`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`ORACLE AMERICA, INC., HP INC., HEWLETT PACKARD
`ENTERPRISE CO., AND HP ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-00373
`Patent 7,378,992 B2
`_______________
`
`Before GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, J. JOHN LEE, AND JASON J.
`CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1024, p. 1 of 32
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`Oracle America, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) to
`institute an inter partes review of claim 48 of U.S. Patent No. 7,378,992 B2
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’992 patent”). Realtime Data LLC, (“Patent Owner”) timely
`filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”). We have
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes
`review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that
`the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`challenged in the petition.”
`Upon consideration of the Petition, the Petition’s supporting evidence,
`and Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, we conclude Petitioner has
`established a reasonable likelihood it would prevail with respect to the one
`challenged claim. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, we institute an
`inter partes review.
`B. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner informs us of the following co-pending litigation matters
`that would affect or could be affected by a decision in this proceeding:
`Realtime Data LLC v Actian Corporation et al., E.D. Tex. Case No. 6:2015-
`cv-00463, Realtime Data LLC v Dropbox, Inc., E.D. Tex. Case No. 6:2015-
`cv-00465, Realtime Data LLC v EchoStart Corporation et al., E.D. Tex.
`Case No. 6:2015-cv-00466, Realtime Data LLC v Oracle America, Inc.,
`Hewlett-Packard Co. and HP Enterprise Services, LLC, E.D. Tex. Case No.
`6:2015-cv-00467, Realtime Data LLC v Riverbed Technology, Inc. et al.,
`E.D. Tex. Case No. 6:2015-cv-00468, Realtime Data LLC v SAP America,
`Inc. et al., E.D. Tex. Case No. 6:2015-cv-00469, Realtime Data LLC v
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1024, p. 2 of 32
`
`
`
`Teradata Corporation et al., E.D. Tex. Case No. 6:2015-cv-00470, all filed
`on May 8, 2015 and still pending currently. Pet. 3.
`Petitioner also informs us of concurrently filed IPR2016-00374
`(challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,643,513); IPR2016-00375 (challenging U.S.
`Patent No. 7,415,530); IPR2016-00376 (challenging U.S. Patent No.
`7,415,530); and IPR2016-00377 (challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908).
`Pet. 55–56.
`C. The ’992 Patent
`The ’992 patent, titled “Content Independent Data Compression
`Method and System,” discloses systems and methods for analyzing a data
`block and selecting a compression method to apply to that block. Ex. 1001,
`Title, Abst. The ’992 patent further discloses “fast and efficient data
`compression using a combination of content independent data compression
`and content dependent data compression.” Id. at 3:52–54. One embodiment
`of the ’992 patent is illustrated in Figure 13A reproduced below.
`
`As shown above in Figure 13A of the ’992 patent, the system receives an
`input data stream of data blocks. Id. at 16:7–12. Content dependent data
`recognition module 1300 analyzes the incoming data stream to recognize
`
`
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1024, p. 3 of 32
`
`
`
`“data types” and other parameters indicative of the “data type/content.” Id.
`at 16:27–33. If module 1300 recognizes the data type of a given data block,
`module 1300 routes the block to content dependent encoder module 1320
`(id. at 16:36–40); if not, it routes the block to “content independent” (or
`“default”) encoder module 30 (id. at.3:54–55, 3:60–63, 16:4–7, 16:36–40,
`18:17–20).
`Content dependent encoder module 1320 comprises lossy or lossless
`compression encoders (id. at 16:45–53); content independent encoder
`module 30 comprises only lossless encoders (id. 16:60–62). Lossy encoders
`provide for an “inexact” representation of the original uncompressed data
`(id. at 1:64–67); lossless encoders provide for an “exact” representation (id.
`2:11–13). The ’992 patent teaches that “[e]ncoding techniques” may be
`selected “based upon their ability to effectively encode different types of
`input data.” Id. at 12:61–64.
`
`Another embodiment of the ’992 patent is illustrated in Figure 13B
`reproduced below.
`
`
`As shown above in Figure 13B of the ’992 patent, “compression ratio
`module 1340, operatively connected to the content dependent output
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1024, p. 4 of 32
`
`
`
`builder/counters 1330 and content independent buffer/counters 40
`determines the compression ratio obtained for each of the enabled encoders
`Dl . . . Dm and/or El . . . En.” Id. at 17:49–54. It sets the compression ratio
`“by taking the ratio of the size of the input data block to the size of the
`output data block stored in the corresponding buffer/counters BCD1, BCD2,
`BCD3 . . . BCDm and/or BCE1, BCE2, BCE3 . . . BCEn.” Id. at 17:54–57.
`
`D. Summary of the Prosecution History and the Challenged Claim
`
`The ’992 patent has undergone two reexamination proceedings. See
`Ex. 1034 (Request for Reexamination No. 95/000,478); Ex. 1036 (Request
`for Reexamination No. 95/001,928). During these reexaminations, twenty-
`one claims were cancelled and six new claims were added. See Ex. 1001
`(’928 Reexamination Certificate); Ex. 1009 (’928 Reexamination, Right of
`Appeal Notice); Ex. 1035 (’478 Reexamination, Decision on Appeal). As
`noted above, Petitioner challenges claim 48 of the ’992 patent, which was
`added and allowed during the second reexamination. See Ex. 1009, 2.
`Claim 48 is reproduced below (with paragraphing):
`48. A computer implemented method comprising:
`receiving a first data block;
`associating at least one encoder to each one of several data
`types;
`analyzing data within the data block to identify a first data
`type of the data within the data block;
`compressing, if said first data type is the same as one of said
`several data types, said data block with said at least one encoder
`associated with said one of said several data types that is the same
`as said first data type to provide a compressed data block; and
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1024, p. 5 of 32
`
`
`
`compressing, if said first data type is not the same as one of said
`several data types, said data block with a default encoder to
`provide said compressed data block,
`wherein the analyzing of the data within the data block to identify
`one or more data types excludes analyzing based only on a
`descriptor that is indicative of the data type of the data within the
`data block.
`Ex. 1008, 4.
`E. The Evidence of Record
`Petitioner relies upon the following references, as well as the
`Declaration of Dr. James A. Storer (Ex. 1002):
`Reference
`Patent/Printed Publication
`
`Exhibit
`
`Published/
`Issued Date
`Oct. 1995
`
`1003
`
`Hsu
`
`W. H. Hsu and A. E. Zwarico,
`“Automatic Synthesis of
`Compression Techniques for
`Heterogeneous
`Files,” Software—Practice and
`Experience, Vol. 25(10), 1097–1116
`(October 1995)
`Franaszek US Patent No. 5,870,036
`Sebastian US Patent No. 6,253,264 B1
`
`F. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claim 48 of the ’992 patent
`based on the following grounds:
`References
`Hsu and Franaszek
`Hsu and Sebastian
`
`Basis
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`48
`48
`
`Feb. 9, 1999
`Jun. 26,
`2001
`
`1004
`1005
`
`Claim Challenged
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1024, p. 6 of 32
`
`
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see
`also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1275–79 (Fed. Cir.
`2015 (“Congress implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation
`standard in enacting the AIA,” and “the standard was properly adopted by
`PTO regulation.”), cert. granted sub nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 890 (mem.) (2016). Under that standard, and absent any special
`definitions, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as
`would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007).
`Petitioner and Patent Owner each propose constructions for “receiving
`a data block” and “wherein the analyzing of the data within the data block to
`identify one or more data types excludes analyzing based only on a
`descriptor that is indicative of the data type of the data within the data
`block.” Pet. 16–19; Prelim. Resp. 10–14. Upon review of the parties’
`positions and arguments, we are not persuaded that any specific claim
`construction must be made in this decision to determine whether to institute
`trial. Therefore, for purposes of this Decision and based on the record
`before us, we need not provide express constructions for any claim terms.
`B. Principles of Law
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1024, p. 7 of 32
`
`
`
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness,
`i.e., secondary considerations. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
`17–18 (1966).
`We analyze the challenges presented in the Petition in accordance
`with the above-stated principles.
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the
`time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
`at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. “The importance of
`resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of
`maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.” Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-
`Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
`Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Storer, opines that a person of ordinary
`skill in the art relevant to the ’992 patent would have been a person with “an
`undergraduate degree in computer science and two years’ industry
`experience or a graduate degree in the field of computer science.” Ex. 1002
`¶ 20. Patent Owner does not offer any contrary explanation regarding who
`would qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’992
`patent. See generally Prelim. Resp.
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1024, p. 8 of 32
`
`
`
`Based on our review of the ’992 patent, the types of problems and
`solutions described in the ’992 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony
`of Petitioner’s Declarant, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of a
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. We
`note that the applied prior art reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time
`of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355
`(Fed. Cir. 2001).
`D. Alleged Obviousness of Claim 48 in View of Hsu and Franaszek
`Petitioner contends claim 48 of the ’992 patent is unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Hsu and Franaszek. Pet. 31–52. Patent Owner
`disputes Petitioner’s contention. Prelim. Resp. 15–17, 18–41. For the
`reasons that follow, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing as to this claim.
`1. Overview of Hsu
`Hsu is titled “Automatic Synthesis of Compression Techniques for
`Heterogeneous Files,” and discloses systems and methods for compressing
`“heterogeneous files”—files that contain “multiple types of data such as text,
`images, binary, audio, or animation.” Ex. 1003, Title, 1097. Hsu teaches 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, and “treats a file as a
`collection of fixed size blocks (5K in the current implementation), each
`containing a potentially different type of data and thus best compressed
`using different algorithms.” Id. at 1102. Hsu further teaches a two phase
`system. Id. In the first phase, the system uses statistical methods based on
`analysis of the data within each block to determine a data type of the block
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1024, p. 9 of 32
`
`
`
`and to determine the optimal encoder to use in compressing a block. Id. at
`1097; see also id. at 1103 (“The compressibility of a block of data and the
`appropriate algorithm to do so are determined by the type of data contained
`in a block . . . .”). The second phase comprises the actual compression and
`an optimization that maximizes the size of a segment of data to be
`compressed using a particular algorithm. In this optimization, which is
`interleaved with the actual compression, adjacent blocks for which exactly
`the same method have been chosen are merged into a single block. Id. at
`1102. Specifically, during the second phase, the heterogeneous compressor
`applies the selected algorithms to the blocks separately. Id. at 1098.
`The approach in Hsu uses a program synthesis technique, meaning
`that a compression plan, consisting of instructions for each block of input
`data, is generated based on the statistical properties of the input data. Id.
`According to Hsu, its system chooses each algorithm (as well as the duration
`of its applicability) before compression begins, rather than modifying the
`technique for each file during compression. Id. at 1100. The heterogeneous
`compressor in Hsu bases its compression upon statistics gathered from larger
`blocks of five kilobytes. Id. Hsu states that “[t]his allows us to handle much
`larger changes in file redundancy types. This makes our system less
`sensitive to residual statistical fluctuations from different parts of a file.” Id.
`Hsu further teaches that “in-depth statistical analysis in order to make a
`more informed selection from the database of algorithms” when looking at
`the blocks of data to be compressed, and such computations are considered
`for an entire block (as opposed to sporadic or random sampling from parts of
`each block). Id. at 1101.
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1024, p. 10 of 32
`
`
`
`Hsu discloses that the compressibility of a block of data and the
`appropriate algorithm to do so are determined by the type of data contained
`in a block and the type of redundancy (if any) in the data. Id. at 1103.
`These two properties are represented by four parameters: the block type, and
`the three redundancy metrics. Id. The block type describes the nature of a
`segment of input data. Id. The redundancy metrics are quantitative
`measures that are used to determine the compressibility of a block of data.
`They are: the degree of variation in character frequency or alphabetic
`distribution, MAD; the average run length of the block, MRL; and the string
`repetition ratio of the block, MSR. Id. at 1104. According to Hsu, these three
`manifestations of redundancy are independent, and each of the redundancy
`types is exploited by different compression algorithms. Id.
`The compression algorithms and attendant heuristics of Hsu are
`organized into the 10 by 3 table shown Table 1, reproduced below.
`
`
`As shown in Table 1, the 10 file descriptors are the row indices and the 3
`metrics are the column indices. Id. at 1106. Each entry of the table contains
`descriptors that are used to access the code for an algorithm-heuristic pair.
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1024, p. 11 of 32
`
`
`
`Id. Hsu teaches the use of four basic compression algorithms to be used in
`its system: arithmetic coding, Lempel-Ziv, run length encoding (RLE), and
`JPEG for image/graphics compression. Id. An optimal algorithm is selected
`for each data block of a file, and the system creates a record of each data
`block and its optimal algorithm, which Hsu refers to as the file’s
`“compression plan.” Id. at 1109. Hsu notes that “recent implementations of
`‘universal’ compression programs execute the Lempel-Ziv algorithm and
`dynamic Huffman coding in succession, thus improving performance by
`combining the string repetition-based compression of Lempel-Ziv with the
`frequency based compression strategy of dynamic Huffman coding.” Id. at
`1100.
`
`2. Overview of Franaszek
`Franaszek teaches systems and methods for compressing and
`decompressing data blocks using a plurality of optimal encoders. Ex. 1004,
`Abst. Franaszek teaches that representative samples of each block are tested
`to select an appropriate encoder to apply to the block. Id. Franaszek teaches
`recognizing the data type of incoming data blocks and then compressing the
`collection of data blocks using a plurality of optimal encoders for the
`different types of data. Id. at 4:30–36, 5:49–53.
`In one embodiment, Franaszek teaches a set of “default” compression
`algorithms, which are shown in Figure 2, reproduced below.
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1024, p. 12 of 32
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2, above, illustrates data compressor 220 and data de-compressor
`270, with uncompressed data blocks 210 that can contain type information
`205. Id. at 4:25–31. According to Franaszek, the type information can be,
`for example, image data encoded in a given format, source code for a given
`programming language, etc. Id. at 4:32–34. Data blocks 210 are input to
`data compressor 220. Data compressor 220 and data de-compressor 270
`share a compression method table 240 and a memory 250 containing a
`number of dictionary blocks. Id. at 4:34–38. Compressor 220 selects a
`compression method to compress the data. Id. at 4:52–53. The compressor
`outputs compressed data blocks 230, with an index (M) 232 identifying the
`selected compression method. Id. at 4:55–57. De-compressor 270 de-
`compresses the block using the specified method found in compression
`method table 240 (using the compression method identifier as an index), and
`outputs uncompressed data blocks 280. Id. at 5:1–7. For example,
`compression method table 240 is shown in Figure 2 implementing a Lempel-
`Ziv compression method.
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1024, p. 13 of 32
`
`
`
`Figure 4A of Franaszek, reproduced below, shows the operation of
`data compressor 220 illustrated in Figure 2.
`
`
`As shown in Figure 4A, in step 401 when data compressor 220 receives an
`uncompressed data block, it first determines whether data “type”
`information (e.g., text, image, etc.) is available for the data block. Id. at
`5:49–50. If such information is available, then at step 404, the compression
`method list (CML) is set to a list of compression methods that have been
`preselected for that data type. Id. at 5:50–53. Otherwise, if no data type is
`available, in step 407 the CML is set to a default list of compression
`methods. Id. at 5:53–54. In instances when the data “type” information is
`available, then data compressor 220 uses the compression method “table”
`240 shown in Figure 2. See id. at 5:49–53.
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1024, p. 14 of 32
`
`
`
`3. Analysis
`a. Cited Art as Applied to Claim 48
`Claim 48 generally requires (i) receiving a data block and analyzing
`the data within the data block to identify the data type by analyzing more
`than just a descriptor that is indicative of the data type of the data within the
`data block, and (ii) compressing the data with an encoder that is associated
`with that specific data type or compressing the data with a default encoder if
`there is not encoder associated with that specific data type. Ex. 1008, 5.
`Petitioner contends that the combined teachings of Hsu and Franaszek
`would have rendered each limitation of claim 48 in the ’992 patent obvious
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Pet. 31–
`52. Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s contention. Prelim. Resp. 15–17,
`18–41. Patent Owner specifically argues that Petitioner fails to show:
`(1) that Hsu is a printed publication; (2) that Hsu and Franaszek teach
`“compressing, if said first data type is not the same as one of said several
`data types, said data block with a default encoder to provide said compressed
`data block” as recited by challenged claim 48; (3) that Hsu and Franaszek
`teach to “exclude[ ] analyzing based only on a descriptor that is indicative of
`the data type of the data within the data block,” as recited in challenged
`claim 48; and (4) that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a
`reason to combine Hsu and Franaszek. After considering the parties’
`arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner presented sufficient
`evidence to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the ground of
`obviousness in view of Hsu and Franaszek. We address the issues disputed
`by Patent Owner in more detail.
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1024, p. 15 of 32
`
`
`
`(1) Hsu as a Printed Publication
`Whether a document is a “printed publication” is “a legal
`determination based on underlying fact issues,” and involves a case-by-case
`inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s
`disclosure to the public. In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350
`(Fed.Cir.2004); In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 899 (Fed. Cir. 1986). To qualify
`as a printed publication, a document must be available generally. Northern
`Telecom, Inc. v. Datapoint Corp., 908 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A
`reference is publicly accessible upon a satisfactory showing that such
`document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent
`that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art,
`exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it. Kyocera Wireless Corp. v.
`ITC, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350–51 (Fed.Cir. 2008).
`Patent Owner raises two general issues: (1) whether Hsu is
`admissible evidence; and (2) if admissible, whether Hsu, and the information
`presented on its face, is sufficient evidence of public accessibility. As to the
`first issue, admissibility of evidence in most cases is more appropriately
`addressed after trial is instituted and a motion of exclude is filed. As set
`forth in our Rules, all objections to evidence submitted during a preliminary
`proceeding must be filed within ten business of institution of trial. 37 CFR §
`42.64(b)(1). This allows the party relying on the evidence an opportunity to
`correct any deficiency by providing supplemental evidence. Id. Thus, we
`defer all questions as to the admissibility of Hsu until trial.1
`
`1 We note that Federal Rule of Evidence 803(16) provides that a document
`over twenty years old is an exception to the hearsay rule, and that Rule
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1024, p. 16 of 32
`
`
`
`With respect to Patent Owner’s arguments about the sufficiency of
`Petitioner’s public accessibility evidence, we are persuaded that the
`information presented about Hsu demonstrates sufficiently for purposes of
`this Decision that Hsu was publicly accessible as of October 1995. On its
`face, Hsu appears to be an article published in the October 1995 issue of a
`journal titled “Software Practice & Experience.” Ex. 1003, 1. The cover of
`Hsu appears to be stamped by a university library. Id. Hsu’s format and
`appearance are consistent with that of a published article in a technical
`journal. See generally Ex. 1003. At this stage of the case, we are satisfied
`these indicia are sufficient evidence to proceed. Therefore, on this record
`and for purposes of this Decision, we are satisfied Petitioner has made a
`threshold showing that Hsu is a “printed publication.”
`(2) “compressing, if said first data type is not the same as
`one of said several data types, said data block with a
`default encoder to provide said compressed data
`block”
`Petitioner contends Hsu and Franaszek teach “compressing, if said
`first data type is not the same as one of said several data types, said data
`block with a default encoder to provide said compressed data block” as
`recited by challenged claim 48. Pet. 47–50. According to Petitioner, “Hsu
`implicitly discloses the use of a ‘default’ encoder (e.g., lossless compression
`algorithms such as Lempel-Ziv that can optimally or ‘nearly optimally’
`compress all types of data, including data of an unknown, unidentified, or
`unrecognizable data type, see Hsu at 1099-1100; Ex. 1003), [and] Franaszek
`expressly teaches the use of ‘default’ encoders.” Pet. 47. Petitioner explains
`
`902(6) provides that newspapers and periodicals are self-authenticating
`documents.
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1024, p. 17 of 32
`
`
`
`that the Franaszek system incorporates “default” encoders for data blocks
`with an unidentified data type. Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 5:53–54 (“if data ‘type’
`information is not available, then the data compressor 220 will use a
`‘default’ list of encoder”), 6:8–11 (“if no data type is available, a ‘default’
`list of dictionary-based encoders will be used”)).
`Patent Owner contests Petitioner’s position, contending Hsu and
`Franaszek fail to teach the limitation “compressing, if said first data type is
`not the same as one of said several data types, said data block with a default
`encoder to provide said compressed data block.” Prelim. Resp. 20–24.
`According to Patent Owner, Hsu’s lossless compression algorithms do not
`teach implicitly the claimed default encoder. Id. at 21. Patent Owner argues
`that for an encoder to be a default encoder, it must be chosen by default, and
`Hsu says nothing about whether an encoder is selected by default or whether
`it is selected when its identified type is not one of those having an associated
`encoder, as recited in claim 48. Id. at 22.
`At this stage of the proceeding, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s
`position that a person of skill in the art would have relied on Franaszek’s
`teachings regarding a “default encoder” in combination with the
`heterogeneous compressor system in Hsu. See Pet. 32.
`(3) “wherein the analyzing of the data within the data
`block to identify one or more data types excludes
`analyzing based only on a descriptor that is indicative
`of the data type of the data within the data block”
`Petitioner contends the combination of Hsu and Franaszek teaches or
`at least suggests “wherein the analyzing of the data within the data block to
`identify one or more data types excludes analyzing based only on a
`descriptor that is indicative of the data type of the data within the data
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1024, p. 18 of 32
`
`
`
`block,” as recited in challenged claim 48, because Hsu discloses this
`limitation. Pet. 50. Petitioner argues that Hsu discloses analyzing data
`within the data block to identify the data’s type by analyzing something
`other than a descriptor, tag, or header appended to the block, and that Hsu
`uses a procedure called “new-file” to determine the type of data in a file’s
`blocks by directly analyzing the first, middle, and last 512 bytes of the
`block. Id. at 50–51 (citing Ex. 1003, 1104; Ex. 1002 ¶ 124; Ex. 1002).
`Petitioner explains that the Hsu system then compares the pattern of data
`contained in those bytes to a collection of known data patterns for various
`different data types from Unix and other operating systems. Id. at 51 (citing
`Ex. 1003, 1104).
`Petitioner further argues that Hsu also discloses analyzing data within
`the data block to determine the data’s type and degree of redundancy (i.e.,
`compressibility). Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 1104). According to Petitioner, Hsu’s
`redundancy metric calculation and analysis largely resembles the disclosure
`in the ’992 patent that was relied on in the second reexamination as written
`description support for this claim 48 limitation. Id. (citing Ex. 1009, 3–4).
`Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s position and contends Hsu and
`Franaszek fail to teach “excludes analyzing based only on a descriptor that is
`indicative of the data type of the data within the data block,” as recited in
`challenged claim 48. Prelim. Resp. 44–46. According to Patent Owner,
`based on Petitioner’s proffered construction of the disputed claim
`limitation,2 Petitioner must show that Hsu teaches analyzing two types of
`
`2 Petitioner proposes that the claim limitation “wherein the analyzing of the
`data within the data block to identify one or more data types excludes
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1024, p. 19 of 32
`
`
`
`information: the data block and data appended to the data block. Id. at 46.
`Patent Owner specifically argues
`taught,
`is
`Rather, without discussing where appension
`[Petitioner] alleges: “Hsu discloses analyzing data within the
`data block to identify the data’s type by analyzing something
`other than a descriptor, tag, or header appended to the block.”
`(Id., 50.) Then, [Petitioner] describes Hsu’s teaching that it
`analyzes the first, middle, and last 512 bytes. (Id., 50-51.) But
`[Petitioner] does not explain how analysis of the first, middle,
`and last 512 bytes is analysis of data other than data appended to
`the data. [Petitioner] does not cite to any disclosure in Hsu of
`appended data that is outside of the data sampled. (Id.)
`
`Prelim. Resp. 46.
`Patent Owner, thus, concludes that absent an explanation regarding
`analysis of appended data, Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of
`showing that Hsu teaches its propose claim construction of “analyzing data
`other than data appended to the data block.” Id.
`We are persuaded, at this stage of the proceeding, by Petitioner that
`Hsu teaches analyzing a data block based on something other than a
`descriptor that is indicative of the data type of the data within the data block.
`Specifically, we are persuaded that Hsu teaches analyzing a data block based
`on data within the data block. Hsu discloses a procedure called “new-file”
`that determines the type of data in a file’s blocks by directly analyzing the
`first, middle, and last 512 bytes of the block. Ex. 1003, 1104. On this
`record, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner that Hsu must include
`
`analyzing based only on a descriptor that is indicative of the data type of the
`data within the data block” be construed as “wherein the analyzing of the
`data within the data block to identify one or more data types includes
`analyzing data other than data appended to the data block that is indicative
`of the data type of the data within the data block.” Pet. 17.
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1024, p. 20 of 32
`
`
`
`analysis of data appended to a data block (see Prelim. Resp. 46), because (1)
`the limitation does not require analysis of data appended to a data block, and
`(2) although Hsu’s “new file” directly analyzes the block, Franaszek teaches
`analysis of a sample taken from uncompressed data appended to a data
`block. See Ex. 1004, 4:30–35, 5:8–11, Fig. 2. Accordingly, on the record
`before us, we are satisfied the combination of Hsu and Franaszek teaches
`“wherein the analyzing of the data within the data block to identify one or
`more data types excludes analyzing based only on a descriptor that is
`indicative of the data type of the data within the data block,” as recited in
`challenged claim 48.
`b. Obvious to Combine the Teachings of Hsu and Franaszek
`When an obviousness determination relies on the combination of two
`or more references, as here, there must be some suggestion or motivation to
`combine the references.” WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d
`1339, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also Dome Patent L.P. v. Lee, 799 F.3d
`1372, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“If all elements of a claim are found in the
`prior art, as is the case here, the factfinder must further consider the factual
`questions of whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated
`to combine those references, and whether in making that combination, a
`person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of
`success.”). It is axiomatic that that an asserted ground of obviousness must
`demonstrate articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the
`legal conclusion of obviousness. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
`2006); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting Kahn). Mere conclusory
`statements are not sufficient. Id. Fu