UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`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: IPR2017-00179
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,054,728
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ............................................... 3
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................ 3
`B.
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ..................................... 3
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .................. 4
`D.
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ............................... 4
`III. THE ’728 PATENT ......................................................................................... 5
`IV.
`IDENTIFICATION OF THE CHALLENGE AND SUMMARY OF
`THE PRIOR ART RENDERING THE CLAIMS UNPATENTABLE .......... 6
`A.
`Identification of the Challenge .............................................................. 6
`B.
`Franaszek Teaches Nearly All Aspects of the Challenged
`Claims .................................................................................................... 7
`Hsu Teaches A Data Compression System that Examines Data
`Within the Block Itself To Select An Encoder...................................... 8
`D. Aakre’s Teaches the Benefits of Real-Time Compression and
`How to Achieve It ............................................................................... 10
`Sebastian Teaches a Data Compression System with a Single
`Data Compression Encoder ................................................................. 11
`PETITIONER HAS STANDING TO BRING THIS PROCEEDING ......... 12
`V.
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100(B),
`42.104(B)(3) .................................................................................................. 12
`A.
`“the data block being included in one or more data blocks”
`(claims 2 and 3) ................................................................................... 13
`VII. DETAILED EXPLANATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) .................. 14
`A.
`The Grounds for Trial Are Based on Prior Art Patents and
`Printed Publications ............................................................................. 14
`1.
`The Effective Filing Date of the Claimed Subject Matter
`Is No Earlier Than October 29, 2001 ........................................ 14
`Franaszek is a Prior Art Patent.................................................. 15
`
`C.
`
`E.
`
`2.
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`B.
`C.
`
`3.
`Hsu is a Prior Art Printed Publication ...................................... 15
`Aakre is a Prior Art Patent ........................................................ 16
`4.
`Sebastian is a Prior Art Patent .................................................. 17
`5.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 17
`Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 9, 10, 15, 20, and 24 Would Have Been
`Obvious Under § 103(a) Over Franaszek in View of Hsu, or in
`the Alternative, Franaszek in View of Hsu and Further in View
`of Sebastian ......................................................................................... 17
`1.
`Claim 1 Would Have Been Obvious Over Franaszek in
`View of Hsu or, in the Alternative Franaszek in View of
`Hsu and Sebastian ..................................................................... 18
`Claims 2 and 3 Would Have Been Obvious Over
`Franaszek in View of Hsu, Or, In the Alternative Over
`Franaszek in View of Hsu and Sebastian .................................. 41
`Claims 9 and 10 Would Have Been Obvious Over
`Franaszek in View of Hsu, Or, In the Alternative Over
`Franaszek In View Of Hsu and Sebastian ................................ 45
`Claim 15 Would Have Been Obvious Over Franaszek in
`View of Hsu, Or, In the Alternative Franaszek in View of
`Hsu and Sebastian ..................................................................... 47
`Claim 20 Would Have Been Obvious Over Franaszek in
`View of Hsu, Or, In the Alternative Franaszek In View of
`Hsu and Sebastian ..................................................................... 48
`Claim 24 Would Have Been Obvious Over Franaszek in
`View of Hsu, Or, In the Alternative Over Franaszek in
`View of Hsu and Sebastian ....................................................... 49
`D. Ground 2: Claims 4-8 Would Have Been Obvious Under §
`103(a) Over Franaszek in View of Hsu and Further In View of
`Aakre, Or in the Alternative, Over Franaszek in view of Hsu
`and Sebastian and Further in view of Aakre ....................................... 57
`1.
`Claim 4: “wherein the compressing, is performed in real-
`time.” ......................................................................................... 57
`Claims 5 and 6: “wherein the content dependent data
`compression with the one or more content dependent data
`compression encoders is performed in real-time” (claim
`
`6.
`
`2.
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`3.
`
`5) and “wherein the data compression with the single
`data compression encoder is performed in real-time” .............. 59
`Claims 7 and 8: “wherein the compressing is performed
`in real-time if the parameter or attribute of the data in the
`data block is not identified” (claim 7) and “wherein the
`compressing is performed in real-time if the one or more
`parameters or attributes of the data in the data block is
`identified” .................................................................................. 60
`VIII. PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................. 61
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 61
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`’728 Patent
`
`Abst.
`
`OA
`
`NIRC
`
`NOA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728
`
`Abstract
`
`Office Action
`
`Notice of Intent to Issue
`Reexamination Certificate
`
`Notice of Allowance
`
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`EX. NO.
`
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION
`
`1001
`
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728
`
`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)
`
`iv
`
`

`
`
`
`EX. NO.
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION
`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.
`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. 7,161, 506 (“the ’506 patent” or “the
`parent ’506 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
`
`v
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`EX. NO.
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION
`U.S. Patent No. 4,956,808 to Aakre et al. (“Aakre”)
`Notice of Allowance in U.S. Patent Application No.
`14/495,574 (Feb. 23, 2015)
`Amendment in U.S. Patent Application No. 10/668,768
`(Aug. 25, 2004)
`Decision to Institute Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 7,378,992 (IPR2016-00373), Paper No. 7 (Jun. 27,
`2016)
`Decision to Institute Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,643,513 (IPR2016-00374) Paper No. 7 (Jun. 27,
`2016)
`Declaration of Mr. Scott Bennett and Attachments 1a-h
`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”)
`
`vi
`
`

`
`
`
`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 1-10, 15, 20, and 24 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728. 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 ’728 patent is part of an extensive patent family having members that
`
`have seen cancellations of scores of their claims through inter partes reexamination
`
`and 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 ’728 patent are
`
`likewise unpatentable because they merely recite obvious variants of prior art
`
`systems.
`
`Each of the challenged claims recite a system that determines whether to
`
`compress a data block using an encoder, where the choice of the encoder depends
`
`on whether some parameter or attribute of the data block is identified. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1001, 26:29-48, 28:12-30. The key to allowance of the challenged claims was first
`
`injected during prosecution of a reexamination of the parent ’506 patent. During
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`that reexamination, the Patent Owner added to certain claims a limitation requiring
`
`that the identification of parameters or attributes of the data block “excludes
`
`analyzing based solely on a descriptor that is indicative of one or more parameters
`
`or attributes of the data within the data block.” Id., 26:38-41, 28:21-23 (emphasis
`
`added);1 Ex. 1022, 2-3, ¶ 4 (’728 patent NOA); Ex. 1006, 3 (NIRC in 95/001,926).
`
`While the patent examiner believed that this feature was nowhere to be found in the
`
`prior art, it was in the prior art.
`
` For starters, U.S. Patent No. 5,807,036 to Franaszek describes a data
`
`encoding system 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
`
`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 “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.
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise noted, emphasis has been added to quotations in this Petition.
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`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 parameter or
`
`attribute 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, p.1104. Hsu’s system also calculates three “redundancy
`
`metrics” that characterize data redundancy within each data block. See Ex. 1005,
`
`p.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 ’728 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)
`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 ’728 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-
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`00089. Patent Owner has also asserted the ’728 patent 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 ’728 patent. The ’728 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 parent to the ’728 patent—the ’506 patent—is the
`
`subject of a concurrently filed Petition for Inter Partes Review IPR2017-00176.
`
`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).
`
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`D.
`Petitioners consent to service by email on the following email addresses:
`
`IPR2017-00179@winston.com; garth.winn@klarquist.com.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`III. THE ’728 PATENT
`A system of ’728 patent compresses data “using a combination of content
`
`dependent data compression and content independent data compression.” Ex. 1001,
`
`15:60-63. 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., 15:63-16:3. Figures 13a and 13b show
`
`examples of a data compression system that includes both “content independent data
`
`compression” and “content dependent data compression.” Id., 15:63-16:3.
`
`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
`
`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., 16:22-28. “Each data
`
`block that is recognized by the content data compression module 1300 is routed to a
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`content dependent encoder module 1320, if not the data is routed to the content
`
`independent encoder module 30.” Id., 16:31-34.
`
`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., 16:50-57. 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., 16:57-62. “Since a multitude of
`
`data types may be present within a given input data block,” the ’728 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., 20:30-36. Thus, “if the data type is not recognized the default
`
`content independent lossless compression is applied.” Id., 20:37-39.
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF THE CHALLENGE AND SUMMARY OF
`THE PRIOR ART RENDERING THE CLAIMS UNPATENTABLE
`A.
`Claims 1-10, 15, 20, and 24 of the ’728 patent should be canceled in view of
`
`Identification of the Challenge
`
`the following prior art references: (1) U.S. Patent No. 5,870,036 to Franaszek
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`(“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); U.S. Patent No. 4,956,808 to
`
`Aakre (“Aakre”) (Ex. 1021); 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 grounds for trial:
`
`• Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 15, 20, and 24 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; and
`
`• Ground 2: Claims 4-8 would have been obvious over Franaszek in view
`
`of Hsu and further in view of Aakre, or in the alternative, over Franaszek
`
`in view of Hsu and Sebastian and further in view of Aakre.
`
`Franaszek Teaches Nearly All Aspects of the Challenged Claims
`
`B.
`Franaszek’s system compresses data blocks by first determining whether the
`
`data type for a block is known; if it is, Franaszek’s system applies an encoder tailored
`
`to the data type of the data block, and if it is not Franaszek’s system applies a default
`
`encoder to encode the data block. Ex. 1004, 5:49-54, 6:1-11; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 58-62.
`
`Regardless of whether Franaszek’s system recognizes the data block type,
`
`representative samples of each block are tested to select an optimal encoder for the
`
`block. Ex. 1004, 5:19-44; 6:7-50. “[I]f a data type is available,” id., 6:1-6,
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`Franaszek’s system applies 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 system 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]
`
`blocks […], each containing a potentially different type of data and thus best
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`compressed using different algorithms.” Id., p.1102. Hsu’s system 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, ¶¶ 66-67. 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,
`
`¶¶ 66-67 (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, ¶ 67. By analyzing the middle
`
`and last 512 bytes of a data block (in addition to the first 512 bytes), the system
`
`provides a “better indication” of the “data type” of the data within the block by
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`“taking into account the possibility that the properties may change” somewhere
`
`within the data block. See Ex. 1005, p.1104; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 66-67.
`
`D. Aakre’s Teaches the Benefits of Real-Time Compression and How
`to Achieve It
`
`Certain challenged claims (claims 4-8) require data compression to be
`
`performed in “real-time.” This too was old.
`
`Aakre describes a “real time data transformation and transmission apparatus”
`
`that is used to transfer data from one memory device to another memory device. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1021, Abst.; 1:10-13, 1:54-65; FIG. 1. Aakre’s system is depicted in Figure
`
`1, reproduced below.
`
`
`
`“[A] data transformation means 16 (also referred to as data compressor 16) which
`
`transforms data as by compression . . .” is coupled to a first memory device by line
`
`14. Ex. 1021, 3:31-36. “Data compressor 16 provides the compressed data to a
`
`buffer along a line 20,” and the buffer “provides compressed data to a second data
`
`medium 24 on a line 26.” Id., 3:44-50.
`
`
`
`Aakre explains:
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`The present invention has the advantage of compressing data in real
`time as defined by the tape device requirements for data. This permits
`the data to be compressed to its limit in accordance with the selected
`compression technique and be written to tape as fast as the tape accepts
`the data. . . . Because the compression and writing to tape are
`overlapped a desired amount as a function of the predetermined size of
`the blocks of data, the tape operates in a continuous or streaming mode
`thus reducing the time required for the save operation.
`
`Ex. 1021, 3:6-17. This is achieved by the controller. The controller 28 “is coupled
`
`between compressor 16 by a line 30 and buffer 18 by a line 32.” Id., 3:62-64.
`
`Once a block has been compressed and written to the buffer, the controller initiates
`
`the writing of the block to the second data medium, and it will control the
`
`compressor to compress the next block of data while the first block is being
`
`transferred to the second data medium. See Ex. 1021, 3:62-4:10.
`
`E.
`
`Sebastian Teaches a Data Compression System with a Single Data
`Compression Encoder
`
`Sebastian’s preferred compression system uses 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.,
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`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 ’728 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 ’728 patent was first asserted in a Complaint
`
`served on Dell on March 29, 2016 and on EMC on March 30, 2016 and 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,
`
`unless noted herein, all terms have their broadest reasonable interpretation read in
`
`light of the ’728 patent, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`A.
`
`“the data block being included in one or more data blocks”
`(claims 2 and 3)
`
`Dependent claims 2 and 3 recite that “the data block” is “included in one or
`
`more data blocks transmitted in sequence originating from an external source.”2 Ex.
`
`1001 at 26:49-56. Looking at the language of the claim in isolation the phrase
`
`“included in one or more data blocks” suggests that the data block referred to in
`
`claim 1 is contained within “one or more” other “data blocks.” That interpretation
`
`is inconsistent with the written description of the ’728 patent.
`
`Instead, the phrase “the data block being included in one or more data blocks”
`
`should be given a broadest reasonable interpretation of “the data block” is “included
`
`among a group of one or more data blocks” since that meaning aligns with the written
`
`description of the ’728 patent. See Ex. 1001, 11:6-10 (“A data stream comprising
`
`one or more data blocks is input into the data compression system and the first data
`
`
`2 It is unclear based on the ’728 patent how “one data block” could be transmitted
`
`in “sequence” as required by this claim or how “the data block” can be “in one . . .
`
`data block[]”. Yet, even if a claim is indefinite, it may be held obvious under §
`
`103(a) because the obviousness inquiry evaluates whether a claim’s scope
`
`encompasses that which was obvious—not whether the full reach of the claim is
`
`reasonably certain. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419-20
`
`(2007).
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`block in the data stream is received . . . and its size is determined . . . .”); 12:5-16
`
`(explaining that “a determination is made as to whether the input data stream
`
`contains additional data blocks,” and “[o]nce the final input data block is processed
`
`. . . data compression of the input data stream is complete”), 13:11-17, 18:13-15,
`
`22:51-59, 26:2-12.
`
`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.2. As the Office already concluded, 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
`
`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.
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`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 at p.2 (Related U.S. Application
`
`Data); id., 1:7-29. 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 have obtained a copy of Hsu before
`
`the § 102(b) bar date, id., ¶ 9. Not only do 598 libraries hold a copy of Hsu, id. ¶ 23
`
`(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
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`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
`