed
`
`during the original prosecution of the ’908 patent or reexamination of the sibling
`
`’530 patent.
`
`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 petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00377: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908, Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11, 21-22, 24-25
`
`
`
`
`
`Kawashima discloses a data transmission/store system that analyzes the
`
`compressibility of data before transmission/storage. Kawashima at Abstract; Ex.
`
`1003. Figures 1 and 8 above show a “data transmitting apparatus 1” that is
`
`connected to “data source 2” and “data destination 3.” Kawashima at 21:14-18
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00377: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908, Claims 1-2, 4-