`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`DELL INC., EMC CORPORATION, HEWLETT-PACKARD
`ENTERPRISE CO., AND HP ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC d/b/a IXO
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2017-00176
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,161,506
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313–1450
`Submitted Electronically via the Patent Review Processing System
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`D.
`
`V.
`VI.
`VII.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1
`MANDATORY NOTICES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .................................... 3
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................ 3
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ..................................... 4
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .................. 4
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ............................... 5
`The ’506 Patent ..................................................................................... 5
`III.
`Identification of the challenge and summary of the prior art rendering
`IV.
`the claims unpatentable .............................................................................................. 7
`A.
`Identification of the Challenge .............................................................. 7
`B.
`Franaszek Teaches Nearly All Aspects of the Challenged Claims ....... 7
`C.
`Hsu Teaches A Data Compression System that Examines Data Within
`the Block Itself To Select An Encoder .................................................. 8
`Sebastian Teaches a Data Compression System with a Single Data
`Compression Encoder ......................................................................... 10
`petitioner has standing to bring this proceeding ................................. 10
`Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100(b), 42.104(b)(3) ...... 11
`DETAILED EXPLANATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ......... 11
`The Grounds for Trial Are Based on Prior Art Patents and Printed
`Publications ......................................................................................... 11
`1.
`The Effective Filing Date of the Claimed Subject Matter Is No
`Earlier Than October 29, 2001 .................................................. 11
`Franaszek is a Prior Art Patent.................................................. 12
`2.
`Hsu is a Prior Art Printed Publication ...................................... 12
`3.
`Sebastian is a Prior Art Patent .................................................. 13
`4.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 14
`Ground 1: Claims 104 and 105 Would Have Been Obvious Under §
`103(a) Over Franaszek in View of Hsu, or in the Alternative,
`Franaszek in View of Hsu and Sebastian ............................................ 14
`
`D.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`C.
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Claim 104 Would Have Been Obvious Over Franaszek in View
`of Hsu or, in the Alternative, Franaszek in View of Hsu and
`Sebastian ................................................................................... 15
`a. Claim 104, Preamble: “A computer implemented method for
`compressing data” ........................................................................................ 15
`b. Claim 104: “analyzing data within a data block of an input data stream
`to identify one or more data types of the data block, the input data stream
`comprising a plurality of disparate data types” ........................................... 17
`c. Claim 104: “performing content dependent data compression with a
`content dependent data compression encoder if a data type of the data block
`is identified” ................................................................................................. 20
`i.
`Content Dependent Data Compression Encoder ...................... 20
`ii.
`Performing Content Dependent Data Compression with a
`Content Dependent Data Compression Encoder if a Data Type of the
`Data Block is Identified ........................................................................... 23
`d. Claim 104: “performing data compression with a single data
`compression encoder, if a data type of the data block is not identified” ..... 24
`e. Claim 104: “wherein the analyzing of the data within the data block to
`identify one or more data types excludes analyzing based only on a
`descriptor that is indicative of the data type of the data within the data
`block” ........................................................................................................... 31
`i.
`Teachings of the Prior Art ......................................................... 32
`i.
`Reasons a POSITA Would Have Found it Obvious to Analyze
`Something Other Than “Solely” a Descriptor ......................................... 33
`2.
`Claim 105 Would Have Been Obvious Over Franaszek in View
`of Hsu or, in the Alternative, Franaszek in View of Hsu and
`Sebastian ................................................................................... 36
`a. Claim 105, Preamble: “A computer implemented method” ............... 36
`b. Claim 105: “receiving a data block in an uncompressed form, said
`data block being included in a data stream” ................................................ 37
`c. Claim 105: “analyzing data within the data block to determine a type
`of said data block” ....................................................................................... 38
`d. Claim 105: “compressing said data block to provide a compressed
`data block” ................................................................................................... 38
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`e. Claim 105: “wherein if one or more encoders are associated to said
`type, compressing said data block with at least one of said one or more
`encoders, otherwise compressing said data block with a default data
`compression encoder, and” .......................................................................... 39
`f.
`Claim 105: “wherein the analyzing of the data within the data block to
`identify one or more data types excludes analyzing based only on a
`descriptor that is indicative of the data type of the data within the data
`block.” .......................................................................................................... 43
`PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ...................................... 44
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 44
`
`VIII.
`IX.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Abstract
`
`Office Action
`
`Notice of Intent to Issue Reexamination
`Certificate
`
`Reexamination Certificate
`
`’506 Patent
`
`Abst.
`
`OA
`
`NIRC
`
`Cert.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`EX. NO.
`
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION
`
`1001
`
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506
`
`Declaration of Dr. Charles Creusere
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Charles Creusere
`U.S. Patent No. 5,870,036 to Franaszek et al.
`(“Franaszek”)
`W.H. Hsu, et al., Automatic Synthesis of Compression
`Techniques for Heterogeneous Files, Software Practice
`& Experience, Vol. 25, No. 10 pp. 1097-1116 (Oct.
`1995) (“Hsu”)
`Notice of Intent to Issue Reexamination Certificate
`dated Nov. 27, 2013, U.S. Inter Partes Reexamination
`Control No. 95/001,926
`Office Action dated Dec. 15, 2009 in U.S. Inter Partes
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,479
`Appeal Brief dated Apr. 21, 2011 in U.S. Inter Partes
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,479
`MCGRAW-HILL DICTIONARY OF SCIENTIFIC AND
`TECHNICAL TERMS, Fifth Ed. (1993) (excerpts)
`MICROSOFT PRESS COMPUTER DICTIONARY, Third Ed.
`(1997) (excerpts)
`Reply to Office Action in Inter Partes Reexamination
`in Reexamination Control No. 95/000,479 (Mar. 15,
`2010)
`Action Closing Prosecution in Inter Partes
`Reexamination in Reexamination Control No.
`95/000,479 (Aug. 27, 2010)
`Jury Verdict Form in Realtime Data, LLC d/b/a IXO v.
`T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc., No. 6:10-cv-493, Dkt. 660 (E.D.
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EX. NO.
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION
`Tex. Feb. 11, 2013)
`Jury Instructions in Realtime Data, LLC d/b/a IXO v. T-
`Mobile U.S.A., Inc., No. 6:10-cv-493, Dkt. 659 (E.D.
`Tex. Feb. 11, 2013)
`Trial Transcript Vol. 5 from Realtime Data, LLC d/b/a
`IXO v. T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc., No. 6:10-cv-493(E.D.
`Tex. Feb. 8, 2013)
`Order Granting in Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment
`as a Matter of Law as to Invalidity, Realtime Data, LLC
`d/b/a IXO v. T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc., No. 6:10-cv-49,
`Dkt. 662 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 4, 2013)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728 (“the ’728 patent”)
`Memorandum Opinion and Order, Realtime Data, LLC
`d/b/a IXO v. Packeteer, Inc., No. 6:08-cv-144, Dkt. 371
`(E.D. Tex. Jun. 22, 2009)
`Final Judgment, Realtime Data, LLC d/b/a IXO v. T-
`Mobile U.S.A., Inc., No. 6:10-cv-493, Dkt. 664 (E.D.
`Tex. Mar. 28, 2013)
`Decision on Appeal in Blue Coat Systems, Inc. v.
`Realtime Data LLC, Appeal 2012-002371,
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,479
`(Reserved)
`(Reserved)
`Amendment in U.S. Patent Application No. 10/668,768
`(Aug. 25, 2004)
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,378,992
`(IPR2016-00373) (instituted on Jun. 27, 2016)
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,513
`(IPR2016-00374) (instituted on Jun. 27, 2016)
`Declaration of Mr. Scott Bennett and Attachments 1a-h
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`EX. NO.
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION
`William Underwood, Extensions of the UNIX File
`Command and Magic File for File Type Identification,
`Technical Report ITTL/CSITD 09-02, Georgia Tech
`Research Institute (Sept. 2009).
`AT&T UNIX® PC UNIX System V User’s Manual,
`Volume 1 (1986)
`File(1): FreeBSD General Commands Manual (Dec. 8,
`2000)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,253,264 to Sebastian (“Sebastian”)
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Dell Inc., EMC Corporation, Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Co., and HP
`
`Enterprise Services, LLC (collectively “Petitioner”) petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R., Part 42 of claims 104 and 105 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,161,506. As shown herein, Petitioner is reasonably likely to prove these
`
`challenged claims are unpatentable. Accordingly, Petitioner requests that the Board
`
`institute trial and cancel all challenged claims.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’506 patent is part of an extensive patent family having members that
`
`have seen cancellations of scores of their claims through inter partes reexamination,
`
`invalidity rulings by judges and juries. See Exs. 1015, 1016, and 1018-1020.
`
`Certain related patents are also involved in pending inter partes review proceedings.
`
`See, e.g., Exs. 1024-1025. Like many of the other claims challenged by those Patent
`
`Owner has accused of infringement, the challenged claims of the ’506 patent are
`
`likewise unpatentable because they merely recite obvious variants of prior art
`
`systems.
`
`Each of the challenged claims recite a method that determines whether to
`
`compress a data block using an encoder, where the choice of the encoder depends
`
`on whether some data type of the data block is identified or whether an encoder is
`
`associated with some data type of the data block. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 15:66-16:9,
`
`16:29-42, 25:19-38. The claimed embodiments rely on two types of encoders used
`
`1
`
`
`
`in the alternative: (1) a “content dependent data compression encoder[],” and (2) a
`
`“single data compression encoder” or a “default data compression encoder.” Id.,
`
`(Cert.) 2:34-64. Which encoder is used for a particular data block depends on
`
`whether the data type within that data block are identified. If the data type is
`
`identified then a content dependent encoder is used; if not, then the default or single
`
`data compression encoder is used. Id., 15:66-16:9, 16:38-42, 18:13-21. According
`
`to the challenged claims, the identification of the data type of the data block
`
`“excludes analyzing based only on a descriptor that is indicative of the data type of
`
`the data within the data block.” Id., (Cert.) 2:34-64 (emphasis added).1 The
`
`examiner concluded that this feature—injected into the ’506 patent during inter
`
`partes reexamination—was absent from the prior art. See Ex. 1006, 3 (NIRC in
`
`95/001,926). But this feature was in fact present in the prior art.
`
` For starters, U.S. Patent No. 5,807,036 to Franaszek describes a data
`
`encoding system and method that examines a data type field in a data block to
`
`determine if a data type is specified; if so, the system selects an appropriate encoder
`
`from a “Compression Method List” associated with the data type of the data block.
`
`See Ex. 1004, 5:49-54; 6:1-50. If not, a single default encoder is selected from a list
`
`of available default encoders. Id. Franaszek was not alone in its disclosure of a
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise noted, emphasis has been added to quotations in this Petition.
`
`2
`
`
`
`content-dependent and a single encoder used when an encoder specifically tailored
`
`to the data type is not available. For example, U.S. Patent No. 6,253,264 to Sebastian
`
`describes a single “generic” compressor and accompanying method “which achieves
`
`performance similar to other non-specific data compression systems” when the data
`
`type is not paired to a “format-specific compression” algorithm. See Ex. 1030, 1:50-
`
`60.
`
`The very feature that the examiner found to be missing from the prior art—
`
`looking at something other than “solely” a descriptor to identify a data type of the
`
`data block—is found in a publication authored by Hsu, et al. and published in a
`
`widely-circulated technical journal in 1995. Hsu explains that (1) the data type of a
`
`data block is identified by examining “not only the first 512 bytes of a data set, but
`
`also 512 bytes in the middle of the set and the 512 bytes at the end (if they exist).”
`
`Ex. 1005, 1104. Hsu’s system also calculates three “redundancy metrics” that
`
`characterize data redundancy within each data block. See Ex. 1005, 1104-06. Using
`
`the data type and largest redundancy metric, Hsu choses the best encoder for the data
`
`block. Thus, the key aspect of the challenged ’506 patent claims that led to their
`
`allowance was known to those skilled in the art.
`
`Thus, the challenged claims should never have issued in the first place.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`3
`
`
`
`Dell Inc., EMC Corporation, Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Co., and HP
`
`Enterprise Services, LLC are the real-parties-in-interest for the purposes of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`Patent Owner is asserting the ’506 patent in the United States District Court
`
`for the Eastern District of Texas in the following civil actions: 6:16-cv-01037, 6:16-
`
`cv-01035, 6:16-cv-00961, 6:16-cv-00086, 6:16-cv-00087, 6:16-cv-00088, 6:16-cv-
`
`00089, as well as in the Northern District of California in civil action 2:16-cv-02743.
`
`Petitioner understands that two pending applications (i.e., 14/727,309 and
`
`14/936,312) claim the benefit of an earlier filing date through the application that
`
`led to the ’506 patent. The ’506 patent claims the benefit of the filing date of earlier-
`
`filed applications that issued as patents. One of these patents, U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,643,513, is involved in IPR2016-00374 and IPR2016-00978. That patent includes
`
`claims similar to those at issue in this proceeding. Moreover, another patent related
`
`to the ’506 patent—the ’728 patent—is the subject of a concurrently filed Petition
`
`for Inter Partes Review IPR2017-00179.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`Lead Counsel: Andrew R. Sommer (Reg. #53,932). Backup Counsel:
`
`Thomas M. Dunham (Reg. #39,965); Garth A. Winn (Reg. #33,220); Vivek V.
`
`Krishnan (pro hac vice to be filed).
`
`4
`
`
`
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`D.
`Petitioners consent to service by email on the following email addresses:
`
`IPR2017-00176@winston.com; garth.winn@klarquist.com.
`
`III. THE ’506 PATENT
`A system and method of the ’506 patent compresses data “using a combination
`
`of content dependent data compression and content independent data compression.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 15:66-16:2. The “content independent data compression is applied to a
`
`data block when the content of the data block cannot be identified or is not associable
`
`with a specific data compression algorithm.” Id., 16:6-16:9. Figures 13A-13B show
`
`examples of a data compression system that includes both “content independent data
`
`compression” and “content dependent data compression.” Id., 16:2-16:9.
`
`Ex. 1001, FIGS. 13A-13B. A “content dependent data recognition module 1300
`
`analyzes the incoming data stream to recognize data types, data structures, data block
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`formats, file substructures, file types, and/or any other parameters that may
`
`indicative of either the data type/content of a given data block or the appropriate data
`
`compression algorithm or algorithms . . . to be applied.” Id., 16:29-35. “Each data
`
`block that is recognized by the content data compression module 1300 is routed to a
`
`content dependent encoder module 1320, if not the data is routed to the content
`
`independent encoder module 30.” Id., 16:38-42.
`
`The content dependent encoder module “comprises a set of encoders D1, D2,
`
`D3 . . . Dm,” each of which includes then-known encoding techniques. Id., 16:34-
`
`44. “[T]he encoding techniques are selected based upon their ability to effectively
`
`encode different types of input data.” Id., 16:44-46.
`
`The “content independent encoder module 30” includes “a set of encoders E1,
`
`E2, E3 . . . En, and may include . . . [encoding] techniques currently well known
`
`within the art . . . .” Id., 16:58-63. The encoding techniques are selected to
`
`“effectively encode different types of input data” and so that they “provide a broad
`
`coverage of existing and future data types.” Id., 16:66-17:3. “Since a multitude of
`
`data types may be present within a given input data block,” the ’506 patent explains
`
`that “by processing the input data blocks with a plurality of encoding techniques and
`
`comparing the compression results, content free data compression is advantageously
`
`achieved.” Id., 20:43-49. Thus, “if the data type is not recognized the default
`
`content independent lossless compression is applied.” Id., 20:51-52.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF THE CHALLENGE AND SUMMARY OF
`THE PRIOR ART RENDERING THE CLAIMS UNPATENTABLE
`A.
`Claims 104 and 105 of the ’506 patent should be canceled in view of the
`
`Identification of the Challenge
`
`following prior art references: (1) U.S. Patent No. 5,870,036 to Franaszek
`
`(“Franaszek”) (Ex. 1004); (2) W.H. Hsu, et al., Automatic Synthesis of Compression
`
`Techniques for Heterogeneous Files, Software Practice & Experience, Vol. 25, No.
`
`10 pp. 1097-1116 (Oct. 1995) (“Hsu”) (Ex. 1005); and U.S. Patent No. 6,253,264 to
`
`Sebastian (“Sebastian”) (Ex. 1030). All of these references are prior art under pre-
`
`AIA § 102.
`
`Petitioner presents the following ground for trial:
`
`• Ground 1: Claims 104 and 105 would have been obvious under § 103(a)
`
`over Franaszek in view of Hsu, or in the alternative, over Franaszek in
`
`view of Hsu and Sebastian.
`
`Franaszek Teaches Nearly All Aspects of the Challenged Claims
`
`B.
`Franaszek’s method compresses data blocks by first determining whether the
`
`data type for a block is known; if it is, Franaszek’s method includes applying an
`
`encoder tailored to the data type of the data block, and if it is not Franaszek’s method
`
`includes applying a default encoder to encode the data block. Ex. 1004, 5:49-54,
`
`6:1-11; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 57-61. Regardless of whether Franaszek’s method recognizes
`
`the data block type, representative samples of each block are tested to select an
`
`7
`
`
`
`optimal encoder for the block. Ex. 1004, 5:19-44; 6:7-50. “[I]f a data type is
`
`available,” id., 6:1-6, Franaszek’s method includes applying different encoder
`
`algorithms tailored to the data type to identify the optimal encoder based on which
`
`compressed sample is the smallest, id., 5:26-29, and compresses the data block based
`
`on the “best method,” id., 5:33-38. In the event that the data type is unavailable,
`
`Franaszek resorts to (a) sampling data from the block, Ex. 1004, 6:11-32, (b)
`
`compressing the sample using the compression methods found in “a default list of
`
`compression methods,” Ex. 1004, 5:53-54, (c) saving the “compressed sample length
`
`K . . . as an entry CRTT(I) in a compression ratio test table . . . ,” id., 6:22-29, (d)
`
`comparing “the smallest compressed length [in the compression ratio test table, e.g.,
`
`entry CRTT(Q)] . . . against a threshold,” id., 6:34-35, and (e) “if . . . CRTT(Q) is
`
`sufficiently small,” compressing the block “B” using method “M” (and possibly
`
`dictionary “D”) to give compressed block “B’”, id., 6:45-50.
`
`While Franaszek identifies the type of data from a “type field 205,” Ex. 1004,
`
`6:1-2, that was not the only known way to identify information about data blocks in
`
`compression systems.
`
`C. Hsu Teaches A Data Compression System that Examines Data
`Within the Block Itself To Select An Encoder
`
`Hsu’s method compresses “heterogeneous files”—files that contain “multiple
`
`types of data such as text, images, binary, audio, or animation.” Ex. 1005, p.1097.
`
`Hsu’s “heterogeneous compressor treats a file as a collection of fixed size [data]
`
`8
`
`
`
`blocks […], each containing a potentially different type of data and thus best
`
`compressed using different algorithms.” Id., p.1102. Hsu analyzes data within each
`
`block to determine a data type of the block and to choose an appropriate encoder for
`
`compressing that block. Id., p.1097; see also id., p.1103 (“The compressibility of a
`
`block of data and the appropriate algorithm to do so are determined by the type of
`
`data contained in a block . . . .”).
`
`Hsu describes two phases: a pre-compression phase and a compression phase.
`
`Ex. 1005, p.1102. During the pre-compression phase the data type and
`
`compressibility of each data block is determined and an appropriate encoder is
`
`selected based on that determination. Id. To determine the data type of the data in
`
`the block, Hsu uses a procedure called “new-file,” which analyzes the first, middle,
`
`and last 512 bytes of data in the block and compares patterns in the data samples to
`
`a collection of known data patterns. See id., p.1104; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 65-66. The “new-
`
`file” procedure is based on the UNIX “file” procedure—available as part of UNIX
`
`since 1973—which employs a series of tests to try to classify a file. See Ex. 1002, ¶
`
`65 (discussing Exs. 1027, 1028, and 1029 related to the “new-file” command). Each
`
`known pattern is associated with a classification of data and thus the “most
`
`applicable” data type may be selected based on the comparison of the samples to the
`
`known patterns. Ex. 1005, pp.1103-04; Ex. 1002, ¶ 66. By analyzing the middle
`
`and last 512 bytes of a data block (in addition to the first 512 bytes), the system
`
`9
`
`
`
`provides a “better indication” of the “data type” of the data within the block by
`
`“taking into account the possibility that the properties may change” somewhere
`
`within the data block. See Ex. 1005, p.1104; Ex. 1002, ¶ 66.
`
`D.
`
`Sebastian Teaches a Data Compression System with a Single Data
`Compression Encoder
`
`Sebastian’s preferred compression methods use an architecture called a
`
`“Base-Filter-Resource” (BFR) system, which integrates the advantages of data type-
`
`specific compression into a “general-purpose compression tool” for many data types.
`
`See Ex. 1030, 1:45-50 (referring to data “type” as a data “format”). Sebastian’s
`
`system includes different “filters” (encoders) that each support a specific “data
`
`format” (data type), such as for Excel XLS worksheets or Word DOC files. Id.,
`
`1:50-51. If an installed filter “matches the format of the data to be encoded, the
`
`advantages of format-specific compression can be realized for that data.” Id., 1:55-
`
`57. If an installed filter does not match the format of data to be encoded, a single
`
`“generic” filter is used which “achieves performance similar to other non-specific
`
`data compression systems ….” Id., 1:58-60; see also id., 4:9-23.
`
`V.
`
`PETITIONER HAS STANDING TO BRING THIS PROCEEDING
`
`Petitioner certifies that (1) the ’506 patent is available for IPR, (2) none of the
`
`parties constituting Petitioner are the Patent Owner, and (3) and it is not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting this IPR. The ’506 patent was first asserted in a complaint
`
`served on Dell on March 29, 2016 and on EMC on March 30, 2016. The ’506 patent
`
`10
`
`
`
`was first asserted against Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Co. and HP Enterprise
`
`Services, LLC in a complaint served on both companies on March 30, 2016.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100(B),
`42.104(B)(3)
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.100(b), a claim of an unexpired patent is given its
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See Cuozzo Speed
`
`Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131 (2016). For the purposes of this proceeding,
`
`Petitioner submits that no term needs construction. As such, all terms should be
`
`given their broadest reasonable interpretation read in light of the ’506 patent, as
`
`would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`VII. DETAILED EXPLANATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)
`A. The Grounds for Trial Are Based on Prior Art Patents and
`Printed Publications
`
`1.
`
`The Effective Filing Date of the Claimed Subject Matter Is No
`Earlier Than October 29, 2001
`
`The earliest effective filing date of the subject matter of the challenged claims
`
`is October 29, 2001, the filing date of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/016,355. See
`
`Ex. 1001, p.1. As the Office already concluded that the ’355 application added new
`
`matter directed to the combination of a “content independent” and a “content
`
`dependent” data encoder, including new figures 13-18. See Ex. 1007, p.2 (indicating
`
`that certain claims, similar to those at issue in this proceeding “are supported for
`
`purposes of 35 U.S.C. 112 by Figures 13-18 and the additional disclosure that first
`
`11
`
`
`
`appeared in application number 10/016,355”). During that reexamination, the Patent
`
`Owner relied on the new descriptive matter to argue that the claim term “analyzing”
`
`required recognition “from the data itself, the associated data type.” Ex. 1008, p.20-
`
`22.
`
`Franaszek is a Prior Art Patent
`
`2.
`Based on the earliest effective filing date of October 29, 2001, Franaszek is
`
`prior art to the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) since it issued as a patent
`
`on February 9, 1999, more than one year before the effective filing date of the
`
`challenged claims. See Ex. 1004 (cover). Even if Patent Owner could establish an
`
`earlier effective filing date, the earliest possible date it could even attempt to claim
`
`entitlement to is December 11, 1998. See Ex. 1001, p.1 (Related U.S. Application
`
`Data); id., 1:8-15. Even then, however, Franaszek was filed as an application in the
`
`United States on February 24, 1995, making it prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`See Ex. 1004, p.1.
`
`Hsu is a Prior Art Printed Publication
`
`3.
`Hsu was published in a periodical called Software Practice & Experience in
`
`October 1995. As established by the declaration of Dr. Bennett, a skilled researcher,
`
`professor, and librarian, Ex. 1026, ¶¶ 2-6, Hsu was publicly accessible in numerous
`
`places such that a person skilled in the art could obtain a copy of Hsu before the §
`
`102(b) bar date, id., ¶ 9. Not only do 598 libraries hold a copy of Hsu, id. ¶ 23
`
`12
`
`
`
`(demonstrating that it was not some well-kept secret), but it was stamped received
`
`by the DePaul University Library on October 25, 1995, indicating that a copy of the
`
`article had been “mailed to the DePaul University Library and to other subscribers .
`
`. . sometime in October 1995,” id., ¶¶ 27-28 & Attachment 1c. The University of
`
`Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library also regularly received copies of Software
`
`Practice & Experience and stamped them when received. Id., ¶ 30. The volume
`
`including Hsu was stamped received in “October,” but the remainder of the date is
`
`illegible. Id. & Attachment 1f. Each of these dates corroborate Hsu’s public
`
`availability before the § 102(b) bar date. The bound volume includes a sticker
`
`indicating that the various issues were bound in February 1996, id., ¶ 31 &
`
`Attachment 1f. Similar evidence of accessibility was found at the University of
`
`Minnesota Library, see Ex. 1026, ¶ 32 & Attachment 1g, and another copy of Hsu
`
`bearing a date stamp of November 3, 1995 was found in the Illinois Institute of
`
`Technology Library, id. ¶ 33 & Attachment 1h. Thus, Hsu was publicly available
`
`to those skilled in the art by no later than mid-November 1995. Id., ¶ 35. Based on
`
`this publication date, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b).
`
`Sebastian is a Prior Art Patent
`
`4.
`Sebastian was filed in the United States on March 6, 1998 and issued as a
`
`patent on June 26, 2001. See Ex. 1030 at cover. Sebastian is thus prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (e).
`
`13
`
`
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`B.
`When the ’506 patent was filed, a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`relevant to the ’506 patent would have had an undergraduate degree in computer
`
`science, computer engineering, electrical and computer engineering, electrical
`
`engineering, or electronics and two years of experience working with data
`
`compression or a graduate degree focusing in the field of data compression.
`
`Individuals with additional education or additional industrial experience could still
`
`be of ordinary skill in the art if that additional aspect compensates for a deficit in
`
`one of the other aspects of the requirements stated above. See Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 25-27.
`
`In this Petition, reference to a person having ordinary skill in the art or “POSITA”
`
`refers to a person with these qualifications.
`
`C. Ground 1: Claims 104 and 105 Would Have Been Obvious Under
`§ 103(a) Over Franaszek in View of Hsu, or in the Alternative,
`Franaszek in View of Hsu and Sebastian
`
`As we show in further detail below, both Franaszek and Hsu disclose methods
`
`for compressing data blocks in data streams with various types of data in the blocks.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 4:30-34 (data blocks may include “type information” and that
`
`can include “image data” of a particular format or “source code for a given
`
`programming language”), 5:49-53 (discussing “data type” such as “text, image,
`
`etc.”); Ex. 1005, p.1097 (presenting “a compression technique for heterogeneous
`
`files,” i.e., files having “multiple types of data such as text, images, binary, audio,
`
`14
`
`
`
`or animation”). Both references illustrate known solutions for the well-recognized
`
`problem that different types of data (e.g., video, text, audio) are best compressed by
`
`different algorithms. See Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 57-74; Ex. 1004, 5:49-54, 6:1-50 (discussing
`
`use of encoders from CML when data type is identified and encoders from a
`
`“default” list when data type is not identified); Ex. 1005, p.1098. Sebastian also
`
`discloses systems for compressing data blocks using a plurality of encoders based
`
`on data type and, in particular, discloses the use of a single data compression encoder
`
`under any plausible construction of that term. See, e.g., Ex. 1030, 4:30-34 (If the
`
`data to be encoded does not match an installed encoder, or “filter,” then a single
`
`“generic” filter is used which “achieves performance similar to other non-specific
`
`data compression systems . . . .”); see also id., 1:58-60.
`
`A POSITA would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of
`
`Franaszek and Hsu, or in the alternative Franaszek, Hsu, and Sebastian, to arrive at
`
`the subject matter encompassed by claims 104 and 105.
`
`1.
`
`Claim 104 Would Have Been Obvious Over Franaszek in View
`of Hsu or, in the Alternative, Franaszek in View of Hsu and
`Sebastian
`
`a.
`
`Claim 104, Preamble: “A computer implemented method
`for compressing data”
`
`Even if the prea