UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______
`
`DELL INC.; RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY, INC.; HEWLETT-PACKARD
`ENTERPRISE CO,; HP ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC; TERADATA
`OPERATIONS, INC.; ECHOSTAR CORPORATION; HUGHES NETWORK
`SYSTEMS, LLC; and VERITAS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00972 (Patent 7,415,530 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01002 (Patent 9,116,908 B2)
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: July 25, 2017
`___________
`
`
`Before: J. JOHN LEE, JASON J. CHUNG, and KEVIN C. TROCK,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_______
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______
`
`DELL INC.; RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY, INC.; HEWLETT-PACKARD
`ENTERPRISE CO,; HP ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC; TERADATA
`OPERATIONS, INC.; ECHOSTAR CORPORATION; HUGHES NETWORK
`SYSTEMS, LLC; and VERITAS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00972 (Patent 7,415,530 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01002 (Patent 9,116,908 B2)
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: July 25, 2017
`___________
`
`
`Before: J. JOHN LEE, JASON J. CHUNG, and KEVIN C. TROCK,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00972 (Patent 7,415,530 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01002 (Patent 9,116,908 B2)
`
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S
`
` ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS, DELL INC., et al:
` ANDREW R. SOMMER, ESQUIRE
` MICHAEL WOODS, ESQUIRE
` WINSTON & STRAWN
` 1700 K Street, NW
` Washington, DC 20006
` 202.282.5863
`
` ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER, REALTIME DATA, LLC:
` WILLIAM P. ROTHWELL, ESQUIRE
` KAYVAN B. NOROOZI, ESQUIRE
` NOROOZI, PC
` 2245 Texas Drive, Ste. 300
` Sugar Land, Texas 77479
` 281.566.2685
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, July 25,
`2017, at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria,
`Virginia, in Courtroom A, at 1:00 p.m.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00972 (Patent 7,415,530 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01002 (Patent 9,116,908 B2)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` JUDGE LEE: Welcome, everyone, to the Patent
` Trial and Appeal Board. This is the oral hearing in
` IPR2016-00972 concerning U.S. Patent 7,415,530 and IPR
` 2016-01002 concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908. Let's
` start with appearances by Counsel. Counsel for
` Petitioner, if you could make sure to speak at the
` podium. Thank you.
` MR. SOMMER: Thank you, Your Honor. Andrew
` Sommer on behalf of Petitioner.
` JUDGE LEE: Thank you, Mr. Sommer. And Counsel
` for Patent Owner?
` MR. ROTHWELL: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
` William Rothwell, lead counsel for Realtime. I'm joined
` by my partner, Kayvan Noroozi.
` JUDGE LEE: Thank you, Mr. Rothwell. As stated
` in the trial hearing order, each side will have 45
` minutes to present your case. Petitioner, you may
` reserve time for rebuttal. Do you intend to do that?
` MR. SOMMER: Yes, Your Honor. I'd like to
` reserve 18 minutes for rebuttal.
` JUDGE LEE: I appreciate that you're keeping my
` math skills sharp.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00972 (Patent 7,415,530 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01002 (Patent 9,116,908 B2)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` MR. SOMMER: I do what I can.
` JUDGE LEE: You said eighteen minutes, right?
` MR. SOMMER: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE LEE: Just before the parties begin, I'd
` like to remind you that one of the judges, Judge Trock,
` is attending remotely, so please speak at the podium
` into the microphone to make sure that he can hear you.
` Also, be aware that Judge Trock cannot see the
` projection screen that's in this room; however, he does
` have a full copy of the entire record, as well as an
` electronic copy of the parties' demonstratives.
` So Mr. Sommer, whenever you're ready, you may
` begin.
` MR. SOMMER: Thank you, Your Honor. We
` actually have some hard copies of the slides, if the
` bench would like them. If not, I'm happy to take them
` back.
` JUDGE LEE: I personally don't need them.
` Judge Chung?
` MR. SOMMER: You would like one? Sure. May I
` approach?
` JUDGE LEE: Yes.
` MR. SOMMER: Thank you.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00972 (Patent 7,415,530 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01002 (Patent 9,116,908 B2)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` JUDGE LEE: If you haven't already, if you
` could provide a copy to the court reporter, as well.
` MR. SOMMER: We have, Your Honor.
` JUDGE LEE: Thank you.
` MR. SOMMER: Thank you. As I mentioned before,
` Andrew Sommer, on behalf of Petitioner. And we're here
` to discuss Realtime's '530 and '908 patents. We submit
` that these two patents are directed to an exceedingly
` simple concept in an age-old goal of ensuring that a
` particular type of system performed faster than it
` otherwise could. And in this particular type of system,
` we're dealing with data compression. This, as the
` record shows, was a textbook reason to use data
` compression in the first place, to ensure that an
` overall storage process occurred faster than it
` otherwise could.
` Now, Patent Owners suggest that there was some
` innovation in ensuring that the system was faster and
` that the innovation is rooted in the fact that there are
` two types of data blocks being compressed, using two
` different techniques. The record shows and there is
` evidence from both Patent Owners' expert and our expert
` that the selection of compression techniques to achieve
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00972 (Patent 7,415,530 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01002 (Patent 9,116,908 B2)
`
`
` this goal was routine and easily understood.
` So with that, we'd like to take a look first at
` the '530 patent. And this is the same figure in both
` proceedings, actually, for the '908 patent and the '530
` patent; we have Figure 8 here. And this is the
` exemplary embodiment disclosed in the specification for
` achieving this particular goal of the claims.
` JUDGE LEE: Sorry to interrupt. If you could
` make sure to identify which slides you're referring to,
` that would help Judge Trock.
` MR. SOMMER: Thank you for the reminder, Your
` Honor. This is slide 3 of the demonstrative sets served
` by the Petitioner in the 0972 and 1002 proceedings. And
` this shows Figure 8 of the '530 patent and '908 patents
` and discloses really how this goal was achieved by the
` patented embodiment.
` What you have here is you receive an input data
` stream. You're going to count the number of blocks in
` that data stream. And then, on a block-by-block basis,
` you're going to feed it into a number of encoders.
` You're going to encode the entire block. Then you're
` going to count the number of bits upon the output;
` you're going to quantify the amount of compression.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00972 (Patent 7,415,530 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01002 (Patent 9,116,908 B2)
`
`
` You're going to go into block 35, as shown on this
` slide, and you're going to determine the compression
` ratio. You're going to do a comparison. You're going
` to pick the best compression.
` And that is, as everyone knows -- and as shown
` by Osterlund in the record, as well as the Nelson
` textbook, Dr. Creusere's testimony -- that the less data
` you have, the faster your storage is going to be.
` Because the storage device -- and I think the Patent
` Owner would agree with us on this -- the storage device
` by which you measure the faster than is the same storage
` device that you would use in determining whether
` something was slower. So you look at a device without
` compression, and you say, Okay, this is how long it took
` me to store the data. Then you're going to look at the
` device with the compression and you're going to say,
` Well, was the overall net compression and storage faster
` than? That's Osterlund's goal.
` And Osterlund does this very well, because it
` uses quite a slow storage device, an optical disk
` device. Those of us may remember trying to burn CDs,
` which was an exceedingly slow process. And that's
` really what Osterlund is geared toward trying to speed
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00972 (Patent 7,415,530 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01002 (Patent 9,116,908 B2)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` up. We're going to compress that data, we're going to
` do it with negligible delay, and we're going to speed up
` the overall storage and compression process. So we get
` faster overall data storage. And that is what the '530
` patent is doing, as well.
` JUDGE LEE: Mr. Sommer, the reference you're
` trying to combine with Osterlund and Franaszek, it has
` quite a different approach to compression, and its
` compression method involves quite a few more steps,
` multiple compression algorithms, etc. Doesn't that
` impact the teaching in Osterlund that the time for
` compression is negligible? Wouldn't that statement in
` Osterlund come under question because of Franaszek's
` changes?
` MR. SOMMER: We submit not. And I think the
` most solid evidence and the most objective evidence in
` the record of this is the '530 patent and the '908
` patent themselves, which says, We're going to go out and
` we're going to pick any suitable compression technique.
` You can look at Dr. Zeger's testimony at pages 46 and 47
` of the record. One of ordinary skill in the art
` absolutely knew how to choose the compression techniques
` to achieve that faster than goal.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00972 (Patent 7,415,530 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01002 (Patent 9,116,908 B2)
`
`
` So while you may look at Osterlund and say,
` Well, he's got a single block-type compression or a Stac
` compressor -- S-t-a-c -- type compressor, and he doesn't
` say, Well, we're going to encode a diverse stream or use
` multiple techniques. Yes, that may add some delay in an
` actual physical implementation of Osterlund, but that is
` not an insurmountable problem that one of ordinary skill
` in the art wouldn't have been able to solve without the
` exercise of simple and, we submit, non-inventive work,
` right, to sample these compression algorithms, to
` investigate which ones are faster for particular data
` types and which ones are not.
` JUDGE LEE: But if the goal really is speed,
` and that's your number one concern, why would a person
` of ordinary skill seek to introduce all the different
` ideas in Franaszek of using different compression
` techniques, etc., if that's going to introduce delay?
` MR. SOMMER: Well, we submit that a person of
` ordinary skill in the art reading Franaszek would not
` see Franaszek as being necessarily a slow system. There
` are a number of teachings in Franaszek that actually
` convey to one of ordinary skill in the art -- these are
` discussed in paragraph 166 of Dr. Creusere's
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00972 (Patent 7,415,530 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01002 (Patent 9,116,908 B2)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` declaration -- where Franaszek is talking about, Let's
` do this in parallel; let's sample only five percent of
` the data block.
` So we're going to look at this very quickly and
` we're going to guess, based on that sampling and
` parallel processing of encoders that are tailored to the
` data type, you know, from what he calls a CML, or a
` compression method list, what compression technique to
` use. And then he's going to compress that data as much
` as possible, which is going to speed up the overall
` storage process. I think everybody agrees with that.
` So a person of ordinary skill in the art
` looking at these teachings in combination would not be
` led away from a combination of making it faster or
` ensuring it's faster, because, as Petitioner concedes,
` Franaszek is silent as to speed, but there are telltale
` signs that one of ordinary skill in the art would see
` from the references themselves that they are geared
` toward doing this at least relatively quickly; we're not
` looking for compression regardless of the time costs.
` That's certainly not Franaszek's teaching.
` JUDGE TROCK: Counsel, excuse me for a second.
` But you just said two inconsistent things: You just
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00972 (Patent 7,415,530 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01002 (Patent 9,116,908 B2)
`
`
` said that Franaszek taught to compress as much as
` possible. And now you're saying that the compression is
` relative. Which is it?
` MR. SOMMER: I'm sorry; compression is relative
` with respect to --
` JUDGE TROCK: Well, with respect to speed. So
` if Franaszek is teaching you to compress as much as
` possible, the more compression you spend time doing,
` doesn't that take longer?
` MR. SOMMER: Okay. So the testimony in the
` record on that, Your Honor, is that it may generally
` take longer; that's what Dr. Zeger says, generally. How
` much longer, I think it really does depend on how much
` you look at the storage device itself. If it's a really
` slow device, ten times compression is going to be ten
` times faster storage. And so when you're talking about
` the net of compression and storage, you're looking at a
` device where you're going to save ten times as much time
` in the storage process. Does that answer your question?
` JUDGE TROCK: No. But so, if you're suggesting
` to compress as much as possible, doesn't that take
` longer to compress more or longer? Doesn't it take more
` time to do more compression?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00972 (Patent 7,415,530 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01002 (Patent 9,116,908 B2)
`
`
` MR. SOMMER: The answer is, generally, yes.
` JUDGE TROCK: Isn't that what Franaszek is
` teaching you?
` MR. SOMMER: The answer is, generally, yes.
` But I do not think that the record bears out that that
` is the teaching of Franaszek, to always compress to the
` maximum extent possible, regardless of any kind of time
` considerations. Because Franaszek's starting point is a
` compression method list. It's a list. It's not all
` possible compression. We're not going to sample this
` wide range of compressions. We're going to select the
` best from the list that he's given.
` As we can see -- and I'm going to go on to
` Figure 2 of Franaszek. This is slide 12, Your Honor,
` from our presentation. There is something that he calls
` a compression method table, and that is a defined table
` of a set of compression algorithms. These are the same
` algorithms in the '530 patent that they call suitable
` for implementing the invention, run-length encoding,
` Lempel-Ziv encoding.
` So one of ordinary skill in the art would not
` necessarily look at Franaszek, and say, Well, Franaszek,
` not relevant, because he's selecting the best. The '530
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00972 (Patent 7,415,530 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01002 (Patent 9,116,908 B2)
`
`
` patent chooses the best. It does a sampling of parallel
` encoders. It looks at the data block and it outputs the
` most compressed. Why? Because that goes into one of
` the variables that you're looking at, according to the
` claim language, which is you're going to store faster.
` JUDGE LEE: Counsel, I think I understand your
` general point. Your point is that compressing, by
` itself, makes the overall process of compression plus
` storage faster because you have less data to store. And
` so your argument is that a person of ordinary skill in
` the art would select techniques such that the overall
` time is faster, even if the individual compression
` component of that is slower. So I get that.
` MR. SOMMER: That's exactly our point.
` JUDGE LEE: The question is why would a person
` of ordinary skill even mess with that? Because you've
` got two pieces of prior art. You've got Franaszek and
` you've got Osterlund. They really have two very
` different goals in mind. Franaszek is concerned with
` maximizing compression ratio. Maybe not at the cost of
` everything else, maybe not. But my point is that it is
` a very different focus than Osterlund. And if, indeed,
` the goal is speed, why even bother with Franaszek?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00972 (Patent 7,415,530 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01002 (Patent 9,116,908 B2)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` Franaszek does not teach, I think you would agree, that
` implementing the Franaszek method gives you increased
` speed; it just doesn't say anything about that. You
` agree with that, right?
` MR. SOMMER: We do agree with that, Your Honor,
` the latter part there. But we don't agree that they
` actually teach something very different. I think that
` is a bone of contention between the parties here.
` Because Osterlund is achieving this faster overall
` storage rate by compressing the data, and the more you
` compress the data, the faster the storage is going to
` be.
` And so with Osterlund's teaching of let's
` employ a compressor that is going to inject negligible
` delay, we are going to speed up the overall storage
` process.
` JUDGE LEE: So really, doesn't that lead away
` from Franaszek? Because Franaszek, as compared to other
` types of compression, a single compression scheme, for
` example, it is less negligible; isn't that true?
` MR. SOMMER: I'm sorry; less negligible than
` Osterlund?
` JUDGE LEE: Yes. So the types of compression
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00972 (Patent 7,415,530 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01002 (Patent 9,116,908 B2)
`
`
` that Osterlund talks about, that is more negligible --
` if you want to use that terminology -- than what
` Franaszek teaches, right?
` MR. SOMMER: I think that's hard to quantify
` just in the abstract, because the rate at which certain
` types of data is compressed is going to depend on the
` data type, and the particular type of encoding that
` you're trying to use on it. Because data compression is
` trying to prey on redundancies in data and things like
` that to try to shrink the data size.
` So in the abstract, I don't think that that's
` necessarily a true statement, but certainly --
` JUDGE LEE: Looking at the evidence of record,
` Dr. Zeger does testify to that effect, at least as I
` understand it. And Dr. Creusere seems to punt. He
` seems to say you don't know. So what evidence do we
` have in the record that a person of ordinary skill in
` the art would look at these two references and say,
` Well, I could still do what Franaszek teaches and still
` come out faster? Where is that teaching?
` MR. SOMMER: The teaching that you can still
` implement Franaszek just as it is and still come out
` faster? You need to look at paragraphs 157 of Dr.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00972 (Patent 7,415,530 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01002 (Patent 9,116,908 B2)
`
`
` Creusere's testimony. There's some discussion of this
` at paragraph 132. And then 164 through, I believe, 168
` of his declaration talks about how a person of ordinary
` skill in the art would implement these encoders in
` Franaszek.
` And I understand that Patent Owner has an
` argument that we haven't provided adequate detail about
` exactly how you go and insert this algorithm and provide
` an actual underlying data showing that it would be
` faster. We submit that's not the law, that's not the
` burden that we must carry in this proceeding.
` So with respect to Osterlund -- and we find
` that this is one of the key teachings here for why a
` person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the
` combination of references to simply make a faster
` Franaszek. And we see that the compressor in Osterlund
` is being used in combination with an optical storage
` device --
` JUDGE TROCK: Counsel, if I can interrupt, if
` you're looking at a different slide, I need to know
` which one you're looking at.
` MR. SOMMER: Yes, I'm sorry, Your Honor. 13.
` So we have an optical disk storage system method
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00972 (Patent 7,415,530 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01002 (Patent 9,116,908 B2)
`
`
` disclosed, and it permits data storage and retrieval
` operations on an optical disk to occur at a faster rate
` than would otherwise be possible. He goes on to say,
` The write task can be completed faster because the
` compression operation has reduced the amount of data
` which must be stored.
` On to slide 14, we see Osterlund's teaching
` that the compression module is capable of compressing
` and decompressing data with negligible delay so that we
` get an overall faster rate of data storage.
` And this is the calculation that we submit is
` blatantly obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
` art, because they're familiar with these types of data
` compression systems and they're familiar with how
` particular types of compression interact with particular
` types of data.
` So we submit that the combination of Franaszek
` and Osterlund, first of all, is not taught away by
` Franaszek. I think you need to tease even that notion
` out of the references, and we submit that that would be
` incorrect; there is no statement in Franaszek that says
` don't do it faster or don't do it slower. It's not a
` teaching-away.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00972 (Patent 7,415,530 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01002 (Patent 9,116,908 B2)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` And Patent Owner, in their paper, cites this
` Plas-Pak decision. And the Plas-Pak decision is a
` non-precedential federal circuit decision that cites one
` other case, and that case is plainly a teaching-away
` case.
` Franaszek is not teaching away from this
` combination. We submit that that is just clear in the
` language of Franaszek. To the extent that there is some
` implicit tension in Franaszek between obtaining maximum
` compression at all costs and always obtaining -- let's
` get the best compression no matter what, and time, we
` submit that that's actually contradicted by other
` language in Franaszek.
` JUDGE LEE: Now, Mr. Sommer, I tend to agree
` with you that there's no teaching-away here, because
` there's no active or explicit criticism or
` disparagement, but I don't think that's really Patent
` Owner's argument, at least not as I understood it. They
` seem to be saying not so much that there is a
` teaching-away, but that there is a lack of a motivation
` to combine. So how do you address that?
` MR. SOMMER: Well, the motivation to ensure
` that any system is faster is one that the courts have
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00972 (Patent 7,415,530 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01002 (Patent 9,116,908 B2)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` found to be a hornbook law type of a reason why you
` would make a modification to assist them in the first
` place. We've cited cases in our petition to this
` effect, Dystar being one of them. Even though that
` predated KSR and has a bit of a different type of
` analytical flavor to it than the standard TSM test does,
` so we submit that that is still good law. Sakraida,
` from the Supreme Court, saying, you know, if something
` is made faster than, you know, the prior
` implementations, that is a typical reason to find
` something obvious.
` And so, you know, in terms of those legal
` motivations, those exist. But we also submit that the
` record evidence from Dr. Creusere is that there is
` advantage to user experiences to reducing system latency
` in slow -- you know, when you have slower storage
` systems. There are perceivable advantages to making
` computers faster. It is a goal of Intel for, you know,
` decades to make computers faster, and this is the type
` of system that would make data storage faster;
` therefore, enhancing the user experience, reducing
` system latency. You can go through the numerous reasons
` in Dr. Creusere's declaration that are spelled out in
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00972 (Patent 7,415,530 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01002 (Patent 9,116,908 B2)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` the petition as to what the benefits would be. So why
` would someone strive for this goal of the claim?
` JUDGE LEE: What about reasonable expectation
` of success? That is something else that Patent Owner
` brings out. What evidence do you have that a person of
` ordinary skill -- and based on your contention; start
` with Franaszek -- want to make it faster but reasonably
` expect that that's what you would be able to achieve?
` MR. SOMMER: So the record evidence, we submit,
` is not that someone skilled in the art would be so
` befuddled by this question that they would just throw up
` their hands and start grabbing compression algorithms
` and testing them willy-nilly. And the three pieces of
` evidence that we point to that are the strongest to
` support the reasonable expectation of success is, number
` one, the patent itself. The patent itself rebuts that
` argument very, very plainly, as we pointed out in our
` reply. It says, Select any known compression
` techniques, as long as they meet the requirements of the
` claim.
` Well, to the extent that that is the key
` teaching of the patent, an invitation to go out and
` select them from the prior art, they have contributed
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00972 (Patent 7,415,530 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01002 (Patent 9,116,908 B2)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` nothing to the underlying technology, if that's the
` invention. And that's at column 11 in the patent.
` Number two, Dr. Creusere says how routine it
` would be to select efficient coding algorithms. That's
` at paragraph 166 of his declaration. And Dr. Zeger, in
` his deposition, pages 46 to 47, said, A person of
` ordinary skill in the art would know which algorithms to
` go out and pick to meet the language of claim 1. And if
` that's the case, we submit there is no, you know,
` unexpected results; that a person of ordinary skill in
` the art is merely exercising skill as a skillful
` mechanic and not that of an inventor, to turn a phrase
` from the Supreme Court.
` JUDGE TROCK: Let's assume what you're just
` saying is true. So where's the connection to using
` multiple compression techniques? Why would someone do
` that?
` MR. SOMMER: Well, Franaszek teaches the use of
` multiple compression techniques to handle robust data
` streams and be able to compress a wide variety of data.
` And we all know from the teachings of --
` JUDGE TROCK: But you also agree that Franaszek
` does not talk about speed or saving time?
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00972 (Patent 7,415,530 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01002 (Patent 9,116,908 B2)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` MR. SOMMER: Franaszek does not explicitly --
` JUDGE TROCK: Why would you go to Franaszek,
` which is teaching multiple compression techniques, and
` combine that with Osterlund? Why?
` MR. SOMMER: We're not combining Franaszek with
` Osterlund. We're not taking Franaszek and putting it
` into Osterlund. We're taking a concept from Osterlund
` that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have
` had before him or her when they're sitting there
` contemplating data compression and saying, Well, I've
` already got this got system with multiple techniques;
` how do I ensure it's not going to lag up my system? How
` am I going to ensure that this is not introducing an
` amount of latency that's going to be a drawback from a
` user experience, for example?
` That's what we're submitting would have been
` obvious, based on this. We're going to select the
` compression algorithms that introduce negligible delay.
` We're going to make sure we don't plug that compressor
` into this system in a way that's going to slow things
` down.
` JUDGE TROCK: But couldn't you accomplish that
` with just one compression technique? Why make the leap
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00972 (Patent 7,415,530 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01002 (Patent 9,116,908 B2)
`
`
` to two?
` MR. SOMMER: Well, I don't think it's actually
` a leap, Your Honor, to go to two, because that's what
` Franaszek is talking about. It's talking about
` compressing multiple data types using multiple
` compression algorithms that are tailored to the type.
` JUDGE TROCK: But you agree that Franaszek
` doesn't suggest that that would increase the speed?
` MR. SOMMER: Well, I don't -- well, I do agree
` with that, yes. Absolutely. But I don't think that
` that's a requirement of the claims that, because of the
` summed combination of these compression techniques,
` speed is increased by the additive power. I think that
` the claim just says, You're going to have a first data
` block, a second data block, you're going to compress
` them with two different data types, and the end result
` is that that data stream is stored faster than it
` otherwise could be without the compression involved.
` And it's not triggered -- there's no causal relationship
` from the fact you're using two to do the faster than.
` JUDGE LEE: So Mr. Sommer, just to make sure I
` have your argument, tell me if this is a fair
` characterization: So what you seem to be saying is that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00972 (Patent 7,415,530 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01002 (Patent 9,116,908 B2)
`
`
` a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time, let's
` start with Franaszek, which already has multiple
` compression techniques and would just have the
` motivation to make it faster because faster is better.
` And Osterlund says faster is better. But then take from
` Osterlund the idea that compressing more can lead to
` some increase in speed.
` And then a person of ordinary skill would go
` from there to just know from their experience and their
` expertise which ones to pick, which algorithms to pick
` in order to achieve an overall increase in speed of
` compression plus storage. And the evidence for that
` leap at the end is pretty much your expert's testimony,
` for the most part. Is that fair?
` MR. SOMMER: I agree with everything except for
` the leap at the end being only our expert's testimony.
` As I mentioned, you know, Dr. Zeger testified that it
` would have been -- you know, the routine skill in the
` art would have led you to the right algorithms. And
` then the '530 patent itself invites you to go look at
` conventional algorithms.
` So with those three pieces of evidence, I think
` your overall summary of our argument is accurate, but
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00972 (Patent 7,415,530 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01002 (Patent 9,116,908 B2)
`
`
` the evidentiary underpinnings for the reasons how we get
` there, I think it's a little bit more elaborate than
` that.
` JUDGE LEE: So fair enough. So, basically,
` what I said earlier in terms of characterization, plus,
` that, at the end, it's not only your expert's testimony
` but also admissions from Dr. Zeger as w
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
