IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Reexam of U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`
`Confirmation No: 2572
`
`FALLON, James J.
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Control No.: 95/000,479
`
`Examiner: LEUNG, Christina Y.
`
`Filed: May 28, 2009
`
`Atty. Docket: 2855.002REX3
`
`For: SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR
`
`DATA CGMFRESSION SUCH AS
`
`CONTENT DEPENDENT DATA
`
`COMPRESSION
`
`Realtime’s Appeal Brief Under 37 C.F.R.
`
`-31.6’?
`
`Mail Stop “Inter Partes Reexam”
`Attn: Central Reexamination Unit
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`
`PO Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Sir:
`
`Pursuant to the Right of Appeal Notice mailed on January 6, 2011, Realtime Data, LLC,
`
`(herein “Patent Owner”),
`
`in the above-captioned inter partes reexamination involving U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,161,506 (“the ‘506 Patent”), timely filed its Notice of Appeal on February 7, 2011,
`
`from the final rejection of claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 17, 20-23, 27, 39, 43, 69-73, 79, 81, 82, 84-90, 96
`
`and 98. The third-party requester, Blue Coat Systems, Inc., did not file a notice of cross-appeal,
`
`though it had the ability to do so based on its proposed rejections regarding the LBX, French,
`
`Sebastian, Franaszek, Lafe, and Reynar references that were not adopted.
`
`(RAN at 6-8.) This
`
`appeal is therefore limited to issues raised herein. Patent Owner’s appeal brief is due on April
`
`21, 2011, (see 37 C.F.R. § 41.66(a)).
`
`Patent Owner hereby timely files one electronic copy of this Appeal Brief, together with
`
`the required fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 41.20(b)(2). If additional fees are necessary to prevent
`
`abandomnent of this appeal, then any such fees required therefore are hereby authorized to be
`
`charged to the undersigned’s Deposit Account No. 19-0036.
`
`DELL |NC., EMC CORP., HPE CO., HPES, LLC
`
`|PR2017-OO176- Ex. 1008, p. 1 of 53
`
`DELL INC., EMC CORP., HPE CO., HPES, LLC
`IPR2017-00176- Ex. 1008, p. 1 of 53
`
`

`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`VI.
`
`VII.
`
`~ 2 -
`
`Reexam ofU.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Real Party in Interest ......................................................................................................... .. 5
`Related Appeals and Interferences .................................................................................... .. 5
`Status of Claims ................................................................................................................ .. 8
`
`Status of Amendments ...................................................................................................... .. 9
`
`Summary of Claimed Subject Matter ............................................................................... .. 9
`A.
`Independent Claim 1 ............................................................................................. .. 9
`B.
`Independent Claim 69 ......................................................................................... .. 10
`C.
`Independent Claim 86 ......................................................................................... .. 11
`Issues to Be Reviewed on Appeal ................................................................................... .. 12
`A.
`Ground 1 — Anticipation by U.S. Patent No. 6,253,264 to Sebastian (“Sebastian”)
`............................................................................................................................. .. 12
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Ground 2 — Anticipation by U.S. Patent No. 5,870,036 to Franaszek (“Franaszek”)
`............................................................................................................................. .. 12
`
`Ground 3 — Obviousness Over Sebastian in view of Franaszek or U.S. Patent No.
`
`D.
`
`5,951,623 to Reynar (“Reynar”) ......................................................................... .. 12
`Ground 4 — Obviousness Over Sebastian in view of “Data Compression
`Procedures for Data Circuit Terminating Equipment Using Error Correction
`Procedures,” CCITT Recommendation V.42 bis, 1990, (“CCITT V.42 bis”) or
`Reynar ................................................................................................................. .. 12
`Ground 5 — Obviousness Over Sebastian in View of U.S. Patent No. 5,167,034 to
`MacLean (“MacLean”) ....................................................................................... .. 12
`Ground 6 — Obviousness Over Sebastian in View of International Application WO
`95/29437 to Kawashima (“Kawashima”) ........................................................... .. 13
`Argument ........................................................................................................................ .. 13
`A.
`Standard of Review ............................................................................................. .. 13
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Summary of the Reexamination before the Central Reexamination Unit .......... .. 13
`1.
`Proposed rejections based on LBX (Low Bandwidth X Extension,
`Protocol Version 1.0, X Consortium Standard) ...................................... .. 14
`Proposed rejections based on French ...................................................... .. 14
`2.
`Proposed rejections based on Sebastian .................................................. .. 14
`3.
`Proposed rejections based on Franaszek ................................................. .. 15
`4.
`Proposed rejections based on Late .......................................................... .. 16
`5.
`Proposed rejections based on Reynar ..................................................... .. 16
`6.
`Summary of Reexamination before the CRU ......................................... .. 17
`7.
`The Problem to Be Solved by the Present Invention .......................................... .. 17
`Use of the Term “Analyzing” in the Specification ............................................. .. 18
`1.
`Patent Owner is Allowed to be his Own Lexicographer......................... .. 18
`2.
`Patent Owner has Provided a Definition of “Analyzing” ....................... .. 19
`3.
`Dr. Modestino’s Declaration Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 .......................... .. 23
`4.
`The CRU Has Misconstrued the Meaning of “Analyze” ........................ .. 24
`5.
`The CRU Did Not Properly Consider Modestino’s Declaration ............ .. 25
`Grounds 1 and 2—Rejections of Claims 69, 70, 72, 73, 79, 81, 82, 84 and 85
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Franaszek and Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 17, 21-23, 43,
`69, 72, 73, 79 and 81 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Sebastian ........................ .. 26
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`DELL |NC., EMC CORP., HPE CO., HPES, LLC
`
`|PR2017-00176- Ex. 1008, p. 2 of 53
`
`DELL INC., EMC CORP., HPE CO., HPES, LLC
`IPR2017-00176- Ex. 1008, p. 2 of 53
`
`

`
`- 3 -
`
`Reexam of U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`1.
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Overview of Rejections ........................................................................... .. 26
`Franaszek does not Disclose “Analyzing a Data Block” to “Identify One
`or More Data Types of the Data Block,” or “Analyzing said Data Block to
`Determine a Type of said Data Block” ................................................... .. 26
`Sebastian does not disclose “Analyzing a Data Block” to “Identify One or
`More Data Types of the Data Block,” or “Analyzing said Data Block to
`Determine a Type of said Data Block” ................................................... .. 30
`Conclusion .............................................................................................. .. 32
`
`Ground 3 — Rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § l03(a) Over Sebastian in
`View of Franaszek or Reynar .............................................................................. .. 33
`1.
`Overview of Rejection ............................................................................ .. 33
`2.
`Sebastian in View of Franaszek or Reynar does not disclose “Analyzing a
`Data Block of an Input Data Stream to Identify One or More Data Types
`of the Data Block” .................................................................................. .. 33
`
`3.
`
`Conclusion .............................................................................................. .. 33
`
`Ground 4 — Rejection of claims 27 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Over
`Sebastian in View of CCITT V.42 bis or Reynar ................................................ .. 34
`1.
`Overview of Rejection ............................................................................ .. 34
`2.
`Sebastian in View of CCITT V.42 bis or Reynar does not disclose
`“Analyzing a Data Block of an Input Data Stream to Identify One or More
`Data Types of the Data Block” ............................................................... .. 34
`Conclusion .............................................................................................. .. 35
`
`3.
`
`Ground 5 — Rejection of claim 82 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Over Sebastian in
`View of MacLean ................................................................................................ .. 35
`
`1.
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Overview of Rejection ............................................................................ .. 35
`Sebastian in view of MacLean does not disclose “Analyzing said Data
`Block to Determine a Type of said Data Block” .................................... .. 35
`Conclusion .............................................................................................. .. 36
`
`Ground 6 — Rejection of claims 70, 71, 84-90, 96 and 98 under 35 U.S.C. § l03(a)
`Over Sebastian in View of Kawashima ............................................................... .. 36
`
`1.
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Overview of Rejection ............................................................................ .. 36
`Regarding claims 70, 71, 84 and 85, Sebastian in View of Kawashima does
`not disclose “Analyzing said Data Block to Determine a Type of said Data
`Block” ..................................................................................................... .. 36
`
`Regarding claims 86-90, 96 and 98, Sebastian in view of Kawashima does
`not Disclose “Determining Whether to Output said Data Block in
`Received Form or in a Compressed Form” or “Determining Whether to
`Compress Said Data Block with Content Dependent Data Compression
`Based on the Type of Said Data Block” ................................................. .. 37
`A Person of Ordinary Skill Would Not Combine Sebastian and
`Kawashima .............................................................................................. .. 38
`
`Conclusion .............................................................................................. .. 42
`
`.
`
`Conclusion .......................................................................................................... .. 43
`
`VIII.
`
`IX.
`
`Claims Appendix ............................................................................................................ .. 44
`Evidence Appendix ......................................................................................................... .. 52
`Related Proceedings Appendix ....................................................................................... .. 53
`
`DELL |NC., EMC CORP., HPE CO., HPES, LLC
`
`|PR2017-OO176- Ex. 1008, p. 3 of 53
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`DELL INC., EMC CORP., HPE CO., HPES, LLC
`IPR2017-00176- Ex. 1008, p. 3 of 53
`
`

`
`XI.
`
`Certificate of Service ...................................................................................................... .. 54
`
`- 4 -
`
`Reex-am of I?-ate11tN0. 7,} 61,.*3()6
`
`Centml N0. 95/"€)OG,,47E?
`
`DELL |NC., EMC CORP., HPE CO., HPES, LLC
`
`|PR2017-OO176- Ex. 1008, p. 4 of 53
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`DELL INC., EMC CORP., HPE CO., HPES, LLC
`IPR2017-00176- Ex. 1008, p. 4 of 53
`
`

`
`1.
`
`Real Party in Interest
`
`The real party in interest in this principal brief on appeal is the patent owner Realtime
`
`Data l_..l_.(.‘,, (Patent Ctwner). The Patent Owner is the assignee of record for the patent under
`
`reexamination, U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506 (“the ‘506 patent”), attached as Exhibit A. The
`
`original assignment for the priority filing for the ‘506 patent was recorded with the United States
`
`Patent & Trademark Office on August 10, 2010 at reel 024812, frame 0268. The oréginal
`
`assigmnent establishing Patent Owner’s ownership of the ‘506 patent is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit 3.
`
`II.
`
`Related Appeals and Interferences
`
`All prior and pending appeals, interferences or judicial proceedings known to Patent
`
`Owner, Patent OWner’s legal representatives, or assignee that may be related to, directly affect or
`
`be directly affected by or have a bearing on the Board’s decision in the pending appeal are listed
`
`below. In addition, a summary of related Appeal Briefs for Reexam control numbers 95/000,464
`
`and 95/000,478 is also presented below.
`
`Reexaminations
`
`
`
`
`90/009,428
`
` 6,601,104
`
`System and
`Data Storage and Retrieval
`
`=
`
`
`ec1s1on affirming
`Examiner’s rejections
`mai1eEl__3Z.1.,§_/_1_1__ _.
`‘
`1 Content Independent Data Compression Notice of Appeal
`Method and System
`filed 2/7/2011,
`Appeal Brief filed
`
`95/000,464 ‘ 6,624,761
`
`1
`
`DELL |NC., EMC CORP., HPE CO., HPES, LLC
`
`|PR2017-OO176- Ex. 1008, p. 5 of 53
`
`DELL INC., EMC CORP., HPE CO., HPES, LLC
`IPR2017-00176- Ex. 1008, p. 5 of 53
`
`

`
`- 6 -
`
`Reexam ofU.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`
`......................................
`....eal Brie
`10/26/2010,
`E Petition to terminate
`reexam denied
`
`
`
`Sy
`Data Storage and Retrieval
`
`Content Independent Data Compression Notice of Appeal
`Method and System
`filed 2/7/2011,
`‘
`Appeal Brief filed
`
`4/21./291.1.
`System and Methods for Accelerated EOT Gr
`ted 3/29/11
`__
`\\\\\ ‘
`
`._\\\r\\e
`
`"
`
`Data Compression Systems and Methods Order Grantin
`Request for Inter
`Pates Reexamination
`1
`
`System And Method For Data Feed IPR Filed
`Acceleration And Encryption
`01/31/2011, filing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`‘
`
`4II
`
`95/000,478
`
`7,378,992
`
`5
`
`
`95/000,486
`6,604,158
`
`7
`
`*
`§“‘9‘“s‘76‘6‘i‘;317
`
`7,714,747
`
`
`
`95/001,533
`
`7,417,568
`
`III
`
`95/001,544
`
`7,400,274
`
`System And Method For Data Feed Decision to grant and
`Acceleration And Encryption
`non-final office
`
`95/001,581
`
`7,777,651
`
`‘‘
`
`System And Method For Data Feed 1 IPR Filed 3/21/2011,
`Acceleration And Encryption
`Notice of Assignment 3
`and Filing Date
`
`Eitigation
`
`1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`Realtime Data LLC d/b/a/ LXO v. Metropcs Texas, LLC,
`er al., No. 6:19;gy;,9,9€l9_3___:L,1i3_1§2__(_1§_;R;_,I§=Xas)
`Realtime Data LLC d/b/a/ LXO v. CME Group Inc., et
`_a/.,N6. 6;10—cv—004g4:i:;§Q__(E,.,p_,_Ig3;g§)m_m
`lééa/time Data LLC d7b/a/‘‘LX5"v. Thomson Reuters
`Corporation et al., No. 6:10-cv-00425-LED (E.D.
`
`Pending
`
`Pending
`
`
`
`Realtime Data LLC d/b/a/ [X0 v. Morgan Stanley et al., V
`Pending
` DlSII1lSS€d
`
`Realtime Data LLC d/b/a/ [X0 v. Packeteer, Inc. et al.,
`N0.:.§E,Q§:9X:9.9.lflf£:l:EP..£E:R;_,3§aS)
`Realtime Data LLC d/b/a/ [X0 v. Thomson Reuters
`
`Wm“--WMMM”
`
`Pending
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`6
`
`DELL |NC., EMC CORP., HPE CO., HPES, LLC
`
`|PR2017-OO176- Ex. 1008, p. 6 of 53
`
`DELL INC., EMC CORP., HPE CO., HPES, LLC
`IPR2017-00176- Ex. 1008, p. 6 of 53
`
`

`
`- 7 -
`
`Reexam ofU.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`
`
`
`
`SiéiirféfflljflfLI:M
`
`Realtime .{_)a£z.z LLC 05/’i:r,/1:1/’ IXO v. Morgan Szmziey err 512.,
`
`Pending
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`E Perzding
`Reaftime Dara LL(?d/13/‘a/[X0 1'. CME Grc:>u;r,> 1:46., er‘
`
`ai, No.
`Cizicaga Beard Optimzs Exehrmge,
`
`Dismirssed
`
`
`
`3
`
`v. Reaizime
`V‘
`Dismissed
`. Data, LLC
`Timmsan Rezmsrs Czirporafirm v. Rem’:
`10
`PMmmg;mmé§éi§3K?i§{9;§§¥%€V~7353~RFfiE3(S33§§g¥Zmmwmmmmmmjmmmmmmmmgmmmmmmmm
`ll Reaitiine Data, .ZLLCai/b/1:: [X0 v. CME Group Ina, er
`Pending
`7 al. ("ILL No. 6:l0~cv~1Z46 (ND. Texas tiled l\/lay 11,
`
`12 Rectiiime Data LLC.’ Q75/Q/'LYO v. Thomson Reuters
`C0rpam!‘i0n er al. (I29,
`6:l0—oV—247 (ND. Texas
`
`Pending
`
`4
`
`Pending
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`13 Realrinze .Data, LLC d/I;/a IXO v. Morgan Stanley, at
`l al. (ILL No. 6:l0~ov~248 (ND. Texas filed May 11,
`2010)
`
`
`
`Agggeal Brief Summarwi
`
`The following related three cases are currently on appeal to the Board.
`
`
`
`‘
`
`
`
`
`
` Referencel
`
`
`Reexam # 9Si000,4‘7'9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ra£;§§E;EE£§“§é%‘§§?€iiii§:464
`Pat. No. 7,161,506
`Pat. No. 5,524,751
`
`/Claims
`285S.00Z?;REX3
`zssseezagezxz
`
`
`
`
`
`69, 70, 72, 73, '79, 81,
`
`82, 84 and 85
`
`Franaszek
`
`Reemm at 95?E1?i%E§:?£‘?E%’“"§j
`ms. N9. 7,3?3,992
`Z855.{P€32REX5
`
` 1, 3, 7, 9, i‘i‘?‘i‘§‘;”i"ég
`20, 21, 25, 28 and 32
`
`
`
`(RAN 37;?)
`1245,18, 20, 21 and
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`_“(RAN 173
`1—5, 3, 9? 11, 17,21»
`23, 43, 69, 72, 733 79
`and 31
`
`
`
`_ (RAN £36)
`
`(RAN fifi)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`g
`17 and 21
`
`{RAN *;:’9)
`17 and 21
`‘Park in View of
`
`Whiting
`
`
`
`DELL |NC., EMC CORP., HPE CO., HPES, LLC
`
`|PR2017-OO176- Ex. 1008, p. 7 of 53
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`DELL INC., EMC CORP., HPE CO., HPES, LLC
`IPR2017-00176- Ex. 1008, p. 7 of 53
`
`

`
`- 8 —
`
`Reexarn ofU.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`Reé3E;Ii}i‘}i?9‘§7ii‘0‘0’,Zi7“2;""‘
`Pat. No. 7,378,992
`2855.002REX5
`
`“i‘iEié‘i32§fiZ}7‘“"N‘N“““““§“ii2Z3Z§I§i”§é}'"95/000,464 Reexam # 95/000,479
`Pat. No. 6,624,761
`Pat. No. 7,161,506
`/Claims 2855.002REX2
`2855.002REX3
`
`
`
`’“s“‘e“fE§{{’s“§i”i}I view of
`17 and 21
`Whiting
`
`20
` Sebastian in View ‘
`of Franaszek or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Reynar
`Sebastian in View
`
`
`
`
`
`(RAN $9}
`82
`
`of MacLean
`
`
`Sebastian in View
`
`of Kawashima
`
`French
`
`(RAN fil0)
`5 70, 71, 84-90, 96 and
`98
`
`33 and 36
`
`(RAN $11}
`
`\
`
`‘fil2)
`53 and 36
`
`§
`‘
`
`(RAN
`10, 19, 27 and 29”
`
`
`
`W
`ofMontville or
`
`
`
`(RAN ‘J10)
`Rao
`
`27
`Sebastian in View
`
`of Montville or
`
`
`Rao
`(RAN {[1 1)
`
`
`Franaszek in View
`
`I
`
`I
`
`III.
`
`Status of Claims
`
`Claims 1-9, 11, 16, 17, 20-23, 27, 39, 41-43, 69-73, 79, 81, 82, 84-90, 96 and 98 of the
`
`‘506 patent are currently pending and subject to reexamination. Claims 1, 69 and 86 are
`
`independent claims. The Examiner found claims 6, 7, 16, 41 and 42 to be patentable.1 Claims 1-
`
`5, 8, 9, 11, 17, 20-23, 27, 39, 43, 69-73, 79, 81, 82, 84-90, 96 and 98 currently stand rejected.
`
`1 Though entitled to do so, Third Party Requester did not cross-appeal Examiner’s finding
`of patentability of these claims.
`
`DELL |NC., EMC CORP., HPE CO., HPES, LLC
`
`|PR2017-OO176- Ex. 1008, p. 8 of 53
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Reynar
`Sebastian in View
`
`of CCITT V.42 or
`
`
`(RAN T18}
`27 and 39
`
`
`
`DELL INC., EMC CORP., HPE CO., HPES, LLC
`IPR2017-00176- Ex. 1008, p. 8 of 53
`
`

`
`- 9 -
`
`Reexam ofU.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`Patent Owner appeals all of the rejections ofeach of claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 17, 20-23, 2.7, 39, 43,
`
`69-73, 79, 81, 82, 84-90, 96 and 98.
`
`IV.—
`
`Smtzss’ ojfirnendnzents
`
`Fatent Qwner has not filed. any aniendmerits to the claims or the specificaticon.
`
`V.
`
`Summary of Claimed Subject Matter
`
`A.
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`Claim 1 is directed towards a method of data for compressing data based on an analysis
`
`of data blocks including content independent data compression and content dependent data
`
`compression.
`
`If a data type of the data block is identified then content dependent data
`
`compression is performed. If the data type is not identified then data compression with a single
`
`data compression encoder is performed. Support for claim 1
`
`in the specification of the ‘506
`
`patent is listed in the following table. However, every instance where the claim term, element, or
`
`limitation is described in the specification is not listed, as such citation is not required and would
`
`be inefficient. These exemplary citations are not an admission or disclaimer of patent scope.
`
`A method for compressing data, comprising the steps of:
`
`4 21:15-26; 24:21
`
`Abstract; 3:49-61;
`18:15-18; 21:11-14;
`24:3-8; Figure 14A-D,
`#1400-#1448; Figures
`3 16A-D, #1600-#1648;
`3 Figures 18A-D, #1800-
`, #1850
`analyzing a data block of an input a sentify one or more Abstract; 18:21-34;
`data types of the data block,
`
`DELL |NC., EMC CORP., HPE CO., HPES, LLC
`
`|PR2017-OO176- Ex. 1008, p. 9 of 53
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`DELL INC., EMC CORP., HPE CO., HPES, LLC
`IPR2017-00176- Ex. 1008, p. 9 of 53
`
`

`
`- 10 -
`
`Reexam ofU.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`the input data stream comprising a pluralit larate data types;
`
`Abstract; 18:21-34;
`.............................. 131595; 2419-21
`
`performing content dependent data compression; if a data type of the
`18:29-42; 22:24-29;
`
`data block is identified;
`25:22-28 ______________________ __
`
`th a single data compression encoder, ' 18:34-39; 21:25-28;
`
`
`
`if a data type of the data block is not identified.
`W 24:21-24
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Independent Claim 69
`
`Claim 69 is directed towards a method of data compression including receiving an
`
`uncompressed data block and analyzing the data block to determine a data type of the data block.
`
`If an encoder is associated with the type of identified data then that encoder is used, if the
`
`encoder is not associated with the type of data, then a different encoder is used. Support for
`
`claim 69 in the specification of the ‘506 patent is listed in the following table. However, every
`
`instance where the claim term, element, or limitation is described in the specification is not
`
`listed, as such citation is not required and would be inefficient. These exemplary citations are
`
`not an admission or disclaimer of patent scope.
`
`
`
`A meth
`
`
`
`:3 comprising:
`
`
`
`6:58-59; 14:54-57;
`
`15:28-30; 16:9-11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Abstract; 3:49-61;
`18:15-18; 21:11-14;
`24:3-8; Figure 14A-D,
`
`
`#1400-#1448; Figures
`16A-D, #1600-#1648;
`
`
`Figures 18A-D, #1800-
`#1850
`said data block
`3 receiving a data bloc in
`
`
`.........................................
`being included in 3 data Stream?
`
`analyzing said data block to determine a type of said data block; and
`
`Abstract; 18:21-34;
`21315-253 29' ............... ..
`0 provide a "compressed data block,
`1
`18:29-42; 22:24-29;
`25:22-28
`. wherein if one or more encoders are associated t__........... M
`
`
`compressing said data block with at least one of said one or more i
`18:29-42; 22:24-29;
`
`25:22-28
`‘ encoders,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DELL |NC., EMC CORP., HPE CO., HPES, LLC
`
`|PR2017-00176- Ex. 1008, p. 10 of 53
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`DELL INC., EMC CORP., HPE CO., HPES, LLC
`IPR2017-00176- Ex. 1008, p. 10 of 53
`
`

`
`- ll -
`
`Reexam ofU.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`§24a21—24
`data block with a data compression encoder.
`1 11834-39; 21 125438;
`
`C.
`
`Independent Claim 86
`
`Claim 86 is directed towards a method of data compression including receiving a data
`
`block and determining, based on analysis of the data, whether to output the data block in
`
`received form or a compressed form. Support for claim 86 in the specification of the ‘S06 patent
`
`is listed in the following table. However, every instance where the claim term, element, or
`
`limitation is described in the specification is not listed, as such citation is not required and would
`
`be inefficient. These exemplary citations are not an admission or disclaimer of patent scope.
`
`l
`
`A method comprising:
`
`i Abstract; ; .49~6l;
`5 l8:15~i8; 21:11-E4;
`24:3~8; Figure 14A—D,
`tir'l4G0-#1443; Figures
`, 16.455), #l6()i3-#1648;
`Figures iSA—D, #l800~
`...........................................................................,3ti$50
`receiving a data block, wherein said data black is included in a data
`5
`___________________________-
`determining whether to output said data bioek in received form or in a Figure 1%, til 28-#140;
`conipressed form; and
`Figure 12, #1206~#l2i4;
`. 14:8-11
`Figure 1%, #132 and
`#140; Figure 12., #1208
`and #1214; 18:29-42;
`22:24~29; 25:22~2$‘,
`18:34-39; 21:25-23;
`24-:’.."3l~24
`
`outputting said data block in received form or said compressed form
`based on said determination, wherein outputting said data biock in
`said compressed third comprises determining whether‘ to compress
`said data block with content dependent data. compression based on the
`type of said data block or to compress said data block with a si.ngie
`data cenipression encoder.
`
`DELL |NC., EMC CORP., HPE CO., HPES, LLC
`
`|PR2017-00176- Ex. 1008, p. 11 of 53
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`DELL INC., EMC CORP., HPE CO., HPES, LLC
`IPR2017-00176- Ex. 1008, p. 11 of 53
`
`

`
`- 12 -
`
`Reexam of U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`VI
`
`Issues to Be Reviewed on Appeal
`
`Six grounds of rejection remain in this reexamination proceeding.
`
`A.
`
`Ground 1 — Anticipation by US. Patent No. 6,253,264 to Sebastian
`(“Sebastian ”)
`
`Whether claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 17, 21-23, 43, 69, 72, 73, 79 and 81 were rejected properly
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Sebastian.
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2 — Anticipation by US. Patent No. 5,870,036 to Franaszek
`(“Franaszek ”)
`
`Whether claims 69, 70, 72, 73, 79, 81, 82, 84 and 85 were rejected properly under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Franaszek.
`
`C,
`
`Ground 3 — Obviousness Over Sebastian in view of Franaszek or US. Patent
`No. 5,951,623 to Reynar (“Reynar”)
`
`Whether claim 20 was rejected properly under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvéous over
`
`Sebastian in View of Franaszek or Reynar.
`
`5.
`
`Ground 4 — Obviousness Over Sebastian in view of “Data Compression
`Procedures for Data Circuit Terminating Equipment Using Error Correction
`Procedures,” CCITT Recommendation V.42 bis, 1990, (“CCITT V.42 bis”) or
`
`Reynar
`
`Whether claims 27 and 39 were rejected properly under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvéous
`
`over Sebastian in View of CCITT V.42 bis or Reynar.
`
`E,
`
`Ground 5 — Obviousness Over Sebastian in view of (LS. Patent No. 5,167,034 to
`MacLean (“MacLean”)
`
`Whether claim 82 was rejected properly under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
`
`Sebastian in View of MacLean.
`
`DELL |NC., EMC CORP., HPE CO., HPES, LLC
`
`|PR2017-00176- Ex. 1008, p. 12 of 53
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`DELL INC., EMC CORP., HPE CO., HPES, LLC
`IPR2017-00176- Ex. 1008, p. 12 of 53
`
`

`
`- 13 -
`
`Reexam of U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`F.
`
`Ground 6 — Obviousness Over Sebastian in view of International Application
`W0 95/2943 7 to Kawashima (“Kawashima ”)
`
`Whether claims 70, 71, 84-90, 96 and 98 was rejected properly under 35 U.S.C. § l03(a)
`
`as obvious over Sebastian in view of Kawashima.
`
`VII. Argument
`
`A.
`
`Standard ofReview
`
`The Examiner determines patentability “on the totality of the record, by a preponderance
`
`of the evidence.” Ex parte Frye, Appeal No. 2009-6013, at *8-9 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 26, 2010)
`
`(precedential opinion). The Board reviews the Examiner’s rejections “for error based upon the
`
`issues identified by appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon.” Id.
`
`Further, the Board “reviews particular finding(s) contested by an appellant anew in light of all
`
`the evidence and argument on that issue.” Id. at *10. The Office bears the burden of showing
`
`that the claims are unpatentable. See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
`
`Therefore, the Examiner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the rejected
`
`claims in the ‘506 patent are unpatentable over the cited art. Because the preponderance of the
`
`evidence favors Patent Owner’s positions, the rejections should be reversed and the challenged
`
`claims confirmed.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the Reexamination before the Central Reexamination Unit
`
`Requester set forth six alleged substantial new questions of patentability (“SNQS”) over
`
`eight references on May 28, 2009. Commensurate with the alleged SNQs, Requester proposed
`
`the following rej ections:
`
`DELL |NC., EMC CORP., HPE CO., HPES, LLC
`
`|PR2017-00176- Ex. 1008, p. 13 of 53
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`DELL INC., EMC CORP., HPE CO., HPES, LLC
`IPR2017-00176- Ex. 1008, p. 13 of 53
`
`

`
`— 14 -
`
`Reexam ofU.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`1.
`
`Proposed rejections based on LBX (Low Bandwidth X Extension,
`Protocol Version 1.0, X Consortium Standard)
`
`Claims 1, 2, 5,9, 11, 17, 20, 23, 69, 72, 73, 79, 81, 86, 89, 90, 96 and 98 are
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by LBX.
`Claims 1, 69 and 86 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
`over LBX in View of Realtime’s admissions.
`
`Claims 3 and 4 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § l03(a) as being obvious over
`LBX in View of Kawashima.
`
`Claims 9, 8l,and 98 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
`over LBX in View of:
`
`o LBX, or
`
`0 Images.
`Claim 16 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being obvious over LBX in
`View of:
`
`0 Images, or
`o O’Brian, or
`0 Craft.
`
`Claim 20 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being obvious over LBX in
`view of CCITT V.42 bis.
`
`Claim 21 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over LBX in
`View of:
`
`o Futato, or
`o Aakre.
`
`Claims 27, 39, 70, 71, 84, 85, 87 and 88 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) as being obvious over LBX in View of:
`o Kawashima, or
`
`0 French, or
`o CCITT V.42 bis.
`
`Claim 73 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § l03(a) as being obvious over LBX in
`View of:
`
`o Kawashima, or
`0 French.
`
`.2.
`
`Proposed rejections based on French
`
`Claims 69-73, 79, 81, 84-88, 90, 96 and 98 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`by French.
`Claims 69 and 86 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
`over French in View of Realtime’s admissions.
`
`3.
`
`Proposed rejections based on Sebastian
`
`Claims 1 and 69 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Sebastian.
`
`DELL |NC., EMC CORP., HPE CO., HPES, LLC
`
`|PR2017-00176- Ex. 1008, p. 14 of 53
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`DELL INC., EMC CORP., HPE CO., HPES, LLC
`IPR2017-00176- Ex. 1008, p. 14 of 53
`
`

`
`- 15 -
`
`Reexam ofU.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`Claims 1 and 69 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 1 03(a) as being obvious over
`Sebastian in View of Realtime’s admissions.
`
`Claims 2-6, 8-9, 11, 17, 21-23, 41-43, 72-73, 79 and 81 are anticipated under 35
`U.S.C. § 102 by Sebastian.
`
`Claim 16 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Sebastian in View of:
`o O’Brien ‘998, or
`
`0 Craft or ITU T81, or
`o ITU T263.
`
`Claim 20 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Sebastian in View of:
`o Franaszek, or
`
`o Reynar.
`Claims 27 and 39 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Sebastian in View
`of:
`
`o CCITT V.42 bis, or
`
`o Reynar.
`
`Claims 70, 71, 84-90, 96 and 98 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by
`Sebastian in View of:
`
`o CCITT V.42 bis, or
`o Kawashima.
`
`Claim 82 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Sebastian in View of
`McLean.
`
`Claim 86 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Sebastian in View of:
`o CCITT V.42 bis, or
`o Kawashima, further in View of Rea1time’s admissions.
`
`4.
`
`Proposed rejections based on Franaszek
`
`Claims 1, 69 and 86 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Franaszek.
`Claims 1, 69 and 86 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
`over Franaszek in View of Rea1time’s admissions.
`
`Claims 2-7, 17, 20, 23, 27, 39, 41-43, 70-73, 79, 81, 82, 84-85, 87, 90, 96 and 98
`are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Franaszek.
`Claims 21 and 22 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Franaszek in View
`of:
`
`o Futato, or
`o Aakre.
`
`Claims 8 and 16 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Franaszek in View
`of:
`
`OOOO
`
`ITUH.263, or
`
`ITU T.81, or
`
`O’Brien ‘946, or
`Craft.
`
`DELL |NC., EMC CORP., HPE CO., HPES, LLC
`
`|PR2017-00176- Ex. 1008, p. 15 of 53
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2855.002REX3
`
`DELL INC., EMC CORP., HPE CO., HPES, LLC
`IPR2017-00176- Ex. 1008, p. 15 of 53
`
`

`
`- 16 -
`
`Reexam ofU.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`
`Control No. 95/000,479
`
`5.
`
`Proposed rejections based on Lafe
`
`Claims 1, 69 and 86 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Lafe.
`Claims 1, 69 and 86 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 1 03(a) as being obvious
`over Lafe in View of Rea1time’s admissions.
`
`Claims 2, 5-6, 8-9, 11, 16-17, 20-23, 72-73, 79, 81, 89-90, 96 and 98 are
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Lafe.
`Claims 3 and 4 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) by Lafe in View of ITU
`T.81.
`
`Claims 7 and 41-43 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Lafe in View of:
`o Reynar, or
`o Wernikoff, or
`
`o Cellier, or
`o Franaszek.
`
`Claims 20 and 87 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Lafe in View of
`Kawashima.
`
`Claims 21 and 22 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Lafe in View of:
`o Futato, or
`o Aakre.
`
`Claims 27, 39, 70, 84, 85 and 88 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by
`Lafe in View of:
`
`o CCITT V.42 bis, or
`o Kawashima.
`
`0 Claim 71 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Lafe in View of
`CCITT V.42 bis.
`
`Claim 71 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Lafe in View of CCITT
`V.42 bis.
`
`Claim 82 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Lafe in View of:
`o Simpson ACM, or
`Parallel Lossless ICBN, or
`
`OOOO
`
`Dye, or
`McLean, or
`ITU H.263.
`
`6.
`
`Proposed rejections based on Reynar
`
`Claims 1, 69 and 86 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Reynar.
`Claims 1, 69 and 86 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
`over Reynar in View of Realtime’s admissions.
`Claims 2-7, 9, 11, 17, 21, 23, 27, 39, 41-42, 72-73, 79, 81, 82, 89-90 and 98 are
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Reynar.
`C