UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`DELL INC.; RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY, INC.; SAP AMERICA, INC.;
`SYBASE, INC.; HEWLETT-PACKARD ENTERPRISE CO.; HP
`ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC; TERADATA OPERATIONS, INC.;
`ECHOSTAR CORPORATION; AND HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS,
`LLC
`VERITAS TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC d/b/a IXO
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case: IPR2016-00972Unassigned
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,415,530
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313–1450
`
`
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 001
`
`

`
`
`
`Submitted Electronically via the Patent Review Processing SystemE2E
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 002
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................................... 5
`
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ........................... 5
`
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ..................................... 5
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. §
`42.8(b)(3)back-up counsel and service information ...................... 65
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) .......................... 6
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ......................................... 6
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................. 6
`
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) .......................... 76
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)
`and Relief Requested .......................................................................... 76
`
`Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100(b),
`42.104(b)(3) .......................................................................................... 8
`
`D. How the Construed Claims are Unpatentable Under 37
`C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ....................................................................... 109
`
`E.
`
`Supporting Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) .................... 109
`
`V.
`
`THE ALLEGED INVENTION OF THE ‘’530 PATENT ................ 109
`
`A. Overview of The Written Description .............................................. 109
`
`B.
`
`Overview of the Challenged Claims .............................................. 1110
`
`VI.
`
`VII.
`
`. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................... 1110
`
`DETAILED EXPLANATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) .... 1211
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 9-11, 14, and 18 Would Have Been
`Obvious Under § 103(a) Over Franaszek in View of
`Osterlund ........................................................................................ 1211
`
`i
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 003
`
`

`
`
`
`VIII.
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 1 Would Have Been Obvious .................................... 1211
`
`Claims 9,10, and 11 Would Have Been Obvious ................. 3432
`
`Claim 14 Would Have Been Obvious .................................. 3533
`
`Claim 18 Would Have Been Obvious .................................. 3634
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 2-5 would have been obvious
`underWould Have Been Obvious Under § 103(a) over
`Franaszek in view ofand Osterlund and further in view
`of Fall.............................................................................................. 3734
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 2 Would Have Been Obvious .................................... 3734
`
`Claims 3 and 4 Would Have Been Obvious ......................... 4138
`
`Claim 5 Would Have Been Obvious .................................... 4442
`
`C.
`
`Ground 3: Claim 12 Would Have Been Obvious Under §
`103(a) Over Franaszek in view ofand Osterlund and
`Further in View of Assar ................................................................ 4744
`
`D. Ground 4: Claim 19 Would Have Been Obvious Under §
`103(a) Over Franaszek in view ofand Osterlund and
`Further in View of Crawford .......................................................... 4845
`
`E.
`
`Ground 5: Claim 24 Would Have Been Obvious Under §
`103(a) Over Franaszek in View of, Osterlund, Clark, and
`Rynderman...................................................................................... 5147
`
`1.
`
`The Teachings of Franaszek, Osterlund, Clark,
`and Rynderman .................................................................... 5147
`
`2. Motivation to Combine Franaszek, Osterlund,
`Clark and Rynderman and the Obviousness of the
`Combination of Claimed Features ....................................... 5653
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 6057
`
`ii
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 004
`
`

`
`
`
`LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Meaning
`
`Abstract
`
`Application
`
`March 11, 1999
`
`Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530
`
`
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Abst.
`
`App.
`
`effective filing date
`
`Pat.
`
`’530 patent
`
`
`
`i
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 005
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EX. NO.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`1013
`
`1014
`1015
`
`1016
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION
` U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530
` Declaration of Dr. Charles Creusere
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Charles Creusere
`U.S. Patent No. 5,870,036 to Franaszek et al. (“Franaszek”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,247,646 to Osterlund et al. (“Osterlund”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,961 to Rynderman et al.
`(“Rynderman”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,991,515 to Fall et al. (“Fall”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,319,682 to Clark (“Clark”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,771,354 to Crawford (“Crawford”)
`‘927 Reexamination File History, 5/31/13 Right of Appeal
`Notice
`U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530 Inter Partes Reexamination
`Certificate Issued Under U.S.C. 316
`Mark Nelson, The Data Compression Book (1992)
`STAC 9704 Data Compression Coprocessor Data Sheet,
`Rev. 2.00 (9/91).
`RESERVED
`Tarek M. Sobh, et al., A Comparison of Compressed and
`Uncompressed Transmission Modes, Dept. of Computer
`and Information Sci., School of Eng’g and Applied Sci.,
`Univ. of Penn. (May 1991) (“Sobh”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,479,638 to Assar et al. (“Assar”)
`RANDOM HOUSE WEBSTER’S, COMPUTER & INTERNET
`DICTIONARY at 45 (3d ed. 1999)
`Redline comparison between Dell’s Petition (IPR2016-
`00972) and Veritas’s Joinder Petition
`Redline comparison between Dell’s Ex. 1002 (Creusere
`Declaration) (IPR216-00972) and Veritas’s Ex. 1002
`(Creusere Declaration)
`
`ii
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 006
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Dell Inc.; Riverbed Technology, Inc.; SAP America, Inc.; Sybase, Inc.;
`
`Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Co.; HP Enterprise Services, LLC; Teradata
`
`Operations, Inc.; EchoStar Corporation; and Hughes Network Systems, LLC
`
`(collectively “PetitionerVeritas Technologies LLC (“Veritas”) petitions for Inter
`
`Partes Review under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R., Part 42 of claims 1-5,
`
`9-12, 14, 18, 19, and 24 of U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530 (“the ’530 patent”). As
`
`shown herein, Petitioner is reasonably likely to prove those claims are
`
`unpatentable. Accordingly, Petitioner requests that the Board institute trial
`
`and cancel all challenged claims.
`
`This Petition presents the same claims and same grounds as those
`
`sought to be instituted in IPR2016-00972, supplemented with additional
`
`support. Petitioner submits herewith a motion to join IPR2016-00972, but
`
`respectfully requests institution of this Petition regardless of whether the
`
`Board grants the accompanying joinder motion.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’530 patent relates generally to data compression and decompression
`
`techniques used in data storage systems. See Ex. 1002, ¶ 5; See also Ex. 1001 at
`
`1:15-18, 2:58-62, 4:42-61, 18:24-42. Such systems may speed up the rate at which
`
`data can be stored. Id. Independent claim 1 of the ’530 patent survived an Inter
`
`Partes Reexamination because it requires that the data “compression and storage
`
`occurs faster than said data stream is able to be stored on said memory device in
`
`
`
`1
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 007
`
`

`
`
`
`
`said received form.” Ex. 1010 at 8-9, 11 and 13. Claim 24, which includes the
`
`same requirement, was added during that reexamination proceeding. Id. The
`
`examiner found that this limitation distinguished these claims over the prior art.
`
`Id. However, as shown below, this feature was known to those skilled in the art.
`
`For example, Osterlund (Ex. 1005) describes that storing data “can be completed
`
`faster because the compression operation has reduced the amount of data which
`
`must be stored.” Ex. 1005 at 5:27-29; see also id. at 5:42-46 (“[T]he device allows
`
`. . .… [for] overall faster rates of data storage and retrieval.”). Accordingly,
`
`Osterlund teaches the very limitation of the claims of the ’530 patent that led to
`
`allowance. At bottom, the challenged claims recite only what was old and obvious
`
`and do not yield anything more than predictable results. See Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 4, 6, 45-
`
`6.
`
`Indeed, dataData compression was a well-established field by the 1999
`
`effective filing date. See Ex. 1002, ¶ 30, 46. Years before 1999, problems
`
`associated with data compression systems had been diagnosed and various
`
`solutions and optimizations had been proposed and implemented. Id. In fact, data
`
`Data compression can find its beginning with Claude Shannon’s work on
`
`information theory at Bell Labs in the 1940s. See Ex. 1012 at 15-16, 29; Ex. 1002,
`
`¶ 30. A technique called “Huffman coding”—a type of lossless encoding scheme
`
`claimed in the ’530 patent, Ex. 1001 at 19:5-6—was first described in 1952. See
`
`Ex. 1012 at 18; Ex. 1002, ¶ 31. The following decades brought new encoding
`
`2
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 008
`
`

`
`
`
`
`schemes and further advancements in the art. See e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶ 31-2. For
`
`example, a pair of 1977-1978 papers by Lempel and Ziv first described “Lempel-
`
`Ziv” compression, see Ex. 1004 at 2:22-30; Ex. 1012 at 23; Ex. 1002, ¶ 31, another
`
`coding scheme claimed by the ’530 patent, see Ex. 1001 at 19:7-8. This was a
`
`popular example of a dictionary-based compression scheme. See Ex. 1012 at 22-
`
`23; Ex. 1002, ¶ 31.
`
`Data compression technologies applied not just to data storage, but also to
`
`data transmission. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶ 33 (identifying Ex. 1013 at 1 as describing
`
`a data compressor usable in both “[h]igh-speed data communications systems” and
`
`“[d]irect-access storage devices”); Ex. 1008 at 1:7-10 (“Data compression systems
`
`improve the performance of communication or storage systems . . .….”). In each
`
`application, data compression reduced the size of data thus making the transfer
`
`and/or storage of data more efficient. See Ex. 1008 at 1:7-10 (compression can
`
`“improve the performance of communication or storage systems”); Ex. 1002, ¶ 33.
`
`Compressing data in a storage application may effectively increase the storage
`
`capacity of a memory device, as described by both Franaszek and Nelson. See Ex.
`
`1004 at 4:14-17 (explaining how compression can “increase the number of data
`
`blocks that can be stored in [] memory”); Ex. 1012 at 223 (explaining that data
`
`compression “reduces the use of magnetic tape”); Ex. 1002, ¶ 32. Compressing
`
`data leads to fewer bits needing to be stored, and thus may also speed up storage
`
`and retrieval of data, as taught by Osterlund and Nelson. See Ex. 1005 at Abst.,
`
`3
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 009
`
`

`
`
`
`
`1:16-20, 5:20-29; Ex. 1012 at 223 (“[T]he effective transfer rate to and from the
`
`tape is increased,” and that software compression is “in a sense ‘free.’”); Ex. 1002,
`
`¶ 32-33.
`
`In the decades leading up to the filing of the parent to the ’530 patent,
`
`certain problems regarding data compression systems had been identified and
`
`solved. One such problem related to determining whether the benefits of
`
`compression were worth the cost of compressing the data. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶
`
`34-6 (citing Ex. 1015 at 1 (describing the decision to compress or not given certain
`
`parameters)); Ex. 1004 at 5:30-34 (describing implementing a 30% compression
`
`threshold).
`
`Another problem with a known solution included avoiding overwhelming a
`
`processor tasked with compressing a data stream. See, e.g., Ex. 1008 at 1:25-32;
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶ 37. One solution to this problem was to provide a faster, more
`
`expensive processor. Ex. 1002, ¶ 37; Ex. 1008 at 1:30-32. Clark proposed a
`
`solution to this problem that included monitoring the data rate or bandwidth of the
`
`input data steam and, based on the ratio of the input to output data rates, adapting
`
`the encoding scheme to be less processor-intensive. Ex. 1008 at 3:32-53; see also
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶ 37. This 1991 invention provided a simple and predictable solution.
`
`See Ex. 1008 at 4:65-5:1; Ex. 1002, ¶ 37.
`
`Another problem was being able to use a specific data compressor with a
`
`wide variety of memory devices that have different bandwidths. Ex. 1002, ¶ 38.
`
`4
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 010
`
`

`
`
`
`
`This is a problem addressed by Rynderman, which teaches providing “adaptive
`
`control of the bandwidth of processed data output to a storage device, to maintain
`
`transfer of the processed data to any desired storage device with optimal (for
`
`example, maximum attainable) bandwidth.” Ex. 1006 at Abst.; Ex. 1002, ¶ 38.
`
`Rynderman did this by setting the compression rate. Ex. 1006 at 3:61-67.
`
`As we show below, theThe ’530 patent claims are, at best, the mere
`
`combination of these known solutions used to address known problems and that
`
`achieve only predictable results. See Ex. 1002, ¶ 47-8. Thus, each of the
`
`challenged claims is unpatentable.
`
`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.; Riverbed Technology, Inc.; Riverbed Holdings, Inc.; Riverbed
`
`Parent, Inc.; SAP America, Inc.; Sybase, Inc.; Hewlett-Packard Enterprise
`
`Co.; HP Enterprise Services, LLC; Teradata Operations, Inc.; Teradata
`
`Corporation; EchoStar Corporation; and Hughes Network Systems, LLC.
`
`Hughes Network Systems, LLC, a real-party-in-interest, is the subsidiary of
`
`Hughes Communications, Inc., which is a subsidiary of Hughes Satellite
`
`Systems Corp., which is a subsidiary of EchoStar Corporation, which is also a
`
`real-party-in-interest.
`
`The real party-in-interest is Veritas Technologies LLC.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`5
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 011
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner is asserting the ’530 patent in the United States District Court
`
`for the Eastern District of Texas in the following civil actions: 6:15-cv-00463,
`
`6:15-cv-00466, 6:15-cv-00467, 6:15-cv-00468, 6:15-cv-00469, 6:15-cv-00885, and
`
`6-16-cv-00086, 6:16-cv-00087, 6:16-cv-00089, 6:16-cv-00961, 6:16-cv-01035,
`
`and 6:16-cv-01037, as well as in the Northern District of California in civil action:
`
`5:163:16-cv-01836-PSG02595, as well as in the Central District of California
`
`in civil action: 2:16-cv-02743. The ’530 patent is also the subject of the following
`
`pending PetitionsPetition for Inter Partes Review by Oracle America, Inc.:
`
`IPR2016-00375 and IPR2016-0037601671. IPR2016-00373 and IPR2016-00377
`
`have01672 has been filed against a similar patent claiming similar priority.
`
`Because this petition presents different prior art and different evidence to show that
`
`the challenged claims would have been obvious, the arguments raised here are
`
`substantially different than those presented by Oracle in those other IPR
`
`proceedings and 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) is inapplicable. This petition presents the
`
`same claims and same grounds as those instituted in IPR2016-00878 was also
`
`filed against the ’530 patent00972, and Petitioner seeks to join IPR2016-00972.
`
`C. Lead and back-up counsel and service information
`Lead Counsel
`Jonathan D. Link
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`555 Eleventh Street NW, Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`Back-Up Counsel
`Lisa K. Nguyen
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`140 Scott Drive
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`
`Phone: (202) 637-2243
`Fax: (202) 637-2201
`Jonathan.Link@lw.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 41,548
`Phone: (650) 470-4848
`Fax: (650) 463-2600
`Lisa.Nguyen@lw.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 58,018
`
`6
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 012
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Please address all correspondence to lead and back-up counsel.
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service by email.
`
`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. #53,932); Corrine S. Davis (pro hac vice to be
`
`filed); Jamie R. Lynn (Reg. # 63,666); Adam R. Shartzer (Reg. #57,264);
`
`John D. Vandenberg (Reg. #31,312); Garth A. Winn (Reg. #33,220); Kyle
`
`Howard (Reg. #67,568); Greg Webb (Reg. #59,859); David M. O’Dell (Reg.
`
`#42,044).
`
`D. Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`Petitioners consent to service by email on the following email addresses:
`
`IPR2016-00972@winston.com;
`
`jamie.lynn@bakerbotts.com;
`
`shartzer@fr.com;
`
`john.vandenberg@klarquist.com;
`
`garth.winn@klarquist.com;
`
`kyle.howard.ipr@haynesboone.com;
`
`greg.webb.ipr@haynesboone.com; David.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`The required fee is being paid through PRPS.
`
`The Director is authorized to charge the fee specified by 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.15(a) to Deposit Account No. 506269.
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`7
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 013
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’530 patent is available for IPR. Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting this IPR.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief
`Requested
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1-5, 9-12, 14, 18, 19, and 24 of the
`
`’530 patent in view of the following prior art references: (1) U.S. Pat. No.
`
`5,870,036 to Franaszek et al. (“Franaszek”) (Ex. 1004); (2) U.S. Pat. No.
`
`5,247,646 to Osterlund et al. (“Osterlund”) (Ex. 1005); (3) U.S. Pat. No.
`
`5,563,961 to Rynderman et al. (“Rynderman”) (Ex. 1006); (4) U.S. Pat. No.
`
`5,991,515 to Fall et al. (“Fall”) (Ex. 1007); (5) U.S. Patent No. 5,319,682 to
`
`Clark (“Clark”) (Ex. 1008); (6) U.S. Patent No. 5,479,638 to Assar (“Assar”) (Ex.
`
`1016); and (7) U.S. Patent No. 5,771,354 to Crawford (“Crawford”) (Ex. 1009).
`
`Each of these references is prior art under § 102 (pre-AIA). Franaszek (Ex.
`
`1004) was filed as an application in the United States on February 24, 1995 and
`
`issued on February 9, 1999, making it prior art under §§ 102(a), (e). Osterlund
`
`(Ex. 1005) was filed as an application in the United States on July 22, 1991 and
`
`issued on September 21, 1993; Rynderman (Ex. 1006) was filed as an application
`
`in the United States on March 3, 1994 and issued on October 8, 1996; Clark (Ex.
`
`1008) was filed as an application in the United States on December 9, 1991 and
`
`issued on June 7, 1994; and Assar (Ex. 1008) was filed as an application in the
`
`United States onon March 26, 1993 and issued on December 26, 1995. These
`
`four references are prior art under § 102(b). Fall (Ex. 1007) was filed as an
`
`8
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 014
`
`

`
`
`
`
`application in the United States on July 15, 1997 and issued on November 23,
`
`1999 and is thus prior art under § 102(e). Crawford (Ex. 1009) was filed on
`
`November 4, 1993 and issued on June 23, 1998, making it prior art under §§
`
`102(a), (e).
`
`Petitioner presents the following grounds for trial:
`
`• Ground 1: Claims 1, 9-11, 14, and 18 would have been obvious under §
`
`103(a) over Franaszek in view of Osterlund;
`
`• Ground 2: Claims 2-5 would have been obvious under § 103(a) over
`
`Franaszek in view ofand Osterlund and further in view of Fall;
`
`• Ground 3: Claim 12 would have been obvious under § 103(a) over
`
`Franaszek in view ofand Osterlund and further in view of Assar;
`
`• Ground 4: Claim 19 would have been obvious under § 103(a) over
`
`Franaszek in view ofand Osterlund and further in view of Crawford; and
`
`• Ground 5: Claim 24 would have been obvious under § 103(a) over
`
`Franaszek in view of, Osterlund, Clark, and Rynderman.
`
`C. 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 In re Cuozzo
`
`Speed Techs, LLC, 793 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. granted, No. 15-466
`
`(Jan. 15,. 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
`
`9
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 015
`
`

`
`
`
`
`light of the ’530 patent, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art.
`
`Independent claim 24 of the ’530 patent recites the term “bandwidth.” The
`
`written description of the ’530 patent uses “data [] rate” (speed) synonymously
`
`with “bandwidth.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 5:25-43, 9:18-10:10 (equating “input
`
`bandwidth” with “input data rate,” and “bandwidth of the target storage device”
`
`with a “data storage device . . .… [that] is capable of storing 20 megabytes per
`
`second” (number of bits per second)); See Ex. 1002, ¶ 105. The ’530 patent further
`
`explains that “[t]iming and counting [(rate)] enables determination of the
`
`bandwidth of the input data stream.” Ex. 1001 at 9:26-27 (emphasis added); See
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶ 105. The usage in the ’530 patent is consistent with the plain meaning
`
`of this term as reflected by a definition of bandwidth: “[t]he amount of data that
`
`can be transmitted in a fixed amount of time . . .… [and] is usually expressed in
`
`bits per second (bps) or bytes per second.” See Ex. 1017 at 45; See Ex. 1002, ¶
`
`105. Claim 24 uses bandwidth both as a criteria of the data stream itself and as a
`
`characteristic of the storage device. See Ex. 1002, ¶ 105. When the claim applies
`
`the term “bandwidth” to the data stream, it characterizes the stream itself and not
`
`its potential. Id. Because it characterizes the stream itself and not its potential, it is
`
`more appropriate to interpret “bandwidth” as the amount of data that is transmitted
`
`per unit time rather than the amount of data the “may be” transmitted per unit time.
`
`Id.
`
`10
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 016
`
`

`
`
`
`
`But when the claim describes the characteristics of the memory device, it is
`
`more appropriate to define “bandwidth” as a capability to accept data at a certain
`
`rate. Id. Consistent with this analysis, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have understood the broadest reasonable construction of the term “bandwidth” to
`
`include “the speed at which data is or can be transmitted or stored, and may be
`
`quantified as a certain number of bits per second.” See Ex. 1002, Id. ¶¶ 102-5.
`
`D. How the Construed Claims are Unpatentable Under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(4)
`See infra, § VII.
`
`Supporting Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5)
`
`E.
`Supporting evidence is identified in Petitioner’s Exhibit List, in the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Charles Creusere (Ex. 1002), and is cited in this Petition.
`
`V. THE ALLEGED INVENTION OF THE ’530 PATENT
`
`A. Overview of The Written Description
`The ’530 patent describes the well-known concepts of compression, storage,
`
`and decompression of data. Data compression has been used to decrease the time
`
`it takes to transmit and store data. See Ex. 1002, ¶ 39-40; Ex. 1001, Abst. The
`
`’530 patent explains that using data-acceleration techniques:
`
`It is well known within the current art that data compression provides
`
`several unique benefits. First, data compression can reduce the time
`
`to transmit data by more efficiently utilizing low bandwidth data links.
`
`Second, data compression economizes on data storage and allows
`
`11
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 017
`
`

`
`
`
`
`more information to be stored for a fixed memory size by representing
`
`information more efficiently.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 2:12-18.
`
`The ’530 patent describes a “data storage accelerator” that includes “one or a
`
`plurality of high speed data compression encoders.” Id. at Abst.; Ex. 1002, ¶ 41.
`
`Compressed data is stored in memory. Ex. 1001 at Abst.; Ex. 1002, ¶ 41-4. The
`
`challenged claims of the ’530 patent require that data compression and storage
`
`occur faster than storage alone would occur if the data were left in uncompressed
`
`form. See Ex. 1001 at 18:36-38; Ex. 1011 at 2:11-12; See Ex. 1002, ¶ 41.
`
`B. Overview of the Challenged Claims
`Claims 1 and 24 are the independent claims challenged in this Petition.
`
`Claims 2-5, 9-12, 14, 18, and 19 depend directly from claim 1.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`When the ’530 patent was filed, a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`relevant to the ’530 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, ¶ 26; see
`
`12
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 018
`
`

`
`
`
`
`also id. at ¶¶ 23-5, 27-8. In this Petition, reference to a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art refers to a person with these qualifications.
`
`VII. DETAILED EXPLANATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 9-11, 14, and 18 Would Have Been Obvious
`Under § 103(a) Over Franaszek in View of Osterlund
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1 Would Have Been Obvious
`a.
`
`The Teachings of Franaszek and Osterlund
`
`Franaszek expressly teaches almost all aspects recited by claim 1. To
`
`eliminate any doubt about the obviousness of the claimed subject matter, a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Osterlund for teachings relevant to
`
`the claimed “data accelerator,” Ex. 1001 at 18:26, and the requirement that the data
`
`accelerator speed up data compression and storage, id. at 18:36-38 (“compression
`
`and storage occurs faster than said data stream is able to be stored on said memory
`
`device in said received form”). See Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 131-3.
`
`Specifically, Osterlund teaches a system that can compress and store data
`
`faster than storing data without compressing it. Id. at ¶¶ 60, 63, 66, 131-3, 155-7.
`
`Osterlund effects this accelerated data storage by inserting its compression module
`
`“directly into the data stream immediately after it exists from the host interface unit
`
`after being received from the host.” Ex. 1005 at 5:38-42; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 62-3, 131,
`
`165. Moreover, Osterlund teaches the use of “wide multibit data buses for fast
`
`data transfer” and the use of direct memory access techniques employed to transfer
`
`data into and out of the buffer memory within the compressor. Ex. 1005 at 4:21-
`
`13
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 019
`
`

`
`
`
`
`26; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 63, 131, 157, 164-5. Further, Osterlund enumerates several
`
`advantages to this technique. First, it reduces the amount of data to be stored. Ex.
`
`1005 at 5:20-23; Ex. 1002, ¶ 66. Second, it reduces the amount of time required to
`
`store the data. Ex. 1002, ¶ 66; Ex. 1005 at 5:23-25. Finally, Osterlund’s
`
`compression scheme results in a faster overall data-storage rate. Id. at 5:42-48; Ex.
`
`1002, ¶ 66.
`
`Applying the teachings of Osterlund to Franaszek to ensure that Franaszek’s
`
`data compressor compressed and stored data faster than without the compressor
`
`required no more than the application of Osterlund’s known solution to solve
`
`known problems (the need or desire to speed up data storage) and obtain only
`
`predictable results. See Ex. 1002, ¶ 170; see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`
`550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in
`
`the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another
`
`known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.”).
`
`Thus, claim 1 recites nothing more than an obvious variation of Franaszek’s data
`
`compression and decompression scheme and is unpatentable as obvious.
`
`Claim 1
`
`1P A system
`comprising:
`
`1(a) a memory device;
`and
`
`Franaszek and Osterlund
`“A system . . .… for compressing and decompressing data
`using a plurality of data compression mechanisms.” Ex.
`1004 at Abst.; see also id. at 1:7-9, 4:4-12, 3:29-31, 3:37-
`39, 8:42-53, 919-10:8, Figs. 1-3.
`“Within the same information processing system as the
`CPU 5 or within another ‘remote’ system, there is a
`second memory 20 . . .….” Ex. 1004 at 4:4-13; see also
`
`14
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 020
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 1
`
`1(b) a data accelerator,
`wherein said data
`accelerator is
`coupled to said
`memory device,
`
`1(c) a data stream is
`received by said
`data accelerator in
`received form,
`
`1(d) said data stream
`includes a first
`data block and a
`second data block,
`1(e) said data stream is
`compressed by
`said data
`accelerator to
`provide a
`compressed data
`stream by
`compressing said
`first data block
`with a first
`compression
`technique and said
`second data block
`with a second
`compression
`technique,
`
`Franaszek and Osterlund
`id. at Fig. 1, 6:59-62, 8:8.
`“[T]there is a compressor 30 that compresses data blocks
`as they are transferred to the second memory, and a de-
`compressor 40 that de-compresses data blocks as they are
`transferred to the first memory.” Ex. 1004 at 4:14-20; see
`also id. at 4:5-13, 4:25-35, 4:51-5:17, 6:51-67, 8:42-54,
`9:16-10:8, Figs. 1, 3, and 5
`see also Ex. 1005 at Abst. (“[A] data compression device
`is interposed between a host computer and an optical disk
`controller to permit data storage and retrieval operations
`on an optical disk to occur at a faster rate than would
`otherwise be possible.”); see also id. at 4:62-65, 5:20-29,
`5:49-54, 5:30-48; Fig. 1.
`“In general, data compression involves taking a stream of
`symbols and transforming them into codes. If the
`compression is effective, the resulting stream of codes
`will be smaller than the original symbol stream . . .….”
`Ex. 1004 at 1:10-29; see also, id. at 4:4-7, 4:14-20, 4:25-
`35, 5:8-11, 5:35-40, Figs. 1-3.
`“[U]ncompressed blocks 210 are compressed by a data
`compressor 220 before being stored as compressed blocks
`230.” Ex. 1004 at 6:64-66; see also id. at 3:9-10, 3:25-36,
`4:4-7, 4:14-19, 4:25-35, 5:8-11, 5:35-40, Figs. 1-3.
`“A system and method for compressing and
`decompressing data using a plurality of data compression
`mechanisms. Representative samples of each block of
`data are tested to select an appropriate one of the data
`compression mechanisms to apply to the block. The
`block is then compressed using the selected one of the
`mechanisms and the compressed block is provided with
`an identifier of the selected mechanism.” Ex. 1004 at
`Abst.; id. at 5:34 (“the block is compressed using the best
`method . . .…”); see also id. at 3:29-36, 4:14-20, 5:18-39,
`5:8-6:50, Figs. 1-4C.
`
`15
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 021
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Claim 1
`
`1(f) said first and
`second
`compression
`techniques are
`different,
`
`1(g) said compressed
`data stream is
`stored on said
`memory device,
`
`Franaszek and Osterlund
`“In accordance with one aspect of the present
`invention, there[T]here is provided a system and method
`for compressing data using a plurality of data
`compression mechanisms. Representative samples of
`each block of data are tested to select an appropriate one
`of the data compression mechanisms to apply to the
`block. The block is then compressed using the selected
`one of the mechanisms and the compressed block is
`provided with an identifier of the selected mechanism
`….” Ex. 1004 at 3:29-36; see also id. at Abst., 5:34, 5:49-
`54, 7:16-19, 4:14-20, 5:8-6:50, Figs. 1-4C, Fig. 6.
`“[D]ata blocks 25 may be stored in a compressed format
`in the second memory . . .….” Ex. 1004 at 4:14-19; see
`also id. at 5:33-38, 6:59-67, Figs. 1, 2.
`
`16
`
`Veritas Techs. LLC
`Exhibit 1018
`Page 022
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Claim 1
`
`1(h) said compression
`and storage occurs
`faster than said
`data stream is able
`to be stored on
`said memory
`device in said
`received form,
`
`1(i) a first data
`descrip