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. 9,054,728 to Fallon
`
`IPR Trial No. IPR2017-00108
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`CLAIMS 1, 17
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,054,728
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00108: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728, Claims 1, 17
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 2 
`A. 
`Real Party In Interest ............................................................................. 2 
`B. 
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 2 
`C. 
`Counsel .................................................................................................. 3 
`D. 
`Service Information ............................................................................... 3 
`III.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL .................................................................... 3 
`IV.  CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................. 4 
`V.  OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................... 4 
`A. 
`Prior Art ................................................................................................. 4 
`B. 
`Grounds of Challenge ............................................................................ 5 
`VI.  LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................... 6 
`VII.  OVERVIEW OF THE ’728 PATENT ............................................................ 6 
`A. 
`Priority ................................................................................................... 6 
`B. 
`Brief Description ................................................................................... 7 
`C. 
`Summary of the Prosecution History .................................................. 10 
`1. 
`Prosecution and Reexaminations of the ’506 Patent ................ 10 
`2. 
`Prosecution of the ’728 Patent .................................................. 12 
`VIII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 14 
`A. 
`The term “single data compression encoder” ...................................... 14 
`B. 
`The term “wherein the analyzing of the data within the data
`block to identify the one or more parameters or attributes of the
`data excludes analyzing based solely on a descriptor that is
`indicative of the one or more parameters or attributes of the
`data within the data block” .................................................................. 16 
`IX.  PRIOR ART REFERENCES ........................................................................ 18 
`A.  Hsu ....................................................................................................... 18 
`B. 
`Sebastian .............................................................................................. 25 
`C.  Wang .................................................................................................... 27 
`
`i
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00108: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728, Claims 1, 17
`X. 
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE NOT PATENTABLE ...................... 30 
`XI. 
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW CLAIMS 1, 17 ARE UNPATENTABLE ... 30 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 1, 17 are Obvious in View of Hsu and
`Sebastian .............................................................................................. 30 
`1.  Motivation to combine Hsu and Sebastian ............................... 30 
`2. 
`Independent Claim 1 is Obvious in View of Hsu and
`Sebastian. .................................................................................. 35 
`Dependent Claim 17 is Obvious in View of Hsu and
`Sebastian. .................................................................................. 48 
`Ground 2: Claims 1, 17 are Obvious in View of Hsu and Wang ....... 51 
`1.  Motivation to combine Hsu and Wang ..................................... 51 
`2. 
`Independent Claim 1 is Obvious in View of Hsu and
`Wang ......................................................................................... 56 
`Dependent Claim 17 is Obvious in View of Hsu and
`Wang. ........................................................................................ 60 
`XII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 63 
`
`
`
`B. 
`
`3. 
`
`3. 
`
`ii
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00108: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728, Claims 1, 17
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .....................................................................................passim
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131(2016) ........................................................................................ 14
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a), (b), and (e) ........................................................... 4, 5, 18, 25, 27
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................................................................... 5, 6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R § 42.22(a)(1) ............................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 14
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)-(2) ...................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5) .................................................................................... 30
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) .................................................................................................................... 6
`
`iii
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00108: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728, Claims 1, 17
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728 (“the ’728 patent”, Ex. 1001) is generally directed
`
`to systems and methods for analyzing a data block and applying a combination of
`
`“content dependent” and “content independent” compression methods to different
`
`data blocks depending on the type of data contained in those blocks.
`
`An article that was one of hundreds of prior art references cited by the Patent
`
`Owner but not specifically discussed during prosecution of the ’728 patent,
`
`however, expressly discloses every limitation of claims 1 and 17 of the ’728 patent
`
`except a “single data compression encoder”. Specifically, “Automatic Synthesis of
`
`Compression Techniques for Heterogeneous Files,” by Hsu and Zwarico (“Hsu”,
`
`Ex. 1002), teaches analyzing certain bytes of data within a data block and
`
`comparing the pattern of data in those bytes to a collection of known data patterns
`
`in order to both determine the data type of the data within that block and then
`
`compress the block with a compression algorithm or encoder that is suitable for
`
`that particular data type. Hsu at 1098, 1102, 1104, 1109; Ex. 1002.1
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,253,264 (“Sebastian,” Ex. 1004), another of the hundreds
`
`of prior art references cited by the Patent Owner but not specifically discussed
`
`1 Two Inter Partes Review trials (IPR2016-00373 and IPR2016-00374) have been
`
`instituted based on petitions filed by Petitioner challenging related patents and
`
`similar claims and relying on Hsu.
`
`1
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00108: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728, Claims 1, 17
`during prosecution of the ’728 patent, discloses the “single data compression
`
`encoder” limitation not expressly disclosed in Hsu. PCT Publication No. WO
`
`00/46688 to Wang (“Wang”, Ex. 1006), a reference that was not before the
`
`examiner during prosecution, also discloses this limitation. Because these
`
`references disclose similar systems and methods to Hsu, including systems and
`
`methods that analyze a data block and apply different compression methods to
`
`different data blocks depending on the type of data contained in those blocks, it
`
`would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Hsu with the teachings of
`
`each of Sebastian and Wang. Accordingly, Hsu in view of each of those references
`
`renders claims 1 and 17 obvious and unpatentable.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party In Interest
`Oracle America, Inc. (“Petitioner”) is the real party-in-interest. Petitioner
`
`submits this Petition for Inter Partes Review (“Petition”) for review of claims 1
`
`and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728.
`
`B. Related Matters
`Patent Owner has asserted the ’728 patent in the following civil actions: 2
`
`Realtime Data LLC v. Teradata Operations, Inc., C.D. Cal. Case No. 2:16-cv-
`
`02743, Realtime Data LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. et al., E.D. Tex.
`
`Case No. 6:16-cv-00086, Realtime Data LLC v. CenturyLink, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex.
`
`2 The parties may have settled one or more of these civil actions.
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00108: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728, Claims 1, 17
`Case No. 6:16-cv-00087, Realtime Data LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., E.D. Tex.
`
`Case No. 6:16-cv-00088, Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO v. Dell Inc. et al., E.D.
`
`Tex. Case No. 6:16-cv-00089, Realtime Data LLC v. Rackspace US, Inc. et al.,
`
`E.D. Tex. Case No. 6:16-cv-00961.
`
`The following co-pending IPRs would affect or could be affected by a
`
`decision in this proceeding: IPR2016-00373; IPR2016-00374; IPR2016-00978;
`
`IPR2016-00980.
`
`C. Counsel
`Lead Counsel: Monica Grewal (Registration No. 40,056)
`
`Back-up Counsel: Donald Steinberg (Registration No. 37,241)
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`Email: Monica.Grewal@wilmerhale.com; Donald.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
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00108: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728, Claims 1, 17
`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 ’728 patent
`
`was effectively filed, had an undergraduate degree in computer science and two
`
`years of industry experience or a graduate degree in the field of computer science.
`
`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.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 1 and 17 of the ’728 patent (Ex. 1001) and requests that they be cancelled.
`
`A.
`Prior Art
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art:3
`
`1.
`
`“Automatic Synthesis of Compression Techniques for Heterogeneous
`
`Files” by Hsu and Zwarico (“Hsu”, Ex. 1002), which was published in the journal
`
`of Software—Practice and Experience, Vol. 25(10), 1097-1116 (October 1995), is
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (b).
`
`
`3 Reference to the operation of each of the systems described in these references is
`
`limited to the explicit disclosures of these references.
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00108: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728, Claims 1, 17
`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).
`
`3.
`
`PCT Publication No. WO 00/46688 to Wang (“Wang”, Ex. 1006),
`
`which was filed on February 2, 2000, claims priority to U.S. Application No.
`
`09/241,472 (filed on February 2, 1999), and was published on August 10, 2000, is
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`B. Grounds of Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1, 17 (the “challenged claims”) of
`
`the ’728 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`This Petition, supported by the declaration of Dr. James Storer (“Storer
`
`Declaration” or “Storer Decl.,” Ex. 1003), demonstrates a reasonable likelihood
`
`that Petitioner will prevail with respect to the challenged claims and that they are
`
`unpatentable for the reasons cited in this Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).4
`
`
`4 Dr. Storer’s patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,379,036 (Ex. 1020), is cited on the face of
`
`the ’728 patent. His book, Data Compression: Methods and Theory, Computer
`
`Science Press (1988) (“Storer 1988”; Ex. 1015), is cited in Hsu.
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00108: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728, Claims 1, 17
`VI. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`The challenged claims have an effective filing date prior to the effective date
`
`of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011)
`
`and therefore should be analyzed for patentability under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`A claim is invalid if it would have been “obvious.” See 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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.” KSR
`
`Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415, 417, 420-21 (2007).
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’728 PATENT
`A.
`Priority
`The ’728 patent, titled “Data Compression Systems and Methods,” was filed
`
`on September 24, 2014 and claims priority to several U.S. patent applications, the
`
`earliest of which was Application No. 09/210,491 (“the ’491 application”), filed on
`
`December 11, 1998, and issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,195,024 (Ex. 1007).
`
`The challenged claims 1 and 17 are not entitled to an effective filing date of
`
`December 11, 1998 because there is no support for these claims in the ’491
`
`application. For example, the ’491 application fails to teach the claimed “content
`
`dependent” analysis and compression and also fails to disclose the claimed
`
`“perform data compression with a single data compression encoder, if the one or
`
`more parameters or attributes of the data are not identified” (the “single data
`
`compression encoder” limitation of claims 1 and 17). See Section VIII.A
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00108: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728, Claims 1, 17
`(explaining that the “single data compression encoder” uses content independent
`
`compression). First, Figures 13A-18D (and accompanying text) of the ’728 patent
`
`appear to relate to the claimed “content dependent” analysis and compression and
`
`claimed “single data compression encoder”, but were added by the Applicant as
`
`part of Application No. 10/016,355 (“the ’355 application”), which was filed on
`
`October 29, 2001, and issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,624,761 (Ex. 1008). Second,
`
`Patent Owner admissions and examiner findings relating to similar claims during
`
`reexamination of an ancestor patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506 (the “’506 patent”),
`
`corroborate this priority date. Reexamination No. 95/000,479 (first
`
`reexamination), 8/14/09 Decision Granting Inter Partes Reexamination at 15; Ex.
`
`1028 (finding October 29, 2001 to be the priority date of similar claims reciting
`
`“content dependent” analysis and compression and “single data compression
`
`encoder”); see also id., 1/6/11 Right of Appeal Notice at 4; Ex. 1009(citing Figures
`
`13-18 and additional disclosures first appearing in the ’355 application as support
`
`for same claims).
`
`The challenged claims are therefore entitled to an effective filing date no
`
`earlier than October 29, 2001.
`
`Brief Description
`
`B.
`The ’728 patent is directed to systems and methods for analyzing a data
`
`block and selecting a compression method to apply to that block. ’728 patent at
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00108: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728, Claims 1, 17
`Abstract; Ex. 1001. Figure 13A of the ’728 patent shows an embodiment of the
`
`alleged invention that is relevant to the challenged claims:
`
`
`
`The “content dependent data recognition module” 1300 analyzes the
`
`incoming data stream to recognize “data types . . . and/or any other parameters that
`
`may be indicative of either the data type/content of a given data block.” See id. at
`
`16:22-28. If this module “recognizes” the data type of a given data block, the
`
`module routes the block to the content dependent encoder module 1320 (see, e.g.,
`
`id. at 16:31-34); if not, it routes the block to the “content independent” encoder
`
`module 30 (see, e.g., id. at. 3:62-63, 4:1-3, 15:63-16:4, 16:30-34, 18:7-11).
`
`The content dependent encoder module 1320 comprises lossy or lossless
`
`compression encoders (id. at 16:37-47); the content independent encoder module
`
`30 comprises only lossless encoders (id. 16:53-55). Lossy encoders provide for an
`
`“inexact” representation of the original uncompressed data (id. at 2:7-10); lossless
`
`encoders provide for an “exact” representation (id. 2:21-22). Lossy encoders may
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00108: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728, Claims 1, 17
`be more suitable for some types of audio or image data (where degradations may
`
`be acceptable or not noticed by the end-user) and lossless encoders may be more
`
`suitable for various types of textual data, such as financial records (where exact
`
`representations are critical). See Storer Decl. at ¶ 41; Ex. 1003.
`
`The ’728 patent teaches that “[e]ncoding techniques” may be selected
`
`“based upon their ability to effectively encode different types of input data.” ’728
`
`patent at 12:60-64; Ex. 1001. But the ’728 patent recognizes that many lossy and
`
`lossless encoding techniques were well known within the art (see, e.g., id. at 7:12-
`
`17, 16:37-44) and that compressing data of a known type with a particular
`
`algorithm or encoder has been known for decades (see id. at 3:24-55 (describing
`
`prior art U.S. Patent No. 5,467,087 (“Chu”, Ex. 1010)); see also Storer Decl. at
`
`¶¶ 29-30; Ex. 1003). The ’728 patent also teaches that well-known lossless
`
`compression algorithms (e.g., run length, Huffman, Lempel-Ziv) may be used by
`
`either the content independent or dependent compression encoders shown in Figure
`
`13A above. See, e.g., ’728 patent at 16:37-44,16:53-57; Ex. 1001; Storer Decl. at
`
`¶¶ 42-44; Ex. 1003.
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00108: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728, Claims 1, 17
`C.
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`1.
`Prior to the prosecution of the ’728 patent, ancestor patent U.S. Patent No.
`
`Prosecution and Reexaminations of the ’506 Patent
`
`7,161,506 (the “’506 patent”) underwent prosecution and two reexaminations
`
`during which limitations similar to those in the challenged ’728 claims were added.
`
`The ’506 patent was filed on September 22, 2003 with 22 claims. ’506
`
`Application at 39-44; Ex. 1034. On February 20, 2004, the Examiner issued a first
`
`office action rejecting all claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-statutory
`
`subject matter for claiming the same invention as U.S. Patent No. 6,624,761. ’506
`
`File History, 2/20/04 Non-Final Rejection at 2; Ex. 1035. In response, applicant
`
`filed amended claim 1, cancelled claims 2-22, and added claims 23-31. ’506 File
`
`History, 10/20/04 Response to Non-Compliance at 2-4; Ex. 1036. Claim 1 was
`
`amended to add the “single data compression encoder” limitation also found in
`
`certain of the challenged ’728 claims. Amended claim 1 recited:
`
`1. (Currently Amended) A method for compressing data, comprising
`the steps of:
`
`analyzing a data block of an input data stream to identify a data
`type one or more data types of the data block, the input data stream
`comprising a plurality of disparate data types;
`
`performing content dependent data compression on the data
`
`block, if the a data type of the data block is identified;
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00108: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728, Claims 1, 17
`
`performing content independent data compression on the data
`block with a single data compression encoder, if the a data type of the
`data block is not identified.
`
`Id. at 2. Prior to allowance, the applicant cancelled claims 2-22 and 26-29, added
`
`claims 32-93 and filed a terminal disclaimer to overcome judicial type double
`
`patenting over the ’761 patent. See, e.g., ’506 File History, 6/30/05 Terminal
`
`Disclaimer; Ex. 1037; 2/03/06 Amendment and Response at 1-13; Ex. 1038;
`
`5/01/06 Amendment at 2; Ex. 1039. The claims were allowed on May 1, 2005.
`
`’506 File History, 5/01/06 Notice of Allowance; Ex. 1040.
`
`During the first reexamination of the ’506 patent, the Patent Owner pointed
`
`to sections of the ’506 specification describing “content independent data
`
`compression” as support for “single data compression encoder.” See
`
`Reexamination No. 95/000,479 (“the ’479 Reexam”), 4/21/11 Patent Owner
`
`Appeal Brief at 10 (citing the ’506 patent at 18:34-39, 21:25-28, 24:21-24); Ex.
`
`1011.
`
`During the second reexamination of the ’506 patent, the Patent Owner
`
`amended certain claims to add the “excludes analyzing based only on a descriptor”
`
`limitation also found in certain of the challenged ’728 claims, as will be discussed
`
`in more detail in Section VIII.B below. See Reexamination No. 95/001,926 (“the
`
`’926 Reexam), 4/5/13 Patent Owner Reply at 4-5 (emphasis added); Ex. 1012.
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00108: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728, Claims 1, 17
`2.
`Prosecution of the ’728 Patent
`The ’728 patent was filed on September 24, 2014 with 25 claims. ’728
`
`Application at 39-43; Ex.1031. On October 23, 2014, the Examiner issued a first
`
`office action rejecting claims 1-10, 12-16, 18, and 20-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
`
`directed to non-statutory subject matter for claiming the same invention as U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,717,203. ’728 File History, 10/23/14 Non-Final Rejection at 2-7; Ex.
`
`1032. In response, applicant filed a terminal disclaimer and amended claims 1-3,
`
`5-6, 8-10, 12, 14, 16-17, 19-20, and 23-25. ’728 File History, 1/23/15 Response to
`
`Non-Final Rejection at 1-11; Ex. 1033.
`
`Amended claim 1 recited:
`
`1. (Currently Amended) A system for compressing data comprising;
`
`a processor;
`
`one or more content dependent data compression encoders; and
`
`a single data compression encoder;
`
`wherein the processor is configured:
`
`to analyze data within a data block to identify one or more parameters
`
`or attributes of the data wherein the analyzing of the data within the data
`
`block to identify the one or more parameters or attributes of the data
`
`excludes analyzing based solely on a descriptor that is indicative of the one
`
`or more parameters or attributes of the data within the data block;
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00108: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728, Claims 1, 17
`to perform content dependent data compression with the one or more
`
`content dependent data compression encoders if the one or more parameters
`
`or attributes of the data are identified; and
`
`to perform data compression with the single data compression
`
`encoder, if the one or more parameters or attributes of the data are not
`
`identified.
`
`Id. at 2.
`
`Amended claim 17 recited:
`
`17. (Currently Amended) The system of claim 1, further comprising
`
`outputting wherein the processor is further configured to output the data block in
`
`uncompressed form if the single data compression with the single data
`
`compression encoder results in a compressed data block indicative of data
`
`expansion.
`
`Id. at 5.
`
`The claims were allowed on February 27, 2015. ’728 File History, 2/27/15
`
`Notice of Allowance; Ex. 1041.
`
`The ’728 patent has not yet undergone any reexaminations or post-grant
`
`proceedings such as inter partes reviews.
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00108: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728, Claims 1, 17
`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). See also Cuozzo Speed
`
`Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2146 (2016). Petitioner does not believe that
`
`there are any terms that could reasonably be construed in a manner that would
`
`impact the § 103 analysis. Nonetheless, Petitioner provides the following proposed
`
`claim constructions in order to more clearly establish the boundaries of the
`
`challenged claims.
`
`A. The term “single data compression encoder”
`Claims 1 and 17 of the ’728 patent recite the term “single data compression
`
`encoder.” The proposed construction of “single data compression encoder” is a
`
`data compression encoder associated with one compression algorithm to compress
`
`input data without regard to the encoder’s ability to effectively encode the data
`
`type or content of the data block.
`
`As explained in Section VII.C.1, during prosecution of the ancestor ’506
`
`patent, the Patent Owner, in order to overcome a statutory double patenting
`
`rejection, amended claim 1 to in part delete the term “content independent” and
`
`add the term “single data compression encoder.” Amended claim 1 in part recited:
`
`performing content independent data compression on the data block
`with a single data compression encoder, if the a data type of the data
`block is not identified.
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00108: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728, Claims 1, 17
`’506 File History, 10/20/04 Response to Non-Compliance at 2; Ex. 1036. As also
`
`explained in Section VII.C.1, during reexamination of the ’506 patent, the Patent
`
`Owner pointed to sections of the ’506 specification describing “content
`
`independent data compression” as support for “single data compression encoder.”
`
`See ’479 Reexam, 4/21/11 Patent Owner Appeal Brief at 10 (citing the ’506 patent
`
`at 18:34-39, 21:25-28, 24:21-24); Ex. 1011.
`
`While noting that “single data compression encoder” and “content
`
`independent data compression” are closely related concepts in the ’479 Reexam,
`
`the Patent Owner in making the above amendments also appears to certify that
`
`there is some difference between the two terms. Also, during the ’479 Reexam, the
`
`Patent Owner submitted that “single data compression encoder” was not taught by
`
`prior art U.S. Patent No. 5,870,036 (“Franaszek”) because a “single data
`
`compression encoder” was different than a “list of compression methods.” ’479
`
`Reexam, 3/15/10 Response at 17 (“Unlike the list of compression methods applied
`
`in Franszek ’036, claims 1,69, and 86 require a “single data compression encoder.”
`
`(emphasis in original)); Ex. 1030. Therefore, the difference between “content
`
`independent data compression” and “single data compression encoder” is that the
`
`former covers multiple compression methods and algorithms and the latter covers
`
`only one.
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00108: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728, Claims 1, 17
`In a related currently pending litigation, the Eastern District of Texas
`
`construed “content independent data compression” as a “compression algorithm
`
`that is applied to input data that is not compressed with content dependent data
`
`compression, the compression applied using one or more encoders without regard
`
`to the encoder’s (or encoders’) ability to effectively encode the data type or content
`
`of the data block.” Realtime v. Actian, E.D. Tex. Case No. 15-cv-463,
`
`Memorandum Opinion and Order at 21; Ex. 1013.
`
`Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand the term “single data compression
`
`encoder” to mean “a data compression encoder associated with one compression
`
`algorithm to compress input data without regard to the encoder’s ability to
`
`effectively encode the data type or content of the data block.” See Storer Decl. at
`
`¶¶ 54-58; Ex. 1003.
`
`B.
`
`The term “wherein the analyzing of the data within the data block
`to identify the one or more parameters or attributes of the data
`excludes analyzing based solely on a descriptor that is indicative
`of the one or more parameters or attributes of the data within the
`data block”
`
`Claims 1 and 17 of the ’728 patent recite the term “wherein the analyzing of
`
`the data within the data block to identify the one or more parameters or attributes
`
`of the data excludes analyzing based solely on a descriptor that is indicative of the
`
`one or more parameters or attributes of the data within the data block.” The
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00108: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728, Claims 1, 17
`proposed construction of this term is wherein the analyzing of the data within the
`
`data block to identify one or more parameters or attributes includes analyzing data
`
`other than data that is appended to the data block and indicative of the one or
`
`more parameters or attributes of the data.
`
`During reexamination of the ancestor ’506 patent, in finding that this claim
`
`term was supported by the specification, the examiner expressly relied on the ’506
`
`specification’s (1) description of “analyzing [a] data block to recognize one of a
`
`data type, data structure, data block format, file substructure, and/or file types” and
`
`(2) teaching of data analysis by “comput[ing] statistics of a data block” such as the
`
`relative frequencies of repeated characters in a data block, which may suggest that
`
`the block may be beneficially compressed with a lossless encoder. ’926 Reexam,
`
`8/16/13 Right of Appeal Notice at 3-4; Ex. 1014.
`
`In finding that this claim term was distinguishable over the prior art, the
`
`examiner suggested that the systems described in the prior art of record analyzed
`
`data within a data block to determine data type only by reviewing descriptive
`
`information appended to the data block such as the data “type” entry located in the
`
`“type field 205” appended to the data block in Franaszek, as shown below. Id. at 5
`
`(citing Franaszek at 4:30-34, 6:1-2 (Ex. 1005)) (emphasis added).
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00108: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728, Claims 1, 17
`
`Franaszek at Figure 2 (excerpt); Ex. 1005.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand the term “wherein the analyzing of the
`
`data . . . excludes analyzing based solely on a descriptor that is indicative of the
`
`one or more parameters or attributes of the data . . .” to mean “wherein the
`
`analyzing of the data within the data block to identify one or more parameters or
`
`attributes includes analyzing data other than data that is appended to the data block
`
`and indicative of the one or more parameters or attributes of the data.” See Storer
`
`Decl. at ¶¶ 59-62; Ex. 1003.
`
`IX. PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`A. Hsu
`“Automatic Synthesis of Compression Techniques for Heterogeneous Files,”
`
`by William H. Hsu and Amy E. Zwarico (“Hsu”, Ex. 1002), was published in the
`
`journal of Software—Practice and Experience (a Wiley-Interscience Publication)
`
`in October 1995, more than one year before the earliest possible priority date of the
`
`’728 patent. Hsu at Cover; Ex. 1002. Hsu accordingly qualifies as prior art under
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(a) and (b).
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00108: Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728, Claims 1, 17
`Hsu was among the hundreds of prior art references cited by the Patent
`
`Owner but not specifically discussed by the examiner during prosecution of