`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TERADATA OPERATIONS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00557
`Patent 7,358,867 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: February 20, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before GREGG I. ANDERSON, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and JASON
`J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00557
`Patent 7,358,867 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JAMIE R. LYNN, ESQUIRE
`ELIOT D. WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE
`Baker Botts, LLP
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004-2400
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`KAYVAN B. NOROOZI, ESQUIRE
`Noroozi, P.C.
`1299 Ocean Avenue
`Suite 450
`Santa Monica, California 90401
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, February
`
`20, 2018, commencing at 1:30 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00557
`Patent 7,358,867 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE ANDERSON: Thank you all. Good afternoon. This is a
`hearing for IPR2017-00557. Petitioner is Teradata Operations, Inc.
`Realtime Data LLC is the owner of the challenged patent, U.S. patent
`number 7,358,867. I am Judge Anderson. I am participating remotely, as is
`obvious to all of you. Judge Boudreau is also joining remotely from
`California. Judge Chung is there in person. As to the remote judges, you
`need to understand that when you refer to demonstratives, which we have
`available to us, you need to give us the slide number so that we can go to
`that slide and understand and follow your argument.
`Per our hearing order, each party will have 30 minutes to present
`argument here. Petitioner has the burden to show unpatentability of the
`claims and will therefore proceed first followed by patent owner. Petitioner,
`you may reserve time to rebut patent owner's opposition to your case.
`At this time let's have counsel, beginning with petitioner, to
`introduce themselves. So petitioner, can you please introduce counsel.
`MR. LYNN: This is Jamie Lynn with the law firm Baker Botts on
`behalf of petitioner, Teradata Operations. And Eliot Williams is here as
`well.
`
`JUDGE ANDERSON: You are going to need go over to the
`microphone because I didn't really get any of that. Thank you.
`MR. LYNN: Sorry, Your Honor. This is Jamie Lynn with Baker
`Botts on behalf of Teradata. And with me is Eliot Williams, also of Baker
`Botts.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00557
`Patent 7,358,867 B2
`
`
`JUDGE ANDERSON: Who is going to take -- Mr. Lynn, who is
`going to be the speaker in today's case?
`MR. LYNN: Your Honor, I have the speaking role today.
`JUDGE ANDERSON: Very good. Thank you, Mr. Lynn.
`Patent owner, can you tell us who will be handling your case. I
`think I already know this one, but for the record, Mr. Noroozi, why don't you
`go ahead and introduce yourself.
`MR. NOROOZI: Yes, Your Honor. Kayvan Noroozi on behalf of
`patent owner, Realtime Data, and I will be presenting on behalf of patent
`owner.
`
`JUDGE ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Noroozi.
`So one other thing before we get started, sometimes during the
`presentation of the opposing party, there will be a desire to make an
`objection. Perhaps the argument is not covered in the papers beyond the
`scope of what evidence there is or the arguments that have not been
`previously presented or there may be some other argument that you have an
`objection. So any of these objections, what I want the parties to do is to hold
`onto them, make a note of them. When it's your turn to speak, please go
`ahead and address the issue then. You have three experienced judges here
`who can sort through this. We want to hear the uninterrupted flow of the
`argument without interruption. So that is what we would like to hear.
`Mr. Lynn, do you understand that?
`MR. LYNN: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE ANDERSON: And Mr. Noroozi?
`MR. NOROOZI: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00557
`Patent 7,358,867 B2
`
`
`JUDGE ANDERSON: Now, one other thing, we didn't get any
`objections to the demonstratives. So we are going to proceed unless
`something very unusual happens here on the basis that there is no currently
`pending objection to any of the demonstratives. Is that correct on your
`behalf, Mr. Lynn?
`MR. LYNN: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE ANDERSON: And Mr. Noroozi?
`MR. NOROOZI: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE ANDERSON: Okay. Very good. So petitioner, would
`you like to reserve some rebuttal time, Mr. Lynn?
`MR. LYNN: Yes, Your Honor. I would like to reserve 10
`minutes, if possible.
`JUDGE ANDERSON: Very good. That is possible. With that,
`Mr. Lynn, you may proceed.
`JUDGE CHUNG: Because I don't see the timer displayed, I'll let
`you know when I have several minutes to go, but I'm setting it for
`20 minutes right now.
`MR. LYNN: Thank you, Your Honors. May it please the Board,
`once again, my name is Jamie Lynn on behalf of petitioner, Teradata
`Operations, Inc. And I'll just ask, can everybody a hear me okay?
`JUDGE ANDERSON: Yes.
`MR. LYNN: Thank you. Your Honors, this IPR deals with five
`grounds. And here on slide 2 we have them listed. On slide 3 we have a
`listing of the claims, the claim hierarchy that shows this is a simple single
`independent claim with six dependent claims. And rather than go into a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00557
`Patent 7,358,867 B2
`
`bunch of background information, I know you all have reviewed the
`references in the prior art. I would just like to start with the first main
`argument that patent owner argues or makes, and that's with respect to
`whether Hsu teaches data blocks.
`Moving on to slide 6, I just want to make it clear, this argument
`does not refer or doesn't implicate at all ground 9, which is the Franaszek
`and Hsu obviousness ground.
`Slide 7 is a listing of the claim. It has all of the claim elements
`there. And as the parties have annotated with A, B and C, in slide 8 we have
`a flowchart to show sort of, I find it easier to track the claim through the
`conditional statement and the branches. Now, we won't get into the specifics
`of the claim much more today than to simply say on slide 9, this claim does
`have data blocks throughout. So on slide 9, we are showing that the claim
`16 is about processing data blocks, and petitioner does not run away from
`that.
`
`On slide 11, we have a listing of the patent owner's arguments.
`The patent owner argues that the petition does not explain how Hsu teaches
`the data blocks of claim 16, that Dr. Creusere's declaration provides no
`opinion on what aspect of Hsu teaches claim 16's data blocks or how any
`aspect of Hsu does so, and that the petition fails to state what in Hsu teaches
`the data blocks of claim 16.
`So it's important to say what does Hsu actually show? And on
`slide 13, we have a pullout from the very first page of Hsu. And here we see
`Hsu says that we present a compression technique for heterogeneous files,
`and it says that the system uses statistical methods to determine the best
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00557
`Patent 7,358,867 B2
`
`algorithm to use in compressing each block of data in a file. So it's block
`based. We probably should have highlighted the last sentence there as well,
`the file is then compressed by applying the appropriate algorithms to each
`block.
`
`And on slides 14 and 15, we have a few other snippets which are
`all cited in the petition and in Dr. Creusere's declaration showing that this is
`about blocks. So Hsu states that heterogeneous compressor treats a file as a
`collection of fixed-size blocks, and it goes from there and it discusses how
`Hsu's processing is on a block basis.
`And so Your Honors, there's really no argument or there's been no
`argument from patent owner that Hsu doesn't have blocks. The argument is
`with respect to the petition and whether the petition sufficiently discusses the
`data blocks and shows that Hsu has data blocks. So what we've done
`between slides 17 and 24 is to have some pulls-outs from the petition just to
`show exactly how the petition itself has explicitly tracked the processing of
`the blocks of Hsu as Hsu processes these blocks to determine what kind of
`compression to use and to actually compress them.
`So on slide 17, it's the very first element. And at the top of the
`page here we can see the petition states Hsu's compressor creates a file as a
`collection of fixed-size data blocks. It states, Hsu explains that applying the
`appropriate algorithm to each block permits better space savings. And then
`the final sentence on that page says, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would understand that Hsu's disclosure of heterogeneous files that are best
`compressed on a block-by-block basis requires receiving a plurality of data
`blocks.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00557
`Patent 7,358,867 B2
`
`
`And the same thing, the same kind of discussion occurs for all the
`other elements. So on slide 18, this is with respect to the determining step.
`So determining whether or not to compress data, here again, we say Hsu
`explains that the compressibility of a block of data and the appropriate
`algorithm to do so are determined by the type of data contained in the block
`and the type of redundancy. And then the last sentence there says the
`compressor determines and then applies the selected algorithms to the blocks
`separately.
`JUDGE ANDERSON: So Mr. Lynn, on the block, I want to go
`back to slide 17 for just a moment, the last sentence there, a POSITA would
`understand that it's block-by-block, and that cites to, I can't remember,
`Dr. Creusere.
`MR. LYNN: Dr. Creusere.
`JUDGE ANDERSON: Thank you. That cites to his declaration.
`And it seems like this is pretty much a conclusory statement. Does he have
`anything that he's relying on? Is that on the top of that page that he's relying
`on to reach that conclusion?
`MR. LYNN: Dr. Creusere's conclusion that a POSITA would
`understand that Hsu's disclosure of heterogeneous files that are best
`compressed on a block-by-block basis requires receiving a plurality of data
`blocks, I mean, I can certainly point you to portions of Dr. Creusere's
`declaration where he discusses the portions of Hsu -- I mean, Hsu
`throughout discusses data blocks.
`Let me -- again, we are looking at limitation 16A. And I will pull
`up -- I apologize, you don't have the screen here in front of you. I'm looking
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00557
`Patent 7,358,867 B2
`
`at paragraph 91. I think the best place to look is in the Teradata
`Exhibit 1032. In that exhibit we highlighted and annotated the portions of
`Dr. Creusere's declaration that talks about blocks. And so in paragraph 91,
`Dr. Creusere points to Hsu at 1098. He points to Hsu at 1102. He points to
`Hsu at 1197. And for example, Dr. Creusere quotes Hsu here and he says
`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 compressed using different algorithms.
`JUDGE ANDERSON: Thank you.
`MR. LYNN: So Your Honors, I believe we were on around slide
`20. Frankly, Your Honors, through slides 24 we've pulled out, we've pointed
`to the portions and in particular on slide 20, I'll point out the very last
`sentence that says Hsu provides that he developed a heterogeneous
`compressor that automatically chooses the best compression algorithm to use
`on a given variable length block of a file. Based on both the qualitative and
`quantitative properties of that segment, the compressor determines and then
`applies the selected algorithms to the blocks separately. So those are all
`discussing blocks, all discussing Hsu's processing of blocks. So we don't
`think there's any doubt when you look at the actual petition that the mapping
`of Hsu is to the blocks of Hsu.
`And Your Honors, if we turn to slide 26, we also have a pull-out,
`and those are the paragraphs that is Dr. Creusere points to. In fact, if we
`look at Exhibit 1032 which we've submitted, we think it's very clear that
`Dr. Creusere and the petition mapped the blocks of Hsu, that is the data
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00557
`Patent 7,358,867 B2
`
`blocks of Hsu, as they are processed and mapped to the actual claim
`limitations.
`Your Honors, going to slide 28, the petition doesn't argue that Hsu
`uses the term "data blocks." Instead, Hsu uses the term block of data or 5K
`blocks or you can see block of data. So on page 1097 of Hsu, 1102 and
`1103, we see the usage of the term "block of data" or just "block." But
`there's never actually -- Hsu never actually uses the term "data block."
`So on slide 29 we have a pull-out that shows a portion of Hsu that
`we've quoted in our brief. And here you can see on slide 29 that Hsu says
`that his heterogeneous compressor treats a file as a collection of fixed-size
`blocks. And on the next slide, that's slide 30, we can see the way it's been
`quoted in the petition and also Dr. Creusere's declaration is we've added the
`word "data" in front of block when we've talked about this quote. So we are
`explicitly making clear that the blocks of Hsu are data blocks as required by
`the claims. And that was done in both the petition and in Dr. Creusere's
`declaration, just to make it abundantly clear.
`Now, Your Honors, the patent owner has made a big deal about
`Dr. Creusere's testimony that in addition to the blocks of Hsu, he also
`believes that the heterogeneous files of Hsu could be considered data blocks
`and that if you were to trace the processing of those heterogeneous files, if
`you were to trace that through Hsu, you would also find that that processing
`anticipates the claims. To the extent that patent owner plans to make
`arguments about that, I would like to reserve my time for rebuttal unless
`Your Honors have questions about Dr. Creusere's testimony. But I would
`like to discuss that on rebuttal, if that's okay.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00557
`Patent 7,358,867 B2
`
`
`JUDGE ANDERSON: Whatever you want, counsel.
`MR. LYNN: So with that, I would like to turn to the second
`argument that patent owner makes about Hsu. And that has to do with
`whether or not to compress with an encoder. Once again, we are now on
`slide 40. And once again, this does not implicate ground 9. It only
`implicates grounds 1, 2, 5 and 6. If we look at slide 41, we can see the
`flowchart of claim 16 again. We see that claim 16 has a receiving step at
`step A, a conditional statement where you determine whether or not to
`compress each one of said plurality of data blocks with a particular one or
`more of several encoders. And then if you make the determination to
`compress, then you follow the C branch which goes up, and you compress
`the file and you output the compressed block and the data compression
`descriptor. If you decide you are not going to compress a block, then you
`output the uncompressed block and a null data compression type descriptor.
`The patent owner argues and quibbles with -- we are on slide 43,
`quibbles with the conditional statement that, B, determining whether or not
`to compress each one of said plurality of data blocks with a particular one or
`more of several encoders. And what they point to is they say that Hsu's
`determination not to compress doesn't take any particular encoders into
`consideration at all. Now, there's no dispute that Hsu performs the
`conditional statement without the "not" and it actually gets up to this branch
`C. There's no dispute that Hsu, yes, it does receive blocks, it does make a
`determination whether or not to compress, and when it decides to compress,
`it goes up to the C branch and it compresses the block and it outputs that
`compressed block. So there's no dispute there.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00557
`Patent 7,358,867 B2
`
`
`What they point to is, like I said, with a particular one or more of
`several encoders. The problem is that when you make a determination not to
`compress, and here on slide 46, the plain meaning of the claim requires only
`that a determination is made whether or not to compress. It doesn't require
`that in order to reach branch D when you make a decision not to compress
`that you consider the particular one or more of several encoders. That's
`simply not in the language of branch D. You can see that's simply not there.
`On the other hand, if we look at slide 47, we can see that the
`language "with a particular one or more of several encoders," that actually
`appears in branch C. So that portion, a particular one or more of several
`encoders, is actually associated with the circumstance where you do decide
`to compress. So all the plain and ordinary meaning, the broadest reasonable
`interpretation of claim 16 requires is that you make a determination whether
`or not to compress, and if you do decide to compress, then you need to
`consider the particular one or more of said several encoders.
`But Your Honors, we can go further. And even if we were to
`accept patent owner's argument with respect to the meaning of the claim,
`turning to slide 49, Hsu actually does teach that you consider the actual
`compressors, the actual encoders when you make a decision not to compress.
`On slide 49, we have a portion of page 1104 from Hsu. And on that page, it
`links up explicitly certain metrics that are exploited by algorithms. So the
`frequency of characters is exploited by arithmetic or alphabetic encoding
`algorithms.
`Turning to slide 50, we have a table. This is the table from Hsu
`which explicitly maps, and this is Hsu teaches us that we have data types on
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00557
`Patent 7,358,867 B2
`
`the left hand of the table and redundancy metrics that are listed at the top.
`So in Hsu, for example, if I had a hexadecimal block, I would run the
`metrics, the redundancy metrics on that block and I would pick the highest
`of the redundancy metrics. And if, for example, that was the average run
`length, then I would apply the run-length encoding algorithm. So there's a
`direct linkage between the actual metrics and the algorithms themselves.
`Now, if we turn to slide 51 and 52 and 53, we can see that the
`particular kinds of algorithms, arithmetic encoding, that only appears under
`the column that has the alphabetic distribution metric. And run-length
`encoding appropriately appears under the column that has the average
`run-length metric. And similarly, the Lempel-Ziv encoding algorithm only
`appears under the string repetition ratio metric.
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: Mr. Lynn, if I could just interrupt for a
`second, in making a determination to compress using run-length encoding --
`JUDGE CHUNG: Judge Boudreau, we are having a hard time
`hearing you.
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: Is this any better?
`JUDGE CHUNG: A little bit.
`MR. LYNN: I can understand you, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: In making a determination not to -- I'm
`sorry. In making a determination to encode with run-length encoding, could
`that be considered to be a determination not to encode using arithmetic
`encoding or Lempel-Ziv encoding?
`MR. LYNN: Your Honor, I had not thought of it that way, but yes,
`I think that's correct. If you decide to use run-length encoding, you are
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00557
`Patent 7,358,867 B2
`
`deciding not to use arithmetic encoding. That is a true statement. I hadn't
`thought of that, but, yes.
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: Thank you.
`JUDGE ANDERSON: So while we are interrupting you,
`Mr. Lynn, I'm back at slide 46, I think, where you said that the determination
`whether or not to compress only requires that the determination in 16C be
`made and that the determination not to compress in 16D really is already met
`because it met 16C. Am I understanding you correctly?
`MR. LYNN: I think that may be a way to put it. The point that I
`was trying to make between -- and I think that's between slides 46 and 47. If
`we look at the totality of the claim language, we have a conditional
`statement in B that tells us we can go one of two directions. And what
`patent owner is arguing is that in both, for both branches, in order to end up
`in the C branch, you have to consider the particular one or more of several
`encoders. They are also arguing that in order to get down to the D branch
`that is deciding not to compress, that you also have to consider the particular
`one or more of several encoders. But in actuality, the consideration of
`whether you are going to use the particular one or more of several encoders,
`that is something that appears only up in that C branch. So we are making
`the distinction that reading the claim as a whole, it really is talking about you
`make a determination whether to compress or not, and then if you decide to
`compress, it's got to be with one or more of several encoders. Did that
`answer your question?
`JUDGE ANDERSON: Yeah, I think so. Now, correct me if I'm
`wrong, but the panel has raised the question as to whether or not this
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00557
`Patent 7,358,867 B2
`
`argument was made in response to the argument that patent owner made in
`its response. I'm assuming that that is the case.
`MR. LYNN: We did explicitly make this argument in the reply.
`And I think we have the cited pages there on slide 44. I believe it's the reply
`pages 11 to 12 where we bring it out, yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE ANDERSON: So the procedural situation here is that you
`are arguing something in response to an issue raised in the response. Fair
`enough?
`MR. LYNN: Yeah, that's a fair statement, Your Honor.
`JUDGE ANDERSON: All right. Go ahead.
`MR. LYNN: I know I'm running up on my ten-minute rebuttal
`time. We do want to point out, and I think on slide --
`JUDGE CHUNG: Two minutes.
`MR. LYNN: We were up to maybe slide 54 or 55, the point is on
`slide 53, for example, we can see that there is a linkage between the metrics
`and the actual encoding algorithms. And on slide 54, what patent owner
`points to is the fact that Hsu says it normalizes the metrics, it performs this
`redundancy metric calculation, and it normalizes the metrics and says, you
`know, sometimes compression just isn't going to work. So they set a
`threshold at 2.5, and if none of the metrics are above 2.5, it just wipes its
`hands and says I'm going to move on. So it decides that it's not going to
`compress that block with any of the metrics. And that's what the patent
`owner is pointing to, to say that there is no relation, for example, between
`the decision not to compress and the actual encoders.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00557
`Patent 7,358,867 B2
`
`
`This is on slide 55. Even Dr. Zeger, that's patent owner's expert,
`he admitted and acknowledged that there is a correlation and a relation
`between the metrics and the algorithms. And on slide 56 really sums it up,
`the fact is that when Hsu's metrics, when those redundancy metrics are all
`below a certain threshold and the block is considered uncompressible, it's
`considered uncompressible with the algorithms that are available, with these
`particular algorithms. It's not a universal determination that nothing could
`ever compress these things. It's just these are the algorithms that are
`available and the metrics that resulted from the calculation fell below the
`threshold.
`Now, Your Honors, I would like to touch on -- I have moved on to
`slide 58 -- the arguments with respect to Franaszek and Hsu. This is the
`combination of Franaszek and Hsu. On slide 59, I'll point out that this only
`relates to ground number 9. It doesn't relate to any of the other grounds. I
`don't have a whole lot of time. On slide 60, I'll just point out that this is the
`claim language that's at issue. There is no dispute that A, B and C are met
`by Franaszek. The only thing that Franaszek -- patent owner argues that
`Franaszek doesn't do is explicitly say that when I have decided that I'm not
`going to compress a block, that I'll have some sort of indicator, some sort of
`null data compression-type descriptor. Franaszek is silent on that.
`JUDGE CHUNG: Counselor, your 20 minutes is up. As of now,
`you are going to be eating into your rebuttal time.
`MR. LYNN: Thank you, Your Honor. I'll move quickly. I will go
`ahead to slide 66. Your Honors, although Franaszek doesn't say explicitly
`that when I decide not to compress a block, that I will have some sort of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00557
`Patent 7,358,867 B2
`
`indicator, some sort of designator that says this block is uncompressed. It
`does say that each block of data includes a coding identifier which is
`indicative of the method or mechanism used to compress the block.
`And if we turn back to slide 63, Franaszek explicitly says that you
`add a coding identifier to compressed blocks. The entire argument, the
`argument that we are saying is that it would have been obvious. And that's
`the question, would it have been obvious to add for uncompressed blocks to
`have some sort of descriptor?
`And if we look at slide 64, there's no requirement that the CMD
`area, there's nothing in the claims that requires this CMD area. The only
`question is would it have been obvious in view of Franaszek to have a null
`data compression-type descriptor? And we think that it would. We think
`our pages have shown that.
`JUDGE ANDERSON: Are you relying on Hsu -- I gathered that
`you were relying on Hsu in combination with Franaszek to show the null
`compression identifier.
`MR. LYNN: Your Honors, yes, that is true. On slide 68 we point
`to in particular what flag we are pointing to out of Hsu. And the flags that
`we are pointing to are the no compression code or the skip instruction. So
`Hsu explicitly says that when you decide not to compress a data block, you
`sure need to track it. For your decoder, you need to know if you are going to
`decompress a string of compressed and uncompressed data, you need to
`know which is compressed and which is uncompressed. Hsu explicitly
`teaches that. So we are just saying it would be obvious to include those
`same types of codes in Franaszek.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00557
`Patent 7,358,867 B2
`
`
`JUDGE ANDERSON: It seems like the patent owner's argument
`is that because Franaszek doesn't deal expressly with null compression
`descriptors, that the compression method descriptors have no express
`statement about that, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be
`motivated to combine the two.
`MR. LYNN: Your Honors, I think you are right that the patent
`owner focuses solely on the concept that Franaszek does have an
`embodiment where it's silent as to whether you put a CMD block on an
`uncompressed block. It only says that you put a CMD block on a
`compressed block. But it doesn't address the fact that the claim itself simply
`says I need to provide an output, a null data description, a null data
`compression-type descriptor. Did that answer your question?
`JUDGE ANDERSON: Well, somewhat. I don't want to eat up
`any more of your time, but that's fine.
`MR. LYNN: Your Honor --
`JUDGE ANDERSON: I was going to ask the panel, we are going
`to give you a little bit of extra time. You have tried to cover an awful lot
`with not much time. So let me just push a little bit further on that one. And
`I kind of need to regroup my train of thought here, but what is your position
`that the CMD area would, in fact, be modifiable with a null compression
`descriptor and what's the rationale for that?
`MR. LYNN: I think the rationale is best shown on slide 67. And
`here we are citing to Dr. Creusere's declaration. And what Dr. Creusere tells
`us is that -- this is his reasoning, his logic. Some data blocks are stored in
`the second memory in uncompressed format and therefore, the decompressor
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00557
`Patent 7,358,867 B2
`
`of Franaszek has to have or must have a way of differentiating those blocks
`from the compressed blocks. So it was Dr. Creusere's position, and we think
`it's accurate, that using the CMD area or a CMD area of a data block as
`taught by Franaszek to indicate that a data block was stored in uncompressed
`format would have been an obvious choice to a person of ordinary skill in
`the art. It's as simple as adding a CMD block to any of the uncompressed
`blocks that are being exported and stored in memory.
`JUDGE ANDERSON: I'm not sure, but hopefully Judge Chung
`kept record of how much additional time you got.
`JUDGE CHUNG: I did.
`JUDGE ANDERSON: Very good. Thank you, Judge Chung.
`With that, Mr. Lynn, do you have anything else you want to say?
`MR. LYNN: Your Honors, I'm happy to answer any questions that
`you have, but I would prefer to save my time for rebuttal, if that's all right.
`JUDGE ANDERSON: That's fine. So Mr. Noroozi, your time is
`beginning now, and you will have, if you choose to use it, how much
`additional time, Judge Chung, did we give --
`JUDGE CHUNG: I counted five minutes extra that we gave to
`petitioner. So in fairness, counselor for patent owner is permitted
`35 minutes of time to present arguments.
`JUDGE ANDERSON: Okay. Very good. With that, you may
`proceed, Mr. Noroozi.
`MR. NOROOZI: Thank you, Your Honors. I would like to just
`begin where we left off with petitioner's arguments, and that is with respect
`to Franaszek and the idea of the CMD area in Hsu. The question was asked
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00557
`Patent 7,358,867 B2
`
`whether it was essentially petitioner's modification theory to add a CMD
`area to Franaszek and what the rationale for that was. And indeed, petitioner
`represented that they have an argument on this, but they don't. They don't
`have an argument on it. The argument that they make comes from
`Dr. Creusere's deposition where he brings it up for the first time that
`someone would have -- where we talked about whether a person of skill in
`the art would have been motivated to add a CMD area to the uncompressed
`blocks in Franaszek. In fact, if we look at our slide 40, Dr. Creusere was
`asked whether he has an opinion in his declaration that a person of skill in
`the art would have added a CMD area to the uncompressed blocks in
`Franaszek, and he said that he does not have that opinion. That theory does
`not exist. It was not in the petition. It was not instituted on. It's not a part
`of this proceeding.
`And that's the fundamental problem that petitioner has with its
`Franaszek and Hsu theory. Petitioner's theory has clearly become that they
`want to create a CMD area in the uncompressed blocks of Franaszek where a
`CMD area does not exist. But they don't have any statement whatsoever in
`their petition nor any support from their expert in his original declaration
`that a person of skill i
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
