UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.0 Box 1450
`Alexandna, Virgmia 22313-I450
`WWW.1]SPi.0 gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAM < ) INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`95/001,927
`
`03/02/2012
`
`7415530.
`
`20I32.0005.RX530
`
`3298
`
`26111
`
`7590
`
`05/31/2013
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`I100 NEVV YORK AVENUE, N.VV.
`WASHINGTON, DC 20005
`
`EXAMINER
`
`SAGER- MARK ALAN
`ART UNIT
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`3992
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`05/31/2013
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL—9OA (Rev. 04/07)
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1010
`Page 001
`
`

`
`_
`_
`_
`Transmittal of Communication to
`Third Party Requester
`Inter Partes Reexamination
`
`Control No.
`
`:i§2,Lf,27
`
`MARK SAGER
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
`/73:13:30
`
`3992
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address. --
`
`lj (THIRD PARTY REQUESTER‘S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS) jl
`
`Tracy W. Druce
`2nd Reexam Group - Novak Druce & Quigg LLP
`1000 Louisiana Street,
`Fifty-Third Floor
`Houston, TX 77002
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`in the above—identified reexamination prceeding. 37 CFR 1.903.
`
`Prior to the filing of a Notice of Appeal, each time the patent owner responds to this communication,
`the third party requester of the inter partes reexamination may once file written comments within a
`period of 30 days from the date of service of the patent owner's response. This 30-day time period is
`statutory (35 U.S.C. 314(b)(2)), and, as such, it cannot be extended. See also 37 CFR 1.947.
`
`If an ex parte reexamination has been merged with the inter partes reexamination, no responsive
`submission by any ex parte third party requester is permitted.
`
`All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed to the
`Central Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addresses given at the end of the
`communication enclosed with this transmittal.
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-2070 (Rev. 07-04)
`
`Paper No. 05212013
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1010
`Page 002
`
`

`
`Control No.
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
`Right of Appeal Notice
`
`95/001,927
`Examiner
`MARK SAGER
`
`7415530
`Art Unit
`3992
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address. --
`
`Responsive to the communication(s) filed by:
`Patent Owner on
`
`Third Party(ies) on j
`
`Patent owner and/or third party requester(s) may file a notice of appeal with respect to any adverse decision
`with payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 41 .20(b)(1) within one-month or thirty-days (whichever is
`longer). See MPEP 2671. In addition, a party may file a notice of cross appeal and pay the 37 CFR
`41 .20(b)(1) fee within fourteen days of service of an opposing party's timely filed notice of appeal. See
`MPEP 2672.
`
`All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed to the Central
`Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addresses given at the end of this Office action.
`
`If no party timely files a notice of appeal, prosecution on the merits of this reexamination proceeding will be
`concluded, and the Director of the USPTO will proceed to issue and publish a certificate under 37 CFR 1.997 in
`accordance with this Office action.
`
`The proposed amendment filed
`
`|:I will be entered
`
`|:| will not be entered*
`
`*Reasons for non-entry are given in the body of this notice.
`
`1a. E Claims 1 2 16-21 and 23 are subject to reexamination.
`
`1b. IE Claims 3-15 and 22 are not subject to reexamination.
`2. D Claims j have been cancelled.
`
`. fl Claims 1-2 16-21 and 23 are confirmed. [Unamended patent claims].
`.
`I:| Claims j are patentable. [Amended or new claims].
`.
`|:I Claims j are rejected.
`.
`|:I Claims j are objected to.
`I:| are not acceptable.
`I:I are acceptable.
`.
`I:| The drawings filed on
`. D The drawing correction request filed on j is I:I approved. I:I disapproved.
`. D Acknowledgment is made of the claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 ( )-(d) or (f). The certified copy
`has:
`
`I:I been received.
`10. [I Other
`
`Attachments
`
`I:I not been received.
`
`I:I been filed in Application/Control No.
`
`1. El Notice of References Cited by Examiner, PTO-892
`2.
`|:| Information Disclosure Citation, PTO/SB/08
`3.I:I
`
`U_S_ Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-2066 (08-06)
`
`Right of Appeal Notice (37 CFR 1.953)
`
`Part of Paper No. 05212013
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1010
`Page 003
`
`

`
`Application/Control N umber: 95/001,927
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Reexamination
`
`This reexamination of U.S. Patent 7415530 regarding claims 1-2, 16-21 and 23 continues
`
`where no Patent Owner reply was received prior to the expiring of period to respond. Per
`
`Order, the claims 1-10 are not subject of this reexamination. Thus, lacking evidence to
`
`the contrary, this action reiterates the revised ACP mailed April 3, 2013.
`
`References Cited in Request
`
`Aakre et al., (U.S. Patent No. 4,956,808 (hereinafter Aakre)
`
`Ohkubo et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,593,324 (hereinafter Ohkubo)
`
`Chu et al., U.S. Patent 5,130,430 (hereinafter Chu)
`
`Baker et al., “Lossless Data Compression for Short Duration 3D Frames in Positron
`Emission Tomography”, IEEE, 1994 (hereinafter Baker)
`
`French et al., U.S. Patent 5,794,229 (hereinafter French)
`
`Dye et al., U.S. Patent No. 7,190,284 (hereinafter Dye)
`
`Rejections Proposed in the Request
`
`1.
`
`The following 15 rejections were proposed in the Request:
`
`Issue 1:
`
`Claims 1, 2, 16, 18-21 and 23 are rendered obvious over Aakre in view of
`
`Dye.
`
`Issue 2:
`
`Claim 17 is rendered obvious over Aakre in view of Dye and further in
`
`View of Baker.
`
`Issue 3:
`
`Claims 1. 2, 20, and 21 are rendered obvious over Aakre in view of
`
`French.
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1010
`Page 004
`
`

`
`Application/Control N umber: 95/001,927
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Issue 4:
`
`Claims 16 and 17 are rendered obvious over Aakre in View of French and
`
`further in View of Baker.
`
`Issue 5:
`
`Claims 18, 19 and 23 are rendered obvious over Aakre in View of French
`
`and further in View of Dye.
`
`Issue 6:
`
`Claims 1, 2, 16, 18-21 and 23 are rendered obvious over Ohkubo in View
`
`of Dye.
`
`Issue 7:
`
`Claim 17 is rendered obvious over Ohkubo in View of Dye and further in
`
`View of Baker.
`
`Issue 8:
`
`Claims 1, 2, 20 and 21 are rendered obvious over Ohkubo in View of
`
`French.
`
`Issue 9:
`
`Claims 16-18 are rendered obvious over Ohkubo in View of French and
`
`further in View of Baker.
`
`Issue 10:
`
`Claims 19 and 23 are rendered obvious over Ohkubo in View of French
`
`and further in View of Dye.
`
`Issue 11:
`
`Claims 1. 2, 16, 18-21 and 23 are rendered obvious over Chu in View of
`
`Dye.
`
`Issue 12:
`
`Claim 17 is rendered obvious over Chu in View of Dye and further in View
`
`of Baker.
`
`Issue 13:
`
`Claims 1, 2, 17, 18, 20 and 21 are rendered obvious over Chu in View of
`
`French.
`
`Issue 14:
`
`Claim 16 is rendered obvious over Chu in View of French and further in
`
`View of Baker.
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1010
`Page 005
`
`

`
`Application/Control N umber: 95/001,927
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Issue 15:
`
`Claims 19 and 23 are rendered obvious over Chu in View of French and
`
`further in View of Dye.
`
`3.
`
`The proposed rejections in issues 1-15 are not adopted for reasons stated below.
`
`Response to Amendment
`
`4.
`
`The Declaration by Dr. James W. Modestino in support of the Patent Owner
`
`under 37 CFR 1.132 filed December 21, 2012 is reviewed herein but no weight is
`
`attributed in its consideration over the holdings of applied art to overcome the rejection of
`
`claims 1-2, 16-21 and 23 based upon Aakre, Ohkubo and Chu as set forth in the last
`
`Office action due in part to disparities noted because: although Dr. Modestino states his
`
`credentials as an expert in paragraphs 8-13 including its Attachment 1, that his
`
`compensation is not dependent on the outcome of that reexamination and in no way
`
`effects the substance of his statements in his declaration with no prior affiliation with
`
`Realtiine (assignee), the Declaration regards the amended claimed invention in reexam
`
`95001922 (hereafter ‘922) for Patent 7321937 (hereafter ‘937) per header on cover page
`
`and discussion on pages 1-11 that discuss Aakre, Ohkubo and Chu where there is no
`
`statements to correlate between the claimed invention discussed for ‘937 Patent under
`
`reexam ‘922 in the Declaration or in aforementioned Patent Owner filed reply to
`
`associate to claims of ‘S30 Patent under reexam ‘927 herein, so it is speculative as to how
`
`thc statements in the Declaration for the ‘937 Patent relate to instant claims of ‘530
`
`Patent. However, it appears Patent Owner desires statements in the Declaration filed in
`
`reexam ‘922 to be considered herein due to statements in their reply on pages 19, 32 and
`
`43 discussing the Aakre, Ohkubo and Chu. The statements by Dr. Modestino appear to
`
`address anticipation of the aforementioned references in the reexam ‘922 of the ‘937
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1010
`Page 006
`
`

`
`Application/Control N umber: 95/001,927
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Patent; however, there is no anticipation by those references in reexam ‘927 and the
`
`Declaration does not address obviousness towards any combination of references applied
`
`in this reexam.
`
`It is noteworthy that the Patentee reply footnote on page 19 states
`
`“Declaration of Dr. James W. Modestino Under 37 C.F.R. §1. 132 filed June 20, 2012 in
`
`the reexamination of U.S. Patent 7,321,937, Control No. 95/001,922. The '937 Modestino
`
`Declaration is also attached to this response” to thereby suggest that the Declaration filed
`
`on December 21, 2012 in this ‘927 proceeding is the same Declaration filed June 20,
`
`2012 in the ‘922 proceeding. However, in comparing the two Declarations there are
`
`numerous disparities that the Declaration in ‘927 is the same Declaration as filed in ‘922
`
`where the disparities include page length of the Declaration in ‘927 being 12 pages with
`
`46 paragraphs plus 8 redundant paragraphs on pages 10-12 that provide a discussion of
`
`Chu, Aakre, Ohkubo, Baker as mentioned in paragraph 4 of the Declaration in '927; while
`
`the Declaration in ‘922 has only 6 pages with 23 paragraphs that only discuss Chu as
`
`mentioned in paragraph 4 therein. Another disparity is that paragraph 3 of the
`
`Declaration in the ‘922 proceeding states in part that the expert ‘reviewed and am
`
`familiar with the Office action mailed April 20, 2012’; however, paragraphs 3 and 4 of
`
`the Declaration in the ‘927 proceeding states in part that the expert ‘reviewed and am
`
`familiar with the Office action mailed October 18, 2012’. It is further noted that the
`
`expert signature page in the Declaration shows a date of June 19, 2012, where the Office
`
`action discussed is from October 18, 2012 so it is unclear how temporally a review that
`
`was signed on 19 June 2012 may have considered a yet to be filed Office action in
`
`October and in light that the Declaration in ‘922 only reviewed Chu for an Office action
`
`that regarded anticipation (see paragraph 15 of the ‘922 Declaration) but the Declaration
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1010
`Page 007
`
`

`
`Application/Control N umber: 95/001,927
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`in '927 reviewed not only Chu but also other references (Aakre, Ohkubo and Baker)
`
`where these other references were not applied in the '922 proceeding at least at the time
`
`of the review of June 19, 2012. Due to these disparities, the Declaration in ‘927 has been
`
`reviewed and considered but is provided no weight; however, the Examiner provides the
`
`following analysis ofthe art against scope of amended claims of ‘S30 Patent herein.
`
`Regarding Aakre, the Request cites facts showing Aakre discloses (abstract, 1:54-
`
`59, 1:62—2:4, 2:10-13, 17-21 and 43-47, 3:30-50) a system using tape memory that is
`
`coupled to a data compressor as a data accelerator that receives a data stream where the
`
`data stored to the tape is compressed to increase data density and reduces the time
`
`required to store data on tape that would have been interpreted by an artisan by its plain
`
`meaning that Aakre performs storage occurs faster than said data stream is able to be
`
`stored on said memory in received form since it reduces the time required to store data on
`
`tape resultant from the compression; but, lacking evidence to the contrary, there is
`
`insufficient factual evidence that Aakre performs "said Compression and storage occurs
`
`faster than said data stream is able to be stored on said memory device in said received
`
`form” (emphasis added) as present in claim 1, “wherein a bandwidth of the received data
`
`stream is determined” and “wherein a data rate of the compressed data stream is adjusted,
`
`by modifying a system parameter to adjust the data rate of the compressed data stream to
`
`make a bandwidth of the compressed data stream compatible with a bandwidth of the
`
`memory device” as present in new claim 24, “wherein the data accelerator is configured
`
`to append a type descriptor to the first and second compressed data blocks in the
`
`compressed data stream, and wherein the type descriptor includes values corresponding
`
`to a plurality of encoding techniques that were applied to the compressed data stream” as
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1010
`Page 008
`
`

`
`Application/Control N umber: 95/001,927
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`present in new claim 25 and “wherein the data accelerator is configured to adjust the data
`
`rate of the compressed data stream by adjusting a compression ratio of a lossless
`
`encoder” as present in new clam 26.
`
`Regarding Ohkubo, the Request cites facts showing Ohkubo discloses (abstract,
`
`1:54-67, 2:62-63, 2:67-3:8, 3:29-31, 4:10-14 and 22-29) a system having a memory
`
`device and data accelerator as its data compression/expansion device coupled to the
`
`memory device that receives a data stream to compress the received data stream so the
`
`data is inputted and outputted at high speed and the amount of data stored may be five
`
`times that in the case where no compression is effected; but lacking evidence to the
`
`contrary, there is insufficient factual evidence that Ohkubo performs "said compression,
`
`and storage occurs faster than said data stream is able to be stored on said memory
`
`device in said received form” (emphasis added) as present in claim 1, “wherein a
`
`bandwidth of the received data stream is determined” and “wherein a data rate of the
`
`compressed data stream is adjusted, by modifying a system parameter to adjust the data
`
`rate of the compressed data stream to make a bandwidth of the compressed data stream
`
`compatible with a bandwidth of the memory device” as present in new claim 24,
`
`“wherein the data accelerator is configured to append a type descriptor to the first and
`
`second compressed data blocks in the compressed data stream, and wherein the type
`
`descriptor includes values corresponding to a plurality of encoding techniques that were
`
`applied to the compressed data stream” as present in new claim 25 and “wherein the data
`
`accelerator is configured to adjust the data rate of the compressed data stream by
`
`adjusting a compression ratio of a lossless encoder” as present in new clam 26.
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1010
`Page 009
`
`

`
`Application/Control N umber: 95/001,927
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Regarding Chu, the Request cites facts showing Chu discloses (3:65-68, 4:10-12,
`
`16-20 and 24-38, 6:4-28, 17:3-6, fig 2) a system with a memory device as its hard disk
`
`that is coupled to a data accelerator as its integrated chip receives a data stream and
`
`compresses the data stream where the encoder circuit is sufficiently fast at performing the
`
`necessary encoding operations, the use of the data compression and decoding circuits will
`
`be “seamless” in that their performance would not affect the performance of the computer
`
`system except that the amount of data that could be stored on the hard disk would be
`
`approximately doubled; but, lacking evidence to the contrary, there is insufficient factual
`
`evidence that Chu performs "said compression and storage occurs faster than said data
`
`stream is able to be stored on said memory device in said received form” (emphasis
`
`added) as present in claim 1, “wherein a bandwidth of the received data stream is
`
`determined” and “wherein a data rate of the compressed data stream is adjusted, by
`
`modifying a system parameter to adjust the data rate of the compressed data stream to
`
`make a bandwidth of the compressed data stream compatible with a bandwidth of the
`
`memory device” as present in new claim 24, “wherein the data accelerator is configured
`
`to append a type descriptor to the first and second compressed data blocks in the
`
`compressed data stream, and wherein the type descriptor includes values corresponding
`
`to a plurality of encoding techniques that were applied to the compressed data stream” as
`
`present in new claim 25 and “wherein the data accelerator is configured to adjust the data
`
`rate of the compressed data stream by adjusting a compression ratio of a lossless
`
`encoder” as present in new clam 26.
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1010
`Page 010
`
`

`
`Application/Control N umber: 95/001,927
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`5.
`
`Responsive to aforementioned Patent Owner's reply/arguinents, the examiner
`
`generally agrees with facts cited in their Reply with review of their expert testimony
`
`above regarding applied art for the original claims and newly added claims for reasons
`
`stated next. Facts stated in Request are relied on herein. For consistency, the discussion
`
`herein follows discussion of applied art in tum as presented in their reply rather than each
`
`rejection/issue in turn. For the record, Patentee refers to claim 13 (page 23) is not
`
`considered herein since that claim is not reexamined per Decision mailed Aug 31, 2012.
`
`a.
`
`Obviousness of Aakre in View of Dye, Baker and/or French for claims 1-2,
`
`16-21 and 23:
`
`Patent Owner: In summary, the Patent Owner argues on pages 9-12 that Aakre
`
`and Dye, Baker and/or French fails to disclose each and every element of claim 1 since
`
`Aakre fails to teach claimed ‘said compression and storage occurs faster than said data
`
`stream is able to be stored on said memory device in said received form’ and Dye, Baker
`
`and French fail to remedy this deficiency. Therefore, Patent Owner requests claim 1-2,
`
`16-21 and 23 to be confirmed and issues 1-5 to be withdrawn.
`
`Examiner: As stated in paragraph 4 above, lacking evidence to the contrary, there
`
`is insufficient factual evidence to support Aakre performs ‘said compression and storage
`
`occurs faster than said data stream is able to be stored on said memory device in said
`
`received form’ and there is insufficient factual support that Dye, Baker and/or French
`
`remedy this deficiency to fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Thus,
`
`obviousness of claim 1-2, 16-21 and 23 over Aakre with Dye, Baker and/or French for
`
`issues 1-5 are not adopted.
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1010
`Page 011
`
`

`
`Application/Control N umber: 95/001,927
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`b.
`
`Obviou sness of Aakre in view of Dye, Baker and/or French for claim 24:
`
`Patent Owner: The Patent Owner asserts on pages 18-21 with reference to their
`
`Declaration that Aakre and Dye, Baker and/or French fails to disclose each and every
`
`element of new claim 24 since Aakre and Dye, Baker and/or French alone or in
`
`combination fails to disclose “wherein a bandwidth of the received data stream is
`
`determined” and “wherein a data rate of the compressed data stream is adjusted, by
`
`modifying a system parameter, to make a bandwidth of the compressed data stream
`
`compatible with a bandwidth of the memory device” as present in claim 24 since each of
`
`the applied references is silent with regards to this feature. Therefore, Patent Owner
`
`requests claim 24 to be allowed.
`
`Examiner: Although not stated by Patentee, claim 24 includes the ele1nent(s)
`
`lacking in claim 1 by the same applied art noted above and therefore, is patentable at least
`
`for reason stated above with regards to claim 1. Further, as stated in paragraph 4 above,
`
`lacking evidence to the contrary, there is insufficient factual evidence to support Aakre
`
`performs “wherein a bandwidth of the received data stream is determined” and “wherein
`
`a data rate of the compressed data stream is adjusted, by modifying a system parameter,
`
`to make a bandwidth of the compressed data stream compatible with a bandwidth of the
`
`memory device” and there is insufficient factual support that Dye, Baker and/or French
`
`remedy this deficiency to fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
`
`c.
`
`Obviousness of Ohkubo in view of Dye, Baker and/or French for claims 1-
`
`2 l6—2l and 23:
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1010
`Page 012
`
`

`
`Application/Control N umber: 95/001,927
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Patent Owner: The Patent Owner alleges on pages 22-25 that Ohkubo fails to
`
`disclose the broadest reasonable interpretation of “receiving a data stream" since they
`
`allege Ohkubo retrieves data from a memory device that is not by receiving a continuous
`
`stream of data elements from a source or sources. The Patent Owner allege the assignee
`
`of Ohkubo patent is Fuji Xerox and its input device regards a scanner, fax machine or the
`
`like and the Ohkubo patent does not teach or suggest "receiving a stream of data" as this
`
`term is defined and used by "530 patent. The Patent Owner alleges no prima facie case
`
`of obviousness has been established for Ohkubo and Dye, Baker and/or French alone or
`
`in combination regarding “receiving a data stream". Therefore, Patent Owner requests
`
`claim 1-2, 16-21 and 23 to be confirmed and issues 6-10 to be withdrawn.
`
`Examiner: The Examiner does not agree with Patent Owner’s alleged scope since
`
`continuous is not claimed, the Patent Owner failed to act as their own lexicographer in
`
`this case and did not present facts to show a ‘continuous’ data stream was necessarily
`
`present so as to be inherent where although a data stream is claimed it is not required for
`
`the data stream to be continuous where Patentee failed to sufficiently define the term data
`
`stream to provide disclosure to the public of the boundary of the invention in exchange
`
`for the rights that a patent grants. However, as noted in paragraph 4, lacking evidence to
`
`the contrary, there is insufficient factual evidence to support Ohkubo performs ‘said
`
`compression and storage occurs faster than said data stream is able to be stored on said
`
`memory device in said received form’ and there is insufficient factual support that Dye,
`
`Baker and/or French remedy this deficiency to fail to establish a prima facie case of
`
`obviousness. Thus, obviousness of claim 1-2, 16-21 and 23 over Ohkubo and Dye, Baker
`
`and/or French for issues 6- 10 are not adopted.
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1010
`Page 013
`
`

`
`Application/Control N umber: 95/001,927
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`d.
`
`Obviousness of Ohkubo in View of Dye, Baker and/or French for claim
`
`Q:
`
`Patent Owner: The Patent Owner remarks on pages 31-34 with reference to their
`
`Declaration that Ohkubo and Dye, Baker and/or French fails to disclose each and every
`
`element of new claim 24 since Ohkubo and Dye, Baker and/or French alone or in
`
`combination fails to disclose “wherein a bandwidth of the received data stream is
`
`determined” and “wherein a data rate of the compressed data stream is adjusted, by
`
`modifying a system parameter, to make a bandwidth of the compressed data stream
`
`compatible with a bandwidth of the memory device” as present in claim 24 since each of
`
`the applied references is silent with regards to this feature. Therefore, Patent Owner
`
`requests claim 24 to be allowed.
`
`Examiner: Although not stated by Patentee, claim 24 includes the element
`
`lacking in claim 1 by the same applied art noted above and therefore, is patentable at least
`
`for reason stated above with regards to Claim 1. Further, as stated in paragraph 4 above,
`
`lacking evidence to the contrary, there is insufficient factual evidence to support Ohkubo
`
`performs “wherein a bandwidth of the received data stream is determined” and “wherein
`
`a data rate of the compressed data stream is adjusted, by modifying a system parameter,
`
`to make a bandwidth of the compressed data stream compatible with a bandwidth of the
`
`memory device” and there is insufficient factual support that Dye, Baker and/or French
`
`remedy this deficiency to fail to establish a prirna facie case of obviousness.
`
`e.
`
`Obviousness of Chu in view of Dye, Baker and/or French for claims 1-2,
`
`16-21 and 23:
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1010
`Page 014
`
`

`
`Application/Control N umber: 95/001,927
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Patent Owner: In summary, the Patent Owner argues on pages 34-36 that Chu
`
`and Dye, Baker and/or French fails to disclose each and every element of claim 1 since
`
`Chu is fundamentally incompatible and thus cannot be combined with the teachings of
`
`Dye or French. Therefore, Patent Owner requests claim 1-2, 16-21 and 23 to be
`
`confirmed and issues 1 1-15 to be withdrawn.
`
`Examiner: As stated in paragraph 4 above, lacking evidence to the contrary, there
`
`is insufficient factual evidence to support Chu performs ‘said compression and storage
`
`occurs faster than said data stream is able to be stored on said memory device in said
`
`received form’ and there is insufficient factual support that Dye, Baker and/or French
`
`remedy this deficiency to fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Thus,
`
`obviousness of claim 1-2, 16-21 and 23 over Chu with Dye, Baker and/or French for
`
`issues 11-15 are not adopted.
`
`f.
`
`Obviousness of Chu in view of Dye, Baker and/or French for claim 24:
`
`Patent Owner: The Patent Owner asserts on pages 42-45 with reference to their
`
`Declaration that Chu and Dye, Baker and/or French fails to disclose each and every
`
`element of new claim 24 since Chu and Dye, Baker and/or French alone or in
`
`combination fails to disclose “wherein a bandwidth of the received data stream is
`
`determined” and “wherein a data rate of the compressed data stream is adjusted, by
`
`modifying a system parameter, to make a bandwidth of the compressed data stream
`
`compatible with a bandwidth of the memory device” as present in claim 24 since each of
`
`the applied references is silent with regards to this feature. Therefore, Patent Owner
`
`requests claim 24 to be allowed.
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1010
`Page 015
`
`

`
`Application/Control N umber: 95/001,927
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Examiner: Although not stated by Patentee, claim 24 includes the element
`
`lacking in claim 1 by the same applied art noted above and therefore, claim 24 is
`
`patentable at least for reason stated above with regards to claim 1. Further, as stated in
`
`paragraph 4 above, lacking evidence to the contrary, there is insufficient factual evidence
`
`to support Chu performs “wherein a bandwidth of the received data stream is
`
`determined” and “wherein a data rate of the compressed data stream is adjusted, by
`
`modifying a system parameter, to make a bandwidth of the compressed data stream
`
`compatible with a bandwidth of the memory device” and there is insufficient factual
`
`support that Dye, Baker and/or French remedy this deficiency to fail to establish a prima
`
`facie case of obviousness.
`
`g.
`
`Aakre, Baker, Chu, Dye, French and Ohkubo do not disclose new features
`
`present in claims 25 and 26:
`
`Patent Owner: The Patent Owner alleges with reference to their Declaration on
`
`pages 45-49 that Aakre, Baker, Chu, Dye, French and Ohkubo fails to disclose each and
`
`every element of new claims 25 and 26 since Aakre, Baker, Chu, Dye, French and
`
`Ohkubo do not disclose, teach or suggest a “type descriptor includes values
`
`corresponding to a plurality of encoding techniques that were applied to the compressed
`
`data stream” as present in new claim 25 and ability “to adjust the data rate of the
`
`compressed data stream by adjusting a compression ratio of a lossless encoder” as present
`
`in new clam 26. Essentially, Patent Owner asserts the references fail to disclose applying
`
`a plurality of encoding techniques to the compressed data stream as present in claim 25
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1010
`Page 016
`
`

`
`Application/Control N umber: 95/001,927
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`and that the references do not mention the ability to adjust a compression ratio.
`
`Therefore, Patent Owner requests claims 25-26 to be allowed.
`
`Examiner: Although not stated by Patentee, claims 25-26 by their dependency
`
`upon claim 1 include the element(s) lacking by the same applied art noted above and
`
`therefore, claims 25-26 are patentable at least for reason stated above with regards to
`
`claim 1. Regarding claim 25, the claim language does not include or require applying a
`
`plurality of encoding techniques to the compressed data stream as stated by Patent Owner
`
`on pages 45-49 and ’530 Patent includes no/null compression encoding, a singular
`
`encoding or a plurality of encoding techniques (7:28-32, 9:47-51), so the Examiner does
`
`not agree with Patent Owncr’s allcgcd scope since the claim language does not include or
`
`require applying a plurality of encoding techniques to the compressed data stream, the
`
`Patent Owner failed to act as their own lexicographer in this case and did not present
`
`facts to show a ' plurality of encoding techniques to the compressed data stream‘ was
`
`necessarily present so as to be inherent where although “wherein the type descriptor
`
`includes values corresponding to a plurality of encoding techniques to the compressed
`
`data stream is claimed it is not required for the data stream to be compressed by a
`
`plurality of encoding techniques”, contrarily to Patentee opine the language merely
`
`requires a descriptor having a value of a plurality of encoding techniques where Patentee
`
`failed to sufficiently/adequately define the terrn/phrase to provide disclosure to the public
`
`of the boundary of the invention in exchange for the rights that a patent grants. Contrary
`
`to Patent Owner, the null/no encoding and singular encoding technique regards a plurality
`
`of encoding techniques that are applied to the data stream. However, as stated in
`
`paragraph 4 above, lacking evidence to the contrary, there is insufficient factual evidence
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1010
`Page 017
`
`

`
`Application/Control N umber: 95/001,927
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`to support Aakre, Ohkubo and/or Chu performs “wherein the data accelerator is
`
`configured to append a type descriptor to the first and second compressed data blocks in
`
`the compressed data stream, and wherein the type descriptor includes Values
`
`corresponding to a plurality of encoding techniques that were applied to the compressed
`
`data stream” as present in new claim 25 and “wherein the data accelerator is configured
`
`to adjust the data rate of the compressed data stream by adjusting a compression ratio of a
`
`lossless encoder” as present in new clam 26. With consideration of the stated scope of
`
`claim 25 above, Dye teaches (abstract, 13:52-56, 26:50—27:3, 32:13-15, 35:56—36:4,
`
`38:14—40:3) to store compression mode information in the header and to strip the header
`
`for the compression mode to thcrcby suggest “wherein the data accelerator is configured
`
`to append a type descriptor to the first and second compressed data blocks in the
`
`compressed data stream, and wherein the type descriptor includes Values corresponding
`
`to a plurality of encoding techniques that were applied to the compressed data stream”; so
`
`the combination of Aakre, Ohkubo and/or Chu with Dye includes the function of claim
`
`25, but claim 25 is patentable as noted above for its dependency to claim 1. Finally,
`
`regarding claim 26, there is insufficient factual support that Dye, Baker and/or French
`
`remedy the deficiency to fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
`
`6.
`
`The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be
`
`found in a prior Office action.
`
`Issue 1
`
`Requester Proposed Rejection (Not Adopted)
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1010
`Page 018
`
`

`
`Application/Control N umber: 95/001,927
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`7.
`
`Claims 1-2, 16, 18-21 and 23 are proposed as being unpatentable over Aakre
`
`(U.S. Patent No. 4,956,808) in view of Dye (U.S. Patent No. 7,190,284). This rejection
`
`was proposed by the third party requester in their Request is not adopted for reasons
`
`stated above in paragraphs 4-5.
`
`Issue 2
`
`Requester Proposed Rejection (Not Adopted)
`
`8.
`
`Claim 17 is proposed as being unpatentable over Aakre (U.S. Patent N 0.
`
`4,956,808) in View of Dye (U.S. Patent No. 7,190,284) as applied to claim 1 above, and
`
`further in View of Baker. This rejection was proposed by the third party requester in their
`
`Request is not adopted for reasons stated ab