`
`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 IPR2016-00374
`Patent 8,643,513 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. 1025, p. 1 of 28
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`Oracle America, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) to
`institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 11–16, 18–20, and 22 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,643,513 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’513 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 at least
`one of the challenged claims. 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. 1025, p. 2 of 28
`
`
`
`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 IPR2016-00373
`(challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,378,992); 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).
`Id.
`
`C. The ’513 Patent
`The ’513 patent, titled “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 ’513
`patent further discloses “fast and efficient data compression using a
`combination of content independent data compression and content
`dependent data compression.” Id. at 3:55–58. One embodiment of the ’513
`patent is illustrated in Figure 13A reproduced below.
`
`As shown above in Figure 13A of the ’513 patent, the system receives an
`input data stream of data blocks. Id. at 15:63–16:5. Content dependent data
`recognition module 1300 analyzes the incoming data stream to recognize
`
`
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1025, p. 3 of 28
`
`
`
`“data types” and other parameters indicative of the “data type/content.” Id.
`at 16:15–21. 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 16:24–26); if not, it routes the block to “content independent” (or
`“default”) encoder module 30 (id. at.3:66–67, 4:30–35, 15:56–63, 16:26–27,
`18:17–25).
`Content dependent encoder module 1320 comprises lossy or lossless
`compression encoders (id. at 16:28–37); content independent encoder
`module 30 comprises only lossless encoders (id. at 16:43–50). Lossy
`encoders provide for an “inexact” representation of the original
`uncompressed data (id. at 2:4–7); lossless encoders provide for an “exact”
`representation (id. at 2:18–20). The ’513 patent teaches that “[e]ncoding
`techniques” may be selected “based upon their ability to effectively encode
`different types of input data.” Id. at 12:54–56.
`
`Another embodiment of the ’513 patent is illustrated in Figure 13B
`reproduced below.
`
`
`As shown above in Figure 13B of the ’513 patent, “compression ratio
`module 1340, operatively connected to the content dependent output
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1025, p. 4 of 28
`
`
`
`builder/counters 1330 and content independent buffer/counters 40
`determines the compression ratio obtained for each of the enabled encoders
`El . . . En.” Id. at 17:28–42. The compression ratio is set “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 17:39–42
`
`D. Challenged Claims
`
`As noted above, Petitioner challenges claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 11–16, 18–20,
`and 22 of the ’513 patent, of which claims 1 and 15 are the only independent
`claims. Claims 1 and 15 are representative of the challenged claims and are
`reproduced below (with paragraphing):
`1. A method of compressing a plurality of data blocks,
`comprising:
`analyzing the plurality of data blocks to recognize when an
`appropriate content independent compression algorithm is to be
`applied to the plurality of data blocks;
`applying the appropriate content independent data compression
`algorithm to a portion of the plurality of data blocks to provide a
`compressed data portion;
`analyzing a data block from another portion of the plurality of
`data blocks for recognition of any characteristic, attribute, or
`parameter that is indicative of an appropriate content dependent
`algorithm to apply to the data block; and
`applying the appropriate content dependent data compression
`algorithm to the data block to provide a compressed data block
`when the characteristic, attribute, or parameter is identified,
`wherein the analyzing the plurality of data blocks to recognize
`when
`the appropriate content
`independent compression
`algorithm is to be applied excludes analyzing based only on a
`descriptor indicative of the any characteristic, attribute, or
`parameter, and
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1025, p. 5 of 28
`
`
`
`wherein the analyzing the data block to recognize the any
`characteristic, attribute, or parameter excludes analyzing based
`only on the descriptor.
`Ex. 1001, 26:21–46.
`15. A device for compressing data comprising:
`a first circuit configured to analyze a plurality of data blocks to
`recognize when an appropriate content independent compression
`algorithm is to be applied to the plurality of data blocks;
`a second circuit configured to apply the appropriate content
`independent data compression algorithm to a portion of the
`plurality of data blocks to provide a compressed data portion;
`a third circuit configured to analyze a data block from another
`portion of the plurality of data blocks for recognition of any
`characteristic, attribute, or parameter that is indicative of an
`appropriate content dependent algorithm to apply to the data
`block; and
`a fourth circuit configured to apply the appropriate content
`dependent data compression algorithm to the data block to
`provide a compressed data block when the any characteristic,
`attribute, or parameter is identified,
`wherein the first circuit is further configured to analyze the
`plurality of data blocks to recognize when the appropriate
`content independent compression algorithm is to be applied by
`excluding analyzing based only on a descriptor indicative of the
`any characteristic, attribute, or parameter, and
`wherein the third circuit is further configured to analyze the data
`block to recognize the any characteristic, attribute, or parameter
`by excluding analyzing based only on the descriptor.
`Id. at 27:32–28:19.
`
`E. The Evidence of Record
`Petitioner relies upon the following references, as well as the
`Declaration of Dr. James A. Storer (Ex. 1002):
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1025, p. 6 of 28
`
`
`
`Reference
`
`Patent/Printed Publication
`
`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
`
`Published/
`Issued Date
`Oct. 1995
`
`Exhibit
`
`1003
`
`Feb. 9, 1999
`
`1004
`
`F. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of the ’513 patent based on the
`following grounds:
`References
`Hsu and Franaszek
`
`Basis
`§ 103
`
`Claims Challenged
`1, 2, 4, 6, 11–16, 18–20,
`and 22
`
`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
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, No. 15-446, 2016 WL 3369425, at *10–
`14 (U.S. June 20, 2016) (“We conclude that the regulation represents a
`reasonable exercise of the rulemaking authority that Congress delegated to
`the Patent Office.”). 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).
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1025, p. 7 of 28
`
`
`
`Petitioner proposes constructions for “content independent
`compression algorithm” 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. 13–16. At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not
`contest Petitioner’s proposed constructions. Prelim. Resp. 10–11. For
`purposes of this Decision and based on the record before us, we need not
`provide express constructions for any claim terms at this stage of the
`proceeding.
`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
`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
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1025, p. 8 of 28
`
`
`
`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 ’513 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 ’513
`patent. See generally Prelim. Resp.
`Based on our review of the ’513 patent, the types of problems and
`solutions described in the ’513 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony
`of Petitioner’s Declarant, we adopt and apply Dr. Storer’s definition of a
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention for
`purposes of this Decision. We also 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 Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 11–16, 18–20, and 22 in
`View of Hsu and Franaszek
`Petitioner contends claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 11–16, 18–20, and 22 of the ’513
`patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Hsu and
`Franaszek. Pet. 24–60. Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s contention.
`Prelim. Resp. 11–49. For the reasons that follow, we determine Petitioner
`has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to these claims.
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1025, p. 9 of 28
`
`
`
`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
`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.
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1025, p. 10 of 28
`
`
`
`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.
`Hsu teaches 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.
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1025, p. 11 of 28
`
`
`
`
`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.
`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.
`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.
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1025, p. 12 of 28
`
`
`
`In one embodiment, Franaszek teaches a set of “default” compression
`algorithms, which are shown in Figure 2, reproduced below.
`
`
`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,
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1025, p. 13 of 28
`
`
`
`compression method table 240 is shown in Figure 2 implementing a Lempel-
`Ziv compression method.
`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
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1025, p. 14 of 28
`
`
`
`available, then data compressor 220 uses the compression method “table”
`240 shown in Figure 2. See id. at 5:49–53.
`3. Analysis
`a. Cited Art as Applied to Claims 1
`Petitioner contends that the combined teachings of Hsu and Franaszek
`would have rendered each limitation of claim 1 in the ’513 patent obvious to
`a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Pet. 28–43.
`Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s contention. Prelim. Resp. 13–19, 38–39.
`Patent Owner specifically argues that Petitioner fails to show: (1) that Hsu is
`a printed publication; (2) that Hsu and Franaszek teach the combination of
`content dependent and content independent data compression; (3) that Hsu
`and Franaszek teach to “exclude[ ] analyzing based only on a
`descriptor . . . ,” as recited in challenged claim 1; 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.
`
`(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
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1025, p. 15 of 28
`
`
`
`Telecom, Inc. v. Datapoint Corp., 908 F.2d 931, 936 (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.
`Int’l Trade Comm’n, 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 addressed more
`appropriately after trial is instituted and a motion to exclude is filed. As set
`forth in our Rules, all objections to evidence submitted during a preliminary
`proceeding must be filed within ten business days of the 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
`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
`
`1 We note that Federal Rule of Evidence 803(16) provides that a document
`over twenty years old and whose authenticity is established is an exception
`to the hearsay rule, and that Rule 902(6) provides that newspapers and
`periodicals are self-authenticating documents.
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1025, p. 16 of 28
`
`
`
`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) “content independent data compression algorithm”
`and “content dependent data compression algorithm”
`Petitioner argues Hsu and Franaszek teach “applying the appropriate
`content independent data compression algorithm to a portion of the plurality
`of datablocks to provide a compressed data portion,” and “applying the
`appropriate content dependent data compression algorithm to the data block
`to provide a compressed data block” as required by challenged claim 1. Pet.
`34–36, 39–42. Petitioner argues Franaszek expressly teaches analyzing data
`blocks to determine when to apply either a content dependent compression
`algorithms (e.g., run-length or LZ1) or content independent compression
`algorithms (e.g., a dictionary-based algorithm). Id. at 31–32 (citing Ex.
`1004, Figs. 2, 4A). According to Petitioner, Franaszek teaches that content
`dependent compression occurs when the Franaszek system is able to identify
`a data block’s data type, each type of which is associated in the Franaszek
`system with one or more optimal compression algorithms. Id. (citing Ex.
`1004, 5:49–54). Petitioner explains that “[i]f the Franaszek system
`determines that a given block’s data ‘type’ information is not available, the
`system selects an appropriate content independent algorithm . . . , and then
`compresses that block with that algorithm.” Id. at 35 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:8–
`11 (“if no data type is available, a ‘default’ list of dictionary-based
`algorithms will be used, which have ‘block identifiers’ associated with
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1025, p. 17 of 28
`
`
`
`‘compression method M’”), 6:45–47 (“[data block] B is compressed using
`M”)).
`Petitioner further argues that Hsu teaches applying the appropriate
`content dependent data compression algorithm when the characteristics or
`attributes of the data (e.g., its “data type” and highest “redundancy metric”)
`that are indicative of an appropriate content dependent algorithm to apply
`are identified. Id. at 39–40 (citing Ex. 1003, 1102 (“[U]sing the block type
`and largest metric, the appropriate compression algorithms . . . are chosen
`. . . .[ ] The compression method for the current block is then recorded in a
`small array-based map of the file[.]”), 1109 (“An identifying tag for the
`selected algorithm is written to the ‘compression plan’, an array which stores
`one complete compression instruction per block (if the current block is
`deemed uncompressible, a ‘skip’ instruction is recorded).”).
`Patent Owner contests Petitioner’s position, arguing that Hsu and
`Franaszek fail to teach the limitation “applying the appropriate content
`independent data compression algorithm to a portion of the plurality of
`datablocks to provide a compressed data portion.” Prelim. Resp. 16–19.
`According to Patent Owner, Hsu’s lossless compression algorithms do not
`disclose content independent data compression. Id. at 18. Patent Owner
`argues that a lossless encoder may be for data for which a specific data type
`or content is identified or recognized, in which case it would not be content
`independent compression. Id. Patent Owner supports its arguments by
`citing to the ’513 patent description of how lossless compression algorithms,
`such as Lempel-Ziv, can be content dependent. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 16:28–
`37).
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1025, p. 18 of 28
`
`
`
`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 “content independent compression algorithms” in
`combination with the heterogeneous compressor system and content
`dependent compression algorithms in Hsu. See Pet. 34.
`(3) “wherein the analyzing the plurality of data blocks to
`recognize when the appropriate content independent
`compression algorithm is to be applied excludes
`analyzing based only on a descriptor indicative of the
`any characteristic, attribute, or parameter,” and
`“wherein the analyzing the data block to recognize
`the any characteristic, attribute, or parameter
`excludes analyzing based only on the descriptor”
`Claim 1 includes two wherein clauses, each limiting a prior analyzing
`step. Generally, each wherein clause limits the analyzing step to “exclude[]
`analyzing based only on a descriptor indicative of the any characteristic,
`attribute, or parameter.” Ex. 1001, 26:39–46.
`Petitioner argues the combination of Hsu and Franaszek teaches or at
`least suggests both wherein clauses recited in challenged claim 1 because the
`references teach “wherein the analyzing” of data blocks “excludes analyzing
`based only on a descriptor indicative of the any characteristic, attribute, or
`parameter.” Pet. 40–43. Petitioner argues that “Franaszek discloses
`analyzing a ‘type’ entry optionally appended to data blocks to determine
`whether content dependent or content independent compression algorithm
`is to be applied, and to determine the appropriate algorithm” (Ex. 1004,
`4:30–35, 6:1–2, Fig. 2), while “Hsu discloses directly analyzing the data
`within the data block (the first, middle, and last 512 bytes) to determine an
`appropriate content dependent compression algorithm to apply” (Ex. 1003,
`1104, 1007, Table I). Id. at 40–41.
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1025, p. 19 of 28
`
`
`
`Petitioner then argues that Hsu teaches 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. Additionally, 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,
`because such data are indicative of an appropriate content dependent
`algorithm to apply for compression. Id. at 42–43 (citing Ex. 1003, 1104;
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 122). 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 43(citing Ex. 1003, 1104). Petitioner further argues that Hsu
`also teaches analyzing data within the data block to determine the data’s
`type and degree of redundancy (i.e., compressibility) of the data within the
`data blocks. Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 1104).
`Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s position, arguing that Hsu and
`Franaszek fail to teach “exclude[] analyzing based only on a descriptor
`indicative of the any characteristic, attribute, or parameter,” as recited
`generally in challenged claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 38–40. 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
`information: the data block and data appended to the data block. Id. at 39.
`Patent Owner specifically argues
`
`2 Petitioner proposes that the claim limitation “exclude[] analyzing based
`only on a descriptor indicative of the any characteristic, attribute, or
`parameter” be construed as “involves/involving analyzing data other than
`data appended to the data block.” Pet. 15.
`
`Teradata, Exh. 1025, p. 20 of 28
`
`
`
`taught,
`is
`Rather, without discussing where appension
`[Petitioner] alleges: “Hsu discloses analyzing information other
`than a data descriptor appended to the data block (e.g., sample
`bytes of data) to recognize characteristics or attributes of the
`data.” (Id., 42.) Then, [Petitioner] describes Hsu’s teaching that
`it analyzes the first, middle, and last 512 bytes. (Id., 42-43.) 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 block because [Petitioner] does not cite to any disclosure
`in Hsu of appended data that is outside of the data sampled. (Id.)
`
`Prelim. Resp. 39–40.
`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 proposed claim construction of “analyzing data
`other than data appended to the data block.” Id. at 40.
`We are persuaded by Petitioner, at this stage o
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
